| Revision as of 14:11, 1 October 2012 editArzel (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers12,013 edits →Topic ban from Paul Ryan← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:05, 1 October 2012 edit undoTParis (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators30,347 editsm Talkback (User talk:TParis) (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| All presidential capaign articles are currently under 1RR restrictions, so your second sentence is meaningless. If you had taken control of the situation and not allowed an editor to determine current consensus during the RfC you would have stopped this from being an issue from the beginning. ] (]) 14:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | All presidential capaign articles are currently under 1RR restrictions, so your second sentence is meaningless. If you had taken control of the situation and not allowed an editor to determine current consensus during the RfC you would have stopped this from being an issue from the beginning. ] (]) 14:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ==Talkback== | |||
| {{talkback|TParis|ts=21:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| v/r - ]] 21:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:05, 1 October 2012
New discussion below this line
RFCs
While it is certainly discouraged to do an edit that is being discussed in an RFC, there is nothing that disallows it. Despite that, it's also not an exception to WP:EW. While adding it also isn't an exception to edit warring, in the future it will be better if you just ask me if it appears that a revert might be seen as controversial. It is not better to ask forgiveness...--v/r - TP 01:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Clearly you can see the initial edit was contentious. The santions do not eliminate the ability to revert obviously contentious edits without clear concensus. Ask yourself the merits of the inclusion and the answer is clear. There is a strong desire to imply that Ryan is a liar, ISS has stated several times explicity that Ryan is a liar. When you take this into consideration there is simply no good response other than to remove the edit, and if anything you should have warned the editor which violated the basic principle of RfC which from my previous experience Everyone abides. Arzel (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
- Contentious edits is not an exception in Misplaced Pages:EW#3RR_exemptions. Negative information that is well sourced does not count as a WP:BLP exemption either.--v/r - TP 02:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Topic ban from Paul Ryan
Because of the ongoing edit warring on Paul Ryan, I am topic banning you from Paul Ryan until the conclusion of the RFC on the marathon issue. This topic ban may be appealed to Arbcom or WP:ANI. Under no circumstances may you edit Paul Ryan or Talk:Paul Ryan until the RFC has been closed by an uninvolved administrator. Also, you are placed on a WP:1RR on all 2012 Presidential Campaign articles until the expiration of the community article probation.--v/r - TP 22:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
All presidential capaign articles are currently under 1RR restrictions, so your second sentence is meaningless. If you had taken control of the situation and not allowed an editor to determine current consensus during the RfC you would have stopped this from being an issue from the beginning. Arzel (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.