This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
These Users are harassing me on my talk page and on Talk:Libertarianism and trying to get me to stop editing Libertarianism because they doen’t like anarchists and are under the mis-impression I am one-not that it should matter. Actually I haven’t edited the article much because a couple of these guys keep me too busy countering their constant WP:soapbox about why there should be no mention of anarchism, including because it allegedly hurts Ron Paul's credibility! This is a similar attack to one I reported at Wikiquette alerts recently by User:Ddd1600. Don’t know if it’s the same person but I would not be surprised if there was sockpuppetry going on. Relevant links/diffs:
User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_V#Libertarianism_vs_Anarchism.
Needlesstosay, this makes it difficult to focus on finding some good new sources to beef up the article and answer some legitimate objections, and to end all the WP:OR editing while both left and right libertarian editors are busy ripping up the lead. Oi Oi Oi! CarolMooreDC ( talk) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This silliness continues with this and this silly harassing WP:Soapbox. At what point does one do a WP:Ani?? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 14:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Update: The article has been protected and one sockpuppet has been identified. Hopefully disruptive talk page editing will end. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 00:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It didnt take long for this user, formerly one of the two IPs above (or perhaps one of the other two that briefly passed by Libertarianism, to engage in personal attacks against me. This diff] starts with: IF there is ever to be progress in any form made on this page, it shall only be made through the BARRING of Carol. She is not a shepherd, she is an anti-intellectual nuisance. etc and [1] If we decide on electing Carol as a dictator, by force of course, perhaps the rules might change. Otherwise, no. etc. Somebody besides me put up a warning template. I'd appreciate it. THANKS!! CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Darkstar1st has engaged in endless soapbox-ing on Talk:Libertarianism The comments are mostly off-topic and sometimes simply false. The latest incident ( [2]) is changing:
The edit summary says "removed wordy redundant text".
This article is under strong pressure from some users who "don't like anarchism" or "want to make Ron Paul/Libertarian Party look good", and offer just these statement for demanding that references to anarchism be dropped. This has made editing the article too difficult. For some of his/her others comments check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16 (archived two days back). In particular, check [3] for a small collection of off-topic or false statements by the user.
This complain is related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Users:97.93.109.174_.26_71.12.74.67 earlier on this page. N6n ( talk) 15:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently I stumbled upon a contributer who continually calls me Bolgarian, my country Bolgaria and so on. While this may sound a little too less to be seeking assistance, there are things that kind of escalate the problem. The annon in question is 94.140.88.117 ( talk · contribs · logs · block log). He seems to know his way around the place (Wikipedia, that is) since he has quite some contribs, but I noticed him spelling the name wrongly ( [13]). I explained to him the situation with the name ( [14]). The result was him continuing to use it in that way [15]. I got the feeling that he was doing it on purpose and that it must be derogatory in Serbian. So I asked him to stop and explained that it sounds like a personal attack (since he already knows I start to find it offensive) plus that I'll treat it like one the next time he posts the word in that way( [16]). To make sure he gets the message I posted on his talkpage [17]. I don't feel like being polite anymore since he's clearly doing it on purpose and it does not help discussion (not that he wants to actually participate in any). What happened is that he continued [18], using the word in the edit summary [19] and even posting it to my talkpage [20]. I start taking it as some harassment, but do not wish to escalate it to ANI still since he's obviously toying around. It really destroys any chance of a normal discussion, though. Any assistance would be much appreciated. -- Laveol T 20:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Things in the area of Transcendental Meditation are once again getting heated. In this edit Timidguy insults my usage of source [21] which is little more than a personal attack. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
From the past few days User:Goethean has been indulging in incivility, personal attacks, inappropriate tagging
Would request the admins to look into it, Thanks. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 04:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Rick Jens has been using highly abusive language directed personally. A subsection titled Taliban Mulla Editors-Nmkuttiady was added by him full of abusive language like calling me Taliban Mulla editor and comments like The petro dinar funded wahabis need some literature sense. To feed the illiterate who read the outfits daily. Many of his edits are purely driven by emotion without any proper reasoning, like this one. Can someone look at the discussion here? NMKuttiady ( talk) 08:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Rick Jens found vandalizing article Talk:Popular Front of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.119.66 ( talk) 18:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been a little while, but this user has not responded to the problems posed here, despite the fact that he has been active. I will leave a note again at his talk. -- Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Fiftytwo thirty for the comments. Being a novice in Wikipedia has its own problems as you mentioned. It is not my intention to develop a personal battle. I am only interested in improving the articles where I have good/ through knowledge.
Here, NMKuttiady has taken some of my comments out of context and quoted it as a personal attack against him.
In the said section I was only referring to the generic edits done by few editors including NMKuttiady. I had also given example about the style of editing . The introduction was changed to for committing blasphemy. NMKuttiady claims he has not done that. But the fact is he was editing at that time and the said edit is done by IP address which I have no means to verify where it is from.
Popular Front of India is a notorious organization. A neutral article on Popular Front of India and their activities should capture their violent nature. I humbly request that this effort should not be considered as a POV pushing. Rick jens ( talk) 19:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
First -- a disclaimer -- that I know little about the articles in question, but I do have a few more notes regarding POV. I recommend that all parties look at WP:NPOV and WP:COOL as valuable resources regarding editing civility when in conflict. It appears that all people are talking on the talk page, which is the first step in dispute resolution. It is not going to help facilitate discussion no matter who you are directing attacks to, or who you claim that the people involved are affiliated with, but it will facilitate discussion to just state the facts. For example on the current introduction (Popular front of India), it would not be appropriate to say that "User XXX should not edit this article because they are affiliated with YYY," but instead "The intro seems like it is ripped from the organization's website and is therefore inherently POV." (Which it does) Another example with rick's proposed intro: Not "Rick is obviously against this organization" but instead "Rick's proposal seems like it shifts, but does not fix the POV problems that this article is plagued with." The intro should probobly be none of the above starting with an objective statement, something like "The Popular front of India is a political movement to (Insert five word or less description of goal here, something like "decrease poverty" "eliminate corruption," or "Decrease government spending") in India. Then go on to describe ties to other organizations, and then a brief summary of allegations, "Extremist," "radical" and then discuss the further implications in a later section. My final suggestion would be that all references be in {{ cite web}}, {{ cite news}}, or {{ cite book}} templates so that it is easier to identify which sources are reliable. Few statements should be referenced to the group itself, with the exception of History and purpose (and those should be paraphrased, some parts look like WP:COPYVIO.) Overall -- remove personal affiliatons and accusations thereof and focus discussions objectively on the content issues. -- Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As much as I hate doing it, I must register my protest about the unprofessional and uncivilized behavior of the administrator John Kenney
List of cities proper by population is a contentious article. Many of the list entries do not comply with the definition and scope given in the intro of this list. I had tried to bring certain list items in accordance with the intro. This has been frustrated. This complaint is not about this.
I have engaged in a discussion on the talk page. Lately, John Kenney, who is not an active editor of this article, has taken part in this discussion.
In Talk:List of cities proper by population, John Kenney, who is an Administrator
(There is more, I just gave you the worst ones so far.)
It is trying to remain civil under such a barrage of invectives, but I try. If it would be a regular user, you would not hear from me. An administrator should be held to a somewhat higher standard. An administrator should at least understand the basics of civility. Please let me know whether such a behavior is within Wikipedia policy. If it is, then I will accept it. If it is not, then I respectfully ask that the appropriate action is taken. Thank you. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
If someone apologizes sincerely, I'll be the first one to accept it and to make peace, as I did. However, if the apology is insincere and followed by further attacks, my acceptance of the apology is off the table. Today, John Kenney vandalized
List of cities proper by population by removing the core definition for the scope of the list. This definition is a United Nations definition and was accompanied by three references. This definition had been there for many months and was never edited out. John Kenney also removed a quote from and a reference to another United Nation publication.
The diff is here. The removal was accompanied by a note that says "If I remove the UN definition, does that mean this article is no longer a fraud?"
This appears to refer to falsified and unsourced data which had been introduced in List of cities proper by population. I had made various efforts to bring the data in accordance with the proper sources. These attempts were reverted. After my pleas of WP:SOURCES and WP:OR remained fruitless, I subsequently called the entries "fraudulent" on the talk page of the article. This accusation was never refuted. My main concern is that the uncivil language and the vandalism comes from an administrator. I can handle "robust language" and the occasional vandalism without complaints. I am old enough.
However, we are dealing with an administrator. An administrator should be held to somewhat higher standards. At the very least, he should know the basics of Wikipedia.
This removal of a well referenced core section of the article was not accompanied by a discussion, nor had the definition been discussed at all lately. This makes it vandalism.
