I'm not sure what you mean by saying you waited overnight, because you
made your four edits, in my view four reverts, within about four
hours, so far as I can see. The important point here is that you're
trying to introduce POV into the article by claiming, I believe, that
Australia is a republic and that the Queen is not the head of state,
which is factually incorrect. You may be right (I don't know) that
Australia is in some sense a thinly veiled republic, but the veil is
everything, no matter how thin.
This is an interesting example of content-quality over procedure. Adam
Carr was trying to preserve accuracy and now he's blocked. The person
who has been trying to insert an inaccuracy for days, and who also
(arguably) reverted four times, is not blocked.
Peter, you may be right about there being an argument in favor of
saying that Australia is, in effect, a republic. But if you want to
introduce an issue like that into an article, you have to be very
careful not to violate the no-original-research rule, which says that
editors shouldn't come up any new analysis or synthesis of facts. In
other words, if you want to say Australia is a republic, you have to
find reputable sources who have actually said that precise thing, and
not just sources who have said things which, put together in a certain
way in a certain light, could be interpreted as implying that. The
former is okay; the latter is original research. I don't know, but I
suspect, that Adam perceived you to be doing the latter.
Sarah
On Fri, 4 Mar 2005 15:28:45 +1100, Skyring <skyring(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But I didn't want to report Adam. If that had been my objective, then
> I could have reported him the moment he made his fourth revert.
> Instead I continued to discuss the issue with him in the face of
> mounting abuse and when he withdrew from the discussion, I waited
> overnight, all next morning and didn't report him until after lunch.
>
> Ironically whilst I was cutting and pasting timestamps and stuff he
> rejoined the discussion, albeit in a rather negative and dishonest
> fashion, but I didn't notice this until after.
>
> I much prefer debating to edit wars, but when one party won't respond
> in a reasonable fashion, it's difficult.
>
> What's the next step - seek arbitration over one letter?
> --
> Peter in Canberra
I would count your four edits as reverts. You changed convention to
contention at 00:44 (calling it a spelling correction, when you
probably knew it was a contentious change as you'd already been
edit-warring over that issue, even if not that exact word); then again
at 02:52; 03:55; and 04:49. By counting the reverts in the way you've
done, you're basically admitting to system gaming, which is frowned
on. If you report someone for 3RR, it's best to have clean hands in
the matter yourself, or it can backfire.
Sarah
>