Wikipedia:Historical archive/Conflicts between users/Archive

See also: Wikipedia:arguments

Michael is altering other users' comments, misleadlingly attributing his own comments to others, at Talk:Crass - needs to be watched. Enchanter

64.175.250.115 has been inserting asinine things about George Washington's sex life into his bio. I have been reverting it after every change he's done. -- Goatasaur 18:47 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

5 Feb 2003: 194.207.237.26 added 'Gandhi stinks' to the Gandhi page -- Please ban 194.207.237.26 - if you look at his contributions he's vandalising articles. Besides the above, take a look at his contributions...

64.175.251.49 is contributing several articles about rock bands, all of which are copyright violations. -- Zoe

207.233.101.207 is creating nonsense entries in future years articles. -- Zoe 03:56 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)

Out of the blue, Lir has started posting what might be obscenities in some foreign language on my Talk page. For the first time, I have deleted items on my Talk page because, unless she explains what she is posting, I see no reason to leave them there. -- Zoe 22:51 Nov 1, 2002 (UTC)

[ M 00:02 Nov 2, 2002 . . 66.32.146.170 ] -- substantial changes to Christopher Columbus labelled as minor edit. May be a mistake by new user.

No not a mistake. 66.32.xxx.xxx has been vandalizing the CC article for some time now by reverting to a version that is many months old. --mav

152.163.189.98 restored the copyright violation at Journey that had been deleted by maveric. -- Zoe

194.117.133.196 has been unblocked by kq--the IP is a proxy which periodically hosts the goatse vandal, but also hosts user:rbrwr user:Nosrail. --KQ

64.175.251.49 restored the copyright violationg at Stabbing Westward that I deleted yesterday. -- Zoe

This person ignored a 24 hour warning block by replacing copyright violation notices with the old copyright violations. I therefore blocked this IP. They can post a message to the Wikipedia mailing list asking for the block to be removed. --mav

67.8.2.22; multiple copyright violations and wouldn't stop until I enacted at 20 minute block pointing the user to one of the many copyright violation notices that replaced their "work". Haven't seen any edits since the lifting of the block. --mav

63.16.10.29; multiple vandalisms. Needs to be watched. --mav

142.22.16.54 Persistent low volume vandalism over a course of three months. AxelBoldt 20:13 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)

December 23, 2002
172.146.196.111 - not exactly vandalism per se but needs watching - adds link to China's Assessment of the Human Rights Record of the United States to dozens of articles often irrelevantly. Has vandalised at least one article ("funny" comments re Bokassa and cannibalism). Maybe newbie experiments or over-enthusiastic anti-US POV work, needs watching anyway, is trying to make Wikipedia their personal slant on US human rights.

194.117.133.118 10:29 Dec 23, 2002 (UTC)

The address 172.146.196.111 appears to be an AOL proxy. -- Anon.

The user seems to edit as User:172 after December 23.

Several people have slandered me.

Go to my page, 172 and look at my extensive contributions in such a brief period of time. Then, you'd understand why I don't what to be misrepresented on this page.

Contributions--Hah! They'd be really substantial contributions to the POV-Commiepedia. But your insistence on whitewashing every socialist in history is incredibly annoying. --Len

You1d understand if you were the subject of such lies and slander. I doubt that few people have made as many contributions in such a short period of time as I have, yet been victimized by such misunderstanding and misrepresentations. I suppose just because of my interests, some people got the impression that I1m a Communist. I am not. I loathe both Mao and Stalin, yet some people have accused me of being an apologist for both of them because I demanded that these article represent a more neutral perspective.

Go to my page: 172

I did not add bias to any articles. I have listed contributions on my page, 172.

Go through the articles.

I have improved every article boundlessly. In fact, I think that's the real source of the resentment. --172

Perhaps it also has something to do with your overblown opinion of yourself too. --mav

Hmm...the fourth page pasted with the same self-indulgent whine by 172. Apparently thinks he's the only commie who knows that Ctrl-V means "paste". I'd like to give him "boundless improvement"! --Len

Please, stop it you two. It's a new year so lets start fresh. :) --mav

172 is revamping the article Genocide according to his view. User:Ericd

And now see New Imperialism. Besides being completely POV and too dense for a decent article, even attempts at cosmetic correction are reverted and responded to with looking-down-the-nose contempt. -- Zoe

Its not too dense for a decent article, he is just being touchy about something he wrote. Vera Cruz

If you think your prose shouldn't be vandalized by ignorants don't write in Wikipedia ;-). User:Ericd

Something a wise man once said about heat & kitchens comes to mind. She/he wouldn't be annoying if she/he understood the concepts of debate, facts vs. opinion, & relevance. -- llywrch

When I heard debate I take my gun ! User:Ericd

Two16 seems to think that all contributions by any banned IP should be censored, even if they are unrelated to the issue involved in the ban, and even if they are presently being discussed rationally by the parties. See recent history of Wikipedia:edit_wars_in_progress

This is ad hominem censorship, at best.

216.129.198.41 thinks that all contriibutions from vandals and his banned cohort need to be examined. Especially if they they have been playing with the Wikipedia. I made my intentions to examine every post those 2 made, known at the village pump. I received cautions not to remove useful content and read everything that was on the page. When the cascade of my changes rolled across recent changes, people left messages on my user page to question wheather I knew what I was doing. Many more looked at the older versions to see if my judgement was sound without taking the time to message. We are the checks and balances.

One wikipedian looked at the size of an article, entirely emptied, and decided to replace the content. This is also consistant with the ethos here. I replied with an explanation of my actions:

The article got off to a false start with:

Canadian political culture is in some ways part of a common North American political culture, emphasizing constitutional law, religious freedom, personal liberty and regional autonomy, and generally deriving from the ideas of Thomas Jefferson on these matters.

Usually some mention is made of a common heritage through British Common Law with other English speaking countries,Quebec's Civil Code derived from Roman law, First Nations, the British Empire, the Conscription Crisis , vast geography and short history ....

Most emphatically the Canadain political ideals of "Peace, Order and Good Government" evolved in Great Brittan and pre-Confefederation Canada and are very distinct from Jeffersonian "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

The second paragraph contains additional sperious Jefferson material, falsely says that Canada bans private private universities (Education is a provincial responsibility under Section 92 of the BNAA (1867), opens 9 links to empty pages including BCBud and Canada's Marijuana law

The title is going to be impossible for to write a standard opening sentence for.

It isn't worth having especially given the high chance that an article is emerging right now from alarger article. An article this shoddy and top of the head is more trouble to edit than to writte new.

The truth will out: so lets not say any more about ad hominem censorship.

3 False edit war warnings against the same wikipedian, which I investigated, were removed.

Well back to writing brilliant prose 216.129.198.41 __________

Despite being asked not to many times, Vera Cruz persists in trying to hide his changes by marking major edits as minor edits. For the most recent examples among many, see Colin Ferguson. Tannin 13:32 Jan 14, 2003 (UTC)

Persists in trying to hide my changes? What are you talking about? If its so hidden, how did you find it? Vera Cruz

Read the history of the page I linked to above (as just one of many examples). Notice how nearly all your edits are marked "minor" and nearly all of those are in fact major. Then read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ. Pay particular attention when it says "show normal courtesy to other users by not marking substantive changes as minor edits". Tannin

I've decided that wikipedia has an extremely aggressive and confrontational dispute settlement process. As such I have no comment as anything said can and will be used against me. Quite simple, I plead "not guilty". Vera Cruz

142.177.6.171 is intent on turning any discussion of offensive language (usernames, language in general) into some kind of loony-right libertarian rant and wherever possible an attack on Jimbo Wales. It's small minded boring stuff and completely unhelpful. Can he please be asked to go and poo in his own bath for a change? 194.117.133.118 00:59 Jan 15, 2003 (UTC)

The above comment is far more annoying than 142. Vera Cruz

If it annoys you then it must be getting something right. :)

I note that 142.177.76.233 is on a roll again, this time with a Rollerball theme: see the articles on Energy Corporation etc. -- The Anome

Also see similar contributions such as race to the bottom, this time as IP 142.177.103.239 The Anome 21:53 Feb 18, 2003 (UTC)

And Dubya Dubya Three and Bush League this time as 142.177.108.15. (142.177.0.0/16 is an Aliant Telecom netblock.) The Anome 10:21 Feb 19, 2003 (UTC)

Also see cargo cult business, cargo cult investment, musical chair finance and founder's fever. It's a shame: some parts of these articles are sensible, but they are buried in the ranting. The Anome

Hm. All of the above is from an IP that is very similar to an IP used by a person who is permanently banned from Wikipedia for making physical threats. They also appear to be the type of articles that this banned user edits. I am tempted to ban the above IPs too but I am not certain this is the same person - it could be a freak coincidence that somebody with similar idiosyncratic political views are using the same ISP in Toronto. What is everybody else's feeling on this? --mav

Indeed they are very similar. Should you wish to ban this user, the problem is that the 147 user is now using an ISP with a /16 allocation to access the Wikipedia, getting a different IP address every time. To ban them would require blocking all customers from this particular /16 block, potentially blocking off a lot of Canadians from editing. Perhaps this is time for the 'soft block' idea, where users from certain IP ranges are blocked from editing anonymously? The Anome

Hm. I don't know. A call to the ISP would probably be better to start with. This might be something better discussed on the mailing list. --mav

This user appears to have returned again, this time at 142.177.106.217 The Anome 10:30 Feb 26, 2003 (UTC)

I think it is time to take this to the mailing list. --mav

Done. waiting for your comments, --Elian

There is an ungoing problem with Daeron which I thought was over but he has now started phase 2. After a war to make the Australia page claim that Australia is a republic (which as the entire world knows is wrong), and 7 reversions by a number of people, he stopped doctoring that page to move on to Constitutional monarchy which he doctored, again to suggest Australia is a republic. After 3 reversions there he stopped. Now he has restarted by 'adapting' pages linked to Australia to repeat his nonsense. First he added in a factually inaccurate paragraph in Constitutional monarchy on the same theme, how Aussie is a republic. I removed that paragraph to the talk page, with a list of all the factual inaccuracies in it (everything!), He has also created a link to an already existing page which he then rewrote . . . to claim Australia is a republic, or rather that a commonweath is by definition a republic (which it isn't), therefore it follows that the Commonweath of Australia must be one! It is as if, having been shown to be wrong on the Australia page by everyone who came near it, every textbook, every encyclopædia, every document, the words of leading republican politicians and the text of the constitution, he is still determined to make the claim somewhere on wikipedia, even if buried in pages linked to the main Australian page.

I'm not an expert on the other areas he writes about but they seem fine enough. But what do we do about this preoccupation with 'republicanising' Australia irrespective of the facts? I can't be keeping an eye on him all the time; it was only by accident that I stumbled across his latest 'doctorings'. Any suggestions? JTD 06:06 Feb 21, 2003 (UTC)

Aren't constitutional monarchies a form of a republic? Susan Mason

monarchy and republic used to be defined as fundamental different concepts over how a country was ruled. As in reality today constitutional monarchies and republics are distinguished principally by the manner in which a head of state assumes office, the general rule in encyclopædiæ is

monarch = monarchy
elected head of state = republic.

By that universally applied rule, Australia, like Canada, the UK, Denmark, etc etc are constitutional monarchies. The United States, the Italy, the Republic of Ireland, France, etc are republics. It is that simple for the entire world, except Daeron. JtdIrL 01:47 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

What aren't you calling Australia a monarchy? How come you are saying "constitutional monarchy". Who has the real power in Australia, is that person elected or not? Australia can call itself a constitutional monarchy until its blue in the face but it sure looks like a republic. Why, Rome had an Emperor but it was a republic... In any case, a ceremonial head of state is ceremonial, Australia might be a monarchy at ceremonies and parties, but apparently it isn't a monarchy when it comes to governance and government. Susan Mason

Oh for crying out loud, Susan. See Constitutional monarchy, see Republic, get out a dictionary and learn your definitions. And no, a head of state is not just for ceremonial reasons, read Head of State. (And correct [anonymous person below] on Rome, on Australia, and yes this is not the page to discuss it.) JtdIrL 02:10 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Rome is generally considered to have ceased being a republic once the emperors appeared. The above is presumably mixing up republics with representational democracies - Australia is one of the latter, which is why it is functionally similar to various democratic republics, but not actually the former. In any case, this is not the page to discuss the matter on.

Well I guess the conversation is over as you were unable to refrain from being rude. Apparently you dont know enough about the topic to discuss it. Susan Mason The facts are on the pages if you want to read them. This is not the place, and I am too busy to spend my time going through the ABC of constitutional structures with you here. JtdIrL 02:21 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Do you see how insulting you are? Who do you think you are to talk that way? This is the place to discuss this, because you are saying another user is annoying because he disagrees with you. I am of the understanding that constitutional monarchy is just a fancy term for republics which retain the royal family as a "national mascot". Your depraved behavior indicates to me that you know I'm right and are too proud to discuss it, so instead you would rather hide behind some pretense of it being a waste of your time to discuss such "simple" material. Susan Mason

A constitutional monarchy is a democratic system of parliament government in which the post of head of state and usually though not always its functions and duties are fulfilled by a monarch, operating within the bounds of a constitutional parliamentary system. Hence 'constitutional' 'monarchy'. And no I am not complaining that he is disagreeing with me, he is disagreeing with the Encyclopædia Brittanica, World Book, the United Nations, The Commonwealth of Australia Act, the Australian government, the Republic Advisory Committee, the Australian Republican Movement, Buckingham Palace, all law textbooks, all law sourcebooks, the view of all academics, the Chief Justice of Australia, The Privy Council, former prime ministers (and republicans) Paul Keating and Bob Hawke, former governor-general Bill Hayden, etc etc etc all of whom say Australia is a constitutional monarchy not a republic. They may want it to be, but it isn't. The entire world says one thing. Daeron disagrees and vandalised sites on Wiki stating his ludicrous claim as fact until a number of us went to every site he made this claim and reverted . . . and reverted . . . and reverted 10 times til he stopped. So history lesson over. Bye Lir/Vera/Susan or whoever it is this time. Next time read the pages. JtdIrL 07:11 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)

Hey - stop it both of you. There is no reason to exchange insults. --mav

Aren't constitutional monarchies technically "representative democracies"? Susan Mason