[WikiEN-l] [Foundation-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny

[Conrad Dunkerson]

* sannse wrote:
> Patrick, Brad wrote:

>> Certain members of the community (and notably, not Mr. Moeller) have
>> expressed dissatisfaction about WP:OFFICE and its use.  There is a
>> healthy debate yet to be had about it.  We can have that debate, but I
>> also have to make clear that the Foundation's obligations are greater
>> than loyalty to any one user.  Even someone with the history of
>> contributions to Mr. Moeller.

Thanks for the explanation. However, I think the view of this as a 
conflict between 'the Foundation's obligations' and 'one user' is 
inherently incorrect.

Eric did not knowingly act against the 'obligations of the Foundation'... 
there was no notice of such obligations being involved in the situation, 
despite the existence of established procedures for doing so.

This isn't about 'loyalty to one user', but the need for discretion in how 
users in general are treated. There should not be 'retaliation' for 
actions the user could have no way of knowing imposed some form of 'risk' 
on the Foundation. If there is risk then notice should be given under the 
'WP:OFFICE' policy. If there is some reason that such notice can't be 
given globally then the individual user should be told not to repeat the 
action.

Handing down 'punishment' for violation of undeclared restrictions simply 
seems capricious... and concerns far more than 'one person'. I don't know 
Eric and thus have no especial 'loyalty' to him... but this matter is 
still a grave concern to me and to others.

Defend the Foundation by all means... just don't unneccessarily 'punish' 
your volunteers in the process. Whatever the situation here an 'OFFICE' 
notification or quiet word to Eric could have covered it.