Perhaps a pre-condition to adminhood should be a proven ability to deal fairly with others.
But that wasn't the problem. I don't blame the admin with not dealing fairly with others. I can't even say for sure whether the admin broke any policies.
The problem isn't the admin. The problem is that admins are given discretion over such things in the first place. Speedy deletions should be reserved for indisputably bad articles - articles that no one would seriously oppose the deletion of.
Of course, deletion was supposed to be reserved for such articles as well, but it's devolved into a popularity contest which defines 2/3 as consensus. Fortunately, it's usually possible to export an article before it's deleted via VfD. Unfortunately, it's rarely possible to export a speedy deletion before it's been deemed unworthy. It has been proposed on the pump (one of them) that deleted articles be available for editors to view, but as one of our members of the Board of Directors opposes it it's unlikely to happen.
Anthony
By your definition, that would be zero articles. You have opposed deletion of every article ever brought up for deletion, and then demand the undeletion of those which have gone through the appropriate deletion process. Even though you have been blocked from editing in the past by the arbcom due to your trolling of VfD, you continue to do so.
RickK
Anthony DiPierro anthonydipierro@hotmail.com wrote: The problem isn't the admin. The problem is that admins are given discretion over such things in the first place. Speedy deletions should be reserved for indisputably bad articles - articles that no one would seriously oppose the deletion of.
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
Anthony DiPierro wrote:
Perhaps a pre-condition to adminhood should be a proven ability to deal fairly with others.
But that wasn't the problem. I don't blame the admin with not dealing fairly with others. I can't even say for sure whether the admin broke any policies.
You make it sound there as though it's just one admin. This is a recurrent issue, and strictly speaking may not involve the breach of any policies. The person's Wikiquette, however, may be lacking.
The problem isn't the admin. The problem is that admins are given discretion over such things in the first place. Speedy deletions should be reserved for indisputably bad articles - articles that no one would seriously oppose the deletion of.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I'm sure that they believe that they are deleting "indisputably bad articles".
Of course, deletion was supposed to be reserved for such articles as well, but it's devolved into a popularity contest which defines 2/3 as consensus. Fortunately, it's usually possible to export an article before it's deleted via VfD. Unfortunately, it's rarely possible to export a speedy deletion before it's been deemed unworthy. It has been proposed on the pump (one of them) that deleted articles be available for editors to view, but as one of our members of the Board of Directors opposes it it's unlikely to happen.
Any number based definition of consensus is flawed, and probably inconsistent with any normal concept of consensus. Achieving consensus includes making an effort to accomodate what a person is trying to communicat. Keeping the deleted articles may help in a crisis, but it is not a long term solution.
Ec