Jump to content

Wikipedia:Historical archive/Conflicts between users/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Historical archive | Conflicts between users
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Morven (talk | contribs) at 08:22, 28 October 2003 (Anon user adding POV text to Porsche articles.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

With a common goal of accumulating, ordering, structuring and making freely available what knowledge in mind, if we concentrate on achieving NPOV even when it is difficult, if we try to actually understand those we label problem users, then we can reach the state of WikiLove. Otherwise, the encyclopedia as a whole will suffer.

Alternatives to adding users to this page

Some key components to achieve WikiLove and work in the general spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding is to:

  • Follow Wikiquette -- respect other contributors
  • Follow our policies -- they make it easier to work with one another
  • Keep the neutral point of view (NPOV) in mind -- write articles that people from all sides can read and agree with
  • Forgive and forget. Don't allow yourself to be hurt; to hurt others; to allow others to be hurt. Do try to accomodate other people's views.

In general, time spent complaining about problem users is less productive than an equal amount of time spent writing encyclopedia articles. But if you must complain, please sign and date your entries so they can be removed when they are no longer relevant. Please also list the most recent additions at the top of this page.

If you are listed here, then you may comment on the accusation that you are a problem user and ask that your name be taken off the list. You may not remove yourself from this page.

Recommendations for adding users to this page

  • First discuss the issues with the user in question, and do everything in your power to get a resolution that way. In many cases it's possible to resolve the issue with discussion, without getting the rest of the community involved.
  • Be specific in your criticism. Give diff links to individual edits that demonstrate the problem. Say exactly why you find these edits a problem.
  • Sign and date your comments

List of controversial users

Most recent at top.

User:62.47.149.63

(and other 62.47 IPs)

Insists on pushing a POV agenda on every page connected to Porsche. His agenda is pushing the idea that Erwin Komenda, not Ferdinand or Ferry Porsche, was solely responsible for the design of the VW Beetle and early Porsche models up to the 911.

I do not know the truth of this. Most Porsche histories give him little mention. However, there is a long history in industrial design of one man getting all the credit for work done mostly by others. It is certainly possible that much of the work was done by Komenda.

What is certain, though, is that this user wants to use Wikipedia to beat the drum for his cause and to that end has put a mention of Komenda on almost every single page related to Porsche.

I have made some effort at making his contributions more NPOV in the places they are relevant, and removing them from the places they are not relevant. I am still uncertain as to whether the articles, even after this, are not still slanted. I've tried to engage the user in discussion and try to find a way to make these articles better, but he does not seem to be interested; in fact, he has re-added cut and paste paragraphs about Komenda where I removed them, multiple times.

--Morven 08:22, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

User: Princess Toadstool

Definitely a time-waster, and possibly a problem. Just appeared 45 minutes ago, made 3 very minor edits, created the stubby Deely-boppers -- content is Deely-boppers were antennae made out of plastic or metal that you could put on your head. They gave them out at parties. -- and then proceeded onward to VfD for some "against the grain" votes. Here are Princess_Toadstool's contributions. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:22, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The same pattern as User:Macarenaman see their contributions. I just made a comment about this on the village pump. Maximus Rex 02:32, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The same pattern as User:Panochik. RickK 03:30, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not really a problem

User:82.82.x.x

[moved from Vandalism in progress]

  • User:82.82.118.203/User:82.82.130.39 is eager to make changes on Germany. Might be an newbie but possibly a revisionist. Maybe not exactly vandalism, but ought to be watched! He/she doesn't answer on the talk-page.--Ruhrjung 15:54, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Given the further looks of the user's changes[1], it does more look like a wikipedian who for some reason don't want to use an account, and now make changes he/she knows to be controversial. I think it is a problem.--Ruhrjung 07:17, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

User:Kommiec

  • Seems dedicated to rewriting every article with any touch on the history of Germany and Poland to make sure that any place with a German name must be known only by its Polish name, no matter what the historical context. See his contributions. RickK 05:38, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)


My Histroical Contex is right. Gdansk was a Part of Poland and it should be called Gdansk at that time. After the Partions it is Danzig. Before it is Gdansk.Kommiec 05:41, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Please keep your historical revisionism out of wikipedia. Perhaps you could write some articles or do something useful, instead of coming back and causing more problems. InanimateCarbonRod 05:43, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
for those who don't remember Kommiec was listed here before [2]. InanimateCarbonRod 05:47, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Danzig was known as Danzig, and knew itself as Danzig, from roughly the 15th century until 1945. Danzig is still used by many speakers of English (and is also the first name in German, scandinavian languages etc.), and as Wikipedia uses the names which is used in English (not necessarily the local name), Danzig have an important place in the article too. -- Nico 15:48, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Danzig was known as Danzig, and knew itself as Danzig"

