Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive434

Pointing out unresolved bits from a subpage I marked resolved in part (ironically) because of this. User:Blechnic pointed out that the issues he raised had not been resolved. I also see, that while I was writing this, Ryulong and Blechnic are 'politely' discussing things on that subpage. Please see Not resolved and Not resolved #2. If others could step in and help out, that would be good. What I really want to see is Blechnic feeling able to edit on topics he (or she) wants to edit on (tropical plant diseases). Maybe Ryulong and MBisanz could make that clear? Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've formally apologized to Blechnic on that subpage. Should Blechnic not see that as a resolution, then there is something wrong beyond the scope of this board.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you didn't apologize for what you did. You apologized for "attempting to contact me during my block," when what you did was harangue me to provoke me when I was already extremely upset. --Blechnic (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What you see as haranguing and provocations, I saw as an attempt to contact you.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of posterity on this page, as well, these are the three "harangues" and "provokes": [1], [2], [3].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet when Kelly did the same to you, you used your administrative powers to get rid of her. Hmmm, if you do it, it's contacting, but if a newbie editor does it, they're harassing you? In other words, back to that policy supported by you and MiBaz and Gwen Gale: don't tag the regulars, because it's not anybody can edit. Exactly how many times was it you posted after I asked you to stop on my talk page? --Blechnic (talk) 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you forgot your earlier reversions of my talk page, see, User: MBisanz claims I was blocked for edit warring, apparently edit warring with you, then you came to my user page to continue to edit war by reverting me?[4] Hardly what I'd call "an attempt to contact me," but rather what I called it, "an attempt to provoke me at all costs." --Blechnic (talk) 07:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Kelly (who is not a newbie) repeatedly posted different "this image has X wrong" templates after I went to his talk page and say that I don't need to be contacted concerning the images and then I would go about to fix things as I saw fit. Because of the aspects of the script Kelly used to do so, I protected my talk page such that I could work instead of jumping around to all of the images that Kelly found I uploaded with minor issues with. My talk page was protected for less than half an hour, during which and after which, I went through all of my uploads and fixed them (and during which several images I fixed were tagged after the issue had been fixed). My seven (give or take) edits to your talk page which you continue to construe as harassment and provocation. Your edit warring was at shrew's fiddle, which it was clear you were doing. I've apologized for what I did and what you think I did. If you think that this issue is still unresolved, take it to the arbitration committee and see how they see the case. Because honestly, I've nothing else to say, because nothing will change your mind.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do we have enough forums now? Maybe some more administrators can jump in and pummel me, and some basic editors, too, as there was quite a frenzy going after me the first time. --Blechnic (talk) 07:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic, I am trying to help here, but please, there is no-one "going after you". You need to be able to discuss things calmly, no matter how upset you might be. I'm going to go and calm down now, and I suggest you do the same. Please, point out inaccuracies in Wikipedia pages all you like, but please also talk to people and if apologies are offered, please accept them. Even if you are not satisfied with the apology or non-apology or whatever, just accept that your point has been made and please start pointing out what is wrong with our pages on tropical plant diseases. You won't get carte blanche to edit how you like (no-one does), but I can promise you that it is far less likely now that anyone will get in your way, as long as you explain the edits you make. Carcharoth (talk) 07:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no apology for what Ryulong did because Ryulong is still saying he didn't harass me, even though he did to me, what Kelly did to him to get her blocked. I would absolutely accept an apology for what he did. And, my point hasn't been made, because the underlying issue is, I was given a single warning by MBisanz to not put tags on articles or I would be blocked, then I was blocked, then I was harangued by Ryulong until I got even more upset, then my user page was protected against my edits, then my block was escalated because I sent an email further questioning Ryulong to the blocking adminsitrator, then I was told I would be banned from Wikipedia if I continued. So, I was blocked for tagging an article I had an editorial concern about after one warning, then blocked for a week, and now have the permanent threat that if I continue my behavior (tagging articles), I will be banned from Wikipedia. Please, do tell me what the apology does for the issue at hand, the threat of a permanent block that arose from my tagging an article when I was editorially concerned about it, warned once, then blocked? And stop telling people who are upset to calm down, it just means you're not paying attention to what I'm saying and you want to take the focus to a personal level rather than do so. --Blechnic (talk) 08:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And PS I was discussing the edits on the article's talk page when I was blocked, so please don't tell me that discussing the edits is the way to go, because MBisanz is going to give me a single warning and block me for that. So, no, explaining the edits is no good, that just gets you blocked. With a single warning. --Blechnic (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's take things step by step here. Some of these allegations are serious and deserve further investigation. Let's get diffs first: (1) "a single warning by MBisanz"; (2) "I was blocked"; (3) "I was harangued by Ryulong until I got even more upset" (for the record, re-instating talk page warnings removed by the user in qusetion is something that should not be done, as removing them is indication that the user has read the warning - if Ryulong was re-instating talk page warnings you removed, he needs to be told in no uncertain terms not to do that); (4) "my user page was protected against my edits" - I think you mean your user talk page - again, this should only be done in extreme circumstances, whoever protected it would need to justify their protection; (5) "my block was escalated because I sent an email further questioning Ryulong to the blocking adminsitrator" - this sounds concerning, but the other side of the story needs to be heard first - you may be misunderstanding why the block was escalated; (6) "I was told I would be banned from Wikipedia if I continued" - please provide a diff for this - or was it in an e-mail? I agree that the real concern is that you were trying to improve articles and didn't get enough warning or discussion first, but edit warring (we need diffs for that as well) does trigger short blocks regardless of whether you are right or not - that is how things work around here. I apologise for telling you to calm down. Carcharoth (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since we jumped from thread to thread, my response is here [5]. MBisanz ^talk 07:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And my response was .... Ignored. But that's okay, I know the ultimate result is: I'll be banned from Wikipedia, just what was intended originally and threatened. Thanks for the post "One-warning then block" administrator MBisanz. --Blechnic (talk) 07:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Here you go, here are the diffs, the last two edits I made, the last to the article, and the last to the article's talk page before MBisanz blocked me:

My last edit to the article was at 8:47[6]

My last comment on the talk page,and last edit before the block, the edit that infuriated Mbisanz so much that it called for me being blocked with just a single warning was at 9:09: [7]