As this matter has escalated, this informal forum is most likely the wrong venue to discuss this matter. I would appreciate input on how and where I can report this matter so that it receives its proper resolution. FYI, I put a vandalism tag on Kenney's talk page, mentioned the matter in Talk:List of cities proper by population, however, I did not revert the vandalism. I am concerned that this would further escalate the already untenable situation. Thank you for your assistance. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
On 15 July 2010, User:LouisPhilippeCharles called User:FactStraight arrogant [37] and ignorant. [38] I gave him a friendly warning. [39] [40] I urged him to apologize to FactStraight, but all I see he did was assuming bad faith. [41] On 5 August, he called me a hypocrite. [42] I don't seem to be able to explain to him what personal attacks are; [43] [44] could someone more pedagogic explain that to him? Surtsicna ( talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, sorry! I will apologise to Surtsicna, myself and him have been conversing outside of this anyway regarding various pages :) As for the other person, I will not; he has accused me of various injustices and had me blocked – so he can politely leave me be tbh HRH the Prince of Piedmont ( talk) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I have had several incidences with WoodchuckRevenge. It started with his vandalism of the American Pickers page. The following is the dialog on his user page following that incidence.
American Pickers
Please stop vandalizing this page. The two characters are not a homosexual couple and if they are they have not released any infor saying otherwise. The next time you change this I will report you to an administrator.76.177.47.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC). Are you Frank Fritz or something? How about getting a username. --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC) How about you change your smart ass attitude that you are using around here? I don't want a username, nor do I have to get one.76.177.47.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC). Glad to see your a classy user who's only been blocked multiple times and curses on his user page. Grow up, Clown! --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 03:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC) And you call the things you do classy? I can't help what someone does on an ip address. IP's change you know. IMO you should have been blocked along time ago for uncivil activity.76.177.47.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC). I have reported you to Jpgordon for uncivil remarks and libelous comments on the American Pickers page.76.177.47.225 (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Oh no! I'm so scared! >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The following is the dialog from Jpgordon's page:
Hi, I and others have reverted WoodchuckRevenge twice for libelous comments on the American Pickers page. He has accused the show's two cast members as being a homosexual couple. I made a comment on his page about this and warned him that I would report him. Of course, I receive a very uncivil comment back. Could somebody please cools this guy's heals.76.177.47.225 (talk) "Accuse" implies a suggestion that one is guilty of some wrongdoing. Since I think most people agree that there is nothing wrong with being gay, you might want to rethink your wording. However, you are correct that the statement does not belong in the article unless it is germane and verifiable per the notions contained in WP:BLP. x-posted to User talk:76.177.47.225. Taroaldo (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with being gay and that wasn't my intent. I love the show and they have made many hints that they are a homosexual couple. I will wait till a source presents itself before editing that page again. But if we want to talk about being uncivil. Take a look at his comments to me on User_talk:WoodchuckRevenge#American_Pickers and comments he's left on his own talk page User_talk:76.177.47.225. >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC) First of all, I'd rather edit by IP than user name. I picked that IP up the day that this started. I did not make those other comments. Second, it is accuse since he is saying they are something they that have not verified as being. Frank has mentioned his girlfriend in several episodes, has been photographed hosting wet t-shirt contests, and both are life long friends since childhood. When you say that they are a homosexual couple without proof you are being accusatory. Why? Because this has everything to do with their careers. This has nothing to do with gay being a bad word as Taroaldo implies. If they lost their tv show over an implication such as this, then in the court of law you could be held liable for making this libelous statements. Third, your snarky attitude is what has started this. I simply ask you not to do this and you come back with a smart ass answer. I ask you to stop again and I get accused of this and that and another smart ass comment. The proof is on your page. I am getting closer to believing that your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to hook somebody into a disagreement with you. I have notice intently how you seem to choose your words carefully, snare someone, then double back and make yourself look like gold. I am also starting to wonder if you and Taroaldo are sockpuppets.76.177.47.225 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC) If you review my comment, you will note that I support your position that the material should be exlcuded. Taroaldo (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Hi. There's no reason for this conversation to be on this page. Bye. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Who is the one starting the argument? I really don't care what an "IP" thinks. Get a username and then we could tell if those were your comments or not. And if History dropped their show because they were gay, they would sue the History channel for discrimination and win big dollars. Especially if they used Wikipedia as their source. Every 2nd grader should know not to source Wiki. So please, just scram. I have a great history of edits. --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
My concerns are as follows:
1. I tried to resolve the issue only to be told basically to scram. 2. I tried to alert an administrator to no avail. 3. I am being told by an editor I have no valid complaint since I am using an IP address to edit. Yes, my IP has been blocked, however, I am on an open network so I have been caught in the misdeeds of others. 4. Woodchuck has demonstrated uncivil actions to others as is evident on his user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.47.225 ( talk) 22:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I am honestly not trying to cause trouble. I have made many ip edits over the last 4 years. I just find Woodchuck's behavior a bit repulsive and he seems to be playing the field. He get's snarky with me, then makes a sweet smelling comment to established editors and admins about how he regrets his behavior and will not vandalize again, then comes right back at me with something snarky. I find that a bit ingenious. 76.177.47.225 ( talk) 01:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Every computer has it's own IP address even if they are all used on the same wireless. >> WoodchuckRevenge ( talk) 05:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Gun Powder Ma has been systematically engaging in personal attacks against me and other editors. Against me (this is counting only recent attacks): 1 2 3. Older examples of attacks: [ 1 Against other editors: 1 2 3 4 I request admin intervention for this editor to stop making personal attacks. Teeninvestor ( talk) 14:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I am Jeremy Main, former editor Jel, and a part-time researcher in history working alongside Professor Laura Smoller of Arkansas University, the world's leading expert in mediaeval cosmology, particularly focusing on the work of Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly. Cardinal d'Ailly's cosmology was a principal inspiration of Christopher Columbus, who used d'Ailly's Imago Mundi as a planning document for the Indies expeditions. He was also a chief inspiration for Pope Eugenius IV's views on the Eucharist, which were a signficant influence in his commissioning of Prince Henry the Navigator's exploration of the African coasts, and through his follower Cusanus, "Eugenius' Hercules", of Kepler and modern astronomy. As I wanted to discover more about Prince Henry's relationship with the Pope, to reconcile an ostensible contradiction with other positions the Pope took, I enquired in the area of the Portuguese School of Navigation and discovered the question of Columbus' ancestry is an open question in Portuguese academic circles. It suggests a further relationship between the Order of Christ and Columbus, coherent in the alacrity he took to d'Ailly's collected works when they were published in the 1480s. As this was somewhat ground-breaking, I looked at the Wiki page on Columbus for a quick reference check, and onwards to the Orign Theories page, in search of details of his education, which appears to have been minimal as a child, but was extensive in his later life, at least sufficiently to be able to follow the cosmological thinking which through Cusanus inspired Kepler, coming to a similar conclusion. The balance between the two memes is, or should be, that the main page should display the orthodox history, and the subordinate page should address the quandry. However, on examining the [ page], I discovered a bad-tempered dispute between administrator/ajudicator Dougweller and a new editor, Colon-el-Nuevo, who was presenting a fairly central version of the Portuguese theories as his own work. I do not know his identity, but I do know that what he has been saying is representative of a school of thought in Portugal, not simply that of one man, whether or not he is at the root of the school. The root of Dougweller's position is the same which caused Larry Sanger to depart, an administrator who knows nothing about the subject attempting to overrule experts. I therefore attempted to call the disputing parties to order, even providing a discussion area where the protagonists can debate their cases without making a mess all over the discussion page, but Dougweller turned on me and has become insulting to me as well, in public to boot when I asked him to talk to me in private. He refuses to see past his disdain of Colon-el-Nuevo and to hear that others appear to share his opinions to greater or lesser extents, which after all is the object of the meme, Origin theories. I am therefore referring Dougweller's behaviour to this meme with the request that he be banned from moderating historical subjects, that an independant authority be appointed to tidy up the mess and that Colon-el-Nuevo be corrected in his thinking. I do not feel I should take that task on, because I have posted what amounts to OR in the domain as a possible reconciliation of both schools of thought, and because I am not sufficiently authoritative in the main subject to form a definitive position: I am and remain open to guidance on the question, if properly documented.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.165.143 ( talk) 21:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I have taken a look at the page in question and I don't find any evidence of "bad temper" or "abusiveness". Dougweller made reasonable efforts to draw the attention of other editors to appropriate areas of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or dissemination of bits of academic research/writings/findings which lack the appropriate verifiability. The ramblings of some individuals in the talk page also seem indicative of an attempted POV push. I find this claim of "abusiveness" against User:Dougweller to be spurious. Taroaldo ( talk) 23:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Tara then, pointless exercise, the talk about a mafia is correct. Another academic will now join the list of rubbishers of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.165.143 ( talk) 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
While possibly a well-intentioned attempt to encourage other editors to address policy, this IP user communicates in a string of put-downs: "your comment is extraordinarily stupid", "nitwit" and "what a stupid assertion", "gits", "stop being a dick", "clueless", "clueless morons" [51]. The vast majority of this editor's comments include some kind of personal attack.
Even the comments without outright insults are often gratuitous condescension in context. E.g. weeks after an innocuous comment from a new editor 98.108.211.71 jumps in to bellttle him/her. At best such behavior accomplishes nothing; at worst it provokes a fight; in most cases it will probably just foster animosity.
In short, 98.108.211.71 needs to stop framing his/her contributions as though he/she is spoiling for a fight. 129.67.151.47 ( talk) 09:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob ( talk) 14:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee ( talk · contribs · block user) has been carrying a debate with several other editors concerning the naming of 2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash on Monday's crash of a small airplane which killed a former Senator.
The root of the problem appears to be his disagreement with Wikiproject Aviation's naming conventions which resulted in some comments which are less than civil at best and outright hostile at worst: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. It's pretty clear that this editor knows he is being incivil and doesn't' care: [61]. This editor already has an impressive block logs and this username is scattered across this and other administrative notice boards. A recent reminder about assuming good faith on his talk page was placed and was quickly and dismissed by this editor.-- RadioFan ( talk) 12:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Am I missing the notice to MickMacNee that you've opened a discussion on this board? I could be, but I'm not seeing it.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 13:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I'm wrong. Looks like the editors here approve of how MickMacNee is conducting himself in discussions. Consider this resolved then.-- RadioFan ( talk) 13:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Gonads3, that's me. I'm involved in something that should never have happened. I seek advice as to how I can avoid this kind of confrontation in future. I guess I'm reporting myself for allowing this happen.
It's a lengthy discussion, but it should be considered as a whole to make any sense of it.
I've tried to put my point across but failed dismally. Whenever the chance to move on arises, the same issues keep arising.
I'm troubled by the outcome, especially as my actions were, I believe, in good faith.
Any help would be greatly appreciated as I do not want to get into a dispute of this type ever again. It's too much. Thank you. gonads 3 22:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Kintetsubuffalo seems to resent participation in Wikipedia by persons who are knowledgeable in the topics of the articles that they edit. In this edit, he could have explained that edits should cite sources that can be independently verified and why articles should not be written in first-person. Instead he characterized as "vandalism" a contribution from a reader with knowledge of the topic.
In this edit, he rudely dismissed a comment from a person with expertise in the topic of the article he edited that had been falsely characterized as "vandalism" by another user. That user has not returned; Wikipedia lost a conscientious contributor.
Once I asked him why he had put a "personal essay" hatnote on an article on a topic in my field of expertise. He responded only that it looked like a personal essay. Since it didn't look that way to me, I asked on his talk page specifically what in the article look that way to him. He deleted my question from his talk page with an edit summary that said "deleting the putz edits".
At the top of his talk page he has a notice that says he is often taken to task for his malefactions but one should "cut him some slack" because he is an experienced editor, and tries to attribute that to Jimmy Wales. The context in which such a comment can make sense does not include planning months in advance to behave badly before one knows in what situation one will do that.
He expresses the view, at the top of his talk page, that one's "talkpage which is [one's] own playground to do exactly what [one] wishes". That does not make sense. If I have a concern or question about someone's editing practices, I will post it to their talk page without asking permission, and so does everyone, and that is as it should be. They're not private property; the idea that they are conflicts with their purpose. I am a far more experienced editor than he is, but I don't claim exemption from norms because of it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Michael, you've already brought up many of these points just a few days ago at this ANI discussion. You keep rehashing the same infomation and accusations and it gives the appearance of holding a grudge. Instead of shopping your concerns from one board to another, perhaps you should consolidate all of your grievances at RFC/U and see if others believe it is a problem also? -- Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 13:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, Unomi ( talk · contribs) has a problem with me, and apparently feels the need to express that problem with incivility and personal attacks. I don't know if the problem extends to his interactions with other users, but his interactions with me are always disruptive. He occasionally shows up at discussions I'm involved in and makes pointed comments, although I don't think it would be fair to characterize his behavior as wikihounding at this point. I also can't say that my reactions to his incivility have always been exemplary, however for what it's worth, I can say that any perceived incivility on my part has always been in reaction to a blatant insult that I did not deserve. I think Unomi needs to learn to hold his tongue, or if that is not possible, he needs to avoid contributing to discussions in which I'm already involved. I think I need to learn to just ignore his comments, and not take the bait. We've actually had very little interaction overall, but all of the interaction has resulted in some kind of unnecessary insult. Here are some examples I've found of his comments towards me:
I would appreciate any comments the community has about this situation, as well as any advice on how to proceed. Thanks. SnottyWong soliloquize 20:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment - The user in question has been notified of this discussion, but has decided to delete this notification from his user talk page. SnottyWong speak 16:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I am not involved in this issue, but I found this edit summary by User:Unomi on Recent Changes. Given the sensitivity the issue of suicide may have to some editors, I find this to be a particularly egregious violation of WP:CIVIL. Taroaldo ( talk) 19:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently an editor posted a request for assistance at WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Issue over election Infobox which related to a content dispute at the article United States Senate election in Georgia, 2010 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I offered a third opinion at the article talk page, which was met with this comment by User:Jerzeykydd, which I consider to be completely uncalled for. Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At 06:05, 14 August 2010 The user Sceptre was blocked for 24 hours for calling me "Nazi Scum" after being previously told to curb personal attacks.
Even after getting a block he continued to make very offensive and defamatory comments against me.
At 06:47, 14 August 2010 this editor made the following two extremely offensive and defamatory comments against me
At 07:04, 14 August 2010 , not content with the above offensive comments the editor Sceptre then made the following comments against me
I am highly offended at being called 'anti-Semitic', a 'Nazi' and 'pond life' . And what's clear and shocking is that the editor Sceptre made these FOUR instances of hate speech within an hour of being blocked for the same. No one should have to put up with these kind of attacks for editing Wikipedia.
I have notified the user of this report here
Vexorg ( talk) 11:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Although there is no evidence of Vexorg being anti-semite, nor "pond-scum", it's also obvious that making a WQA for angry comments done by Sceptre just after he got blocked is completely pointless, and only aimed at making him more angry. Baiting is also not allowed. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 13:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see this thread has now only become an excuse to continually call Vexorg names. I suggest we archive it, nothing useful can come out of this. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 13:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all.
User:Cjim63 has been pushing a negative POV in the Oom Yung Doe article for quite some time; he's used grossly misleading summaries of genuine facts, made up facts, falsified sources, and refused efforts at meditation and other conflict resolution (and now more or less refuses to take part in discussion on the talk page). Most recently, he made this edit, adding some valid information about a new lawsuit against the school, but also adding several dishonest statements, for example:
The actual fact of the matter (which the current state of the article reflects) is that Pam Zekman's report was largely untrue, no charges were ever filed for the criminal offenses she alleged, the Attorney General's 1989 case (for financial misconduct) ended with a settlement of a few thousand dollars, and John C. Kim's conviction and the shutdown of the schools was based on a later charge of conspiracy to commit tax fraud. Cjim63's summary, though, leaves any sensible reader with the impression that the much more serious allegations were demonstrated in court and led to the shutdown of the schools.
Diffs for some other random similar misconduct (I have more, but this post is already going to be longer than usual):
Cjim63 is a member of what is effectively a hate group about Oom Yung Doe (which they call "Moo") -- here he is replying to someone who talks about "fat lil' effeminate Kim" and requests that Wikipedia be updated. There are other choice quotes in the thread ("typical Moo cowards, probably practising Moo-meditations for penis growth", "truly disgusting vermin"), but in general the group hates the school, believes several incorrect things about the school, and wants to spread the "information" they believe (including posting it to Wikipedia). His Wikipedia account seems to be an SPA.
What can I do about this? So far I've simply been discussing on the talk page, reverting things that are inappropriate, looking up sources when they don't seem likely to match the cited statements, and suchlike, but that's now been going on for years. Because of what seems like a lack of good faith (refusal to discuss, dishonest sourcing, misleading summaries, and some edit warring), it's also frequently more difficult than it needs to be (e.g. when I track down a source and find that it doesn't exist or doesn't say anything remotely related to what's claimed). I'm not sure if WQA is the right place for this, but it seems to me that blatant, repeated dishonesty like this obviously crosses some sort of line. What's my next step beyond reverting inappropriate things and attempting without success to open discussion?
Subverdor ( talk) 16:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently, there was an article that was nominated for deletion. The article was deleted. As I was trying to improve the article. I made a number of relevant redirects and wikilinked other articles to the article that had been AfD'd.
As I said before, the article was deleted in July. However, User:Timtrent (aka Fiddle Faddle) is now hounding me on my talk page, and has in fact issued a shot across the bow and threatened me for a perceived offense. Mind you, these threats came weeks after the article was deleted.
I really don't think I did anything wrong. I've asked Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle to stop bothering me 2x, but this seems to egg him on. I'm asking a neutral party to intervene. Thanks. Philly jawn ( talk) 03:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. So what happened here is as far as I can see:
What Timtrent did wrong: You didn't need to bring up vandalism immediately. You said you treated it as good faith edits. Then you should explain what was wrong with the edits. What you are doing now is saying that you treat it as good faith edits, but your comment clearly shows that you don't actually believe it to be. The comments was unnecessarily confrontational.
What Philly jawn did wrong: 1. Redirecting to an article that doesn't exist. 2. Reporting Timtrent when he has done nothing wrong.
I can't see that there is any outside action needed here. Timtrent: Be nice. Philly jawn: Your article was rightfully deleted. Accept it and go on with contributing to Wikipedia in better ways. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how to go about reporting this as the instructions were a bit confusing, but I'm running into a conflict with user 7mike5000.
This began when I undid a significant amount of text he added to the Smoking article. The edit he made was this: [70]
The edit history doesn't reveal a user Saddhiyama making any changes -- I'm not sure why this is there, unless it was a botched attempt at sockpuppetry, which is something 7mike5000 has gotten into trouble for in the past, as I will show later. The only wiki-anything user named Saddhiyama I could find was this page ( Saddhiyama), and it seems they contribute mainly to the Danish project. I have not contacted this user.
7mike5000 has repeated demonstrated such behavior on other articles and towards other users. A history of just that which has been reported could be found on his talkpage, before he deleted it: [79] and replaced it, ironically, with this: [80].
That's what has transpired since this began. The details of the dispute are covered in uninterrupted form here: Talk:Smoking#Section_on_Depression_vs._Suicide and here: User_talk:TeamZissou#.22_consider_keeping_your_edit_summaries_a_bit_more_civil_instead_of_venting_your_anger.22 TeamZissou ( talk) 00:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Update 1: I added a notification template to 7mike5000's talk page, per the WQA rules at the top of this page. TeamZissou ( talk) 00:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Update 2: I added a notification of this WQA to the bottom of the discussion on the Talk:Smoking page, here: [81] TeamZissou ( talk) 00:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Update 3: I just learned 7mike5000 nominated an article I started ( Sherman Trap) to be merged into Animal trapping (here: [82] and here: [83], though he didn't sign this. The article was one of my first back in 2006 and therefore wasn't done well, but it's been there for 4 years, and it is significant in that the Sherman trap is used and mentioned in the majority of small mammal studies and ecological surveys involving small mammals. My hasty links to sources added to that article in light of this are to demonstrate this trap's unique place in its own article just like Pitfall trap and Malaise trap. Given the timing and his comment on this article, 7mike5000's nomination for this article would seem to be motivated by our recent conflict. TeamZissou ( talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Update 4: I've just learned that User:7mike5000 has gone through and tagged or altered the following articles I've started, all of which are listed on my user page:
While further references and citations are always good, all of those articles are legitimate and have been in valid, verifiable standing for a long time. Other editors have expanded articles like George IV Bridge, Norderoog is a place mentioned in North Frisian Islands and Brown_rat#Diet (it's the site of several important animal studies), Bulliform cell has been rated as High-importance by WikiProject Plants, etc. -- It is obvious the 7mike5000 is only doing this to harass me in light of his false claims that I deleted his contribution without an edit summary -- I gave him much more than a summary, and now he's merely retaliating. Can I please get an Administrator to look at this? TeamZissou ( talk) 02:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Update 5: User 7mike5000 has gone through and done the same to these articles I started as well to harass me: Acylglyceride linkage, Bathyergus, Dear enemy recognition, Robert Linssen, Lupinus nootkatensis, all given "verification" tags -- he's likely doing this to set up moves to delete all these articles. Many of these have been reviewed by their respective WikiProjects, verification is easily done by doing a quick google search -- 7mike5000 is not tagging these articles in good faith, and it's clear he's not doing it to improve Wikipedia. TeamZissou ( talk) 02:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have been involved in an ongoing dispute over the Susan B. Anthony List page for several days now, since 27 July. User:Binksternet has engaged in edit warring but has taken some steps to resolve disputes on the talk page. However, he has been engaged in WP:HOUNDING for some time:
Perhaps the most damning evidence of hounding is the fact that the user had never edited those pages before, at least not in the last 500 edits of each page.
User's edits on those pages may have been merited/constructive. But it's clear that the only reason he ever would have gone to those pages is because he was tracking down my edits and inspecting them.
Lastly, I would like to apologize for an edit made under my username to user's talk page -- I did not make the edit, it was someone in my house who knows of the situation and did it under my name when I was away from the computer to be funny. I reverted the edit.
BS24 ( talk) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
SnottyWong, I said his edits may have been constructive, I just don't think they were all made in good faith since most of them were undos. I apologize for my frustration; it's just very frustrating that most Wikipedia editors are undeniably liberal, and it seems anyone who tries to make it more fair towards the conservative side gets shot down by established users who have been around for years. Any edit by a conservative, constructive or not, is treated with far more scrutiny. This may or may not have been Binksternet's aim, but it is still incredibly frustrating. Also, CriticalChris's edits to Keith Fimian were not "worthy" of the article. He openly admitted on the talk page that he was going to fill the page with POV. One needs only to look at the horrendous state of the article before I edited it to see the liberal bias that was accepted by editors, where Fimian was slammed for each and every statement and position he takes. BS24 ( talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Now Binksternet is engaged in edit warring ( 1 2 3). See his ridiculous rationales ( 1 2) on Talk:Susan B. Anthony List. BS24 ( talk) 03:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
user:Kintetsubuffalo is once again bullying a newbie, shortly after a discussion on this page was concluded with a notice to Kintetsubuffalo to stop biting newbies. See the recent exchanges between him (or her?) and an anonymous editor at user talk:Kintetsubuffalo. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone did recently post to Kintetsubuffalo's page about Kintetsubuffalo's recent newbie-biting. Kintetsubuffalo is habitually rude, and has made no secret of his intention to continue on that course. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
How shall we rank the following on a scale to be used for assessing who is behaving better than who?
Kintetsubuffalo has committed the latter two acts and announced that he will continue doing that, by a coolly thought-out policy of his, in hypothetical future situations. Either of them alone, without the announcement of policy and future intentions, is worse than the first one. I think we should avoid being impolite to Kintetsubuffalo by banning him. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Paul Siebert is continuing vandalize the article GULAG with a purpose to promote the point of view of a group of scholars on a subject what is very controversial. He threated users , mocked and harassed them. Without having any level of knowledge of the subject he deletes all parts of the article what he does not like. Celasson ( talk) 15:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
[ [90]] here
[ [91]] here
[ [92]]here
[ [93]] here
The thing is that authors whom he holds for the first instance authority are kind of GULAG deniers and describe things which have never exist. And I discussed with him a lot and require any evidence but he refused. My curiosity made him made. That all. Of course the best solution to write about that like 'The numbers are disputed' etc. But he decided to vandalize article to keep his lies alive. Celasson ( talk) 16:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Why do you assume that I will accuse somebody without having evidences? Of course I have them. 1.He threated user Biophys to disclose his identity ( probably initiate against user Biophus some repressions):
There are in Russia a move toward to deny Stalin's crimes and persecute historians. Mikhail Suprun I tried to discuss with him. He never answers any question asked and suppose to know any WP Policy better than anybody else, but if you begin discuss details he refuses to answer.
1.however, nobody dispute validity of Zemskov's data. Best regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
That nobody dares to dispute Zemskov's because this data was published in The American Historical Review, there were no explanations why. He intentionally push a point of view of a group of scientists and so violate WP:NPOV
2.User Biphus states:
Sure, I made decent reading on this subject including books by Solzhenitsyn, Shalamov, Ginzburg, Margolin, Applebaum, Antonov-Ovseenko and others. Conquest and Figes wrote a lot about repressions in general, but not that much about Gulag. And remember that Gulag Archipelago by Solzenitsyn is non-fiction.Biophys (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Paul Siebert answer:
Hmmm... "Do not read Soviet newspapers before a lunch..." (C) Bulgakov.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it is a proper way to have a dispute?
3. My statement:
I don't find good the idea that in this article will be used some works from communists or pro-communists authors . It is disrespectful of the victims.--Celasson (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
And, please, remember, that, in addition to neutrality other policies exist, namely, verifiability and no original research. Re assume good faith, "Physician, heal thyself".--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Paul Siebert openly mocks victims of the Stalin's crimes. And moreover he is using for that the quote from the Bible! Stalin's persecutions against Christian can be compared with such ones in Antique Rome. And WP:ETIQUETTE is very clear : common example of this is religion. Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted yours. Remember that anything written on Wikipedia is kept permanently, even if it is not visible. Celasson ( talk) 15:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me leave most of that uncommented. However, as far as the last Celasson's post concerns another user (Biophys) I need to make some clarification, namely, to provide a more extended quote from my talk page archive these words were taken from [102] (this is a part of the discussion of the notorious EEML case on my talk page):
the quote begins
the quote ends
I have no desire to comment that.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Resolved – Ongoing discussion at
WP:ANI, which seems a more appropriate venue. —
e. ripley\
talk 15:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Hi, I am new to this. I have just pointed out to User:Miacek, that his references are not formated in accordance with WP-standards, and he called me a crackhead in return. I am not a native speaker of English, so I might get this wrong, but according to WP this is not a nice thing to say. Is this acceptable behavior - or what can be done about it? Yours -- 78.53.40.172 ( talk) 12:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
|
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
These Users are harassing me on my talk page and on Talk:Libertarianism and trying to get me to stop editing Libertarianism because they doen’t like anarchists and are under the mis-impression I am one-not that it should matter. Actually I haven’t edited the article much because a couple of these guys keep me too busy countering their constant WP:soapbox about why there should be no mention of anarchism, including because it allegedly hurts Ron Paul's credibility! This is a similar attack to one I reported at Wikiquette alerts recently by User:Ddd1600. Don’t know if it’s the same person but I would not be surprised if there was sockpuppetry going on. Relevant links/diffs:
User_talk:Carolmooredc/Archive_V#Libertarianism_vs_Anarchism.
Needlesstosay, this makes it difficult to focus on finding some good new sources to beef up the article and answer some legitimate objections, and to end all the WP:OR editing while both left and right libertarian editors are busy ripping up the lead. Oi Oi Oi! CarolMooreDC ( talk) 23:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
This silliness continues with this and this silly harassing WP:Soapbox. At what point does one do a WP:Ani?? CarolMooreDC ( talk) 14:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Update: The article has been protected and one sockpuppet has been identified. Hopefully disruptive talk page editing will end. CarolMooreDC ( talk) 00:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It didnt take long for this user, formerly one of the two IPs above (or perhaps one of the other two that briefly passed by Libertarianism, to engage in personal attacks against me. This diff] starts with: IF there is ever to be progress in any form made on this page, it shall only be made through the BARRING of Carol. She is not a shepherd, she is an anti-intellectual nuisance. etc and [1] If we decide on electing Carol as a dictator, by force of course, perhaps the rules might change. Otherwise, no. etc. Somebody besides me put up a warning template. I'd appreciate it. THANKS!! CarolMooreDC ( talk) 13:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Darkstar1st has engaged in endless soapbox-ing on Talk:Libertarianism The comments are mostly off-topic and sometimes simply false. The latest incident ( [2]) is changing:
The edit summary says "removed wordy redundant text".
This article is under strong pressure from some users who "don't like anarchism" or "want to make Ron Paul/Libertarian Party look good", and offer just these statement for demanding that references to anarchism be dropped. This has made editing the article too difficult. For some of his/her others comments check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_16 (archived two days back). In particular, check [3] for a small collection of off-topic or false statements by the user.
This complain is related to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Users:97.93.109.174_.26_71.12.74.67 earlier on this page. N6n ( talk) 15:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently I stumbled upon a contributer who continually calls me Bolgarian, my country Bolgaria and so on. While this may sound a little too less to be seeking assistance, there are things that kind of escalate the problem. The annon in question is 94.140.88.117 ( talk · contribs · logs · block log). He seems to know his way around the place (Wikipedia, that is) since he has quite some contribs, but I noticed him spelling the name wrongly ( [13]). I explained to him the situation with the name ( [14]). The result was him continuing to use it in that way [15]. I got the feeling that he was doing it on purpose and that it must be derogatory in Serbian. So I asked him to stop and explained that it sounds like a personal attack (since he already knows I start to find it offensive) plus that I'll treat it like one the next time he posts the word in that way( [16]). To make sure he gets the message I posted on his talkpage [17]. I don't feel like being polite anymore since he's clearly doing it on purpose and it does not help discussion (not that he wants to actually participate in any). What happened is that he continued [18], using the word in the edit summary [19] and even posting it to my talkpage [20]. I start taking it as some harassment, but do not wish to escalate it to ANI still since he's obviously toying around. It really destroys any chance of a normal discussion, though. Any assistance would be much appreciated. -- Laveol T 20:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Things in the area of Transcendental Meditation are once again getting heated. In this edit Timidguy insults my usage of source [21] which is little more than a personal attack. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
From the past few days User:Goethean has been indulging in incivility, personal attacks, inappropriate tagging
Would request the admins to look into it, Thanks. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 04:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Rick Jens has been using highly abusive language directed personally. A subsection titled Taliban Mulla Editors-Nmkuttiady was added by him full of abusive language like calling me Taliban Mulla editor and comments like The petro dinar funded wahabis need some literature sense. To feed the illiterate who read the outfits daily. Many of his edits are purely driven by emotion without any proper reasoning, like this one. Can someone look at the discussion here? NMKuttiady ( talk) 08:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Rick Jens found vandalizing article Talk:Popular Front of India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.240.119.66 ( talk) 18:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
It has been a little while, but this user has not responded to the problems posed here, despite the fact that he has been active. I will leave a note again at his talk. -- Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 15:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks
Fiftytwo thirty for the comments. Being a novice in Wikipedia has its own problems as you mentioned. It is not my intention to develop a personal battle. I am only interested in improving the articles where I have good/ through knowledge.
Here, NMKuttiady has taken some of my comments out of context and quoted it as a personal attack against him.
In the said section I was only referring to the generic edits done by few editors including NMKuttiady. I had also given example about the style of editing . The introduction was changed to for committing blasphemy. NMKuttiady claims he has not done that. But the fact is he was editing at that time and the said edit is done by IP address which I have no means to verify where it is from.
Popular Front of India is a notorious organization. A neutral article on Popular Front of India and their activities should capture their violent nature. I humbly request that this effort should not be considered as a POV pushing. Rick jens ( talk) 19:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
First -- a disclaimer -- that I know little about the articles in question, but I do have a few more notes regarding POV. I recommend that all parties look at WP:NPOV and WP:COOL as valuable resources regarding editing civility when in conflict. It appears that all people are talking on the talk page, which is the first step in dispute resolution. It is not going to help facilitate discussion no matter who you are directing attacks to, or who you claim that the people involved are affiliated with, but it will facilitate discussion to just state the facts. For example on the current introduction (Popular front of India), it would not be appropriate to say that "User XXX should not edit this article because they are affiliated with YYY," but instead "The intro seems like it is ripped from the organization's website and is therefore inherently POV." (Which it does) Another example with rick's proposed intro: Not "Rick is obviously against this organization" but instead "Rick's proposal seems like it shifts, but does not fix the POV problems that this article is plagued with." The intro should probobly be none of the above starting with an objective statement, something like "The Popular front of India is a political movement to (Insert five word or less description of goal here, something like "decrease poverty" "eliminate corruption," or "Decrease government spending") in India. Then go on to describe ties to other organizations, and then a brief summary of allegations, "Extremist," "radical" and then discuss the further implications in a later section. My final suggestion would be that all references be in {{ cite web}}, {{ cite news}}, or {{ cite book}} templates so that it is easier to identify which sources are reliable. Few statements should be referenced to the group itself, with the exception of History and purpose (and those should be paraphrased, some parts look like WP:COPYVIO.) Overall -- remove personal affiliatons and accusations thereof and focus discussions objectively on the content issues. -- Fiftytwo thirty ( talk) 21:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
As much as I hate doing it, I must register my protest about the unprofessional and uncivilized behavior of the administrator John Kenney
List of cities proper by population is a contentious article. Many of the list entries do not comply with the definition and scope given in the intro of this list. I had tried to bring certain list items in accordance with the intro. This has been frustrated. This complaint is not about this.
I have engaged in a discussion on the talk page. Lately, John Kenney, who is not an active editor of this article, has taken part in this discussion.
In Talk:List of cities proper by population, John Kenney, who is an Administrator
(There is more, I just gave you the worst ones so far.)
It is trying to remain civil under such a barrage of invectives, but I try. If it would be a regular user, you would not hear from me. An administrator should be held to a somewhat higher standard. An administrator should at least understand the basics of civility. Please let me know whether such a behavior is within Wikipedia policy. If it is, then I will accept it. If it is not, then I respectfully ask that the appropriate action is taken. Thank you. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 19:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
If someone apologizes sincerely, I'll be the first one to accept it and to make peace, as I did. However, if the apology is insincere and followed by further attacks, my acceptance of the apology is off the table. Today, John Kenney vandalized
List of cities proper by population by removing the core definition for the scope of the list. This definition is a United Nations definition and was accompanied by three references. This definition had been there for many months and was never edited out. John Kenney also removed a quote from and a reference to another United Nation publication.
The diff is here. The removal was accompanied by a note that says "If I remove the UN definition, does that mean this article is no longer a fraud?"
This appears to refer to falsified and unsourced data which had been introduced in List of cities proper by population. I had made various efforts to bring the data in accordance with the proper sources. These attempts were reverted. After my pleas of WP:SOURCES and WP:OR remained fruitless, I subsequently called the entries "fraudulent" on the talk page of the article. This accusation was never refuted. My main concern is that the uncivil language and the vandalism comes from an administrator. I can handle "robust language" and the occasional vandalism without complaints. I am old enough.
However, we are dealing with an administrator. An administrator should be held to somewhat higher standards. At the very least, he should know the basics of Wikipedia.
This removal of a well referenced core section of the article was not accompanied by a discussion, nor had the definition been discussed at all lately. This makes it vandalism.
As this matter has escalated, this informal forum is most likely the wrong venue to discuss this matter. I would appreciate input on how and where I can report this matter so that it receives its proper resolution. FYI, I put a vandalism tag on Kenney's talk page, mentioned the matter in Talk:List of cities proper by population, however, I did not revert the vandalism. I am concerned that this would further escalate the already untenable situation. Thank you for your assistance. -- BsBsBs ( talk) 20:23, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
On 15 July 2010, User:LouisPhilippeCharles called User:FactStraight arrogant [37] and ignorant. [38] I gave him a friendly warning. [39] [40] I urged him to apologize to FactStraight, but all I see he did was assuming bad faith. [41] On 5 August, he called me a hypocrite. [42] I don't seem to be able to explain to him what personal attacks are; [43] [44] could someone more pedagogic explain that to him? Surtsicna ( talk) 15:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hey, sorry! I will apologise to Surtsicna, myself and him have been conversing outside of this anyway regarding various pages :) As for the other person, I will not; he has accused me of various injustices and had me blocked – so he can politely leave me be tbh HRH the Prince of Piedmont ( talk) 15:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I have had several incidences with WoodchuckRevenge. It started with his vandalism of the American Pickers page. The following is the dialog on his user page following that incidence.
American Pickers
Please stop vandalizing this page. The two characters are not a homosexual couple and if they are they have not released any infor saying otherwise. The next time you change this I will report you to an administrator.76.177.47.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC). Are you Frank Fritz or something? How about getting a username. --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 20:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC) How about you change your smart ass attitude that you are using around here? I don't want a username, nor do I have to get one.76.177.47.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC). Glad to see your a classy user who's only been blocked multiple times and curses on his user page. Grow up, Clown! --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 03:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC) 03:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC) And you call the things you do classy? I can't help what someone does on an ip address. IP's change you know. IMO you should have been blocked along time ago for uncivil activity.76.177.47.225 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC). I have reported you to Jpgordon for uncivil remarks and libelous comments on the American Pickers page.76.177.47.225 (talk) 02:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Oh no! I'm so scared! >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
The following is the dialog from Jpgordon's page:
Hi, I and others have reverted WoodchuckRevenge twice for libelous comments on the American Pickers page. He has accused the show's two cast members as being a homosexual couple. I made a comment on his page about this and warned him that I would report him. Of course, I receive a very uncivil comment back. Could somebody please cools this guy's heals.76.177.47.225 (talk) "Accuse" implies a suggestion that one is guilty of some wrongdoing. Since I think most people agree that there is nothing wrong with being gay, you might want to rethink your wording. However, you are correct that the statement does not belong in the article unless it is germane and verifiable per the notions contained in WP:BLP. x-posted to User talk:76.177.47.225. Taroaldo (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with being gay and that wasn't my intent. I love the show and they have made many hints that they are a homosexual couple. I will wait till a source presents itself before editing that page again. But if we want to talk about being uncivil. Take a look at his comments to me on User_talk:WoodchuckRevenge#American_Pickers and comments he's left on his own talk page User_talk:76.177.47.225. >>WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 04:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC) First of all, I'd rather edit by IP than user name. I picked that IP up the day that this started. I did not make those other comments. Second, it is accuse since he is saying they are something they that have not verified as being. Frank has mentioned his girlfriend in several episodes, has been photographed hosting wet t-shirt contests, and both are life long friends since childhood. When you say that they are a homosexual couple without proof you are being accusatory. Why? Because this has everything to do with their careers. This has nothing to do with gay being a bad word as Taroaldo implies. If they lost their tv show over an implication such as this, then in the court of law you could be held liable for making this libelous statements. Third, your snarky attitude is what has started this. I simply ask you not to do this and you come back with a smart ass answer. I ask you to stop again and I get accused of this and that and another smart ass comment. The proof is on your page. I am getting closer to believing that your sole purpose on Wikipedia is to hook somebody into a disagreement with you. I have notice intently how you seem to choose your words carefully, snare someone, then double back and make yourself look like gold. I am also starting to wonder if you and Taroaldo are sockpuppets.76.177.47.225 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC) If you review my comment, you will note that I support your position that the material should be exlcuded. Taroaldo (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Hi. There's no reason for this conversation to be on this page. Bye. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Who is the one starting the argument? I really don't care what an "IP" thinks. Get a username and then we could tell if those were your comments or not. And if History dropped their show because they were gay, they would sue the History channel for discrimination and win big dollars. Especially if they used Wikipedia as their source. Every 2nd grader should know not to source Wiki. So please, just scram. I have a great history of edits. --WoodchuckRevenge (talk) 04:46, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
My concerns are as follows:
1. I tried to resolve the issue only to be told basically to scram. 2. I tried to alert an administrator to no avail. 3. I am being told by an editor I have no valid complaint since I am using an IP address to edit. Yes, my IP has been blocked, however, I am on an open network so I have been caught in the misdeeds of others. 4. Woodchuck has demonstrated uncivil actions to others as is evident on his user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.177.47.225 ( talk) 22:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I am honestly not trying to cause trouble. I have made many ip edits over the last 4 years. I just find Woodchuck's behavior a bit repulsive and he seems to be playing the field. He get's snarky with me, then makes a sweet smelling comment to established editors and admins about how he regrets his behavior and will not vandalize again, then comes right back at me with something snarky. I find that a bit ingenious. 76.177.47.225 ( talk) 01:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Every computer has it's own IP address even if they are all used on the same wireless. >> WoodchuckRevenge ( talk) 05:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Gun Powder Ma has been systematically engaging in personal attacks against me and other editors. Against me (this is counting only recent attacks): 1 2 3. Older examples of attacks: [ 1 Against other editors: 1 2 3 4 I request admin intervention for this editor to stop making personal attacks. Teeninvestor ( talk) 14:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I am Jeremy Main, former editor Jel, and a part-time researcher in history working alongside Professor Laura Smoller of Arkansas University, the world's leading expert in mediaeval cosmology, particularly focusing on the work of Cardinal Pierre d'Ailly. Cardinal d'Ailly's cosmology was a principal inspiration of Christopher Columbus, who used d'Ailly's Imago Mundi as a planning document for the Indies expeditions. He was also a chief inspiration for Pope Eugenius IV's views on the Eucharist, which were a signficant influence in his commissioning of Prince Henry the Navigator's exploration of the African coasts, and through his follower Cusanus, "Eugenius' Hercules", of Kepler and modern astronomy. As I wanted to discover more about Prince Henry's relationship with the Pope, to reconcile an ostensible contradiction with other positions the Pope took, I enquired in the area of the Portuguese School of Navigation and discovered the question of Columbus' ancestry is an open question in Portuguese academic circles. It suggests a further relationship between the Order of Christ and Columbus, coherent in the alacrity he took to d'Ailly's collected works when they were published in the 1480s. As this was somewhat ground-breaking, I looked at the Wiki page on Columbus for a quick reference check, and onwards to the Orign Theories page, in search of details of his education, which appears to have been minimal as a child, but was extensive in his later life, at least sufficiently to be able to follow the cosmological thinking which through Cusanus inspired Kepler, coming to a similar conclusion. The balance between the two memes is, or should be, that the main page should display the orthodox history, and the subordinate page should address the quandry. However, on examining the [ page], I discovered a bad-tempered dispute between administrator/ajudicator Dougweller and a new editor, Colon-el-Nuevo, who was presenting a fairly central version of the Portuguese theories as his own work. I do not know his identity, but I do know that what he has been saying is representative of a school of thought in Portugal, not simply that of one man, whether or not he is at the root of the school. The root of Dougweller's position is the same which caused Larry Sanger to depart, an administrator who knows nothing about the subject attempting to overrule experts. I therefore attempted to call the disputing parties to order, even providing a discussion area where the protagonists can debate their cases without making a mess all over the discussion page, but Dougweller turned on me and has become insulting to me as well, in public to boot when I asked him to talk to me in private. He refuses to see past his disdain of Colon-el-Nuevo and to hear that others appear to share his opinions to greater or lesser extents, which after all is the object of the meme, Origin theories. I am therefore referring Dougweller's behaviour to this meme with the request that he be banned from moderating historical subjects, that an independant authority be appointed to tidy up the mess and that Colon-el-Nuevo be corrected in his thinking. I do not feel I should take that task on, because I have posted what amounts to OR in the domain as a possible reconciliation of both schools of thought, and because I am not sufficiently authoritative in the main subject to form a definitive position: I am and remain open to guidance on the question, if properly documented.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.165.143 ( talk) 21:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I have taken a look at the page in question and I don't find any evidence of "bad temper" or "abusiveness". Dougweller made reasonable efforts to draw the attention of other editors to appropriate areas of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or dissemination of bits of academic research/writings/findings which lack the appropriate verifiability. The ramblings of some individuals in the talk page also seem indicative of an attempted POV push. I find this claim of "abusiveness" against User:Dougweller to be spurious. Taroaldo ( talk) 23:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Tara then, pointless exercise, the talk about a mafia is correct. Another academic will now join the list of rubbishers of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.165.143 ( talk) 00:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
While possibly a well-intentioned attempt to encourage other editors to address policy, this IP user communicates in a string of put-downs: "your comment is extraordinarily stupid", "nitwit" and "what a stupid assertion", "gits", "stop being a dick", "clueless", "clueless morons" [51]. The vast majority of this editor's comments include some kind of personal attack.
Even the comments without outright insults are often gratuitous condescension in context. E.g. weeks after an innocuous comment from a new editor 98.108.211.71 jumps in to bellttle him/her. At best such behavior accomplishes nothing; at worst it provokes a fight; in most cases it will probably just foster animosity.
In short, 98.108.211.71 needs to stop framing his/her contributions as though he/she is spoiling for a fight. 129.67.151.47 ( talk) 09:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob ( talk) 14:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
MickMacNee ( talk · contribs · block user) has been carrying a debate with several other editors concerning the naming of 2010 Alaska Turbo Otter crash on Monday's crash of a small airplane which killed a former Senator.
The root of the problem appears to be his disagreement with Wikiproject Aviation's naming conventions which resulted in some comments which are less than civil at best and outright hostile at worst: [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60]. It's pretty clear that this editor knows he is being incivil and doesn't' care: [61]. This editor already has an impressive block logs and this username is scattered across this and other administrative notice boards. A recent reminder about assuming good faith on his talk page was placed and was quickly and dismissed by this editor.-- RadioFan ( talk) 12:17, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Am I missing the notice to MickMacNee that you've opened a discussion on this board? I could be, but I'm not seeing it.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 13:13, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I guess I'm wrong. Looks like the editors here approve of how MickMacNee is conducting himself in discussions. Consider this resolved then.-- RadioFan ( talk) 13:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Gonads3, that's me. I'm involved in something that should never have happened. I seek advice as to how I can avoid this kind of confrontation in future. I guess I'm reporting myself for allowing this happen.
It's a lengthy discussion, but it should be considered as a whole to make any sense of it.
I've tried to put my point across but failed dismally. Whenever the chance to move on arises, the same issues keep arising.
I'm troubled by the outcome, especially as my actions were, I believe, in good faith.
Any help would be greatly appreciated as I do not want to get into a dispute of this type ever again. It's too much. Thank you. gonads 3 22:44, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Kintetsubuffalo seems to resent participation in Wikipedia by persons who are knowledgeable in the topics of the articles that they edit. In this edit, he could have explained that edits should cite sources that can be independently verified and why articles should not be written in first-person. Instead he characterized as "vandalism" a contribution from a reader with knowledge of the topic.
In this edit, he rudely dismissed a comment from a person with expertise in the topic of the article he edited that had been falsely characterized as "vandalism" by another user. That user has not returned; Wikipedia lost a conscientious contributor.
Once I asked him why he had put a "personal essay" hatnote on an article on a topic in my field of expertise. He responded only that it looked like a personal essay. Since it didn't look that way to me, I asked on his talk page specifically what in the article look that way to him. He deleted my question from his talk page with an edit summary that said "deleting the putz edits".
At the top of his talk page he has a notice that says he is often taken to task for his malefactions but one should "cut him some slack" because he is an experienced editor, and tries to attribute that to Jimmy Wales. The context in which such a comment can make sense does not include planning months in advance to behave badly before one knows in what situation one will do that.
He expresses the view, at the top of his talk page, that one's "talkpage which is [one's] own playground to do exactly what [one] wishes". That does not make sense. If I have a concern or question about someone's editing practices, I will post it to their talk page without asking permission, and so does everyone, and that is as it should be. They're not private property; the idea that they are conflicts with their purpose. I am a far more experienced editor than he is, but I don't claim exemption from norms because of it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 04:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Michael, you've already brought up many of these points just a few days ago at this ANI discussion. You keep rehashing the same infomation and accusations and it gives the appearance of holding a grudge. Instead of shopping your concerns from one board to another, perhaps you should consolidate all of your grievances at RFC/U and see if others believe it is a problem also? -- Jezebel'sPonyo shhh 13:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
For some reason, Unomi ( talk · contribs) has a problem with me, and apparently feels the need to express that problem with incivility and personal attacks. I don't know if the problem extends to his interactions with other users, but his interactions with me are always disruptive. He occasionally shows up at discussions I'm involved in and makes pointed comments, although I don't think it would be fair to characterize his behavior as wikihounding at this point. I also can't say that my reactions to his incivility have always been exemplary, however for what it's worth, I can say that any perceived incivility on my part has always been in reaction to a blatant insult that I did not deserve. I think Unomi needs to learn to hold his tongue, or if that is not possible, he needs to avoid contributing to discussions in which I'm already involved. I think I need to learn to just ignore his comments, and not take the bait. We've actually had very little interaction overall, but all of the interaction has resulted in some kind of unnecessary insult. Here are some examples I've found of his comments towards me:
I would appreciate any comments the community has about this situation, as well as any advice on how to proceed. Thanks. SnottyWong soliloquize 20:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment - The user in question has been notified of this discussion, but has decided to delete this notification from his user talk page. SnottyWong speak 16:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Comment. I am not involved in this issue, but I found this edit summary by User:Unomi on Recent Changes. Given the sensitivity the issue of suicide may have to some editors, I find this to be a particularly egregious violation of WP:CIVIL. Taroaldo ( talk) 19:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently an editor posted a request for assistance at WP:Editor assistance/Requests#Issue over election Infobox which related to a content dispute at the article United States Senate election in Georgia, 2010 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I offered a third opinion at the article talk page, which was met with this comment by User:Jerzeykydd, which I consider to be completely uncalled for. Jezhotwells ( talk) 02:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
At 06:05, 14 August 2010 The user Sceptre was blocked for 24 hours for calling me "Nazi Scum" after being previously told to curb personal attacks.
Even after getting a block he continued to make very offensive and defamatory comments against me.
At 06:47, 14 August 2010 this editor made the following two extremely offensive and defamatory comments against me
At 07:04, 14 August 2010 , not content with the above offensive comments the editor Sceptre then made the following comments against me
I am highly offended at being called 'anti-Semitic', a 'Nazi' and 'pond life' . And what's clear and shocking is that the editor Sceptre made these FOUR instances of hate speech within an hour of being blocked for the same. No one should have to put up with these kind of attacks for editing Wikipedia.
I have notified the user of this report here
Vexorg ( talk) 11:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Although there is no evidence of Vexorg being anti-semite, nor "pond-scum", it's also obvious that making a WQA for angry comments done by Sceptre just after he got blocked is completely pointless, and only aimed at making him more angry. Baiting is also not allowed. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 13:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can see this thread has now only become an excuse to continually call Vexorg names. I suggest we archive it, nothing useful can come out of this. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 13:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi all.
User:Cjim63 has been pushing a negative POV in the Oom Yung Doe article for quite some time; he's used grossly misleading summaries of genuine facts, made up facts, falsified sources, and refused efforts at meditation and other conflict resolution (and now more or less refuses to take part in discussion on the talk page). Most recently, he made this edit, adding some valid information about a new lawsuit against the school, but also adding several dishonest statements, for example:
The actual fact of the matter (which the current state of the article reflects) is that Pam Zekman's report was largely untrue, no charges were ever filed for the criminal offenses she alleged, the Attorney General's 1989 case (for financial misconduct) ended with a settlement of a few thousand dollars, and John C. Kim's conviction and the shutdown of the schools was based on a later charge of conspiracy to commit tax fraud. Cjim63's summary, though, leaves any sensible reader with the impression that the much more serious allegations were demonstrated in court and led to the shutdown of the schools.
Diffs for some other random similar misconduct (I have more, but this post is already going to be longer than usual):
Cjim63 is a member of what is effectively a hate group about Oom Yung Doe (which they call "Moo") -- here he is replying to someone who talks about "fat lil' effeminate Kim" and requests that Wikipedia be updated. There are other choice quotes in the thread ("typical Moo cowards, probably practising Moo-meditations for penis growth", "truly disgusting vermin"), but in general the group hates the school, believes several incorrect things about the school, and wants to spread the "information" they believe (including posting it to Wikipedia). His Wikipedia account seems to be an SPA.
What can I do about this? So far I've simply been discussing on the talk page, reverting things that are inappropriate, looking up sources when they don't seem likely to match the cited statements, and suchlike, but that's now been going on for years. Because of what seems like a lack of good faith (refusal to discuss, dishonest sourcing, misleading summaries, and some edit warring), it's also frequently more difficult than it needs to be (e.g. when I track down a source and find that it doesn't exist or doesn't say anything remotely related to what's claimed). I'm not sure if WQA is the right place for this, but it seems to me that blatant, repeated dishonesty like this obviously crosses some sort of line. What's my next step beyond reverting inappropriate things and attempting without success to open discussion?
Subverdor ( talk) 16:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Recently, there was an article that was nominated for deletion. The article was deleted. As I was trying to improve the article. I made a number of relevant redirects and wikilinked other articles to the article that had been AfD'd.
As I said before, the article was deleted in July. However, User:Timtrent (aka Fiddle Faddle) is now hounding me on my talk page, and has in fact issued a shot across the bow and threatened me for a perceived offense. Mind you, these threats came weeks after the article was deleted.
I really don't think I did anything wrong. I've asked Timtrent/Fiddle Faddle to stop bothering me 2x, but this seems to egg him on. I'm asking a neutral party to intervene. Thanks. Philly jawn ( talk) 03:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
OK. So what happened here is as far as I can see:
What Timtrent did wrong: You didn't need to bring up vandalism immediately. You said you treated it as good faith edits. Then you should explain what was wrong with the edits. What you are doing now is saying that you treat it as good faith edits, but your comment clearly shows that you don't actually believe it to be. The comments was unnecessarily confrontational.
What Philly jawn did wrong: 1. Redirecting to an article that doesn't exist. 2. Reporting Timtrent when he has done nothing wrong.
I can't see that there is any outside action needed here. Timtrent: Be nice. Philly jawn: Your article was rightfully deleted. Accept it and go on with contributing to Wikipedia in better ways. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 08:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how to go about reporting this as the instructions were a bit confusing, but I'm running into a conflict with user 7mike5000.
This began when I undid a significant amount of text he added to the Smoking article. The edit he made was this: [70]
The edit history doesn't reveal a user Saddhiyama making any changes -- I'm not sure why this is there, unless it was a botched attempt at sockpuppetry, which is something 7mike5000 has gotten into trouble for in the past, as I will show later. The only wiki-anything user named Saddhiyama I could find was this page ( Saddhiyama), and it seems they contribute mainly to the Danish project. I have not contacted this user.
7mike5000 has repeated demonstrated such behavior on other articles and towards other users. A history of just that which has been reported could be found on his talkpage, before he deleted it: [79] and replaced it, ironically, with this: [80].
That's what has transpired since this began. The details of the dispute are covered in uninterrupted form here: Talk:Smoking#Section_on_Depression_vs._Suicide and here: User_talk:TeamZissou#.22_consider_keeping_your_edit_summaries_a_bit_more_civil_instead_of_venting_your_anger.22 TeamZissou ( talk) 00:13, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Update 1: I added a notification template to 7mike5000's talk page, per the WQA rules at the top of this page. TeamZissou ( talk) 00:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Update 2: I added a notification of this WQA to the bottom of the discussion on the Talk:Smoking page, here: [81] TeamZissou ( talk) 00:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Update 3: I just learned 7mike5000 nominated an article I started ( Sherman Trap) to be merged into Animal trapping (here: [82] and here: [83], though he didn't sign this. The article was one of my first back in 2006 and therefore wasn't done well, but it's been there for 4 years, and it is significant in that the Sherman trap is used and mentioned in the majority of small mammal studies and ecological surveys involving small mammals. My hasty links to sources added to that article in light of this are to demonstrate this trap's unique place in its own article just like Pitfall trap and Malaise trap. Given the timing and his comment on this article, 7mike5000's nomination for this article would seem to be motivated by our recent conflict. TeamZissou ( talk) 01:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Update 4: I've just learned that User:7mike5000 has gone through and tagged or altered the following articles I've started, all of which are listed on my user page:
While further references and citations are always good, all of those articles are legitimate and have been in valid, verifiable standing for a long time. Other editors have expanded articles like George IV Bridge, Norderoog is a place mentioned in North Frisian Islands and Brown_rat#Diet (it's the site of several important animal studies), Bulliform cell has been rated as High-importance by WikiProject Plants, etc. -- It is obvious the 7mike5000 is only doing this to harass me in light of his false claims that I deleted his contribution without an edit summary -- I gave him much more than a summary, and now he's merely retaliating. Can I please get an Administrator to look at this? TeamZissou ( talk) 02:10, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Update 5: User 7mike5000 has gone through and done the same to these articles I started as well to harass me: Acylglyceride linkage, Bathyergus, Dear enemy recognition, Robert Linssen, Lupinus nootkatensis, all given "verification" tags -- he's likely doing this to set up moves to delete all these articles. Many of these have been reviewed by their respective WikiProjects, verification is easily done by doing a quick google search -- 7mike5000 is not tagging these articles in good faith, and it's clear he's not doing it to improve Wikipedia. TeamZissou ( talk) 02:30, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
I have been involved in an ongoing dispute over the Susan B. Anthony List page for several days now, since 27 July. User:Binksternet has engaged in edit warring but has taken some steps to resolve disputes on the talk page. However, he has been engaged in WP:HOUNDING for some time:
Perhaps the most damning evidence of hounding is the fact that the user had never edited those pages before, at least not in the last 500 edits of each page.
User's edits on those pages may have been merited/constructive. But it's clear that the only reason he ever would have gone to those pages is because he was tracking down my edits and inspecting them.
Lastly, I would like to apologize for an edit made under my username to user's talk page -- I did not make the edit, it was someone in my house who knows of the situation and did it under my name when I was away from the computer to be funny. I reverted the edit.
BS24 ( talk) 18:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
SnottyWong, I said his edits may have been constructive, I just don't think they were all made in good faith since most of them were undos. I apologize for my frustration; it's just very frustrating that most Wikipedia editors are undeniably liberal, and it seems anyone who tries to make it more fair towards the conservative side gets shot down by established users who have been around for years. Any edit by a conservative, constructive or not, is treated with far more scrutiny. This may or may not have been Binksternet's aim, but it is still incredibly frustrating. Also, CriticalChris's edits to Keith Fimian were not "worthy" of the article. He openly admitted on the talk page that he was going to fill the page with POV. One needs only to look at the horrendous state of the article before I edited it to see the liberal bias that was accepted by editors, where Fimian was slammed for each and every statement and position he takes. BS24 ( talk) 14:39, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Now Binksternet is engaged in edit warring ( 1 2 3). See his ridiculous rationales ( 1 2) on Talk:Susan B. Anthony List. BS24 ( talk) 03:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
user:Kintetsubuffalo is once again bullying a newbie, shortly after a discussion on this page was concluded with a notice to Kintetsubuffalo to stop biting newbies. See the recent exchanges between him (or her?) and an anonymous editor at user talk:Kintetsubuffalo. Michael Hardy ( talk) 05:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Someone did recently post to Kintetsubuffalo's page about Kintetsubuffalo's recent newbie-biting. Kintetsubuffalo is habitually rude, and has made no secret of his intention to continue on that course. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
How shall we rank the following on a scale to be used for assessing who is behaving better than who?
Kintetsubuffalo has committed the latter two acts and announced that he will continue doing that, by a coolly thought-out policy of his, in hypothetical future situations. Either of them alone, without the announcement of policy and future intentions, is worse than the first one. I think we should avoid being impolite to Kintetsubuffalo by banning him. Michael Hardy ( talk) 00:03, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
User:Paul Siebert is continuing vandalize the article GULAG with a purpose to promote the point of view of a group of scholars on a subject what is very controversial. He threated users , mocked and harassed them. Without having any level of knowledge of the subject he deletes all parts of the article what he does not like. Celasson ( talk) 15:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
[ [90]] here
[ [91]] here
[ [92]]here
[ [93]] here
The thing is that authors whom he holds for the first instance authority are kind of GULAG deniers and describe things which have never exist. And I discussed with him a lot and require any evidence but he refused. My curiosity made him made. That all. Of course the best solution to write about that like 'The numbers are disputed' etc. But he decided to vandalize article to keep his lies alive. Celasson ( talk) 16:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Why do you assume that I will accuse somebody without having evidences? Of course I have them. 1.He threated user Biophys to disclose his identity ( probably initiate against user Biophus some repressions):
There are in Russia a move toward to deny Stalin's crimes and persecute historians. Mikhail Suprun I tried to discuss with him. He never answers any question asked and suppose to know any WP Policy better than anybody else, but if you begin discuss details he refuses to answer.
1.however, nobody dispute validity of Zemskov's data. Best regards --Paul Siebert (talk) 22:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
That nobody dares to dispute Zemskov's because this data was published in The American Historical Review, there were no explanations why. He intentionally push a point of view of a group of scientists and so violate WP:NPOV
2.User Biphus states:
Sure, I made decent reading on this subject including books by Solzhenitsyn, Shalamov, Ginzburg, Margolin, Applebaum, Antonov-Ovseenko and others. Conquest and Figes wrote a lot about repressions in general, but not that much about Gulag. And remember that Gulag Archipelago by Solzenitsyn is non-fiction.Biophys (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Paul Siebert answer:
Hmmm... "Do not read Soviet newspapers before a lunch..." (C) Bulgakov.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it is a proper way to have a dispute?
3. My statement:
I don't find good the idea that in this article will be used some works from communists or pro-communists authors . It is disrespectful of the victims.--Celasson (talk) 04:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
And, please, remember, that, in addition to neutrality other policies exist, namely, verifiability and no original research. Re assume good faith, "Physician, heal thyself".--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Paul Siebert openly mocks victims of the Stalin's crimes. And moreover he is using for that the quote from the Bible! Stalin's persecutions against Christian can be compared with such ones in Antique Rome. And WP:ETIQUETTE is very clear : common example of this is religion. Before you think about insulting someone's views, think about what would happen if they insulted yours. Remember that anything written on Wikipedia is kept permanently, even if it is not visible. Celasson ( talk) 15:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me leave most of that uncommented. However, as far as the last Celasson's post concerns another user (Biophys) I need to make some clarification, namely, to provide a more extended quote from my talk page archive these words were taken from [102] (this is a part of the discussion of the notorious EEML case on my talk page):
the quote begins
the quote ends
I have no desire to comment that.-- Paul Siebert ( talk) 16:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Resolved – Ongoing discussion at
WP:ANI, which seems a more appropriate venue. —
e. ripley\
talk 15:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)Hi, I am new to this. I have just pointed out to User:Miacek, that his references are not formated in accordance with WP-standards, and he called me a crackhead in return. I am not a native speaker of English, so I might get this wrong, but according to WP this is not a nice thing to say. Is this acceptable behavior - or what can be done about it? Yours -- 78.53.40.172 ( talk) 12:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
|