Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:18, 24 December 2006 editPeter M Dodge (talk \| contribs)4,982 edits Diffs needed →{{user\|Flybd5}}← 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
(396 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{historical}}
	{{editabuselinks}}<br />

			:'''This process has been discontinued per ].'''
	<!-- Please remove/add HTML comments around {{adminbacklog}}. -->
	{{Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard/Header}}
	<div style="float:right">__TOC__</div>
	==New Reports==
	<!-- place new reports below this line -->

			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}}.
	=== {{user\|Flybd5}} ===

			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, ].
	Flybd5 continues to threat and harass me online. Here is a recent copy of his recent attack:
	<<
	You're welcome to report anything you like about me to anyone you think should hear what you have to say. To say that I am unconcerned by your statements would be a gross understatement. I suggest you take a good long look at the message posted above by Veinor, though. It seems to me you're digging your own hole. Have fun! ] 04:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)>>

			===Procedure===
	I have warned him to stop vandalising my user page to no success. He apparently is a sicko. Is there anything that can be done about this?--] 04:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
			]

			]
	:Well, first It would be worth explaining this "threat" you mention. Secondly, this page doesn't deal with harrassment (see ].) Finally, having seen the most recent comment by the user you mention, (after seeing no such comment at all yesterday), I fail to see how it could be considered vandalism. I certianly cannot see any vandalism to your userpage from it's history by this user, and a talk page is only "yours" in that it's related to your account, not in terms of ownership (see ]).
			]

	:You need to supply diffs, and explain your meaning, as the issue you describe is not immediately self-evident. Further, I strongly admonish your act of issuing repeated personal attacks in return to the user, recomment you read ] carefully, and refrain from doing so again. I have issued no warning to you, but be aware that that doesn't mean that somebody else won't. Personal attacks '''cannot''' by excused in response to personal attacks. ] 05:04, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

	:There is no harassment, it's purely an ego issue. I repeated my original statement, that changes to styles in the article in question should be discussed first. In response he's posted some rather vitriolic statements on my user page. Again, I will leave it at that, and I'll even leave edits to my user page as they are, as they speak for themselves as to the true core of the issue. ] 05:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

	::This is getting out of hand. He is now posting changes to the same page without logging on. Please see ]. The comments in the history are a giveaway. Will someone please put the brakes on this and force this person to cool his jets for a while? ] 05:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

	* '''Diffs needed''' • If you feel they have personally attacked someone, please provide diffs. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 01:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

	=== {{user\|Hanina}} ===
	I have reason to suspect Hanina, which wrote in the ] discussion page ](see Jamnia Jumble, has placed a highly opinionated portion into the ] article. Simultaneously and patronizingly utilizing a portion of my response where I attempted to debunk, the "speculation" controversy he/she supports.

	I do not care so much about Hanina personally, but in correcting this out of place commentary from the main "Council of Jamnia" article.

	Thank you. --]

	* '''Diffs needed''' • If you feel they have personally attacked someone, please provide diffs. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 01:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

	=== {{User\|83.250.137.87}} ===
	Personal attacks against former ] subscribers and ex-employees, including posting personal information.

	'''Examples'''
	*
	*
	* (different wiki, same vandalism)

	This, among other open proxies and the like, are abused by Sveasoft employee ].

	:Can you clarify what the 3rd link given there is? Cheers! —— ] <sup>(])</sup> 18:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Reviewer note''' • Although the third link is concerning, it is on another wiki and unfortunately we have no jurisdiction to punish them there. I would also find it in bad taste to punish them here for mistakes on other places, so I would encourage another reviewer or sysop to discount it. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 18:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Sorry about that; you can safely ignore that oteher wiki. But here's another example:
	::*
	::Thanks. --] 19:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	He's doing it again. Examples are: .

	Here's the WHOIS data for the IP (83.250.137.87) in question:
	inetnum: 83.250.136.0 - 83.250.143.255
	netname: COMHEM-CUSTOMER
	descr: com hem customer broadband access
	descr: ISP
	descr: ********************************
	Abuse & intrusion reports should
	be done done online at:
	http://www.comhem.se/publik/portlets/abuse/begin.do
	********************************
	country: SE
	admin-c: CH1252-RIPE
	tech-c: CH1252-RIPE
	status: ASSIGNED PA
	mnt-by: COMHEM-MNT
	source: RIPE # Filtered
	role: com hem LIR
	address: Com Hem AB
	Birger Jarlsgatan 57B
	Box 191 50
	Stockholm 104 32
	SWEDEN
	********************************
	Abuse & intrusion reports should
	be done online at:
	http://www.comhem.se/publik/portlets/abuse/begin.do
	********************************
	phone: +46 8 55363000
	fax-no: +46 8 6601640
	] is located in the same area. An interesting coincidence, no? --] 15:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

	===] and ]===

	Although ] gamed the process by opening his "report" against myself without first posting it here and ] found it prudent to support abuse by throwing unmotivated warnings on my talk page, I decided to check the effectiveness of this board and report what I have to go through daily, without ever bothering to post complaints on public-boards.

	]'s talk page in Ukrainian wikipedia documents the plans of ], ], Hillock65, and ] to subject English wikipedia to tendentious editing with Russophobic connotations. After I noted that Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda machine, Oleh Petriv came up with death threats against me: ''. Thereupon the owner of the talk page blanked it and started ] in en.wiki, a tendentious article which I edited to bring it back to conform to ]. I by Petriv and other uk.wiki users mentioned above with rude edit summaries such as "Stop vandalism!"

	] instructs that "A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack if it's concerned with clear vandalism, although otherwise it is. "Vandalism" imputes bad intentions and bad motives to the person accused. If the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism". Nevertheless, encouraged by ], the users in question continue to call me a vandal on a regular basis:

	*]: see and ;
	*]: see and ;
	*]: , , ... --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 10:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

	:I don't speak a word of <s>Russian</s> ''Ukrainian'', unfortunately, so I'll be unable to help you in that regard. I'll look into this a bit, and drop off some notes at their talk pages in a minute. Will try to keep an eye on it, but if this is involving multiple Wikipedias, even, I may have some trouble. Let me know or post here, if I'm missing anything important. ] 10:43, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

	::Thanks for your response (the only so far). Understandably, real insults generate less interest than imaginary ones below. However, I can't see why you need to speak Ukrainian (there are no comments in Russian), to parse seven English-language accusations of vandalism in seven links provided above. Best, <font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 10:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

	:::I was referring more to your mention of Ukrainian Misplaced Pages, there (beg your pardon for mixing up languages). Beyond that, I'll try to keep an eye on things, as mentioned. ] 11:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

	:::: and ... --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 19:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

	: '''Reviewer Comment''' I suggest that either ] (<small>Such as the one I understand you have open on Piotr</small>) or ] would be a better venue for ongoing and long-term harrasement. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 19:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	* Well, accusations of death threats is nothing new from user Ghirlandajo. You can see that even typos are considered death threats as well. And his non-existant knowledge of Ukrainian can hardly serve as a proof of a death threat. There are no secrets and no plots, and least of all can you find there death threats. It is just laughable. The quoted statement is actually an equivalent to 'a lepard cannot change its spots', please check. Please also check user Ghirlandajo engaged in the exact activity he accuses me of - now on the . As well, you can see from the first page that I quoted above, that reputable sources were presented to him several times - both in Russian and English and he continued to revert the page destroying all the links and the work other people have done. I have warned him numerous times of not reverting - but to no avail. An accusation from this particular user should be investigated thoroughly to prevent him from using his ignorance in languages in personal attacks that he is waging.--] 21:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	* Dear ], I attribute this report of yours to your poor Ukrainian or English (or both). For your information, the phrase: ''Справді, декого тільки могила справить.'' should be read: ''Indeed, one can be fixed only in grave.'' which originates from a ] from our (Ukrainian) ]: "Cripple can be stretched only in grave". See Hillock's remark on English equivalent above. It did not refer personaly to anybody, but if you like - you can point it at yourself. As for the first part, ''Оба! "Дружок" вже й тут смердить!'', you are quite correct when suspecting that I refer to you as "stenching" in another corner of Misplaced Pages. And I think many users that had opportunity to know you would share this opinion. But for the future I suggest you to translate your own phrasings and famous expressions scattered all over user pages and comments with the same enthusiasm as you collect wordings of others. And post them here. Plus take an effort to analyze '''why''' so many users from different countries are calling you a ''vandal''. With careful and unbiased upproach you can come to some interesting discoveries. As for the decision of '''Reviewers''' on my behaviour, I will gladly take any punishment including complete ban as do not value English Misplaced Pages project anymore. Thanks for this to you and others (You know them well).--] 00:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

	==Open reports==
	<!-- Move reports here after they've gotten replies -->

	==={{User\|Psychohistorian}}===
	'''Much more extensive evidence of the long term pattern of personal attacks is given at ]. ] 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)'''<br><br>
	Despite being repeatedly warned about ad hominem, user has added blatant personal attacks back to talk page, commiting personal attacks again. ] 00:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

	Fourdee has not notified Psychohistorian of this report, but I have done so and responded as a semi-involved third party with a timeline and some perspective (]). — ] 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	:These don't seem like blatant personal attacks. Incivility, perhaps, but he's still making an effort to discuss the issue at large, as far as I can see. If you can establish this as part of a greater trend, in an ], or link to some more severe comments, I may be more inclined to take some action. ] 08:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

	::A quick examination of Psychohistorian's contributions indicates a wider pattern of much more abusive and uncivil comments on talk pages, all in the same vein - insulting the editor, or insulting their education. Again calling editors ignorant and accusing them of "bitching" , calling editor "paranoid" and "unreasonable" , says editor has "inferiority complex" , again insulting editor's education and implying editor has not reached the 11th grade , education & "put it at your level" , etc. Everywhere I look in his talk page edits there is personal abuse, and he has been warned about this previously . He knows the policies on civility and no personal attacks and chooses to disregard them. It seems to me he needs to be corrected by more than a warning. ] 18:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I don't know why you are witch-hunting Psychohistorian but I must say he's extremely cold (even too much for my taste). He virtually never engages in ad hominem discussions and many if not all of your alleged PAs can't be seen as such. Example: when he says that he dislikes that editors employ more time "bitching at each other" than working in the article, we can't but agree with him. When he says that "this fact seems to be eluding you", he's not calling the other editor (a pretty aggresive one, btw) "ignorant" as you claim, just expressing his frutration at the fact that he's not understood. When he says that "is a skill you should be pretty competent in by the time you reach 11th grade if you're in a good school system" he's not talking at the other editor but using a common generalistic form in English. Finally warns from Thulean/Lukas19 have no validity: that user has disqualified himself by systematically abusing the PA warn system on any minimal and even many imaginary slip. He doesn't discuss: he provokes you and waits for you to say anything that could even vaguely resemble a PA and then he places one or three warnings in your user talk page.
	:::In brief, you have nothing. --] 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

	::::Although he may be right, he is definitely using a language that is unessecarily confrontative. He should cool down, IMO. --] 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Discussion truncated''' and moved to ]. I might have done better to move it to the talk page; if anyone is so inclined, feel free. ] 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC
	**Technical comment: despite an RfC (or any DR process) going on, if a PA is reported here, we should act. DR should not grant users immunity from PAIN (and how cool that sounds :>).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 20:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	***'''Comment''' - Blocking a user over PAs when they are in dispute resolution would needlessly disrupt the DR, as well as may be seen as "taking sides" in the dispute, which would only aggravate it further. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] • ] )</span> 21:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)



	==={{User\|Zyxoas}}===
	I feel that his statements are dealing with me personally and not the issue at hand. User was warned with npa2. — ] 17:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

	*
	*
	*
	*

	:* '''No action''' - I understand this user's comments are abrasive and uncivil, however I feel that the {{tl\|npa2}} is sufficient for now. Please post back again if they are disruptive further, and please remember to treat them with the civility and respect that you expect them to treat you with, so that the problem isn't aggravated any further by your own actions. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] • ] )</span> 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	::* '''Postscript''' - I left them a friendly caution on their talk page as well - . Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] • ] )</span> 23:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


	==={{User\|Charles8854}}===
	*'''Red Flag''':
	:''"minimally honorable" persons will give contact info (phone numbers)?!''
	*'''Red Flag''':
	:''Canadian? True identity and residence?''
	*'''Attack One''': (''plenty more in there'')
	:''Wow''
	*'''Warned''':
	:''<nowiki>{{npa4im\|Talk:Common_law#Gate_Keeping}}</nowiki>''
	*'''Attack Two''':
	:''Wow, again''
	/] 13:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Left a note.''' We'll see where this goes. Let me know if I miss anything important. ] 23:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)



	==={{User\|Sebbeng}}===
	the user has insulted {{User\|Saguer}} and myself by claiming I'm his ] (), aside from the absurdity of this claim (as he could have easily check I was here earlier ), this is related to a problem with the article about a genocide conducted by Soviets against Ukrainians, the ] and it seems to me he is aiding a group of Russian users attempting to whitewash their history here.

	I would thus like to request a ] to be carried out and then proper actions to be carried out for throwing around frivolous accusations. If user Sebbeng would like to request that I should be checked against some other users I support all such potential request but believe they should all later incur an additional penalty.

	I would also like to request a cross check between the following, engaged in pushing soviet pov in the article:
	*{{vandal\|Kuban kazak}}
	*{{vandal\|Irpen}}
	*{{vandal\|Grafikm fr}}
	--] 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
	:If you need checkuser, you'll need to submit a request at ]. A claim of sockpuppetry isn't necessarily a personal attack, I don't think -- unless you can provide ] to establish a major trend of unjustified such behavior. ] 23:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	::This is a bad faith report based on mine (and others') reversions of {{User\|An account}} continually reintroducing POV categories against consensus to the ] article. ] (and a couple others, who have been blocked for their actions) have been in a revert war at that article for some time. ] refuses to discuss his changes on the talk page, does not respond to people's requests on his own talk page that he discuss his POV and attempt to reach consensus, and instead keeps reintroducing POV edits. His behavior is very much in keeping with that of ], he REFUSES to adhere to NPOV, and I felt a claim of sockpuppetry was fully justified in this case. Furthermore, he comments on his own talk page that his account is single-purpose in nature. Not much credibility there. ] 17:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	: Oh my, this is a joke? ] (the name's already suspiscious) is a clear throw-away account used a lot for revert and move wars. For me, chances are high that this is a sock of some seasoned edit warrior. If it is not, then it's simply an edit warrior. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 17:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	TheQuandry really said it all, but I will just emphasize the one and only thing here. There is nothing else one can do but block the users who engage in controversial editing '''and''' persistently ignore calls to discuss things. ] should stop sterile revert warring and take advantage of the talk pages. --] 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	:Personaly I am tend to inclined that if a ] was not carried out, claiming that an editor is a sockpuppet(eer) is a personal attack and should be dealth with (just as calling somebody a troll, a vandal, an idiot or such). That said, I am pretty sure none of the three editors you mention above is a sock of each other (but than I have once been proven wrong on such a declaration in the past). RFCU is the place you want to visit. PS. of An account makes me suspect that Grafikm_fr and TheQuandry may be right - but still, guys, do RFCU first, then slap sockpuppets and blocks, not the other way around.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 20:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	This advise is outright ridiculous. You need not to have an arbcom ruling to block a troll. Similarly, no need to wait long at RFCU to block an obvious sock. Besides, RFCU is backlogged and lack of checkuser evidence is no proof of anything. People can easily post through remote computers. Ask Bonaparte for more. --] 22:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	==={{User\|Each inis}}===

	Personal attack on my page after reminding user not to delete information from wikipedia. ] 13:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
	:'''Already warned.''' Will try to keep an eye on it, let me know if I miss anything important. ] 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)



	==={{User\|M_Alan_Kazlev}}===

	This user and I are debating the merits of certain links / entries in a number of places. He has reverted some of my edits calling me a pov vandal in some of the edit summaries. I cannot see how these can be removed by a normal editor so although I am not sure that this is the correct place to ask, could someone please look at having them changed to something less strong. Many thanks in advance for your help.

	--] 13:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Sorry, there's no way for us to change an edit summary. If these abuses continue, you may consider making another report to this board, including ] links if possible. ] 23:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Link diffs can be removed with ] power, but it is rarely used for inter-editor incivility issues. And yes, Backface, please ''provide diffs'' if you want us to act.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 20:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)



	==={{User\|Ttogreh}}===

	I've found that the user has broken with ] several times recently, see the following diffs:

	:''That's your retort? The UNUDHR? Yes, I fully acknowledge Tailkinker's right to act like an obstreperous jerk, and I take advantage of my right to call him as such.--] 06:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)''

	:''Don't you get it? Deletion or suggestion of deletion before due diligence is to act like a philistine.--] 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)'' '''Edit Summary:''' ''Deletionists are pedantic, obstreperous, hateful little people that despise life''

	:'''Edit Summary:''' ''You are still a jerk. This is supposed to be about compiling and sharing data; not about deciding which piece of data is bad and which is good; deletion of relevant knowledge is a sin.''

	:''I broke one of my own rules; "never use an analogy, ever.".....He acted like an obstreperous jerk. Then, another editor, noticing what has happened, called the first editor just that; an obstreperous jerk.'' '''Edit Summary:''' ''I am better than you''

	There is plenty more if you look at the user's past contributions. I think that administrative action on this one is long overdue.--] 07:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

	:My goodness, this user sounds like someone else who has been indef-blocked. I wish I could recall the person. I'll do searching and see if I can track this down. ---] <sup>(]/])</sup> 19:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	:I can't find the "other" person I remember... but take a look at the history of ]. Other old, but still interesting edits: , , & . No blocks so far... . ---] <sup>(]/])</sup> 19:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
	::'''Left a note''', for now. User hasn't edited in a few days, but they've at least been warned. I suspect they'll be back sooner or later -- they have contribs dating back to 2005. ] 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

	:::Ouch, if he doesn't stop, block and don't look back.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 20:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	==={{User\|Ekajati}}===
	] has been on an ongoing spree of harassing ]. There is a pattern of this behaviour with several other users. Most recently he/she has been using racist ad hominem and exhibiting a total lack of ]. Here are two relevant instances. I have warned the user with <nowiki> {{npa4im}}</nowiki>, but only after noticing it. Prior to that, ] has been practically begging this person to cease harassing on her user page.- ] 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Just converting those links to non-secure-enwiki difflinks... . While it does look like a bit of a heated dispute, I'm not sure that a block would help to calm things down. It's not the most civil thing I've ever seen, but it's far from the worst, either. Will try to keep an eye on it. ] 23:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Yes, this does sounds to be rather minor, with the exception of calling another user a 'hypocrite', although without following the diffs more I can't tell if this is earned or not. ] is not a slurr, but can be absed, I'd strongly recommend that Ekjati should refrain from using such terms in a dispute, unless he clearly explains why it is applicable in this term - and in that case, some form of ] may be more useful then name-calling in anycase.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 20:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Um, I'm not sure you (] and ]) actually noted the problem language. ] has worked extensively on Irish cultural articles and is identified on her user page as a member of ]. In , ] called Kathryn a liar because of her affinity for Irish cultural heritage. Or to put it another way, Ekajati said all Irish people are inclined to lie as a racial or cultural trait. This is a racist slur. --] (] • ]) 00:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

	==={{User\|Flybd5}}===
	After repeatedly informing ] not to vandalize my discussion page and only to place discussions relating to specific topics on their respected discussion pages, he has personally attacked me on my page and continues to vandalize it. I have placed a disclaimer on my discussion page not to post anything on the page unless it is relating to photo tagging, personal inquires about ideas, or feedback from administrators. I have already informed him that he was reported. He feels that he personally owns the article to ] and has made many grammatical mistakes. Please re-inform him that articles do not belong to anyone. He mispels names, lumps universities as one (for example he lump Notre Dame and Harvard as one university, when he should have have properly spelled out their names to distinguish that they are two individual schools), etc...--] 18:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	* I am not an admin, but... First off, please include diff links. Second, see , where XLR8TION posts a comment on Flybd5's userpage that could possibly be considered a personal attack. Second, I don't think you can legitimately criticize a person's grammar with edits like . And finally, I don't see any attempt on his talkpage to warn him with a NPA template; instead, I see . ] (]) 18:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	* I don't wish to cause any trouble here, but XLR8TION you have also made some errors with your edits to Misplaced Pages, you left a comment talk on Flybd5's user page rather than his talk page, what you left could easily be considered a personal attack (especially considering where it was left) and you've made a spelling error in your report above (misspells ironically). Both parties - if you use Mozilla Firefox there's a dictionary plug-in which flags errors and allows right click spellcheck/correction which should solve any further spelling problems. I'd suggest withdrawing this report. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''] \| ] \| ]</font> 19:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Report needs diffs.''' Please see ] or make a request at the ] if you need assistance. Without actionable diff evidence, it'll be difficult for me to look into this. ] 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	***The point here is that Flybd is harassing me and vandalizing my talk page when I have reportedly told him to stop. He has made many grammatical errors and feels that he personally owns articles. Harassment is illegal, whether on or off-line. After placing a disclaimer on my page to reduce cluterring of messages and sometimes spam, he still continues to post things online. Stop = Stop. Harassment is illegal even if done in cyberspace. He must me re-educated that articles are not personal property. I do use FIrefox and sometimes it can take two submissions before sometime is posted online. This might a glitch with the browser.--] 00:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	****I have your page watchlisted, but haven't been checking of late. I'm not really on all the time, but I shall keep an eye on it over tomorrow (UK time here) internmittantly (see my user page for the reason for the intermittant bit). Please be aware that the appropropriate venue for complaints over vandalism is ], and the harrassment guidleine can be found at ]. Please also be aware that '''any''' user talk page belongs to the community, not the user, as per ] ] 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	****'''Report needs diffs.''' - per Luna. Otherwise your report not only is not proving your case but can look like you are trying to slander another editor (accuse him of wrongdoing without any proof).--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 20:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	****XLR8TION - There's no harassment, Flybd5 was using your talk page for it's intended purpose, to contact you and although they didn't respect your request that only admins use your talk page, that's kinda irrelevant as your talk page is the primary method of one user contacting another. If it had been your user page, I could understand. From what I've seen, there's no harassment and what Flybd5 left on your talk page isn't vandalism. Personally I just archive my talk page when it gets too long, or delete spam cos that's what my talk page is there for. --<font color="#27408B" size="2">'''Kind Regards - '''] \| ] \| ]</font> 22:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	*****Amazing how well this system works. As you have seen, the problem is that XLR8TION got bent out shape when I asked him to discuss style changes to an article in the discussion page prior to making edits. This is purely an ego issue, IMO. I'll leave it at that. ] 05:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

	==={{User\|Eupator}}===
	On page Talk:Paytakaran (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Paytakaran) on 12/4 Eupator called dacy69 comments "moronic" ]. Then he said that dacy69 don't know Russian language while the latter was refering to the text in that language ]. Every time when dacy69 suggested mediation and dispute resolution, Eupator accused him of incivil behavior ].--] 05:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Please include diff(s).''' If you need help, consider reading ] or asking at the ]. ] 06:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

	Thanks for note. I've put diff.--] 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Hm. It looks like a heated situation, but it also looks like the two of you are still able to talk things over. I'd encourage you to try to work together and reach a solution. ] 01:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

	Unfortunately, not. We had a dispute with Eupator on page Urartu. I offered him mediation. He has refused. I have also requested advocacy for page Urartu.--] 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

	:That doesn't necessarily mean that I should be blocking under ]. If you have other concerns, it may be time to consider an ] regarding their stubborn behavior, or work your way higher up in the ] process, up to and possibly including the ]. ] 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

	But my notice here was not about dispute itself - it is about Eupator's behavior and, in my view, insults. You can view other pages where he conduct dispute. The same manners.
	On dispute resolution - I will follow you advise on arbitration. Thanks.--] 19:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:The "moronic" was a way too strong epithet, but otherwise there were no insults there. Case closed. Please move on. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 19:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	::I disagree. If somebody issues comments like this, he should be warned, and if he doesnd stop, blocked - just as for violations of 3RR. Calling the other side arguments moronic is a pretty good example of '']'' and creating an unfriendly editing atmoshphere.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 20:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	Thanks for support. it is particularly relevant, if such person continue obstract normal dispute process. If he is not warned, he will be confident that it is normal what he is doing.--] 20:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

	==={{User\|Mak82hyd}}===
	User:Mak82hyd was in response to personal attacks within the last few days. Attacks preceding the first warning include calling User:Jimfbleak a and telling me , referring to some imagined edits that I did not make in ]. In response to first warning, Mak82hyd , but I decided to just let him cool off. He has now gone on to call User:Ttiotsw in spite of the warnings. I did not check every single edit that Ttiotsw has made lately, but I am pretty confident that this personal attack was entirely unwarranted (as I understand it personal attacks are always considered unwarranted on WP, regardless of circumstance). This attack against Ttiotsw was a couple of days ago but I just noticed it now; it was still very recent and it was just two days after the warnings. I expect the pattern to continue. As can be seen from his responses to me, Mak82hyd for some reason (I did not tell him or anyone that so I assume it was simply my use of templates), and has continued his attacks in spite of my warnings, so I do not believe that a real admin's stern warning alone will make any further difference. — ] ] — 20:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
	*Not quite clear, to me -- which of these diffs is a recent personal attack? Have pity on simple old Luna. :p ] 06:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
	::The attack was recent when I posted this, the rest were to build context and establish that warnings have been given. I noticed it because I have Mak82hyd's talk page on my watchlist after I asked him to cease personal attacks, and Ttiotsw came in to ask him to stop yet again. If I understand "''Accusatory comments''" and "''Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views''" (although the affiliations here are imagined), repeated accusations of "islamophobia" are personal attacks, and I'm exhausted with these accuations being made against me (unwarranted) and other editors (very likely unwarranted). — ] ] — 15:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Also at User:Giordaano yesterday. Mak82hyd didn't like some edits, so told Giordaano to "keep it shut." Not a huge attack, but part of this wearying pattern. — ] ] — 15:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Fair enough. '''Left a note''' for now. None of it is too blatant, but as a whole, it's not the sort of thing I want to let happen without comment. ] 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::Agreed. Accusing others of hatred (''ur hatred towards islam''), 'cabal' (''u seems to me as a member of the bias and islamophobic group'') and telling them ''keep it shut'' certainly warrants a warning, or block if the user was warned. Plus an extra warning for not using capital letters and abusing English language (u, ur...) :> --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 20:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	Still doesn't get it. Accusing other editors of "hatred" again, in . — ] ] — 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

	the above one is not a personal attack. may be before ones but I lose it when i see lot of things done without enough discussions. ] 20:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
	:Another note. This one might just be a misunderstanding -- "hate" is a pretty strong word, so just asking to avoid it in the future. ] 00:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	=== {{User\|Pakhtun Tanoli}} ===
	This user is using sock puppets to make personal attacks now, after being asked why he is making deletions, without debate. When his points are answered, he never accepts this and instead makes personal attacks such as and and also .

	His IP addresses are
	* {{user5\|160.9.41.21}}
	* {{user5\|160.9.41.23}}
	* {{user5\|160.9.41.118}}
	* {{user5\|160.9.41.113}}
	* {{user5\|Pakhtun_Tanoli}}

	(all sock puppets of the same user). Can this please this be looked into. Thanks people.--] 17:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	* '''Needs blocking'''. No need for a ] for obvious throwaway attack socks. I'll poke a sysop in their direct. Cheer, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] • ] )</span> 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC) <small>Postscript note to '''sysops''': Please do '''NOT''' indef the IPs, they are from a collage shared IP. Looks like the user is using college computers as well as his own to post these attacks. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] • ] )</span> 19:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)</small>

	* '''Blocked''' - .21 and .113 are blocked by {{admin\|Betacommand}} for the attacks. .23 by {{admin\|Nlu}} for the attacks and .118 was blocked by '''(aeropagitica)''' for vandalism. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] • ] )</span> 19:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	=== ] ===

	Hi. Could anyone please have a look at this: Incivility and personal attacks of Eupator are clearly a violation of wiki policies, as are his insulting remarks about other ethnic and religious groups (he compares Muslim people with Nazis, etc). Regards, ] 19:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:User Grandmaster called me a racist and a chauvinist, if that's not a personal attack I don't know what is. I characterized those insults properly. Also saying that I compared Muslims to Nazis is a gross lie at best.--] 19:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: I did not call you racist, I called your remarks pure racism and chauvinism. Anyone can check them and judge for himself. ] 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::That's a cop out. If that's the case then I called your remarks of my remarks as degenerate outburts.--] 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	* '''Comment''' - Neither of you are really doing so well in this exchange, and if you don't start acting in a civil manner you may both be warned or blocked. Perhaps you two should just go your separate ways and cool down? In short, '''no action at this time''', without prejudice to future blocks for continued incivility. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] • ] )</span> 20:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)



	==={{User\|Ghirlandajo}}===
	I was faced with insults and from Ghirlandajo at ] after participating in a discussion to change the article name. This was a discussion started by ] (i.e. not a "provocation" by a "Polish editor") in which I didn't even get around to suggesting an article title (I only discussed some Google hits). There were no NPA templates issued because Ghirlandajo . Also discussed ]. ] (]) 20:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	::. If "new reports" section is regularly skipped by posters who prefer to open their reports without waiting for admins, should it be eliminated altogether? --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 09:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

	: '''Left a notice''' - I'll see how he reacts. That will gauge whether further action is needed. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 21:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	::This the latest sally in a series of anti-Ghirlandajo crusades which are being discussed on ]. In short, Piotr's desysopping for persistant incivility and anti-Ghirlandajo campaign is being discussed on the talk page. It has been advised by multiple commentators that Piotrus desists from making comments on Russia-related topics, ergo, my comment about "shitfest". Appleseed is his staunch adherent who gradually adopts his disruptive tactics of forum shopping in content disputes. It's the first time that his complaints are taken seriously and I'm really disappointed at the behaviour of Peter M Dodge and his IRC friends below. If they think that Misplaced Pages is a maiden aunts' tea party, their understanding of the nature of this project is seriously flawed. We discuss the issues robustly and openly. Baiting and provocations by the likes of Appleseed and Piotrus (who have been harassing me for years) will not be tolerated. --<font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 08:00, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I will just say that the comment above has as much truth as the comment by a neutral editor on my RfC. Anyway, this is not about mine or Ghirla's RfC, it is about one of many examples of how he offends other editors on a nearly daily basis. PS. Interesting, isn't it, that Ghirla's defence is to claim that the PAIN report was filled in the wrong section, and anyway represent an 'anti-Ghirlandajo crusade'... --<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 12:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I am not sure what to make of all this "anti-Ghirlandajo crusade" business. As I've mentioned , this is only my second time directly interacting with Ghirlandajo. He has already left me two unpleasant messages on my talk page (, ). Among other things he wishes to know if I am happy that Irpen was blocked. As for the accusation of fraudently posting to WP:PAIN, my posting in "Open Reports" was a simple mistake and was quickly moved to "New Reports". ] (]) 13:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::On the bright side, the RfC which Ghirla mentioned seems much more likely to result in banning Ghirla from posting such comments to other users talk pages, and enforcing a civility parole, then in any desysoping - so don't worry, this will all be resolved soon.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 16:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

	:Excuse me but where is the personal attack in the ? Left a notice about what? Please care to study the matter before throwing hasty warnings. Some here just make all they can to achieve blocks of their content dispute opponents including depolarble practice of false reports to various boards. --] 21:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: '''Reply''' • It was a threat, saying he would take any further discussion of a matter as an insult. This is disruptive. His response to my note will tell whether it was a simple misunderstanding or a true attack. Please ] in the future, and I would ask you do not ] yourself, especially in the Personal Attack Noticeboard. Thank you. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 21:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I engaged in personal attacks? Wizardry Dragon, you might know that unfounded accusations in personal attacks are personal attacks without doubt. Please leave handling the requests to admins and try content writing for a change. If adminning is really what you want to do, run for it first. Your hasty warnings are unwarranted and inflammatory. --] 21:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::I must respectfully disagree with you, Irpen - it is clear Ghirlandajo is not assuming good faith here, but nor are the other parties in the conflict, so the other editors in that conflict are also to blame. Ghirlandajo's comment suggesting that editors are deliberately trying to stir up conflict and that they are like children for not understanding such information is indeed needless incivility, though, and the note left on Ghirlandajo's page is indeed appropriate to the situation as he has been unnecessarily commenting on contributors instead of content. <font color="DarkGreen">]</font><sup>]</sup> 21:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::(edit conflict) Irpen, I completely agree with Wizardry Dragon's actions. The original post contained two questionable comments - one was seriously inappropriate ("shitfest") and the other, about a "child beng able to do something", was the attack. Irpen, I'm ], but your edit above towards WizardryDragon isn't posted in the height of civility - try to keep a cool head. Thanks, <strong>]]]</strong> 21:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	::::I support Wizardy Dragon actions; a warning was certainly appopriate; and I find it quite absurd that a in such a way; please assume good faith and experience on the part of people dealing with PAIN issues and discuss it with them first. As for personal attack, maybe Wizardy means your above linked edit summary calling his stanard warning an ''rm ridiculously unwarranted and inflammatory message''? And I am really very positivly suprised by the quick and professional reaction of three PAINers here, after ] was discarded few weeks ago, I begun to lose faith in PAIN. It's good to see ] becoming more popular.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 21:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	: Ghirlandajo and his opponents here have been known each other for a long time and there is no need to ''assume'' anything good or bad. From what I see, this report is another attempt of his opponents to "win" content disagreements through achieving a block of their main opponents. This is not a new tactic. What I also see is an inexperienced user Wizardry Dragon handling the requests at admin's board as if he owns it throwing inflammatory warnings left and right and otherwise enjoying being a judge and the jury. The bottom line is that we had a serious disagreement, a terse discussion but no personal attacks of any sort. Than we get a false reports here where it does not belong and a certain user acting on it as if he knows anything. I can only wonder what goes on at IRC at this time. --] 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: Adminship is "not a big deal" (as Jimbo said). Being a admin just give you a few extra tools - no extra status (or, that's the theory). You're effectively saying WizardryDragon cannot and should not work here as he's not an admin '''yet''' - this is nonsense, to be frank! He should be commended for the work he does here an elsewhere, and it should be noted that some of our best editors aren't admins yet. Every editor has the right to place an NPA tag, and WizardryDragon is doing this, helping out on this (often overlooked) board. <strong>]]]</strong> 21:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:: From what I can see here, wizardryDragon has done nothing wrong, a warning was appropriate, as for the larger issues, I would suggest the ] and a ]. Cheers! —— ] <sup>(])</sup> 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	: My problem with Dragon's actions is not that he is not an admin but because they are sloppy. When Piotrus' last report was acted on by experienced handlers of this board (who happened to be admins by some accident), that report was promptly (and rightfully) discarded for what it was, an attempt to shut down his content opponent through a frivolous report to a public board. Now, when we get everyone who feels like throw a warning on two do so, this adds drama and does not help resolve any problems. --] 21:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	:: '''Technical comment''' - Reviewers are actually somewhat preferred on WP:PAIN, as sysops have busy work elsewhere. Sysops are only required here when blocks are needed. I stand by my actions, and if you have a problem with them, please address the problem and not my character. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	:You are greatly mistaken that we have lack of admins at the project. Actually, what the project seriously lacks is serious content writers. With 1000+ admins there is enough work force to handle WP:PAIN. If you look at the amount of empty chatter at Misplaced Pages space and, especially, at IRC you will see that there is no lack of admin time at the project. I know you meant well by trying to help here but your actions were unhelpful because they were unwarranted. There were no personal attacks in the orginial report. There were no attacks in my comment either. You hastily rushed into making accusations of others in PA and offensively cited some well-known rules (like AGF) to the editors who know both the rules and the editors they deal at this time. When you deal with the editor for years, you know him. There is no need to assume anything. The working relationship between Ghirlandajo, Piotrus, myself and Appleseed are not cloudless but they are working. If you want to help, investigate the issue in deapth first of all. I can see how it may seem cool to feel oneself that I will throw a warning here and spare the one there. However cool it may feel, it is very unhelpful if accompanied with misunderstanding of what really is going on.

	:Also, please do not edit my comments except misspelling and indentation marks. If I say that there is an edit conflict, I do so for a reason. --] 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	::There is a serious need for admin time elsewhere, when admin powers are the only things that can solve problems. ] lists the backlog - it's not nice! At PAIN, one of the good things is that anyone can come and help, leaving obligatory warnings. To be absolutely honest, WD has been active for just about a week less than I, and I'm certain that he knows a lot more than me about the procedure here and elsewhere that he is involved. ] that WD knows what he's doing, please! I, for one, sleep easy when I know he's working on this board. <strong>]]]</strong> 22:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	::(edit conflict) Part of the way this page works is that reviewers take the load of admins by sorting out minor cases which really don't need admin involvement. I'm sure I speak for the whole admin community when I say that WD's contribustions are invaluable. ] is in perennial backlog, as are ] and ]. If we had admins sorting out every request here, I can tell you that we'd have a much longer list of backlogs. It's never ''fun'' for anyone to leave a warning, or to spend time investigating cases, but it has to be done by someone. We have over 1.5 million articles on Misplaced Pages, hand less than 1500 admins. That's more than 1000 articles for each of us to look after, if you look at it that way. Of course, admins are usually much more involved with sorting out disputes and fixing vandalism - what is, in my opinion, becoming ever more important as the communtiy grows. The admins need to do the process - but there's a lot of it, so wherever admins aren't needed, they shouldn't be, hence the role of reviewers here. Irpen - you clearly disagree with the actions taken by WD, which 3 admins have since agreed with. I suggest that you leave the dispute, before it potentially escalates into a ] violation. <strong>]]]</strong> 22:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::Clarification: I have not known Ghirlandajo for years. I believe I have only directly interacted with him on one occasion, in a situation also involving an article title, which resulted in . ] (]) 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	: The reason of admin backlog is not a lack of admins but the time wasted at empty talk at Misplaced Pages boards and, especially, IRC. True, one does not need to be an admin to make a sound judgement on the PAIN report. One, however, does need to to ''make a sound judgement'' to make a warning. Unwarranted warnings hurt people and spoil the climate here a whole lot. Dragon's intrusion was well-intentioned but sloppy and unhelpful, at least in this particular case. His further accusing me above in personal attack shows just another case of ill understanding of the policies as none of my messages above contained any of the PA stuff. He may have an excellent judgement overall, I have never met him before. Here, he certainly acted cluelessly. --] 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	::OK, about admin time wasting, that's your opinion, one I disagree with. You keep saying that WD made sloppy actions and left an unwarranted warning, despite the fact that his actions '''have been endorsed''' by three admins, and the warning was reposted by an admin (me). Please ], come back and have a thorough look at the conversation, and read the comments you may have missed in edit conflicts. <strong>]]]</strong> 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	: Of those three admins 1 is involved in the conflict directly, and two others have popped up here for the first time ever, which just proves my point about the ongoing IRC activity. While at it, why not ask at IRC for more of your friends to show up and add to this bashing? Don't worry, I won't see it since I never go there, see ] for why. --] 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	:: '''Comment''' • Realise that several sysops watch this list. Several of them, I haven't even interacted with in the past, and don't know. Further attacking sysops is not helpful to your cause. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 23:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Out of curiosity, Irpen, if you don't want people involved with the matter commenting on it, and you don't wont people completly neutral and (as of yet) unbiased commenting on it, who would you prefer?--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 23:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::I'll take a shot, Piotrus. Peter, I'm sorry but the principle of "leaving a note to see how he reacts" is misconceived. I assume that you perform this experiment in good faith, but what it gauges isn't principally whether an editor originally made a personal attack; it's how he reacts to being accused of making personal attacks. For myself, I would react ''badly'' if the accusation wasn't true, and what would that gauge about me? Not, for sure, whether I had originally made a personal attack or not--just how touchy I was to accusations. Further, I don't think Ghirlandajo did make any original PA. To say you'll take take something as an insult is not a threat, and to use bad language is not a personal attack: these claims of yours are fine-drawn interpretations, and fine-drawn interpretations are the very last thing to be used for the experiment of placing an npa notice and seeing what happens. Please make sure of not inflaming a situation in trying to gauge it. I have removed the npa notice from Ghirlandajo's page. Why provoke him? ] \| ] 23:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
	::::'''Comment''' - Irregardless, it's not Ghirlandajo that is complaining here - please keep that in mind. It is Irpen, and at this point it seems to be disruption to prove a point, the motives of which are unclear. At this point, to be frank, it looks like they just have an axe to grind against me for some reason. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 23:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::::It looks like a content dispute to me. I don't quite understand your point about who's complaining, Peter. The first post I see is a complaint from ], the second is your "Left a notice - I'll see how he reacts. That will gauge whether further action is needed.". It's your action there that I think problematic. You reinforce it further down: "His response to my note will tell whether it was a simple misunderstanding or a true attack." Really, please don't place warnings for something that may in your own opinion be either of these two. ] \| ] 23:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC).
	:::::::'''Reply''' • If Ghirlandajo felt mistreated, and said so, I would have apologized. Irpen complaining about it, and the way in which he did so, was unproductive - it only served to blow this dispute from a simple borderline PA case to a full-blown dispute. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 23:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::Uh, Bishonen, this was not the question I was asking. The note Wizard left is a npa user warning warning template - I see nothing wrong with it (a standard practice at the PAIN), other than the fact that Ghirla has received many such templates in the past, so I think it's quite a good faith action on the part of the reviewer to give a template to the repeated offender and see if he reacts this time, other then just ask for the block in the first place. As to whether this was a PA or not, let me quote Applessed summary of what passed on that page withing a few posts: "During this short discussion has already managed to make a condescending comment ("Only a child may not understand"), assume bad faith ("deliberate provocation" and "It's a pity to see you both back to polonization of the Russian place-names"), make threats to report other editors, and use a vulgarity". Accusing others of provocation and polonization is a PA in my book, and this entire behaviour looks like a violation of WP:CIV and quite a few other policies. I am not calling for a block, but I am sure that some warnings from the community that such behaviour is not acceptable are in order, at the very least.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]\|]</span></sub> 02:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

	: '''Reviewer comment''': {{admin\|Betacommand}} has blocked {{user5\|Irpen}} in relation to the comments on this page. ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 23:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
	::Mmm, while I can't agree with Irpen on his stance regarding non-admins handling "admin tasks" (see also: ]), I also don't think Irpen quite deserves a 48 hour incivility block. I'd have thought that others would've learned ]. I'd like to ask others to review the block, especially given the lack of warning on Irpen's talkpage and ] regarding blocks of ''users with a substantial history of valid contributions, regardless of the reason for the block''. Ironically enough, I learned of this block via ] where another admin thought it was "harsh". <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]\|]) </font></i></b> 00:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	::: '''Comment''' • He has been unblocked, Kylu. I felt it was premature since he was not warned, so it is why I put a note here. As it has been dealt with, let's leave it be. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 01:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	:::: I hope that I am known as an expert on IRC abuse, which I seek to counter. This is the greatest threat of Misplaced Pages at the moment. May I ask you whether it was you who advised Betacommand to block Irpen on IRC? I would appreciate a truthful answer, because I have no problem checking the logs. Thanks, <font color="FC4339">]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">]</font></sup> 07:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::: If your question is for me, then no, I didn't advise Betacommand to do anything. I didn't discover there was a block until a different user pointed at the channel with the comment, "Not this mess again." I heartily agreed with that sentiment and disagreed that either you or Irpen deserve a block. Please check the logs available to you regardless of your perception of my truthfulness, I'd rather not have the doubt be there. If your question isn't for me... well, feel free to check anyway, though I apologize for misunderstanding. Oh, I left you an email regarding some possible article edits. I hope you like the idea! :) <b><i><font color="#FF00FF">~Kylu (]\|]) </font></i></b> 06:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
	::::When this went over to ] I offered to referee the use of warning templates. Since it's escalated to a proposed arbitration case I suppose more is needed. Piotrus accepts me as suitably neutral (I've been candid about my good working relationship with Ghirla). How about moseying over to my user talk page and trying mediation? I'll have to do quite a bit of reading to catch up on the details, but if we can patch things up informally it would be a lot less painful than arbitration. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 23:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
	Discussion has opened at ]. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 15:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

	=== {{User\|14thArmored}} ===
	Numerous personal attacks against the following users:
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]
	* ]

	'''Examples'''
	*
	*
	*
	*

	A listing of the user's contributions demonstrates dozens of personal attacks in his edit summaries:
	*

	'''For example'''
	* "Here are some of the sources. There are more, but I doubt if you have heard of them either"
	* "This is really fun"
	* "You are sneaky and intellectually dishonest"
	* "Good Boy Morpheus! Keep trying and you eventually get it right!"
	* "Wikist, My Dear Rude Fellow"
	* "I Fixed France. Wheeeeeeeeeeee!"
	* "If you think it's wrong, improve it. (If you can.)"
	* "Removed ignorant POV Re: ergonomics What a joke"

	User has been warned with the npa2 template on his talk page and with several friendly and template warnings on discussion pages. Please see

	User was warned by ] on his talk page as follows:
	* Additional warning about your continuing violations of Misplaced Pages policy
	:::User:14thArmored, despite previous advice and warnings, you continue to violate Misplaced Pages policies including ], ], and ]: from your October debut's judgmental rudeness of describing Denniss’s position as a “useless comparison,” to working against consensus by twisting a compliment to Bukvoed into a new ad hominem complaint about your alleged persecution, to goading of DMorpheus by your refusal to follow Misplaced Pages citation policy, to yesterday’s belittling Ggbroad’s intellectual development —and especially by tricking Bukvoed into transcribing a book that you consider unreliable, for your own amusement. If you do not understand this detailed warning after the several gentler warnings from several editors, ask an administrator to audit your posts. Do not be surprised if editors go about their business of following Misplaced Pages policy without replying to you. Thank you.Wikist 02:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

	Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:14thArmored"

	This warning was removed by ].

	User is also suspected of sockpuppetry, specifically of ]. User has also edited from IP 68.2.110.21. User phillipsbourg appears to be inactive so this may be a minor point, but that user engaged in similar attack patterns on the same pages and was blocked as a result. I believe the sockpuppetry is relevant because it weakens any assumption of good faith we may have about this user.

	This user has also engaged in a pattern of stalking, editing articles I have just edited, but, for example, ignoring instances of vandalism on those same articles. See for example:

	*
	*
	*
	*

	Since then there have been multiple vandal attacks on this page, none edited by 14thArmored.

	Certainly 14thArmored is under no obligation to police vandalism. However, this pattern tends to cast doubt on his good faith; he may be more interested in editing 'against' certain editors than in making genuine efforts to improve articles.

	:::: ] 16:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	* '''Investigating''' - There looks almost to be a deeper issue at hand here than simple personal attacks. I am looking into this. If another reviewer or a sysop sees this, please don't feel you have to wait for me. '''No action''' (for now) - I have left the request as New and unopened since I am looking into this deeper. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] • ] )</span> 21:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

	* '''Reviewer note''' • This matter has been referred to the ], as per discussion on my talk page: . Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 18:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

	==={{User\|Scroopulous}}===

	This user has left profanity and personal attacks on my user page as well as the one for . This user's talk/user page also contains offensive and profane content designed to spread hate. Request review and block.

	Current notation on this person's user page: '''"For one he is the coolest guy on earth. And fyi the haunted angel, and PWdiamond are gay guys. lolz btw if you both are reading this, go ahead and boot me from the wiki wouldn't bother me none, you faggot fuckers"'''

	] 20:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

	*'''Blocked''' for 1 week, for both this and ongoing vandalism warnings on talk page. —— ] <sup>(])</sup> 20:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

	==={{User\|Halibutt}}===

	Particular ] left very inappropriate remark regarding many different contributors (message appears on his main user page):

	''Unfortunately, an ongoing campaign of slander and blackmail against me has forced me to abandon wikipedia for some time. Death threats from Ghirlandajo, anti-semitic comments from Renata and her Lithuanian pals, offending my parents by Dr.Dan, offending my nationality and culture by the nationalist Lithuanian community here - all these were a step too far. Perhaps I'll come back when they change their ways - or wiki finally starts to defend serious editors against trolls and ultra-nationalists. Regards, //Halibutt''

	Please note causations made by him are - ''anti-semitic comments''; ''Death threats'' and accusation to '''all''' Lithuanian community etc. Later this message was changed by different contributor., because Halibutt refused to do it by himself This is not the first time, when Halibutt misconducts in this area:
	and was warned not to proceed with attacks some time ago: but refused it . Would be good if neutral contributors could evaluate this users' "comments". ] 00:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

	: '''Reveiwer comment''' • It's certainly loaded accusations, and something they should prove if they can, but not really "personal attack" material. Specifically, this really isn't the right venue to get a remedy. I would suggest ] or, if administrative action is needed, ]. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 01:15, 24 December 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: