Wikipedia:Historical archive/Conflicts between users/Archive

With a common goal of accumulating, ordering, structuring and making freely available what knowledge in mind, if we concentrate on achieving NPOV even when it is difficult, if we try to actually understand those we label problem users, then we can reach the state of WikiLove. Otherwise, the encyclopedia as a whole will suffer.

Alternatives to adding users to this page

Some key components to achieve WikiLove and work in the general spirit of collegiality and mutual understanding is to:

• Follow Wikiquette -- respect other contributors
• Follow our policies -- they make it easier to work with one another
• Keep the neutral point of view (NPOV) in mind -- write articles that people from all sides can read and agree with
• Forgive and forget. Don't allow yourself to be hurt; to hurt others; to allow others to be hurt. Do try to accomodate other people's views.

If you are listed here, then you may comment on the accusation that you are a problem user and ask that your name be taken off the list. You may not remove yourself from this page.

Recommendations for adding users to this page

In general, time spent complaining about problem users is less productive than an equal amount of time spent writing encyclopedia articles. Still, if you must complain, please:

• First discuss the issues with the user in question, and do everything in your power to get a resolution that way. In many cases it's possible to resolve the issue with discussion, without getting the rest of the community involved.
• Be specific in your criticism. Give diff links to individual edits that demonstrate the problem. Say exactly why you find these edits a problem.
• Sign and date your comments
• List the most recent additions at the top of this page.

Recommendations for removing users from this page

• If the consensus after sufficient discussion (perhaps more than a few people) and sufficient time (depends on nature of problem) is that a user is not a problem user, just wipe the entry.
• If the user in question hasn't edited Wikipedia for a month, or longer, just wipe the entry.
• If the situation has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, or the user has ceased the behaviour that caused the problem, just wipe the entry.
• If lots of discussion has taken place, and the user is still active and exibiting the problem, create a subpage "special feature".

Wiping the entry may seem a bit callous, but it's all part of the joy of forgive and forget. Since we strongly recommend against anyone ever using this page, we don't mind terribly about deleting stuff on here as it becomes out of date, irrelevant, or just tedious. Besides, there's always the full version history. On the other hand, don't wipe your own entry - leave it to someone else to make that judgement. You can't force forgiveness on the community.

If the consensus (suggested at least 2/3 of people) is that a user is a problem user, has not improved their behavior significantly, and some experienced users (read: sysops) agree that banning may be the best option, then it is suggested that you bring it to the attention of Jimbo via private email (unless you are also listed here in which case it is advised that you stay out of it). You can bring it earlier or later if you want, this is just a recommendation.

---

List of controversial users

Most recent at top.

User:Vergina

This user keeps trying to insert "Former Yugoslav" or "FYROM" in various Republic of Macedonia links, despite being told to stop and discuss it at Talk:Republic of Macedonia instead. --Jiang 00:08, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

In most parts of Europe, The words Republic of Macedonia are never heard without Former Yugoslav before them. It is regarded as POV to say simply Republic of Macedonia. The BBC, ITN, RTE, RAI etc always use the FYROM reference, as do states, governments and the UN. I can understand his actions in the circumstances. Republic of Macedonia runs contrary to standard diplomatic, governmental and international usage. FearÉIREANN 00:13, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

If FYROM is more appropriate, then we should change it. But for that to occur, it must be discussed first. An argument must be presented before we can change the status quo naming convention. --Jiang

Without wanting to drag the Macedonia debate into yet another forum, it should be noted that the country's official, constitutional name is Republic of Macedonia. "FYROM" was invented as part of the deal with the EU and the UN in order to appease the Greek nationalists, and it is used internationally whenever the Greeks are around, but it is not the country's name. Much as I love Greece and the Greeks (see my homepage), WP doesn't have to pander to their nationalist phobias. (This doesn't excuse Vergina's behavior, by the way. I've had a few run-ins with him myself (see Vergina)). Adam 08:59, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

FYROM,the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,as Republic of Macedonia is fabrik for folgery Greek history,Greek culture,Greek geography and Greek symbols Macedonians!See Greek Macedonian symbol "Vergina Sun",Philip II king of Macedonia and Alexander the Great king of Macedonia !!! Vergina 06:45, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Vergina is also doing this on the german wikipedia, with the only effect that his favourite pages get protected temporarily to stop the edit wars. andy 07:56, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

193.195.0.102

See contribs

Just like User:Vergina (see below) this user insists on changing the Republic of Macedonia to FYROM - but with a bit more willingness to discuss the topic then Vergina. However the really annoying thing is he started to sign his discussions with wrong names, as can be easily seen in the editing history of Talk:Republic of Macedonia. andy 16:52, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If that is annoying imagine how annoying is to have an identity theaft in national scale. I can't see why I am not allowed to call myself whatever I wish since you give this same right to FYROM. If you allow them to call themselves something someone else is, why wouldn't I be allowed to do the same? Maybe now the reason behind my actions is more clear? Maybe you can change the page to be FYROM not ROM?193.195.0.102

If you think you did your point any good with this childish behaviour you are wrong. I guess 99% of all users here have no preference if that country should be called A or B (including me), but if someone presses to call it B with bad discussion style it will only make the preference slip to A. andy 17:22, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Why is it childish behaviour? As you know and it has been SHOWN to you, that state is called FYROM. That's it's official name. Yet you chose and continue to call it "Republic of Macedonia", even though your own country and government doesn't recognise it as such. How was my discussion style bad. It was a perfectly valid example of how bad identity theft is. Yet you still support identity theft by using the name that belongs to other people. You say that I used "bad discussion style". Is that because you could not refute the point it made? Cause sure as hell you haven't done so up to now. It doesn't seem as bad to me. It just seems you it showed you how wrong you are and you didn't like it. Maybe bad for you, but ultimately it pointed to the truth and the heart of the issue. I guess that makes me a "Problem user", right? Because I said the truth in a controversial way. Whatever. --193.195.0.102

User:Wik

moved to Wikipedia:Problem users/Wik again

User:12.228.92.12

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

128.172.145.108 / 128.172.154.109

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

To be fair, inline external links are often useful... Evercat 02:35, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks to ya'll for helping. Kingturtle 08:05, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User:Khranus

Summary

Uncle Ed and Kosebamse have asked Jimbo to intervene, and User:Pakaran independently posted to the list, unaware of the previous discussion. Various users have posted long lists of contraversal edits by Khranus. Jimbo asked Khranus to e-mail him privately.

Khranus is refusing to do so according to his talk page. Secretlondon 19:00, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

He's now apparently banned, according to a message left by Jimbo on his user page: User:Khranus. --Delirium 22:36, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Details

Left this message on my talkpage:

"I strongly suggest you stop mutilating the Skull and Bones article. If you are a member of the Black Lodge, you can fuck off, and if you are, even worse, just an uninformed idiot propogating his dogma, you can shut your fucking mouth. Khranus:.

For the Love of God, stop mutilating everyone else's comments in that article! The 'facts' which you leave in the article are no more supported than the conspiracy theories! Khranus

Fuck your 'etiquitte'... You've directly attacked that article, so I directly attack you, motherfucker. Get used to it. Khranus

. See Skull and Bones, Reptilian humanoid and other contributions. -- Someone else 07:27, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

He also added this on his talk page: I usually respect your policy, but I also have a VERY relativistic view of the world, and in this relative case, I was quite justified in making 'comments' about him. He nonverbally insulted the several people involved in the S&B article, and such insult can only be returned with insult. Silly obsession with 'policy' can't make up for the hassles this guy has caused all over the 'pedia. He has a bad reputation and many more comments of a rather unpleasant nature. The idea that "insult can only be returned with insult" is in blatant violation of our policies. If Khranus cannot be convinced to change his attitude fundamentally, Wikipedia would be happier without him. Kosebamse 11:01, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Most of his edits are throwing in badly-phrased pseudoscience and whatnot... see the insane Dolphin intelligence where he says dolphins can cause cold fusion. -- Jake 11:11, 2003 Nov 7 (UTC)

I have to admit, if we could somehow confine him to posting on talk pages and keep him from abusing other users, I find User:Khranus an unbelievably amusing troll. His rants about memes and Timothy Leary in an attempt to make the rest of us feel goodness-knows-what (inferior? unintelligent? larval?) really do tickle my funny bone. But alas, Khranus cannot be cornered thus, and honestly he seems far too hostile and counter-productive to become a contributor here. If he makes apologies to those he has insulted, I might change my mind, but as it stands, I don't see why we should long suffer the railings of someone who openly announces his opposition to NPOV--after all, if Khranus doesn't like NPOV, then Khranus really shouldn't be an editor here. Just my two cents...Jwrosenzweig 23:52, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't mind the stuff on talk pages - but it does lead me to question his NPOV ability - not to mention that some of it is uhm interesting, and makes me wonder about his rationality. On Talk:Cold fusion a few minutes ago, he commented that cold fusion was real, but was being covered up by (among others) the British royal family and Enron in order to make money. Somewhere else he mentioned that the dolphins may be using cold fusion. -- Pakaran 02:28, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Khranus gets reverted for POV and factual problems very often. He often leaves offensive quotes on various pages. Many users have tried talking to him with little or no positive effect, see User talk:Khranus. I think banning may be the best option for this user. Daniel Quinlan 02:59, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

• on User talk:The_Anome: My God... You seriously are policing me! You'd think you have something better to do... But it seems that every article I edit, you fuck around with... What in the name of God is your problem with me? and Get a fucking life... Stop policing me...
• on Talk:Dick Cheney: There's nothing positive to say about this sick motherfucker. He's the real dictator of the United States at the moment (why we see so little of him and so much of Bush), and has used Bush as a frontman to divert attention from himself--considering that that would most likely immediately lead to investigation of his corporate corruption. He's nothing but a power-driven, genocidal, cold-blooded, inhuman fucknut who deserves to be put behind bars.

He's now defending his views further on Talk:Cold fusion. See also the first revision of Dolphin intelligence for his "interesting" statements that dolphins may be using ultrasound to create cold fusion via cavitation. -- Pakaran 03:44, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would leave a message on his talk page, but enough people have already done so, and he already left bad math on my user talk page. If he doesn't change really soon (think before Tuesday night server time) I will be strongly tempted to start a thread about him on wikien-l and try and get Jimbo's opinion. I'm reluctant to do this as a new user myself, but the extent of the science he makes up, and the personal insults he uses, are getting out of hand .  :( -- Pakaran 05:46, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Regarding his motives, he wrote on Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis: I once worked to keep sacred knowledge secret, concealed, hidden... But now, I realise my err in doing this... Now, I work to reveal knowledge to the masses--to spread the memes--to set humanity free... I think perhaps that I believed in secrecy once because I didn't believe in Humanity. Either that or it was the arrogant rush I got when feeling as though I knew something that someone else did not...But all that is so childish, so senseless... Esotericism is dead--or at least dying. If it's not dead yet, I'm going to work to help kill it. Kosebamse 08:00, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

And furthermore (in Talk:Ordo Templi Orientis revision 09:28, 11 Nov 2003):

(...) Crowley did indeed literally sacrifice children. Though this may come off as socially unacceptable, one must think relativistically of the matter. Whilst he sacrificed children and other humans(as did Winston Churchill and the Ancient Order of Druids), perhaps numbering in the hundreds by his death, literal hundreds of millions of people were dying during the First and Second World Wars--mass sacrifices in the name of silly political dogmas. All who ascend the XI degree also do indeed engage in anal intercourse--and at some point, in some ritual, almost certainly will have homosexual contact with another human being. There is of course nothing wrong with this, but somehow it has created a fuss among the masses (at least for a time, perhaps not so much now)...It's amazing how people have focussed on the White Lodge, claiming that they are somehow 'evil', when, for instance, the Black Lodge, which controls the Catholic Church, not only have been behind the mass murder of an infinitely higher number of humans than the White, but are also aimed almost purely at the subjugation and control of the human species as a Whole. The Black Lodge was also responsible for the rise of Adolf Hitler AND Josef Stalin--both dicatators were manipulated into power by the Lodge. Humans need to wake up and smell the roses--there is a secret, ancient war occuring on Earth, between several generally unacknowledgeed groups with immense social influence.

There may be a small chance that Khranus acts in good faith and believes this kind of things, but I will take the liberty of applying Occam's razor here and make a diagnosis of advanced trollicism. It's enough. We can't waste our time with him any more. I propose to give him a final warning and then go on to banning procedures. Kosebamse 08:38, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Most of his stuff is 'bog standard' David Icke-style conspiracy theory. I'm amazed he said he hadn't heard of Lyndon LaRouche though. As for whether he's paranoid, a true believer or merely trolling I don't know. Secretlondon 10:08, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

He also added a somewhat hidden link to User:Kosebamse linking a period character to Rosicrucian. Do we really have time for this crap? Daniel Quinlan 10:42, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

Sir Francis Bacon was the leader of the Rocicrucian Order, a Most Sublime Brother:. Khranus (I'm very surprised you weren't aware of this. Thomas Jefferson was also a Rosicrucian, but not from the mainstream group.

So you think it's time to draw Jimbo's attention to him? -- Pakaran 16:40, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

He's continuing to spam Wikipedia with his conspirology (see this for an example) and it does not look like he will listen to advice. Therefore, yes, I think this needs to be taken to the list as a case of trolling, outspoken disregard of NPOV, outspoken disregard of Wikiquette, and of continued insulting of users (not to mention lack of contributing anything remotely useful). Kosebamse 16:55, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't see how 90% of the things I say could ever be classified as 'conspiriology'... Most of it is merely obvious fact, accepted by the majority of high-level Freemasons and the like. Far closer to the truth than the exoteric bullshit you apparently believe in. Khranus

I just posted - but I accidentally posted as a (valid) variant of the address I am subscribed under, so I'll need to wait for moderator approval (my mailer doesn't keep a copy of outgoing messages). Anyhow, I couldn't help BUT be amused to see that last edit, where Khranus quotes a co-author of the Illuminatus trilogy as defense of his beliefs! -- Pakaran 17:13, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I'll have you know that Robert Anton Wilson is both one of the greatest philosophers in recent years, and a member of the Sublime Lodge of the Ordo Templi Orientis:. Khranus

Perhaps if discussion with him is avoided he will go away? He appears to be a troll (if it walks like a... talks like a... acts like a...) so by responding to his nonsense he is being given the attention he craves yet doesn't deserve. Maybe if the troll is no longer fed, he crawl to back to whence he came. If this works, it may be more permanent than harsher alternatives that are harder to enforce. Just my 2 cents. Maximus Rex 14:53, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I actually have no idea what you mean by a 'troll'. Apparently I'm as much of an idiot in your lingo as you are in my esoteric knowledge. Fancy that!Khranus:.

This user repeatedly (after removal) scribbles his opinions on Talk:Robert Mugabe (also on Talk:David Icke). Not using the talk page as intended (to improve the article), but as a personal soapbox. --snoyes 18:53, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User:SmartBee

Has had several pages deleted already because existence of the topic they talked about could not be confirmed. Often not logged in, using IP number 65.218.60.6 and perhaps others. - Andre Engels 12:45, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

double-voting on Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion/lag time on Nov 2 didn't help his cause... It's a shame that deletion of pages takes them off contribution lists - another for the deletion redesign. Martin 00:12, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User:Szopen

User:Wik's right hand, User:Szopen, abuses the Problem users page to make points. -- Nico 19:24, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I invite some neutral person (meaning non-Polish, non-German) to go to Silesia and see in talk page whether i really do caused problems. I was against mentioning HRE in introduction, and instead proposed mentioning 400 years of German rule. I was against mentioning only German history of region in introduction. If this is not NPOV and causing problems, then i don't know what to call NPOV. You can find also my earlier contributions, although wikipedia lists only those since Dec 7th, 2001. and decide whether I ever tried to violate NPOV rules szopen

Stop this!
Both of you!

User:Szopen is not a Problem User, at least not as far as I have seen his actions. He might have a strong POV that is more significative of a Slavic or Polish background than typical in a English language context, but this doesn't make him a Problem User. From User:Nico's announcement above, it's quite obvious that Szopen hadn't been listed on this page if it weren't for his listing of Nico here.
--Ruhrjung 02:51, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Szopen certainly has strong opinions of a Polish patriotic nature, and I have had some arguments with him, but I have found him amenable to reason and not a vandal (unlike some others). I would not call him a problem user. Adam 23:03, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User:Nico

User:Nico was calling names fellow wikipedians, also started his own petty article Schlesien when was unable to force his own version in Silesia - szopen

As a result of continued vandalism from the Polish nationalists szopen and wik, which not accepted to cooperate with the other non-Polish contributors, I started an article dealing with the German Silesia instead. Even compromises by Ed Poor was reverted by Wik without any explanation or discussion. "His own version" was by the way first the last edit by User:Ruhrjung, later the last edit (compromise) by Ed Poor. Another good example of the relation between Wik/zopen and the truth. This listing of me here is obvious only a result of RickK's listing of the vandal Wik, and I ask someone to delete it. Nico 19:05, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I proposed compromise. You said it was bad. You then kept on Ruhrjung version, ignoring all points I made. Also, your contribution to other articles is mainly inserting your POV into articles which are sometimes result of many hours of discussion (e.g you started new edit war on Polish history 1939-1945, insisting on lesser details elsewhere whose only goal is seemingly to impress reader than half of todays Poland is urdeutsche land), essentially destroying earlier worked compromise ). Also, it seems that everyone who have different POV from you is now called "Polish nationalist" and "WIk right hand". I am working in wikipedia much longer than you and i've never was called nationalist before. szopen

User:Adam Carr

User:Adam Carr - He is consistently going out of his way to belittle me. This edit is a good example: [1] -- I find his actions to be inappropriate and unacceptable. In addition, it was inappropriate for him to remove himself from this page. Lirath Q. Pynnor

• Adam Carr is biased anti-Polish chauvinist. He utterred to the sentence

"It is not adequate to say that "some Poles were anti-Semites." Most Poles were anti-Semites" Talk:History_of_Poland_(1939-1945). I do not even believe that most of Germans were Nazis at the time of Hitler. Why we tolerate such a biased POV in Wikipedia? GH

I don't thikn that Adam is problem user. You can discuss with him with exchanging normal arguments. --szopen

Many historians do believe that the great majority of Poles, Germans and Austrians were anti-Semitic at this time. This is not as controversial as you think. There are many articles and books by mainstream scholars on this subject. RK 15:13, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)

Oh boy; Could you please reveal list of your history teachers? They belong to the mainstream scholars, if dr. Goebbels belongs too. And it is better to register their names, because we should know names of cheauvinistic bigots. Let me advice something: read more resources and original materials and be critical towards historians. Next time, they tell you that some big group is EVIL (as they just told you) it might be again Ashkenezi Jews.

By the way, do you know, that your ancestors come from Krakow?GH

• He is consistently going out of his way to belittle me. This edit is a good example: [2] -- I find his actions to be inappropriate and unacceptable. Lirath Q. Pynnor

• Adam Carr's comments are inappropriate. Lir is back as an accepted member of the Wikipedia community and should be shown that respect. FearÉIREANN 23:48, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Just because Jimbo unbanned Lir, others may well question the wisdom of that move. Lir remains a self-admitted vandal and it is the height of hypocrisy for him to complain here about a serious contributor. --Wik 00:09, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
    • Everyone is entitled to respect from other members of the community regardless of his or her past actions. In addition, being a serious contributor, is not the same as being a perfect person. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone will at some point in his or her life, do something that they regret, such as insulting another member of the community. Please read wikiquette for more information .--Aplank 00:20, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
      • Nope, vandals are not entitled to respect. We aren't talking about mistakes but the general attitude here. It is possible (though unlikely) that a vandal changes his attitude. But then I would at least expect a statement to the whole community expressing that change. I have not seen that from Lir. So I don't see why his previous behaviour should be forgotten. This is after all someone who has been banned not once but multiple times. --Wik 00:37, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
        • I arrived at Wikipedia after most of that past, but I'm going to stick my opinion in anyway ... Treating someone with respect doesn't mean treating them like a friend nor does it mean having to forgive or forget. It means that you should allow them the possibility of having changed even if you doubt it. It means that you should behave appropriately towards them regardless of history. In other words, what Lir has done to you or anyone else in the past doesn't make him a permissable target in return. If he hasn't changed, sooner or later he'll get himself banned again, so don't worry about it. --Morven 03:33, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Lir did make major mistakes in the past and I was not slow in pointing them out. But he did ask, and was allowed, to return to wikipedia and since his return has acted responsibly and done some superb work on articles. Having asked to be allowed to come back and been so allowed, he is as entitled as everyone else to be treated fairly. Nothing in his recent work warrants the use of the word 'vandal' and as a serious contributor, acting responsibly, he should be treated with the same respect as everyone else. And Lir has given plenty of evidence since his return that he is no vandal and that he is entitled to respect due to a wikipedian. FearÉIREANN 00:38, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • I aggree with Jtdirl that Adam Carr's comments are inappropriate. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 00:30, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)
  • Even vandals deserve basic professional courtesy. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • I think it's much more important what people do with the wikipedia articles, than that we fake respect for someone who has not yet deserved it. I support Adam Carr's freedom of expression. :-)) [And I expect that he after my support will side with you hypocrites - ...me looks stunned at the situation where Wik and I are on the same side of an argument!]--Ruhrjung 13:04, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • What has Lir done since he came back that has not deserved respect? Lir IMHO has acted responsibly and honourably since he came back, and I say that as an outspoken critic of his previous behaviour. Everyone on wikipedia is entitled to respect until they demonstrate otherwise. And I have seen not one iota of a reason to treat Lir with anything less since he returned. I wish other past vandals could show similar determination to reform. Having severely criticised his behaviour in the past I am not someone given to expressions of 'fake respect', much less hypocrisy. But I have seen no evidence to warrant continuous criticism of him. And I say that as an admirer of Adam Carr's work but who nevertheless believes in this case that he went too far and was unfair and wrong. FearÉIREANN 23:43, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)
    • Not since he came back. Before. A man has to learn to live with the consequences of his acts. So has Lir. He can't expect that everone is equally much forgetting and forgiving as his grandmother.--Ruhrjung 08:40, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Everyone deserves to be shown common human decency, and I don't see why Lir should be an exception to this rule. Just because Lir used to be a vandal, it does not mean that anyone can verbally abuse him. I agree with Jtdirl. See Wikipedia:WikiLove for more information
      • I was never a vandal. Lirath Q. Pynnor
        • Here's his admission: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/wiki.phtml?title=User:Pizza_Puzzle&action=history. And how true it is. Nobody does stop it, evidently. --Wik 21:59, Nov 2, 2003 (UTC)
          • For crying out loud Wik, stop acting the bully. Lir's behaviour in the past was not defensible. But he has said he will not behave that way again. Jimbo has accepted that. The people on the list accepted that. And since he came back he has acted reasonably and responsibly, unlike his critics who have been acting like spoiled four year olds trying to trip him up and being abusive. Grow up and get over it. If he acts that way again, then tackle him on it. But if he doesn't, then he is as entitled as everyone else to be treated fairly. Stop the carping and whining and act like the responsible user you usually are. FearÉIREANN 00:21, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)
            • He said he will not behave that way again? Then how do you explain that he says just here "I was never a vandal"? Does that sound like taking responsibility? And in any case, I have never seen any such statement from him, so just because Jimbo accepted that, I don't have to. And what authority do "people on the list" have? (By the way, what is it - am I a bully or am I whining? This doesn't seem to go together well.) --Wik 01:56, Nov 3, 2003 (UTC)
              • I was not banned for being a vandal; I was banned over other issues. Lirath Q. Pynnor
                • "I was not banned for being a vandal" is not the same as "I was never a vandal". Adam Carr's bad impression of you is well founded, and motivated until you've convinced him otherways. Your taking the issue to this page, calling Adam Carr a "Problem User", does not improve the impression of you. However, what's more important is how you work on articles and talk-pages. Surely that work nowadays leaves a more mature impression?--Ruhrjung 08:40, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)
                  • I am not a vandal, I was not a vandal. I will not be a vandal. I was not banned for being a vandal. I was not reprimanded for being a vandal. I was not officially accused of being a vandal. Lirath Q. Pynnor

• • He Seems INTENT on starting an edit war, by consistently putting his POV into Kurt Schumacher. I think he needs to be blocked from that page. Aplank 03:01, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, darling, many more people find you a problem than find me one (see for example Mother Teresa, which after weeks of work was almost resolved until you came along). Adam 09:02, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

adam is yet again going out of his way to belittle a member of wikipeida. He seems to be intent on insulting me as you can see from his comment above. I think something needs to be done about this. I was insulted by that comment. Regardless, if people found me a problem, I would have a list on this page. No one found me a problem and i apologized for getting caught up in the heat of the moment

Here is another example: "This of course shows why everyone working on the Mother Teresa article finds Aplank something of a problem himself. Adam 23:11, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)" Aplank 01:23, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is just stupid to have Adam Carr in this page. We will finish including Jimbo, as well. SorryI did not sign this post when I wrote it :( Pfortuny 18:29, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I added this to his talk page but he just ignored it and deleted it 2 minutes later without responding to me:

Quote from adam carr: I'm well aware that I can't remove myself from Problem Users, and I fully expected my self-deletion to be reverted at once. I did it to show up the arbitrariness of EdPoor's decision to remove all criticism of Aplank. I was listed as a problem user for entirely frivolous and vexatious reasons, and that was why I counter-listed Aplank (although many other people find him a pest as well)

The part in bold is the part I find insulting( i could care less about the rest.) I would appreciate an apology from you. Aplank 02:24, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Aplank 23:10, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

• also, he uses words like dear and sweety when talking to me, which is very condescending and insulting. Aplank 23:15, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User:Wanwan

• A new user who feels it's his right to make policy. Seems to be another sock puppet intent on only putting votes on the VfD page. RickK 04:09, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
• Not entirely sure he's a sock puppet, but certainly behavior is obnoxious and unusual for a 24 hour-old user. Started Wikipedia:Deletion_policy edit war without explaining changes or discussing with others. Fuzheado 04:16, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)
• Judging by the logs, either s/he's not Princess Toadstool, or s/he's doing a very good job of pretending. Based on the logs alone, I would say there is no evidence that they're the same. However, Wanwan isn't a newbie. -- Tim Starling 05:50, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

user:Astavakra

Formerly User:203.197.16.2 and/or User:203.197.24.195

Places Indian-nationalist POV material and Aryan-invasion-denial (a valid POV, but contrary to what he writes just a minority one) on pages like History of South Asia, Foreign relations of Pakistan, Aryan invasion theory, Indus Valley Civilization. Has gotten autoreverted by various people. Andre Engels 13:17, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've found (and fixed) several problematic edits to pages from these IPs; the trickiest to fix was History of India. But one thing I'm not sure about is an edit to Seleucus I Nicator; does anyone know if this change is accurate? -- VV 06:55, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

A Google search shows that at least this is something that more sources claim. From the look of it, I would say that it seems like a valid edit. Andre Engels 10:49, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Looks to be engaging in discussion on Talk:Aryan invasion theory - if someone could help mediate and gently encourage him, that would be nice. Martin 00:01, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Astavakra does seem to be improving, and getting the NPOV point-counterpoint idea. I am looking forward to his new contributions. -- The Anome 19:28, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User:62.47.149.63

(and other 62.47 IPs)

Insists on pushing a POV agenda on every page connected to Porsche. His agenda is pushing the idea that Erwin Komenda, not Ferdinand or Ferry Porsche, was solely responsible for the design of the VW Beetle and early Porsche models up to the 911.

I do not know the truth of this. Most Porsche histories give him little mention. However, there is a long history in industrial design of one man getting all the credit for work done mostly by others. It is certainly possible that much of the work was done by Komenda.

What is certain, though, is that this user wants to use Wikipedia to beat the drum for his cause and to that end has put a mention of Komenda on almost every single page related to Porsche.

I have made some effort at making his contributions more NPOV in the places they are relevant, and removing them from the places they are not relevant. I am still uncertain as to whether the articles, even after this, are not still slanted. I've tried to engage the user in discussion and try to find a way to make these articles better, but he does not seem to be interested; in fact, he has re-added cut and paste paragraphs about Komenda where I removed them, multiple times.

--Morven 08:22, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

More recent changes (9 Nov) appear cleaner, though hard for me to tell. Martin 23:58, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User: Princess Toadstool (& Macarenaman, Panochik, Hamton)

Definitely a time-waster, and possibly a problem. Just appeared 45 minutes ago, made 3 very minor edits, created the stubby Deely-boppers -- content is Deely-boppers were antennae made out of plastic or metal that you could put on your head. They gave them out at parties. -- and then proceeded onward to VfD for some "against the grain" votes. Here are Princess_Toadstool's contributions. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 02:22, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The same pattern as User:Macarenaman see their contributions. I just made a comment about this on the village pump. Maximus Rex 02:32, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think Macarenaman's edits were less edit-a-few-then-jump-to-VfD, though may still be suss, I don't know. Dysprosia 08:24, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Tim checked the logs (see: User:Tim Starling/Log segment 1), after I aked on the pump, and it seems that User:Macarenaman,User:Princess Toadstool, User:Panochik, and probably User:Hamton are all the same person, and created mainly or solely for voting on vfd. They seem most interested in keeping articles like dork or Yellow Pig Day. Maximus Rex 14:31, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I was suspicious of Hamton, too, thanks for confirming my suspicions. RickK 03:01, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The same pattern as User:Panochik. RickK 03:30, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The same red flags for Wanwan. Kingturtle 03:34, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I think it's best to give Wanwan the benefit of the doubt in terms of identity. -- Tim Starling 05:52, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

I've just been doing some more log searching. There is an intriguing similarity between:

• Tester
• Wartortle
• Donnie Ng
• Princess Toadstool
• Macarenaman
• Panochik
• Hamton

But NOT Wanwan. It's a curious personality quirk, and in my experience it's quite rare -- maybe 10% of trolls. Do you want me to say what it is publicly? I'm afraid that if I say it, s/he will stop doing it. -- Tim Starling 06:15, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

How could you tease us like this? :) Fuzheado 06:33, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've emailed Fuzheado. Who else wants to know? -- Tim Starling 07:33, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

I do! (I don't have my email info in my user page, but I think you have it somewhere, Tim, let me know if you don't) Dysprosia 07:43, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Oh, say it publically. (or e-mail me if there's a good reason not to). Angela

Alright Angela, if you say so. I just happened to have it here in PHP format, so I thought I'd just upload it into the PHP directory on the server, that way I don't have to go to the effort of converting it to wikitext. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/tester.php -- Tim Starling 08:48, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

Nice hunting, Tim :) Dysprosia 10:53, 29 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wartortle

User:Wartortle has been voting "keep" for every almost item listed on vfd w/o giving an explanation. It seems random. --Jiang 23:59, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, that and a bunch of stubs on Pokemon (which probably need VfD'ing). From what we see below, it's likely that this user is a sock puppet. --Morven 01:24, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

See User:Tester listed below. Probably one of his many sock puppets. Maximus Rex 16:35, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

User:Tester and aliases

User:Tester has apparently created multiple other user accounts (including User:Donnie Ng and User:Wartortle, possibly two or three more), and all of them are voting at VfD, which appears to me like an experienced Wikipedian stuffing ballot boxes. If I'm wrong, well then I'm wrong, but I can't imagine why someone new to Wikipedia would run to VfD, creating half a dozen accounts on the way. Jwrosenzweig 23:29, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

List of Tester's 'contributions':

1. 01:28, Oct 14, 2003 User:Juro
2. 01:27, Oct 14, 2003 User:Jaleho
3. 01:26, Oct 14, 2003 User:Introscop

1. 23:01, Oct 13, 2003 User:Groessler

1. 23:01, Oct 13, 2003 User:Opus33
2. 23:00, Oct 13, 2003 User:Wartortle
3. 23:00, Oct 13, 2003 User:Josh Cherry
4. 22:59, Oct 13, 2003 User:Donnie Ng
5. 22:59, Oct 13, 2003 User:Tester

Many of the above accounts were used to support Wiwaxia's views on the deletion of the Bush nicknames page. Angela 00:54, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

For "many" read "three" (User:Groessler, User:Wartortle and User:Donnie Ng, unless I'm missing something). --Camembert 01:55, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ballot stuffing with one would be plenty.Ark30inf 01:59, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree. I just want to make sure we don't drag completely innocent users into this. --Camembert

agreed.Ark30inf 02:07, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Any reason to single out Wiwaxia? Sounds like this is implying these are his, while a number of users were opposed to that page. --Morven 02:13, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You are right of course. It probably is because wiwaxia was the most vocal and lobbied for the list that made him come to mind. I don't think anyone is actually suggesting that they are Wiwaxia's. Ark30inf 02:17, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No I just meant they were against deletion; I was not making accusations. Angela 02:19, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

Oct 25: User: Juro : I do not know what this is whole about, but I think that the problem is that I did create my account at a University - and probably the multiple accounts are simply various students at the same server.

User:82.82.x.x

[moved from Vandalism in progress]

• User:82.82.118.203/User:82.82.130.39 is eager to make changes on Germany. Might be an newbie but possibly a revisionist. Maybe not exactly vandalism, but ought to be watched! He/she doesn't answer on the talk-page.--Ruhrjung 15:54, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)
  • Given the further looks of the user's changes[3], it does more look like a wikipedian who for some reason don't want to use an account, and now make changes he/she knows to be controversial. I think it is a problem.--Ruhrjung 07:17, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Looks to me to be a German who's in favour of multi-culturalism, from the little I can see from the history of Germany. I think this section can be removed. Martin 23:53, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User:Kommiec

• Seems dedicated to rewriting every article with any touch on the history of Germany and Poland to make sure that any place with a German name must be known only by its Polish name, no matter what the historical context. See his contributions. RickK 05:38, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

My Histroical Contex is right. Gdansk was a Part of Poland and it should be called Gdansk at that time. After the Partions it is Danzig. Before it is Gdansk.Kommiec 05:41, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Please keep your historical revisionism out of wikipedia. Perhaps you could write some articles or do something useful, instead of coming back and causing more problems. InanimateCarbonRod 05:43, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

for those who don't remember Kommiec was listed here before [4]. InanimateCarbonRod 05:47, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Danzig was known as Danzig, and knew itself as Danzig, from roughly the 15th century until 1945. Danzig is still used by many speakers of English (and is also the first name in German, scandinavian languages etc.), and as Wikipedia uses the names which is used in English (not necessarily the local name), Danzig have an important place in the article too. -- Nico 15:48, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Danzig was known as Danzig, and knew itself as Danzig"

Says who???

http://www.eurotravelling.net/poland/gdansk/gdansk_history.htm

According to this article Gdansk rejoined the kingdom of Poland in 1454 and it stayed there till the partitions. When it was a part of Poland it should have Gdansk as its first name and in my edits i did mention the following (German:Danzig). However that dose not satisfy RickK or IntamiteCarbon who seem to be a bit biased about my edits. They even revert the correction to the name of Copernicus uncle. Kommiec 01:34, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's not entirely correct. During the 1500s through the Partition, it had a significant German-speaking population (at times a majority), who called it Danzig; the Polish-speaking population called it Gdansk during that period. Arthur Schopenhauer, for example, is universally agreed to have been born in Danzig, not in Gdansk, as he spoke not a word of Polish (and he was born before the Partition, in 1780). It's only after 1945 that the city has been unequivocably been called Gdansk by everyone. --Delirium 03:47, Oct 29, 2003 (UTC)

User:Nydigovoth, User:Nydigoveth

Keeps trying to enter puerile information into Margaux Hemingway (ie, in which films she appeared nude) and I am getting tired of reverting his changes. Can someone else take over for me? It is bedtime in my time zone. TIA -- Viajero 21:57, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The page has now been protected by Angela. And yes the edits being made deserved reversion. FearÉIREANN 23:46, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Seems debatable to me, to be honest. Btw, he's not edited since 25 Oct, so we may be able to remove this shortly. Martin 23:49, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User:LibertarianAnarchist

User:Libertarian Anarchist alias User:Democrate2003 keeps reverting 2002 Gujarat violence to a blatantly POV version, which for example alleges that India's English-language media is "largely Marxist" and that Justice Krishna Iyer is a "Marxist" (which Iyer denies) - and then he has the nerve to describe this as an NPOVing. In fact, the original version by User:Boud is perfectly NPOV, giving all the differing views about the events. --Wik 19:21, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)

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

User:Mir Harven

(contribs) Repeatedly blanking and removing material contributed in good faith to controversial discussions (usually relating to Croatian langauge) and replacing them with agressive and threatening replies (eg "Greater Serbian crap about Croatian & Bosnian "newspeak" deleted. Heal your inferiority complexes elsewhere. If this crap persist-you'll get exposed in a way you truly deserve. Mind your own biz and keep out of Croatian lang page with your filthy hate.")Almost impossible to engage, as he repeatedly blanks and erases any attemps. At a loss to know what to do.

Also appears to edit from the 195.29.xxx.xxx range. I don't know who's right, factually and morally speaking, but Mir Harven hasn't really cottoned on to the whole Wikiquette and consensus-editing concepts. -- Cyan 06:59, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not removing, because still an issue - recent edit: "The page, as it is now is-crap. Another piece of dumb Serbian propaganda, and easily detectable at at that". Could someone else have a word with him? I've already tried to chat to him, so it might be more effective if someone else intervened. Martin 23:23, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"special features"

• Is Wik Wicked? - Wikipedia:Problem users/Wik

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

• A problem users special feature: How much trouble can a list cause? Find out at Wikipedia:Problem users/BuddhaInside

• Discussions relating to Daniel C. Boyer are now a Problem users special feature! Gasp as Boyer challenges Kat to explain herself! Thrill at SpeakerFTD's dramatic intervention! Read on at Wikipedia:Problem users/Daniel C. Boyer.

most recent at top