Then I'm still confused, because according to Fred Bauder's reply to
that post I "summed it up pretty well."
Although I admit I like your version better; I've never had a block
reversed when the person doing the reversing actually told me on my
talk page that they had done so.
So let me see
if I have this straight.
As long as a user holds strictly to written policy, he/she may cause
as much disruption, damage and hell as possible, and community
consensus on a matter is secondary to ill-thought-out and often
unenforced legalistic jargon.
Does that pretty much sum it up?
No, I'd say that's exactly backwards of what's going on. I don't
really understand why you're saying those things.
I think there's a misunderstanding here, and an ironic one at that.
It has always been true that sysops could reverse blocks done by other
sysops. You could always do that, and you can do it now. What this
ruling proposes is that if a sysop blocks *and gives a proper reason*,
then the burden of proof would be on another sysop to say why they
This enhances the ability to block and have the blocks stick.