On 4/20/07, Cascadia <cascadia(a)privatenoc.com> wrote:
Tony,
Could you be more specific as to which socks were being 'disruptive'. I saw
editors who felt they did not want to have their ID known yet comment on
this situation, enganging in discussion.
There has been no substantive disruption as yet, but there has been a
series of rather inflammatory statements. One brave soul with the
username of "Throwaway account 111" described Jimbo's action as "an
affront to the community." Disposibleusername said the same action
felt like "a slap in the face". A third user (or it could be the
third instance of the same person) called "Iamnotmyself" made all
kinds of predictions of any serious attempt to oppose the unblock,
stating "Take a stand if you want, but it won't change anything; it's
Jimbo's way or the highway." A fellow called "Onlyjustthisonetime"
called Jimbo's action "an affront to every member of this community"
Amid all the fuss and the trolling, however, some valid points were
made, and I wouldn't want to give the impression that it was all just
rabble-rousing.
And as far as your comment of "not making a fetish out of written policy on
Wikipedia", I believe that comment is not only uncalled for, but completely
void of good faith.
I'm sorry, I don't understand this at all. There is no implication of
bad faith, just an unfortunate tendency to treat written policy as
holy scripture.
Furthermore, if someone is acting within the bounds
of
policy at the time the policy was in effect, then whether you LIKE it or not
is really a moot point.
The point I was making was that written policy is not Wikipedia policy.