On 14/03/07, Gwern Branwen <gwern0(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Rich Holton <richholton(a)gmail.com> writes:
this on
WP:ANI. At least two people were asserting that one
should not
revert Danny because he's a foundation
employee, or Kat Walsh,
because
of board membership.
...
This should surprise no-one. The last person I
remember reverting
Danny's work was de-adminned and indefinitely banned.
Yes, but Erik recovered quite well from it, I think ;-)
- d.
Two points:
1. There is a substantial difference between someone like Erik (who knew
who Danny was and what his role was) reverting Danny and some random
user reverting Danny, who for all intents and purposes appears to be
just another random user.
2. I thought part of the aftermath of the whole Erik/Danny thing was to
make insist that Danny make it clear when he is performing an Office
action versus just editing like anyone else. Am I misinformed?
I am truly puzzled that there is no further reaction to the issue that I
brought up with my earlier post. Have we really come to the point where
where have a de-facto class of editors who are un-revertable, where
reverting them is seen to be an offense, regardless of the merits of the
case?
-Rich