( 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. caknuck _° is a silly pudding 01:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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)[reply]

Decline reason:

See Wikipedia: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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • 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 Wikipedia participation. RMHED. 02:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia. 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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]