geni wrote:
The lists are bot generated. No system we normaly use has shown the ability to kill 1000s of items fast. It was a one off event. No point in trying to fit it into normal processes when we don't have to. All in all we got the job done and very few people complained.
But those who _did_ complain that images were incorrectly deleted were out of luck, I take it, since image deletion is unrevertable.
We're just going around and around in circles, here. I've explained why I think it's a good idea to take things slow, and also pointed to examples of how we could configure the system so that taking things slow would work, but I don't recall reading an explanation of why it's a good idea to take these things _fast_. What harm is done by having junk stick around for a week or two longer?
On nov 18 IFD had 14 images added. Now lets assume we decide to delete those 5000 images (the true number is greater) over 50 days. That is stupidly slow but even then we increase the load on IFD by an order of manitude.
Why is 50 days "stupidly slow?" What's happening 50 days from now that we have to get this done by?
On November 18 AfD had 151 articles added, so these systems can clearly scale up to handle that amount (discounting of course the fact that many people are arguing that AfD isn't handling that amount _well_. :)
Vandals don't seem to have much effect on this area. Most vandalism I see does not ivolve fair use images.
"Most" implies that some of it _does_. I've seen plenty of page-blankings, it's not like the vandals that do that are going to first check to see if the images on that page are fair use.
As and when you find us enough admins to do the above we will. Untill then mass deletion is the only tool in the box.
I _always_ tag images for deletion rather than delete them directly myself. That's usually the case with articles too, the only ones I just outright delete are history-free redirects that are in the way of a move operation.