Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:38, 5 July 2007

Archives

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Mike Godwin

First of all, the unqualified deletions of a rude anon are not a breach of 3RR. They are removal of vandalism.

I thought I asked you to spare me that excuse. Oh well.

Second, why can't you even look at the evidence I've provided on the talk page before reverting in a knee-jerk fashion.

"Mr Kettle? It's Mr Pot on Line 4. He says you're black".

In case, you can try trotting out either chestnut here and see if they take. --Calton | Talk 03:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation on Mike Godwin

You have been temporarily blocked for violating WP:3RR on Mike Godwin (see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:VanTucky reported by User:Calton (Result:12 hours)). When you return please use the Talk: page to work out disputes. Jayjg 04:12, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

unblock

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

Request reason:

I have never been warned or censured for violations of the 3RR before, and I sincerely believed I was reverting a vandal. My later reversions ceased once editors with an objection to the content in question made their concerns clear and reverted me.

Decline reason:

You reverted 5 times, ignoring the consensus that your tag was inappropriate. 12 hours was lenient. — Steve _(Stephen) 07:53, 5 July 2007 (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.

You've been editing for almost a year now, so you're not a new editor, and you also reverted an established editor. Based on the 5 reverts I could have blocked for 24 hours, but I only blocked for 12, in recognition that this was a first offense. Please don't make me regret that. Jayjg 04:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't threaten me for contesting what I feel is an illegitimate block. VanTucky 04:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you; I'm pointing out that you are responding to leniency regarding your 5 reverts in 70 minutes with complaints of an "illegitimate block", which really is a slap in the face. Jayjg 04:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

you're right about the leniency I guess. I just feel like I've been attacked and then blocked for simply adding a basic tag requesting citations that didn't exist in a biography of a living person. I don't understand why this was so controversial. The tag gets added to hundreds of articles with uncited facts everyday. VanTucky 04:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you were blocked for pointless edit-warring.

And this? Not very smart when it's so easy to figure out. A little self-reflection might be in order here. --Calton | Talk 07:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? the link just shows some ambiguous info about such and such number of users being blocked. So you see two different Comcast IP's and assume it's me? I have never been pursued by anyone so vehementely, nor ever commited vandalism (and honestly, if I was going to lash out at you, I should think of something rather more clever. I'm not a paid writer for nothing). Calton, we've never interacted before, and I don't understand why you have such a hard time taking my word when it comes to having good intentions. I'd rather not interact if we're going to be so combative. VanTucky 07:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

So you see two different Comcast IP's and assume it's me? -- How odd, I only saw one.

So we have you, an editor from Vancouver, Washington -- I mean, you put it in your NAME, for god's sake -- who gets blocked because of my report, and an hour later an IP from Vancouver, Washington vandalizes my user page. I can put two and two together quite well, thank you.

Make whatever assumptions you like about me, but kindly don't include gross stupidity on your list. Or do you wish to claim that you were framed or something? --Calton | Talk 09:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, maybe I'm just a technical idiot, but I don't see how your link provides incontrovertible evidence that I vandalized your userpage. But if you wanna talk location...you're easily forgetting logistics. I live in Portland, I do not own a car, and Trimet bus routes end early on a national holiday. You think I biked all the way to Vancouver in an hour just to vandalize someone who hasn't done anything to me? You didn't make those reverts, I did. Thus I was blocked. The fact that you put it on the noticeboard is of no consequence, as any of the editors who participated in that trivial edit war could, and probably would, have done it. And no, just for the record, I make no judgments about the mental capacities of a person who I have not only never met, but whom I have not substantially interacted with online. VanTucky 17:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

...I don't see how your link provides incontrovertible evidence that I vandalized your userpage - You appear to have confused Misplaced Pages with a court of law. In any case, your rather confused logic wouldn't have gone over well in a court, nor your "evidence" derived solely from citations from the International Journal of Because I Said So. I'm not big believer in coincidence, and, frankly, whether your story is made-up entirely or technically correct, it's pretty obvious there's a connection, by you or by a meatpuppet like, say, your brother.

And for the record, insulting someone's intelligence with convoluted rationales is a pretty good implicit indicator of your judgment. --Calton | Talk 22:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)