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

Wed Aug 4 00:30:15 UTC 2004

Down with gum-flappers!

On Tue, 3 Aug 2004 13:17:02 -0700, Poor, Edmund W <edmund.w.poor at abc.com> wrote:
> Let's sum it up and stop flapping our gums:
> 
> 1. When you block a user, try to explain why. The best explanation
> would be to cite the appropriate section of the Wikipedia:Blocking
> policy.
> 
> * Example: "being a dastardly villain, see blocking policy #86"
<
> What could be more clear or simple?

"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.

>sj>

# ...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!