| Revision as of 03:48, 29 October 2006 editBakasuprman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users19,844 edits →[]← 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}} | |||
| {{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) | |||
| :: Please see ] for the context behind this user's claims. I categorically deny that I have engaged in personal attacks. I ''have'' categorized this user as a sockpuppet, due to the overwhelming evidence that he is. I'm willing to elaborate on that evidence via email at the request of any admin, mediator, or long-time editor in good standing. Thanks. ] 22:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, I see context for these claims. Yet I still don't see any page diffs specifically regarding either the original complaint or the response. I've seen two suspected sockpuppet tags in this editor's talk page. Unless I understand why they were placed there (and that shouldn't be done lightly) I'll have to agree that ] was correct in removing them. Regarding ]'s Wikiquette, however, I see at ] that this editor responded admirably well to an obscene insult leveled by a different user. ''']''' 23:01, 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}}. | |||
| ==Open reports== | |||
| <!-- Place reports below this line only after there has been reply to the report --> | |||
| ===] === | |||
| 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=== | |||
| :'''Reply''' - He (Hornplease) is not a third party. He tried to get Koenraad Elst works banned from wiki, he is no third party like I correctly stated.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| I asked him to elaborate on that. His mere answer was: . | |||
| ] | |||
| :'''Reply''' - No. My reply was here | |||
| Then he made the following attack against me: . Needless to say, I'm not related to ]. | |||
| :'''Reply''' - Oh really what about your newfound interactions with Muslim Guild users ,,. The second shows the makings of a ].] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I post a warning on his talk page: . | |||
| He removed it immediately. | |||
| :'''Reply''' - No diffs were cited.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Then goes a more or less racist allegation: . | |||
| :'''Reply''' - Well you were defining Hindus and implying I wasn't . I merely stated that I could care less what some person thousands of miles away on a computer thought of ]s. Also, European is not a race, its merely a geographical defintion. ] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ] 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) | |||
| ::Please see my factual responses to this hate attack above.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Either way, this isn't at the point where intervention is needed. Please help de-escalate the conflict by avoiding characterizations such as "hate attack." Let's ] that this has been an honest misunderstanding and ]. ''']''' 02:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Good poiint. I've written 5 DYK's and have over 6000 edits. I'm in the encyclopedia for writing, but I still have to fight ], because of the ] nature of some articles I edit.] <font color = "blue"><sub>]</sub></font> 03:48, 29 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) | |||
| : Yes, we have a content dispute. We also have one editor who is making repeated false claims about another. I don't think the two issues are identical or even similar. --] | |||
| :: I've already suggested mediation, which is a suggestion (s)he has ignored, why, I do not know. I've already apologized for any misinterpretations or coming off harsher than I meant to be. That said, I'm also getting frustrated: why should I be dragged through the mud simply because the other user does not want to accept my apology? Why does this notice continue to persist? It's becoming a personal attack in and of itself. One I don't appreciate. -- <b>]</b> (]) (]) 22:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::<s> Re: Mediation. Another lie. I have not ignored mediation, in fact I requested low-key mediation even before the PA situation got out of hand.</s> | |||
| ::: Re: Mediation. ] is evidence that I considered mediation even before the shit hit the fan. is my response to Durova's suggestion to get mediation. Please retract your statement. | |||
| ::: Re: Apology. See above. | |||
| :::: Regarding Mediation, it was not a lie, you're just misunderstanding what I am referring to. I suggested taking it to the ], which I didn't get a reply to, so I thought you ignored it: | |||
| :::: ''If you want to make such a controversial change, then I suggest you find compromise, either through talk page discussion, or perhaps, a request for mediation.'' -- <b>]</b> (]) (]) 00:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::''Time out''. Let's not call each other liars. Just go through the dispute resolution process. The personal attacks haven't reached a point where my intervention is necessary, but if people assume bad faith and stoop to name calling then I ''will'' issue blocks. ''']''' 23:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{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) | |||
| ==={{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|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: