On 30 May 2010 11:36, WereSpielChequers <werespielchequ...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> As for the idea that we should move to "Hi, I noticed that you > speedy-deleted some files that do not appear to meet the CSD criteria; > your SysOp staus has been removed _while we discuss it_". I've done > over 4,000 speedy deletions, and very probably there are more mistakes > amongst them that I know about, but if someone thinks I've deleted > something in error I'd expect a first approach along the lines of > "would you mind having another look at [[deleted article]], I don't > see how it was an attack page". Maybe I've made a mistake, maybe so > much has been oversighted that it no longer looks like an attack page, > maybe there are words involved that have very different meanings to a > Yank and a Brit. But a desysop first and ask questions later strategy > would in my view generate far more drama than would be justified by > the results. Indeed. The first - and, I would have thought, jawdroppingly obvious - result would be that no-one at all would go near such work in any circumstances. The problem with RFA has long been arbitrarily increased standards, and in recent years the abusive nature of the gauntlet. - d. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
