User talk:Greg Hedberg

Disambiguation link notification for February 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hormone replacement therapy (menopause), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bayesian and Mortality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

[Unblock request actioned and moved to bottom of thread.]

• I have asked AGK to comment here. JohnCD (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

  Please also note, as can be seen by my editing history, that I gave wide berth to any of the articles I was involved with formerly to avoid any conflict. I simply wish to continue editing without having my real life privacy violated. For the past 7 years, over the 9,000+ edits I've been fortunate to make here, I have not previously violated Wikipedia policy and have generally been a kind-natured WikiDragon. I have also e-mailed AGK, and hope he is able to follow up soon, as I very much feel like I'm out of the cooking pan and into the fire at this point. Greg Hedberg ^talk 17:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

  I fully support an unblock, as user's intention was to protect his identity. Both names had clean edit histories as I will supply both user's resumes. Lenny_Kaufman and Greg_Hedberg. I think he was confusing WP:RTV with WP:Clean start –BuickCenturyDriver 17:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Response: Yes, correct. Thank you for the policy link. My intention was to stop harassment, as described in WP:Clean start. I consider it a privilege to be here, and one that I take with sincerity. Greg Hedberg ^talk 08:39, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Could I respectfully request an update on the review of my block? It has been almost 3 weeks. Best, Greg Hedberg ^talk 21:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

An unblock seems to be appropriate at this time, but an administrator does need to review the request fairly soon. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 23:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I came across this request by accident looking at the category of users making appeals. I'm minded to grant the unblock request but this is a complicated issue and the history is a little unclear. Furthermore, now that this account and Lenny Kaufman have been linked above, I question whether a clean start is even possible for this account! However I will message both the original blocking admin and AGK to ask if they think an unblock is reasonable. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that, in the panic of being sent some threatening messages by another user, the appellant simply misunderstood and misapplied the RTV process. It was suggested elsewhere that he probably conflated RTV with a "clean start", and I'm minded to agree with that suggestion. I'll unblock on condition that the appellant does not make the same error again. AGK [•] 22:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Reason for new account was threatening prank phone calls to my place of work after I brought an article to the DRN, as my real life identity could be found by my edit history on my old account. I discussed the cyberbullying and cyberstalking extensively in e-mails with Mediation/Arbitration Committee member User:AGK. I also requested WP:OS, but received no follow-up. Ultimately, vanishing the account was my only recourse. I understand this is not per protocol, but how else can I protect private information that has inadvertently been shared and still be a part of the website?

Accept reason:

The account was blocked because the appellant exercised his Right To Vanish (RTV) and then created a new account. He is unblocked on condition that he does not do so again. AGK [•] 22:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 08:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)