User talk:Andrewrp/archive 3

Seriously

Stop reverting that guy. Now. I'm not going to block you for 3RR, but those edits are NOT obvious vandalism. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears you have abused your rollback privileges, edit warring on Electronic prescribing. You no longer have them. Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1 blocked the other user, and removed your rollback instead of blocking you. I probably would have done neither, but I have always disliked giving out 3RR blocks and whatnot. The only thing I can really tell you is DO NOT revert the fourth time unless there can be NO possible doubt that the edit in question is vandalism. There was a lot of possible doubt in this case. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

EW using rollback is exceptionally uncool. Be glad you're not blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not easily. You could probably post to WP:AN, but you should know that if you had not had rollback, you would unquestionably be blocked now. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the revision history of electronic prescribing[1] User:Just James should have consequences similar to those suffered by andrewrp and User:Qelknap- he reverted 14 times just today.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear about this: Qelknap was editing Wikipedia in a disruptive manner (200+ edits) prior to what you're labelling as an edit war.--Just James ^T/C 16:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you can justify 14 reverts using rollback in a 24 hour period with that dif, or with any other dif that isn't unsourced defamatory information about a living person. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well let me put this clearly. On Huggle, I saw Qelknap's 200+ nonsensical edits to Parliament be reverted and he/she received their first warning. They continued to edit Wikipedia in a disruptive manner and were repeatedly warned. So their "colour and number" changed progressively from 2, to 3, to 4 (yellow, to brown, to red). I was never one of the editors who reverted their original edits, nor did I warn them. When the user was finally reported, I naturally assumed that there was consensus that the edits were unconstructive and constituted vandalism. I then proceeded to revert changes they made to Wikipedia until the case was resolved at WP:AIV. Perfectly normal practice. If you want more information, feel free to browse the history pages relating to Qelknap.--Just James ^T/C 17:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm I thought WP:3RR was completely normal practice?·Maunus·ƛ· 17:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, it was my determination that the edits were a blatant attempt to disrupt Wikipedia - hence obvious vandalism. If you disagree, you are well within your rights to do so. Know this: I never once felt as though I was engaged in an edit war. I simply thought I was reverting the edits of an immature vandal. Now I'll be off. Take care.--Just James ^T/C 17:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and vandalism is not the same thing. I honestly don't feel that someone who can revert 14 times without considering it an editwar or think about reading 3RR an extra time, or even without posting a notice on the talk page, should have rollback rights.·Maunus·ƛ· 17:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Hello admin--I assure you, most of the time I am not joking nor do I make "joke" edits. I haven't touched an article for a few hours. And when I did edit, it was GOOD work.75.21.114.176 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's talk... per AN

Start now...

Please see my comments above. And yes, I still have rollback rights (for now).--Just James ^T/C 17:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It seem Toddst1 on his own looked into it further and took it away from you too (I was wondering why it hadn't been done). Please keep watching here, I'm still waiting on something, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's it. I suppose it's time I leave Wikipedia after nearly 3 frustrating years.--Just James ^T/C 17:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

:::: Going out for coffee, be back in 15 min. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Back Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 18:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Andrewrp, I'm not going to go into a long thing about this, but can you tell me please, what's vandalism on en.Wikipedia (in your own, brief, pithy words)? Feel free to chime in too, JJ. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Vandalism is uncomstructive edits to wikipedia, as a deliberate attempt to disrupt it or intoduce factual errors. These are edits that can be spam, factual errors, biased info, personal praise or attacks, etc. Basically, vandalism is anything done to make an article not valid and infactual. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Where y'all got woefully lost is, vandalism must be straightforwardly in bad faith, or put another way, (quoting now) Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism.

So, if an edit could have been made in good faith, no matter how amazingly clueless or nettlesome, it's not vandalism, you can't roll it back. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes! That was going to be my next edit, from what the other guy said. you can't use huggle, but you can edit it to make it better. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 18:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

With Huggle, it is easy to get caught up and just revert anything that seems like it could possibly be vandalism. I do that myself sometimes. But regardless, unless there is no way that ANYONE could possibly say that the edits are not vandalism (like libel and so forth), I never violate 3RR. Ever.

I've seen you around, and by far most of your reverts are fine. Just try doing some reverts with Twinkle or just undo for a couple of weeks, and you shouldn't have much trouble getting rollback back. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You can also: revert it manually one time, give a good reason for why you reverted in the edit summary, if the edit is inserted again you can revert one more time (although often it is a good idea not to), go to the talk page and write a section about why you reverted and start a discussion about how best to improve the article involving as many editors as possible. Then if the editor keeps inserting his edit even though all the other editors don't like it then they can warn the editor when he reverts more than three times - if he keeps reverting more than three times in a 24 hour period he will be blocked.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Andrewp, the word vandalism is misused on en.Wikipedia all the time. Doesn't matter if it's through huggle or twinkle (though both make it much easier to mess up), you can't use rollback unless it's overwhelmingly, sparkling clear that good faith had nothing to do with the edit. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So I guess I don't get rollback well... back? Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 18:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

What makes you say that? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Just try doing some reverts with Twinkle or just undo for a couple of weeks, and you shouldn't have much trouble getting rollback back. -AND- You can also: revert it manually one time, give a good reason for why you reverted in the edit summary, if the edit is inserted again you can revert one more time (although often it is a good idea not to), go to the talk page and write a section about why you reverted and start a discussion about how best to improve the article involving as many editors as possible. Then if the editor keeps inserting his edit even though all the other editors don't like it then they can warn the editor when he reverts more than three times - if he keeps reverting more than three times in a 24 hour period he will be blocked. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 18:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's what you did wrong:

• Used rollback on what could have been good faith edits.
• Edit warred, minute by minute, far beyond 3rr, over what might have been good faith edits.
• Didn't ask the newbie what was going on with all those null edits, which could easily have been tests or some kind of muddle with the edit button but rather, buried the newbie in templates.

Would you agree with that? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Also, things are looking grim for me, Yes? Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 18:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you both only made a mistake and it snowballed because you were making it together, so to speak. I also think you either never understood, or forgot somewhere along the way, what vandalism means here. Then you forgot that even with vandalism, after a few reverts, the thing to do is report it to an admin or WP:AN3 or WP:AIV, where someone likely would have said something along the lines of, "Hey, that's not vandalism... but it is edit warring." Gwen Gale (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok. But I did report it, and It was dealt with, with 'multiple users nagging. I feel I should be blocked or punished, then given rollback. I understand my actions were wrong, and I have learned from this experiance. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 18:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You both could have been blocked straight off, along with losing rollback. You were lucky there. However, blocks are only meant to be preventative, never punitive (we don't "punish" here, we only "sweep") and since you seem to understand what happened and seeing as how I think y'all mostly tumbled into a slip-up. After reviewing this and talking with the other admin I'm going to restore your rollback rights with this warning: For the next month, don't ever break 3rr, even over vandalism, report it to WP:AIV instead. I'm hoping that when the month is up, you'll have learned one can fight vandalism quite handily without ever going over 3rr. Oh and please, don't use that dumb template again. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)