On 4/19/06, maru dubshinki marudubshinki@gmail.com wrote:
Don't get fixated on the admin power abuse thing. It is merely a convenient method and sign of who they have on their side. They could do it just as easily through database dumps, or spidering CFD/AFD, or scaping mirrors, or... You see what I'm getting at? Frankly, the CC GFDL issue aside, I find it kinda amusing we're all so horrified at seeing some of our content (for better or worse) on other websites. They're the one hosting it; no moral blame descends on us for at one time making a mistake, rectifying it, and then keeping records in case our rectification was a mistake. But I think I've posted enough in this thread, so good night.
It's not the fact that they've obtained the deleted material per se. As you point out, they could have gotten it by other means; and the material itself, in this case, isn't particularly impressive.
My concern is more to the "sign of who they have on their side" aspect. The Wikipedia admin model works to a great extent because admins can be trusted not to harm the project. Here we have evidence -- circumstantial and not very specific, but nevertheless quite damning -- that one or more admins _are_ clearly attempting to harm Wikipedia. I would argue that this is a bad thing regardless of whether they've actually damaged anything yet.
Kirill Lokshin