Mbisanz blocked me at 9:11 for an edit to a talk page discussing the article 09:11, 4 May 2008 MBisanz (Talk | contribs) blocked "Blechnic (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing

--Blechnic (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

I was blocked for discussing the article on the article's talk page after a single warning about putting tags on articles by MBisanz. --Blechnic (talk) 08:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And as the block log shows, after discussing it with Sam Korn, I agreed 48 hours was too long for a first block and he reduced it to a 24 hour block. So that is another admin who agreed it was a good block, if a bit overlong. I'll also note for those following this saga, that during the shortened block, Blechnic was re-blocked for a week by Hersfold for harassment and abuse of email. So now that is at least 3 admins who agree the block was permissible. MBisanz ^talk 08:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, all this was when in relation to Ryulong's harassment of me? And, you're now stating here that it was proper to block me for edit warring after I had stopped edit warring? With a single warning on your part, and after I had stopped? So, the other administrator's agree that a single warning to an editor, who then stops what they are warned about, is sufficient for a block? That's your contention? --Blechnic (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the following be looked at more closely:

• Page history of Shrew's fiddle
• Talk:Shrew's fiddle
• Creation date of Blechnic's account (he was indeed a new editor as Sam Korn noted)
• Blechnic's block log entries
• Blechnic's talk page history, specifically the period around the block.
• Hersfold's warning about indefinite blocking (maybe this is what Blechnic was referring to?)

I will notify User:Sam Korn and User:Hersfold. Please, no comments about how this was over a month ago. Please just try and sort out what happened and what could have been done better. Carcharoth (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is what you should really look at, my early article contributions: [8]

This is the ridiculous nature of Wikipedia: you don't know how to be an encyclopedia while being a community, because the community you built excludes the outsiders you need to create the encyclopedia that is your stated goal.

I already notified Sam Korn and Hersfold, even though the last time I was discussed on AN/I no one bothered to courtesy notify me. --Blechnic (talk) 08:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be patient. It takes a while to dig out diffs from a month ago. I can confirm that Ryulong did edit war on your talk page to re-instate what he (and an IP) had written there. See here, here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then I didn't edit the page again at all after that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Hersfold's user page says he is on vacation until August. This is unfortunate because his block extension of User:Blechnic seems to stem from this: "And with that email you just sent me, you've earned yourself an extended block and an email restriction. If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked." Unfortunately, there seems to be no way to confirm what was said in the e-mail and no way to tell if the block extension was justified. What can be done? Carcharoth (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'll be glad to forward you or anybody the e-mail, along with my follow up e-mail. --Blechnic (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And thank you for ignoring that all this stemmed from MBisanz blocking me for edit warring after I stopped edit warring. --Blechnic (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't ignored it! :-) I'll get to that in a minute. As I said, please be patient. You could help out by providing details, as I think people had thought previously that it was Ryulong or MBisanz who had threatened you with an indefinite block, when in fact it was Hersfold. I don't know Hersfold at all, and I'm not at all sure how to handle things when he is not here to respond. Please do send me the e-mails if you want someone else to review them. Please understand, though, that a full resolution will have to wait until Hersfold gets back to give his side of the story. Carcharoth (talk) 09:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it will be resolved, but the initial issue is easy: should I have been blocked after a single warning for edit warring after I had quit "edit warring?" Is this Wikipedia policy? Oh, wait, I don't have to have this one resolved, because, unlike MBisanz I read the policies and guidelines on these blocks, and, MBisanz didn't even bother to read the edits I made that he blocked me for. I'm not holding my breath. As far as I can tell it now amounts to I'll be banned if I stop edit warring. --Blechnic (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the text of the e-mail that you believe caused you to be blocked available? SQL^{Query me!} 09:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

(ECx3)While I didn't say so in my comment, I'd intended to ask you too, Carcharoth, have you seen the e-mail in question that caused the week-long block? Additionally. please do not modify my signed comments. SQL^{Query me!} 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about tweaking the indentation of your comment, SQL. I haven't seen the e-mail yet, though I will check my e-mail and see. Blechnic, please use Special:EmailUser/Carcharoth if you want to send me an e-mail. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I am also keeping an eye on the article in question. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

In what way? Please don't aggravate the situation there. An opinion on the blocks or the talk page discussions might be more helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page discussions and see what the main issues are. I also began to flesh the article of dead links and introduced some new sources. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said, send me an e-mail, and I will reply with the e-mail that got me blocked for week AND the real prize, the follow up e-mail I sent after getting blocked for a week. --Blechnic (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS That not only got me blocked for a week, but earned me a threat of being permanently banned from Wikipedia by user Hersford. Though, I'm sure Ryulong, MBisanz, and everyone will be duking it out for the honors. --Blechnic (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I can see, you are conflating Hersfold's comments with those made by others. Please don't treat those three editors as if they all agree on this issue. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

You do realize I was just yelling at Ryulong earlier today for overreacting to User:Kelly's tagging? MBisanz ^talk 09:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz just told me that they all do agree with each other. Who am I to argue with an administrator? Especially since I'll be permanently banned if I tag another article or if I ever stop edit warring again. --Blechnic (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I see a lot of arguing and a few very upset people. I can sympathize with the anger, really, some of it looks justified, but there's one thing I think is missing from this conversation: direction. What are the specific goals of users in this thread? What, being as specific as possible, can be done to move this situation forward? – Luna Santin (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know why I was blocked for edit warring, after I had stopped, after only one warning, and this warning by MBisanz for tagging an article. At this point, MBisanz's best excuse seems to be that he was multi-tasking human beings and a bot, and couldn't have been bothered to get correct my 48 hour first block after a single warning when I had stopped the behavior warned for. I'd like to know why administrators and others came to my talk page to attack and harass me because I had the nerve to disagree with content with established editors--and, established editors is a big thing and very important to this crew, because this is how and why Kelly got blocked, again, for editing against established editor Ryulong. Gwen Gale, who was involved in this Shrew's fiddle mess, was also involved in the Kelly mess, right now, asserting the privilege of established editors. I would like to know why "anybodies" aren't forewarned that as long as they are not established editors no courtesies will be applied to them? I would like to know why 1 warning is sufficient for a nobody and too much for an established editor. I would like MBisanz to read exactly the time-line, acknowledge what he did wrong, and annotate my block log to that effect. I would like Ryulong to stop trying to flame me. I would like everyone to stop telling me to calm down when in no way was I treated according to Wikipedia policy or guidelines.

