On 4/20/06, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
On 21/04/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/06, Kirill Lokshin kirill.lokshin@gmail.com wrote:
The practical question here is how we go about determining which admins are "problematic".
Indeed.
It is probably worth remembering that this whole sorry argument began with one of the few dozen people least likely to get desysopped by any such test...
If you mean the unprotect/desysop/block mess, certainly.
If we make some (possibly quite incorrect) assumptions about why Danny moved in the way he did -- to wit, that at least a partial reason for keeping office actions less visible is the leaking of deleted information -- it becomes less clear. Would desysopping the (assumed) admin(s) passing this information to wikitruth -- ignoring for the moment the question of whether we can catch them -- help in avoiding the need for this sort of secrecy in the future? Or will office actions need to be kept under wraps even if there's no danger of admins interfering?
Kirill Lokshin