On 08/05/07, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> wrote: For casual readers, it doesn't matter that much. For admins, it really matters. The devs are working on various sensible approaches to this problem. - d.

On 5/8/07, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: If they just nod "yes" because they can't be bothered to change their passwords to something other than "fuckyou" or "Password1" or whatever, we will eventually be right back where we started. I don't see how we could put much faith into a security measure that is no more sophisticated than "taking their word for it".

On 5/8/07, doc <doc.wikipedia(a)ntlworld.com> wrote: That is, at least, the theory. In practice we choose admins for their persistence and friendliness. Kelly

On 0, Charlotte Webb <charlottethewebb(a)gmail.com> scribbled: As Reagan liked to say, 'Trust but verify.' What's wrong with taking their word for it and then periodically running the cracker whenever the servers are not busyy? -- Gwern Inquiring minds want to know.

On 5/8/07, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell(a)gmail.com> wrote: Don't know what either of you is really getting at, but this is simply inaccurate. Admins have recourse to deleted revisions, which may contain much content in breach of the law, if it were published, rather than merely archived deleted revisions. The board can not revoke the licencing of the content, so their actions are largely insignificant in terms of ability to cause any lasting harm at all, and unlike the adminship, there is a regular process for their continuous review and reconfirmation or replacement. Now what was your point again? -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen, ~ [[User:Cimon Avaro]]