"
So I hope you will oppose any version of FR that would not have prevented this case, as not being fit for purpose. In just the same way that a retraction will be due from Jimbo if he somehow comes up with a proposal that would not have ""100% prevented"" the Ted Kennedy incident.

I hope that you might also realise that if in your words the case here is ""thankfully relatively rare"", why many people would then think that applying a blanket measure such as Flagged Revisions is not very appropriate at all. I contrast it as the British Government contending every citizen must be forced to carry an identity card, on the presumption that is the best way you can catch terrorists, which happen to also be ""thankfully relatively rare"". Why not for example in this specific case take a more intelligent approach, and implement sopmething that prevents or flags any edit that adds the word ""molesting"", instead of forcing onto all BLP articles an incredibly blunt and incredibly bad faith assuming measure? (and any interested observers, please, stop before you say it, these valid concerns with what FR is/could be cannot all just be washed away by referring to the quite irrelevant 'advantage' of FR of opening up the tiny minority of protected articles).

And to further address the specific example you give, maybe you can expand on why anybody would be likely to believe that one sentence claim, when it was added to the article along with another 15 sentences, which at best hint at the whole thing being a hoax, and at worst, screams delete me now for being total WP:BOLLOCKS. We can also discuss how an editor in between the vandalism and your removal 'fixes the article for typos'  without noticing that it is 90% complete bollocks? Even when one of the typos is a few words away from the molesting red flag. A systemic failure perhaps?

And finally, as an admin, perhaps you can tell me why the IP user is not now blocked, irrespective of how long ago the edit occurred. Incidentally, the now famous bad account on Ted Kennedy was also not blocked immmediately after his first edit was a BLP violation on an unrelated article. Another systemic failure?

I'm all for criticla analysis of cases 'FR would have prevented', because they frequently pose more questions than they answer, about the whole model of Wikipedia, never mind how we efficiently and intelligently prevent BLP violations.   "