Talk page archive

On Queen (band) you have violated the 3rr, I suggest you revert your revert, thus absolving you of any violation, thank you Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting vandalism doesn't count. I am reporting the user to VirtualSteve and he can block all the socks. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not vandalism, the user clearly genuinely believes the band to still be active: edit summary:

"18:26, 1 June 2009 04parrw (talk | contribs) (77,968 bytes) (Brian and Roger are still performing as Queen)"

And so is acting in good faith, regardless of socks and whether they are right or wrong, this is a content dispute. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a content dispute, not vandalism. Claiming vandalism does not help resolve disagreements on content. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My AGF ran out 4 years ago. Trolls are trolls no matter how hard they try to lie in their edit summaries. This is where Wikipedia suffers from the loss of Scarian and his monsterous admin balls and zero tolerance for trolls. VirtualSteve covers his beat now. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments at Escape Orbit's talk page, please conduct yourself in a more civil manner, if you read Wikipedia:3rr you can see it states: "Exceptions by content type: Reverting obvious vandalism" this is not "obvious vandalism" it is a content dispute, it's to late to revert your violation, but please steer clear of the page, thank you Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't WP:AGF I suggest you do not try and revert other users edits at all Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have oddles of AGF for valid users. Trolls, vandals, soapboxers and pov pushers do not get any from me, nor have they for several years. After 700000 edits there are certain editor qualities that just don't deserve the GF. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? Can you point out where I wasn't civil? I offered him assistance in understanding a policy that he is missing a bit on. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I maybe misconstrued it as patronising, sorry Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also removing his/her comment is not helpful: 1 Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some guidance on policy. What is not vandalism. "Sometimes a user will add content to an article that is factually inaccurate, but in the belief that it is accurate. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia, and improve it rather than vandalize. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it."

The issue of sockpuppets is another thing entirely, and doesn't explain your initial edit warring with 04parrw. Hope this clarifies things for you. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Therein lies the error again. An rvv of the addition of false content is nt an edit war. It is a req'd contribution. Good faith went out the window when the user re-added their false content for the 20th time in the past week (using numerous IPs and at least 2 accounts) Trolls who ignore warnings about adding false content... and continue to re-add the same content... do not deserve the AGF as requested in wp:notvan. Again, I can assist anytime. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This makes no difference to your violation of the 3rr, I suggest you open a sock case on the user, and in future be extremely careful not to get on the wrong side of policy again, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't vio 3RR. 3RR doesn't count on vandalism. And sock reports take too much time and end up in the hands of an admin with no balls (about 95% of them) I blurbed a note off to Virty-Steve and ill get on the admin chat line and see if any one is around. Cheers. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, the factual accuracy of it is a matter of opinion as neither version are supported by adequate cites. So it remains a content dispute. Naturally sockpuppets are never acceptable, but this is what results from long term edit warring on both sides, with no effort from either to seek consensus. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19

Wiki lib, you need to understand that this is a content dispute not vandalism, I trust that if you bring this to the attention of any additional admins you will also direct them to this talk page, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I am now logging out for the night, any additional comments should be directed at my talk page, but I feel that we have taken this issue as far as it is going to go, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]