• Wikipedia:Template_index: Cleanup (#Neutrality_and_factual_accuracy, etc)
• Meta Category:Editor handbook

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 15 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Bosnian genocide denial into Milorad Dodik. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diannaa, I was sort of aware of this but didn't know that it's required to do something in that regard. So, basically, this copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution would suffice and can be used as a template in edit-summary (if copied text is short or not substantial) and in TP (if there is a lot of copied text). I think that in this case - Bosnian genocide denial > Milorad Dodik - I am a sole contributor of copied text, and it is not particularly intricate narrative it's more of a listing, but if I understood correctly, in case of being sole contributor then, maybe, it could be unnecessary. Please, just to be on the safe side, let me know if I understood this correctly? Thanks again, and stay safe.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 15:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Santasa99. The edit summary is mandatory whether you place a template on the talk page or not. The talk page template is optional. You are correct that if you are the sole author, attribution is not required, but it's still helpful for patrolling admins if you do so. — Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course, I know that edit summary is mandatory on its own, that's elemental, and yes, it could be that I have done it before. However I am not sure that I am able to remember where, but if I do I will put this temp to appropriate TP. Also, most likely, when and if i used bits of text from one article for writing in another, then, it was again probably my own. Anyhow, I will be sure to use it every time I am reusing any amount of text from now on. Cheers.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 16:02, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this. If you ever are feeling a bit nervous about bringing a concern to XRV or another noticeboard, ping here or go to the user talk of any admin/other experienced user you are friendly with and ask for a reality check. Most editors experienced at noticeboards will be happy to take a look. Alternatively, ask at WP:Teahouse, it's not just for beginners but also for anyone who is doing something they haven't done before. Best to you, Valereee (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee I don't mind a delay a one bit because these are very useful suggestions, so I really appreciate it. (Yes, it is a matter of anxiety, raising a tension, especially for less noticeboard-experianced editor. I had a situation which I am trying to bury but it surfaces from time to time in my mind since I am quite convinced it was a foul-play.) Anyway, thank you for these suggestions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Santasa99. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Bosnia in the Middle Ages".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz, I really appreciate it (I was unaware that this was a Template, but now I remember... .- ) ౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: .  Aoidh (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The page protection was an attempt to resolve the edit warring in lieu of blocking, since there has been no discussion. Instead of discussion both you (here and here) and the IP (here) have complained about the page protection as being an inadequate way of resolving the dispute and have demonstrated no attempt to discuss the content itself. Because neither of you have made an attempt to discuss the content on the talk page I have blocked you both for edit warring. You have been blocked for one week given your block log and history of edit warring. - Aoidh (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? On what ground have you issue this block, for not being willing to discuss on TP with some other editor, is that your rational? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 06:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because you were engaged in edit warring on both Dračevica (župa) and Ljubuški Fortress. Even if your view that this, for example does not meet WP:DUE, there are few exceptions to what is considered edit warring and reverting because you feel that the elaboration on the individual is WP:UNDUE is not one of those exceptions and is still edit warring. It is correct to say that neither of you violated 3RR on either of those articles, but you very specifically stopped at 3 reverts, just short of 3RR, and the policy on edit warring notes that The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so.WP:3RR further elaborates that Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. This edit warring is only exacerbated by the fact that at no point did you make any attempt to discuss the content on either article talk page or at the IP's talk page. In your ANEW report, ignoring the fact that the IP was neither warned of edit warring beforehand nor apparently notified of the ANEW report, there is a spot in the report where you should provide a Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page which you did not provide because no such attempt was made. When filling out a new ANEW report there is a comment on that same line that says You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too. I have tried to be as detailed as possible in explaining this and I hope that answers your question. - Aoidh (talk) 07:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly arbitrary, and you didn't answer much, you did reiterate many familiar quotes though. From the start you started shifting the burden of this whole problem (discussion or not) and blame at me. I contested IP's edits on both articles as unconstructive (but ultimately nationalistic nonsense) and reverted their contribution on the pretext of several violations, which I mentioned many times in interaction with IP and you (WP:Consensus policy, WP:EGG, UNDUE, content forking) not to mention bold-revert-discuss and the fact that discussion, after being contested and reverted, falls at IP to engage in and explain their stance - I made my stance initially clear at the very beginning in the edit-summaries; I tried to get Semi protection but that was denied; then, I tried to show that IP is edit-warring in prolonged manner - you protected one page with satisfactory Semi, but you left out other page; I asked you to act on the other page and you applied full protection on the pretense that I may disrupt the page, there is no reason to believe that IP would go on and revert themselves, IP already had its way and they had no reason to do anything further; I complained against Full protection knowing that any uninvolved third party would fix the problem just like happened at the first page, and you came with this mindboggling solution to preemptively block me if you are to remove Full protection. Sorry, that doesn't make any sense. Instead of protecting viable contribution to those articles, by senior experienced editor with rather decent history, you started shifting the burden of this whole problem (and blame) at me. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel that it was arbitrary, but I assure you it was not. You were edit warring, and have been blocked for edit warring, since both you and the other party have made quite an extensive list of reasons why protecting the pages was inadequate. Given that page protection was done in lieu of blocking the editors involved in edit warring, I addressed both of your concerns and removed those protections and applied the blocks instead so that other editors may edit the article, which as you mention above was a concern of yours. Being a senior experienced editor does not mean you will not be blocked for edit warring when making the same amount of reverts at the same pace as the IP that you describe as edit warring (I expected sanctions against IP's prolonged edit-warring); if they are edit warring, how are you with the same amount of reverts not? Believing that you are enforcing policy (the MOS is not policy) or that you are the one in the right does not exempt your reverts. As a senior experienced editor in a collaborative editing environment you should explain why you're making the reverts that you are. How is this IP supposed to follow WP:BRD if they don't know about it? I don't see so much as an edit summary that links to that, so why would they reasonably know about it? Likewise you reported them for edit warring without warning them beforehand that they were. I also am not sure what part of Wikipedia:Consensus you believe warrants your comment in your unblock request that I don't need to discuss anything. - Aoidh (talk) 08:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to discuss anything with anyone in context of this Ljubuški Fortress TP thing, I just need to restrain form rv and not engage in inappropriate manner, that's what it meant it, although you know that I will just clear the air, to on the safe side, since that may be needed. I do discuss almost reflexively my every edit even when I deem it not to be potentially controversial - is this now more conspicuous formula. I am not concerned that much with your actions on my report, certainly not after your reversal in decision to protect the pages, I am concerned with these new moves which to me appear to be retaliatory for all the comments and complaining's we both, IP and I, made - although I couldn't care less about interaction that you had with IP - I am concerned that you have suddenly came up with an idea, you chose, to sort of teach me (and IP) a lesson, more me than IP, after all I am senior editor and IP has a few dozen edits in his history (although I suspect block evasion) - we didn't like your first wave of sanctions, ie. page protections, we complained a lot, commented a lot, and now you are going to remove page protection and remove us instead from the project. That's my main concern. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 08:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand your concerns, but as I said the protection was in lieu of blocks, and since both you and the IP have made many points as to why protection is not the correct route (not least of all because both of you felt very strongly that the "wrong versions" were protected) and that protecting the pages prevents others from editing, I addressed those concerns by removing the page protections and then addressed the edit warring by replacing the substitutive method (protection, which neither of you wanted) with the typical method of blocking the editors that were edit warring. It was neither arbitrary nor retaliatory (why would blocking you prevent further comments? This discussion demonstrates that wouldn't prevent such a thing). Page protection was the alternative to blocking so that the content could be discussed, and since neither of you made any indication that you intended to discuss and both raised several points on why protection was not the ideal way to handle it, those concerns were accommodated by removing the protection, but the edit warring still needed to stop, hence the blocks, and as your unblock request below demonstrates you do not give any indication that you intend to stop reverting or to discuss the content. - Aoidh (talk) 09:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not said nor felt "wrong version" is a thing, I said that you should have blocked IP and rollback to a given diff. per Report while the report was still relevant - I am well-aware of the "wrong version" fallacy and I don't use it, but I am aware of its consequences too - this block affect me immeasurably more than it affects IP, not only because of commitment to the project but also because IP does not need to rv following your actions, which has certain repercussions on certain other arguments. How can you change your decision like this without determined guideline-based parameters, it can't be based on "in lieu of blocks" because that happened earlier and behind that rational is the "first" decision to Full protect, I am certain no guideline gives admin a carte blanche to make such an ambiguous undetermined decision so that they can arbitrarily at any given time change its outcome (to block) whenever they want - no way that you could change your mind and block editors without any further wrongdoings on their part, let alone without some extreme new evidence or really obvious new violation or missed one in earlier reading - in which guideline is such a modus operandi grounded. Just because you at first decided to use a page protection as "the alternative to blocking so that the content could be discussed" does not mean you can change it to block at any given time just because "neither of you made any indication that you intended to discuss". We literally did not do anything, except innocuously complained in few additional comments - innocuous complaining is not a reason to block editors, not even if they really went on your nerves and/or pissed you off. How is even possible, on which parameters is based, that you simply decided that Full protection is no longer good "alternative" and now is the moment to change it to block instead. I suggested in my comments that you, ultimately, made a wrong decision to Full protect page and that such a decision will impair third parties in attempt to correct the problem - not for the moment could I imagine and predict that you will use my reasoning to block me instead. Maybe you are unable to admit that maybe you have made a mistake in the first place by Full protecting the page, when Semi protection and a firm warning to editors to restrain from edit-warring would absolutely suffice and would do much better job, even under the assumption that I may behave unethically still, because it would be easy to block whoever chose to turn blind eye on such a warning. All this fuss and time wasting would be avoided. Instead, you think it's much more useful to change your mind about your action, belatedly, without foundation in any guideline, and without any further wrongdoings on editor's part, to antagonise senior editor in decent standing by blocking them, and so on. You really don't see any problem with your actions in the last two days?

I feel compelled to return to your interesting observation: "(I expected sanctions against IP's prolonged edit-warring); if they are edit warring, how are you with the same amount of reverts not? ", either later or in some other appropriate venue. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My explanation above already addresses your comments here but I did want to acknowledge that I have read them but at this point I would only be repeating myself. - Aoidh (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have to thank you for the acknowledgement, but I just don't see where you addressed my main concern about the decision to change things on the fly without the editor(s) giving you any reason for that, other than making innocuous complaints - no one has yet been blocked for making such complaints. I did not want to open any discussion with IP who clearly expressed at your user TP willingness to go against two different editors' reverts all the while disregarding your explanation that they should discussed it first, and what's not. But, when i say that I did not want to engage in discussion with such an editor, that is it, there is no edit-warrior hiding in an ambush, waiting to make a further disruption - you took my remark out of context and drew conclusions based on subjective assumptions. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

change things on the fly without the editor(s) giving you any reason for that is not accurate as explained. - Aoidh (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean? How is not accurately presented? Haven't you decided to Full protect page - I even made edit-request, and we even continued to exchange a few comments. And then, suddenly you decide it is time to put me to my place, sort of speak, and show me what it means to remove Full protection over which I complained in my comment. This happened hours after your initial decision. And what have I done to force you to change your mind in the fly? Well, I complained in my comment - was I annoying that much, or showed how unethical I could be if you let me of the hook, I don't know. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:42, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is one sentence that stands out though: belatedly it was in response to the points raised by both of you that there were issues with protection and was an attempt to address those concerns while still preventing further edit warring. without foundation in any guideline WP:EW is policy. and without any further wrongdoings on editor's part if the protection was removed (per the request of both of you) the edit warring still needed to be prevented, and both of you showed no sign that the edit warring would cease. Therefore the application of the blocks was dealing with the original problem which you reported, that now needed to be readdressed, further wrongdoing wasn't the issue, it was that the original edit warring needed to be addressed still. to antagonise not to antagonize but stop the disruption caused by edit warring. senior editor in decent standing by blocking them I'm not sure what you're getting at here, but editors should not get special treatment just because of their number of edits. Also regarding a firm warning to editors to restrain from edit-warring would absolutely suffice, given that you've been blocked twice within in the last year for edit warring, there's evidence that such a warning wouldn't absolutely suffice. - Aoidh (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protection and firm warning would be more than enough to regulate that page - you chose another way and that's OK. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:18, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was sort of told many times over how this "you have been blocked twice within a year" so you are unreliable editor can't be used against you in specific circumstances, but here we are. First block was removed on appeal with some compelling evidence of tag-teaming of now t-banned editor, and the second was pretty much my failure but it's still the one that makes me confused about this mechanism the most - it's simply too contradictory regarding how admins act upon these 3RR reports, that I find it mind boggling. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you find contradictory, that you were blocked for edit warring despite not going over 3RR? - Aoidh (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said that second block you mentioned, one prior to this, is contradictory, but yes, it is contradictory in relation to this one. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That block was for making more than 3 reverts and looks to be fairly straightforward. This block was for edit warring without going over 3RR, which is not contradictory because your ANEW report was against the IP who similarly was edit warring without going over 3RR, and you made a point in your original unblock request below that you expected the IP to be sanctioned for this, so given that you were blocked for the same type of edit warring that you not only understood but expected sanctions for, I don't see anything contradictory. You were edit warring, and were blocked for edit warring when both you and the IP pointed out the issues with page protection, so the edit warring needed to be addressed. To be clear, I have no problem unblocking you and would do so right away if you can commit to not edit warring on either article without a consensus on the talk page, because I would be happy to unblock you with reasonable assurance that edit warring will not continue and that you will try to get a consensus for the material. If you'd rather have another admin review your unblock request below I would respectfully point you to WP:NOTTHEM and suggest you tweak your unblock request with that in mind. - Aoidh (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I made four reverts, only, reporting editor made five consecutive reverts and made some unacceptable remarks in their report, and still went on their way, I got 60 hours. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean other reviewer? Isn't it always other admin who does these reviews? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I unblock you no further review is needed (the blocking admin can reivew an unblock request and approve it, but they cannot not deny it). I am fine with either way, but if I'm unblocking you, what I'm asking is that you make an effort to get a consensus for the material if you're going to make efforts to retain that preferred version, to prevent edit warring and back-and-forth with another editor, that way you can point at the consensus and then it would be the editor edit warring against consensus. You also don't have to discuss anything if you're not going to revert that material, you're correct about that. If you can commit to either trying to obtain a consensus or to refrain from reverting I will be happy to unblock you because the blocks are not punishments, they're meant to prevent further edit warring and if there's a reasonable assurance that edit warring will not continue then there's no need for the block to remain. I'm leaving my home soon for a few hours but I did want to stick around to see if that was the route you wanted to take or if you wanted another admin to review your request below so that I could unblock you if needed, but once I leave the house I'll be away for a few hours. Can you commit to that? - Aoidh (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend to make any further reverts anyway - I did tried to utilize Edit-Request, which is pretty much inclusive process, but after your initial decision to Full protect page I never intended to do anything on my own, even though I did not like Full protection. That edit made by IP is so baseless that the first interested third-party editor will remove it anyway. I may continue to edit that article, at some points, after all I created it entirely. But I am not sure are you saying that I remove this appeal request or do something else? ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove it yet. If you can commit to either trying to obtain a consensus or to refrain from reverting regarding that disputed topic on those two articles I will unblock you, which would mean the appeal request wouldn't be needed. Can you commit to doing that? I do want to clarify that I'm only talking about that specific disputed content, I'm not asking you to stay away from those articles or anything like that, only to discuss when it's known there's a dispute, and regarding the unblock I'm specifically talking about this disputed content. - Aoidh (talk) 19:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, ౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Aoidh (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Santasa99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Hello, I would like to appeal my block for being applied on the pretense that I may be engaging in edit-war in the future.Here's sequence of events: It started with my report against IP's prolonged tendency to edit-war over policy issue here The perceived violation concerned two pages Dračevica (župa) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Ljubuški Fortress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Prior to reporting IP for 3RR violation I requested page protection against unregistered users, but request was denied, and only then I decided to make a report at AN 3RR board. Needless to say, I expected sanctions against IP's prolonged edit-warring over their undiscussed inserting of a wiki-link without achieving prior consensus, but administrator now decided to Semi protect only one page but did nothing on problems at the other. I pointed that to admin and they decided to Full protect the other page, Ljubuški