Content deleted Content added
Line 444: *I have been asked to comment here on my talk page by PhilKnight. I agree with EdJohnston that both edits are reverts because they undo - at least partially - the edit by Shuki immediately preceding them. This must have been clear to an editor of Nableezy's experience: [[WP:3RR]] provides that "''A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors,"'' (in this case, Shuki) ''"in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. It can involve as little as one word.''" According to that policy definition, every tweak is indeed a revert, as Mkativerata says. I disagree with T.Canens that under that definition even "even adding material that has never been there is a revert", because in that case there is no action by others that is undone. Consequently the request is actionable. I also disagree with Looie496 that the perceived impact on the editing environment must be taken into account, because the 1RR restriction (to be enforced here) did not include any socially gameable exception of that sort. Topic-banning "a number of other editors who are clearly incapable of editing neutrally" sounds like a pretty good solution to me. Since I'm taking a break from AE, I'll not take enforcement action myself, but frankly, if such clear-cut violations of validly imposed sanctions are not acted upon, you may just as well shut down this board. <p>I'm also amazed at the palaver going on here: the point of AE is not to arrive at a consensus solution, but to give individual admins a basis on which to take action, like [[WP:AIV]]. If any admin believes that the conditions for action are met, they are free to go ahead and ''act.'' This sort of discussion can then take place, if needed, on appeal. No need to have it twice. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 06:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC) *Firstly, thanks to Sandstein for commenting. Regarding Looie's comment, if a sanction was perceived to be overly stringent, then I'd prefer to block <!-- Use {{discussion top}} / {{discussion bottom}} to mark this request as closed.--> | |||