At 12:44 PM 7/24/2003, Erik wrote:
You [Axel] did not object, so I fail to see why you emphasize "for the second time" above. If you think I was wrong the first time, why didn't you say so? In the latest case, several users also approved of my actions, and the only one to substantially object regarding the actual case at hand (the page protection/unprotection) was Jtdirl.
For the record, I think that it was unnecessary to suspend 172's sysop status on the basis of the incident in question taken in isolation. This is not to say that I think Erik overstepped his bounds, or should have developer status taken away. I simply disagree with his decision. I also support(ed) Erik's actions to suspend Kils' sysop status previously.
My objection to the suspension of 172's sysop status is mainly that I don't think he overstepped the bounds of good conduct any more than various other sysops do on a not infrequent basis. We all go a bit past the realm of "good ideas" once in awhile, and I think that suspension of sysop status should be reserved for more substantive (especially REPEATED) violations than 172's single instance of "questionable" protected page behavior.
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321