Jimmy Wales wrote:
Durova wrote:
These complaints are classic straw man rhetoric:
take a small portion of the
actual situation, pretend that's the sole cause of a result, and bemoan in
various fora that the some action was unjustified. I see through the game.
There are times to put one's foot down and that time was today. Wikipedia
has been entirely too lenient about this type of disruption, with the result
that when one brief and overdue block occurs a cluster of people are shocked
by it.
This is exactly right. The key is to look at the pattern of negative
disruption over a long period of time, rather than looking at any one
incident in isolation.
In this particular case, though, the block appeared to be issued
(according to the blocking admin's own summary) in direct response to
someone replying in disagreement to a post of yours. I don't find it
hard to believe that many of us would be concerned at a block that
appears like "disagreeing with Jimmy Wales on a talk page is a blockable
offense". If indeed the block was for something else, it would've been
helpful to say so in the block summary, and preferably pick a more
opportune moment for it.
-Mark