This case presents a good argument for flagged revisions. Given that the
people who made these edits weren't logged in, none of their additions and
changes would have been visible to the public.
Andreas
On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:04 AM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote:
Hi Gillian,
thank you for
I'm not so sure. As soon as the incident was noted, the article was
semi-protected, which solved the problem.
Perhaps you are suggesting flagged revisions for *all* biographies of
living persons (BLPs), by default?
-Pete
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
It also gives a good argument for admins actually applying semi-protection
properly. BLPs under attack should always have a LONG semi-protection that
can be shortened if it is determined the risk is abated. I was fairly
flabbergasted to see a very brief SP applied when it was obvious there was
a
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:00 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not so sure. As soon as the incident was noted, the article was
semi-protected, which solved the problem.
Perhaps you are suggesting flagged revisions for *all* biographies of
living persons (BLPs), by default?
I wouldn't call that an AFD
It was open for an entire hour and a half.
Yeah it sucks she met trolls on the internet -- god knows this isn't
something new for Wikipedia -- but she just isn't notable.
In fact, this is now setting a precedent that any blogger who has been
interviewed by another
I do have to say - it is a challenge explaining to people You're not
notable just because you're a popular blogger. Even if you beat people
over the head with notability guidelines articles still crop up.
Perhaps we need to draft a list on Wiki of notable bloggers =)
Sarah
On 6/15/12 1:07
