User talk:Wik/Conflicts

Following cut and paste from conflicts page:

Wik and Lir

 * Wik continues to stalk me around the Wiki. None of the earlier isses, with the exception of Adolf Hitler, has been addressed by the community. I do not see how I am expected to refrain from revert wars; when, the community does not take an active role in resolving the issue. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * Looks like Lir is fed up with Wik's reversions, insults and refusal to discuss changes. I'm siding with Lir on this one. Wik, knock it off. --Uncle Ed 15:49, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * The two of them need to be taken aside and told to knock off the reversion wars. This is not good for Wikipedia, makes the project look ridiculous, and makes it impossible to edit decent articles.  RickK 05:18, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Wik refuses to discuss, constantly insults, and reverts everything I edit if he feels that anything is even slightly amiss. I can't possibly do anything but revert...either that or quit editing; which frankly, sounds like a better idea every day; then Wik can editwar with you. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * See here, here, and here to understand what this listing here is about. Maximus Rex 05:26, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * And I add as another reversion war of the two. andy 11:04, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Also . I don't know if I'm sure which of them is at fault, but maybe there's a better solution - Lir and Wik, if one of you makes an edit the other dislikes, mention it on the talk page and ask that it be corrected by a third user .  -- Pakaran 23:30, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Wik said my edits were "idiotic" -- I don't feel his attitude towards other users is appropriate. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I would like to ask these two to walk away from each others edits. Lir if wik makes any changes to a page, do not edit for 1 week. Wik, likewise if lir edits a page, refrain from making any edits to that page for 1 week. Does that seem reasonable ? theresa knott 13:59, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC) See also: Problem users/Wik
 * That would just make for slow-motion edit wars, with one-week intervals, but it won't solve anything. --Wik 14:22, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
 * If you slow the edit wars between you two down, it gives others the opportunity to make edits in between. You may find that by waiting, the edits you were going to make gets done by someone else, saving you the bother. Even if you do still need to edit, the time interval gives time for feelings to cool down, making a more amiable and constructive edit more likely. It can't hurt to give it a try anyhow. If it works yippee! If it doesn't the situation is no different to what it is now, so nothing is lost. theresa knott 15:35, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Wik - it might not solve your problem, but it would solve our problem. If you respect the community, you might want to reconsider the solid advice Theresa is giving you here. Martin 21:10, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * What exactly is your problem? --Wik 21:44, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)


 * I believe Theresa has already explained what our problem is, but I don't mind restating. High-frequency revertion wars make the version history less useful, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes, watchlists, etc. Low-frequency revertion wars do not cause the community these problems. Martin 22:10, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think reverts like this are just plain vandalism. -- Wik reverts nearly everything I add to the wiki, he does so without making productive comments. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * I am sorry to note that Wik seems totally unwilling to accept the right of other users to disagree with him, instead explicitly states that he will revert anything done by those Wikipedians he likes to call vandals and trolls, even if these have demonstrably refrained from uncooperative behavior. I had a lenghty discussion with him about this which I recommend everybody to study (see User talk:Wik), and it is my impression that his idea of cooperation is seriously flawed at a very fundamental level. Kosebamse 13:33, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Please do demonstrate how they have demonstrably refrained from uncooperative behaviour. That should be interesting. --Wik 13:55, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned at the very beginning of our talk on 15 November, Nico has in the past week returned to discussion on Silesia and agreed with szopen on a compromise text; they have also exchanged apologies on their talk pages. Also, he agreed with SpaceCadet on Baldhurs compromise text on Görlitz. You however insisted on calling him a vandal and said he were not "any more useful than Khranus" who was banned last week. All this is on your talk page, see this version. With Lir, it's a long story that reaches far back behind the beginnings of your (and my) Wikipedia engagement. When he was allowed to return this summer, he has demonstrated a collegial attitude and has gained the respect of his former adversaries. The mere fact that he was engaged in reversion wars (with you, mostly) does not speak against his overall good standing (that fact would not even speak so strongly against you, had you not made reversionism a long standing habit, starting on your second day on Wikipedia, and had you not repeatedly argued that your POV = NPOV, which you claimed to "staunchly defend"). Yet you included Lir in your statements about "this kind of users, where discussion is pointless". Again, all of this (and, sadly, much more) is on your talk page. As said page tells much more about your attitudes than I ever could I would like to repeat my suggestion that our fellow Wikipedians should make their judgement by reading it. Kosebamse 15:56, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Indeed, then they will see how you fail to substantiate your allegation (which you basically repeat here) of my "POV supremacism". You'd have to adopt a total POV relativism (in which case there would be no such thing as NPOV) to accuse me of that. If I were to go to the article Earth and write that it is flat, and another reverts it, would you also say it's a dispute between two equally valid POVs, which should be debated until there's a compromise? You are clearly unfamiliar with the subject of Silesia if you don't see how Nico's edits there were just as ludicrous. And the fact that he backpedals whenever he sees he doesn't get away with his more extreme POV, doesn't mean that he now accepts the NPOV principle. If this needed any more proof, he tried today to change the article Kaliningrad to begin with the name Königsberg! Anyone with some minimum knowledge about those matters sees that he is here not to make a better encyclopaedia, but to push extreme German-nationalist views that are on the fringe even within Germany. As to Lir, I note that you apparently think that "a collegial attitude" consists of reverting a page even when everyone tells you you're wrong (ask Daniel Quinlan about Lir's behaviour on Second Industrial Revolution). As to your "reversionism" charge, a cursory look at my edit history will disprove that; edit wars make up only a small part of over 7,000 edits; I also don't see how I was involved in any on my second day. Furthermore, most of the edit wars were with a small group of problem users where talk was futile, including Nico and Lir. Why do you think I don't have edit wars with generally respected users? Please tell me exactly where I argued that "my POV = NPOV". Maybe you think it isn't NPOV to revert Nico's inclusion of 10 German links (out of 15) on Silesia, a Polish region, or his listing of the German-reactionary Landsmannschaft Schlesien as the first link, or his putting the German name before the Polish, or to remove Lir's irrelevant Dutch transliteration of Anton Chekhov, or Lir's blatantly wrong punctuation, or Lir's noting someone's death before his birth, or Lir's claim that there is no evidence of water on the Moon, contradicted by the same article? I guess that was all just "my POV"? --Wik 16:49, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)


 * Howevever, Wik, recent studies (with which you are wholly unfamiliar) have given strong indications that there is no water on the moon; thus, your "POV supremacism" whereby you reverted my edit -- makes you one very problematic user. Lirath Q. Pynnor


 * I will answer you on your talk page in order to keep this page readable. Kosebamse 17:35, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

@Wik: 1) I inserted a link to the largest German-Silesien organisation, providing information on Silesian culture and history, and organizing a large part of the German Silesians, when I also leaved the links to 4 similar Polish organisations. 2) When I initially mentioned the German name before the Polish, was this because the German name is better known in English the Polish, and by the way is the historical Silesia divided between Poland AND Germany (and the Czech Republic). However, this is a quite long time ago, and I accepted to mention the Polish name first when you protested. 3) According to Königsberg, I wrote a new and in my opinion better and more precise introduction which is discussed at the talk page, and so far accepted by all contributors who have made comments. 4) Why should pushing extreme Polish-nationalist views be more acceptable than &#8221;pushing extreme German-nationalist views&#8221; (your words)? -- Nico 18:47, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

People reading this may be interested in How to revert a page to an earlier version and Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version. Martin 19:02, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * Wik and Lir, your edit/reversion/move wars are annoying other people, and the regular requests for protection of pages is a distraction to sysops. Regardless of who is more correct as to the better edit/punctuation/title of any given article, this annoyance is going on due to BOTH OF YOU. My reccomendation is to WALK AWAY from articles if there are more than 2 reversions. Just explain your point of view as to what you think would be better for the article in the talk page. DO NOT ASSUME THAT YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON ON WIKIPEDIA WHO CAN IMPROVE THE ARTICLE. If what the other person did is particularly bad, someone else will come along and fix it.  We have over 175,000 articles here, the majority of which can stand improving, and many more need to be written. I'd recommend if either of you see the other one working on an article, go find SOMETHING ELSE you can work on. Sheesh, I'm starting to wish there was a Wikipedia version of a restraining order to keep you two away from eachother. -- 2 cents from annoyed Infrogmation 17:14, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * If I were to do that, I would have to walk away from every article I edit. I have pretty much done that, I do not think it is fair to expect me to leave the Wiki simply because you don't like seeing Wik revert my edits. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * It is not reasonable to say "I'd recommend if either of you see the other one working on an article, go find SOMETHING ELSE you can work on." -- I have never edited articles which Wik was working on, Wik is reverting articles I work on. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * But if you did walk away. then you would be in a much better position to get help from everyone else. Every time wik reverts you put a comment on the talk page. That way others have a chance to help you. If you get into edit wars you annoy everyone and they are less likely to come to your aid. Of course the general concensus may be Wik was right to revert. You'll just have to take that on the chin. theresa knott 17:28, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I do walk away. I walk away every day. Every day for weeks, I walk away from a growing number of pages which I have spent hours working on; all of my work reverted, all by Wik (and only by Wik). It is you, the community, which is failing me; I am doing my part by walking away. Do not cast me as "annoying" simply because I take the time to request protection for each and every page which Wik reverts. I am a victim. Do not say I am "annoying" simply because I am trying to get your attention. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * I've watched some of this, and yes, Wik is definitely following Lir around just to revert things. When challenged (see Wik's talk page), the blanket rationale is that Lir is a "known vandal", irrespective of the merits of specific changes. So asking Lir to back off unilaterally every time is effectively asking him to leave Wikipedia; but I'd much prefer to get rid of Wik, since he is never willing to discuss or negotiate anything, whether it's Lir edits or any other kind of change. Stan 19:01, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Stan. BCorr ¤ &#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085; 19:34, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC). See the following page histories:
 * Extermination_camp
 * Death_camp
 * Impressionism
 * Communications_blackout
 * Just noting my agreement with Stan. Wik seems to have a personal grudge against Lir. --snoyes 19:47, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Jimbo has spoken
An interest in finding ways to mitigate the consequences of edit wars brought me to this page, along with a post by Jimbo Wales on the Wiki-EN list. By virtue of said post, I would say that Wik has sealed his own fate. However, in a larger sense, Wikipedia still needs to address the various issues raised by the ongoing problem of edit wars. One proposal that I made a while ago was an automatic page protection feature for any page that has been reverted to the same version three times. (See Edit wars on Meta-Wikipedia.) Such automatic page protection would automatically time out after 48 hours. While not a complete solution, such a feature would certainly mitigate the damage that edit wars do to an article's edit history. -- NetEsq 20:49, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)