Wikipedia talk:Policypedia/Edit warring

message: People have been blocked for reverted 4 times in 24 hours and a few minutes.Geni 16:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, the 3RR isn't the only policy that applies to edit warring. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: loophole

message: Personally, I follow WP:1RR and I would not object to seeing it made policy.  I've seen too many editors (even admins who should know better!) claim that they're entitled to 3 reverts a day, based on 3RR.  I know, it's specifically not to be taken that way, but it happens.  Basically, I think edit warring should be a blockable offense.  Friday (talk) 19:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1RR 

message: It says in 3RR that you are allowed to revert simple vandalism plus your 3RRs, so I'd like to know whether I've done anything wrong here.
An article that I had created and been the only editor to for the first 3 weeks of its existence (I had made over 100 edits in this time as I am a bit finicky with things) was subjected to vandalism in the form of total blanking of the page, by 5 separate users on a total of 12 times each in a period of 4 hours, including blanking the talk pages.  Other editors stepped up and reverted the edits.
I tried to talk to these people, and wrote notes both on their talk pages and in the article itself to try to reach consensus on resolving the dispute.  Their response was to give me legal threats that what I had written counted as slander, and they then proceeded to change the very nature of the entire article, to make it look like absolutely the opposite of what it had previously looked like, and yet failed to source any evidence.  Included in this, they also deleted the evidence that I had provided, claiming that they disagreed with it.  They also wrote some messages in the talk pages threatening me.
I was not initially going to do anything, and asked other editors to intervene, as I felt that I was the subject of personal attacks.  However, on consultation with other editors, I thought to reach a compromise, and include both points of view, which I thought made a more balanced article.  They then reverted my edits and kept putting in what they said was fact, so I kept trying to include their points of view in the context of everything so that we could reach an amicable solution.
They then added {POV) flags all over the article and insisted that they didn't want me to write anything on "their" article. 
They then followed me to other articles which I had created, and similarly engaged in the same kind of behaviour, blanking huge chunks of information, changing facts and so forth, and I again tried to reach a compromise, to include their points of view.
They have now made a request for me to be blocked from editing these pages, and are accusing me of vandalism.  I replied on the page where they made the request to try to explain that I was trying to present both sides of the argument and to present it in a factual way, and they made more personal attacks against me.
Now, I think that I made 4 or 5 edits where I was trying to reach a compromise about these things, in response to 2 or 3 different anon IP editors, but none of them were reverts.  I also added more information with another 10 or so edits.  My edits were reverted by them pretty much every time.
So I was wondering if it is deemed that I have broken 3RR?  I honestly hadn't thought that it was relevant at the time, but when I looked at the technicalities of the rule, it is possible that I may have.
I was going to nominate said article for deletion, on the basis that without my information, it has no claims for notoriety, but I have not put in an AFD flag on the basis that it might be taken the wrong way (not to mention that it looks like a number of tag-teaming anon IPs, who would likely all vote together for the article to be kept).  
So what to do?  I guess its obvious to stay away from the pages for a while, but its a little frustrating to allow common vandalism to take place. I would hope that this could be resolved positively and they could contribute something worthwhile. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 00:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Have I done the wrong thing?