Sj wrote:
> "citing appropriate section" is rather onerous. I hope that a
> sensible explanation, not limited to a one-word epithet, for
> example, "repeatedly moving user pages to article namespace",
> would suffice.
Yes, of course. Mentioning the section number is redundant.
> # ...you should say "I unblocked Snidely Whiplash because you
> forgot to cite the (being a dastardly villain) section of the
> blocking policy." = What do you mean? I mentioned "section
> 54"! # Dastardly villainy is section 86; 54 is treacherous
> knavery. = Who cares?? Snidely needed to be blocked, so why
> did you unblock him? # By all means reblock him then, but
> cite the appropriate policy number. Imagine what would
> happen if everyone cited the wrong policy number. That would
> be like having no policy at all, wouldn't it? =
> *&$^%*@&%($~#& # Well, I never!
LOL! That is precisely the sort of talk page discussion that results. I
hope now that Fred and Maveric have claried the policy, we won't have so
much bickering (even if some us enjoy it ;-) any more.
Blocking guidelines:
1. Say WHY you're blocking the user (note: state a reason that anyone
with common sense would easily recognize as being official "blocking
policy")
2. If someone ELSE overlooks guideline #1, don't reverse their block
without letting them know (e.g., a nice note on their talk page).
Ed Poor