• I noticed that you blocked Florenceischocolate for inserting opinions in articles, without giving any warnings. I noticed that AW10 warned this user here back in January for the same offense. However, instead of giving them a warning, you blocked them for two hours. This would have only been their second warning for that offense, and user's contributions have a gap of over a month between edits.

    Refer to these blocking policies (see here: SpongeBob SquarePants:Policy#V. Blocking policy)

    C1 - "Any user who violates any rule will be given (a) warning(s) on their message wall before they are blocked."

    C2 - "Administrators that find a user violating any of the policies must revert any changes and must politely notify the user of their wrongdoing."

    B2 - "Administrators must follow the established blocking policy. Any exceptions require a community discussion."

    B3 - "Any administrator who fails to follow the blocking procedures after three (3) warnings from a bureaucrat will be suspended for seven (7) days, pending discussion on the administrator's user rights."

    Like I said earlier, it's better to communicate with people than to just block them. By communicating with users, they can either learn and move on and make better edits, or if they defend their wrong edits, you can tell them why they are wrong. If they revert the page, they are breaking a rule. If they harass you, that is another breaking of the rules. It will all depend on how they respond to your warning. It's better to give them a chance than scare them off.

    Per B3 of the blocking policy, consider this your second warning. Of course if you have further issues with the blocking of Florenceischocolate and you could request a community discussion regarding the specific block per B2.

    I am serious about these blocking policies. I don't want to give warnings to administrators who are deliberately breaking the rules. You are very well aware of the blocking policy.

    Again, as I have said over and over, I do not want unnecessary blocks scare off users who have yet to learn how the wiki works.

      Loading editor
    • Okay, now I know these people are just blindly agreeing to these proposals. You should not need to warn them more than once. Warning do not have a statute of limitations.

      Also, he deserved that block. He has been here long enough to know better. He wrote "People, I think we learned a lesson in this episode: Don't be a but hurt. "

      You don't get to unblock who ever you want. I really think you should talk to the admin who blocked before unblocking a user, especially when you say that the user was "unfairly blocked".

        Loading editor
    • Also, I am at 1 warning because I didn't break the rules. I even gave him or her a more that reasonable punishment. According the Episode Guidelines, under Enforcement of Guidelines, "The second violation will result in a 3 day block. He editted an episode. I gave him a correct punishment.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message