| Revision as of 04:45, 16 August 2006 editVhgk3z5b (talk | contribs)2,846 editsm →{{User|SlimVirgin}}: typo← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:59, 13 August 2024 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,486 edits update to remove reference to RfCs, as user-conduct RfCs were discontinued several years ago | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{historical}} | |||
| {{editabuselinks}}<br /> | |||
| <!-- Please remove/add HTML comments around {{adminbacklog}}. --> | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| :'''This process has been discontinued per ].''' | |||
| == New reports == | |||
| 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}}. | |||
| ==Open reports== | |||
| <!-- Place reports below this line once there has been a reply to the report --> | |||
| 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=== | |||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| ===Several anons controlled by ]=== | |||
| ] | |||
| I reported personal attacks at ] here several days ago, but was rebuffed because it involves one user who is using multiple, non-static IPs. I took it to WP:AN/I. My request has gotten almost no attention there since I posted it over two days ago, yet the attacks have been continuing completely unabated (and getting nastier, I might add). The request is here: ]. I would sincerely appreciate it if an admin would review my posting at WP:AN/I and consider a rangeblock. · <font color="#013220">]</font>'' <font color="#465945" size="1">]</font>'' · 02:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| : and clearly shows how malicious this user's postings has become over recent days. I realize a more in-depth chronicle of all the user's postings is listed at the WP:AN/I request, but I thought it would make things easier to link the latest attacks here. - ] <font color="darkgreen" size="1">]</font> 03:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just for completeness's sake, warnings the editor has received on various IP talk pages, in no particular order: | |||
| ::*At ] and , removed by the editor | |||
| ::*At ] | |||
| ::*At ] | |||
| ::These are in addition to the many requests to stop made by several editors on ]. This editor is fully aware that her behavior is unacceptable. As Dozenist said, she's gotten much nastier in the past few hours. Some assistance would be greatly appreciated. -- ] | ] 03:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::*Unfortunately, there's a very large range they could be using; it looks like a dial-up pool. I would suggest liberally editing or even completely removing any posts coming from these accounts and inserting something like <personal attack removed> - I've found people often stop once they realize they won't be heard at all if they behave in that manner.Shell <sup>]</sup> 03:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|AOluwatoyin}}=== | |||
| After returning from his 2nd block, he's back at it again . -- ] 16:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Warned again --]\<sup>]</sup> 19:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **Note AOluwatoyin is a relatively new user--]\<sup>]</sup> 23:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|SlimVirgin}}=== | |||
| No one will out her, but admin SlimVirgin has just made vicious personal attacks on admin ]. In this edit she makes a clear personal attack, but more importantly, in that general time period she made a much worse attack that almost immediately disappeared from the edit record, saying that Kim "contributes nothing to the encyclopedia". DUring the same episode she deleted another user's comment from the record , presumably because she simply didn't like it. A perusal of her edits shows outrageous disrespect for other editors and admins, and it is hard to believe that wikipedia sanctions this while punishing much less in other users. I have no doubt that Slim will delete this too in short order .... <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small> | |||
| :Warned. ] 07:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::At the very least, you might want to look at that second edit a bit more closely; no comment was removed. I'm really shocked a warning was issued without a modicum of investigation into such an insubstantial complaint. Please review the examples on ] and the green header of this page if you're going to respond to reports. Shell <sup>]</sup> 07:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're absolutely right about the second diff... which, I rather suspect, is why Paul didn't mention it at all, at SlimVirgin's talk page. You're not seriously going to try and claim that "You make no contribution to the encyclopedia. All you are is trouble," is the epitome of civility, are you? ] 08:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Nope, wouldn't say that's the nicest way in the world to put it, but this board isn't for drive-by rudeness. A report bordering on simple trolling merits a bit more research; in effect, someone anonymously conned Paul to do their harassing for them. The issue being discussed in that diff and the contribs of the editor SlimVirgin referred to would shed a lot of light for those not familar with the incident. Its just nnever a bad idea to look twice at a report where half of it turns out to be patently false. Shell <sup>]</sup> 04:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::And Slim has now deleted the warning from her Talk page. -- <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 19:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC).</small> | |||
| :::::I appreciate your concern, but archiving a talk page isn't really the same as removing warnings, I believe. See ] for more information. ] 21:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Actually, if you look at the , it appears that she never created an archive. ] 02:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::The contents of her talk page remain in her history; it appears that is how she has always archived her page, though correct me if I'm wrong. If that is so, then I see nothing wrong with that myself, as it upholds the GFDL. Nonetheless, those two comments do not even appear to be personal attacks. The first one is slightly incivil, at best. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 07:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I did notice that she never created an archive, but to be honest, I didn't think it would be worth it to pester her about it. ;) It may be worth asking her about it, but I figured something along the lines of what Cowman109 said -- different people archive in different ways, and I don't think her intention there was to "hide." In my view, things didn't get too far out of hand, and enough has been done for the time being unless there are/have been new developments I'm not aware of. Thoughts? ] 08:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Regarding the history, if that was the case there would be no reason in the blocking policy to block people for removing warnings (as it falls under vandalism according to ]). It's also the reason for the {{tl|Wr}} and {{tl|Wr1}} and {{tl|Wr2}} template. Given the fact that this is an admin, and although they are being warned for bad conduct, I will still ] and assume it was an accident. In any case, whether or not it's a user or admins, legitimate warnings must be properly archived according to ]. ] 02:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I've left her a message. To be honest, if she asks for the warnings to be removed with the promise to be more civil, I will immediately do so. ] 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| This report is by an anon, {{user|69.29.223.226}}, who is undoubtedly one of the editors locked in a bitter RFAr with SlimVirgin. This same anon also started a baseless user conduct RFC against SlimVirgin and the other party in the RFAr Jayjg, ]. This compounds the evidence that user:69.29.223.226 is using Misplaced Pages's systems to settle scores and wage a personal vendetta against SlimVirgin arising out of the RFAr. SlimVigin's incivility was clearly provoked and understandable to anyone who bothered to look beyond the diff, not to mention a very rare instance. The reaction here to it was utterly over the top. I'm heartened to see there's such an abundance of good faith here that even a shady anon can game the system to malign a respected admin to such a degree that warnings are issued and threats are made when the misbegotten warnings are removed. I'm saddened to see an abject absence of critical thinking and looking beyond the diffs before one of our better admin's name is dragged through the mud by such a transparent machination. I hope to see those working here are a little more circumspect next time a suspicious filing is made. I for one support SlimVigin's removal of the warning, it was clearly uninformed and misguided by an cynical editor for whom the integrity required to act forthrightly is beyond his grasp, and workers here who slow to look into suspicious filings but all too to issue warnings. I'm unsure which is the bigger problem. ] 03:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It's interesting you keep using the word ''admin'', even though admins are not immune to bad behaviour. Your own comment, "''I for one support SlimVigin's removal of the warning, it was clearly uninformed and misguided by an cynical editor for whom the integrity required to act forthrightly is beyond his grasp''" is a personal attack, even more suprising coming from an administrator. Your comment makes me think that you view admins as immune to wrong doing and that it's wrong to warn them. Your own personal attack against me only reinforces that. I myself dealt with a user who made many blatant personal attacks against me, and when I made a sarcasitic comment I was warned for civility. Yet an admin made a comment that was definately incivil and possibly a personal attack, and when they are warned for it you made attacks on the people trying to keep things civil. You apparently didn't read the part here or on mine and Slim's talk page where I said that because of the circumstances and the justification Slim gave, I would have no problem with the warnings being removed. I am surprised that I have to warn you against making personal attacks in a discussion about personal attacks, on a page for reporting personal attacks. ] 03:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I've made no personal attack, I called into question the motives of the anon ("''...it was clearly uninformed and misguided by an cynical editor for whom the integrity required to act forthrightly is beyond his grasp''") and the apparent eagerness of workers here in issuing warnings first, asking questions later. But if I came off as rude I apologize, that was not my intent. Many admins have become running targets for bitter, revengeful editors who contribute little but strife to the project. Workers here in particular need to be a little more discerning before dealing out NPA warnings over reports from dubious sources, and be on the watch for editors trying to game the system, that was and remains my only point. Also, removing warnings is seldom a blockable offense. ] 03:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you, FM. ] is {{user|Gnetwerker}} who was until recently engaged in a campaign of harassment, using various sockpuppets, against ], which included posting his personal details, and when I blocked the sockpuppets, turned his attention to me instead. | |||
| :In addition, there is no policy or guideline that says people have to leave "warnings" on their talk pages. An exception might be where an admin posted a warning during a block that other admins needed to see; or where a user was being disruptive. Otherwise, people may remove material from their talk pages as they see fit. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 03:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually, ] specifically says, ''removing legitimate warnings, especially with the intention of misleading other editors, can be disruptive and inappropriate behavior even though it is ot specifically a form of vandalism. Removing comments without responding may be considered uncivil or become an issue for arbitration.'' Otherwise could you explain the reason for the {{tl|Wr}}1,2,3 templates? ] 03:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Are you actually claiming that SlimVirgin is a vandal, and that she was intending to mislead other editors? The fact that you might think your warning was "legitimate" doesn't mean others would agree, and official warnings should come from admins. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Actually, there is nothing there that could be taken as claiming that Slim is a vandal as what I quoted specifically said her actions would not be vandalism. Just because other editors may not agree, is not a reason to remove warnings from one's talk page. If other editors disagree, get one of them to remove it. Finally, your last sentence is a direct conflict with ] as admins have no special privileges aside from sysop functions. ] 04:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::People often post warnings as a form of harassment. Admins have special tools to enforce policy, therefore they are the ones who make official warnings about it. It is rather absurd to claim that SV was removing warnings with the intent of misleading other editors, so the section of ] you quoted is irrelevant, even ''if'' your claim about personal attacks was valid. ]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">]</font></small></sup> 04:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::There is nothing official about an admin warning versus the warning from a regular user. Admins simply have the ability to block users for ignoring warnings, but the warnings are just as valid from a non-admin. You once again imply that I am claiming that Slim was removing warnings in order to mislead, which I was not and you have no basis for that implication. The WP:VANDAL refers to misleading editors as emphasis for not removing warnings, not as a condition for not removing warnings. Please make sure you carefully read both ] and ]. ] 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :One other thing Felonious, since when were policies, especially like ] this easy to make exceptions to? It's nice to know that if I am provoked enough, I can break any policy I want. ] 03:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Paul, the anon who started this is a troll and a troublemaker. For future reference, it would be a good idea if you would not respond to anon complaints about admins without checking carefully that the anon is right. In the case of this guy, he loves to see people fall out because of him. He's been engaged in this kind of behavior since January. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm not saying there are, but policy and behavior are seldom black and white. When an editor is constantly provoked and finally responds, I'd think slaps on the wrist all around are a better response than only for the one who responds. In extreme cases of provocation the opposite would apply. I'm not afraid to commend someone for being willing to stand up and give it back to another who has had it coming for a long time. An enlightened adherence to policy is better than an inflexible adherence to policy. ] 04:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::I kept trying to type a rebuttle, but ] kept comming up. Let's just say everyone should try to be nice. ] 04:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I agree, and to end this imbroglio on the right note, I feel Paul Cyr has done an admirable job at this thankless task for some time, and this situation was attributable to his extending full faith to all comers, itself an admirable trait. Again, Paul has my apologies if I came across as insulting in bringing this up. Slim Virgin was responding more or less as one would expect to a long time tormentor and troublemaker, something that Paul Cyr would not likely know offhand. A way to avoid this situation recurring moving forward is that if reports are filed from accounts with little or no edit history against well-established and generally respected editors, a question to the editor that is the subject of the report or a little looking beyond the evidence provided would be a good first response. ] 04:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|Stukov}}=== | |||
| Calling me a racist because I got him banned for writing racist comments for Denzel Washington and Jarome Iginla<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small> | |||
| :I suggest you stay away from each other for a couple of weeks, and stop calling each other racists. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Even if it's true? OK I will. As long as he doesn't message me, I'll say nothing. ] 08:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
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: