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(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 6/5/06, Fastfission <fastfission(a)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(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l