| Revision as of 20:45, 8 April 2006 editBitola (talk | contribs)867 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:59, 13 August 2024 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,481 edits update to remove reference to RfCs, as user-conduct RfCs were discontinued several years ago | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{historical}} | |||
| {{mergeto|Wikiquette alerts}} | |||
| :'''This process has been discontinued per ].''' | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| {{adminbacklog}} | |||
| The personal attack intervention noticeboard (PAIN), created on ] ], was intended as a counterpart to ]. A person with complaints over ] could, after giving warnings, report a personal attacker on this page. | |||
| {{user|Alienus}} Repeated personal attacks, persists after being warned by multiple parties on talk page. His most recent salvos are and . ] 19:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Looking through his recent contributions, I see some anger and frustration leading to slight incivility, but no serious personal attacks. ] (] • ]) 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Unfortunately, the noticeboard generated a considerable amount of controversy. While ] is usually a clear cut case, and administrator intervention (i.e. blocking) is usually uncontroversial, determining whether a comment is a personal attack, incivil, or just simply blunt and frank, can be quite ]. That led to a lot of arguments, flame wars, tit-for-tat disputes and ] on this page. Even after several warnings as well as changes to the header designed to instruct users on how to use this page, this noticeboard continued to deteriorate. Due to this deterioration as well as some particularly poor exchanges in December 2006, the entire page was ], with the result that the noticeboard was closed on {{#formatdate:10 January 2007}}. | |||
| {{user|Xezzite}} per warnings at his talk page and blatant violations (i.e., against me) at ]. --<font face="Book Antiqua">] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub></font> 00:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Addressed on ]. ] (] • ]) 07:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The closure of this noticeboard does not mean that personal attacks are tolerated; they should never be. It simply means that complaints over personal attacks are moved to different, and more appropriate venues such as the ], ] or, as a last resort, ]. | |||
| ---- | |||
| ===Procedure=== | |||
| Once again {{user|Xtra}}] continues his personal attacks against me. Clearly, his repeated obession with an expired arbitration case, which '''REFERS TO ME DIRECTLY BY NAME''' on his own user page, is a means of gloating, and simply a '''way to try to bait me.''' into complaining on PAIN. Please, the fact that he changed it yesterday from "My successful arbitration" to "arbitration link" then today changed it again to read '''"Arbitration with PSYCH"''' amounts to a personal attack, an an attempt to bait me into retaliation or some pther means to block me. It is a clear indication of BOASTING about another's loss, consistent with a personal attack and incosistent with proper wiki policy . I ask that it be removed as it serves no utility whatsoever, '''(in fact it is intiimidation and boasting)''' and the user disciplined for such an attack. '''The attack is in DIRECT VIOLATION of the ] Misplaced Pages policy against ]''' ] 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC). | |||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| ::UPDATE: Xtra has ignored concerns, and DELETED the NPA warning from his talk page, and threatened me on my talk page, despire the fact that he himself edited another ] page over 6 times and was '''blocked''' for it. Once again, Xtra seems to think he's above the law. ] 03:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| * See editor's item 4 above about not re-listing here as this complaint was removed yesterday by an admin. I'd also note that since you resumed posting on 10 March, the majority of your contributions have been to complain about Xtra in one form or another. Considering that the recently expired arbitration case referred to was concerning your personal attacks on Xtra, I find that somewhat concerning. "Arbitration with PSYCH" is not an attack in my view, it's factual, neutral (doesn't even mention "successful" anymore) and imo, approiate to keep visible for third parties to see the background because of the ongoing complaints you are making about him. Regards, ] 14:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::* First of all, the attack contains new facts, and would constitute a frash attack. The logical you use is incorect, if you believe that "background" is important, then a link to the case WITHOUT A NAME would suffice, '''however referring to me DIRECTLY just rubs it in that little bit more - a definite personal attack'''. The WIKI rules state: '''Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.''' Xtra is in clear violation of that rule. Secondly, forgive me, but I wouldn't rely on your opinion as an impartial observer because (i) you've accused me of being another user (and have a clear dislike for me) and (ii) are "friends" with Xtra, (it is hardly fair for Xtraa's friends to judge his own viscious attacks in any honest, impartial sense). Thankyou, I await ''another'' admin's opinion ] 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::*I have not "accused" you of being another user, I have commented on a number of similarities between yourself and another user (full diff here, The other user also described pointing out similarities as an accusation, as it happens). I neither like nor disklike you, nor am I anyone's "friend". I pointed out to Xtra that I thought his block for edit warring on a user page was justified, and I pointed out to you that most of your recent edits have been complaints, and not contributions to the encylopedia. You are, of course, welcome to disregard mine (or anyone else's) opinion, it doesn't really bother me. I hope this all gets resolved to your satifisaction soon, whatever happens. Regards, ] 01:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Psych has done little on wikipedia other than harass or attack Xtra in one way or another. See Psych's ] to get an idea of what is going on. ] <sup>]</sup> 00:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::So my lack of edits excuses his personal attacks? I find that unfair for a person to get away with attacks simply because he has many friends who are admins. Secondly, ] is a friend og Xtra whoo has '''publicly stated that Xtra did not deserve to be blocked when Xtra removed a perceived attack on another's page through vandalism'''. I suppose one set of rules exist for Xtra and another for everybody else? ] 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Xtra's userpage as it stands presently is not a personal attack and nor was it one before he modified it. It is apparent to me from reviewing the relevant comments and contributions made by PSYCH in the past month that he is undertaking a campaign to smear Xtra with the same behaviour he was found to have engaged in. The only evidence I can find of Xtra behaving less than properly (although not improperly) was his reversion of PSYCH's posting to his talk page and his impolite posting to PSYCH's talk page. The latter, however, is understandable to the extent that he has been the target of harrasment. Conversely, it is PSYCH who has made personal attacks in this saga, in one instance labelling Xtra a in an edit summary. Since resuming editing on the 11th of last month, PSYCH's entire activity on Misplaced Pages has been in conflict with Xtra. At this stage, I see no reason to reprimand any individual. However, PSYCH, please consider this a warning to back off. Direct your time on Misplaced Pages to actually improving it, rather than to bringing yourself into conflict with a user you have shown yourself to be incapable of dealing with amicably. | |||
| In the interests of disclosure, I was asked to comment on this issue by Xtra. However, I was aware of this dispute prior to this request and have previously recieved emails from ] asking for intervention. I am not biased towards any involved party.--] | ] 04:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| * '''My two cents:''' (''not that anyone asked for it...'') It seems to me, Psych, that you need to take a deep breath and back off. Why do you let Xtra control all of your actions on wikipedia? Every time you "attack" xtra with WP:PAIN you are simply adding to his control over you. If everything stays the same... in the end you'll end up banned indefinatly and he'll go back to happy editing. When I look down your paths, that is the desination I see. If you actualy care about editing on wikipedia my advice to you is thus: '''Let it go and move on'''. ---] 07:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ---- | |||
| {{user|69.196.139.250}} This guy was recently blocked for copy-pasting various personal attacks on various talk pages. Now he's back with more. He has also been attacking . ]]]<sup>]</sup> 17:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{User|64.135.10.200}} - It appears this user is behaving vexatiously on ] - when {{user|Jaranda}} removed his (apparently trollistic) request for arbitration against Swatjester and Naconkantari, he responded with a threat that if Jaranda were to remove it again, he would report to the administrators. --] 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{User|Avg}} constantly uses the highly insulting term Fyromians for my people (Macedonians): | |||
| ,. He has been warned twice:, | |||
| and here is what he left on my talk page after his last warning:. ] 16:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I don't think any intervention is needed here. Avg is still quite new and has only become active recently and has not been interacting with the Misplaced Pages community much. I'll be having an e-mailed word with him about it and about ]. Thanks. ] <sup>(])</sup> 16:34, 8 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *I have never offended anyone personally and I find extremely counter-productive to be involved in personal attacks. However, the issue about the appelation of the ethnic group of inhabitants of ] is highly controversial. I'm Greek and the official Greek position is that the name of the abovementioned ethnic group cannot be (or include the term) "Macedonians". Users Realek and Bitola have both put npa templates on my page requesting me to call them "Macedonians". This is a straightforward attempt to influence my POV. I cannot accept that. Could they please clarify which words that''' do not''' include the term "Macedonians" they find not offensive? I will be happy to use them right away.--] 16:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *This is a complex are as I have already explained to Avg. Amongst others, I explicitly indicated that the usage of an exonym which, it had been communicated to him earlier that was met with feelings of dislike, should have made him avoid excessive usage of it and if required to restrict its usage to a descriptive sense only. I have already engaged in what may be described as a productive and fruitful exchange with with him and it has been indicated and communicated to me that the usage of terminology which it has been communicated to or can reasonably expect it to be offensive should be avoided at all costs with the exception I mentioned above, namely the descriptive sense and not to explicitly direct it to any current or potential user. It is true that further analysis of this case may prove that newbie biting has taken place against a participant not particularly familiar with the ''modus operandi'' of the Misplaced Pages community. Personally, I do not find favour with the current templates and am of the impression that they operate dysfunctionally, so when I am asking someone to discontinue making a particular variety of comments I compose a post I think would operate more effectively in the circumstances (). The current templates ought to be revised at the first reasonable opportunity. As I have said, Avg has indicated that he shall cease using the offending terminology, so it is my view that intervention is no longer required. Thanks. ] <sup>(])</sup> 17:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I also want to avoid such reporting, but unfortunately, ] continues with his insulting altitude (now even inventing new names for the Macedonian people):,.] 20:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==See also== | |||
| *] | |||
Latest revision as of 17:59, 13 August 2024
 | 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. |
- This process has been discontinued per this discussion.
The personal attack intervention noticeboard (PAIN), created on 7 October 2005, was intended as a counterpart to the request for intervention against vandalism page. A person with complaints over personal attacks could, after giving warnings, report a personal attacker on this page.
Unfortunately, the noticeboard generated a considerable amount of controversy. While vandalism is usually a clear cut case, and administrator intervention (i.e. blocking) is usually uncontroversial, determining whether a comment is a personal attack, incivil, or just simply blunt and frank, can be quite subjective. That led to a lot of arguments, flame wars, tit-for-tat disputes and wikilawyering on this page. Even after several warnings as well as changes to the header designed to instruct users on how to use this page, this noticeboard continued to deteriorate. Due to this deterioration as well as some particularly poor exchanges in December 2006, the entire page was nominated for deletion, with the result that the noticeboard was closed on 10 January 2007.
The closure of this noticeboard does not mean that personal attacks are tolerated; they should never be. It simply means that complaints over personal attacks are moved to different, and more appropriate venues such as the administrators' noticeboard, dispute resolution or, as a last resort, arbitration.
Procedure
Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard/Header
Categories: