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

[Alphax (Wikipedia email)]

Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> 
>> On 4/19/06, maru dubshinki <marudubshinki at 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.
>>
> The most disturbing aspect of this view is the classic paranoia.  Of 
> course we are in no position to go so far as to put a bullet in 
> somebody's head for disloyalty, but the underlying aura of suspicion is 
> similar.  The fear that the people you might be working with are not as 
> loyal as you, that they do not worship the words of the great leader as 
> much as you are very scary.  In a totalitarian regime there is no need 
> for the leadership to issue repressive orders, or to hire high-price 
> hitmen.  A few handshakes, a smile or a bit of casual praise to a 
> roomful of sycophants and paranoids will be far more cost effective.
> 
> As long as these rogue admins are taking ludicrous positions can they 
> really harm Wikipedia with their rants?  And how do we distinguish 
> between the kooks and the honest whistleblowers who are exposing 
> legitimate problems?
> 

Honest whistleblowers don't post defamatory information about people or
their children.

-- 
Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
"We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales
Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 551 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20060420/c967cedf/attachment.pgp