On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 4:09 PM, Ken Arromdee <arromdee(a)rahul.net> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Wily D wrote:
But yes, when an admin performs the correct action in
circumstances
where it might've been preferable they let someone else do it, what
should anyone do about it, beyond say something to the admin in
question?
By this reasoning, we shouldn't make edits by banned users revert-on-sight,
either.
The policy says "you may" revert edits by banned users on sight, not
"you must". Very few editors would do anything if a banned user fixed
a spelling error, for instance.
But clearly the policy results in reversions that that would never have
been made if the editor hadn't been banned. Otherwise the policy would have
no effect at all.
People are free to engage in timewastes, they're just not required to.
If an involved admin issues a correct block, I could always unblock
then reblock - for propriety - if I wanted. But I'm not required to.
The cases are comparable - there's nothing you're required to do, and
so things not worth doing are rarely done.
WilyD