"Tony Sidaway" tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote in message news:bf0d8ee70704191733x4afcdbc4y4d8235e04d2d6e6b@mail.gmail.com...
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.
Tony, again... you keep calling discussion, although a bit heated, "trolling". //
The point I was making was that written policy is not Wikipedia policy.
That's an intersting statement. Considering one of the first things at WP:SOCK is:
"This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page."
I appologize if I sound obtuse or overly confused... but when does "official Policy on the English Wikipedia" not be Wikipedia policy??
-Cascadia