Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marskell (talk | contribs) at 08:28, 5 March 2007 (→Blocked: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Old messages will be archived once read, thanks.

• Archive

Note - Automated bots are not welcome on my talkpage, I consider edits by bots to be spam and will be deleted. Any other form of spamming will be automatically removed from the page too.

Explicit warning

Deathrocker, you have immediately archived warnings I have sent you as a disinterested admin. They were warnings. I've tried to be even-handed in writing them and I find your archiving unhelpful as it's against practice to remove warnings. It can all still be viewed in the history, but I re-post because I want it to be clear: you have been warned by me about a 3RR violation, and about the consequences of enflaming disputes, particularly considering a previous Arb case. This editor has not suggested you were only responsible for baiting, but did advise you against baiting.

To be explicit:

• If you archive this post in short order (ie., before it can be shown that you've moved on from your recent disputes), I will take it to the Administrators Noticeboard and let people decide there. (Not as a punative thing—simply because, if my warnings are going to be shuffled off a talk page in minutes, I'll make a point of having other admins look at them.)
• If it wasn't clear, I will block you for a week if I notice, from now on, you're violating ArbComm rulings regarding your editing. Marskell 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Re "Huh? I don't understand. It was archived after I replied to it (as I do with all messages)".

My posts were, with hopefully open-minded and friendly phrasing, admin warnings from myself about your editing behaviour. In practice, it looks bad if you archive such warnings the same day (let alone the same hour) they arrive, because it suggests you want to hide criticism. If you continue to misunderstand, I will, as I suggest post to WP:AN/I for other disinterested admins to evaluate. Marskell 22:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Unfortunately I've had to block you. Rather than a week, I have escalated to 72 hours from you previous 48 hour blocks. These edits are reverts, and there was an earlier revert over the disputed tag. I will post to the noticeboard and inform you. Marskell 08:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

is not a revert, try reading the edit summary and viewing the content, it is a re-working of the opening. was adding of an extra source, to vertify.... also, a tag was previously blanked from the page without the factuality issues been sorted out. (that counts as reverting simple vandalism and thus does not count towards revert total) - Deathrocker 08:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You were shuffling the order of the content and undoing Wesley. It constitutes reverting. And your repeated citing of "simple vandalism" is tiresome. You're using it to evade your revert parole. Marskell 08:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I undid Wesley in a straight revert a grand total of once. Rewording information in the heading, in a new way is not a "revert".

Whether you are "tired" of users citing official editing policy when contributing Misplaced Pages is irrelevent. In simple vandalism it clearly states "blanking" falls under it. - Deathrocker 08:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"I undid Wesley in a straight revert a grand total of once." Then I rest my case. The instructions from the Arb case were clear and my warnings were clear also: do not revert. Marskell 08:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)