User talk:Fantastic Mr. Fox/Archives/2024/April

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Austronesier (talk) 11:06, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024
I apologise in advance for the big wall of text. Feel free to ask for questions. And please, as suggested in my request - uninvolved admin only, please. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm replying as we were on good terms previously and your talk page happened to stay on my watchlist. First, Bbb23 is not a WP:CheckUser, and thus very likely hasn't been checking your IP. Second, being WP:INVOLVED is about the dispute itself (in this case, having participated in the edit war), and discussing administrative action isn't considered involvement as far as I know. Finally, I advise you to use less vehement language when requesting an unblock request — even if you do not trust the admin at all, it is best to calmly ask for another admin to review the situation, and casting aspersions is rarely helpful. I'll refrain from commenting on the merits of the block itself or on Bbb23's previous behavior, and leave that for an actual admin reviewing the block request, as I am just here to give you hopefully helpful advice on the situation. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 15:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the advice. I'm more against the block not because it is to do with edit warring - as stated, i potentially (A piece of advice on how to deal with future blatent refusals to communicate is welcome) made an error trying to revert the (Presumably new, maybe something else) editors on that page. I much prefer something far more constructive, for example, what you have written in regards to this unblock request, if I make such errors, because I can give reasons why or make adjustments accordingly. The issue here is Bbb23, unlike yourself, has not ever given me advice, and has instead just punished me here in response to me stating he was WP:HOUNDING me, based off him having a commentary on anything I do considered out of the norm on Wikipedia. His block notice of what I understand as 'Blocked because he didn't break down and confess like a 5 year old, and I will probably block him again. Also said I did something, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT' screams bad faith and i'm not working on a encyclopedia, not matter how much I want to, with a hawk ready to pounce at a moments notice on me. I am perfectly fine with literally any other admin reviewing this, but I am tempted today to ask for interaction ban between me an Bbb23. I don't dislike him, but he seems to dislike me, and he has a hammer. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I genuinely hope you can have another administrator review the situation. Again, whether you are in the right or not regarding this situation, I suggest you remember Being right isn't enough, and a factual statement of what happened and why you believe it to be out of bounds will always be better than flowery metaphors. From what I understand, Bbb23 seems to have gone for a block because of your insistence that [your] edit-warring was exempt under 3RRNO. That doesn't seem like bad faith, but more like a block because of your misunderstanding of what was allowed by policy, with the block (rather than warning) being because you still believed you were allowed to do it. Now that you have a better understanding (as you stated above) of when the policy properly applies, I think the block has done what it needed to do, and an unblock would be welcome in my opinion. Chaotıċ Enby   (talk · contribs) 17:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You should stop repeating the aspersions against just for using admistrative tools (≠ "hammer") they have been entrusted with by the community. Most other admins would have done exactly the same (if fact we expect them to do so when facing blatant policy violations), and I doubt that the community will consider this 24h-block a bad block. But feel free to take your issues to WP:AARV when the block expires (unless another admin might consider to indef you in the meantime for casting aspersions against an uninvolved admin just because they happened to be the one to do what is appropriate). –Austronesier (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You have restored the version by that you have reverted countless times less than 48h ago with unstoppable verve. Why? I have a guess, but I'd prefer to hear from you. –Austronesier (talk) 15:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I was only reverting to previous version because I wanted to understand his sourcing he gave it. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Rasa Sayang. 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:. Bbb23 (talk) 17:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)


 * So what kind of edit warring? Are you assuming I reverted to his edit for bad faith reasons? I wanted to hear his sourcing, and he gave one in his last edit. I'm not editing this site for a while, if on this account again, if your wondering what I want to do. Bbb23 care to explain? I'm tired. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)