Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-10112739-20160102070335/@comment-4845243-20160103013817

Jdude420 wrote: Alemas2005 wrote: Obi the LEGO Fan wrote: I'll step in just to give some advice on the legitimacy of this vote, since I have no stake in this and can act as an impartial third party...

1) Technically, the rules require admins to approve unblocking or shortening blocks

2) However, LMBW:UCS also applies here. If the community believes the above rule is damaging the community in this case, they can legitimately ignore it.

3) AFAIK, the admins don't really have authority to delete a community voting topic just because they interpret it as illegitimate - but I don't recall any rules which deal specifically with this. If anyone knows where these might be, that would be relevant to the discussion. The problem is this phrase...

"A block is never to be undone, shortened, or lengthened, unless it has been discussed and approved by multiple admins."

This thread would probably make more sense if it were a petition... However, petitions got banned in a community vote. A community vote for unblocking a user doesn't make sense if, in the end, the admins have to approve it.

So basically this topic will accomplish nothing.

And I remember a couple of cases in which we had to delete CVs to block Yada as we passed them off as joke CVs... Indeed, there aren't really any rules dealing with "illegitimate" CVs.

I had the same train of thought, Alemas.

I just would like to know whether or not this topic will actually be allowed to change anything? It seems all very grey and ewy. Because, if it is. It should really be re-voted again with all of the evidence stated at the beginning why he was blocked so a proper conclusion can be made by the voting users. @both Alemas and Jdude

The question is whether the community wants to use their authority to override existing rules. Personally I think that blocks should be within the purview of admins, but the community does have the authority to ignore certain rules if they think that benefits the wiki.

So there needs to be a clear understanding that if the community does this, they are willfully going against written policy. They can do that, but it should be clear to everyone.