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