Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


January 1, 2006

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

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

January 2, 2006

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

January 4, 2006

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

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


January 7, 2006

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

January 8, 2006

January 10, 2006

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

January 11, 2006

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

January 13, 2006

January 14, 2006

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

January 16, 2006

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

January 19, 2006

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

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

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

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

January 23, 2006

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

01:43, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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

User:Piedras grandes

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

(continuing list for January 23)

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

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

January 24, 2006

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

January 25, 2006

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


January 27, 2006

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

January 29, 2006

January 30, 2006

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

31 January 2006 (Tuesday)


1 February 2006

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

Meekrob 01:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

2 February 2006

3 February 2006

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

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

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

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

4 February 2006

5 February 2006

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

6 February 2006

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, Fyslee. We certainly do get the picture.

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

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

---


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


8 February 2006

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

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

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

9 February 2006

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

10 February 2006

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

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

11 February 2006

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

12 February 2006

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

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

11 February 2006

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

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

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

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

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

My actions included:

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

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

Storm Riders actions included:

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

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

Trödels actions include:

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

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

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

13 February 2006

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

13 February 2006

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

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

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

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

14 February 2006

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

15 February 2006

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

18 February 2006

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

19 February 2006

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

20 February 2006

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

21 February 2006

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

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

22 February 2006

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

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

23 February 2006

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

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


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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive3&oldid=1138353379"