Warn Amazon for abuse of webmaster privileges

None of the things he did weren't reversible. In addition, the workflow "do something now, wait for complaints" has two advantages: 1) things get done faster 2) If you properly file an issue (which you should) then the others will be informed and can then complain. More often than not noody complains.

I am not sure that do something now, wait for complaints works in all the cases, especially when a user is being blocked (I wonder how a blocked user could complain, if he cannot access to Drupal.org anymore). There are some decisions that need to be taken from more than one site maintainer, and after a warning to the interested user.

It's true that what has been done is reversible, but it would have been better to ask to other administrators, before to block a user; after all, the user cannot escape to any places.

We need to handle these things on a case by case basis.

In this case, Kieran did right by the community. The person who was blocked was clearly out of line. The person had been out of line repeatedly. The person was going out of their way to troll a community initiative. Kieran's email leaves the door open for additional conversations leading to the account being unblocked, and it appears that the issue was discussed among the redesign team.

Kieran's actions were in the best interest of the community, and were definitely in the best interest of the people working on the redesign.

I'd say that this ticket is sufficient notice that individuals are displeased with how the decision was made and executed, but given the circumstances here, I don't think this warrants any more of anyone's time.

If the do something now, wait for complaints works, then why is the user is still blocked, even if there are d.o site maintainers/administrators who are contrary to block a user without any previous warning (including webchick, if I understand correctly what she said)?

I understand that for Dave Reid, in both the cases he reported the decision taken from a single administrator is contrary to the opinion given to other site maintainers/administrators.
We are not talking of changing the status of an issue report, or a Drupal setting; we are talking about blocking a user who is not a spammer without to give a warning before. I don't approve what Daniel said, especially when he had all the opportunities to help in the redesign process, and when he decided to not contribute in any way (except to then pretend things should be done how he is expecting); that doesn't mean the user can be blocked without to first warn him, though.

In the absence of a clear process — just a placeholder on http://drupal.org/dcoc#conflict-resolution — I don't feel there's a clear case of overstepping on the part of Amazon. We have not defined the line not to cross. I feel we need to develop some clarity in how to deal with violations and violators of the Code of Conduct (such as the behavior addressed by issue http://drupal.org/node/938406) are needed.

I suggest this issue can be closed, and a new issue relating to dispute resolution and process for violations of DCOC be opened, with the goal of establishing clear guidelines for moderation and user blocking.

That's fine; I would anyway expect that in the case of personal attacks it's not the involved person who takes any action against the offender.
I have taken personal attacks, but I have never blocked the user who did them.

Per @lauras's suggestion in #5, above, I created #939636: Define clear guidelines for conflict resolution and banning users

Setting this to postponed; if anyone thinks this needs more attention, please re-open.

(in other words, I'm not trying to stifle anyone's need to be heard, I just think Laura's suggestion moves us forward in a more comprehensive way)

Closing old issues. Please re-open if necessary.