Board Thread:Community Voting/@comment-10112739-20160102070335/@comment-5052737-20160102165429

Madkatmaximus wrote:

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. Read below, Fort could have received warnings anyway...

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. But that stands at loggerheads with what the admin said in the OP. He said Fort did get warnings, I remember quite clearly. Trouble is, there are no logs of anything, so we can't prove or disprove anything.

Ah, ok, so what I said above refers to Meiko. Which means that the following statement, "you [...] have as of yet done nothing about another formerly permablocked user being here", is untrue, as I have informed the admins about his presence. I'm just waiting for them to give their opinions. And, FYI, the admins voted on letting T-007 back. So I'm not quite sure what you're complaining about.

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. Might I suggest, then, that he reads through my posts in this thread? And remember that you are also part of the admin team. When you announced your "retirement", I asked whether you wanted your rights removed or your admin chat account suspended, and you said no to both, so you're still "part" of the admin team. Indeed, seeing you say "you" instead of "us" hurts a bit.

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.

...sorry, what? Your contributions at the time say the opposite. Fort was blocked on November 28, and you announced your retirement on November 25, but you continued being active after that. Indeed, you became inactive just a few hours before Fort got blocked. At around that time (November 25-28) I must have asked you whether you still wanted access to admin chat, and you said yes. So you could have mentioned your concerns at the time. And in any case, you must have already voted on the issue before that, as we always wait until every admin casts their vote. So you must have definitely known about Fort's block.