User talk:90.203.247.196

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association‎

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. One Night In Hackney303 21:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be engaged in an edit war yourself, in tandem with another user. Do you not think it ironic that you are warning me for this.. even hypocritical?

I shall ignore your warning and give you some advice on how to get on with people (other editors):

When editing an article and you see something you do not like, instead of reverting wholesale, feel free to use an the edit summary to explain to the editor whose edits you are reverting the reason for reverting each of their changes. In this case, I made multiple changes and not one satisfactory reason has been given. Some comment about "sources" was made, even though I was reinstating the actual original text that had been cited in the book that was referenced, in ONE of my changes.

The initial revert was most unfriendly.

Be sure to pass my advice on to your friend also.

[edit] Blocked

I've blocked you for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule on Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. Although One Night In Hackney was edit warring as well, he only reverted three times. Regardless, both of you should have been discussing things on the talk page -- I don't see any recent comments there from either of you. When you return from your block, make sure to discuss, cite sources, and avoid future conflicts such as these. Maybe you will find WP:1RR refreshing. Khoikhoi 22:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And so it goes again - the bullies who work in tandem to edit war, get admin on their side, get an innocent editor blocked, then proceed to revert AGAIN, with no explanation.
This situation is ridiculous - I hope you realise that Khoikhoi. Are you armed with the full facts? Can you see what has happened here? Have you blocked the other editors also for 24 hours?
I see you have not. Do you consider this fair treatment?
Not only that, but I'll have less of your cheek (re: "refreshing").
I see that I am not even able to edit Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.
When I "return from my block", I will be sure to query this process. Also, to use your parlance, maybe you will find the discussion on the other parties' discussion page regarding this matter - not so much "refreshing" - but rather.. interesting.
Interesting to see you suggest that both 'sides' in this conflict regarding the NICRA article have done wrong, yet you punish only one 'side'.
Listen, editing is not supposed to be some sort of game where different versions go back and forth. If you want your version of the article incorporated, please note that these type of pages are extremely controversial. Therefore, if you want to add something that another editor has contested, you're best off by making a comment on the talk page. The other two users are experienced enough and they know this as well. I'm sure if you were willing to compromise with the other users they would be willing to listen.
I don't have any association between these two users, they're certainly not "on my side", as it is an admins job more than anyone to be neutral. The reason why we have the three-revert rule is to prevent editors from reverting each other hundreds of times. It is a barrier that forces them to discuss. Khoikhoi 23:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response.
"Listen, editing is not supposed to be some sort of game where different versions go back and forth." Indeed.. so imagine my surprise when I found myself pitted against two editors working in tandem to ensure that nothing of my work was retained. I repeat: nothing... not only once, but several times, it was reverted without proper explanation.
My "version" of the article was less POV, though this doesn't seem to matter to you. You say that the other editors "ought to know this", yet you punished me, and not them. That's a odd way of being "neutral". Blocking me has at the very least, merely delayed any kind of discussion.. as you did, whether it was your intention or not, block only one 'side'. You say it [blocking] is a barrier to force people to discuss, yet my 'defence' on the 3RR page clearly states that I was frustrated precisely because the other two editors offered no explanation for their wholesale reverts - it had been a point that I had made. You happen to apparently agree with it. Did you not bother to read it? Thankfully, I stumbled upon it when I decided to investigate just what was happening - no link to the 3RR report on me was offered to me.
Perhaps you thought my work was arbitrary and unconsidered? The fact is though, that the changes I actually reverted in my initial edits yesterday had not been discussed on the talk page before they had been made. So how come it is one rule for them, and another rule for me? Why is it OK, in your mind, for other editors to edit articles and make changes without discussing them on the talk page, and not myself... "controversial page" or no?
I would like an explanation as to why you decided to block me, and me alone, leaving the other two editors, working in tandem, free to revert the changes I had made a fifth time.
I put it to you that these two characters (mis-)used and abused the system of rules here in order that they retain a specific point of view in this article.. and who knows how many other articles. It might be interesting to see just how often they do work in tandem with regard to .. how did you put it.. "these types of pages". Thus Wikipedia, in part, becomes mob rule supported by the administration. I challenge you to prove the possibility of what I suggest right or wrong with a thorough investigation. Pay particular attention to the dialogue the two editors in question had on their respective talk pages during the time of the 'incident', and how they appear to contravene WP:AGF and WP:NPA.
I put it to you also that the fact that this kind of behaviour is tolerated is one of the reasons why Wikipedia is regarded as a joke in academic circles.

[edit] Hackney

By the way, as I know you're reading this, (undoubtedly gloating at your 'victory' over what you see as a.. what was it again.. "bigoted loyalist"), I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong tree with regard to "sockpuppetry". I am nobody's 'sockpuppet'. Nor am I the controller of multiple people or multiple accounts.

I resent your attitude, your personal remarks against me, and your scheming with another editor.

Khoikhoi: I hope you're paying attention and taking notes. There will be a test on this later.