On 4/20/06, jkelly(a)fas.harvard.edu <jkelly(a)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
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.