[WikiEN-l] Indefinite block and desysopping by User:Danny (Johntex)

[John Tex]

In response to Johntex:
>> Finally, I love the message for our attorney which explains the
importance
>> of having an office policy, but does absolutely nothing to provide any
> rational for why we should then FAIL TO FOLLW our office policy.  I guess
>> maybe that sort of speech fools some of the people some of the time.

TonySidaway said:
>This is uncalled for.

Tony, I have to disagree.  The attorney works for the foundation, not the
other way around.  Critiquing whether or not he speaks to the question at
hand is perfectly fair.  All he did was say, we need "WP:Office".  Fine.
Let's follow WP:Office, but that means all of us.

TonySidaway said:
>I'm sitting here and, over the months, watching people head towards
>Danny's office actions like moths to a flame.  No wonder he doesn't
>want to advertise them, particularly the more sensitive ones.

That is no justification.  Doing things on the sly is the way to attract
INCREASING criticism.  I'm a perfect example, I've never had any complaint
about any WP:OFFICE action untill this.

TonySidaway said:
>This latest kerfuffle is a good sign that the process we have set up just
>isn't enough.  The rules are not an end in themselves.

I agree here in principle that results are more important than process.  But
the results here are all bad:  A good admin got desysopped unfairly,
massively additional attention was drawn to this than if the rules had been
followed, WP:OFFICE takes it on the chin, etc.  Therefore, saying the ends
justified the means is no good argument in this case.

-Johntex