937:, added material I discussed on the talk page with PLENTY of time for objections (none were coming) tried to discuss it with the other party which was at the same time was doing only two things: reverting everything and running to an admin who promised before he will sort it out 'in house' to maintain the so-called neutral POV. I am not denying at the same time at all that have made many, many mistakes in the past, most of them when I was new to Wiki, but its a bit cheap to point fingers to that direction all the time, while my actual edit is not discussed at all. I am struggling to find a reason why I get an indef block for an 1RR, completely in line with BRD, which is what Atama seems to suggest ('to avoid edit wars,perhaps a voluntary 1RR'), and which is EXACTLY what I was doing beforehand. Anyone is welcome to compare my editorial behavior with that of Dapi89 on any of these articles, and I am not sure I am the one doing worse when it comes to cooperation.
941:
found via discussion. Avoiding him - why not_ I have been avoiding him already, partly because his interest seems to have shifted to actually shifted from to actually making good contributions the ground battle articles, partly because I had to realize that in certain periods (usually occuring when someone has another POV) no editor can reason with him, because his tendency to take everything personal, and its probably for the best to avoid him and let him keep to himself. Assuming Good Faith is going to be a tough one, and will require considerable efforts from both parties. There has been some good examples of this, for example it has been possible to work together on the
22:
838:
without saying that against such defamation it is not possible one to defend itself, nor does it seem neccessary, as we all aware of the weight of charges without evidence, claimed by involved parties, ie. Minorhistorian, Dapi89 or
Gregolock (the latter of whom I had very little interaction, apart from receiving a threatening message from him, addressed to "Kiddo" whoever that is, about being sorted out for "special attention").
1044:
885:'decide the matter' in place of the former text that was pretty neutral and was representing both views as per Wiki's NPOV. Whether reverting was a good choice or not is open to question, though I still think I had a valid reason for it and wanted to discuss it - after all, this is how tenthousends of Wiki articles are formed from day to day. Moreover I think my approach was correct, following BRD strictly.
656:
928:
Perhaps I need a mentor indeed - I would glady accept PBS, Bzuk, Atama or any other administrator with the exception of
Eyeserene, as such and ask for their opinion before potentially contested edits. It was certaily not my intention to be disruptive, I've simply seen some ways to improve an article,
920:
So, perhaps, I am very dumb but I'd really like to understand what am I doing wrong here, and I wonder if there would be any lingering doubts about
Eyeserene's decision to hand out an indef block for an 1RR, valid or not, if I had followed the example and editing style set by some of the more 'model
880:
Naturally this isn't an excuse for my own behaviour, but I find it important to add some shades and details to the black and white painting presented by
Eyeserene, where supposedly model editors are being harassed around by others and where every conflict is with a single editor. These circumstances
841:
While I concur that there is certainly truth in that I need to adjust my editoral practice to Wiki, and there has been valuable advices for that by Bzuk, Atama and PBS, I also believe that
Eyeserene provided a distorted picture, a clash between 'good' and 'evil', while the stable elements that keeps
940:
Personally I think that avoiding each other and stepping on each others toes would work out, so I would suggest that we mutually agree not reverts each other at all in the articles we edit - a voluntary 0RR mutually applying to both parties. This IMHO would certainly ensure that resolution would be
884:
It is time to address my own editorial behaviour. The indef block under question was issued by
Eyeserene for an 1RR in the Battle of France article. Dapi89 there made a bold edit, which I don't consider a particularl improvement, as it only seems to insert negative arguements into the article, and
837:
I will try to make it short, as I have other important committments, but since there are plenty of questions raised that needs to be answered, it will be somewhat lenghty. There have been a lot of vague accusations put forward by both
Eyeserene and Dapi89; without any specifics of evidence. It goes
992:
agree with you that your account should be unblocked and I strongly suggest that you do not try to justify you previous behaviour or criticises other editors (as you did in your last posting). As I have been involved in the ANI now that it is closed, if you do put in an unblock request, I will not
846:
because of a POV he represented by accusing them of 'disruptive editing' and threatening them with blocking, while all incivility of the proper-POV editors is explained and excused by their 'frustration', I am not convinced that "BUT" is a major element, rather than something very flexible.
769:
I didn't "arrange" anything; it's exactly that sort of unfounded and pointless assumption that has landed you with this block. However, if you have a response to make you can post it here and someone (me, if no-one else, though I'm going offline very soon) will copy it across to ANI.
900:
I don't think there were a serious problem with these edits of mine, nor the conduct - I followed the BRD cycle closely, and voluntarily refrained from reverting at all, despite the fact that Dapi89's attitude towards me has been a tad bit on the combative side to put it mildly. See
889:
pointed out the problems I saw with the edit in the commentary, and asked to be discussed on the talk page. Dapi89 reverted that with a personal attack, refused to discuss the matter, and instead went block shopping to
Eyeserene. Ever since Dapi89 also got him inself
810:
Thank you for the notice PBS. I am rather busy with my life, so I did not have time yet to respond to the accusation, but I believe they are a rather black and white view on the issue. I will respond to it soon, preferably tonight, or by tomorrow morning the latest.
551:
Thanks for spotting the interwiki bot error (I wondered myself on this), problem seemed to be a wrong interwiki of the hungarian
Scharnhorst class article (interwikied to Scharnhorst ship articles), should now be fixed manually by checking all class/ship interwikis.
746:
Since you arranged it so that the other party - me - have no possibility to respond to your accusations, and put forward its position and shed some light on aspects sorely missing from your description, what is the point of you posting this notification here?
587:. When an edit is reverted with the edit summary of "please discuss" or something equivalent, just reverting back is clearly disruptive and against policy. You should know better and engage in discussion regardless of if the editor is a sock/meatpuppet.
987:
at 14:35, 25 March 2010 so you will have to make an unblock request if you want to be unblocked. After carefully reading the ANI make sure that the request includes enough voluntary restrictions that the unblocking administrator will after reading
876:). It makes a dramatic story, but one of those which's validity can be easily checked against actual actions and statements. I particularly find disturbing that it went to such lenghts as to litter Good Articles I worked a great deal with
953:, at least until recently when his Luftwaffe-bashing tendencies instead of attempting to write readable articles have returned. At the same time, it has to be mention the recent willingness towards confrontative editorial behaviour
905:, where all my edits were unjustifiably reverted without any discussion, 5 times within 24 hours but I did not engage in an edit war and did not revert him; 10 minutes after my latest 'creation of controversy' (ie. adding figures,
842:
popping up are lines like 'I accept that editors working from opposite POVs, BUT...' and "a balanced" perspective is the definition of a trouble maker" revealing. The question is, is it the POV, or is it the BUT? Considering that
957:, which could be misinterpreted as a carte blanche that priviliged editors may act however they please without consequences, and that proper way of solving content disputes is to seek confrontation and
964:
I intend to work on the
Luftwaffe and Luftwaffe aircraft related articles, especially those related to the Luftwaffe fighters bombers and their associated equipment, so I await for the terms proposed.
989:
980:
921:
editors', like Dapi89. Certainly it would be an easier choice if I would done close to a dozen reverts of multiple articles, five in a single one within 24 hours in a few articles a and not
75:
611:
626:
which is a breach of policy, and as you have already been warned not to do so (take this as a warning), can lead to administrative sanctions. If you are still convinced that
789:
you need to read the ANI and respond fairly quickly or it will be archived and then it becomes much more difficult to make other arrangements other than a long block. --
206:
250:
724:
902:
692:
631:
495:
108:
or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the
246:
429:
1024:
473:
224:
372:
301:
228:
79:
105:
872:(note that this block for Dapi89 was set exactly for systematically following me and attacking me on talk pages..), same reason
623:
407:
402:
351:
39:
333:
170:
998:
917:
on grounds there is 'no source' and that I have to ask him first. I have again restrained myself from reverting that either.
794:
639:
680:
619:
487:
338:
262:
602:
881:
play an important part in deciding the matter, and decision is better made on grounds of evidence, rather than hearsay.
469:
363:
355:
279:
275:
237:
663:
451:
411:
297:
258:
424:
420:
284:
241:
380:
266:
233:
994:
790:
635:
622:
and not mention your suspicions in edit histories and on article talk pages. If you do so, then you are making a
675:
519:
376:
367:
164:
160:
48:
482:
478:
433:
1028:
1020:
590:
305:
271:
99:
931:
The current discussion has, unfortunately, seems to be concentrated on everything except my actual edits.
459:
455:
346:
329:
292:
201:
342:
156:
671:
465:
398:
965:
961:. But I think it would be very appropriate to clearly communicate that this doesn't work this way.
850:
Nor do I find the story of an victimized editor who 'work well in collaboration with others' (see:
812:
786:
748:
634:
or if you prefer present the information to me on my home page and if I agree I will open one. --
174:
529:
54:
491:
950:
910:
557:
109:
416:
288:
196:
686:
598:
50:
21:
909:
with a source on the talk page a month ago in what was a rather normal cooperation) in the
878:
with fact and verification tags and then request for re-assessment leading to denomination.
728:
708:
580:
572:
535:
192:
91:
1059:
1055:
771:
732:
712:
696:
128:
119:
524:
1043:
112:
field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -
627:
615:
553:
942:
861:
859:
857:
855:
853:
851:
594:
935:
I have even restrained myself from reverting even obviously confrontative edits
877:
844:
I am not the only editor who has been tried to be driven away from an article
1051:
1032:
1002:
993:
respond to it at this time, but leave it to an uninvolved administrator. --
973:
820:
798:
776:
756:
737:
717:
701:
643:
561:
541:
123:
115:
655:
959:
then go through in private channels instead of pursuing proper DR channels
895:
52:
955:
may be related to a misunderstanding from some unfortunate communication
958:
104:
946:
98:
on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to
887:
I have opened a discussion on the matter on the article talk page
55:
15:
316:
143:
69:
1042:
654:
579:
is clearly disruptive and a clear instance of you violating
82:
to this 💕. If you decide that you need help, check out
984:
954:
914:
906:
891:
886:
873:
869:
865:
863:
843:
576:
679:. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may
892:another similar dispute with another editor, Ja62
618:was a sockpuppet, you are procedurally bound to
707:Note: I will ask for a review of this block at
8:
86:below, ask me on my talk page, or place
630:is a sockpuppet then either open a new
518:There is a discussion involving you at
202:Where to ask questions or make comments
612:Sockpuppet investigations of Damwiki1
7:
903:History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945)
981:Block review requested for Kurfurst
520:WT:MILHIST#King George V Battleship
614:did not reach the conclusion that
78:to Knowledge (XXG)! Thank you for
14:
933:I have not engaged in edit war,
103:
65:
20:
691:below, but you should read our
207:Request administrator attention
1:
1060:03:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
949:article, and recently in the
929:and tried to implement them.
562:15:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
542:22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
251:Biographies of living persons
139:
567:Battle of the Denmark Strait
915:was also reverted by Dapi89
276:Policy for non-free content
247:What Knowledge (XXG) is not
1076:
1033:17:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
1003:22:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
974:14:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
821:10:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
799:00:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
777:23:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
757:23:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
738:13:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
718:13:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
702:13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
644:22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
193:Frequently asked questions
102:on talk pages by clicking
894:on the same page and the
722:Review requested; thread
693:guide to appealing blocks
124:15:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
1038:
969:
907:provided by Dapi himself
816:
752:
870:'being followed around'
583:. If you do this again
430:Pages needing attention
216:Policies and guidelines
1047:
659:
605:) 17:56, 12 March 2010
1046:
658:
225:Neutral point of view
175:upload and use images
896:article's talk page.
302:Conflict of interest
229:No original research
866:but is 'frustrated'
689:|Your reason here}}
683:by adding the text
585:you will be blocked
408:The perfect article
352:No personal attacks
1048:
681:contest this block
660:
479:Join a WikiProject
403:Develop an article
399:Be bold in editing
80:your contributions
1039:Season's tidings!
1023:comment added by
951:Battle of Britain
911:Battle of Britain
676:combative editing
668:from editing for
620:assume good faith
593:comment added by
547:Scharnhorst class
511:
510:
507:
506:
503:
502:
339:Assume good faith
313:
312:
263:Three-revert rule
138:
137:
74:Hello, Kurfürst!
61:
60:
1067:
1035:
774:
735:
715:
699:
690:
606:
540:
538:
532:
527:
488:Useful templates
390:Writing articles
364:Community Portal
356:No legal threats
334:Resolve disputes
317:
280:Image use policy
238:Reliable sources
165:Getting mentored
161:Our five pillars
144:
140:
132:
107:
96:
90:
70:
66:
56:
24:
16:
1075:
1074:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1041:
1018:
1011:
874:all four blocks
772:
733:
713:
704:
697:
684:
652:
624:personal attack
610:Given that the
588:
569:
549:
537:majestic titan)
