User:とある白い猫/Davenbelle and Stereotek

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 11:04, Jun 13, 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).

Statement of the dispute
User(s) has been obsessed with reverting my edits which is disrupting at least my wiki experience. Users barely used talk if ever on some articles. They are using a "just revert till remote party gives up" philosophy. I virtually have to force all my edits through them. I received a stunning (and partial) number of ~50+ reverts (Davenbelle 20, Stereotek 30). User:Coolcat. Those are the ones I counted without "effort". User(s) have 6 reverts I get 3 via 3rr. They revert often regardless of the content. Revert reads "POV" or "POV vandalism". And their double standard is visible in many occasions. It is currently futile for me to edit wikipedia as they will find ways to revert. I'll discuss individual cases below.

Description

 * Under Wikiquette users are expected to follow these guidelines.(shortened)
 * Assume good faith. Wikipedia has worked remarkably well so far based on a policy of nearly complete freedom to edit. People come here to collaborate and write good articles
 * Work toward agreement
 * Argue facts, not personalities
 * Don't ignore questions.
 * If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate.
 * Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste.
 * Don't make people debate positions you don't really hold.
 * Help mediate disagreements between others
 * Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
 * Amend, edit, discuss.

Evidence of disputed behavior
(provide diffs and links)
 * Excuse of dismissing governmental data: "Governments tend to lie"
 * User (Davenbelle) has a personal issue with me and probably Turkey.
 * Several sock puppet check requests have been passed for Davenbelle and Stereotek. Were they ever on the same machine. All of such requests were unanswered/ignored.
 * Nanking massacre: Image sizes are a good excuse to start rever war. Standard Thumbnail size vs 280px . I expect decency in the article. If people want to see full sized corpses they can click on the image. The Holocaust entry uses thumbnail sized images. Reverts should be evaded and things should be discussed. They had no edits on this article prior to my arrival as well. I was trying to mediate this thing in hopes that I learn better ways to mediate their and User:Fadix's "contribution" made a mediation impossible. They had no edits prior to my arrival as well.
 * I abuse wikipedia templates:
 * Davenbelle marked GAP project a copy vio. Material was PD and is used on 11 websites of which two are PD. Copyvio people deleted the page anyway. I rewrote the page from scratch the page still is not there as its a "copy vio". The page is rewritten from scratch. I am still dealing with the copy vio case. Its yet another stressful and unnecessary case. I don't enjoy red tape sorry.
 * Another assume bad faith case in Greco-Turkish_relations. I do not know what the user was trying to prove. Topic stayed locked because of his intervention (trolling). See how the discussion went on (or lack of discussion). . Check the revert war in on going in archived discussion. I am doing spelling corrections. They cannot even tolerate that.
 * I was asked to mediate Javier Solana (via IRC). Which I accepted but Davenbelle for one removed my mediation guidelines to the users (which I later forced back in). His interference is visible in talk archive 3. I have every right to push a few rules to hopefully force people to discuss the matter rather than continue their revert war. At least that was my intention which they again made impossible.
 * PKK: Users have not contributed to this article prior to my edit. They just abusively revert. No discussion no talk no assume good faith...
 * POV delete or is it? PKK's drug ties is well known. So says the Turkish government and so confirms the US government. Bear in mind user posted nothing to talk. just do a doodle search with this string: pkk drug site:.gov google search. That's a ridiculously simple search. Users however ignore common knowledge, stick to their "governments tend to lie" ideology... rv to last NPoV version by Bobblewik
 * Example of double standard. Bear in mind that restore of "removed material" removed about 5182 bytes of data. (assume bad faith and discard the work of others out of hand) revert; don't discard the work of others out of hand
 * Users NPoVise articles by stubisizing:

Applicable policies
{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Wikiquette

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * Requests for mediation request filled, unanswered
 * AMA Requests for Assistance request filled, unanswered
 * They are declaring my edits bad, normally they should be the ones using my talk to tell me what their problem is. I posted this msg pushing my patience to its limits. That was the first real communication, which I initiated. Nothing changed. Any communication I received from them was them informing they have marked an article I wrote as copy vio etc. Stereotek got me blocked 3 times (due to 3rr on all cases the dispute was between me and Davenbelle and Stereotek). He requested the 4th block of me breaking 3rr of me violating it on my own talk page. There is absolutely no sign of them wanting to work with me rather than get rid of me. I never requested a single block on them even though many cases they violated the rule. I don't seek a childish vengeance, I just tried to keep my cool, assume good faith, try to reason... I post material to talk on why I wrote what I wrote. I cite sources discuss things, they don't read/answer. Keep reverting instead...
 * There was even an arbitration case, which was declined due to the lack of a RfC

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
(sign with ~ )
 * CoolCat has been given grief since his earliest days on Wikipedia by these users. I worked with him on several articles and know that he would like nothing better than to improve them, which is difficult when he has users with preconceived notions about him chasing him everywhere on the wiki. He has made some mistakes but Davenbelle and Stereotek have never given him the opportunity to make up for them. I have watched this conflict for quite a while; the reverting is as bad as it sounds, and I think all the involved users need to come to some kind of an understanding instead of slinging mud at each other across the wiki. silsor 18:53, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary
(sign with ~ )

Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):

Outside view
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would likenot to add an outside view of the dispute.

It seems that Davenbelle and Stereotek have been leaning on CoolCat harder than he deserves&mdash;though, in all fairness, CoolCat's blatant POV-pushing, combined with his generally confrontational and officious manner, have not helped one bit. Both parties need to cool it.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~ ):
 * 1) &mdash;Charles P. (Mirv) 19:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Kelly Martin 13:10, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) W(t) 11:28, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Discussion
Technically this isn't a RfC because 48 hours have passed without certification. If Coolcat had contacted me earlier, however, I would have been happy to detail my failed attempts to get one or other of the parties named by Coolcat, and one or two others, to assume good faith. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)