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 06:02, 29 June 2006 editWoohookitty (talk | contribs)Administrators611,228 edits →{{User|His excellency}}← Previous edit Revision as of 06:04, 29 June 2006 edit undoNetscott (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users22,834 edits →{{User|His excellency}}Next edit →
Line 32: Line 32:
:::::::::Understood. I just wanted to add the diff dates because without them H.E.'s examples of commentary could ''easily'' be taken out of the context of his previously having been blocked for them. ] 05:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC) :::::::::Understood. I just wanted to add the diff dates because without them H.E.'s examples of commentary could ''easily'' be taken out of the context of his previously having been blocked for them. ] 05:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::Tom harrison indefinitely blocked His excellency at 18:09 18 June. Five of eight (= "most") diffs referenced above came after that block. Bishonen's block, as shown in the log, was intended to un-indef-block him, and hardly counts as a "new" block. Three were made after the second-to-last Amibidhrohi block, which was then subsequently extended for a week.] 05:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC) ::::::::::Tom harrison indefinitely blocked His excellency at 18:09 18 June. Five of eight (= "most") diffs referenced above came after that block. Bishonen's block, as shown in the log, was intended to un-indef-block him, and hardly counts as a "new" block. Three were made after the second-to-last Amibidhrohi block, which was then subsequently extended for a week.] 05:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::All anyone has to do is be upfront and tell the ''whole'' story from the get-go... makes for less second guessing. When posting diffs it should almost be ''obligatory'' to post their times as well. ] 06:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

:::: Woohookitty, H.E. may be sometimes uncivil, but his presence was useful for the Dhimmi article. He WAS helping us towards NPOVing the article. He has a point but he sometimes doesn't express himself in an appropriate. His opinion about Bat Ye'or, but not his undiscussed removal of her quotes, can be backed up. Bernard Lewis doesn't "seem" to approve her scholarship. Lewis actually never quotes her though admits her significance as someone who writes about Dhimmi. It is unfair to have a huge chunk of an article based on a controversial person, especially when the quotes are written as "X is so" rather than "Y says X is so". H.E. to my view has a very right to be upset but he is not controlling himself. I think one week is a little bit long for him since we need him on Dhimmi article. Also, I don't think nominating an article for deletion is a good reason for blocking someone. There are people who were thinking that the sources are misquoted. I am not saying the article should be deleted but that he "has" a point. In anycase, he just suggested the article for deletion, not that he actually deleted the article. If you could conditionally suspend his penalty, I would be thankful. Thanks , --] 05:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC) :::: Woohookitty, H.E. may be sometimes uncivil, but his presence was useful for the Dhimmi article. He WAS helping us towards NPOVing the article. He has a point but he sometimes doesn't express himself in an appropriate. His opinion about Bat Ye'or, but not his undiscussed removal of her quotes, can be backed up. Bernard Lewis doesn't "seem" to approve her scholarship. Lewis actually never quotes her though admits her significance as someone who writes about Dhimmi. It is unfair to have a huge chunk of an article based on a controversial person, especially when the quotes are written as "X is so" rather than "Y says X is so". H.E. to my view has a very right to be upset but he is not controlling himself. I think one week is a little bit long for him since we need him on Dhimmi article. Also, I don't think nominating an article for deletion is a good reason for blocking someone. There are people who were thinking that the sources are misquoted. I am not saying the article should be deleted but that he "has" a point. In anycase, he just suggested the article for deletion, not that he actually deleted the article. If you could conditionally suspend his penalty, I would be thankful. Thanks , --] 05:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


Revision as of 06:04, 29 June 2006

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards


    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.

    Alerts

    His excellency (talk · contribs)

    Persistently uncivil, accuses others of "deliberate misrepresention of sources," "hypocricy," and bad faith.

    User is also User:Amibidhrohi. Because of my past involvement with this editor, I'd prefer someone else look into it. Tom Harrison 15:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

    I'm going to let someone else take a look. It's iffy. His excellency is doing alot of "this is a waste of time" stuff, but I don't think he's being sincere. I think he's hoping that he gets himself blocked and then he can rail Misplaced Pages for being anti-Muslim, unfair, etc. I think we should just let it go for now. But I'll keep this here so another admin can take a gander. I just don't like blocking people who want to get blocked. It's a trap that they want you to step into. --Woohookitty 14:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Wow, that's some Machiavellian bad faith you're imputing to the user, is that really fair? I can't say I've seen any evidence of it. But I don't want to be the one to look into this either, as I've had dealings too. Bishonen | talk 14:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC).
    If it was bad faith, I would've blocked him. :) Just going on past experience here. Pretty obvious he's asking for a block. --Woohookitty 15:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Here is an interesting exchange between His excellency and another user. Pecher 22:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    Here are more illustrative comments, most of them made after his last block (which Bishonen changed from indefinite to three days):
    • "'O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.' Although I have my own differences with the teachings and history of Islam, the truth in this little gem proves itself time and time again.": 20:46, 18 June 2006
    • "You're a fool to trust an anglo to do anything other than stab you in the back. As the Quran clearly tells you, you should not put yourself in a situation where you are reliant on them, in even the smallest way, on their consideration. Don't associate with them; don't work with them; don't make your actions (and in this case, words) subject to their review." 02:08, 19 June 2006
    • "...I know better than to expect that much from some anglo orientalist." 01:08, 19 June 2006
    • "The Jews took note, and have taken every measure to stop me. They're an active bunch of snots." 04:12, 7 June 2006
    • "To be honest, I think Muslims do tend to stand out as the most apathetic and cold hearted people amongst religions and nations. They're pathetic." 03:10, 7 June 2006
    • "Muslims used to rule over nations. Now Muslims carry on as if they'd been castrated by the West." 04:17, 7 June 2006
    • "His butt buddy..." 18:31, 18 June 2006
    • "For god's sake, fuck off...At best, you're stupid, at worst you're both stupid and a hypocrite. And yes, that's a personal attack." 01:08, 19 June 2006
    The incivility to which Tom refers above is in fact the most civil this user has ever been. At best, he changes every conversation away from the content of the article to 1) personalized commentatary about other editors and their purportedly nefarious motives 2) the oppression of Muslims in general.Timothy Usher 02:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    I blocked him for one week. I actually didn't take the examples here. I took 2 from Netscott's talk page, though I could've taken many more. Here is the info. --Woohookitty 03:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    In his email to me contesting the block, he told me he wasn't personally attacking people...this in an email where in the subject line it said "unblock me, you moron". --Woohookitty 04:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    Ever one to show social tact that User:His excellency. Netscott 04:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    Just wanted to emphasize that I did not take Tim's diffs. I went through the recent diffs and made my decision based on that. --Woohookitty 04:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    Understood. I just wanted to add the diff dates because without them H.E.'s examples of commentary could easily be taken out of the context of his previously having been blocked for them. Netscott 05:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    Tom harrison indefinitely blocked His excellency at 18:09 18 June. Five of eight (= "most") diffs referenced above came after that block. Bishonen's block, as shown in the log, was intended to un-indef-block him, and hardly counts as a "new" block. Three were made after the second-to-last Amibidhrohi block, which was then subsequently extended for a week.Timothy Usher 05:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    All anyone has to do is be upfront and tell the whole story from the get-go... makes for less second guessing. When posting diffs it should almost be obligatory to post their times as well. Netscott 06:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    Woohookitty, H.E. may be sometimes uncivil, but his presence was useful for the Dhimmi article. He WAS helping us towards NPOVing the article. He has a point but he sometimes doesn't express himself in an appropriate. His opinion about Bat Ye'or, but not his undiscussed removal of her quotes, can be backed up. Bernard Lewis doesn't "seem" to approve her scholarship. Lewis actually never quotes her though admits her significance as someone who writes about Dhimmi. It is unfair to have a huge chunk of an article based on a controversial person, especially when the quotes are written as "X is so" rather than "Y says X is so". H.E. to my view has a very right to be upset but he is not controlling himself. I think one week is a little bit long for him since we need him on Dhimmi article. Also, I don't think nominating an article for deletion is a good reason for blocking someone. There are people who were thinking that the sources are misquoted. I am not saying the article should be deleted but that he "has" a point. In anycase, he just suggested the article for deletion, not that he actually deleted the article. If you could conditionally suspend his penalty, I would be thankful. Thanks , --Aminz 05:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    Not a single doubt that the charge against him is valid, but maybe it was better if he would have got some warning. But that's only me; I maybe biased since I feel he was doing some productive work. But again that's only what *I think*. --Aminz 05:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    At this point, I'd suggest moving the discussion over to AN/I. I posted about the block there. --Woohookitty 06:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    Categories: