Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:15, 19 October 2010

Status: Online

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Welcome to my talk page! My archives can be found here. Feel free to message me below! You can do it by clicking here.When you post, please assume good faith, be polite, avoid personal attacks, and be welcoming. It's important that you sign all your messages here using four tildes (~~~~), or else, the archiver bot will not be able to archive them later.

You do realize...

...that taking the unblock request to WP:AN probably did more damage to it, and to the reputation of the editor than anything else possibly could have. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

• Indeed, and it was yet another in a long history of meddlesome behaviour. Taking an unblock request to WP:AN should be done by someone familiar with the editor who is willing to present a case for them, not just say "hey guys, what do you think?" –xeno 19:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't understand what you mean. As he was blocked due to an ANI discussion he has to be unblocked through the same process. Do you mean that I should've not started the AN discussion and instead let an uninvolved administrator just review their unblock request? HeyMid (contributions) 20:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As the first-responder astutely pointed out, you should've left it to their mentors. –xeno 20:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yup. And now dozens of admins have reviewed him and his actions - have viewed them as poor - and it's neither going to go well for him, and has probably pulled your reputation down as well. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

They mean you should be focussing on article-work and leaving Protector of Wiki's talkpage alone. Not doing this, and not doing this. Crikey, Heymid, how many times and in how many ways do we need to say this? Keep your head down, focus on article work, don't mess around with talkpages. TFOWR 20:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, here is the truth: Yes, I did understand the risk of TFOWR accusing me for this, but I decided to take the risk by being bold. HeyMid (contributions) 20:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my bluntness: you've done some dumb things in your Misplaced Pages career, but this was the dumbest that I can recall. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done far more dumb things than this one, see my contributions a week ago. Also, I believe that it was not a must for everyone to comment on that AN thread. And it's up to you whether you wanted to support or oppose. I'm not sure if I've done a mistake (unblock request may've been declined anyways). HeyMid (contributions) 20:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

Heymid, I've blocked you for one week.

When HJ unblocked you, it was because you had made several promises. In particular, you had promised that you would:

1. stop refactoring other's comments
2. follow consensus, and seek consensus when needed, before making controversial edits

Since then you've continued to refactor other editors' comments. You've done this on several occasions, resulting in David Biddulph (talk) giving you this warning. Throughout all this I've tried to advise you - both on your talkpage and via email - to stop. After the incident that led to David's warning, I very nearly blocked you then - indeed, it was David's warning that stopped me. You will remember that I left this message.

I've also advised you several times to stay away from Protector of Wiki (talk)'s talkpage. I can dig out diffs if necessary, but I'm sure you'll remember. Despite this, after Giftiger wunsch (talk) posted this at POW's talkpage you came along shortly after and refactored GW's comment.

POW is being mentored by UncleDouggie (talk) and Sonia (talk), with the intention that POW would request an unblock when they felt the time was right. The decision to make an unblock request, the decision as to where to make that request - that decision was POW's, UncleDouggie's, and Sonia's decision. This was, as other admins have commented above, dumb. You should have sought consensus before doing anything as controversial as this.

Heymid, you need to pay attention to what other editors are telling you. You've ignored advice and instructions too many times. It's disruptive. It's breaking the promises you made when you were last blocked. I hope when your current block expires you'll pay more attention and be less disruptive. TFOWR 20:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

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

Request reason:

OK, I realize I was stupid this time. A week ago I refactored others' comments (removed comments, which I've completely stopped with since). Now I did the most stupid thing in the world by starting an AN discussion without ever thinking what would happen; I thought consensus would be to unblock the user, but I was apparently wrong. Disruptive editing? HeyMid (contributions) 20:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've spent some time reviewing everything here. After considering your unblock request, I am going to decline it, and here is why: The text of this unblock request does not show an understanding that sanctions occur for the entirety of your career at Misplaced Pages. Besides being snarky and sarcastic, this unblock request makes it seem like you were blocked for the sole action of starting the AN discussion, without considering the context of your own history here at Misplaced Pages. Because you show no acknowledgement that the block is done, not for a single incident or small set of incidents, but for an extended pattern of behavior, it does not appear that you understand why you are blocked. What this means is that, if you were unblocked, you would likely go back to the same behavior. So this block will remain until you can show evidence that you understand why you are blocked, and especially how you could change your actions in the future to not be blocked again. Jayron32 02:27, 14 October 2010 (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.

I probably wouldn't have blocked you for it, but your post to AN was just another in a long series of meddling behaviour - sticking your nose where it doesn't belong. Either you just don't get it, or you're intentionally testing your limits. The outlook isn't good in either case. –xeno 20:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request 2

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

Request reason:

I take back what I wrote in my previous unblock request. I find it ridiculous I am blocked for another week. First of all, forget the refactoring part, as I have stopped doing that since a week before the block. Secondly, what did I do wrong when I started the AN discussion; I started it completely in good faith, mostly in respect to Protector of Wiki, as no admin likely wouldn't have reviewed their unblock request without a meta discussion. If a user is blocked due to a community discussion, they have to be unblocked through the same process. The problem here was I started the AN discussion as an uninvolved editor; Sonia and UncleDouggie were/are their mentors, and I have several times been asked to stop involving myself in PoW. However, I decided to go bold. However, it turned out to be dumb by myself, so that just punished myself. However, the AN discussion showed there is no community consensus to unblock PoW. I showed my support for PoW's unblock request, however.

But with this one week block, I am wondering something: Why are the administrators spending time on blocking users who maybe do one or two things wrong? Have I missed something here? I have been a problematic user for everyone, since a few months back. However, I have slowly been progressing, and now there is only one issue left. But I just don't understand what was the disruptive part in starting the AN discussion. What more do you want from me (or any editor)? Does someone realize why we've lost thousands of constructive contributors in just a few years? I do. It's ridiculous if no-one realizes why: It's because we block users who do one or two things wrong, but can hardly justify a block. I know that Misplaced Pages isn't a social network. However, is this how users (including me) should be treated? If I were an admin I wouldn't have blocked a user starting an AN discussion as an uninvolved editor.

I'm realizing something more: Why are we restricting users from starting AN(/I) discussions as an uninvolved editor? I hardly could see the controversial part(s) of my post. Somehow it seems that we (except for me) have forgotten that Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia which anyone can edit. I know that Misplaced Pages also is a community, but for that reason, why are administrators banning me from meddling in community-related discussions? Administrators, please use your admin powers for more constructive things than simply blocking constructive users who've almost reached the "finish line"; I'm almost there! So why have TFOWR blocked me, then? Just a few things to correct, then it's fine. For me, it seems that everyone believes I am always the user to blame. But I also believe administrators (or even other regular users) may also make mistakes. As we are only people, we make mistakes, and we will continue to make them.

Therefore I believe TFOWR has misused his administrative tools, which is the reason as to why I'm requesting unblocking now. Also, please don't simply decline this unblock request using {{subst:Decline reason here}}, and re-think twice before declining this unblock request at all. If I'm not unblocked, it should at least be shorted down to Sunday (17 October), or I may go block evasion (although not permitted) to go and get my article duties completed. I just want to edit Misplaced Pages and not spend time trying to get myself through the unblock process over and over. I actually appreciated HJ Mitchell's block, but this one was far more controversial. Thank you for your time.

Decline reason:

The comments in this unblock request continue to show you just don't get it. You aren't being blocked for doing one or two things wrong. You have been blocked for doing lots of things wrong. And then continuing to do them over and over again dispite being told about them. You say you are consistantly improving, but I am sorry you simply are not improving, if anything you have been getting worse. You threaten to sock puppet in this unblock request, that alone earns you a denied unblock request. I am actually contemplating extending your block for making such a threat. At the very least I am now removing your talk page access. DJSasso (talk) 16:24, 15 October 2010 (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.

I will point out that threatening block evasion is not a good idea. It itself is disruptive, and may be indicative of an obsession for editing. What is so vital in those articles that the edits couldn't wait a week? Syrthiss (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI#User:Heymid, User:AIK IF 2010

Heymid, I've raised an issue at ANI. It relates to you and the other username listed above. Contact me via email if you have any concerns you want raised at ANI. TFOWR 22:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Adminhelpe

My block has been extended to indefinite due to suspicion of probable socking by me. I do admit that I do have a close connection with AIK IF (a Swedish ice hockey team in Solna, Stockholm), but I have not been socking during my block, even though I do admit to having threatened with block evasion. I believe User:AIK IF 2010 is an impersonator who intentionally wanted me indefblocked; I have not created a new account since the block. I therefore request that a CheckUser be made between both of us. Thanks in advance. (Yes, comments liek "Updating standings" look like me, but I have only been using one account.) HeyMid (contributions) 08:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)