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(a)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