Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:16, 22 May 2006 editAbdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali (talk | contribs)23 edits Ongoing dispute! We want to keep all evidence in sight.← Previous edit Revision as of 11:08, 22 May 2006 edit undoKarl Meier (talk | contribs)5,456 edits new violationNext edit →
Line 131: Line 131:
=={{user|67.101.134.76}} and {{user|67.100.49.172}} as well as {{user|67.101.128.6}} (all same person)== =={{user|67.101.134.76}} and {{user|67.100.49.172}} as well as {{user|67.101.128.6}} (all same person)==
He has repeatedly attempted (and failed, miserably i might add) to add linkspam to ] and associated pages. Gwernol, Pegasus1138, and I have managed to get him at least twice already, but he shows no signs of letting up. He has also made personal attacks against ] . The IP user does not respond to warnings, but instead posts very long-winded messages blaming Rodgerbales for "wiping out links" when in fact it is the CVU/RCP/etc. reverting vandalism; see . --] | ] | ] | ] 05:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC) He has repeatedly attempted (and failed, miserably i might add) to add linkspam to ] and associated pages. Gwernol, Pegasus1138, and I have managed to get him at least twice already, but he shows no signs of letting up. He has also made personal attacks against ] . The IP user does not respond to warnings, but instead posts very long-winded messages blaming Rodgerbales for "wiping out links" when in fact it is the CVU/RCP/etc. reverting vandalism; see . --] | ] | ] | ] 05:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


=={{user|Irishpunktom}}==

Irishpunktom has for a long insisted on calling me a "racist" on a number of peoples talkpages and in edit summaries such as , , and . He claims that he is allowed to make personal attacks against me, arguing that I have previous placed an to a website that was an angry response to the violent hate campaign against my country, in connection with the ]. I have already agreed to remove the external link some time age, and I also asked him to stop these personal attacks against me, but he has that on occations, and continue this behavior. I am tired of Irishpunktoms mudthrowing campaign against me, and request that an admin makes it clear to him that there is no excuse for personal attacks. -- ] 11:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:08, 22 May 2006

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.
Red crossThis is a failed proposal.
Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.
This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.
ShortcutThis page is intended to get attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks. It is not intended to serve as a form of mediation or a type of RFC. Only Personal attacks are dealt with on this page, on their own merits in accordance with Misplaced Pages's No Personal Attacks policy

For editors who want a personal attack situation reviewed:

  1. Consider that in most cases, ignoring the attack is better than requesting sanction against the attacker. Do not report people if you are likewise guilty of hostility towards them.
  2. Make sure the user has actually commited a personal attack. (Please note that "personal attacks" are defined only under the WP:NPA policy. If a statement is not considered a personal attack under the intended spirit of this policy, it does not belong here.)
  3. The editor must have been warned earlier. The {{npa2}}, and {{npa3}} templates may be appropriate for new users; for long-term editors, it's preferable to write something rather than using a standard template. Reports of unwarned editors may be removed.
  4. If the behavior hasn't stopped, add the following header to the New Reports section of this page in the following format:
    ==={{User|NAME OF USER}}=== replacing NAME OF USER with the user name or IP address concerned, with a brief reason for listing below. Be sure to include diffs.
  5. If an editor removes the IP or username and doesn't handle the matter to your satisfaction, take it to the editor's talk page or the administrators' noticeboard, but do not re-list the user here.
  6. NB - Due to misunderstanding of these instructions and/or mis-use of this process, comments not in strict adhereance to these instructions WILL be removed. This page deals only with personal attacks under the policy WP:NPA. Reports deemed to be inappropriate for this page are liable to be moved to an appropriate venue where one exists.


For those reported on this page:

  1. A reviewer or an administrator will review each report on this page. In dealing with the report, the contribution history of the reported user shall be checked along with the diffs provided in the report. Where no personal attack is evident, then no action will be taken - however, should an administrator see that another seperate issue is evident, appropriate action or advice for that issue may be taken/given at his or her discretion and in line with wiki policy.
  2. Reports on this page stand on their own merits in accordance with Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. As such, disputes and discussions over reports are not suitable for this page except for such comments left by admins or reviewers describing their actions and/or findings. If you notice your account reported at this page, please trust that the administrators and reviewers dealing with reports will deal with it in an even-handed and fair manner on the basis of policy alone. If you feel strongly that another "side to the story", issue, or another piece of information is missing from a report please refrain from posting here, and instead leave your comment on your talk page under the title NPA Report or another other clear and related title. The reviewing party will see this message and take it into account where applicable.

For users handling assistance requests:

  1. For each of the users linked here, open their contributions and check for personal attacks. Also check if the users have been sufficiently warned for the current personal attack and whether they've continued to commit personal attacks after being warned.
  2. Note that there is an important difference between a user who makes many good contributions and a few personal attacks, and a user whose last edits are (nearly) all personal attacks or other conflict.
  3. Do nothing, warn them again, or, if you are an adminstrator, block the user in question as you think is required. Explain things carefully to the user who listed the attacker if you feel there's been a misunderstanding.
  4. Move the report to the Open Reports section and give an update to the status of the report.
  5. Delete old reports that have been dealt with.

Please consider adding this page to your watchlist to make life easier for non-administrator RC-patrollers.



Guettarda (talk · contribs), Bhouston (talk · contribs), CSTAR (talk · contribs), User-multi error: "csloat" is not a valid project or language code (help).,

On Talk:Juan Cole, several editors have endorsed a statement which constituted a serious personal attacks against three users. Two of the endorsers withdrew their endorsement to part, but not all, of this statement, after its nature as a personal attack was pointed out to them. The other editors did not. Their endorsement of this statement is in itself a personal attack:

At least one of the editors involved on the page, Isarig, seems to have no regard for policy, having violated the WP:3RR and WP:NPA in the last few days. He seems unwilling to abide by policy.

Elizmr with Armon's help are very good at fighting off criticism -- mostly through persistence and treating others unfairly.

Endorsers:

  1. Guettarda
  2. Ben Houston
  3. CSTAR 16:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. csloat 16:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. KillerChihuahua 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC) modified to clarify first para only endorsed. KillerChihuahua 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. bcasterline t 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC) I'm also more interested in the first paragraph. bcasterline t 23:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The endorsement of this statement by csloat is ironic because he had been guilty of not following Misplaced Pages guidelines WP:AGF and WP:NPA himself in the editing of this particular page (abstracted in ). Similarly, another endorser, Guettarda, soon after endorsing this statement made direct personal attacks against Elizmr (abstracted in ), and Ben Houston had made attacks against Elizmr on the talk page of another article which were felt by the consensus of editors there not to have any basis (abstracted in ).
  • User:CSTAR’s endorsement of the statement of Elizmr’s unfairness is especially ironic, because he and User:Elizmr had been engaging in civil and seemingly productive interchanges (abstracted in ).
  • User:CSTAR’s endorsement of the statement singling out User:Isarig’s particular violations of policies are also ironic. Cstar had taken administrative action against Isarig in what Isaring had stated was an unbalanced way, and CSTAR not answered Isarig’s notes concerning this (abstracted in).




Pansophia (talk · contribs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kaiser_Permanente&curid=477362&diff=53254033&oldid=53253341 etcetera. 3 warnings. Set a bad example I think. Midgley 03:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is actually Midgley. See this complaint. Also see my talk page - someone already looked into this. --Pansophia 03:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually that reference is an RFC on someone else. Nobody has "looked into this" although others have commented to various effects. Pansophia is currently blocked for violating 3RR, but that is separate from this except to the extent that a recurring pattern of baheviour affecting me and others is for that user to substitute attacks on other editors for discussion. I suspect the user was lead astray by the troll to which that RFC relates. Midgley 13:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The example cited by Midgley is not a personal attack, but a statement of fact. Midgley should rather provide specific examples than write "etcetera" if he thinks this is a problem. --Leifern 10:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
THe example quoted has nothing whatsoever to do with Kaiser Permanente, the subject of the page. Therefore whatever it is is not part of writing an encyclopaedia. It was an attack, it was an ad hominem attack rather than an argument on content, and it is a habit Leifern has also adopted. Leifern and Pansophia have an association in this. The etcetera above are a string of similar attacks in Pansophia's contributions - listing them in this page would be tedious, unusual, and more appropriate for an RFC which may well occur. Midgley 16:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
How does removing a cleanup tag constitute a personal attack? I'm confused. ---J.S (t|c) 20:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, just saw the edit summery: (Midgley is tag-warring to set me up for 3RR. See this page for the Midgley issue: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/86.10.231.219#Description). That seems more like incivil behavior then an actual personal attack. ---J.S (t|c) 20:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
There has been a rather persistent pattern of behaviour. I'm not the first person to receive attacks in response to a difference in opinion from Pansophia, who has an adverse interest in Kaiser Permanente, and has made many non-encyclopaedic edits on that article Kaiser Permanente - see talk page - in order to pursue it. Getting advice and making common cause with User:86.10.231.219 a troll, and being persuaded by User:Ombudsman's quirky welcome to new users was probably a bad influence on yclept user. Both, for reasons not unconnected, are subjects of RFCs and an arbcom case at present. Midgley 22:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


Lutherian (talk · contribs)

IP address: 85.0.202.5 He has been warned numerous times. Here he insults user Moby Dick: , I also consider calling me a racist a personal attack as well. See: (called user Fadix "disgusting" for example) or --Eupator 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Also an attack on THOTH (talkcontribs) : here and again attacks Eupator (talkcontribs) : here. Eupator's edit summary (sockpuppet of Lutherian) was, in fact, admitted by Lutherian (talkcontribs) here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Not sure how this is a personal attack. This is in fact not a personal attack... it's just very incivility.
Also, when someone sais "rv sorry not a sock puppet, just forgot to sign in" it is obvious that they were not trying to hide there identity. Your forgetting WP:AGF and committing a borderline Personal attack yourself. In any case... it looks like both "sides" are at fault in this incident. ---J.S (t|c) 20:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Warned twice, but shows no signs of stopping. --InShaneee 23:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Eupator (talk · contribs)

This user has frequently been making condescending, insluting and racist remarks and falsly accuses me of sockpuppetting when in fact I simply forgot to sign in! A prime example is the following that he posted onto my talk page : "I'm not sure if English is your first language or whether you have cognitive issues but the meer suggestion that a new user such as yourself that jumps into controversial topics might perhaps be a sockpuppet is not only not a personal attack but a daily occurance on wikipedia. Fear not, this is not turkey or mongolia. You are innocent until proven otherwise.--Eupator 15:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)" and another personal attack posted today on the talk page of Armenian Legion: "That bullcrap was merely copy pasted from already discredited propaganda websites. The scoundrel didn't even bother to paraphrase that baloney.--Eupator 17:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)" and another "So Lucifer, you mean to tell me that in this freedom of speech paradise anyone can go and burn the turkish flag in ankara like we can do here in the US with our flag? Can the average Joe deface an image of your God ataturk like we can do in Europe or the States with our leaders images and whatnot? Go feed your crap to someone else troll and enough of this irrelevant spamming. This is not a discussion forum.--Eupator 18:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)"

Furthermore I did not insult anyone by the name of Moby Dick. Calling moby prick someone who calls himself moby penis is hardly insulting! Lutherian 19:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Note what Lutherian said here: "This is a true testament to the racist nature of the Armenian psyche! Weems was not mistaken to call them a nation of terrorists!". —Khoikhoi 20:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Warned, but shows no willingness to let up. --InShaneee 23:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pantherarosa (talk · contribs)

This user has recently made several personal attacks at the Mohammed Mossadegh talk page . He has called editors for "ignorami and wannabes" and assumes they "have very limited education and whose mental capacity simply does not suffice for putting well researched data into context for an encyclopedia". I have given him a warning but this is not the first time he has been warned about personal attacks . He just simply deletes and ignores them. --- Melca 09:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Funny that you should "uncover" unhelpful and useless deleteted content (some even by banned VANDALS such as LIGerasimova), while yourself anabashdly deleting editors precious work, without foundation (e. g. on your talkpage). You should apply the same zeal in contributing intellectually to WIKIPEDIA as shown when naming serious editors on this PERSONAL ATTACK page Pantherarosa 23:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how commenting on other users' actions is a defense for your transgressions. Paul Cyr 23:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

When I was investigating this situation I discovered that Patherarosa was removing warnings from their talk page under the notion that (s)he was entitled to do so. I informed Patherarosa of the policies (s)he was breaking and added the {{Wr}} tag to their talk page. After I did this (s)he became upset that I was not minding my own business and called me a juvinile zealot. Paul Cyr 23:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Unhelpful and useless content? What do you call this edit by you then ? What i am referring to above are previously deleted warnings. --- Melca 23:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

        • It is hardly your business to judge my position, taken in June of 2005! It is You and the schoolboy trolling me , who engage in personal ATTACKS on my person! Instead, contribute to WIKIPEDIA intellectually!Pantherarosa 00:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you take a look at WP:EXPLAIN. You mind pointing out our personal attacks against you? If I made any against you I would definately want to apologize. Please provide a link so I can see where I attacked you. Paul Cyr 00:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

After receiving several warnings , this user has made yet another personal attack at my talk page . --- Melca 08:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Given several warnings (all archived now), if he continues, he should be blocked. --InShaneee 23:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but after a user receives multiple warnings, are they not supposed to be blocked on the next infraction? We know the user has been warned; we are asking for intervention because he has responded to every warning with a personal attack. Paul Cyr 01:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Administrators are given leeway here, and blocking is only used if it appears the user is unwilling to cooperate following several warnings. Attempts must be made to reform the user before that. --InShaneee 03:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Many , many , many , many , many , many , warnings and attempts were made. Seems to me like the user did not want to coopertate. Notice how there has not been a single time they've not responded to a warning with a personal attack? Paul Cyr 06:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Considering the incivil tone of your 'warnings', I'm willing to give him some leeway here. --InShaneee 15:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
That's hilarious. Not only is that a double standard and makes me thing you have no understanding of the situation, but the warnings were templates from Misplaced Pages:Template messages. So a user can attack multiple people, the user gets warned, attacks more people, but if those people respond in the slightest incivil manner, the user gets off scott free. Paul Cyr 18:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Paul Cyr (talk · contribs)

- This user trolls me and makes unwarranted assertions and utters threats. I interprete his conduct as disruptive and ATTACKS on my person. Pantherarosa 00:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) - - :Warned. --InShaneee 23:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Melca (talk · contribs)

This User is engaging in a smear campaign against me , whicj i interprete as a personal ATTACK! Pantherarosa 00:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I can find no evidence of any personal attacks on the part of this user. --InShaneee 23:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

> After carefully following Melca's activities on Misplaced Pages for a while now, iI really wonder who would profit from his "edits". I find him apparently mainly exhausting editors with unwarranted "amendments" or deleting content in a vandal-like fashioin or picking fights. He seems to have a big problem with people opposed to his POV. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia! Not a blog for his very personal grievances or his apparent lust for engaging in arguments. I also see that he aggravates editors with baseless but excerting allegations, in order to prompt them to react in disdain and possibly uncivil. he litterally asks for harsh criticism and jumps on the opportunity to pick on a victim of his conspicuous malice. Why doesn't he just leave serious people alone, as they enhance Misplaced Pages, while he and the likes of him leave ugly sentiments and imressions with the ones taking it up with him, and others who simply get fed up, seeing idle folk spoiling the enthusiasm with which they make their contributions. In light of his caprices, one cannot but regard him with contempt and disdain. He ought to go elsewhere, and leave honest folk alone. Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali 212.72.21.53 22:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Abdulrahman. I appreciate your concern. As you can see an admin already looked through my edits and didn't find a reason to give me a warning, but if you can back up your claims i suggest you post them here so appropriate actions can be taken against me. --- Melca 23:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I have placed a suspected sockpuppet tag on 212.72.21.53's user and talk page as the user's only contributions have been hostile towards Melca, so it's likely Pantherarosa. I have also placed the relevent tags on Pantherarosa's page. Paul Cyr 18:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Could it be that the Melca and Paul Cyr users, who are vociferously bad-mouthing the Pantherossa, are in cohorts with each other? One thing seems to be certain, both appear more than eager to make him look bad. Is this what Misplaced Pages is all about? Comparing the 3 contribution logs, one could arrive at the conclusion that one is contributing for a couple of years in a scientific fashion, while 2 are constantly embroiled in arguments and hairsplitting, carefully avoiding any sensible editing, as the quality and quantity of their contributions betray. Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali 22:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime the Paul Cyr from Quebec has removed the tag filed on him on this page. He seems to try to hide his tracks and the remarks on him as well as an Admin's Warning pronounced against him for using abusive language and multipal personal attacks ! Abdulrahman Jaffer Al Zadjali 22:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

TürkİntikamTugayı (talk · contribs)

No warnings given as account is clearly a throwaway sock. This edit (tagged as minor) is an implicit threat of violence (actually, for all I know, it's explicit). Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

User downwards

he said, "Keep it up and I shall personally report you to the admins who blocked you. You are banned for a reason. Walk away from the computer and pour yourself a cold drink. Cheers.--Downwards 22:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

67.101.134.76 (talk · contribs) and 67.100.49.172 (talk · contribs) as well as 67.101.128.6 (talk · contribs) (all same person)

He has repeatedly attempted (and failed, miserably i might add) to add linkspam to The Da Vinci Code and associated pages. Gwernol, Pegasus1138, and I have managed to get him at least twice already, but he shows no signs of letting up. He has also made personal attacks against User:Rodgerbales here. The IP user does not respond to warnings, but instead posts very long-winded messages blaming Rodgerbales for "wiping out links" when in fact it is the CVU/RCP/etc. reverting vandalism; see this diff. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 05:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


Irishpunktom (talk · contribs)

Irishpunktom has for a long insisted on calling me a "racist" on a number of peoples talkpages and in edit summaries such as here, here, and here. He claims that he is allowed to make personal attacks against me, arguing that I have previous placed an external link to a website that was an angry response to the violent hate campaign against my country, in connection with the Jyllands posten cartoon controversy. I have already agreed to remove the external link some time age, and I also asked asked him to stop these personal attacks against me, but he has refused that on several occations, and continue this behavior. I am tired of Irishpunktoms mudthrowing campaign against me, and request that an admin makes it clear to him that there is no excuse for personal attacks. -- Karl Meier 11:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Categories: