[WikiEN-l] Re: Blocking policy

[John Robinson]

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.

- Hephaestos

>  > 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
>reverted it.
>
>This enhances the ability to block and have the blocks stick.
>
>--Jimbo