On 4/20/06, Andrew Gray <shimgray(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 21/04/06, Kelly Martin
<kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/06, Kirill Lokshin
<kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The practical question here is how we go about
determining which
admins are "problematic".
Indeed.
It is probably worth remembering that this whole sorry argument began
with one of the few dozen people least likely to get desysopped by any
such test...
If you mean the unprotect/desysop/block mess, certainly.
If we make some (possibly quite incorrect) assumptions about why Danny
moved in the way he did -- to wit, that at least a partial reason for
keeping office actions less visible is the leaking of deleted
information -- it becomes less clear. Would desysopping the (assumed)
admin(s) passing this information to wikitruth -- ignoring for the
moment the question of whether we can catch them -- help in avoiding
the need for this sort of secrecy in the future? Or will office
actions need to be kept under wraps even if there's no danger of
admins interfering?
Kirill Lokshin