151.124.107.114

June 2024

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Doctor Who series 14 have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Doctor Who series 14 was changed by 151.124.107.114 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.873106 on 2024-06-22T18:47:45+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Edits at "Isla Bryson case"

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked from editing the following page: https://en.luquay.com/wiki/Isla_Bryson_case. The reason why is that another IP, acting entirely in good faith, honestly (but wrongly) thought that I was trying to misgender the subject of the page. They duly reported me, and I was immediately blocked by an admin, who apparently took their complaint at face value without waiting to hear my side of the story. You will find the discussion here - https://en.luquay.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents - under the 'Edits at "Isla Bryson case" section'. I have now explained myself, and I think it's fair to say that everyone - including the original reporting IP - accepts that this was simply a misunderstanding and that no blocks are warranted.

If unblocked, I do not intend to immediately re-edit the page again. Now that I understand the dispute I intend (once I have fully calmed down) to discuss respectfully on the talk page. However, I would like to do so on an equal footing with my fellow editors with no blocks against my name.

Thank you.

Decline reason:

Since you don't intend to edit the article, there's no need to remove the block. If you later need to edit the article, this can be discussed then. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@331dot: I am the IP editor who mistakenly got 151 blocked. Regarding the above unblock request, I would like to let you know that even I believe the block is unmerited and places them in an unfair position, given that the block was handed down based on a big misunderstanding. 151 and I will be resolving any content dispute we have over the Bryson article later. At the risk of having misunderstood them again, I think what 151 is trying to say is that they, if unblocked, will only edit the article again in the near-term if doing so would be uncontroversial or it has already gotten consensus on the talk page.

@151.124.107.114: If there is no objection from anyone to this, and if it isn't against proxying rules or any other rules, I would like to extend an offer. If you have anything productive and uncontroversial you would like to do on the article while the block is still in effect, I would be happy to do the actual editing for you upon request. I will withdraw this offer if anyone objects to it, as I want to avoid both impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. - 188.176.174.30 (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, that's not what they said("I do not intend to immediately re-edit the page again"). If they have intentions to make uncontroverial edits, they are free to say so. You are absolutely free to fulfill their edit requests(either general ones on the article talk page, or to you directly) as it's only a partial block. 331dot (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi 188.176.174.30. This is 151.124.107.114. I've created this account for simplicity, and I'll use this exclusively moving forward.

Firstly, thank you for your kind offer. I greatly appreciate it, and I'm glad that we've got to this point, having got off on the wrong foot.

331dot, I thank you for taking the time to look at my case. I appreciate that you have made your decision; that you are not going to change it; and that further argument on this point is going to get nowhere. I simply state for the record (without expecting this to change anything) my personal belief that your decision is perverse. In circumstances where (i) I have been blocked for misgendering someone; and (ii) everyone now agrees that I did not misgender anyone (and did not intend to); I simply do not see how it makes any rational sense to maintain a block for something I objectively have not done.

Furthermore, I do feel as if I am trapped in a kafkaesque Catch 22. The purpose of saying "I do not intend to immediately re-edit the page again" was to reassure you - truthfully - that the reason for my request was not because I intend to immediately edit the page without consenus and without reference to 188.176.174.30 or anyone else. I know I can't do that. I'm also sure that if I did, it would be completely futile because I would (righly) be rebanned very quickly! Yet this is somehow now being used as a reason to maintain the block (even though, as noted above, I clearly don't merit one).

However, if I didn't say the above, I anticipate that the block would (reasonably) have been maintained on the basis that I hadn't shown sufficient insight into my mistakes. So what am I meant to say - I'm dammned if I do and dammned if I don't!

Right! I've got that off my chest. Thank you again, 188.176.174.30, and I'll see you on the talk page in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meekaboo111 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

I hope you are doing well, and once again I am sorry for having brought all this upon you. My edit request offer still stands. See you at talk (where the discussion has already restarted).

I agree that this is a Catch-22 that you have been subjected to. The underlying reason for your block turns out to have been a big mistake. You were wrongfully convicted, so to speak, even the main witness has retracted their original story, and yet the conviction still stands. If there was ever any lesson for you to learn, you have given ample signs that you have learned it. While you aren't blocked from editing the article on your new account, it is still an injustice that the block wasn't lifted on the IP, as justice delayed is justice denied. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Meekaboo111 Again, that's not what you said. I can only go by the words that are on the screen. Do you intend to edit the article? I'm a volunteer(as are you) here in my own time. If I'm going to take the time to remove a block, I need to know that the user is going to contribute- I don't have time to spare to unblock people who aren't going to contribute. 331dot (talk) 08:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I am the person who started this whole mess, and even I believe the block was wrongfully given. It was all a big misunderstanding, and there is no longer (or alternatively, there never was) a reason why they should be punished. I have confidence that Meekaboo will only edit the article in a manner that is collaborative, productive, and grounded in consensus, if only you let them. What sequence of words will have to come out of their mouth to prove they are contributing? 188.176.174.30 (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

It's removed. You don't need to be condescending here- I can only go by what I see, and I only have time to help people who want to contribute- I didn't think that was so hard to understand. Good day 331dot (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that last comment was too harsh of me. I put Meekaboo in this terrible situation, and I was trying to right that wrong, but it was too condescending of me to say it like that. Thank you for lifting the block, and have a nice day. 188.176.174.30 (talk) 09:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

---