Why is it problematic? It's a simple enough thing to simply ask Danny first before undoing something he's done, whether or not he's acted on behalf of the foundation. I've done it before (and gotten a "yes but I'd rather this stay low profile" answer very quickly).
Everybody who's an administrator knows -- or ought to know -- that any of Danny's actions could be undertaken on behalf of the foundation. To me, this suggests -- in fact, demands -- a lot more caution with undoing his admin actions than otherwise, and at the very least warrants a discreet "what's this about?" before taking action.
k
On 4/19/06, Matt R matt_crypto@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Katefan0 katefan0wiki@gmail.com:
I think that lately Danny has not been using the OFFICE tag because
people
tend to raise a fuss over things protected under this specific policy,
and
more publicity to/furor over an issue that's already very sensitive is a thorny thing to deal with. My guess, anyway.
Forgive me if I haven't understood this correctly, but: OFFICE actions are unreversible on pain of dire consequences (e.g. desysopping and indefinite banning), yet anything that Danny does could be an OFFICE action even though not identified as such? This seems very problematic; is there now a class of editor (Danny) whose actions noone can now dare risk undoing in case the action turns out to be an OFFICE action? Surely not.
-- Matt
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l