Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2006-04-24/Office actions

Isn't the final parapgraph here slightly misleading? I was under the impression that the new user account was created before this incident, and this another of the reasons for the presumption that Danny wasn't working under OFFICE. - Estel ^(talk) 19:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends when you're suggesting the incident started, I would say it was created during the incident. The account didn't exist when the pages were originally protected, and I'm not aware that anybody said the failure to use this particular account had anything to do with the dispute, although the suggestion was made at some point to have a dedicated account. The Dannyisme account is mostly relevant going forward, so I didn't want to confuse the narrative of the incident itself by mentioning it in a chronological context. --Michael Snow 06:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys really know what you're doing? I've never ever looked at the Community Bulletin Board or the Signpost pages before, nor am I really interested in the internal politics of Wikipedia. Reading something like this just holds the whole thing up for ridicule, in my opinion. Please don't delete these genuine views - I think of myself as an ordinary, Wikipedia contributor, which is what I am - one of many thousands who would be horrified to read all this. Why not just get your act together and remember it's the contributors who really keep this thing going, not Sysops (whatever they are), Admins, or Jimbos.... OK - rant over! -- Agendum 12:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree completely and encourage the signpost to pursue this kind of transparency and disclosure wherever possible. heqs 21:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]