[WikiEN-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny

[Ray Saintonge]

Steve Bennett wrote:

>On 20/04/06, slimvirgin at gmail.com <slimvirgin at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>Exactly right. Some admins have adopted a definition of "wheel
>>warring" that excludes the first revert of an admin action -- so that
>>if X blocks, and Y unblocks, Y is not wheel warring. But if X restores
>>the block, X has started the wheel war. This is nonsense. The first
>>person to undo the original admin action has started the wheel war,
>>and it's that first undoing that shouldn't be happening as a rule.
>>    
>>
>How's this for a definition:
>X blocks
>Y unblocks
>
>If X disagrees with Y's unblock, then Y has wheel warred. If X
>reinstates the block, then X has wheel warred too.
>
>This covers the situation where X makes a mistake and Y fixes it - X
>agrees with the mistake, and no damage is caused. If Y fears that X
>may accuse him of wheel warring, he shouldn't be undoing X's actions.
>(or should be prepared for the consequences)
>
Anything but a one free revert policy makes no sense at all.  There are 
just too many reasons why one admin might revert the actions of 
another.  Some are good reasons; others are very bad.

Not allowing one free revert sets up the presumption that the original 
admin was right to do what he did, whether or not he included an 
explanation.  The first revert, which should at least have an edit 
summary lets it be known that there is a difference of opinion.  The one 
point where I disagree with Steve it that Y could be retroactively 
declared a wheel warrior for an honest expression of opinion.

If X disagrees with Y's initial revert, he too owes us an explanation.

Ec