My issue isn't with mistags by newpages patrollers; it's with misdeletions by admins. I think everyone should know that they can, and should, take the time to review if something is speediable. (Or, more importantly, whether it's got the potential to be a good article or not.)
Although admin actions are reversible, this rarely happens with speedies because they are quite difficult to review after deletion. Is there some way to sort the deletion logs to include only pages that had deletion templates on them when they went?
SCZenz
On 5/23/06, Drini drini wpdrini@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/22/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/21/06, SCZenz sczenz@gmail.com wrote:
We are losing worthwhile articles because people don't take 30 seconds
to
read them and evaluate the claims they make. Isn't that bad?
There are by my estimate between 2 and 10 bad speedy calls per day. I think this acceptable collateral damage--if I hadn't checked thousands of speedies myself I'd call it unbelievably good--but obviously it would be nice if there were no bad calls. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
An Jimbo has said as well:
"Personally I would modify this slightly by even further acknowledging that it's _ok_ for people doing newpages patrol (especially) to err in the defense of quality, and that resurrecting a few things here and there behind them is a small price to pay for avoiding another Seigenthaler incident. "
Admin actions are reversable anyway _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l