Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/Archive/2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The following contents are the archived alerts in 2006. Scroll down for the full navigation or select one the individual pages below for the specific time period.

Archived alerts in 2006


January 1, 2006

Mickey Z has a revision war going on. I suspect someone with a personal vendetta.

24.55.228.56, an anonymous poster who deletes anything he doesn't like in psychiatry-related articles. Also, rude and obnoxious. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 02:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

January 2, 2006

On Wikipedia talk:Ignore all rules, User:Raul654 has failed and refused to apologize for reverting and protecting Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. Rather, he has defended his actions in that they purportedly "led to productive discussion" and that they were purportedly "important to help demistify[sic] the cult of 'ignore all rules.'" Furthermore, he posted a "do not feed the trolls" image, stating that it is "a waste of time to respond to NetEsq." As I stated on the Talk page for IAR, I would have accepted a simple apology for Raul654's initial faux pas, but Raul654 has demonstrated that he doesn't think he did anything wrong and has subsequently chosen to marginalize his critics with passive aggressive behavior rather than respond to them. Similarly, a note that I left on Raul654's User Talk page inviting him to participate in dispute resolution has been ignored. // NetEsq 23:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

January 4, 2006

On the Mark Bilbo biographical article, user Jason Gastrich has attempted to input POV-laden and unseemly commentary in an effort to single out Mr Bilbo for scrutiny and criticism irrelevant to the commentary. Gastrich has a history with Biblo on Usenet newsgroups, especially free.christians and alt.atheism, where they tangled many times. Furthermore, Gastrich was denied a list of atheists from Mr Bilbo's site, used a proxy to get around the protections that had been put up, and took the list, anyway. This was exposed in the groups. Gastrich's attempts to play the system at Wikipedia to force inclusion of his POV into the Bilbo article are detailed at:

And several others. Gastrich has defied at least two and maybe three admins in his zeal to require Wikipedia to represent his POV on the issue, and this is not the first time. See the Wife Swap entry and history for another example. 00:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


January 7, 2006

Seeking external input on [Shiloh Shepherd Dog] breed article. Discussions began in early November and have not been able to reach agreement. POV has been a stumbling block. Personal attacks have been numerous. Mediator Jareth has been involved at length and has been great. First straw poll on article went 18-4-4. Second straw poll raised, but external blitzing for votes on external website is skewing the picture. End attempt is to have an article with NPOV. Gwyllgi 21:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

January 8, 2006

January 10, 2006

  • Anarchism - it is difficult to keep discussion civil in this oft-disputed article. Many people have been accusing each other of bad faith and discussion often disolves into personality wars. Any help is much appreciated. 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

January 11, 2006

  • Tom Rubython is persistently being bouced between two anonymous users using a few IPs with two diametrically opposed views. Neither contrib is using reverts nor providing sources and both versions are poor qulity and few if any links. This is a vandalism war but it looks as if there ought to be a good article here. Velela 16:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

January 13, 2006

January 14, 2006

  • The Raknet entry has apparently been added by the developer of the RakNet software [[5]] and I believe it violates the NPOV rules by really being little more than an advertisement. 80.4.198.78 01:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You are right. The product seems to be reasonably notable, but the article reads like an advert and almost certainly is written by the programmer. Is this an AFD candidate or should it be tagged? Anyone? --kingboyk 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

January 16, 2006

  • user:CyclePat wished to receive an answer from user:Neutrality. Neutrality has purposely avoided answering any questions, even reverting added comment, posted on his user page. The subject mater is in regards to deleting the article Garneau User Group. The importance of this discussion: reform to deletion process. It puts at stake the current wiki deletion process and implies changes or better enforcement is required in the deletion process (as well as other related wiki policies). CyclePat has asked for a anyone to try and contact user:Neutrality on this issue and believes a user-rfc may be started. 15:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)~
  • If I am not mistaken, Neutrality has at least one long-term sockpuppet which he uses and probably more. He will never answer you because to get his way, he simply uses his sockpuppet(s) to make controversial edits - thereby keeping his personal edits history "clean". In my opinion, Neutrality is a POV monger in admin's clothing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.98.130.159 (talk • contribs) 09:09, January 17, 2006 UTC.

January 19, 2006

  • Dispute over probable hoaxing and offensive content at Myron Gomes.

--Francisco Valverde 21:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Dispute over bias point of view in the article Zeta Phi Rho.

--Francisco Valverde 23:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

January 23, 2006

  • Dispute over whether the name of the article about the 1968 film directed by Lindsay Anderson should be If... or If...., that is, with a three or four dot ellipsis. The editors agree that a four dot ellipsis is part of the film name; the dispute is over the Wikipedia guideline for the article name. Please see the discussion at Talk:If... (film). 00:09, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

01:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm stepping away from this one for a while until someone else cares to do something about it. I think this editor has made an adequate case against themselves. -Kwh 18:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Piedras grandes

Made Template:Good, Template:Bad and Template:Small, duplicating functions of WP:GA, Template:Cleanup, and Template:stub. Also adds cleanup templates to random articles. --08:51, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

(continuing list for January 23)

(Update: 5th attempt) Elonka 11:54, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Would somebody please inform this person that posting harassing comments and false accusations over and over and over again on someone's talk page after they made it clear that she is not welcome there is a major violation of several policies? I responded to her comments on her talk page, pointed out her mistakes. She made long, ranting more accusations. I told her to stop posting on my talk page, and she fails to listen. She is under the misbelief that she is allowed to bug me when I have no interest in doing anything but ignoring her. She doesn't understand several policies and interprets me pointing them out to her and following them as an "attack". The only one doing any attacking here now is her, against me, and this "alert" is just the latest bit of misunderstanding of policies and petty harassment. DreamGuy 12:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
I have strongly advised Elonka, now on her "7th attempt", to stop posting on Dreamguy's page. Elonka, your options are to either forget the whole thing — as far as I understand, though I have not indeed reviewed the AfD case, it's all in the past — or open an WP:RFC or WP:RFAR on DreamGuy. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC).
  • Rumor Vandalism

User:24.42.120.3 keeps on putting in false rumors in the article Anna Vissi about a bottle being stuck up the singers anus. I keep on taking it out, but he keeps non puting it back in. I have talked to him on the Talk:Anna Vissi page, but he insists that I am vandalising the article by taking out the false rumor. Someone please help me.

January 24, 2006

We have only two active editors on this article and we are deadlocked. Please help. loxley 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

January 25, 2006

  • User_talk:Dunk_meister this users keeps labelling different artist new age, although they don't strictly qualify in that genre, and just touch it, or were one of the predecessors. Different people have reverted his chances eg. on [16] , buy he keeps adding them again and again. His does this on different biographies Special:Contributions/Dunk_meister. Different people have tried reasoning with him, tried to show him what's wrong, suggested if he really insists in a stubborn way he may try adding some subtle references in the articles to explain the link, but well, all he does is posting extensive long texts on different talk pages, but he actually doesn't listen at all and just keeps adding and adding things everyone seems to disagree with. I'm not a regular user of the english wiki, and haven't had this sort of problems before, so maybe this isn't the place to ask for any help (I also left a message on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature), but well... maybe someone can look into it or gave any hints for what to do next--LimoWreck 10:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Patriarchy The main piece of writing on this is fine. A sub-section has been added in anthropology , the second paragraph of which claims that Patriarchy is the only possible organisation for human society. It should be made clear in the text that this is just one point of view. I have tried several times to edit to this end but it gets put back to the original. The third paragraph actually makes untrue, insulting and defamatory remarks about an organisation which is researching matriarchal societies. This is quite against Wikipedia principles. Paula Clare 19:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User:68.85.236.106 removed verifiable information on the article Bob Beauprez about the Representative's ties to Tom DeLay's PAC, record as Colorado GOP Chairman, and stance on President Bush's guest worker program. The user appears to be trying to remove any negative information about Bob Beauprez.


January 27, 2006

  • An organization called "Society Bqlo Bratstvo, Bulgaria" wishes to claim exclusive rights to editing the Peter Deunov Wikipedia article, anonymously (62.44.101.70) removing relevant links that don't appeal to them (calling them "spam attacks"), and doing self-promotion. See Talk:Peter_Deunov 10:31, 27 January 2006
  • User:AvB - misuse of Wikiquette alert in an ongoing campaign of harassment, wikistalking, manipulation, and intimidation, in violation of multiple requests to stop these activities. Pretending to Administrator authority she does not have in order to accomplish this harassment and intimidation.
  • 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities - edit war, inability to achieve consensus, page locked but half the editors involved in the war refusing to engage in discussion but seem to be waiting for the page to be unlocked so that the edit war can start again. 23:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

January 29, 2006

January 30, 2006

  • User:Blue sea has been on the rampage for the last week, renaming articles without any prior discussion, and renaming them again when the results of a Wikipedia:Requested moves application went against him. User:Blue sea also operates using registered and anonymous sockpuppets (see ]]User talk:Blue sea]].
Today, he has changed the following articles from
Surely something must be done about this.--Damac 15:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Rjensen is a very productive historian and editor— this is good. However, Rjensen often uses POV and links to questia in violation of WP:WIN. When corrected, he calls us vandals and reverts all of our corrections, regardless of whether the correction was regarding POV, questia, or a typo. It is possible that I am not reading WP policy correctly, but I am not alone in my concern. Here is one example. Thank you.13:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

31 January 2006 (Tuesday)


1 February 2006

  • User:Tururuturu Is creating new articles for various world musicians based NPOV press releases, word for word. He is either a representantive of a record company doing promotional work, or posting copyright material. In any case his articles should be reviewed and probably deleted.

Meekrob 01:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

2 February 2006

3 February 2006

Administrator user:FeloniousMonk is issuing warnings while having conflict-of-interest, is repeatedly making accusations and failing to listen to the subject of the accusation (as well as another admin who can not be accused of bias, as he is on the opposite 'side' of two debates), and is acting in a manner inappropriate to an admin. Attempts at soliciting apology and correction of the error(s) has been met with admonishments that amount to 'go away' and to let "reasonable editors" take over [24] [25]. Several editors are working, with compromise, to come to a consensus on two issues (one nearly resolved [26]) in this particular article but this admin (and a couple others) are merely reverting to a version that goes against both 'sides' of the compromising, insisting that there is consensus where none exists. This complaint is not specific to content, although that is part of the problem, but to the behaviour and conduct of this Admin in particular. Following on the heels of him erroneously reporting me for 3RR the other day, this leads to a pattern of some sort of personal vendetta for reasons known only to himself. I have repeatedly asked him (and the other three who are reverting without showing cause) why 'neutral' errors should be re-introduced but there has been no (substansive) reply to that query. 06:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppets User:Sea level/User:Rktect/User:Federal Street. POV vandalizing NSA warrantless surveillance controversy - see article's history and bottom of Talk:NSA warrantless surveillance controversy. Activated Legality of warrantless surveillance which is its own thing other than warning templates - trying to link to it. Let him have it? Metarhyme 07:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks in Talk:Neuro-linguistic programming. I came in as an outside source, uninvolved with the articles editing. I was immediately and mercilessly personally attacked. To wit, after my very first post pointing out WP:NPA: "Swatjester. You have not explained exactly why pointing out persistently bad behaviour is an extreme violation of WP:NPA. Instead of just waving your little forms around for people to look at, why don't you take your head out of your arse and give us a good argument for why Comaze has never been in violation of any wikipedia policies or conventions. HeadleyDown 13:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)". I could give you further examples, but it's easy just to scroll down the page. Swatjester 14:13, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I just came here to report personal attacks by User:HeadleyDown and I find he is already reported. Having asked him to avoid personal remarks and assume good faith I received this response:
  • "Who did I insult personally? And good faith was what I assumed for months. Bad behaviour of NLP fanatics was the result, including their directing personal insults such as wanker, cunt, etc to myself. So take a running jump, your sanctimonious bullshit is as misguided as your belief in NLP." Talk:Principles_of_NLP
I have responded to his query but I have refrained from issuing a personal warning on his talk page. I am beginning to wonder what percentage of this users edits violate NPA. Peace. Metta Bubble 05:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

4 February 2006

5 February 2006

  • At Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/65.182.172.x, there is an attempt to resolve an ongoing dispute with an anonymous user. An integral component of the disagreement is that the anonymous user is posting people's personal information at wikipedia to intimidate them and is engaging in repeated Ad Hominem Attacks. He refuses to sign his edits, create an account or use summary boxes even though he has hundreds of edits. He breaks apart other user's comments and blocks of discussion text I or others write on talk pages. As a result, it fragments the conversation and confuses readers because he will not sign his edits. After requesting that he not engage in this behaviour, he is currently doing it at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/65.182.172.x. Any help or comments would be most appreciated. Unfortunately, you will probably have to look in the history to figure out what is occuring. Cyberdenizen 03:38, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

6 February 2006

Fyslee is now stalking me. His insults continue. [29] He makes me feel extremely unwelcomed to such a degree that I am hesitant to post any more details about myself on my user page out of fear of giving him more fodder for stalking me. Levine2112 18:50, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

As I read this exchange Fyslee and Levine2112 are having a serious disagreement that has lasted only four days, and involves all of five total posts of Fyslee's. Neither side is treating each other's feelings with kid gloves, but we are adults here.
This exchange does not amount to "stalking." Fyslee's asked for Levine2112's credentials to argue from personal authority.
I think Levine2112 has jumped the gun here with a Wikiquette alert, which might apply to him as a result perhaps? MARussellPESE 21:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I would agree with you if this was only limited to Pseudoscience section, but Fyslee has been following me around Wikipedia, launching into insults about me on his talk page, the Chiropractic article's talk page, and the Oxymoron article's 1#Question talk page, to name but a few. What should I do? Levine2112 23:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Corrected. This conflict has gone on for some time on Talk:Chiropractic, User_talk:Fyslee, User_talk:Levine2112 and strangely on Talk:Oxymoron. Frankly, I still can't find the "stalking". Perhaps Levine2112 can cite specific examples instead of entire talk pages.
Levine2112's edits of Fyslee's in the "Oxymoron" subsection "Examples of Perceived Oxymoron" was, in my opinion, correctly reverted as vandalism. Levine2112 was an active participant in the ensuing edit war and heated, disruptive, talk page discussion.
Both editors have very strong opinions on the subject — Fyslee's a skeptic and Levine2112's a true-believer. Fyslee's background appears very strong on the material and argues hard. Levine2112's background on the material is impossible to tell, and argues much less effectively. Fyslee's background probably gives him a distinct advantage as he's probably heard much of these arguments before, has ready answers, but could be a bit more patient perhaps.
Levine2112 seems to have had more people question their edits and POV than Fyslee has.
Both sides could consider collaborating on a re-write of the article, which could use it. The article's seems to have a rather "Pro" POV in all the sections. Perhaps each side preparing a "Pro" and "Con" section, which should follow each other rather than be separated as they are, and having a Neutral sift the sources and edit out any un-sourced information presented in both. (I do not volunteer for this service. I have a problem with a profession where not insignificant segments of it still deny the germ theory of disease, so I'm no Neutral on that subject.)
I do not see evidence of "stalking" and seriously question the reasons behind this Wikiquette alert. MARussellPESE 04:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


This is not the first complaint from Levine2112. He seems to be a bit thin-skinned. I haven't replied before because it was just too silly. I have better things to do.
I do not "stalk" anyone, but only do the same thing he himself does to me, as well as what many others do here. Watchlists are used by members to track subjects and other users. He watches me, and I watch him, so it looks like the kettle is calling the pot "black." There is no "stalking" involved. He came on my radar when he began deleting my edits. He seems to think that his viewpoint is neutral, but I contend that he is viewing things from a disadvantaged viewpoint, and therefore isn't in a very good position to judge.
Here you will find a partial list of the terms that Keating uses to describe the profession that employs him as its historian, writer, professor, and lecturer. He points out serious flaws that plague the profession, but Levine2112 attempts to keep any mention of those problems from being mentioned.
I don't deny having a viewpoint, but only wish to make sure that both sides of the story are represented in a factual way. He does everything he can to whitewash chiropractic and to prevent other viewpoints than his own from becoming represented in the chiropractic article. I can produce plenty of documentation for the existence of other viewpoints, and that those viewpoints are considered legitimate by insiders in the profession, while he keeps referring to a long list of studies he considers to be legitimate. Most of them are junk science, one-case, no-controls type of stuff. Hardly the kind of thing legitimate scientists would place much trust in. I have even analyzed and explained in detail why many of them aren't legitimate to use in the way he does, but he has simply ignored it, without answering or refuting the analysis. Controversial subjects should not be allowed to stand alone, with only one side being presented.
The two sides should be presented in a matter of fact way, which isn't the same as a "factual" way, IOW, viewpoints should be labeled as such. He attempts to stop that process by claiming his view is the neutral viewpoint (and therefore he feels no need to label them as just one viewpoint), and that allowing other sides of the question to be presented forces him to add more pro-chiro stuff to keep the article in "balance."
Here is just some of what we have to put up with from him:
Fyslee (real name removed), I was trying to be civil about this, but I see what you're doing here. Calling Chiropractic a "pseudoscience" absolutely 100% breaks the NPOV. If you want to say that its roots were in spiritualism, hey that's fine. It's part of the history. I can hardly think of any form of medicine without roots in spiritualism. But know this: Today chiropractic is a science. Doctors, yes DOCTORS of Chiropractic are accredited physicians who gain as much knowledge of the human anatomy as an MD in the 4 years of intensive research and study one receives at a chiropractic college (which is a heck of a lot more than a physiotherapist.) Chiropractic is not magic. It is not a religion. It is not a cult. It is a SCIENCE by all definitions of the word science. As it is not aligned with mainstream medicine (as far as the ruling pharmaceutical and medical lobbies are concerned), it is therefore classified as an "Alternative Medicine" - end of story. And yes, CDN99, Alternative Medicine is still a scientific classification. Chiropractors, homeopaths, osteopaths, et cetera are proud of this distinction of being an alternative to cutting the body open and loading it up with unnatural chemicals. I'm glad another user caught this edit of yours. I will always be monitoring this article for unfairness from hereon. I have nothing but time on my side. So please, feel free to add to the knowledge-base if you like, but refrain from making your potshots and attacks. Save your skeptical, unscientific opinions for your little blog. Please leave Wikipedia as a place for clear, unbiased knowledge. Levine2112 05:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
He seems to believe that he is free of bias, and that his biases aren't showing.......Well, he certainly is "monitoring this article"..... In fact he has pretty much taken it over. Other viewpoints don't stand much chance at all. We are made to feel very unwelcome by Levine2112's practices. He has been warned by others before:
Levine, even though you've been here only two months, you must understand Wikipedia policy and guidelines, specifically those related to disruption, vandalism and good faith. In 2004/2005 a user highjacked the alternative medicine section of Wikipedia to promote his own website and ideas, and started countless edit wars with numerous users, including me. He was banned from editing for a year in spring 2005 (his third banishment), and we're still cleaning up his mess. I'm not saying that you're like him, just that you may be heading in the direction of arbitration, considering your edit history. --CDN99 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
More:
My views on NPOV are here. Among other things there, I write:
One must:
  • present the facts about each side's POV, but
  • not present each side's POV as facts
IOW, just tell the story without taking sides.
When editing articles, it is improper to fight for one's own POV at the expense of another POV. One should simply ensure that both POV are presented (not preached) accurately.
One should:
  • Not tell the truth (subjective & personal) about the subject, (selling)
  • But tell the facts (objective & documented) about the viewpoint. (presenting)
This may well include documenting what each side thinks of the other side's POV.
I'd appreciate comments from others on them. Am I missing something here? -- Fyslee 10:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


MARussellPESE, did you really just insult me on the Wikiquette page by calling me a "true-believer"? That is a derogatory word used by sceptics to characterize who they beleive are weak-minded people that have been duped by pseudoscience. Clearly, you are not an unbiased party here and I suggest you leave this matter to a legitimate System Operator. This is a place to post violations of Wikiquette; not carry on argumentative name-calling.

Now if you would like me to cite specifics, here you go. On this page, Fyslee and friends call me a "prinitive type", a "fool", "stupid", and "thin-skinned". Here he characterizes my contributions as "amateurish", "cheap", "feeble", "weasel", disingenuous, whiny, "oversensitive", "thin-skinned" and cowardly.

MARussellPESE, you point out that I have more complaints about my additions on my talk page that Fyslee has on his. That's because Fyslee resorts to ganging up on me. He frequently posts messages like this on the pages of his cabal to warn them about a new user with beliefs that differ from theirs.

Further, Fyslee leaves messages like this on user's pages that post things that he doesn't agree with:

If you want to press the point about entrance requirements, I can easily and without violating NPOV provide more chiropractic sources that are quite unfavorable. Is that really what you want? Sometimes it's best to be quiet and hope that some things don't get brought into the open. This is one of those times, seen from your viewpoint.

Is that a threat? Sure seems like one. He continues to threaten me with gathering evidence against me and getting me booted from Wikipedia. Here is an example even from SkiptiWiki.

Finally, the actual subject of this entry is found here, where Fyslee calls me a "disgrace", a "joke" and finally makes it clear that he is trying to find out who I am and where I live.

Now given all of these insults, given his desperate attempts to learn my identity, given his fanaticism, and given his penchant for guns and hunting, I ask you: Should I feel uneasy? Levine2112 07:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112, you and Fyslee couldn't be further apart and comparing a "skeptic" to "true believer" is as succinct a way to express that as I can think of. Any offense taken here is your problem because none was intended. Assume a little good faith please if you don't mind.
None of your citations are new and none amount to "stalking". They're certainly not kind, and may express a certain frustration with you, which I'm beginning to see; but they're not "stalking".
I think your conduct here speaks for itself. If you're offended at being called a "true believer" in something that you are willing to argue about on any page that you happen to find Fyslee, then I feel sorry for him.
Levine2112, at the end of the day, this Wikiquette Alert could, and probably should, apply as easily to you. MARussellPESE 14:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you guys want to gang up on me ont he Wikiquette page, that is fine. It will just demonstrate your tactics. You have not pointed to one instance of name-calling from me. I have pointed to a litany of attacks. My edits have done nothing but balance out bias in the articles. Fyslee and his crew of sceptics have added bias with venom all over. They have a clear antichiropractic agenda, going so far as posting antichiropractic propaganda on articles as seemingly unrelated as the Oxymoron page. Fyslee and his team have also posted links all over Wikipedia to the antichiropractic website that they run in order to boost link popularity for Google Page Rank - a practice that is highly frowned upon here at Wikipedia. And before you start denying it, I would like to point you all to a section of Fyslee's anti-chiropractic chatboard entitled "Upping Google's Chirotalk rating" where Fyslee clearly answers the question of boosting site PageRank:

Reciprocal links......
Reciprocal links......
Reciprocal links......
Reciprocal links......
Get the picture?
Hits aren't enough. Site popularity means an awful lot.

Yes, Fyslee. We certainly do get the picture.

I have not threatened anyone. I have not called anyone anything derrogatory (since being warned about that just after I started making edits on Wikipedia). I have not actively sought out a cabal of other users to gang up on users with whom I have disagreement. I have not abused Wikipedia to push my agenda or promote my website. Can Fyslee and company say the same? No. He has threatened users and accused them of vandalism fust for making edits that he doesn't agree with [30]. He continues to call me juvenille names (as recently as today on this article where he called me thin-skinned)here. He has tried to create a cabal of users to gang up on me and others [31] [32]. He has used Wikipedia as a soapbox to push an agenda that goes far beyond the reaches of Wikipedia - he maintains and moderates several antichiropractic websites. Finally, he has used Wikipedia as a tool to boost the Page Rank to these sites of his. What do you call it when a user is using your IP address to find out where you live and demanding that I reveal my name to him? I call that stalking.

I will continue to user Wikiquette Alerts to post Fyslee's infractions. I hope his behavior improves. Levine2112 19:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

---


23:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC) An anonymous user from the Level 3 IP address range allocation (4.243.x.x) is consistantly making apparently POV edits to the Bubbles section of the Champagne article, and has edited other people's contributions on the associated talk page. 23:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


8 February 2006

Over the past day User:Wjhonson (Talk) has vandalized User:Jeff3000's user page twice [33] & [34], left nasty comments on user talk pages (See this.) and edit summaries [35], reverted other's work without discussion [36] & [37], falsely accused others of doing the same (Same as above.), and has a history of blanking his talk page to hide critical comments [38], [39], [40], [41] and [42] including requests to stop the vandalism and civility.

This user is very active among the biography pages. Has anyone else had experience with them? Could somebody come in, review these, and explain to them the norms here? Several have tried. MARussellPESE 22:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it possible to simply block users who commit such gross offences? -- Fyslee 22:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Addition - User:Wjhonson has made over 100 edits to these pages in the past 24 hours and is referring to these edits as the "just the first salvo in the war." Assistance is urgently requested. MARussellPESE 04:31, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I have restored the warnings and warned the user about removing warnings from talk pages. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Addition - User:Wjhonson has just blanked his talk page once again, this time after an administrator's restoring it an warning. MARussellPESE 15:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

9 February 2006

Hello. Over at Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi User:Zarbon / User:72.227.132.62 (his logged-in, not logged-in accounts) is constantly reverting the page in order to keep what he has admitted to be his personal bias in the pages. I request that this matter be looked into when possible in order to avert an rv war. Thank you. 19:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

10 February 2006

Problem user IP: 207.235.176.127 making random childish edits on several pages. ex: Turtle article, replacing "turtles" with "kitties" [43]

User:Adam_Holland has made over 30 edits in the last two days to the article Alexis Carrel which are heavily biased and give undue weight to one side of an issue by burying the article in a sea of quotations that come from dubious sources. The article (now) lacks a sympathetic tone, as required by WIkipedia, as well as deliberately downplaying the one earlier edit I made to the article about the verifiable medical accomplishments of the subject, done, in my view, in order to defame him. Discussions noting ALL of these positions has resulted in being accused of "attacking" this person. I've been questioned "Whey do you care about this guy?" and have been accused of sharing some of the article's subject's more aberrant views (which for the record include early on in his career supporting the idea of euthanasia for the insane.) It is clear that the User has a bias against the subject, which I tried to explain to him means he must take extra care not to slant articles in one direction. I am not ready to do a revert/edit war with this guy, and I need guidance on how to proceed. Nhprman 23:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

11 February 2006

  • An anonymous user who seems to be able to edit from multiple IP addresses has avoided a block (User:70.50.52.172) and has repeatedly been reverting Gorilla to a specific version that includes a pop-culture section that has been moved to a seperate article. They have not been civil in their comments or edit summaries. 04:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This is still ongoing. User:70.50.53.28 is now making leaving edits with totally unacceptable edit summaries. 23:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I am getting pretty damn sick of this anonymous editor thinking they can insult people at will vandalise articles and suffer not even teh slightest consequences. He is rapidly souring my wikipedia experience. Could some administrators at least try and watch the articles and block him whenever he edits? I am sick of playing the nice guy and getting shit kicked in my face. 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

12 February 2006

Please see discussion "Picture of Chomsky & Castro" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Noam_Chomsky). User [Tcsh] is repeatedly disregarding the Wikiquette guidelines, making progress next to impossible. 00:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Potential Edit War developing on the Sri Lanka page between two users. I feel they need an outside perspective to help settle things 01:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

11 February 2006

Many users ganging up together in order to prevent anyone from adding NPOV to a terribly POV extended set of religious articles. This specific complaint is in regard to behaviour encountered at the main, or hub, article, though the problem persists for all sub articles as well. I am a special target right now, as their tactics to try to make me give up and go away haven't worked as they usually do with others interested in NPOVing this article. The editors in question insist that hub article go into explicit detail of positive views of subject, while mentioning a very limited number of negative views in passing (in such a way that they are difficult to notice), ignoring most of the past and present negative views, and confining all elaboration of negative views to sub pages, occasionally creating hard-to-find forks.

Main: Joseph Smith, Jr.; Relevant Talk: "allowed to find" the plates, This Article is Quite Biased; Relevant User Talk: bcatt:Joseph Smith, Jr., Storm Rider:npov dispute, bcatt:npov dispute, Trödel:npov dispute

During this dispute, Storm Rider and Trödel both censored their own talk pages of the discussion, and Trödel also attempted to censor my talk page. As evidenced on the talk pages, I tried discussion first before seeking help, but I think I tried discussion for too long, as the history is now incredibly daunting to wade through, and an equally daunting task for me to organize here in a logical way, but I will do my best.

I have tried to format this request in many ways, using reference links to all the specific edits and such, but because the entire discussion is the problem (not just certain parts or a certain person), it becomes extremely lengthly. In this, my fifth attempt to find a way to format it, I think I will just summarize the major points, and allow reviewers to just look at the whole discussion at a fewer links, rather than linking to every single separate comment.

A comment was left a month ago by Euchrid regarding npov concerns ("allowed to find" the plates) which was ignored by those heavily involved in the article. This was later commented on by Rense, who was in agreement, but it still did not receive any attention. Another comment (This Article is Quite Biased [44]) was left by 128.125.118.151 shortly before I made my first edit to the article and was responded to immediatly after I made this article edit. I mention it in this way because this article is watched very closely, and anything that is not "approved" by those watching gets immediate action. My suspicion, and note, I am admitting it is my suspicion, is that it would have been ignored had an edit not been made by a someone new to the article (my edit mentioned above), or else that it was responded to because 128. identified themself as exmormon, which is a group that comes under heavy fire at this and related article.

My actions included:

  • added an npov tag (3 or 4 times because it kept being removed); requested assistance in making a specific project of npoving the article and it's sub-articles; explained how the NPOV policy supports my concerns; pointed out that others also have NPOV concerns; expressed concern that previous NPOV debates may have been treated as this current one is; quoted directly from NPOV policy to support my position; complied with the excessive demands imposed on me for opening a NPOV dispute (which still was not recognized); questioned the removal of the npov tag; explained how NPOV policy relates to my concerns, the discussion, and the article; stressed that my point was not to push POV in the opposite direction, but rather to properly represent all views in regard to the subject; expressed the need for editors representing a balanced view, rather than only pro-mormon editors being "allowed" to edit the article; suggested that there should be some kind of special enforcement of equal representation in editors to this article because of the owning and chasing off problems;
  • agreed with 128.s concerns; added an additional concerns that certain terms were being used in the article to sway the view of readers and explained why; gave a detailed analogy to explain my concerns; gave several examples of very specific language concerns and noted that this was a very incomplete list; gave a specific example of an opposing view which is not mentioned in the article
  • suggested making this article more summarized to avoid too much repitition between articles; suggested an aesthetic change which was ignored;
  • expressed my concerns over owning, personal attacks, information suppression, bias, refusal to follow policy (while holding other users to it to the letter), ganging up on editors the regulars don't agree with, and reprimanding the slightest mistake from certain editors while ignoring the rampant same intentional behaviour from the article "owners";
  • expressed concern about the lack of non-church references and links;
  • thanked FyzixFighter for being willing to listen to and give attention to my list of ultra-specific concerns and engaged in further discussion regarding these with (him?);
  • admitted that I had indeed made an error in one of the items I listed as a concern; agreed that changing one concerning area in a certain way would push POV the other way and that an alternate way should be found to fix that part (proving that I am truly here in the interest of NPOV and not to just make the article the opposite POV of what it currently is);
  • questioned COGDENs assertion that the term catholic is ambiguous and may not actually refer to catholics [45] (an argument made to support the use of ambiguous terms within this article);
  • made non-editing related comments expressing my annoyance with the treatment of this dispute; described my annoyance with the regular editors attacks on me (in a very exasperated way) and stated my defense to their personal attacks towards me; eventually lost my temper...still expressed valid concerns and made valid suggestions, but was quite abrasive about it.

After a while I started having a lot of difficulty remaining civil. At this point I listed the article's talk page on the RfC, Cunado19 came to see if (he?) could help out, and I left a comment describing why I listed it.

Storm Riders actions included:

  • outright dismisses 128.s concerns; repeatedly reverts my addition of the npov tag; dismisses my additional npov concern and ignores my summarization suggestion
  • implies that 128. intends to make POV edits; accuses 128. of having an axe to grind (which appears to be an accusation made to anyone who is not pro-mormon); repeatedly tells me I am not knowledgable (apparently because I am not pro-mormon); accuses me of not providing reasons for disputing the NPOV of the article; accuses me of conducting a witch hunt; calls me ignorant; accuses me of being unaware of the extensiveness of the subject; accuses me of intending to vandalize the article; uses patronizing language which is designed to appear inviting and diplomatic but is actually insulting and off-putting; represents himself as the innocent and hard-working martyr editor who is beseiged by ignorants (non-mormons); accuses me of making broad accusations; asserts that I am "shooting from the hip"; implies that 128. has no say because they are new; makes value judgements about my level of knowledge without any basis for making such an accusation; uses inflating, derogotory, and inflammatory language to misrepresent my expression of concerns; accuses me of being disingenious; accuses me of having an axe to grind (sound familiar?); accuses me of reading ONLY anti-mormon literature and coming to edit the article after reading only a single source; accuses me of having concrns based solely on my personal POV; implies that those who have npov concerns are not diplomatic; implies that 128. and I are demanding; accuses "new editors" (ie: me, 128. and past people who have had similar concerns) of wanting to suppress all positive information about subject; implies that my concerns are not "appropriate"; continues a debate after a change has already been made and then insults me when I respond because I responded after the item has changed (even though he did the same in the first place); accuses me of enjoying "griping"; accuses me of being self-righteous; accuses me of doing none of the work even though I have been heavily discouraged from making edits in the first place, and ignores the effort that went into presenting my position in the first place; accuses me of "whining incessantly"; accuses me of "playing victim"; tells me that I do have an axe to grind (going beyond an accusation)
  • claims that religious articles are allowed to be introduced from a positive bias (and even that this is the standard practice); claims that since 4 areas mention that there was opposition (although these mentions of opposition are hugely vague) that the article is already npov enough; defends the misleading use of ambiguous terms
  • implies that only those with a pro-mormon view are capable of providing an objective perspective; repeatedly tells me not to edit the article without explicit permission; implies that only pro-mormon sources may be used for reference; implies that because there are many articles related to the subject, it is therefore beyond reproach
  • demands that I present a hugely exhausting and overly detailed description of the issues I see before using the npov tag; demands that I format the presentation of an npov dispute exactly the way he wants; threatens to revert my edits if I do not do things the way he wants

After Canudo left a comment inquiring into the problem that help is needed with and I responded, Storm Rider then responds with the implication that the "evidence" (the ongoing debate) will show me to be a liar, makes a justification for his behaviour, claims that I have ignored responses to my concerns, represents my idea of creating an equal representation of all views within the editing community on the article as a ridiculous and unheard of load of crap, characterizes me as nothing but "something to be endured", and otherwise tries to present a negative characterization of me to Cunado.

Trödels actions include:

  • reverting all of my edits that Storm Rider didn't revert: [46] (removing npov tag), [47] (there were other edits in between, but the edit summaries describe what is going on - I had changed only one word - it turns out that, as with "Saints" (see article talk page), they are trying to also use this word (and potentially others) in a "special" mormon usage of the word that does not actually reflect the usage of the word by the rest of the world), [48] (removed edit that represented other side of issue to previously POV statement combined with untrue statement that the other side of issue is unknown, also removed npov tag, and other dispute tag which someone else placed), from [49] to [50] (removes other side of story again), [51] (removes other side of story a third time). His reasoning behind removing my edits: [52] and [53]
  • trying to provoke me via user talk pages: [54] (he censors his talk page), [55] (he vandalizes/censors my talk page), [56] (I restore my talk page and note vandalism), [57] (I point out that I did not give him permission to censor my talk page), [58] (he censors my comment regarding vandalism from his talk page), [59] (makes sure he has the last word on my talk page in a way that is designed to provoke a negative response), [60] (censors his talk page of entire conversation, adding a link to the partial conversation on another page), [61] (rewords his previous comment on my talk page which falsely invites me to edit the article)
  • In debate: insists that all negative views be confined to sub pages and forks (contrary to "When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct"); insists that identifying each pro-POV as a POV (as per "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves") creates an anti-POV and therefore many of the pro-POVs should be represented as facts; represents his intentions as contrary to his actual behaviour
  • accuses me of not reading the sub articles because I want to make sure all views are properly represented in main article.

Cookiecaper swoops in to reprimand me for becoming annoyed, accusing me of incivility and personal attacks (which may be true, I have reread my comment several times and am not quite sure if it is either of these things). Although, even though I don't deny that I was certainly mean, I was not unprovoked (no, this is not a justification, I am NOT saying that I am allowed be mean if I am provoked), and he did not bother to reprimand Storm Rider for his repetitive attacks and incivility throughout the entire debate. Then turns around and personally attacks me by saying that my edits "suck", while also dismissing every concern I have voiced in a blanket comment, and claims that there was no need to reprimand anyone else for incivility or personal attacks, and distorts my suggestion for evening out contributing views (ie: regulating that there is equal represetation from all sides) by implying that I have suggested to ban ALL religious people from the article [62]. Then, when I make an edit with a summary making it clear that I expect the same treatment as others in regard to my edits, he accuses me of trying to own the article (in other words, others can prevent me from editing and not be owning the article, but I cannot expect my edits to be reviewed properly or else I am owning the article - I have to discuss proposed edits (and will indefinitely be shot down and therefore never have any input to the article), but others can remove my edits without the same proposal and discussion process?) [63]. States that although the others would indeed be wrong in specifically removing my edits, he doesn't care and he sides with them by default, also admits that he won't examine disputed statements by the others because he sides with them by default [64].

Sorry this is so long, as I said, I let it go on far too long and should have sought help much sooner. bcatt 01:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

13 February 2006

I want to clear up a concern I am having with the page H. William DeWeese. User 209.158.227.190 has twice gone in and deleted material critical of the subject with no discussion or notice. The material was deleted on January 31 and February 13. I would much rather avoid an edit/revert war. In my opinion, the information is factual and supported by a link to a reputable news source. Not sure how best to avoid going in and reverting the deletions every two weeks. If the user wants to discuss these changes, I am sure we can entertain his/her concerns. Montco 23:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

13 February 2006

Storm Rider continues to harrass me, making more personal attacks and incorrectly labelling me as a troll (as a form of personal attack) (near the bottom), including making false wikiquette complaints, for two reasons:

  1. I pointed out his trolling behaviour, and he has made a habit of immediately accusing me of any violation of his I point out in order to try to provoke me
  2. He is unable to provide honest responses that support his POV, and this is a ploy to detract attention away from this fact

I have supported my position using quotes directly out of wikipedia policy, and have been very careful in making sure I do not say anything beyond the facts of the situation. This behaviour really must stop immediatly. bcatt 02:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Joseph Smith, Jr. A troll continues to lurk and refuses all cooperative work; only seeks to stir up conflict and dispute.

14 February 2006

  • The In Search of Lost Time article is in the grip of an editing war that began late last night. Basically, two posters are deleting the other's information and putting back in the stuff that the other removed. There have been 40+ edits just today. They refuse to sort things out on the talk page and as a result their constant editing prevents other (neutral) members from adding information to the article. 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

15 February 2006

  • Midas touch (talk · contribs) has suggested an external link should be added to a variety of articles about celebrities, Hansnesse (talk · contribs) objected. Although discussion on their respective talk pages was goal oriented and productive, there has been no resolution. A discussion about it was started at village pump but only one person has given their views. In the interest of a more complete discussion, it would be great if additional users could give input there. Thanks. 21:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
My opinion (a 3rd opinion if that's what you want) is... Wikipedia should always have references(end notes) to facts that are cited in an article. I personally prefer the footnote or end-note system however the Harvard bibliographical system may also be good. If you already have a source for the primary information there should be no need to change it. Unless of course one source (ex.: a web page from a University vs a web page from crazy's joes garage) is subjectively more credible then the other. No mater the case... I think that the "See other" or "Further reading" (ie.: often web sites) shouldn even be necessary if you add the proper citation system. This seems to be a recurring theme through wikipedia that not everyone respects. Again, if you add a fact add the source. a good guide for this is WP:CITE. I don't know if it answers your question but that's my beef. (and without even reading further into the matter). --CyclePat 00:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

18 February 2006

  • Anonymous users et al. at Jehovah and Jehovah in the New Testament use these pages as a soap box for beliefs (propaganda?) from the religion called Jehovah's Witnesses. The statements are incorrect and it is often hard even to figure out what is being said. All views divergent from the Jehovah's Witness religion and its headquarters (the Watchtower Society) are removed. The views are easily identified not only because they are poorly written, spelled, and formatted, but also for the major factual errors. The bulk of the talk pages are spent unsuccessfully addressing this.  - C. dentata 17:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

19 February 2006

  • User 69.196.139.250 (contributions) continues to add unsigned, inappropriate comments to Wikipedia talk pages. If you look at his contributions, he never signs his posts. A lot of them are either bold-faced or capitalized, without much relevance to the discussions at hand (it looks like he copy-pastes a lot of them). He frequently engages in personal attacks, samples of which can be found here, here, and here. He has also vandalized my talk page here without much reason. He has been blocked from editing articles 3 times, and I myself have personally asked him to sign his posts at least 3 times. I've tried to reason with him, but he just copy-pastes his opinions without much regard for what others think. Are there any mechanisms in place to stop this user from vandalizing pages and attacking others? Could his unsigned comments be removed? Could he be blocked from editing certain articles and talk pages (the Kurdish people article in particular)? Please help! Thank you, AucamanTalk 08:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Repeated deletion of referenced material on Terrorism in Kashmir by User:Anonymous editor. [65] [66] [67] Talk page He deleted referenced material on Indian civilians that lost their lives due to terrorists, on the terrorist camps in Kashmir and Pakistan, on terrorist groups and on Hindus and Sikhs displaced from Kashmir due to terrorists. The question is not who is right or wrong in the Kashmir conflict, but that referenced material should not be deleted without giving valid reasons on the talk page. One of the best wikipedia editors has left the Wikipedia project as a consequence. --Paln 10:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
This user is a sockpuppet of the editor that claims he "left wikipedia". I have answered his concerns on the talk page and the problem is not references, it's NPOV and fairness in admitting that both sides have responsibility in the conflict and that other Kashmiris (ie the Muslim majority and the Buddhists) have suffered just as much. Another editor has taken interest in the page and hopefully we can solve the problem without having this sockpuppet issue. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Well done. Distracting from the issue by accusing and insulting another editor. If you're saying it is pov, you have to list factual and actionable reasons. You're right that Buddhists have also suffered from the terrorists: [68]. The text deleted can be seen here and on the talk page. --Paln 11:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
And of course the Muslims who make up the majority of Kashmiris were left unharmed by the conflict? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

20 February 2006

  • User:Samivel (contributions) (who is the same as User:Aperey and others) has repeatedly branded the other editors of the Aesthetic Realism article as liars. He also repeatedly reverts to a version of the article that has been rejected by a consensus every single other active editor of the article besides him. When he does so he'll leave an edit summary that says something like, "We don't dignify four individuals who agree to the same lie with the term 'consensus'." 23:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

21 February 2006

Admin FCYTravis requested protection on a page to preserve his cuts - he did this after I offered to address his sourcing concerns on the Talk page and asked for guidance. I feel his actions were emotionally driven in that FCYTravis was using language like "fuck" and "stupid" in the comments. While he called on another admin to place the Protected template, I feel he had the advantage of a "connection" in this process, and the Third Party admin ignored the pleas of other users to take the inclusive approach to developing the article when he placed the protected tag after FYCTravis's cuts. I've left messages with all parties involved requesting Unprotection (pointing to the discussion on the Talk page), but no one seems to be responding. --Pansophia 08:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have placed this issue everywhere I can find, and it's not being addressed. Physchim62, the admin who protected the page, ignored my request on his Talk page while answering others. This seems to be a case of one admin helping another to cheat the 3R rule by protecting their changes. Where is the effective place to get this addressed? --Pansophia 07:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

22 February 2006

There is a minor edit war going on in the Earl of Stirling article. An anonymous user (who claims to be the actual Earl of Stirling) keeps adding unverified information to the article (and deleting wiki links in the process). Discussion of this started on the anonymous user's talk page. Now, an identical edit was made to the page by a logged in user (who appears to have nothing to do with the conflict) with a false edit summary claiming the revision was meant to "wikify a bit..." I'm at a loss on where to go forward with this. --17:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The edits are continuing; there is some discussion on the talk page, but the 3 revert rule will be in effect pretty soon today. 01:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

23 February 2006

User:Justen is making false accusations that another person is my sock puppet. I have no sock puppets on Wikipedia. Is there anything I can do about this? Accusation occurs near the bottom of this talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kaiser_Permanente --Pansophia 19:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Was I wrong to make this vote in the original AfD vote for Spinnwebe? As mentioned here, I used to be a contributor to the site before I was asked to leave (mainly for being excessively annoying). When I made the original AfD vote, I thought I was being objective in calling the original article "not encyclopedic", but now that I've been accused of not being objective, I'd like to get an outside opinion on whether I should have voted at all. It's not like my vote would make a difference in the current AfD, since I abstained, but I wanted to make a check within the existing Wikipedia process guidelines. --Elkman 23:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Well, do you feel you voted with your own personal interest in mind, as the comment suggests?

If not, I don't think there's anything wrong about voting either way. For the record I'd like to say I haven't been here long, so it might just be that I'm inexperienced in the way things usually go around this place, however, that also presents me with the opportunity to look at this particular vote without prejudice, because I wasn't around to be annoyed by you either. Personally I think anyone who would take the time to ask this, in the manner that you do, can't be all that bad - and perhaps the one who made the comment could be mistaken allthogheter. --Almgren 00:44, 24 February 2006 (CET)


3 March 2006

Like the anonymous guy above, I’ve been struggling with user:Siddiqui too. It all started at the Jamaat-e-Islami page. The page was Protected by admin RoyBoy due to "Revert war between User:Siddiqui and User:Yahya01". Obviously the edit war was getting silly, but I'm a contributor to that page too. I had attempted a reasonable discussion. I tried Siddiqui again but I became involved in the most bizarre exchange. You can see it here. He made rash judgments about me that are totally incorrect & he is impossible to communicate with. I initially contacted RoyBoy about it but unfortunately he's ill, so he asked me to take it to village pump, which I have. So the page protection/content dispute issue will hopefully be dealt with there. I’ve come here because I’m being harassed by him. Later, I made a misguided attempt at creating the category "Wikipedians_censored_by_Islamist_editors" which was deleted here. Though it was foolish, I did have the best of intentions when creating that category. However, Siddiqui had been watching me & in a childish tit-for-tat response he created "Category:Wikipedians censored by Zionist editors" and "Category:Wikipedians censored by Hindutva editors". He has been anonymously vandalizing another page that I work on. If you look here it is explained. You can see that it is definitely him when you compare this & this. I’m being taunted but I don’t want to get involved in mindless squabbles. How do I deal with this? Veej 17:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

4 March 2006

Talk:Council of Jerusalem -- Original research dispute 20:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

5 March 2006

Malta // Talk:Malta .. User:MYLO engaged in acts of flaming through refusal to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, in particular by a dogmatic approach deciding to edit not discuss. User was repeatedly asked to refrain from editing the parts under scrutiny, to no avail. The parts were also commented as "subject to consensus, until dispute is solved". 19:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC) 22:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • User:207.161.4.175 made vulgar personal attacks on Talk:Generation X/Archive01 and on the user page of the person he was attacking (the latter attack is now removed). These are his/her only contributions to Wikipedia under this anon IP, though he apperantely has used the other anon IPs that appear before his last comment on Talk:Generation X/Archive01. -- 20:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

5 March 2006

My contribution to the Shotokan article is continually being deleted by a newer user User:Southwick, which is upsetting. My last edit was: "23:52, 4 March 2006 137.207.80.163" on the History page, and was removed once again in the next edit. See my reasons for including the removed material in the article Discussion Page at the bottom of Section #6 "Translation Clarification". My points begin with a - or a >. 22:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't see why being newer to Wikipedia means the newer user is wrong. As far as I know, all users of Wikipedia are subject to WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR, and I noticed that both of you have violated WP:3RR in the page history. I honestly have no idea what the origin of the word "Shoto" is, but I'd suggest that someone should look up the word in a printed reference (i.e. not just something passed down orally). Printed references have the advantage of being verifiable. --Elkman - (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The point I was trying to make is that User:Southwick initiated the edit war, since he appeared on the Shotokan article after I had made my note, i.e., he initiated the deletion of my note, i.e., he is a newer user not only on Wikipedia, but on that article -- there are notes on Wikipedia asking users to please not just delete other users' notes -- it makes them feel that they have wasted their time (I refer to Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot -- point 7. at the top). In a different matter, he has been lecturing me *extremely* arrogantly while keeping up his end of the edit war, saying "First debate is encouraged", as if he is some kind of high mucky-muck, laying down the rules, as well as using bad grammar while lecturing me about documentation -- this is why I am complaining about him being a newer user. It is almost inconceivable to me that a writing karateka can drop periods and commit comma splices, because Karate is *intensely* about the study of *details*. I have since stopped my end of the edit war, and as User:Southwick is not edit-warring over my POV marker, I can soon make my suggested change that should make him happy, objectively. See my suggestion at the bottom of 6. in Talk:Shotokan. Cap j 06:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to add that little clarifying note, the technical details of which are under dispute by neither of the two, and this anonymous guy named "Matt" who uses different IP addresses and User:Southwick persist in blocking me. I've posted a copy of my proposed little note on my talk page. Cap j 08:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Here are the times and IP addresses from the History of the Shotokan page from which this guy "Matt" has been reversing my edits. I used the look-up utility to find the URLs from the IP addresses via the DNS system:
05:58, 20 February 2006 24.68.218.32 - Name: S01060004e23994d1.gv.shawcable.net
06:23, 25 February 2006 207.161.7.230 - Name: wnpgmb06dc1-7-230.dynamic.mts.net
02:39, 27 February 2006 206.45.166.45 - Name: wnpgmb06dc1-166-45.dynamic.mts.net
02:32, 28 February 2006 142.161.182.208 - wnpgmb06dc1-182-208.dynamic.mts.net

http://www.mts.net is a Manitoba provider (a midwestern Canadian province) and from their news releases, http://www.shawcable.net is a Western Canadian cable provider. I posted a note in the talk page when I began my contribution and I had to ask this guy to please do me the courtesy of putting a note in the talk page after he did his first anonymous and uncommented deletion. Cap j 08:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • -I noticed that Matt must have just anonymously removed material from the Shotokanintro in the edit: 00:46, 9 March 2006 142.161.179.162, with his only comment being "Cleaner intro". Look-up gives http://www.mts.net. An administrator might think of blocking the IP address range 142.161.***.*** -- it's bad form to make a disputed edit while the page is under dispute. He didn't move the information to a note; just deleted it -- pretty much a crime to do to an encyclopedia. - Cap j 06:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • User:southwick has also just deleted some of my work in his recent edit "15:11, 9 March 2006 Southwick (Clean up of terms. Will add Kanji.)" while the Shotokan page is under dispute. Cap j 05:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • User:southwick and Matt (varying IP addresses only) have no rebuttal (that they are willing or able to make) for my reasons for including my clarifying note (see Shotokan), but they keep deleting it.
  • Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board A discussion was created to discuss whether "county" or "district" should be the preferred translation for German "Landkreis". At some point, User:Staffelde joined the discussion and then decided to rephrase the previously stated facts in a way that had the effect of turning the discussion into a one against many and post it under a new discussion section. S/he then proceeded to not discuss the facts and arguments anymore but rather attack User:Mmounties personally making untrue insinuations and engaging in name calling, accusing her of pushing POV while at the same time not being willing to argue his case. As a result of his/her style of debate others who previously participated in the debate have all but exited the discussion. 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a note from someone who was involved in that discussion and really surprised to see it mentioned here. The discussion abruptly ended when a consensus was found based on offical EU translation documents and there appeared no hard feelings between the two users mentioned above afterwards. Agathoclea 15:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

6 March 2006

Please see the section about userbox deletion nominations here. 04:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


9 March 2006

  • Re: Raw feeding article. I'd like an opinion on whether I have been on the right track or way too heavy-handed or whatever; I seem to have pissed off a new user although s/he seems ready to dismiss me as a "looney" so I'm not entirely sure it's my fault. See history for edit summaries, user's expansion] of the article, my major revision], and then if you can wade through the comments on the talk page to come to some sort of assistance for me and the user (originally editing as anon user but then signed in as User:Thedarky, FYI), I'd appreciate it. Maybe I was too heavy handed with a new user. Help me, Mr. Wizard! Elf | Talk 03:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think you were at all too heavy-handed. You acknowledged that there's a controversy and a difference of opinion over the issue, and you adequately explained the Wikipedia editing process. I suspect that the new user isn't completely aware of the problems with putting a particular POV into an article, and the reasons why it's important to cite sources and not rely on original research. I think that person will either end up learning why we edit the way we do, if he/she continues to contribute to Wikipedia. And if not, it certainly isn't your fault. They would have had a similar conflict with a different user at some point. --Elkman - (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • POV edits and reversion to Melbourne University student unions by WP editors named as litigants in liquidation of the student union discussed in the article. Have been repeatedly warned to consider changes carefully given their vested interest, but have chosen to edit war instead. 06:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've already been to Third Opinion with Madea's Family Reunion, and have offered a compromise text section; MarcyU (also using 68.1.74.140 - she refuses to sign or to follow standard editing Wikiquette guidelines, and flaunts that) has both ignored any opportunity to either call a truce or compromise, reverting my compromise text entirely and leaving what amounts to a "screw you" note in the Notes section. As I said, I'm willing to compromise, but it looks like she has no desire to do so. Help! --Mhking 17:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

10 March 2006

  • Siddiqui (talk · contribs) frequently deletes anything on articles he doesn't like without any explanations. (Examples are on Mahmud of Ghazni, Aurangzeb, Hinduism in Pakistan, Mugahl empire, Muhammed of Ghor, Ala ud din Khilji, Jammat-I-Islam and many more.[69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] and many more...) Now this user has also deleted the talk page of Hinduism in Pakistan (including the WikiProject Hinduism tag) [77]. Many other users have pointed out to him that he shouldn't edit like this. Can somebody please tell him that deletions as a rule need explanations, preferably on the talk page but at least in the edit summary. Thanks (It should also be noted that he has deleted "negative" comments on his own talkpage.) 14:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Messhermit (talk · contribs) has a long history of making frequent & inappropiate use of the revert tool, and resorts to accusations of "POV pushing" when other editors add information or sources to articles about the history of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian relations and conflicts, which seem to be contrary to his beliefs. He has also a history of deleting sources from articles. See for example Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute. 17:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Andres C. (talk · contribs) has a long history of violence, aggresion and inappropiate use of the revert tool, and resorts to accusations and treaths when other editors add information or sources to articles about the history of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian conflicts. His goal is to present a nationalistic and innacurate view of the war, pushing the Ecuadorian POV far beyond neutrality. He is also responsable for a flame war a couple of months ago, using such childish arguments as grammatical errors (?), lack of patriotism beacuse I didn't serve in the Peruvian Army (??) and labeling me as the problem of the article. 17:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

11 March 2006

There seems to be a problem with user:Swedenman. He is currently adding the category "humanitarians" arbitrarily, for example see Che Guevara and Muqtada al-Sadr. Mind you, Swedenman is identical with Filipman on Swedish wikipedia. So far he has been blocked 8 times for unreflecting edit wars and abuse of other users, see sv:block log. 19:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • There is duplication of info taken directly from Wikipedia [Tom Jones the singer] on this website: http://www.freewebs.com/jvprn/discography.htm with no mention of the info having been taken from Wikipedia, word for word. Shouldn't the webmaster of "Sir Tom Jones Online" be informed to correct this? 15:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Leifern is making a series of personal attacks throughout rfd and artoicles aorudn vaccination. 15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Further to above Imacomp (talk · contribs) is putting on the {{totallydisputed}} tag on Catholicism and Freemasonry while refusing to give any specific reasons, saying that it's his editorial prerogative to do so. I believe that he is more interested in the tag remaining than in dealing with any specific problems in the article. 22:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

14 March 2006


Adam Holland 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC) [86]

15 March 2006

  • Please take a look at the Wiki Star Trek Fan entries located Star Trek, fan made productions This entry was a sub-page of Star Trek, other storylines. There are several Wiki contributors, 'Kirok' & 'TheRealFennShysa' battling over 'their' own criteria that will allow each's entries to be posted or deleted. Their critieria often changes according to personal whims. These fluxuating 'Rules' are extended to allow some entries to be posted and then mysteriously those 'rules' are not required or over-required to be used as a censure device to stop other pertinent Wiki entries. Large amount of personal agenda is interferring with other Wiki contributors like me, Netwriter, from posting additional footnoted facts and pertinent entries here. Some oversight from other Wiki Mods need to be expened here to stabilize the entries and stop the vendetta against the truthful footnoted facts. thanks. Netwriter 20:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It should be pointed out that Netwriter has an established history of trying to insert either himself or his "filmette" series into articles - he also has exhibited a marked bias in regards to certain fan productions both here on Wikipedia and in other forums, and frequently misquotes sources or posts misleading citations to justify his edits. While Kirok and myself have had differences of opinion, neither one of us is personally involved with the entries in question, nor do we have specific entities we consistently try to promote, as Netwriter does with himself and his own production - a production which did not survive a recent AfD, it should be noted. TheRealFennShysa 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel the way TheRealFennShysa has discribed the Wiki entries that I have contributed to and my motivations to do so, as very inaccuate and biased. I have contributed to subjects here because I know directly about these topics and that does automatically does NOT mean that I am using Wiki to promote special fan film subjects here over other fan film subjects. My other contributions about the science fiction modlers of new zealand, voyages of the uss angeles and other subjects have gone on to remain viable entries, and they did not exhist before my posting interest and actions. I started contributing here wishing to be inclusive and NOT exclusionary in Wiki. I am only seeking to contribute to the Wikis reader's world of true knowledge about these topics. I am very interested in an Adm or Mods to follow the history of this Fan film productions entries because I still feel that it is being handled unfairly and unequally. thanks.Netwriter 00:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

17 March 2006

Mel Etitis (talk · contribs) has been violating Manual of Style guidelines on respect for different English usage conventions and has been making personal attacks on another editor.

The editor originally noted that ME had made an edit to an article on an American athlete that was replaced a factual term with an incorrect one. She changed the disputed term to a neutral word and left a short explanation in the article edit summary. ME left a message on her talk page arguing with the explanation. The editor responded to the comment, explained her reasoning, and asked ME not to argue with her on the matter. In spite of numerous requests to cease communication, ME has continued to leave messages on the editor's Talk Page, calling her "unpleasant" and accusing her of making personal attacks. Furthermore, he began commenting on a threaded discussion the editor was having with another Wikipedian which bore no relation whatsoever to the dispute.

ME has also ignored several attempts by two editors to explain that his edit was inappropriate.

Dispute is located at: [87] and entry above. Edited to add: ME has now started an entirely new userpage devoted to the dispute and used the Talk page there to further accuse the editor of being hostile and leveling personal attacks. Link to this page is found within the discussion. Because I feel that the conflict has escalated with the creation of this attack page, I have created a Request for Comment. I don't know if I should leave this Alert here or delete it?

11:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Me Thinks Me Smells a Rat Here
  • Delete it! Perhaps an WP:RFC on Mademoiselle_Sabina (talk · contribs) is more in order, and on point, inasmuch as she herself, created the above entry (Notice: No Sig– it's nowiki embedded– but I smelled something: Here's the history diff: [88]. Think this Gals out for Brit Blood!
    • I also note she made several subsequent edits after the one that comparison shows, and has linked this subsection on and from her talk (which is why I'm here.)
I also have to wonder where and how an editor that has been active just six weeks knew where to find this page, initiate an RFC, and the like. I've been around over a year and have no idea where to start these things w/o asking some admin. Any one want to bet against if I guess she's a socket puppet? FrankB 04:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I've answered these allegations on your talk page. As to the secret of how I did a NoWiki, I didn't. I went back and edited the alert twice, once to add an edit and another time to ask if I should close the dispute, seeing as how I had started an RFC. If you happen to look at my other edits, you'll invariably notice that I frequently end up going back three or four times to the same page because I've forgotten something or screwed up a signature or whatever.
As to how I found the RFC: if you happened to read the RFC diffs, you would have seen that another user alterted me to the existence of the RFC page. The RFC page notes the Wiketiquette Alert as an alternative to less serious disputes. It's really not a deep dark secret. As to the allegation that I'm a sock puppet, it's so ridiculous I'm not even going to discuss it further. Mademoiselle Sabina 05:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and what's more...seeing as I am half British, was born in Europe and hold citizenship to an EU country, I seriously doubt I am "out for Brit Blood." Mademoiselle Sabina 05:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Let's try to stay civil, folks, and not allege things about people just because of their knowledge of Wikipedia. This user could easily have been lurking as an IP for months before signing on. Thanks :-), JHMM13 (T | C) 06:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks, JHMM13, you are correct... we were borderline there, but are 'almost friends' as I continue my attempt to mediate this. We've exchanged a lot of text at length, since this unxplained nested nowiki pair nested around her signature. I believe we have a holy event here, she has a nowiki spirit in her keyboard! But we R talking nicely. Now if some of you can hlp me get Mel to see his fault in this silly matter, she might end this with an admission of mutual stiff-necks and an exchange of apologies per this exchange. So I've some hope a continued mediation effort will end this b4 it swallows the whole weekend. FrankB 16:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Smacksoftruth (talk · contribs) has in the past two days begun a series of edits on The Gnostic Movement, which other editors have seen as violating NPOV and NOR, and have thus reverted. A few changes may be of worth, but the user makes changes in streams of tiny edits. In the course of half an hour, Smacksoftruth made 9 edits to the article. As such, it is very difficult to discern if any of the edits can be kept, and reversion seems the only practical recourse. Also of interest is Talk:The Gnostic Movement, where Smacksoftruth left a rant condemning the deletion of his/her edits. I realize the user is new, but the beligerent attitude and refusal to compromise is a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistercow (talk • contribs) 18:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the problem to the attention of WP:WQA, Mistercow. I have reviewed some of the edits made by Smacksoftruth and I have determined that the ones I looked at seemed to be done with a bit of POV slant. I left a {{NPOV user}} message on this user's talk page, and if he/she continues to make POV edits, please contact me on my talk page and I will try to convince the user to discuss potential changes before making edits and before the problem gets out of control. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 05:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

18 March 2006

19 March 2006

20 March 2006

  • According to User:Lemonhead, including information from the official biography as published by the mongolian governement is "vandalism", but (re)adding potentially libelous statements without providing sources is ok [90]. There are more such conflicts buried in the history of this article, and in the histories of at least one other mongolian politician. 17:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Just for my general information, I would value an opinion as to whether the type of revert made by User:FeloniousMonk at this point [91] is up to par with what is usually expected of editors in a WP:CON type of situation. 21:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC). Addendum. Just in case it wasn't evident, this revert undid 3 solid days of joint edits, as indicated here [92] that were negotiated on the discussion page. 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

22 March 2006

  • This request is regarding an ongoing discussion on the Talk:Burning of Washington page, specifically the "Canadian involvement (?)" section, currently at the very bottom of the page. Comments on my own behaviour in the discussion are also welcome, whether posted here, or privately to me via a Wikipedia message or an email. Cheers, Madmagic 00:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

23 March 2006

24 March 2006

  • There is a content dispute going on at The Power of Nightmares. It turned in to an edit war yesterday, with accusations made about policy violations. One outside editor has commented thanks to a notice on WP:3o, but this has not led to a resolution. The dispute is still ongoing, but it appears only one of the involved editors is interested in engaging in further discussion of the issue to work towards a consensus. If no other editors will engage in discussion regarding the dispute, and reverts are strongly discouraged how can this be resolved? Could someone please take a look at this? The dispute started with the 2006-03-22 08:33:55 edit, and the talk page discussion started here and continues on down. -- 04:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Should the comments of the historian Herodotus on the pederastic practices of the Persians be included in the "Historical synopsis" section of the article on Pederasty? Also see discussion at Talk:Pederasty regarding this issue.

27 March 2006

  • Views welcome regarding validity of citing a BBC poll in the Celtic Park article, as last seen in revision 45691233 on 27 March 11:01. Discussion, at Talk:Celtic Park has not resolved. 22:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

29 March 2006

  • Commercial spam concern: on March 14, user Alexv7255 edited articles about electronic equipment, inserting links to a firm that sells such equipment. 12:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Regulars of WikiProject Ice Hockey are being arrogant and unwelcoming to non-participants of the project trying to discuss the merits of certain hockey-related articles. Project participants are resorting to personal remarks and attempts to kill the discussion rather than staying on topic. 15:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

31 March 2006

Concern for NPOV and Original Research on Jack Hyles.19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1 April 2006

  • User:Empty2005: continualy posts wrong information on the 2006 in film page. I asked him if he could put the information in the correct way, and he said he could care less. Please do something to stop him, since I don't feel like continualy cleaning up his vandalism. Casey14 03:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

2 April 2006

3 April 2006

He has had some kind of agenda [96] [97] to undermine articles that conflict with his beliefs. He generally acts under the radar by committing "sneaky vandalism" by
  • 1. adding original research to articles and passing them off as coming from verifiable and reliable sources often by putting some very weak or nonsense reference [98], and
  • 2. removing quality references that conflict with his views.
I have dealt extensively with him in the past and have generally been very forgiving - at one point I cited him on AN/I [99], citing confirmed multiple sockpuppeting, sneaky vandalism, and original research violations, as well as a couple personal attacks. He convinced me to remove this citation by telling me that he'd work together with me - instead he has become much more intensely engaged in his sneaky vandalism and personal attacks [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106]- to show just a few. Hamsacharya dan 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

5 April 2006

  • Ireland West Airport Knock article. I have updated the lyrics to match those found on the offical web site (link in article)., Erikeltic (talk · contribs) changes them to another version, for which I cannot find a source. no response on user talk page, nor on article talk page, and I was referred to as a "mole of a human scumbag" in the edit history for inserting the lyrics as per offical web site. Nice. MartinRe 00:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Update - have found a source for the second version, and have listed that as an alternative (unless a source showing the offical site is wrong can be found) MartinRe 16:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • An editor, Harro5 deleted a stub article on the artist John Law that I was working on. As far as I can tell the article was completely legitimate by all Wikipedia standards (I reread them after this happened just to make sure I had not missed something). I wasn't even the one who created the article, I was just expadning on it. So I made a note on Harro5's talk page last week and he hasn't responded. His talk page is full of messages just like mine "Why did you delete the article I was working on?". Will someone please help me understand what happened and what I should do about it? Thanks in advance. kanoa 09:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Checking the deletion log, it was deleted first under WP:CSD A7 (article about a person, that does not assert the significance of its subject) and then under G4 (recreation of deleted material). I can't see the article as it was deleted, so can't suggest whether or not it was a valid A7 or not, but if you want to get the decision reviewed, the correct place to do so is at WP:DRV. Also worth having a look at WP:BIO, which is the guideline on notibility on people. Regards, MartinRe 09:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much Martin, that helps a lot. How did I find the deletion log? While I don't think it qualified under A7 at least I know why it was deleted and I know what I can do about it. Many thanks for taking the time to clue me in! kanoa 09:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • [107] 20:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Mixvio has been persistently flaming other discussants in a content dispute, both on the "talk" page of the disputed article, and during a failed attempt at meditation via the cabal. He has just let lose with a tirade, endangering efforts at reaching a compromise. 23:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


  • User:Xtra has made a personal attack on this talk page User_talk:Sceptre#?!?!?!, accusing another Wikipedia user (by name) of vandalizing his page, with no proof, evidence, or even a request to check correspinding IP addresses, just his own personal opinion, making it completely slanderous, and ultimately a personal attack. Thankyou. 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

6 April 2006

  • User:Mixvio just let loose with another attack on other editors and threatens any further attempt at reaching a compromise.[108] - 19:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Irpen likes to remove a no-source tag on this Image:Rycina 1752 Palac Branickich.jpg, making remarks about "copyright paranoia", when the image clearly has no source or even the name of the artist. Has removed tag already twice. [109]. Gryffindor 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I removed the tag as per WP:IAR that is clearly written for the cases like that. This is a vintage old image and the user who uploaded it has since retired. It is obvious to anyone that the image is very old and poses no lawsuit threat. Editors are busy enough in real lives and whatever time they can put aside to add content for WP is best to be used productively rather than on fending off the self-appointed copyright police. m:Copyright paranoia has been written for a reason. One thing is to prevent real copyright violations. Quite another is roam from image to image adding a huge amount of unwarranted work for other editors when there is no real reason to do it. --Irpen 21:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • And it is quite another thing to accuse user of "paranoia", please abstain from such comments. The image clearly has no source and no author. That alone is in violation of Wikipedia image rules. Gryffindor 16:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

8 April 2006

  • User:Xtra has launched a clear defamatory personal attack against User:PSYCH here User_talk:222.98.234.224 outright accusing [him] of quite severe vandalism with no evidence or proof to back it up (outright slander), amounting to a personal attack. This behaviour has gone on quite frequently here , here and here influencing others to believe his mere suspicions passed off as fact (and then in turn encouraging others spread those lies) which has spilled over here having a poisoned apple effect here. Thankyou. 08:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC).
Claiming that Xtra influenced my opinions about PSYCH and Lefty on Campus is not correct. I mentioned my suspicions before Xtra said anything to me on the topic. In fact, Lefty on Campus criticised me for raising the issue with Xtra. [110] 09:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no comment to any accusation this user levels at me. Xtra 09:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Update: this user is now undoing edits made (with verifiable links) toward a clear POV direction, ignoring an RFC to favour his own opinion as fact (and making one sided edits) and has accused another user of wikistalking [111] , despite the fact this user has never made any edits to a gay-related page. It's only since being called a homophobe by a vandal have such edits been made. Coincidental, I'm sure. 09:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC).
No. I did not make this edit or this edit. I don't know if PSYCH is aware, but regular editors edit a whole range of issues. Xtra 10:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I never said anything about the gay marriage page. The link (and myself) are referring to your repeated deletion of a passage on the gay rights in Australia page simply because you think it "doesn't belong" ignoring my RFC and assuming your opinion to be the only correct one in existence. It is appropriate to wait for the RFC (as suggested) before your POV edit. And I guess you expect people to believe that a man who has publicly said "gays have never wanted marriage" and has beem accused of homophobia by vandals decides, afer years on wikipedia, on today of all days, to edit a gay related pages (despite belonging to a party that is a known obstacle to gay rights) is just a coincidence? 10:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
removed signature as per rules.10:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A user has accused two other users of being the same person here and here , with no proof or any evidence whatsoever other than "they have the same views" and as such this is a baseless attack against these users' credibility and ability to edit free from prejudice. I do not think it's fair to throw around and spread baseless accusations on some whim, as if other users' rights really don't matter. Thankyou. 11:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

9 April 2006

  • Mixvio has used crude language again here: [112], and is implying that we will cheat on our agreement. Seems like baiting to me. We've just come to a resolution after being locked down a month. No use my asking him to be civil or follow etiquette; it will bring on insults directed at me, or he'll say he's just using sarcasm. Would rather not see trouble flare up again. Thanks. -07:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Brandubh Blathmac. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 10:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been ahem "notified" of existance of some "AeurianOrder" (see the user page), which claims, among all else:

"We intend to act as independant Wikipedia administrators. As all of our members are currently at college campuses, we have unlimited access to IP addresses. While we are not here to engage in vandalism, but rather to improve the Wikipedia, if one or more of our members are banned we will just start up new accounts."

One user who seems to be a member is User:AO_Charles who notified me of existance of this "order" in my talk page and promised to follow me around and revert views he doesn't like. As childish as this BS sounds, I think it may require admin attention, especially if they'll indeed start being "independeng administrators" and enforce "their own rules" by swarming tactics.
His history shows a lot of adding unreferenced anti-semitism claims to articles and threats to Wikipedia editors he has "identified" as "agitators" (including me)--Poison sf 13:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
AO Charles has now informed me on my user page that I "have been identified as an anti-semitic agitator by the Aeurian Order," and that my "edits will be closely watched and reverted if neccessary.(sic)" I have given him the following response on his talk page.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are not out of your mind. I'm a Jew. I'm the main author of Wikipedia's articles on Yiddish theater, and one of the two main contributors to secular Jewish culture. If I'm an "anti-Semitic agitator", it is pretty hard to imagine who is not.
-- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

10 April 2006

  • Disputes on Bernie Sanders have not been resolved through the discussion on Talk:Bernie Sanders. Much of this section has been claimed as POV, but one user declares most changes to this text "vandalism," and refuses to discuss it seriously. Outside input would be appreciated. Please review the talk page for information on these disputes.19:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disputes on Bernie Sanders largely stems from Bkwillwm viewpoint that additional added information is POV, when it calls for no speculation. It is vandalism as text is simply removed with the claim, "You aren't allowed to include information which makes Sanders look bad". There is no serious discussion as refuses to acknowledge that all information is factual, is referenced, and much of it comes from Sanders' own quotes. 2:01 PM, 11 April 2006 (EST)
  • Dispute on Bill Moyers page is starting to get a little out of hand. One editor is presenting an argument/issue here [[113]] which is not being addressed by another editor. The argument is instead, possibly being misunderstood and edits which seem to create inaccuracies are being instituted. Also, borderline personal attacks on the Bill Moyers talk page, here [[114]]. (07:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC))


  • A user has accused another user of being an anonymous vandal and "stalking" (quite a serious charge), without regard to that user's right to edit free from accusations, without even attempting to check IPs to determine idenities (which are negative, anyway), and without any regard whatsoever to another user's repuation: this is just completely baseless and constitutes a personal attack.
  • A user has accused another user of being an anonymous vandal, outright accusing another user of vandalism withtout any evidence or proof and how to "fix" him. Wild accusations, with no actual verifiable proof amounts to a personal attack, are not part of wikipedia policy.
    Hogswash. There was no specificity to that discussion whatsoever.--cj | talk 12:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, the "bringing user actions to attention" and "Yes I am hoping for a debate to deal with the PSYCH issue" give it sufficient weight to make it a personal attack.

14 April 2006

  • thewolfstar (talk · contribs) seems intent on (1) adding POV information to articles on US political parties, which s/he believes have "destroyed America", (2) being persistently rude, uncivil, and abrasive toward multiple editors on the Democratic Party talk page, and (3) personally attacking me on his/her talk page. For example, I was labelled "harassing" for moving his/her comment from a closed FAC discussion to the appropriate place on the talk page and was called a "tyrant" for the first comment in this section of the Democratic Party talk page, of all things. Thewolfstar has personally attacked other users and myself on the Democratic Party talk page as well. - Jersyko·talk 22:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • . . . and now thewolfstar has implemented a 2 day (24 hour? i'm not certain) ultimatim "OR ELSE" in regard to the Democratic Party article. Perhaps this has morphed into something more than a mere "wikiquette alert"? - Jersyko·talk 04:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

15 April 2006

16 April 2006

  • An anonymous user keeps reverting the article about Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, with my best knowledge it seems to me that the edits are done to whitewash one of the parties in the conflict in Sri Lanka. I have tried to reason on the discussion page, but no response.


  • Xtra (talk · contribs) just removed a legitimate WP:WQA complaint here [115], because he felt it wasnt legitimate because he thought (incorrectly) that user had vandalized another page, however, that user never did vandalize another page [116], so this deletion was made in error, and should be corrected, and use:Xtra warned for unilateral deletions to learn that what he may not like is not necessarily invalid.

20 April 2006

• See Michel Thomas and associated discussion page. • I'm trying to present a NPOV regarding the World War II service of Michel Thomas, who was decorated with the Silver Star in 2004, sixty years after he was nominated for it while serving with US Army troops in Germany. L.A. Times reporter Roy Rivenburg, who was sued for defamation by Thomas three years before his death at age 90, keeps deleting information challenging his POV regarding Thomas' exhaustively documented WWII history from the main article He has also posted information under the heading "The Myth of Michel Thomas" on the discussion page. I gave up long ago trying to correct his posts, as he would simply change them as soon as I would correct them. How can I resolve this? 24.23.223.51 02:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)facts@mt.org

  • Georgia_guy (talk · contribs) : Repeatedly reverts good-faith edits, edits he apparently disagrees with, &c with nothing more than 'revert vandalism' and _occasionally_ a terse, context-free message on the offender's talk page. GG does also revert a lot of legitimate vandalism, but I feel he needs to review the actual definition of Vandalism and be a little more civil. Most recent example: 17:10, 22 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Polygon (Revert vandalism) 17:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

23 April 2006

Derek farn (talk · contribs) likes to edit other people's user pages while a VfD is in progress, thus distorting people's opinion of one of the participants. 18:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

24 April 2006

  • There is a comment at the end of James Woolsey that seems out of place, but I don't know if it violates Wikipedia policy. It is regarding a blogger who has issue with Mr. Woolsey. 02:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

25 April 2006

  • User:Jack Cox uses abusive language, refuses to use appropriate and illustrative Edit Summaries, reverts an entire template if he doesn't like one change in it, as if they are not public (that is, they belong to User:Jack Cox and nobody has a right to change them). I've tried extesively to dialogue and abuse is all I get. See, for example, this revision history of {{NYGovernors}}. 03:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

26 April 2006

  • User:Enormousdude performs a large number of edits that are immediately reverted by a variety of different, independent editors as being unclear, unhelpful, incorrect or POVed. Edits almost never have an edit summary. User never discusses changes on article talk pages. Major, controversial changes are listed as minor edits. Previously reverted edits are often reapplied a few days latter. 16:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

28 April 2006

  • DeKoning (talk · contribs) on the New Netherland related articles. Many users have commented on his behavior with no noticable effect. In particular I think we need some outsiders' involvement at Talk:New Netherland as it's gotten personal and I'm no longer sure I'm a good judge of consensus. 21:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

29 April 2006

5 May 2006

7 May 2006

  • Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 game): User:Xino has also been getting more and more angry with users here, too. In the past few days/weeks he has reverted legitimate verifiable information on the game several times, stating we should "wait until E3", rather than post information from a magazine containing advanced E3 coverage (which he declares "cheap shots"). Admittedly I didn't handle the situation initially the best I could have, but I have been watching him edit other articles in the Sonic Series for some time - and he usually uses the same pushy attitude there, too. He seems convinced other users telling him to calm down are "sukers" and doesn't seem very reasonable at all. 01:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

12 May 2006

  • He has also since carried the accusation on to the Talk Page[126] and has accused additional users as well.20:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Tom Harrison has repeatedly deleted my valid work, in order to push his personal POV into the article about the Collapse of the World Trade Center. Specifically, I have attempted to add material about molten metal, and metalurgical reports. This material is referenced to sources which Tom Harrison himself has agreed are "reputable", e.g. the FEMA report.

I hereby repeat and reallege that Tom Harrison has vandalized my work. I believe that his deletions are founded in bad faith, because Tom Harrison is evidently well aware of WP rules, specifically NPOV. I too would appreciate it if someone not involved could have a look.

TruthSeeker1234 05:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

13 May 2006

  • Might help to have an observer at Truth over the next few days, with regard to events beginning here. 07:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Problems with increasingly abusive replies on Talk:Aldershot to explanation of why their edits have been reverted. Suspect the editor to be using sockpuppets. 16:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Dispute over inclusion of opinion polls in Talk:People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report. 03:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

14 May 2006

  • Hi Docu and I (Wallie) have a different perspective on a subject. It is about the Swiss Federal Council. Docu wants each of the persons in the federal council in the category, Current National Leader. Wallie believes that none of these people is individually a current national leader, as defined in the category. For example, most countries, like the United States has one current national leader, George Bush. Switzerland has seven in that category at the moment. Docu beleieves each one of them is a national leader, and you would have to ask him as to exactly why. Wallie believes that none of them are national leaders, as individually they do not have that authority. It is a complicated problem. I think it would be beneficial for both of us to have a resolution one way or the other. We really need an expert on Swiss law here. wallie 23:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

16 May 2006

  • Stemming from an earlier dispute over the appropriate technical level for the article Truth (alert posted above, 13 May 2006), a new article Truth theory was created to cover the subject at a more comprehensive technical level. Would appreciate guidance about the proper use of Cleanup, Factual Accuracy, Merge, and OR tags. 03:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Relatively new user User:Robertsteadman. s/he is possibly a sock of banned user User:Robsteadman. His contributions include Lady Manners School where the other contributors include Robsteadman and various Matlock related edits including Matlock Mercury, which are all very close to Robsteadman's home world. What should happen now? Is this another Sock ? This user has apparently behaved impeccably since appearing at the beginning of the month, but the contribution history looks to be one Random Article after another. I fear this is an attempt to build a legitimate edit history. Perhaps I should just WP:AGF whichever way it is. 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

17 May 2006

Note, this editor i belive has also edited under ip of 71.253.57.234 (talk • contribs). --Boothy443 | trácht ar 04:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

18 May 2006

  • Talk:Bi-Digital_O-Ring_Test Problem regarding content of the page. Scientific evidence being ignored; group of editors ignoring rational argument with obvious major anti-topic biases: intention seems to be to use page as forum for dismissing topic rather than providing informatiom. All attempts at reason and balance being ignored and even 100% neutral information like when, what , where etc being automatically deleted counter to protocols. Discussion on what is scientific or not, etc.

19 May 2006

Who wrote this, and what do the below links have to do with me?TruthSeeker1234 12:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I am a first time viewer of this site, and very dissappointed to say the least.

The writer of the aritcle linked below does the same thing as the post above me mentions (refering to edits as vandalism and asking to be able to freeze them out), and, well, if I am understanding the rules here, please just go to the following links and reveiew all of the notes. thank you. I will keep checking in for a reply.

The factual errors are serious and the writer's attitude disturbing. He appears to have a history of conflict on this sight and has been repremanded by editors for blatant bias and hostile language in his srticles, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:70.128.224.128

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Katefan0#Remarks_from_User:70.128.224.128

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Hamer

21 May 2006

  • Desperately seeking constructive guidance at Philosophy of mathematics beginning here on the proper use of {Verify} and {Drmmt} tags, what to do about a user who automatically reverts or deletes new material before beginning his own edits, proper application of WP:VERIFY, WP:ATTACK, etc. 15:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Addendum. I thought that a modus vivendi had been reached, but apparently not. One user continues to act as the self-appointed judge and jury of every contribution, but mostly just executioner. Some guidance, please. Thanks, 20:56, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Update. Reference point. Continuing personal attacks. Nobody who knows my efforts in WP is justified in charging me with trolling or vandalism. Please, help. 11:56, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The article: Chigwell, Tasmania continues to have discriminatory remarks (calling the majority of the population of a lower socio-economic class), which are common beliefs outside Hobart's northern suburbs. I have edited this page twice, once wiping it completely (the discriminatory remarks were put back up) and the second time I have included facts sourced from people who have lived in the areas all their lives and the Council's Mayor. It might not sound quite NPOV but it's far from saying it's the best place to live. Please keep an eye on it to see that these discriminatory and small-minded remarks are not put up again.

22 May 2006

  • Longview Baptist Temple continues to be edited by an anonymous user who alternately blanks out criticism and posts attacks of the critical viewpoints. Consensus has been sought on the matter and these edits have been reverted, but repeated attempts to contact the user and get this activity to cease have been unsuccessful. 22:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

23 May 2006

  • An article about Websites using the title Universe Today was vandalised by someone trying to monopolise the page. Nearly all references to other Universe Today sites was removed. I reverted the page back so it displays all the major domain extensions again. Attempts to contact the user have been in vain. I even tried leaving messages at his message board but was banned. [131]

24 May 2006

  • An article about Arveragus, a character from The Franklin's Tale by Geoffrey Chaucer, appears to have been "abused" and displays a lot of misinformation, especially regarding the portrayal of the characters of the tale and their "distinguishing features". I thought it best to leave to someone with more experience. [132]


  • The article about English Rugby Union player Martin Johnson has been re-vandilised by ADMIN duncharris. Duncharris has replaced a neutral description of a controversial issue with his own very non-neutral rendering of events and on the talk page described his edit racistly as reverting 'Irish Whinging' (the fact I am not Irish has apparentlu escaped him).

I have posted talk items to discuss this issue with Duncharris however as he seems to have a history of this sort of thing in many articles I dont hold out much hope of reaching an agreement. What options are open to deal with a wikipedia admin that routinely abuses his position

26 May 2006

On Talk:Mail-order bride, editors have been trying to decide whether to remove or keep two sections--Demographics and Personal anti-fraud measures, which appear to violate original research and other policies. A long dispute has arisen over the factual accuracy of the demographics section, but the entire dispute ignores whether or not the section is original research, which was the original question. A contribution from someone who understands the policy on original research would be much appreciated. There's a vote going on here.

27 May 2006

See: Talk:Memel (disambiguation): Should Memel redirect the main topic of the city of Klaipėda, or are its other meanings well enough known in English that Memel shoudl redirect to Memel (disambiguation).

Memel does not mainly refer to the town, as Philip Baird Shearer claims, but to the river, which is at least 50 km away, and described as a border in the Treaty of Versailles as well as in the ensuing Memelland crisis. Also the river is quoted in the German anthemn Deutschlandlied as an eastern border of German language, so redirecting to the wrong place would insinuate a claim for more territory by the German author than he actually intended (and did). I've discussued this issue politely since Philip Baird Shearer unilaterally moved the article from Memel to a mere, shortened Memel (disambiguation), have disproven his claims twice, and yet he is insisting on it. Judging from this, he either does not understand the geograpical and historical context, or he is intentionally trying to marginalize a German expression, trying to redirect it to one from other languages which at best covers half of its meaning - Klaipėda is hardly an english word, unknown to EB1911 and the expression used by Lithuania, the aggressor in the conflict of 1923. Naming the 1923-1939 Memelland "Klaipėda Region", as Wikipedia currently and wrongly does, is already very POV, and Philip Baird Shearer tries to push that even more. Memel (without disambiguation) deserves an article of its own at least like this. --Matthead 16:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

28 May 2006

Ace Class Shadow has been putting down other editors in his edit summaries and talk page messages. Attempts to resolve edit warring have gone unresolved, as most users that oppose this user decide to go on a short WikiBreak for things to cool down. Attempts to mediate disputes with the user have failed. Comments, please? 01:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

1 June 2006

George Money has been reporting hundreds of users valid external links and information on different pages he has bookmarked as vandalism. He himself has been considered a "vandal" and has been warned and banned several times from many organizations and sites. He is overall a "spammer" and needs to be stopped. Information and External Links that deserve to be displayed on the wikipedia sites are not being displayed to the public because of this user. Consider banning him from wikipedia permanently. [Examples of George Money being accused of being a "vandal"]

2 June 2006

Could someone please look at the problem on Laura Ingraham involving user Haizum? The history of the dispute is spelled out on the Talk page, as well as (unfortunately) my own User page, where Haizum has left several profane messages (now deleted but part of the history). On the Talk page, Haizum is attributing quotes to me which are false and defamatory. I have made thousands of edits on Wikipedia and have never encountered something like this. What can be done? Sandover 20:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

2 June 2006

Sandover is misrepresenting my comments and more importantly, POV pushing in the Laura Ingraham article despite repeated (and deleted) attempts to introduce context. I embrace his request to involve an Administrator. Haizum 21:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record (from Wikipedia admininistrator Will): "Haizum has been blocked for edit warring and incivility. If he isn't prepared to accept the subjects official site as a reliable source, it's teetering onto vandalism." [133] A big thank you to Wikipedia for resolving the problem. Sandover 06:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

4 June 2006

  • [User:209.125.200.34] (talk

This user has vandalized several articles[134] with juvinile remarks and has intentionally submitted false information for three months. Some of the user's most blatant vandalism include edits to John Kerry's article[135], Homosexuality[136], Meat[137] and BMW[138]. That is only a small sample of the vandalism caused by this user. The user has been warned several times but the IP address continues go to unbanned. This is a serious offender who does not give impression of stopping any time soon.

4 June 2006

5 June 2006

Before deleting an image, make sure of the following:
The uploader has been alerted on their talk page to the imminent deletion of their image.
Images cannot be undeleted, so be cautious about deleting.
True or false? 18:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

6 June 2006

  • At Atkins Diet there is a user User:BrianZ who added his site Atkins All the Way to the Wikipedia. He had it removed by User:GraemeL and was told that his site couldnt be there because he was self promoting a site. After a bit this user removed all of the other External Links under the guise of stating that he was removing Peta sites. Since then he continuously removes the sites from the External Links section even the ones that are relevant.

I tried to talk to him. I tried to mitigate it through arbitration but nothing seems to work.

He tends to post smoke screens about the issue at hand and to be honest I think most people there are either sick of the issue or are just ignoring the whole thing which is what he wants.

He has lied numerous times and have personally attacked me on more than one occasion starting with an post of user GraemeL s talk page.

I am not sure who to contact with this. But would like someone to make a decision about this soon.

8 June 2006

  • Mwhs (who appears to also contribute as 70.152.161.175) has been adding disclaimers to the top of Mami Wata (an African goddess, though Mwhs disputes even this) essentially dismissing the article's anthropological approach to the topic and stating that "[the article's] overall depiction of Mami Wata known to those born and initiated and trained to serve in its priestess- hood is considered suspect." Judging by this image uploaded by the user, this person is apparently affiliated with a Mami Wata-worshipping group in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, who host the website mamiwata.com. I am sympathetic to the point of view of those who actually worship this deity, but all attempts to reason with this person are being ignored. See User talk:Mwhs#Mami Wata for the discussion. Other users have branded this person a vandal, but I have been trying to reason with them. In particular, the disclaimers placed on Mami Wata seem to violate WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CITE. Help in getting this person to engage in a dialogue is appreciated, but if they refuse, administrative help would be needed (as an active disputant, I must recuse myself from administerial duties regarding this person). A similar notice has been posted at the Africa-related regional notice board. Thanks. 17:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

9 June 2006

I've already reverted it at least once as vandalism, and I suggest that you continue to do so as well. (Also although I clearly have no idea where the picture is from, and have no intention of finding out, it's probably copyrighted). --Bachrach44 14:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The image is fair use. No images are too offensive to be inappropriate for WP, as it has far more offensive pictures than that one that was uploaded to the Alicia Alighatti page. It is not vandalism, and don't go to wikipedia if you can't handle it. Clever curmudgeon 18:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
BTW I removed the unsourced and unsigned slander of this actress I found on her talk page, as per the BLP. - Merzbow 05:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

12 June 2006

The Kārlis Ulmanis article is pushing an Ulmanis apologist POV as explained in Talk:Kārlis Ulmanis. 18:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

12 June 2006

User:142.22.186.7 talk has a long history of vandalizing articles[140]. Some edits of note include Mexican Cuisine[141], Michelangelo's David[142], Ant[143], Chinese Civil War[144], Seven Years' War[145].

The articles noted are only a small sample of the vandalized articles the user has caused since November 2004.[146]. While the IP Address is a shared computer network those who choose to use the system to vandalize far outweight those who actually contribute. Please considering banning this IP Address. User:Throw

The Wikiquette Alert process can't impose a punishment. You should report vandalism on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Kickaha Ota 22:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

13 June 2006

Calgacus made several incivil comments in regards to people that have different opinion: [147]  ::: It's a Polish nationalist masturbation, that's why. When another user commented his remarks he replied: [148] I don't think my comments in this respect were overly harsh. You have to understand that for eastern Europeans the English language is like a international ethnic property court, putting the name in one language claims ownership for that ethnic group, and gets one over their rivals. That's why all those Ukrainian nationalists want to rename the Russophone city of Kiev Kyiv on English wiki, but don't give two craps what its name is in other languages; and why the same people who were propping up the Polish name Władysław II Jagiełło were going around calling Vilnius Wilno. --Molobo 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL Molobo, you are the last person who should be posting here. To think I thought you'd changed. Sad day. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


13 June 2006

[149]The dispute tag on this article has been repeatedly removed. The article's content is being disputed for accuracy. ~~~~~

No comment, but the link is Greg Bravo (Gary Scott). --02:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


14 June 2006

A rude comment has been posted on User:Robert McGuigan by an unregistered editor, apparently someone with a similar name. Is there a recommended way to handle this sort of thing? ~~~~~

It looks like the problem comment has been reverted. Kickaha Ota 22:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Islam is currently undergoing a dispute over whether to include a section on Islamic terrorism or not. The discussion has been going on for some time, but my attempts today to actually insert a summary style section from Islamic extremist terrorism have been reverted repeatedly. I think the inclusion is important, but an outside opinion from people who don't frequent Islam-related articles would be useful. Thanks. :) Dev920 17:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


On Talk:Prussian_Blue_(duo), a user by the name of Overthrow, in the course of an as-yet unresolved dispute over a claim in the article Prussian Blue (duo) regarding the band's Holocaust denial, has begun to make offensive accusations and insinuations against the other editors of the article. He has been repeatedly warned to remain civil on Wikipedia. His comments on the article talk page do not specifically target an editor but accuse all editors who oppose his views of "obsessing over these two young girls" and "cyber stalking" them. Overthrow has responded by insulting the editor who welcomed him to Wikipedia. I am in the process of composing a reply to his substantive points and have no desire to be put in the false position of defending myself or other editors against his odious insinuations. He clearly won't listen to me on the subject of civility. Could someone else please try explaining to him why ad hominem arguments are inappropriate here? Thanks, Kasreyn 17:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

User 213.237.21.242 has taken over the Talk:Mormonism page with lengthy "rebuttals" of perceived slights. Attempts to answer the points raised have only led to more lengthy responses. Users have attempted to resolve the dispute and to continue the discussion on an archive page but nothing seems to stem the flow. Any help available? -- andersonpd 17:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Maddyfan (talk · contribs) has performed several wholesale reverts of edits made by Extraordinary Machine (talk · contribs) to article Christina Aguilera (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), violating the 3RR in the process. Aside from reverting edits related to an NPOV dispute and whether a section of the article is too detailed (currently being discuss on talk), Maddyfan has rolled back removal of uncited material and MoS/formatting corrections. She seems to have a misunderstanding of the WP:OWN policy, as seen by comments such as "We will boot your butt right out of here!", "please edit again, so we can just boot you", "You come here first, discuss and WE will decide what to do. Not YOU"; she has also falsely accused Extraordinary Machine of vandalism. Maddyfan is generally incivil, and personal attacks directed towards Extraordinary Machine include "don't be ridiculous" and "Get lost". Generally, she seems unwilling to work collaboratively with other editors. 18:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

A heated discussion over the security of the networking application Hamachi has been ongoing at the Talk:Hamachi page. One editor is take a strong stand against the security of Hamachi on what could be seen as unfair grounds as his major concerns are not necessarily Hamachi-specific. The other editor is involved with the company developing Hamachi thus make POV balance tricky. A diversity of opinion would greatly benefit the resolution of these differences of opinion.21:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

15 June 2006

Talk:Crimean War--- I was requested to render 3rd opinion in a dispute where one editor appears to be avoiding debate. WP:3O requires 2 people in a discussion. This issue appears to be wikiquette, not content so I referred it here.(If this is not correct please tell me proper location for this)Eagle talk

17 June 2006

Talk:United States men's national soccer team#Proposed modifications has an ongoing discussion on whether the number of consecutive qualifications to World Cup can be used to make a comparison between teams from different continents.00:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Programming language has active discussion with many people backing up their positions with general knowledge but reluctant to cite sources. 11:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Zer0fault's RfC is turning into an nonproductive, escalating war between two editors with no end in sight. I think this page, and the dispute over the Iraq war article in general, deserve more attention from the community.

18 June 2006

User:MerindaInfo is spamming Weblogs with links into their history; e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:MeridiaInfo&oldid=59274662. I assume it's in anticipation of that page being edited away.

19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

19 June 2006

Ancient Anguish rapidly approaching a revert war. Two users (1 registered, 1 anon) have posted edits to the main article which are highly critical of the game structure and administrative policies. Two registered users have reverted the edits (or re-worded them to be more neutral) for not being NPOV. The first two have then continued to revert their disputed edits back, claiming attempts to exclude or reword their edits amount to "vandaliz[ing] by proponents of the game." A neutral NPOV opinion would be appreciated to prevent a revert war. Some discussion on talk page, although last revert by anon user was not discussed. 17:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

20 June 2006

User:Bank Action Group (account created today, and probably connected with anon edits under User:81.157.159.200) has been adding sections and external links to the following UK bank articles Abbey (bank), Lloyds TSB, NatWest, Royal Bank of Scotland and Barclays Bank. The links are to the Bank Action Group website and the text details their standpoint in a relatively unimportant real world dispute over the application of the UK Consumer Credit Act. I feel that I have too much involvement in the subject to get too involved, but feel that these edits are very close to WP:AUTO and WP:EL, and perhaps give undue prominence to the issue. Opinions and suggestions welcomed. Many thanks 00:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Israel User:Tasc and User:TheYmode are getting rather agressive in discussion with User:Ariedartin over NPOV of the article (it has recently been delisted as a WP:GA for NPOV reasons). They also seem to be in a minor revert war on the article.02:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Doright Has reverted three times in less than 24 hours. He continues to insist on adding a category to the Martin Luther category list that has been discussed and removed many times. This is a regular pattern of behavior. Invitations to discuss, and other such remedies have not proven successful. Many of the editors on the Martin Luther page are tired of the fact that Doright apparently is allowed, with impunity, to launch personal attacks and revert like this with impunity. Efforts to have admins deal with this have not produced positive change. A ban is in order. Ptmccain 11:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The place to report 3RR violations is WP:AN/3RR. KillerChihuahua?!? 16:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Cfvh causes disruption in his zeal to personal attacks, and attempts to influence AfD votes and processes with improper accusations, witness the freshest reasonoing of his for wholesale deletions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish pedigree of Grand Duke of Saxe-Weimar where Cfvh uses following reasons for deletion of article: "...was created by a user with a penchant for moving articles and creating peculiar redirects and articles...." In anyone's objective opinion, such accusations do not belong to reasons of AfD, and moreover are just personal attacks, but Cfvh has presumably recently found AfD process as his tool, apparently to insult other editors. A long block for Cfvh would be in order, so he can contemplate his behavior, style, and how disruptive such are for Wikipedia processes such as AfD. ObRoy 16:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please review ObRoy's edit history and moves in consideration of the dubious veracity of this alert. He has become a source of extra work for editors of royalty-related articles with his undiscussed moves and ill-thought articles and redirects. I feel, as someone who attempts to clean up the messes he creates, that this alert is merely a way for him to vent his personal feelings under the guise of a breach of etiquette. Charles 17:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Consider also: This warning, this accusation, this response to a just warning, this reaction to a reversion of his "work" and this act done upon a AfD entry, in retaliation to the nomination of his obscure articles (compage ancestry of Queen Elizabeth II). Charles 17:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
All the above numerous replies from user:Charles just tell how intent he is on making personal attacks. Nothing of those are reasons for deletion, but anuway Charles tries to use them as such - actually, doing personal attacks. Charles has celarly not understood instructions how to make a proposal for AfD. Also, this Charles seems to edit warnings away from his usertalk page: [150], [151] (Accumulated earlier warnings to Charles are not easy to dig, beceuse sometime two months ago he had had his user talk pages deleted, on pretext of "leaving Wikipedia" - which did not come to happen, the only that happened was deletion of the talk edit histories and warnings). A long block for Charles would be advisable. ObRoy 18:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
No, I am merely proving a point: You must be accountable for your actions before you can hold anyone else to be. I understand how to make a proposal at AfD. What you need to understand is that your work will be removed and edited if it falls below par, you will be warned for infractions on WP and you must stop holding double standards. Consider the things you have said about many fine administrators and editors. You are guilty of personal attacks but your victims can obviously handle it while you label constructive criticism and observations as personal attacks. It is understood between myself and other users that your work needs to be combed through and the many, many errors must be fixed. Many of these violations of basic WP "law" occurred after warnings for such (i.e, your undiscussed page moves). Maturity gains respect. Charles 18:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The "warning" by you is unwarranted, and something you are guilty of. The (late) warning by Shilkanni was for an extremely old page move done in the infancy of my time at Wikipedia. The latter is irrelevant, the former is absurd. Charles 18:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The complaints mad by Charles against ObRoy are absolutely justified - and not the other way around as ObRoy maintains. ObRoy has moved dozens and dozens of articles, leaving an absolute mess behind him. Several editors, including Charles have asked ObRoy to cease and desist, but he just continues. Now ObRoy has started creating a number of new pages which are totally inappropriate for an encyclopedia. When challenged, he claims it is a personal attack on him. Noel S McFerran 00:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I do not think ObRoy's edits are as obnoxious as Charles claims. Nevertheless, the naming of European nobility is quite controversial here; probably more controversial than it in reason ought to be. ObRoy is relatively new, and may not realize this. While I sympathise with several of ObRoy's moves, they should not have been done without discussion, as many of them appear to be. I cannot hold Charles's words unwarranted: they serve to justify a collective deletion, and alert the rest of us to actions which may require consideration. Septentrionalis 14:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

22 June 2006

User:Aish Warya created an account less than two hours ago and has already reverted over twenty articles exactly twice, see here. When warned he has responded with incivility and personal attacks, see User talk:Aish Warya. 04:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

On Portal talk:Taiwan we are having a debate about calling it Portal:Taiwan or Portal:Republic of China. The mediator has suggested we have both portals but one of the participants is insisting we should only have one. 07:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

talk:truth is the subject of yet another NPOV dispute. It was over 200KB and was archived yesterday by User:Banno and today is again over 72KB, with no apparent progress towards resolution. Was the archiving inappropriate, is the NPOV issue clearly stated and what can be done to move the work on? 10:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Is incivility occurring at Talk:The Spirit of Truth? If so, what could the editors on that talk page do to help things be more civil? 14:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

23 June 2006

JzG have deleted content and made unauthorized changes to my user page. After this he protected the page so I cannot undo his changes. I see this as a clear violation of user page guidelines. --Rdos 06:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Also under discussion at WP:ANI, the content in question is a personal essay asserting that autism is the result of cross-breeding with neanderthals. It has been deleted from article space numerous times, but Rdos flatly refused to allow its removal from his user page, so I nuked it. Just zis Guy you know? 11:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  • You must be kidding. I've nerver seen anybody remove external links from talk-pages, let alone in discussions that are about those links. Are you altering people's comments in AfDs too? --Rdos 14:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User lostsociety has been posting profane and abusive posts, plus posting promotional language over and over again. Please see this and this as just 2 examples. User also has posted 10 images which had to be removed for false copyrights and continues to post promotional lanugage on the Bambu page. User is related to the Bambu company and therefore is trying to use Wiki to promote his family's product :( 18:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

User warned. Please take this to WP:ANI if it happens again. Just zis Guy you know? 13:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over inclusion of an external link and appropriateness of an informal poll to try to achieve consent at Talk:Democratic_Underground 22:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Will nobody help out with this? 03:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

25 June 2006

Michael Trigoboff (talk · contribs) and Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) want to add information into the Deadhead article that is original research. For a comparison, see [152] . I have tried to rationally discuss and quote policy as to why this can not be used in the Talk:Deadheads page, specifically Talk:Deadhead#Unsourced information and Talk:Deadhead#Be bold. I would like some outside assistance, preferably an admin or a well-versed user to evaluate my stance and please tell me if my actions are wrong so that we can move on from this debate for the good of the article. If this is not the place to bring this dispute, please direct to where it should go, since this is my first time seeking help in such a matter. Thanks! -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 01:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, Waste Time R is now going to be using the Usenet rec.music.gdead postings as sources (Talk:Deadhead#rec.music.gdead postings as a source). I would really appreciate some input on this, since as it stands it is two-to-one against me. -- MOE.RON talk | done | doing 06:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Rjensen (talk · contribs) removed sourced material from Alexander Hamilton, alleging a pro-slavery POV.[153]. He repeated on the talk page that Pmanderson (talk · contribs) was a pro-slavery editor.

The disputed text summarizes some of Hamilton's views, as expressed in this letter; Pmenderson/Septentrionalis does not agree with Hamilton, and has said so.[154], last paragraph of diff. Jensen replied that pro-slavery agitators would have minimized Hamilton's work, so Septentrionalis must be one of them. [155].

This personal attack [156], by itself, does not warrant a Request for Comment, so it is here. If any light can be shed on the underlying content disputes, which are discussed at some length on Talk:Alexander Hamilton, it will be welcome.


27 June 2006

Anonymous user 24.0.194.179 (talk • contribs) is adding to Supercomputer brief mentions about supercomputers that can supposedly perform a petaflop or better (making it the fastest supercomputer yet). He/she's adding these claims to the "Current fastest supercomputer system" section even though they haven't been tested yet, and some haven't even been built yet. The only sources provided are short, uninformative technology blog articles. Further, he/she at one point blanked out the entire section to mention a new (untested) Japanese supercomputer, and also removed my comments on the talk page discussing the edits. I would appreciate it if someone gave this user a stern talking to, or maybe even a short block. Thankyou. 07:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ardenn I feel is imparing me from contributing to articles by Reverting every article i contribute to and is making my time here on wikipedia Very frustrating Dr sean chronic RSX 03:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


28 June 2006

User:Churchh has been repeatedly and increasingly abusive on User talk:TheEditrix, Category talk:Roman era clothing, and more than a dozen other articles. (See contribs) 13:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

For clarification, the discussion referenced by TheEditrix is being carried out at Talk:History of Western fashion. A categorization war between Churchh and TheEditrix is already being mediated there by at least two other editors, User:PKM (mainly) and myself. Sorry that it spilled over here, WillowW 15:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Argument at Talk:Programming language over whether to include numerous fact tags or not. Editor is refusing to discuss and threatening to revert on sight. 22:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


User:Wiarthurhu has become increasingly abusive and launching personal attacks on other editors who challenge him. He has

  • dared editors to revert him [157]

"I dare you to revert that, unless you believe you are a more reliable source than Grumman's original test pilot"

  • Made personal attacks on the qualifications of editors: "As far as I know, I have no reason to believe that you have even a bachelors degree, ever taken a course in writing or logic, ever wrote a computer program, or even held a job, let alone an IQ over 100, purchased, borrowed, browsed or even read a single book, magazine, watched any media or even visited an aviation museum exhibit on the F-14." [158]. --Mmx1 04:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I have also been involved in a dispute with this user, and it started when he debated with me on the issue of the Eagle Premier being the successor of the AMC Matador. During that debate, he called me a "menace" and "nuisance" (through one of his IP addresses), accused me and User:Bravada of vandalism when we had no such intent, and repeatedly added in unverified claims. He seems to have stopped after I performed a partial rewrite of the Matador article, though. Here are the related pages to my dispute...
I feel that this user can contribute postively to Wikipedia, but if he continues this abusive behavior, I'm afraid action will have to be taken, which is something I want to try avoiding... --ApolloBoy 04:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

5 July 2006

In my opinion, User:Quiddity has been harassing & libeling User:Chuck Marean verbally (see: User talk:Chuck Marean ) and by reverts ( for example, [166]).--Chuck Marean 16:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

For more history, please review removed talk page content: [167]. 16:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

6 July 2006

User:Ste4k tried to remove a valid link from the "see also" section of an article. Her response to the reversion of this was to spam the "see also" section with irrelevent links. Her actions have been reverted by multiple editors, but she persists. 00:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous user 24.225.73.229 (talk • contribs) has been vandalising Jews sans frontieres and adding derogatory and abusive personal remarks to Talk:Jews sans frontieres. S/he has not edited any other article, does not sign comments, and has already been warned on her/his User Page. 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:24.66.94.140 Provocations and probing for edit war on Republika Srpska. Removing sourced material and adding provocative and discredited maps to the article. [168]04:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Darthkenobi Commonly makng joke edits and vandalising articles by adding made-up words to them. Has been commonly repeated and over many differant articles.

User:Sshadow has added links to a number of non-existent Greek-language articles. I politely suggested to him that the articles should exist before any links to them are created. His response is unfathomingly offensive and I've never seen anything like it on Wikipedia, writing: "Get off my face. Who are you spending your time snooping over our backs for misplaced commas and the shadow of pagan penises going all the way allah's rotten anus. Little snoop. Ha! I didn't know Wikipedia was turning into a corporation. . . a power structure with deadlines, übercontrol and the like. Oh I didn't know! Honestly"[169]. This guy has written some highly offensive stuff about Turks, referring to them as "oppresing pigs", with "furs", and their religion as "creed of backward imbecile sand-humans".[170] I think somebody should have a word with him.17:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Panairjdde is amending articles for a long time, specifically removing redundant AD/CE tags, and uniforming the article where mixed AD/CE usage is present. One side-effect of this action is that, in articles where no years/centuries BC/BCE are involved, he removes all of the tags, according to Manual of Style, Eras section. User:Codex Sinaiticus wants to keep at least one AD (he is apparently interested only in ADs, not CEs) in every article dealing with 1st/2nd century. User:Crculver is simply reverting most or all of Panairjdde's edits on the matter. The Panairjdde/Codex Sinaiticus discussion is on Talk:Montanism and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Montanism, the request for explanation of Panairjdde to Crculver is on User talk:Crculver. Would anyone mind to come and express a POV on the matter?--Panairjdde 23:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

8 July 2006

User:Krnc has deleted information on Tumen, Jilin and Talk:Tumen, Jilin (and it appears Korean Chinese as well) without comment, has chosen not to resolve the dispute on the talk page, and has left personal attacks on the talk pages of editors who disagree with him (e.g. "You japanese bitch. it is none of your biz." and "Fuck you bitch"). Assistance would be appreciated. 21:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

10 July 2006

admin user:Will Beback seems to think I work for him. Summary of what happened on the Talk:Climbing page and on my talk page. Would like to know if his behavior is inline with site guidelines. Thinredline 05:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is. Suggesting an editor provide sources is standard. More on your talk page. WAS 4.250 15:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

12 July 2006

User:CAYA regarding edits and general attitude displayed at Foo Fighters over the past month. The issue was attempted to be resolved (Talk:Foo Fighters#Learn To Fly , Bilboard 100) and a concensus was reached, but the user refuses to acknowledge it, instead encouraging a revert war and making claims they don't seem to understand. Thanks. 19:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

13 July 2006

Some difficulties have arisen as outlined at Talk:British Isles#Disruptive behaviour - 08:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Nscheffey appears to have been stalking me with a personal issue since around the 5th of the month. Ste4k 00:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

15 July 2006

An edit war with little rationale and many reverts has erupted concerning the inclusion of two sentences in the article Vlaams Belang. A short outline of opinions and events is on its talk page. 16:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

17 July 2006

User:Ste4k is removing legitimate comments from her talk page. 07:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Francespeabody is making personal racial and political attacks on other users on Talk:Condoleezza Rice, including researching other users' unrelated activities and trying to reveal their true identities or activities outside of the Wikipedia universe in a threatening manner, and making potentially libelous statements. Said user has so far refused to accept suggestions of starting an RfC or other form of dispute resolution for his complaints and continues to soapbox. 03:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

20 July 2006

Anonymous User:152.121.17.5 has been making edits to the Talk:Evolution page signing with the identity of other editors Arnoutf 17:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It would appear that the appropriate warnings have already been handed out, but I added notes to a few misleading signatures. Kickaha Ota 23:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

22 July 2006

I'd like to request independent review of Daniel.Bryant and his reactions to suggestions that he may have erred on RC patrol. Most recently and with the least justification or provocation, this exchange ensued: User_talk:Daniel.Bryant#Recent_changes_patrol. I say most recently, because he has been notified before about the need to maintain a decorous presence on wikipedia (see User_talk:Daniel.Bryant/Archive/July_2006#.28Section_Removed.2C_previously_titled_.22GAY.21.22.29, and even here he attempted to resist the instruction). Perhaps someone could make the point a little more forcefully to him that doing RC patrol means doing RC patrol civilly, and if you won't do the latter, don't bother doing the former. 64.198.252.146 14:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

23 July 2006

Article Welf Herfurth seems to be a copyvio of some site, POV, and I don't understand if he is so important to stray in Wiki. 23:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Without getting into the POV and notability issues, it does appear to be a clear copyvio. I've tagged the article. Kickaha Ota 22:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

26 July 2006

User:MarkThomas was one of the main contributors to an edit war at Led Zeppelin and, even now that everyone else has calmed down a bit, continues to be somewhat hostile on the talk page. 22:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

27 July 2006

I think that the article I-flex Solutions looks more similar to an advertisement than to a wikipedia entry for a company. Can somebody give her/his impression about the matter? Thanks. --Cantalamessa 07:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

28 July 2006

The article about Mark Kirk keeps getting sourced content deleted by a numeric IP address User talk:71.228.10.185 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs). We've posted notifications to Talk:Mark Kirk (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs) that he has broken the three revert rule. If he disagrees with the sourced material, he needs to make his case in the talk page. He does not respond to the talk page comments or our edit comments to that effect.

Request a third opinion on an edit dispute regarding the inclusion of the word "domestic" in the phrase "warrantless domestic spying program" in the article ACLU_v._NSA between User:Dredeyedick, who favors the inclusion, and User:SafeLibraries.org, who keeps deleting the word "domestic" from the article. User:SafeLibraries.org has previously been warned about coming close to violating the WP:3RR 3-Revert Rule with edits to ACLU, and admonished for editing with an "Obsessional point of view" on his talk page. Request outside view of behavior of User:Dredeyedick in this dispute as well. See Discussion in "Serious Bias Evident" section of article discussion page. Thanks.

01:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

29 July 2006

Talk:Sesotho language#Someone_please_help_me. and Template talk:Languages of South Africa — Dispute between User:Dwo and User:Zyxoas that might have gotten a little out of hand. Requesting opinions on whether Wikiquette was breached by the parties involved. 00:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Solid Snake#More picture insanity and User talk:Snake Liquid. User:Snake Liquid has repeatedly made personal attacks against User:RandyWang and User:A Man In Black regarding his talk page, and an edit war at Solid Snake. Requesting an outside comment on his behaviour. 03:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I object to this claim. I was not starting an edit war. Before I made any edits at all, and even now, I've been suggesting edits to be made that would make everyone happy. People's input on the situation was being ignored by User:A Man In Black, and he repeatedly acted as though he was the sole, elite administrator of the article. An example would be how he provided choices for people to make over what pictures they wanted to use, and then went on in attempt to control and tell them what choices they could and could not pick. Whatever edits I made were in favor of those who's inpur was being ignored, including my own, and I feel this is a one-sided complaint. Before any judgement is passed, I would recommend someone see how the debate went down for themselves, at the Solid Snake discussion page, starting with the category "Pictures?"--Snake Liquid 06:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
This is merely a place for users to post significant concerns over etiquette; the posting is one person's feeling, and is not "passing down a judgement" on you. This isn't really the place for discussion, though: As stated at the top of this page, if you wish for outside views of the situation, you may ask for them. ----Emufarmers(T/C) 06:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Cshay/Archive1 and AbsolutDan's talk page. User:Cshay appears to have entered into personal attacks on some other users. Outside comment may be required. 06:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


30 July 2006

Talk:Aquygen#Need investigation into deletion. User:Vaughanwj has noticed that all information on Aquygen has been removed, for reasons unknown. Aquygen is an evolving story and should be in Wikipedia. I know that Alien Autopsy (a hoax) and Tylenol (a brand name) are both present. If the science is in dispute, then it should be debated in the article, but not removed altogether. 12:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I feel like User:Seabhcan is using Talk:2006_Qana_airstrike#Category as a soapbox to compare Israel to Nazi Germany over and over instead of discussing the issue in the article. He is an administrator, highest of the high. I'm just an IP address, lowest of the low. I have a registered account but I get scared to use it when dealing with political issues because so much passion is involved. Maybe that was a mistake. I'm just looking for an opinion about the Wikiquette. I may be partly to blame also. 141.154.225.213 22:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

31 July 2006

In article Negombo Tamils an anonymous user using number of IP addresses has placed an Dispute tag but is unable to list out the disputes but may be indulging in personal attack. Want to de escalate the situation and resolve the dispute. Please help 16:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

See article talk page for details[171]
See escalation of personal attack[172]

User:Snake Liquid has become less civil since his last Wikiquette alert, continuing to make personal attacks on his talk page [173], removing warnings from his talk page [174], and attacking users that attempt to warn him again [175]. Requesting further comment here, since this user appears to be getting out of hand. 21:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The above can be considered as a personal attack against me, if what I'm being accused of is considered making personal attacks. Get off my back Randy.--Snake Liquid 03:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
There is now an RfC on the matter; interested parties should turn there. --Emufarmers(T/C) 05:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


XLR8TION has (1) modified my comments at a CfD without acknowledging that s/he did so; and has (2) engaged in racist personal attacks. see [[176]] Can an admin do something? 00:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

A small matter, I suppose, but... On my User Page I discovered that one of my "user boxes" (for Wikipedians who enjoy bicycling) was somehow replaced by a different one termed a "German Userbox Solution". I don't understand how this practice is taking root or why it's being done. From what I could tell, it looks as though this can happen with any of the user boxes people have put on their personal user pages.--Joel Russ 14:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)Joel Russ


1-August-2006

Mackan has wandered into article schadenfreude and decided that 3-1/2 years of work on the part of other editors compiling examples of the use of the term in the popular culture is "listcruft" and repeatedly vandalizes the article, despite warnings about vandalism. Could someone do something about this?

Davidkevin 06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not vandalized the article, please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. I have edited out completely unnecessary information (listcruft). Please realise that anybody removing material from Wikipedia (especially the kind specified in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) is not automatically a vandal. If anything needs to be done about anything, it's about your refusal to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and also your repeated "vandal warnings" to a fellow editor who is only trying to improve the article in question. It's hard to keep an honest debate with somebody who will only reply with a warning that I will be blocked because I'm a vandal (!). Mackan 07:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

2-August-2006

Is User:Sean Black and User:68.64.65.89 the same person? I reverted Sean's edits to date article April 3 and minutes later got flamed by the IP address.[177] I know Sean has had some temper problems in the past, and I'm asking for an admin's help to determine if this is more of the same. If so, his incivility (he should know better) and his use of an anonymous address to mask bad behavior needs to be noted. Rklawton 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

3-August-2006

New user Terminal emulator (previously 86.136.0.145) is unhappy with the existing reference sources in the Driving on the left or right article. He repeatedly inserts an excessive 165 {{fact}} tags into the article, sometimes more than once in the same sentence. Verifiable sources of reference for the article are already cited in the article's reference section (in accordance with Wikipedia policy), but Terminal emulator believes that this is insufficient and that 165 separate citations are needed on every statement. Terminal emulator has failed to check the sources that are already quoted in the article, particularly the Rule of the Road book by Peter Kincaid, which is probably the most authoritative and comprehensive source of reference on this topic and which supports many of the 165 statements to which Terminal emulator has appended {{fact}} tags. An unwillingness to obtain a copy of a cited reference source is no excuse to litter an article with {{fact}} tags, so I and other contributors have several times reverted Terminal emulator's insertions of 165 {{fact}} tags, and explained why on the article's Talk page, but he persists with this in the false belief that he is following Wikipedia policy. In his latest contribution, he has refrained from re-inserting his 165 {{fact}} tags, but has instead listed many statements that he is questioning, despite not having checked the cited sources first. He is also starting to delete statements that are backed up by cited reference sources without checking them first. Please could some admins contribute to the discussion on the article's Talk page in order to resolve this dispute. Thanks. NFH 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I stopped reinserting the fact tags some time before NFH made his post, because I was being reverted and it wasn't getting us anywhere. I have now gone through the article and listed all the questionable statements on the talk page, so that one by one they can be linked to sources or removed as unsourced. I too would be pleased to have some input into this discussion, because the established editors of the article appear somewhat reluctant to accept that it's a mess. I'd like to ask anyone contributing to read through everything I've said on the talk page, and inspect the history of the article. The problem is that when you read the article, it's clear that a lot of stuff is opinion dressed up as fact, making questionable claims to back up supposedly natural advantages of driving on the left or right. A lot of stuff has also been added by anons, which might be from their personal knowledge and might well be true (but Wikipedia policy is clear that this isn't good enough, and material lacking a reliable published source can be removed – let's have some standards and remember that we are writing an encyclopaedia, not an indiscriminate collection of people's "take my word for it" personal observations), but in a lot of cases whoever added the information could either be mistaken or even deliberately incorporating false information. It would be very difficult to see where this has occurred because the statements in the article are not linked to the sources given. My hope is that those parts of the article which do draw on the Kincaid book NFH mentions can be explicitly stated as such with footnotes and page references, and at the end of that process, all the detritus that the article has accumulated, whether dubious claims about ocular dominance and handedness made by anons trying to make a point, or simply unsourced information about the world's driving habits, can be removed. Terminal emulator 14:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Gaardbo has left rather ruse and abusive comments on my User talk:Captain scarlet; HERE. I have removed unsourced edits from Nivå (THEN) due to the lack of substantiable information given concerning local events. User:Gaardbo has nearly only contributed to Nivå; contribs and has so far added no edit summary. Could admins please explain to this user the benefits of Wiketiquette, the advantage of edit summaries and adding sources to unverifiable information. thanks. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

6-August-2006

Ultramarine does not attempt to reach consensus with anyone on the DEMOCRACY page and is constantly throwing out anyone who tries to contribute. READ all the discussions and you'll see time and time again contributers being pushed away in dismay ultramarine has seriously hampered all work on this vitally important article.


7-August-2006

Gay Cdn is a new user who is a self-described "deletionist". Some individuals have called to his attention that, in their opinions, his own behavior in doing so is less than civil and may itself be action outside of the standards of civility of wikipedia. 14:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • In order to have a full appreciation of the conduct, please see the AfD, and the talk pages of the two people involved 1 and 2 --15:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

9-August-2006

10-August-2006

11-August-2006

14-August-2006

  • User:Keith Parkins and possible socks is at the centre of an increasingly angry debate on Talk:Brighton concerning an external link. A request for mediation appears to have stalled. Don't know what to do... Please help! 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

15-August-2006

17-August-2006

17-August-2006

  • Wikipedia is Increasing Knowledge article at SilverSeek.com -- apparently this is someone's site about speculation in silver and gold: This has dozens of links to Wikipedia articles, and is encouraging people to come edit freely. I think this explains some strange edits to gold and silver a few days ago. It comes up on Google News as a news story about Wikipedia.... 18:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

22-August-2006

User has been blocked for one day, with longer blocks to follow if behavior continues. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

24-August-2006

  • Thomas Jay Oord is being edited by someone who appears to have a grudge against the philosopher, possibly his church, and doesn't know how to cite or link within wikipedia. Request outside opinion on NPOVness of the IP-address edits. 18:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Armon has been criticised by editors on a lot of the pages he's edited recently for his aggressive approach. He reverts without discussion, and removes any information since the last version he approves of, including undisputed information. See Fisking, Ahmed Zaoui, List of controversies surrounding Juan Cole, and Algerian Civil War. He's caused one editor with over 1000 edits to leave or wikibreak. 22:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

25-August-2006

  • User:Cathytreks/User:140.186.149.55 appear to have contributed little but name calling and related disruptive behavior for the last several months both here and in Commons. I could cherry pick the "best" examples, but pretty much any contribution will illustrate the case. That in itself is quite telling. 07:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Alananatomy is a new user and seems to be on a vandalism spree. So far his only 3 contributions are foul marrings of Pearl Jam and Calvin & Hobbes articles. Admins may want to keep an eye on future contiributions. 17:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

26-August-2006

27-August-2006

28-August-2006

  • Pottsf has entered a number of augmentations of Gold Standard, most recently the lead paragraph, which Stirling Newberry has been reverting without comment or notice, to the detriment of an article that is already badly compromised by extraneous material apparently meant to discredit the concept that the subject represents. The attention of impartial third parties knowledgeable about Wiki standards to the edits of the named parties and to the overall article is requested. The "null edit" of 28 August would be a good starting point.--

29-August-2006

30-August-2006

  • Talk:Set_(mythology) contains WP:POINT,WP:NPOV discussion contribution, later introducing some relation to egypt, but originally clearly using it as generic BBS. Contribution overly long; usage of unpleasant filling vocabular (unrelated to egypt). Must be removed. Reason: puts the article in wrong light; and does not appear to improve the article. Please give a statement, without duplication of the terms (variations of sexual intercourse). In addition, i would like to label overly duplication of annoying terms within discussion/incident discussion as a violation of etiquette as well. User:Yy-bo 20:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

31 August-2006

  • Lancashire contains constant inclusion of places outside of Lancashire. The article is extremly POV toward the traditional councties pressure group. County Watch which seems to be using WikiPedia to push it's POV. The editors with Counties in their names are some of the most persistant abusers.User:PixieFroFroooo 10:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC).

1-September-2006

  • User:JoeMystical has been harping incessantly on WP:RS in Talk:Neo-Tech (philosophy), continually rehashing the same old talking points. 05:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Amoruso is undoing edits to a false and pointless, personally and politically motivated section to the Al-Aqsa Mosque article entitled "Third holiest site : Rival claims" . Please see the bottom of the discussion page of the article for more details. The user clearly has no idea on the subject and is modifying the text cited from external links containing factual errors in the article. Also, take a look at the history of the article (esp when the section was created), it clearly shows the dubious nature and origin of the edits. 202.56.231.116 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

2-September-2006

4-September-2006

  • I've been caught up in a dispute at talk:transphobia. I fee that I've remained civil, assumed good faith for as long as possible, and taken in as many viewpoints from earlier discussions on the talk page as possible, weighing them up against the facts known on the subject. I also feel that I've correctly interpreted wiki policy in that I have acted in accordance with it's sentiment/intent. Unfortunately though, as I say, I have ended up caught up in a dispute on the basis of what I find to be vandalism, and on the basis of what is inarguably a sustained personal attack on me (as reported on WP:PAIN). I have engaged in the discussion with the perpotrator on the talk page, but in spite of all I have done, the dispute rages on. Here is the point I feel where I must seek an outside opinion of my behaviour and the overall situation before continuing. Kindest regards, 14:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


5-September-2006

  • I just ran across some edits by User:71.37.12.75 and am completely overwhelmed. I'm tempted to just consider all these edits as spam since I don't have the time to go through them one by one checking if any of them that introduce links are actually valid. 04:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

6-September-2006

  • Could someone take a look at Feldenkrais_method and its talk page? Article is pretty bad by Wiki standards. I suggested some changes, then made them a week after the suggestion when there was no response. Now I'm the target of personal attacks, while everything has been restored without discussion. -- 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Could someone look at Portfolio_Management_for_New_Products? It's becoming one big ad for an author's books and consultancies. I don't even know where to begin to fix it. -- 15:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Could someone look at 64.32.239.212? It may be a spambot and I've no idea how to deal with such, nor how to block. -- 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Reported on WP:AIV. 18:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

7-September-2006

  • User:Dokusenyoku has been found to have uploaded Image:Ugly Koharu-chan.PNG, which I assume he himself created for the sole purpose of debasing Kusumi Koharu, a Japanese J-Pop artist in whose page the aforementioned user made several edits. Additionally, two other edits were made in the Morning Musume J-Pop Group page. While not obviously offensive it is my belief this user uploaded an outdated picture of the group in other to cause strife.00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Scottandrewhutchins is continuously violating WP:Dick. There is no attempt at conflict resolution, even most recently. He hijacks new topics started on the Charun discussion page with an obsession over a "Charun bashes souls" debate, telling one individual in particular that he is "incompetent" multiple times for supposely not supplying references that challenge his viewpoints. However, he has supplied references against his views. This has been lasting weeks and weeks. Scott has even brought about an edit freeze on the article so that his anti-WP:NPOV version remains stuck there. It honestly seems like an egotrip going on but no one has done anything substantial to solve the problem.03:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

11-September-2006

  • I, KrishnaVindaloo confused two sources (Ford and Christianson) and posted the former as a source for a statement made by the latter (that chiropractic is used in sexual conversion therapy)[188]. After questioning, I made appropriate adjustments[189]. Ignoring my adjustment,Steth made personal attacks, including calling me a pathalogical liar [190] and stated that I was not to make any more edits concerning chiropractic. Users Steth, Dematt have accused me KrishnaVindaloo of lying, and refused to assume good faith[191]. I have subsequently apologised for confusing the two sources, and suggested that apologies from others may improve the situation further[192]. Users Gleng and •Jim62sch• and Steth, are trying to obtain votes in order to prevent me from editing the article[193][194]. KrishnaVindaloo 03:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it's a good story, but lacking in accurate representation of fact. •Jim62sch• 10:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The facts are very well displayed on the Talk page, and evidence of KV's editing behaviour is exhaustively displayed there. KV's edits on the topic of chiropractic and homosexuality were persistently deceptive until exposed by User:Steth; however the deeper issue is KV's persistence in impugning the motives of apparantly all editors who disagree with him (breach of good faith). This I believe has exhausted the patience of the community editing this article, it has certainly exhausted mine. Yes I am polling on the page to see if there is indeed a consensus that his editing has exhausted collective patience.Gleng 10:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I asked Krishna Vindaloo, assuming good faith, if he had read the Ford article. He said he had and he has a copy right in front of him. I then asked him if the Ford article specifically mentioned chiropractic. He stated it did. Since no other editors were able to read the actual paper, since only the abstract was available on-line, I then politely gave him the opportunity to please post the exact wording/passages so we could understand exactly in what context Ford was referring to. Krishna Vindaloo then got upset about being “grilled”. I judged this to be an inappropriate reaction, which is why I felt it necessary to contact the author whose reply was quite startling and in direct opposition to Krishna Vindaloo’s contentions.
Feeling frustrated about the whole episode and the huge amount of time that editors have wasted going in circles on this issue, I felt someone had to speak frankly about this unfortunate situation and the quagmire that Krishna Vindaloo involved us in. Perhaps my words were too strong, but I felt they were necessary. Because of the egregious violations of some of the most fundamental principles followed at Wikipedia by Krishna Vindaloo, IMO assuming good faith can no longer be applied to him with a clear conscience, making working with him or his edits an impossible and intolerable situation. Steth 17:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


The problem here is less about content than about KV’s persistent attribution of motives to editors who disagree with his edits (generally editors object that KV's edits lack V RS, or contain OR). For example:

Gleng [195] [196] "I know you have your own biases, and those can also be seen from your edits" [197]

Kenosis [198] "is politically motivated...."[199] and needs a nap or an aspirin? [200]title=Talk:Pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=69757865

Jim Butler “it is very clear what your particular bias is" [201], "he is not a legitimate editor" [202],[203], [204]; he (and members of a certain group) is “fanatical” [205]

Gleng 12:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I find KV's edits well researched. This attack by the usual bunch of pseudoscientists ganging up with the support of a man who claims to be an independent scientist is deplorable. Mccready 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

KV does excellent research, but takes it too far in creating WP:OR. Anyone trying to convinve him otherwise is automatically a conspirator in a chiropractic conspiracy. The use of ad hominem attacks was constant and daily to the point that I felt I should no longer edit or argue, but just tried to clarify on the talk page. --Dematt 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

12-September-2006

  • LordByronKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been systematically making changes that lead me to believe he has an agenda, and may also be using a bot due to the manner and duration of his contributions. By manner, I specifically am referring to the fact that he makes about ten small changes to an article within approx. 1 min. of eachother, then moves on to a related topic and does the same thing. On Sept. 11, LordByronKing made changes almost every minute (a few times there were lapses between 3-5 min long) for the period of about five hours. -21:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Many of these seem like attempts to raise the name presence of a single author and to capitalize phrases used in articles into correspondence with the title of that author's book. Smells like a form of spam? Durova 03:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I was mistaken, please ignore my previous post.

14-September-2006

Thank you. 21:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

15-September-2006

The last paragraph accusing another user of asking questions like when did you stop raping your daughter [206] 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

16-September-2006

User:POnju continues to edit pOnju, which is an article about his own forum. [207] He has been notified multiple times of WP:AUTO. [208] 23:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

17-September-2006

The article on 'deindustrialization' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindustrialization is awful. It only refers to a range of very eccentric / radical views on this subject, and proffers little evidence or support for its arguments. Could we invite an economist who works on this subject to submit an alternative? As it stands, an article of such poor quality is almost enough to send me scurrying back to Palgrave and Brittanica!

23-September-2006

This editor, Pak434, has engaged in continuing rapid reverts of edits at Tom Swift, Jr. without edit summary or explanation. He has no User Page. Affected editor has made several requests for dicussion (Talk:Tom Swift, Jr.} with no response, though the reverts continue. Pak434 may be the same person as User:MookiesDad who has been active in removing the same material from Tom Swift, which is now listed on RfC (no comments as of this date). Request guidance as to how/where to proceed. 19:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that Pak434 is User:MookiesDad. See Talk:Tom Swift, Jr.. Inappropriate language, terminology. 00:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you request a checkuser? If yes, did it confirm that user:Pak434 is a sockpuppet of user:MookiesDad? Also this alert was submitted 9/23, are you still experiencing problems with this user --Inahet 20:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

23-September-2006

The talk page for Ocwen Talk:Ocwen appears to be an advertisement for a legal company trying to drum up business. Not sure about the ettiquette of deleting this type of "talk". 20:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a look, and I see the talk page is clear, just that the article has some neutrality problems. --Inahet 18:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

24-September-2006

Anti-Mormon is the subject of an ongoing dispute. I have had fully referenced statements removed as 'unsupported', and anything critical of the Mormon churches seems to be having a hard time getting into the article. Outside views would be welcomed. DJ Clayworth 19:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a complex issue so as a suggestion you may consider filing an Rfc. --Inahet 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

24-September-2006

Hong Tran is the subject of a dispute, mainly between User:Nottingham and User:Emcee. Please take a look at what has been going on and comment on the talk page so that the dispute can be deescalated and resolved, and users can edit cooperatively.

The discussion between the two has been archived and there is no more discussion between the two ever since. Is it safe to say that this case has been resolved? --Inahet 18:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

27-September-2006

Yogyakarta and related pages which stem from a DAB page has increased the level of PA's between editors. It needs some mediation between the DAB creator and the editors who request for a reversion of the DAB page. Ironically it seems local knowledge on the part of all involved appears to be limited. 06:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

28-September-2006

Tipu Sultan and Talk:Tipu Sultan are facing a prolonged edit war, with some quite heated words flying around on whether the subject of the article was an islamic fanatic or not, anti kannada / anti hindu or not, a despot or not. Most of the disputed edits are from two or three editors, who have been reverting edits wholesale and abusing the other editors on that page for their views. Secondary importance, but probably significant for article quality - their english isn't really good or grammatical either. Might be worth a look. 10:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I say old chap my gammar is rather atrocious indeed.However, if you look at my posts, you will undoubtably realize the fact that some rather disingenuous personalities have been soiling the article with unscholarly paeans to the subject. The edits, as they stand, are against the very principles of wikipedia where sourced facts carry precedence over Islamic Fundamentalism. Ergo one concludes that the article must mention all controversies regarding the subject in a dispassionate way and I believe that this little rant is a means to form coteries based on misinformation in order to quelch that goal.Hkelkar 10:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

History of Hinduism and Talk:History of Hinduism are also facing a prolonged war of insults and ethnic/religious attacks from one user using a sock farm of 3 puppets.Despite attempts by many moderate users to reason with his Neo-Busddhist POV, he continues to hatemonger across the board (see my talk page for more attacks). perhaps some advice and mediation of cool heads and impartial pbservers is in order.Hkelkar 23:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

29-September-2006

Stranraer is being vandalised by Billybrag, the edits are offensive and sustained, can someone please assist. Fraslet 17:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is obvious vandalism on his part, so there is no need to request for outside views. He also hasn't been editing since the day you submitted the request, but next time report him at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, be sure to follow the instructions there. --Inahet 22:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


2-October-2006

User:81.100.63.46 is vandallizing pages, and is only one of the few people to vandalize the Surrealism page...

His edit was quickly reverted. Next time with obvious vandalism, revert the vandalism and warn the user with the appropriate template found through the edit toolbox, click on (templates) and then on Usertalk namespace. --Inahet 22:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

3-October-2006

User:Raymond arritt is constantly reverting my edits, I think this is harrasment, I have monitored his contribs and he seems to be telling others that I am a sock puppet. This is very distressing please help --KFA UK 12:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits generally try to impose a specific point of view on articles, and it does look very likely that you are a sock puppet of User:Frogsprog, User:The big moose, User:NoJoyInMudville, User:Frogbaby, etc. So if User:Raymond arritt did what you say, then... good work Raymond arritt! --Reuben 15:35, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

3-October-2006

User:139.142.96.245 is vandalising the Spurge and Succulent plant page and by placing the same link again and again to a poor quality cactus cam page. Can someone please stop that? The owner of the linked page (who I think is our vandal) neither knows to differ a spurge from a cactus nor knows to spell the name of the only plant shown. This is absolutely poor quality and not worth any link. 17:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your interpretation of the web site and have removed the link from both articles. I think it is safe to remove it everytime he adds it back in, though I wouldn't call it vandalism, I think the appropiate term at this point is spamming. --Inahet 21:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

3-October-2006

User:Storyteller15 is beginning to get nasty. After vandalizing Ann Coulter, he made a quick "I was just testing!", and deleted the warning that was posted by the person catching him on it. However, after I caught him vandalizing George Steinbrenner, I restored the warning and left http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Storyteller15&diff=79414577&oldid=79414533] talk box. He then turned around and slapped the warning template on my own Talk Box and claimed he informed the admins of my "juvenile behavior". 16:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you have to worry even if he did report to an admin, an admin would be on your side anyway. Next time use warning templates, which can be found through (templates) which you will see whenever you edit the page in the edit toolbox below. Feel free to ask for clarification if you're not quite sure. --Inahet 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC) 21:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

5-October-2006

User:Kingstonjr/Work Gallery contains a large collection of pornographic pictures which the person seems very proud off. There is no evidence the Gallary is work related. The individual seems to be taking one line in Wikipedia's philosophy ("Wikipedia is not censored"), and obnoxious over-doing it to show off, despite breaking guildlines on Wikipedia:User page.

I'm not sure about this since I didn't take a look at the gallery, I don't want to, porn makes me sick. Anyway I think it requires administrator intervention so I think you should take it up on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This is just a suggestion, any other opinions by others are encouraged. -- Inahet 21:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

6-October-2006

Safe to start at this section, Talk:Green Tortoise#NPOV tag removed, but it goes on above. Dispute over now outdated address, first hand accounts, and npov template inclusion. Anon using various IPs vs. two users accused of being sockpuppets. Larger issues with article should probably be addressed, but can't get beyond the basics. Any comments much appreciated! 00:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Could someone look at User:Abilitynet contributions, and maybe give suggestions to him/her on how to contribute? Abilitynet has been making many edits promoting a company and could use more guidance. 15:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm split on this. I take a hardline against spammers, but his/her web site doesn't seem to be commercial (as the web site claims), nor is it private. However, Wikipedia is not vehicle to promote one's web site. I really don't know, so I hope others can chip in with their view. --Inahet 08:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

User:64.251.48.82, User:66.31.240.235, User:142.22.16.57, User:195.93.21.104 have a huge list of "contributions" of vandalisms. Is it possible to block these users?

Are you asking for a permanent block? If that is case, may I refer you to one admin's reply when I asked him the same thing a few months back: "Wikipedia policy is not to permanently block IP adresses, they may be used by multiple people or reassigned by the service provider, so I can't block permanently. I put in a two week block, because there is no need to warn an IP address that has been repeatedly blocked, like this one. Thanks for the alert. Unfortunately I was away from my computer at the time. A good way of getting the attention of administrators is on WP:AIV, most admins keep that page on their watchlist." [209] --Inahet 05:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

7-October-2006

There seems to be a tight closed shop operating on Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University where only a highly critical view of the organisation is allowed to prevail. Most recently comments of other users on the talk page are being heavily re-written and even deleted mainly by User:195.82.106.244, who seems to be pretty-much running the show, on the basis that they are a personal attack, although there is at least one case of a factual post by User:84.13.205.142 being deleted (now re-instated). Check out the Talk history. There is a total lack of cilivity on the talk page with some clear personal attacks taking place and along with much political ranting. 08:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC) There is now an edit war taking place over the NPOV box. 04:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

7-October-2006

User:203.214.50.225 has made multiple reversions to edits I have made to the Johnny Newman article. I initiated dispute resolution by questioning him/her about this on his/her talk page, User talk:203.214.50.225. I have requested that the user explain his/her reversions on the article's talk page. Thus far, I have received no response on the talk page. The user has responded by making repeated unsigned comments on my user talk page User talk:Sugar Daddy, and vandalizing my user page User:Sugar Daddy. After I pointed out to the user that this behavior was against WP:CIVIL and WP:TPG, the conduct has been repeated. Also, based on pattern of edits, I believe this unsigned user may be a sockpuppet of User:Downwards. Please advise! Sugar Daddy 20:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


9-October-2006

Another user is monitoring my edits on several pages, adding spurious or incorrect information and failing to reply to my rationales for adding or altering content. The user also frequently makes comments which I find irritating, and deliberately provocative. I am so frustrated by this I am having trouble not including profanity in my responses. Also uses wikipedia proceedures improperly and punitively - peer reviews and request for deletion specifically. Examples are found on the Barbara Hambly biography page, and Cat's Claw. See talk pages as well as diffs over the past couple days. There is an unpleasant history going back several months. My own conduct in previous interactions was far less than perfect, I have been trying to improve it over the past couple weeks after a warning regarding personal attacks. I would appreciate comments on my own behaviour as well. 16:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For your request, I asked for help on what to do about Wikistalking, and one admin said to report it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Inahet 20:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


9-October-2006

Stevewk's comments (some of them are unsigned) are highly offensive, in my opinion. Thank you.

10-October-2006

[[210]]Unregistered user is repeatedly adding negative criticsms to a BLP article, many of which are not referenced, poorly referenced, or derivative of online articles that do not even talk about the subject. I have attempted to reach out to this person to come to some sort of consensus, but they have labeled me a "Dave Ramsey Lover" and simply re-add their edits. According to the Wikipedia:BLP policy page, negative material that is poorly sourced must be deleted immediately. I have brought this issue to that board, and they agreed with my position. However, this person continues adding these points. Can I get a little help here I guess? I'm not sure what to do at this point.--Arkcana 21:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

10-October-2006

I'm not the good guy here and I'll take my lumps with everyone else, but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Gallon is getting way out of hand. - Richfife 22:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

11-October-2006

I am adding statements which I believe to be true and of common knowledge. HeBhagawan sees they are removed under one or other pretext, one of them being asking for citations whereas he ignores my pointing out other similar un-sourced statements. Apandey jumps in with incivil comments against me. I am also subjected to incivil intimidations by HeBhagawan and Dab. Dab being admin, has commented that my edits were "worse than worthless" to add fuel to the fire. He has asserted that he has no knowledge of the subject "Hinduism" and commented incivil as HeBhagawan and others were against me. The attempt of HeBhagawan appears to monopolise the article. Apandey has no contribution to the article. Apandey's only contribution is incivil comments against me on discussion page. I request to check my edits by a person of knowledge of Hinduism so far as statements falling under true and common knowledge, the incivility issue can be checked by any. I suspect sock puppeteering.Swadhyayee 02:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kylu. I wish that you would have commented on certain issues to prevent bitterness rising since there were lot of allegations against me that my English is poor and full of grammatical errors, it changes the sense in opposite direction, I am not listening to others and so on. Further, the incivility issue raised by me. I wish that as you already have responded to my request, you as well give your frank opinions in moderate language.Swadhyayee 17:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

11-October-2006

User:216.184.26.77 is on a vandalism tear through Reconstruction. Please stop him. L0b0t 19:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Next time report him/her at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, make sure to read the instructions first. --Inahet 20:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

13-October-2006

User:66.158.68.101 is consistently vandalising pages; see Orhan Pamuk. Could this ip be banned?

It depends, has he been vandalizing after being warned? Also IPs are usually temporary blocked as a penalty, I believe that they are never permanently blocked. Anyway it looks as though he has not been vandalizing lately, so no worries as of now. --Inahet

User:Ernham has been blocked for incivility and personal attacks, both on talk pages and in edit summaries. Despite repeated requests this has continued including labelling users with which he disagrees as "vandals" and calling for other users to be blocked in edit summaries. 23:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If he has been warned with {{npa2}} and {{npa3}} templates but did not cease from making personal attacks, then report him or her at WP:PAIN, an admin will look into it. --Inahet 02:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

14-October-2006

User:FunkyFly is constantly avoiding various Wikipedia rules (poor sourcing or no sourcing at all, no explanations for the changes, using unlicenced or poorly licenced images, support of certain political agendas, mistreating several articles as his/her own private personal web pages, incl. biographies of living persons etc..). Particulary he/she is abusing the following articles: Kiro Gligorov, ASNOM, Ilinden uprising and many other articles mostly related to Balkan issues (meanwhile that list of abused articles is growing bigger). All the attempts for a serious discussion and a peaceful concensus have failed. A suggestion from my side for seeking "third opinion" and sort of arbitration by an invited informal mediator (experienced and relevant Wikipedia user from a third country) was disregarded by the user in question in a very arrogant manner below every standard of civility (link:HERE). The user in question adds highly questionable statements (to the articles) which are not supported by any reliable source, except in some cases, with sources such as: websites of certain radical political parties and document scans issued by a certain state which was an ally of the Third Reich during the Second world war etc. Also the user mentioned above offten attempts to defocus discussions from their main topic by using cynical statements, irrelevant informations, out-of-context quotes, mild personal attacks etc. NOTE: My behaviour may have been also questionable in certain cases and Im ready to be sanctioned accordingly if needed. But, rules should not be imposed in a selective way. --Vbb-sk-mk 22:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide more specific examples where I have been uncivil? And also prove that you are not simply attempting to scare off other editors so that you can push you nationalistic agenda unchecked?   /FunkyFly.talk_  22:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
everything is being kept by the system, all the discussions, all of the edits/ reverts etc. What is needed now is a good unbiased third-party observer or a group of observers who are willing to investigate everything in detail and to draw conclusions accordingly. Offtopic (not related specificaly to the user reported above): Meanwhile the previously mentioned systematical abuse of articles specificaly related to Macedonia (region), Republic of Macedonia (or FYROM) and its history continues in the same pattern (just for an example: a fair-use image of a historical flag that I've added to the Ilinden uprising (incl. proper describtion, proper sourcing, fair use rationale for each use separately and incl. a proper type of licencing) has been removed just a while ago)--Vbb-sk-mk 23:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Throwing terms around like "systematic abuse" can do nothing but reduce your own credibility.   /FunkyFly.talk_  23:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Patchouli is on a vandalism spree on Iran-related articles to advance his/her political agenda. He/She has been asked to invlove in ongiong discussions before further edits, yet he/she continues to ignores discussions, and his/her edit discriptions includes only personal attacks of others being on mullah's payroll. For example, although there is an ongoing discussion as to whether include mideast monarchs and Khamenei in the list of dictators, and general consensus is negative, the discussion is ignored by him/her, and the user includes questionable sources with certain political agendas as his/her sources. Refer to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_dictators&action=history --Gerash77 19:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

16-October-2006

User:67.94.205.21 has been vandalizing seemingly random sites, as well as frequently maliciously editing the websites of Seattle-area high schools. Acts include rascist slurs, personal adverts, intentional garbling/misspelling of words, and malicious fact changing. Please look to his or her user contributions for a guide to said violations of etiquette, as in my search I found almost all recent edits were vandalism attempts. In light of the many recent vandalisms on the part of this user, I placed a vandalism warning on their user discussion page, but there are many others like it. I do not think that will deter the user. Please see [211] 09:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Grover_Cleveland has been a source of mild to moderate harrassment. Besides his constant sarcasm, he has followed me around, editing pages right after I edit them, pages that previously he never went near. I edit so much as a sentence -- there he is, right after. Articles that he previously never showed one iota of interest in. "Stalking" is probably too strong a word; for my part I will just ignore him. But I thought you should know that one of your active editors is behaving this way. Thank you for your time.

16-October-2006

This (ab)user deserves to be banished, don't you think?--Barbatus 14:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

17-October-2006

Personal attacks on editor at Talk:Previsualization. Can something be done?

Ergonomics appears to contain a large amount of copyrighted material. Can someone advise/help? 03:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This and that one are sure candidates for blocking.--Barbatus 13:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

... and this one, too.--Barbatus 15:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Umeshghosh has introduced large sections of copyrighted material to Ergonomics, Human factors, and Celebrity 100. His contributions to Digestion, Physiology, and G protein look suspicious as well. 16:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This IP should be banished again, perhaps.--Barbatus 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yet another offender. Multiple offender!--Barbatus 19:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Found that User:Laurencegast has been inserting what I believe to be his real identity into various articles(every contribution he/she has made thus far). Most of them have been removed since they do not belong here or enhance the articles. List of these contributions are here:Special:Contributions/Laurencegast Not sure how this should be handled with the user. 23:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One more candidate for banishment.--Barbatus 02:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

18-October-2006

One more multiple offender.--Barbatus 17:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Another hooligan.--Barbatus 17:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope some administrator is watching this page and taking appropriate measures.

IP addresses cannot be permanently banned because they may be used by many people and may be reassigned by the ISP to other people. Anyway, this is the wrong place to report vandalism, report at WP:AIV. Thanks. --Inahet 19:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you, Inahet.--Barbatus 19:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. --Inahet 19:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

19-October-2006

  • User:Sarner was blocked from editing the Bowlby page in the past. He is engaged in the same behavior again: not accepting the consensus among several editors on the talk page, reverting the article to his view alone. Refusing to follow Wikipedia practices regarding dispute resolution: he has not accepted suggestions to take a poll or consider mediation. 00:49, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • User:TheGreenFaerae has resorted to personal name calling several times over the contested "Possible spoofs" section of Chloe Sullivan#Possible spoofs, and appears unwilling to address policy concerns over his edit (WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:NPOV) or possible legal concerns, since his edit accuses one corporation of violating the copyright of another.

22-October-2006

User:Canaen has on his user page a rant with the following:

"Just because Racist Amerikka says I look like y'all cracker asses,

There was some discussion of this in his discussion page where someone sugested this is inappropriate because it links directly to the wiki article about Whites.05:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've left a note on the user's talk page. Durova 15:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

23-October-2006

  • I found Corporal Tunnel's comment here lacking maturity and respect for the process. Though WP:CIVIL never mentions sarcasm, I think comments like this aren't constructive to the process. Granted, the AfD is a pretty obvious delete vote, but that doesn't mean the discussion can show disrespect towards the people who created it. 01:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This user's edit history shows a lot of constructive vandal fighting and a little bit of (probably youthful) sarcasm. I don't see a need to intervene here, but someone might want to leave a polite note on the user's talk page. Durova 14:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • RE: List of music arrangers By looking at the history, it seems that user:81.64.111.159 and probably one and the same user:81.64.121.113 thinks they own this list because every time someone adds a name to the list, this person removes it, with no explanation whatsoever, and only leaves their contributions intact. This has been going on since Oct 05. I wouldn't call it vandalism, but not sure what to do about it. Any suggestions? 01:51, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Semi-protected. Durova 15:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

26-October-2006

I would like to issue a complaint against administrator Lucky 6.9. He refuses to offer a satisfactory explanation for why he's deleting my additions to Wikipedia. In addition, he's issuing threats to me.

I tried to add an entry on Sides the movie on the 24th, and he deleted it within 2 minutes, claiming that because I did not have other people contributing to the page, it was not a sufficient addition. This, of course, is a ludicrous claim, given the fact that the entry had been up for less than two minutes. It obviously takes time for other people to contribute to a new page. I asked Lucky why he twice deleted my new entries, and he simply responded with a threat to suspend my editing privileges. If you go to his page, you'll see that I'm not the only person who has complained about his editing. I would appreciate a response from an administrator who is civil and mature enough to actually address my question. Thank you.

28-October-2006

I would like to issue a complaint against User:Kafziel. He continues to delete my additions to Wikipedia. (Social Investing, Fanniue Mae and Business Ethics) In addition, he has threatened to have me banned from Wiki.

He seems to believe my additions are spam, and as he called them once, sneaky spam. I simply don't think they are. In addition to posting links to my websites, I have posted links of relevance to the topics to Congressional testimony on the US Congress and SEC websites. I don't think these can be considered spam. Please advise. Thank you.

I didn't threaten to have you banned. That's a standard spam warning template, and I only used it after spending a lot of time trying to explain the situation to you. I wasn't even the first one to warn you about it. But I welcome a third opinion, since edits like this and this and this are so obviously spam. On the bright side, your contributions today have been better. You've been adding content instead of links, as I suggested. Still a bit POV in places, but much better than spam. Kafziel Talk 13:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


29-October 2006

There is an ongoing edit war on "Ascended Masters" and a couple of related pages. See: [[212]] --Vindheim 01:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Aburesz consistently shapes the articles Sanat Kumara, Ascended Master andGreat White Brotherhood with secterian viewpoints, deleting NPOV tags, references to critical sources and even links to competing sects in the same territory. Several editors have posted questions and comments on his talkpage as well as the relevant article talkpages, to no avail. In my opinion he should be blocked.--Vindheim 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

30-October 2006

Some editors who have voted on WoWWiki's third AFD nomination seem to be out of control, as far as WP:CIVIL, WP:FAITH, and possibly WP:NPA goes. On one side there are WoWWiki admins who argue that their own site is notable enough for it to merit its own article on the English Wikipedia, and on the other side is everyone else. 00:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

31-October 2006

I am concerned at the tone used in edit summaries and messages left on talk pages by User:Wandalstouring. I admit I got a little hot and a bit of a mastodon myself before backing off, checking some sources and trying to correct the material, and am now trying to calm down, but will do that best when neutral, outside, others stick their noses in. See edit history and talk page of War horse in particular, both edit summaries and the tone of the edits themselves, as well as tone of edits to cavalry tactics. This individual also left a couple nasty comments on my user talk page that bordered on threatening in tone. I may have stirred the pot at first, I am now going to back off an just calm down now. 22:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

There is an ongoing minor edit war on the Nadia Comaneci page. User:Mai Loon and two IP addresses, which seem to be so close as to be the same user, are continually deleting sourced, referenced information from the article. I, and other users, continue to revert back, but the material just gets changed again the next day. It's not major, but it does give the article a weasel-worded slant by removing one side of a controversy involving Comaneci and failing to tell the reader what the conclusion was. The user refuses to even discuss his/her edits; s/he just keeps silently reverting.

I'm not even sure if this is the right place to add this, but I'm not sure how this should be handled. Thus far, I have tried: 1) asking for comments on article's Talk Page; 2) trying to ask the user to justify his/her deletions in the edit summaries; 3) leaving notes on the user/IP address Talk Pages; 4) Taking a break from the article; 5) remmoving material about BOTH sides of the controversy to try to make the user go away. Any thoughts on how to deal with this would be appreciated! DanielEng 08:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


02-November-2006

04-November-2006

70.185.125.101 has acted uncivil and inappropriate in talk pages of the articles which he has edited. He has been warned multiple times on his talk page, but persists in his caustic behavior. 17:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Jvalant is attempting to disrupt the Indian Rebellion of 1857 article , promoting Indian nationalism at the expense of the quality of the article. Whilst implying that anyone who disagrees with him is an "Imperialist" or a "racist". His views obviously need some level of inclusion in the article, but not at the expense of different points of view. 18:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

11-November-2006

User:Power_level_(Dragon_Ball) is making repeated personal attacks on User:Someguy0830. He has been warned with a 'be civil' template, but he wants me to remove it (User_talk:Yuser31415). Do you think I should remove it or leave it there? I'm not sure what his game is, but he seems to want all his warnings removed immediately afterward they are put onto his talk page. Looks fishy to me. Yuser31415 talk|contribs 21:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

No problems, resoluted. Yuser31415 talk|contribs 01:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

12-November-2006

User:DocFisherKing (also ostensibly User:66.246.72.108, among other IP addresses) has a long history of repeatedly reverting my edits (and the edits of other users) to his own versions of the David Duke page, with accusations of vandalism on my part in the edit summary.[213] [214] [215] [216]

--Ryodox 09:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No truth in that statement, see for yourself! DocFisherKing
Well, nice try Ryodox
  • 208.192.66.196
Record Type: IP Address
UUNET Technologies, Inc. UUNET1996B (NET-208-192-0-0-1)
208.192.0.0 - 208.255.255.255
WS/EXOP OF KEARNEY MISSOURI DBA UNITE | GREATER KANSAS CITY |
EXOP OF MISSOURI | CLAY COUNTY |UU-208-192-64-D4 (NET-208-192-64-0-1)
208.192.64.0 - 208.192.79.255
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kearney%2C_Missouri&diff=prev&oldid=87189434

You didn't fool me! DocFisherKing

LOL. That "evidence" shows that I am now logged in from the IP of 208.192.66.196. I've been found out! Seriously, though, you're being ridiculous, this is the same disregard for Wikipedia policy that I'm referring to. Someone else will remove your impertinent "evidence" soon enough. --Ryodox 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say, it's evidence! DocFisherKing

Suspected sockpuppeteer

Ryodox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

208.192.66.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Poison sf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

DocFisherKing

13-November-2006

User User:Eleemosynary has always been a kind of strident voice on the Rush Limbaugh page. However, recently that user has begun making more personal attacks seen on the talk page. They have not yet gotten to the point where I feel comfortable slapping up template but the constant charges of bias and unfounded attacks against other editors has really soured the discussion. This user also after disagreeing with a few edits went through the article deleting many sections seemingly out of spite. I am relatively new to this kind of behavior so thought I would seek outside assistance especially considering the charged atmosphere. --06:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

15-November-2006

User:Mr.6661 is contacting people who appear to be fans of Avenged Sevenfold, claiming to be the guitarist from the band. This is obviously not the real person, and I'm hoping something can be done to stop this person from contacting anyone else, and spreading false information about the fans of A7X on the Wiki. I have reason to believe that this person might also be User:Metallifan, although I could be wrong. The account in question has already been approached by various members of Wikipedia and asked to stop his actions, although to no avail. --BoaDrummer 07:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

16-November-2006

There's already a comment about this user above, but User:70.185.125.101 is still leveling personal attacks against users, behaving in an uncivil manner (Example: [217]) and making edits that are inappropriate at best. Several editors have tried to talk to him about this, on both his Talk Page and the articles' Talk Pages, but he's not listening and maintains that he's doing nothing wrong. Most recently he has tried to add sexual content,[218] and links to pornographic films [219] to an article about a children's TV series, and has been openly hostile when the content was removed. DanielEng 05:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

User JoshuaZ appears to have abused his SysOP priviliges, violating WP:BP and demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of WP:ADMIN. [220] 18:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how. I'm not seeing anything wrong there, except an admin trying to stop unsourced, POV material. And please sign your posts. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

17-November-2006

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to get help but things are out of control at guitar. There has been continual vandalism and now User:Will Pittenger has been reverting to vandalized versions. Several people (myself included) didn't notice what he had done and we reverted newer vandalism to his versions. Now the page has old vandalism sprinkeled throughout. Hopefully someone knows how to fix this situation. I put a warning at Will's user page.17:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the type of vandalism is where a bunch of dates, numbers and things have been changed.17:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Fixed the vandalism, not such a big problem as I supposed at first.18:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
This problem has been resolved.-Crunchy Numbers 16:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please help at Democrat Party (phrase). I've been struggling with 71.139.0.12 who keeps making not-vandalism but unhelpful / contentious / arbitrary edits, and now with User:Rjensen. I just need the support of some experienced editors who can back up the enforcement of WP:V and just someone with a good sense for how Wikipedia works, because I feel that both these users are a bit unexperienced, so we've been butting heads a bit. 22:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

18-November-2006

User at Portal talk:China is making many changes without stopping to discuss objections to previous changes first. Someone needs to explain to him that discussion and consensus is more important than making a lot of changes quickly. 00:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have a user deleting all my edits most of them without a single link and threatening me via email. 72.81.21.181 03:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

On Neuro-linguistic Programming, I want to make sure my own behaviour is ok here, diff. My edits were attempts to improve the quality of the article. Other than that I really need advice on how to strongly encourage AlanBarnet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to use "fact", "dubious" or "quote_required" tags rather than blanket reverts. --Comaze 04:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


User:Abu badali has added Template:Replaceable fair use templates to several of the images I've uploaded, without following the instructions in the template to notify the original uploader. This, in addition to blanketly adding this tag to what appear to be a wide variety of promotional photos; his user log indicates several hundred edits of exactly the same type, and it appears to me unlikely the user is making any case-by-case determination or using any judgement before making this sweeping edits. If user is not notifying me that my images are now subject to deletion, I'm guessing the same thing is not happening to several hundred other editors. 23:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


19-November-2006

Re: EFax (fax service).

A user (previously operating under the name User:Haynesj, but now operating anonymously from a small number of IP addresses ) has been for a long time engaging in edit-warring on this page. In January 2006 he requested that the page be protected as it was a registered trademark of his company, J2 Global Communications. (That claim is false, as is shown on the (hopefully) current version of the page). Since then, he has been vociferously demanding that all other users leave the page alone, and has reverted nearly all constructive edits to the page, often calling them vandalism. That small stub article has now had over 150 edits since July 2004. He has recently vandalised Fax server (see [221]) and Efax (disambiguation) (see [222]) by replacing those articles with material about his product alone. He has edited Yac Fax (see [223]) to promote his product. Somebody operating from one of the addresses which he uses (and which is assigned to his company) has vandalised Wireless access point (see [224]). Several people have attempted to discuss matters with him over a long period, but he persists in his activities, claiming that since his company produces the product, he is entitled to control the content of the page.

See some of his discussion at:

He has used the following accounts and IP addresses:

09:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

20-November-2006

User User:Wiki187 just created an account to avoid a spam block as User:125.23.47.249. The editor has been placing threats in comments along with his external links. I'd prefer if someone could help because my catching him in the act and adding multiple spam warnings may have exacerbated the situation. --17:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

22-November-2006

  • "Label the comment neutrally but do not sign and do not use names (type 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC), which gives only a timestamp)....". don't know if I understand this bit? My problems can be picked up at my user talk page, wblakesx talk. I have never modified an article itself, and have never had any problems before. I have found incivility and presumtions, from some admins, of bad faith where none existed. After removing the objected to material have "been left hanging in the air". I replied to links left on my talk page and have been threated for vandalism and serious vandalism.

. I am here for procedural reasons only, feedback to avoid runaway system destruction ( info theory and electronics metaphor, also applied in a work called "The Nerves of Government" governance. I firmly believe I have met some admins who are not ethically ot tempermentally up to the job. I don't have a lot of time presently to deal with this but would like to see Wiki not taken by little tyrants. But who cares?Wblakesx 02:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

  • RE: Yanni Sustained anon edits but all exactly the same edit, by users 63.167.255.231 (vandal warnings in history), 147.133.54.167, (vandal warnings in history - see 11/12, 11/20 in history) 71.34.214.212, and same initial edit as well by David Foster who is by history, fixed on adding arrest records and mug shots to Wikipedia articles. It has been cited that Wikipedia is not tabloid journalism - per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Page was requested to be semi-protected but denied. [230] Compromise is sought by using most recent news story, and using an encyclopedic tone. Requesting review of history of page and all these users. Please advise if correct protocol has been taken, and if not, please advise further. Thank you. 15:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

24-November-2006

  • A user has since December 2005 made 161 post on 42 article talk pages, plus 85 edits to his own talk page, but has never edited an article; neither do his posts suggest any specific changes to be made. He claims he is using the talk pages to provide a "commentary" to the articles, but seems to make a virtue out of disregarding WP:TPG, The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page (my bolding). His posts tend to be obscure, evasive, confusing, polemic, selfconscious - he seems to consider these commentaries an art form or an academic activity in its own right, rather than a part of a proces to improve the actual articles. His commentaries are perhaps suitable for a coffee break chit-chat at an academic institution amongst scholars who enjoy that sport, but here, he's just cluttering up talk pages with discussions going nowhere. I have not identified the editor in question, as I do not want to report him at this point - in fact it's difficult to single out anything to report. Rather, I would like advice on how to proceed, if at all, based on the assumption that my assessment is fair.16:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • See above, Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Agrippina_(opera). I'm not sure how I can ask about my own behavior w/o signing my post, unless someone looks at the hist. But if people look at the hist, then leaving your post unsigned is kinda useless, don't you think? But anyhow. I am very open to constructive criticism regarding my behavior in the disagreement above. 00:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

25-November-2006

An unregistered User edited my User page and talk page with some pretty harsh comments. Don't know who he is, but I'd appreciate this being looked into. Cheers. -Sparky

27-November-2006

  • Would an admin please examine the frequent reversions at Reading, Pennsylvania regarding whom is and is not a notable resident. Attempts have been made to contact the two users primarily involved with the dispute, whom may be one-in-the-same: 65.122.19.5 and Mercifulfate86. A post to the Talk page has been made but received no response from the two aforementioned users. Thank you for your time. 22:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/Archive/2006&oldid=442584613"