I didn't think you were accusing me of anything sinister :-) I chose not to re-unblock so as not to continue a cycle of blocking/unblocking. If someone agrees with me they'll unblock, if not they won't. There's lots of admins.
Oh, okay, good! :) Then I misread that, because you said I charactarized your unblock, so I thought you meant bad. That said, I did hope the reason you didn't didn't unblock again was because you had a closer look at the evidence, information which, as I mentioned on your talk page, you were not privy to at the time of unblocking. If not, oh well, it dosen't matter. As I also said, you're not obliged to get involved and immerse yourself in the details if you don't intend to unblock the re-block anyway.
Even though *usually* if another admin removes a block the first one shouldn't reblock, just to avoid the appearance of a blocking war. But if Mel judges it's severe enough then I'm happy to wait until/if someone else thinks Sam should be unblocked.
Usually, but usually an admin such as yourself, dosen't get persuaded to unblock only to discover such severity -- I'm positive you have scarcely enocuntered that in the past. Yes, if another admin thinks he should be unblocked, they can do so, this is how the wiki runs.
Sam can rub people up the wrong way, but I don't doubt his sincerity. "Assume good faith" can require gritted teeth when someone is really annoying you ...
- d.
David, if this was really limited to the realm of annoyance, I would not be going through this lenghts, I hope you believe me.
El_C