Fortres. I complained and commented on their decision saying that Full protection is making third parties editing and potentially fixing the problem much more demanding, and simultaneously made an edit-request at Ljubuški Fortres TP, after which they made a suggestive comment to concerned reviewer and made, what to me appeared as a strange, a request that issue be discuss with IP on TP or be blocked for edit-warring. I don't need to discuss anything, I just need to comply with the recent consequences of my report, even if complaining in the process and "kicking and screaming", ie. I only need to restrain from further rv and not to disrupt the article, even if I don't agree with that report resulting decision - I don't have to discuss anything with anyone on demand, or what if there is nothing to discuss, what if problem was not content but disregard of policies. However, I did discuss my points in my edit-request and additional comments, which it appears from this didn't go well with an admin. But now, it appears that my "kicking and screaming", my complaining, is most likely used as a pretext for this sort of preventive block which is issued half a day later with an explanation that since I am not satisfied with Full protection I am going to be blocked. What an alternative and Solomonic solution; I thought we pick up sanctions after we make violations of our policies and guidelines, not prior. And as an endnote, I find threatening and depresive when mechanism such as this is applied so arbitrarily that admins often contradict themselves, applying it without firm and consistent criterion. ౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reported violation concernes two pages:
Dračevica (župa) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Ljubuški Fortress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I felt this appeal had to be rewritten so here it is: this appeal concerns my block that was imposed on the pretense that I may engage in edit-war in the future. Admin responded to my report against IP's edit-warring over my revert on their inclusion of WP:EGG wikilink without obtaining prior consensus or even commencing discussion (disregarding WP:Consensus policy) - IP was so adamant in having its way and showed no intention to cease and desist even after the report produced Semi protection on Dračevica page and third-party editor made a same revert on their edit as I did. 3RR, produced Semi protection on Dračevica and only after my additional intervention the second, Ljubuški Fortress, was Full protected. I expected sanctions, at least firm warning, against IP, but admin decided to Semi protect one page and later Full protected the other, Ljubuški Fortress. However, I complained and commented on their decision by saying that Full protection puts third-party editors, who would potentially fix the problem, in demanding position - I simultaneously made an edit-request at Ljubuški Fortres TP, after which admin made a comment to concerned reviewer and suggested to me that my edit-request is insufficient without discussion, that I should discuss issue with IP on TP or get blocked for edit-warring. Here I said something in scratched appeal txt, and I will repeat again just to make it clearer -above I said, "I don't need to discuss anything, I just need to comply with the recent consequences of my report, even if I don't agree with it and complain about it while "kicking and screaming", ie. I only need to restrain from further rv and not to disrupt the article", end of story - this "I don't have to discuss anything with anyone on demand" bit was cherry-picked and taken out of this context and used later as a part of a justification (I suppose it was understood that I am just waiting to strat edit-warring) for something admin unexpectedly did, that is, they change their mind regarding decision to protect articles and replaced it with a block for editors instead. The main concern is: how can admin change their decision like that, without determined guideline-based parameters. They posted this, and in above discussion suggested it's based on their statement that they decided to protect pages "in lieu of blocks", but that happened earlier and behind that rational is the "first" decision to Full protect; I am certain no guideline gives admin a carte blanche to make such an ambiguous undetermined decision so that they can arbitrarily, at any given time, change its outcome (to block) whenever they want and block editors without any further wrongdoings on editor's part, let alone without some extreme new evidence or really obvious new violation or missed one in earlier reading - in which guideline is such a modus operandi grounded. Then, admin additionally suggested that at first they decided to use a page protection as "the alternative to blocking so that the content could be discussed", which should not, could not mean they can change it to block at any given time just because "neither of you made any indication that you intended to discuss". So what? We (IP and I) literally did not do anything, except innocuously complained in few additional comments - innocuous complaining is not a reason to block editors, not even if they really went on your nerves and/or pissed you off. How is even possible, on which parameters, guidelines is based such action, where admin simply decided that Full protection is no longer good "alternative" and now is the moment to change all back and block editors instead. I suggested in my comments that admin, maybe came up with a wrong decision to Full protect page because such a decision will impair third-party editors in attempt to correct the problem, when Semi protection and a firm warning to editors to restrain from edit-warring would absolutely suffice and would do better job, even under the assumption that I may behave unethically still, because it would be easy to block whoever chose to turn blind eye on such a warning.

Accept reason:

Unblocked per the discussion above this unblock request. - Aoidh (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]