On 5/19/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
On 5/19/06, slimvirgin(a)gmail.com
So why is his indefinite block being
Because he's a newbie and no one bothered to give him short blocks. This
isn't simple vandalism and he's not willy on wheels. Someone
misunderstanding our policies doesn't give anyone precedent to railroad him
rather than giving him a chance. We tell people to be bold, and then
indefinite block them for doing it?
While I wouldn't have unblocked this user myself, I appreciate your
sincerity and your reasoning is fine. If we have to block him again in
a week, so be it ... at least he's been given a chance.
You've done what you feel is the Right Thing, and you've done it with
sensitivity, explaining your reasons and making sure everyone
understands why you did it. Well done.
There's no need for people to start throwing about epithets like "wheel
war" about this.
"Wheel war" is not an epithet, it is a description of an activity.
When you undo an admins actions without first discussing it with him,
or getting broad consensus for doing so, you are wheel warring. That,
in fact, is what happened here. And since *everyone* is agreed that
Saladin1970 deserved *at least* a 1 week block, any discussion
regarding the appropriateness of an indefinite block could have taken
place during that week. There was no pressing need to immediately
undo the block and impose a different one. Wheel warring is bad.