On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 9:00 PM, David Goodman <dgoodmanny(a)gmail.com> wrote:
so far from being disruptive, the project is an
attempt to
demonstrate the ongoing disruption being routinely carried out by
people deleting improvable articles. sometimes a few test cases are
the clearest way to show that, and the project seems to have made done
that very successfully. We now need to consider how to improve what we
do so the discouragement of new authors decreases.
I remind everyone that what admins do is open and can and should be
audited. Though that was not the purpose of the project, it is
perfectly in order to check the deletions of individual admins. We
should expect at least the same knowledge of basic rules we look for
at an RfA.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
You might be misunderstanding what the objection is here. Nobody needs to be
reminded that use of sysop tools is subject to peer review.
-- causa sui