[WikiEN-l] Blocking without a reason, considered unreasonable

[Poor, Edmund W]

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