I would really like to know why bots are more important than human editors on Wikipedia, because, the first incident I had on Wikipedia was being threatened with a block for reverting a bot, after getting warned by the bot's owner,[9] then getting a level two warning[10] for asking the bot's owner what the heck he was doing? To have MBisanz tell me he blocked me because he was busy with a bot is the ultimate insult and ending to this whole nasty after, especiall after my first hostile encounter on Wikipedia being with a bot owner, who reverts people simply because they are new editors (to hell with "anybody can edit"), who doesn't give a shit what he does to humans editing Wikipedia. The first time I got "warned" on Wikipedia was when I started copy and context editing a poorly written article to make it a good little start of an article, all because somebody programmed a bot to attack new accounts, and now, it seems, that MBisanz is in the same school: bots deserve attention, human editors can be victimized by careless actions, though. '

I'd like to know what the policy is: are editors commonly blocked for 48 hours for doing something they've stopped after one warning? I'd like MBisanz to know the policy, too. I'd like Ryulong to not use his administrative powers to stop someone from doing something he did to another person.

I'd like an honest, straightforward answer to all of these issues. I got told I'd be foolish to edit Wikipedia's plant pathogen articles because I would get hounded by the established editors because I'd show too much expertise and Wikipedia didn't want experts but community members. I'd like to show people who told me this that they were wrong, there is a place for expertise on Wikipedia to counter the really shitty articles about plant pathogens you have. That's what I'd really like. But I don't see this happening as long as I'm going to be blocked for tagging bad articles, tagging bad sources (and, no Gwen Gale's "if it says it in a couple of so-so places, it must be okay" referencing isn't going to cut it), and for discussing articles on their talk pages, and as long as administrators like Ryolong are allowed to, and supported in, harassing editors simply because they're not established editors--and as long as he disagrees with them, a gang bang on the non-established editor will occur.

I'd like official notification on my block log that I will be allowed to edit without being punitively blocked for having a content dispute with an established editor. Because your established plant pathogen editors don't write well and don't know their stuff: your articles are only suitable for red-inked laugh lines on bulletin boards.

Ultimately I'd like to edit the articles without having to protect myself from this hit squad--you should afford the same courtesy to others who come to edit subject, and who try to work within Wikipedia's policies (stopping the edit war when told to, and it wasn't really an edit war, just a couple of reverts, and discussing the article on the talk page). Because what now stands is: get warned, stop doing something, and get blocked for it, then get harassed by the editor whose content you disputed since he's an administrator and is allowed to harass other editors, but will be protected when others do the same to him.--Blechnic (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I've attepted to apologize to you. But each time you take offense to what I say. You can go about and edit articles as you have been for the past month. No one is going to ban you. I'm never going to even see you again, unless someone else mentions me and you come to make some sort of statement that lead to this extended thread, again. MBisanz may never contact you again. Hersfold may never contact you again. I would have thought that the month without incident would have shown that. I'm fine if you just go and write something about a mosaic virus attacking raflesia, or whatever it is you usually write about (I have no botanical teaching, so I don't know anything about what you really study). There is no hit squad after you. The blocks on you and Bidgee were both questionable. My protection of my talk page was wrong, and that is why I let Kylu remove it. Again, your block came about because of disruptive (although good faith) activities at an article that hadn't been edited since your block because the issues with it had been resolved. There are currently four new references, including those that support other references' statements.

For the tl;dr version; you're not going to be banned, no one is immune to rules, established editors don't get preferential treatment, administrators don't get preferential treatment, policies are not perfect, sourcing is not perfect. Is there something I did not cover?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No, that just about covers it on your part. I suggest Gwen Gale ought to be told the last part so she stops telling editors not to template the regulars, and the essay on not templating the regulars ought to be AfDed, and I don't buy it for one minute. However, I accept your apology. --Blechnic (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars says "When dealing with established users, it is generally more effective to write them a short personal message than to apply a standardized template." That doesn't mean "Don't give them any message that would have required a template."—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars Which is an essay and not a policy nor a guildline. Bidgee (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

PS And, please do look at what I came here to do.[11] It's hard to believe that my edit history said to MBisanz: block this bitch and block her hard and fast to get back to those very important bots. I'm betting if I read the administrator guidelines for blocks nothing justifying MBisanz's blocking me after I'd stop and blocking me for 48 hours would be found. --Blechnic (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Final note: and then, I'd like to just edit plant pathogen articles without hearing from or about any of you ever again. But, as long as I have the nasty assortment of blocks attached to my account that's not going to happen, so ultimately I won't be satisfied, because my interest is tropical agricultural pests, not being gang banged. So, just an explanation of what the policies are that should have been followed and an annotation on the first block. Then leave me alone. --Blechnic (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Then do it. A block log is not a scarlet letter. Only one person is preventing you from writing about tropical plant pathogens and that is yourself (currently). I'm sure Wikipedia's coverage of such a topic would benefit from your research and studies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you ever quit while you're ahead? Let's pretend you didn't post this. I still have a threat of being permenently banned for tagging articles hanging over me. --Blechnic (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You do not have any threat of being banned for any reason whatsoever.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I do have a threat of being permanently banned from Wikipedia hanging over me. A final warning to that effect:[12] "And with that email you just sent me, you've earned yourself an extended block and an email restriction. If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked. This is your final warning. Are you saying this is officially retracted? It's a lie? It's invalid? It's not policy? It was merely a threat? What? --Blechnic (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That refers to this whole section. The assumptions of bad faith, accusations of harassment where others do not see it, and the continued requests for others to look into them. If that behavior continues, then maybe you would be blocked. However, that statement does not concern placing {{fact}} or {{disputed}} or other content templates that would improve articles, unless the behavior is seen as disrupting the project. I cannot speak for Hersfold, but I believe that is what was meant. That is also what Abd refers to in his message.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it refers to the whole section of me trying to get you to stop harassing me? So, in other words, if someone harasses you, you can use your administrative tools to stop it, but if you harass me, and I ask you to stop, or take any other action, I will get banned from Wikipedia for doing so, because when I asked you to stop what got you mad at Kelly, I was assuming bad faith, but when Kelly did it to you, she was committing an actionable offense? In other words, I could be banned because I failed to bow down under your harassment? --Blechnic (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And the only reason I had ANY interaction with Hersford to begin with is for tagging a badly written article. --Blechnic (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

No. You would be blocked due to the language you used, as explained below by Carcharoth. As Abd says, it is the tone you use and assumptions you make of others' statements that led to all of the blocks you have in your block log. Yes, my protection of my talk page was wrong (I stated that, and it is covered in the subpage). Being vitriolic and acerbic does not help anyone, and that would be the only source of a block based on editing outside of the article space. You are not going to be banned for tagging articles. You are not going to be blocked for tagging articles. All that's gonna happen is that someone will see the tags and fix the article. That is what has happened with shrew's fiddle, after everyhing.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you're not the one threatening the ban, so you can't say. --Blechnic (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Hersfold isn't here to clarify, so I'm just trying to determine what he meant. And, as Hoary says, blocked ≠ banned and indefinitely ≠ permanently.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic seems multiply confused. "Indefinitely" isn't the same as "permanently", "blocked" isn't the same as "banned", and neither Ryulong nor anybody else (other than Hersfold) need take responsibility for what Hersfold wrote. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no confusion whatsoever about who is responsible for Hersfold's threat to block me infefinitely, and, no, I only speak English, and I'm not familiar enough with policies to be able to hit anyone over the head with them, so I have to go with what was said to me, and what that means in English. So, this means, what, "indefinitely" means? Are you going to block me for this now? For getting something wrong? It also appears I stopped the behavior Hersfold threatened me with indefinite blocking for, so, right up MBisanz's policy guidelines, I should be "indefinitely blocked." Don't worry, I'll go look them up so I better understand what I was hit over the head with. I'm betting single-admin "indefinite blocking" is just a way to get around the need for community input in a ban, though. --Blechnic (talk) 00:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Indefinite" means "no defined length." "Permanent" is a defined length. However, it can't be coded to "permanently" block someone.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Going by the e-mails you (Blechnic) forwarded to me, I suspect Hersfold was talking about what you said in the e-mail. ie. If you carried on with that, he would indefinitely block you. In fact, he didn't block you indefinitely when you sent him the second e-mail, where you are, shall we say, a lot angrier. But regardless of that, I think it is safe to say that Hersfold too would not block you (indefinitely or otherwise) for tagging articles or disputing their accuracy. It is more the language and personal attacks. Tone the language down and drop the personal attacks (even if you think others are a hundred times worse), and you will be fine. Carcharoth (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

So, this was, what, a lie? Administrators lie and threaten users? That's the policy? Tone what down? My response to being punitively blocked for a content dispute? My response to being blocked after I stopped edit warring as I was warned to? Tone what down, continuing to respond to the escalating attacks against me by Ryulong, MBisanz, and Hersfold ater I got blocked after I stopped edit warring? Maybe if I had continued edit warring, yes, maybe that was the correct action.

So, what, this was an empty threat? And that's standard for administrators on Wikipedia, empty threats to upset users who are being harassed after being wrongly blocked?

If you keep this up, you will be indefinitely blocked. This is your final warning.

Exactly how can a user get blocked for following a warning, then get told that another warning is just a lie? --Blechnic (talk) 00:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And, please, stop forgetting that I got blocked after I stopped edit warring, so exactly how am I supposed to take this? Now, I'm actually supposed to obey the warning? But when I obeyed the warning the first time, it got me blocked~ 0000:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"If you keep this up..." This being the tone in the e-mail and in your messages to me saying that I was harassing you, as well as the constant assumptions of bad faith, "...you will be indefinitely blocked." Indefinite blocks are not bans and both can be overturned. "This is your final warning." in regards to your tone and your assumptions of bad faith. This as well as your comments on the talk page likely resulted in your first block. Hersfold's block resulted from your comments on your talk page during the block (in which you accused me of harassing you) and in your e-mail to Hersfold. I haven't seen the e-mail. All I know is that your tone in every situation I've seen is that your tone really turns me away. They come off as being (as I've stated before) unnecessarily vitriolic and acerbic, and that you take many things way too personally. If this is fixed, then I don't see you being blocked, banned, driven away with your tail between your legs, etc. any time soon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, MBisanz says he was too concerned with dealing with bots to really be clear why he blocked me, but if that's what you think got me blocked, putting a credibility tag on a blog, when Wikipedia guidelines for sources says blogs generally shouldn't be used, it seems I was improperly blocked for a content dispute. --Blechnic (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been one month. He can't remember the exact details and he's only going off of his contributions at the time. And "generally shouldn't be used" means that people look it over and determine whether or not it should be used. That occurred, as Gwen Gale, Bidgee, and myself saw the "blog" posting as a useful reference in regards to the subject matter. Sure, more people looking at it would be good. There has to be a noticeboard to cover that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Relevant policy: "Anyone can create a website or ... then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. .... Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

He was a computer scientist writing about his trip with his wife and kids to a museum of torture--it's not his field (there's a Microsoft joke in here somewhere). I was blocked and threatened with a block for following Wikipedia guidelines on verifiable sources--Blechnic (talk) 00:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

And I quoted this in the content dispute: "Here's more, just in case you want to debate the site because he is a professor:"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." from the policy. --Blechnic (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, would it really be worth it to lie about what one saw in a museum?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not why you don't use just any source, you don't use the source because the blog is not a place where you've researched and verified, or even where you attempt accurate scholarship. There are so many reasons for using verifiable, and reliable resources that Wikipedia has policies and guidelines about this. The place to argue against those in not an aside to another discussion, but on those policy pages. You, Gwen Gale, and Bidgee didn't opt for this. What you opted for was getting me blocked so that I couldn't quote policy or argue against non-reliable sources, especially Gwen Gale and her creationists-delight: 1 plus 3 sorta sources = 1 reliable source. I suggest you promote the idea that it would not be valuable to lie in a blog about what one saw in a museum as a reason for including blogs, even blogs by professors on edu sites, as verifiable sources and just see how far it gets you. --Blechnic (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking (particularly with respect to blocks for protection) but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking." So, according to Wikipedia:Blocking policy, MBisanz was not supposed to block me one I had adjuted my behaviour. This is policy, and Hoary wants me to know policy, so I'll be looking at it. And, I'm guessing that what policy is, is that MBisanz's behavior was way out of line. --Blechnic (talk) 00:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

"An indefinite block is a block that does not have a fixed duration. Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy. In such cases an open-ended block may be appropriate to prevent further problems until the matter can be resolved by discussion.

If not one administrator will lift the block, the blocked user is effectively considered to have been banned by the community. In less extreme cases, however, the more usual desired outcome is a commitment to observe"

So,Hoary, here it is, if no one will lift the block, it's effectively a ban. Exactly what Hersfold was gearing for. And, since my unblock request was 100% ignored, I know damn well what was going down. --Blechnic (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okey, so I get to do a timeline for the second time in a day.

• 6:43 UTC Blechnic tags Shrews as a Copyvio [13]
• 7:15 UTC He tags parts as unreliable [14]
• 7:32 UTC Blechnic tags Shrews for speedy deletion [15]
• 7:32 UTC Ryulong reverts speedy tag [16]
• 7:32 UTC Blechnic reverts Ryulong's removal [17]
• 7:33 UTC Ryulong removes tag [18] citing "I am an administrator. I do not think that this qualifies for the speedy deletion criteria, particularly because you think it is spam just because the references have stores."
• 7:37 UTC I warn [19] Blechnic that if he inserts unwarranted tags into the Shrews article, he will be blocked.
• 8:11 UTC Blechnic inserts another {{fact}} tag in the article [20]
• 8:12 UTC He inserts more fact tags [21]
• 8:34 UTC He inserts another fact tag [22]
• 8:35 UTC Bidgee reverts the insertion of the fact tag with the summary "Stop ^{[citation needed]}'ing" [23]
• 8:37 UTC Blechnic inserts a verifiability tag [24]
• 8:39 UTC Blechnic inserts a credibility tag [25]
• 8:45 UTC Bidgee reverts the credibility tag [26] with the summary "I see nothing wrong with the source"
• 8:47 UTC Blechnic reverts Bidgee's removal [27] with the comment "Please don't revert without discussion on the talk page."
• 8:50 UTC Bidgee reverts Blechnic saying [28] "Sto edit warrning. You have been already warned for the 3RR"
• 9:11 UTC I block Blechnic [29]
• 9:33 UTC Realizing they were both edit warring, I block Bidgee [30]
• 9:48 UTC Sam Korn declines Blechnic's unblock request [31] with the reason "You were warned very explicitly that a continuation of your behaviour would result in a block. You continued your behaviour. The block was warranted and reasonable."

Now considering that there clearly was edit warring going on, and that I had warned him nearly an hour early to stop edit warring, I'm really not seeing the issue with a block on both Bidgee and Blechnic's sides for edit warring. MBisanz ^talk 09:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I love how I've not been notified about this since my user name has been said here! and you blocked me for a stupid amount of time as what you did to Blechnic. I was reverting since it was already discussed on the article's talk page by myself and other editors at the time. I feel that you over stepped the mark with the 48 hour blocks to both of us. Bidgee (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz claims I broke the 3RR. I've counted 3 reverts and how I understand it is if you go over 3 revert which I didn't, Quote from the 3RR template, (Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period.)! MBisanz owes me an apology over the handling of this. Revert #1, Revert #2 and Revert #3 and the reason for the revert was talked about on Talk:Shrew's fiddle and also another talk page (could have been AN/I but unsure) which I would have to search for but what did Gwen Gale do? the very thing I removed with the revert. Bidgee (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement. The spirit is to stop edit warring. Administrators can still block for edit warring, though in practice this is probably applied to people trying to game the system by doing three reverts over the course of many dyas or doing the fourth revert minutes after 24 hours after the first one). hbdragon88 (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not an entitlement (and I never said it was), just stating I followed the guidelines. All this happened in one day and I didn't revert 4 times only 3. Bidgee (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, ain't that pretty. You ignored the fact that the last edit I made before you blocked me was me discussing the article on the talk page. That IS what you blocked me for. Really nice sumnation with omission. Is this how it is, first you bash the editors with policy, then you bash them with misrepresentation? --Blechnic (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened in those 21 minutes, by the way, between Bidgee telling me to stop edit warring and your blocking me? Nothing on my part? Then I had stopped for 21 minutes by your time line, so you blocked me for nothing. Or are you omitting something? --Blechnic (talk) 09:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you are talking about this lovely "discussion" Talk:Shrew's_fiddle#Professor.27s_personal_blog of you accusing others of personal attacks and lack of respect. And it was a month ago, but if I have to dig down deep in that old memory of mine, I was probably double checking that you had actually done stuff after my warning that warranted a block. Also, at 7:43 [32] I contributed to a discussion on a bot issue, so I probably spent a good portion of time after that reviewing the bot's edits, policy, etc, then at 8:50 I tagged a page for deletion [33] , spent some time fixing that tag [34] and then got around to checking back in on what had happened at the Shrew's article since my last warning. MBisanz ^talk 09:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So, your excuse is you were too busy to do the block properly, so heads rolled and it didn't really matter what you did? I love that, you block me for edit warring after I stop edit warring simply because you were multi-tasking poorly? You didn't give a shit, in other words? --Blechnic (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

PS that is sure what it sounds like you are saying. --Blechnic (talk) 10:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I see a way to resolve the MBisanz-Blechnic part of this. I think MBisanz's warning was unnecessarily broad: "The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template, you will be blocked from editing." I realise that MBisanz probably meant this only to apply to the Shrew's fiddler article (it was, after all, in a section about edit warring on that article). A more precise warning would have been: "The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template to the Shrew's fiddle article, you will be blocked from editing.". More pedantically, the "attempt" bit of the warning is meaningless, unless MBisanz is psychic and can block at the moment of attempting to save an edit... :-) More relevantly, Blechnic is right that "unwarrented content template" is a subjective judgment and should be disucssed on the talk page. I think a better warning would have been to tell Blechnic to stop tagging the article and discuss on the talk page instead. Might I suggest that MBisanz make crystal clear to Blechnic that the warnings only applied to the Shrew's fiddle article, and that Blechnic is free to raise objections on other articles . A large part of the problem here is that Blechnic feels unable to tag other articles, and that is bad. MBisanz, please tell Blechnic that you were warning for the behaviour, not the content, and only on this article, not on other articles, or some equivalent of that. That is more important than justifying your block. Also, please remember that Blechnic sees all three bits (Ryulong, you and Hersfold) as part of the same incident. In that sense, your timeline, which only looks at your part in this, doesn't tell the whole story. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okey, since I wasn't clear enough at the subpage earlier today, my warning was for the behavior of edit warring over templates at the Shrew's article. Blechnic is free to tag any articles or edit any page in any manner he sees fit. Although I do find this clarity a bit repetitious after my comment earlier today; "This block was a month ago, Blechnic was edit warring, I blocked for a period of time, end of story. I can't find myself threatening a ban, and certainly there is no topic ban in place from my POV."[35]. Of course, as always, User:MBisanz/Recall is available if this is not enough. MBisanz ^talk 10:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Except for the problem, "I think a better warning would have been to tell Blechnic to stop tagging the article and discuss on the talk page instead," is exactly what I did: I stopped tagging the article and was discussing the issue on the talk page. It seemed, at the time, like the right thing to do. But, apparently it was the wrong thing to do. -Blechnic (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Can people please stop advising that this wouldn't have happened if I hadn't been a complete idiot and instead did what I did? IS there some communication problem here that the evidence shows I was discussing the issue on the talk page, and I have to be told as if I'm an idiot, which is what it's beginning to feel like, that I should have been discussing the issue on the talk page? --Blechnic (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

There was no need to post that nasty comment about recall to remind me that I am not, according to MBisanz, a worthy editor: "Editor in good standing = 1,500+ edits, 6+ months experience, no blocks in last 6 months." --Blechnic (talk) 10:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that MBisanz has no intention of doing anything but firmly establishing that he is an established editor and I'm not. There's no point in discussing this issue with MBisanz any longer. --Blechnic (talk) 10:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The proper method of resolving this is moving on, as what's done is done and cannot be undone. Your block cannot be changed.

It has been stated multiple times on this page that MBisanz's statement solely referred to actions performed at Shrew's fiddle, for which you were blocked temporarily. Events after this block lead to subsequent reblocks and extensions of the block.

No one is saying anyone is established, not established, good editor, bad editor, etc.

Any actions performed by Hersfold cannot be discussed as Hersfold is not currently active daily.

Any actions I have performed I have attempted to apologize for, but if it's not clear enough, I'm sorry for exacerbating any problems that have been construed as harassment, provocation, and haranguing.

Instead of wasting more time and energy on what will likely turn into another subpage, can this be resolved or are we out for blood now?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice accusation, if I don't accept what was done to me, I'm out for blood? Can you apologize without a personal attack? If not, don't bother.

And, actually, the issue of established editor keeps arising. That's why Gwen Gale thought that Kelly shouldn't be tagging you, and she posted that here and elsewhere: you're an established editor. You threw that in my face also, during the content dispute: you're an administrator, so you know more. As long as people keep acting in such a tacky and useless manner towards me, I'm not satisfied. I was blocked for a content dispute after a single warning, blocked for edit warring after I had stopped edit warring. Now MBisanz's friends are on his talk page threatening me.

How much longer do you intent to antagonize me? --21:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Since it appears your didn't read that far down on my user page, the only criteria for being a filer of a recall request is "Auto-confirmed user not under editing restrictions." the other points of edits and blocks apply to people who agree with the filer. And before we go calling User:Abd a friend of mine, about 4 months ago I supported a ban on a friend of his and just last week turned down a request of his via email, so I doubt he counts me a friend (although I have no hard feelings towards him). MBisanz ^talk 21:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So your enemies are threatening me on your talk page? Thanks for leaving the threat up to make sure I got it. --Blechnic (talk) 21:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

":The next time you attempt to introduce an unwarrented content template such as a CSD or fact template, you will be blocked from editing. MBisanz ^talk 07:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)"

Especially since all of the sources I questioned were updated, except for where another administrator decided that if it says it on a couple of so-so source that equals one good source? Please, someone tell me, why I should have been blocked when I was genuinely concerned about technical issues with this article? Why I should have been blocked with one warning. Why I should have been blocked AFTER I stopped edit warring? Please, do go ahead and look at my time-line, too, that includes information that MBisanz omitted conveniently. --Blechnic (talk) 09:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, instead of threatening editors with blocks for content disputes, when the editor is concerned about the quality of the article, why not let them discuss the issue? Why, exactly, did I have to be blocked because of my concern for this plagiarized, poorly sourced article? What was so precious about its content that it required my being warned only once, then blocked after I stopped edit warring? Edit warring, by the way, that only earned me one warning. --Blechnic (talk) 09:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

And I take it this means that no one knows what was unwarranted by my templates, so unwarranted that it obviously deserved a single warning then my being blocked? Note also MBisanz keeps getting it confused: I was warned for tags, but blocked for edit warring? Which is it? --Blechnic (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a tip - you're kind of making yourself look bad / unreasonable here by railing incessantly against your treatment over a month ago. I agree with you that this was handled badly, but I think all involved have gone much further than we normally see here in trying to reach a resolution on it (denials and false accusations, sadly, are usually more the norm here - I'm surprised at the good faith I've seen in this thread). It's been admitted by the people involved that various people involved did not act ideally. It's been stated multiple times that there will be no follow-on from this, that you are not topic banned or likely to be banned or anything else. I suggest dropping it at this point, moving on with just editing and improving the encyclopaedia, and if something else happens then we can deal with it here. At this point I'm not seeing anything more that can be done. Orderinchaos 09:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

But Ryulong doesn't look bad now that he's decided to taunt me and harangue me after I accepted his apology (my bad, seems I should have seen that one coming, but I didn't), and stalk me.[36]

