| Revision as of 04:10, 9 March 2011 editOcaasi (talk | contribs)Administrators37,091 edits →Unblock redux: block,unblock,post,strike← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:45, 9 March 2011 edit undoNcmvocalist (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers27,127 edits →Unblock redux: no need to reblockNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| ::Dreadstar, it doesn't matter whether you think it was a bad block. AE discretionary sanctions are written in a way that clearly outlines the avenues for appealing a block fot all editors. It clearly excludes the ability of other admins to decide on their own whether to reverse a sanction. I would strongly urge you to reblock and instead argue your position at the AE noticeboard. The relevant wording and wiki-history suggest you've made a mistake here, can you think about it one more time? ] (]) 03:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | ::Dreadstar, it doesn't matter whether you think it was a bad block. AE discretionary sanctions are written in a way that clearly outlines the avenues for appealing a block fot all editors. It clearly excludes the ability of other admins to decide on their own whether to reverse a sanction. I would strongly urge you to reblock and instead argue your position at the AE noticeboard. The relevant wording and wiki-history suggest you've made a mistake here, can you think about it one more time? ] (]) 03:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :::I think a reasonable course of action would be to re-block, for procedures sake, and then ask Sandstein to unblock, while posting to ] for discussion. If ArbCom sanction blocks are that difficult to appeal, then they should have to be discussed first--or go through a more significant lead-up than a 2 hour warning with a block given before that period is up. If Ludwigs strikes that comment, then I think it will work out as if the 2 hour warning had been heeded and no block would have been needed anyway. ] (]) 04:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | :::I think a reasonable course of action would be to re-block, for procedures sake, and then ask Sandstein to unblock, while posting to ] for discussion. If ArbCom sanction blocks are that difficult to appeal, then they should have to be discussed first--or go through a more significant lead-up than a 2 hour warning with a block given before that period is up. If Ludwigs strikes that comment, then I think it will work out as if the 2 hour warning had been heeded and no block would have been needed anyway. ] (]) 04:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::::No need to reblock; policies are not to be applied inflexibly without regard to their spirit or the circumstances in which they should be used. ] (]) 05:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:45, 9 March 2011
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
|
||||
Archives and sandboxes Defender
Award!
RL Barnstar
Holy wow. Good job, Dreadstar. --Fang Aili | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
New comments below this section
Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Integrity | |
| Whereas, Dreadstar has shown himself to be a member of the community distinguished for his devotion to the Misplaced Pages project; Therefore be it resolved, that this Barnstar of Integrity is affixed to his wall. Will Beback talk 11:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC) |
- Wow, thanks Will, this really means a lot! Dreadstar ☥ 03:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Unblock redux
(e/c'd with your removal, but I did all that typing...)
- Dreadstar, it doesn't matter whether you think it was a bad block. AE discretionary sanctions are written in a way that clearly outlines the avenues for appealing a block fot all editors. It clearly excludes the ability of other admins to decide on their own whether to reverse a sanction. I would strongly urge you to reblock and instead argue your position at the AE noticeboard. The relevant wording and wiki-history suggest you've made a mistake here, can you think about it one more time? Franamax (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think a reasonable course of action would be to re-block, for procedures sake, and then ask Sandstein to unblock, while posting to WP:AE for discussion. If ArbCom sanction blocks are that difficult to appeal, then they should have to be discussed first--or go through a more significant lead-up than a 2 hour warning with a block given before that period is up. If Ludwigs strikes that comment, then I think it will work out as if the 2 hour warning had been heeded and no block would have been needed anyway. Ocaasi (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- No need to reblock; policies are not to be applied inflexibly without regard to their spirit or the circumstances in which they should be used. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think a reasonable course of action would be to re-block, for procedures sake, and then ask Sandstein to unblock, while posting to WP:AE for discussion. If ArbCom sanction blocks are that difficult to appeal, then they should have to be discussed first--or go through a more significant lead-up than a 2 hour warning with a block given before that period is up. If Ludwigs strikes that comment, then I think it will work out as if the 2 hour warning had been heeded and no block would have been needed anyway. Ocaasi (talk) 04:10, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
- Dreadstar, it doesn't matter whether you think it was a bad block. AE discretionary sanctions are written in a way that clearly outlines the avenues for appealing a block fot all editors. It clearly excludes the ability of other admins to decide on their own whether to reverse a sanction. I would strongly urge you to reblock and instead argue your position at the AE noticeboard. The relevant wording and wiki-history suggest you've made a mistake here, can you think about it one more time? Franamax (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)