Wikipedia:Historical archive/Conflicts between users/Archive

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

Alternatives to airing problems on this page

Here are some ways to spread the WikiLove and increase the general spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding:

• 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, or allow others to be hurt. Do try to accommodate other people's views.
• Allow your adrenaline level to get lower.

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.

User:RK vs. User:Mr-Natural-Health

RK has once again has decided to singled handedly destroy the work of several people that took several weeks of discussions to create in Alternative medicine. I have supported with numerous references and citations every argument made in support of alternative medicine. RK has not supported a single one of his obviously POV comments. An article about a perfectly legal subject called alternative medicine should obviously be in support of it. Health Sciences and Medicine appear to be as poorly organized and written as is Alternative medicine. Alternative medicine currents suffers from the antics of RK and others who are unable to deal with the reality of alternative medicine. RK has been totally unable to articulate and support with references a rational argument against alternative medicine. Why doesn't RK try to clean up Health Sciences and Medicine rather than constantly work at destroying Alternative medicine? -- Mr-Natural-Health 14:43, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• RK's rants unsupported by references to web pages, citations to research, or books are worst than ever. When will RK's antics stop? I will correct whatever damage RK does to Alternative medicine. How about a little more professionalism, RK, in editing these articles? -- Mr-Natural-Health 15:56, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Angela

Angela routinely takes sides in edit wars, protecting pages on Lir's version in disputes between Lir and me. --Wik 02:51, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, the only page I have ever protected purposefully on a particular version was Hank Eskin, and only because I was following what Jimbo had asked me to do by e-mail, which is explained on the talk page. From looking at Wikipedia:Protected page and the two archives of that, the only page I can find that I protected on Lir's version rather than yours was Richard Neustadt. Teschen also wasn't on your version, but that one did not involve Lir. The following pages were all protected by me on your version: Enlargement of the European Union, Schlesien, 2002 Gujarat violence and Poznan. So, if I am biased, it appears I am biased towards you, not against you! Angela. 05:47, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. I was talking about disputes with Lir. You have never protected my version in a dispute with Lir, but by your own account here at least two times you protected Lir's version. I don't believe it's a coincidence given your general history of taking sides against me (on VfD votes, etc., even contradicting yourself in the process). --Wik 16:00, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

You would make my statistics professor cry. silsor 00:19, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

• Angela has tremendous patience. In an effort to bring resolution to conflicts, and with diligence, she protects pages. This takes a great deal of time, effort and mental attention - all of which could be put to better use without these ongoing squabbles. Personally, my patience has run out, and I am petitioning to have Lir and Wik hard-banned. Kingturtle 03:38, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • I strongly support Kingturtle in this endeavor. RickK 04:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Lir's and Wik's squabbling is certainly an issue, but I feel it is outweighed by the valuable contributions that they both make. silsor 04:25, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
• I'm still fairly new here, but I have seen User:Angela's edits, opinions, and contributions on several occasions. I'd characterize her as very patient and helpful, and am frankly astonished that she would be listed here. I would ask you to re-evaluate her edits, and be prepared to accept them in the spirit of compromise. Scooter 03:48, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• This is a joke. User:Angela is one of the most distinguished of the Wikipedia editors. Protecting a page requires you to pick a version on which to stop. Just because she protects a page on Lir's edit does not mean she is taking that side. In fact, by protecting the page, she is showing that she is more interested in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, rather than engaging in damaging and pointless edit wars. - Mark 04:22, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • I would trust User:Angela's judgement on any Wikipedia-related issue. She is one of the most mature contributors that I have observed. silsor 04:25, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ditto. This listing is highly un-called for. --mav
• This is probably no joke. If Wik feels like Angela is a problematic user, he may say so. If he feels there is something to discuss, it is best that he says so and that the issue is discussed. But generally speaking, most wikipedians would agree that Angel is a delicious person and most patient in dealing in conflicts. Consequently, whatever your unpleasure Wik, the issue is between her and you, not between her and Wikipedia. I guess she answered to your comments. Please, rather move this discussion to your own personal talk page, since the conflict is personal :-) User:anthere
  • Personally, I have found Angela unfailingly helpful and considerate and I cannot believe that she is being discussed here. Lir and Wik are another matter and I'm almost inclined to agree with Kingturtle. Bmills 15:05, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• As Wik's objection is solely to Angela's use/abuse of her sysop powers (rather than edit-warring, trolling, POV, or vandalism) surely the correct, more conclusory venue for this entertaining discussion would be for Wik to move Angela's sysop status be revoked? -- Finlay McWalter 17:08, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• Well, as Wik has more than sysop complaints, I'll answer here. Angela is not a problem user. Angela does not take sides in edit wars. If Angela voted against Wik in some vote, that is her right: this is, roughly, a democracy, and in democracies voters are not obligated to explain, debate, or defend their votes. Angela is unfailingly nice to assholes of many varieties. We are not worthy of Angela. -- Finlay McWalter 05:00, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• Thinking about what is better for Wikipedia as a whole, I would rather ban Wik than desysop Angela. Stan 17:17, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• Keep both but throw a bucket of cold water over them first. ;-) -- ChrisO 17:36, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• Wik's assertion does not accord with my prior knowledge of Angela's integrity in protecting pages, and the evidence he presents does not have the statistical weight necessary to significantly change those views. See Bayesianism. -- Cyan 21:32, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• Angela is way too valuable to WP to be treated like this. We all have arguments, perhaps bitterly, with some other Wikipedians. But there's no need to take them personally...for long. Angela has done a lot for WP, with a dedication and deciviseness unfound elsewhere. Such an excellency does not come often. Must cherish, do not insult. --Menchi (Talk)â 04:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Levzur

User:Levzur repeatedly makes POV changes to Republic of Georgia pages, and will not discuss them. RickK 00:56, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Moved from Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress)

