---

I made an edit on Urmia after Dark Falls had warned in an edit summary about edit warring and was susquentially blocked for this one edit. The edit was reverted by another editor. Now my questions are,

• Is it appropriate to use edit summaries as warnings? I didnt read the history so I didnt see them.
• Is it appropriate that the admin still accuses me after my explaination?

There is another tech question that I cant answer, the edit I was making was solely to the infobox, yet my edit undone several edits, as can be seen, I dont know how this happened, after my messed-up edit was reverted, I done the correct edit I had intended WP:MOSFLAG on the infobox. All this happened and was visible before my block, but the blocking admin didnt ask me for an explaination, and has today still accused me of edit-warring, Do I simply just give a new warning every time another editor comes in with the intention of edit warring? No, of course not, as people will just abuse it. Apperantly AGF isnt valid if you have given warnings in places they cant be seen. As for the blocking guidelines "based upon reviewable evidence and reasonable judgment" wasnt used seeimg my second edit with the same edit summary as my messed-up one and "administrators should ensure that users who are acting in good faith are aware of policies and are given reasonable opportunity to adjust their behavior before blocking" no contact or effort towards myself was made, but a personal comment was made in the block notice, Since you felt it was appropriate to continue the edit warring on Urmia, I felt nothing of the thing nor should I have been accused of. Murry1975 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history of the article, you repeated your edit (started edit-warring) on a fairly controversial article. If your edit is reverted take it to the talk page before re-preforming your edit. I endorse the block given the heated nature of the issues involved. Werieth (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline

• From 10th July an IP, 86.74.140.6, User:Arachkheradmand and User:Samak had been edit-warring over the demographics at Urmia, a north-west Iranian city, and starting 09:34, 13 July 2013 the war became quite frenetic, mainly involving the latter two.
• At 12:11 that day, User:DarkFalls (Dark) performed a null edit, leaving this edit summary: "Enough of this. Stop edit warring and discuss this on the article talk page or you will be blocked. Please use dispute resolution if you are unable to come to an agreement."[1]
• At 18:07 User:Murry1975, a very productive, no-drama content contributor with a clean block log made an edit reverting the last demographics edit and an MOS correction to the infobox, with the edit summary, "As per WP:MOSFLAG [2]. He had never before edited the article.[3]
• At 19:24 Sicaspi undid Murry1975's edit.[4]
• At 20:14 Murry1975 restored the MOS correction but not the demographics content[5]
• 05:00 the next day, 14 July 2013, Dark blocked Murry1975 for 24 hours [6]
• 05:10 Dark left a message on Murry1975's talk page, but didn't explain how to appeal the block
• 14:23 Murry1975 explained on his talk page that it was a mistake, that he was just trying to make the MOS correction and can't explain how the demographics got changed in his first edit, and that he hadn't seen the edit-summary warning.
• Dark made 8 edits in the hour and a half after Murry1975 posted his explanation and request for unblock
• 09:28 the next day, 15 July 2013, Dark explained on Murry1875's talk page that he doesn't believe Murry1975

Dark needs attention. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad block - Before jumping on the user, AGF is needed to be assumed. Secondly, Murry did not edit war and was not warned. The actual issue is a fairly simple one to be exact; Murry already had the page open during the time span revisions were made. This is what Murry saw as differences; highlighted by the edit summary. [7] Secondly, this same edit was repeated here.[8] The confusion of the user for the block and the lack of warning is demonstrable and the talk page confusion points to it. Murry should not have been blocked because Murry was active during the time and did in fact return and make the edit, only to have it undone, be unsure of how the other edits got reinstated and simply redo the MOSFLAG edit. It was editor error, but it was not malicious and in all fairness, probably did not ever see the edit history comment as a result. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • With Anthonyhcole's detailing of the incident and my detail covering how the error happened, I think this matter shows that this block was not only bad, but shows that Dark did not perform correctly or properly given the circumstances. This never should have happened. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Terrible block and I have warned DarkFalls that another inappropriate use of the tools will result in a block for him. Everybody can make a mistake but this is one that must not be repeated. If this is a pattern (I haven't looked) we need to consider a desysop. --John (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Horrid block - Murry should never have gotten hit by the block hammer. Chris and Anthony have already explained why. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This should be erased from Murry1975's block log. Who does that? Oversight? If Dark asks an oversighter to erase the entry, would they be allowed to? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It cannot be undone; I was blocked in error before, it remains on my record, but I was informed that it cannot be removed, consensus about the blocks invalidity is about the best that can be done if Murry goes to RFA or anything. I know it is not much help, but it is unfortunate. I'm not an admin (never put in for it), but I think non-admin users can help prove that the block was bad. I'd actually like some more input on this because "an admin's word" is stronger then mine - in hindsight sadly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it can be oversighted in about ten seconds by an oversighter. If we don't erase that block log it's not because we can't, it's because we choose not to. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It can be removed in the sense that we can hide the action, the account that performed it and its edit summary (or any combination thereof); however, it cannot be removed in the sense that, even if we were to do it, Murry's block log would still contain one entry (although one which, in part, would read "log redacted" – see the latest log entry here), which would, probably, look even worse. I think there should be a way to expunge clearly bad blocks, but, unfortunately, for the moment, none is available. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They all look like typical block log entries to me. How many entries should I be seeing? I can see five, ending with "12:57, 2 April 2011 Salvio giuliano (talk | contribs) unblocked ThisIsaTest (talk | contribs) (test finished)" I was working off my very tenuous grasp of this discussion. But really I keep mixing up oversight and revdel and forgetting who does what. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's somewhat interesting, I did not know non-admins couldn't see the entry at all. When I put my special admin x-ray glasses on, it says "20:20, 15 July 2013 (Username or IP removed) (log action removed) (edit summary removed)". When I take them off, there is no entry at all for 15 July. Salvio, that was revdel'd, right? Not oversighted? I thought non-admins could see that there was a revdel'd action, just couldn't see what the action was? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was revdeleted; if you want to see the original log entry, click here. And wow! I didn't image that when an admin revdeletes a log entry non-admins can no longer even see that something was deleted. I'm surprised! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. OK. So, who can see what when a block log entry is oversighted? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Also, Floq, can you tell me if you see anything clicking here? It's a log entry I just suppressed (and will unsuppress as soon as this test is over). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything at all, even with my admin x-ray glasses on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you see anything with your super Oversighter glasses on, Salvio? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To Floq: Thanks. To Anthony: yes. It was a block I had imposed on an alternate account of mine that I subsequently suppressed (and unsuppressed), nothing fancy. However, I now know that when an admin revdeletes a log entry, only admins and oversighters can see, from the affected log, that something has been deleted; and, when an oversighter suppresses a log entry, only oversighters can see that something was hidden. I never knew that, so I retract my previous comment. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Would you be so kind as to oversight that entry in Murry1975's block log (linking to this thread)? :) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I'd like to, but I'm not permitted to, because the oversight policy is quite stringent as to what can be suppressed. If I did, the AUSC would have a field day... The only way to proceed now is a RfC on the OS policy. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was teasing. I knew it wouldn't be that simple. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And apparently I am sleep deprived. D'oh... Time to hit the sack... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 21:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad block, but not much we can do about it but apologize ...although let's not get out the pitchforks yet. Have similar bad blocks been handed out before? Is there a history of using their tools inappropriately? On top of that, while blocked, did the OP make a WP:GAB-based unblock request so that it could be reviewed by passing admins? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• A significant extra point after additional review: User:DarkFalls may not use edit-summaries to make formal warnings; period. There's no admin around here who believes they can rely on such. I would like Dark to acknowledge that using that method for warnings is neither appropriate, nor does it meet their requirements for admin accountability for the block. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• May or may not be relevant, but the situation at the article was was raised on AN where DarkFalls warned there about blocking. I did not see any post by Murry1975 there and they probably were not aware of the section. Ravensfire (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  As can be seen in Murry1975s talk page, the warning that Dark shows for blocking is the edit summary and nothing else. This is not a proper notification/warning and surely doesn't assume good faith. A very bad block indeed. But I can suggest a better use for edit summaries - i.e. any one watching the block log of Murry975 can atleast read the comment in there and that the unblock comment should include an apology. at least to correct any wrong on the editor.  A m i t  ❤  19:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So there are a couple of issues here, some of them easily solved:

