This block is even more outrageous and illegitimate than the first. You didn't even allow me to say anything; that alone makes this charade illegitimate and unacceptable. The whole essence of Dougweller's argument over the last few weeks has been that article talk pages can and should be viewed in isolation when addressing a dispute. Bbb23 and JamesBWatson agreed with him in this regard and that was the main basis for punishing me for the recent conflict that was started by Mzilikazi1939. Therefore my actions of yesterday constitute complete compliance with the rules and the comments from these two administrators. As was made crystal clear on Talk:Aesop yesterday, Mzilikazi and his friends never complied with the rules set out in WP:ERA in their latest attempt to change the article Aesop. I already tried merely correcting their illegal actions and explaining it in edit summaries and personal talk pages but they continued ramming through their illegal changes, so yesterday, even though corrections of rule breaches should not require discussion, I made the peace-making effort of explaining the matter on the talk page Talk:Aesop.

I went above and beyond what was required in order to see a peaceful resolution to Mzilikazi's edit war and I fully complied with both the Wikipedia rules and the wishes of the two administrators who had judged on the issue. If I broke the rules by obeying those administrators then the first block was obviously not valid and therefore an indefinite block now is not allowed. In fact, any punishment now would not be allowed because the alleged rule breach was entirely due to the directions given by Bbb23 and JamesBWatson, i.e. that article talk pages, as asserted by Dougweller, are meant to be viewed in isolation from other talk pages. My peace-making efforts yesterday were most certainly not a "diatribe"; it was a clearly and thoughtfully written explanation of what the issue was, how Mzilikazi's actions breached the rules and even how to resolve the matter. Unlike what we've seen from Mzilikazi and Dougweller consistently, I included no personal attacks in my efforts of yesterday. Bb23 made the dubious accusation that I had used personal attacks in recent weeks but I reject that entirely; I never called anyone names and I never tried to rely on ad hominem arguments to "justify" my position, unlike what we've seen from Mzilikazi in particular. Yesterday's edit was completely free from personal attacks; that's undisputable.

The very fact that Bbb23 would describe yesterday's tactful, eloquent, peace-making effort as "diatribe", an extremely strong word, is more than enough proof that he has strong feelings about the issue and, as per WP:INVOLVED is therefore ineligible to participate in an administrative capacity here. This is a breach of the same policy that User:EncycloPetey broke when he banned me years ago, causing him to be stripped of his administrator status. I was already wondering how Bbb23 could block me the first time with that non-sensical, contradictory excuse for an explanation.

If article talk pages aren't meant to be viewed in isolation then both Aesop's Fables and Aesop are meant to be using the standard English style of dates. That is what I originally insisted but for that I was blocked by Bbb23. However, if, as asserted by Dougweller and agreed to in the rulings of Bbb23 and JamesBWatson, article talk pages are meant to be viewed in isolation then Aesop's Fables is a lost cause and Mzilikazi has got away with his change there but Aesop is still meant to remain in the BC/AD state. Yesterday's edit is in complete compliance with that ruling and I even made the additional effort of explaining it on the talk page to ensure that I could not be successfully accused of making trouble. For anyone who reads what I wrote at Talk:Aesop yesterday, there can be no doubt that not only did I comply with the rules yesterday, but I even went out of my way to work towards ending Mzilikazi's conflict peacefully and in accordance with the proper procedures.(  )