Says who???

http://www.eurotravelling.net/poland/gdansk/gdansk_history.htm

According to this article Gdansk rejoined the kingdom of Poland in 1454 and it stayed there till the partitions. When it was a part of Poland it should have Gdansk as its first name and in my edits i did mention the following (German:Danzig). However that dose not satisfy RickK or IntamiteCarbon who seem to be a bit biased about my edits. They even revert the correction to the name of Copernicus uncle. Kommiec 01:34, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

moved Danny issue to talk:anti-Semitism

user:65.121.37.133

United States Democratic-Republican Party "this page is a lesbion" There is no page history and I know that there was an article here because i put it on my watch list. I can't revert it because it seems like all the previous versions are gone.

  • it now seems to be reverted

User:Nydigovoth, User:Nydigoveth

Keeps trying to enter puerile information into Margaux Hemingway (ie, in which films she appeared nude) and I am getting tired of reverting his changes. Can someone else take over for me? It is bedtime in my time zone. TIA -- Viajero 21:57, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

    • I dont know nydigovoth and i have never edited margaux hemingway article. You are mistaken about nydigovoth=user:aplank. I am kind of instulted that you made this link without talking to me first. I have been editing the wikipedia for a while and have never caused any problems with any articles. I believe this confusion arose out of my request for adminship. The user Nydigovoth must have been in the IRC channel when said that I wanted someone to nominate me. This user , for a reason that I am not aware of, nominated me after I had already been informed that I was too new to be an administrator. The other users thought it was fishy that this user had created his username after I had posted my request. I am sure if you compare my IP address to his, and look at his editing patterns versus mine, you will come to the conclusion that he is in fact a different individual and is engaged in either not knowing what is going on or a campaign of subliminal identity theft. I took away the =aplank so there wouldnt be anymore confusion. Aplank 23:38, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • (Viajero had confused nydigovoth for aplank and that branched a side discussion (removed) which was independent of Margaux Hemingway) -Nydigovoth
    • The page has now been protected by Angela. And yes the edits being made deserved reversion. FearÉIREANN 23:46, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Unwarranted deletions to this section restored. -- Viajero 09:40, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Hello. There seems to be some confusion over the Nydigoveth (AKA Nydigovoth) user. Nydigovoth is not me and I would appreciate it if you would refrain from making any further allegations concerning my username without discussing the accusations with me first (User_talk:Aplank). I am sorry to bother you and I wish you the best. See adding Problem users for more information. Aplank 14:43, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

User:Adam Carr

He is consistently going out of his way to belittle me. This edit is a good example: [3] -- I find his actions to be inappropriate and unacceptable. Lirath Q. Pynnor

  • Adam Carr's comments are inappropriate. Lir is back as an accepted member of the Wikipedia community and should be shown that respect. FearÉIREANN 23:48, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Just because Jimbo unbanned Lir, others may well question the wisdom of that move. Lir remains a self-admitted vandal and it is the height of hypocrisy for him to complain here about a serious contributor. --Wik 00:09, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
      • Everyone is entitled to respect from other members of the community regardless of his or her past actions. In addition, being a serious contributor, is not the same as being a perfect person. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone will at some point in his or her life, do something that they regret, such as insulting another member of the community. Please read wikiquette for more information .--Aplank 00:20, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
        • Nope, vandals are not entitled to respect. We aren't talking about mistakes but the general attitude here. It is possible (though unlikely) that a vandal changes his attitude. But then I would at least expect a statement to the whole community expressing that change. I have not seen that from Lir. So I don't see why his previous behaviour should be forgotten. This is after all someone who has been banned not once but multiple times. --Wik 00:37, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
          • I arrived at Wikipedia after most of that past, but I'm going to stick my opinion in anyway ... Treating someone with respect doesn't mean treating them like a friend nor does it mean having to forgive or forget. It means that you should allow them the possibility of having changed even if you doubt it. It means that you should behave appropriately towards them regardless of history. In other words, what Lir has done to you or anyone else in the past doesn't make him a permissable target in return. If he hasn't changed, sooner or later he'll get himself banned again, so don't worry about it. --Morven 03:33, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Lir did make major mistakes in the past and I was not slow in pointing them out. But he did ask, and was allowed, to return to wikipedia and since his return has acted responsibly and done some superb work on articles. Having asked to be allowed to come back and been so allowed, he is as entitled as everyone else to be treated fairly. Nothing in his recent work warrants the use of the word 'vandal' and as a serious contributor, acting responsibly, he should be treated with the same respect as everyone else. And Lir has given plenty of evidence since his return that he is no vandal and that he is entitled to respect due to a wikipedian. FearÉIREANN 00:38, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I aggree with Jtdirl that Adam Carr's comments are inappropriate. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 00:30, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Even vandals deserve basic professional courtesy. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • I think it's much more important what people do with the wikipedia articles, than that we fake respect for someone who has not yet deserved it. I support Adam Carr's freedom of expression. :-)) [And I expect that he after my support will side with you hypocrites - ...me looks stunned at the situation where Wik and I are on the same side of an argument!]--Ruhrjung 13:04, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Everyone deserves to be shown common human decency, and I don't see why Lir should be an exception to this rule. Just because Lir used to be a vandal, it does not mean that anyone can verbally abuse him. I agree with Jtdirl. See Wikipedia:WikiLove for more information

User:LibertarianAnarchist

User:Libertarian Anarchist alias User:Democrate2003 keeps reverting 2002 Gujarat violence to a blatantly POV version, which for example alleges that India's English-language media is "largely Marxist" and that Justice Krishna Iyer is a "Marxist" (which Iyer denies) - and then he has the nerve to describe this as an NPOVing. In fact, the original version by User:Boud is perfectly NPOV, giving all the differing views about the events. --Wik 19:21, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)


User:67.1.66.59

User:67.1.66.59 vandalized/added commentary to the Clarence_Thomas article (also edited the page as User:67.1.73.139) -- see this revision. That commentary (note mix of sarcasm and POV) included this:

Hmmm... Nowadays many blacks seem to segregate themselves from mainstream society, including educationally. And more than 70 percent of black children within exclusively black areas are born illegitimate, compounding poverty and the status of victimhood. What is Thomas saying? Shut up, Thomas is a complete idiot, Thomas is racist, don't think about it, keep reading.

Go to Talk:Clarence_Thomas for this user's viewpoint. I don't have the energy to take this one on right now. This person isn't totally unreasonable, but has been overly aggresive in editing this article and mat be about to start an edit war. Here's the page history. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:33, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This anon IP user has a very valid point in that the current Clarence Thomas article is largely the work of one user and presents just one viewpoint of Thomas which does not attempt to be impartial. In other words, the existing article is highly POV.
However, this anon user does not quite 'get' Wikipedia, it seems. Instead of FIXING the article (or even just changing it to present his POV) he wrote a paragraph-by-paragraph commentary attacking the opinions presented in the original article.
I don't see this as being beyond hope, however. The article DOES need work and is strongly POV; let's see if we can work with the new user and get them to incorporate their views into a hopefully more balanced article. --Morven 07:09, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Wartortle

User:Wartortle has been voting "keep" for every almost item listed on vfd w/o giving an explanation. It seems random. --Jiang 23:59, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, that and a bunch of stubs on Pokemon (which probably need VfD'ing). From what we see below, it's likely that this user is a sock puppet. --Morven 01:24, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
See User:Tester listed below. Probably one of his many sock puppets. Maximus Rex 16:35, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


Tridesch

(User:Tridesch) Apparently only lives to make annoying comments about how worthless other users are. Makes no edits, but likes to attack others. RickK 05:43, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)


User:68.200.142.202


User:Clinton

I love my country. Unlike most of the commies writing for Wikipedia.
and added tendentious slander to Airbus Industrie and Jim Cairns. Needs babysitting. -- Viajero 17:48, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
It's *his* user page. Honestly, if I say on my user page "I hate Iraq" or "I hate America" that's a statement of opinion - no more. On the other hand, "commie" is a very strong insult among some generations in the US... Pakaran 01:03, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)


User:Tester and aliases

User:Tester has apparently created multiple other user accounts (including User:Donnie Ng and User:Wartortle, possibly two or three more), and all of them are voting at VfD, which appears to me like an experienced Wikipedian stuffing ballot boxes. If I'm wrong, well then I'm wrong, but I can't imagine why someone new to Wikipedia would run to VfD, creating half a dozen accounts on the way. Jwrosenzweig 23:29, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

List of Tester's 'contributions':

  1. 01:28, Oct 14, 2003 User:Juro
  2. 01:27, Oct 14, 2003 User:Jaleho
  3. 01:26, Oct 14, 2003 User:Introscop
  1. 23:01, Oct 13, 2003 User:Groessler
  2. 23:01, Oct 13, 2003 User:Opus33
  3. 23:00, Oct 13, 2003 User:Wartortle
  4. 23:00, Oct 13, 2003 User:Josh Cherry
  5. 22:59, Oct 13, 2003 User:Donnie Ng
  6. 22:59, Oct 13, 2003 User:Tester

Many of the above accounts were used to support Wiwaxia's views on the deletion of the Bush nicknames page. Angela 00:54, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

For "many" read "three" (User:Groessler, User:Wartortle and User:Donnie Ng, unless I'm missing something). --Camembert 01:55, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Ballot stuffing with one would be plenty.Ark30inf 01:59, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I agree. I just want to make sure we don't drag completely innocent users into this. --Camembert
agreed.Ark30inf 02:07, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Any reason to single out Wiwaxia? Sounds like this is implying these are his, while a number of users were opposed to that page. --Morven 02:13, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
You are right of course. It probably is because wiwaxia was the most vocal and lobbied for the list that made him come to mind. I don't think anyone is actually suggesting that they are Wiwaxia's. Ark30inf 02:17, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
No I just meant they were against deletion; I was not making accusations. Angela 02:19, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

Oct 25: User: Juro : I do not know what this is whole about, but I think that the problem is that I did create my account at a University - and probably the multiple accounts are simply various students at the same server.


User:169.229.2.135

Seems to be adding external links to articles pointing at http://thslone.tripod.com which contains links to Amazon with possibly a referral id. See contributions ¬ Dori 17:29, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)


User:Vergina

This user keeps trying to insert "Former Yugoslav" or "FYROM" in various Republic of Macedonia links, despite being told to stop and discuss it at Talk:Republic of Macedonia instead. --Jiang 00:08, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In most parts of Europe, The words Republic of Macedonia are never heard without Former Yugoslav before them. It is regarded as POV to say simply Republic of Macedonia. The BBC, ITN, RTE, RAI etc always use the FYROM reference, as do states, governments and the UN. I can understand his actions in the circumstances. Republic of Macedonia runs contrary to standard diplomatic, governmental and international usage. FearÉIREANN 00:13, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)
If FYROM is more appropriate, then we should change it. But for that to occur, it must be discussed first. An argument must be presented before we can change the status quo naming convention. --Jiang

FYROM,the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, is fabrik for folgery Greek history,Greek culture,Greek geography and Greek symbols Macedonians!See Greek Macedonian symbol "Vergina Sun",Philip II king of Macedonia and Alexander the Great king of Macedonia !!! Vergina 06:45, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Vergina is also doing this on the german wikipedia, with the only effect that his favourite pages get protected temporarily to stop the edit wars. andy 07:56, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)


User:Saddam


User:Mir Harven

  • (contribs) Repeatedly blanking and removing material contributed in good faith to controversial discussions (usually relating to Croatian langauge) and replacing them with agressive and threatening replies (eg "Greater Serbian crap about Croatian & Bosnian "newspeak" deleted. Heal your inferiority complexes elsewhere. If this crap persist-you'll get exposed in a way you truly deserve. Mind your own biz and keep out of Croatian lang page with your filthy hate.")Almost impossible to engage, as he repeatedly blanks and erases any attemps. At a loss to know what to do.
    • Also appears to edit from the 195.29.xxx.xxx range. I don't know who's right, factually and morally speaking, but Mir Harven hasn't really cottoned on to the whole Wikiquette and consensus-editing concepts. -- Cyan 06:59, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)


User:Pagingmrherman

moved from Vandalism in progress

  • User:66.20.28.21 has created a vanity page John Hickman and is inserting offsite links to articles by Hickman (a seemingly unencylopedic assistant professor) in numerous places of debateable relevance. -- Finlay McWalter 16:30, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Now has alternate identity, User:PReeve18, up to the same stuff. -- Finlay McWalter 22:27, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • Older alternate identity, again doing same stuff, is User:John Hickman. -- Finlay McWalter 08:44, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • How is this vandalism? Dotwarner 16:25, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)
    • How is Finlay McWalter, a nature photographer, competent to address the relevance of contributions or edits involving political science and history? Why should readers be made prisoners of McWalters' cranky obsessions?
    • (Psst, "cranky obsessions" is a violation of Wikiquette. Argue against the substantive issue, and try not to descend to name calling. Note that Finlay has only questioned whether the content you have added is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and not your personal worth.) -- Cyan 22:39, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC) end of moved text
    • I don't think the move from Vandalism in progress to this page was necessarily appropriate as this user has also vandalised Karada's user page. Angela 00:06, Oct 1, 2003 (UTC)
    • Well, there are two things. First, the complaint that I moved didn't include that tidbit, and I didn't check his contributions (my bad). Second, sometimes new users don't understand the difference between a User page and a User talk page. If the vandalism were rampant, I would go and make a separate post on ViP. -- Cyan 03:02, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't think his "comments" on Karada's page were mistakenly placed there while looking for the talk page. It seemed like a dig directly related to Karada placing his article on VfD. Anyway, it may not be bad enough to get him on the vandalism page. Here will do! Angela 03:11, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)


  • 206.172.171.1 whilst not actually a vandal this person is clearly pro-nazi and has sneaked pro-nazi POV edits into articles. Those who are concerned about such things might want to keep an eye on them.
    • Took a quick look, and it seems debatable. The guy isn't going overboard, so we'll just keep a lookout. No red alerts are necessary at this time. --Modemac 09:38, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • I'm not so sure- anyone who changes a description of the book The Turner Diaries from "race-hate fantasy" to "racial revolutionary fiction" ( on the National Alliance page) and regards violent race-hate mongers like Combat 18 as 'revolutionary' certainly needs to have an eye kept on them...
    • They're not revolutionary? I wasn't aware Combat 18 had pacifist tendencies... ;-) Martin 20:19, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • 'revolutionary' doesn't imply 'violent'-Pacifism could be argued to be a very revolutionay idea... OTOH C18 are just a bunch of thugs from looking at their website quercus robur 20:27, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
        • ;-)



Malcs64

  1. Blanked Tarquin's user page and replaced it with a personal attack on him.
  2. Personal attacks made on his own user page
  3. Personal attacks made on the Village pump.
  4. Various other snide comments on the Village pump
  5. Personal attacks made on various talk pages such as Talk:Taxi Driver, Talk:Janis Ian.
  6. Personal attacks made on the Nose-picking article.
  7. Consistently trying to advertise his own website in inappropriate ways and in inappropriate places.

Angela 18:04, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)

Discussion of User:Heine moved to User talk:Heine/Discussion of user

Problem users special features

  • Discussions relating to Daniel C. Boyer are now a Problem users special feature! Gasp as Boyer challenges Kat to explain herself! Thrill at SpeakerFTD's dramatic intervention! Read on at Wikipedia:Problem users/Daniel C. Boyer.

Other users

  • User:Rickyrab has added garbage to this page, as well as my talk page. He appearently is trying to get attention. Vancouverguy 00:59, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • User:Vancouverguy is right: I was trying to get attention. Can be hard to do in a world so busy as Wikipedia! :-) Rickyrab 02:01, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • User:144.82.100.120 Perhaps a little hasty of me to put this user down.. but probably worth half an eye on. Three edits. One completely bogus. Two vPOV. Pete 15:39, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
  • User:216.101.109.178 adding nonsense and/or irrelevant material to a number of articles in quick succession. Often adding the same information to lots of different pages, which have since been deleted. Angela 03:24, Sep 12, 2003 (UTC)
  • User:68.33.82.8 is entering a number of William Faulkner characters such as Quentin Compson and Rosa Coldfield that are potential copyright violations from this website [4] and Gerald O'Hara from [5] User hasn't responded to other queries on their talk page. This user seems to be learning as s/he goes and may not have discovered the talk page.Ark30inf 21:47, 9 Sep 2003 (EDT)
    • User:68.33.82.8 is now adding huge clumps of articles about Biblical figures, both obscure and less obscure. I am doing my best to keep up with them, altering these articles (in most cases, the Biblical character is worth a stub), but if anyone has time to help, I'd appreciate it. I've fixed Caleb, Nabal, Kenezites, and Revised Version, and am beginning to tackle Jethro, but it's slow going. Thanks! Jwrosenzweig 22:08, 11 Sep 2003 (UTC)
      • I think its time to ban the IP. We have given the user several days to find the talk page or see the copyright boilerplate on the articles they have already entered.Ark30inf 20:42, 12 Sep 2003 (UTC)

most recent at top

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Historical_archive/Conflicts_between_users/Archive&oldid=1637701"