• General warnings to multiple people in edit summaries: I plead guilty to doing this myself occasionally, usually when there are two groups of tag teams and I don't feel obligated to issue 4-5 individual warnings. I'm not sure it's evidence of horrible adminning, just of an attempt to avoid page protection that, in retrospect, doesn't always work the way Dark Falls or I would want it to. I know I'll grudgingly stop doing it myself, after seeing this happen to Murray. But I would claim it isn't evil or stupid.
• Blocking Murray1975 with no individual warning: if you assume that DF didn't think it possible to revert without seeing that edit summary, then the block without an additional warning makes a certain amount of sense. However, I (and everyone else in this thread) can easily imagine a case where it happened just the way Murray describes. When you look up "buggy" in the dictionary, there's an image of the Mediawiki logo next to the word.
• Blocking after Murray only changed the template the second time: That was a mistake on DF's part. You need to look into things a little more before you block.
• So, in retrospect, not DF's finest hour, but (IMHO) an understandable mistake. The thing that does bug me, more than the mistaken block, is that DF doesn't recognize it as such now, after a chance to read Murray's comments on his talk page. But unless this is part of some pattern that I'm not aware of, it's probably best to move on, secure in the knowledge that DF's karma will remain slightly damaged until he realizes his mistake and apologizes, rather than force him into a corner. But it's not my block log that got sullied, so that's just a suggestion.
• I wish it was relatively easy to remove a bad block from someone's block log, but since that is almost never done, it is actually relatively easy to make a note in a block log that a previous block was incorrect; you just block for one minute, explaining it isn't a new block but an annotation to the block log. If Murray wants that, I'll be happy to do it. The only drawback is that a casual idiot (there are one or two on this site) will look at the block log for 0.3 seconds and start referring to his "multiple blocks". So I won't do it unless Murray asks me to.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oh, fiddle faddle Floquenbeam. I like the lilt of that. I've put a note in the block log referring to consensus here that the block was erroneous.[9] I hope the mention of "a clean block log" will deter the casual idiots, though I've admittedly been naive before. Bishonen | talk 00:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • It appears that this issue has blown up after I went to bed - and the established consensus is that the block is bad, so I will duly apologise to Murry after this post is done. But I would note my assessment of the situation and why I felt it was necessary to perform the block. Samak and Arachkheradmand started edit warring on Urmia and, having gained notice of this issue on WP:AN, I decided to intervene, issuing both editors a warning [10][11]. As an additional precaution, I used edit summaries in the article history in order to deter people from edit warring [12]. Short of full protection of the page (which in hindsight is probably a more sensible option), that's the only way I have to make sure people sit down and discuss the changes. Murry made an edit on the article 6 hours after this, which reverted Samak's revision of the page. At that point, I made a few quick assumptions. I assumed Murry was trying to hide his reversion under a misleading edit summary. As such, I assumed that, since he restored a previous version of the article, he was aware of the edit warring on that page and in turn, saw my warnings for all parties to stop and discuss. At the time of the block, I did not believe the edit were in fact, accidental or a mediawiki bug. —Dark 01:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dark, you may have thought you had a good reason for putting a warning in the edit summary, but did you ever think that nobody will look at the page history before editing (unless someone picks up your warning in their watchlist)? As for assume... I'm assuming (ironically) about how that word can be split up into three to teach a lesson, right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:04, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • As far as I know, there is no way of reverting to a previous revision of the page without first going to the page history, unless he sifted through Samak's contributions in order to revert, which is inconsistent with his statement. Regardless, consensus seems to be that the revert was as a result of a rare technical bug in the software and was therefore accidental - although at the time of the block, I did not believe that was likely. Obviously in hindsight, if I knew that such a bug existed, I would not have blocked. —Dark 07:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Edit conflicts aren't quite rare... especially at this board. Good explanation for the note in the history, although it would not necessarily have been very prominent and would not have stopped anyone editing outside of simple reverting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Considering that 6 hours had passed since the last edit and Murry's, and considering the nature of his edit (aside from the revert, it was a simple MOS edit), I excluded the possibility of an edit conflict. The aim of the edit summary was to ensure that people stopped doing "simple reverting" - I didn't think it was likely for anyone to restore the edits without being aware of the edit war. if I did, I would have full protected the page. Hypothetically speaking, let's say that Murry intentionally reverted. How likely was it that he did not see my warning in the page history and was not aware of the ongoing edit warring? As he was not reverting vandalism and it was not a rollback, he would have to manually revert, either by sifting through the user's contributions or by looking at the page history. If he was in fact sifting through the user contributions of Samak, it would have been grossly negligent for him not to have also looked at the page history. Undoubtedly, given the fact that the edit was due to a mediawiki bug, the block was wrongly placed. But I do find it deeply frustrating that people do not seem to understand my reasoning for my actions. —Dark 08:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • • I'm trying, which is why I'm asking. If it matters, I am not calling for any punishment of you as an administrator, just suggesting that this block could have been better dealt with. (You did not warn him on his talk page, for instance). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first comment on here since raising the issue even though I have been reading the comments while editing. Firstly I would like to thank the admins and community on here for their understanding and I appreciate the effort that has been made to highlight the err on my block log, so sincerely thanks folks. I have recieved an apology from Dark on my talkpage and I will accept it. Yes I still feel somewhat irked by the situation but hopefully we have, and I do include myself there, learned a few things from this and can move on and improve ourselves and the wiki community. Again folks thanks for your help and your time. Lets put this to bed and get back to what we are meant to be doing. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 16:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep a record of this discussion and the discussion on my talkpage in an archive on my talkpage for further references just in case. Again thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I misread the title of this thread. I thought it was "'My Block' by Dark Falls", as in a school essay: "'My Vacation" by Melissa Wainwright". Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]