[WikiEN-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny

[Katefan0]

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 at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Katefan0 <katefan0wiki at 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 at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>