David Goodman a écrit :
a/ An admin can single handedly delete immediately without listing first for speedy, and they do--I was incredulous when i first heard this was possible
Despite the objections raised from time to time about this, I fail to see the issue. I think it boils down to the generic mistrust of all administrators that certain people who are not administrators seem to harbour.
More constructively, in the event that I did want to address this issue, I can't think of any way of doing so that wouldn't result in the queue of attack pages and pure vandalism awaiting deletion frequently stretching into the thousands, rather than the hundreds we have now.
One can imagine a two-person rule; the first administrator to come across a speedyable article can't delete it, they can only tag it, and then they have to wait for *another* admiinistrator to agree with them and do the actual deletion. In practise, though, this would simply result in one administrator following another around deleting all the articles they tagged, and so would achieve nothing while tying two people up in a task that can be done at exactly the same rate by one, which on a voluntary collaborative project is not only a bad idea but a *dangerously* bad one.
One can also imagine imposing a waiting time in the manner of proposed deletions (though if this was done, we might as well abandon speedy deletion altogether and use proposed deletion instead). The obvious question at this point is just what purpose would be served by having thousands (tens of thousands, if the waiting period was anything more than a day) of pages hanging around in article space that don't need to be there. Vandalism to existing articles is reverted in seconds, the fact that it's on a new page should make no difference.
Furthermore, it is in the interest of the continued existence of the project that defamatory material, copyright violations and hate speech are removed as quickly as possible, which necessitates giving any administrator who should come across one of these pages the authority to remove it immediately. If there's always going to be a process to deal with these, extending it to cover vandalism, spam and obvious vanity articles seems to be to be merely an improvement in efficiency (and a big improvement, at that).
-Gurch