Wik is an utter disruptive influence on Wikipedia. He engages in edit wars and reversion wars without break, until pages are protected because of his refusal to give an inch. He never indicates on a comment line why he is reverting, and he is unwilling to make an attempt to discuss problems in a calm and reasonable manner.
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Wik&oldid=2414979, in which he admits that he will repeatedly revert any and all changes made by User:Anthony DiPierro, regardless of their worth. He blanked One thousand seven hundred twenty-nine solely because Anthony had created it, even though others had made changes to the page since Anthony had created it. I blocked him, Secretlondon unblocked him, and he immediately went back to revert war mode. Please help. RickK 01:39, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Is this process going to begin any time soon? RickK 05:47, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)
The arbitration decision is at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik
Sadly I appear to have got myself involved in a rather intense dispute with Bird. Bird was blanking articles earlier today, and I stepped in to try and stop it. For a summary of my side of the story, plus a copy of Bird's talk page (which has been blanked by Bird several times this evening) please see User:David Newton/Bird Dispute.
It appears to me that Bird is acting far from rationally to say the least. I would appreciate help in resolving this matter. David Newton 22:08, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
"Guys, I am unhappy with my life on Wikipedia. I would like to talk to someone about it. I know there is someone great I really trust, and feel like he is being willing to help me, and that is really great. I would really like that he helps me, I am convinced he will be the most appropriate person to do so and I look forward to our interaction. Please Brian, give me a hand and a bit of your precious time." Lirath Q. Pynnor
Some time ago, I asked Lir how she wanted me to refer to her. She answered she would prefer to be referred to as a woman. I have no idea whether she is genetically a male or a female, and if she is a male, she could be one of those feeling female, or even perhaps a transgendered person. Either way, I do not care. As long as she will prefer to be referred to as a woman, she will be a she as far as I am concerned. When she wants to be referred to as a man, she just has to tell me. I think it is showing the same time of respect than to call someone by the pseudonyme she choose. And I would appreciate that people stop saying I could offend her by using the wrong gender. Thanks. Now, I will have a place to send the 26th who will ask :-) FirmLittleFluffyThing 22:26, 21 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Please see these emails:
Thanks, BCorr¤ Брайен 23:04, Mar 21, 2004 (UTC)
Ended unsuccessfully on Mar 31, 2004.
I request mediation between us. Kingturtle has outright refused to resolve the conflict privately so I request mediation. I would prefer to do this in IRC chat as my computer has problems engaging in page edits. I sincerely hope this can resolve our dispute. GrazingshipIV 04:13, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)
Ended successfully on Mar 31, 2004.
A dispute has arisen between Neilinoz and 140.247.163.28 about the content of Charles Grandison Finney (see talk section and page history to view issues involved).
Unfortunately this is a dispute over Christian Theology. I have contributed to the article information that shows a difference of opinion amongst Evangelical Christians about Finney's theology on 10 Feb 04. 140.247.163.28 deleted my contribution on 1 Mar 04, but this was restored by RickK and Bcorr within 5 minutes. On 6 Mar 04 140.247.163.28 re-deleted my contribution and begun to offer reasons why. On 17 Mar 04 I re-pasted my original Feb article, but this was then re-deleted by 140.247.163.28 on 25 Mar 04. I will not change the current article until the dispute has been settled.
I believe that 140.247.163.28 has deliberately deleted factual information that is necessary for the article to be NPOV. In the process he has accused me of all sorts of things and questioned both my integrity and knowledge. I have not responded in kind.
140.247.163.28 and I take different viewpoints. I am happy for the opposing viewpoint to be explained and defended within the article. 140.247.163.28, however, does not, and has deleted my contribution a number of times. It is my hope that this dispute can be settled and that both our points of view can exist within the article.
Neilinoz 10:11, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
remains open - one participant has not yet returned to Wikipedia