User talk:Kurfürst

Note
There is a discussion involving you at WT:MILHIST. Regards, — Ed   (talk  •  majestic titan)  22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Scharnhorst class
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. --Denniss (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle of the Denmark Strait
Per WP:BRD, this edit is clearly disruptive and a clear instance of you violating WP:OWN. If you do this again you will be blocked. 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MBK004 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 March 2010


 * Given that the Sockpuppet investigations of Damwiki1 did not reach the conclusion that user:And heg was a sockpuppet, you are procedurally bound to assume good faith and not mention your suspicions in edit histories and on article talk pages. If you do so, then you are making a personal attack 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 user:And heg is a sockpuppet then either open a new investigation or if you prefer present the information to me on my home page and if I agree I will open one. -- PBS (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for long-term disruption and combative editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. EyeSerene talk 13:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: I will ask for a review of this block at WP:ANI. EyeSerene talk 13:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Review requested; thread here moved here. EyeSerene talk 13:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 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? Kurfürst (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 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. EyeSerene talk 23:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Kurfürst 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. -- PBS (talk) 00:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 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. Kurfürst (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

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 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").

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 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 I am not the only editor who has been tried to be driven away from an article 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.

Nor do I find the story of an victimized editor who 'work well in collaboration with others' (see: but is 'frustrated' from 'being followed around' (note that this block for Dapi89 was set exactly for systematically following me and attacking me on talk pages..), same reason all four blocks). 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 with fact and verification tags and then request for re-assessment leading to denomination. 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 play an important part in deciding the matter, and decision is better made on grounds of evidence, rather than hearsay.

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 '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. I have opened a discussion on the matter on the article talk page 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 another similar dispute with another editor, Ja62 on the same page and the article's talk page.

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 History of the Luftwaffe (1933–1945), 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, provided by Dapi himself with a source on the talk page a month ago in what was a rather normal cooperation) in the Battle of Britain article was also reverted by Dapi89 on grounds there is 'no source' and that I have to ask him first. I have again restrained myself from reverting that either.

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 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 one.

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, and tried to implement them. The current discussion has, unfortunately, seems to be concentrated on everything except my actual edits. I have not engaged in edit war, I have even restrained myself from reverting even obviously confrontative edits, 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.

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 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 Heinkel 111 or Ju 87 article, and recently in the Battle of Britain, 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 may be related to a misunderstanding from some unfortunate communication, 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 then go through in private channels instead of pursuing proper DR channels. But I think it would be very appropriate to clearly communicate that this doesn't work this way.

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. Kurfürst (talk) 14:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The ANI "Block review requested for Kurfurst" was archived 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 the ANI 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 respond to it at this time, but leave it to an uninvolved administrator. -- PBS (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi
look [] and [] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.75.145.41 (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC).