Wikipedia:Historical archive/Conflicts between users/Archive

Step 2 of: Wikipedia:Conflict resolution

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

Do not add anyone to this page unless you have already attempted to discuss the issue with them.

Alternatives to airing problems on this page

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

• Follow Wikiquette -- respect other contributors
• Follow our policies -- they make it easier to work with one another
• Keep the neutral point of view (NPOV) in mind -- write articles that people from all sides can read and agree with
• Assume good faith -- 99% of editors are trying to help. Teach, don't chastise, unless the evidence for bad faith becomes overwhelming.
• Forgive and forget -- life's too short to bear grudges.
• Follow Wikipedia Ahimsa. Don't allow yourself to be hurt, to hurt others, or allow others to be hurt. Do try to accommodate other people's views.
• Allow your adrenaline level to get lower.

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

Recommendations for adding to this page

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

• Have a cup of tea :)
• Do not add a user to this page without deep meditation on the subject. Be sure that your addition will be productive, and beneficial to the encyclopedia.
• First discuss the issues with the user in question, and do everything in your power to get a resolution that way. In many cases it's possible to resolve the issue with discussion, without getting the rest of the community involved. If it's a dispute over specific article content, it should probably be discussed in the talk page or reffered to wikipedia:Current disputes over articles.
• Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for mediation first!
• Be specific in your criticism. Give diff links to individual edits that demonstrate the problem. Say exactly why you find these edits a problem.
• Sign and date your comments
• List the most recent additions at the top of this page.

Recommendations for removing text from this page

• If the consensus after sufficient discussion (perhaps more than a few people) and sufficient time (depends on nature of problem) is that a user is not a problem user, just wipe the entry.
• If the user in question hasn't edited Wikipedia for a fair while, just wipe the entry.
• If the situation has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, or the user has ceased the behaviour that caused the problem, just wipe the entry.
• If the discussion has become too long for this page, the user is still active, and a number of people agree that the user is still exibiting the problem, then a subpage may be created for the discussion of a particular user. Subpages created inappropriately are subject to immediate deletion.

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

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

---

List of conflicts

Please state the problem you are having with another user.

Most recent at top.

User:JackLynch vs. User:Bryan Derksen

This user has had an unfortunate pattern of reverting most any changes I make to pages he is involved with, and has now stated that he is going to edit "all changes" I make. He is also quite confrontational, and consistantly makes insinuations about my motives, "agenda" etc... see Talk:atheism and Talk:agnosticism as well as his user talk.Jack 00:41, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See also the #User:Lord_Kenneth conflict that was posted here by Jack, in reference to the same articles. And also User talk:Bryan Derksen, where Jack wrote "You comments here make it clear that you have an agenda and are "stalking" me on the wiki, attempting to prevent me from editing. Back off, or I am going to take necessary measures." Considering that the atheism and agnosticism articles are the only ones where I've been locking horns with Jack, I think his accusation of my "stalking" him is a little over the top. As for my statement to edit all changes he makes, I believe it was this (from talk:agnosticism): "at this point I consider you to be a strongly biased editor with a clear agenda, and everything you do here is suspect. Later this evening I'm going to go over all your changes and I'm sure I'll be making plenty of changes of my own to them." The "all your changes" in this case was referring to the agnosticism article, and I did end up reverting all of his most recent changes to that article after considering them. I stand by that reversion. Bryan 01:38, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jack is a biased troll of the world kind. He reports anyone who argues against him, makes POV changes and insists they should stay until "further discussion", which basically means "until he decides", and is generally an offensive pain and nuisance with no understanding of NPOV at all. I am in full support of Bryan over this. Jack, it is YOU who should be on this page. However, unlike you, we are not whiny snobs who feel the need to silence anyone who disagrees with us. - Lord Kenneth 02:48, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

While reverting all changes is not particularly nice, I can vouch for the fact that when JackLynch edits articles that relate to religion it is mostly to insert his biases. --snoyes 04:30, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I never said I would revert all changes. I said I'd review them, and after reviewing the most recent batch I decided to revert those particular ones. Unconditional reversion is reserved solely for people who have been hard-banned, which is definitely not my call to make. Bryan 05:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Mr-Natural-Health vs Theresa Knott and Many others

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

User:Lord Kenneth vs. User:JackLynch

(User:Lord Kenneth | talk | contributions) This user has taken what may have been a legitimate complaint over my capitalization of the letter "G" in God in the Atheism article, and turned it into a focus for inordinate hostility at Talk:Atheism and my usertalk. There is also a place where he presents his point of view on Uncle Ed's user page JackLynch 08:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I wish to differ. I did not participate in the edit war, but it seems that that JackLynch is the one being hostile, and marked up the Atheism page to give it a slight bias. It had to be protected for 24 hours because he kept on capitalizing the "G"s and removing NPOV material and so forth. --User:Ashibaka

thats a bit of a muddled take on the situation. The page wasn't protected because of "G"'s, but rather my placing a disclaimer after a paragraph, stating what "some" might think of it (repeatedly, and I apologised for that). Also, that happened after I posted this here. Jack 05:16, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

While I agree that Lord Kenneth was rather in-your-face about responding to Jack, and I did participate in that edit war myself so I may not be an unbiased observer, I think Jack's done quite a bit to instigate and provoke the situation. When I got involved he was quite quick to verbally attack me on my user talk page and on the talk pages of the atheism and agnosticism articles, claiming my reversions were tantamount to an accusation of vandalism. Jack seems to be aiming to narrow the definition of atheism to exclude some viewpoints that are covered by the current article's definition, and based on some of his statements I'm suspecting a biased agenda. Bryan 01:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have now been placed, along with others, on User:Lord Kenneth's "wall of shame". I find this offensive and rude to the utmost, of course. Jack 10:33, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Jack Lynch doesn't seem to understand NPOV and keeps making controversial edits to Athiesm and Nazism and Socialism. Secretlondon 07:49, Jan 20, 2004 (UTC)

I understand NPOV very well. Please discuss any problems you have with me in my talk Jack 09:29, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User Kenneth has now refered to me as an "ignorant... disgusting pig" and implied I am in fear of him, on Talk:atheism Jack 00:50, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As with my previous comment, I think Lord Kenneth was overly in-your-face with that comment, but that Jack certainly provoked it. It was in response to a comment by Jack in which Jack claims that American atheists have prevented the Boy Scounts from "clean[ing] up after homosexuals and transgenders, because their youth group counts as a "church" and churches arn't allowed in the parks in California." I don't know exactly what "cleaning up after homosexuals and transgenders" entails, but to me it sounds insulting. Oh, and as with my previous comment, I should disclaim that I'm kind of involved in this conflict myself - especially now that Jack's given me my own personal header on this page, above. :) Bryan 02:40, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Lancemurdoch

This user is making useful contributions to some articles, but also is making clearly wrong and destructive edits. For a clearcut case, consider this one. Also obvious is POV is added, such as in this case, which came initially with the mere edit summary "reworded", and which I have had to revert twice. Many of his edits, including his erasure of accounts of communist atrocities and really weird ones, have been reverted by others as well as myself; some have not as of now (e.g., Pol Pot). As another example, his changes to Wilhelm Reich promote the crackpot theory of "Orgone Energy" from "mystic pseudoscience" to a "scientific study" (with a parenthetical about some dissenters). So I feel this user's good contributions are somewhat negated by the need for policing, and that, troublingly, the potentially good contributions will need to be fact-checked (and corrected, as was done in Socialism by others). -- VV 00:50, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"mystic pseudoscience"... I inform you that there is nothing in common between "pseudoscience" and mysticism. Optim 00:52, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lance should be put on display somewhere as the last living example of the unapologetic oldtime Communist - he is almost admirable in his adherence to the Party line, when there isn't even a Party any longer to write it for him. He obviously misses not being able to write for the Great Soviet Encyclopedia so he has come here. He needs to learn that bourgeois encyclopaedias have slightly different standards - like not writing total rubbish and not abusing everyone else as agents of imperialism. Adam 01:36, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Someone on the IRC channel said Lance was "the last of the Old Bolsheviks" and it seems as though they were right! Insists on putting hopelessly POV stuff into articles - a vandal of the worst kind so i vote for hardban. PMA 02:25, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly object to people being banned for political reasons. Secretlondon 20:54, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

I Agree with Secretlondon. Strongly opposed to political bans. Optim 00:52, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me? No one has proposed a political ban; the issue is "writing total rubbish" and "putting hopelessly POV stuff into articles" and being "a vandal of the worst kind". -- VV 00:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The Fellowship of the Troll

Trolling. Surprisingly enough. Continually trying to list Wikipedia on VfD and complaining on various talk pages and the village pump when it is removed. I suggest this user be banned for trolling. Angela. 03:01, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

actually, I found the VfD thing to be pretty funny, and within the guidelines. On the other hand, I would be pretty shocked if it was ment seriously, and even more shocked if this user doesn't turn out to be a troll (maybe a sock puppet or incarnation?) but lets hold off until something more serious happens. I don't think I was the only one who was heartilly amused by the VfD thing, and I didn't see any outright abuse or policy violations.... yet... Fortunately, I think we can count on you (angela) and maybe not a few others keeping an eye on this user. Jack 03:36, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we should have a policy against trolling. -- Tim Starling 03:38, Jan 14, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that the definition of a Internet Troll is necessarilly subjective. Some people are naturally provacative, others have poor social skills. There are people like me who gravitate to POV articles, and are thus far more likely to be viewed in an emotional fashion. Detecting when someone is intentionally trying to cause trouble or create a scene isn't something we should do, IMO. Rather, any trolling policy created should be focused on hard facts, like flaming and vandalism and observable, quantifiable phenomena such as that. Lets give these rascally newbies the benifit of the doubt, and a safeguard against being theoretically illegitamately blackballed. I think preventing false charges and the banning of inocuous (if irritating) users takes priority over hunting down those perverse nerd-baiters we all know so well. Jack 03:47, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I disagree and think this attitude is bad for the long-term goals of Wikipedia. Or bad for all the goals except experimenting with libertarianism. When enough discussions with a user go nowhere, and when a user campaigns for enough causes that are intelligible to no one else, the user will earn a reputation. Whether or not they are banned, other users know not to trust them--and those that do, do so only as a rationalized act of obeissance to the Wikipedia dictum "assume good faith." At least that's true for me, and as a result I repeatedly get burned by people who indeed do sometimes act in bad faith. A person does not have to be a jerk all the time to disentitle herself or hisself to your trust. I don't see why Wikipedians should endure people who aren't trustworthy. Even the the Young Spartacists will kick you out of their club for starting fires in the club house.168... 07:01, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

actually I agree w you on everything except the 2nd to last sentance. I think we should endure them until they are able to be proven guilty. Of course you can have any opinion of them you like until then, but if you are bitter enough eventually you may become the troll. ;) Really, what I'm all about is having a clear, fair decision based on solid evidence, and then hopefully be able to enforce it! Jack 07:31, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The question is just: Guilty of what and proven how well? 168... 17:34, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thankfully, as Tim Starling suggests above, others are interested in creating such a policy. In fact, this discussion should really be taking place on a page devoted to that purpose. I don't know where such a page would be, but my statements (or most of them anyway) arn't really specific to FoT, so if anyone could point out the location of said page (or create it?) I'd be glad to continue this there. Jack 18:58, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would urge caution on creating policy on such subjective issues, there are already policies about vandalism, rudeness, revertion and edit wars and other antisocial behaviour, what seems to be at issue here is dissent, and deviation from groupthink. Every group need people who will provide alternative views to the group concensus, and, as long as they do it within the rules, and are not abuseive, that is helpful to all but the most insecure community. Read the groupthink page, and let me know what you think - I feel there is a role for trolls (not in the negative sense of revertion wars, abuse, etc) but as people who will point out inconsistancies, inane policies that are accepted because 'that's the way we've always done it' and other dangerous habits. We feel threatened by being asked to challenge our assumptions, but, as long as the rules are observed, that's healthy. Banning dissent is frightful. The Fellowship of the Troll 19:40, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The pesky troll has hit my nail right on the head. He pretty accurately sums up valid concerns about bans w/o strict, quantifiable evidence to justify them Jack 02:25, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Jack is quite right - trolling is a word that is so subjective as not really to have much meaning outside an insult. I wrote the article Internet trolling phenomena on Wikipedia, which was listed on VfD as being self referential, I let the process go, while debating it in the appropriate place. For consistancy, I listed the article Wikipedia for deletion, since it, too, is self referential (note, not the main page, as some have tried to make out). Instead of debating it and letting the process run as it should, some folks deleted the discussion from VfD, made unsubstantiated accusations about my being a banned user, constantly called me a troll, and constantly tried to stifle discussion of why one article is so obviously virtuous that it should be removed from discussion (without even a note that it was ever there) while the other is so obviously fit for deletion that it should also not be discussed. I'm sorry, but I really think that some folks need to re-examine their behavour. I hope you are able to come to the point of being able to tollerate people who, while not having the same view as you, stick to the established processes and behavioural norms. Thanks, The Fellowship of the Troll 07:41, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Subjective judgments are necessary. It's subjective, of course, as to when someone is being a troll. Most reasonable people know them when they see them in action, but some don't. Some who don't will be authentically naive; others will disingenuously feign naïvité. Some people can detect when, for want of a better term, someone is "being an asshole" and others won't. Defense of trolls, and encouragement of assholes, is not a way to improve Wikipedia. Nor is being one. Disingenuousness often can't be proven, but often the aroma of shit accompanies an asshole. - Tweak 08:02, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Most other places abuse is considered no substitute for sound reasoning and coherent logic. The Fellowship of the Troll 08:06, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ironically enough, in writing this, I am about to contradict myself. Anyway, consider this from the Internet Troll article "Don't feed the trolls, that will only encourage them." That is, do not respond to them, that is the attention they desire. The sensible way to have dealt with this would have been that everyone ignored the VfD listings and got on with the real work rather than wasting user and server time here, on VfD and Village pump. Bmills 09:28, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agreed - if the aim was to stifle debate, simply letting a relatively unintersting debate run its course would have caused far less controversy than a sustained campaign of unwarented deletions, moves, abuse and accusations. In addition, process and the community would have been served. The Village Pump notice would not have been necessary if the rules had been followed. The Fellowship of the Troll 16:32, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Annek

I have never interacted with User:Annek that I can remember, yet he changed a sentence on my userpage from I am also homosexual to I am a fag. I don't appreciate it at all, and have left a note on his user page asking him if he would like to defend himself. Tuf-Kat 02:15, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)

RK

(User:RK | Talk | contributions)

I have had some difficulties with this user (he isn't a sysop, is he???) finding him to be rude and unapologetically non-academic. He insulted a source I cited on God and rudely suggested that I was pushing an agenda. When I backed up my source with numerous links and citations confirming it (in Talk:God), he glossed over the issue and made some seriously inaccurate statements, regarding them as obvious fact, and citing profoundly dubious sources (Skeptic magazine, or Skeptical Inquirer, or the Humanist) to justify his points. To be honest I wouldn't have placed this here based on the above experience, unpleasant as it is, but I have done some investigation. I have not only found his talk page covered in virulent controversy, but I have noticed that on the Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians page there is an entire section relating to Israeli-Palestinian conflict where more than one person appears to single RK out as a reason for departing the wiki. My question, frankly, is what good does this user does to make up for all the unpleasantness and difficulties they cause? Jack 00:19, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely with Jack's accessment. It is time for RK to go away for good. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:24, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

Actually in his arguments with Mr Quackery here RK is 100% right, and surprisingly reasonable in dealing with the absurd rubbish Mr Q is propagating at Alternative Medicine. After reading their dialogue my opinion of RK has improved considerably, although I still think his attacks on Danny were pretty deplorable. Adam 01:42, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am all smiles. And, I'm having a good laugh at all the medical scientism people whose point-of-view is clearly 30 years out of date. When are you science people going to come up with a truly rational agrument against Alternative medicine that is remotely based on fact as well as research? I thought that people educated in the basic sciences were supposed to be intelligent? Now, I will be taking the battle to Medicine, or some place better. Thank you Adam, for your deep heart felt words of encouragement. -- Mr-Natural-Health 04:10, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am all smiles AND I'm juggling 6 bowling pins on roller skates while posting this on my PDA. Top that!168... 05:01, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, he isn't a sysop. For those who didn't follow the last round of RK discussions, you should be aware these issues have been brought up before. See m:RK, Wikipedia:Community case RK (go back a few versions in the page history) and 100s of messages about him on the mailing list). He has a well documented record of attacking people, including those listed at User:MyRedDice/Wikipedians attacked by RK. Angela. 04:49, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

RK is playing all innocent at the moment in the events leading up to Danny's departure from Wikipedia, a major loss IMHO. He is a very smart and well-informed person, but his first tool of debate is always rudeness, aggression, dogmatic assertion and accusations of vandalism when anyone disagrees with him. Adam 09:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's a Wikipedia user who's quicker to resort to the ad hominem than RK. The constant hysterics both on the mailing list, on talk pages, and especially in edit summaries become quickly tiresome. And then, when called on it, he always plays the injured party, being hurt that others are attacking him. I tend to think this kind of behavior is simply unacceptable. john 01:06, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You've got RK all wrong (except the quick to attack part). He's actually a reasonable guy, and if you ask him politely to knock off the rhetoric and get stick to the point, he always does. Please do not gang up on him, but direct any complaints to me. We should try mediation before calling for arbitration. How come there's noting about RK at Wikipedia:requests for mediation? --Uncle Ed 16:39, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Always? I don't think you and I read the same mailing list. - Hephaestos 16:47, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, well you have to ask him nicely. I'm good at that, so leave it to me, okay? :-) --Uncle Ed 15:37, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He makes people mad, clearly. I was rather annoyed with my interaction, short lived and comparitively mild as it was. What concerns me more is the regularity and intensity of said annoyances. Is that supposed to be a dead link ed? Jack 19:02, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

After time, reflection, and regular reading of Wikipedia:Wikiquette and Wikipedia:Conflict resolution, and the misadventures of creating Wikipedia:Requests for mediation (so that I could complain there instead, as per ed's request) I have decided to withdraw my complaint against RK. He hasn't really done anything to me other than upset me w "less than academic" opinions, so maybe we have all learned something. I've learned alot! Jack 07:25, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Alexandros

This is a record regarding Alex Plank, who is aplank or Alexandros or sometimes Greenmountainboy on Wikipedia. It is here because some very relevant things happened on IRC freenode #wikipedia, and IRC is not Wikipedia (new slogan?). Note: Alex has Asperger's syndrome which makes it difficult for him to comprehend others.

After being refused several times in nominations and self-nominations on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, User:Alexandros used the account User:Greenmountainboy for a period of around a month. During this time he declared that he was Alexandros' brother. He self-nominated on RfA after five days, and again after one month. End result of second nomination, before removal from the page: [1].

On January 11 he admitted on freenode #wikipedia that he had been using the Greenmountainboy account as a sock puppet. He stated that he does indeed have a brother who has the Greenmountainboy account, and that brother may use Greenmountainboy to contribute in the future. He also stated that he was leaving Wikipedia (again), and would head to internet-encyclopedia.org. He will not issue apologies.

Short consensus was reached to leave him alone if he returns (again), and bring up his deceit if he applies for adminship again.

silsor 22:26, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)
snoyes 22:47, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Martin 19:10, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Secretlondon
BCorr ¤ Брайен 13:34, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, what a surprise. To those who supported Alexandros and/or Greenmountain for adminship: I TOLD YOU SO. He is the personification of untrustworthiness. Maybe we can all agree now that adminship for Alexandros (or any of his clones) is out of the question for at least six months. --Wik 22:36, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, good old Wik. He can always be counted on for a gracious repartee, for an amiable demonstration of his goodwill and generosity of spirit towards his fellow Wikipedians. Note that this community's trust in him is such that we con't even bother holding a vote whether to confer admin status on him; the result would be a foregone conclusion. -- Viajero 10:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Aplank is a religious crank who is incapable of co-operative editing on subjects relating to Catholicism (see Mother Theresa. Adam 09:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Lizard King et. al. v. User:TUF-KAT et. al.

Lizard King has uploaded three images, apparently home-made sketches -- one for Bigfoot, African Grey Parrot and Cronus. I have no opinion on the first two, though the parrot has a photo already and the Bigfoot drawing is rather clunky for my taste. The drawing of Cronus, however, looks like a comic book undead supervillain instead of more typical representations. PMC has indicated support for the Cronus sketch on Lizard King's talk page, and both RickK and UtherSRG agree with me (see Talk:Cronus) on its removal. I am listing it here because this is not a clear consensus and some other opinions should be heard. Tuf-Kat 20:59, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

UtherSRG has listed this on Wikipedia:Current disputes over articles. Now that I think about it, this is probably a better place for it so go there (or Talk:Cronus, Talk:African Grey Parrot, Talk:Bigfoot) and remove this notice in a day or two. Tuf-Kat 20:59, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

After noting the other (rather nasty) edits he has made to peoples' comments, I'm going to withdraw my support for anything he does...it was a lovely sketch, and I really didn't mind it on the Cronus page, but I just can't support anyone who's going to do that to other people. PMC 04:00, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lizard King has made vulgar and libellous edits to another user's comments: [2] [3]. He seems to have created User:ScifiterX and User:The_Agent as yet more sock puppets. Salsa Shark 02:37, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He may also be User:65.35.69.180 and User:69.22.99.231, and may have also created User:Marvelite as another puppet. I've been having issues with several of these users removing my edits to Strength level (comics). I also admit I find his general attitude to be obnoxious, but I try not to judge him on that alone. -mhr 04:13, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How many internet connections do you think I can afford? I can only vouch for ONE IP address. The only person who sometimes shares it is Marvelite, one of my best friends, who has his own internet connection now anyway. --Lizard King.

By the way, PMC, Tuf-Kat and I had a little discussion and apologies were exchanged. That issue is over with. I admit I said some innapropriate things but beyond that I was INSULTED FIRST. --Lizard King.

If you really look at a lot of what these people are complaining about you will notice that it is people like UTHERsrg who continually say negative and demeaning things to me, and that it is not me who is initially obnoxious. I can only take so much, before I snap at someone. Just give me a break. By the way, if I had multiple usernanes I would have been banned by now. I have requested for people who were annonymously contributing before to become members to back me up in some forums but they have thier own IP addresses.--Lizard King.

Gently.:) User:Lizard King appears to be able to produce decent drawings and those will be useful. Lets all remember to slow things down and give him (and the others he says are using the computer in the same household) time to find their feet here. The initial reception was quite rough so we should give them a chance to recover. Lets be gentle for a week or two and see what develops... Jamesday 11:26, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks.--LK.

I would like to mention that I liked his bigfoot drawing, and That what I know of the image policy states that something is better than nothing, and only to remove completely unrelated drawings, assuming there is not a problem of size and formatting. Also, I particularly dislike the tendancy to label users as sock puppets, even if it is common, the possibility of wrongful accusation is clear, and I certainly don't feel very comfortable advising others in my household to create accounts considering. Guilty until proven innocent, are we? Jack 12:14, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Some of these people declare that I am guilty just to attach a stigma to my name on this place. They know I am not vandalizing anything, and that I don't have multiple id's, but they also know that even if it comes out that I haven't done anything wrong, other users will still remember thier negative comments and associate everything I do with those comments from that point on. --LK

What I said to Tuf-Kat and my actions in regard to the issue over the Cronus Image matter were entirely innapropriate. That was an emotional outburst over his comments that my images were poorly drawn. Although, in the sceme of things apologies don't amount to anything and usually do more damage than good, I will take this opportunity to apologize to TUF-KAT for my actions toward him.--Lizard_King

Jiang

Jiang is trying to lump me in with Lir in the item below without the slightest explanation. Instead of answering a simple question, he's having an edit war on this page. --Wik 03:29, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Well, Wik, maybe this because you frequently behave like Lir. Adam 09:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OOOOOOO, sup now foo! Lirath Q. Pynnor

I have no idea what that means, and I'm not even sure to whom it's directed... -- Cyan 19:46, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think it means something like "Ooh, I'm being challenged, you fool." But that's just a guess...I'm not all too fluent in what appears to be ebonics.. PMC 03:16, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Lir (again)

Mediator's note: please be specific. Nearly all the following is generalities, like it's hard dealing with him, makes mistakes or puts in silly/irrelevant stuff. It would help if you gave specific examples of edits. Preferably, a diff (like [4]) so I can just click on link and see exactly what you're talking about. --Uncle Ed 16:51, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I find Lir impossible to deal with, and my impression is that this is a common experience. Meanwhile, although I haven't made a conscientious study of Lir's edits, among the ones I've seen I haven't regarded any of them as having improved the articles that Lir made them to. On the science pages I watch (e.g. Nervous system and DNA), Lir's edits sometimes create mistakes of fact where there were none before, and I have only seen Lir refuse to accept evidence that they are mistakes. I have read several other users on the talk pages comment angrily about the same phenomenon. I suggest Lir be banned. If Lir is not banned, I would be grateful if someone would explain to me what a user has to do to be banned. 168... 20:11, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I second that. On an old mailing list post, I found someone speaking of Lir's "Grolier-funded job of sabotaging Wikipedia". While there may be no evidence for this specific theory, it is precisely the impression I get - he is subtly trying to devalue Wikipedia while just staying below the level of blatant vandalism, always maintaining some "plausible deniability". But he frequently changes a good formulation in an article for a worse one, adds his silly punctuation which he knows is wrong, and starts reverting when someone else corrects his mistakes. I don't believe he is in fact the moron he presents himself as (e.g. on his user page, with the self-contradictory lists of heroes and people he supports etc.) - he is doing it deliberately. But he should be banned either way, we need neither morons nor trolls. --Wik 19:55, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

[Peak:] The main problem with Lir is not so much the multiplicity of mistakes or the frequent refusal to accept evidence, but the pattern of behavior that has resulted, for example, in the DNA page being Protected for an extended period. This behavior has probably wasted more time of more people than the average vandal. If Lir would agree to desist from re-inserting changes that others have explained are deleterious, then perhaps there would be no need for a ban. Alternatively, if Lir is unwilling to make and keep such a commitment, then it might suffice to prevent him or her from editing specific articles. Is that currently possible? Peak 07:48, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The main problem with Lir is an abundance of evidence of bad faith and, from the instances when Lir is willing to discuss things at all, a record of discussions that are acrimonious and irresolvable. I don't trust this person. Who does? Does anybody actually want this person around? If so, why? I think the burden of proof should be on people who want Lir around. Disagreeing with some others is natural and certainly not a crime, but if Lir can't reach agreements with anybody,' I don't think we should regard it as our obligation or responsibility to allow Lir to play here.168... 18:43, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Talk:DNA speaks for itself. Lirath Q. Pynnor

The record shows that, like above, Lir does not date posts, which enables Lir to come back four days after a discussion and edit a post to make Lir seem to have discussed a matter more reasonably than Lir actually did. Doing a thing like this makes Lir's behavior difficult to monitor. If Lir is not banned, then a requirement of any probabtion should be that Lir date all posts, so that Lir's conduct can be accurately assessed. Otherwise, there's no point to probabtion; not that I think Lir really deserves probation anyway. 168... 21:09, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Lirath is a deliberate, persistent and malicious saboteur. He should be banned once and for all. Adam 09:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Realistically, "banning once and for all" is not possible on Wikipedia. lifetime bans are only possible within a much more strictly gated community. However, this says nothing about the advisability or otherwise of a temporary ban. Martin 22:36, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In similar form as above, Lir recently insisted on inserting a long list of historical figures into the introductory paragraphs of New Imperialism. It is a rhetorical device which contributes nothing to the discourse and serves primarily to scare off the reader. Despite repeated lengthy explanations on the Talk page, Lir insists on reinserting this list without offering any kind of meaningful counterargument for doing so, offering just a sneering "If you don't like lists, too bad."

Lir appears desperate to be part of this community and will no doubt return in another guise even if he is banned, but he appears incapable of adapting himself to the prevailing social norms here, which are based above all on rational interchange. Lir seems capable of being a constructive contributor if he wants to but all too often descends into meaningless squabbles for what I can only imagine to be an exessive need for attention. I note for example that Lir is listed under eight articles currently or recently listed as protected on Wikipedia:Protected page. All things considered, I think this community would be better off without Lir. -- Viajero 16:53, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

In response to a request for mediation, I have come to ask what all the fuss is about. Please be specific. Yes, I know a half dozen users have registered their discontent above, but would you please give examples? A link to a diff would be ideal.

Remember, what we're after is elimination of annoyance. Abraham Lincoln famously said that he "destroyed" enemies, not by killing them, but by turning them into friends. So let's be clear and detailed about what you like and dislike, and I 'll see if I can get Lir to provide more of what you like and less of what you dislike.

Also, this will certainly take more than one day. So while you're being clear, please be patient, too. :-)

(signed)
Uncle Ed
Official Member of the Mediation Committee

I took the generalized approach you complained about very consciously, and I did it fully knowing that the tradition is instead to cite specifics. But the tradition is faulty. It's bad both for Wikipedia's working environment and for the long-term goal of producing a good encyclopedia. Your premise seems to be that I have something I wish to work through with Lir. But I don't. Lir has destroyed my ability to trust him. You could either accept my word that I don't trust him, or you could take the word of a whole lot of other people that they don't trust him. The lack of trust is irrefutable. What this means in my case is that I do not trust that when Lir states an aim or desire for an article it is his true aim or desire, or that his reasons are his true reasons. I believe at least some of the time--and I'm prepared to think that it is most of the time--Lir's aim is simply to instigate for the sake of instigation, perhaps to get attention and seemingly a lot of the time just to cause aggravation. Compromising aims of my own in order to satisfy those kind of aims is something I will not do, and it feels insulting to be asked. So while I would encourage you to mediate Lir into backing off, or to mediate a formal policy and procedure for banning, otherwise I don't see what there is to mediate.168... 21:49, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is precisely the point I made to Ed in an email this afternoon. I don't think the situation requires "mediation" insofar as Lir makes no real effort to engage in rational discourse. Mediation implies reconciling argument A with argument B. How can one mediate between a rationally presented argument and juvenile obstinance and petulance? Please refer to Talk:New Imperialism for an example of Lir's attitude towards collaboration. It concerns his insistence on the addition of a long, parenthetical paragraph of historical figures in the introductory paragraphs. As can be seen, 172 and I gave our reasons for deleting on the Talk page but Lir obstinately kept reverting [5] without offering any kind of meaningful justification for its inclusion, simply, it would appear, because he did not want to see his contribution removed. Without any kind of substantial counterargument there is nothing to mediate. -- Viajero 23:33, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Okay, you two. I get it now. I will take a closer look, but please be patient: I'm going offline for the next 3 days :-( --Uncle Ed 20:47, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Marco funk

Adding links to suspicious external pages. RickK 04:56, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wik v. Hephaestos and RickK

Quote from Talk:Richard Neustadt:

"Give me your reason." "No that's not reason enough." Just have it your way, I'm sick of your circular argument bullshit. I'll wait until you're banned to change it back. - Hephaestos 04:04, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please look at that talk page and tell me if that's called for, or if Hephaestos has indeed given any substantive reason for his intended format, which runs counter to established practice. --Wik 04:17, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Quote from right here:

Go away, Wik, you're ridiculous. RickK 04:19, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

RickK has also removed himself from this page against the rules. (By the way, you two, I'm by now quite sure that Jimbo is not impressed by your mobbing tactics, so your calls for banning me ring hollow. It is you who's violating rules, not me.) --Wik 04:29, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, the same Jimbo who asked you directly to cool it with the reverts (as seen in [6]) , and whose request you've repeatedly flouted since then, to the extent of whining here about hardworking sysops whose page protection interferes with your obsessive reversion? Impressive chutzpah! Stan 04:47, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it is innapropriate to remove oneself from this page. Jack 04:35, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You're right, it was the wrong thing to do. RickK 04:49, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

One good reason why its a bad idea is that placing you here accurately calls attention to both you and wik, as well as any troubles you two (and some others it seems) may be having. I am of the opinion (see talk) that this page is ment to be used as the title states, as a location to air unresolved grievences, and put a fight out in the open. If there needs to be a problem user page, I think it should be seperate, and this page should come before it in that process. I agreed w wik placing angela here as well, if its any consolation. The fact that someone feels a conflict w you shouldn't of necessity place you in a bad light, but rather shine a light on the whole situation. Jack 05:14, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The listing of Hephaestos and Rick on this page is a complete over-reaction by Wik. He needs to learn to discuss things with people before coming to this page. Angela. 21:14, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos' quote clearly shows how he ended the discussion among insults. Likewise what do you discuss with someone who tells you "Go away"? Your comment just again demonstrates your own partiality. I am using this page to expose other users' insults, instead of responding in kind. --Wik 21:32, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)

I just made a big red mark on my calendar. Of all the unfounded, ill-advised wiki-political listings Wik has made; this one actually had something remotely resembling a legitimate procedural point. The intent though is the same. Wik, you are a troll. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 12:13, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Are you going to substantiate this allegation or is this just another empty insult? In the latter case, I will not respond in kind. --Wik 15:23, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

RickK now votes Keep on every single item on VfD to make some point. Now who's ridiculous? --Wik 08:57, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

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

(Moved from Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress)

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

Dear TwinsFan48, President Zviad Gamsakhurdia was jailed many times by Eduard Shevardnadze. Shevardnadze was also organizer of the coup d'etat of December-January, 1991-1992. Levzur

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

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

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

There's definitely no meeting of minds yet on Talk:Zviad Gamsakhurdia - apparently I'm a "misinformator", whatever one of those might be. However, Levzur has managed to identify one genuine error which I would be grateful if an administrator could fix. The sentence The political dispute turned violent on September 2, when an anti-government demonstration in Tblisi was dispersed by police with the reported loss of several lives. should be changed to The political dispute turned violent on September 2, when an anti-government demonstration in Tblisi was forcibly dispersed by police. But please leave the page protected until the remaining disputed points are resolved. -- ChrisO 11:45, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Levzur continues to make controversial edits that he refuses to discuss. Now he keeps removing Lavrenty Beria from the List of Georgians. --Wik 04:06, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

I guessed this was because Beria isn't an ethnic Georgian, and so added another person who wasn't an ethnic Georgian to the list. He now keeps removing this one too. Morwen 10:19, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Stalin, Beria, Shevardnadze, Ioseliani are ethnic Georgians, but they are great enemies for Georgia and Georgian people!!!!! Levzur

Well, that's a problematic assessment. The moral standing of any of these men is not under debate. The page's purpose is to list people who are Georgians. Whether or not they were good people is completely irrelevant. Hitler was obviously a bad man, but he is still listed at List of Austrians. Leon Trotsky might be considered a great enemy of the Jewish people, given his complete lack of sympathy for the Jews of Russia, and his behavior during the civil war, but he is still listed at List of Jews. Clearly Levzur has issues, at least with regards to Georgian subjects, that lead to problematic, POV edits. john 06:24, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Levzur is a Georgian nationalist crank with poor English. I don't think he understands what an encyclopaedia is. Someone should give him a warning and if he persists he should be banned. Adam 09:58, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think he understands very well but doesn't want to play by the rules. I've already explained them at great length on various Talk pages, including his own User Talk page, but he has either ignored or simply deleted these suggestions (see [7]). I'm done trying to help him - it's pointless. -- ChrisO 11:07, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I still think it is pretty good that we actually have a contributor from the CIS editing articles on that area. Yes he has a POV, but he has also provided lots of extra information. He needs watching (and reverting if necessary), but not banning. Secretlondon 15:11, Jan 12, 2004 (UTC)

And as a matter of fact I think he is right about Beria. My memory is that Beria was Mingrelian, not quite the same as Georgian. Adam 00:07, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dear Adam, please note, that Mingrelians (Megrels), Imeretians, Guruls, Ajarians, Svans, Rachvels, Lechkhumians, Kakhetians, Kartlis, Meskhs (Meskhetians), Khevsurs, Tushetians are ethnic Georgians, - they are ethnographic groups of Georgian People!!! Levzur, Jan. 13 2004

Precisely - it's a list of people from Georgia, not people who are ethnic Georgians. -- ChrisO 11:31, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User ChrisO did not understand the sense of my remark! I wrote about ethnographic groups of the Georgian People, not about the list of Georgians! His remark, to tell the truth, is so curious, that may pretend on the Guinness laurels. Levzur 14 Jan 2004

12.144.5.2

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

• I was going to list this user but I see someone beat me to it. This is getting really annoying. The user refuses to stop and will actually ask people correcting his edits to stop "stalking". - Tobin Richard 01:03, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• Well, I've blocked him/her, but it's gong to have to be done every day. I'm perfectly willing to do so, if he/she won't come around. RickK 02:44, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• I've unblocked it, as I agree the behavior is annoying, but not sure it's ban-worthy annoying (at least not without a discussion and consensus). --Delirium 02:47, Jan 8, 2004 (UTC)
• God bless his sorry soul. I say ban away! --Jiang
• Ugh, that's annoying enough for a ban. Think of the time people will have to waste going through all his/her edits and correcting them...and especially if he edits often, which he seems to. PMC 04:18, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• I've volunteered to clean up after him. I've posted a note about it on his talk page. -- Cyan 04:38, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• IMO not bad enough for a ban when considered against the fact that the user seems quite knowledgable about a lot of subjects. I find insisting on one's own idiosyncratic style in a project like this quite irritating, though; however, compared to the 'capitalisation is a tool of oppression' freaks, this is comparitively minor. —Morven 18:34, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• Banning is warranted. Knowledgable or not, he's doing one user's work for the price of two so long as everything he does has to be re-done by someone else. Salsa Shark 19:10, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I see no difference between this user's attitude and that of the "capitalisation is a tool of oppression" freaks; this is borne out on his talk page. I'm still undecided about a ban though. - Hephaestos 19:18, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • I meant merely that this annoys me less than the capitalisation thing, not that it's not borne of the same kind of attitude. —Morven 22:48, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
• I am strongly opposed to banning this user. His contributions are very useful and Wikipedia needs his knowledge. In case his writing style annoy you, notice me (on my talk page), giving a link to his edit, and I will correct it immediately. According to my knowledge, he has never created any problems apart from his writing style. Probably the IP address looks suspicious, but he is not an anonymous user since he is using the same IP address all the time and he publishes his initials and email address; it is his right not to register if he doesn't want to. For me, banning him is not different than banning a registered user. He is not a problem user, his culture/ideas are just different than ours. Please do not ban this user again; in case of future problems let me know. ^'. Optim 13:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC) .^'.

User:ChrisDJackson vs. Al Gore, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, et. al.

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

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

From Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress:

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

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

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

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

I think part of his website [8] sheds light on why he might be having problems writing neutrally. Maximus Rex 00:26, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

ChrisDJackson contravenes the basic rules of wikipedia by making offensive personal attacks against other users. eg, "Hey stupid, how about you just mind your business." and "if you can't do better than that in your feble attempts, go home little child." (from User talk:ChrisDJackson). --snoyes 06:06, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You dang right I do. You can report it all you want. This is a troll who is making false accusations and I want it to stop. ChrisDJackson

Who is the troll? You seem to call everyone who questions your edits a 'troll'. I guess that would make me a 'troll' too. Out of your 435 contributions, you have edited Al Gore 181 times. It seems that you are becoming a bit obsessive. Here are a few examples of your editing style, with your edit summaries as the link:

STOP! IF YOU PUT GORE'S CONTROVERSIES AND CONSPIRCYS ON HERE, YOU WILL HAVE TO DO IT TO EVERY OTHER PERSON

(No edit summary)

(No edit summary)

(No edit summary)

(No edit summary)

Bottom line is, you seem to be an overly confrontational user who is obsessed with Al Gore, and let this obsession show through in your edits. - Mark 03:26, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

207.44.154.35 vs. Daniel Quinlan

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

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

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

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

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

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

pigsonthewing vs Jiang: Introduction headers

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

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

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

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

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

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

That would make little sense.

PomPom

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

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

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

Pigsonthewing vs. common names

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

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

Jiang vs British English

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

Lir

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Stardust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the early revisions of User talk:Stardust, where RickK was telling her not to do something entirely lawful and appropriate, uploading a copyrighted images which were fair use. For a newcomer, Stardust did pretty well in the face of being told not to do something which was fine, though not as well as a more experienced contibutor might have done. Talk:Settlers of Catan/copyright and fair use covers how that fair use discussion evolved. Jamesday 08:35, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Wik & User:Lir

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

• Wik vs. Lir: October 2003, death camp, extermination camp, Anton Chekhov, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Richard Neustadt, Second Industrial Revolution, Ferdinand Porsche
• Wik vs. Nico: Silesia, Görlitz, Schlesien (now a redirect), Teschen , Gdansk

• Wik vs. others: Gross domestic product (vs. Karukera), Dean Acheson (vs. MyRedDice), USS Harry S. Truman (CVN-75) (vs. MyRedDice), Securities and Exchange Commission appointees (vs. MyRedDice), Enlargement of the European Union (vs. various users), 2002 Gujarat violence (vs. various users), Wikipedia:Edit conflicts (vs. Angela, Martin and others)
• Lir vs. others: Zyklon B (vs. various users), Bush family conspiracy theory (vs. various users)

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

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

Please, please, please can we ban Wik? RickK 04:37, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to start User talk:Wik/ban. --Jiang 04:40, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Wik is changing 9/11 pages' titles from "September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks" to "September 11, 2001 Attacks", apparently one of several "users" working on a Wikipedia-wide campaign to deny that these attacks were terrorist. Jiang has moved back the main page, but the others, as well as gobs of internal links, remain. Many double redirects have resulted from this as well. What a mess! -- VV 01:25, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The word "terrorist" is POV and I will continue to move those pages to NPOV titles. If you want to discuss this, do it on the appropriate talk page. --Wik 15:45, Jan 16, 2004 (UTC)

Caius2ga, taw, 24.2.152.139 vs. others

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24.2.152.139 22:35, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Caius2ga, taw, 24.2.152.139 vs. German language

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

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

• The flooding event of Odra river: Measurements and calculations of the impact in the Odra estuary [11]
• In Your Pocket Guides Wroclaw: Attracting mostly Polish businessmen and conferences, the Park Plaza is a big glass-and-marble hotel with enviable views of islands in the Odra river. [12]

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

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

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

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

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

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

24.2.152.139

From Vandalism in progress

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

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

24.2.152.139 22:30, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

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

Nico

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

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

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

I have not removed anything. I reverted you as you removed (or tried to hidden) Maximus Rex' complaint against you. Caius2ga is dedicated to "erase any German names from Polish territories" [13], rename Oder (English name) to Odra (Polish name) and in every possible way belittle and deny any signs of German history in former German territories in present-day Poland. Opposite Caius2ga, I don't wish or try to belittle Polish history, but prevent him from removing information about German history. Nico 04:35, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

User:Caius2ga has also called his opponents Nazis [14], recently compared me with Hitler [15], vandalized my user page several times (it' currently protected), vandalized the silesian talk (deleted vote) etc. etc. Nico 04:42, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

Caius2ga

User:Caius2ga seems to have picked up where User:Taw left off in changing Oder to Odra etc. At Talk:Oder River he said, among other things, "It's a matter of honour to erase any German names from Polish territories". Maximus Rex 00:05, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Caius2ga vs Nico

In Talk:Gdansk user Nico seems to be censoring the discussions page by removing the comments by Spacecadet.

Seems to have an interest to make sure that there is a bold German Name of a City in each article. See Kaliningrad and Poznan. Seems to dissaggre with the Lower Silesia map which has beent here long before he came along. 24.2.152.139 17:23, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nico is constantly vandalizing several pages like Gdansk, Torun, Szczecin, Silesia, Upper Silesia, Lower Silesia, and others. He activities are very annoying because he introduces Germans names everywhere, especially outside of Germany. He intriduces a biased extreme-German version of historical events and even erases information about Nazi concentration camps. -- Caius2ga 12:44, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I confirm that Nico is constantly censoring the Talk pages erasing what he doesn't like in other users opinion showing that he is wrong. He also enters into edit wars in the Talk pages if others want to revert his vandalism. Nico constantly erases all complains about his person, for example in this page -- Caius2ga 12:47, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Maybe it's time to ban Caius2ga now (last time I read the WikiEn-list he was about to be banned, don't now the current status). He recently vandalized my user page (see history), and he continue to spam this page with ridiculous and shameless lies. The fact is that Caius2ga DELETED my comment from Talk:Gdansk and I then reverted the page. Furthermore, I changed his misleading heading at Talk:Silesia from "Neutral version" to "Caius2ga's version". That's not censorship.

According to IP 24.2.152.139 (c-24-2-152-139.client.comcast.net), he is a known vandal, unworthy to comment. Nico 17:44, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nico seems well able to keep up with Caius2ga abusewise; I'd be in favor of banning the pair of them because both of them seem unable to stop fighting. Stan 18:13, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Ridiculous. He is attacking me. Shouldn't I be supposed to defend myself? Nico 18:23, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"ridiculous and shameless lies"? That sounds like an attack to me, not "defense". It's against the rules to delete comments written by other people - I had a look at the history of this page, you're clearly guilty on that count, and I haven't seen an apology anywhere. Fortunately for you, Jimbo is super-nice; if I were in charge, you'd have been gone the second time you made an ad hominem attack on anybody, vandal or no. Stan 21:57, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Pardon? Who was deleting comments? When someone vandalize the page and delete my comments, I revert. Finito! And I don't have time for this nonsense. You know nothing about the case. Come back when you have studied the page histories of the pages they mention, Kaliningrad (with talk), Silesia, Talk:Silesia (with archives 4, 5 and 6) and the vandal's talk page: User talk: 24.2.152.139. According to Caius2ga, see for instance http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2003-November/008514.html. Nico 23:06, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(personal attacks from User:Stan Shebs striked)

I've undone all the strikes, because that is childish. BTW, the message you link to mentions you as one of the "main combatants", which does not exactly help make your case! And I have indeed read all the back and forth - not easy when the participants delete the parts they don't like. You and Caius2ga need to cool it before you make enemies out of the people you need to have as allies. Stan 00:47, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

Leumi

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

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

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

Taw

User:Taw, a sysop, has decided that only the Polish names for the German-Polish border rivers can be used, although clearly the 'German' names are more popular in English as indicated by Google and confirmed by several native English speakers. A revert war has broken out.

• "Oder River" 4,640 [16]
• "Odra River" 2,690 [17]
  

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

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

They are - note that Oder and Odre are taken here to be directly before river in an English-language text. If Oder here were the German word for or, then "und River" should be at least as common. It occurs 54 times. Substracting 54 from 4,640 still gives a number well above 2,690. Current count is 3,150 against 1,830 by the way, both significantly lower but with the same general tendency. - Andre Engels 01:02, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

After speaking to Taw on IRC and on his user page we explained that the English names for two rivers and the German-Polish border are Oder (not Odra), Neisse (not Nysa) and Oder-Neisse Line (nor Orda-Nysa). He keeps reverting to the Polish spellings and will not compromise. Google has many more hits for Oder and Neisse and native English speakers from England, the US and Canada agree.

I don't want a reversion war but this is just bloody-mindness bordering on vandalism.

Secretlondon 18:21, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

On IRC he admitted that he thinks English users should 'switch' and that '58 years' was enough time for that, thus implicitly agreeing that is not currently the most used form in English at the moment. Morwen 18:23, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just for the record: Encyclopedia Britannica uses the German spelling, while noting the Polish & Czech spellings. (As should we) [18] --snoyes 18:36, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If I read "Orda-Nysa", I have absolutely no idea what is being talked about. It's "Oder-Neisse" in English. taw is being reverted by at least half a dozen people on a slew of articles. Daniel Quinlan 18:38, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Taw has said on IRC that he is not going to compromise on this. So what do we do now? One for the arbritration committee? Secretlondon 18:48, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see that, but expect Taw would not feel bound by a decision in our favour, or even a compromise. Morwen 18:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nothing like a good ol' misrepresentation of what someone said:

<secretlondon> taw: so you have no intention of compromising on this?
<taw> secretlondon: no
<taw> at least if your definition of "compromise" is to stfu and go away

And I never claimed that Oder/Neisse are English names now.

Let me quote what you said

taw: so it's high time for you to switch

taw: you had some 58 years now

I assume you aren't referring to any of us personally, but to the English language, since probably none of us are that old. Morwen 19:20, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There are many Nysa Something/Neisse Something rivers (see Nysa for incomplete list). Calling one of them Neisse (without appropriate adjective), and leaving others as Nysa Something it just silly.

Oder and Neisse aren't original names but borrowings from Slovian languages (Polish/Czech). Odra and Nysa are official names now. Most English-speaking people who would ever care to discuss these rivers live somewhere around them and use their Slovian names. Google is divided on the issue. Taw 18:56, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

They are the official Polish names, not the names commonly used in English. Google is somewhat divided on the issue, but it's 2-to-1 for Oder and Neisse, plus that's what most native English speakers use. Daniel Quinlan 19:02, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure that I should take English lectures from someone who thinks 'Slovian' is an English word. Do you mean West Slavic, perchance? Morwen 19:06, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Taw also made an Oder-to-Odra edit on Silesia, which is a protected page, thus abusing his sysop powers in pursuit of his obsession. --Zundark 19:15, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It does not seem that Taw followed the protected page guidelines in that case. He did not discuss it in advance on talk and there is a NPOV dispute (between taw and the rest of the English Wikipedia, apparently) over the naming of the Oder River. Taw, would you please revert your change to Silesia? Daniel Quinlan 19:34, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)

I've reverted to the protected version. It should not have been edited at all whilst protected. Angela. 19:41, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This person should at least be desysoped Nico 20:51, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On IRC, Taw claims have created an 'odrabot' to change the names automatically. Saying:

<taw> i think i'll make an odrabot
 [snip]
<taw> odrabot complete ;-)
<taw> but i'm not going to run in
<taw> still, it may be useful in future

Since he is a developer, I have no reason to doubt that he has made such a bot, or at least he is certainly capable of making one. Maximus Rex 21:00, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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

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

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

Mr-Natural-Health

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

81.130.175.55 v. Leumi

moved to User_Talk:Leumi/81.130.175.55 v. Leumi

User:MINDBOMB

From his own user page and his edits his aim here is to propagandise against Islam. This means that none of his edits will ever be POV. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not the place for crusadesSecretlondon 00:22, Dec 1, 2003 (UTC)

• I thought that this user could be a problem. If they can express their viewpoint in a NPOV fashion then MINDBOMB would not be such a problem, but from the edit to Muhammed I'm not sure this will happen... Dysprosia 00:27, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

• His user page now complains that he has had most of his content removed. I explained NPOV to him on his user talk page, but he has yet to reply there or on mine (may not have discovered it?) I think he feels slighted as a contributor, maybe justifiably so in his own mind, but I find it hard to understand how someone could edit here for so long and think that implying that Muhammad admitted to being a terrorist was NPOV. I think MB can be a good contributor one day, but there's just some stuff he needs to understand first. -- Pakaran 00:58, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

User:Igor

Igor is a Serbian nationalist who is constantly modifying anything even remotely related to that topic to present views highly resembling those of Slobodan Milosevic. For a few months now, I tried to reason with him in various Talk pages, to no avail. He is known to make changes without any explanation, and when he does provide explanations, they only make it more obvious that one is dealing with a rabid zealot.

Some shining examples of his bias and being unhelpful include but are hardly limited to:

• Croat Catholic Ustashi clergy and its no less evil twin brother -- some sort of a terrorist hitlist, full of assertions and insidious insinuations. Probably based on either royal Yugoslav gendarmerie or Chetnik sources, both of which are known to have been very pro-Croat oriented or neutral. NOT.
• Croat and Bosnian newspeak (original title by Igor) -- page that is biased from the title onwards, spiced up with glaring factual errors. This one is coupled with Croatian linguistic purism, which User:Mir Harven tried to replace this with. He didn't even find it necessary to discuss the content of the page he had a grudge with, and which was much longer than the one he created and, while probably biased, not factually incorrect (at least it seems to me).
• Serbo-Croatian language, Montenegro -- refusing to accept that there's any legitimacy to the dissent among the Serbs about issues he (and Milosevic) have an opinion on; plus, the opinion he has is hardly founded on facts
• Demographics of Croatia -- a propaganda piece if you ever saw one. One might argue that my attitude is too positive, but his isn't merely too negative, it's completely disinclined to accept that not everything is black and white. There is plenty of maneuvering space in the truth to take a negative stance, witnessed by the opinions of the ICTY prosecutors, the governments of the UK and the Netherlands.
• History of Bosnia and Herzegovina -- even if we ignore the mindnumbing insistence on how it was a Serbian land in the Middle Ages, I can't fail to react at the gross misrepresentation of crimes committed in Srebrenica and Sarajevo, when masses of defenseless people were very obviously endangered by Serb military forces. BTW, compare with the previous entry: planned exodus is depicted as the most criminal act, while death of thousands is supposed to be... I'm not sure? Necessary casualties of war? Accidents? Suicides?

There are many more I'm sure. He never fails to add some extreme Serbian viewpoint everywhere. I've heard of various incursions into Kosovo-related pages, but haven't looked into it; there's also gobs of controversial edits in pages like Ustase, History of Croatia, Rudjer Josip Boscovich, Dubrovnik, Bosniaks, Croatian Communist Party, Croatia, Slavic peoples, Bunjevatz, Croatian coat of arms, Franjo Tudjman... the list goes on and on. Pay special attention to the external links he posts -- there's some really egregious propaganda pieces there. It's also symptomatic that links are hardly ever attributed, rather they're given pretty generic names. Not that that's a capital crime in itself, far from it, but they contribute to presenting of really wacko opinions as universal facts. I've come to be wary even of innocent-sounding commits of his in pages like Ivan Mestrovic.

I was reluctant to mention this problem officially for a long time, thinking there was a glimmer of hope that he might accept a few of those extremely softened compromises in the controversial articles. However, the more it goes on, the more he keeps sounding like Serbian Radio Television from the 1990-1999 period, and relentlessly making his stances, ranging from near-ridiculous to offensive, known.

These days I'm really tired of battling everything out with him so I'm starting this discussion in hope that someone will either talk sense into him, or failing that, prevent him from doing further damage. At the risk of him thinking he's being victimized, ironically...

There are several other users who have come to realize this agenda of his over time after trying to work with him. I'm betting nine out of ten of his user contributions would be considered problematic by users including but not limited to:

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

User Mir Harven, marked with (*), holds views that might be considered offensive by non-nationalist Serbs and could probably excluded from the equation to avoid creating an impression of partiality.

Usually it goes like this: someone posts something, Igor "fixes" it, then we go in circles for a while, and then the original poster either modifies their writing to be extremely politically correct and includes mention of various spurious or specious arguments applied by the pan-Serb propagandists such as Igor, or gives up hope. Articles where a normal point of view has prevailed without catering to Igor's wishes are a scarce commodity.

The following users also may have had some run-ins with Igor or just witnessed patterns in his behaviour and could probably provide more information on the matter:

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

I'd particularly point out Nikola Smolenski who also has/had some views that non-Serbs disagree with, but he can be reasoned with and he doesn't insist on the kind of BS Igor's likely to.

-- Shallot 10:37, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

LibertarianAnarchist

The discussion about him was moved to User talk:LibertarianAnarchist and notated as "outdated" for some reason. It is true he was inactive for a while, but he's back (including from IP 67.121.94.160). Some users proposed banning, and perhaps now we should consider continuing on that process. -- VV 21:14, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User:Mir Harven

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

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

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

Mir Harven is a Croat nationalist, that's a given, but would restrain himself much more were it not for Serb nationalist stuff that occasionally gets inserted into pages that involve Croatian matters which is offensive even to non-nationalist Croats (and Bosniaks). --Shallot 10:37, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

See also the assorted POV rants he added in the edit history of Vladimir Lenin. Kwertii 12:07, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Lizard King (aka User:65.35.66.136) and User:UtherSRG

We are unable to reach any compromise. In fact, LizardKing despises compromise, finding it a weak and despicable trait. Compromise is the heart of good consensus decision making. Please see the discussion on User talk:Lizard King as well as the edit war history on Bigfoot and Yeti and talk:Yeti. - UtherSRG 18:36, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As you can see on my talk page, I attempted to converse civilly with Uther for quite some time and he kept stooping to name calling and accusations. At one point he mentioned an "editing war" which I did not participate in and even admitted that he was not being civil or obeying Wikepedia rules of etiquite. And contrary to what some believe, a person who compromises his scruples is despicable. If I make a mistake or break a rule and it is brought to my attention I will remedy the error. However, Uther has been taken inocuous actions of mine, calling them mistakes or dishonest or vandalism and attempting to convince others to support him. This is very unproductive, immature, and clearly not in the spirit of Wikipedia. - Lizard King (Afternoon 1-19-2004)

Edit war: When two (or more) users revert each others changes.
If I was in an edit war, who was it with if not you? There's a difference between compromising ones scruples, and compromising so as to reach a mutually agreeable solution to a problem. If you do not want the latter, how do you propose to work here at Wikipedia? I have serious reservations about how you do work here at WP. I have serious reservations about using original pieces of art in a public encyclopedia, especially when there are equally good images already in the public domain. I have serious reservations about putting text into images instead of using the Wiki text editor to add a caption to the image. These are the changes on Bigfoot and Yeti, et al, that I will continue to rail against until we (the Wikipedia community) can come to some agreement on. Are you wiling to compromise so that we can come to a reasonable solution? - UtherSRG 20:19, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

DO NOT GIVE OUT MY IP ADDRESS. That is PERSONAL INFORMATION. Administrators already know what it is or can find out. From time to time I have made changes without signing in, and I did alot before I even signed up. The fact that from time to time I forget to log in before I make a change does not make me duplicitous. You know that though. You are throwing mud. I do not appreciate having you advertise my IP address, it is unethical as it is personal information, just like a telephone number or an address.--Lizard_King

I am not interested in participating in a war with you. Please grow up and treat other Wickepedia users with respect. (Afternoon 1-19-2004)

The problem with your definition of compromise is that you are suggesting that you should be able to INVENT what is right and wrong, for other users BEYOND the standards of wikipedia, which you appear to be quite well versed in.

If you say I am doing something wrong and I know I am not, I could not respect myself, if I went along with you. You just seem to do things as an innapropriate demonstration of power over activites on this site. --Lizard_King (7 pm 1-19-04)

No, it isn't personal information - you disclosed it when you edited this and other pages. If you don't want it known, remember to log in. As you've chosen (or forgotten, it's easy to do) to make edits with that IP, that information must be part of this page, so other wikipedians can fairly assess all your edits. -- Finlay McWalter 23:40, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Also, please remember to sign your posts. It's difficult for the rest of us to figure out, after the fact, who said what to whom, and when. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter 23:40, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Alright then. If it is not considered personal information than I would appreciate it if a member with sysop powers would display the IP addresses of the following members (or the members associated with the following IP addresses) I have been accused of being:

• 1) Annek
• 2) ScifiterX
• 3) The_Agent
• 4) User:69.22.99.231
• 5) User:65.35.69.180

--Lizard_King (7pm 1-19-04)

You're removed the IP address twice, and twice I've had to restore it. As I've explained to you, it must be here, so that other wikipedians can see what that anon IP's contributions were. PLEASE don't remove it from this page again - removing it is vandalism, and vandals are blocked from editing wikipedia. A sysop can't help you with those other IP addresses, as we don't have access - only developers do, and they have much better things to do than expend effort on stuff like this. Lastly, may I be frank: it looks like you're embarked on a path that so many before you have trodden; round after round of anger and recrimination, accusation and counteraccusation. I'm sure you feel you've been treated unfairly or accused of things unjustly - in reality, wikipedia is a horrible, unfair place where most bad deeds go unnoticed, never mind punished. My humble advice to you, as someone with whom you've hitherto had no conflict, is to forget this page, those listed on it, and the grievances they and you may have. Go find some article you care about that needs attention, and give it some. Pursing this matter (whoever's fault it is, or whoever started it) will only make you unhappy, and will only waste your time. I can't speak for you, but I find making a better encyclopedia to be great fun, but arguing about an encyclopedia to be majorly depressing. Thanks. -- Finlay McWalter 00:48, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

1)I only removed the IP address once. The second time was the result of an editing conflict, I was simply writing at the same time you were, before the change was made. --LK (8pm 1-19-04)

2) An IP address has to be identified before it can be blocked. An IP address can be blocked by someone with sysop status. I do not understand how you could not prove that those parties have different IPs. It is highly hippocritical for you to allow my IP address to be posted against my will but then not post IP addresses of parties I am accused of also being. --LK (8pm 1-19-04)

3)I resent the idea that you seem to think that I should not be talking on here. If you have been paying attention, these parties have been accusing me of vandalism and of having multiple IDs. Things, which, if I am not mistaken, could result in my own IP ban. So naturally, it is in my best interest to respond to defend myself before they manage to persuade a member with sysop powers to kick me off. --LK (8pm 1-19-04)

4)Most subjects I have attempted make additions to have run into similar problems with these members who have CHOSEN conflict. Are you suggesting that I tuck my tail under my legs and run away when ever I start making an addition to an article and another member decides to start accusing me of vandalism and such? I wouldn't have much freedom to do much on here if I did that. I think I will stand up for myself, thank you. --LK (8pm 1-19-04)

Note: Marvelite does share the same IP address. He does use my computer from time to time. He has his own connection but it is very slow.--LK (EVENING 1-19-2004)

None of this changes that you are unwilling to compromise on edits to articles, on what are appropriate images, and whether it is appropriate to put text into images instead of leaving the text as a caption via a table. These are my specific problems with you, Lizard King. this is why we are in conflict. - UtherSRG 02:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

We seem to be using the work compromise differently. First, you said that the image appeared to be a photo, but was not and was therfor dishonest. Then after I added the caption explaining that it was not a photo (only an artist conception) you waited a few days and then took it down saying that I had to remove the caption. At this point I cannot see the profit in cooperating with you because you seem to invent fault where there is none. It seems to amuse you to make others go through hoops. If all that was needed was an html message to begin with you could have added it to the image before you removed it to begin with. As it is you have deprived Wikipedia users of any image.--LK 10:30pm 1-19-04

I do appreciate your calmer and more respectful atitude in this response. If you wish to continue this discussion it will be more productive for all parties involved if we keep the discussion on this level of civility.--LK 10:30pm 1-19-04

I'm glad you finally understand what compromise means in regards to working with others. It will go a long way to learn the meanings of words in the context they are in, instead of blinding reacting to the only meaning you know. - UtherSRG 04:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please do not put words into my mouth. I never said "photo" or anything about your image appering to be a photo. I did say to provide one you hadn't created. Let me expand on this - it is better to use an image in an encyclopedia that is commonly used. Can you think of a good reason I might think this? - UtherSRG 04:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I took your image down several times. "No image is better than a bad image." Several times the image was indeed bad. This includes when you added text to the image. When you first did that I took it down and said "please remove caption from pic". I already provided you with a reason not to have the text within the picture: not everyone can edit the image. Can you think of a good reason why I didn't want to edit your pic? - UtherSRG 04:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Anyone can see the full dialogue of our comments here. Your non-logged in edits show as your IP, which is why I included your IP in this dispute. Anyone interested in the broader dialogue should also view the edit histories of Bigfoot, Cronus, and African Grey Parrot. On all of these articles, you have shown yourself to be very hot-headed. Please understand that your views on what the right thing to do will not jibe with everyone, and that you'll need to work at not flying off the handle when someone makes an edit you disagree with. - UtherSRG 04:44, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

And please stop bringing in your high school buddies, or whomever they are, to vote in your favor on Talk:Yeti. You know who they are: The_Agent, ScifiterX, Popcorncafe, Javaman42, and anyone else who shows up to vote and has only done work for you or no work before. Very childish. - UtherSRG 14:03, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC) ⊙

Registered Wikipedia users are allowed to do whatever they wish within the guidelines of the system, regardless of how small thier contributions may be. You are the one who keeps name calling. I am getting tired of being called "obnoxious" because I have the patience to converse with you and pretend that it is a discussion when it is really just an onslaught of name calling and unsubtantiated accusations designed to stigmatize my name on this site.--LK 6pm 1-20-04

In general I share UtherSRG's observations and opinions. Lizard King has been generally obnoxious and uncompromising, in my opinion. (Being obnoxious is not a crime, though it does diminish any sympathy I might have for his position.) It does seem like the other users UtherSRG has mentioned are either puppet users or friends of Lizard King supporting him on that basis rather than the merits of his edits (User:65.35.69.180 in particular is a user UtherSRG and I have both had disputes with in the past; Marvelite's interests seem to align closely with his, and they may be the same individual). I've also been tracking some issues regarding these users on my own talk page. -mhr 18:22, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

People like you and UTHER always refer to honest people who stand up to you as obnoxious or stupid and dishonest people as clever and elite. Here you are yet again slinging unsubtantiated accusations you will never be able to prove. I already explained the situation with Marvelite and it is obvious you are deliberately trying to decieve people who are reading this. I will state it again. Marvelite uses the same IP address. When he first started this we were using the same IP. Now he has his own connection but it is slow. The other people I have been accused of being you have shut up about because you know they can prove they are different people at this point. But since I explained, in other posts, the situation about Marvelite you have taken the opportunity to try to make it look like we are the same person. However, Marvelite hasn't done anything to support me, such as vote, so he is really just a red herring, isn't he? --LK 6pm 1-20-04

PS- Please stop demoting my educucation by 4 years. It is fairly obvious to people who read my posts that I am not a high school student. Uther and you (if you are two seperate individuals) seem to take every opportunity to deride me or slander my character. As I have not done this to either of you, it should be obvious to all impartial observers that it is you who are behaving immaturely and dishonestly.--LK 6pm 1-20-04

==========================================================

Let's review:

Yes lets do that.

1) Lizard King started replacing images on pages such as those at African Grey Parrot and Cronos with his own homemade images. Then complained loudly when others reverted them to the previous images.

Answer: No, I just said I didn't like it. Now what I really didn't like was when an individual said that an image I had spent several hours toiling over, was poorly drawn and silly. You seem to have a problem with people expressing themselves contrary to your wishes.Lizard King 05:20, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

2) Several others users came to his defense, though conveniently many of these users had not established a contribution history prior to Lizard King's, and their contribution history was entirely or almost entirely limited to pages to which Lizard King had contributed.

There is not rule against that.Lizard King 05:32, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

These users include:

1. 1. 65.35.69.180 (dormant since 9 Jan; the user at this IP address has been especially intransigent)
   2. 69.22.99.231 (dormant since 9 Jan)
   3. 65.35.66.136 (active 12 Jan-present; Lizard King seems to acknowledge that this is in fact himself)
   4. ScifiterX (active 12 Jan-present)
   5. Marvelite (active 12 Jan-present)
   6. The Agent (active 9-12 Jan)
   7. Popcorncafe (one contrib, 19 Jan)
   8. Javaman42 (four contribs, all 20 Jan)
2. The activity of these other users is tied closely to the period of controversy (approximately 10 Jan to present), suggesting that some of these users are the same person, or are acting in concert.

Answer: There is no rule against Wickepedia users acting in concert and it was proved that your accusations regarding my identity were false.Lizard King 05:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

4) Lizard King refuses to employ the Wikipedia convention for signing comments in discussions.

Answer: What? I didn't now you to use the symbols in the browser until an administrator pointed it out to me. That is a pretty silly allogation. HE REFUSES TO EMPLOY THE CONVENTION FOR SIGNING COMMENTS!! OH NO!!! EVERY BODY RUN!! HE'S A MADMAN!!Lizard King 05:15, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

5) Lizard King is extremely defensive about any efforts to determine whether his claims are true, and complained loudly when UtherSRG linked his login to specific IP address.

Answer: That is a lie. I actually asked an administrator to involve a developer to prove that I was not the other members you said that I was. To that end my ISP would not have to be revealed in such an obvious way. The only reason I was concerned about my IP address is that it can be used to trace my computer and thier are internet stalkers out thier. The more trouble people have to go through to get my IP the better off I am and the less likely I am to start having problems with people spoofing my IP or finding out how to get an email address from my internet service provider by bullsh**ting thier way through the ISP customer service hot-line.

6)Above, Lizard King asks that I "stop demoting [his] educucation [sic] by 4 years", which I presume is a dig at UtherSRG's (not my) comment about his "high school buddies". If so, then it seems we can deduce that Lizard King is about 22 years old, and that Marvelite is not, for instance, his son.

Answer: I was speaking figuratively. No I am not 22 years old and no I never said I had a son. I said Marvelite was a friend and that is all you need to know.

7) On his user page, Lizard King claims that he is "intellectually gifted" - not usually a claim one makes of oneself in a public forum.

Answer: I can write whatever I want on my user page. Yes I said I'm gifted, I also say that I sell merchandise on ebay and that I like movies about robots. What is your point? You completely took the statement out of context and it isn't a claim. I am dyslexic and was tested in elementary school (because a teacher thought I was retarded) with the Wiechler. I scored above the 97th percentile. Why do you insist upon heaping these childish insults and taking my words out of context. It does not make you look good. Can't you see that?Lizard King 04:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

8) On the other hand, he opposes compromise on principle.

Answer: I meant that I have integrity and that I don't compromise my scruples. That means that If you say I have broken a rule and I know I have not I will not pretend that I have just to get along with you. But, you already know that. You are again trying to make it look like I have said something entirely different by taking my words out of context. Lizard King 04:53, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

9) He has word-edited some comments from other users to change the meaning of their comments, for instance 1 and 2.

Answer: Yes I altered two sentences suggesting that Tuf-Kat wanted to have sex with bigfoot. That is all I did and I apologized and Tuf-Kat apologized to me for insulting my artwork. Which is more that I can give you credit for.Lizard King 04:56, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

10) He is quick to put the blame for these altercations anywhere but on himself. He is also all-too-happy to accuse others of "behaving immaturely and dishonestly".

Answer: You are immature and dishonest a number of other members have also made this observation.Lizard King 04:56, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

==============================================================

If I were to go and find every innapropriate thing you have said and done and catalogue it as your attempting to do it would take up more space than this entire discussin board. Get a life.Lizard King 04:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are distorting the truth. Anyone can see that. This little list of yours is obviously a simple childish insult, and that is who I am dealing with, a child.

My comments have been completely civil. None of the people who came to my defense were one and the same. Further, I never claimed that my IP address was a seperate identity from myself as you state.

I did say some innaproriate things toward TUF-KAT and did as a joke, alter a small portion of his text. However, that issue has been mutually resolved and neither of us appreciate your digging it up.

You, are a liar. Period.Lizard King 04:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Does this, as a whole, sound to anyone like a typical Wikipedian who deserves the benefit of the doubt? Especially given the general tone of his comments above? -mhr 23:57, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The talk on my talk page made me look good and Uther quite hostile and immature. So what are you complaining about? The talk page is archived under the Page history. Look up the word ARCHIVE in the dictionary.Lizard King 04:34, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Be aware that Lizard King has cleared the contents of his Talk page without archiving it, so don't expect any future comments you make there to usefully persist. -mhr 03:48, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Another lie. The Talk page is automatically archived. All one needs to do is look for it. Also, as it was pointed out on my ARCHIVED talk page, a number of administrators also delete thier talk pages periodically.Lizard King 04:22, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is the second time he's done so. He's also under an incorrect assumption that talk pages are automatically archived. - UtherSRG 03:53, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The contents of the talk page are available in the page history. This is the automatic archiving that LK is refering to. I'm not sure why you think he's mistaken. In my opinion, limiting my comments strictly to this matter, LK is not doing anything improper: Eloquence (talk) and Evercat (talk), both sysops, have policies similar to that of LK. -- Cyan 05:00, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I don't particularly object to people archiving their pages in this manner. It is, however, a rather hidden way of doing it, and opinion of Lizard King's behavior is that some things he does are intended to obfuscate some of his activities. Since discussions regarding Lizard King's actions are occurring more-or-less simultanously on multiple pages, it seems worthwhile to point out that some of the discussion text is going away without a clear link from the most recent revision. -mhr 05:41, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

He's just now uploaded an image of an African Grey Parrot complete with taxobox and replaced the existing image and table-formed taxobox with his image. I've cropped it and put it up, with the original taxobox restored. - UtherSRG 04:02, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have little to add to my numbered summary above; I think the evidence shows at the least that Lizard King (talk) is intransigent and combative. I also feel there's reason to believe that he's employing puppet users or friends simply to bolster his positions, although this is probably impossible to prove. Since the sysops have not indicated that they're interested in this subject (which, y'know, I can't really blame them for), I think the only thing we can do is to tackle the individual issues he introduces on a page-by-page basis and hope he just gets tired sometime. I don't really have any interest in playing policeman on pages I'm not interested in working on (what fun would that be?), so I'm going to cut bait here and go back to my regularly-scheduled editing. (I've gotten my US RDA of flamewars for the time being.)

1) It was proven that none of the people who voted were me, other than me. So, no the evidence does not show it. It shows the opposite.

2) Registered ebay users, no matter how little they contribute, can act in concert. I never said the people were not my friends, that is not against any rules.

Though if Lizard King actually manages to demonstrate that UtherSRG (talk) and I are the same person, please let me know as I'm sure both of us would be very interested in that development! :-) -mhr 05:41, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I never accused you and Uther of being the same person (though it is hard to tell to be honest). If I was going to accuse you I would do it so:

UTHERSRG AND MR ARE THE SAME USER.

THIS IS THE PROOF:

IP ADDRESS, proof that ony one person lives at residence, etc.

I haven't done that now have I?

But you keep answering for each other and I'm tired of checking to see who it is I'm talking with.Lizard King 05:55, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"special features"

Others

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

• Is Wik Wicked? Wikipedia:Conflicts between users/Wik

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

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

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

most recent at top