100:"The issue is already very simple, when removing problematic BLP material (...removed immediately and without waiting for discussion), 3rr does not apply. There's no long list of exceptions...just this one simple concept. Reverting (in this context read: removing) Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons is something we have to do. If you've removed/reverted something 2 or 3 times in a row already and are faced with another insertion, BLP policy doesn't go away...we're bound by it before most other editing restrictions like 3rr. For those familiar with Active Directory or similar concepts, think of it as effective permissions."
144:
22:
110:"For example, if two users are edit warring over a BLP, one is removing a potentially libelous statement and the other is entering it, then the user removing it may be given the benefit of the doubt. Essentially, if the user, who is removing the potentially damaging statement(s), violates 3RR, then their violation may be exempt from any action taken."
73:
on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit
196:
Thanks for the note - your signature is better, but not quite perfect. Because you're using the double brackets, you'd want to use this structure in your signature: ]. Alternately, you might be able to use the curly braces in your signature like this: {{U|Shark310}}. I hope that
202:
Also, just as an aside, when replying to messages on Talk pages or noticeboards, it's helpful if you indent your reply by putting one more ":" than the previous message had at the beginning of each of your paragraphs. It makes it easier to follow the conversation. Thanks!
120:
It's not a blp violation. It's sourced, so therefore it can be included. The issue is should it be? I have asked for some clarifying questions about the relevance on that talkpage.
148:
170:
I'm not sure whether or not you're aware, but a signature must contain a link to at least one of the editor's User page, Talk page, or
Contributions page per
32:. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's
41:
174:. Your signature currently contains none of these links; could you please change it to include at least one of them? Thanks!
33:
49:
53:
125:
83:
61:
156:
66:
45:
44:
for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant
29:
121:
79:
93:
Hi thanks for the message. To address this issue It is my understanding that wikipedia policy states:
37:
208:
179:
152:
171:
70:
204:
175:
78:—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
40:
among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See
21:
114:
Please let me know what your thoughts are. 🐍 00:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
151:
regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
28:
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an
212:
183:
160:
129:
87:
69:, which states that an editor must not perform more than three
20:
189:
60:
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being
52:. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary
36:to work toward making a version that represents
149:Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
76:even if you don't violate the three-revert rule
8:
7:
147:There is currently a discussion at
14:
142:
65:—especially if you violate the
153:A fluffernutter is a sandwich!
1:
192:19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
106:I believe it further states:
213:00:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
184:17:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
161:15:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
130:00:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
88:23:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
229:
25:
24:
62:blocked from editing
188:Testing testing 🐍
50:dispute resolution
26:
67:three-revert rule
220:
146:
145:
122:Hell in a Bucket
80:Hell in a Bucket
228:
227:
223:
222:
221:
219:
218:
217:
168:
143:
140:
54:page protection
19:
12:
11:
5:
226:
224:
216:
215:
199:
198:
167:
164:
139:
136:
135:
134:
133:
132:
112:
111:
104:
103:
102:
101:
95:
94:
18:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
225:
214:
210:
206:
201:
200:
195:
194:
193:
191:
186:
185:
181:
177:
173:
165:
163:
162:
158:
154:
150:
137:
131:
127:
123:
119:
118:
117:
116:
115:
109:
108:
107:
99:
98:
97:
96:
92:
91:
90:
89:
85:
81:
77:
72:
68:
64:
63:
57:
55:
51:
47:
43:
39:
35:
31:
23:
16:
187:
169:
141:
113:
105:
75:
59:
58:
27:
17:January 2015
46:noticeboard
172:WP:SIGLINK
138:ANI notice
166:Signature
38:consensus
34:talk page
205:Ca2james
190:shark310
176:Ca2james
74:warring—
48:or seek
30:edit war
71:reverts
197:helps!
209:talk
180:talk
157:talk
126:talk
84:talk
56:.
42:BRD
211:)
182:)
159:)
128:)
86:)
207:(
178:(
155:(
124:(
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
