Maury Markowitz wrote:
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.
Agreed, but then this might be even more difficult to enforce.
It would be a nice cluebat. :-)
Another suggestion, this one is simpler and requires no work on the part of any admin. Simply change the A7 to make it very clear that the criterion only applies to *patently obvious* V, AD or N articles. This is *not* clear now, yet this is indeed the spirit of A7. In fact, in every example that's been posted here, the *patently obvious* criterion was not met.
This shifts the burden of proof away from the editor. IE, if they simply write a poor quality article, that alone is cannot be used for speedy. Only if the article *clearly notes it's own non-compliance* would it be a candidate for speedy.
This is important, even when the editor is the only one in a position to know where the information. We would all like to be able to trust the admins, but when the activities of some instill a generic mistrust all are too easily affects impressions of all admins.
For instance, an article about "bob, the guy that lives next to me and drinks a lot of beer" could be speedied because it actually explicitly denies notability. This sort of thing actually covers the vast majority of A7's. On the other hand "bob, they guy that loves next to me, is an actor that has been in several tv shows" should not be speedied, unless it also fails a more in-depth check, failing V or some other criterion as well.
The guy who "loves" next to you suggests a possible conflict of interest. ;-)
Generally, one admin's concept of N should *not* be grounds for speedy unless the article is *obviuously* unimportant by it's own contents.
It goes a little further than that when two admins have learned to work in tandem to clean out a class of allegedly non-notable articles before anyone else has even had the opportunity to respond. To me that an article's notability is even raised suggests that the article has already survived more objective criteria which should have been applied first. If an editor is to be the one responsible for providing evidence to prevent deletion he must be given time to do so.
Perhaps then the distinguishing feature between speedy and more formal deletion criteria should be the burden of proof. For a speedy the burden of proof should be with the admin; with an AfD request the burden can be shifted more toward the editor.
Ec