Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-10112739-20160102070335/@comment-5052737-20160105145925

Madkatmaximus wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Madkatmaximus wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote:

Madkatmaximus wrote:

Alemas2005 wrote: So now that this vote regarding blocks/unblocks has passed, shall we now consider this is as a "petition" for Fort's unblocking? No. May I ask why not? A. All this does is put it back into the hands of the admins again, who created this mess to begin with, and B. because I'm not a fan of allowing other votes to affect another current vote. Mad, whichever way you look at it, it would have ended up with the admins anyway. As the admin policy clearly states, unblocks have to be admin-approved, regardless of community involvement. So even if we choose not to "convert" this into a petition, the admins would have to talk about it first.

I'm not a fan of that either, but if it makes something which was in a bit of a grey area completely legal, I'm all for it. I'll just direct you to Obi's comment. "If the community believes the above rule is damaging the community in this case, they can legitimately ignore it."

Let me point out that "they" refers to the community. And in his subsequent post, Obi refers to the community ignoring rules, but not us admins, "...but the community does have the authority to ignore certain rules if they think that benefits the wiki". And anyway, he's more in favour of admins dealing with blocks... "Personally I think that blocks should be within the purview of admins...".

Again, all this points in the direction of the admins. It's us who decide what to do with it all.