User talk:Stemdude

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Stemdude reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: ). Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 10:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Exponentiation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Mz7 (talk) 08:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• I can see that there is a unfortunately high level of frustration between you and Jasper Deng at the moment. The primary reason for this block is that on the article Exponentiation you violated the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not make more than three reverts per 24 hours to a single article. Additionally, as a bit of advice, if you are engaged in a heated disagreement with another user, in general it's not a good idea to follow them around to other discussions they're engaged in around Wikipedia—at the extreme end, this could be construed as Wikipedia:Harassment#Hounding, even if you didn't intend for it to be taken this way.
  I am aware that this block was instituted almost a full day after your last revert. With that in mind, I would be willing to unblock you early if you agree not to make any further reverts or controversial changes to the Exponentiation article until after an explicit consensus is achieved on the talk page. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mz7: I do not think this was a productive block: JasperDeng was an equal participant in the edit war, he just happens to have better knowledge of policies; if anyone's getting blocked then he should be as well. More importantly, as you note the edit war has been over for 24 hours, there is actual discussion on the talk page, etc., so there is no sense in blocking at all.
  • @Stemdude: I hope when your block is over that you will continue to participate in Wikipedia, but with a less-contentious approach. Consensus works surprisingly well if one can give it a chance. (Even when working with people who have less subject-matter expertise than you!) I suggest you take Mz7 up on his unblock offer, which seems straightforward and reasonable. --JBL (talk) 13:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I didn’t violate 3RR and I was the one who started the talk page discussion. Nothing out of process here.—Jasper Deng (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
      • @Joel B. Lewis: Thanks for the feedback. I'm also not a fan on Jasper Deng's tone in some of his comments, and it is true that he was also repeatedly reverting on that article. In my view, the relevant distinction is that 3RR was a bright line which Stemdude should have been aware about if they read Jasper's warning just before their fourth revert, which was against Purgy Purgatorio, not Japser Deng. A somewhat heated discussion had already been started, but the issue is that the ongoing discussion did not stop Stemdude from continuing to revert other users. I also took into consideration that Stemdude has not substantively edited since their last revert—perhaps they've just had to be away from the computer yesterday. The block is here to require that Stemdude address these concerns before resuming editing.
        With that in mind, Stemdude, I also encourage you to take up my early unblock offer in case you see this before your block's expiration date. I intend for this to be very straightforward. You don't have to be polite to me; just confirm that you won't revert again on the article (especially considering the current text on the article seems like an actual compromise), and I would be happy to lift the block immediately. I'm very sorry that your Wikipedia experience has had to start like this. Mz7 (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)