On 4/24/06, jayjg jayjg99@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/23/06, Conrad Dunkerson conrad.dunkerson@worldnet.att.net wrote:
- jayjg wrote:
One can posit all sorts of "maybes", but the fact remains that reverting the first admin assumes the first admin is incorrect. Instead of assuming, contact them first, and find out for sure. It's quite simple, and it astonishes me that anyone would defend summarily reverting an admin action over communicating with them first and building a consensus. This is not an emergency, and almost never is.
I find your position equally illogical. Tracking down the admin who originally protected a page to get their 'buy in' on unprotecting it after the issue has been resolved would be a pointless waste of time. MAYBE one time in a hundred they are going to have some non-apparent reason for wanting the page to remain protected, but usually not.
You keep forgetting the element of time here. The key is that it need not be done immediately; unprotecting a page after 20 minutes is wheel warring. Unprotecting a page after 20 days is probably fine.
Probably?
Sometimes for good, often for bad.
Evidences?
Sort of like reverting. Oh wait, but we should always discuss reversions, shouldn't we?
Not always beyond the edit summery.
You can bet that if an admin has blocked someone, he'll object to the block being lifted a few minutes later, unless he has it explained first. I've never seen a case where that wasn't true.
Me. Three revert rule way back when I was dealing with most of the blocks resulting from it. Why should I care if anonther admin wishes to take responsibilty for a users behaviour?
-- geni