On 6/22/06, James <user_jamesday(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
Complete log
including revision text to all administrators (and
action, including removal of the full view capability from the
administrator concerned, taken if an administrator misuses the
capability) and the former incomplete censored one without the
contents of the text available to all.
Wow, so thousands of people can now see the libellous or personal
information that the tool was intended to remove in the first place?
Sounds completely self-defeating.
That's fine when its those administrating the project - the project
administrators - who are able to see it to carry out their role.
That makes it
pretty easy for anyone to question an act and any
administrator (perhaps the one they trust most) to check on it and
reassure them that it merited removal.
Great, thousands of queries constantly coming in now, from any of
the
tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors, so that we can
further
spread
the damage. "Oh, turns out X removed information
stating that
politician Y is a serial rapist. Pass this on to anyone else who
wants to know."
I trust that you would instead say "I've looked and the removal
accords with this (specified) policy of xx Wikipedia".
And revisit
perhaps in the event that we see a regular pattern of
problems arising from this. Could happen; we'll see.
What is likely to happen is a regular pattern of querelous and
tendentious questioning of any deletion done, followed by inevitable
leakage of whatever damaging stuff was deleted in the first place.
I suggest you see the proper reply above and use that instead of the
one you suggested. As for the questioning, that's a good thing - we're
_supposed_ to have our actions questioned. It's part of what oversight
is about.
James Day