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 Mr-Natural-Health (talk | contribs) at 22:17, 7 December 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you find yourself discouraged from contributing to Wikipedia because of a particular user, please use this page to discuss the matter.

Alternatives to airing problems 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
  • Assume good faith -- 99% of editors are trying to help. Teach, don't chastise, unless the evidence for bad faith becomes overwhelming.
  • Forgive and forget -- life's too short to bear grudges.
  • Follow Wikipedia Ahimsa. Don't allow yourself to be hurt; to hurt others; to allow others to be hurt. Do try to accomodate other people's views.

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 to this page

In general, time spent publically complaining about other users is less productive than an equal amount of time spent writing encyclopedia articles. Still, if you must complain, please:

  • Do not add a user to this page without deep meditation on the subject. Be sure that your addition will be productive, and beneficial to the encyclopedia.
  • 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. If it's a dispute over specific article content, it should probably be discussed in the talk page or reffered to wikipedia:Current disputes over articles.
  • 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 the most recent additions at the top of this page.

Recommendations for removing text from this page

  • If the consensus after sufficient discussion (perhaps more than a few people) and sufficient time (depends on nature of problem) is that a user is not a problem user, just wipe the entry.
  • If the user in question hasn't edited Wikipedia for a fair while, just wipe the entry.
  • If the situation has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, or the user has ceased the behaviour that caused the problem, just wipe the entry.
  • If the discussion has become too long for this page, the user is still active, and a number of people agree that the user is still exibiting the problem, then a subpage may be created for the discussion of a particular user. Subpages created inappropriately are subject to immediate deletion.

Wiping the entry may seem a bit callous, but it's all part of the joy of forgive and forget. Since we strongly recommend against anyone ever using this page, we don't mind terribly about deleting stuff on here as it becomes out of date, irrelevant, or just tedious. Besides, there's always the full version history. On the other hand, don't wipe your own entry - leave it to someone else to make that judgement. You can't force forgiveness on the community.

If the consensus (suggested at least 2/3 of people) is that a user is a problem user, has not improved their behavior significantly, and some experienced users agree that banning may be the best option, then it is suggested that you bring it to the attention of Jimbo via private email (unless you are also listed here in which case it is advised that you stay out of it). You can bring it earlier or later if you want, this is just a recommendation.

List of conflicts

Please state the problem you are having with another user.

Most recent at top.

Taw

User:Taw, a sysop, has decided that only the Polish names for the German-Polish border rivers can be used, although clearly the 'German' names are more popular in English as indicated by Google and confirmed by several native English speakers. A revert war has broken out.

  • "Oder River" 4,640 [1]
  • "Odra River" 2,690 [2]

Maximus Rex 18:19, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

After speaking to Taw on IRC and on his user page we explained that the English names for two rivers and the German-Polish border are Oder (not Odra), Neisse (not Nysa) and Oder-Neisse Line (nor Orda-Nysa). He keeps reverting to the Polish spellings and will not compromise. Google has many more hits for Oder and Neisse and native English speakers from England, the US and Canada agree.

I don't want a reversion war but this is just bloody-mindness bordering on vandalism.

Secretlondon 18:21, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

On IRC he admitted that he thinks English users should 'switch' and that '58 years' was enough time for that, thus implicitly agreeing that is not currently the most used form in English at the moment. Morwen 18:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just for the record: Encyclopedia Britannica uses the German spelling, while noting the Polish & Czech spellings. (As should we) [3] --snoyes 18:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If I read "Orda-Nysa", I have absolutely no idea what is being talked about. It's "Oder-Neisse" in English. taw is being reverted by at least half a dozen people on a slew of articles. Daniel Quinlan 18:38, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Taw has said on IRC that he is not going to compromise on this. So what do we do now? One for the arbritration committee? Secretlondon 18:48, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see that, but expect Taw would not feel bound by a decision in our favour, or even a compromise. Morwen 18:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nothing like a good ol' misrepresentation of what someone said: 

<secretlondon> taw: so you have no intention of compromising on this?
<taw> secretlondon: no
<taw> at least if your definition of "compromise" is to stfu and go away

And I never claimed that Oder/Neisse are English names now.

