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 Cyan (talk | contribs) at 15:23, 3 November 2003 (fix link). 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:Nico

User:Nico was calling names fellow wikipedians, also started his own petty article Schlesien when was unable to force his own version in Silesia - szopen

217.229.4.2

217.229.4.2

We are having a problem with someone who has not signed in. He keeps deleting large chunks of material in Islam that he finds embarassing. He also wants to keep writing sections on Jihad to match his personal beliefs, despite the documented fact that millions of other Mulims have different beliefs than his. He also keeps deleting references to the Quran when they discuss issues he finds too controversial. He is refusing to follow NPOV policy. RK 15:13, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

You are having a problem. I seem to disturb no one else than you. And you seem to have received a false impression: I am rewriting nothing to match my beliefs, I am rather neutral on the subject. The article, however, is imbalanced in that gives too much space for minor topics and lacks the important. --217.229.4.2

Anyway, I have better things to do than argue with fanatics who can't stand to have one bit of "their" text altered. I leave it to the experts in Islamic science to wrinkle their noses about this article and Wikipedia. Gone. --217.229.4.2

User:Wik

  • Intent on a revert war on Richard Neustadt. Loves to revert text and delete information without making any comments as to why he's doing it. RickK 08:51, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • The reversion of information on Richard Neustadt was a mistake I acknowledged (I accidentally edited an old revision), unlike you who did the same recently on Bush dynasty. --Wik 20:56, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
  • User:Wik has a bad habit of making significant changes without an edit summary and repeatedly reverting without any explanation, he seems to be intent on starting edit wars and generally succeeds in raising the temperature much more often than the average Wikipedia editor. Examples include: Bush dynasty, Wroclaw, etc. Daniel Quinlan 20:44, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • Ferdinand Porsche, Gdansk, List of encyclopedias, 2002 Gujarat violence etc etc..
      • Do you have a point? I stated my reasons in all those cases and will continue to defend those articles against POV pushers or self-promoters. I guess you believe in just letting the vandals have their way. --Wik 21:15, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • Oh dear. Probably best to ban me before I scare away good users like Lir with my bad habit of insisting on NPOV and high encyclopaedic standards. --Wik 20:56, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • It's not just Lir you are fighting with though; it's people like Daniel Quinlan, Viajero and RickK. Your issues with Lir are irrelevant. Angela 20:58, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
      • I have no interest in fighting with them. They are fighting with me, apparently for the same reason I noted earlier regarding Antonio Martin. Some people take it personal when their errors are corrected. And I correct a lot of errors. --Wik 21:15, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
        • You correct a lot of errors, but that's no excuse for being rude, inconsiderate, and non-communicative. You may even be right, but it doesn't matter if you act like a bully. Daniel Quinlan 21:57, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
          • Show me a single question posed to me I didn't address, or any "rudeness" that wasn't clearly called for. --Wik 22:07, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • More Wik issues: Listing various people for desysoping without good reason. Listing pages for deletion to prove a point. Angela
      • Various or one? --Jiang
      • Two that I know of: Cordyph and AntonioMartin. Angela
        • And with the effect that Cordyph left, which is quite a loss IMHO. andy 08:59, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Your view that insults are acceptable behaviour for a sysop is noted. Also, I didn't list a page for deletion to "prove a point". Assuming you talk about EncycloZine I still think it should be deleted in line with the rules against advertising and against having articles about minor websites. But if the vote is for keeping it, it doesn't hurt much either. I was more concerned about its listing on List of encyclopedias, and when you suggested that it was OK to be listed there as long as it had an article, that prompted me to list it on VfD. --Wik 21:59, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • He consistently acts in a rude and inappropriate fashion, towards me. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • User:Wik has a keen eye for detail and catches many typos but has a grievous lack of social skills. This user exhibits a profoundly underdeveloped sense of collegiality, of given-and-take, of respect for other users' POV, which is a serious liablity in a collaborative environment like this one. The specifics of the given conflicts IMO are less important than the way in which Wik behaves in each of these cases; who is right or wrong is not the issue. Viajero 22:15, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • An interesting view. Right or wrong doesn't matter. Can't argue with that. Guess I don't have to point out then that you are wrong in saying I have no respect for other users' POV. I have always stated my view and respected majority POVs contrary to my own (unlike you, by the way, when you insist on your peculiar dashes). --Wik 22:38, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
      • Wik, please, can you try to deal with others here without resorting to sarcasm? I suspect you know Viajero was not trying to argue that "right or wrong doesn't matter", but rather that when discussion degrades to the wiki equivilent of a shouting match the signal can be lost in the noise. Your habits of resorting to sarcasm and personal sniping detracts rather than adds to communication. -- Infrogmation 01:02, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • More empty accusations. I've always acted professionally and avoided getting personal whenever possible. Read this whole section here and then tell me again that I am sniping. All I can say is, find yourselves another whipping boy, and leave those who actually want to improve the encyclopaedia alone. I would rather do something more constructive than having to defend myself here for nothing. --Wik 01:42, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
  • I'd agree in general with both statements—Wik is a good contributor, but more prone than many to engage in edit wars. I would prefer some more informative edit summaries, especially in controversial cases, but certainly wouldn't support banning or anything similar. --Delirium 22:18, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
    • What's wrong about being involved in an edit war per se? The alternative of ignoring errors, or correcting them only once but ignoring when the other side reverts it, is hardly a virtue. I'm always willing to talk, but usually my opponents are impervious to that, since they just want to push a POV. I'm not getting into edit wars with serious contributors that can be talked with. --Wik 22:38, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
      • Complete and utter nonesense. In my experience, you grudgingly respond on Talk pages only when it is demanded of you, half-heartedly agree to something, and then continue on doing exactly what you please. Even your choice of words -- "with serious contributors that can be talked with" -- reveals an unpleasant condescending attitude towards the people with whom you have to work. -- Viajero 13:00, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • I don't want to appear like feeling bitter, but Wik is the user who made me leaving the english Wikipedia after more than one year of editing. If you don't want to lose further editors, you should think about stronger steps against editors who are completely unable to follow the basic Wikiquette. The atmosphere here gets really poisoned through them. That is the only thing I want to say about this case. Just an advice, do whatever you want. -- Cordyph
      • This coming from one who called me "completely hopping mad" and took sides with a blatant POV pusher who called Poles "Polacken". But it's me who's violating Wikiquette! --Wik 23:04, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
        • When I used the word Polacken, which just means Poles, I was quite angry. I probably shouldn't have used that word though. Nico 03:04, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • This is a good example for the relation between Wik and the truth. It is true, that User Nico used the word "Polacken" twice on the Silesia talk page. The first time I told Nico: "Your style of discussion is unacceptable. You should apologise for your gaffe or stop discussing at all." (Oct 23) The second time I commented: "I told you above, that your wording is unacceptable. You may explain your opinion, but you must not insult other editors. Stop this childish behaviour, this is contrary to Wikipedia spirit." (Oct 23) This is still readable on Talk:Silesia/archive1. I really don't want to get involved into this again, but I don't want to see my name dragged through the mud here. -- Cordyph
          • It is also readable that you told Nico on his talk page: "Let me say, that I was obviously in error, when I said, that you are not interested in creating an NPOV article." Considering Nico's record this is laughable. He puts the Landsmannschaft Schlesien as the first link on Silesia, and you think he's interested in NPOV?! --Wik 23:49, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
            • One positive comment on a user talk page isn't the same as permanently taking sides with that person. Asking Nico to behave is more recent. I haven't looked far into this, but it doesn't seem fair to claim he was taking sides based on that. Κσυπ Cyp 00:08, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
              • You're mistaken. The positive comment dates from Oct 25, and his taking sides consisted mainly in protecting the page on Nico's revision, even though he must have seen that Nico was pushing a POV and I wasn't. I had to ask another sysop to restore the page to an earlier neutral version. --Wik 00:16, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
                • This is ridiculous. I inserted a link to Landsmannschaft Schlesien, a large organisation of Silesians, providing information on Silesian culture and history, when leaving links to 4 Polish-nationalistic organisations inserted by caius2ga.
                • User:Wik is a vandal pushing an extreme Polish nationalistic POV, and the only one who declared that he not was willing to make a compromise on Silesia. Instead, he continued to revert to his stupid, POV version without discussing. I invite anyone to have a look at the history and the talk page. My/Ruhrjung’s version was by the way protected not only by Cordyph, but three times by three admins because of Wik's actions. User:Wik’s behaviour leaded to all other non-Polish contributors left the Silesia article. Nico 03:04, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
                  • That version you are talking about was pushing German POV, inserting into INTRODUCTION sentence whose only goal was to say that Silesia was historical German province and belittle Polish history of the region, and all German contributors either called counter-proposition "Polish nationalism" or left, avoiding serious discussion. --[[User::szopen|szopen]]
      • Perhaps Cordyph felt his comments were "called for", Wik. What it comes down to is that people would like you to generally be nicer and more communicative. I know that a listing on this page is not the best way to communicate that, but would it really be so hard? -- Cyan 23:21, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Whatever he felt, they weren't called for, because I was acting correctly. Where exactly was I not nice, where was I uncommunicative (other than toward vandals)? --Wik 23:27, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
          • Wik, you are not nice to everyone unlucky enough to cross your path, probably most of the people in this thread. Daniel Quinlan 02:38, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
            • Come again when you can document anything. This is getting tiresome. --Wik 02:47, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
  • Well, let's see. You are persistently not nice and uncommunicative towards Lir, because, if I understand your reasoning below under Adam Carr's listing, he has not apologized to the community at large for his previous behavior, and so deserves no respect. In a recent edit war at Ferdinand Porsche, I had to prod you to get you to make your first edit to Talk:Ferdinand Porsche. The history and talk page of events on Bush dynasty is also revealing of your style of interaction. RickK made one error: he thought "occurrence" was spelled "occurence", and changed your correction of that word. (The timing of the edit makes it clear that it was not an edit conflict, but rather a genuine error.) In the following edit war with RickK, you did not attempt to explain why you were reverting him. This would be the "uncommunicative" part. Daniel Quinlan tried to point out that your policy of reverting without comment when you think that someone has overwritten you in an edit conflict was "decidedly unhelpful, unfriendly, and only serves to escalate matters," you couldn't see why he might be right. This would be an example of the "underdeveloped sense of collegiality [and] given-and-take" that Viajero noted. This edit is an example of you getting unnecessarily personal. You also threw Cordyph's "hopping mad" comment back in his face right on this page, even though he apologized over a week ago. Besides these specifics, you have generally managed to give a bad impression of yourself to Angela, Daniel Quinlan, RickK, Viajero, John Kenney, Infrogmation, and myself, in addition to out-and-out antagonizing Lir, Cordyph, and Nico. Now compare your behavior to the standard set by Wikipedia:Wikiquette and please, please, tell me you can see why people are being critical of you. -- Cyan 04:55, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I consider Lir and Nico vandals and I don't bother to talk with them. Crucify me for that. As to RickK, I made the problem quite clear in the edit summaries and I have explained my general policy on this point over and over. (By the way, he did not change the spelling actually, he said he did not touch the whole paragraph and has no idea how it got reverted. But in most of those cases it's an edit conflict.) I threw Cordyph's comment back in his face only when he started attacking me here again. So, is that all you can come up with? Would you like to make a list of Lir's record and compare this? Or maybe I should just get myself banned and unbanned again to clear my record to become as virtuous as him? If those users you name have a bad impression of me, they should make a specific case, otherwise I can only say "likewise". This is simple mobbing, but it only falls back upon you as any neutral observer can check out the facts. --Wik 05:11, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
  • Id be interested in seeing what you come up with for my record. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • Maybe later. -- Cyan 06:17, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Please clarify: which edits have the summary which makes the problem clear to RickK? I have no desire to crucify you, Wik. (As I noted before, this whole page is only for attacking people, and isn't likely to be constructive. I continue in order to avoid a forest fire, and because I know you are watching here.) Nor do I wish to compare you with Lir, whose problems as a contributor are irrelevant to yours. My own opinion of you is somewhere around Delirium's and Infrogmation's. I guess what I perceive in you is a belief other people's transgressions somehow justify your own, and that being right is better than being friendly. I believe that in an ongoing collaborative project such as this, such a posture must eventually lead to bad feelings, thus inhibiting collaboration. What do you think? -- Cyan 06:17, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This one: "do your edits on the basis of my revision, and I don't have to revert, but you're re-adding errors I corrected many hours ago". I did not comment in the first two reversions, assuming the issue was rather obvious from the diff. I did not expect an edit war. But when my corrections kept getting reverted, I made the above summary, and another comment on the talk page. Note that RickK didn't comment his reversals either or ask what the problem was. And after all it was he who reverted me first. So by no stretch of the imagination can I be blamed more than RickK for this incident. As to the comparison with Lir, I think it is rather interesting considering those who attack me here give him largely a free pass. What "transgressions" of mine are you talking about? I still haven't seen any complaint that remotely holds water and justifies my being listed on this page. I think this page speaks for itself as to who is not friendly here. --Wik 06:38, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)

See, now that's communicating! Do more of that, please. :-) I'm not trying to blame either you or RickK, but rather show you one instance in which a misunderstanding could have been averted if you had been more forthcoming. (Psst, you said "edit summaries", as in "more than once". Of course, only one edit summary was necessary to stop the problem - I just wish it had been your first edit, not your fourth.) About the transgressions thing, some of your stated personal policies are:

  • if I think someone's pushing a POV agenda (semantic issue: NPOV violations aren't vandalism), I don't need to communicate with them on the Talk page, and it's okay to revert them;
  • if I think someone's overpasted me in an edit conflict, I don't need to sort the good from the bad - I can just revert;
  • if I think someone's attacked me, it's okay if I attack them (cf. Cordyph)

All of these follow the same pattern:

  • if I think someone's doing something bad, then I can violate Wikipedia:Wikiquette when I deal with them

There are two problems with this approach: first, you might be mistaken about the other person's intentions, like with RickK, who intended no harm. Then you've alienated someone, even though it would have been easy to be co-operative instead. Second, even if the other person has done something wrong, that is not sufficient reason to violate Wikiquette. Morally speaking, two wrongs do not make a right. Practically speaking, all you'll be doing is pouring fuel on the fire. From what I've seen, a more constructive approach is be, well, curious about why someone is acting the way they are. It makes it much easier to thrash out the issues so that everyone is satisfied. About Lir: I'm leaving him out of this because I don't want to get off-topic, but briefly, I think Lir's biggest problem is that he's thin-skinned. I believe his past behaviour has been forgiven, and he's generally considered to be a contributor in good standing - even JT, with whom he clashed with over an archived vote shortly after being unbanned, thinks so. -- Cyan 07:28, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • True to form, User:Wik steadfastly maintains that he is always right and refuses to give a millimeter to his critics. Worse, he self-righteously backs word by deed by continuing to fiddle with Richard Neustadt and provoke edit wars with Lir, even while this discussion is taking place. To his credit, Lir backed off in the most recent war of attrition. So, it looks like any solution to this situation will be an "imposed" one rather than a negotiated one. And that is a great pity. -- Viajero 10:45, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User:Adam Carr

  • Adam Carr is biased anti-Polish chauvinist. He utterred to the sentence

"It is not adequate to say that "some Poles were anti-Semites." Most Poles were anti-Semites" Talk:History_of_Poland_(1939-1945). I do not even believe that most of Germans were Nazis at the time of Hitler. Why we tolerate such a biased POV in Wikipedia? GH

Many historians do believe that the great majority of Poles, Germans and Austrians were anti-Semitic at this time. This is not as controversial as you think. There are many articles and books by mainstream scholars on this subject. RK 15:13, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
Oh boy; Could you please reveal list of your history teachers? They belong to the mainstream scholars, if dr. Goebbels belongs too. And it is better to register their names, because we should know names of cheauvinistic bigots. Let me advice something: read more resources and original materials and be critical towards historians. Next time, they tell you that some big group is EVIL (as they just told you) it might be again Ashkenezi Jews.

By the way, do you know, that your ancestors come from Krakow?GH

  • He is consistently going out of his way to belittle me. This edit is a good example: [1] -- 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)
      • What has Lir done since he came back that has not deserved respect? Lir IMHO has acted responsibly and honourably since he came back, and I say that as an outspoken critic of his previous behaviour. Everyone on wikipedia is entitled to respect until they demonstrate otherwise. And I have seen not one iota of a reason to treat Lir with anything less since he returned. I wish other past vandals could show similar determination to reform. Having severely criticised his behaviour in the past I am not someone given to expressions of 'fake respect', much less hypocrisy. But I have seen no evidence to warrant continuous criticism of him. And I say that as an admirer of Adam Carr's work but who nevertheless believes in this case that he went too far and was unfair and wrong. FearÉIREANN 23:43, 31 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
        • I was never a vandal. Lirath Q. Pynnor
          • Here's his admission: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Pizza_Puzzle&action=history. And how true it is. Nobody does stop it, evidently. --Wik 21:59, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
            • For crying out loud Wik, stop acting the bully. Lir's behaviour in the past was not defensible. But he has said he will not behave that way again. Jimbo has accepted that. The people on the list accepted that. And since he came back he has acted reasonably and responsibly, unlike his critics who have been acting like spoiled four year olds trying to trip him up and being abusive. Grow up and get over it. If he acts that way again, then tackle him on it. But if he doesn't, then he is as entitled as everyone else to be treated fairly. Stop the carping and whining and act like the responsible user you usually are. FearÉIREANN 00:21, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
              • He said he will not behave that way again? Then how do you explain that he says just here "I was never a vandal"? Does that sound like taking responsibility? And in any case, I have never seen any such statement from him, so just because Jimbo accepted that, I don't have to. And what authority do "people on the list" have? (By the way, what is it - am I a bully or am I whining? This doesn't seem to go together well.) --Wik 01:56, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
                • I was not banned for being a vandal; I was banned over other issues. Lirath Q. Pynnor

User:Wanwan

  • A new user who feels it's his right to make policy. Seems to be another sock puppet intent on only putting votes on the VfD page. RickK 04:09, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Not entirely sure he's a sock puppet, but certainly behavior is obnoxious and unusual for a 24 hour-old user. Started Wikipedia:Deletion_policy edit war without explaining changes or discussing with others. Fuzheado 04:16, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Judging by the logs, either s/he's not Princess Toadstool, or s/he's doing a very good job of pretending. Based on the logs alone, I would say there is no evidence that they're the same. However, Wanwan isn't a newbie. -- Tim Starling 05:50, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

User:203.197.16.2

Undoubtedly the same person as User:203.197.24.195. Places Indian-nationalist POV material and Aryan-invasion-denial (a valid POV, but contrary to what he writes just a minority one) on pages like History of South Asia, Foreign relations of Pakistan, Aryan invasion theory, Indus Valley Civilization. Has gotten autoreverted by various people. Andre Engels 13:17, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've found (and fixed) several problematic edits to pages from these IPs; the trickiest to fix was History of India. But one thing I'm not sure about is an edit to Seleucus I Nicator; does anyone know if this change is accurate? -- VV 06:55, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
A Google search shows that at least this is something that more sources claim. From the look of it, I would say that it seems like a valid edit. Andre Engels 10:49, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

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 (& Macarenaman, Panochik, Hamton)

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)
I think Macarenaman's edits were less edit-a-few-then-jump-to-VfD, though may still be suss, I don't know. Dysprosia 08:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Tim checked the logs (see: User:Tim Starling/Log segment 1), after I aked on the pump, and it seems that User:Macarenaman,User:Princess Toadstool, User:Panochik, and probably User:Hamton are all the same person, and created mainly or solely for voting on vfd. They seem most interested in keeping articles like dork or Yellow Pig Day. Maximus Rex 14:31, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I was suspicious of Hamton, too, thanks for confirming my suspicions. RickK 03:01, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The same pattern as User:Panochik. RickK 03:30, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The same red flags for Wanwan. Kingturtle 03:34, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I think it's best to give Wanwan the benefit of the doubt in terms of identity. -- Tim Starling 05:52, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)
I've just been doing some more log searching. There is an intriguing similarity between:
  • Tester
  • Wartortle
  • Donnie Ng
  • Princess Toadstool
  • Macarenaman
  • Panochik
  • Hamton
But NOT Wanwan. It's a curious personality quirk, and in my experience it's quite rare -- maybe 10% of trolls. Do you want me to say what it is publicly? I'm afraid that if I say it, s/he will stop doing it. -- Tim Starling 06:15, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)
How could you tease us like this? :) Fuzheado 06:33, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I've emailed Fuzheado. Who else wants to know? -- Tim Starling 07:33, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)
I do! (I don't have my email info in my user page, but I think you have it somewhere, Tim, let me know if you don't) Dysprosia 07:43, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
Oh, say it publically. (or e-mail me if there's a good reason not to). Angela
Alright Angela, if you say so. I just happened to have it here in PHP format, so I thought I'd just upload it into the PHP directory on the server, that way I don't have to go to the effort of converting it to wikitext. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/tester.php -- Tim Starling 08:48, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)
Nice hunting, Tim :) Dysprosia 10:53, 29 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[2], 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 [3]. 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)

That's not entirely correct. During the 1500s through the Partition, it had a significant German-speaking population (at times a majority), who called it Danzig; the Polish-speaking population called it Gdansk during that period. Arthur Schopenhauer, for example, is universally agreed to have been born in Danzig, not in Gdansk, as he spoke not a word of Polish (and he was born before the Partition, in 1780). It's only after 1945 that the city has been unequivocably been called Gdansk by everyone. --Delirium 03:47, Oct 29, 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: [4] -- I find his actions to be inappropriate and unacceptable. Lirath Q. Pynnor


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
  1. 23:01, Oct 13, 2003 User:Opus33
  2. 23:00, Oct 13, 2003 User:Wartortle
  3. 23:00, Oct 13, 2003 User:Josh Cherry
  4. 22:59, Oct 13, 2003 User:Donnie Ng
  5. 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)
        • ;-)

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: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 [5] and Gerald O'Hara from [6] 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=1668353"