--Blechnic (talk) 12:54, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't mean that his stalking you. He could have came across the image in the Featured picture delist nominations category. You may wish to see WP:Wikistalking. Bidgee (talk) 13:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, of course not, just like he wasn't harassing me when I was blocked. His interests do run to Golgi bodies and biology, though, as I can see from his contributions list, and he often edits in FP delisted--oh, my bad, not to both. But thanks for stepping in and bludgeoning me over the head with policy that I'm supposed to read and know, but Ryulong can ignore. Guaranteed, no one will be asking him to back off. --Blechnic (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Just posted it incase you didn't know about the policy. Bidgee (talk) 13:22, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, I believe that. I'll ignore your first comment. --Blechnic (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Everyone looks bad (and like I said, I agree that this was handled badly). By continuing this fight for justice, however, you really can't achieve anything further and risk only making yourself look bad by beating a dead horse. Orderinchaos 02:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, wonderful to know I am missed while on vacation. The block was extended in relation to the email I have included below. As Blechnic has stated he will freely forward it to anyone who asks, I see no problem in posting it; however anyone who feels otherwise is free to remove it.

Attacking other editors (namely Ryulong and the other involved administrators) through email is unacceptable behavior, as I'm sure everyone will agree, so therefore I extended the block and cut off his access to email for the duration. A quick review will show that I was attempting to assume good faith as much as possible (see my comment here). That received the following unhelpful and continually rude replies [37] [38], upon which I protected his talk page for the duration of his present block. I warned Blechnic to stop assuming bad faith in the protection notice [39]. Shortly thereafter, he sent the above email.

Blechnic, I would again offer the advice that you try to calm down and work past this. I've had issues with editors in the past as well, and sometimes the best remedy is to simply agree to disagree and avoid each other as much as possible. You will not be blocked or banned provided you continue to abide by policy; my warning which you have repeatedly copied above referred to your continual assumptions of bad faith and attacks. It's difficult to run a collaborative project when people scream at each other, I'm sure you can understand, and so such behavior is considered disruptive. Nobody is out to get you, and I assure you we admins have much better things to do than stalk people (especially considering we have very little time to devote to stalking in the first place). Taking a look at your talk page now, it looks as though you are more than capable of being a valuable contributor - keep that up, and there won't be any reason to worry about being blocked or banned or whatever.

I do apologize to all for not being very available at present - I am currently on vacation in Nova Scotia and will travel around to Utah by the start of August. During this time I will only be able to connect on occasion, and usually not for an extended period. People wishing to contact me may drop me a line on my talk page, as was done in this case, or send me an email if a matter is particularly urgent. I check emails before coming to my talk page. Of course, because of this, I may not be able to adequately respond to any one with questions about my above statement, so I hope I've explained everything fairly well. Sorry for the delay once more. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 21:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather condescending response:"calm down and work past this." I was in a content dispute with Ryulong when I got blocked by MBisanz. Ryolong posted 6 or 7 times on my talk page after I was blocked. I asked him to stop. I felt harassed by him and made it clear that I felt harassec by him. You stepped in and continued posting on his behalf after he stopped. Then you blocked me for being harassed by you and Ryulong. Not even Ryulong seems willing to continue defending his repeated posting on my talk page, while I was blocked for a content dipsute I was in with him. You're coming by to join the fray was guaranteed to have only one reponse: further inflammation of an already irritated user. And to have the nerve to demand that I stop accusing people of harassing me is really too much. I'm suprised how little Wikipedia administrators seem too know about simple techniques not to inflame situations on the web. Just keep telling people to "calm down," assuming they're hysterical, and you're calm.

So, please, don't condescend to tell me to "get over it," because I'm not over being blocked after I stopped edit warring, or for tagging an article that had improper content, and I'm not over being blocked by you for accusing Ryulong, rightly, of harassing and provoking me, which you continued to do on his behalf. That's exactly what he was doing. He even continued it here after I accepted his apology. And that's exactly why you came to my talk page in the first place: to defend Ryulong and continue his behavior.

Maybe administrators ought to get over provoking editors they're settling content disputes with by bullying and blocking.

I was editing just fine before I had the nerve to question a blatant copyright infringement on the main page. Oh, well, and before I pissed off a bot designed to attack irregulars. --Blechnic (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

PS I stand by what I said in the e-mail 100%, Ryulong coming by to follow me to WP:FPD today, and egging me on after I'd accepted his apology, just goes to show the extent of it. --Blechnic (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

With a few important details, thanks to all who urged me to calm down: Hersfold, who finally blocked me for a week, came to my talk page to continue Ryulong's harassment, and blocked me for calling Ryulong's harassment, exactly what it was, harassment and provocation. In other words, I got pissed while being provoked while I was blocked punitively and incorrectly by MBisanz, then I got blocked for getting provoked. Nice play, MBisanz, Ryulong, and Hersfold.

Here's a link to my outline.[40]

--Blechnic (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm really confused about what is going on here. Please just answer this one question, as succinctly as possible: What can the community do for you? We seem to be going in circles here, with no end in sight. —Kurykh 21:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no one's going to apologize, but with it up here it's a nice chance for people not involved to get in a good kick while I'm down. --Blechnic (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, well, Blechnic ... since approximately 16 of the past 24 replies to this thread are from you, I am not sure very many other people are still listening. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

You are, it seems. But, I respect your right to speak for others. What a surprise though, the pissed off person is the most vocal. It kinda happens like that. Maybe if I'd been treated like a human being from square one I wouldn't be pissed off. --Blechnic (talk) 21:32, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this was handled badly, with a big dose of newbie-biting and a non-apology apology. People, did you click on Ryulong's posts to "get Blechnic's attention", that he has posted several times in this thread? I thought them quite hair-raising: "Perhaps it is best that you are not returning to Wikipedia, as your mindset would hinder the project"..."maybe you are not cut out for Wikipedia." Now, at this point, Blechnic does go on and on, making herself look bad (at least, bad in the context of the Wikipedia culture which she's obviously not aware of, and which says May was a century ago and she may under no circumstances refer to something that ancient or be still upset about it). Please remember, everybody, that newbies are touchy and experts are valuable.
If nobody objects, I'm going to post a one-second block to Blechnic's block log (errr...I mean, admin Bishzilla is going to), where I state that the blocks of May 4 were unjust and in violation of WP:BITE. And then, hopefully, we can close this thread, and I hope Blechnic will feel that the purity of her log has been restored, and feel better about the unfortunate episode altogether, and accept that admins are just human, and try their best. Is that all right? Ryulong? MBisanz? Blechnic? I don't want to start an edit war on Blechnic's log, so I'm going to leave this proposal up for 24 hours before I implement it. Please note below if you object. Bishonen | talk 22:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC).

No objection from me, as always my actions are open for review and modification. MBisanz ^talk 22:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll still feel my block log is a stinking piece of ..... But you know what, I'm betting newbies act on wikipedia just like they're treated.

Anyway, I do accept this as a solution which will leave me feeling the issue is 100% resolved, as long as Ryulong also keeps his word to stay away. --Blechnic (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a fair resolution. We can't set things back to the way we were, as the software won't let us, but I think this is a reasonable alternative. Orderinchaos 02:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and I'd like to thank Bishonen for proposing this. Carcharoth (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever ends this is awesome.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you all. I'm going to annotate the block log now. Bishonen | talk 22:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC).

Seems that my comment have been ignored, I posted this in the Timeline section. This is what I said and the only reply I got.

I love how I've not been notified about this since my user name has been said here! and you blocked me for a stupid amount of time as what you did to Blechnic. I was reverting since it was already discussed on the article's talk page by myself and other editors at the time. I feel that you over stepped the mark with the 48 hour blocks to both of us. Bidgee (talk) 10:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz claims I broke the 3RR. I've counted 3 reverts and how I understand it is if you go over 3 revert which I didn't, Quote from the 3RR template, (Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period.)! MBisanz owes me an apology over the handling of this. Revert #1, Revert #2 and Revert #3 and the reason for the revert was talked about on Talk:Shrew's fiddle and also another talk page (could have been AN/I but unsure) which I would have to search for but what did Gwen Gale do? the very thing I removed with the revert. Bidgee (talk) 16:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

3RR is not an entitlement. The spirit is to stop edit warring. Administrators can still block for edit warring, though in practice this is probably applied to people trying to game the system by doing three reverts over the course of many dyas or doing the fourth revert minutes after 24 hours after the first one). hbdragon88 (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I know it's not an entitlement (and I never said it was), just stating I followed the guidelines. All this happened in one day and I didn't revert 4 times only 3. Bidgee (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz blocked me for 48 hours (with no warning), I then asked for it (the block) to be removed, Sam Korn then reduces it to 24 hours however I've seen other users have there first time blocks removed. I think it's totally unfair to have different rules for one [user. No doubt this will be ignored (just like the reply I left on MBisanz's talk page). Bidgee (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Typical, like most posts I make here get ignored! Why should Blechnic have there ban log reversed and I don't for the same thing?. As Of now I'm no longer an editor of Wiki. Bidgee (talk) 10:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for missing this. I've pointed Bishonen towards this thread. Bidgee, it took a while for the full details to emerge with Blechnic. Please be patient. Carcharoth (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Bidgee, whether you breached 3RR or not depends on whether this edit is a revert or not. It doesn't look like it to me. On the other hand, MBisanz didn't block you for 3RR vio, but for "disruptive editing"[41]—though, a little strangely, MBisanz did put a "you have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule" template on your page. But the distinction hardly matters, since you were edit warring in any case. (Also, studying your talkpage history, I see you did get a 3RR warning, which you quickly removed and have perhaps forgotten by now. It was posted by Blechnic, not MBisanz, but that doesn't make any difference.) Anyway. It seems to me that 48 hours for what you did was a lot—I agree with Sam Korn (see block log) that they were good faith edits, and—checking out your contributions— that you are altogether a good faith, useful, editor. It's a great pity to see editors like you get so angry and upset—more, I suppose, for being ignored, than for the edit warring business. :-( If it had been me trying to keep order at Shrew's fiddle, I might perhaps have full-protected the article for a while (a short while, bearing in mind that it was on DYK), rather than block these people, who are in no sense "problem users", and who would surely have been persuadable. That said, there's certainly a difference between Blechnic and Bidgee: Blechnic is a newbie, Bidgee has been here since October 2005. Newbies get cut more slack. Anyway. I don't think it's for me to annotate Bidgee's block log. MBisanz might care to consider doing so. Bidgee's log was virgin before this business. Blocks hurt. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC).

Everthing about the Shrew's fiddle which I was editing was being talked about in 2 places (I think one place was here in the AN/I) and the other was Shrew's fiddle talk page. I'm not being ignored on AN/I since I now have a block log. I was NOT disruptive editing since this was being discussed with other editors including Blechnic. I've been made out the bad guy here with now a dirty block log. It's total unfair to cut slack for once user and not the other. If you're not going to annotate my log (It's not like I've been blocked in the past) then newbies shouldn't have theres done as well. MBisanz will not consider since I've left him a message on his talk page with no response! Also if you look at the 3RR template put on my talk page by Blechnic was right after I gave them the warning since they were not discussing the issue on the talk page which is why I was making the edits which was I feel supported by the other editors. And as I've said the block should have been removed. BANNING good faith editors is wrong and maybe Admin's should have there tools removed if so. Bidgee (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz blocks me [42] for breaking the three-revert rule but has disruptive editing in the block log (What is it? It can't be both), Sam Korn says both edit-warring and broke the three-revert rule [43] What is it? edit warning or three-revert rule. and then I'm classed as a "new user" [44]. I can't see how this case is any different to Blechnic's case! Also the lack of comments shows that I've been ignored by the Admin's. Bidgee (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Also going by Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Definition of disruptive editing and editors I wasn't disruptive editing which means I have a false and misleading meaning in my block log! No wonder why Wikipedia gets negative media from the media outlets about this sort of thing! Bidgee (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Following a request from MBisanz, I annotated Bidgee's block log. This was to address the perceived injustice of Blechnic and Bidgee being treated differently. I don't want this to set a precedent though. Annotation of block logs should only be done very rarely. These two are done now, so let's all move on. Carcharoth (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)