Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Theresa Knott

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Statement of the dispute

[edit]

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. Harrassing User:Lir to the point that this long-term contributor of tens of thousands of edits has chosen to avoid the Wikipedia.
  5. 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):

[edit]
  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]

Your request David is my command.

Going directly to the source, click here [1] for this statement: "A few Wikipedians have gotten together to make some suggestions about how we might organize data in articles about XXX." Emphasis is on the few. Click here [2] for who are these few? Who are the few, why they are the participants of the project. Not only is participating in editing limited by design at the very source of the WikiProject concept to the participants of the project. They are actually talking about articles, not just the project pages.

Click here [3] for WikiDoc which stated: "It appears that Wikipedia needs a dedicated team of doctors to carry out some long-overdue integration, standardisation and upgrading." Here, we saw a science project not only desire to restrict editing access but desired editing access to be limited only to certified physicians. These group of people, or at least one of them, actually discussed how a person might be certified as a physician.

Click here [4] for a more politically correct version of the above desire. This time editing access is limited to: "Physicians and medically interested on Wikipedia who might be able to contribute." And, of course, unlike the CAM project this project is mostly talking about editing articles since their project pages are almost non-existent.

Click here [5] for an example of a comment we received from one editor making a comment who stated: "Since I'm not involved in this WikiProject it's not my perogative to edit the WikiProject page, but I'd like to request that a project member make a suitable correction."

So, in conclusion David, not only is restricting the editing of project pages to participants a tradition in Wikipedia as well as plain old good manners, you have convinced me to add that stupid introduction to our project page so that we can stress just exactly who the few are.

You see David, some people in life know what they are doing and others are just followers. -- John Gohde 16:54, 23 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):

[edit]
  1. For John Gohde, click here [6] and then here [7] 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 [8] and here [9] 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 [10]. -- John Gohde 06:29, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  1. And, I bet Hitler got mad at the Jews complaining so much about being being in Auschwitz, too. Your comments have made my day. -- John Gohde 07:17, 28 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  1. See the talk pages/edit histories for Dan Waniek and Iridology. Theresa has been very rude towards me. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Hi Lir and welcome back. I knew your little tantrum wouldn't last forever. Anyway I'm glad you're back because you do actually make some decent contributions. Incidentally have you actually read through the talk pages in question, now that you've calmed down? Try reading the Waniek talk page for example. I haven't been rude to you anywhere on that page. You OTOH called everyone "a bunch of morons" and you called me a "fucking bitch" and "scum". That's not very nice now is it? Although you did remind me of scum (movie) which was nice because it's a film I haven't seen in a long time.Oh yeah BTW there has been some confusion on the mailing list as to how you prefer to be adressed. I always thought you prefer "she" Plato thinks I should be calling you "he". Can you clear this up for everyone please. Cheers theresa knott 07:35, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute (4)

[edit]

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]
  3. irismeister 19:54, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  4. Lirath Q. Pynnor 04:32, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Response (20)

[edit]

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]
  4. ALargeElk 10:39, 21 May 2004 (UTC) I have seen no sign of persistent harassment, and certainly not if the examples given in this complaint are the worst that she's done. TK has disagreed with John Gohde, and has expressed her disagreement forcefully - but not unreasonably. I second Tagishsimon's analysis of the AM situation as enclosure. To clarify, I mean by this the taking of what has previously been public property and declaring it a private domain, only to be entered with the permission of the "owner" - or at the very least, agreeing to the "owner"'s unilaterally declared rules.[reply]
  5. alteripse I have been here less than two months. I came like most of you because I liked what I saw after I found wp by chance. I thought I could fill some coverage gaps. I made the mistake of straying into Mr. Gohde's territory by adding an additional definitional sentence. My sentence was immediately deleted with the same kind of discourteous accusations you can see in his responses here. I can argue about facts as quickly as anyone but this was not someone with whom there is any point in arguing. Any disagreement is construed as a personal attack, and he is quick to label any changes with which he disagrees vandalism. The page is clearly HIS territory and he is as welcoming and reasonable as a junkyard dog. I understand that removing another user's comments on the talk page is considered a breach of etiquette; he does that frequenly. However, for the same reason I decided to leave the alt med article to him, I am sure not going to invest the time in digging through the old versions to find you lots of examples for all the above. He's given you samples of each right here on this page. Whether you fault Theresa for provoking him on purpose depends on how you feel about this kind of user and this kind of article. Mr. Gohde only allows you two choices: (1) his way, or (2) you get insults, angry (and false) accusations that you are making personal attacks, and complaints about your logic that are so illogical that there is nothing to discuss. So is Theresa doing the right thing by trying to back the changes offered by others even though it invariably provokes loud barking, or should all of us who disagree with him simply put up a beware of the dog sign and leave his articles alone, since he at least isn't wandering around and picking fights elsewhere? I readily admit that I am convinced his primary purpose here is to write articles (and I'm not accusing him of being a troll), but he sure can't do it cooperatively. If you censure Theresa, you are basically voting to leave people like this alone for the sake of peace. That's the course I chose because his article wasnt that important to me. I don't think it is important to Theresa either but it looks to me like she's trying to enforce others' access to the article, which is what is intolerable to Mr. Gohde. What's the right way to handle this? Alteripse 12:21, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With a few minimal exceptions, any user can edit any page. There can be no enclosure, and Theresa was right to try what she's done. Meelar 17:51, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A location of an infobox is a content issue, not a personal issue. Theresa's actions are valid edits and not personal attacks. I also second (or third) the opinions by Tagishsimon and ALargeElk that MNH's actions constitute an enclosure of AM pages. Such enclosure violates several Wikipedia policies. Andris 18:47, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
  8. David Gerard 21:11, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
  9. Arkady 00:20, 22 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Jim Regan 01:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC) (Though I think that's implicit).[reply]
  11. Sam [Spade] 02:59, 22 May 2004 (UTC) (I would say that theresa has done nothing not to be expected considering. That being said her edits may not have always been perfect, but were prob signifigantly more agreeable than how many of us may have responded to the tag-team harssment she has endured. It is a shame that more people didn't step in before now.)[reply]
  12. Thue 16:29, 26 May 2004 (UTC). Whenever I run into edits by TK they seem to be competent. I hope she keeps contributing to wikipedia. I visited this page after running into a nomination for vfd by MNH ([11]) which seemed completely unfair. Using a little time reviewing the article history in question confirms my impressions.[reply]
    • Your comment, John, says much more about you than it says about anything else at all. --Tagishsimon
    • Godwin's Law - David Gerard 10:15, May 27, 2004 (UTC)
    • Hi, Thue! Perhaps you may wish to look at some facts and change your impressions with a reality check! We have a whole file on Theresa's activities in medical articles in the last sixth months. If anything, they are pathetically begging for attention - when they do not raise Theresa's POVs to the status of the "line of the party". She plain square doesn't know what she writes about! She thinks dilutions are whatever her mind makes up, reflexology works by titillating, and iridology by "fight or flight". When exposed for what she is, an institutional troll and a freak, she sneaks out of the debate with "academic" tactics like libel, lies, insults, even sexual harassment and more dust thrown in your eyes from her boots that is. Theresa is only a Wikipolicewoman, a shewolf dressed as a lamb, harassing competent editors. She should be carefully policed herself. With editors like her, the whole Wiki project is in danger. Caveant consules! - irismeister 21:23, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  13. I agree that Theresa has made aggressive comments, though I do not feel that these have been unreasonable under the circumstances. MNH's failure to understand Wikipedia's NPOV policy (e.g. this statement implictly stating that he will not permit the Alternative Medicine article to be neutral), and apparent misunderstanding of the No personal attacks policy (e.g. this comment likening an independent observer to Hitler for expressing their point of view) can make him a frustrating user to work with. - MykReeve 21:44, 27 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
    MykReeve, if anything, John is entitled to be frustrated, for he worked seven months in a row, despite bad mannered, bad will, ugly, misbehaving Wikipolice. John did a perfectly standard, shining project. He is now standing ovation and Wikipolice only made the settled dust raising again, forever! Perhaps this is the only thing Wikipolice can do - trotting, trolling, trespassing with dirty boots. John is a brave editor, true to himself, true to life, and a real Wiki editor. Wikipolice is only an uneducated, unprofessional brutal "force". No amount of disgusting smear can prevent John from finishing his job, and he will do it while you will be glossing in the background noise of the Web - you know, the galactic redshift variety. - irismeister 00:14, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)
  14. This complaint is baseless. →Raul654 04:39, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)
    →Raul654, your "contribution" here is baseless. irismeister 19:27, 2004 Jun 4 (UTC)
  15. I have supported Theresa's edits on Iridology, a little article about a silly practice that has grown into a time-sucking monster fed by self-righteous true believers (NPOV alert!). There's a small cluster of alternative health fanatics that she has tackled almost single-handedly, trying to keep them from turning wikipedia into a brochure for their extreme views. I think she has worked at balancing articles: Her only sin is to occasionally type badly! I just hope she doesn't get worn out and go away. - DavidWBrooks 20:27, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    Irismeister labelled this endorsement as Bias, bias, on the Wall and Who's the Fairest of'em all? - here
    Folks, go wash your eyes and look at the facts. Be or pretend to act as grown-ups! Here above we have DavidWBrooks's POV posing as the mantra of neutrality. What David calls silly practice takes up the better part of hundreds of lives for hundreds of years. But these are competent researchers, not fanatics. Fanatics are juniors like David who know nothing about what they just happen to talk about - but talk is dirt cheap. We must decide if we let competent people debate interesting ideas in Wiki. We must decide if we leave it all up to sixth graders like David and Theresa who sport their POV and make it "the line of the party", of course smearing, banning, libelling, insulting and spitting on MDs in the process. If Wiki is left in the hands of such ignorant arrogants, the only ones allowed to say who has "sinned", the Wiki project is in danger. I will certainly use my full, if little time to police the Wikipolice from now on! They should FEEL what their own "tactics" produces on their own skin, and they will think twice before harassing John as a "fanatic", trust me! - irismeister 21:01, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
    Yes Iris you are right there are group of people that supposed to be competent reseachers (although be careful Dan you kind of pushing the personal attacks, but that's understandable).Comrade Nick
  16. I'm fully in support of user:theresa knott's actions. The complainant has made frequent misuse of the alt.med. category, his CamTiny boxes and the rv vandalism edit summary he uses is used to signify rv (often by admins) to HIS vandalism usually signifies yet another revert to deletion of his content by various other, good faith users. --bodnotbod 00:53, Jun 9, 2004 (UTC)
  17. Mirv 03:20, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  18. Xgkkp 19:59, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  19. Morwen - Talk 17:14, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Outside view

[edit]

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, and Dan.
  2. I have seen Ms. knott engage in Poving articles such as Iridology--Comrade Nick 08:23, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have links to the edits in question to list here, of course - David Gerard 12:04, May 23, 2004 (UTC)
Yes I do
  • On the Iridology page she keeps reverting MNH's removal of one section: It is considered as pseudoscience by most scientists and mainstream medical doctors. Now this could be considered a violation of wikipedia's NPOV policy, as well my eye doctor has told it is not considered a pseudoscience, but more like an 'one the edge science.' which has not been proven.Comrade Nick @)----^-- 10:29, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
I agree. It is an obvious violation of the wikipedia's NPOV policy that was added by a troll. -- John Gohde
OK your eye doctor disagrees, hence the word "most" scientists and mainstream medical doctors.Try asking a few other scientists and mainstream medical doctors. theresa knott 11:06, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now Ms.Knott's ad hominem attacks, were mostly self defensive against these user. Which is fine in my opinion however, it is not the best defensive behavior. An example of Ms.Knott's 'defensive' Ad hominems happened when she called Dan a "nutcase." Comrade Nick @)----^-- 10:29, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
That was months ago, I apologised for it almost immediatly, and has already been looked into the by AC. Am I to continue being censured for that one tiny remark for ever? Plus you still haven't actually provided the link so that peole can see the context and for that matter the apology theresa knott 11:06, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those aren't links to edits in particular. Should we presume your "Yes I do" is therefore "No I don't"? - David Gerard 10:33, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
To clarify: you're not reporting actual edits here. You're reporting hearsay: your opinion of the edits. To make a credible case, you need to list the edits so people can read them and judge for themselves, in context. Otherwise you're blowing smoke. - David Gerard 14:31, May 25, 2004 (UTC)
  1. 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]
We need a coordinated defense in Wiki against Wikipolice brutality. It's the same good ol' Quies custodiet ipsos custodes principle. Indeed, who defends us from the Wikipolice ? Nobody, except for the nice fellow Comrade Nick and a few idealists whom the Wiki cabal are quick to dismiss. Why? Because of Wikidoublestandards . What's that? A simple thing: There is a poor balance in Wiki between "editors" doing only police, and NO ARTICLES (like Theresa) on one side, and real editors doing ONLY ARTICLES (like John). The former have all powers and the latter have only obligations. The most unpleasant ones are to police the Wikipolice. Theresa has only experienced what arsonists in the fire department do - le syndrome d'arroseur arrosé. She has become a hero, although a negative one, as a representative of rampant ignorants taking over Wiki, originally a very generous and subsequently a very decayed idea :O) - irismeister 20:08, 2004 Jun 1 (UTC)
  • "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]


Je serai a Londres avec Dr Jipa pour la rencontrer en personne. User:Dr. Dan Waniek

Why are you writing in French on an english language Wikipedia? You speak perfectly good english, why not use english so everyone knows what you are saying? Also since you are not a wikipedia editor why would you want to come to London anyway. It doesn't make any sense. theresa knott 17:44, 21 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
Nous y serons, j'y tiens, nous verrons - Dr. Dan Waniek 14:40, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
(approx. translation: "We will be there, I hold to it, we will see")
Mr. Irismeister Waniek, all your online resumes and CVs state that your primary language is English. YOur usage of French is just a cloack for more threats addressed to Theresa. I have closely followed your abusive and threatening language directed at Theresa and J. Rosenzweig, simply for not allowing you to insert a free link to your business website. I have gathered some evidence irismeister is one and the same person as Waniek. I have also gathered some evidence you have been carying an aggresive campaign to gather internet links to your business website in order to improve your rating on Alexa, rating which is mainly due to "link to me" sites. This is just an addition to your attempts at intimidating Theresa for not allowing you to also advertise your business site on Wikipedia. This adds to the legal threats against User:Jwrosenzweig which determined him to temporarily leave Wikipedia. Please stop this immediately.--192-94-73-5 21:40, 25 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
He can threaten to show up at the London meetup all he likes. I'm not going to be there, so I really don't care. He's using French because he thinks he can disguise that fact that he is irismeister. He also thinks that if he turns up in London along with a stooge who will pretend to be Jipa he will prove us wrong. Sorry Waniek it aint going to happen theresa knott 02:54, 26 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
No, this will only show how contortionist can a petty Wikipolice attitude become, only to justify the self-fullfilling nonsense dressed as prophecy. But the plague of terrestrial Israel has always been the false prophetess. We'll live and we'll see. I wonder, why is therese hiding now, when the mess she does to Wiki has become so thick she needs to pretend to be absent. She is in London, though :O) - irismeister 00:22, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC) Well, this only demonstrates how necessary a regular, brave, idealistic and controlled military police has become against ordinary Wikipolice - irismeister 00:22, 2004 Jun 2 (UTC)


Discussion

[edit]

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=16486884"