Beeblebrox wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 5:26 pm
AndyTheGrump wrote: ↑Fri Feb 10, 2023 2:03 pm
Yeah, block 'em for legal threats. That way you don't need to look at the article in question to see whether what they are objecting to should be there in the first place...
The two are not mutually exclusive, but I agree totally with the principle that if someone is threatening legal action, the conversation with them is over unless and until the threat is resolved or withdrawn. I have applied this principle in real life as well. One can certainly still investigate whatever it was that was making them mad, but the legal part of it needs to go to the lawyers.
I'd argue that "investigate whatever is was that was making them mad" shouldn't so much be a
can as a
should in most cases, and especially those involving BLPs. (Clear trolling, known LTAs, incomprehensible rambling, blatant bullshit and other obvious exceptions aside)
When it's reasonably clear what's being objected to, and none of the obvious exceptions apply, it honestly ought to be the norm to
at least check whether 1. the thing they're objecting is in the article; 2. if so, whether it's sourced; 3. if so, whether that source is sufficiently reliable for the type of claim being made; and 4. if so, whether the claim can actually be verified to the source. If 3/4 aren't possible due to lack of access to the source, language barriers, lack of subject knowledge and thus ability to judge the reliability of the source etc., well, en.wiki sure has no shortage of relevant noticeboards.
And sure, that won't catch all situations in which a complaint has actual merits, especially if the situation is rather complex, but it'd still catch a lot more of them than the current "blocking them is a must--but actually checking whether there's merit to their complaints is optional" state of matters.
