On 4/20/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
While we're engaging in this critique of Danny's response, it might make sense to ask whether or not Danny, and the other office people, are aware that there exists some large segment of the admin population who regard it as routine to undo other admin actions without discussion because they were "out of process", or "obviously wrong", or whatever. Can we imagine the possibility that some people might interpret that as inexplicable, or even hostile, interference, if they aren't used to this?
I just posted this to another thread, but it's more appropriate here. 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, meaning the admin who's only trying to return to the status quo ante gets the blame.
This is nonsense and it lies at the heart of all this trouble. 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 (except where the original admin can't be contacted and it has to be done quickly). But as a rule, we shouldn't be undoing each other's admin actions at all.
Sarah