Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Blablaaa

The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC).

Blablaaa (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Despite advice, guidance, dispute resolution attempts and sanctions, Blablaaa (who first started editing Wikipedia as an anon in late 2009) has consistently failed to conduct himself according to Wikipedia community standards, to the point where multiple articles and talk pages across various spaces are regularly disrupted with walls of text, personal attacks, harassment and tendentious arguments.

Desired outcome

The preferred outcome would be for Blablaaa to acknowledge that the editors who espouse opinions different from his own do so because of normal scholarly disagreements rather than any ulterior motive; to desist from further incivility and personal attacks directed at those editors; to accept that community consensus may legitimately differ from his own opinion; and to undertake to work constructively and collegially with the other editors active in his area of interest.

Description

Since autumn 2009 Blablaaa (first as various IPs and then from February 2010 with his account) has been active on numerous Second World War-related articles, mainly those concerning the Normandy Campaign and the Eastern Front. From the first, his tendency has been to seek to 'spin' articles in favour of German military performance by engaging in unusually persistent and tendentious argument about relative force strengths, casualty figures and the like. While he occasionally has a valid correction or improvement to offer, these are usually very minor nitpicks and his repeated violations of community standards have made engaging with him extremely unpleasant to the point where many editors (including those who have tried to offer mediation and guidance) no longer wish to work with him, and progress on many articles has become difficult or non-existent. Despite a number of warnings and blocks, taking lasting admin action to address the situation has proven difficult—partly because many of MILHIST's available admins are already involved in editing the disputed articles, and partly because Blablaaa's pattern of long-term disruption disguised as reasonable-seeming content dispute doesn't lend itself to straightforward analysis at venues like AN/I.

Evidence of disputed behavior

This is a complex case that's been going on in various guises since October 2009, so rather than give reams of diffs I'll give a recent example and then some broad support for the points made above.

Illustrative example:

This serves to illustrate Blablaaa's typical modus operandi of accusations of bias, original research, synthesis and POV editing on the part of other editors, at Operation Charnwood, a current featured article. As I understand it, he objects to the term "tactical success" in the lead, partly because although supported by the article text it's not an exact cited quote and partly because he reads the synopsis as linking German losses to the Allied victory even though Allied losses were higher. The infobox result summary is also disputed.

Having failed to gain talk page consensus for his opinion, Blablaaa ~~forum shops~~ opens a new discussion^{edited 08:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)} at the MILHIST talk page. He is told by uninvolved editors that he has misrepresented the situation and asked to drop the stick ([1], [2]).
The stick is not dropped and in the ensuing 27,000+ word discussion at MILHIST (to which Blablaa contributed 163 edits in just over 20 days [3]) and on the operation Charnwood talk page (here and here), a familiar pattern of multiple serial posts, walls of text, incivility, accusation of bias, WP:IDHT and tendentious argument emerges ([4], [5], [6]). Further discussion spills out on to the NPOV noticeboard here and various talk pages.
Uninvolved editors (User:Ranger Steve and User:Chaosdruid) attempt to resolve the dispute and are eventually accused of bias and/or harassment ([7], [8]).

Additional examples:

Some other articles which have been affected include:

Battle of Kursk. To keep disruption off the article, Dapi89 created a sandbox version where he could work with Blablaaa, but this was apparently ultimately unproductive.
Battle of Debrecen. Blablaaa was eventually blocked for edit warring and insulting other editors. While some misunderstanding is inevitable with a non-native English speaker and some posts can therefore be excused, incivility in his native language is unambiguous.
Battle of Britain. Blablaaa claims bias in the selection of sources used, preferring those that minimise the significance of the German defeat and challenging the reliability of those that say otherwise (discussion here)
Battle of Orsa. Created by Blablaaa. Despite his readiness to wikilawyer over sourcing with other editors when he dislikes the article text, his article as of 21 July 2010 is completely unsourced. It seemingly exists at least partly to emphasise the Soviet operational failure and high casualty ratio against the German army; a theme also found on other Eastern Front articles.

Similar behaviour stretches back to his earliest edits as an IP, when his POV-pushing was perhaps less subtle (this thread and [9]) and his civility even less restrained ([10]). Particularly affected has been User:EnigmaMcmxc, who despite an exemplary record of high-quality contributions (including five featured articles) has been harassed by Blablaaa almost to the point of wikistalking. Blablaaa claims that EnigmaMcmxc has an anti-German/pro-Allied bias and deliberately falsifies and distorts sources to insert subtle POV into articles (see discussion thread at NPOV noticeboard). While no editor can claim to be faultless and mistakes and omissions do happen even in the most rigorously reviewed articles, Blablaaa's bad-faith initial assumption acts to entrench positions rather than defuse disputes, especially when it has been a regular theme for almost ten months.

One final link to demonstrate that Blablaaa was treated with good faith, despite his poor conduct, when he first appeared on Wikipedia as various IPs. This thread from November 2009 at another featured article, Battle of Verrières Ridge, shows a difficult but ultimately successful attempt to resolve his objections. It also illustrates how long editors have been dealing with Blablaaa's conduct and perhaps explains the level of frustration evidenced here and elsewhere.

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

Selected threads:

Selected diffs:

Attempt by EyeSerene: Compromise edit to lead of Operation Charnwood, Attempt to clarify issue and identify consensus, giving up
Attempt by Ranger Steve: Attempt to rationalise problem, response to suggestions of bias disengagement.
Attempt by User:Kirill Lokshin: [11]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Other users who endorse this summary

Skinny87 (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TomStar81 (Talk) 03:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anotherclown (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cam ^(Chat) 04:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranger Steve (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-MBK₀₀₄ 05:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AustralianRupert (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OlEnglish (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tirronan (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi, i previously explained that at the moment iam not willing/able to refute all claims which were presented. The reasons for this are simple. First of all i think i can spare time with kinda generall refute. This requires some investigation by me. Why? Nearly all my disputes in the last months started with one editor. This editor in my opinion has a deeply implemented bias which gets carefully worked in in several articles. Most of the problems started with this user and ended with "friends" of him joining the discussion. I will try to proof my accusations first and then handle this. What happens if my accusations are correct? If my accusations are correct the whole issue looks immediatly different and this thing here becomes baseless. Regarding the several accusations and presented diffs , after making an overview i see that nearly all of them are easy to refute. Many of them are ripped out of context or claim wrong things. I will reply to this in full length if it becomes neccessary. At the talkpage you can find some kind of fastrefute of jim sweeny. He presented four diffs which are pretty correct. He is generic for the entire issue. And its interessting that after i refute his "evidence" still people "endorsed" his comments. I also want to highlight that i asked multiple times for postponing this RFC until i have done the required research, i also said i will stop editing until this. My questiones were ignored, and one responed with "its hard to stop", while this not even started -.- .

What outcome do i desire? If i can proof my accusations i should become the chief of MILHIST immediatly. No, joke. If i am correct, some changes must be done. What when i fail? When i fail i will stop editing. You can block me than. I guess if someone raises some many issues and fails to proof them then he should get blocked.

At the talkpage you can find some early responds by me, i thought the thing started already and i have to refute all claims. So its kinda difficult to read. Nevertheless the content is true and valid.Blablaaa (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dont like that admin eyeseren modifies his description after new "evidence" are presented. He did this now multiple times. But ich guess its not the sense that editors or me reveal discrepancies which become then "explained" in the description. Blablaaa (talk) 08:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see, the thing now has started without replying to my request to postpone this a bit. Like i said. My defence isnt established nor did i prepared responses to accusations of other people. I will do later. One thing. I never claimed to cause no trouble or something like this, i accuse the MILHIST of "bias" to allied especially british forces in WW2 . The response of them is logic and so is the trouble logic which evolved. Nevertheless my points are valid and have to be discussed now. I also want to point out that i see only one uninvolved editor and thats imperfectinformed and iam not sure skinny maybe ( a bit dont remember meeting him ) all the others had discussions with me and most of them were more than one time badly refuted by me. And when i refute biased editing then i maybe sound not as civil as humanly possible. I guess this fact alone explains up to 80% of the reluctance against me. Looking around i see no german/french/spanish/french editor editing controversial battle themes, i only see english/british editors which edited articles over years and this with near sanctity granted by other british editors/admins. Here my position gets simply misinterpreted and disorted. I dont claim a british editor is generally more bias than german i simply say that here are some editors which are bias and they have established kinda networt which is impossible to invade. Two are working to keep the normandy articles pro british and another is securing the allied warcrime article and watching that every supsicious looking claim is removed immediatly. Another 3 are guarding the battle of jutland to keep him "tactical inconclusive" despite being aware of the fact that one million books claim something different. Even a shepherd in mongolia knows this. People from Timbuktu to Vladivostok know this but some persistent MILHIST editors have their OR/SYN party at the jutland talk and revert every editor who tries to change this. I also did never dispute that i show a lack of social skills sometimes, so do other editors but i never go to ani board to whine about little uncivilities in heated discussions. Iam also not here to write a eloquent text in the hope that neutral editors are not able to judge facts instead of style. After reading imperfects statement i think it would be a good idead to examine his points to get a picture about used tactics. I will try to avoid such quible and bring hard facts. Blablaaa (talk) 08:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it costs so much time -.-

BTW iam not understanding the sense of "endorse" other comments. If one has problems with 10 other guys then these ten guys endorse the comments of the others and we have clear picture? Iam also seeing that after i refuted some comments, some of them indisputable, nobody striked comments or updated his view. I also see, that while some postions are already refuted nobody takes back his "endorse", they now endorse already refuted points, cant understand the sense of this. At the beginning i thought when something is refute it is refute. Why do we force people to read the accusations which are already proven incorrect? Why is chaosdruid's :" he accused me of doing OR" still there while its proven he has done OR. why is chaosdruid's " he wants other outcome" still there while i proofed when 10 quotes that i always sais "stick to the sources". Why is eyeseren's :"he forumshopped" still there? They claim they search improvements but no one has the balls to strike his false claimes even after they are badly refuted... . Did i mentioned that it costs so much time?^^Blablaaa (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment iam digging for exampls of selective editing / bias. General comment regarding the word liar. I see most "insults" of me seem to be the moments when i called people liar. Yes hm. But please look this discussions and not only the diffs and see that i showed they lied and that nobody showed me that iam incorrect. What is the proverb?: "it quacked like a duck, it looked like a duck, i called it a duck" .

Still people are endorsing jim sweeny while his points have be refuted. how can this happen?

Status:

dapi: no big comment. Doenst claim german tactical victory, always cited reliable source and nearly copied their opinion. Also i dont edit biased... Blablaaa (talk) 21:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
chaosdruid: done
tomstar: adressed
ed: i think no long reply neccessary. Hes correct with is statement about much trouble. But he sees wrong causes, but this will be addressed in other replies
jim sweeny: fast reply will follow
minorhistorian: reasonable comment but misinterprets my intentions

Users who endorse this summary:

Inside view

This is a summary written by users involved with the dispute but who were not party to writing and certifying the "Statement of the dispute". Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute", "Response" and "Outside view") should not edit the "Inside View" section, except to endorse an inside view.

View by involved editor Nick-D

I have been involved with Blablaaa almost entirely in my role as an administrator and former role as a coordinator of the military history Wikiproject. As such, I'm more semi-involved/semi-uninvolved than a participant in the disputes in question here (and so am not sure if I should be posting in the involved or uninvolved editor section).

Between February and April I blocked Blablaaa on five occasions for incivility and disruptive editing. On the first four occasions (blocks ranging from 31 hours to one month) the blocks were upheld by reviewing admins responding to appeals and on the fifth occasion my indef block was initially upheld on appeal by two admins but later overturned in this discussion on the administrator's noticeboard. While I note the concerns raised by other admins and editors in that thread and accept that I should have asked for another admin to review the situation before implementing an indef block, I still believe that the indef block was justified and note that Blablaa has since continued the same pattern of behavior which lead to his IP accounts being blocked by several admins and the blocks I implemented.

I have avoided this editor since the block was lifted (with the exception of the Allied war crimes during World War II article I'm a long-term contributer to, the Operation Charnwood article when Blablaaa invited me to comment in this thread on my talk page and possibly a small number of other discussions I can't remember at present) but thought that I should post here as a) I'm a long-term observer of Blablaaa's conduct and b) based on past discussions my conduct as an admin is going to be attacked by Blablaaa and/or User:Caden (who has alleged, in essence, that there's a military history cabal in place acting against Blablaaa of which I'm a leading member) so I may as well state my views in advance before I'm dragged into the discussion.

While I endorse the above summary, I'd also like to make the following observations:

The key problem with Blablaaa's conduct is his failure to use or productively engage with the dispute resolution process. Rather than remaining calm and working towards a solution through discussion and seeking outside views Blablaaa tends to rapidly escalate situations by posting large numbers of frequently rude comments, simultaneously arguing with multiple editors individually and restarting the discussion if it concludes with a result he doesn't like. This has been going on for a very long time now and is a clear pattern of disruptive behavior. Indeed, my only substantive criticism of the other involved editors is that they have, in effect, facilitated this behavior by often responding to these repeated and rude posts when no response was needed given that Blablaaa was restating points he'd made earlier (and had generally not garnered any support).
The editors who have raised concerns with Blablaaa's conduct by starting this RfC have only done so after an enormous amount of discussion with him in which they have extended a remarkable degree of courtesy and good will, often in the face of repeated rude or dismissive comments
These are also editors in very good standing. They are administrators, current or past coordinators of the military history wikiproject and lead writers of featured articles (in most cases all three). In short, they are editors who have been elected by their peers to leadership positions in Wikipedia on the basis of their long-term conduct and/or editors with a track record of good-faith, cooperative and high-quality editing.

In summary, Blablaaa treats Wikipedia as a battleground and by doing so acts as a barrier to the development of good-quality articles.

Users who endorse this summary:

Nick-D (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Anotherclown (talk) 13:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene^talk 07:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranger Steve (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny87 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chaosdruid (talk) 18:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-MBK₀₀₄ 05:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AustralianRupert (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OlEnglish (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)~[reply]
Tirronan (talk) 03:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by involved editor Ranger Steve

As part of this massive wikidrama I tried to work with everyone to achieve some sort of understanding and benefit out of the discussion. My experience was not everything I might have hoped for and I think is enlightening for this RFC. This will probably be quite long, so I apologise in advance; I wish to make my interactions with Blablaaa as transparent as possible in order to clearly demonstrate an absence of any bias. I also want Blablaaa to be clear that I am describing the situation as I see it, and not as part of some sort of gang that is out to get him. I have tried to be as neutral as possible and will continue to do so here.

Experience

Seeing a glimmer of a point in Blablaaa's problem I posted my thoughts when this came up at the Milhist page ([12]), noting that there was a wider discussion to be had about results in general. This unbiased stance was well received by Blablaaa ([13]) and briefly seemed to me to be steering the thread to a positive outcome ([14]), however, at this stage things became more complicated as the discussion fragmented itself across new threads on the Milhist talk page. Unfortunately the conversation in the original thread degenerated somewhat; Blablaaa accused Enigma of lying in his summary of a totally different debate at Talk:Allied war crimes during World War II and strongly encouraged me to investigate ([15]). Seeing the wall of text on that talk page (and the difficulty in untangling the discussion to the point where I could summarise if Enigma had lied), and seeing no perceivable benefit it would have on the discussion at large (about Charnwood, results and infobox details) I declined to investigate any further ([16]). Blablaaa didn’t necessarily seem happy, but at least appeared to understand ([17]).

Meanwhile the debate moved to a new thread about the differences of various military size units. Spotting a minor issue with one of Blablaaa’s ideas, I posted an explanation of the problems of British Regimental organisation ([18]). I personally see the sizes of divisions in different armies as quite different to the issue of the British regimental system, and did not comment on the wider (division) debate he was having with Enigma as I had not fully read the intricacies of what they were arguing about. Blablaaa admitted to not being aware of the information I gave him ([19]) but appears to have seen my explanation as supporting his stance regarding division sizes. However he also appeared to take slight from what I had done, suggesting that “all participants, at the moment, try to find weak spots in my edits.”. I refuted this when I responded, remaining focussed on the regimental issue once again and not wanting to make a decision either way on the main (division) issue until I had fully digested everything ([20]). This didn’t seem to go down well, as Blablaa seemingly ignored what I was talking about and questioned my stance on the wider issue (even though I didn’t have one).

Blablaaa’s improper suggestion that I had attacked him was getting a bit much for me, so I cautioned him before I turned in for the night. In response I was told I was dodging the issue (“You preffered to explain my point doesnt work instead of explaining the infobox now doenst work”) and had double standards (“mit zweierlei Maß messen”) because I was deliberately ignoring Enigma’s perceived wrongdoing, while at the same time “moaning” about his own. I gave up after this and in a firmly worded post 24 hours later, I called the ridiculous debate as I saw it and disengaged ([21]). Blablaaa’s response largely ignored what I'd said ([22]) and I later responded on my talk page ([23]).

Our next meeting was a few days later at this NPOV noticeboard thread, which quickly came to my attention as the Charnwood article was on my watchlist. Blablaaa seems to have been unwilling to post any links to other discussions on the matter he brought to the noticeboard; possibly he believes that the idea of the page is for totally uninvolved editors to make a decision at face value, but he clearly missed the box at the top of the page asking for diffs and links to discussions on the subject. Seeing as his reason for being on the board was to debate the use of a specific sentence in the Charnwood article, it seemed quite proper to me to direct reviewers to the discussion we had already had at milhist, especially as I had raised exactly the same issue in my initial post there (Blablaaa even quoted me in his third post on the noticeboard). In response I was accused of trying to distract reviewers, lying and wasting time, dodging, oh, and lying again. My other two posts where I tried to explain this to Blablaaa are here: [24] [25].

Analysis

Its fair to say that Blablaaa was the most difficult editor to work with during my foray into this drama; no-one else descended to personal attacks against neutral editors. Bizarrely Blablaaa seems to think its the other way around but so far he has not identified any diffs where I attack or criticise him (the only two he will find are my disengagement from the Milhist debate and the response on my talk page). I fully understand the frustrations of the other editors who have dealt with him in the past. I didn't even begin to debate sources or content with him, for those who have done I imagine it's far far worse.

Blablaaa’s editing, whether he likes it or not, fits the bill as disruptive at the very least. He frequently posts several great chunks of text in succession, rarely waiting for other editors to respond, which ultimately distracts from the main discussion. He accuses other editors of spamming useless information, but posts way too much for most to read (he has definitely posted far more than anyone else in this debate). Some of his throwaway comments regarding other editors seem particularly sensationalist, almost like an attempt to influence neutral people's perceptions (this was certainly how I felt at the NPOV board).

A somewhat odd fact I discovered during the debate was that Blablaaa really really wanted to get his changes made to the article, but seemed to have no interest in what the change should be. As I pointed out to him, this debate could have started off a lot better if he had; his initial introduction of the subject on the Charnwood talk page, the milhist talkpage and the NPOV board are poor efforts to describe his problem. His lack of background information and relevant links suggest an attempt to garner support without revealing a wider debate, which I feel supports EyeSerene’s opinion that there was an element of forum shopping. Consider the NPOV noticeboard example; whether he likes it or not, the issue had been raised at Milhist and discussed, some loose agreement about our ability to summarise data in the infobox had even been arrived at. Blablaa ignored this and didn’t present the discussion to the noticeboard. I had no problem with his going there, but his decision not to reveal past discussions (and his almost aggressive rebuttal of anyone’s need to view them) was wrong.

He has a tendency to lash out at anyone who disagrees with his view, even when they have tried as hard as possible to help him. He also continually suggests that there is an implicit anti German bias at milhist; problem is that while he does throw up some valid points (perhaps because of his language and editing style) he occasionally comes across as trying too hard and appears to be pushing a pro German bias of his own (I am not suggesting that this is deliberate). If this was his only negative point it wouldn’t be a problem, and the checks he would force upon the project would probably be beneficial. Unfortunately all of the negatives above (and many many many other issues identified by other editors) mean that he is far too much trouble to try and work with for most. Perhaps some of us are guilty of just rejecting him out of hand, but it is in my opinion absolutely understandable after so much hassle and disruption, not any sort of bias.

It's hard to continue to AGF after events like these. Blablaaa needs to realise that its him who has to adjust his style here (trying to prove the truth isn't the best option in my opinion) because I've seen several fine editors reach the point of ultimate frustration with him. In particular, anyone caring to do just a cursory look into EyeSerene's work will realise the problems don't lie there; I aspire to reach his levels of neutrality and civility!

Users who endorse this summary:

Ranger Steve (talk) 18:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Anotherclown (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene^talk 07:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny87 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chaosdruid (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-MBK₀₀₄ 05:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AustralianRupert (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Hohum ^@) 17:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tirronan (talk) 03:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by involved editor EnigmaMcmxc

I have been heavily involved with this editor since his first arrival as an anon user on the wiki, as (s)he has edited across a variety of articles that I had on my watch list. These edits on the whole have mainly been disruptive, although some positive outcomes have emerged following lengthy discussions. These edits generally break down into various wide ranging groups, as the below examples will show:

Showing an anti-allied bias in articles

In the following two diffs information about damaged allied tanks are added to the Operation Crusader infobox [26] and this position is defended on the talkpage [27]. However when the Operation Brevity article is edited the same kind of information in regards to damaged German tanks is omitted [28].
Within the Operation Charnwood article it is noted by one historian that the Germans claimed to have knocked out over 100 tanks during the fighting; the book from which this was sourced is in fact quoting a German intel report. This information was added to the article infobox several times [29][30] thus inflating allied losses under the guise of the work was a reliable source thus the figure must be shown.[31] The edits and talkpage comments presented a stonewall of un-cooperation and the issue was finally dropped after Nick-D became involved [32].

Claims of MILHIST anti-German bias/disputing sources/misinterpreting sources/disruptive editing

The latest claim of anti-German bias uses Operation Goodwood as an example of POV pushing and bias[33]. However Blablaaa omits that, while i was unable to carry on further editing that day, i resumed further alterations of the article on 18 July were i added in more detailed and precise information on the British tank losses[34].
Second Battle of the Odon: [35], [36] and [37]
Battle of Villers-Bocage: [38], [39], [40], [41], and [42]
Further comments in regards to the above article were next seen in the FAC Review[43], where completely new objections (there being no mention of “british infantry "fleeing" and "hiding"”) were raised and that the article spent too much time criticising German tactical failures. Considering the length of time given to posting on the article talkpage, they had plenty of time to raise these objections and attempt to help improve the article and its layout (Blablaaa had made some efforts in this regard that resulted in several editors adding additional information to balance the article prior to going to FAC). Here i felt this comment was made to jeopardise the review and was glad of the third party editors who found the article to be balanced and with no undue weight issues.[44]
Various other edits such as [45], [46], [47], [48]

General incivility

Other editors have already noted the general lack of civility, some of the above diffs i presented also show this behaviour; however the latest posts have moved towards threatening the seeking of sanctions etc if co-operation is not immediately given: [49], [50] and [51]

We have all stepped on each other’s toes from time to time and while Blablaaa has raised points on occasion that has led to the improvement of articles; on the whole they has caused editing articles, that (s)he has taken an interest in, to be a very un-enjoyable experience when one has to wade through discussion after discussion over every piece of information they do not agree with or their malicious editing of articles to prove a point.

Users who endorse this summary:

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranger Steve (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene^talk 18:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny87 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chaosdruid (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-MBK₀₀₄ 05:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by involved editor Caden

This whole dispute is a vicious cycle that begins primarily with Nick-D, but also with EnigmaMcmxc and in the past included Dapi89 (all members of MILHIST) as far back as February. I first got involved here. Nick-D has a long abusive history with Blablaaa (5 unjustified blocks without consultation with any outside admins/editors) that is based on nothing more than the fact that he dislikes Blablaaa personally (see both User talk:Nick-D & User talk:Blablaaa and pay close attention to Nick's posts). [|This] is a good example of Nick's bad behavior and evidence of his abuse. His indefinite block on Blablaa was for [this], which was not just excessive but was blatant abuse as an admin. Nick also dislikes that Blablaaaa asks questions over any source that may be misrepresented (eg Enigma or Dapi whom Nick defends and enables regardless that Blablaa has been right), and appears to me (my opinion) to be anti-German and biased. Nick is a POV pusher who knows policy well and who knows how to abuse it to snuff out an opponent he disagrees with (ie: 5 unjustified[blocks]) in order to make sure his POV wins. I made all of this clear on AN and asked Nick to do the right thing and resign, because admins are not supposed to abuse the tools and he did so too many times.
Nick has many close friends from MILHIST, many of whom appear here on this RFC, who have all had disagreements with Blablaaa. It's a tight group that sticks together (they work actively against outsiders such as me and Bla) regardless of the fact that Enigma was going against policy (Beevor) by misinterupting what sources said in his edits on Operation Charnwood. When both User:FormerIP and User:ImperfectlyInformed supported Blablaaa and myself (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard under section An user keeps misinterpreting a source to support their POV) , 3 members of MILHIST (RangerSteve, Chaosdruid, Senor Freebie) showed up to work against the two neutral editors to protect Enigma (no surprise) even though he misused a source and repeatedly inserted uncited material which is a violation of policy. This group of MILHIST editors are known to work together which leads me to question what's really going [on].
TomStar81 (a close buddy of Nick-D's) said "..the last time an indefinite block was imposed it was lifted three days later due to complaints that ran contrary to consensus." which was completely not true. It was decided by the community that his friend Nick's block was bad and therefore the block was overturned by a neutral admin who stated in his summary "consensus is block is bad". How Tom, an admin, could blatanly be so dishonest is worrisome. In my dif above, Tom said:"I'm growing tired of watching my editors get harassed by this guy", which proved to me that TomStar81 was admitting to a selective group who indeed work together, which contadicts how the community is supposed to work . Furthermore to this, another MILHIST member Skinny87, added to the same thread almost as if he was [bragging] over the group's existence.
In regards to EyeSerene (a close friend of Nick's and member of MILHIST), I believe that User:ImperfectlyInformed covered these issues. I have many concerns over EyeSerene's inappropriate conduct but since ImperfectlyInformed accuratly covers my concerns in his section, I see no reason to rehash here. With Ranger Steve at first he appeared neutral. But soon it became obvious that Steve was more interested in lecturing Blablaaa (over his behavior) instead of dealing with the fact that Enigma misused sources. Eventually it became clear to me that RangerSteve was being rather hypocritical by not dishing out the same type of behavior lectures he was giving to Blablaaa when Enigma should have been given the same. That's called a double standard. Steve should of been focused and concerned over the misuse of sources that did not support Beevor instead of disregarding wiki policy. Not long after he started this thread [here]. JimSweeney gave 4 difs in his section regarding the Battle of Kursk and the Battle of Stalingrad, none of which make sense because none of the diffs were bad edits by Blablaaa. What it shows to me is bad faith on Jim's part for being misleading.
In summary, something odd is going on with many editors from MILHIST. They appear to be biased and seem to favor the British in WW2 with biased editing. When Blablaaa tried to make articles more NPOV he was attacked, illegally blocked repeadly and accused (by Nick-D) of pushing a German POV, when infact Nick and Enigma and Dapi and EyeSerene were all POV pushing . It's hard to AGF with events like these which have been going on for months and it came to a point where I had to use common sense after doing my homework and research. I find it very interesting that a large number of editors posting here, are all editors who have had disagreements with Blablaaa in the past or who are close friends of admin Nick-D, and who are all part of MILHIST. Hmm that sure is interesting.

Users who endorse this summary:

Caden ^cool 18:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 23:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by involved editor Chaosdruid

Background

I was not aware of any goings on between Blablaaa and other editors until the Operation Charnwood discussions. After reading many of the discussions on the article talk pages and Blaaa's talk page I read the article in more detail to see what, if anything, could be done to resolve the matter.

Blaaa had obvious problems in communication as English is not his first language and I felt that perhaps his points were lost due to this.

Initial corrections

Once I had read the article I spotted inconsistencies that existed and tried to address them. [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] were actually in support of Blaaa - I found that these matters were quickly addressed and corrected [57] [58].

It was at this point that Blaaa revealed his first error in stating his intentions. Considering the previous discussions had solely revolved around "tactical success" he states "we are not arguing about the outcome [59]. It was my opinion that changing the lead to reflect that "despite heavy losses" [60] or "tactical success" was indeed part of the description of the outcome. My intention from this point was to ensure that no fallacy or untruth got into the article and ensure POV was not included. It was my opinion that any results of discussion on SYN between Blablaaa and EnigmaMcmxc would not have been an issue as the sources I would quote negated any change to the lead by supporting the claims that the decimation of the German forces was indeed a secondary reason for success. Furthermore the issue of success, or not, was not really comprehensively covered as there were not enough sources for the original orders nor the effect the operation had on tactical purpose or strategic importance at the operational level for this operation or operation Overlord of which it was part.

Attempts to clarify with sources - Insults in reply

In a discussion with Blaaa he mentions that he chose to ignore the first part of the sentence as he was not disputing it, and that the fact that references were not provided for a correlation between the outcome and the German causalties needed sources [61]. I added four sources for the correlation [62] which was met with a very offensive reply [63], again interspersing inbetween previous posts. I did not respond as other editors had already mentioned it to him but later I asked him myself [64] after which I recieved an apology and an eventual striking of the comments. I thought that the accusations of OR were perhaps down to English problems so I summarised [65] and after more discussions I attempted one more [66].

The discussions on the sources I had given continued ending with Blaaaa totally disregarding them [67] in what seemd like a deliberate attempt to avoid accepting that they might support the secondary claim in the original lead wording. From this point onwards Blaaa concentrates or the argument that the sources are misquoted and aims at SYN and OR on the original qoute instead of perhaps accepting the 4 sources I had given supported that original statement.

Posts and order - second insult

Blablaaa's constant posts, some separated by only a minute, [68] [69] [70] and the inablility to post in chronological order made following a train of thought or discussion extremely difficult. I had already asked that he keep the chronoglogical order [71] and he did not [72]. I asked again that chronological order remain [73] which was met with another, albeit veiled, insult. The matter was raised elswhere [74] and after reading the discussion I did not want to go against my word and involve myself. The fact of the matter was that Blaaa lied there - his initial statement "Regarding the "kindergarden", in german this simply means that the discussion lost the point" was at the end of the discussion reffered to by himself and changed to "I imply that one or more users maybe act like children in some aspects" obviously confirming my initial suspicion that he was indeed saying I was acting childishly.

Third attempt by me to reach consensus and clarify

Blaaa now creates a section on the Operation Charnwood talk page : Talk:Operation_Charnwood#Charnwood_outcome which also directly contradicts his previous statement about this not being about the outcome. I decided that it was maybe time to rejoin discussions and reach a final conclusion. I gave sources which stated that the operation was pivotal in securing the Northern part of Caen and that the operation had goals which were obviously met [75] and posted them to see if anyone wished to include them in the article , or indeed in any of the others such as battle for Caen or the Normandy series. I included a note to try and avoid name calling and to avert and incivility in an attempt to get the article finished and retain its FA status. The replies begin accusations of OR [76] which I ignored and continued to discuss just the article improvements [77]. This is followed by a legnthy discussion on OR [78] which eventually I have to leave to go to work.

Third insults and OR accusations

In my absence Blaaa now calls me a liar [79] - the third set of insults and the last time I will enter into any useful discussion with him, if indeed any of the previous can be called useful. The situation is resolved before my return when I try and clean up the page by indenting correctly and adding a comment with 4 points specifically explaining what I am doing and why the responses were not as quick as he would have liked [80]. He accuses me of OR when I mention "I am researching" although he himself claims his own research is ok to use in this statement he had made previously [81]. It appears that he thinks his research is not OR but mine is.

Neutral noticeboard

Blablaaa started a discussion on the neutrality noticeboard Wikipedia:NPOVN#An_user_keeps_misinterpreting_a_source_to_support_their_POV

The notice was simply about using the wording of "tactical success" again. I made a statement ending with "...Lets hope he can resist this time." Here Blablaaa tries to say that I am not neutral and I have ulterior motives [82]. After saying my point was "bollocks" I once again tried to get the discussion back on track and take it from the noticeboard which had only been asked to deal with the single point of misquotation of sources rather than including the facts that the attempts by myself and others to include sources which may indeed have shown that the operation was an "Allied success" [83]. The attempt is unsucessful as Blablaaa now calls my intentions into question and insinuates I am "following him around" [84]

Conclusion

Blablaaa has moved the goal posts on the discussions, accused editors of OR when they are merely researching, turned against anyone who disagrees with him by claiming OR or calling them a liar, turned on people who were neutral and has lied or attempted to backtrack on several boards and talkpages. I appears there is truth in his claim of possible SYN but that is not something I can comment on in depth as I do not have those sources to hand myself.

The result, of independant editors saying that the sources had been misquoted, was made before my comments and was used by blaaa to discount any other sources and support his POV of "partial success" which shows the goalposts had been moved. It is imperative that the operational goals are taken into account. If the mission did make it's goals it was a success; if it did not then it was not a success. Blaaa makes it clear that he does not care to accept this.

It is my firm belief that his original intentions may have been good but after reading the other pages and reasons for blocks it seems that his behaviour is indeed a pattern of disruption and possible POV.

