User talk:Gharr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Directory of subpages[edit]

Directory[edit]

Main user page Subpages of the main user page

User:Gharr/Draft --(personal use) Used to make draft documents

New Pages and Useful Information[edit]

User signatures[edit]

User signatures: check it out on "Wikipedia".

Glitches in Wikipedia deletes others & own material: Check diff after doing edit...[edit]

Boy, I just accidentally deleted someone else's work and my own.

I think it might be a good idea to check the diff pages next time I do a edit because I definitely did not do the deletion on purpose. I just did some spelling checks--across several headings--and added an anchor. --(Gharr (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

removing my comment on talkpage[edit]

Hi, you appear to have removed one some of my comment here, did you mean to do that? Off2riorob (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really sorry about that, I feel terrible. I have no idea how it happened, I even deleted one of my own comments. I have put your comment back into the article. I hope it looks the same as before.
Also I know you might not have read my talk page, but here is why I have not been doing much to help out of late:
User:Sloane gave out a generalized 3RR tag to me straight after he/she added a speedy deletion tag to a Resource Based Economy article that has now been deleted by User:2over0 on 09:49, 18 March 2011 (the talk page is gone also). While I am stating that a generalized (vague) 3RR tag appears threatening to a new user like me, I am also taking a hard look at the administration because I am still concerned about the terrible state that the Jacque Fresco talk page was in and User:Sloane little 3RR tag fired me up enough to have a try into asking why the administration system allows slander to remain for so long (and why experienced users like User:Sloane and User:OpenFuture ignored the slanderous Jacque Fresco talk page and so let it remain for even longer (if I had not got my back up about it and caused the article to be archived with your help).
I have not asked for any help because I think new users should experience the roughest edges of the Wikipedia politics on their own. I have to admit when you are on the lowest levels of the editor levels things seem to be very adversarial with the higher level editors (such as reviewers and administrators). Tags like the 3RR and speedy deletion tags seem a little too weapon like to use first-off with a low level user who probably feels quite powerless in the system already. I realize we all have limited time and it takes energy to track a users behavior, but it just seems like a very unfriendly Wikipedia-environment for new users to land in. When new users voices are blocked--my voice is a little more daring then most--then things like the slanderous Jacque Fresco talk page will remain a problem (and possibly a legal land-mine) for the Wikipedia--(Gharr (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Re your recent ANI thread[edit]

I hope I can offer some friendly advice because you seem to be having a little difficulty navigating Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and community norms at the moment.

  • First, at least partially you appear to be using your talk page (this page) in a manner akin to a blog. This makes the page confusing to follow and may be what has dissuaded other editors from taking the time to read it. You may be unaware that you can create additional sub-pages in your userspace (append the desired page name to the URL in the address bar of your browser eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gharr/PAGENAME). You might find this useful for organising and separating out your personal thoughts and observations from the communication you have with other editors.
  • Second, as Lifebaka has observed on the ANI thread, it's not productive or collegiate to be abusive to the people you're requesting help from (and even less so when you're simultaneously accusing others of abusing you). The inevitable conclusion is that, if an editor is rude and arrogant when requesting assistance, it's not surprising they've fallen out with other editors and any difficulties they're having are probably self-inflicted. For the record, editors with the "reviewer" flag aren't administrators. The reviewer flag is a technical ability set for any established editor who can be trusted to screen out obvious vandalism from articles that are protected under "pending changes". The only real relevance it has to your complaint is that because the editors given this flag are experienced, their advice is often worth listening to.
  • Finally:
    1. An editor reminding you about the three-revert rule/edit-warring is in no way "harassment".
    2. Occasional anonymous vandalism to articles is one of the crosses we bear for having an open editing policy; as long as the vandalism isn't excessive the page won't be protected. If you need page protection though, the place to request it at WP:RFPP and not on the article talk page (which is watched only by those who have it on their watchlist and not the admin corps as a whole).
    3. There seem to be some concerns that you resist content changes on The Venus Project. You need to be careful not to display article ownership.
    4. It's extremely unlikely that there's any sort of conspiracy against the Venus Project article. Unsubstantiated allegations made against other editors are a violation of our no personal attacks policy. If enough editors come independently to the same conclusion, it might look like a conspiracy even though it isn't (we, of course, call that "consensus" :).

Hope this helps and you take my advice in the spirit that it's given, EyeSerenetalk 15:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for your input. I think it's great :) I understand you are trying to help us all out--thanks.
I have my opinions and I intend to say them--and that is exactly what I have tried to do. New users are not punching bags. If you use hammers I will respond in kind no matter what the Wikipedia rules are--being punished for defending myself will be a pleasure.
As for conspiracies, there are plenty of things to worry about before that place is even arrived at: I would call it a conflict of interest if a editor who either against The Venus Project or an opponent of its theories edits that article or goes on to edit the talk page.
My talk page is generally not about aggressive moves or actions. I will be reading your section carefully and trying out some of the stuff you have written here. Although I will not follow all your suggestions, your input is valued and I will be reading your article quite a few times (sorry ahead of time if I decide to put in anchors within your text because I find some of your stuff outstanding and worth contemplating else where). --(Gharr (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

3RR behaviour[edit]

see [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Handling_of_edit_warring_behaviors]: "Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive."

3rr Example that is Considered Agressive-18 March 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Venus Project. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.--Sloane (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above example shows a general 24 hour 3RR warning, where there is no way to know what 3RR this user is talking about.

In addition, at the time I trying to talk things out with a user rather then commit a 24 hour 3RR war, and felt this warning was totally wrong and unnecessary.

I took great offence at its aggressive and generalized nature.

Later on I found out how aggressive this message was to the user ( see below 24 hour 3RR that I did not commit but still ended up blocked for it) and how little risk the accuser takes in giving it out it would seem.

At the time I saw the above being used more like a weapon to silence me and that is confirmed by the series of blocks and one failed appeal against the 24 hour 3RR block.


Notes[edit]


3rr[edit]

Previous Response to Edit War Tag from User:Sloane[edit]

Your notice article is unwelcome. this 3RRR notice will be deleted, I have had discussions in the talk page and have tried to be reasonable--you have little reason to put the article you attempted to put here just then.. Feel free to block or ban me because I have done nothing wrong...

I will be making mention of your behavior in the future you can count on that...

Setting the background scene[edit]

The following I hope explains why I find User:Sloane’s speedy deletion tag, followed by a offensive Generalized 24 hour 3RR tag as both connected and very aggressive. Those two events I felt were a strike back result by User:Sloane due to the discussion that occurred in the slanderous Jacque Fresco talk page which User:Sloane was at fault at minimum for remaining quite at maximum for aiding his/her friend User:OpenFuture who was later aided by User:Sloane because User:Sloane stood in for User:OpenFuture in the final 24 Hour 3RR complaint against me!

I include the parial article in question in here for reference purposes because it probably needs it’s links corrected after all the archiving and shifting of material that has occurred:

This is what I believe what got User:OpenFuture back up and also resulted in a desire for strikback via his friend User:Sloane. These are a set of statements made by User:OpenFuture:

    • do** it [1], Ku Klux Klan (propagating poorly referenced material that goes on for far too long about the subject) [2], it's nothing but a neologism for technocracy,Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page)., it was obvious that there was no basis for an article. It doesn't matter how many sources you have, unless these sources are about things he [Jacque Fresco] did outside of The Venus Project [I believe this sentence it totally false, it lacks understanding of Wikipedia rules][3], But "resource based economy" is on the other hand just another name for technocratic communism, so does it really need it's own article?[4], Technocratic communism only means that you want communism… What makes TVP technocratics? The fact that they want the whole society run by technology and computers . That is per definition technocratic… TVP want to abolish ownership of the means of production, which is pretty much the definition of communism… In all cases, communism, resource-based economy, technocracy, it's based on a fundamental lack of knowledge on how economy works, and what the problems in economy is.[5], The system is the goal, in both communism and TVP. The means/goal are in also the same: The practical abolishment of ownership of resources and production.[6]

User:Sloane stood in for his/her friend User:OpenFuture in the 24 hour 3RR complaint made against me.

It is this friendship with User:OpenFuture and the fact that user User:Sloane was also, I feel is guilty of allowing the slanderous Jacque Fresco talk page. It was User:Sloane’s friend User:OpenFuture who was the strongest voice in the talk page and by virtue the most visible person who clearly ignored (and even noted and perpetuated the slander on the Jacque Fresco talk page.

This part of the talk is complex because the article mentioned is deleted and the Resource based economy is re-directed to something different then Resource Based Economy just for starters.

Resource based economy I and another writer had been discussing the article and had asked the writer of the article to do some basic things. Before we could get a reply, User:Sloane put in a speedy deletion tag, and by speed I mean the article was gone shortly afterwards ( by User:2over0 on 18 March 2011). Again, since the article was deleted, there is no easy way to reference this or this discussion would be much shorter.

I got the feeling User:Sloane and knew I had left a comment there ( since he/she seems to be tracking my edits) so I felt that the speedy deletion tag was designed and timed to be offensive just like the generalized 3RR tag.

Complaint Section[edit]

I also take note of this, for this is the recorded behavior that led to this situation:

And finally your (User:Sloane) neutrality:

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacque_Fresco&diff=413847250&oldid=413380524#Edit_request_from_Setori88.2C_1_February_2011
    • This reference is moved forward in time to 01:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC): So User:Sloane is included in the span
      • "A merge seems an excellent idea, although it might be best to merge Jaque Fresco and the Venus Project into Zeitgeist: The Movie which seems the only article that's properly sourced.Sloane (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC) "
      • "This article barely had any reliable sources. The Venus Project article is slightly better sourced (still inadequate imo though), but maybe it's a better idea to merge the Venus Project article into this one?--Sloane (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)"
  • User:Sloane has shown no reaction to the state of Jacque Fresco talk page that bordered on slander. The time frames of this archived document shows that the awful state of this document has been allowed to remained in Wikipedia for far too long. I'm not only looking at User:Sloane or User:OpenFuture here. I wondering why the upper levels of administration allows this sort of thing to go unchecked for so long???--(13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Recapping the events that led to this complaint in a longer form[edit]

The user called User:Sloane booked marked this website for speedy deletion: Resource based economy[7](This content has now been removed by an administrator, see actions so far after complaint heading). --(13:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC))

He/She then proceeded to give me this warning: You currently appear to be engaged in a Edit war according the reverts you made on the The_Venus_Project.

I had been discussing this stuff with the person who I am supposedly edited warring with extensively[8].

User:Sloane had not even looked at this page it would seem: Talk:The_Venus_Project#Capitalization_of_.22the.22

The Generalized 24 Hour 3RR tag he/she put in my talk page was threatening and without warning. It stated the following: Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. But there is more to User:Sloane. This person stood by and said nothing about the state of the old (now archived) Jacque_Fresco article: Jacque Fresco Talk Page other then to add:

  1. “merge Jaque Fresco and the Venus Project into Zeitgeist: The Movie”
  2. “maybe it's a better idea to merge the Venus Project article into this one”

This is the same article I chose not to complain about because it was archived and all that is left of the talk page is here: Jacque Fresco Talk Page. However the archived article failed to meet Wikipedia standards and was virtually an attack on Jacque_Fresco.

So did User:Sloane just happen to put in a delete tag on the Resource Based Economy and then just happened to put in a Edit war tag for me…I very much doubt it.

This user has abused the privileges given to him/her. I am far from impressed at the state of articles and talk pages in Wikipedia. I am getting the idea administrators are not nice people.

Since this is the standard behavior in here, I will just do my work here till some “oddball-vandal-administrator” gets the upper hand and bans me. Don’t bother asking me to become one of you, this system your run sucks.

And User:Sloane, stay the hell off my talk page, you deserve to be banned, I don't respect you (Sloane ‎(reviewer) (Created on 31 January 2006 at 16:33--this looks a awful lot like you, a reviewer is admin by my standards.))


---(Gharr (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

complaint made --(Gharr (talk) 05:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

---(Gharr (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Complaint is now archived
Explanation on how to find archived material: how to find archived material

User:Sloane showing how to act responsibly as a administrar/reviewer BY CONTINUING HOUNDING

  • [1]--VANDALISM
  • [2]--HE/SHE CARES LITTLE ABOUT DISCUSSION ON TALK PAGE[8]

--(Gharr (talk) 06:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actions So far after complaint

18 March 2011
  • (diff | hist) . . Talk:The Venus Project‎; 10:02 . . (+184) . . Ground Zero (talk | contribs) (→Capitalization of "the": )
  • (diff | hist) . . N Resource based economy‎; 09:50 . . (+31) . . 2over0 (talk | contribs) (rdr The Venus Project; matches Resource-Based Economy)
  • (Deletion log); 09:49 . . 2over0 (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Resource based economy" (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
  • (Deletion log); 09:49 . . 2over0 (talk | contribs) deleted "Resource based economy" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy; no significant edit history)
  • (diff | hist) . . The Venus Project‎; 05:09 . . (-25) . . Sloane (talk | contribs) (Per WP:MOS and for some consistency)
17 March 2011
  • (diff | hist) . . m The Zeitgeist Movement‎; 11:09 . . (+2) . . Ground Zero (talk | contribs) (→Reception: italicization)
20 March 2011
(05:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC))
  • 20 March 2011
  • (diff | hist) . . The Venus Project‎; 21:30 . . (+125) . . Ground Zero (talk | contribs) (commenting out - needs citation and more detail)
  • 18 March 2011
  • (diff | hist) . . The Zeitgeist Movement‎; 18:05 . . (+21) . . Sloane (talk | contribs) (→See also: seems pretty related)
  • (diff | hist) . . Talk:The Venus Project‎; 10:02 . . (+184) . . Ground Zero (talk | contribs) (→Capitalization of "the": )
  • (diff | hist) . . N Resource based economy‎; 09:50 . . (+31) . . 2over0 (talk | contribs) (rdr The Venus Project; matches Resource-Based Economy)
  • (Deletion log); 09:49 . . 2over0 (talk | contribs) deleted "Talk:Resource based economy" (G8: Talk page of a deleted page)
  • (Deletion log); 09:49 . . 2over0 (talk | contribs) deleted "Resource based economy" (G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.thevenusproject.com/en/a-new-social-design/resource-based-economy; no significant edit history)

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ See Talk:Jacque_Fresco#Merge
  2. ^ See Talk:Jacque_Fresco#Merge
  3. ^ See Talk:The_Venus_Project#Merge_proposal
  4. ^ See Talk:The_Venus_Project#Do_Not_Merge_This_Article
  5. ^ See Talk:The_Venus_Project#Do_Not_Merge_This_Article
  6. ^ See Talk:The_Venus_Project#Neutrality2
  7. ^ The deleted “Resource based economy” now re-directs to a page called Post_scarcity. I might ask why User:Loremaster decided on that re-direction because it appears to be totally wrong since it should re-direct to The Venus Project since that is what the original deleted article was about. Oh well… at least Resource_Based_Economy redirects to the right place I suppose.
  8. ^ a b Talk:The_Venus_Project#Capitalization_of_.22the.22

3rr outside the ring[edit]

21 March 2011


Stay off my talk page and stop making this personal User:OpenFuture; I already know what kind of editor you are[edit]

Looks like you avoid the 3RR by making the last edit 25 hours later, you certainly are a piece of work. But thanks for clueing me in on how to do a strike-through ha ha ha.

You got no reasons to put this talk stuff on my personal page. My next warning will not be polite. I'm already giving you a 3RR Notice soon.

I offered to talk this out with you on the Talk:The_Venus_Project page, but apparently you just want to ignore me when you think it's to your advantage and then suddenly turn talkative and personal when you think it to your advantage.

You have stated your POV to me before and this is your statement to me: “Gharr, your aggressive and rude behavior goes against Wikipedia policy. I have so far decided to ignore you because of this, but it clearly isn't working.”

Well I have tried to ignore you, but instead of taking this to the proper place as I politely asked you to, you continue to make this personal and that is against wikipedia rules and you have my warning here too.

You agressive and rude edit wars show you don't give a dam about wikipedia policy: your comments in the Jacque Fresco biography is full of POV and you ignored any slander in the article and even added to it. You have nothing but POV from what I can see and it sticks out a mile. This edit war is just a continuation of this POV--this is the kind of editor you are.

Edit War By User:OpenFuture in less then 36 hours time span as per [[3]] the time span is extended in this note[edit]

I think you understand wikipedia rules well enough to leave your comments on the Talk:The_Venus_Project but for some reason you have ignored my offer till the last moment when you knew a 3RR Edit reversion war warning is going [would go] your way. Your manipulation of time to 25 hours is noted:

Next time you come on my talk page I will not be so polite--you seem to ignore me but think I can not do so also. ...

Summary Of Blocking Actions by Administration[edit]

24 hour 3RR block by User_talk:EdJohnston[edit]

I am innocent of this, the other party even admitted it, yet I was found guilty of this and blocked by User_talk:EdJohnston, who also happens to reside in my hounding complaint and my accuser User:Sloane is the one who I am accusing of hounding me.

Review of 24 hour block by User:Tnxman307[edit]

I’m stunned, the false "24 hour 3RR block by User_talk:EdJohnston" is not picked up! The decision is upheld.

48 Civility block by User:Lifebaka[edit]

This was a snap decision where the User:Lifebaka who did not hold any formal talks in the administration area—thus I had no way to defend against this in a formal setting.

24 3RR Hours Block by User talk:EdJohnston: "Edit warring at The Venus Project"[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Gharr reported by User:Sloane (Result: 24h). EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review Upholds: "24 3RR Hours Block by User talk:EdJohnston" (Review person User:Tnxman307)[edit]

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).

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

Request reason:

The block log clearly says I have committed a 24 hour 3RR edit war and that is false and I have said so. How does an administrator have the right prevent my voice being heard? Is this some sort of In-Crowd club where new people are not allowed to have any rights? We--the new users--are simply abused and punished without pause while other groups of users gang up on us and get away with the very same thing unscathed?

I’m not sure exactly why I have been blocked; it has not been explained to me. It is quite clear that I have not committed a (24 hour) 3RR offense here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive154#User:Gharr_reported_by_User:Sloane_.28Result:_24h.29. I think this administrator is out of line. The users that were affected by this are not here, it seams that User:Sloane is there on behalf User:OpenFuture and User:Edward321 who were the ones carrying out the 3RR edit reverts on on me! Because of this unjust punishment I have been prevented from having my voice heard in a complaint against User:Sloane for hounding me—(and User:Sloane has seemingly been successful so far here in continuing that trend with a administrators help).

Since I have been blocked there may be a chance my complaint about hounding will go into the archives. Other users have claimed that silencing people are wrong, yet it has been done to me so my complaint will remain unheard. Further User:Zakhalesh has started to get involved too and seem to have sided with User:Sloane.

I get the feeling that User:Zakhalesh has somehow hijacked this session to make a claim of some sort that I have not had a chance to defend myself against. Perhaps User:Zakhalesh feels I should not access his/her personal page or something—the very thing other users do to me on a regular basis. Even in [| my complaint section] users have linked to my personal page and also claimed to have links to outside Wikipedia on my comments. None of the many people leaving comments there have bothered to say this is wrong. Perhaps new user here really don't have any equal rights here on several levels. You people have permanantly turned me off asking for any more powers in Wikipedia--many of of you seem to wield those rights like weapons against new users and do whatever you like.

However I can only go by the block log and that says I have committed a 24 hour 3RR edit war and that is false and I have said so in that complaint section.

Is this some sort of In-club thing where new users don’t really have any rights here. I don’t really know what to think of aminstrators that are behaving like this??? They say it’s wrong to ban people from a discusstion and then do that very thing to me??? Gharr (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC), edit by several intermidates of my complaint Gharr (talk) 9:45 pm, Today (UTC−4)--revised back to original--(Gharr (talk) 23:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, but the majority of your unblock request reads as an attempt to blame other editors, the blocking admin, and administrators in general. Please read why this will not lead to a shorter block and our guide to writing unblock requests. TNXMan 03:21, 28 March 2011 (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.


you seem to think you can edit my complaint as you like and bring me up on false 3RR charges and follow that up with some sort of funny advice about the rule book that you yourselves throw out whenever you feel like it[edit]

User:Tnxman307 So I didn't commit a 24 hour 3RR but you upheld it--nice one.

User:Tnxman307 You edit my complaint--nice one.

User:Tnxman307 out of 6 billion people on earth, Mr/Ms EdJohnston just happens to reside over both a false accusation of a 24 hour 3RR and is in the page that I am accuing User:Sloane of hounding me--how convienient, nice one again. \ User:Tnxman307 Should I respect what you have to say--NO.

Will I be keeping an eye on you User:Tnxman307 and EdJohnston, probably since I have to know if the trowing out of the rule book is a common occurance here.

I also wonder if creepy administrators like EdJohnston follow people around from admin complaint pages to 24 3RR complaints to no doubt make sure his mates stay safe. I mean why else would EdJohnston open himself/herself open to conflict of interest accustions unless they thought loyalty to ones mates buys more then the rule book.

Since you like to seemingly feel free to edit my complaint as you like, I put a copy here in case you admin type feel guilty about your little stunts:[edit]

Another copy of my complaint since you admin types like to edit out the truth along with the rules-------------

The block log clearly says I have committed a 24 hour 3RR edit war and that is false and I have said so. How does an administrator have the right prevent my voice being heard? Is this some sort of In-Crowd club where new people are not allowed to have any rights? We--the new users--are simply abused and punished without pause while other groups of users gang up on us and get away with the very same thing unscathed?

I’m not sure exactly why I have been blocked; it has not been explained to me. It is quite clear that I have not committed a (24 hour) 3RR offense here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive154#User:Gharr_reported_by_User:Sloane_.28Result:_24h.29. I think this administrator is out of line. The users that were affected by this are not here, it seams that User:Sloane is there on behalf User:OpenFuture and User:Edward321 who were the ones carrying out the 3RR edit reverts on on me! Because of this unjust punishment I have been prevented from having my voice heard in a complaint against User:Sloane for hounding me—(and User:Sloane has seemingly been successful so far here in continuing that trend with a administrators help).

Since I have been blocked there may be a chance my complaint about hounding will go into the archives. Other users have claimed that silencing people are wrong, yet it has been done to me so my complaint will remain unheard. Further User:Zakhalesh has started to get involved too and seem to have sided with User:Sloane.

I get the feeling that User:Zakhalesh has somehow hijacked this session to make a claim of some sort that I have not had a chance to defend myself against. Perhaps User:Zakhalesh feels I should not access his/her personal page or something—the very thing other users do to me on a regular basis. Even in my complaint section users have linked to my personal page and also claimed to have links to outside Wikipedia on my comments. None of the many people leaving comments there have bothered to say this is wrong. Perhaps new user here really don't have any equal rights here on several levels. You people have permanently turned me off asking for any more powers in Wikipedia--many of of you seem to wield those rights like weapons against new users and do whatever you like.

However I can only go by the block log and that says I have committed a 24 hour 3RR edit war and that is false and I have said so in that complaint section.

Is this some sort of In-club thing where new users don’t really have any rights here. I don’t really know what to think of administrators that are behaving like this??? They say it’s wrong to ban people from a discussion and then do that very thing to me??? Gharr (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of complaint ends here--you admin types have some real freedom of speech issues that is clear------------------

"Keep up the good work of sanitising this place folk because that way it won’t smell like a sewerage."


---(Gharr (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

48 Civility block by User talk:Lifebaka[edit]

Civility block[edit]

I see that you read my message, and I see that you didn't get it. Attacking other users (such as calling them "creepy") is not acceptable. Telling others you will keep an eye on them is a statement that you plan to hound them and is not acceptable. Take the next 48 hours off; when you come back, stop with your combative attitude and try working with people to get something done. Accusations against others will result in longer blocks. lifebaka++ 00:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to take part in a pilot study[edit]

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gharr&oldid=1043648554"