[WikiEN-l] 172 sysop status temporarily revoked

Thu Jul 24 20:17:24 UTC 2003

At 12:44 PM 7/24/2003, Erik wrote:
>You [Axel] did not object, so I fail to see why you emphasize "for the 
>second
>time" above. If you think I was wrong the first time, why didn't you say
>so? In the latest case, several users also approved of my actions, and the
>only one to substantially object regarding the actual case at hand (the
>page protection/unprotection) was Jtdirl.

For the record, I think that it was unnecessary to suspend 172's sysop 
status on the basis of the incident in question taken in isolation. This is 
not to say that I think Erik overstepped his bounds, or should have 
developer status taken away. I simply disagree with his decision. I also 
support(ed) Erik's actions to suspend Kils' sysop status previously.

My objection to the suspension of 172's sysop status is mainly that I don't 
think he overstepped the bounds of good conduct any more than various other 
sysops do on a not infrequent basis. We all go a bit past the realm of 
"good ideas" once in awhile, and I think that suspension of sysop status 
should be reserved for more substantive (especially REPEATED) violations 
than 172's single instance of "questionable" protected page behavior.

-----
Dante Alighieri
dalighieri at digitalgrapefruit.com

"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their 
neutrality in times of great moral crisis."
    -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321