In terms of egregious violations, sure, it's fine to act swiftly and doesn't
necessarily require consultation. But people do this even with garden
variety actions, which just isn't necessary.
I always make it a point to express my reservations and give the original
administrator the courtesy of reversing his or her decision as a result,
rather than me doing it for them. Obviously everybody thinks they're doing
the right thing, but in this instance I think more administrators would do
well to adopt this model. Having an article protected an extra 5 hours
while the protecting administrator, for instance, evaluates your objections,
isn't going to bring Wikipedia crashing down. It is, however, a much better
way to treat our peers.
On 4/23/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
Ugh, when do we get to the part where I have to
figure out whether a car
loaded with apples going north can beat a train loaded with figs going in
the same direction?
Elementary! Since apples have smoother skins than figs there will be
less friction and that train will go faster. :-)
The problem where there are pears instead of figs is more difficult
because the skins are similar. We would need to study the relative
aerodynamics of the two forms.
The basic problem is one of ego. For a place that
prides itself on
collegiality among editors, and particularly among administrators, we
step on one another's toes too often. I
don't see why we need to have all
this parsing and ABC'ing when what we really need is to tug on a few ears
and remind each other that it's rarely polite to undermine someone
so much as a word.
Sure. If the original administrator to take action feels undermined by
a single reversal it is a matter of putting his ego ahead of the good of
the community. The reverter should explain what he is doing, but at
this stage an explanatory note with the revert will suffice.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: