User blog comment:AmazingPythor/Important: Demotion of Veralann/@comment-26425232-20170309144727/@comment-26067066-20170310001837

@Roddy You are receiving repetitive counterarguments because you are providing repetitive arguments. Comparing this to a "trial" is extremely misleading: This demotion is not meant to be a punishment so much as it is a prevention. You claim that the admins wouldn't be able to know whether or not a response from Hype would garner additional perspective on the situation, but the fact of the matter is that there's really no situation in which entertaining the idea of leaks in this manner is acceptable (context was provided in the screenshots, so you can't complain about that either). The phrases "I'll see depending on how the admin site is set up" and "if another admin were to join I'd be screwed" in and of themselves are very telling even without considering the context in which they were given; regardless of how Hype responded had we chosen to address him, we would obviously not be able to trust anything he says. Again, the process probably would have been smoother if we had discussed the matter with him beforehand, and perhaps the backlash would have been less absurd had we posted the notification afterwards, but there would be virtually no chance of the general decision being altered, and therefore our faliure to contact Hype about it prior to demotion does not render our decision illegitimate in any way, and, as I said before, was a minor mistake if anything.

@Brick if there is sufficient evidence that a potential admin has a very significant chance of leaking information from the site, as there is in this case based on quotes I have mentioned numerous times, then that admin must be demoted in order to prevent such an act. It's not a matter of it being a slim possibility, it's a matter of it being a very distinct possibility, and one that we cannot allow to happen. Per TSA on the rest.