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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]