Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott

< Wikipedia:Requests for comment
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Geni (talk | contribs) at 10:18, 21 May 2004 (=Response=). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 03:56, 20 May 2004), the page will be deleted.

I am protesting the recent vandalism done by User:Mirv to this request for comment which has deliberately destroyed my work of several hours. This is not what I wrote. This is not the format that I used. I find the new layout totally confusing. And, I object to being forced to waste more of my valuable time while you people are going out of your way to let administrators personally attack and harass editors. -- John Gohde 15:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
This layout is a lot more clear, and summarises everything neatly, providing specific areas for comments. I don't see what the problem is -- Jim Regan 15:45, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
I do, and that is all that counts. I do not recognize my own request for comment. And, I find it extremely confusing!!! -- John Gohde 16:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
It is not your request for comment. RfCs are unsigned. Although you may have made the request, you have no ownership of it. Snowspinner 06:08, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct.

User:Theresa knott's use of aggressive editing tactics in the Wikipedian community, especially but not limited to her activities during the past week, to-wit:

  1. Making personal attacks, goading, and/or harassing editors with:
    • Article and/or Project Page edits
    • Making reverts in Articles and/or Project Pages
    • Edit summaries
    • Talk page comments
  2. Deliberately adding controversy to articles and/or project pages
  3. Deliberately encouraging edit wars and/or otherwise disrupting the normal Wikipedian stable editing process.
  4. Deliberately disrupted the traditional stable editing process of Wikiprojects.
    • Traditionally Wikipedia editors have been first registering with a project as a participant before editing their project pages.

The problems areas affected by Theresa's aggressive editing tactics are as follows.

  1. Articles in Wikipedia
    1. Iridology and Talk:Iridology
      1. Waged attacks against the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine Infobox.
      2. Declared an edit war and otherwise disrupted the normal editing process.
    2. Alternative medicine and #talk:Alternative medicine
    3. Waged attacks against the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine Article Series Box.
    4. Promoted the addition of unnecessary controversy to an article, an edit war, and otherwise disrupted the normal stable editing process with her reversions and editing.
  2. Project Pages in Wikipedia
    1. Wikipedia_talk:NPOV_dispute#Does_this_notice_apply_to_project_pages?
    2. Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Standards of Quality, and
    3. Wikipedia_talk:Wikiproject:Alternative_Medicine/Standards_of_Quality


Evidence of disputed behavior (provide diffs and links):

  1. I am filing this request for comment because Theresa Knott has been following me around from article to article and from project page to project page harassing me. There are 24 hours in a day, and I have posted during most of them. None of the other some 150 administrators felt a need during the last week to take any actions against me. Theresa, however, persists in a deliberate pattern of harassment against me as well as in deliberately adding unnecessary controversy to articles. And, I would like for Theresa to stop doing this. She seems to think that it is some kind of a joke. The details are as follows.
    1. The last action of Theresa that resulted in this request was recorded in the edit summary of Alternative medicine: m 05:59, 19 May 2004 . . Theresa knott (Reverted edits by Mr-Natural-Health to last version by Geni). history page - diff link - This was totally uncalled for as both me and Geni were engaging in dialog in talk:Alternative medicine only minutes before this instance of deliberate vandalism / harassment by Theresa.
    2. In Alternative medicine is the following edit summary: 03:26, 18 May 2004 . . Theresa knott (If you insist on having it so it clashed with the TOC I'll just delete it.) This is obvious harassment because most, if not all infoboxes, are placed on top of articles and most if not all infoboxes clash with the TOC, such as the one in hip hop music which uses a similar shade of orange and is bigger. The article series box in alternative medicine is actually quite small. diff link
    3. From Talk:Iridology: I think it's Mr NH's design. I agree it's revolting (sorry NH). I've deleted it. We don't need it here. theresa knott 20:12, 17 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    4. On Iridology in page history there are numerous edit summaries by Theresa attacking the infobox. This infobox was added recently to around 20 or 30 articles by the Wikiproject on Alternative Medicine. history page
    5. From Wikipedia talk:NPOV dispute: John is claiming all alternative medicine articles as part of his wikiproject. He is writing guidelines that are over and above normal editting guidelines. He intends to use these guidelines to try and bully people to get his own way on all the AM articles.. We have been adding a NPOV header at the top of the page to let other poeple know that this is not policy, and we don't all agree to his rules. theresa knott 16:27, 18 May 2004 (UTC) diff link - This is an entirely inappropriate response to a simple neutral question posted by me. I would definitely call this a personal attack. Why are paranoid people allowed to be administrators on Wikipedia? This was a neutral question, and Theresa clearly attacked me here.[reply]
    6. In Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Standards of Quality: I hereby authorise DG to edit this page. Futhermore he is authorised to edit any other page on Wikipedia with the exception of pages in the "user" namespace. (although User_talk pages are fine) Furthermore i extend this editting right to all and sundry with the exeption of those users banned by the Arbitration Committee. Anyone who says otherwise, or tries to stop DG or anyone else from edditing this page, or any other page (noting the exceptions above) can be ignored. I declare that Mr NH does not have the right to prevent people from ewditting this page. I make this declaration with the authoritory vested in me by yo'all. theresa knott 16:05, 18 May 2004 (UTC) - diff link[reply]
    7. From Wikipedia:Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine/Standards of Quality: 07:30, 19 May 2004 . . Theresa knott (Adding the suggestion made in the talk page into the article). Theresa never joined our project so it is totally rude for her to be making edits on this project. Again, no other administrator has been editing on this project page except for Theresa. As I explained in the talk pages, numerous changes were already made to this project page. -- John Gohde 03:56, 20 May 2004 (UTC) - history page diff link[reply]
  2. In Iridology Declared an Edit War with 09:06, 19 May 2004 . . Theresa knott (trying to redress the balance. This article needs to be completely rewritten from scratch in a NPOV way. Any takers? -- John Gohde 03:56, 20 May 2004 (UTC) - diff link[reply]

Issue 6 ("I hereby authorise...") is a non-issue: Wikipedia, with the exception of a very limited number of pages, may be freely edited by all. -- Jim Regan 04:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

  • While you are clearly entitled to your opinion, you should have stated can be rather than may be. By tradition and plain old good manners editors are asked to register as participants before editing project pages. A number of editors have stated the same to me while requesting changes. At least 95% of these changes have been implemented by me as requested. -- John Gohde 06:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you have examples of this being a tradition, I certainly can't find any. I most certainly meant may be edited by anyone; this is Wikipedia: no-one owns articles. -- Jim Regan 14:49, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applicable policies:
  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. During the voting in the Irismeister matter, Theresa was asked to refrain from making personal attacks or harassing editors (4.2 Decree A. & B.).

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute (provide diffs and links):

  1. For John Gohde, click here [1] and then here [2] for two separate instances of my trying to resolve this dispute. -- John Gohde 17:05, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For User:Irismeister, click here [3] and here [4] for two separate instances of Irismeister trying to resolve this dispute. -- John Gohde 06:12, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For User:Plato aka Comrade Nick click here [5]. -- John Gohde 06:29, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users certifying the basis for this dispute (sign with ~~~~)

  1. John Gohde 03:56, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Comrade Nick 08:09, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

I have no intention of responding to these silly accusations. Anyone interested enough can simply read the talk pages in question and the edit summaries to find out the truth. theresa knott 11:41, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Snowspinner 19:12, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tagishsimon 02:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC) TK may not alwys have kept her cool in the heat, but this complaint is nonsense on stilts. TK is to be thanked for persistently ignoring AM's seeming enclosure of AM articles, something more of us might do were it not now such an unpleasant quarter of wikipedia.[reply]
  3. Geni 10:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. I have seen Ms. Knott committ Ad hominem attacks against users such as Adam, Dan.
  2. I have seen Ms. knott engage in Poving articles such as Iridology--Comrade Nick 08:23, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think this should remain personal between MNH, Irismeister, and Theresa. The wiki is not a soap opera. Having Talk:Alternative Medicine on my watchlist is annoying due to it repeatedly getting bumped up with what seems like childish personal attacks coming from all sides. Take it to an IM or a chat room, but please leave it off the pedia. DryGrain 18:20, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but that is not an option. Despite what MNH says, I have no interest in trading insults with him. He sees everything as a personal attack. I moved an infobox up the page one paragraph, he announces on his project page that i am attacking it. I remove a silly argument that "since some people attack osteopathy, this implies that all critics are AM are to be taken with a pinch of salt" (I'm paraphrasing from memory here, I'll fix it later) that's vandalism. I agree with another user that iridology needs fixing up badly, but feel that I am not neutral enough to do it myself, so I put a comment in the summary box asking if anyone wants to do the rewrite, that's starting an edit war. Yes I have been a bit silly with irismeister, but you need to take into account the months of abuse that I have had to suffer from him. I have come to accept that he is part of my wiki life now, and from now on for ever and ever I will have to suffer his insults. If I don't laugh about it, it'll drive me insane. There is no way i'm going to IM either of these users. theresa knott 19:56, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Deliberately adding controversy to articles and/or project pages"
    • includes the addition "Iridology is dismissed as pseudoscience by most medical practitioners" to Iridology; "controversy" seems to be Wikipedia:NPOV.
  • "Deliberately encouraging edit wars and/or otherwise disrupting the normal Wikipedian stable editing process."
    • as above.
  • "Deliberately disrupted the traditional stable editing process of Wikiprojects."
    • Several of the participants in Wikiproject:Alternative Medicine seem to be under the misguided notion that only those who have registered as participants may edit the pages of this WikiProject.
-- Jim Regan 16:01, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
(These comments were based on a previous, clear layout, but the basic points remain -- Jim Regan 16:04, 20 May 2004 (UTC))[reply]

Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Theresa_Knott&oldid=3671596"