Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive330
 |
| 280 | 290 | 300 | 310 | 320 | 325 | ← | 328 | 329 | 330 | 331 | 332 | → | 335 | 340 | 350 | 360 | 370 | 380 |
The fact that someone has not locked this page to end this mindless paranoia is a bit shocking. Dead issue is dead, and to stand by and watch fellow Wikipedians get abused like this just isn't cool. -- Ned Scott 08:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Second that. AgneCheese/Wine 08:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- The issue is far from dead. We are still lacking a good and valuable editor. Who is very distressed by this debacle. Giano (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Let people give their opinions. Once everyone has had their say and action (if any) is taken on the issue, everyone will move on on their own. Cla68 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- The issue is far from dead. We are still lacking a good and valuable editor. Who is very distressed by this debacle. Giano (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I just got frozen out of editing twice in a row, once due to a delete, and now it's admin protected. This is beyond ridiculous. But at least there's less opportunity for drama! sNkrSnee | t.p. 18:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Page protection
I call for this page to be unprotected. This is a very important issue that people have been actively discussing, and for someone to come and shut down the discussion is inappropriate. Everyking (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Especially a newish admin who is involved in the debate. AniMate 18:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I concur. Protecting the page only fuels more animosity and accusations of "coverup". Videmus Omnia Talk 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is a thread on Mercury's talk page as well. I really do have to go now, and I wish I could help calm things down, but could someone restore my edits that Mercury removed? Carcharoth (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agree that protection is ill-advised and removing talk page comments absolutely unacceptable. I thought I restored all the comments but I can go back and check. RxS (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I restored your comments. Any other opinions on the page protection? If there's no consensus for it, the page shold be unprotected. RxS (talk) 18:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Agree that protection is ill-advised and removing talk page comments absolutely unacceptable. I thought I restored all the comments but I can go back and check. RxS (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- There is a thread on Mercury's talk page as well. I really do have to go now, and I wish I could help calm things down, but could someone restore my edits that Mercury removed? Carcharoth (talk) 18:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I concur. Protecting the page only fuels more animosity and accusations of "coverup". Videmus Omnia Talk 18:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the protection. I can see why it was done, and I echo the calls to "move along". But this will only be counter-productive.--Docg 18:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- Even with my intinal comment on this talk page, it does seem that giving people a place to vent is best option for damage control at this point. -- Ned Scott 03:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
User:!! has unblanked the original post by Durova
Since !! is the subject of the original post I think they are the only person other than Durova who should be allowed to unblank it. I don't know their motives, and I don't care about their motives, but I think it should be allowed to stand. It is all fairly moot, now, and perhaps it would be best to let this part of the matter rest as is. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
- As a lack of transparency seems to be a part of the issue at hand, I don't see how blanking or deleting this discussion would help matters. --健次(derumi)talk 03:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)