User:Valjean/BlockLog

My short block log has some history that should be connected with it. Unfortunately it isn't possible to attach notes to a block log, so I'm doing that here.

My block log
Here's an exact copy of the text from my block log:


 * 08:19, July 31, 2009 Chris G (talk | contribs) blocked BullRangifer (talk | contribs) (autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of Yesterday ‎ (My July 27 block was a bad one. Sorry about that. (See here))


 * 08:24, July 27, 2009 Chris G (talk | contribs) blocked BullRangifer (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (Spamming people to change the outcome of a dissusion (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Numerous_problems_caused_by_User:Pedro_thy_master) is unaccpetable.)


 * 22:46, April 1, 2007 Arthur Rubin (talk | contribs) unblocked "BullRangifer (talk | contribs)" ‎ (Reverting April Fool's joke)


 * 21:48, April 1, 2007 DragonflySixtyseven (talk | contribs) blocked BullRangifer (talk | contribs) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (April Fool's! + being a jerk)


 * 03:30, October 14, 2006 Jaranda (talk | contribs) blocked BullRangifer (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of 12 hours ‎ (3rr on Quackwatch)

First block: Iffy
We were both blocked for 3rr:


 * 03:32, October 14, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (Blocked)


 * 03:29, October 14, 2006 (hist) (diff) User talk:Levine2112 ‎ (Blocked)

There was disagreement over what counts as a "revert", and no satisfactory explanation was ever provided. There were conflicting opinions, and apparently any edit, even before an edit war starts, can be counted as a revert. Strange? Yes, it's still in limbo what a "revert" means. In this case it was identical to an edit.

Since then I have always stayed away from that type of thing, which is good, but that doesn't justify the existence of the 3rr policy's lack of clarity over what constitutes a "revert". It should not be up to different admins' often conflicting interpretations. There should be a clear definition. If it exists now (I haven't looked for awhile), then that's good. It didn't exist at the time.

Second block: Very dubious
An explanation did come forth, but needed long explanation:


 * 23:16, April 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:BullRangifer ‎ (Explanation)


 * 22:51, April 1, 2007 (hist) (diff) User talk:Arthur Rubin ‎ (Explanation?)

Third block: Clearly bad
Relevant discussions:


 * AN/I


 * Numerous problems caused by User:Pedro thy master


 * During this discussion I was blocked, a discussion ensued, and a heading over the subsection discussing the block was added later:


 * ChrisG's block of BullRangifer


 * He ultimately apologized.


 * My talk page:

Since I was now blocked and even my email was blocked, the only place I could edit was my talk page:


 * What on earth?


 * Chris, please explain


 * Chris G's talk page:

After my block expired, I was able to leave a message on Chris G's talk page and participate in the AN/I discussion:


 * Please explain my block

Fourth block: Fixed third block
This block was graciously performed by Chris as the only way to insert a comment about the third block. It probably lasted for a couple seconds. It was in response to suggestions made here. Apparently it isn't possible to simply "remove" a block from a block log.

The irony of it all

 * The first one to block me, Jaranda, couldn't even explain the difference between a normal edit and a "revert".


 * The second one to block me, DragonflySixtyseven, still edits and nothing ever happened to them for blocking me without a warning and for the personal attack ("being a jerk").


 * The third one to block me, Chris G, wisely thought things over before replying. He then provided a nice apology. We are all fallible and Chris took responsibility for this mistake and acted appropriately to fix things up. I appreciate it.


 * The one who denied my unblock request, Anthony.bradbury, apologized for denying the request. A real gentleman.


 * Many editors and admins believed the block was improper. They asked for an explanation from Chris G and he provided a nice apology.


 * The fourth block/unblock (note the word "Yesterday") was the only method we know to add a comment to the block log.

Lessons
What lessons can be learned from this?


 * 1) Bad blocks are a jinx. Don't do it!
 * 2) ALWAYS warn and discuss first. It must be ensured that no misunderstanding exists on either side.
 * 3) Blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive.
 * 4) Experienced users who act in good faith should not be treated worse than blatant vandals who get numerous warnings before being blocked.

Misunderstandings and ignorance should not be treated the same as obvious vandalism and other serious breaches of our policies. Even blatant vandals are usually given AT LEAST 4-5 warnings before being blocked! (I have a possible solution to that problem.) Why should experienced editors who are acting in good faith be treated worse than blatant vandals? That's very wrong and demeaning. Doing such is an act of bad faith. A block should only be handed out when there is no doubt about the situation, and no other way to stop disruption. Anything less leaves the impression that justice doesn't mean very much at Wikipedia, and that mustn't happen.

Experienced users shouldn't be treated like criminals and have their honor besmirched forever by having blocks in their block log. For some people, especially those raised in Asia, like myself, honesty, fairness, justice, honor, and saving face mean a lot. Honor is a matter of life or death for them. There is no middle way.

I was born in Japan (I am Caucasian, not Asian) and raised in Asia til I was nine years old, so I think like an Asian in many ways solely for that reason. To compound matters, my father (now deceased at 100 yeears old) was born in Korea to American missionary parents, and grew up under Japanese rule, speaking both Korean and Japanese, and he thought like an Asian in many ways, and that has always influenced the whole family. The Japanese concepts of honor and saving face are deeply engrained in me.

My wish
At the very least, I wish that the second and third blocks could be expunged from my block log, but that is apparently impossible, so a fourth one had to be performed to comment on the third block. Even the first one was so unclear that the blocking admin couldn't explain it clearly!

If a method for clearing block logs is developed in the future, I want all my blocks removed, even the first one (and it should be removed from Levine2112 as well). Why the first one? If a blocking admin can't clearly explain the policy supposedly being violated, then a block should not be performed. In the first case, blocking was not the only way to prevent disruption. A simple warning would have sufficed.