536:
530:
525:
523:
516:
444:
412:Manual of style
391:
330:Build consensus
322:
298:Deletion policy
259:Manual of Style
217:
185:
149:
148:Getting started
134:
131:
113:
94:
88:
57:
51:
29:
12:
11:
5:
1073:
1071:
1040:
1037:
1010:
1007:
1006:
1005:
836:
834:
832:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
784:
783:
782:
781:
780:
779:
762:
761:
760:
759:
741:
740:
720:
661:You have been
653:
651:
648:
647:
646:
568:
565:
548:
545:
515:
512:
509:
508:
505:
504:
501:
500:
499:
498:
485:
476:
462:
446:
445:
442:
439:
438:
437:
436:
427:
425:Disambiguation
414:
405:
393:
392:
389:
386:
385:
384:
383:
370:
360:
359:
358:
349:
336:
324:
323:
320:
314:
311:
310:
309:
308:
295:
285:External links
282:
269:
255:
254:
253:
244:
242:Citing sources
231:
219:
218:
215:
212:
211:
210:
209:
204:
199:
187:
186:
183:
180:
179:
178:
177:
167:
151:
150:
147:
136:
135:
127:
100:sign your name
73:
63:
59:
58:
53:
49:
47:
44:
43:
35:
34:
31:
30:
25:
19:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1072:
1063:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1045:
1036:
1034:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1016:
1014:
1008:
1004:
1000:
996:
991:
986:
982:
978:
977:
976:
975:
971:
967:
962:
960:
956:
952:
948:
944:
938:
936:
932:
926:
924:
918:
916:
912:
908:
904:
898:
897:
893:
888:
882:
879:
875:
871:
867:
864:
862:
860:
858:
856:
854:
852:
848:
845:
839:
833:
822:
818:
814:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
796:
792:
788:
787:User:Kurfürst
778:
775:
768:
767:
766:
765:
764:
763:
758:
754:
750:
745:
744:
743:
742:
739:
736:
730:
727:
726:
721:
719:
716:
710:
706:
705:
703:
700:
694:
688:
682:
678:
677:
673:
667:
665:
657:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
632:investigation
629:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
607:
604:
600:
596:
592:
586:
582:
578:
574:
566:
564:
563:
559:
555:
546:
544:
543:
539:
533:
528:
521:
513:
497:
493:
489:
486:
484:
480:
477:
475:
471:
467:
463:
461:
457:
453:
450:
449:
448:
447:
443:Miscellaneous
441:
440:
435:
431:
428:
426:
422:
418:
415:
413:
409:
406:
404:
400:
397:
396:
395:
394:
388:
387:
382:
381:Mailing lists
378:
374:
371:
369:
365:
362:
361:
357:
353:
350:
348:
344:
340:
337:
335:
331:
328:
327:
326:
325:
321:The community
319:
318:
315:
307:
303:
299:
296:
294:
290:
286:
283:
281:
277:
273:
270:
268:
267:Sock puppetry
264:
260:
257:
256:
252:
248:
245:
243:
239:
235:
234:Verifiability
232:
230:
226:
223:
222:
221:
220:
214:
213:
208:
205:
203:
200:
198:
194:
191:
190:
189:
188:
182:
181:
176:
172:
168:
166:
162:
158:
155:
154:
153:
152:
146:
145:
142:
141:
133:13:26, (UTC)
130:
125:
121:
117:
111:
106:
101:
97:
93:
85:
81:
77:
72:
71:
68:
67:
64:
46:
45:
42:
41:
37:
36:
33:
32:
28:
23:
18:
17:
1049:
1025:84.75.145.41
1012:
963:
939:
934:
930:
927:
922:
919:
899:
883:
849:
840:
835:
831:
785:
723:
669:
666:indefinitely
662:
628:user:And heg
616:user:And heg
584:
570:
550:
522:. Regards, —
517:
496:User scripts
377:IRC channels
368:Village pump
184:Getting help
110:edit summary
87:
84:Getting Help
83:
62:
38:
26:
1019:—Preceding
943:Heinkel 111
589:—Preceding
483:Translation
434:Peer review
171:edit a page
979:The ANI "
729:moved here
672:disruption
670:long-term
650:March 2010
464:Clean up:
460:Talk pages
456:User pages
421:Categories
306:Notability
272:Copyrights
157:A tutorial
40:/Archive 1
773:EyeSerene
734:EyeSerene
714:EyeSerene
698:EyeSerene
577:this edit
474:Vandalism
452:User name
347:Etiquette
293:Vandalism
1021:unsigned
985:archived
966:Kurfürst
913:article
813:Kurfürst
749:Kurfürst
603:contribs
591:unsigned
373:Signpost
343:Civility
169:How to:
27:Archives
990:the ANI
695:first.
687:unblock
664:blocked
554:Denniss
466:General
126:.(UTC)
76:Welcome
1015:] and
983:" was
709:WP:ANI
595:MBK004
581:WP:OWN
573:WP:BRD
92:helpme
1050:FWiW
1013:look
947:Ju 87
868:from
531:(talk
492:Tools
417:Stubs
114:FWiW
1056:talk
1052:Bzuk
1029:talk
999:talk
970:talk
817:talk
795:talk
753:talk
725:here
674:and
640:talk
599:talk
571:Per
558:talk
514:Note
470:Spam
289:Spam
197:Tips
129:talk
120:talk
116:Bzuk
1017:]
995:PBS
945:or
923:one
791:PBS
636:PBS
1058:)
1031:)
1009:Hi
1001:)
972:)
925:.
819:)
797:)
755:)
731:.
711:.
685:{{
642:)
601:•
575:,
560:)
552:--
534:•
526:Ed
494:•
490:•
481:•
472:-
468:-
458:•
454:•
432:•
423:•
419:•
410:•
401:•
379:•
375:•
366:•
354:•
345:•
341:•
332:•
304:•
300:•
291:•
287:•
278:•
274:•
265:•
261:•
249:•
240:•
236:•
227:•
195:•
173:•
163:•
159:•
122:)
95:}}
89:{{
1062:.
1054:(
1027:(
997:(
968:(
815:(
793:(
751:(
638:(
597:(
556:(
118:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
