Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rbj

message: I'd like to point out that users can edit their usertalk pages while blocked. Blocking Rchamberlain would have done nothing. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and, as i've told you multiple times, that's not the point.  blocking me and not blocking Rchamberlain for an "edit war" showed a clear favoritism for Rchamberlain.  the fact that after being blocked, he and i could edit our own user pages is simply non sequitur.  and, of course, the inexcusable thing was that you didn't bother to inquire with me about what was going on before acting.  there is no excuse for that.  you simply acted as Rchamberlain's agent at my detriment.  BTW, you should probably put this in the main page, but i'll leave it to you. r b-j 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You were edit warring in his user space, of course you were the only one blocked. Things tend to favor someone working in their own space and minding themselves. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: but he wasn't just working his own space and he wasn't just minding himself.  it's reasonable to expect more competent finding of fact than demonstrated here. r b-j 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the page you were revert warring on, his talk page, he was in his own space. If he chooses to blank his talk page, that's his perogative (the page history is still available, and if you need to provide something as evidence later, use diffs). Edit warring on another users talk page is absolutely and totally unacceptable. If the user reverts you, leave it alone. If something about their behavior is still unacceptable later (as in, they continue to do something you believe is wrong on an article), seek out dispute resolution (WP:3O, WP:RFC, etc). But harassing people is not how you resolve things. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: if you had read the RfAr or my response for the RfC here, you would have read that this was where i was going when i was inappropriately (most certainly prematurely) blocked.  since i was not vandalizing his page nor was i personally attacking him (even though i was personally attacked by him  ), there is plenty of unacceptable going around.  in addition, blanking a message left by someone else on your talk page is hostile Talk_page#Etiquette - Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?.   but the least acceptable is abuse of authority by Phroziac measured in teaspoonfuls and by Karmafist measured in cubic meters.  what this is primarily about is my bringing to WP attention this abuse of authority and then the childish abusive retaliation by those whose authority to abuse was so publically questioned.  i am not backing down from that.  and if you take the time to examine and fix the timing errors in your timeline (so you know what event happened before what other event) the fact of this abuse of authority is apparent.  you get your timeline right and you will see a 3 hour gap, where i let Phroziac have the last word on this, where no one can accurately accuse me of any incivility, yet then Karmafist, at Phroziac's behest begins this harrassment that prompted me to the RfAr against them both (but primarily Karmafist since he is clearly the nastiest abuser of authority).  these facts will not go away. r b-j 01:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

text: And again, blocked users can edit their own user talk pages. It would do nothing to block him. Blocks are intended to stop the offending actions, and are not a punitive measure. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on my block