| Revision as of 22:08, 3 August 2014 editBbb23 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators270,189 edits →Discretionary sanctions: fix link to decision← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:22, 4 August 2014 edit undoEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,206 edits →Edit warring at Blue Army (Poland): new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| See here: .] (]) 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | See here: .] (]) 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| :Hello COD T 3. If you wish, you may respond at ] and explain why you should not be blocked for edit warring. The report about your behavior by ] seems persuasive. This article is under ], so admins are not likely to put up with this kind of a dispute much longer. Since you have reverted more than anyone else since August 1, blocking you appears to be the simplest solution. If you will agree to behave differently in the future that fact might be considered. ] (]) 15:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | :Hello COD T 3. If you wish, you may respond at ] and explain why you should not be blocked for edit warring. The report about your behavior by ] seems persuasive. This article is under ], so admins are not likely to put up with this kind of a dispute much longer. Since you have reverted more than anyone else since August 1, blocking you appears to be the simplest solution. If you will agree to behave differently in the future that fact might be considered. ] (]) 15:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC) | ||
| == Edit warring at ] == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for ], as you did at ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first.<p>During a dispute, you should first try to ] and seek ]. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek ], and in some cases it may be appropriate to request ]. </p></div><!-- Template:uw-ewblock --> The full report is at ]. ] (]) 00:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:22, 4 August 2014
July 2014
Your recent editing history at Blue Army (Poland) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 20:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Blue Army RFC
I have reviewed my closure of the RFC. The RFC was poorly formed and was not straightforward to close. On the one hand, I am not willing to change the wording of my closure. On the other hand, I am willing to insert a properly formed RFC with Survey and Threaded Discussion sections and leave it open for 30 days, or to have another editor do that. Is that satisfactory? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- You asked me to change the wording of the close. I considered doing that, although it violates the statement in the box that the discussion is closed, as per ignore all rules. I concluded that either the close can be left as is, or a new RFC is in order. Your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, Poland is in Eastern Europe as usually noted. This means that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are available for disruptive editing. If you think that another editor is being disruptive or tendentious, you can apply the discretionary sanctions warning to their talk page, {{subst:Ds/alert|ee}} . Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Do you want a new RFC, or do you want to leave alone, or do you want to request closure review at WP:AN? I don't plan to change the wording of the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, at this point I will go ahead and request a ArbCom. If possible could you explain how this process works, and how to create such a request? --COD T 3 (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Do you mean that you want to request an ArbCom case (which is essentially a trial), or that you wish to request arbitration enforcement under the existing WP:ARBEE case? The terminology is complicated and confusing, and you probably mean the latter. I see no reason that a case (a trial) is needed. As to whether arbitration enforcement is needed, what are the issues? Has there been disruptive editing? Have the other editors been warned? First warn them. I mentioned how above. If they persist, go to WP:AE. I will look at the pages in question, but I am not sure what the issue is. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Robert McClenon, at this point I will go ahead and request a ArbCom. If possible could you explain how this process works, and how to create such a request? --COD T 3 (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Do you want a new RFC, or do you want to leave alone, or do you want to request closure review at WP:AN? I don't plan to change the wording of the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- By the way, Poland is in Eastern Europe as usually noted. This means that ArbCom discretionary sanctions are available for disruptive editing. If you think that another editor is being disruptive or tendentious, you can apply the discretionary sanctions warning to their talk page, {{subst:Ds/alert|ee}} . Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- You asked me to change the wording of the close. I considered doing that, although it violates the statement in the box that the discussion is closed, as per ignore all rules. I concluded that either the close can be left as is, or a new RFC is in order. Your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe (Poland), a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.Template:Z33 Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
August 2014
Your recent editing history at Blue Army (Poland) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.Faustian (talk) 19:22, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I've reported you
See here: .Faustian (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hello COD T 3. If you wish, you may respond at WP:AN3#User:COD T 3 reported by User:Faustian (Result: ) and explain why you should not be blocked for edit warring. The report about your behavior by User:Faustian seems persuasive. This article is under WP:ARBEE, so admins are not likely to put up with this kind of a dispute much longer. Since you have reverted more than anyone else since August 1, blocking you appears to be the simplest solution. If you will agree to behave differently in the future that fact might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring at Blue Army (Poland)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, 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 full report is at WP:AN3#User:COD T 3 reported by User:Faustian (Result: 48 hours). EdJohnston (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)