Andrew Gray wrote:
The issue here isn't that someone blanked their own page and was reverted without us talking to them. The issue is that someone blanked their own page *containing blatant crap* and was reverted for it;
Actually, it wasn't all _that_ blatant. Blatant crap is stuff like "GEORGE IS GAY LLOLZORS!!1!". The article was neatly formatted, had a nice picture, was well categorized, and the first half of it was completely plausible (and as it turns out mostly true). The second half, which contained the objectionable bit, was not readily distinguishable from the first simply by scanning ones' eyes lightly over it. Still not correct to revert to but an understandable thing to overlook under the circumstances.
Some of the reactions in this thread to this mistake are way over the top, IMO, we should not be holding our editors to unreasonably strict standards of perfection. This was an "oops, should have read that more carefully" situation, not a "what kind of brainless moron would do such a thing!?" situation.