(User:Levzur | talk | contributions) Continues to remove of modify large blocks of text from Eduard Shevardnadze, Mikheil Saakashvili, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, and other articles related to Georgia for political reasons. His edits are very anti-Shevardnadze; he created a link to Zviad's memorial page in Shevardnadze's article when the link had nothing to do with the content of the article. --TwinsFan48

Maybe this would be better under Wikipedia:Problem users. Maximus Rex 02:29, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I've had quite a few problems with Levzur as well - see the Talk:Zviad Gamsakhurdia page. He also appears to have created a page about himself at Levan Urushadze. I thought this was against the rules? -- ChrisO 01:01, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We appear to have an edit war going on Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Levzur keeps making POV changes which I and others are reverting, but he appears to have no interest in discussion and brushes off questions - see Talk:Zviad Gamsakhurdia. I would be grateful if someone could lock the page until such time as Levzur sees fit to discuss his changes. -- ChrisO 08:21, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

12.144.5.2

This user doesn't put a space after comma or a period. They have been asked to do so see talk page, but won't. All of their edits (there are a lot of them) need to checked and corrected. Maximus Rex 04:11, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was going to list this user but I see someone beat me to it. This is getting really annoying. The user refuses to stop and will actually ask people correcting his edits to stop "stalking". - Tobin Richard 01:03, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Maveric149 vs. Mr-Natural-Health

Maveric149 systematically went around removing the ugly medical disclaimer from hundrends of articles. This craziness has got to stop. I would call it vadialism.--Mr-Natural-Health 08:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Please scroll to the very bottom of your screen and look towards your right-hand corner. Why link to disclaimers twice? --Jiang 08:31, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• There is no explicit Medical Disclaimer at the bottom of each page medical related article. Nor, is the medical disclaimer ugly. It serves an important purpose.--Mr-Natural-Health 08:48, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• An approved, suggested and recommended disclaimer does not become ugly, self-referential and alarming overnight just because a disclaimer link is added to the bottom of each page. Is this Russia, or a place based on logic?--Mr-Natural-Health 15:40, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)~
  • The medical disclaimer is specifically referred and linked to twice in the genereal disclaimer. I didn't know people in Russia didn't use logic. --snoyes 16:30, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I didn't realize that no one here uses logic. Was it you who wrote and appoved that ugly, self-referential and alarming medical disclaimer that was totally acceptable last week? Where were your brains, yesterday, last week, and last month? In Russia perhaps?--Mr-Natural-Health 03:21, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)~
      • Strangely enough my brains were not in Russia. What makes you think that? No, I didn't write nor did I approve that lovely, externally-referential and calming medical disclaimer. --snoyes 05:02, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Ugliness is relative. You should know that by now. --Jiang
    • My beef with Maveric149 is that his "removed ugly inline, self-referential and alarming disclaimer; disclaimer already linked at bottom of every page" comment to document of his implementation of a policy change in a large number of articles was inappropriate, wordy, rude, and totally unprofessional. How you do something counts just as much as what you do. And, I am documenting that I found Maveric149's comments totally offensive.--Mr-Natural-Health 14:04, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:ChrisDJackson vs. Al Gore

Chris Jackson has made more than 150 edits to Al Gore in less than five days. Who knows what damage is done. It is going to take some time to make sure nothing important was lost. This is a waste of all our time, and a burden. This craziness has got to stop. Kingturtle 08:18, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The user in question appears to be a partisan of the Democratic Party; his goal seems to be to provide POV articles on Democratic politicians, whom he name-drops often. Scooter 09:39, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress:

Appears to be vandalizing Al Gore. Seth Ilys 04:29, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Has now created the User:ChrisDJackson account, but continues to vandalize Al Gore. RickK 04:11, 1 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Now messing with Clinton-Gore Administration, formerly Clinton administration. - Seth Ilys 00:19, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Much of Clinton-Gore Administration is copied from http://www.americanhistory.or.kr/book/files/ethirteen07.html. But I'm tired of not getting any support in my battle with this guy (hear that, Jiang?), and have given Chris full support to wage his POV war. RickK 00:23, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think part of his website [1] sheds light on why he might be having problems writing neutrally. Maximus Rex 00:26, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He seems to be generally well-meaning, just writing with a *very* strong POV. - Seth Ilys 00:34, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please, someone with the proper counselling skills tell this guy to stay away from the Al Gore article and any related subjects. This is more of POV over-enthusiasim than vandalism. Make Clinton-Gore Administration into a redirect to bill Clinton, like Clinton Administration is. --Jiang 09:00, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:ChrisDJackson has now set his sights on George W. Bush...as you may infer, there are several unflattering items that have been added which probably should be more carefully researched, or at the very least, NPOV language should be employed. Scooter 00:28, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

207.44.154.35 vs. Daniel Quinlan

User:Daniel Quinlan had a reversion war with User:207.44.154.35 yesterday at Glasses (see here), and it does not seem to be Daniel's fault at all. And 207.44.154.35 may have been following Daniel around -- check what they did to Hacker's diet after Daniel edited it (Daniel's version vs. [Hacker's diet|current version by 207.44.154.35]). I'm not sure if this qualifies as a conflict between users or not, as Daniel has left (temporarily I hope).... I've included my original note and other comments from Vandalism in progress below:

:I'm not sure about User:207.44.154.35 (contributions), but the number of edits and stubs strikes me as suspicious -- I know this hasn't risen to the level of vandalism, but it seems like Wikipedia:Clueless newbies is dormant. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:24, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Suspicious in what way? Copyright violations? --snoyes 03:26, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, I ought to have been more specific. The stubs seem very random, have lots of (intentional?) capitalization and spelling errors and remind me of the sort of edits that some banned users have made in the past -- here's a good example: Conformity. I should also have specified that I hope some people who've been around longer might be able to recognize the style or to say this user doesn't seem like a problem. Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен

BCorr ¤ Брайен 19:02, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• See also User:207.44.154.35's repeated reversions of pages, to have every refernce to a UK monarch referred to as "Majesty". We don;t seem to do this for other monarchs, or similar for presidents, ambassidors, etc. Examples: George V of the United Kingdom; List of Royal Titles of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom; Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom Andy Mabbett 01:07, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • If we dont do it for other monarchies, then we should. It is correct and befits an encyclopedia, just as we refer to people as "he" and "she" rather than "it". Its a matter of both convention and courtesy. Andy Mabbett has been following me around, deliberatly reverting edits for no good reason, Ill add. Judging by his other listings on this page, he obviously makes a habit of it. 207.44.154.35
    • Pure paranoia, and a lie. Andy Mabbett 11:21, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I think it just makes things sound more pretentious and ridiculous. I'd rather see running text refer to "King George V" or "Justice Clarence Thomas" rather than "His Majesty King George V" or "The Honorable Justice Clarence Thomas". --Delirium 11:30, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)
      • Note also Moulvi Ibrahim; Iajuddin Ahmed. (I await 207.44.154.35's changes to Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin and the Ceaucescus with interest :-) )Andy Mabbett 11:33, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

pigsonthewing vs Jiang: Introduction headers

User Jiang insists that "introducton" is not allowed as a header, but can cite no policy to support this. I have scrupulously attempted to conduct a discussion on my talk page (and in the history of edits), but he denies that I have refuted his baseless claims, and inssts on reverting pages, and making damaging edits (putting content under inappropriate and misleading headings, for instance) in an attempt to eradicate any heading using the word "introduction"; all while the duiiscussion is ongoing. I have specifically asked his to desist from reversions while we discuss, yet he refuses. I have also invited him to make different, better changes to replace "introduction". See, for example, Netscape Navigator; BBC Radio 4 (and many others). Andy Mabbett 01:10, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• He also says, rightly, that "you are not trying to communicate with me by purposely giving me ambigous answers"! Andy Mabbett 01:11, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• and has just reverted my move of Music_of_Scotland to Scottish folk music, even though discussion on that is ongoing on the talk page, I'm begining to think this is personal. Andy Mabbett 01:13, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • I moved Music of Scotland back because consensus was not achieved to move it in the first place and "Music of..." is the standard title. --Jiang | Talk
    • So now every edit requires consenus FIRST? Andy Mabbett 01:26, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • No, an edit is not a move, but you shouldn't get irritated if you see whatever you do undone if it comes out as inappropriate. --Jiang
        • Not inappropriate. *** So now every move requires consenus FIRST? Andy Mabbett 13:09, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • No, but don't get upset if you are reverted for making an illogical move. Illogical moves are prevented if you discuss. --Jiang 13:18, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• Not illogical. Andy Mabbett 13:29, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • You skills at argumentation are very admirable. I guess I'm expected to believe that it's not logical just because you say so. LOL --Jiang 13:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • NO different to you expecting me to belive your unsubstantiated assertions, Still no piolicy cited to support them. Andy Mabbett 14:06, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• See User_talk:Pigsonthewing#Introduction for the discussion and a sampling of pigsonthewing's discussion style. Let it speak for itself. --Jiang | Talk 01:18, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • These damaging reversions and changes are ocntinuing, see, for example, Orca. Still no policy cited in support. Andy Mabbett 11:19, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Still ongoing. Andy Mabbett 08:19, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• I personally don't see much value in "Introduction" as a header title. A good rule of writing (IMO) is "be specific". A header I think ought to describe what a section is about: History, Statistics, Geography, Synopsis, etc. My experience is that if a section feels like it should be labelled "Introduction" then either I haven't thought hard enough about the best name for the section, or the section is too vague and needs fleshing out or to be broken up into several sections. That's my thought. -mhr 06:45, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Consider an intorduction with, say, four sentences, each making a different point,. How would you sub-divide that? Andy Mabbett 12:31, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Four sentences can fit into a single introduction. Why subdivide it? If if needs subdivision, then parts of the intro needs to be snipped and placed in relevant sections. --Jiang
      • Why ask me? It was Michael Rawdon' susgegstion. Andy Mabbett 13:09, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I am agreeing with Michael on this. --Jiang
          • Then perhaps you can say how you would split such a section, as he suggests? Andy Mabbett 13:29, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
            • Depending on situation...usually moving to existing sections, or if the info can be made into another section with a specific title - just what I have been trying to do. --Jiang 13:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Subdivision was just a suggestion, not a mandate, and I can see that not all such sections could reasonably be subdivided. If the introduction is short, then I'd advocate simply not putting a header on it. Heck, there's no reason an introduction need even be a single paragraph. For example, see Cyclops (comics), which has a two-para introduction - but no header marking them as such. Actually I think your two examples, Netscape Navigator and BBC Radio 4 work perfectly well as presently written; the former's Introduction section is now Development, which is more descriptive (and thus more useful as a header to a reader), and the latter's Introduction has been conflated with the unlabelled introductory paragraph, which I also think is appropriate. -mhr 16:25, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• Still spreading; see Conservation (where the new heading is grossly inappropriate for the content beneath it) et al. Andy Mabbett 12:26, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Trying to discuss it at Talk:Conservation. --Jiang
    • This is a meta issue; no point discussing it on each page in turn. I have already asked you to stop making chanegs to "introduction" headinsgs while this is discussed, but you persist in doing so. Still no policy cited in suport. Andy Mabbett 13:09, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Say I acknowledge your position that introduction headers are fine. Even then, you have no reason to revert my insertions of more specific headers without explaining how my headers are "grossly inappropriate". I asked for an answer at Talk:Conservation for that specific case (yes, we have to talk specifics for this is not just about whether the intro header is allowable, but whether the alternative for that specific article is appropriate), but so far, you have refused to answer me. Perhaps you don't have an answer? Anthere, a principal contributor of that article said mine was fine. Now what is wrong with the headings I have inserted (aside from how ridiculous your header is)? --Jiang 13:18, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • Not ridiculous; I have made no such refusal; "grossly inappropriate" IS a reason; Anthere is just one other user. STILL no policy cited to support your stance.Andy Mabbett 13:29, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • You have failed to explain how it is not ridiculous and how it is grossly inappropriate. The words "grossly inappropriate" cannot possibly reasons for themselves. That's just begging the question. You are refusing to elaborate on your claims, and then shutting your eyes to this fact. I already told you, even if policy does not support my view that no section be titled "introduction," the fact that I replace "introduction" with more specific and useful headings is not grounds for reversion unless you explain why those headings do not work - but you refuse to. --Jiang 13:40, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)
• I have not changed one of you headings, where thay have been useful (as opposed to misleading or grossly inappropriate). Andy Mabbett 14:06, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Andy, I wanted to thank you for initially proposing a heading to the conservation page. That was certainly an improvement over no headings. This said, Jiang new headings were an improvment over your initial proposition, so there are worth keeping.

An introduction is something short at the beginning of a text or a book. Generally speaking, the length of the introduction is highly related to the length of the total text. It is quite frequent that a book introduction will be at least one page long, or perhaps even a dozen. In an article of say a dozen pages, an introduction will be rather perhaps a couple of paragraphs to one page. On an article of perhaps 2 pages (10 kb), it looks like good balance to have an introduction of something between one sentence, to one or two paragraphs. This is not a rule. This is just how an piece of text is "balanced". It make no sense that an introduction represent half of a text. If it is so, then either the introduction is too long, or the article is just missing content, or more likely, the introduction *IS* the text. This does not have to be a rule. That is just how a good and informative article is written, with balanced parts, and informative headings.

For example, if we kept your "introduction" header, the conservation article would be made of three parts

• 1) a short introduction
• 2) a second part representing 45% of the content and called introduction and
• 3) a third part representing 45% of the content and called history

That would make little sense.

PomPom

• An introduction is something short at the beginning of a text or a book.: No, that's just one definition. Andy Mabbett 11:38, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • Really ? What are the other definitions then ? Please, elaborate. PomPom
    • [2] Andy Mabbett 12:32, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

1. noun: the act of beginning something new
2. noun: the first section of a communication
3. noun: a basic or elementary instructional text
4. noun: a new proposal (Example: "They resisted the introduction of impractical alternatives")
5. noun: the act of putting one thing into another
6. noun: formally making a person known to another or to the public
7. noun: the act of starting something for the first time introducing something new (Example: "He regards the fork as a modern introduction")

All this is perfectly in line with all what I wrote above. And none of these definitions justify to put half of the content of an article under a heading call "introduction" to leave only another section called history. PomPom

Pigsonthewing vs. common names

• User:Pigsonthewing (contributions) keeps copying and pasting the content at Residence hall to Hall of residence without using the "move this page" function. When asked to sit and discuss at Talk:Residence hall, this user blatantly refuses to offering the only defense of "so what" against the naming conventions. More on this conflict can be found at Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles#Hall of residence. --Jiang | Talk
  • I have already explained why I cut & pasted. I have said more than "so what", and that was not my response to the invitation to talk. I am in no way in conflict with "common names". I am tired of Jiang's lies on this matter.Andy Mabbett 19:33, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I've already explained to you that copying and pasting can be accepted under no circumstances, yet you continued to ignore me and copy and paste. You have no excuse - ask another sysop to do it. --Jiang | Talk 02:24, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I am concerned that User:Pigsonthewing is making quite a habit of this. Note that I am not talking here about his opinions, but an unwillingness to discuss and an unwillingness to stop re-changing things to reflect his opinion while a discussion takes place. It is not acceptable to try and win any disagreement by consistently re-doing changes in the hope that the other people will tire of it and let you have your way, and IMO this is what's being done. This has NOTHING to do with who's right in this particular disagreement, (I'm inclined to think that Jiang's wrong and Pigsonthewing is right on this particular naming dispute), but rather to do with willingness to follow standard practise and allow consensus to be reached. Pig-headed stubbornness is not that method. --Morven 08:18, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
      • I'll second that (re a silly insistence on the spelling of 'humorous' on dead tree, cf. Talk:dead tree. --Charles Matthews 11:59, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
        • I repeat: there is no unwillingness to discuss. To say that there is ais a lie. My comments on this issue have been deleted from at least on page byJiang. The "unwillingness to stop re-changing things to reflect his opinion while a discussion takes place" is Jiang's. Andy Mabbett 09:17, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
          • You have been told repeatedly that moving by copying and pasting is not considered acceptable practice. That is definitely the case. If you are not able to move the page via the normal 'Move this page' interface, the acceptable way to proceed is to ask an admin to make the change; it is not acceptable to copy and paste the content instead. You have also been told that repeating a controversial edit again and again rather than discussing it with others is not acceptable. Jiang made a change you disagreed with, yes, but he's allowed (Be Bold). You can revert that change if you disagree, once or twice, but after that, discussion is the way forward. And the fact is, on this issue you are LIKELY TO PREVAIL in that discussion. --Morven 20:17, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
            • You appear to be confusing me with someone else. What "controversial" edit? Your represntation of the "Hall of residnce" exchange is distorted, since Jinag wasn't "being bold" - he was restoring a bad change which I had already reverted. Surely by your logic, he should have discussed it first? I wonder why he didn't mention the correct method of moving such a page?Andy Mabbett 20:51, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
              • As seems to be normal practice for you, you avoid the main question to pick at a little detail. Yes, Jiang's decision to rename the page was controversial. Reverting it is ALSO controversial, since it is clearly against the wishes of a number of users. It does not matter who is right here, nor whose version is more controversial, nor anything else; the issue is that we do not decide issues here on Wikipedia by a contest of stubbornness. Jiang has, I believe, stated that if you renamed the page back USING THE APPROVED PROCEDURE he would not revert the change but would rather wait for a consensus in talk. (correct, Jiang?). I would advise YOU in turn to try and achieve agreement on the talk page rather than by warring on the article. And your insistence that you would only discuss on the talk page of your copied article and nowhere else is rather petty. --Morven 21:05, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
                • You again appear to be confusing me with someone else; and this issue for some other conflict. Leastways, the views you ascribe to me are not mine.Andy Mabbett 21:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
                  • I don't see how any of that is not true. You even admitted that you would discuss it nowhere else but on the copied talk page. Perhaps you should quote the parts of his argument that you find false, rather than dismissing the entire post? --Jiang | Talk
  • I ask you again to cite where (provide a link to the page history) I deleted or altered your comments. That did not happen. Of course there is an unwillingness to discuss - you admitted to refsuing to discuss at Talk:Residence hall and instead would only post on the hijacked version at Talk:Hall of residence. --Jiang | Talk 09:23, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • In [3] you reply to one of my comments, though you have excised that comment. You did so more than once. Your comment here is again a lie. There was, and is, no "unwillingness to discuss" Nothing was "hijacked", other than by you. Andy Mabbett 10:56, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • No, that doesn't show that I deleted your comment. It shows that I restored the content of a page over a redirect you created when you tried to "move" the page using copy/paste methods. Please try again. --Jiang | Talk 11:05, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• Refer to the talk, history and yet more history of Concorde for another example. Tannin 12:15, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Jiang vs British English

• User:Jiang keeps moving Halls of residence to Residence hall, from the UK English to the US English term. I believe this is against policy and is offending British contributors. Secretlondon 12:29, Dec 14, 2003 (UTC)
  • No, I did not "move" the page there multiple times in the wikipedia technical sense. I am just preventing Pigsonthewing from hijacking the page history by doing a cut and paste move. Copying and pasting can never be accepted, as I have stated at User talk:Pigsonthewing#Moving pages more than once. Unfortunately, Pigsonthewing fails to either 1) get a sysop to move the page properly and 2) convince me why that page deserves to be under the less common name. --Jiang | Talk 12:37, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • I am hijaacking nothing, as has already been explained. Jiang has deleted my comments on this matter, from at least one page. Andy Mabbett 19:35, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  • The act of copying and pasting and disregarding entire page histories constitutes hijacking. I did not delete your comments. Want to tell me where? --Jiang | Talk 02:25, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • See above. Andy Mabbett 10:56, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Lir

User:Lir keeps adding a plea to be contacted to the top of vfd. When I asked him on IRC to stop, he told me "fuck off max". Lir is a constant troll who should be re-banned. Maximus Rex 21:46, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with adding my name to this list? User:Anjouli has their name on there too, and I would like to put mine. What is your objection? Jack 23:31, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hey, its been awhile since I put this here, and nobody has said anything. If nobody continues to say anything, I am going to put my name on there. BTW, it would be awesome if I (and maybe everybody?) could just get notifyed of any votes, cause I like to vote, and if nothing else that way I'd get to weigh in. Sometimes it seems like issues are on the fast track, and only a select group makes the descision. Is there a wiki-elite, or what? Jack 08:20, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I've copied the exchange below from my talk page and Jack's talk page so others can weigh in if they want. BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:50, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi Jack -- A lot of us (myself included) have concerns about how much attention gets focused on Votes for deletion, and that there are a lot of negative, anti-wiki aspects to the page -- despite its seeming necessity. Personally, I don't like the idea of an ad-hoc "make it so" deletion squad, and don't feel it's appropriate that the page itself has people listed near the top who can be called upon to push a vote over the edge it it's close. I decided not to join in the mini edit war over removing the message, but I may still offer my two cents. For more on my feelings on the whole issue, see deletionism, inclusionism, and especially this post I made on the mailing list. -- Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 23:49, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, with the exception of your position on the list at the top of VfD, which is of course why you wrote me any of this to begin with ;). In my opinion avoiding debate and involvement of those who would clearly like to be involved (myself, and presumably Anjouli and Lir) is not the optimal way to build a concensus. It is of course, an easier way, but not one which I agree with. I have had VfD on my watchlist ever since I missed out on taking part in a vote for a page that ment alot to me, and which was deleted before I could become very much involved in the decision (see Talk:AKFD/redirect if you are interested). Whilst I can't say I am a deletionist or a inclusionist, an eventualist or an "imediatist", I would like to think I am a healthy combination of the above, and that my opinions are worthwhile, perhaps even necessary, particularly during a close vote. I have detected a certain elitist atmosphere at the wikipedia where some feel they and their vote (or opinion, etc...) are more equal than those of others, and that the opinions of some are not needed at all ;) It is my heartfelt opinion that I bring something of value and balance, and my intent to bring it as often as possible :D Jack 03:20, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. As you wrote, I have detected a certain elitist atmosphere at the wikipedia where some feel they and their vote (or opinion, etc...) are more equal than those of others, and that the opinions of some are not needed at all ;) I want to say that I'm sorry if what I said above sounded elitist, and I do wish to be clear that I don't in any way feel that your opinions or contributions are less important than anyone else's. I'm addressing what seems to me to be a completely different issue. I'm opposed to what I see as a group of people (and it doesn't matter to me who is part of that group) that's called upon to delete articles in case of a close vote. I might feel differently if those listed were listed "to solicit our opinions/votes" or something of that sort. But I can't get away from the feeling that it would function as a sort of "hit squad" in case of close votes. I hope this is a bit more clear than what I wrote earlier.... Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:39, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm afraid you may have taken me the wrong way. I didn't at any time mean to suggest that you were intending to exclude me from voting, or that you are elitist, etc... I was actually refering to a comment that you didn't make (at least I don't think it was you!) that I saw soon after beginning editing at the wiki, (and which I don't have a link to, etc...) which essentially complained about new users voting, and the potential for them to be trolls ( I believe they were suspicious that this new user was some fellow named "micheal" in disguise). Anyways, its not really worth focusing much on that. My primary point is that I want to be on the search and rescue team, not the hit squad ;) I have almost never voted to delete, actually. I guess I am kinda a inclusionist, but some things (lists for example) annoy me, so I'm certainly not a purist inclusionist, whatever that means! Jack 03:57, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

What would be the 'Very' best is if everyone were notifyed when a page were about to be deleted, so that they could vote if they felt a need. I just don't like the idea of pages on the fast track to deletion, w somebodies hard work and going to waste. Jack 04:02, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Aha! I didn't (of course) make the comment you're referring to, but I do remember it. Thanks for the explanation and the clarification. BCorr ¤ Брайен 04:03, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

JoeM

JoeM is back, and adding POV rants to Jean Chretien. But what he's doing is irrelevant, he is still under auto-revert: see User:JoeM/ban. He seems to think he has some sort of right to post here despite Jimbo saying no. Bizarre. Morwen 14:20, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

Has created a dozen or more pages for his rant to go on, which have all been blanked and protected now. He keeps inserting it into random articles about Canada, too. I strongly recommend this user be blocked from editing, because reverting him is just a pain. Morwen 14:37, Dec 13, 2003 (UTC)

I think this has been taken care of: Hephaestos left this message on User:JoeM's user page: Note: this account has now been hard-blocked. After a spate of repeat vandalism on December 13 it is clear this user has no intention of working with the community. - Hephaestos 21:40, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC) -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 22:13, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

He came back under a new identity, User:USA NUMBER 1!. That one has been taken care of. WhisperToMe 07:01, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User:Stardust

User:Stardust continues to upload coyprighted Settlers of Catan cards despite repeated requests to stop. RickK 08:22, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

well, that and the 15 edits an hour on that page. That entire article is now an adaptation of the rule book for the game, and is a big, 40K copyright violation. Gentgeen 09:25, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Er, is it a copyvio to write your own text explaining the rules of a game? 'Cause that's what I did for Martian Chess. I thought ideas couldn't be copyrighted, only expressions. Tualha 05:49, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ideas cannot be copyrighted, only expressions. However, if one's expression is influenced above a certain degree by someone else's, then it's at least arguable that it's a derivative work. Translations, for example, are derivative works EVEN THOUGH every word is new -- because the former work was the base.

A bigger argument, to me, is that Wikipedia is not the place for a detailed game guide. That's not an encyclopedia, it's a book in itself. --Morven 22:57, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That makes two of us with that opinion. I've been saying from close to the begining of this conflict that most of this work belongs at wikibooks, just to get shouted down by stardust. Gentgeen 09:17, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Would either of you say Martian Chess should just talk about the game a little, without going into how to play? Tualha 14:46, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'll put my comments on that page's talk page. Gentgeen 19:06, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No, this isn't a copyvio. Just RickK not considering fair use in the context of the article. The way an experienced contributor talked to a newbie was lamentable, though. Morven is right in general on works copying most of an other work by paraphrasing equivalents (yes, paraphrasing can infringe!) but game mechanics/rules are treated as facts, not expression, so it probably won't apply in this case, even if all of the facts are conveyed. Jamesday 08:55, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Which experienced contributor, when and where, please? Mostly what I've seen is Stardust being belligerent. If someone set her off I want to read it. Tualha 14:46, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User:Wik & User:Lir

Wik and Lir are involved too many edit-wars, both against each other and against other users. Their behavior causes many of us to intervene, taking us away from other wiki-activities. Specifically, Wik and Lir have been involved in no less than 20 edit wars in the past few months, with at least eight of them being against one another.

• Wik vs. Lir: October 2003, death camp, extermination camp, Anton Chekhov, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Richard Neustadt, Second Industrial Revolution, Ferdinand Porsche
• Wik vs. Nico: Silesia, Görlitz, Schlesien (now a redirect), Teschen , Gdansk
• Wik vs. others: Gross domestic product (vs. Karukera), Dean Acheson (vs. MyRedDice), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) (vs. MyRedDice), Securities and Exchange Commission appointees (vs. MyRedDice), Enlargement of the European Union (vs. various users), 2002 Gujarat violence (vs. various users), Wikipedia:Edit conflicts (vs. Angela, Martin and others)
• Lir vs. others: Zyklon B (vs. various users), Bush family conspiracy theory (vs. various users)

I realize an entire page has evolved to discuss Wik's conflicts, but Lir (who was once a banned user) is equally culpable here. I'd like to discuss solutions for the tendency of Wik and Lir to fall into edit-wars. I don't like having them suck up my time and the time of others. Ideas? Suggestions? Kingturtle 03:50, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• • Given that the arbitration committee won't start up until the beginning of January, given that Jimbo doesn't appear to ban sub-vandals, and given that there are no other mechanisms in place for dealing with these kinds of conflicts, there is nothing we can do about this situation, IMO, except complain about it here. I agree: it is a real pity. -- Viajero 09:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Caius2ga, taw, 24.2.152.139 vs. others

Several users (Caius2ga, taw, 24.2.152.139, maybe others) are engaged in a dedicated campaign to change English names to Polish names merely because the English names are based on the German ones. We have German cities that use non-German names like the French-named Cologne because those names are what is used in English, so there is absolutely no bias shown in using English names that happen to be closer to the German ones. This repeated vandalism needs to stop. Here is an example where Caius2ga and taw enter revert war against a dozen other people. Daniel Quinlan 05:12, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

Also, based on their actions, failure to work with other editors, and disregard for en policy, I have serious doubts that their complaints against Nico are well-founded. Daniel Quinlan 05:12, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

• This is coming form an obviously biased user. 24.2.152.139 03:48, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)~

As someone who comsiders himself unbiased, this argument is becoming ridiculously damaging to Wikipedia: we're expending large amounts of effort and server space to do this bizarre conversion. Caius2ga, Taw, and 24.2.152.139 are in the wrong: this is the English Wikipedia, and we need to be consistent with English usage. Is there anyone who can intervene? Now that we're moving pages like Second Treaty of Thorn around, my frustration has reached the level that I want to step in and move it back, but am refusing to out of respect for Wikipedia's vision and rules--I don't want to start an edit war. Can someone come up with a way of ending this before my patience gives out? I'm at a loss, other than to say as a community that Caius2ga, Taw, and 24.2.152.139 are stirring up trouble out of apparently nationalist concerns, and that we are committed to reverting their changes when they are purely intended to disregard English usage. Is anyone else out there frustrated? Jwrosenzweig 22:11, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I think I was too hard initially on Caius, Taw, and the anonymous user. While I do believe that this edit war is harmful, I'm not totally convinced that there is no wisdom in adopting a country's naming convention, if it is widely spread enough. Some looking around on Google gives me mixed feelings on this. I think the reversion wars mst stop, though: they are indeed frustrating. Somewhere on a talk page, dialogue needs to happen, with more Wikipedians than the five who seem most tied to this discussion: without outside influence, I doubt they will compromise. If one of the participants will tell me where they are discussing this difference of opinion, I'll certainly be one of the people who tries to build consensus, or do my best, at least. Jwrosenzweig 22:46, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

English pages, English domains: Oder-Odra ratio 4,4-1 (88% Oder). Oder is the official English name in accordance with NIMA: http://www.nima.mil/gns/html/index.html. The Oder case has been discussed for months, and the three persons Quinlan mention have declared that they not respect the en policy, that they will "erase any German name from Polish territories", they've even planned an "odrabot" (spamming robot) to damage Wikipedia. Btw, look at this IP 24.2.xxx's edit history. He is doing nothing but vandalizing articles, like this one: http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Kaliningrad&diff=0&oldid=1872609 and attacking my person -- Nico 01:49, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

P.S., I wrote the above comment at the same time as 24.2's below...had reached my position on my own. I will look at the history, though, and see what I think. This isn't about which user is right, though, but what's right for WP, in my opinion. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig

Before you judge us please take a look at Nico's history and find one page of a Polish City where he didn't try to add a German city name to the page. Look at his edit in Warsaw there was no reason for that except to start an edit war. He seems to be spreading his POV to all the cities in Poland even during the period that a city was in Poland like Gdansk. As to the Odra debate look at any current English atlas and look how the river is spelled.It is most likely odra.

24.2.152.139 22:35, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Point one: Nico added Warschau as the German spelling immediately after someone else added the Russian name for the city. If the Russian name is to be included having the German name (given that Prussia ruled the city for 11 years), at least makes a little bit of sense. I tend to think that only the English and Polish names should be given...as far as English atlases, yes, that's true, they call it Odra for the part in Poland. But most other English works called it the Oder. My atlas also calls Vienna Wien, Munich München, Moscow Moskva, and so forth (with the more familiar English name generally underneath). Atlases should not be the guide for Wikipedia standards. john 00:14, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

That IP 24.2.xxx is adding Polish names elsewhere, they even demand the Polish name of Kaliningrad to listed because East Prussia had some connections to Poland for centuries ago, so what's wrong with adding the German name on Warsaw, a name which has been the official name of the city - even recently? One rule for you, and one for the rest of the Wikipedians? -- Nico 01:18, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Re: "City where he didn't try to add a German city name to the page"

I even do not add German names to Lower Silesian Voivodship. But you are spamming Lower Silesia (Prussian province) with Polish names and changing English names to their Polish equalents all over the Wikipedia. Why? -- Nico 01:18, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

24.2.152.139 deletes english translations of german entities: Landsmannschaft Ostpreussen. Not acceptable. --snoyes 19:03, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Caius2ga, taw, 24.2.152.139 vs. German language

This is the stuggle against the German names of the Polish geographical objects. Some German editors do insist that the German names like Danzig, Schlesien and Oder are in fact the English names which is not true -- Caius2ga 04:38, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The facts are the names like Gdansk, Silesia and Odra are widely and commonly used in English texts: for example:

• The flooding event of Odra river: Measurements and calculations of the impact in the Odra estuary [4]
• In Your Pocket Guides Wroclaw: Attracting mostly Polish businessmen and conferences, the Park Plaza is a big glass-and-marble hotel with enviable views of islands in the Odra river. [5]

I hardly think a document which refers to the "Republic of Tchekia," as the first one does, can be considered a model of English usage. john 05:42, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Heh heh - in fact the first time I ever saw "Odra" was in WP, and it took a moment to realize "oh, they must mean the Oder river". Non-native English speakers (other than Joseph Conrad of course) should not presume to tell native speakers what is and is not normal usage. Stan 06:03, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Surely Vladimir Nabokov also warrants an exemption. But yeah, we don't seem to be getting anywhere. No matter how many of us say that "Oder" is the name for it in English, there'll be Polish users arguing that this is extremely offensive and validating German imperialism, and so on and so forth. If Wikipedia has taught me anything, it's that Central European nationalism is very much alive and well... john 07:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

JOhn, what's wrong with demanding of using CURRENT names? You have no problems with using Beijing, aren't you? Also, ai wouldn't call it "nationalism". Maybe "oversensitivism". We remember times, when it was forbidden to using POlish names, and Lodz was renamed to Litzmanstadt, Gdynia to Gotenhafen etc. szopen

This is not the point here. The point is that the English Wikipedia use those names known to speakers of English. I don't think any Germans are seriously offended because the English name on Köln happens to be Cologne (French name, French imperialism from Buonaparte's days, you know). Oder happens to be the current English name, both in accordance with NIMA and in actual use (88 % English pages, English domains) Nico 23:17, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Frankly, i don't know why they insist about Odra over Oder. I'm concnerned only about cities and regions in Poland :) [[Szopen]]

24.2.152.139

From Vandalism in progress

24.2.152.139 vandalized Lower Silesia (Prussian province). Seems to be simple vandalism. He deleted flag, interwiki links etc.Should be blocked before he make more damage. Nico 18:07, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• I have not removed any part of that page the only thing I did was edit it with Polish City names like (Now Wroclaw). Nico dosent seem to like that :)

24.2.152.139 22:30, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• • See the page history. He deleted flag, interwiki links, made unnecessary duplications of text and inserted unnecessary foreign names. Lower Silesian Voivodship does not mention German names, and I see no reason for why Lower Silesia (Prussian province) should mention a bunch of Polish names.Btw, that IP is lying, since my version already mention the name Wroclaw. Nico 22:51, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• • • Please note that the vandal 24.2.152.139 deleted my comment. -- Nico 01:10, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nico

Nico has removed my two sections about him from this page (he is doing it all the time) -- Caius2ga 04:22, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My primary area of interest is the history and geography of Poland, its cities, rivers, provinces and counties. I would like to contribute my knowledge and resources for the benefit of the WWW community. -- Caius2ga 00:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nico primary area of interst is also Poland. His activities are mainly making sure every single town and river in Poland is reffered to by its German name used in times Poland was occupied by German, Polish language forbidden, Polish people exterminated by the Germans. Nico activities are very destructive and annoying. -- Caius2ga 00:15, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have not removed anything. I reverted you as you removed (or tried to hidden) Maximus Rex' complaint against you. Caius2ga is dedicated to "erase any German names from Polish territories" [6], rename Oder (English name) to Odra (Polish name) and in every possible way belittle and deny any signs of German history in former German territories in present-day Poland. Opposite Caius2ga, I don't wish or try to belittle Polish history, but prevent him from removing information about German history. Nico 04:35, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am sorry, my remarks on you Nico, removed themselves several times, and this just strange accident, that the history says it was by someone called Nico. It could be anybody -- Caius2ga 04:45, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User:Caius2ga has also called his opponents Nazis [7], recently compared me with Hitler [8], vandalized my user page several times (it' currently protected), vandalized the silesian talk (deleted vote) etc. etc. Nico 04:42, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If ignorance was lighter than air, you could fly like a bird. It was a reference to "Ein Eeich, ein, Volk, ein Gott" Good luck -- Caius2ga 04:47, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Caius2ga

User:Caius2ga seems to have picked up where User:Taw left off in changing Oder to Odra etc. At Talk:Oder River he said, among other things, "It's a matter of honour to erase any German names from Polish territories". Maximus Rex 00:05, 10 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)

More caius2ga issues: Vandalizing Talk:Silesia. Look at the page history: http://en2.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:Silesia&action=history , he has already been reverted by three contributors in the last minutes. ~

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

Just to note that User:Caius2ga constantly makes false claims about others, especially Nico. The earlier argument here, in which he and user:random IP address accuse Nico of censoring the Talk:Gdansk page, is rather Orwellian - Caius2ga, saying he was "archiving", deleted a comment by Nico, leading to a revert war. Then his buddy random IP address reverts Nico, telling him there's no need for censorship! This kind of thing is simply outrageous, and Caius2ga is constantly doing these kinds of things. He makes no effort to talk things through, and constantly simply asserts his point of view, generally refusing to actually discuss things on talk pages, but instead making constant ad hominem attacks (accusing people of being fond of the Reich, and so forth - and then lying about his intentions). I suppose he's made many useful contributions about Polish history and geography, and so on, but his behavior whenever he gets into a dispute is simply atrocious. john 04:00, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Leumi

User:Leumi: Despite good faith shown on Talk pages, Leumi insists on inserting pro-Israel/anti-Palestine bias in many of the articles he works on. He is either unwilling or unable to learn NPOV. Please see my documentation at User:Viajero/Leumi. Respond at User_Talk:Viajero/Leumi. Thanks. -- Viajero 15:10, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I, and others, have responded to this at length, as is shown in User Talk:Viajero/Leumi. An examination of my user contributions will show a fixing of biases by introducing the fact that opposing perspectives do exist on the issues. I do not introduce bias, I correct it by simply stating that other opinions exist. I don't represent these opinions as fact, as has been done by others, or do anything to violate NPOV. Any examination of my contributions will show this, I have absolutely nothing to hide. (Respond on User Talk:Viajero/Leumi

(rest of discussion moved to User_Talk:Viajero/Leumi)

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 [9]
• "Odra River" 2,690 [10]
  

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

Oder is a common German word meaning or so these statistics are not about the Odra/Oder river -- Caius2ga 22:18, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

They are - note that Oder and Odre are taken here to be directly before river in an English-language text. If Oder here were the German word for or, then "und River" should be at least as common. It occurs 54 times. Substracting 54 from 4,640 still gives a number well above 2,690. Current count is 3,150 against 1,830 by the way, both significantly lower but with the same general tendency. - Andre Engels 01:02, 17 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) [11] --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 he is a developer, I have no reason to doubt that he has made such a bot, or at least he is certainly capable of making one. Maximus Rex 21:00, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maximus Rex: that is an absurd allegation. Taw was obviously joking. Taw doesn't care about being a sysop on the english wikipedia anyway. Alexandros 22:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Whether or not he was joking, I do not know. That he doesn't care about being a sysop on .en if anything would indicate to me that he would be more willing to engage in reckless/unwise activities (such as for example building a bot to change instance of 'oder' to 'odra'). Maximus Rex 20:09, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Taw is still reverting Oder to Odra river today with the faintly ridiculous summary of "English name in English Wikipedia", when he is doing the exact opposite. Secretlondon 15:55, Dec 8, 2003 (UTC)

Mr-Natural-Health

Moved to Wikipedia:Conflicts between users/Mr-Natural-Health

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.

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:

• myself
• User:Denny
• User:G-Man
• User:Mir Harven (*)
• User:Yakov
• User:Vedran

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:

• User:Dori
• User:Nikola Smolenski
• User:Zocky
• User:Cyan

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. [12] 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. [13]) -- 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

• I've brought up de-sysoping the Cunctator over at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Maximus Rex 07:21, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• 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:Mir Harven

(contribs) Repeatedly blanking and removing material contributed in good faith to controversial discussions (usually relating to Croatian langauge) and replacing them with aggressive 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

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

• Is Wik Wicked? Wikipedia:Problem users/Wik

• Discussion of User:Adam Carr moved to User talk:Adam Carr

• Discussion of User:Heine moved to User talk:Heine/Discussion of user

• 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