That kind of corrosive supiciousness is the problem. For the most part our administrators, those who are involved in backchannel operations, are the best and the most trustworthy we have.
This is basically right, because the people who actually want to get stuff done don't want to go through the trouble of haggling with process fetishists and the 10% of people who oppose everything. Trying to convince everyone that a particular action is right is a waste of time. No matter what you do, there will always be someone who thinks you should have done the opposite. Back-channels are the only way to get input from only rational people, and cut out the trolls and so on.
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
I'd say that the suspiciousness wasn't the problem, but the backchannel authorization. The admin was doing something that antagonized a lot of other editors' sensibilities, and rightly was held to account. Deleting images is a Big Deal because it's permanently destructive.
If deleting copyvios with an OK from Jimbo "antagonized a lot of other editors' sensibilities", I can't be bothered to care. These people will be offended by anything. If someone has a rational reason to object, I'll be more inclined to say that we should talk it out.
Ryan