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 On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 11:17 PM, stevertigo <[email protected]> wrote: > Ryan Delaney <[email protected]> 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. > > The entire NEWT project is a "disruption to make a point" - and the > point is well made: A good number of deletionists could do something > better with their time. > > -Stevertigo > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
