BrillLyle:
My opinion of BrillLyle just took a bit of a hit. That figure tells us that RAH is a wikignome willing to do endless boring tasks for something or other. It does not reveal his position on the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum.Why make so many deletions?!? This boggles the mind. It's to up edit counts and make it look like they are impactful contributors, right?
I REALLY don't like deletionists.
The latter would show up in sua sponte deletions, but even more in AfD and DR arguments as well as discussion closes. The figure is essentially meaningless if we don't know the base population.
Deletion on Wikipedia is provisional, when it is short of discussed deletion, and if those deletions were mostly tagged, he was just reviewing tags. I did the same as an admin on Wikiversity.
We set up a system that avoided almost all deletion discussions, and Wikipedia did not go that way, but still, on en.wiki I found it easy to get a speedied page undeleted for review or whatever, when I was active.
It is claimed that 99% were tagged by someone else. It is possible that evidence will be developed in the case, but RAH is correct that his actions should be viewed in the context of all his actions. A more active admin will make more mistakes, and everyone makes mistakes!
The most legitimate item of concern is how this all impacts newbies. If they created something and it was deleted, do they understand that this can be reversed? That they can get help? And who is making sure that noobs are supported? There used to be projects; to my knowledge, they were all crushed. Nobody is responsible, and that is just the way the "community" likes it, at least the admin community.
