On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:56 PM, Ken Arromdee <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Ryan Delaney wrote: > > Actually, it's the other way around. Deliberately writing a bad article > that > > should be deleted, but doesn't technically fit the CSD due to some > loophole, > > sounds like the definition of disruption to make a point. I'd have to see > a > > test case to say that for sure. > > But CSD *isn't for deleting everything that should be deleted*. So the > fact that the article doesn't fit CSD but should be deleted anyway isn't > a loophole. Plenty of things which should be deleted don't fit CSD. > > No argument there. What's important about this case is that (as it has been explained to me, anyway) someone was deliberately writing a bad article with the express intention of being a pain in the ass. That's gaming the system in a disruptive way to make some kind of political point, and we generally frown on that for obvious reasons. - causa sui _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
