User talk:The Thunderer

This editor has temporarily left wikipedia.

A word on your mediation and recent edit war

There is clearly a significant problem, and I intend to get to the bottom of it. I am not going to block anyone yet: there are several "guilty" parties, but I'm not yet sure if any one deserves more severe sanctions than the other. I am going through the contribution logs slowly and carefully. Ideally by the time I am done, the point will be moot. If not however, everyone is going to have a bad day: some much worse than others. Preliminarily, I have this to say to all of three of you:

The one blame I am willing to lay on equally all three of your shoulders is this: you responded to reverting by reverting. This is the fundamental error in your method: all edit wars, revert wars especially are incredibly harmful, far more harmful than leaving an infuriating edit while you pursue editors on the talk page or seek outside assistance. It is just Wikipedia. There is no benefit to reverting an edit now that can't wait for a mediator, admin, third party, or a well measured post on the talk page to step in instead.

Mediation is not about policing, and it certainly isn't about policing eachother. You maintain your end of the bargain, even if the other person doesn't hold up theres at the moment. Besides the fact we need to accept that good faith mistakes can be made, there is naked self interest involved: the party that follows the rules best and in the best faith gains an advantage over the other. If the admins are slow, or hands off for the moment, or longer, that can be frustrating: but we are volunteers with busy lives, and other concerns both on and off wiki. Patience is hard, but it is so necessary in mediation.

The report I have heard from the mediator is that all three of you have broken the mediation agreement. Despite his obvious frustration, he is still willing to come back to the table if all of you are. Something you should remember: the mediation is for all of you. After this latest stunt, the community at large and the admin corps, from what I have been told, is frustrated and upset. They are not particularly caring for which one of you is more to blame than the other.

As far as I am concerned, you are *all* out of reversions, under any circumstance. No more reversions unless the reverted edit is so severe you are willing to endure a block - even if you are right. --Tznkai (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S: I am aware there has been progress. I hope that this will be the low point in the mediation process, and things will improve rapidly after this.

Reverting

Stop reverting while matters are at mediation. The wrong version is better than endless fighting. If you don't want to participate, that's fine, but please do not derail the work of others. If you continue, you might be blocked for disruption. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly I would need to say that it takes two to tango. Secondly it is patently obvious that no army unit would use an unofficial name, they would use the name of the county or town/city as it appeared in statute. While I am sympathetic to anyone involved in the naming dispute, this (unfortunately very provocatively named) User:O Fenian seems to have political sympathies rather than accuracy as an aim. The situation is now resolved by a ref to the regiment's own website which clearly states "Londonderry". It shouldn't be necessary to do so but some posters in the Republican cabal are twisting this very loose IMOS to suit a political agenda and, as you can see, they are prepared to use harrassment as a means of achieving that end. I am determined to oppose Irish Republican/Loyalist agendas on this wiki and insist that only unemotive, neutral and truthful historical facts are used in these articles. Thunderer (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, but use dispute resolution and explain what needs to be done. The only way to "win" a dispute is to convince the other side that you are right. Repeated use of the revert button is not useful in resolving disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok will do but could you note that User O Fenian was the one who promulgated this by editing using this flawed IMOS as his justification. Thunderer (talk) 15:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

There is a proposal that participants resume editing the UDR article as part of the mediation, provided that adequate agreements can be made. We are discussing the necessary agreements on the case talk page now. Domer has proposed a 0RR between participants.

The mediators have made it clear that participants are not to blame or "police" one another. If you can abide that condition, we would welcome your input on the agreements necessary. Sunray (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on November 25 2008 to North Irish Horse

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours.

You're blocked because you continued to edit war after receiving the warnings above.

William M. Connolley (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

The Thunderer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not edit war. I inserted two refs to verify that the information was correct. Two separate editors removed it quoting a very loose IMOS. My reasoning is in the diffs

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I did not edit war. I inserted two refs to verify that the information was correct. Two separate editors removed it quoting a very loose IMOS. My reasoning is in the diffs |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I did not edit war. I inserted two refs to verify that the information was correct. Two separate editors removed it quoting a very loose IMOS. My reasoning is in the diffs |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I did not edit war. I inserted two refs to verify that the information was correct. Two separate editors removed it quoting a very loose IMOS. My reasoning is in the diffs |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}