This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TParis (talk | contribs) at 02:09, 29 September 2012 (→RFCs: Re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:09, 29 September 2012 by TParis (talk | contribs) (→RFCs: Re)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)