Ed Poor wrote:

<< 22:35, 20 Mar 2004 Adam Bishop blocked "Gdansk" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Being annoying, minus a million points!) >>

I'd like to know why Adam did this, and I wish he had said something about the block on the mailing list. Does every admin have the right to temp-block a long-time contributor just for "being annoying"?

TUF-KAT asked me to be a Mediator for an issue involving user:Gdansk, and I think I'm owed the courtesy of being informed if an administrator blocks a party involved in a mediation.

During the last days user "Gdansk" has repeatedly done strange edits to various German city articles like Kiel, Dresden, Munich etc. In the edit summary of Kiel he wrote:

"retaliation action for blocking of Gdansk and Szczecin - just to enter in edit war, block editing, and make the Germans angry"

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Kiel&action=history)

When he was blocked, he was engaged in several similar edit wars which could be considered as vandalism. I think, blocking in this case was justified because he admitted that his actions had no other purpose than making other people upset.

So, if you enter mediation with this user could you please tell him in some way that these actions have to stop? I am not part of this mediation, but I don't like to see articles vandalised that have nothing to do with the original dispute.

By the way, could an admin now unprotect the Kiel page? It was not listed on the list of protected pages, so it has probably been forgotten.

Mirko (Baldhur)