On 02/11/05, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote: It depends on the unblocking 01:00 01/11/05 One_Admin blocks 127.0.0.1 for a year (silliness) 01:05 01/11/05 Another_Admin unblocks 127.0.0.1 (a year is too long) versus 01:00 01/11/05 One_Admin blocks 127.0.0.1 for a year (silliness) 01:05 01/11/05 Another_Admin unblocks 127.0.0.1 (a year is too long) 01:10 01/11/05 One_Admin blocks 127.0.0.1 for a week (silliness) versus 01:00 08/11/05 One_Admin blocks 127.0.0.1 for a year (silliness) 01:05 08/11/05 Another_Admin unblocks 127.0.0.1 (a year is too long) The first is something that is likely to get people annoyed - it's removing the block completely because the first one was too long. The second is pragmatic - essentially "correcting" the length of the block. The third ditto; a week has passed, so correcting the length of the block essentially means "letting them off now" (a bit like courts will sometimes sentence someone to X months in prison, and then declare they've spent it whilst waiting for the trial, so they can walk free) The latter two cases are more defensible than the first - contesting the length isn't contesting the ban itself - but in all cases it'd be polite to let the blocking admin know what you've done and why. That's common form as I've seen it on en., anyway... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk