Jump to content

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


3 March 2006

Like the anonymous guy above, I’ve been struggling with user:Siddiqui too. It all started at the Jamaat-e-Islami page. The page was Protected by admin RoyBoy due to "Revert war between User:Siddiqui and User:Yahya01". Obviously the edit war was getting silly, but I'm a contributor to that page too. I had attempted a reasonable discussion. I tried Siddiqui again but I became involved in the most bizarre exchange. You can see it here. He made rash judgments about me that are totally incorrect & he is impossible to communicate with. I initially contacted RoyBoy about it but unfortunately he's ill, so he asked me to take it to village pump, which I have. So the page protection/content dispute issue will hopefully be dealt with there. I’ve come here because I’m being harassed by him. Later, I made a misguided attempt at creating the category "Wikipedians_censored_by_Islamist_editors" which was deleted here. Though it was foolish, I did have the best of intentions when creating that category. However, Siddiqui had been watching me & in a childish tit-for-tat response he created "Category:Wikipedians censored by Zionist editors" and "Category:Wikipedians censored by Hindutva editors". He has been anonymously vandalizing another page that I work on. If you look here it is explained. You can see that it is definitely him when you compare this & this. I’m being taunted but I don’t want to get involved in mindless squabbles. How do I deal with this? Veej 17:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

4 March 2006

Talk:Council of Jerusalem -- Original research dispute 20:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

5 March 2006

Malta // Talk:Malta .. User:MYLO engaged in acts of flaming through refusal to abide by Wikipedia guidelines, in particular by a dogmatic approach deciding to edit not discuss. User was repeatedly asked to refrain from editing the parts under scrutiny, to no avail. The parts were also commented as "subject to consensus, until dispute is solved". 19:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC) 22:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • User:207.161.4.175 made vulgar personal attacks on Talk:Generation X/Archive01 and on the user page of the person he was attacking (the latter attack is now removed). These are his/her only contributions to Wikipedia under this anon IP, though he apperantely has used the other anon IPs that appear before his last comment on Talk:Generation X/Archive01. -- 20:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

5 March 2006

My contribution to the Shotokan article is continually being deleted by a newer user User:Southwick, which is upsetting. My last edit was: "23:52, 4 March 2006 137.207.80.163" on the History page, and was removed once again in the next edit. See my reasons for including the removed material in the article Discussion Page at the bottom of Section #6 "Translation Clarification". My points begin with a - or a >. 22:54, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't see why being newer to Wikipedia means the newer user is wrong. As far as I know, all users of Wikipedia are subject to WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR, and I noticed that both of you have violated WP:3RR in the page history. I honestly have no idea what the origin of the word "Shoto" is, but I'd suggest that someone should look up the word in a printed reference (i.e. not just something passed down orally). Printed references have the advantage of being verifiable. --Elkman - (talk) 04:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The point I was trying to make is that User:Southwick initiated the edit war, since he appeared on the Shotokan article after I had made my note, i.e., he initiated the deletion of my note, i.e., he is a newer user not only on Wikipedia, but on that article -- there are notes on Wikipedia asking users to please not just delete other users' notes -- it makes them feel that they have wasted their time (I refer to Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot -- point 7. at the top). In a different matter, he has been lecturing me *extremely* arrogantly while keeping up his end of the edit war, saying "First debate is encouraged", as if he is some kind of high mucky-muck, laying down the rules, as well as using bad grammar while lecturing me about documentation -- this is why I am complaining about him being a newer user. It is almost inconceivable to me that a writing karateka can drop periods and commit comma splices, because Karate is *intensely* about the study of *details*. I have since stopped my end of the edit war, and as User:Southwick is not edit-warring over my POV marker, I can soon make my suggested change that should make him happy, objectively. See my suggestion at the bottom of 6. in Talk:Shotokan. Cap j 06:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I just wanted to add that little clarifying note, the technical details of which are under dispute by neither of the two, and this anonymous guy named "Matt" who uses different IP addresses and User:Southwick persist in blocking me. I've posted a copy of my proposed little note on my talk page. Cap j 08:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Here are the times and IP addresses from the History of the Shotokan page from which this guy "Matt" has been reversing my edits. I used the look-up utility to find the URLs from the IP addresses via the DNS system:
05:58, 20 February 2006 24.68.218.32 - Name: S01060004e23994d1.gv.shawcable.net
06:23, 25 February 2006 207.161.7.230 - Name: wnpgmb06dc1-7-230.dynamic.mts.net
02:39, 27 February 2006 206.45.166.45 - Name: wnpgmb06dc1-166-45.dynamic.mts.net
02:32, 28 February 2006 142.161.182.208 - wnpgmb06dc1-182-208.dynamic.mts.net

http://www.mts.net is a Manitoba provider (a midwestern Canadian province) and from their news releases, http://www.shawcable.net is a Western Canadian cable provider. I posted a note in the talk page when I began my contribution and I had to ask this guy to please do me the courtesy of putting a note in the talk page after he did his first anonymous and uncommented deletion. Cap j 08:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

  • -I noticed that Matt must have just anonymously removed material from the Shotokanintro in the edit: 00:46, 9 March 2006 142.161.179.162, with his only comment being "Cleaner intro". Look-up gives http://www.mts.net. An administrator might think of blocking the IP address range 142.161.***.*** -- it's bad form to make a disputed edit while the page is under dispute. He didn't move the information to a note; just deleted it -- pretty much a crime to do to an encyclopedia. - Cap j 06:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • User:southwick has also just deleted some of my work in his recent edit "15:11, 9 March 2006 Southwick (Clean up of terms. Will add Kanji.)" while the Shotokan page is under dispute. Cap j 05:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • User:southwick and Matt (varying IP addresses only) have no rebuttal (that they are willing or able to make) for my reasons for including my clarifying note (see Shotokan), but they keep deleting it.
  • Wikipedia talk:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board A discussion was created to discuss whether "county" or "district" should be the preferred translation for German "Landkreis". At some point, User:Staffelde joined the discussion and then decided to rephrase the previously stated facts in a way that had the effect of turning the discussion into a one against many and post it under a new discussion section. S/he then proceeded to not discuss the facts and arguments anymore but rather attack User:Mmounties personally making untrue insinuations and engaging in name calling, accusing her of pushing POV while at the same time not being willing to argue his case. As a result of his/her style of debate others who previously participated in the debate have all but exited the discussion. 20:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Just a note from someone who was involved in that discussion and really surprised to see it mentioned here. The discussion abruptly ended when a consensus was found based on offical EU translation documents and there appeared no hard feelings between the two users mentioned above afterwards. Agathoclea 15:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

6 March 2006

Please see the section about userbox deletion nominations here. 04:32, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


9 March 2006

  • Re: Raw feeding article. I'd like an opinion on whether I have been on the right track or way too heavy-handed or whatever; I seem to have pissed off a new user although s/he seems ready to dismiss me as a "looney" so I'm not entirely sure it's my fault. See history for edit summaries, user's expansion] of the article, my major revision], and then if you can wade through the comments on the talk page to come to some sort of assistance for me and the user (originally editing as anon user but then signed in as User:Thedarky, FYI), I'd appreciate it. Maybe I was too heavy handed with a new user. Help me, Mr. Wizard! Elf | Talk 03:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think you were at all too heavy-handed. You acknowledged that there's a controversy and a difference of opinion over the issue, and you adequately explained the Wikipedia editing process. I suspect that the new user isn't completely aware of the problems with putting a particular POV into an article, and the reasons why it's important to cite sources and not rely on original research. I think that person will either end up learning why we edit the way we do, if he/she continues to contribute to Wikipedia. And if not, it certainly isn't your fault. They would have had a similar conflict with a different user at some point. --Elkman - (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • POV edits and reversion to Melbourne University student unions by WP editors named as litigants in liquidation of the student union discussed in the article. Have been repeatedly warned to consider changes carefully given their vested interest, but have chosen to edit war instead. 06:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I've already been to Third Opinion with Madea's Family Reunion, and have offered a compromise text section; MarcyU (also using 68.1.74.140 - she refuses to sign or to follow standard editing Wikiquette guidelines, and flaunts that) has both ignored any opportunity to either call a truce or compromise, reverting my compromise text entirely and leaving what amounts to a "screw you" note in the Notes section. As I said, I'm willing to compromise, but it looks like she has no desire to do so. Help! --Mhking 17:43, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

10 March 2006

  • Siddiqui (talk · contribs) frequently deletes anything on articles he doesn't like without any explanations. (Examples are on Mahmud of Ghazni, Aurangzeb, Hinduism in Pakistan, Mugahl empire, Muhammed of Ghor, Ala ud din Khilji, Jammat-I-Islam and many more.[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] and many more...) Now this user has also deleted the talk page of Hinduism in Pakistan (including the WikiProject Hinduism tag) [9]. Many other users have pointed out to him that he shouldn't edit like this. Can somebody please tell him that deletions as a rule need explanations, preferably on the talk page but at least in the edit summary. Thanks (It should also be noted that he has deleted "negative" comments on his own talkpage.) 14:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Messhermit (talk · contribs) has a long history of making frequent & inappropiate use of the revert tool, and resorts to accusations of "POV pushing" when other editors add information or sources to articles about the history of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian relations and conflicts, which seem to be contrary to his beliefs. He has also a history of deleting sources from articles. See for example Talk:History of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian territorial dispute. 17:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Andres C. (talk · contribs) has a long history of violence, aggresion and inappropiate use of the revert tool, and resorts to accusations and treaths when other editors add information or sources to articles about the history of the Ecuadorian-Peruvian conflicts. His goal is to present a nationalistic and innacurate view of the war, pushing the Ecuadorian POV far beyond neutrality. He is also responsable for a flame war a couple of months ago, using such childish arguments as grammatical errors (?), lack of patriotism beacuse I didn't serve in the Peruvian Army (??) and labeling me as the problem of the article. 17:31, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

11 March 2006

There seems to be a problem with user:Swedenman. He is currently adding the category "humanitarians" arbitrarily, for example see Che Guevara and Muqtada al-Sadr. Mind you, Swedenman is identical with Filipman on Swedish wikipedia. So far he has been blocked 8 times for unreflecting edit wars and abuse of other users, see sv:block log. 19:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • There is duplication of info taken directly from Wikipedia [Tom Jones the singer] on this website: http://www.freewebs.com/jvprn/discography.htm with no mention of the info having been taken from Wikipedia, word for word. Shouldn't the webmaster of "Sir Tom Jones Online" be informed to correct this? 15:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


Leifern is making a series of personal attacks throughout rfd and artoicles aorudn vaccination. 15:20, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Further to above Imacomp (talk · contribs) is putting on the {{totallydisputed}} tag on Catholicism and Freemasonry while refusing to give any specific reasons, saying that it's his editorial prerogative to do so. I believe that he is more interested in the tag remaining than in dealing with any specific problems in the article. 22:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

14 March 2006


Adam Holland 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC) [18]

15 March 2006

  • Please take a look at the Wiki Star Trek Fan entries located Star Trek, fan made productions This entry was a sub-page of Star Trek, other storylines. There are several Wiki contributors, 'Kirok' & 'TheRealFennShysa' battling over 'their' own criteria that will allow each's entries to be posted or deleted. Their critieria often changes according to personal whims. These fluxuating 'Rules' are extended to allow some entries to be posted and then mysteriously those 'rules' are not required or over-required to be used as a censure device to stop other pertinent Wiki entries. Large amount of personal agenda is interferring with other Wiki contributors like me, Netwriter, from posting additional footnoted facts and pertinent entries here. Some oversight from other Wiki Mods need to be expened here to stabilize the entries and stop the vendetta against the truthful footnoted facts. thanks. Netwriter 20:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It should be pointed out that Netwriter has an established history of trying to insert either himself or his "filmette" series into articles - he also has exhibited a marked bias in regards to certain fan productions both here on Wikipedia and in other forums, and frequently misquotes sources or posts misleading citations to justify his edits. While Kirok and myself have had differences of opinion, neither one of us is personally involved with the entries in question, nor do we have specific entities we consistently try to promote, as Netwriter does with himself and his own production - a production which did not survive a recent AfD, it should be noted. TheRealFennShysa 00:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel the way TheRealFennShysa has discribed the Wiki entries that I have contributed to and my motivations to do so, as very inaccuate and biased. I have contributed to subjects here because I know directly about these topics and that does automatically does NOT mean that I am using Wiki to promote special fan film subjects here over other fan film subjects. My other contributions about the science fiction modlers of new zealand, voyages of the uss angeles and other subjects have gone on to remain viable entries, and they did not exhist before my posting interest and actions. I started contributing here wishing to be inclusive and NOT exclusionary in Wiki. I am only seeking to contribute to the Wikis reader's world of true knowledge about these topics. I am very interested in an Adm or Mods to follow the history of this Fan film productions entries because I still feel that it is being handled unfairly and unequally. thanks.Netwriter 00:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

17 March 2006

Mel Etitis (talk · contribs) has been violating Manual of Style guidelines on respect for different English usage conventions and has been making personal attacks on another editor.

The editor originally noted that ME had made an edit to an article on an American athlete that was replaced a factual term with an incorrect one. She changed the disputed term to a neutral word and left a short explanation in the article edit summary. ME left a message on her talk page arguing with the explanation. The editor responded to the comment, explained her reasoning, and asked ME not to argue with her on the matter. In spite of numerous requests to cease communication, ME has continued to leave messages on the editor's Talk Page, calling her "unpleasant" and accusing her of making personal attacks. Furthermore, he began commenting on a threaded discussion the editor was having with another Wikipedian which bore no relation whatsoever to the dispute.

ME has also ignored several attempts by two editors to explain that his edit was inappropriate.

Dispute is located at: [19] and entry above. Edited to add: ME has now started an entirely new userpage devoted to the dispute and used the Talk page there to further accuse the editor of being hostile and leveling personal attacks. Link to this page is found within the discussion. Because I feel that the conflict has escalated with the creation of this attack page, I have created a Request for Comment. I don't know if I should leave this Alert here or delete it?

11:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Me Thinks Me Smells a Rat Here
  • Delete it! Perhaps an WP:RFC on Mademoiselle_Sabina (talk · contribs) is more in order, and on point, inasmuch as she herself, created the above entry (Notice: No Sig– it's nowiki embedded– but I smelled something: Here's the history diff: [20]. Think this Gals out for Brit Blood!
    • I also note she made several subsequent edits after the one that comparison shows, and has linked this subsection on and from her talk (which is why I'm here.)
I also have to wonder where and how an editor that has been active just six weeks knew where to find this page, initiate an RFC, and the like. I've been around over a year and have no idea where to start these things w/o asking some admin. Any one want to bet against if I guess she's a socket puppet? FrankB 04:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I've answered these allegations on your talk page. As to the secret of how I did a NoWiki, I didn't. I went back and edited the alert twice, once to add an edit and another time to ask if I should close the dispute, seeing as how I had started an RFC. If you happen to look at my other edits, you'll invariably notice that I frequently end up going back three or four times to the same page because I've forgotten something or screwed up a signature or whatever.
As to how I found the RFC: if you happened to read the RFC diffs, you would have seen that another user alterted me to the existence of the RFC page. The RFC page notes the Wiketiquette Alert as an alternative to less serious disputes. It's really not a deep dark secret. As to the allegation that I'm a sock puppet, it's so ridiculous I'm not even going to discuss it further. Mademoiselle Sabina 05:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and what's more...seeing as I am half British, was born in Europe and hold citizenship to an EU country, I seriously doubt I am "out for Brit Blood." Mademoiselle Sabina 05:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


Let's try to stay civil, folks, and not allege things about people just because of their knowledge of Wikipedia. This user could easily have been lurking as an IP for months before signing on. Thanks :-), JHMM13 (T | C) 06:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks, JHMM13, you are correct... we were borderline there, but are 'almost friends' as I continue my attempt to mediate this. We've exchanged a lot of text at length, since this unxplained nested nowiki pair nested around her signature. I believe we have a holy event here, she has a nowiki spirit in her keyboard! But we R talking nicely. Now if some of you can hlp me get Mel to see his fault in this silly matter, she might end this with an admission of mutual stiff-necks and an exchange of apologies per this exchange. So I've some hope a continued mediation effort will end this b4 it swallows the whole weekend. FrankB 16:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Smacksoftruth (talk · contribs) has in the past two days begun a series of edits on The Gnostic Movement, which other editors have seen as violating NPOV and NOR, and have thus reverted. A few changes may be of worth, but the user makes changes in streams of tiny edits. In the course of half an hour, Smacksoftruth made 9 edits to the article. As such, it is very difficult to discern if any of the edits can be kept, and reversion seems the only practical recourse. Also of interest is Talk:The Gnostic Movement, where Smacksoftruth left a rant condemning the deletion of his/her edits. I realize the user is new, but the beligerent attitude and refusal to compromise is a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mistercow (talk • contribs) 18:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the problem to the attention of WP:WQA, Mistercow. I have reviewed some of the edits made by Smacksoftruth and I have determined that the ones I looked at seemed to be done with a bit of POV slant. I left a {{NPOV user}} message on this user's talk page, and if he/she continues to make POV edits, please contact me on my talk page and I will try to convince the user to discuss potential changes before making edits and before the problem gets out of control. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 05:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

18 March 2006

19 March 2006

20 March 2006

  • According to User:Lemonhead, including information from the official biography as published by the mongolian governement is "vandalism", but (re)adding potentially libelous statements without providing sources is ok [22]. There are more such conflicts buried in the history of this article, and in the histories of at least one other mongolian politician. 17:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Just for my general information, I would value an opinion as to whether the type of revert made by User:FeloniousMonk at this point [23] is up to par with what is usually expected of editors in a WP:CON type of situation. 21:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC). Addendum. Just in case it wasn't evident, this revert undid 3 solid days of joint edits, as indicated here [24] that were negotiated on the discussion page. 21:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

22 March 2006

  • This request is regarding an ongoing discussion on the Talk:Burning of Washington page, specifically the "Canadian involvement (?)" section, currently at the very bottom of the page. Comments on my own behaviour in the discussion are also welcome, whether posted here, or privately to me via a Wikipedia message or an email. Cheers, Madmagic 00:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

23 March 2006

24 March 2006

  • There is a content dispute going on at The Power of Nightmares. It turned in to an edit war yesterday, with accusations made about policy violations. One outside editor has commented thanks to a notice on WP:3o, but this has not led to a resolution. The dispute is still ongoing, but it appears only one of the involved editors is interested in engaging in further discussion of the issue to work towards a consensus. If no other editors will engage in discussion regarding the dispute, and reverts are strongly discouraged how can this be resolved? Could someone please take a look at this? The dispute started with the 2006-03-22 08:33:55 edit, and the talk page discussion started here and continues on down. -- 04:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Should the comments of the historian Herodotus on the pederastic practices of the Persians be included in the "Historical synopsis" section of the article on Pederasty? Also see discussion at Talk:Pederasty regarding this issue.

27 March 2006

  • Views welcome regarding validity of citing a BBC poll in the Celtic Park article, as last seen in revision 45691233 on 27 March 11:01. Discussion, at Talk:Celtic Park has not resolved. 22:21, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

29 March 2006

  • Commercial spam concern: on March 14, user Alexv7255 edited articles about electronic equipment, inserting links to a firm that sells such equipment. 12:54, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Regulars of WikiProject Ice Hockey are being arrogant and unwelcoming to non-participants of the project trying to discuss the merits of certain hockey-related articles. Project participants are resorting to personal remarks and attempts to kill the discussion rather than staying on topic. 15:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

31 March 2006

Concern for NPOV and Original Research on Jack Hyles.19:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

1 April 2006

  • User:Empty2005: continualy posts wrong information on the 2006 in film page. I asked him if he could put the information in the correct way, and he said he could care less. Please do something to stop him, since I don't feel like continualy cleaning up his vandalism. Casey14 03:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

2 April 2006

3 April 2006

He has had some kind of agenda [28] [29] to undermine articles that conflict with his beliefs. He generally acts under the radar by committing "sneaky vandalism" by
  • 1. adding original research to articles and passing them off as coming from verifiable and reliable sources often by putting some very weak or nonsense reference [30], and
  • 2. removing quality references that conflict with his views.
I have dealt extensively with him in the past and have generally been very forgiving - at one point I cited him on AN/I [31], citing confirmed multiple sockpuppeting, sneaky vandalism, and original research violations, as well as a couple personal attacks. He convinced me to remove this citation by telling me that he'd work together with me - instead he has become much more intensely engaged in his sneaky vandalism and personal attacks [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]- to show just a few. Hamsacharya dan 19:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

5 April 2006

  • Ireland West Airport Knock article. I have updated the lyrics to match those found on the offical web site (link in article)., Erikeltic (talk · contribs) changes them to another version, for which I cannot find a source. no response on user talk page, nor on article talk page, and I was referred to as a "mole of a human scumbag" in the edit history for inserting the lyrics as per offical web site. Nice. MartinRe 00:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Update - have found a source for the second version, and have listed that as an alternative (unless a source showing the offical site is wrong can be found) MartinRe 16:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • An editor, Harro5 deleted a stub article on the artist John Law that I was working on. As far as I can tell the article was completely legitimate by all Wikipedia standards (I reread them after this happened just to make sure I had not missed something). I wasn't even the one who created the article, I was just expadning on it. So I made a note on Harro5's talk page last week and he hasn't responded. His talk page is full of messages just like mine "Why did you delete the article I was working on?". Will someone please help me understand what happened and what I should do about it? Thanks in advance. kanoa 09:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Checking the deletion log, it was deleted first under WP:CSD A7 (article about a person, that does not assert the significance of its subject) and then under G4 (recreation of deleted material). I can't see the article as it was deleted, so can't suggest whether or not it was a valid A7 or not, but if you want to get the decision reviewed, the correct place to do so is at WP:DRV. Also worth having a look at WP:BIO, which is the guideline on notibility on people. Regards, MartinRe 09:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much Martin, that helps a lot. How did I find the deletion log? While I don't think it qualified under A7 at least I know why it was deleted and I know what I can do about it. Many thanks for taking the time to clue me in! kanoa 09:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • [39] 20:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Mixvio has been persistently flaming other discussants in a content dispute, both on the "talk" page of the disputed article, and during a failed attempt at meditation via the cabal. He has just let lose with a tirade, endangering efforts at reaching a compromise. 23:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


  • User:Xtra has made a personal attack on this talk page User_talk:Sceptre#?!?!?!, accusing another Wikipedia user (by name) of vandalizing his page, with no proof, evidence, or even a request to check correspinding IP addresses, just his own personal opinion, making it completely slanderous, and ultimately a personal attack. Thankyou. 01:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

6 April 2006

  • User:Mixvio just let loose with another attack on other editors and threatens any further attempt at reaching a compromise.[40] - 19:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Irpen likes to remove a no-source tag on this Image:Rycina 1752 Palac Branickich.jpg, making remarks about "copyright paranoia", when the image clearly has no source or even the name of the artist. Has removed tag already twice. [41]. Gryffindor 21:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I removed the tag as per WP:IAR that is clearly written for the cases like that. This is a vintage old image and the user who uploaded it has since retired. It is obvious to anyone that the image is very old and poses no lawsuit threat. Editors are busy enough in real lives and whatever time they can put aside to add content for WP is best to be used productively rather than on fending off the self-appointed copyright police. m:Copyright paranoia has been written for a reason. One thing is to prevent real copyright violations. Quite another is roam from image to image adding a huge amount of unwarranted work for other editors when there is no real reason to do it. --Irpen 21:31, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • And it is quite another thing to accuse user of "paranoia", please abstain from such comments. The image clearly has no source and no author. That alone is in violation of Wikipedia image rules. Gryffindor 16:20, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

8 April 2006

  • User:Xtra has launched a clear defamatory personal attack against User:PSYCH here User_talk:222.98.234.224 outright accusing [him] of quite severe vandalism with no evidence or proof to back it up (outright slander), amounting to a personal attack. This behaviour has gone on quite frequently here , here and here influencing others to believe his mere suspicions passed off as fact (and then in turn encouraging others spread those lies) which has spilled over here having a poisoned apple effect here. Thankyou. 08:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC).
Claiming that Xtra influenced my opinions about PSYCH and Lefty on Campus is not correct. I mentioned my suspicions before Xtra said anything to me on the topic. In fact, Lefty on Campus criticised me for raising the issue with Xtra. [42] 09:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no comment to any accusation this user levels at me. Xtra 09:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Update: this user is now undoing edits made (with verifiable links) toward a clear POV direction, ignoring an RFC to favour his own opinion as fact (and making one sided edits) and has accused another user of wikistalking [43] , despite the fact this user has never made any edits to a gay-related page. It's only since being called a homophobe by a vandal have such edits been made. Coincidental, I'm sure. 09:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC).
No. I did not make this edit or this edit. I don't know if PSYCH is aware, but regular editors edit a whole range of issues. Xtra 10:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
No, I never said anything about the gay marriage page. The link (and myself) are referring to your repeated deletion of a passage on the gay rights in Australia page simply because you think it "doesn't belong" ignoring my RFC and assuming your opinion to be the only correct one in existence. It is appropriate to wait for the RFC (as suggested) before your POV edit. And I guess you expect people to believe that a man who has publicly said "gays have never wanted marriage" and has beem accused of homophobia by vandals decides, afer years on wikipedia, on today of all days, to edit a gay related pages (despite belonging to a party that is a known obstacle to gay rights) is just a coincidence? 10:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
removed signature as per rules.10:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
  • A user has accused two other users of being the same person here and here , with no proof or any evidence whatsoever other than "they have the same views" and as such this is a baseless attack against these users' credibility and ability to edit free from prejudice. I do not think it's fair to throw around and spread baseless accusations on some whim, as if other users' rights really don't matter. Thankyou. 11:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

9 April 2006

  • Mixvio has used crude language again here: [44], and is implying that we will cheat on our agreement. Seems like baiting to me. We've just come to a resolution after being locked down a month. No use my asking him to be civil or follow etiquette; it will bring on insults directed at me, or he'll say he's just using sarcasm. Would rather not see trouble flare up again. Thanks. -07:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Brandubh Blathmac. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 10:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I've been ahem "notified" of existance of some "AeurianOrder" (see the user page), which claims, among all else:

"We intend to act as independant Wikipedia administrators. As all of our members are currently at college campuses, we have unlimited access to IP addresses. While we are not here to engage in vandalism, but rather to improve the Wikipedia, if one or more of our members are banned we will just start up new accounts."

One user who seems to be a member is User:AO_Charles who notified me of existance of this "order" in my talk page and promised to follow me around and revert views he doesn't like. As childish as this BS sounds, I think it may require admin attention, especially if they'll indeed start being "independeng administrators" and enforce "their own rules" by swarming tactics.
His history shows a lot of adding unreferenced anti-semitism claims to articles and threats to Wikipedia editors he has "identified" as "agitators" (including me)--Poison sf 13:45, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
AO Charles has now informed me on my user page that I "have been identified as an anti-semitic agitator by the Aeurian Order," and that my "edits will be closely watched and reverted if neccessary.(sic)" I have given him the following response on his talk page.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and presume you are not out of your mind. I'm a Jew. I'm the main author of Wikipedia's articles on Yiddish theater, and one of the two main contributors to secular Jewish culture. If I'm an "anti-Semitic agitator", it is pretty hard to imagine who is not.
-- Jmabel | Talk 19:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

10 April 2006

  • Disputes on Bernie Sanders have not been resolved through the discussion on Talk:Bernie Sanders. Much of this section has been claimed as POV, but one user declares most changes to this text "vandalism," and refuses to discuss it seriously. Outside input would be appreciated. Please review the talk page for information on these disputes.19:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Disputes on Bernie Sanders largely stems from Bkwillwm viewpoint that additional added information is POV, when it calls for no speculation. It is vandalism as text is simply removed with the claim, "You aren't allowed to include information which makes Sanders look bad". There is no serious discussion as refuses to acknowledge that all information is factual, is referenced, and much of it comes from Sanders' own quotes. 2:01 PM, 11 April 2006 (EST)
  • Dispute on Bill Moyers page is starting to get a little out of hand. One editor is presenting an argument/issue here [[45]] which is not being addressed by another editor. The argument is instead, possibly being misunderstood and edits which seem to create inaccuracies are being instituted. Also, borderline personal attacks on the Bill Moyers talk page, here [[46]]. (07:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC))


  • A user has accused another user of being an anonymous vandal and "stalking" (quite a serious charge), without regard to that user's right to edit free from accusations, without even attempting to check IPs to determine idenities (which are negative, anyway), and without any regard whatsoever to another user's repuation: this is just completely baseless and constitutes a personal attack.
  • A user has accused another user of being an anonymous vandal, outright accusing another user of vandalism withtout any evidence or proof and how to "fix" him. Wild accusations, with no actual verifiable proof amounts to a personal attack, are not part of wikipedia policy.
    Hogswash. There was no specificity to that discussion whatsoever.--cj | talk 12:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
    Yes, the "bringing user actions to attention" and "Yes I am hoping for a debate to deal with the PSYCH issue" give it sufficient weight to make it a personal attack.

14 April 2006

  • thewolfstar (talk · contribs) seems intent on (1) adding POV information to articles on US political parties, which s/he believes have "destroyed America", (2) being persistently rude, uncivil, and abrasive toward multiple editors on the Democratic Party talk page, and (3) personally attacking me on his/her talk page. For example, I was labelled "harassing" for moving his/her comment from a closed FAC discussion to the appropriate place on the talk page and was called a "tyrant" for the first comment in this section of the Democratic Party talk page, of all things. Thewolfstar has personally attacked other users and myself on the Democratic Party talk page as well. - Jersyko·talk 22:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
    • . . . and now thewolfstar has implemented a 2 day (24 hour? i'm not certain) ultimatim "OR ELSE" in regard to the Democratic Party article. Perhaps this has morphed into something more than a mere "wikiquette alert"? - Jersyko·talk 04:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

15 April 2006

16 April 2006

  • An anonymous user keeps reverting the article about Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, with my best knowledge it seems to me that the edits are done to whitewash one of the parties in the conflict in Sri Lanka. I have tried to reason on the discussion page, but no response.


  • Xtra (talk · contribs) just removed a legitimate WP:WQA complaint here [47], because he felt it wasnt legitimate because he thought (incorrectly) that user had vandalized another page, however, that user never did vandalize another page [48], so this deletion was made in error, and should be corrected, and use:Xtra warned for unilateral deletions to learn that what he may not like is not necessarily invalid.

20 April 2006

• See Michel Thomas and associated discussion page. • I'm trying to present a NPOV regarding the World War II service of Michel Thomas, who was decorated with the Silver Star in 2004, sixty years after he was nominated for it while serving with US Army troops in Germany. L.A. Times reporter Roy Rivenburg, who was sued for defamation by Thomas three years before his death at age 90, keeps deleting information challenging his POV regarding Thomas' exhaustively documented WWII history from the main article He has also posted information under the heading "The Myth of Michel Thomas" on the discussion page. I gave up long ago trying to correct his posts, as he would simply change them as soon as I would correct them. How can I resolve this? 24.23.223.51 02:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)facts@mt.org

  • Georgia_guy (talk · contribs) : Repeatedly reverts good-faith edits, edits he apparently disagrees with, &c with nothing more than 'revert vandalism' and _occasionally_ a terse, context-free message on the offender's talk page. GG does also revert a lot of legitimate vandalism, but I feel he needs to review the actual definition of Vandalism and be a little more civil. Most recent example: 17:10, 22 April 2006 (hist) (diff) Polygon (Revert vandalism) 17:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

23 April 2006

Derek farn (talk · contribs) likes to edit other people's user pages while a VfD is in progress, thus distorting people's opinion of one of the participants. 18:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

24 April 2006

  • There is a comment at the end of James Woolsey that seems out of place, but I don't know if it violates Wikipedia policy. It is regarding a blogger who has issue with Mr. Woolsey. 02:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

25 April 2006

  • User:Jack Cox uses abusive language, refuses to use appropriate and illustrative Edit Summaries, reverts an entire template if he doesn't like one change in it, as if they are not public (that is, they belong to User:Jack Cox and nobody has a right to change them). I've tried extesively to dialogue and abuse is all I get. See, for example, this revision history of {{NYGovernors}}. 03:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

26 April 2006

  • User:Enormousdude performs a large number of edits that are immediately reverted by a variety of different, independent editors as being unclear, unhelpful, incorrect or POVed. Edits almost never have an edit summary. User never discusses changes on article talk pages. Major, controversial changes are listed as minor edits. Previously reverted edits are often reapplied a few days latter. 16:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

28 April 2006

  • DeKoning (talk · contribs) on the New Netherland related articles. Many users have commented on his behavior with no noticable effect. In particular I think we need some outsiders' involvement at Talk:New Netherland as it's gotten personal and I'm no longer sure I'm a good judge of consensus. 21:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

29 April 2006

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive4&oldid=1138353318"