Edit warring and why uncommunicative people win.

So I was going back and looking at some old articles that I thought were interesting and I notice many being semi-protected. In the history, I see why. Some people (Helpful-Group) go and add sourced, accurate information to the article and then Vandalistic-Reverter-Group goes and reverts. Helpful-Group constantly argues in the talk page and Vandalistic-Reverter-Group blindly reverts and will not even communicate. Helpful-Group continues arguing in talk and trying to improve the article, compromising in various different ways to try to appease Vandalistic-Reverter-Group while Vandalistic-Reverter-Group just reverts without talking. This goes on a while. So then an administrator comes along and they side with Vandalistic-Reverter-Group and they ban for life some of the Helpful-Group.

Yup, Wikipedia is not accurate.

Manipulate the 3RR system. Avoid talk page pissing matches. Give Vandalistic-Reverter a 3RR warning, which he will ignore.

Just wait for the inevitable fourth revert. Then go narc on Vandalistic-Reverter, saying he keeps deleting cited material without explanation. Then you have him.

As for myself, I prefer to let cited facts stand, even if they embarrass my side of a debate. I say truth is better than ignorance and a cogent argument should stand the test of facts. For this they call me a disruptive troll. :rolleyes:

It would be virtually unheard of for an admin to block the wrong party in this situation. Now, there are more ambiguous situations where the wrong person can be blocked, but I would be surprised to see even one case where one side was as bad as you depict and the other side as good as you depict, and the latter is the one blocked. Genuine "Vandalistic-Reverter" types have very short life expectancies on WP.

Have you been on WP long? Reverters can claim the sources aren't reliable, demand a specific reference for each sentences and then demand to SEE specific sources. If that fails, they can claim the revert is because the sourced contribution has "undue weight."

Everyking is I think the number 4 editor on Wikipedia, in terms of number of edits.

Then:

1.) Why is he posting here ?
2.) What kind of person spends that much time on Wikipedia?
3.) Does this guy ever leave his house/dorm room/mother's basement?

Hmmm... Everyking?

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:riOc4...clnk&cd=3&gl=us

wikiabuse died a far too early death

Wikiabuse will be resurrected, in some form at least. We just haven't decided when, and in what form. I can't say anymore until we decide for sure what to do, but rest assured that that poll on wikiabuse.com wasn't meaningless. Since people obviously want it resurrected, and since we can do it, we will.

Article names?

One example is

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history

If you're doing that, at least you're discussing. In the original post it said the "vandalistic reverter" was refusing to discuss anything. I would just be surprised to see a case where someone was removing sourced, neutrally presented information, refusing to discuss it at all, and it was the person providing the sources, doing the discussion and making the compromises who was blocked. Maybe there are some POV fiefdoms where this kind of thing does happen, but I really think for such blatant injustice to occur there would need to be at least some ambiguity in the situation.