| Revision as of 22:40, 28 October 2006 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 edits →{{User|Wizardry Dragon}}: content dispute← 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}} | |||
| {{editabuselinks}}<br /> | |||
| <!-- Please remove/add HTML comments around {{adminbacklog}}. --> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| :'''This process has been discontinued per ].''' | |||
| 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. | |||
| == New reports == | |||
| ===] === | |||
| User is adopting an aggressive pattern in ]. | |||
| User has twice accused me of sockpuppetry, and refuses to allow me to defend myself. ] 22:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please supply page diffs. ''']''' 22:27, 28 October 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}}. | |||
| ===] === | |||
| This user is adopting quite an agressive pattern against me in the ] talk page. | |||
| 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, ]. | |||
| Among other agressions, he made bizarre allegations between me and another user ]: . | |||
| ===Procedure=== | |||
| I asked him to elaborate on that. His mere answer was: . | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| Then he made the following attack against me: . Needless to say, I'm not related to ]. | |||
| ] | |||
| I post a warning on his talk page: . | |||
| He removed it immediately. | |||
| Then goes a more or less racist allegation: . | |||
| ] 22:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Mild violations of ] - npa2 was the right way to go here. Don't worry that the other editor blanked it and do your best to offer the olive branch before this dispute heats up too much. If you have to post another request for admin action, just refer to the page diff of your warning. Try ] and put out a ] or a ] request. Best wishes, ''']''' 22:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|Wizardry Dragon}}=== | |||
| During a discussion on ] user Wizardry Dragon has repeatedly claimed that I broke Misplaced Pages rules and threatend to get me blocked: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=BattleTech_technology&diff=83088509&oldid=82836640 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=BattleTech_technology&diff=83953304&oldid=83920082 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=BattleTech_technology&diff=84050703&oldid=83998857 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:BattleTech_technology&diff=83954022&oldid=83953785 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:BattleTech_technology&diff=84054948&oldid=84033116 | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:BattleTech_technology&diff=84146450&oldid=84103274 | |||
| I requested low-key moderation on the Village Pump for the content dispute; ] wrote about Wizardry Dragon's claims: "t doesn't seem that WP:POINT is being violated here. An editor appears to be genuinely concerned about how to describe a part of this fictional world in the article." (This is not an ], but evidence that Wizardry Dragon had opportunity to reconsider.) | |||
| I asked Wizardry Dragon on his /Talk to stop further claims that I broke rules without supporting evidence: | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&diff=84217719&oldid=83957729 | |||
| In the discussion following (]) he continues to claim that I break WP rules, again without providing any evidence. He again threatened with a block, added ArbCom to the threat list and claimed that I harassed him. He also said that it was " own problem" if you would take the accusations personally. After I asked once again to stop claiming that I broke WP rules, he added the claim that I broke 3RR (untrue). | |||
| He expressed an apology in the discussion on his /Talk which, being intermingled with new accusations and threats, I cannot take seriously. | |||
| In the discussion on his /Talk he also started to refer me to ], ], ] and ], claims that I am "disrupting a part of the article", that I "have been warned" and generally leaves the impression that he regards my position as not worth considering. | |||
| (It's kind of ironic that Wizardry Dragon frequently mentions WP:FAITH on his user page and in discussions.) | |||
| ] 21:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Ahem, | |||
| :: ''The editor must have been warned with the <nowiki>{{npa2}}</nowiki>, and <nowiki>{{npa3}}</nowiki> templates as appropriate. Reports of unwarned editors may be removed.'' | |||
| :: This user's basically upset with me that I have reverted his changes in the BattleTech Technology article that were against consensus and has been using various channels to try to implement this change. When attempting to reson with him, he's simply either ignored it, or replied with sarcastic remarks. I've been trying my best to give this user plenty of free reign, and have prompted him frequently to propose a change if he has one of worth, but he has not been forthcoming. | |||
| :: I don't know what else to say, really. A lot of editors would've written him off as just a disruptive anon IP, but I've tried my best to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith. | |||
| :: I summarized my objections and offered an apology on my talk page, it was there he replied with the link to this notice. I find it offensive that (s)he's saying that a content dispute is a personal attack, especially since I was never truly warned, except with what I took as a threat: | |||
| :: ''Stop repeating your claim that I would infringe WP:POINT. I'm not, and you don't have anything to back up that claim. I will regard any further claims without evidence as personal attacks. {{User:Wizardry Dragon/Templates/UserTalkPage_unsigned|217.235.242.235}}''' | |||
| :: I think a lot of it is just feelings running high, both on my end and on his/her end, and it's starting to come down a bit and reasonable discussion is occuring. As such, I think this notice is a little premature. Some headway has already been made on the article talk page, and as long as no one escalates it, I think reasonable discourse can and will happen. If there has been anyway in which I could improve, I always welcome guidance and criticism. I know sometimes my tone comes off improperly on the internet, and I've been trying to work on that. -- <b>]</b> (]) (]) 22:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I take it that Wizardry Dragon misses the NPA warning. It's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&diff=84294604&oldid=84276658 | |||
| :: Wizardry Dragon, don't try to assume what I'm upset about. I'm editing Misplaced Pages far too long to be upset just because someone reverts my changes. Your personal attacks though are not acceptable. | |||
| :: You can see my reasoning on the discussion page. | |||
| :: Don't start false claims here. I never said that the content dispute would be a personal attack. | |||
| :: I would appreciate any constrictive participation from you on the topical discussion page. --] | |||
| :::: Then appreciate it, because it is there. I have already replied there, please go and read that reply if you have not already. If you take a warning as a personal attack, then I'm guilty as charged. I try to warn people when the things they are doing is wrong, rather than just reverting it without explanation. The only reason I mentioned bringing in an administrator (or any third party for that matter) is that we seemed to be at an impasse: you were continually reverting back to your version, and others, myself and AidanPryde included, were reverting back to the old version. Now that some impasse has been made, I don't see a need for a third party, though I am left with a desire to have some input on how I could have handled it better, since this kind of thing happening is obviously not a desirable end. | |||
| :::: I say that you seem to think the content dispute is a personal attack, by the way, since the claims of personal attacks stem from my warnings not to continually revert the article. -- <b>]</b> (]) (]) 22:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Ok, once again: This is about you repeated false statements of fact against me. I never broke a WP rule (during this discussion, that is), and I asked you to provide evidence before making further claims about me. The claims of personal attacks are above, don't invent your own version of my parts of the discussion. --] | |||
| Whoa, this is the ]. You've got a content dispute. Let's give ] a chance to work and maybe go to ]. Thanks for being proactive, yet I'm glad this situation hasn't degenerated to the point where things need to come here. Best wishes, ''']''' 22:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Open reports== | |||
| <!-- Place reports below this line only after there has been reply to the report --> | |||
| ==={{user|BusterD}}=== | |||
| I have been accused of making personal attacks on ] while trying to prevent that user from reapplying personal birthdate and minor traffic violations for a non public living person ] article. Discussion has been going on in a rather heated way. Like many participants in the discussion, I have pointed out to user that his or her polarizing tone was not productive. Further, I reverted this information a total of three times in four edits. | |||
| The last two times I used vandalism rollback, because BLP was violated, per consensus (6-2 in talk, by my count, 4-2-2 by another count). Since that time, user has again added the material, so he's in 4RR, but I'm concerned about the accusation of a personal attack. For my part, I believe I've kept the tone neutral and to behaviors, not about personalities. If I've made any mistake, I'm interested in knowing how I erred. ] 19:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :FWIW, the victim of the "personal attack" has been continually trolling that talk page for the past week. Hopefully things have settled down now. ] 21:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I believe that Kaldari comments do BusterD a disservice. He is defending BusterD's personal attacks on me calling me a "troll". There you have it.--] 00:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Whew, I've just caught up with the talk page. Personal attack quotient is minor, but this is quite a dispute. Let's keep this civil and turn down the volume. I'm protecting the page. ''']''' 03:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :In any event, I can't fault User:Durova for any tardiness; I accidentally placed the first posting in the wrong place, incorrectly reading page instructions (there weren't any to see in New Reports, so I skipped the section). Once the notice was moved to the redflag location, Durova responded quickly to protect the page. ] 04:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Unprotected per the request of the editors. ''']''' 17:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|69.252.201.61}}=== | |||
| *First series | |||
| ** | |||
| *** | |||
| *Second series: | |||
| ** | |||
| *** | |||
| *Third series: | |||
| **Abusive edit summaries and and on 27 Oct 2006 | |||
| *Fourth series: | |||
| **Personal attacks at ] are seen , from 27 Oct 2006. | |||
| *Fifth series: | |||
| **Vandalism and personal attacks on another user's page (]) -- see . | |||
| *One more for good measure - - 27 Oct 2006. | |||
| *Review this user's contribution list for a long string of abusive edit summaries. | |||
| *Note that this user has an account (] - evidence is ) - and also is documented to use several other IP's (documentation at ]). | |||
| ] 18:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Already blocked 31 hours by another admin. ''']''' 02:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|Stevewk}}=== | |||
| * First series, | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| * ''First warning'', | |||
| * Second series, | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| * ''Second warning'' (npa3), | |||
| * Continued, | |||
| ** | |||
| ** | |||
| --] 16:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tough call. An admin did use the word "bogus" in reply to a complaint about a 3RR report, although Stevewk quoted the word out of context and his discussion of that on an article talk page was inappropriate. I don't think his behavior thus far merits more than an npa2 warning. The 3RR and the npa3 seem to have escalated an edit war. I've protected ] per his request, which I think is reasonable. I'll also leave a note on his user talk page. Suggest formal mediation. ''']''' 17:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|Rat235478683}}=== | |||
| This user has made personal attacks against me and a few other users by posting us in a "List of Enemies" on his user page. I warned him with an npa3 template seeing as he had already received a npa2 for a previous incident. Despite this, he has made personal attacks against other users on ]. The entire thing is about him wanting the theory that Misty has a crush on Ash put into the Misty article. See diffs for the personal attacks. Also see his user page for the list. Cheers. . ''']]]''' 00:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :"Enemies list" . Final warning . I'm hoping that will suffice; if not, post here or at my user talk for attention. ] 07:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|69.157.105.101}}=== | |||
| User has been making personal attacks on the following pages: , , , , , as well as personal attacks in the edit summery box of his edits: and . --] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 06:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :More , . --] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blocked 24 hours. I would have done it but another admin got there first. ''']''' 13:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|69.157.102.5}}=== | |||
| Seems to be a sock of {{User|69.157.105.101}}. , .--] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : And again --] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 07:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::After a 3 hour block he returned to continue his personal attacks. , , . | |||
| :::Returned on a different IP address. ''']''' 13:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|172.147.144.167}}=== | |||
| Fired several personal attacks at ] at (Which I reverted), and in more locations. Take a look at his contributions for more info. --] ] 12:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Also , .--] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 12:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Blocked for 31 hours. ''']''' 13:35, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|65.162.12.103}}=== | |||
| Has been making personal attacks in the comments of his edits to ] and all over its talk page. He's already been cautioned on his talk page, but continues to delete and revert material. Can an admin deal with this firmly? Furthermore, is it reasonable at this point to consider these edits vandalism? He just deletes info and calls it ass-kissing, despite attempts at reasonable discussion by other editors (namely myself). Furthermore, slanderous comments made by this editor in the talk page towards one of the names this editor attempts to delete have led this other person to register an account to complain to Misplaced Pages about the matter. Thank you, ] 19:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Please '''provide ]''' as requested in the instructions for this page. ] <sup>]</sup> 21:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Took a look and found this, but I'm inclined to side the anonymous user, as most of his comments weren't direct personal attacks, but strongly disapproving of the content of the article.--] 21:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not my report but I will assist in providing diffs and a revert war , , , , and . --] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 21:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::24 hour block issued for ] and ]. ''']''' 22:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{userlinks|NBGPWS}}=== | |||
| He has been leaving vague threats on my talk page ]. Not sure why. He has a history of disruption from his block log. I personally don't want to deal with it anymore. Please ask him to stop. --] 02:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| See . | |||
| :I will be bringing this editor, and another's BLP actions up for Arbcom review. They are on the BLP patrol, but many feel they apply BLP to try and exclude valid sourced criticism. They apply BLP whole classes of people, orgs and even payal! Tbeatty argued that an article which mentioned problems with Paypal fundraising violated the BLP of PayPal!!! He slapped a BIO template on political org. Some feel that these actions are done VERY knowingly, and with a plan and purpose not in accordance with Wikitruth, or whatever it's called. I thought it wise to ask Tbeatty to explain his actions first. He said he had violated WP POINT in the past, when he introduced a list of Suspicious Deaths Associated with President Bill Clinton, admittingly violating Pres Clinton's BLP rights. More documentation coming to the proper venue soon. ] 04:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Enough...telling people that they are going to "hear a LOT MORE" is nothing but an unnecessary threat. Based on persistant incivility as demonstrated by previous blocks, I have now blocked ] for one month.--] 04:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{user|24.14.87.181}}=== | |||
| Please see . There was an anon user from Augustana College who recently got upset with me apparently for removing a nn friend of theirs from the list of ] notable alumni. See . I don't know if there's any connection or not, but I reverted the edits on West Aurora High School as soon as I found them, and I'm treating it as potential defamation since it was posted to an article, not just talk space. I asked in #wikipedia about where best to bring this to formal attention, and it was suggested that I go ahead and post it here. The only thing that is true is I used to work for that school district, and I shared an office at the school in question. --] 03:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :If the problem persists on those articles, let me know and i can semi-protect them. But this IP only has two edits total, so unless they continue to use this IP to vandalize, not much need to block them.--] 05:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks MONGO. I'm keeping an eye out, so to speak. --] 19:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{user|172.134.129.246}}=== | |||
| Has made several insulting posts to me, calling me names such as "CyberFuckFace" and "malicious cocksucker" and other such diatribes. I posted a warning on his talkpage, which he removed, telling me to suck his cock.--] 17:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Already blocked for 24 hours. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:56, 28 October 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: