` :::::You are just so wrong about the ``other warnings`` When? For what? By who? Trolls? Gaming editors? IPs? Socks? Did you really weigh them or did you just count them? Were they valid warnings? Or technically incorrect, like Bardcom's warnings for example? Were they perhaps trying to 'get in first', like Wotapalaver (who I really should have Warned myself - go and look).  :::::How can it be true you ``thought long and hard``? Jack Forbes threatened to leave Wikipedia (he's been full of crocodile tears - and is he leaving now?) and you clearly tried to change his mind by blocking me. For some reason you laid it on as thickly as you possibly could - I hope it wasn't personal, because if it was I really must have upset you somehow. Jack had already been to at least two admins, his mates, and also to Bardcom as he noticed I was in disagreement with him (which couldn't have been more provoking to me) and was told by all effectively to calm down.  In the end an admin came along and simply gave him what he was clearly looking for. Did you really think about what other admins, Bardcom, myself elsewhere, and his 'buddies', actually told him regarding his grievances? If you did consider them you have little respect for the rest of Wikipedia - and especially for me. So much of Wikipedia is a struggle for all of us - why on earth make it worse?   :::::``exaggeration, exaggeration``, ``etc etc`` - its just a total character assassination: a full-on attack that was clearly intended to leave a lasting mark against my name. I am just appalled by what you've done: I find it a barbaric form of law-giving, grossly grossly unfiar. I just don't know why you did it - but it's caused simply insurmountable problems for me. If other admins in the future act the way you have done (and as others I've seen and experienced) I'm basically pre-judged as a trouble causer. I can't work with that over my head, or in others thoughts - and I've done nothing at all to deserve it. You have simply ended Wikipedia for me.    ===For anyone interested===  I read through my conversation with Jack Forbes again. It began elsewhere, but he duplicated a paragraph above and it carried on in here. Apart from possibly the ‘F' word (but why would I swear unprovoked?) I would not change a single word that I wrote. So the clear question arises: Where does that leave me with WIkipedia? This is the rub, you see - I have merely been my honest self. I couldn't face challenging the judgement - I want to make edits, not go through painful bureaucracy like that. It strikes me that contesting it would put other admins in a rather invidious position too: people really shouldn’t be blocked for arguments like this! If you read the argument, Jack in the end tried to return my accusation on me, then I ended it and he ran elsewhere. It just makes me cringe. Contesting the block but finding more support would have been extremely unpleasant. I can see why some admins sympathetic to my case may have seen problems removing it now it is done, and there are far too many weak admins on Wikipedia - far far far too many. There should be a serious refresher course for all of them on the importance of mediation, the need to rise-above your subject-related POV, and on the need to spend reasonable time on decisions. I’m guessing that it’s currently the 'thing' on Wikipedia to explore incident-blocking without Warning for ‘notorious’ characters. But me though?   The nature and wording of this block has made a future here impossible for me, even in Wales, an article I openly planned to spend a lot of time on. I feel nothing but handicapped now when I think of it how to do it. Maybe I simply should have got around to archiving my Talk page – I don’t know. Admins MUST realise that Warnings from admins are obviously taken seriously and ‘officially’ – whereas pseudo-officious warnings from ‘Disagreeing Joes’ are very often not. You just cannot consider them as having equal significance. I've had warnings from IP's and sock-users! Do they count against my name? I have been disagreeing with people who have the strongest of opinions - and none of this has been taken into account. Perhaps my big mistake is that I never throw out Warnings and counter-Warnings myself - I simply use my voice. I've never been tough with anyone who isn't already playing a particular game - 'taking offense' in various ways is merely part of their hand - but all too-often it comes up trumps for them.   Tipping point  My leaving is not simply about the 48 hour block - I suppose in other circumstances I would have used it to carry on research something in this case. I’m leaving because I simply cannot change myself to fit the mould enforced by people like Waggers - to a very small degree yes, but nowhere near what would be needed by me now - it simply can't be done. And for a while it has seemed clear to me that it is just not the climate on Wikipedia for editors like myself. So much of what is stuck and guarded here needs to be fought against, but I feel handicapped anyway in being someone who fights my own ground. It’s all about cliques and cabals - even in places as important as MEDMOS. It’s a numbers game (I don't mean consensus, but cliques) – a giant headcount: a place where new people 'being bold' are admonishingly told to “TALK FIRST!!”. Some editors build a fortress in the Talk pages, and you need to stay with them forever not to scroll out of view ineffectual and forgotten. It's so often a war of attrition - and the younger editors with more time on their hands tend to win. Was Wikipedia always this unwelcoming - or has it just been going this way? In fact, is Wikipedia sliding downwards under an increasing weight of poor adminship (for whatever reasons that may be?)  I feel a 'tipping point' for me has occurred, and my own time at Wikipedia has come to an end. If I stay I'd I will always have to check my edits and comments (and even my back) to stop from getting in trouble:  it's as much myself as Wikipedia - though in reality I am nothing but a helpful person! I need to feel some freedom - I cannot see myself getting it from now on. Some people are also becoming too ‘chatty’ about me personally (ie not strictly about my edits - although particular biases have much to do with it) - that kind of stigma is no help to me at all, or to Wikipedia in general. Without seeming harsh, is this place really supposed to be a “community”? (as someone calls it above)? – we are all humans for sure, but I don’t remember ever reading that in policy? So I'm fine with leaving - I'll just try not to have nightmares about what a bad force WP can be! It was sheer negative fear that first brought me here – this place can indeed change the word imo: for the worse.  Just some experiences: The majority of the articles I've contributed to have involved real battles to get somewhere that is compliant to Wikipedia’s demands. Sometimes I've helped find it, sometimes I've got nowhere – you certainly can’t win them all, but I’ve usually been prepared to be gritty (it's not a crime!). I generally don't takes things too much to heart - I generally simply care: and why not? Why else bother being here? Introductions have probably been my main interest (it's all some people read), and at least I've helped improve a good few. Experience showed me early on that you simply have to fight for things at times: if anyone disagrees, look at the Intro to Alzheimer's before yesterday: that was fought for (in structure and content) over a period, and had for a long time settled down with a genuine (though always only ‘current’) consensus. It has just yesterday, alas, been made 'more concise' by someone (bad timing or what) - so it is at the moment very staccato to read. In my opinion, this change could (and probably will) now open the door to further re-writes - initially to make the text flow, then ambiguous facts, hard-to-shorten detail, too-technical jargon, and controversial statements will all soon appear. But what can I say? The Alz Lead was an asset to WP for a good while, and if we were all cowards Wikipedia simply would not have had it. I may decide to give that one article one last edit if someone doesn’t give me another 48 hours block for speaking my mind.  After my first stint on Wikipedia in 2006, I was so cheesed-off by someone (long since banned) that I didn't come back here for a whole year! I suppose I’ve been strong-willed from that re-start. I would guess that most people like myself cannot maintain it forever: there is that structural-weakness-bolstered 'tipping point' where it just becomes impossible. Unfortunately Wikipedia is currently more suited to IPs, sock-users and POV-text protectors than it is to actual positive editors - so-much still needs ironing out. It might be so flabby now that nothing can be ironed out, and it will just bloat and get progressively worse. Concerned people need to look back upon the more central policies and guidelines. What is stopping progress?  Just some observations: An increasing amount of editors and admins are being very negative about simple 'edit exchanges'. Some are, I expect, well-meaning slightly conservative people from amongst the many Wikipedians who rarely write the prose - but many now are cynically taking free hop-on rides on this - seriously foolish - bandwagon. These anti-editors often fail miserably to AGF by pre-judging 'edit exchanges' to be edit wars. Edit wars in themselves are not always the evil they are made out to be either: sometimes they are the only things that show the state of play. There is a ubiquitous member on W