Changes

==Community reaction==

==Community reaction==

This revelation caused concern among other members of the community, because defending friends "No matter what" implies that no matter what policy a friend breaches, the other friend will cover for them and assist them to evade repercussions.  and that It is not enough to trust someone without revealing their secret.  If the trust was justified, an appeal would have been successful and allowed him to regain adminship honestly, rather than purposefully assisting a friend in regaining adminship with an alternate account.

This revelation caused concern among other members of the community, because defending friends "No matter what" implies that no matter what policy a friend breaches, the other friend will cover for them and assist them to evade repercussions.   

It also looked, to outsiders and ordinary editors, as a sign that Wikipedia had abandoned the idea of enforcing its ban policy, at least for insiders and their friends, and that this was an open secret among a significant number of Wikipedia administrators and well-connected editors, even to the point that they are surprised and offended that the right of administrators to protect their friends who are editing as ban-evading socks should even be challenged.  

It also looked, to outsiders and ordinary editors, as a sign that Wikipedia had abandoned the idea of enforcing its ban policy, at least for insiders and their friends, and that this was an open secret among a significant number of Wikipedia administrators and well-connected editors, even to the point that they are surprised and offended that the right of administrators to protect their friends who are editing as ban-evading socks should even be challenged.