Jump to content

Wikipedia:Conflicts between users/Archive

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Conflicts between users

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RK (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 17 November 2003 (This person is adding comments to my User page such as "I praise Hitler".). 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 publically 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 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.

203.206.145.218

This person is adding comments to my User page such as "I praise Hitler". RK 22:52, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

NightCrawler

See User:NightCrawler/ban

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)
        • Also [2]. I don't know if I'm sure which of them is at fault, but maybe there's a better solution - Lir and Wik, if one of you makes an edit the other dislikes, mention it on the talk page and ask that it be corrected by a third user. -- Pakaran 23:30, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Wik said my edits were "idiotic" -- I don't feel his attitude towards other users is appropriate. [3] 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)
Wik - it might not solve your problem, but it would solve our problem. If you respect the community, you might want to reconsider the solid advice Theresa is giving you here. Martin 21:10, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


What exactly is your problem? --Wik 21:44, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)
I believe Theresa has already explained what our problem is, but I don't mind restating. High-frequency revertion wars make the version history less useful, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes, watchlists, etc. Low-frequency revertion wars do not cause the community these problems. Martin 22:10, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think reverts like this are just plain vandalism. [4] -- Wik reverts nearly everything I add to the wiki, he does so without making productive comments. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I am sorry to note that Wik seems totally unwilling to accept the right of other users to disagree with him, instead explicitly states that he will revert anything done by those Wikipedians he likes to call vandals and trolls, even if these have demonstrably refrained from uncooperative behavior. I had a lenghty discussion with him about this which I recommend everybody to study (see User talk:Wik), and it is my impression that his idea of cooperation is seriously flawed at a very fundamental level. Kosebamse 13:33, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Please do demonstrate how they have demonstrably refrained from uncooperative behaviour. That should be interesting. --Wik 13:55, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
As I mentioned at the very beginning of our talk on 15 November, Nico has in the past week returned to discussion on Silesia and agreed with szopen on a compromise text; they have also exchanged apologies on their talk pages. Also, he agreed with SpaceCadet on Baldhurs compromise text on Görlitz. You however insisted on calling him a vandal and said he were not "any more useful than Khranus" who was banned last week. All this is on your talk page, see this version. With Lir, it's a long story that reaches far back behind the beginnings of your (and my) Wikipedia engagement. When he was allowed to return this summer, he has demonstrated a collegial attitude and has gained the respect of his former adversaries. The mere fact that he was engaged in reversion wars (with you, mostly) does not speak against his overall good standing (that fact would not even speak so strongly against you, had you not made reversionism a long standing habit, starting on your second day on Wikipedia, and had you not repeatedly argued that your POV = NPOV, which you claimed to "staunchly defend"). Yet you included Lir in your statements about "this kind of users, where discussion is pointless". Again, all of this (and, sadly, much more) is on your talk page. As said page tells much more about your attitudes than I ever could I would like to repeat my suggestion that our fellow Wikipedians should make their judgement by reading it. Kosebamse 15:56, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Indeed, then they will see how you fail to substantiate your allegation (which you basically repeat here) of my "POV supremacism". You'd have to adopt a total POV relativism (in which case there would be no such thing as NPOV) to accuse me of that. If I were to go to the article Earth and write that it is flat, and another reverts it, would you also say it's a dispute between two equally valid POVs, which should be debated until there's a compromise? You are clearly unfamiliar with the subject of Silesia if you don't see how Nico's edits there were just as ludicrous. And the fact that he backpedals whenever he sees he doesn't get away with his more extreme POV, doesn't mean that he now accepts the NPOV principle. If this needed any more proof, he tried today to change the article Kaliningrad to begin with the name Königsberg! Anyone with some minimum knowledge about those matters sees that he is here not to make a better encyclopaedia, but to push extreme German-nationalist views that are on the fringe even within Germany. As to Lir, I note that you apparently think that "a collegial attitude" consists of reverting a page even when everyone tells you you're wrong (ask Daniel Quinlan about Lir's behaviour on Second Industrial Revolution). As to your "reversionism" charge, a cursory look at my edit history will disprove that; edit wars make up only a small part of over 7,000 edits; I also don't see how I was involved in any on my second day. Furthermore, most of the edit wars were with a small group of problem users where talk was futile, including Nico and Lir. Why do you think I don't have edit wars with generally respected users? Please tell me exactly where I argued that "my POV = NPOV". Maybe you think it isn't NPOV to revert Nico's inclusion of 10 German links (out of 15) on Silesia, a Polish region, or his listing of the German-reactionary Landsmannschaft Schlesien as the first link, or his putting the German name before the Polish, or to remove Lir's irrelevant Dutch transliteration of Anton Chekhov, or Lir's blatantly wrong punctuation, or Lir's noting someone's death before his birth, or Lir's claim that there is no evidence of water on the Moon, contradicted by the same article? I guess that was all just "my POV"? --Wik 16:49, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)
Howevever, Wik, recent studies (with which you are wholly unfamiliar) have given strong indications that there is no water on the moon; thus, your "POV supremacism" whereby you reverted my edit -- makes you one very problematic user. Lirath Q. Pynnor
I will answer you on your talk page in order to keep this page readable. Kosebamse 17:35, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

@Wik: 1) I inserted a link to the largest German-Silesien organisation, providing information on Silesian culture and history, and organizing a large part of the German Silesians, when I also leaved the links to 4 similar Polish organisations. 2) When I initially mentioned the German name before the Polish, was this because the German name is better known in English the Polish, and by the way is the historical Silesia divided between Poland AND Germany (and the Czech Republic). However, this is a quite long time ago, and I accepted to mention the Polish name first when you protested. 3) According to Königsberg, I wrote a new and in my opinion better and more precise introduction which is discussed at the talk page, and so far accepted by all contributors who have made comments. 4) Why should pushing extreme Polish-nationalist views be more acceptable than ”pushing extreme German-nationalist views” (your words)? -- Nico 18:47, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)

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)


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: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: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:Conflicts_between_users/Archive&oldid=1758957"