| Revision as of 16:08, 8 January 2007 editDemiurge (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users14,771 edits →{{User|Vintagekits}}← 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 | ||
| (48 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{historical}} | |||
| <!-- Please do not remove or change this MfD message during the discussion. --> | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata" id="mfd" style="margin: 0 5%; padding: 0 7px 7px 7px; background: #D0ECDD; border: 1px solid #539570; text-align: left; font-size:95%;"> | |||
| '''This miscellaneous page is being considered for deletion in accordance with Misplaced Pages's ]]''' | |||
| {{#if:{{{1|}}}|This nomination is part of a discussion of several related miscellaneous pages.}}<br /> | |||
| Please discuss the matter at ''']''' on the ] page.<br /> | |||
| You are welcome to edit this page, but please do not blank, merge, or move this page (without knowing exactly what you are doing), or remove this notice, while the discussion is in progress. For more information, read the ].<br/> | |||
| ''<small>] use only: {{tls|md1}} {{subst:md2|pg={{FULLPAGENAME}}|text=}} {{subst:md3|pg={{FULLPAGENAME}}}} </small></div> | |||
| <div class="NavContent" style="display:none;background:#D0ECDD;"> | |||
| {{MfD doc}} | |||
| </div></div></div></div> | |||
| {{{category|]}}} | |||
| <!-- End of MfD message. Feel free to edit beyond this point. --> | |||
| :'''This process has been discontinued per ].''' | |||
| {{editabuselinks}}<br /> | |||
| 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. | |||
| <!-- Please remove/add HTML comments around {{adminbacklog}}. --> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| <div style="float:right">__TOC__</div> | |||
| ==New Reports== | |||
| ===]=== | |||
| First he called me unintelligent.Then he Called me a rapist and a murderer by his own admission right after I warned him. He then insulted me further and disrupted several pages like this. Including further accusations of calling me a racist and a bigot and taunting me.] | |||
| :The first remark was in response to his attack, via which he retorted to my edit by alleging anti-hindu racism. The second comment is misquoted, I accused him of justifying mass-rape and mass-murder, which he is in fact doing by stating the killing of 2000 Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 was 'retaliatory' and editing the article in question to revert it to where the article essentially opens by justifying the killings. And I did state that anyone who believes that 'retaliating' is to attack someone of the same religion as the persons who perpetrated a wrong is bigotry (it is, who will deny that?) though I never said he was a bigot or a racist. The atrocities have been called 'retaliatory' in the article, although it is probable that none of the 2000 people killed and several women raped and tortured actually did anything to retaliate against. I would urge people to look at the article for themselves. Anyway, since I said a bigot would believe in targeting people of a religion that way, he assumes that makes him a bigot. I made no direct statement to that affect (ie I never said Rump was a bigot or a racist). I certainly did not call him a rapist or a murderer, although I now wonder if freudian slips work on hearing and reading the way they do on speech. He IS in fact justifying that atrocity and is editing to censor reports and accounts by HRW and Amesty International, opting to keep only information supplied by the very government that allowed the atrocity in question to take place. Long story short, we have an ongoing argument and I find his rhetoric to be extremely sickening, but nothing as yet violates NPA. ] 05:12, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::Above is false propaganda.Please see his edits and mine here . he is the one ] to bias articles, whereas the article, as it stands, lists non-Hindu government of India (presently the UPA govt, not the govt which stood accused for the riots) as corroborated fact. He explicitly called me a bigot in his last post to my talk page. He qualified it with conditional, but that doesn;t change the seriousness of his accusation.] 05:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::One more thing. He keeps reverting my warnings to him on his talk page, so I am posting an oldid of it here: | |||
| . He is new user so there aren't any posts other than ours.] 05:31, 8 January 2007 (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}}. | |||
| ==={{User|Embryoglio}}=== | |||
| I asked the user to not make incivil comments of vandalism in edit summaries in regards to my edit and the user instead goes on to make more personal attacks on the article talk page . Making accusations of vandalism and censorship is a clear violation of ]. As I write this, the user has added additional comments to my request to stop the personal attacks now accusing me of violating ] . Which at this point I'm no longer replying to user as the low edit count and harsh handling of the situation by the user points to signs of a sock puppet or troll. --] 00:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :More ] violations. This person is trying to rally a lynch mob so-to-speak of other wikipedians against me for no reason other than a simple edit dispute. --] 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :The one of the users has come to Embryoglio's aid and made commments directed to me then they both proceded to disrupt the flow of the article . I'm guessing that Embryoglio is a sock puppet of MotherAmy.--] 01:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::This editor has falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet. I demand a checkuser and an investigation immediately. After it is proven we are separate editors than I recommend that ''I already forgot'' be banned from editing the article in question for not assuming good faith and making false accusations. Action must be taken immediatly. Thank you. --] 02:13, 8 January 2007 (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, ]. | |||
| :I'd like a checkuser also, the editing style indicates prior experience. The account appears to have been created to only edit one article and he/she does so aggressively. This user is becoming very disruptive and uncivil. User is aldo posting on other talk pages, trying to get a mob together. --] 07:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ===Procedure=== | |||
| Pointing out specific acts of vandalism is clearly not a personal attack, nor was any statement that I have made, as can be seen in the discussions on ] and any other places that I have made statements. However, this very noticeboard entry violates policy. Calling my actions of notifying other users to monitor Forgot's wild behavior 'rallying a lynch mob' is a clear lie, and lies are violations of the civility policy. Saying that I, or MotherAmy, or any other of Forgot's opponents is a 'sockpuppet' or 'troll' '''is''' a personal attack. Notice that I could call Forgot or Armadillo a sockpuppet or troll with a vastly stronger basis than they have against me, but I do not do so because I am more mindful of WP:NPA than they are. Saying that I and MotherAmy have 'disrupted the flow of the article' is also a violation of the policy against lies. Armadillo projecting his own behaviors of disruptiveness and incivility onto myself is also a violation of the policy against lies. The entire baseless entry of this section onto this noticeboard is a violation of ], and is ultimately far more damaging to Forgot and Armadillo than it is to me or Amy. | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| Speaking of mobs, I do not use backchannel communication. I doubt that it is a coincidence that the user ArmadilloFromHell (who does not appear in the edit history of Breast or Talk:Breast) popped out of nowhere to launch a frenzied attack against me, an attack which is nearly identical to that which Forgot has made. I therefore strongly suspect that Armadillo has been contacted through backchannel communication. | |||
| ] | |||
| I am surprised that the informative image that I have added has evoked such great hostility and deceptive behavior from multiple users. It is very strange. | |||
| ] 08:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|NazireneMystic}}=== | |||
| Here we go again. Please see the following two diffs and edit summaries: and This time we have overt allegations of fraud as well as bias. Comments directed against admins that placed the three previous blocks on user's talk page show nothing has been learned from previous trips to PA Noticeboard. Can we finally make this a long term block? Thank you. ] 01:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :FYI, unrepentant user has relabeled the three previous blocks as badges of honor. Please consider bestowing further "honors" on him. Thanks again. ] 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|Vintagekits}}=== | |||
| {{user|Vintagekits}} disagrees with the proposed settlement at ] and is referring to other editors using the highly pejorative terms "]s" | |||
| and "". Was warned using {{tl|npa3}} and {{tl|npa4}} but blanked these warnings and . ] 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Oh come on — "West Brits "highly pejorative"? What do you suggest we do? Ban him for his filthy tongue? Do you not think that you're being just the teensieest bit oversensitive? Moreover, his comments have mainly been on the Talk pages of Users to whom he's being perfectly civil; that does not amount to a personal attack. If you're so mortally offended by the term, don't follow him around peeping on his comments to other people. | |||
| It seems to me that you're trying to use this page to get at him because he hasn't relly done anything wrong, and this is your only route. It won't work. --] (]) 16:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *I suggest you review the relevant policies — "West Brit" '''is''' an insult, and personal attacks are still personal attacks even if they're made on third party's talk pages. Just because I'm in a content dispute with someone doesn't give them a free pass to personally attack me without any consequences. If Vintagekits doesn't want to be "got at", then all he has to do is stop abusing people. I'm pretty surprised to find this attitude that repeated personal attacks and incivility are "nothing wrong" coming from an administrator. This user has long-term and repeated record of incivility and personal attacks ( for example); this is not a case of me jumping on a single incident to try to get them blocked. ] 17:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| My comment stands. I'm not talking about Wikilawyering, I'm talking about common sense. Moreover he's not personally attacking you; he referred to "West Brits" in the plural. Your new diff is if anything even weaker evidence than the others. This page has a bad reputation, and is very likely to be deleted, precisely because of this kind of complaint. --] (]) 17:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *''"he's not personally attacking you; he referred to "West Brits" in the plural"'' — that's pretty weak, it seems to me that you're bending over backwards to avoid labelling this as a personal attack. Could it be that you don't want to entertain the thought that this could be a legitimate report, because you've already decided that this page should be deleted? Your insinuations that I made this report in bad faith are also totally false. It's totally unacceptable that I'm the one who was personally attacked, yet I'm the one who ends up having to defend myself. ] 17:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Just spotted this and didnt realise that this was going on, it was nice of ] not to inform me! My comments were meant as descriptive and not as pejorative. It is a commonly used term where I am from and not one the "I wouldnt say infront of a priest" - if you unstand what I mean. Again if you considered it to be pejorative then I apologise but it was not meant to be. Possibly you were looking to be insulted as we have opposing POV's on a number of issues? --] 15:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *This claim that you didn't realize it was offensive is a bit disingenuous given that you specific personal attack warnings about these edits from your talk page and continued to make them. Regardless, it seems that ] is more interested in proving his point about the deletion of this noticeboard than actually upholding the ] policy. ] 16:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === {{User|Roobit}} === | |||
| This person is totally incivil (refers to Finns who disagree with his POV as "Nazis" and calls Turks "savages" , makes '''personal attacks''' left and right, and when I (rightly, in my opinion) suspected him of being a sock of the banned user ] (very similar pattern of edits to Soviet-related articles, similar language style, etc.) some time ago, he proceeded to spam multiple pages on Misplaced Pages (today), calling me '''"idiot"''' , , , and '''"scumbag"''' . He inserts his rants into the wrong place, does not sign his comments on talk pages (there are many more examples of this), and is making a huge mess of the ] talk page (by refusing to sign his posts, etc.). He also deleted the sockpuppet template I placed on his user page, which I left blank as it seemed to encourage his boorish behavior. I've warned him, but I think someone else should do something... if nothing else, make him follow normal procedure by adding correct headers and signing his comments in the normal way. ] 19:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|Cberlet}}=== | |||
| ] 23:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Cberlet's personal attacks, especially in abusive edit summaries, seem to have long funded roots. See ]. I can handle his campaigning on talk pages. It is his frequently abusive, over-the-top edit summaries that poison collaboration and scares off editors. --] 13:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| . Venom started on other talk pages continued there. "Stop wasting bandwidth." --] 13:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Open reports== | |||
| <!-- Move reports here after they've gotten replies --> | |||
| === {{user|Dking}} === | |||
| Personal attack in edit summary and article discussion. the characterization of editors who disagree with hostile views as "cultists" and "totalitarian" has been ongoing by both ] and ]. ] 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reviewer comment''': I suggest developing a slighter thicker skin; "cultist" is pretty mild, and I could see nothing that looked like a personal attack on the Talk page. I also suggest that you resolve your editing dispute by addressing the issues, not by the back door of accusations against those who disagree with you. --] (]) 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| === {{User|AMbroodEY}} === | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| First i'd do take additional English lessons. RoI didnt exist in 1910 but it is has been a cultural entity for over 2000 years. For we cannot pigeionhole any pre-partition person as Pakistani unless they has supported Jinnah's movement. By your dumb logic, people what'd people like Bal Gangadhar Tilak be called.... Its not that hard to see, places like Troy may lie in Tukey but that doesnt dicount their Greek history does it? Pakistan seceded from Indian Union in 1947, it was recognised by UN as such. | |||
| As for the tag: Sorry no drive by tagging allowed, give referencs that call Chandra a Pakistani or buzz off. AN article doesnt become disputed just because you get nationlistic epileptic fits, every now and then. अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 00:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| I was deeply offended by this guys comments. First he asks me to take english lessons, then calls my logic "dumb" (most likely without reading it), and he removes my tag, after only 2 people commenting on it, and since they are both Indian, they disagreed with me, giving nobody else the chance to review the situation. | |||
| He then defines new Misplaced Pages rules for tagging an article "disputed". | |||
| The article in question is ], where I saw a RoI Flag, but this is not correct as RoI didnt exist in 1910, and furthermore his nationality is described as Indian, when it should be American. | |||
| Lastly, the birth place should be called Pakistan, Punjab, or British India, as Lahore has never been part of India. | |||
| Please help me out here, as he is increasingly ignoring and getting other people to ingnore my arguments since he doesnt agree with them. In some cases he diverts attention away, by removing tags after less than 10 mins. | |||
| His comments are also becoming more offensive. | |||
