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 Lir (talk | contribs) at 17:44, 14 November 2003. 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
  • 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 users to this page

In general, time spent complaining about problem 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.
  • 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 users 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 (read: sysops) 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 controversial users

Most recent at top.

NightCrawler

Judging from style, behavior and similarity in controversies, I have suspected for quite some time that User:NightCrawler and hard-banned User:DW are one and the same person. I was willing to let it go for a while since there didn't seem to be too many problems, but now I see this person is driving off good new contributors (see User talk:Petermanchester. Could developers look into IP comparison to confirm or deny this suspicion? Thank you. - Hephaestos 17:08, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Since when are people who show up for one day and who only create 4 articles that are all blatant copyright material stolen deliberately and knowingly in violation of Wikipedia policy and then joke about it, good new contributors? It does make me wonder what values User:Hephaestos has for measuring Wikipedia's contributors. And whoever this hard-banned User:DW is/was, I am not that person. NightCrawler 17:40, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Also to Hephaestos, if you have specific complaints about my behavior please state them clearly and precisely. NightCrawler 17:43, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I see no evidence that this is DW; please avoid unfounded accusations. Lirath Q. Pynnor

Macedonian users

A cluster of problems editing Republic of Macedonia and suchlike. They should discuss the matter rather than blindly editing.

Resolved! See Talk:Republic of Macedonia - some people have put in a bit of effort addressing the underlying issue, and this seems to have sorted things out. Martin 20:09, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wik and Lir

  • The two of them need to be taken aside and told to knock off the reversion wars. This is not good for Wikipedia, makes the project look ridiculous, and makes it impossible to edit decent articles. RickK 05:18, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Wik refuses to discuss, constantly insults, and reverts everything I edit if he feels that anything is even slightly amiss. I can't possibly do anything but revert...either that or quit editing; which frankly, sounds like a better idea every day; then Wik can editwar with you. Lirath Q. Pynnor
    • See here, here, and here to understand what this listing here is about. Maximus Rex 05:26, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • And I add [1] as another reversion war of the two. andy 11:04, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Wik said my edits were "idiotic" -- I don't feel his attitude towards other users is appropriate. [2] Lirath Q. Pynnor

I would like to ask these two to walk away from each others edits. Lir if wik makes any changes to a page, do not edit for 1 week. Wik, likewise if lir edits a page, refrain from making any edits to that page for 1 week. Does that seem reasonable ? theresa knott 13:59, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC) See also: Wikipedia:Problem users/Wik

That would just make for slow-motion edit wars, with one-week intervals, but it won't solve anything. --Wik 14:22, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
If you slow the edit wars between you two down, it gives others the opportunity to make edits in between. You may find that by waiting, the edits you were going to make gets done by someone else, saving you the bother. Even if you do still need to edit, the time interval gives time for feelings to cool down, making a more amiable and constructive edit more likely. It can't hurt to give it a try anyhow. If it works yippee! If it doesn't the situation is no different to what it is now, so nothing is lost. theresa knott 15:35, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think reverts like this are just plain vandalism. [3] -- Wik reverts nearly everything I add to the wiki, he does so without making productive comments. Lirath Q. Pynnor

User:12.228.92.12

I would not call them a vandal, since they seem to be doing valid edits too, but their edits should be checked for correctness. In the past has added characters from Xena:Warrior Princess for which no evidence of actual existence has been found, and edited Xena information into Ares making it seem it was Greek mythology rather than late 20th century television. Now added Tryphaena Cleopatraina as Cleopatra's fourth child, although those who seem to be in the know say that she had only three. Andre Engels 17:10, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

128.172.145.108 / 128.172.154.109

The user continues to place external links within the article Dan Rather. I continue to move them to the External links section at the end of the article. This has been going on for over an hour now. I've attempted through whatever means I have available, to explain the wikipedia policy. So far, I have not gotten through. Kingturtle 21:34, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To be fair, inline external links are often useful... Evercat 02:35, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Thanks to ya'll for helping. Kingturtle 08:05, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)


User:Khranus

User banned by Jimbo Wales on November 12, 2003. See also User:Khranus/ban

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:Adam Carr

Too long, moved to Wikipedia:Problem users/Adam Carr

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)
  • Not edited since 30th. Martin 19:25, 13 Nov 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)

More recent changes (9 Nov) appear cleaner, though hard for me to tell. Martin 23:58, 11 Nov 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 [4]. 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)


User:LibertarianAnarchist

User:LibertarianAnarchist 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)

Still active at the moment. Martin 23:42, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • Over the past three weeks, various users have had to revert extremes made by LibertarianAnarchist on the following Websites:
  1. Babri Mosque (3 to 4 times)
  2. 2002 Gujarat violence (5 times)
  3. Bharatiya Janata Party (6 times)
  4. Racism (6 times)
  5. Genocide (4 times)
  6. V. R. Krishna Iyer (8 times)

LibertarianAnarchist is probably also 128.107.253.42.

Sincerely, Kingturtle 23:14, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • I've had to revert Genocide, Babri Mosque and Mount Everest several times today. He is very tiring and accuses people in the summary boxes and on his user page of being racist and/or communist. He has a Hindu nationalist POV. Secretlondon 00:01, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
    • Be careful, if you revert him often enough you will be accused of "getting into edit wars" and such, and people will tell you to find a "compromise" with him. --Wik 00:06, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • User:LibertarianAnarchist just left this unsigned comment at Talk:Mount Everest in response to reversions of his statement that a Bengali surveyor discovered Mount Everest in the mid-1800s: "okay, what about Columbus "discovering" America? This is getting out of hand. You guys are clearly RACIST. I don't have to appeal to White skinned racists to "recognize" any fact. You are clearly ignorant fools if you did not know it. AmeriKKKan stupidity perhaps?" I thought it was relevant to this page. If not, revert me. :-) Jwrosenzweig 00:21, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • What is the process to ban this user? Kingturtle 00:28, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • He'll be banned if there's enough of a consensus for it. Please discuss. --Modemac 00:36, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Under the new name HistoryBuff, LA posted this in Mount Everest's talk page -- "VerilyVerily commented that he finds it hard to believe what I wrote about Sikdar! His knowledge base being clearly inferior, he had heard of Sikdar for the first time. I am sure he did a Google search and posted the information which was as far away from mine but unfortunately for the bigot, even he couldn't completely remove the reference to Sikdar. -- LibertarianAnarchist". I believe that this kind of paranoid slander of VeryVerily is exactly the kind of thing we need to eradicate. LA has done nothing but spread anger and rapid reversion where he/she goes -- I think it is time for a ban. I understand Modemac's desire for discussion, but I personally feel LA's comments speak for themselves loudly enough to make the discussion a brief one. Jwrosenzweig 00:49, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To add to above: in his Mount Everest edit he said my "India hating White skinned racism is showing itself" because of an edit where I moved (and slightly edited) the note about Sikdar measuring the mountain's peak from the intro to the Measurement section. This seems like quite a conclusion to jump to. At least I'm apparently not a Communist (CPI(M)) propagandist anymore. I don't know much about the banning process, but it looks like it may have to come to that. -- VV 01:05, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Strongly support banning. Has created a new username (in addition to existing three) even after being asked not to in the mailing list. Practically every edit involves calling someone a communist, and very frequent accusations of racism as well. For many days I was doing nothing on wikipedia except reverting LA's edits, and I think others wasted a huge amount of time too. Several attempts to reason with LA were made on the mailing list, but were all met with vitriolic personal attacks. All this is apart from the main issue of having an extreme POV and complete unwillingness to collaborate. -- Arvindn 11:00, 14 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)


"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.

most recent at top

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Historical_archive/Conflicts_between_users/Archive&oldid=1737173"