[WikiEN-l] Dealing with overenthusiastic speedy nominators (was There are no pictures in Wikipedia any more)

[John Lee]

On 9/29/07, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 29/09/2007, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In an effort to hold back the tide of goldfarming speedy-tagging, I've
> > been going to these page:
>
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Importance_or_significance_not_asserted_pages_for_speedy_deletion
>
>
> > and removing clearly bogus speedy tags, and leaving a commenter on the
> > tagger's page something like:
> >
> > ==Clearly erroneous A7==
> >
> > The speedy criteria are hard and don't stretch - please take more care
> > with these. (This is becoming a matter of
> > [
> http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/09/10/two-million-english-wikipedia-articles-celebrate/
> > public] [
> http://www.andrewlih.com/blog/2007/07/10/unwanted-new-articles-in-wikipedia/
> > concern] and PR problems, so a few people are looking at all CSDs and
> > particularly A7s lately.) Thanks! - ~~~~


I dunno, from my experience, the most abused tag was the one for no context
- it seemed to be used as an IDONTLIKEIT or IDONTUNDERSTANDIT or a "too
short" tag, regardless of whether the article gave sufficient context. As
just one example, I once saw a two-sentence stub on a mayor of New York City
being tagged for speedy deletion on the grounds that it gave insufficient
context, even though it was pretty damn clear what the article was about.