User:Angela/Problem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Originally on the conflicts between users page, formerly known as the problem users page.

Angela routinely takes sides in edit wars, protecting pages on Lir's version in disputes between Lir and me. --Wik 02:51, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)

Wik, the only page I have ever protected purposefully on a particular version was Hank Eskin, and only because I was following what Jimbo had asked me to do by e-mail, which is explained on the talk page. From looking at Wikipedia:Protected page and the two archives of that, the only page I can find that I protected on Lir's version rather than yours was Richard Neustadt. Teschen also wasn't on your version, but that one did not involve Lir. The following pages were all protected by me on your version: Enlargement of the European Union, Schlesien, 2002 Gujarat violence and Poznan. So, if I am biased, it appears I am biased towards you, not against you! Angela. 05:47, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
Apples and oranges. I was talking about disputes with Lir. You have never protected my version in a dispute with Lir, but by your own account here at least two times you protected Lir's version. I don't believe it's a coincidence given your general history of taking sides against me (on VfD votes, etc., even contradicting yourself in the process). --Wik 16:00, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
You would make my statistics professor cry. silsor 00:19, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Angela has tremendous patience. In an effort to bring resolution to conflicts, and with diligence, she protects pages. This takes a great deal of time, effort and mental attention - all of which could be put to better use without these ongoing squabbles. Personally, my patience has run out, and I am petitioning to have Lir and Wik hard-banned. Kingturtle 03:38, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I strongly support Kingturtle in this endeavor. RickK 04:02, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • Lir's and Wik's squabbling is certainly an issue, but I feel it is outweighed by the valuable contributions that they both make. silsor 04:25, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • I'm still fairly new here, but I have seen User:Angela's edits, opinions, and contributions on several occasions. I'd characterize her as very patient and helpful, and am frankly astonished that she would be listed here. I would ask you to re-evaluate her edits, and be prepared to accept them in the spirit of compromise. Scooter 03:48, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • This is a joke. User:Angela is one of the most distinguished of the Wikipedia editors. Protecting a page requires you to pick a version on which to stop. Just because she protects a page on Lir's edit does not mean she is taking that side. In fact, by protecting the page, she is showing that she is more interested in maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia, rather than engaging in damaging and pointless edit wars. - Mark 04:22, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • I would trust User:Angela's judgement on any Wikipedia-related issue. She is one of the most mature contributors that I have observed. silsor 04:25, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
    • Ditto. This listing is highly un-called for. --mav
  • This is probably no joke. If Wik feels like Angela is a problematic user, he may say so. If he feels there is something to discuss, it is best that he says so and that the issue is discussed. But generally speaking, most wikipedians would agree that Angel is a delicious person and most patient in dealing in conflicts. Consequently, whatever your unpleasure Wik, the issue is between her and you, not between her and Wikipedia. I guess she answered to your comments. Please, rather move this discussion to your own personal talk page, since the conflict is personal :-) User:anthere
    • Personally, I have found Angela unfailingly helpful and considerate and I cannot believe that she is being discussed here. Lir and Wik are another matter and I'm almost inclined to agree with Kingturtle. Bmills 15:05, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • As Wik's objection is solely to Angela's use/abuse of her sysop powers (rather than edit-warring, trolling, POV, or vandalism) surely the correct, more conclusory venue for this entertaining discussion would be for Wik to move Angela's sysop status be revoked? -- Finlay McWalter 17:08, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, as Wik has more than sysop complaints, I'll answer here. Angela is not a problem user. Angela does not take sides in edit wars. If Angela voted against Wik in some vote, that is her right: this is, roughly, a democracy, and in democracies voters are not obligated to explain, debate, or defend their votes. Angela is unfailingly nice to assholes of many varieties. We are not worthy of Angela. -- Finlay McWalter 05:00, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Thinking about what is better for Wikipedia as a whole, I would rather ban Wik than desysop Angela. Stan 17:17, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep both but throw a bucket of cold water over them first. ;-) -- ChrisO 17:36, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Wik's assertion does not accord with my prior knowledge of Angela's integrity in protecting pages, and the evidence he presents does not have the statistical weight necessary to significantly change those views. See Bayesianism. -- Cyan 21:32, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Angela is way too valuable to WP to be treated like this. We all have arguments, perhaps bitterly, with some other Wikipedians. But there's no need to take them personally...for long. Angela has done a lot for WP, with a dedication and deciviseness unfound elsewhere. Such an excellency does not come often. Must cherish, do not insult. --Menchi (Talk)â 04:39, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • A conscientious sysop like Angela can expect to be hauled onto this page once in a while; it just comes with the territory. It's nice to see that lots of people (myself included) appreciate her contributions. Opus33 05:23, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • The very idea Angela is listed here is asinine, compounded by the fact that it was done by a frequent, legitimate denizen of this page. - Hephaestos 05:10, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Yeah, this is ridiculous. Wik doesn't know how to play with others. john 05:17, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Angela is doing a great job here and is always helpful and patient. The accusation is greatly unfair. -- Baldhur 09:18, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Angela is fantastic. Hard working, scrupulously fair, unfailingly polite, and always productive. I hope everyone continues to learn from her example. Wik's allegation is unfounded. Martin 16:36, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Angela is one of the very few Wikipedians whose patience apparently not even Wik can exhaust, and moreover, one of the most helpful Wikipedians anywhere. There is absolutely no reason to take any action against her and I am embarassed to see her discussed here at all. Kosebamse 17:38, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • My first, second and all consecutive reactions are to wonder if there has ever been a sillier listing on this page. -- Jussi-Ville Heiskanen 17:52, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)
  • Wik, you should take this moment to sit back and wonder if YOU are the problem. The issue here is not Angela at all; it's your belief that your war with Lir is justified and thus that anyone who isn't with you is against you. It's your right to disagree with the decision to allow Lir back, BUT your ignoring the consensus that Lir should be allowed to edit is, IMHO, not on. I'm not saying that Lir is blameless either, but you should realise that your behavior is not winning you friends here. —Morven 19:11, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • This is astonishing. Angela is one of wikipedia's jewels. How anyone could list Angela here is mindboggling. She is one of wikipedia's finest ever contributors. Please Wik, you are alienating everyone with this behaviour. Please, please cop on and realise that you are your own worst enemy in all of this. FearÉIREANN 19:24, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Agreed. All this proposal has dresulted in is a long and loyal testimony to Angela's editing and contributions. How anyone can object to her unmitigated helpful nature begs serious questions.Norwikian 04:50, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • I think it deserves pointing out that user:wik did the right thing in posting this here, at least as the page is titled now. He clearly has a conflict with angela, and others, and since this page is no longer titled Wikipedia:Problem users, I think it was appropriate for him to place his complaint here. Of course Angela is not a problem user, but thats not what this page SHOULD be about, by its current title. Maybe some of the more outraged among you should look in the Wikipedia talk:Conflicts between users page and think about new titles for this page, and if the current name is a good one. Sam Spade 05:43, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • That should not stop us thinking he's (a) being paranoid, (b) wrong; and (c) that Wik is behaving VERY badly in this matter. I don't believe that this page is intended for the airing of grievances without the peanut-gallery responses. —Morven 06:29, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • oh, of course. Don't get me wrong. I just wanted it mentioned that he did the right thing in bringing a grievence here, particularly since he was under the opinion that she was being unfair, and not answering him in talk. I havn't reviewed the particulars, but of course the natural response is to assume angela (an editor/sysop I have never seen complaint surrounding before, and yet have often seen involved in troubled places) to be acting out of pure intentions. However, it should be clear that the best among us may potentially make a mistake, and even the most surley and confrontational among us might appropriately make mention of it. I have no reason to think thats the case, I just want to place emphasis on the need for such an opportunity, and place to do so. Sam Spade 07:09, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
    • A couple of points: maybe this page should be renamed Wikipedia:Unresolved conflicts between users to encourage people to sort things out between themselves first. If a complaint is made here with no history of previous attempts at resolution, it could simply be deleted. Second, given the massive rejection of this complaint by the community, I intend to remove this discussion in 24 hours unless a) very good new arguments for continuing are produced, or b) somebody else beats me to it. Bmills 09:12, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Removed from the page by theresa knott on 8th January.


I know that the people who do truly important and useful work here don't get enough recognition...when I saw your name at Conflicts between users, I was upset on your behalf. I know that, even when the charges are as ludicrous and baseless as these, such things can be discouraging, so I just wanted to add my voice to the many who are saying that you do excellent work here. I honestly look to you as a guide in many matters, and if I can contribute 1/10 as much to Wikipedia as I have observed you contribute, I wil be very glad indeed. Thanks for all your hard work, and please keep it up: many of us appreciate it far more than we usually take the time to say. Jwrosenzweig 21:07, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Thank you to everyone who gave me their support and added very kind words to the problem users page over the last couple of days. :) Angela, 8 January 2004.