Let me quote what you said
taw: so it's high time for you to switch
taw: you had some 58 years now
I assume you aren't referring to any of us personally, but to the English language, since probably none of us are that old. Morwen 19:20, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There are many Nysa Something/Neisse Something rivers (see Nysa for incomplete list). Calling one of them Neisse (without appropriate adjective), and leaving others as Nysa Something it just silly.

Oder and Neisse aren't original names but borrowings from Slovian languages (Polish/Czech). Odra and Nysa are official names now. Most English-speaking people who would ever care to discuss these rivers live somewhere around them and use their Slovian names. Google is divided on the issue. Taw 18:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

They are the official Polish names, not the names commonly used in English. Google is somewhat divided on the issue, but it's 2-to-1 for Oder and Neisse, plus that's what most native English speakers use. Daniel Quinlan 19:02, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
Also, I'm not sure that I should take English lectures from someone who thinks 'Slovian' is an English word. Do you mean West Slavic, perchance? Morwen 19:06, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Taw also made an Oder-to-Odra edit on Silesia, which is a protected page, thus abusing his sysop powers in pursuit of his obsession. --Zundark 19:15, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It does not seem that Taw followed the protected page guidelines in that case. He did not discuss it in advance on talk and there is a NPOV dispute (between taw and the rest of the English Wikipedia, apparently) over the naming of the Oder River. Taw, would you please revert your change to Silesia? Daniel Quinlan 19:34, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
I've reverted to the protected version. It should not have been edited at all whilst protected. Angela. 19:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
This person should at least be desysoped Nico 20:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On IRC, Taw claims have created an 'odrabot' to change the names automatically. Saying: 

<taw> i think i'll make an odrabot
 [snip]
<taw> odrabot complete ;-)
<taw> but i'm not going to run in
<taw> still, it may be useful in future


Since they are a developer, I have no reason to doubt that they have made such a bot, or at least they are certainly capable of making one. Maximus Rex 21:00, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mr-Natural-Health

Seems User:Mr-Natural-Health (contributions) has decided to take Uncle Ed's friendly advice as some sort of challenge -- see his own talk page before deleting the content, Ed's talk page where he wrote STOP mailing me your retarded comments. and Ed's "watchlist" subpage -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 06:16, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mr-Natural-Health has admitted that he will vandalize our website even if banned. Please take action immediately. Although many Wikipedia users have privately contacted him over the last few days (see his User page), he has ignored them all, and has publicly threatened to change his ISP address on a regular basis in order to avoid a ban. He also is making remarks about a user's religion, and has repeatedly stated that he will refuse to abide by group consensus. Please see his out of control personal remarks on the Talk:Alternative medicine page and on Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. He essentially has made public and explicit admission of intent to committ vandalism on a regular basis. I agree with the other Wikipedia users who have given him warnings on his user page; he needs to be banned. RK 18:45, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Mr-Natural-Health has just wrote a series of offensive statements to me on my User page, by admitting that he is a Nazi. He is totally out of control. Can some please ban him, please? This is not only not funny, it is scary. RK 21:47, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)
In regards, to Ed_Poor, I the user decide what I want on MY user page *not* Ed Poor.--Mr-Natural-Health 09:16, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


People who protect my user page and don't provide e-mail addresses are on the very low end of the ethical spectrum. Websites, like this one, without standard forms of contact, privacy polices, and formalized complaint procedures are at the low end of the quality spectrum. Plain enough?--Mr-Natural-Health 12
15, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Furthermore, email addresses are not an option it is a requirement for proper internet social behavior! User privacy is not an option, it is a requirement! Standard forms of contract through email addresses on a website is not an option, it is a requirement! This form of gossip / mob rule is not only un-social -- it is downright animalistic behavior that belongs to inmates in prison and a pack of wild dogs.
I am going to continue to edit as I see fit. The choice is between doing it all on one account or randomly between several dozen different ISP addresses that I have access to. Any further contact between me and your apes is going to be done the proper way through private email via this website. It is an requirement, not an option.--Mr-Natural-Health 16:26, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I removed some comments towards Ed. Politeness, Mr Natural Health, to be respected here. Muriel Victoria 16:44, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have no respect for you unless you have earned that respect from me. You have not! You cannot even control the simple edit of a simple article like Alternative medicine.--Mr-Natural-Health This is a polished version by me Muriel Victoria
Mr Natural Health refers to this sentence: "Alternative medicine is about alternative methods of treatment that actually work and not kill people like chemo does" which i removed from the article's introduction. Muriel Victoria 17:35, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
That was a cute edit of mine. Why not, after all? If RK can do his number on it, I can post a perfectly reasonable opinion like that one too. After all, it has just about as much POV in it as the current version of Alternative Medicine does. You would think that in this point in time, doing a simple write up on a top node article would as simple as 1-2-3.--Mr-Natural-Health 21:06, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Further, I would like to file a complaint against who every protected my user page. I find it a total outrage. A total violation of my user privacy. These same people don't even provide for private email contact. It seems that I don't like to be violated by a bunch of busy-bodies. And, I am telling YOU that, point blank. If RK don't have to follow the rules, stop crying to me about your pathetic little attempts to control others.--Mr-Natural-Health 09:13, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Mr. NH and I are in a conflict about heroic medicine. He says I edited the article while protected, which I didn't do. In fact, I didn't protect it in the first place. -- Pakaran 08:54, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I think that a busy-body is a person who likes to waste time.--Why don't we discuss that issue for six months?--Mr-Natural-Health 09:13, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This user (Mr-Natural-Health) has:

  1. Made few if any useful contributions that I can see in the Wikipedia namespace;
  2. Unnecessarily rude and combative interpersonal interaction habits;
  3. Not made any attempt beyond tantrum to defend his actions

Can we ban him now? (Personally I think that's a good guideline; with any user who fits all three criteria we should be able to just go for it.) (Addendum: we should probably give it a week or so to see if the situation improves, which we've done in this case.)- Hephaestos 17:59, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, we can't. Only one person is supposed to ban a logged-in user, and he has not commented to any extent on Mr-Natural-Health.
There have been about fifteen messages on the list already; perhaps someone should summarize the discussion here, especially as regards Mr. NH's threats to contribute even if blocked, and his "interesting" interpretations of NPOV. I would do so myself, but I am driving back to campus and will be offline until at least 5 PM (eastern). -- Pakaran 20:18, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
The "only one person is supposed to ban a logged-in user" comment is not strictly true. Any sysop can ban a logged in user for cases of "simple vandalism" (Jeezis is Lard!, Soilguy2) and secondly, Jimbo has said he doesn't have time to make banning decisions now, so it would presumably be up to the new arbitration committee to make this decision. Also, there have been numerous cases of logged in users being banned without any comment from Jimbo before the event (RK, BuddhaInside), and sometimes no comment after it (Nightcrawler, Chris Jones, Non-liberals are stupid). Angela. 20:47, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I going for another try... Muriel Victoria 18:03, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)


I agree that disciplinary action needs to be taken against mister healthy food. He doesn't follow any of the wikipedia rules and is therefore is a "simple vandal." While I may not agree with the people who have opposite viewpoints from mister healthy, I think that Mister healthy's views are irrelevant. He could have used other ways of improving the article(and it did have some POV), but instead he resorted to namecalling. He should have been panned prior to this. Alexandros 20:55, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

At times like this, I would just like to add that the people who have responded to this zoo like exhibition of animalistic mob behavior are the ring leaders of the gang of thugs, in this joint.

This is the kind of privacy protection, that my mother warned me about. Do you thugs steal credit card account numbers, too? I vote for this website to be banished from the Internet.  :(

Just my opinion, but I am right as usual.  :) --Mr-Natural-Health 21:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

He wrote the following on RK's Talk page:

Mr-Natural-Health, The German Nazi from New York

RickK 22:11, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Gang of thugs delete:

Suggested changes for when the page becomes unprotected

in talk on how to improve Alternative medicine without it is showing up in page history.

Very slick gang of thugs. You are obviously operating at the highest levels of corruption.--Mr-Natural-Health 22:16, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)~

Caius2ga vs Nico

In Talk:Gdansk user Nico seems to be censoring the discussions page by removing the comments by Spacecadet.

Seems to have an intrest to make sure that there is a bold German Name of a City in each article. See Kaliningrad and Poznan. Seems to dissaggre with the Lower Silesia map which has beent here long before he came along. 24.2.152.139 17:23, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nico is constantly vandalizing several pages like Gdansk, Torun, Szczecin, Silesia, Upper Silesia, Lower Silesia, and others. He activities are very annoying because he introduces Germans names everywhere, especially outside of Germany. He intriduces a biased extreme-German version of historical events and even erases information about Nazi concentration camps. -- Caius2ga 12:44, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I confirm that Nico is constantly censoring the Talk pages erasing what he doesn't like in other users opinion showing that he is wrong. He also enters into edit wars in the Talk pages if others want to revert his vandalism. Nico constantly erases all complains about his person, for example in this page -- Caius2ga 12:47, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to ban Caius2ga now (last time I read the WikiEn-list he was about to be banned, don't now the current status). He recently vandalized my user page (see history), and he continue to spam this page with ridiculous and shameless lies. The fact is that Caius2ga DELETED my comment from Talk:Gdansk and I then reverted the page. Furthermore, I changed his misleading heading at Talk:Silesia from "Neutral version" to "Caius2ga's version". That's not censorship.

According to IP 24.2.152.139 (c-24-2-152-139.client.comcast.net), he is a known vandal, unworthy to comment. Nico 17:44, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nico seems well able to keep up with Caius2ga abusewise; I'd be in favor of banning the pair of them because both of them seem unable to stop fighting. Stan 18:13, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Ridiculous. He is attacking me. Shouldn't I be supposed to defend myself? Nico 18:23, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
"ridiculous and shameless lies"? That sounds like an attack to me, not "defense". It's against the rules to delete comments written by other people - I had a look at the history of this page, you're clearly guilty on that count, and I haven't seen an apology anywhere. Fortunately for you, Jimbo is super-nice; if I were in charge, you'd have been gone the second time you made an ad hominem attack on anybody, vandal or no. Stan 21:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Pardon? Who was deleting comments? When someone vandalize the page and delete my comments, I revert. Finito! And I don't have time for this nonsense. You know nothing about the case. Come back when you have studied the page histories of the pages they mention, Kaliningrad (with talk), Silesia, Talk:Silesia (with archives 4, 5 and 6) and the vandal's talk page: User talk: 24.2.152.139. According to Caius2ga, see for instance http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008514.html. Nico 23:06, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
(personal attacks from User:Stan Shebs striked)
I've undone all the strikes, because that is childish. BTW, the message you link to mentions you as one of the "main combatants", which does not exactly help make your case! And I have indeed read all the back and forth - not easy when the participants delete the parts they don't like. You and Caius2ga need to cool it before you make enemies out of the people you need to have as allies. Stan 00:47, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Caius2ga was able to contribute much to wikipedia. Let's hope Nico and Caius2ga will find some agreement..

81.130.175.55 v. Leumi

81.130.175.55 Constantly removes anything negative about Norman Finkelstein on various pages related to him. Not sure if this qualifies as vandalism or simple obnoxious reverting. Oh, and makes personal attacks, starting many explanations for reverts by accusing me of sympathizing with the Irgun. Leumi

Leumi puts the same 'Finkelstein has been accused of Holocaust Denier, Anti-Semite etc' in EVERY article related to Finkelstein. Since calling Finkelstein a Holocaust Denier in the Palestinian Refugee revision history, Leumi has been intent on inserting this into every article which mentions Finkelstein, attributing it to 'various groups' .This is indicative of non-neutral bias. He then claimed in the Norman Finkelstein talk page that ' I didn't say the accusations were true'. Leumi also deletes any criticism of his dishonesty.

You recently added "Leumi also deletes any criticism of his dishonesty".

Well I checked User 81. And removing Personal attacks is within the rules. Furthermore, this "criticism" was nothing more than a constantly repeated phrase accusing me of vandalism. Frankly speaking, at this point I'm tired of responding to you. So you now go rant as much as you want on this page, but I'm not going to respond to your provocations here anymore. However, I insist you stop your attacks on me in various Talk sections, as it goes against the rules of Wikipedia. (Will add this at the bottom as it is most recent) Leumi


I will repeat what I have already said in response to this: I have already stated that these statements are necessary to place in context Finkelstein's accusations against others, which are the only areas in which I have placed them in (two pages) in addition to his biography and book on the Holocaust where they have obvious relevance, furthermore, I have already explained that while I do believe they are true, I will not put that they were true in the article in the interest of neutral phrasing. I feel they should be included as they add necessary context. Furthermore, I would like to request an apology and a retraction of personal attacks you've made against me with no relevance to the actual discussion. (saying my name is taken from the name of the Irgun when it is in fact just a regular commonly used Hebrew word meaning national, and calling me "an irgun sympathizer" who was the last to edit the Irgun page)
After lying twice you expect ME to apologise? That's chutzpah. Stop your vandalism immeadiately. I will no longer edit said pages, since I know you will continue to vandalise them by putting in the same Finkelstein has been accused of Holocaust Denier, Anti-Semite etc' in all of them. Reader's of Wikipedia should be made fully aware of your agenda.
There are rules against personal attacks, furthermore I have already taken time to refute all your claims of lies, and I would like to request an apology for your personal attacks on me, of which are illegal and counterproductive. You, might I add, have instered the words:
"This page is inaccurate because of Leumi's continuing vandalism"
AND
"Leumi has vandalised several pages by putting the same 'Finkelstein has been accused of being a Holocaust Denier, Anti-Semite etc' in EVERY article related to Finkelstein. Since originally calling Finkelstein a Holocaust Denier in the Palestinian Refugee revision history, Leumi has been intent on inserting this into every article which mentions Finkelstein, attributing it to 'various groups' .This is indicative of non-neutral bias. He later claimed in the Norman Finkelstein talk page that ' I didn't say the accusations were true'"

On every page I have written in recently. That is vandalism and personal attacks, both illegal on this page. You have also vandalized my User Talk entry, which is highly against the rules.

You recently added "Leumi also deletes any criticism of his dishonesty". Well I checked User 81. And removing Personal attacks is within the rules. Furthermore, this "criticism" was nothing more than a constantly repeated phrase accusing me of vandalism. Frankly speaking, at this point I'm tired of responding to you. So you now go rant as much as you want on this page, but I'm not going to respond to your provocations here anymore. However, I insist you stop your attacks on me in various Talk sections, which I will delete if they contain no substance and are just constantly repeated versions of the same phrase, as it goes against the rules of Wikipedia. Leumi

I should note the I'm not the only one who is sick of Leumi's biased behaviour. In Talk:Palestinian_refugee, User:Zero0000 notes "I will not work on this page any more as it is a waste of time. The first three paragraphs contain some salvagable material but the rest is rubbish. Leumi's long paragraph is just standard right-wing "bash the victims" stuff. He didn't even bother to put in the key part of the UNRWA definition despite proving above that he knows about it. Then follow two standard junk "quotations" from people who are so important that that the internet never heard of them except for endless regurgitation of these "quotations". (I bet nobody here can even prove they existed.) After that, childish apologetics that even includes citation of the notorious racist forgery "From Time Immemorial". Having it there brings shame on Wikipedia, but with people around who think it is "scholarly" what is the point of trying to do anything about it?"

[[Leumi] has now taken to continually removing a quote from The Holocaust Industry article and replacing it with text that is already on another page.

Angelique & Mathieugp with User:Tremblay and USER: 66.130.171.30

I removed this here from Village Pump Muriel Victoria 16:04, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm new here and not certain if this is the proper page to be writing on so if not, someone please move it to the appropriate spot. I came across the article History of Quebec and was rather surprised to see it was far from encyclopedic in nature being little more than manipulated writing to provide a political slant. I tried fixing it but User:Mathieugp, deltes anything factual that is not to his political liking and removes links to other articles and words things far from a NPOV. I see that I’m not the only one with a problem with User:Mathieugp’s conduct, another user complained about his similar behaviour. Too, I see where User:Angela had to post a notice on his page saying: I have removed attacks made by you against others on Talk:Quebecois and strongly urge you to read the guidelines regarding no personal attacks. Angela 23:48, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC). I am not interested in constantly having to change the deliberate propaganda and deletions of fact by this user. People like that ruin any pleasure one gets from contributing here. In fact, I really want nothing whatsoever to do with someone who abuses Wikipedia to promote their personal views and who launches vicious personal attacks. I suggest a Wikipedia Administrator do whatever necessary to put an end to this type of action that denegrates the sincere work being done by the many excellent contributors to the Wikipedia project. Thank you. Angelique 15:58, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(I moved the following here from vandalism in progress --snoyes 14:30, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC))

User:Angelique has been reverting to an earlier version of her own on 3 (or more) occasions. We are at least 2 users to have told Angelique to stop removing other peoples' dated events as part of History of Quebec. (See Talk:History_of_Quebec). On various occasions she accused me and User:Tremblay of pushing a "cause" which she never named and suggested that I had racist views, all the while adding a good number of paragraphs that are objectively anti everything that is Catholic and/or French. We have invited her to explain what was wrong with the things we inserted. She did not reply once, continuing to claim that it was all propaganda and lies in order to justify her removing it. I don't know what to do with that. I am not in the mood for a war of revert. Mathieugp 14:24, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mathieugp and I have repeatedly invited Angelique to have a dialogue with us to hopefully clarify the passages she deems inappropriate. Unfortunately, she has ignored these requests and continues to revert to her own version of edits with "It's massive propaganda" as the only explanation.

Recently she's resorted to name-calling, and there is no doubt as to her bias on the issues being discussed. Tremblay 18:53, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I will not discuss false assertions and racist remarks that state I and all others are anti-Semites. I will remove them. Example: "Later, when such opinions weren't uncommon for North American and European Christians, he (Lionel Groulx) denounced Jews and supported the Nazis in Germany." -- I am a North American who is not anti-Semitic nor is anyone I know. There is no room for this kind of slander in Wikipedia. It is an embarassment to all of us who are sincerely trying to make their best and honest contributions. Angelique 20:25, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From what you've just quoted he's not accusing you of being anti-semitic. He's saying that anti-semitism was more prevalent than now in North America - not saying that all North Americans are anti-semitic, or Nazis or whatever. It's not a personal attackSecretlondon 20:32, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
There is a long list of awful things said and done on the back of Jews by members of the powerful Anglo-Protestant elite of Canada as well as the former Catholic elite of French Canada (Quebec), which was indirectly ruled by the later. There is the "none is too many" of McKenzie King, then Prime Minister of Canada, and the "they own too much" of Peladeau. I don't think it would serve any good to compare the two cases, but if it were to be done, there would be more than enough evidence to proove that the oppressed French Canadian minority of Canada had better things to do than oppress another minority group such as the Jews. There is a place to discuss and inform people on anti-semitism and racism. What you are doing is something else: The amalgamation of a bunch of quotes and statistics taken out of their context in the hope of portraying today's Quebec nationalists as monsters comparable to the Nazis. All it succeeds in doing is to nourish sentiments of hatred towards an entire people. Mathieugp 21:05, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Also, USER: 66.130.171.30 is me (don't know why it didn't show my name) --- Ok, I guess I wasn't 66.130.171.30 then. :-) User:Mathieugp 19:04, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The following reprimands for unacceptable conductis from Mathieugp's talk page which he deleted:

I have removed attacks made by you against others on Talk:Quebecois and strongly urge you to read the guidelines regarding no personal attacks. Angela 23:48, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I was referring to statements you made such as "you are hopeless" and "all morons who are brainwashed". Try to talk about the content of the article, not who wrote it. Read Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot and try not to get angry with other contributors, no matter how poorly they might be behaving. Angela 22:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I thought I should add to this that I have offered to mediate on this article, as I am somewhat knowledgeable about the topic (I am not one of those new official mediators or anything though). Mathieugp and Tremblay have no problem with this and are willing to see if I can make some sense out of timeline they have there now, but Angelique has either ignored my offer or told me I have no facts, or whatever (see my talk page). The others agreed to take a week off, and I know there is nothing stopping Angelique from editing it, but she is not being very helpful. Adam Bishop 16:49, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

With the continual removing of information, moving of pages, accusations that I am somehow violating policy, I can no longer be bothered to attempt to fix the History of Quebec page at all (or the Timeline of Quebec History, where it has been moved to). I am also not really neutral anymore, since I've started taking sides in the issue. I am going to go back to editing stuff on things very few people care about so I can avoid all this nonsense. Sorry! Adam Bishop 19:25, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User:MINDBOMB

From his own user page and his edits his aim here is to propagandise against Islam. This means that none of his edits will ever be POV. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the place for crusadesSecretlondon 00:22, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

  • I thought that this user could be a problem. If they can express their viewpoint in a NPOV fashion then MINDBOMB would not be such a problem, but from the edit to Muhammed I'm not sure this will happen... Dysprosia 00:27, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • His user page now complains that he has had most of his content removed. I explained NPOV to him on his user talk page, but he has yet to reply there or on mine (may not have discovered it?) I think he feels slighted as a contributor, maybe justifiably so in his own mind, but I find it hard to understand how someone could edit here for so long and think that implying that Muhammad admitted to being a terrorist was NPOV. I think MB can be a good contributor one day, but there's just some stuff he needs to understand first. -- Pakaran 00:58, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


User:Igor

Igor is a Serbian nationalist who is constantly modifying anything even remotely related to that topic to present views highly resembling those of Slobodan Milosevic. For a few months now, I tried to reason with him in various Talk pages, to no avail. He is known to make changes without any explanation, and when he does provide explanations, they only make it more obvious that one is dealing with a rabid zealot.

Some shining examples of his bias and being unhelpful include but are hardly limited to:

  • Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy and its no less evil twin brother -- some sort of a terrorist hitlist, full of assertions and insidious insinuations. Probably based on either royal Yugoslav gendarmerie or Chetnik sources, both of which are known to have been very pro-Croat oriented or neutral. NOT.
  • Croat and Bosnian newspeak (original title by Igor) -- page that is biased from the title onwards, spiced up with glaring factual errors. This one is coupled with Croatian linguistic purism, which User:Mir Harven tried to replace this with. He didn't even find it necessary to discuss the content of the page he had a grudge with, and which was much longer than the one he created and, while probably biased, not factually incorrect (at least it seems to me).
  • Serbo-Croatian language, Montenegro -- refusing to accept that there's any legitimacy to the dissent among the Serbs about issues he (and Milosevic) have an opinion on; plus, the opinion he has is hardly founded on facts
  • Demographics of Croatia -- a propaganda piece if you ever saw one. One might argue that my attitude is too positive, but his isn't merely too negative, it's completely disinclined to accept that not everything is black and white. There is plenty of maneuvering space in the truth to take a negative stance, witnessed by the opinions of the ICTY prosecutors, the governments of the UK and the Netherlands.
  • History of Bosnia and Herzegovina -- even if we ignore the mindnumbing insistence on how it was a Serbian land in the Middle Ages, I can't fail to react at the gross misrepresentation of crimes committed in Srebrenica and Sarajevo, when masses of defenseless people were very obviously endangered by Serb military forces. BTW, compare with the previous entry: planned exodus is depicted as the most criminal act, while death of thousands is supposed to be... I'm not sure? Necessary casualties of war? Accidents? Suicides?

There are many more I'm sure. He never fails to add some extreme Serbian viewpoint everywhere. I've heard of various incursions into Kosovo-related pages, but haven't looked into it; there's also gobs of controversial edits in pages like Ustase, History of Croatia, Rudjer Josip Boscovich, Dubrovnik, Bosniaks, Croatian Communist Party, Croatia, Slavic peoples, Bunjevatz, Croatian coat of arms, Franjo Tudjman... the list goes on and on. Pay special attention to the external links he posts -- there's some really egregious propaganda pieces there. It's also symptomatic that links are hardly ever attributed, rather they're given pretty generic names. Not that that's a capital crime in itself, far from it, but they contribute to presenting of really wacko opinions as universal facts. I've come to be wary even of innocent-sounding commits of his in pages like Ivan Mestrovic.

I was reluctant to mention this problem officially for a long time, thinking there was a glimmer of hope that he might accept a few of those extremely softened compromises in the controversial articles. However, the more it goes on, the more he keeps sounding like Serbian Radio Television from the 1990-1999 period, and relentlessly making his stances, ranging from near-ridiculous to offensive, known.

These days I'm really tired of battling everything out with him so I'm starting this discussion in hope that someone will either talk sense into him, or failing that, prevent him from doing further damage. At the risk of him thinking he's being victimized, ironically...

There are several other users who have come to realize this agenda of his over time after trying to work with him. I'm betting nine out of ten of his user contributions would be considered problematic by users including but not limited to:

User Mir Harven, marked with (*), holds views that might be considered offensive by non-nationalist Serbs and could probably excluded from the equation to avoid creating an impression of partiality.

Usually it goes like this: someone posts something, Igor "fixes" it, then we go in circles for a while, and then the original poster either modifies their writing to be extremely politically correct and includes mention of various spurious or specious arguments applied by the pan-Serb propagandists such as Igor, or gives up hope. Articles where a normal point of view has prevailed without catering to Igor's wishes are a scarce commodity.

The following users also may have had some run-ins with Igor or just witnessed patterns in his behaviour and could probably provide more information on the matter:

I'd particularly point out Nikola Smolenski who also has/had some views that non-Serbs disagree with, but he can be reasoned with and he doesn't insist on the kind of BS Igor's likely to.

-- Shallot 10:37, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User:CGd

User:CGd is attempting to delete all references to the Orthodox Bahai Faith. RickK 07:16, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Cunctator

  • User:The Cunctator is unilaterally removing the VfD header from pages that are still under discussion on the Votes for Deletion page. RickK 03:45, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • He's now making his removes as "minor edits", so they won't show up on the Recent Changes page, if users have their preferences set not to see minor changes. RickK 04:20, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To clarify: he removed the VfD notice on Sunset High School once, and thereafter moved it to the bottom of the article. -- Cyan 21:43, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • They unilaterally undeleted santorum despite being deleted after vfd, and undeletion being supported. Maximus Rex 03:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This only makes sense as a conflict if undeletion was not supported, as I believe was the case. -- Cyan 21:43, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Possibly offensive username? When I read it while sleep deprived, I saw "the **** taster". Maybe that's just my messed up mind though. -- Pakaran 06:56, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Definitely sleep deprivation in action. See Cunctator. -- Cyan 21:43, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • On another note, about half of his user page is aimed at poking fun at the web design skills used in Wikipedia. Whether or not that's a problem I don't know - it's better than many user pages, like that of User:Kingpr0n where he claims to be "mightiest of all Wikipedias (sic)", and frankly other peoples' user pages aren't my concern. -- Pakaran 07:01, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Since they're a sysop (amazingly) better behaviour should be expected from them. Maximus Rex 07:03, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Wow. Didn't realize. I also wonder about some questionable edits to questionable articles. [4] comes to mind. -- Pakaran 07:11, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I was going to try and avoid commenting here, but Sunset High School was protected by Hephaestos earlier today after The Cunctator was involved in an edit war on the page. About 12 hours after it was protected The Cunctator unprotected it and reverted to his version. This is a gross abuse of sysop powers, and of trust. Angela 20:21, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Ouch. I'm beginning to get the feeling that this should be taken to the list in the next few days. -- Pakaran 20:25, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Cunc's a long-standing user (a lot longer than me, anyway). He's active on the wikien-L list, so you can probably get his attention there. (Indeed, he did reply to RickK's post. [5]) -- Cyan 21:43, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • His posting on the mailing list was not a response, it was a pooh-pooh. But then, not one single person supported me on the mailing list, so I'm not going to bother any more. RickK 04:06, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • He was justified in undeleting the material. Why should that information not be included? The information is currently placed at Dan Savage where, apparently, it is unobjectionable. The people who are the problem are those who insist on deleting everything. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Cunc can be a bit of a "prick" sometimes, but Jimbo is *not* going to de-op him over little stuff like this, so let's just drop it. As for santorum, I may have found a solution acceptable to all concerned. Christ, I hate getting involved in this shit! --Ed Poor 18:32, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

LibertarianAnarchist

The discussion about him was moved to User talk:LibertarianAnarchist and notated as "outdated" for some reason. It is true he was inactive for a while, but he's back (including from IP 67.121.94.160). Some users proposed banning, and perhaps now we should consider continuing on that process. -- VV 21:14, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)


User:SmartBee

Has had several pages deleted already because existence of the topic they talked about could not be confirmed. Often not logged in, using IP number 65.218.60.6 and perhaps others. - Andre Engels 12:45, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

double-voting on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/lag time on Nov 2 didn't help his cause... It's a shame that deletion of pages takes them off contribution lists - another for the deletion redesign. Martin 00:12, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)



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)

Not removing, because still an issue - recent edit: "The page, as it is now is-crap. Another piece of dumb Serbian propaganda, and easily detectable at at that". Could someone else have a word with him? I've already tried to chat to him, so it might be more effective if someone else intervened. Martin 23:23, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Mir Harven is a Croat nationalist, that's a given, but would restrain himself much more were it not for Serb nationalist stuff that occasionally gets inserted into pages that involve Croatian matters which is offensive even to non-nationalist Croats (and Bosniaks). --Shallot 10:37, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"special features"

Others

  • 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.

most recent at top

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Historical_archive/Conflicts_between_users/Archive&oldid=1898149"