On 2/28/06, Tony Sidaway f.crdfa@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/28/06, The Cunctator cunctator@gmail.com wrote:
Defenses of backchannel discussions seem to me to always be rather weak, especially considering the gross potential for abuse and the lessons of history.
There is far too much unjustified suspicion about this. One administrator recently started deleting copyright infringing copies of Time magazine covers, an action for which he received the full authorization of Jimbo Wales. He was RfC'd! When finally he obtained from Jimbo permission to reproduce the email (which I also received) the response was to openly question his honesty, and demand that he prove that the email (which carried Jimbo's email address, that of the recipient, and my own name, and was posted openly on the wiki with Jimbo's permission) came from Jimbo.
That kind of corrosive supiciousness is the problem. For the most part our administrators, those who are involved in backchannel operations, are the best and the most trustworthy we have.
I'd say that the suspiciousness wasn't the problem, but the backchannel authorization. The admin was doing something that antagonized a lot of other editors' sensibilities, and rightly was held to account. Deleting images is a Big Deal because it's permanently destructive.