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.