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