On 6/22/06, James user_jamesday@myrealbox.com wrote:
Complete log including revision text to all administrators (and action, including removal of the full view capability from the administrator concerned, taken if an administrator misuses the capability) and the former incomplete censored one without the contents of the text available to all.
Wow, so thousands of people can now see the libellous or personal information that the tool was intended to remove in the first place? Sounds completely self-defeating.
That's fine when its those administrating the project - the project administrators - who are able to see it to carry out their role.
That makes it pretty easy for anyone to question an act and any administrator (perhaps the one they trust most) to check on it and reassure them that it merited removal.
Great, thousands of queries constantly coming in now, from any of
the
tens of thousands of Wikipedia editors, so that we can further
spread
the damage. "Oh, turns out X removed information stating that politician Y is a serial rapist. Pass this on to anyone else who wants to know."
I trust that you would instead say "I've looked and the removal accords with this (specified) policy of xx Wikipedia".
And revisit perhaps in the event that we see a regular pattern of problems arising from this. Could happen; we'll see.
What is likely to happen is a regular pattern of querelous and tendentious questioning of any deletion done, followed by inevitable leakage of whatever damaging stuff was deleted in the first place.
I suggest you see the proper reply above and use that instead of the one you suggested. As for the questioning, that's a good thing - we're _supposed_ to have our actions questioned. It's part of what oversight is about.
James Day