Wikipedia:Conflicts between users/Archive

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Angelique (talk | contribs) at 20:25, 4 December 2003. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

Alternatives to airing problems to this page

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

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

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

Recommendations for adding to this page

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

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

Recommendations for removing text from this page

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

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

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

List of conflicts

Please state the problem you are having with another user.

Most recent at top.

Angelique & Mathieugp

I removed this here from Village Pump Muriel Victoria 16:04, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm new here and not certain if this is the proper page to be writing on so if not, someone please move it to the appropriate spot. I came across the article History of Quebec and was rather surprised to see it was far from encyclopedic in nature being little more than manipulated writing to provide a political slant. I tried fixing it but User:Mathieugp, deltes anything factual that is not to his political liking and removes links to other articles and words things far from a NPOV. I see that I’m not the only one with a problem with User:Mathieugp’s conduct, another user complained about his similar behaviour. Too, I see where User:Angela had to post a notice on his page saying: I have removed attacks made by you against others on Talk:Quebecois and strongly urge you to read the guidelines regarding no personal attacks. Angela 23:48, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC). I am not interested in constantly having to change the deliberate propaganda and deletions of fact by this user. People like that ruin any pleasure one gets from contributing here. In fact, I really want nothing whatsoever to do with someone who abuses Wikipedia to promote their personal views and who launches vicious personal attacks. I suggest a Wikipedia Administrator do whatever necessary to put an end to this type of action that denegrates the sincere work being done by the many excellent contributors to the Wikipedia project. Thank you. Angelique 15:58, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

(I moved the following here from vandalism in progress --snoyes 14:30, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC))

User:Angelique has been reverting to an earlier version of her own on 3 (or more) occasions. We are at least 2 users to have told Angelique to stop removing other peoples' dated events as part of History of Quebec. (See Talk:History_of_Quebec). On various occasions she accused me and User:Tremblay of pushing a "cause" which she never named and suggested that I had racist views, all the while adding a good number of paragraphs that are objectively anti everything that is Catholic and/or French. We have invited her to explain what was wrong with the things we inserted. She did not reply once, continuing to claim that it was all propaganda and lies in order to justify her removing it. I don't know what to do with that. I am not in the mood for a war of revert. Mathieugp 14:24, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Mathieugp and I have repeatedly invited Angelique to have a dialogue with us to hopefully clarify the passages she deems inappropriate. Unfortunately, she has ignored these requests and continues to revert to her own version of edits with "It's massive propaganda" as the only explanation.

Recently she's resorted to name-calling, and there is no doubt as to her bias on the issues being discussed. Tremblay 18:53, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I will not discuss false assertions and racist remarks that state I and all others are anti-Semites. I will remove them. Example: "Later, when such opinions weren't uncommon for North American and European Christians, he (Lionel Groulx) denounced Jews and supported the Nazis in Germany." -- I am a North American who is not anti-Semitic nor is anyone I know. There is no room for this kind of slander in Wikipedia. It is an embarassment to all of us who are sincerely trying to make their best and honest contributions. Angelique 20:25, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

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:Eloquence

  • Erik is back again misbehaving on Mother Teresa. He has threatened User:Alexandros with a ban, as he has in the past threatened others.
    • He has already driven away User:pfortuny. Indeed Alexandros is now so intimidated by Eloquence's threats, which consisted most recently of Massive reverts of the type you did on the Mother Teresa article are entirely unacceptable and in violation of every established rule and policy on Wikipedia. If you continue this, I will report this behavior and you will quite possibly be banned from editing.—Eloquence 05:26, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC) that he may leave the page. Alexandros commented that Since he is a sysop, and i am not however, I am wary about fighting with him.
      • I haven't been following the MT imbroglio for a while, but I was involved with it when the above exchange took place. Eloquence was perfectly right to stop Aplank / Alexandros filling the MT article with his ridiculous Catholic propaganda and to threaten to report him. The reason I withdrew from working on MT was because of Alexandros's behaviour. If Eloquence has now succeeded in getting Alexandros to stop sabotaging the article, then he has done Wikipedia a service. Adam 12:52, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)
    • His charge was that Alexandros reverted what Eloquence wants. In fact, Eloquence's new edits were simply a re-instatement of his past edits, edits which the community were agreed were wrong, POV and as a result were removed. The community in particular decided that Eloquence's use of pictures was POV. They were removed weeks ago reflecting an overwhelming opinion on that fact. But Eloquence, having left for a while, now wants to turn the whole debate back weeks, reinstate text that it was agreed to remove, reinsert pictures it was agreed to remove, and threaten people who disagree with him though hints of bans.
    • He also buries his reverts as minor edits in the hope that most people, who might not see minor edits on their Recent Changes, won't notice them, as with his insertion of pictures that it was already agreed to remove, in the hope of getting his way and his agenda through. If they do, he can also pull the ban threat to frighten them off, as he has with User:Alexandros.
    • He previously tried to pull some of the same stunts when he decided to unilaterally change all wikipedia dates to the mm/dd/yy format, again in flagrant contradiction of an agreement that had been reached by users. His behaviour is hardly conduct becoming a sysop, much less a developer. FearÉIREANN 20:46, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
There was no community decision on the pictures, and it is categorically untrue that the edits to the article are in contradiction with any such decision. You are simply doing what everyone knew you would be doing, trying to utilize the results of your silly "vote" in order to remove factual information from the article. Your allegations about the date format are nonsensical, since you were the one claiming a consensus where none existed.—Eloquence 20:52, Nov 29, 2003 (UTC)
For "silly vote" read any decision of users that goes against Erik. FearÉIREANN 21:02, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Eloquence has broken the revert war rule, by reverting more than 3 times(a lot more). Alexandros
So has Jt.—Eloquence
No, he has reverted 3 times. See [1]

--Alexandros 21:16, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC) (originally this was true but since I posted this jtdirl has reverted again)Alexandros 21:18, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am not allowing Eloquence think he can bully non-sysops and threaten them to get his way. I am not allowing Eric to think that he can break any rule because of who he is. The rule applies to everyone or no-one. FearÉIREANN 21:22, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Anyone who breaks the rules makes a bad advocate for enforcing them. --snoyes 21:27, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Actually, any decision with useless options, few participants and unclear results.—Eloquence
Eloquence, please use the "edit section" feature, as it prevents edit conflicts. Alexandros 21:08, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
As the person who has implemented this feature, I can assure you that it does not.—Eloquence 21:11, Nov 29, 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:

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:

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

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

User:CGd

User:CGd is attempting to delete all references to the Orthodox Bahai Faith. RickK 07:16, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Cunctator

  • User:The Cunctator is unilaterally removing the VfD header from pages that are still under discussion on the Votes for Deletion page. RickK 03:45, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • He's now making his removes as "minor edits", so they won't show up on the Recent Changes page, if users have their preferences set not to see minor changes. RickK 04:20, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • To clarify: he removed the VfD notice on Sunset High School once, and thereafter moved it to the bottom of the article. -- Cyan 21:43, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • They unilaterally undeleted santorum despite being deleted after vfd, and undeletion being supported. Maximus Rex 03:47, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This only makes sense as a conflict if undeletion was not supported, as I believe was the case. -- Cyan 21:43, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • Possibly offensive username? When I read it while sleep deprived, I saw "the **** taster". Maybe that's just my messed up mind though. -- Pakaran 06:56, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Definitely sleep deprivation in action. See Cunctator. -- Cyan 21:43, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • On another note, about half of his user page is aimed at poking fun at the web design skills used in Wikipedia. Whether or not that's a problem I don't know - it's better than many user pages, like that of User:Kingpr0n where he claims to be "mightiest of all Wikipedias (sic)", and frankly other peoples' user pages aren't my concern. -- Pakaran 07:01, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Since they're a sysop (amazingly) better behaviour should be expected from them. Maximus Rex 07:03, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Wow. Didn't realize. I also wonder about some questionable edits to questionable articles. [2] comes to mind. -- Pakaran 07:11, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • I was going to try and avoid commenting here, but Sunset High School was protected by Hephaestos earlier today after The Cunctator was involved in an edit war on the page. About 12 hours after it was protected The Cunctator unprotected it and reverted to his version. This is a gross abuse of sysop powers, and of trust. Angela 20:21, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • Ouch. I'm beginning to get the feeling that this should be taken to the list in the next few days. -- Pakaran 20:25, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • Cunc's a long-standing user (a lot longer than me, anyway). He's active on the wikien-L list, so you can probably get his attention there. (Indeed, he did reply to RickK's post. [3]) -- Cyan 21:43, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • His posting on the mailing list was not a response, it was a pooh-pooh. But then, not one single person supported me on the mailing list, so I'm not going to bother any more. RickK 04:06, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • He was justified in undeleting the material. Why should that information not be included? The information is currently placed at Dan Savage where, apparently, it is unobjectionable. The people who are the problem are those who insist on deleting everything. Lirath Q. Pynnor
  • Cunc can be a bit of a "prick" sometimes, but Jimbo is *not* going to de-op him over little stuff like this, so let's just drop it. As for santorum, I may have found a solution acceptable to all concerned. Christ, I hate getting involved in this shit! --Ed Poor 18:32, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

LibertarianAnarchist

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


User:SmartBee

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

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



User:Mir Harven

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

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

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

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

"special features"

Others

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

most recent at top

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users/Archive&oldid=1873618"