I dont' have time to read through this whole thread right now but please visit the thread about the broken testing implementation and consider voicing your opinions about the need for an official testers group (should you feel this case is an example of why that should be implemented as described in wiki). That one change to the current process would both expedite and improve it by making this kind of thing impossible, while not making a "popular vote" approach to testing useless as an assurance of QA.

I will unsticky the SiO2 interactive thread in Games. This is not acceptable behavior.

Edit: and holy cow, reading the last few posts makes me wonder if i should lock the thread. Per Reggie's hands-off approach, it's only for extreme cases and I don't have time to verify it for the moment so if you feel it should receive more moderator attention please use the report post feature.

Edit2: Thread moved to community.

Edit3: Ok, i read most of the posts and this is fair discussion about an issue very relevant to the community. No locking seems warranted, and i still feel good about unstickying the publisher's "Courtesty thread" in Games. As has been stated, this is a simple case of someone not playing nice with the privileges granted and to continue to give privileged status to a person who shows no respect for the rules in place would be silly. I don't like the testing process myself (vis the thread i link above) but if everyone circumvents established safeguards just because they don't agree with them, there can be no organization; if they don't abide the community procedures there can be no community. Your right to swing your fist ends where it reaches my nose, etc...

I make no statement on whether i think the invitation (and yes, it is an invitation: not a right) to upload packages to Extras should be revoked. IMO that's a decision for the council based on their careful consideration.