John Lee wrote:
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
How do you deal with crap everyone agrees should be deleted, but is not actually speediable? Here's a thought - make it speediable!
Are you kidding? A year ago, the paranoid community rejected two different measures for something *in between* speedy deletion and AFD (both involved admin discretion but not full reliance on it). What makes you think anything will have changed this year? If people won't trust admins to semi-speedy something, why would they trust them to speedy something? If anything, considering how we've grown, I wouldn't be surprised if people would vote down proposals like Preliminary Deletion even harder. People are scared of the potential for admin abuse. And frankly, I don't blame them. Scandals like the bitter edit war over licence vs license in a Mediawiki template have proven that, sadly, our admins can and do get into trouble. Even the best of us, like Everyking, get too heated and involved in articles we edit that we cause pointless edit/revert wars.
This is a key part of the problem. Most speedy deletion candidates are undoubtedly good candidates, but many admins have not built up their trust with the community. One can spot-check an admin's candidates, and if his claims are consistently valid he will build trust. He will make mistakes, but how he reacts when those mistakes are brought to his attention will have a direct impact on how much he is trusted. A willingness to give his critic the benefit of the doubt will go a long way toward building trust. Being seen as a hardline defender of deletions will negatively affect trust, even if what you do is more moderate than what you say. If a vocal supporter of more deletions also takes an active role in expanding speedy deletion he will leave the impression that he is trying to "pull a fast one". Being a trust builder is a far more important skill for a sysop than knowing and enforcing the rules.
Ec