Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:56, 18 May 2008 editGDD1000 (talk | contribs)1,535 edits →User:BigDunc reported by User:GDD1000 (Result:No action taken )← Previous edit Revision as of 21:12, 18 May 2008 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →User:BigDunc reported by User:GDD1000 (Result:No action taken ): Forum shoppingNext edit →
Line 525: Line 525:


I've said all along that I don't understand the copyright tagging. I feel there was a better way of doing this but when I'm under attack I can only ask for help and hope that I get it. ] (]) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I've said all along that I don't understand the copyright tagging. I feel there was a better way of doing this but when I'm under attack I can only ask for help and hope that I get it. ] (]) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
:We have already ruled that there is no 3RR violation. If you have further concerns, express them at ]. You've already participated in three different threads there: ], ] and ]. Beware of ]. If you know about Arbcom you can't be quite as naive as you appear. ] (]) 21:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


== ] reported by ] (Result: ) == == ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

Revision as of 21:12, 18 May 2008

Template:Moveprotected

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:KrytenKoro reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: Stale. )


    User is plainly uncivil, claims my good faith edits are vandalism, and makes personal attacks while edit warring on the Link page in spite of the discussion there. He goes as far as accusing me of wiki-lawyering and does not listen to my advice on the talk page or in my edit summaries directed to him. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

    User hasn't reverted since early this morning, ergo, it's stale. Scarian 13:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Regardless, he has violated the 3RR within a 24-hour time period and this policy agrees with me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    I don't agree that this is stale. 13 hours, especially when the edit warring user's revision is the top revision (thus giving no need to revert, and making the thirteen hours rather meaningless) is not long enough to be considered stale. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

    Okay, both of you, blocking is used as a preventative measure to protect the encyclopaedia. It is not used as a "punishment". Please be aware of that. If the user hasn't reverted that article for 13 hours then it's stale. Thanks. Scarian 14:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

    Agree with Scarian here. However, if either user were to resume revert-warring on this article in the near future, I would be inclined to block (or endorse such) regardless of whether the 3-revert limit is technically exceeded. CIreland (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule does not, in any way, suggest that "if the user hasn't reverted that article for 13 hours then it's stale". I would like to hear a better arguement than this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    No one is going to argue with you because you're trying to fight against common sense. Arguing over the spelling of a Japanese word, on the other hand, isn't something to be proud of. Case closed. Scarian 15:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment ... note that Sess (the accuser) has himself made 4 reverts in a 24 hour period on that same article (I tried to help him with a gentle warning but he removed this from his talk page saying he had "acknowledged them") ... also note the weight of reasoning from KrytenKoro compared to that from Sess ... also note the apparent expertise from K versus S ... note also the baiting and accusing tone from Sess almost from the beginning. Technicalities aside, there is only one guilty party here and it is not User:KrytenKoro. Abtract (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Stale Stifle (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    I agree with Scarian and Stifle on the disposition of this case. The only other reasonable option would have been to block both parties, which you probably would not do over a single accent mark. See WP:LAME. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:98.221.171.223 (aka User:Cosprings?) reported by User:216.185.5.254 (Result: Article protected. )

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:

    This user is continually undoing the improved grammar, spelling, style, and facts to make a point that actually takes away from the article, as you can read in the edit summaries. Whoever it is, he or she refuses to take the matter up privately. I feel that his or her editing or reverting improved Misplaced Pages articles is not the right outlet.

    Protected for 1 week. Scarian 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, it seems the user logged in under his normal name and just reverted it again. If you look at what's being undone, he is taking out all the improvements, primarily because he seems to disagree with the inclusion of just one fact due to it being quoted on a blog. His edit warring continues, just under another name. 216.185.5.254 (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.
    See above. 216.185.5.254 (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Duck You reported by User:AgnosticPreachersKid (Result: 24 hours)


    User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Buspar (Result: Protected)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Note that according to the block log for this editor, this constitutes the fourth time Folken de Fanel has violated 3RR. Buspar (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Indeed it does. However, I think that both of you contributed equally to the edit war. Buspar has three reverts in 10 hours and four reverts in 29, while Folken de Fanel has three reverts in 9 hours and 4 in 16. I'm inclined to block both of you for edit warring but I suspect the block would be overturned as Buspar has technically not violated 3RR, so I'll protect the page instead. Page protected Stifle (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    3RR doesn't apply to vandalism. I've reverted copyright vandalism from Buspar. This user had previously been warned various times about violations of the Copyright and External Links policies.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    The reverts were most assuredly not vandalism, and violations of WP:EL are not (yet) on the growing list of 3RR exemptions. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Koavf reported by User:A_Jalil (Result: 48 hours)



    User:The TriZ reported by User:Chaldean (Result: Protected)

    Now, see, that is a lie, we have not agreed to call the language Assyrian, sure there is Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, but in this case, the word "Neshre" is not Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, it is Syriac and if you want to call it something else, then call it Turoyo, cause the word is used in Turoyo to. And the reverts were provocated by Chaldean. He reverted the article himself twice and his friend twice to. Obviously he "tricked" me to fall in the trap so he could report me. Whatever the decision may be, I will understand it cause i broke the rule. Though I just don't like the methods used by Chaldean and his friend in this case. The TriZ (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    Now, see, that is a lie, we have not agreed to call the language Assyrian - See Assyrian language page. It does exist. Chaldean (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    Point is? The word "Neshre" is Turoyo and Syriac. Why redicret it to Assyrian Language then? It's just a disambiguation page. There aren't really any language with the name Assyrian. The only language with Assyrian is the Modern Eastern Syriac, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. And the word isn't Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. The TriZ (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    This isn't the place to discuss. You could've done this in the talk page of Zelge Fans, but you opted to revert rathern then discuss. For the record, Syriac Language is also known as Assyrian language, but its known more as Syriac language in English. Just like how Assyrian genocide is the term more widely used in the English language rather then "Syriac genocide." Chaldean (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    Now your really off-topic. I've only tried to explain my reverts, and that you and user:WestAssyrian co-worked with eachother by reverting the article twice each. Using such methods in wikipedia, I personally believe shouldn't be accepted either. The TriZ (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    You yourself has reverted the article three times and so has your friend user:WestAssyrian. I said twice before, but that was wrong. The TriZ (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    Reverting vandelism multiple times is ok. Please read the rules. Chaldean (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    The TriZ has not reverted since his 3RR warning. Let's wait a few hours to be sure the reverting has stopped. I do encourage TriZ to join the Misplaced Pages:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    Have you read them?

    "reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself."

    And it wasn't vandelism. Also you should read WP:DIS. The TriZ (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    Yes you should read WPDIS, your edit was nothing more then disruptive. How did it improve the article? Your goal was simple - the provoke, and you suceeded. Chaldean (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    My motive was to correct what was wrong, and it improved the article in a way that the user would feel less confused. We can also discuss your motives. Read the rules, just because i reverted it 4 times and you and your friend 3 times each, doesn't say that much. Why couldn't you accept Syriac language instead of Assyrian language? The TriZ (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    Page protected Please take your discussions to the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Ecoleetage (Result: No violation)

    • Previous version reverted to: 22:09, 14 May 2008 The editor in question has repeatedly deleted referenced text, despite requests to cooperate with the other editors involved in this article's expansion.


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • I genuinely want to work with my fellow editors on improving and expanding this article. But this editor has repeatedly deleted relevant text (including properly referenced text) simply because he doesn't like it (check the history of the article for his comment "Sorry, this is not good enough"). Thank you for your input and assistance in this matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Ecoleetage, there's still a lot of unanswered questions at Talk:Pontius Pilate's wife. Lack of sources (or their dubious nature) for the sections I removed has been established there. If there's no improvement regarding the sources, the dubiously referenced and unreferenced material has to go. The material can always be put back when the sources can be provided. Until that time, discuss on talk, but don't just dunk back in the article what has just been removed for not confirming to WP:V --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    • No violation - a violation occurs when four reverts are made within a 24-hour period. I suggest discussing it with the involved users on the talk page. --B (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:SaltyBoatr reported by User:Yaf (Result: 100h for both)




    Three prior repeat 3RR violations on this same article, formerly titled Right to bear arms, now titled Right to arms. Yaf (talk) 17:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

    Both have been edit-warring with each other extensively; blocked for 100 hours. east.718 at 00:07, May 16, 2008

    User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Ecoleetage (Result: protected)

    • Previous version reverted to: 22:09, 14 May 2008 The editor in question has repeatedly deleted referenced text, despite requests to cooperate with the other editors involved in this article's expansion.


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • I am resubmitting this complaint, with two new reverts from today via the editor in questions. This editor's behavior has gone beyond disruptive. Thank you. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
    Article protected for a short while to hopefully allow constructive discussion to foster. east.718 at 00:11, May 16, 2008

    User:Bluegoblin7 reported by User:Trees Rock (Result:no violation)


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    My reasons are all in my edit sumamries. I did mention a WP:3O. I think this is nonsense, as the redirect itself has been csd'd. Also, as they are shortcuts, should they not be short? The one that Trees Rock (or is it Save the humans or iwilleditu?!?! I'm confused.) added that I reverted was longer than all the current ones, and it is a little used shorcut - see Special:PrefixIndex/WPP:. Thanks, BG7 21:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    One WPP: Is a accepted shortcut. Second Your Shortcuts WP:WPS and WP:SWP are more uncommon. Third That comment you made about my username is uncalled for and is a personal attack. Trees Rock 21:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    Forth of all I Have Just noticed WP:WPS don't redirect to the wikiproject. Trees Rock 21:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    5th of all when did you mention WP:3O. Trees Rock 21:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    No violation It takes four reverts to violate 3RR. Neither editor has made more than three. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    Wait I Found Another one. Trees Rock 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    No violation The first revert was on the 12th. 3RR violations occur in a 24-hour period. Metros (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Fdgdf3 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Already blocked 24 hours)

    I suspect that Fdgdf3 is a sockpuppet of Knowhands enjoykeep, who has previously been blocked twice for 3RR breaches and once for edit warring using his IP address in the past week. A checkuser has been requested at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Knowhands enjoykeep. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    Already blocked 24 hours by User:AlistairMcMillan. EdJohnston (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
    See also Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Knowhands enjoykeep. The question remaining is whether the block on Fdgdf3 should be extended due to the apparent sockpuppetry. Knowhands is already blocked indefinitely after multiple 3RR violations. EdJohnston (talk) 15:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Commodore Sloat reported by User:Kelly (Result:24 hours)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    Whilst not by the book a 3RR violation, CS was clearly gaming that by reverting 5 times in 25 hours. Therefore I've blocked him for 24 hours. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:71.234.162.94 reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: Already blocked )


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • The reverts are over whether two characters are main or supporting. I think sockpuppetry may be involved, since different IPs are doing the same reversion. Btw, first time I've reported something here, so apologies if I've done anything incorrectly. --Ebyabe (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

    Already blocked Both editors complained about are already blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Bobisbob reported by User:DeadlyAssassin (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of this article regarding this image. User Bobisbob is edit warring to replace the main image with one of what is described in the image description as his own erect penis. The discussion is around whether that image or one of a diagram is more appropriate at for this part of the article. The argument is NOT one of censorship, but rather which image is most appropriate for this article at this point. It may also be interesting to note that Bobisbob was in favour of a diagram before his own image was uploaded.


    User:Kopter reported by User:Hertz1888 (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • This editor has reverted the same edit 4 times since 15 May, disregarding two editors' warnings and invitations for discussion. Repeatedly substitutes a drab photo of Boston at night for one we two deem more appealing and appropriate. Not 3 reversions in 24 hours, but definitely a pattern of non-cooperation and disruption that is very frustrating, and degrades the article. Similar pattern of behavior observed on other articles. Would appreciate your help! Hertz1888 (talk) 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:The_C_of_E reported by User:The_Gnome (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User:The_C_of_E created a "parody" section in the Carefree (chant) entry. The section contains no notable material and gives ground for potential edit and flame wars. It is typical of soccer fans to vandalize and abuse entries in Misplaced Pages. Allowing "parodies" and similar defamatory or insulting material to enter unchecked into wiki entries only invites trouble - and deterioration of quality. User has been warned and asked to participate in the Discussion, which I started in the entry's Talk page, but to no avail. -The Gnome (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Ophois reported by User:Carcharoth (Result: blocked for 48 hours)

    • Notes: - 71.234.162.94 has already been blocked for 3RR over this, for 24 hours from 00:12, 18 May 2008, by User:C.Fred, who carried out one of the other reverts in the same edit war, see here. Note left for C.Fred here (where it should be noted that Ophois left this note at 22:43, 17 May 2008). It might also be worth looking at these two diffs by User:Bcute12: and . Talk page discussion (since December 2007) is here (permalink to discussion, as of 23:27, 17 May 2008). There was also a previous edit war in January 2008. See the page history for the latest edit war. The edit war from 17-18 May 2008 can be seen here. Note that I became aware of this when reviewing User talk:71.234.162.94, and left the following note here, indicating that I was filing a report here. I wrote the report, warned User:Ophois, then saved the report. Carcharoth (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Kjngjkn reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: Already blocked indef as a sock )

    I suspect that Kjngjkn is a sockpuppet of Knowhands enjoykeep, who has blocked indefinitely for multiple 3RR breaches and blocked once for edit warring using his IP address in the past week. A checkuser has been requested at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Knowhands enjoykeep and the SSP report is at Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/Knowhands enjoykeep. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    Update: User has now been blocked as a sockpuppet so I'm not sure whether I should self-revert this report or leave the report for historical purposes. Notification that the user has been blocked seems the least I should do. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    Already blocked Indef by User:Blueboy96 as a sock. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:144.92.152.82 (Result: )

    This user is reverting constructive edits and writing inappropriate edit summaries. (Presumably his "issue" with the editing is the removal of a sentence that the Hattic language is related to a Caucasian language group, which his source does not assert - see the article's talk page).

    Note: the reporting anon is a sockpuppet for a banned user (User:Sumerophile) who is not supposed to be editing at all, my reverting of him/her has nothing to do with the content, but is based on policy. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    Can you demonstrate this claim with evidence? If so, you should have filed a SSP report. - Revolving Bugbear 15:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
    No problem, will do; it's obvious from the editing history anyway, (numerous addition of portals to the top of pages rather than at the bottom or on talkpage, etc.) not to mention the WHOIS location matches... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:Duhman0009 reported by User:Dancter (Result: User warned again )

    (modifying article to express, "The game is scheduled for release May 21, 2008 in North America.")


    Warned It's been about 6 hours since the last revert, so I don't feel that blocking is necessary right now. I've left the user one more note. Hopefully he refrains. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:BigDunc reported by User:GDD1000 (Result:No action taken )

    I don't really know how to fill this in, I'm just struggling with trying to cope with the vandalism this user BigDunc is doing at my sand box. He's deleting images which I've asked for assistance on because I don't know how to fill in the copyright syntax properly. I need help.GDD1000 (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 2007


    • Diff of 3RR warning: 2040
    I am enforcing copyright policy with regard to Fair use images in userspace. I have asked him several times not to restore the images per WP:NONFREE and he's just kept on edit warring. My edits are exempt from 3RR. - User:BigDunc
    It should be noted that Dunc has been warned about civility already today.Traditional unionist (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    You are ignoring the fact that I have already asked for assistance on the copyright page. I don't know how to do the syntax and have made errors. You are also conveniently (it would appear) forgetting to tell admins that you are locked into a long and bitter edit war against me at Ulster Defence Regiment since the day I joined Misplaced Pages as a member.GDD1000 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    As an admin, I decided to take no action with this. I cautioned both parties on the ANI. User:Zscout370 20:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    What is the ANI? Is this editor going to be continually allowed to cause me grief this way?GDD1000 (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    GDD1000, there is a set of rules as to where Fair Use images can be used in the encyclopedia. Logos, such as this regimental logo, are usually Fair Use images and are not freely-licensed. We are not supposed to have any Fair Use images in user space. Your sandbox is in your user space. To satisfy the most exact interpretation of policy, it has been suggested that the image reference in your draft article be kept enclosed in comment brackets (or preceded by a colon) until the page is moved to main space. That should not inconvenience you very much, and it will save another 10,000 words of policy discussion. By 'ANI' they are referring to this thread. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    I've said all along that I don't understand the copyright tagging. I feel there was a better way of doing this but when I'm under attack I can only ask for help and hope that I get it. GDD1000 (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    We have already ruled that there is no 3RR violation. If you have further concerns, express them at WP:ANI. You've already participated in three different threads there: Misplaced Pages:ani#Block discussion, Misplaced Pages:Ani#Ulster_Defence_Regiment and Misplaced Pages:ani#Fair use images in userspace. Beware of forum shopping. If you know about Arbcom you can't be quite as naive as you appear. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

    User:76.189.145.86 reported by User:64.228.89.235 (Result: )


    I think this might be vandalism disguised as a valid edit (ie using an apparent source) but the source does not say what it should. Anyway, fairly new and hope this is right and helpful procedure. 64.228.89.235 (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. 
The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time 
than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. -->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. 
See Help:Diff or Misplaced Pages:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    Categories: