[Wikipedia-l] Entries getting delete...

[Matthew Britton]

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