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

[Ray Saintonge]

Oskar Sigvardsson wrote:

>On 4/20/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin at 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