On 4/20/07, Cascadia cascadia@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.