Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RMHED (talk | contribs) at 20:36, 2 March 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

( E-mail if you need to voice any concerns or wish to talk to someone who actually appreciates the work you do for WP. I don't want to see yet another great contributor leave. seicer | talk | contribs 01:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Seicer, but it seems I've violated the 3RR whilst only reverting 3 times, an interesting interpretation. I also note my blocker mentioned my recent 3RR block, but failed to mention it was rapidly overturned. RMHED. 01:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

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

Request reason:

Would someone be kind enough to show where I violated the 3RR? Thank you. RMHED. 01:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC}I can only see 3 reverts and no more is that a violation? RMHED. 01:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See Misplaced Pages:3RR#Not an entitlement and address the edit warring on Template:Db-g11 & Template:Db-a7 in subsequent unblock templates. –xeno (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2009 (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.

• Now if an admin had reverted 3 times but not any more would they have been blocked, I think not. RMHED. 01:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I would hazard a guess that the blocking admin took into account the body of your actions tonight and not any set of three revisions... I think maybe a break might do you some good? –xeno (talk) 02:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Xeno hit the proverbial nail on the head. Considering that you were edit warring on a high-visibility template with no consideration to trying to establish consensus or trying to engage the editors who had raised concerns, I think a block was warranted. If it was an admin in your position, I would have blocked them, too. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 02:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes my edits to that template were truly terrible, what horrible disruption I caused with my 3 reverts. I see Aitias has added his bit of spite to the AN/I thread, my what a surprise. This block has at least had the effect of spurring me to make a decision regarding my Misplaced Pages participation. RMHED. 02:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I know you dislike me, but I was strongly considering asking the blocking admin if I could unblock you, until I saw this edit to Deaths in 2009 that you did. Why would you do that? rootology (C)(T) 02:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't dislike you, I merely distrust you. I made that edit in the spirit of levity and because the end is nigh, at least for me anyways. Death where is thy sting? Jimmy Wales where is thy backbone? RMHED. 02:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse block as a control for edit warring and disruptive editing, and I suggest you clip your anti social behavior on your talk page, lest the privileged of using it be revoked.--Tznkai (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I've removed the rollback permission from your account. Using it to edit war/restore personal attacks on your user page is a no-no.--Tznkai (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to ask for exactly that. Thank you Tznkai, good call. — Aitias // discussion 02:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Preemptively stating a strong objection to any protection of this talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have reblocked and prevented RMHED from editing this page also. I see no benefit in allowing the attack/revert cycle to continue. Kevin (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Isn't the MediaWiki interface explicit about the use of that feature? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked for edit warring and then proceeded to edit war to make personal attacks on his talk page... –xeno (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The interface says re that feature "Disable only for users known to abuse own talk page". I feel that twice adding a personal attack makes it quite applicable. It doesn't prevent an unblock request via email. As has been noted at WP:ANI, a proper break might do this editor a world of good. Kevin (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This is in perfect accordance with policy. — Aitias // discussion 02:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Raise your hand if you think this feature should be mothballed until we have a coherent policy on it? (Actually, thats a conversation that should be had on AN)--Tznkai (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

We already do have one. — Aitias // discussion 02:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Some decorum

This ongoing discussion on the talk page of an editor who is unable to respond is really low. You should all be ashamed of yourselves. DuncanHill (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've got a bit of a problem with this. The block template says RHMED was blocked for 3RR. Obviously there are forms of edit warring which do not violate 3RR but violate our rules, but the template says 3RR. If he didn't violate 3RR, I think he should be unblocked. His other conduct may result in a block, but that's not before us right now. You can't block someone citing 3RR who didn't violate the policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong template, but the block wording makes it clear (to me) that this is an edit warring block. Lets not get overly up in arms over a bad application of templates.--Tznkai (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You're in traffic court on a speeding charge. You defend the speeding charge, and the judge finds you guilty of ... running a red light. Obviously you'd be groused. Which doesn't excuse his outburst, but makes it understandable.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion the outburst is not the originating problem - the vandalism and edit warring was - and his invective was directed not at the admin who blocked and mistemplated him, but on someone else.--Tznkai (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 month

I have extended the block to one month. WP:RTV is a courtesy extended to editors who request it from the community. It is not something to be demanded through vandalism, harassment and block evasion. If and when you decide to engage with other editors courteously, we can start talking about RTV. If "vanishing" this account isn't strictly necessary, you have the right to simply stop editing Misplaced Pages. Please don't drag this out or cause it to be more drama than it is worth. Any further block evasion, trolling or otherwise disruptive acts will result in this block being extended indefinitely. Protonk (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi RMHED, I unprotected your page in light of this -- Samir 04:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, RMHED

Your block is being discussed on the Misplaced Pages Review. We invite you to join the discussion and give your side of the story. --Eric Barbour (talk) 04:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Eric, I'm always aware of what is happening at Misplaced Pages Review. RMHED. 21:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Vanishing

If you still wish to vanish in a few days, feel free to e-mail me or leave a message somewhere I'll see it and I'll see that your user talk page is deleted. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Or if you want to come back, let me know in a few days, and we can discuss the best way to go about it to improve the project. Expect that everything you do will be under a microscope for quite some time.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you both, maybe I will vanish or maybe I'll just retire this account and start a new one. Six months+ of being a good, well rounded little wikipedian should then equate to a nice easy RFA. Then the fun can really begin. RMHED. 21:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

You know that won't work and you know why that won't work and you know the gain at the end, such as it is, will be short lived. So come on back.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention it all sounds like rather too much effort. I don't really think there is a way back for me, I'm quite sure Aitias would be stalking my every edit just waiting to pounce on the slightest little faux pas.RMHED. 22:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

RMHED, take a break. A lot of people respect the good work you've done and your positive contributions to Misplaced Pages. Your blow up doesn't change that, but it does indicate you are in desperate need of a break. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Take the weekend, think about it, let me know next week. I'm not going to make you crawl for a block shorten, but I'll need to feel assured that it won't recur.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think Aitias would object to you doing a block review given his posts on your talk page, I certainly wouldn't want to see you get yourself into trouble on my account. RMHED. 20:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You are of course free to request {{unblock}}, but Wehwalt has a clear WP:COI and thus such a request must be reviewed by an impartial/unbiased administrator. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 21:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) What COI is that? I find nothing in the policy that applies. I don't even know RHMED other than dealing with him as an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There wouldn't be, by some happy coincidence an admin the two of you could agree on as fair and impartial?--Tznkai (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think we're putting the cart before the horse here. I've yet to hear anything from RHMED that would justify an unblock. Let's wait and see what he does rather than going to town on each other. I will say that I don't think anyone would unblock him without discussion either here or at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

@Tznkai: Every admin excepting Wehwalt and more preferably excepting those who commented in the AN/I discussion (=a completely uninvolved one). Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 02:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is my suggestion then - if RHMED chooses to make an unblock request, we all stay out of it. No comments - no objections, no endorsements: just our silence, and we let the rest of ANI handle it, if it comes up?--Tznkai (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't see the point of that. Even if there were a COI (which Aitias has not justified), talk is free. I'm going to await events.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If RHMED agrees to not vandalize main space or attack on the way out, etc., I would be willing to delete all his sub-pages and lock this talk for a RTV processing. No one can possibly accuse me of being involved or having a COI, given statements RHMED has made in opposition to me on my RFA and after I did my RFA thankspam. rootology (C)(T) 16:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, gee whiz, if I posted sympathetic comments and Aitias thinks I am disqualified (I do not and am not) then for sure you're gone for having unsympathetic comments posted against you! Seriously all we can do is await RHMED's next comments. Someone, possibly myself, will act based on his comments, any colloquy, and discussion here.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"I think Aitias would object to you doing a block review given his posts on your talk page, I certainly wouldn't want to see you get yourself into trouble on my account. RMHED. 20:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)" It seems that one of the obstacles to RMHED even posting an unblock or other request is to get Aitias and Wehwalt both out of the process, for whatever reason, or such is the implication of RMHED's words and the objections being flung back and forth. Anyway we can make that happen?--Tznkai (talk) 19:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is it I think that Aitias is not getting out of the process, no matter what? And as RHMED has stated, Aitias will certainly be following so closely in RHMED's tracks (let's not forget Aitias did the unjustified block of RHMED which was overturned). I'd be willing to step aside if Aitias was willing to stay away from RHMED, but I can't think how to make that enforceable.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There are several things you should note, Wehwalt. The first thing is that the block was not unjustified, but the overturning was. The overturning admin did never read WP:Edit war and unfortunately he does neither understand that policy nor is he willing to understand it. The next thing you should note is that the only reason why this Aitias was not able to stay out was that there are certain admins, our worst by a mile, with extremely bad judgement who think that insulting other users, edit warring, evading blocks and vandalising pages are great things that deserve sincere appreciation and admiration as well as absolute endorsement. And you are right that Aitias won't “get out” unless those admins get out. Thus there was my suggestion that all (=all) admins who commented at AN/I and RMHED talk page stay out — in this case I would do so as well. Please note that I don't consider all those bad admins (some of those are in fact great), but I don't want to give names and therefore this suggestion. However, you seem to disagree with it. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 21:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is where we are then. Still waiting for RHMED's next move, but I did ask him to take the weekend and think about things. Let's see what happens rather than arguing about hypotheticals? And as for RHMED's overturned block, the overturning was accompanied by broad community agreement.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

And it was still false. “Non tam bene cum rebus humanis agitur ut meliora pluribus placeant: argumentum pessimi turba est.” (Lucius Annaeus Seneca, de vita beata, 2,1.). Translation: “The human standards are not that good that the majority would like the best : The large crowd is an evidence of the worst.” — Aitias // discussion 22:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your views and for the quotes.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't mean that I would agree with this quote in general, but in this particular case it applies certainly. — Aitias // discussion 22:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that Aitias and Wehwalt get off this page and leave the unblock process here to the uninvolved such as myself - we can handle this without your interjections :) In the nicest possible way, there is nothing useful you guys can do to contribute to this side of the discussion. If and when RMHED wants to make an appeal, he can post it up here and we'll deal with it - this is not an appropriate forum for your arguments between yourselves. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Balthasar H. Meyer

Wehwalt you could add this image, File:Interstate Commerce Commission.jpg to the above article. Not a great picture of him mind. RMHED. 00:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I will when I am on my laptop.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tiptoety 02:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

In the event you do not ask for and/or recieve an unblock, you may submit evidence by e-mail directly to the Arbitration committee, or you may ask one of the clerks to act as an intermediary.--Tznkai (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)