On 4/24/06, jayjg <jayjg99(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/23/06, Conrad Dunkerson
<conrad.dunkerson(a)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