Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:
On 4/20/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
...but I have a great deal of respect for the need of the Foundation to take appropriate measures to protect its very real legal interests in the face of potential litigation.
This has been repeated ad nauseum in this thread, but it appears that this point hasn't gotten through: I'm positive that 99% of the community (and this thread) has NO problem WHATSOEVER with WP:OFFICE. We get it, it's a necessary evil. It's not fun, but it is something that has to be there. We don't want wikipedia sued, and if that's what it takes, so be it. WP:OFFICE is not the point in this case.
The point is that Eloquence, one of the oldest and most trusted users on wikipedia, one of the people that have really helped shape the way we see and use wikipedia today, was indefinitly blocked and desysopped for undoing what he thought was a random admin action, one that he thought was out of policy. Danny, who is the only one who can invoke WP:OFFICE, simply ignored to tell us, the rest of the community, that he was doing just that.
If Danny is the only one who can invoke WP:OFFICE why is it that the category tag is there under the name of user:David Newton, and the protection tag under the name of User:Lbmixpro? Surely if the effects of this tag are going to be so severe it's addition by anyone else should not be permitted.
If the intention of imposing a block is to initiate discussion of a problem, 24 hours will be long enough to have that effect. Indefinite blocks only encourage acrimony.
When it comes to WP:OFFICE, we don't demand much. You can lock down the article for as long as it is an issue, you don't have to tell us anything about the case, you don't even have to inform us how long it will be locked. We're fine with all that. But please, show us enough respect to actually, properly, inform us what we are doing, and don't perma-ban one of the most trusted editors out there for a simple misunderstanding.
Yes, the point is that if harsh measures are needed there needs to be a stricter adherence to process by those who would impose such measures.
Ec