| Revision as of 11:52, 27 May 2006 editEd g2s (talk | contribs)Administrators27,325 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:59, 13 August 2024 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,478 edits update to remove reference to RfCs, as user-conduct RfCs were discontinued several years ago | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{ |
{{historical}} | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| :'''This process has been discontinued per ].''' | |||
| <!-- List editors who are making personal attacks below this line. Head with "=={{User|PROBLEM USER}}==", replacing PROBLEM USER with the user name concerned. --> | |||
| 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. | |||
| 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}}. | |||
| 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, ]. | |||
| =={{User|Dzoni}}== | |||
| I have never been so blatendly insulted on this Misplaced Pages as by this user that does not seam to have a shred of self control . His message, although in Serbian, starts with "suck my dick". Immidiate block requested. --] 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ===Procedure=== | |||
| =={{User|Guettarda}}, {{User|Bhouston}}, {{User|CSTAR}}, {{User|Commodore Sloat|csloat}}, == | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| On ], 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: | |||
| ] | |||
| '''<blockquote>At least one of the editors involved on the page, Isarig, seems to have no regard for policy, having violated the ] and ] in the last few days. He seems unwilling to abide by policy.</blockquote>''' | |||
| '''<blockquote>Elizmr with Armon's help are very good at fighting off criticism -- mostly through persistence and treating others unfairly. </blockquote>''' | |||
| '''Endorsers:''' | |||
| #] | |||
| #] | |||
| #] 16:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #] 16:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #]<sup>]</sup> 16:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC) '''modified''' to clarify first para only endorsed. ]<sup>]</sup> 23:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| #] ] 16:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC) <small>I'm also more interested in the first paragraph. ] ] 23:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)</small> | |||
| #] 00:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *The endorsement of this statement by ] is ironic because he had been guilty of not following Misplaced Pages guidelines ] and ] himself in the editing of this particular page (abstracted in ). Similarly, another endorser, ], soon after endorsing this statement made direct personal attacks against Elizmr (abstracted in ), and ] 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 ). | |||
| *]’s endorsement of the statement of Elizmr’s unfairness is especially ironic, because he and ] had been engaging in civil and seemingly productive interchanges (abstracted in ). | |||
| *]’s endorsement of the statement singling out ]’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). | |||
| *To be fair, personal attacks and assumptions of poor faith by ], ], and ] are collected here , as are those of ] (abstracted in) an editor on the page not characterized as obstructing progress on the page by the endorsers of the above statement, and sharing a POV with the signers of the above statement. ] 01:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =={{User|Pansophia}}== | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Kaiser_Permanente&curid=477362&diff=53254033&oldid=53253341 etcetera. 3 warnings. Set a bad example I think. ] 03:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem is actually Midgley. See this . Also see my talk page - someone already looked into this. --] 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. ] 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. --] 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. ] 16:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :How does removing a cleanup tag constitute a personal attack? I'm confused. ---] (]|]) 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. ---] (]|]) 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 ] - see talk page - in order to pursue it. Getting advice and making common cause with ] a troll, and being persuaded by ]'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. ] 22:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =={{User|Lutherian}}== | |||
| IP address: | |||
| 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 | |||
| --] 19:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Also an attack on ] (] • ]) : and again attacks ] (] • ]) : . Eupator's edit summary (sockpuppet of Lutherian) was, in fact, admitted by ] (] • ]) . ] ] 20:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Not sure how is a personal attack. 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. ---] (]|]) 20:06, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Warned twice, but shows no signs of stopping. --] 23:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =={{User|Eupator}}== | |||
| 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! ] 19:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Note what Lutherian said : "''This is a true testament to the racist nature of the Armenian psyche! Weems was not mistaken to call them a nation of terrorists!''". —<span style="font-family:Palatino Linotype">]</span> 20:35, 16 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Warned, but shows no willingness to let up. --] 23:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =={{User|Pantherarosa}}== | |||
| This user has recently made several personal attacks at the ] 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. --- ] 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 ] 23:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't see how commenting on other users' actions is a defense for your transgressions. ] 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 <nowiki>{{Wr}}</nowiki> 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. ] 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. --- ] 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!] 00:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I suggest you take a look at ]. 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. ] 00:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| After receiving several warnings , this user has made yet another personal attack at my talk page . --- ] 08:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Given several warnings (all archived now), if he continues, he should be blocked. --] 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. ] 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. --] 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? ] 06:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Considering the incivil tone of your 'warnings', I'm willing to give him some leeway here. --] 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 ]. 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. ] 18:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Laugh all you want, but you're not going to find an administrator anywhere who's going to block someone who hasn't made any incivil comments, much less edited at all, since their last warning. --] 03:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I was laughing at your practising a double standard and the fact that I don't think you even know anything about the situation. Case in point: Timestamp for <nowiki>{{Npa3}}</nowiki> (a.k.a. final warning tag) was May 17, 18:17 ; Pantherarosa's last personal attack time stamp was May 17, 19:27 . So after Pantherarosa received the final warning tag, (s)he made two more personal attacks. Therefore your statement is null; Pantherarosa made more attacks after receiving the final warning tag. ] 03:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not the only admin that watches this page; no one else has felt the need to take action against this user, either. --] 03:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, given that I am the primary person doing maintainance on this page, and that I pretty much proved this page is neglected over at WP:AN, you probably are the only admin watching. In any case, stop avoiding points. You seem to make a claim, which I rebut, only to move onto another. I'm still waiting for a response to my reply above. Or are you just going to ignore it as you have done to my discussions with you before? In short: stop changing the subject. ] 03:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The simple fact is that in the end, it all comes down to a judgement call based on circumstances. If this user comes back and makes any incivil comments, he'll get blocked, period. When I came to the situation, what I saw was you actively being abusive, so I had to act on that as it happened, as any other admin would. --] 04:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::And I've already shown how I only made one '''incivil''' edit. Please don't use words with a stronger negative position than appropriate. As well, Melca made no abusive edits, but Patherarosa still attacked him. Given your "cherry-picking", refusal to provide any explaination by resorting to "it is because I say it is" type responses and after looking at your talk page seeing your being unwilling to provide a reasonable explaination for users in dispute with you, I feel that you have abused your admin powers and made bad-faith towards resolving disputes. Therefore I have brought the matter to AN/I. The discussion there has already started with two users posting complaints about you, so hopefully it can be resolved as I hope it can. I don't think you can honestly say to yourself that you have put in a reasonable effort to resolve the situation properly, so if the discussion at AN/I results in no reasonable solution, I (and I imagine with strong support from at least a few other users) will be taking the matter to the ArbCom. Consider this my last response here. Unless you wish to discuss Pantherarosa's conduct, I will ignore any replys from you here. ] 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Finally. --] 04:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =={{User|TürkİntikamTugayı}}== | |||
| No warnings given as account is clearly a throwaway sock. edit (tagged as minor) is an implicit threat of violence (actually, for all I know, it's explicit). ] ] 18:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Username translates to "Turkish Revenge Brigade" which may constitute to a {{tl|Usernameblock}} --<small>] ]</small> 13:12, 21 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) | |||
| =={{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) | |||
| =={{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) | |||
| :Adding dates to diffs inside the above comment. Link to IPK's responses on Karl's talk. - ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 12:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This should go to dispute resolution. IPK should chill out in the meantime, though. - ]<span class="plainlinks"></span> 12:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =={{User|Paul Cyr}}== | |||
| The user attacks me with false claims and acts like a pest (vandalised my userpage!). While vexing everybody with childish pranks, he keeps deleting ADMIN warnings on him, on his userpage and here above. I strongly advise to block him permanently, as all he does is being disruptive and abusive. Anithing but an asset for Misplaced Pages....] 12:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I would also like to point out that the above user is a suspected sockpuppet (I did add the tag myself, but look at the contribs for evidence) who has made their own personal attacks: . This user's first edits were hostile towards another user (which is part of the evidence for being a sockpuppet) and has made very few useful contributions. Most of their edits have been in support of Pantherarosa (the suspected puppeteer) while attacking myself and Melca, who was the other user involved with the dispute with Pantherarosa. ] 21:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Return of ] == | |||
| And the personal attack user talk page. Previous notes here. This is gross. ] 13:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =={{User|Paul Cyr}}== | |||
| This user trolls me and makes unwarranted assertions and utters threats. I interprete his conduct as disruptive and ATTACKS on my person. ] 00:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Warned. --] 23:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **** This user continues trolling me and places baseless tags on my userpage (i found him having placed a tag almost a week ago! Without me noticing. I consider this a personal attack and slander. I is worthwhile mentioning too that ] 's contribution log seems to consist solely of bickering, trolling and arguing. Of what good is such behavior to Misplaced Pages and our mutual efforts? I leave it to Admins to sort out the various false claims about me on several other pages, by said user. It cannot be tolerated that a kid playing snitch spreads unproven rumors at his fancy!] 18:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I have no time to revert the tags this user keeps re-posting in a trolling fashion. This behavior amounts to personal attacks. I ask admins to tackle the matter, in due course. I do not wish to have to deal with trolling and bad faith slanderous kids, on this forum. I want to edit and not see mine and people's precious time wasted by tending to nonsense.] 18:17, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ironic that the above complaint contains personal attacks. Specifically, ''It cannot be tolerated that a kid playing snitch spreads unproven rumors at his fancy!'' and ''I do not wish to have to deal with trolling and bad faith slanderous kids'' | |||
| ::Additional personal attacks by Pantherarosa: ] 18:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =={{User|Muhaidib}}== | |||
| Personal attacks on myself. <span style="font-family: Verdana;">] • ]</span> 11:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *"''you know what eddy, it's jerks like you who make me regret the day I made this article what it is today''" | |||
| *"''I have to tell you people have been much happier before your skinny friend eddy opend his mouth''" | |||
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: