Maury Markowitz wrote:
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.
I've been a contributer to the wiki for five years and an admin for three or four. I object to this sort of behavor, and it has nothing to do with "generic mistrust of all administrators".
It has everything to do with generic mistrust of administrators because it is what creates it. These people who go ahead and delete things following no counsel but there own, and without any effort to correct the situation produce an atmosphere where no-one feels certain what an admin will delete next. If we were confident that they were restraining themselves to deleting pure vandalism nobody would become concerned. Instead their laziness and impatience to have a high quota of deleted garbage prevents them from doing minimal searches or trying to start a dialogue with the contributor woh was likely acting in good faith. I can't stress enough that it's likely the leading cause of generic mistrust of administrators.
Ok, here's my suggestions:
In cases where tagging may result in an article, or significant portions of it, being removed for reasons other than vandalism or similar, the tagger must:
- place a note on the editor's talk page saying the article has been tagged
- place a note (NOT templated) on the article talk page explaining what the
problem is. "failed notability" is not good enough
Any tags placed that fail to meet these can be summarily deleted. If they are not removed, at the admin's leisure, they are _not_actionable_ until someone DOES meet these criterion or does remove them. Additionally, incorrect tags, prods on NPOV or notability for instance, should be summarily removed. These would fix the vast majority of cases I come across.
That sounds good, though it is probably less important when only significant portions of an article are deleted. At least then the deleted material is easily available through the article's history.
These lazy admins should be treated in the same way they treat contributors. Persistent refusal to treat users with respect should be grounds to initiate a request to de-admin.
Ec