In my own experience I have never been accused of POV, OR, bias or non-neutrality and I have mediated on a number of occasions on Cyprus, Ukrainian, Argentinian and other topics. This is the first time that I have been insulted and had such degrading accusations thrown at me and I have tried to remain neutral and non-judgemental in an attempt to simply clean up an article and remain focussed on that very goal.

Blablaaa needs to learn to follow social norms in editing and on talk pages. He needs to learn to think about things before responding with 6 posts on the same subject in quick succession, to accept that indenting and posting out of chronological order is not acceptable and insulting other editors accusing them of OR, SYN, POV and non-neutrality, where such claims are not correct, is not acceptable behaviour. If he has not learnt this by now, as per his other blocks and conversations, he will perhaps never learn it.

Users who endorse this summary:

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene^talk 20:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tirronan (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by involved editor Climie.ca

I must confess that I have been somewhat hesitant to offer my own input into this RfC. Similarly, I’m not entirely sure whether to comment as an involved party or a non-involved party. For the sake of ensuring that I’ve covered my bases, I will list this as an inside view.

First off, a little bit of disclosure for the sake of accountability and transparency: Many of the editors involved in this dispute are close colleagues of mine both from article-writing and backroom work. Many of the involved are former coordinators, current coordinators, and collaborators within the Wikipedia mainspace. Many are administrators whose judgment I have found to be astute and accurate in the past. It is for that reason (as well as interactions w/ Blablaaa in my distant past) that I have chosen to comment under "Involved Editors" rather than "Outside Views". If those mediating this dispute feel I have done so mistakenly, I will gladly move it to the appropriate subsection.

With that out of the way, let’s get down to business. My first interaction with Blablaaa occurred when he was still in the business of anonymous editing. Because it was my primary area of work, my interactions with him focused around articles related to the Battle of Normandy, notably Battle of Verrieres Ridge, Operation Perch and Operation Totalize (see here, here and here. At first, the contributions were overwhelmingly disruptive, whether it was inserting text into the article in such a way that it disrupted the grammatical flow, deleting wholesale passages that were vital to the article, or adding unnecessary detail and beratement solely for the sake of attempting to prove a point (albeit rather badly in this case). What followed were several attempts to resolve the situation via dialogue and discussion (most of which were rebuffed by a combination of rudeness and rather poor spelling syntax). Over the course of the next four days, a whole series of IP addresses (User Talk:188.192.127.100, User Talk:188.192.121.123 and User Talk:137.193.199.34) were blocked for the same behaviour, with the last one blocked for sock/meatpuppetry (depending on whose side of the coin you trust. If mine, sockpuppetry; If his, meatpuppetry, both of which are punishable by blocks).

Since then, I have had relatively little interaction with blablaaa (rather thankfully, I must confess), as my focus has primarily shifted to maritime warfare rather than the western front of WWII, partially because of editors like Blablaaa. What I have seen, however, is repeated disruption on a number of heavily researched and well-written articles that has taxed the strength of some of our most prolific article writers. While I will admit that a minority of his contributions (some of the work on Operation Charnwood comes or the Battle of Kursk to mind) have resulted in potentially productive edits, the process of extracting these edits is so exhausting, stressful and time-consuming that it ends up largely being a wasted effort. For example, we can look at the whole series of exchanges on this, this, and this, and see that while yes, constructive edits were made, the process of getting to that endpoint was so arduous and painful for all involved that I'm amazed they even bothered. That Enigma has survived this much disputation without a complete nervous breakdown speaks volumes of his endurance capacity.

I’m going to quote User:Kirill Lokshin (current Deputy Coordinator of the Arbitration Committee) and his phenomenal essay on Wikipedia Professionalism: “Editors must seek to resolve disagreements by polite discussion rather than through threats or harassment. Dissent is to be welcomed so long as it is presented calmly; vituperative rhetoric, on the other hand, must be curbed even if it espouses popular viewpoints.” I would define much of Blablaaa’s collaboration process, including his colossal WP:TLDR replies (this 27,000+ word discussion on the Milhist Talk page is the best example), his accusations of bias and lying (here and here being strong examples, his repeated harassment of those who disagree with him (for example: TheEd17, Dapi89, Minorhistorian), and his obsessive belief that everyone who disagrees with him is part of some massive Wikipedia Administrator/Pro-British/Anti-German cabal all fit the definition of "vituperative rhetoric", or what Antandrus calls "troublesome editors" here.

In short, while many of Blablaaa's concerns and objections may be well justified, they are inevitably lost in a swarm of 20-paragraph responses, as well as a litany of harrassment and accusations of lying and conspiracy directed against those who disagree with him. He needs to either learn to interact in a social environment in a mature, eloquent, and compromising manner, and to stop treating Wikipedia as ideological warfare; or he needs to be reigned in so as to allow those of us who seek to improve articles via constructive, mutualistic collaboration to do so free of his threats, harassment, and abuse.

Users who endorse this summary:

Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-MBK₀₀₄ 03:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's almost disconcerting, Cam and I have exactly the same thoughts on this matter. I can agree with every word in this post. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:12, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, WP:COMPETENCE. EyeSerene^talk 07:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TomStar81 (Talk) 18:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To which I'd add, he seems to go looking for people to get pissed off with. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Skinny87

I have been following this scenario on and off for quite some time as a member of the Military History Wikiproject, given that my area of interest coincides with many of the articles mentioned, though I've yet to edit many of them. I won't go into detail about the accusations being flung about by Blablaa and Caden, but the primary reason I've not engaged more fully in these discussions is simple. Blablaa, and especially Caden, respond to any attempts at debate in multiple areas by throwing out grossly uncivil personal attacks against other users which seem very likely to crimp conversations and attempts to iron out these problems. One only has to look at this section of the MILHIST Coordinators talkpage to see Caden making numerous personal attacks against editors attempting to debate the problem. The most flagrant attacks can be seen in this diff: [[85]]

In response to an attempt by User: Ranger Steve to arbitrate the problems, Caden states that he is "I'm disgusted beyond words. Completely appalled" and seems to claim some kind of conspiracy theory where all editors who are part of MILHIST are biased against himself and Blablaa. I have no idea who is in the right here, but the frequent personal attacks by Caden cannot help matters at all, especially against a neutral editor attempting to wade into this complex issue and trying to help out, and nor can Blablaa's frequent and lengthy posts, often added to each other after only a minute or so of posting the previous one.

Users who endorse this summary:

Skinny87 (talk) 11:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC) - Not sure on the timing though ("only a minute or so").[reply]
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Anotherclown (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene^talk 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranger Steve (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chaosdruid (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-MBK₀₀₄ 05:29, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Hohum ^@) 17:39, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had nearly the same experience. Senor Freebie (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jim Sweeney

User Blalblaa as stated above has only been around a short time. See this graphic [86] since his first edit in February this year only 22% of his time has been spent in article space. The vast majority of his editing is in user talk or article talk trying to push what can only be seen as his own POV and intimidation. A lot of his article edits are also directed to his own POV and includes the deletion of cited content or sources. See [87] , [88], [89], [90] for some examples. But perhaps the best example of his behaviour is this [91] his last 500 edits between 26 June and 21 July. Wikipedia is a community, especially the WP:MILHIST group and this one user has brought more disruption than all other users put together since I started editing. Anyone who attempts to resolve the conflict eventually gets turned on for not backing Blablaa views. The only faintly positive point I can add is that he is editing in a foreign language and I sometimes think he is not aware of the nuances of the English language

Users who endorse this summary:

--Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 20:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Anotherclown (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene^talk 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranger Steve (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny87 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chaosdruid (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-MBK₀₀₄ 05:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OlEnglish (talk) 22:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by The ed17

I'm mostly uninvolved, having only participated in this discussion.

Blablaaa has been the source of the most disruption I have ever seen, full stop. While some of his arguments on content could be valid (for all I know), they are sheathed in such poor English and personal remarks that it is difficult to comprehend what he is attempting to accomplish. These 'personal remarks' include harsh attacks on other editors—most notably User:EnigmaMcmxc, but many others—where he claims that they are pro-Allied. There are also a plethora of vague comments referring to a cabal-led conspiracy to exclude a German point-of-view from these articles. According to him, this cabal includes MILHIST and virtually every single editor who has commented on one of these disputes and not agreed with him.

This whole dispute is a vicious cycle that wears everyone down. I've been involved in the discussion I linked above for a day now, and I'm already disgusted and sick to my stomach.

Users who endorse this summary:

—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Anotherclown (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene^talk 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranger Steve (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny87 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-MBK₀₀₄ 05:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OlEnglish (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Senor Freebie (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An annoyed and slightly off-topic second outside view by The ed17

Okay, I've had it. This post by Caden just put me over the edge. You are making unjustified and baseless accusations without evidence. Just to start with, Kurfurst was blocked ten times by eight different administrators, only one of whom was from Milhist, so his experience has absolutely no connection to this situation. Yes, EyeSerene delivered the coup de grâce, but correlation does not imply causation.

Caden, please provide evidence to support your ludicrous claims or quit making them. You have not—and I expect you can't—provide anything to back your unfounded allegations. I am completely certain that there is no Milhist pro-Allies cabal. If there was, I would have been aware and exposed it long before now. I would never stand for that sort of shit. Thank you.

Users who endorse this summary:

—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again smoke and mirrors allegations of some form of "conspiracy" (*pssst! all of the editors and admins who comment or add their endorsements are also working with the Americans who are holding the aliens at Area 51, sneaky, devious so and sos...) Minorhistorian (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-MBK₀₀₄ 02:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ockham's Razor. (I should also add that this grand conspiracy was responsible for 2008 Financial Crisis, 9/11, the Kennedy Assassination, and the Cold War). Cam ^(Chat)(Prof) 03:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where's Rod Serling when you need him? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 01:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by TomStar81

First off, allow me confess that at the coordinator level none of us are really in a position to view things from the outside, as the group entrusted with administrative aspects of a project we inevitably end up involved in all manner of disputes within the project, even if only by virtue of our monitoring of the discussions to ensure that things stay on track.

Having stated that point clearly, I confess that this is a unique case. In fact, its so unique that no one seems to able to determine what should be done. I suggested arbitration; that was ruled out as too extreme a measure to be taken. Discussions with Blablaaa have gone no where; they inevitably degenerate into incivility and personal attacks. Efforts to block Blablaaa have been unsuccessful; his blocks expire leaving him none-the-wiser as to why he was blocked, and in at least one case a block was overturned on community consensus that it was a bad block and thus unwarranted (Blablaaa's block log). We are all fed up with the behavior, so something must be done to correct the problem.

The root of the problem with Blablaaa is the German based pov-ish spin he tends to incorporate on the articles he edits. This is clearly a violation of the NPOV policy, yet Blablaaa doesn't seem to register this fact. He insists that he is the victim, and lashes out at those who attempt to point out his error. This causes conflict within the community, and that helps no one. Yet it can not be denied that some of Blablaaa's work has been beneficial to the project. As a result of this interesting situation, admins and milhist coordinators are left to waltz on eggshells and banana peels on the matter: no one wants to make a move against an editor who's edits can be beneficial, yet we are all fed up with the bullshit we have to endure from Blablaaa to get the valuable info out of him and into the articles.

From where I sit then the middle path on the matter would be to impose sanctions against Blablaaa's editing, which in theory should make it much easier for admins and coordinators to take official action against Blablaaa for the widespread disruption that comes with the edits he makes. This should allow us to determine is Blablaaa is going to evolve into a productive editor, or remain a stubborn mule with regards to his edits. If the former turns out to be the case, then I suspect he will make a great contributor, but if it turns out that the latter is the case then its my belief that we should block him once and for all and be done with it.

Users who endorse this summary:

TomStar81 (Talk) 03:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Anotherclown (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene^talk 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranger Steve (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny87 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chaosdruid (talk) 18:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-MBK₀₀₄ 05:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OlEnglish (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tirronan (talk) 02:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by ImperfectlyInformed

I will only speak on my experience with the user, which covers the "illustrative example", Operation Charnwood. Blablaa brought up Operation Charnwood at WP:NPOV/N (permalink), where I was the initial uninvolved commenter. The locus of the dispute was whether Operation Charnwood could be described as a "tactical victory" when the two sources cited by opposing editor, EnigmaMcmxc (talk · contribs), said it was a "partial success" (Beevor) or gave no final summary but rather a long discussion (D'Este) - see permalink, infobox and refs 5,6 as well as the first sentence of the third paragraph. My initial assessment was that Blablaa was correct and that this was a misrepresentation of the sources - in essence, putting words into the sources' mouth. The other uninvolved editor, FormerIP (talk · contribs), agreed with me, and our conclusion stands. Despite our advice, Enigma did the exact opposite of what we recommended [92], although his edit (perhaps an accidental error) was promptly corrected by Blablaa [93].

Interestingly, Blablaa had posed this question earlier at WP:MILHIST (permalink), where the first response was from Parsecboy (talk · contribs), who reached the exact same conclusion as myself - this is despite the fact that separately I seem to recall Blablaa accusing Parsecboy of defending Engima. Also interesting is that EyeSerene's comment follows Parsecboy's comment; EyeSerene's comment dodges the question at hand and rather jumps into a bad faith accusation Blablaa of "forumshopping" despite the fact that this "forumshopping" supported Blablaa's correct interpretation of policy.

While I can understand the frustration with how Blablaa interacts and his often combative tone, much of the combat could apparently have been avoided in this "illustrative case" if the editors who opposed Blablaa had simply complied with policy. If D'este thought that the battle could be summarized as a tactical victory, he would have said that. Other sources called it a "hollow victory" or "operational victory" (seemingly a minority view), but no sources called it a tactical victory or tactical success.

Raising an issue among a broader, less tightly-knit crowd should not be discouraged and neither should the tenacious pursuit for the correct outcome. When Blablaa and Caden mentioned that Enigma had a history of source misrepresentation, I commented that such assertions should be withheld until they can supported in detail, perhaps through a RfC/U - we did one on a misrepresenter of sources (Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jagged_85) not long ago. Oddly enough, it actually seems like Blablaa could have a point in arguing that there's some conspiracy against them, albeit a rather crude one which may stem largely, like the firing of Sherryl Sherrod, largely from ignorance. If there's consensus to deviate from the sources, OK, but if someone questions a key phrase, it is best to defer to the most strict interpretation of the source. And certainly one cannot cite consensus when a user (in this case not only Blablaa but also Caden) does not agree. In a group as small as the one we're talking about, consensus basically means complete agreement.

There should be some reversal of scrutiny here on EyeSerene given the highly misleading summary of the facts of the "illustrative example" and EyeSerene's tendency to leap into wikilawyering type arguments - for example, EyeSerene apparently yells forumshopping at Blablaa's first attempt to get an outside view over at WP:MILHIST. I don't know where this type of wikilawyering interpretation of forumshopping stems from, but the idea needs to be rooted out and discarded immediately. Administrators should know better.

While I can agree in principle with the desired outcomes, I have to emphasize that I believe Blablaa was/is correct in regard to Operation Charnwood, despite the difficulty that strict compliance with sources implies. I think there should perhaps be more attention and documentation paid to other incidents and incivility; Jim Sweeney cites some diffs but it is unclear whether the edits are productive or not as they are quite small and simply remove statistics cited to a Russian website. I don't have time to do any more research than I've already done.

Users who endorse this summary:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ImperfectlyInformed (talk • contribs)
Caden ^cool 01:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blablaaa (talk) 07:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chaosdruid (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2010 (UTC) - On the basis that the information given to the noticeboard, and the question asked for their comment, was not the complete picture, only dealt with that one item and was prior to my comments, and did not include any other references not included in the article but discussed/under discussion on the talk pages.[reply]

Outside view by Dapi89

I think I qualify for this section.

I'm going to stick to the Battle of Kursk which is where most of my contact with Bla' has occurred. In the weeks before and since Bla' has occasionally shown what a valuable editor he can be [94], providing advice that he thinks maybe useful to an article he either is uninterested in or prefers not to edit. Unfortunately, the experience on the Kursk article was not a pleasant one. I shan’t leave a trail of links here for editors to waste their time trawling through, but I did set up User:Dapi89/SandboxBattle of Kursk to iron out any difficulties.

The background to this was pretty simple. Bla’s insistence that Kursk was a German tactical victory is at odds with every other source I have seen (and that is one hell of a lot). That seemed to die down, but conflict did then arise of the presentation of the battle. Bla’, using the German official history of WWII (using OH should always be done with caution as they are not exactly striving for objectivity) and me using various other sources to counter his claims, in fact slurs, on the competence of Red Army tactical and operational ability. The reason being; they are myth. Unfortunately things got heated and it resulted in a block for Bla’. But in an effort to demonstrate that I am not unreasonable or pushing an agenda, I did my part in persuading other editors to reverse their decision so I could set up a sandbox article in which we could work together to agree here, before a transfer was made to the wikipedia version. It worked well for a week or so, and both the main article and talk page were well used. I thought we were getting somewhere. But it seemed then that Bla’ had decided he had had his fill of compromise and went back to the main article. Bla’ even suggested it was because I had lost interest……not so.

I feared that this may devolve into another User:Kurfurst episode, so I left it alone. Nonetheless, I did communicate with him a few times over his behaviour on the Normandy articles, to little avail.

This concludes my major interaction with Bla’. My impression, whether Bla’ actually realises it or not, is that he has an air of blatant bias. But that does not mean that wikipedia would be better off without him. His sources for figures are useful, and his information on the minute detail of German combat formations can help articles. But his reasoning on outcomes of battles is hopelessly flawed. But Bla’ doesn’t want to confront that fact and I think this is one of the major issues with him. Battles encompass the results of everything, not just ground taken and casualties inflicted. Perhaps it is a German symptom, ignoring everything other than the tactical.

I'm not a saint myself and I’ve tried to keep this as unbiased as possible for someone who has had negative encounters with Bla’. It is not meant to act as a case for the ‘prosecution’ or ‘defence’. My advice to Bla’ would be, for what its worth, to fall on his sword and start listening to the overwhelming consensus. Then people might start listening to him. After all, even when it comes to outcomes for example, I think there is always room for compromise. Please learn that word Bla’.

Lastly; I utterly reject the assertions made by User:Caden about some editors here. They are dishonest and appalling.

Users who endorse this summary:

Dapi89 (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(though I disagree about the comment regarding most official histories of World War II; while these were funded by the various governments, most of the series were written by professional historians to scholarly standards free of any kind of interference, and the German series which is still under production is generally well regarded). Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having followed the Kursk discussion but not commented yes.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with the sentiment of Dapi89's post.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Although I'm unaware of the intricacies of this debate) Ranger Steve (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene^talk 18:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny87 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Hohum ^@) 17:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations are ludicrous. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Diannaa ^(Talk) 15:35, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tirronan (talk) 03:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a broader example of my own experience with BlaBlaaa and Caden. Senor Freebie (talk) 08:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Minorhistorian

This [95] type of behaviour does nothing to help Blablaaa's cause; If Blablaaa seriously believes he has a case he does not need to resort to such comments on Dapi89 - and other - talk pages.

Users who endorse this summary:

Minorhistorian (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ranger Steve (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Skinny87 (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D (talk) 23:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cam ^(Chat) 04:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-MBK₀₀₄ 05:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene^talk 06:38, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by GabeMc

This would make the most compelling Community Ban proposal I have ever read. If half of this is accurate then this user sounds like an enormous waste of time.

Users who endorse this summary:

--GabeMc (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
perfectly described with the words "if half of this is accurate". the vast amount of wrong accusations are so well written that people read them and base their opinion on that ( like you ). That was the intention of eyeseren. Blablaaa (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene is one of the best people I know on Wikipedia, let alone one of the best editors and administrators. Good luck proving what you just said, Bla, because it isn't true. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D (talk) 01:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Jim Sweeney (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-MBK₀₀₄ 02:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EyeSerene^talk 07:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tirronan (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Senor Freebie (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Summary

User retired while a request for arbitration was being considered. Shortly after retiring, user was indef blocked (rationale). Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.