Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-10112739-20160102070335/@comment-5311834-20160102160952

Alemas2005 wrote: So please tell me why we voted to permablock Dama/Nightfall, who was just as much a community member as Fort, and then after that we even re-voted on it at the behest of the community. We have voted on several users, no-one complained. If we were to allow the community to vote on unblocking users, then what's the point of having the admins block them in the first place? Shouldn't the admins have the responsibility of protecting the Wiki? Something has to give here. Because Dama was a troll who /had/ received said warnings. Not comparable in the least.

Alemas2005 wrote: He might not have been warned on his Wall, but he could have been warned in PM. You can't exclude that possibility. And what you say about "voting to unblock a user" is incorrect: I haven't unblocked anyone (as you can see here), and I haven't "voted" on unblocking the user in question. Furthermore, there's currently an admin thread on that subject, in which I pose the question on whether or not we should take action, and in said thread I haven't yet posted my vote. I do not currently understand to whom you are referring with the second user. We can't know whether he received "absolutely no warning", as it could have been given in PM. And the fact that he's "well-liked" is, unfortunately, irrelevant. If a user repeatedly breaks policy, we can't allow them on the Wiki. If I were to break policy, for example, I'd expect action to be taken, otherwise it would be a case of blatant personal bias.

To quote Rus, "Also, according to Fort himself, he has not heard from any administrator about the reason for the block at all". That makes it quite clear he did not have any warning. The first user I'm referring to is them, and the second is Meiko.

Alemas2005 wrote: I don't find it as "incredibly vague", it describes what he did wrong. There's even a "specifically" in it. Not looking any better for me? FYI, that warning was written by someone else, not me. If I remember correctly, I added the "Was repeatedly warned before this block" part. I'm not quite sure what you're on about. ...And again I quote, "Also, according to Fort himself, he has not heard from any administrator about the reason for the block at all". If people don't grasp the real reason, much less if the receiver of the block doesn't know the reason for it, it's vague.

When I said "you", I meant the entire admin team, not you in particular.

Alemas2005 wrote: Well, you were around when this happened, so why didn't you bother mentioning all these concerns back when we were actually talking about it? Wouldn't have hurt at all. Something could have been done back then. Indeed, I didn't get any feeling that we were doing things wrong when we were deciding things.

Except I wasn't around when this happened, hence why this is only just now being brought up. I had no idea this happened until I returned.