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.
On 4/19/06, Matt R <matt_crypto(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
I think that lately Danny has not been using the
OFFICE tag because
tend to raise a fuss over things protected under
this specific policy,
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.
WikiEN-l mailing list
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: