On 30/09/2007, Daniel R. Tobias dan@tobias.name wrote:
People want examples of how "none of the thousand or so admins wants to unblock them" doesn't adequately describe the "community" ban process? How about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/I ncidents/Blu_Aardvark_and_Mistress_Selina_Kyle
Synopsis: Linuxbeak unblocks Blu Aardvark and Mistress Selina Kyle. A whole page of drama-queen histrionics and hissy-fits erupts, with some prominent admins loudly storming away from Wikipedia in a huff (they were soon back), and people demanding that Linuxbeak apologize, admit to a grave error of judgment, and possibly be desysopped or debureaucratted. The fact that Jimbo apparently supported Linuxbeak's action was dismissed as irrelevant. Anybody who in any way supports the unblocking of these individuals is deemed a supporter of stalking, harrassing, anti-semitism, and other rotten stuff. They're quickly reblocked.
Sounds like you're describing a wheel war. ArbCom is the way to go. The reblocking admins would be at least cautioned, and I doubt anything would happen to Linuxbeak. ArbCom would then decide once and forall whether or not to block.
(Disclaimer: This reply is based purely on the parent email, I am not familiar with the incident in question.)