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

[Justin Cormack]

On 20 Apr 2006, at 02:52, Tony Sidaway wrote:
>
> Secondly the question of whether the i's are dotted and the t's are
> crossed by the person performing the protection is of piddling
> insignificance when set against the fact that the right thing is done.
>
> Policy is that we don't let potentially dangerous content remain while
> we discuss a  problem with a third party who has contacted us with a
> serious complaint.  If this isn't spelled out then perhaps it should
> be.
>
> I'm sitting here and, over the months, watching people head towards
> Danny's office actions like moths to a flame.  No wonder he doesn't
> want to advertise them, particularly the more sensitive ones.  This
> latest kerfuffle is a good sign that the process we have set up just
> isn't enough.  The rules are not an end in themselves.  We must
> recognise that the Foundation does important work to keep this and the
> other projects alive and well funded, and it must be permitted to do
> that.  All the fripperies about whether X or Y followed some rules are
> immaterial.  The work must be done.

The problem seems to be that if even admins cant see what is being done
then people will be upset. This is purely a software problem that can be
fixed by various means. If the Danny account is to be specially  
privileged
otherwise than all admins need to know. But this of course wont be  
secret.
It would be better to have an invisible office note for admins if  
this is
seen as necessary.

Justinc