On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Charles Matthews
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<mailto:charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com>> wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
Discussion on the funcs list indicates
there's a
real problem. That way, the admin population can't dismiss it as
just
you whining - but something the arbs are seeing
as well, and
consider
below the ideal of admin behaviour. We're
after a cultural change,
after all.
So where do we stand now on your comment (of not too long ago)
that the
preferred mode for reversing a bum speedy deletion is not to
notify the
deleting admin?
Charles
Maybe I'm late to the party here, but isn't it uncontroversial that
contacting the deleting admin is Step 1 whenever we want to peer
review an admin's use of sysop tools?
Which was how the point arose. I'm quite a hardliner in general on the
collegiate approach and requirement on admins to do exactly that; as
some people know.
The question is what nuances there are. In arguing that undoing a
clearly erroneous speedy, post-notification of the action is probably
adequate, I came across this idea that one should just do it rather than
make an issue; and that this was accepted practice as of 2009. (I then
went and spent quite a bit of time on speedy patrol to assess how things
were over there.)
This fits into the current debate in the form not of whether reversing a
bad speedy is some sort of wheel-warring (which is a kind of reductio ad
absurdum); but that not reporting that it has been reversed is actually
or potentially causing a lack of feedback to admins with systematic
errors of approach. (We're all fallible, but this study raises the
question whether there are enough misconceptions out there in the group
of admins to make this a serious matter.)
Charles