| ] 01:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Especially because you made a potpourri of your comments and his factual reply to the ramblings provided by you. Filing frivolous reports to further an ] agenda will merely call your "conduct" into question.<b>]]</b> 01:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reviewer comment''' This is neither the place for it (use your talk pages if you feel the need for such exchanges), nor is it the way to do it. I Admonish ] for such coment as pasted above (containing, as it does, needless personal attacks), and also admonish ] for not even offering a warning of any sort to the users talk page before coming here - go about things the right way guys. You have a dispute, and the best thing to do is try to ]. If you are unable to reach an agreement and need outside help, then please try mediation or ] by other editors. Coming here needlessly only makes things worse, and isn't going to seetle the dispute either way. This place is for continued personal attacks, not Dispute Resolution or singular attacks. Also, please use '''DIFFS''' ] 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| I did what you said, and posted a warning for his comments on his userpage. However, he stroke out the warning and labelled it Bogus. I warned him against deleting my comment and striking out an official warning for his comments. This is when he made another personal attack against me, for complaining against him, and stoke out my entire message. | |||
| I am increasingly finding myself being attacked for using basic wiki functions like, Disputing, Arguing on talk pages, using this board to complain about repeating offenders, and suggesting articles arent factual even with sources provided. | |||
| Please advise me on what to do. | |||
| <b>]]</b> 15:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Reviewer clarification''' No - I didn't instruct you to warn him. I admonished you for reporting the user here BEFORE warning. There's a sizable difference in the two comments. The advice I DID give was to either use ] or if it's not possible, to go straight to an RFC if you find yourself unable to use DR. I also '''stress serious attempts at ] first though'''. ] 18:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Its not one dispute. If you go through the comments, he has something to say about EVERYONE of my posts. Even unrelated articles by me, they will be the first ones trying to get my article deleted. Actually, one of their so called Neutral admins posted a link to my article and urged them to get it deleted. | |||
| I dont mind if he tries to argue, but he tries to get other people to ignore my messages which is what annoys me. And now on top of that I have to bear the insults. | |||
| Please let me know if I took the rights steps in warning him, since he has once again labelled the warning bogus and stoked it. | |||
| Surely he has to get an official warning for the insults described above. | |||
| <b>]]</b> 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::why is this here? ], I want you to stop this harrassment on Broodey. He is an excellent editor. What comment he made to was contructive and productive to your well being. You should reflect upon and hopefully it will make you a better editor in the future.--] 14:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| '''Reviewer note''' • PAIN is not the civility police. Unless you can provide diffs that outline a pattern of strong personal attacks, we cannot entertain this report. Cheers, ✎ <span style="font-family: Verdana">] ( ] • ] )</span> 16:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|Saintjust}}=== | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Saintjust#Personal_attacks_and_misbehavior_on_the_norimitsu_onishi_talk_page | |||
| This guy has called me "Korean pov-pushing editor" and "pov-pushing troll". He's generally offensive and very inflammatory in his discussions. I don't want to respond in kind and exacerbate this situation any longer. I've asked to remove the personal attack multiple times only to have him attack me more. This guy does this chronically. If you look through other sections of his talk page you'll find: "You are nobody and Misplaced Pages is not a place to publish your essay", "I advised you to read the Japanese article to see how ridiculous your little essay is", "I don't change the way I write just because some paranoid happens to find it "offensive"", etc.. These kind of comments will never fail to bait other editors into arguments and make wiki that much more unpleasant. Please help.] 03:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Reviewer note''' Added a personal comment to the talk page of each user just to suggest toning it down before any further escalation, and to recommend dispute resolution if the content issue involved continues. No other action taken ] 04:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|Vishal1976}}=== | |||
| This user uses very violent and abusive language in his edit summaries and Talk pages. The cause of this is my tagging ] with the cleanup tag as I noticed the mess. This user reponded with a series abuses: | |||
| * - Accuses me of being anti Hindu and anti Maratha in the edit summary | |||
| * - Accuses me of incestual tendencies in the edit summary | |||
| * - Calls me a jerk | |||
| * - Accuses another editor of not knowing his parentage in the edit summary | |||
| * - Calls me a 'Sun(sic) of a thousand fathers' in the edit summary | |||
| * - Threatens to murder me in the edit summary | |||
| * - Calls for reinforcements in the war against me | |||
| * | |||
| * | |||
| I have warned him with npa2 and npa3, and have left a couple of personal messages in his talk page advising him to cease and desist. But it still goes on . ] <sup><em>]/]</em></sup> 08:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :can you stop removing indic fonts? it's annoying.--] 14:57, 8 January 2007 (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: