| Revision as of 09:28, 30 November 2006 editPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,784 edits this has not been reviewed - moving to new reports← 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 ].''' | |||
| ==New reports== | |||
| <!-- Place new reports here --> | |||
| 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|Ghirlandajo}}=== | |||
| The user has been acting increasingly incivil on {{article|Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)}}. Particularly: | |||
| * - implying in edit summaries my edits are vandalism (clearly identified as an example of personal attack on ] | |||
| * of vandalism | |||
| * | |||
| * (another clear violation of WP:NPA) | |||
| * | |||
| I feel that such comments indicate several lack of bad faith and create a very negative atmosphere for editing and discussion. The user has been warned about incivil behaviour in the past (]) and ; since he has a habit of removing all my (and other critical) messages from his talk pages (examples: , , ), I did not warn him by leaving messages on his talk pages - considering his past history I am sure he is aware of what he is doing and consequences. If needed, I can provide evidence of other offensive comments made by Ghirla in the past few weeks, although I hope this is not necessary (the pattern is clear and the case above should be enough for action). I would also like to point out controversial behaviour by ], who while ignoring his attacks against other users.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 08:53, 30 November 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}}. | |||
| :I can provide evidence of Piotrus' habit to gain an upper hand in content disagreement by seeking his opponent's blocks. Additionally, he ususally instructs others to act rather than acts himself. In this respect, I find this report "pleasantly surprising" as his true author signed it under his own name. Still, I don't see anything critical in examples sited by Piotrus to a degree as to warrant outside interference although everyone can use a cool-off who edits hot topics. I would be interested to see the Constanz' own opinion as well. Finally, Piotrus' own behavior in the article was intended to provoke and included direct baiting aimed at forcing his opponent to make mistakes. That's my view on the above "complaint". --] 09:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Please provide diffs for your accusations. Accusing editors of 'seeking to gain upper hand in discussions by having opponents blocked' or 'baiting and provoking' seems like a personal attack itself, I ask the reviewing admin to consider such baseless acusations as well - I certainly see such accusations as slander on my good reputation.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</span></sub> 09:14, 30 November 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, ]. | |||
| Diffs were given to you and you know where they are. Moreover, you know them to be true. I put my name fully behind this statement and diffs from your long history would take time to dig but they will be dug upon admin's request. --] 09:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == |
===Procedure=== | ||
| ] | |||
| <!-- Move reports here after they've gotten replies --> | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ==={{User|PANONIAN}}=== | |||
| This user wrote insulting comments about me on ], calling me ''“mister Double Standards”'', among other things on .--] 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That doesn't seem too serious. You did mention "among other things," though -- what sorts of other things? ] 20:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::This thing: ''Just stick to your own bussiness (find something to fuck perhaps) and let people to live their lives in peace, ok?''.--] 20:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why raise a request 18 days after the original post? <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 22:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Because just recently I’ve discovered this edit and just recently also I’ve discovered about the existence of this noticeborad page regarding personal attacks.--] 03:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|TheFEARgod}}=== | |||
| This user began calling me a troll just because of my opinions on the ] page of the article ], including the add of an accusatory ''“]”'' picture by the side of what I wrote. Well, I felt myself unjustly accused of something that I didn’t done, so I removed that picture and tryed to explain why. Well, he re-posted the picture I’ve deleted '''four''' times, even after I’ve quitted the discussion of that section: | |||
| *1st time: | |||
| *2nd time: | |||
| *3rd time: | |||
| *4th time: | |||
| After that, the user in two other occasions accused me of trolling again, it seems just because I didn’t agree with his (and his friends) opinions: | |||
| *On ], ; | |||
| *And on ], . | |||
| Well, it seems like this is the very case of personal attacking using the “troll accusation” method.--] 15:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It appears he's still attempting discussion, however; you might consider ]. ] 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|Laughing_Man}}=== | |||
| This user (that appeared many times toghether with {{User|TheFEARgod}} in the talk pages) has made the following attacks: | |||
| *: ''vandalism my ass'' | |||
| *: ''rv the king of original research'' | |||
| *: ''page troll'' | |||
| *: ''bullshit'' | |||
| *: ''bullshit'' | |||
| --] 15:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :It appears he's still attempting discussion. You might consider the ] process, or opening an ] regarding user behavior. ] 23:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|217.134.89.177}}=== | |||
| This user, which wording, editing behavior and opinions are very similar to {{User|217.134.110.19}}, {{User|195.92.67.75}} (the three IP numbers are from the ISP ]) and {{User|Laughing_Man}}, has made the following comment when reverted my edit on ] article: | |||
| *: ''rv Marxist Islamophile propaganda from the Brazilian slums'' | |||
| --] 15:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :That one does concern me. Without a little more evidence, though, I'm not sure if it's one of the other users logged out, or just someone else entirely. You might consider submitting a ], and see if they turn anything up for you. ] 23:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === {{User|Greier}} === | |||
| I recently blocked Greier (who has a history of making personal attacks) for 48 hours. Since he has been unblocked, he's made the following comments: | |||
| * ''Let`s add all those links to ], ], etc. Let`s turn this campaign against them. Mauco is gonna loose his job, Mauco is gonna loose his job, Mauco is gonna loose his job... hahah haha'' | |||
| * ''Pathetic, both in arguments, and in insults...'' | |||
| * ''You persoanlly, won`t get s#it from me. You`re a vain, egocentric person. As for your concern of protochronism, a subject by far not worthy off all this attention, I know that it`s very trendy to play the revisionist type... it put`s you in the spotlight.'' | |||
| * ''You hold on to that hankie, and in five minutes you can come and wipe me, alright?'' | |||
| * ''americans...'' | |||
| I don't think it's necessary to give him {{tl|npa2}}, {{tl|npa3}}, and {{tl|npa4}} every single time. He knows the rules, and his block log shows that. <tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 02:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :More: | |||
| :'''''Opposed''' due to the câcat (Origin of Romanians????) and inability to accept Dhans ego (Regulamentul Organic????). Also see ]. If others are weak enough to fall for your logorrhea, that is not what you can say about me.'' | |||
| :''Of course the name it`s awkward. It`s not made by Dachhchhhchn.'' | |||
| :<tt class="plainlinks">]]</tt> 21:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Also, take a look at his edits to ].. He's reverting edits to the page and ignoring requests for discussion... It's becoming a revert war, and I think he's already ..--] 21:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :OK. He's been blocked for a week for violating the 3RR rule. Someone keeps removing his report from the page though..--] 22:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yep, blocked for a week by another admin, possibly related to this sort of behavior, regardless of whether this report was seen. Since the block is for a week, I'm thinking we may as well remove the report for now, and repost if anything new develops -- thoughts? ] 23:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|66.7.225.34}}=== | |||
| The anonymous IP has extremely similar edit pattern, tone, and apparently beliefs as ] and it is overwhelmingly likely that they are the same person. | |||
| * (accusations of being 'google' and apparently censoring or something weird) | |||
| * "the issue is obviously over his head and he's misleading the reader with his personal viewpoint. Stephen Colbert would get a good laugh over this revision of reality." | |||
| * (good faith edit labelled as vandalism) | |||
| *"Google, Save the Internet put the mainstream definition into their legislative proposal, just like your employer did. TBL is an interesting fellow, but his definition of NN is idiosyncratic. Now go ask your overlords what to do now that you've been outed" | |||
| *(accusations of being "completely ignorant", together with an ''I'm better than you'' attack: "knowledgeable people") | |||
| (n.b. this is just a small selection). | |||
| The user in his time in the wikipedia has also engaged in many extreme violations of NPOV, and has a long history of personal attacks including towards admins as a brief look at ] will show.] 05:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Was on my way to block, just now, given past history. But he's already gotten 24 hours for 3RR. Please advise if this sort of abuse continues. I'll try to keep an eye on it. ] 20:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === {{User|Zabrak}} === | |||
| This user has a lengthy and tempermental edit history on Misplaced Pages. Has been issued several "Final warnings" for both personal attacks and vandalism. Has continued to ignore all warnings and maintains disruptive behaviour on many article talk pages without any consideration for ]. Most recent ] violation can be . Prior to creating the Zabrak user name, the same user edited as IP {{User|71.236.225.50}}. This IP, like the Zabrak user account had the same long history of NPA's and vandalism. ]<small> (])</small> 03:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Blocked for a month. Obvious sock of {{vandal|Dragong4}}, who was working on a nice 6 month block for similar behavior. I think the repeated warnings are unheeded and at this point, not working. --<font color="3300FF">] </font> 04:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|VinceB}}=== | |||
| Warned in the past up to npa3 and blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry. Now renewed personal attack against another editor: after I advised him to cool down when he started to use ad hominem in that content dispute. He also publicly assumed a use of sockpuppets before he asked for CheckUser or provided any evidence, perhaps hoping to harm reputation of a well-established user. ] 18:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I do not see any personal attacks here. Moreover, I repeat: Please let him be in peace for one day! Or do you find it funny that he has recieved a death threat? I don't. --] 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :I believe the words "You hv no idea abt history" is a personal attack. Instead of discussing the actual content dispute, VinceB has accused editors of not knowing history on several occasions. This is not a good way how to collaborate in Misplaced Pages. As to the threats placed by an IP to his user page, I am quite shocked by them. But the attack reported here preceded those threats, so VinceB cannot say he questioned knowledge of other editors because of mental distress or something. ] 21:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks. Better to review your warning also, wheter it was calming, or just another wood dropped into the fire to make it bigger, especially the last line. And again, only I was warned by you, PANONIAN not. Your discussion page is full of assuming users of being sockpuppets, whether you wrote it or not, you not declined yrself from these accusations and not warned others to stop writing such things, and/or report them here, as you do it now. And we talked it through several times what's the problem with yr interpretation of things, such as me & sockpuppetry. --] <sup>] :-)</sup> 01:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :According to these diffs, VinceB has violated ] and ] in mild ways. This isn't on the level that got him blocked before and a user page warning is appropriate for the current incidents. Although I'm not blocking for this I also want to make it clear that it isn't acceptable. If someone comes back in a few weeks and posts a series of diffs that demonstrate similar behavior as habitual, and if it's reasonably clear that other editors haven't provoked the put-downs and snide comments, then I ''will'' block. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 03:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::I completely agree with your summary of the events. But I would like to ask either you or someone else to actually warn VinceB. Only the CheckUser can show whether the PANONIAN really used sock puppets in a disruptive way. Without any evidence from CheckUser, it is very rude to say that a user with a record of 27,114 edits since 2004 and six barnstars "wrote death threats" or that he broke 3RR. It would be nice if VinceB can refrain himself from making new strong accusatory comments as he has just done (see diffs in the last sentence) until the CheckUser clarifies the whole situation. ] 00:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Block warning issued along with a couple of productive suggestions. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 16:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Just for the matter of record, CheckUser showed that PANONIAN has not used sock puppets and he did not send any death threats to VinceB (see ]). ] 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks for the update. Post again if Vince's behavior escalates or continues. I hope the clear checkuser de-escalates the problem. Best wishes, <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE}}=== | |||
| I've been editing the ] page and this user ] has engaged in alot of arrogant insinuation that his edits are justified. I browsed his contributions that he made to wikipedia and he's not able to restrict his personal opinion in the NPOV environment. Which I found out was evident here ] especially at ]. Thank you for looking in. ] 09:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *Please '''provide ]''' per instructions in the header. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
| **I've looked over the talk edits he's made around and since the time of your report; I didn't find anything particularly nasty, but he did write a lot. If there is something serious that I've missed, please cite ] and mention specific lines or phrases used. Otherwise, I suspect his "arrogance" is below the sort of level that this board is accustomed to dealing with. You might consider getting together a few editors to start a ] if his behavior is problematic. ] 00:02, 30 November 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: