Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Discussion of User talk:Adam Carr#Personal attacks

Note: This headline has been removed from User talk:Adam Carr

    • I don't see a problem here. Skyring is trying to amend the Government of Australia page in a way not supported by other reference books. Adam is getting increasingly frustrated with him (which I don't find surprising). Skyring is either trolling or trying to add original research into the page, and I'd urge Skyring, rather than Adam, to stop what he's doing.
      • So your answer is yes, if a user appears to be trolling, adding original research or flouting consensus, then personal abuse is no problem? 11:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • I haven't seen outrageous personal abuse here, just one editor, who is acting reasonably, getting increasingly frustrating with one who appears to be trolling, adding original research and flouting consensuse. I certainly wouldn't be harsh on the reasonable, but frustrated, editor. 13:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
          • It was worse a few days ago (now archived), e.g. [1]. What concerns me is not the attacks themselves: as you point out, it seems to be a consequence of frustration (which happens to many editors, we're only human, and it's not a big deal). What I worry about is Adam Carr's insistence that personal abuse is entirely acceptable in these circumstances -- and that he continues to make such attacks, even when other editors have asked him to refrain from them. I feel (and I think the policy states) that personal attacks are unacceptable in all situations; I think that is basic Wikiquette. 01:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree that "personal attacks are unacceptable in all situations". I also agree in making some allowance for fallible and frustrated humans.
In this particular case, the attacks seem to have considerably lessened and the parties seem to be relatively close to equal in their current discourtesy to each other.
Which is why I won't get involved in that discussion at this time. (That's not as clear as I'd like it to be.) Maurreen 07:33, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Accusation of teamwork

These users act as a coordinated team to circumvent the 3R rules, and weave in propaganda, and delete others' contributions. This is a dishonest way of controlling Wikipedia from others' contributions. Those who are not similarly and dishonestly coordinated as an ideological team can be mistreated by them. What can be done about keeping this conduct and biased "Team" ideology from spoiling the Wikipedia project for the rest who might want to contribute as individuals? Please see my Talk page. Thanks. Realbro 19:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, this is a breach of Wikiquette in itself, with personal attacks against named editors in the header (which I've removed) and throughout the message. Given that Realbro has opened this account purely to post to this page, and is clearly a sockpuppet of some other editor, I think that his or her rather nasty little complaint, verging on racism, can be safely ignored. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
He/She doesn't give any indication of where the problem lies, anyway, so nobody can act on it regardless. Sockatume 22:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
NB: Even with the list of accused editors, there was no indication of the source of the grievance, I mean. Obviously the alert is utterly meaningless now that they've been removed. Sockatume 22:36, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't want to take the action myself, but given the complete lack of information, I'd say delete the whole alert and ensuing discussion. RayGirvan 23:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Jun 10

Jun 13

Jun 14

  • User:Leonig Mig places ad hominem (his description) and false comments about Andy Mabbett on his (LM's) user page (and in edits) because LM objects to AM's edits to pages LM has writen, and offers to remove them only if AM agrees to his conditions [2].
    • The situation is worsening [3]
      • Now resolved. Thank you.`

Jun 16

This kind of misbehavior is only getting worse. To me, "only a Nazi would say what you just said" constitutes an ad hominem attack.

Jun 17

  • In Pontiac Trans Am, an anonymous user is repeatedly deleting one sentence without comment. Is this the best place to discuss this?

Jun 18

  • User:152.163.101.5 has added an advertising link 4 times to License plate (it has been reverted all 4 times), and is also vandalizing other pages with anti-Semitic, anti-liberal, and other vandalsm. 22:41, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jun 21

  • User:Zen-master Personal abuse, for instance: "So yes, I am accusing you both of being neo-nazis based on your posts on this talk page and based on the way you repeatedly defend or ignore the misuse of language."
  • User:Bloghate has been making VfDs of notable bloggers ( [4] ) as well as the category Bloggers. This may be simply Disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point or it may be a trollish enjoyment of seeing each VfD's defenders get outraged at the nomination. It has been suggested that Bloghate is a sockpuppet in some war between Deletionists and Inclusionists.

Jun 22

  • i am not completely sure that this has gone unnoticed, but if someone has noticed it i dont think anything appropriate has been done about it. shawn Mikula was created on 2005 June 11, which as far as i can tell goes against wikipedia:votes for deletion/Shawn Mikula and wikipedia:votes for undeletion/deleted#Shawn Mikula. the most recent discussion of mikulitis i can find is in february and march of this year, regarding a user archiving the page in his user namespace (see user talk:anthony DiPierro/Shawn Mikula, among others). i dont believe that starting a Vfd is the right move here, especially since the page the template wants to create for a new Vfd already exists with the data from the old one. i couldnt find a better looking place than wikiquette alerts to start. if i am missing something or there is a better way for me to bring this to the attention of others, i would be interested in hearing/acting further.
  • Is it OK to drag old usenet discussions to Wikipedia? At Talk:John Byrne an editor first claimed that he is trying to prove popularity of the subject based on those discussions and then claimed he wanted to remind about the old discussions. I consider those as a personal attack. A name of the wiki-editor (me) was used as a search key to find the discussions so it clearly was not only about finding information related to the subject, but to find old comments posted by the specific wiki-editor. It seems like an attempt to discredit the Wikipedia contributions of an editor based on old comments the editor posted to usenet. 18:54, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • A number of recent external link additions by User:Skywalker [5] seem to be PoV at best, spam [2] at worst.


Jul 1

  • User:Jaberwocky6669 seems to be copying and pasting the same line into every one of today's VfDs, as well as submitting an inordinate amount for deletion (including such pages as WP:FUN). No attack meant, but it just seems like something's rotten in Denmark, so maybe someone can look into this odd behavior? Almafeta 1 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)
  • User:Mjgm84 (who also edits anonymously as User:195.137.109.177) has been constantly re-uploading the same image that was deleted over and over again, despite having been warned about it twice. The Nirvana article has had to be revert four times already to get rid of this image. He has made no response to discussion of it on the talk page. He has also changed several articles relating to Nirvana in ways that go against the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Also worthy of note is that some of the images he uploads are never added to articles. -- LGagnon July 2, 2005 02:30 (UTC)
  • With the exception of one, one-character typo correction, virtually all of User:Leonig Mig's edits for two weeks have been directed at reverting or deleting the work on one user (and all have been pages recently edited by that user), including PoV comments and edit summaries and personal attacks. LM has previously been warned for making personal attacks against that same user, after that user Wikified some of LM's creations.
This is palpable rubbish. This user is obviously paranoid, and has a history of making paranoid attacks on people (see RFC for user:Nick Boulevard). We both operate with in a similar namespace and many of his edits I do not agree with, therefore I edit. He has a habit of splitting articles up into many small ones (i.e. A38 he split into A38 and A38(M) and he also attempted to make a stub article for every petrols station on the UK motorway system), the obvious thing to do is mark for speedy and wait for the comminity to decide the best thing to do. There is an ongoing VFD going on re: the service stations, and the consensus is to merge his scattered articles into one: very sensible- until he makes an accusation that I voted twice this morning. I editted to make more clear and he accused me of making paranoid accusations. Then he makes this one himself. All very odd, I question whether this user has the wikipedia's interests at heart, or is more interested in facile drama. Leonig Mig 1 July 2005 16:04 (UTC)


Jul 2

Jul 4

  • User:Nick on Hormone replacement therapy (trans) is apparently a medical doctor with a side-practise prescribing to trans people. He has written, and closely polices the page, based on how he himself prescribes, and uses reverts and, on the Discussion page, aggressive and repeated incivility ("spell check your edits and ensure they are grammatically reasonable before posting", "you got it from some nutjob pro-life website along with instructions how to bomb a family planning clinic", "false and misleading information posted by people like you", "you are a total nutter. Now, run along"), ignoring references and misrepresenting writings and motives to drive away other contributors. He openly admits this on the Discussion page. Since any different information might indicate he was not treating his own patients in the best manner, the whole article, which controversially advocates the use of substances for which there are safer and no more expensive substitutes readily available, without warnings on precautions and potential side-effects, is a personal and self-interested POV. How does one get around such an entrenched author?

Jul 5

  • Westwood High School. The phrase It is also the only current public school in the country to ban Indians (especially Vishal Ganesan) and black people and Mexicans. has been added and removed about 5 times. I don't know if this is the appropriate place to ask, but what is the best course of action?
  • This ad hominem and falacious attack, from an admin (the "log" referred to is, in fact, an RFC).
  • Keith Henson Apparent campaign by users are creating a POV page and censoring valid content even after attribution. User removes other people's postings of these attributions.

Jul 6

  • Andy Mabbett is stalking User Nick Boulevard after RfC Mabbot created against Boulevard has 'gone cool' to all but Mabbott's satisfaction. Reverts all edits by Boulevard with snide commentary, also continues to keep log of Boulevards edits at [11] along with misrepresentative description. Also reverts unprovable accusation of ip ownership, surely calculated as a snub to Boulevard on some personal level, as for all practical use the comments are ancient history. Note, Mabbot has been warned by admin, responding by posting a wikiquette alert above. For my part I see this as bullying of Boulevard by Mabbot and wish to see it stop. What is best way forward? Leonig Mig 6 July 2005 12:31 (UTC)
  • Helpmeets first edit is a revert to Khmer Rouge where he reverts in the middle of an edit war saying "Removed queer edits" Reverts three more times with no justification. 6 July 2005.

July 7

  • User:213.140.6.107 has been link-spamming several articles with links to threemonkeysonline.com. -- LGagnon July 7, 2005 16:29 (UTC)
  • User:John Kenney broke the WP:NPA rule here and on several other locations. I believe that his fellow admins should instruct him on proper behaviour. Halibutt July 7, 2005 18:37 (UTC)

July 9

July 10

  • User:Zhen-Xjell (who may also be posting as User:68.87.100.242) is a link spammer working for castlecops.com. He has put link spam on several articles for his website. -- LGagnon 02:10, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
Yes I added CC links in addition to other domain links. I added them because I see value in them (please follow all those links to confirm). They were not redundant IMVHO, however, be that as it were I am not part of the culture here. So your decisions I'll comply with.--Paul Laudanski 02:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

July 11

User:Grace Note's general conduct. 02:25, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

  • I second the view. User is attacking a proposed policy discussion (Wikipedia:Disruptive User) and leaving semi-threatening messages on User talk pages ("you better watch it", "you're lucky", etc) who are voting to support the proposal. -04:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

LOL. I suggested you shouldn't call people vandals and that you were lucky I had thick skin and didn't mind your personal attack. I'm only gently helping you to an understanding that your behaviour could be hurtful. -- Grace Note

  • If it was indeed Grace Note then the conduct was uncalled for. To be fair, all the edits were entered under an anon ip address and there really isnt anyway to determine if in fact the person posting was the user in question. Maybe thats why whoever it was did it that way. -05:37, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Grace note has been posting under that IP for a day or so. S/he responds to comments made on Grace's talk page. And if it weren't Grace Note, why would the IP defend itself above? 14:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

July 12

User:Proto on User_talk:Proto#The_removed_"rude_message". Deliberately inflammatory and with willful use of homophobic language.

July 13

On the Independent Catholic Church USA page, four similar anonymous IP addresses (each beginning with 207.67) keep reverting the article to non-Wiki formatted advertising (see history page). Any recommendations as to how to address this behavior would be helpful. 16:49, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

July 14

  • Sonic 3 and Knuckles got reverted by an anonymous IP address from a redirect to the redundant article, first posted by a very similiar IP address (216.178.11.*). I fear this will just turn into a revert war. --18:18, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Question of Wikiquette 07:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have been informed that my edits, regardless of content, relevence, or reference will be reverted due to my not having created an account. My reading of some of the help sections haven't produced a definitive answer to if this is proper.

  • I can revert your edit with good faith based on the fact that you are just using your IP address as an identifier.

From Discussion here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:George_W._Bush#Tax_revenue_as_a_percentage_of_GDP -bro 172.149.84.231 07:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Slim Virgin has helped to clarify issues, I believe they are settled at this time. I have as of yet tried to edit though, so this may change. -bro 172.149.84.231 08:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Debate over Constant Reverting in Israeli terrorism 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we need a few neutral people to come and examine the Israeli terrorism article, because right now, everyone's just reverting it back to his or her favorite version, and it kind of stinks. Could we please have a peer review here? Jeus 02:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I have taken a look, (I haven't made any edits until today), however it seems like the entire articles is a duplicate of the state terroism article. --Eliezer 02:33, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

July 17

  • List of Irish-Americans involved in quite a bit of reverting, which has already lead to at least one RFC. There is some suggestion that two or more of the editors have been making WP:POINTs. 05:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User:P0lyglut has posted to Talk:Perl with instances of profanity, incivility, and personal attacks (opens remarks with "look perl fanatical morons. I don't have time to fight this and with the pettiness of perlers. This perl article is full of fanatical fucks.") to insist on inclusion of link to his personal pages, the quality and prominence of which has been questioned (and is therefore being discussed as possible self-promotion). To judge from user's talk page, some of this may proceed from explicit commitments. It is the combination of offensive incivility and remarks on the talk page noted in the course of protesting these that motivated posting here. 13:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

July 19

  • Charles Taze Russell / Talk:Charles Taze Russell - one editor claiming unique knowledge of biographical facts on the subject, asserting control over the article and repeatedly reverting edits to match unverified text at his own website, as well as removing tags for NPOV and stylistic problems. 22:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

July 20

Has NO moderator yet seen the comment on GKIF put there by Peter Lee??? This comment is WAY out of the neutral point of view, it's not based on FACTS but is merely his personal opinion. I can take it away (again), but I was in several edit wars already with this fellow and I don't want to get me into another one. In my view, it's now the task of a moderator to do something about it. I have also commented on the text on the NPOV talk page. -- MarioR 13:01, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I've moved that block of text to the article's talk page, where commentary belongs. -Splash 15:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Ward Churchill where User:Keetoowah repeatedly uses language that is aggressive, belittling and disrespecful to other editors despite repeated requests from other editors to be civil. 15:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=19253879&oldid=19247847 (toe rag)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJtdirl&diff=19100888&oldid=19069536 (loony)
I think that her fellow admins should instruct her on proper behaviour. 217.140.193.123 23:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

July 21

Special:Contributions/69.169.144.239 is adding in content to Broadbandreports in what appears to not have any value. I have reverted it now twice. If this is acceptable, please let me know, otherwise, this person needs to be watched. --Paul Laudanski 00:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

July 22

Hello, I'd like to get some feedback/discussion at Talk:Broadbandreports. It appears there are multiple anonymous IP addresses adding in a "Controversy" paragraph which have been reverted multiple times by different registered editors. User:Splash has given me excellent guidance tips in my Talk page, so I hope I'm doing this correctly. TIA --Paul Laudanski 13:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

July 23

True, Truth; Is user 67.182.157.6 engaging in personal attacks, or negotiation? 07:52, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

July 26

User:Vizcarra claimed in several images that the web pages of the Mexican government are in the public domain. After being confronted with evidence on the contrary he refuses to fix the tags and remove the statements arguing that it is someone else's job. 08:58, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

July 28

  • Revert warring at neurofeedback over Scientology, etc. 14:39, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

July 29

  • Users Splash and Who and admin Kbdank71, responding to five requests for Category name-changes regarding film-related categories at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion on 28 Jul 05 have deliberately, wilfully, wantonly and abusively attacked and maligned the user for making the requests, and accused him of other "adverse" activities in re editing the same Category (Category:Film), although there is no correlation between the requesting user's ID number and the IDs of the other posters whom they say are the "same" person, nor is there any evidence that any of these other users have done anything wrong. They seem to be in a fury because of the user's attempt to organize the Film category, and have no legitimate grounds for their actions or stated grievances, as the user under attack seems to have clearly followed protocol for requesting Category name changes. Postings by them on other, earlier Film-related Category naming discussions suggest they are attempting to circumvent change and improvement in Wikipedia by obstructing Wikipedia process and discouraging open discussion or support by others who may agree with the victim-user. They need a warning, and the admin needs to be dismissed as this does not seem to be his first shot at abusing his position. None of them, surely, represent what Wikipedia is supposed to be about, and make Wikipedia look like nothing more than a middle school playground without a grownup in sight.
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.73.196.92 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 July 2005 Note this is the same anon who unilatterly had a category speedied after moving the contents to a previous Cfr after the consensus was to keep. Then has continued to vandalize the Cfd page, remove {{Cfd}} tags, and put {{d}} tags on the categories they do not agree with, mainly the ones that were decided to keep in the Cfr. This user keeps switching IP's and has a history of such actions. ∞Who?¿? 00:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Thank you for proving my point. And, posts aren't supposed to be signed - nor responded to.
  • The Albanians page seems to have become an excuse for some members who seem they would like to refight the Balkan Wars. Check out the talk page. [15] There doesn't seem to be any progress being made, and it could use the input of some more neutral parties (i.e. not Albanian or Greek nationalists). 20:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • User talk:24.30.157.246 mostly just acts bizarre, which isn't illegal, but they have only made one edit to a talk page, ever, including their own, out of hundreds of edits, and have broken several rules. A block might be in order? - 23:47, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • A mention somewhere like WP:AN or WP:AN/I might be more useful than listing it here. Only admins can effect blocks. 23:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
      I'm an admin. I'm just trying to figure out if this is a blockable offense or what to do about it. Will try notifying over there instead. - 23:56, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
      You might be able to rely on Wikipedia:Vandalism#Silly vandalism, and vandalism is certainly blockable. 00:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

July 30

  • Wetman (talk · contribs) has been adding {{TOCright}} to articles where it does not appear neccesary or to improve upon the article in the eyes of myself and several other editors. The template is controversial and avoided deletion only on the condition that it was not just thrown around, but reserved for very large TOCs. I removed TOCright from about 20 articles which did not fit the guidelines for its use, explaining in the summary why. Wetman has been reverting these, and stating on the talk pages of each article that TOCright's use is unrestricted, which was at best a misrepresentation or misunderstanding. Since I have clarified the guidelines on its use on both the talk pages and Wetman's talk page, and Wetman continues to revert my removal of TOCs add the same message to the talk pages, I consider this to be dishonest behaviour. Joe D (t) 22:08, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Wrapping the tables of contents generally greatly improves the "look" of Wikipedia pages by eliminating those ugly gaping holes of blank space that disfigure many Wikipedia entries: the template has quickly been embraced by many Wikipedians who apparently agree. "TOCleft" is preferable, unless there are reasons for setting it at the right: but see my formatting at Gallaecia. An unthinking "formulist" approach is not always the best: see Praise of Folly for a comic example.
This particular editor, User:Steinsky aka "Joe D", has been going about making a mess of carefully formatted articles, where he had evinced no interest in content, to satisfy a personal formulaic agenda: see his "explanation" in the edit summaries. Instead of simply replacing the "TOC right" template that offends him with a "TOCleft" template, or—scarcely to be hoped— adjusting the format to improve it, he has vandalized the careful new formatting (even—but actually just twice—my own). I have had to go through every one of these abused formats and restore visual coherence: the interested editors will compare the various before- and afters and come to their own conclusions. User:Steinsky is currently in the process of going through these pages once again and simply reverting. I won't stoop so far myself. And that will be all I have to say on this subject. --Wetman 22:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
The following was posted at Wetman's Userpage: "Are you going to respond to the fact that your edits go against the guidelines for use of these templates? Unless you do they will be reverted again. You can misrepresent the situation and spread rhetoric about my "agenda" and "vandalism", but that will not change the fact that your edits go against the guidelines, and the fact that when this was pointed out to you, you first ignored it, and then were dishonest about it, will not look good. If you fail to acknowledge that the guidelines (and several other users) disagree with your use of TOCright I will take this to the next level of dispute resolution. User:Steinsky 22:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)"

I don't think that Joe D has correctly characterized the situation regarding {{TOCright}}. It was brought up on WP:TFD. There was a consensus to keep it, after considerable discussion. Several people in that discussion said that this template (and the coresponding {{TOCleft}}) should not be used on all pages, but only where it improved the page. There were various suggestions for what kinds of pages would be so improved, and what kinds would not, but nothing that has achieved the level of consensus that deserves the name of "guideline". It is not at all the case that the template was kept only on "condition" that it be used only on very large articles. There is ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Template:TOCright, where several users hope to formualte an MoS entry on the use of floating ToCs. But note that a) we haven't got as far as making an entry in the MOS yet -- this is still all on the talk page, and b) the MoS is explicitly not binding on editors anyway. Thus it is simply not correct to say that any article "did not fit the guidelines for its use" as there are no such guidelines, except for the overall guiidelines on writing a good and well-formattted article, and there are not IMO likely ever to be guidelines or policies on the use of {{TOCright}} so strict that violating them wopuld be dishonest, or should be automatically recverted, like vandalism. DES 02:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

If there is a dispute on whether {{TOCright}} is a good idea or a bad one on a particular page or pages, that dispute should be settled like any other editing dipute over formatting -- on the talk page of the article involved, with no particular answer automatically assumed to be correct. The ideas discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Template:TOCright may be helpful, but should not be regarded as guidelines or policy, much less holy writ. I was an active participant in the debate over {{TOCright}} on TfD, and in the subsequent discussion on its use, and i created {{TOCleft}}. So I think my opnion is of some value on these issues. DES 02:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Hi, DES, I'd love to discuss the template, and have indeed been doing so whenever I have time for such things, from the TfD discussion on. The reason I took this to Wikiquette alerts is specifically because of the way Wetman dealt with the situation, and continues to do so. I think it is the case that the outcome of the TfD discussion was that this template shouldn't just be thrown around, and while no conditions were officially attached (VfD discussions aren't that formal), would it still have been kept if we discounted all those votes that were "keep for extreme circumstances only?" While the guidelines may not have been officially set, all of the discussions regarding them have so far been very cautious about the use of this template, which is why I think it's inappropriate to go slapping the template on any old article. I know Wetman has been involved in some of the discussions, so he must be aware that its routine use is very controversial and that such instances of its use were likely to provoke such an argument (though to be fair, another editor originally added it in several cases). It is not that I consider the discussions holy writ never to be broken, but that I see no evidence for the articles on which the templates were used being anything over than utterly avarage articles, not special cases in which special formatting is needed. Joe D (t) 15:21, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
While many people expressed some degreee of reservation about the tempalte during the TfD, I don't think that enough people said "keep for extreme circumstances only" or anything similer to change the outcoem if those votes were changed to delete. (Keep votes out numbered delete votes by 31 to 14, by my count). My personal view is that a floaring TOC would be a good ideal in perhaps as many as 20% to 30% of all articles on wikipedia, but only after we firm up some style guidance for its use. IMO treating the current discussions as a consensus agaisnt applying the template except in "extreme circumstances" or as anythign approaching the level of a guideline or a policy is mistaken and not backed by any clear consensus. Why don't we take this debate to the MOS talk page for general discussion, and to the talk page of any particular article for discussion on the merits of a flaoting TOC in that article. DES 15:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

July 31

Talk:The God Who Wasn't There one user accusing another of a 'Bad Faith' copyvio tab, and unilateraly removing it. (I understandI don't sign this)

5 August

Can someone please help me? I am too angry. This user has been on for about two weeks. He does not seem to understand what the Wiki is. He posted a question in the middle of a Civil War article. He is mostly focused on the Talk page of the Freemasonry article. There he has asked silly questions, claimed he wanted to join, claimed he was a member and whatall. All in all he is not respecting the Wiki. I snapped at him on the Talk page. Sorry. Could someone who is more calm than me help? Paul, in Saudi 17:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I believe there is a breach in Wikiquette in the talk pages of the article on Stalin. Personal attacks and overall bad attitude seem to follow wherever this editor goes. He has been prevously banned several times, and by looking at his page, I believe he is well known of the administrators as a difficult

user. If someone could take a look... thanks. LtDoc 21:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Mikkalai (talk · contribs) keeps reverting films that belong in Category:Soviet films to Category:Russian films as soon as they are removed from same. He adds nothing to either category, just keeps on recategorizing Soviet films as Russian ones, ignoring others' confrontations and thwarting their efforts to clean up the Russian films category according to the definition given at the top of that page (note there is a Category:Russian language films which can include both Soviet and Russian titles; he keeps reverting posts to this category also). 23:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • The anon speaks about consensus, but continues to ignore Category talk:Russian films and uses the abusive language in edit summaries. This is his first attempt of any discussion of the issue anywhere. mikka (t) 00:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Mikkalai writes as if only one user involved, but examination of "Russian" films show moves to "Soviet" category by at least 3 people, the first of whom makes no "abusive language" but simply moved the titles in good faith. Mikkalai then moved them all back to "Russia" without discussion or explanation, thus starting the "reversion war". He was questioned about this by Sam Wantman. Talk on his personal discussion page has a threat to have anyone banned who touches these films, and his own idiosyncratic definition of USSR vs. Russia; also clearly he is staking a claim to the "Russian film" page as personal turf because he initiated it, and in disregard for other articles by other users on Russia, Soviet Union, Russian film, Soviet film, etc. He needs to be helped to understand he does not run any section of Wikipedia simply because he created it or contributed to it. Negative comments by last reversionist are only abusives I can find at a glance, and I can't justify them, but likewise I cannot see any justification for Mikkalai to persist in efforts to exert personal control over these categories. 16:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

August 7

  • Amorrow (talk · contribs) at Talk:Elizabeth Morgan. Lack of civility, ominous threats. Eerie. 07:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • More information, from a post made by Amorrow (talk · contribs) to User_talk:Raul654: I know what I want: I want Elizabeth Morgan, the person, to repudiate Elizabeth Morgan the Act. I do not want to win by cheating. I want to defeat her fair and square. THAT is how Grant took Vicksburg and THAT is how I want to take Morgan. I am using Wikipedia as a tool in a larger game. I do not know how Wikiepdia feels about that. Now do you see? Grant would targeted his artilery on the main strategic point of the City. I am targeting also, but the only weapons I use are eyes. I look. I get others to look. The pressure is felt by the enemy. They know they are surrounded. Is this crossing the line? Amorrow 19:58, 6 August 2005 (UTC) 07:25, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Also see the edit history for Elizabeth Morgan, and Amorrow's edit summaries. tregoweth 21:03, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

August 11

  • I'm sorry Jimbo , but I see the responsibility to settle intractable disputes rests with you . I seem to run into intractable dispute on your WP , so I ask you to take responsibility . No one else can take this your place .

I refer you to the articles Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope as the centre of this dispute and ask you to put yourself into the position of final arbiter now, OK ? I particularly think that the surviving Roman Jewess's words be taken as an issue : I wish you therefore to show or not show , that an Auschwitz survivor be called POV ( rv'd ,Pius in WWar 2) . You will see that the difference between the two articles at this minute is simple : one (PPII) is the 'censored' or whatever version of the other (H's P). Having been battling to and beyond the brink for 8 months on the one article , I say that only you can survey this with any authority to do anything about it . Let you be the judge of all the WP requisites, knowing that your judgements are real , and that ultimately you yourself will equally be judged . Auschwitz survivors are definitely in a minority and this responsibility for arbitration I lay at you because you are the organ . I will consider myself in-active until you please let me know that I am required . As various users may find this disappearance odd , I post this letter to you for them to see elsewhere . Famekeeper 11:37, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

August 12

August 14

August 15

  • There's a text in Russian or another slavic language written in cyrillic at Talk:Black_Ruthenia. It seems to me quite inappropriate that a text in a language other than English should appear on the English wikipedia, otherwise anybody can begin polluting wikipedia putting racist or nationalist texts without most of the readers being aware of it. So, I suppressed the text, a logical move did it seem to me. Well, not logical for User:Mikkalai, who justifies the presence of this Russian text with 'For reference. Experts on the topic must know slavic languages.' and then puts the Russian text back on line with as comment 'Removal from talk pages is violation of rules.'. I quite disagree with both statements. This User:Mikkalai seems to have a very particular view of wikipedia rules. --Pylambert 22:04, 15 August 2005 (UTC)


August 16

  • Melasma suprarenale. Melasma is a general term for skin pigment. An administrator, who claims to be a doctor, repeatedly deletes any mention of anything other than the mask of pregnancy. The extreme malice of his mind-set is evident from his explanations. For example, it is a rule of the Wikipedia that sources must be quoted. Rare - and new - photographs carried my name. "Would Charles please remove his name from the photographs". No. That would be removing the source. Other images of melasma suprarenale came from Plate 5 of Addison's own book; from the Louis Martineau thesis of 1862, and so on. Exact protein-sequencing, complete with the ligand of attachment to melanophores, came from Dr. Mac E Hadley's ENDOCRINOLOGY (2nd edition, Prentice-Hall, 1992) and so on. The article was ENCYCLOPEDIC. That is what it was meant to be. However, there is a fifth column in society whose purpose is sabotage. Most people will have heard of fake doctors - Dr. Reinaldo Sylvestre who is currently on trial in the States for giving female breasts to Mr. Mexico, or Drs Walton, Alison and Ledward who raped their patients (over 4000 each) over thirty years, or Harold Frederick Shipman, who killed 862 patients. You will also have seen on the Internet that you can get any degree without study due to a "loophole in the law". So we can discount the credentials of the alleged Dutch doctor who is an administrator, when he glibly calls my work "amateurish". We have no proof of his academic history. He is ANTI-encyclopedic in that he ERASES the work of others. I mayself am not prepeared to work in circles. If it is Wikipedia policy to allow such wholesale deletions, on the say-so of an individual, I shall no longer waste my time writing here. I spent my life as a professional technical author - but then, I might be an impostor. "By his fruits you will know him" - does he produce a product, or destroy the products of others?

August 17

A user has placed a rant against another member here, [24] , and the user in question has responded here, [25]. Please would someone with some kind of authority or ability to actually resolve this thing offer suggestions. Thanks.
Note: perhaps more importantly, this user has said [26] that he will not discuss any of his edits with another user. This is clearly against the spirit of Wikipedia and needs resolution.

August 18

Someone anonymously keeps posting a link to an irrevelent to a personal website on Nabu, presumably advertising their own site. --04:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

August 19

August 20

  • There is a vote ongoing at Talk:Cat about whether to include an image of a toilet trained cat within the main cat article. Please vote as you think necessary. 03:07, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:MagicKnight, aka User:24.199.77.62, is a new user who has only ever edited Virtual Magic Kingdom and has a problem with other people editing his changes. He continues to revert back to his own versions even when they contain typos, and he has not answered requests to discuss the issue on that article's Talk page or his own Talk page. One of his edit summaries: Now leave it be! I will personally update this page everyday if you change it back!) See User talk:MagicKnight for a list of specific things he keeps changing back. - 11:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

August 22

August 24

  • One editor removed a large section of content from Jeff Koons. Another editor questioned (and reverted) the deletion. Since then the deletion and reverting has see-sawed while the discussion on Talk:Jeff Koons was quickly steered outside the bounds of Wikiquette. 22:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
  • User:219.95.154.137 User_Talk:219.95.154.137 Continues to put an NPOV section despite being asked to discuss the section on the Talk Page of Real Madrid. I'm basically out of reverts and simply cannot understand how someone is unable to see that a Best XI Lineup for 2005/6 is not inherently against NPOV. Looking at the history makes me think that it is the same user that has been inserting this into the article again and again, dispite attempts to discuss this on the talk page. Cursive 02:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


August 25

August 26

  • User:Arrigo == User:217.140.193.123. As the disruption seems to continue everywere I'm considering a RfC/user conduct - but I'm not sure that would be the best course of action. If anyone feels like certifying or endorsing such RfC listing, please do so at User talk:Francis Schonken/Arrigo disruption
    • User:Arrigo has been moving pages without discussion [27], despite warnings [28]. Rude and condescending to almost all the users who have ever had to deal with this user [29]. Also likes to remove naming tags before there is an end to any discussion [30], [31].
    • 217.140.193.123. Abusive, insulting, vulgar, highly resistent to discussion of entry content [32]. Arrigo has been accused of being 217.140.193.123 and vice-versa [33].

August 27

  • User:Lapsed Pacifist is repeatedly inserting NPOV comments in the MI5 page here [34], he seems to have an Irish axe to grind and his talk page Talk:Lapsed Pacifist shows this is not the only page he is doing this to. He refuses to enter into the talk page and just reverts the page repeatedly while using NPOV as an excuse.

August 28

  • The article Broadbandreports is under an apparent edit war for the greater part of a couple days. The communities links are being removed and wikipedians keep reverting. See the talk page for more information on AMA assistance and temporary page protection requests.
  • User:garywbush and user:alibadawi are suspected to be related hence socketpuppetry at kafir. See talk:kafir.

August 31

  • User:ThomasK has been changing the Category:Cult films category on hundreds of articles and getting into revert wars with editors fixing his changes. Doesn't seem to be malicious, but it is very disruptive. See Category_talk:Cult_films.

It is yet not really a revert war, but I suggest a wp vote. --ThomasK 04:24, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

September 1

  • After an edit war concernig the insertion of an NPOV tag had raged through Anti-Polonism the page was blocked (history). Then, the discussion on the talk page got to be very lenghty and entangled on a single issue (despite of the fact that there are many more). This may mean that the parties do not assume good faith. A summary of the issue has been done here. The community should watch how the policies are obeyed during the new chapter of the discussion.
  • Two Christian fundamentalists want the Genesis account of the origin of clothing included in the Clothing article, which at present gives a scientific and archaeological approach to the matter. It has been suggested that they write a NPOV article summarizing religious and mythological explanations for the origin of clothing, which could then be linked, but they are demanding equal time in the main Clothing article. 22:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

September 3

Rafti Institute has been vandalising the BME page again. He is involved in an ongoing conflict with BME over his unauthorized use of BME's copyrighted material in his publications (which are for sale). I reverted to the previous version, but I'd appreciate of others could help protect the page from his revisions. It's clearly a conflict of interest for him to even edit the page, given his personal situation. He has vandalised this page in the past, between February 17 & February 25 of 2005. After a 5 month hiatus from Wikipedia he has uploaded almost 100 images today, all of which I'd consider potentially in violation of copyright. his contributions are here. Glowimperial 05:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


September 4

User:Baphomet. is damaging Wikipedia: he his trying to label Religious articles as Superstition (from a POV view of positivism, that he calls Science). At the article Reincarnation he just went on to add to category "Superstition" and later on without discussion put a POV msg in the article. Please see the discussion page between both of us Talk:Reincarnation#Superstition.

I tried to reason with him but his Point of View is irreductible as it shown by his actions at the above referred article and at the discussion page Talk:Prayer#Category with other users who tried to put some good-sense in his mind. "::There is no scientific evidence that prayer works. They only people to claim that have been a few US religious nutters, who wanted it to work, it has never been reproduced by independent researchers. As a doctor you should be ashamed of yourself pedling such rubbish.--Baphomet. 11:20, 4 September 2005 (UTC)"

And, please, also take a look at his user page discussion User_talk:Baphomet. with other users on this subject.

Through the use of a Culture created by extremism in Science, he is clearly trying to do the job that the Inquisition did in the Middle Ages in a Culture created by extremism in Religion. He is damaging Wikipedia in a subtle invious way!

Please, I request for the User:Baphomet. to be immediatly stopped. Thank you. --GalaazV 20:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

How old are you?--Baphomet. 20:39, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
It appears to be that I am older than you... I am not against you or your convictions, my friend, but fighting a battle not seen yet in the eyes of your mind for the future, through a Science more spiritual and a Religion more scientific: in order to bring some peace to the world and within each one of us. [35] --GalaazV 21:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Are you perhaps an acid fried hippy?--Baphomet. 21:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia, Baphomet is an idol or image of a being typically described as demonic. Baphomet, as Lévi's illustration suggests, has occasionally been portrayed as a synonym of Satan or a demon, a member of the hierarchy of Hell. Is it just my impression or you use the conception of your nickname to do a sort of ironic "holy (satanic) war" of your all-powerfull Science against the Supertitious Religion? Are you going to use that same process when facing or getting through the gates of Death (is it Death or Life after Death, or even Rebirth?) --GalaazV 21:31, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
One of the side effects of intelligence is awareness of mortality. It's when you really face up to that, you'll stop peddling this opium.--Son of Paddy's Ego 22:26, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
See categoriees for deletion. Rich Farmbrough 22:56, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
We are all going to die.--WholemealBaphomet 23:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
REQUEST to Administrators of Wikipedia:Religion as main category at the Main Page. --GalaazV 00:04, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no requirement that either of you accept each other's POV. There is, however, a requirement that you treat each other civilly. Our NPOV policy requires that our articles respect all points of view, whether you personally respect them or not. If you consistently refuse to play by the rules, you can eventually be banned from Wikipedia. By the way, there is no such user as Baphomet. His user name is WholemealBaphomet. His signature is deceptive. – Quadell (talk) 19:15, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Antaeus Feldspar refuses to attribute his claim and then argues that he doesn't need to bother because the article is going to be deleted and then makes a personal comment based on his own speculation. See his comment here: [36]

September 5

  • Talk:Lacerte Does a prior VfD result of "Keep" restrict an article from being merged later? 01:14, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
  • [37] repetitive page-blanking, replacing with a loopback redirect to the article linking to it - essentially unremitting deletions w/out a vfd or even deletion request. Kevin Baastalk: new 01:52, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • User:Oasisfanatic is spamming WP by adding his link to multiple martial arts pages. The link itself points to a website that has only just started with no content and is business advertising. I have asked Oasisfanatic to stop spamming the articles and reverted the edits. --Paul Laudanski 03:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

September 6

User:Felix Frederick Bruyns has apparently, without seeking my approval in any way, chosen to delte several msgs from my user talk page User talk:DESiegel. I have reverted these changes. This seems to have been done because thsoe msgs concerned a dispute this user was having with User:Moriori, and they have apparently decided to delete mutual recriminations. Taht is all very well, but I do not consider that this entitles them to delete parts of my user talk page without so much as a polite request to me, merely a notice that it had been done. I am particualrly disturbed that this ahppend at mroe or less the same time that this user sent me a series of quite hostile msgs, threatening me with a arbitration proceeding, all because of one msg which i posted on his talk page which he chooses to consider "monstrously obscene" because I included the name of an image constining sexually related materiel, an image recently on IFD, to indicate my views on wikipedia censorship, which was the subject of the then ongoing thread of discussion. I welcome comment on this matter, and i ask if anyone considers that I am in any way acting incorrectly in connection with it. DES (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

September 8

I'm afraid that I'm losing my patience with a fairly new but rather self-important user, who is usually civil but isn't apparently particularly enthused about working with other people and doesn't seem to be catching on to how Wikipedia works. For the latest example, see:

And from Tuesday:

Thoughts or opinions on the Bully Kutta page (to which he added a huge collection of links to individual external photos) or on his more-frequent strategy of reverting complete sets of edits, or on my responses, might be helpful. Because I'm completely immersed in the dog project world and have been for a year and a half and that's where he's making many edits, I keep encountering him, so he's hard to avoid. Thanks. Elf | Talk 00:44, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

September 10

User:Dragons flight is a sysop who evaluates WP:RM votes, and then, depending on the result of such vote, decides whether or not to do the technical stuff for moving the page (which in some cases even doesn't involve sysop powers). Today he wrote on talk:William the Silent:

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request. I have decided to move this to William the Silent, even though I have some significant misgivings about how this vote was conducted. My count based on the above and comments below is 10-4, but if were to discount all the users whom Francis recruited from nl.wikipedia by leaving messages on their talk pages there, the count would be 4-4. However, none of those accounts on en seem to have been created solely for the purpose of this vote, and two actually have fairly substantial edit histories here. Given this, I have decided to allow their opinions to tip the balance towards moving, though I would regard this result as a very marginal consensus given these circumstances. I would strongly caution Francis against rounding up his friends in order to sway polls in the future, as I am unlikely to give much credence to such votes if I see this repeated. Dragons flight 06:26, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

This statement is highly POV, based on non-evidence:

  • The Fourth NoMove vote Dragons Flight included was that of Arrigo, the "expert" of going around on user talk pages to invite people to side with his vote - the fact that this user didn't do that for this vote, shows how much this makes a difference: less people sneering at those who defend a more reasonable approach of Exception #2 of wikipedia:naming conventions (names and titles) - Arrigo has been criticised several times for disruptive behaviour in voting procedures, see: User_talk:Scimitar#Hi_Scimitar.2C - considering the possibility that Arrigo should've been included as a voter when he didn't vote seems all too ridiculous, so the vote is and was 10-3 and that should not be doubted with subjective rant;
  • The accusation that "Francis would've gone around on user talk pages of Dutch wikipedians recruiting for the William the Silent vote", and thus would have triggered at least 6 extra votes is self-invented POV. The only user talk page where it was mentioned was that of Errabee Känsterle, a regular contributor to English wikipedia, and I only had mentioned it sideways, when making him attentive of another minor problem at English wikipedia, which he should've solved, and indeed solved soon after.

Apart from these two there's still the implication in Dragons flight's comment that voting is something for an "in-crowd", completely contrary to general approach of avoiding conflict, which advises to seek outside expertise. In sum I'd ask Dragons flight to withdraw voluntarily from anything that has to do with sysop end-evaluations of votes, as he appears not to be able to do that in an impartial manner. --Francis Schonken 11:09, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Francis's vote gathering:
*Errabee: he admits. Corrected that above also, my last talk with Errabee was more than a week before the start of the vote --Francis Schonken 19:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Post on the NL Village Pump: [39]
I can't find direct posts for the others from NL (I actually can't find one of the identities either), but when you get a half dozen native NL speakers, some of whom rarely participate on EN, it is clear to me that their votes were recruited regardless of how it was accomplished.
Since, Francis disputes it, here is Arrigo's vote: [40]. The only issue there is that it was not placed in the "correct" section of the page, which is certainly not a reason to discount it.
I do see evidence that Arrigo (talk · contribs) has tried to gather votes in the past, but the message he left in the cases I most recently observe was neutral (i.e. not advocating an outcome) and he explicitly contacted a number of people who had just voted against him. I am not a fan of vote gathering in any case, but it is tolerable if one attempts to do so neutrally. If you have evidence in any particular vote that Arrigo is trying to shape the outcome through non-neutral vote gathering, please do call my attention to it. However, I stand by my conclusion that your efforts certainly were not neutral.
As to the "in-crowd" remark, of course it is not an "in-crowd", but the naming conventions and policy decisions on EN should be based on the consensus resulting from a fair sampling of the views of participants on EN. Your actions attempted to skew participation both by recruiting people who agreed with you and bringing in people who were otherwise unlikely to participate in an EN discussion. The fact that they came from NL wikipedia and had preexisting accounts here (though in several cases rarely used) only makes it a few steps better than the people who posts on "BigHunkOfCheese.com" that Wikipedia is about to delete the entry on "BigHunkOfCheese".
Oh, and unless someone should be confused, I did in fact move the page as Francis wanted.
I have no intention of recusing myself in this or related matters. Dragons flight 16:00, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
I posted on Dutch village pump, which is seeking outside expertise, general, not pushing any direction. I even explained that "William of Orange" was no longer a choice. Also, the message on Känsterle's page was not pushing in any direction w.r.t. the vote, just mentioning the vote was going on. Even re. Känsterle's I had no idea what way he would vote: he never took part in votes in which I participated, nor did I even see any vote in which he participated on Dutch or English wikipedia.
So Dragons flight only adds more unjustified incrimination about techniques of attracting voters.
As far as I know there were no other posts or whatever attempt to attract voters. Most of the other voters I don't know, so I don't even know which one "could" be connected with the post on Dutch Village pump. Anyway: "all the users whom Francis recruited from nl.wikipedia by leaving messages on their talk pages there" adding up to SIX votes according to Dragons flight's calculation was a lie, an unfounded surmise, that can not be proven while it's a hoax based on his own unjustified assumptions, so NOT IMPARTIAL, so Dragons flight should stop writing that kind of inflammatory vote count analyses, and is just not suited for that kind of job, since he even doesn't seem to think about correcting his lousy comments on the William the Silent talk page.
Arrigo was constantly falsifying the "fair sampling", while often rallying support as an anti-Francis message. I had no idea whether Dutch people would agree with me, while I'm not Dutch. There I belong to the small minority of wikipedians who has no root whatsoever in Holland. William the Silent does not belong to Belgium where I live, so the only thing I know is that Dutch wikipedians from the Netherlands that are also active on English wikipedia would have more expertise than I had.
And the result of the vote shows that the "regular" voters of WP:RM votes connected to royals, have few chances of knowing what they're talking about. They're just lowering the quality of wikipedia, see the "personal attacks" they listed as vote comments here and here. And then Dragons flight doesn't even omits the votes showing such insulting voting behaviour.
Dragons flight is just not suited for the job of "vote results interpreter". Period. I'd like other wikipedians to comment on that, maybe a request for comments is the most suited for that.
Dragons flight is the last one I would report Arrigo's disrupting behaviour to. That has been done elsewhere. To apparently less biased sysops. --Francis Schonken 19:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I would encourage you to open an RFC as Wikiquette Alerts is in fact not well suited to the current discussion. If in fact that is your intention, I will hold off commenting further while you do open such a discussion. Dragons flight 19:44, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Firstly, I'd just like to say that I think Dragons flight has behaved perfectly correctly here. And that I quite dislike it when people gather votes from users of other wikipedias. that being said, Francis's complaint seems to be based on the premise that DF is behaving in a "POV" manner, which is unacceptable. But this is absurd. There is no rule against being POV on talk pages - POV is a policy which applies to article content, and nothing else. Dragons Flight is allowed to call it however he sees it, and the fact that he doesn't see it your way, Francis, does not mean that he is biased against you. (Obviously, the fact that DF actually moved the article suggests that he is not biased against your position.) john k 20:04, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Religious bigotry

An un-logged-in user using a variety of IP addresses has made repeated personal attacks and expressed general disdain for anything contributed by users with a religious background, or for material from sources with a religious background, and has displayed a general disregard for basic wikipedia etiquette. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icon#Answer , and surrounding comments. In editing the article, the user has repeatedly censored or reverted any changes that do not conform to his or her POV. See the edit history of Icon for the last month or so. 16:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

September 11

  • User:82.35.232.241 may be linkspamming. He has been adding links to the same website over and over again in several articles. From what I can tell, these are the only edits he makes. -- LGagnon 19:01, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
I agree; I've gone through and removed some of them and placed a message on the user's talk page. I did leave some of the links in, in articles that had no external links or references anyway; they seemed more useful and less spammy in that context. ManekiNeko | Talk 22:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
  • User_talk:68.80.133.163, an unlogged-in user, is making numerous POV edits and is writing edit summaries which refer to Muslims and Arabs as Nazis (cf diff [41]) and include offensive falsehoods about Islam (cf diff [42]). Can some action be taken? 11:32, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Looks like a full scale edit war going on at the article Kathleen Blanco. 00:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Will someone please check out the "conversation" at Talk:Fruit#Stupid Fruit Facts. An anon has been persisting in deleting a statement in the article Fruit he just does not like (will not correct it if wrong). When I advise him (on anon talk pages) that one cannot just delete facts that are true becuse of a POV, he has moved to attacking me. I did not enter the "offending" fact, and his responses seem increasingly irrational to me. His ISP is from somewhere in the San Francisco Bay Area, so his accusations that I am a typical Eurobashing, "racist" American are a real mystery (since he knows nothing about my sex, race, politics, or nationality). I finally blocked him after several warnings, but his/her responses to discussing why he/she cannot do what he/she wants seem way over the wall. I really am only trying to uphold the civility of our rules and could care less about carrot jam. Are these sorts of personal attacks permissible here? This one has gone on far too long - 00:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

September 15

September 16

  • An editor has been making changes without discusion to the "purpose of this page" section on WP:VFU, because he says he feels the page is out of line with undeltion policy. He has to date not entered into the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Votes for undeletion#"Purpose of the page" section. Making major changes to a policy page and restoring them after reverts and invitations to discuss without entering the discussion is inadvisable. 17:17, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

September 18

User:82.21.63.223 (contribs) has been removing content without explanation and reverting articles to very poorly copyedited states for about a week. See [59] for the negative difference being continually made by the user at Drill n bass. The user behaves similarly to User:62.252.32.13, and began editing the same spread of Aphex Twin-related articles (including Richard D. James Album, intelligent dance music, and Analord [60]) just as 62.252.32.13 went on hiatus. 18:10, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

September 19

  • User:JoeMele has been posting some personal attacks in Talk:Aspies_For_Freedom: accusing those who disagree of being analogous to Nazi collaborators, calling people busybody trolls and accusing them of being non-autistic and therefore having "no business speaking any thing like autism", and so on. People have generally been responding without losing their tempers so far, but it does have the potential of getting ugly. Thanks in advance for looking into this. 23:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
No one seems to have come by -- is there a better place than this page to post requests for help? 22:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
If you are looking to discuss someone's behavior, see WP:RFC. If you need someone to stop a vandal/troll or something like that, see WP:VIP or WP:AN/I. Dragons flight 23:09, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I posted something a while back and thought there was no response, but gradually it became apparent that someone(s) had read the post and were taking a look at things. I think that this is not for urgent needs. Elf | Talk 23:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
"Wikiquette alerts are an option for a quick, streamlined way to get an outside view" implies otherwise! It's a bit confusing. I did not know if WP:RFC was the right step yet, and wanted feedback from the more experienced. 00:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

September 21

User:211.26.48.32 has personally attacked User:Antaeus Feldspar and User:SimonP, both in the edit message and text. He went as far as to imply Antaeus will die. This is againts the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, but that policy doesn't say how to resolve it 'quickly which I think it needs. He's just been blocked for 24 hrs, but I'd like to block the Ip indefinitly. I'm just not sure if that is the way to go. 16:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

September 23

At Wikipedia:Votes_for_undeletion#Sin_Star_and_Mind_Pollution, it appears that User:Sin-thetik may be a sockpuppet for User:G4DGET in discussion of an undelete request on a band with two names (or two bands with the same personnel) - this was the second AfD on these bands. Also on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davien Crow (2nd nomination) - Mr/ Crow is a member of these bands. Besides Sin-thetik saying this -- quoted by cut and paste-- : Exactly what G4DGET said. in the discussion, I have found locations where both editors referred to "puppetts" with that identical misspelling 02:57, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

An anonimous user 128.206.59.97 is a vandal and must be prohibited from any further "contributions". --Barbatus 14:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

User 81.156.93.13 is linkspamming. -- LGagnon 17:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

September 23

User:JackSarfatti seems to have objections to his biography, Jack Sarfatti, which several editors revised a few days ago during a VfD. (Result of VfD was to keep the revised version of the article. In past few days, several anon editors with similar IP addies (machines owned by Pac Bell Internet Services) have

  1. blanked the biography
  2. vandalized the article in various other ways
  3. threatened editors with lawsuits on behalf of Jack Sarfatti

See talk page of the biography for evidence supporting our suspicion that these anons were Jack Sarfatti. Several of us have tried to engage Sarfatti is discussion about his concerns, but so far he has not responded other than by issuing threats. As I was about to confirm this edit, JS put the following unsigned comment in my user talk page:

I am warning all of you that you do not realize that you are all putting yourselves on a watch list as possible terrorists especially Chris Hillman who keeps replacing true facts with inacuracies smears and personal attacks.
How dare you all call me the "vandal" when I am your victim and you are the vandals? Talk about Orwellian double-think!
Chris Hillman (PhD in math from University of Washington it appears) refuses to stop vandalizing the information on me on Wiki with his own inaccuracies. He accuses me, his victim, of being the vandal. The Wiki Board must stop Hillman's vicious campaign of misinformation against me. Hillman is using shocking Nazi-like tactics systematically deleting positive factual information and replacing them with same false smears and personal attacks. Why Hillman keeps doing this needs investigation in the light of a concurrent hate-mail campaign against me accusing me of murder, with stories similar to the charges against Ira Einhorn, from unsigned letters sent from Springfield, MO on Sept 17,2005. I shall add Chris Hillman's name as a possible suspect in my impending complaint to the FBI and the US Postal Inspectors.

(Needless to say, I have no idea who Ira Einhorn is, and I have nothing to do with the alleged letters Sarfatti seems to be accusing me of writing.)

Help in persuading JS to observe basic Wikipedia behavioral standards would be appreciated. It might also be appropriate to protect the article until he decides to discuss it rather than simply vandalizing it.---CH (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Now he has vandalized my User:Hillman user page with this message

This is Jack Sarfatti. Stop your vandalism slandering me with your lies. For example you keep saying I got a PhD in 1967 from UCSD, I got a MS in 1967 from UCSD and a PhD in in 1969 from UCR. But more importantly you are not a physicist you are not even a real mathematician. If you continue to vandalize the information about me with your lies I will seek legal means and also contact your employer about your vicious libelous actions. You removed positive statments from famous physicists George Chapline & Leonard Susskind and restored your false libels. Unlike you I do not hide my e-mail sarfatti@pacbell.net My lawyer has been informed.

Can some admin please warn him not to vandalize pages in this way? TIA, ---CH (talk) 00:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

September 24

User:Satpersian is uploading images that have no relevence to Wikipedia. Could someone please check out this IFD page and take a look at Satpersian's uploads, and get an unbiased opinion as to why he's doing this? 22:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

September 25

Yet another vandal: 24.195.229.247. --Barbatus 18:41, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

September 26

A Wikiquette violation from August 12, 2005 on a user Talk page. See also the discussion on an article Talk page, later discussion here, and attempts at resolution here. 05:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The Martin J. O'Malley article is rife with POV contributions. My edits to remove some of the POV have been reverted, so there's not much I can do. Someone with authority needs to check the article out. (You'll find several outside "links" that are dead or nonexistent.)

September 27

Please see the edit revert war on Bloodsport (film) and its talk page. I'm runnin' out of reverts. 16:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yet another barbarian, with rather extensive list of 'contributions': 152.163.100.6. Last time, this ... creature deleted the whole article. --Barbatus 18:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

the Articles for deletion page on Philosophy2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy2 has been repeatedly vandalized by a user who is not signed in. 19:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • 149_Presentation has an unusual request to remain as an article for an "english project." I wasn't sure on Wikipedia's stance on something like this. 02:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

September 28

User 24.130.58.221 has vandalized two sites so far: Persian language and King James Version of the Bible. --jonsafari 05:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Clarence Darrow Anonymous IP keeps replacing entire page at Clarence Darrow with POV. 08:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

September 29

  • Another very active vandal: 166.66.202.80 (see his "contributions").
  • Abuse on User:Leonig Mig, repeatedly reverted after removal and now proteected by an admin who is in dispute with the abused user, elewhere. This edit shows that Leoning Mig is also a user of the IP Address used to post this anounymous abuse, about the same editor. It is in the same IP range as this anonymous abuse
  • Potential edit war starting at LASIK; see Talk:LASIK for details. Article was added on the Requests For Comment page and recieved no responses outside of the participating editors. Outside assistance is needed in making a decision on the article. 01:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive1&oldid=1138353432"