In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute 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: 09:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC).

Kurt Leyman | talk |

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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.

Description

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

Kurt Leyman (talk · contribs) with his main account or his ip 213.243.185.219 (talk · contribs) has for many months now editted a number of pages, changed numbers, deleted text, added other text/numbers, without providing any references for the information.

This user spreads misinformation, corruptes articles by removeing key paragraphs and phrases and removes/alteres sourced figures. He normaly attacks ww2 articles where he changes sourced figures without stateing any sources and removes key paragraphs and words. His patern of attack is clear, he minimizes axis losses and maximizes allied losses. He ussualy attacks in waves first he makes small modifications then after some time he escalates his acts of vandalism he has sometimes over a period of time change article completely from allied victory the axis victory.

And as long as he is allowed to vandalize every ww2 article as he sees fit by changeing the figures and removeing key paragraphs it is pointless to create any new article because sooner or later he will vandalize it.One specific trade mark by him except that he alters sourced figures often maximizing allied losses and minimizing axis one is that he removes the word "nazi" from articles.

Often he gets reverted on high traffic articles but he returns after some time and probes them and tries smaller modifications to see if he can implement his major changes. The high traffic articles are not the problem, the problem are the medium and low traffic articles where his acts of vandalism roam free.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

51 with the main account

And 5 with the ip

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(Deng 03:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 08:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

The last thing we need in WP is the revisionist attitude towards WWII. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

As Dennis said (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiger_II&action=history), Deng should actually read what he edits. Or has this article also been vandalised and is Dennis another vandal?

And he did not answer any of my points in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_September_Campaign and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of_Narvik articles before reverting all of my edits as "vandalism".

Kurt.

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view[edit]

Outside view by Woohookitty

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.

Essentially, Deng and Kurt have been following each other all over the site, reeking havoc. Something needs to be done to resolve this. I have no idea if a block is the answer or what the answer is, but this needs to be stopped. I encouraged Deng to write this RfC because I feel like more people need to be involved in getting this settled. Attempts have been made to calm the dispute down, but the situation hasn't improved. I agree with Deng that Kurt needs to be stopped. But on the other hand, Deng needs to learn to compromise. If you notice, only one of the attempts to resolve this dispute where from Deng and it was extremely aggressive, which is Deng's style. He provokes people. And he provoked Kurt, which is why I think Kurt's gone on this vandalism spree. So yes Kurt needs to be stopped, but Deng also needs to learn that he isn't always right and that he needs to compromise. Otherwise, this will happen again with Deng and another user. So we need people who can calm others down and be good teachers to help out in this dispute.

Users who endorse this summary:

--Woohookitty^(meow) 09:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My involvement is mainly based around the Heinkel He 111 article, but this sums up my observations rather well. --Xanzzibar 12:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DMorpheus 14:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC) Agreed. The two parties are equally at fault IMO. In addition, Deng has made, and continues to make, numerous personal attacks that may have made the situation worse. While I won't defend Kurt Leyman, a block or other sanction against only one party would be unjust.[reply]
Deng is a committed and well-meaning editor but too short-tempered and the one who often does things in haste as I wrote to him multiple times. Still his contributions are valuable, and I mean it, and while he could use some mentorship, it is his opponent who needs to be sanctioned if you ask me. He and his socks. --Irpen 23:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They both need a time out. · Ka t efan0 ^(scribble)/poll 13:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what Irpen said. Better have a valuable but a bit short-tempered editor rather than someone who just spends time criticising without making constructive edits himself. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
heqs 22:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Halibutt

While not taking part in the dispute myself, I'd like to point out several things that might be useful here. Firstly, while I agree that vandalism and revert wars are not what this project needs, some of the evidence posted above does not hold the water. Some of the diffs and links provided lead to edits which, at least at first sight, look completely correct. Some are of NPOV nature ([1] or [2] for instance), others are purely stylistical ([3] or [4]) or anon reversals or improvement of their edits ([5]). Though there are of course examples of pure POV pushing, far from all the evidence should IMO be used against Kurt. In the case of many (most?) of these, Kurt should be instructed to use the edit summaries, but a ban would be too much.

Interestingly, perhaps the only time I've met Kurt in one of the articles was when he did this edit, which does not seem that ok. //Halibu tt 14:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

The last edit cited by Halibutt is pure trolling on the part of Leyman, though. I've never seen such bad-faith edits from Deng. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, agree strongly with Ghirla. JoshuaZ 18:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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.