It isn't a question of who is right. It's a question of whether normal processes can be used. If one admin says that something is so obvious that unilateral decisions can be made over it, and a number of other admins without direct connection to the issue at hand judge it to be NOT so obvious, then I think it stands to reason that the issue is "not obvious" and should not be decided unilaterally.
I think we should err on the side of non-unilateral action whenever it comes into serious question, and whenever it is not connected to some sort of legitimate real-world consequence (i.e. WP:OFFICE). I think it has been shown time and time again that acting unilaterally often prolongs debates rather than hastening them, and builds a tremendous amount of bad faith and antagonism.
FF
On 6/5/06, Lord Voldemort lordbishopvoldemort@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/5/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
Howabout this as a general rule: if more than two reasonable admins with good track records find your unilateral action to be a bad idea, why not cede to the process?
Well what if two (or more) admins in good standing side with Tony (or anybody for that matter)? Then what, another massive wheel war? Just wondering. Thanks. --LV _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l