User talk:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview

Notes before you comment
This page is still a work in progress. If some editors have very little information beside them yet, its because I haven't gotten through their contributions. Being listed here doesn't necessarily mean that you're doing something wrong or that someone is going to sanction you. This is an attempt to look at the situation as a whole, consider who is involved, what is going on and what can fix it. Shell  babelfish 22:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Biophys
I think this is a heroic effort on your part, and I am sure it will be very helpful for the project. Would you allow making any comments here? That could give you more perspective. On the other hand, bickering by the sides here might be very unhelpful.

As a first comment, I only tried to fix article Kolchak after editing by a sock of a banned User:Jacob Peters. Then PU came (who never edited this article before) and reverted blaming me of "vandalism". Can I continue? If not, I will stop right here. Thanks again for your effort.Biophys (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please never mind. I decided to retire as my life here became unbearable. I only urge you to complete the investigation, as it is really important to clarify a lot of things.Biophys (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to make comments especially if you feel I've got something wrong. There are times I listed someone as "involved" in a content dispute when they only made one revert or their edits weren't necessarily inappropriate.  Reverting does have a place in the editing process, so that's not automatically a ding against someone - have you seen the essay WP:BRD?  So please don't feel that any time your name appears necessarily means you've done something improper; these are very condensed notes. I also have to say that while looking at your contribs, I was impressed with many of the new articles you started, especially in biology and related topics.  I hope you decide to look into the good article/featured article path at some point because I think you have a lot to contribute there. What is clear over the information I reviewed is that there isn't really one particular editor that anyone could point to as the problem - in fact, many of the editors listed seem to do fine when they don't run into each other.  Shell   babelfish 21:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

With regard to this diff. There is one intermediate edit not shown, so you might be wrong about inaccurate edit summaries by Biophys. (Igny (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

New restriction
What if we were to create a new type of editing restriction? Editors who have been edit warring would be restrained from repeating any edit that is disputed. Thus, if I make a change, somebody else can revert it once, but I may not reinstate my change. Disputed edits would be discussed on talk pages and then escalated through WP:DR as needed. To make this effective, I think we should identify groups that have traditionally worked together and make the rule applicable to them as an entire group. That would prevent tag team reverting. Jehochman Talk 17:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds nice in theory but in practice I don't think it is possible to catch all tagteams / allies (not to mention "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality). I think 1RR on known edit warriors is good enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is proper place to discuss her investigation, rather than the required measures.Biophys (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1RR seems appropriate for habitual edit war participants. It's not solving the problem too much because 1RR can also lead to multi-party edit wars. Better is for people to try to resolve issues by discussion rather than force. It's up to Shell to decide on an appropriate solution.  She did all the work. Jehochman Talk 18:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, she only started the work. Finish it please!Biophys (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)