Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance/archive6

< Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive6)

1-August-2006

Mackan has wandered into article schadenfreude and decided that 3-1/2 years of work on the part of other editors compiling examples of the use of the term in the popular culture is "listcruft" and repeatedly vandalizes the article, despite warnings about vandalism. Could someone do something about this?

Davidkevin 06:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not vandalized the article, please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. I have edited out completely unnecessary information (listcruft). Please realise that anybody removing material from Wikipedia (especially the kind specified in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not) is not automatically a vandal. If anything needs to be done about anything, it's about your refusal to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and also your repeated "vandal warnings" to a fellow editor who is only trying to improve the article in question. It's hard to keep an honest debate with somebody who will only reply with a warning that I will be blocked because I'm a vandal (!). Mackan 07:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

2-August-2006

Is User:Sean Black and User:68.64.65.89 the same person? I reverted Sean's edits to date article April 3 and minutes later got flamed by the IP address.[1] I know Sean has had some temper problems in the past, and I'm asking for an admin's help to determine if this is more of the same. If so, his incivility (he should know better) and his use of an anonymous address to mask bad behavior needs to be noted. Rklawton 18:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

3-August-2006

New user Terminal emulator (previously 86.136.0.145) is unhappy with the existing reference sources in the Driving on the left or right article. He repeatedly inserts an excessive 165 {{fact}} tags into the article, sometimes more than once in the same sentence. Verifiable sources of reference for the article are already cited in the article's reference section (in accordance with Wikipedia policy), but Terminal emulator believes that this is insufficient and that 165 separate citations are needed on every statement. Terminal emulator has failed to check the sources that are already quoted in the article, particularly the Rule of the Road book by Peter Kincaid, which is probably the most authoritative and comprehensive source of reference on this topic and which supports many of the 165 statements to which Terminal emulator has appended {{fact}} tags. An unwillingness to obtain a copy of a cited reference source is no excuse to litter an article with {{fact}} tags, so I and other contributors have several times reverted Terminal emulator's insertions of 165 {{fact}} tags, and explained why on the article's Talk page, but he persists with this in the false belief that he is following Wikipedia policy. In his latest contribution, he has refrained from re-inserting his 165 {{fact}} tags, but has instead listed many statements that he is questioning, despite not having checked the cited sources first. He is also starting to delete statements that are backed up by cited reference sources without checking them first. Please could some admins contribute to the discussion on the article's Talk page in order to resolve this dispute. Thanks. NFH 18:42, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I stopped reinserting the fact tags some time before NFH made his post, because I was being reverted and it wasn't getting us anywhere. I have now gone through the article and listed all the questionable statements on the talk page, so that one by one they can be linked to sources or removed as unsourced. I too would be pleased to have some input into this discussion, because the established editors of the article appear somewhat reluctant to accept that it's a mess. I'd like to ask anyone contributing to read through everything I've said on the talk page, and inspect the history of the article. The problem is that when you read the article, it's clear that a lot of stuff is opinion dressed up as fact, making questionable claims to back up supposedly natural advantages of driving on the left or right. A lot of stuff has also been added by anons, which might be from their personal knowledge and might well be true (but Wikipedia policy is clear that this isn't good enough, and material lacking a reliable published source can be removed – let's have some standards and remember that we are writing an encyclopaedia, not an indiscriminate collection of people's "take my word for it" personal observations), but in a lot of cases whoever added the information could either be mistaken or even deliberately incorporating false information. It would be very difficult to see where this has occurred because the statements in the article are not linked to the sources given. My hope is that those parts of the article which do draw on the Kincaid book NFH mentions can be explicitly stated as such with footnotes and page references, and at the end of that process, all the detritus that the article has accumulated, whether dubious claims about ocular dominance and handedness made by anons trying to make a point, or simply unsourced information about the world's driving habits, can be removed. Terminal emulator 14:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Gaardbo has left rather ruse and abusive comments on my User talk:Captain scarlet; HERE. I have removed unsourced edits from Nivå (THEN) due to the lack of substantiable information given concerning local events. User:Gaardbo has nearly only contributed to Nivå; contribs and has so far added no edit summary. Could admins please explain to this user the benefits of Wiketiquette, the advantage of edit summaries and adding sources to unverifiable information. thanks. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 13:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

6-August-2006

Ultramarine does not attempt to reach consensus with anyone on the DEMOCRACY page and is constantly throwing out anyone who tries to contribute. READ all the discussions and you'll see time and time again contributers being pushed away in dismay ultramarine has seriously hampered all work on this vitally important article.


7-August-2006

Gay Cdn is a new user who is a self-described "deletionist". Some individuals have called to his attention that, in their opinions, his own behavior in doing so is less than civil and may itself be action outside of the standards of civility of wikipedia. 14:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

  • In order to have a full appreciation of the conduct, please see the AfD, and the talk pages of the two people involved 1 and 2 --15:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

9-August-2006

10-August-2006

11-August-2006

14-August-2006

  • User:Keith Parkins and possible socks is at the centre of an increasingly angry debate on Talk:Brighton concerning an external link. A request for mediation appears to have stalled. Don't know what to do... Please help! 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

15-August-2006

17-August-2006

  • User:Athomas9 is publishing a set of pages related to his company that has been in existence for one day. He is also adding links to the individual date pages for his birthday and foundation of the company. 14:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

17-August-2006

  • Wikipedia is Increasing Knowledge article at SilverSeek.com -- apparently this is someone's site about speculation in silver and gold: This has dozens of links to Wikipedia articles, and is encouraging people to come edit freely. I think this explains some strange edits to gold and silver a few days ago. It comes up on Google News as a news story about Wikipedia.... 18:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

22-August-2006

User has been blocked for one day, with longer blocks to follow if behavior continues. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

24-August-2006

  • Thomas Jay Oord is being edited by someone who appears to have a grudge against the philosopher, possibly his church, and doesn't know how to cite or link within wikipedia. Request outside opinion on NPOVness of the IP-address edits. 18:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Armon has been criticised by editors on a lot of the pages he's edited recently for his aggressive approach. He reverts without discussion, and removes any information since the last version he approves of, including undisputed information. See Fisking, Ahmed Zaoui, List of controversies surrounding Juan Cole, and Algerian Civil War. He's caused one editor with over 1000 edits to leave or wikibreak. 22:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

25-August-2006

  • User:Cathytreks/User:140.186.149.55 appear to have contributed little but name calling and related disruptive behavior for the last several months both here and in Commons. I could cherry pick the "best" examples, but pretty much any contribution will illustrate the case. That in itself is quite telling. 07:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Alananatomy is a new user and seems to be on a vandalism spree. So far his only 3 contributions are foul marrings of Pearl Jam and Calvin & Hobbes articles. Admins may want to keep an eye on future contiributions. 17:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

26-August-2006

27-August-2006

28-August-2006

  • Pottsf has entered a number of augmentations of Gold Standard, most recently the lead paragraph, which Stirling Newberry has been reverting without comment or notice, to the detriment of an article that is already badly compromised by extraneous material apparently meant to discredit the concept that the subject represents. The attention of impartial third parties knowledgeable about Wiki standards to the edits of the named parties and to the overall article is requested. The "null edit" of 28 August would be a good starting point.--

29-August-2006

  • Ase500 continues to post irrelevant items on User Talk:J.reed and User Talk:Tuxide. User was previously blocked for one day per a alert on this page dated Aug. 22nd. 18:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

30-August-2006

  • Talk:Set_(mythology) contains WP:POINT,WP:NPOV discussion contribution, later introducing some relation to egypt, but originally clearly using it as generic BBS. Contribution overly long; usage of unpleasant filling vocabular (unrelated to egypt). Must be removed. Reason: puts the article in wrong light; and does not appear to improve the article. Please give a statement, without duplication of the terms (variations of sexual intercourse). In addition, i would like to label overly duplication of annoying terms within discussion/incident discussion as a violation of etiquette as well. User:Yy-bo 20:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

31 August-2006

  • Lancashire contains constant inclusion of places outside of Lancashire. The article is extremly POV toward the traditional councties pressure group. County Watch which seems to be using WikiPedia to push it's POV. The editors with Counties in their names are some of the most persistant abusers.User:PixieFroFroooo 10:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC).

1-September-2006

  • User:JoeMystical has been harping incessantly on WP:RS in Talk:Neo-Tech (philosophy), continually rehashing the same old talking points. 05:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Amoruso is undoing edits to a false and pointless, personally and politically motivated section to the Al-Aqsa Mosque article entitled "Third holiest site : Rival claims" . Please see the bottom of the discussion page of the article for more details. The user clearly has no idea on the subject and is modifying the text cited from external links containing factual errors in the article. Also, take a look at the history of the article (esp when the section was created), it clearly shows the dubious nature and origin of the edits. 202.56.231.116 13:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

2-September-2006

4-September-2006

  • I've been caught up in a dispute at talk:transphobia. I fee that I've remained civil, assumed good faith for as long as possible, and taken in as many viewpoints from earlier discussions on the talk page as possible, weighing them up against the facts known on the subject. I also feel that I've correctly interpreted wiki policy in that I have acted in accordance with it's sentiment/intent. Unfortunately though, as I say, I have ended up caught up in a dispute on the basis of what I find to be vandalism, and on the basis of what is inarguably a sustained personal attack on me (as reported on WP:PAIN). I have engaged in the discussion with the perpotrator on the talk page, but in spite of all I have done, the dispute rages on. Here is the point I feel where I must seek an outside opinion of my behaviour and the overall situation before continuing. Kindest regards, 14:40, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Game junkie is being flooded with meatpuppets. I've tried to explain that the store isn't notable, but a bunch of their friends keep logging on and spamming the discussion. Wooty 18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

5-September-2006

  • I just ran across some edits by User:71.37.12.75 and am completely overwhelmed. I'm tempted to just consider all these edits as spam since I don't have the time to go through them one by one checking if any of them that introduce links are actually valid. 04:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

6-September-2006

  • Could someone take a look at Feldenkrais_method and its talk page? Article is pretty bad by Wiki standards. I suggested some changes, then made them a week after the suggestion when there was no response. Now I'm the target of personal attacks, while everything has been restored without discussion. -- 15:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Could someone look at Portfolio_Management_for_New_Products? It's becoming one big ad for an author's books and consultancies. I don't even know where to begin to fix it. -- 15:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Could someone look at 64.32.239.212? It may be a spambot and I've no idea how to deal with such, nor how to block. -- 21:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Reported on WP:AIV. 18:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

7-September-2006

  • User:Dokusenyoku has been found to have uploaded Image:Ugly Koharu-chan.PNG, which I assume he himself created for the sole purpose of debasing Kusumi Koharu, a Japanese J-Pop artist in whose page the aforementioned user made several edits. Additionally, two other edits were made in the Morning Musume J-Pop Group page. While not obviously offensive it is my belief this user uploaded an outdated picture of the group in other to cause strife.00:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • User:Scottandrewhutchins is continuously violating WP:Dick. There is no attempt at conflict resolution, even most recently. He hijacks new topics started on the Charun discussion page with an obsession over a "Charun bashes souls" debate, telling one individual in particular that he is "incompetent" multiple times for supposely not supplying references that challenge his viewpoints. However, he has supplied references against his views. This has been lasting weeks and weeks. Scott has even brought about an edit freeze on the article so that his anti-WP:NPOV version remains stuck there. It honestly seems like an egotrip going on but no one has done anything substantial to solve the problem.03:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

11-September-2006

  • I, KrishnaVindaloo confused two sources (Ford and Christianson) and posted the former as a source for a statement made by the latter (that chiropractic is used in sexual conversion therapy)[12]. After questioning, I made appropriate adjustments[13]. Ignoring my adjustment,Steth made personal attacks, including calling me a pathalogical liar [14] and stated that I was not to make any more edits concerning chiropractic. Users Steth, Dematt have accused me KrishnaVindaloo of lying, and refused to assume good faith[15]. I have subsequently apologised for confusing the two sources, and suggested that apologies from others may improve the situation further[16]. Users Gleng and &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; and Steth, are trying to obtain votes in order to prevent me from editing the article[17][18]. KrishnaVindaloo 03:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, it's a good story, but lacking in accurate representation of fact. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed. The facts are very well displayed on the Talk page, and evidence of KV's editing behaviour is exhaustively displayed there. KV's edits on the topic of chiropractic and homosexuality were persistently deceptive until exposed by User:Steth; however the deeper issue is KV's persistence in impugning the motives of apparantly all editors who disagree with him (breach of good faith). This I believe has exhausted the patience of the community editing this article, it has certainly exhausted mine. Yes I am polling on the page to see if there is indeed a consensus that his editing has exhausted collective patience.Gleng 10:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I asked Krishna Vindaloo, assuming good faith, if he had read the Ford article. He said he had and he has a copy right in front of him. I then asked him if the Ford article specifically mentioned chiropractic. He stated it did. Since no other editors were able to read the actual paper, since only the abstract was available on-line, I then politely gave him the opportunity to please post the exact wording/passages so we could understand exactly in what context Ford was referring to. Krishna Vindaloo then got upset about being “grilled”. I judged this to be an inappropriate reaction, which is why I felt it necessary to contact the author whose reply was quite startling and in direct opposition to Krishna Vindaloo’s contentions.
Feeling frustrated about the whole episode and the huge amount of time that editors have wasted going in circles on this issue, I felt someone had to speak frankly about this unfortunate situation and the quagmire that Krishna Vindaloo involved us in. Perhaps my words were too strong, but I felt they were necessary. Because of the egregious violations of some of the most fundamental principles followed at Wikipedia by Krishna Vindaloo, IMO assuming good faith can no longer be applied to him with a clear conscience, making working with him or his edits an impossible and intolerable situation. Steth 17:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


The problem here is less about content than about KV’s persistent attribution of motives to editors who disagree with his edits (generally editors object that KV's edits lack V RS, or contain OR). For example:

Gleng [19] [20] "I know you have your own biases, and those can also be seen from your edits" [21]

Kenosis [22] "is politically motivated...."[23] and needs a nap or an aspirin? [24]title=Talk:Pseudoscience&diff=prev&oldid=69757865

Jim Butler “it is very clear what your particular bias is" [25], "he is not a legitimate editor" [26],[27], [28]; he (and members of a certain group) is “fanatical” [29]

Gleng 12:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I find KV's edits well researched. This attack by the usual bunch of pseudoscientists ganging up with the support of a man who claims to be an independent scientist is deplorable. Mccready 14:21, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

KV does excellent research, but takes it too far in creating WP:OR. Anyone trying to convinve him otherwise is automatically a conspirator in a chiropractic conspiracy. The use of ad hominem attacks was constant and daily to the point that I felt I should no longer edit or argue, but just tried to clarify on the talk page. --Dematt 21:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

12-September-2006

  • LordByronKing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been systematically making changes that lead me to believe he has an agenda, and may also be using a bot due to the manner and duration of his contributions. By manner, I specifically am referring to the fact that he makes about ten small changes to an article within approx. 1 min. of eachother, then moves on to a related topic and does the same thing. On Sept. 11, LordByronKing made changes almost every minute (a few times there were lapses between 3-5 min long) for the period of about five hours. -21:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Many of these seem like attempts to raise the name presence of a single author and to capitalize phrases used in articles into correspondence with the title of that author's book. Smells like a form of spam? Durova 03:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I was mistaken, please ignore my previous post.

14-September-2006

Thank you. 21:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

15-September-2006

The last paragraph accusing another user of asking questions like when did you stop raping your daughter [30] 20:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

16-September-2006

User:POnju continues to edit pOnju, which is an article about his own forum. [31] He has been notified multiple times of WP:AUTO. [32] 23:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

17-September-2006

The article on 'deindustrialization' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deindustrialization is awful. It only refers to a range of very eccentric / radical views on this subject, and proffers little evidence or support for its arguments. Could we invite an economist who works on this subject to submit an alternative? As it stands, an article of such poor quality is almost enough to send me scurrying back to Palgrave and Brittanica!

23-September-2006

This editor, Pak434, has engaged in continuing rapid reverts of edits at Tom Swift, Jr. without edit summary or explanation. He has no User Page. Affected editor has made several requests for dicussion (Talk:Tom Swift, Jr.} with no response, though the reverts continue. Pak434 may be the same person as User:MookiesDad who has been active in removing the same material from Tom Swift, which is now listed on RfC (no comments as of this date). Request guidance as to how/where to proceed. 19:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Confirmation that Pak434 is User:MookiesDad. See Talk:Tom Swift, Jr.. Inappropriate language, terminology. 00:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Did you request a checkuser? If yes, did it confirm that user:Pak434 is a sockpuppet of user:MookiesDad? Also this alert was submitted 9/23, are you still experiencing problems with this user --Inahet 20:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

23-September-2006

The talk page for Ocwen Talk:Ocwen appears to be an advertisement for a legal company trying to drum up business. Not sure about the ettiquette of deleting this type of "talk". 20:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I took a look, and I see the talk page is clear, just that the article has some neutrality problems. --Inahet 18:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

24-September-2006

Anti-Mormon is the subject of an ongoing dispute. I have had fully referenced statements removed as 'unsupported', and anything critical of the Mormon churches seems to be having a hard time getting into the article. Outside views would be welcomed. DJ Clayworth 19:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a complex issue so as a suggestion you may consider filing an Rfc. --Inahet 21:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

24-September-2006

Hong Tran is the subject of a dispute, mainly between User:Nottingham and User:Emcee. Please take a look at what has been going on and comment on the talk page so that the dispute can be deescalated and resolved, and users can edit cooperatively.

The discussion between the two has been archived and there is no more discussion between the two ever since. Is it safe to say that this case has been resolved? --Inahet 18:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

27-September-2006

Yogyakarta and related pages which stem from a DAB page has increased the level of PA's between editors. It needs some mediation between the DAB creator and the editors who request for a reversion of the DAB page. Ironically it seems local knowledge on the part of all involved appears to be limited. 06:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

28-September-2006

Tipu Sultan and Talk:Tipu Sultan are facing a prolonged edit war, with some quite heated words flying around on whether the subject of the article was an islamic fanatic or not, anti kannada / anti hindu or not, a despot or not. Most of the disputed edits are from two or three editors, who have been reverting edits wholesale and abusing the other editors on that page for their views. Secondary importance, but probably significant for article quality - their english isn't really good or grammatical either. Might be worth a look. 10:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I say old chap my gammar is rather atrocious indeed.However, if you look at my posts, you will undoubtably realize the fact that some rather disingenuous personalities have been soiling the article with unscholarly paeans to the subject. The edits, as they stand, are against the very principles of wikipedia where sourced facts carry precedence over Islamic Fundamentalism. Ergo one concludes that the article must mention all controversies regarding the subject in a dispassionate way and I believe that this little rant is a means to form coteries based on misinformation in order to quelch that goal.Hkelkar 10:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

History of Hinduism and Talk:History of Hinduism are also facing a prolonged war of insults and ethnic/religious attacks from one user using a sock farm of 3 puppets.Despite attempts by many moderate users to reason with his Neo-Busddhist POV, he continues to hatemonger across the board (see my talk page for more attacks). perhaps some advice and mediation of cool heads and impartial pbservers is in order.Hkelkar 23:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

29-September-2006

Stranraer is being vandalised by Billybrag, the edits are offensive and sustained, can someone please assist. Fraslet 17:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

This is obvious vandalism on his part, so there is no need to request for outside views. He also hasn't been editing since the day you submitted the request, but next time report him at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, be sure to follow the instructions there. --Inahet 22:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive6&oldid=1141870067"