User:Doc glasgow/OTRS watch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have a concern there are a number of people making seemingly legitimate OTRS complaints that articles concerning them (and in particular biographies) are having libellous material, or irrelevant and intrusive personal information added to them. Sometimes the subject is simply hurt and pleading for an end to it; other times they are angry and issuing legal threats.

At present the OTRS respondent can do little more than remove the offending material and try to consol the subject. However, in a high proportion of cases the alleged libeller or another will soon attempt to reinsert the material. Blocks and protection, where appropriate, are not permanent fixes Even if the OTRS respondent has ‘watch listed’ the article, there is no guarantee that subsequent libels will be spotted early or quickly reverted.

For a while, I've thought that we need a priority watch list for problematic articles.

[edit] Proposal

1. Create a new IRC channel. (Possibly #wikipedia-en-admins2, with the same access list as en-admins.) (Alternatively use the OTRS channel, at least as a start)
2. Get someone (not me) to operate a 'recent changes' bot in the channel
3. The bot would only list changes to articles placed on its watch list by OTRS or WP:OFFICE personnel
4. Encourage as many admins as possible to be 'in' the channel. (To provide 24/7 watching, it needs more than OTRS personnel, but can't be open to all - as these are sensitive articles.)
5. Admins should check any listings, erring on the side of reverting anything problematic. Once they've checked a listing, they need only speak into the channel (e.g. 'Smith bio checked OK' or 'changes reverted') to note that the change has been scrutinised.
6. A simple command to the bot should be sufficient to add an article to the watch list. ‘computer add John Smith p[riority]=2
7. Perhaps priority should be indicated in the listing. I'd suggest a scare of three:

1. A ‘Hot’ articles with legal concerns - normally listed by WP:OFFICE only
2. B Biographies etc. where seemingly valid OTRS complaints of malicious libel have been received
3. C Courtesy listings e.g. Schools or companies which have complained about insertion of un-sourced negative material.

There should be no listing of articles which are receiving 'normal vandalism', no matter how obscene. Nor should ‘high profile’ biographies (GWB or Steve Irwin) ever be added, we are talking about cases where a subject of marginal notability has complained. No high-traffic articles. In these cases 1) the Wikipedia bio may be the most accessible source of information on the net. 2) There may be a low number of people watching the article.

NB - this proposal only covers en-wikipedia. That's an oversight - it could be tweeked for project-wide application, or piloted on en-wiki.

I'm told this would be an easy bot to write. Unlike the RC bots, doesn't need to scrutinise all articles, or differentiate between edits. It simply (probably) watches a few hundered articles, and reports ALL changes.