Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:51, 20 September 2006 editMystar (talk | contribs)971 edits →{{user|Mystar}}: If need be I too can cite attacks and abuse. Stop being part of the problem and help the solution← Previous edit Revision as of 05:12, 20 September 2006 edit undoBrendan Moody (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,906 edits →{{user|Mystar}}: replyNext edit →
Line 22: Line 22:
Stop being part of the problem and help the solution. Also if you are going to tattletale then do so for all parties involved. Show all the abuse... not just the person to who is trying to combat the vandalism. Trying for a high EDIT count is not reason to just go hopping about tossing tags on everything. Stop being part of the problem and help the solution. Also if you are going to tattletale then do so for all parties involved. Show all the abuse... not just the person to who is trying to combat the vandalism. Trying for a high EDIT count is not reason to just go hopping about tossing tags on everything.
] 04:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC) ] 04:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

:Please feel free to post specific ] that you think constitute personal attacks on you. Indeed, I'll provide one myself. by {{user|WLU}} is a rather blatant sarcastic insult, particularly the last sentence. As I've said repeatedly, he shouldn't do that; I'm in the process of writing a note for him to that effect. The reason I did not include him in this request is that he has not been given the required chain of warnings that you have, and has not in my opinion engaged in sufficiently frequent or virulent attacks that this sort of intervention is warranted. I may be wrong about this; reviewers and admins reading this page will have to judge that. But I am not obligated to identify conduct I do not consider egregious enough to warrant intervention simply because you consider it so. You remain free to offer your own commentary, and I encourage you to do so. As a general guide for reviewers and admins, I'll say that articles relevant to the large dispute to which Mystar alludes are ], ], ], and some pages related to topics in those authors' works. ] 05:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


==Open reports== ==Open reports==

Revision as of 05:12, 20 September 2006

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards


    Red crossThis is a failed proposal.
    Consensus for its implementation was not established within a reasonable period of time. If you want to revive discussion, please use the talk page or initiate a thread at the village pump.
    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.
    ShortcutThis page is intended to get attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks. It is not intended to serve as a form of mediation or a type of RFC. Only Personal attacks are dealt with on this page, on their own merits in accordance with Misplaced Pages's No Personal Attacks policy

    For editors who want a personal attack situation reviewed:

    1. Consider that in most cases, ignoring the attack is better than requesting sanction against the attacker. Do not report people if you are likewise guilty of hostility towards them.
    2. Make sure the user has actually commited a personal attack. (Please note that "personal attacks" are defined only under the WP:NPA policy. If a statement is not considered a personal attack under the intended spirit of this policy, it does not belong here.)
    3. The editor must have been warned earlier. The {{npa2}}, and {{npa3}} templates may be appropriate for new users; for long-term editors, it's preferable to write something rather than using a standard template. Reports of unwarned editors may be removed.
    4. If the behavior hasn't stopped, add the following header to the New Reports section of this page in the following format:
      ==={{User|NAME OF USER}}=== replacing NAME OF USER with the user name or IP address concerned, with a brief reason for listing below. Be sure to include diffs.
    5. If an editor removes the IP or username and doesn't handle the matter to your satisfaction, take it to the editor's talk page or the administrators' noticeboard, but do not re-list the user here.
    6. NB - Due to misunderstanding of these instructions and/or mis-use of this process, comments not in strict adhereance to these instructions WILL be removed. This page deals only with personal attacks under the policy WP:NPA. Reports deemed to be inappropriate for this page are liable to be moved to an appropriate venue where one exists.


    For those reported on this page:

    1. A reviewer or an administrator will review each report on this page. In dealing with the report, the contribution history of the reported user shall be checked along with the diffs provided in the report. Where no personal attack is evident, then no action will be taken - however, should an administrator see that another seperate issue is evident, appropriate action or advice for that issue may be taken/given at his or her discretion and in line with wiki policy.
    2. Reports on this page stand on their own merits in accordance with Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. As such, disputes and discussions over reports are not suitable for this page except for such comments left by admins or reviewers describing their actions and/or findings. If you notice your account reported at this page, please trust that the administrators and reviewers dealing with reports will deal with it in an even-handed and fair manner on the basis of policy alone. If you feel strongly that another "side to the story", issue, or another piece of information is missing from a report please refrain from posting here, and instead leave your comment on your talk page under the title NPA Report or another other clear and related title. The reviewing party will see this message and take it into account where applicable.

    For users handling assistance requests:

    1. For each of the users linked here, open their contributions and check for personal attacks. Also check if the users have been sufficiently warned for the current personal attack and whether they've continued to commit personal attacks after being warned.
    2. Note that there is an important difference between a user who makes many good contributions and a few personal attacks, and a user whose last edits are (nearly) all personal attacks or other conflict.
    3. Do nothing, warn them again, or, if you are an adminstrator, block the user in question as you think is required. Explain things carefully to the user who listed the attacker if you feel there's been a misunderstanding.
    4. Move the report to the Open Reports section and give an update to the status of the report.
    5. Delete old reports that have been dealt with.

    Please consider adding this page to your watchlist to make life easier for non-administrator RC-patrollers.

    New reports

    SqueakBox and Hagiographer

    SqueakBox (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week per his personal attack parole (resulting from arbitration) for writing on his user page that one of his achievements was

    restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints but who is determined to slur him.

    This is a veiled reference to Hagiographer (talk · contribs), who acts exactly like Zapatancas (talk · contribs), the other party in arbitration. Squeakbox modified the reference so it now says,

    restoring José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero from the POV of another user who claims to write about saints.

    Hgiographer claims this is still a personal attack and changed the user page on his own several times before it was protected. I would like some idea on whether the revised statement is acceptable or whether it sill constitutes a personal attack. No action is required at this time as Squeakbox is currently blocked for other reasons. Thatcher131 (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

    Mystar (talk · contribs)

    Mystar (talk · contribs) has been engaging in a pattern of personal attacks in his contributions and edit summaries. Notable recent examples include this attack on another user, which was an echoing of comments here, this edit summary, and this veiled threat against another user. When this problem first emerged a few weeks ago, Mystar was warned a couple times, and for a while he moderated his tone. On his resumption of attacks, I left a note reminding him of WP:NPA and pointing out specific examples. He replied by denying that he had made attacks and accusing me of using sock puppets and acting in bad faith. I don't dispute that on occasion other editors may have occasionally been over the line in their comments, but I don't believe anyone's contributions have been as persistently virulent and unproductive as Mystar's, and as long as he doesn't believe he has made attacks, I believe he will continue to behave in this manner. Most immediately I'm looking for an admin or other neutral user to weigh in on whether his conduct has been acceptable. Brendan Moody 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


    Well as you are so fond of stating Moody, offer up all the facts. You seem to keep forgetting that your buddies have been doing the instigating and staging random attacks. Not to mention have attacked me and you have done nothing but warn me. I find it interesting that your group is the only ones creating the unrest. I'm simply trying to keep them from totally demolishing some good pages. If need be I too can cite attacks and abuse. The pot calling the kettle black simply gets everyone covered in soot. Most immediately I’m looking for fairness and integrity...in short honesty! Again I have made no threats against anyone. I did tell the sock puppet WLU who suddenly showed up to edit war to divulge his/her true identity. To be honorable rather than hide. But he/she would much rather play games in his/her sudden attack against the Goodkind pages. As I've said. I have compiled several pages of material of these people planning and encouraging people to vandalize the Goodkind pages on their ASOIAF Message board. They did and I called them out.

    I again call them out to edit in good faith. Which all we see is a couple of them edit warring. Deleting and tagging what they see as errors. Look IF you see a problem... stop and fix it! Don't tag it and run... Act in Good Faith! All we see is attacks against the Goodkind pages. If you don't like the way the material reads then edit it. Fix it! Some people only wish to create problems...as we see with Neofreak and WLU.

    Stop being part of the problem and help the solution. Also if you are going to tattletale then do so for all parties involved. Show all the abuse... not just the person to who is trying to combat the vandalism. Trying for a high EDIT count is not reason to just go hopping about tossing tags on everything. Mystar 04:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    Please feel free to post specific diffs that you think constitute personal attacks on you. Indeed, I'll provide one myself. This reply by WLU (talk · contribs) is a rather blatant sarcastic insult, particularly the last sentence. As I've said repeatedly, he shouldn't do that; I'm in the process of writing a note for him to that effect. The reason I did not include him in this request is that he has not been given the required chain of warnings that you have, and has not in my opinion engaged in sufficiently frequent or virulent attacks that this sort of intervention is warranted. I may be wrong about this; reviewers and admins reading this page will have to judge that. But I am not obligated to identify conduct I do not consider egregious enough to warrant intervention simply because you consider it so. You remain free to offer your own commentary, and I encourage you to do so. As a general guide for reviewers and admins, I'll say that articles relevant to the large dispute to which Mystar alludes are Terry Goodkind, George R. R. Martin, Steven Erikson, and some pages related to topics in those authors' works. Brendan Moody 05:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    Open reports

    Axam (talk · contribs)

    After disambiguating a term Iranian at Mellat Park, User:Axam undid the disambiguation and placed a note on my talk page stating that basically I'm not in charge. After explaining to him the disambiguation policy and to assume good faith in this edit, he started his personal attacks.

    • "Don't mess with it again, and try to get a life nerd" , after which I told him that he shouldn't use personal attacks (no warning yet)
    • Taking the note as a threat, he wrote "Are you threatening me nerd? You don’t have enough courage to keep up a conversation with rational arguments? I strongly suggest you get a life and keep away from Iran, Iranian culture and Iranian subjects." . At this point I sent a {{npa2}}
    • He then wrote "I strongly suggest you get a life" and "Remember you are nobody and nobody put you in charge."

    -- Jeff3000 18:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

    Another personal attack on my page, after another user reverted him (an no edits on my part on the page or on his talk page) stating "The abuse of your self-declared provocation will not be tolerated." --
    A small update- The user was warned by Admin Sam Blanning to stop using anon IP addresses to bypass his block, wherein he proceeded to tell him "Feeling tough behind your screen boy?". I asked him to remain civil and that he should calm down, to which he responded by calling Sam (and apparently anyone else involved in the discussion) "geeks", "nerds", and that wikipedia was populated by "ignorant fools". Then he told me to "get a life". Ex-Nintendo Employee 06:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
    User has been blocked for 24 hours. --Woohookitty 09:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    I have blocked this user for a week for making threats after his return. Tom Harrison 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Thankyoubaby (talk · contribs)

    Thankyoubaby (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly making personal attacks on his userpage; see , , , . The first round were directed toward three users, including myself, but for whatever reason he's now decided to focus on me. I've warned him twice already about this ; his response was to remove my messages from his talk page (note the edit summary in the first one). Extraordinary Machine 17:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

    I warned him. --Woohookitty 09:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


    75.3.23.157 (talk · contribs)

    Repeated personal attack on my Talk page: calling me "ignorant" and "your hateful nature shines through in every message." 75.3.23.157 already has NP3 warning on their Talk page. Yonmei 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    after I reverted their vandalism (vaguely insulting - calling me ignorant} http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lordkazan&diff=prev&oldid=75725858 {direct attack against my person} http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Lordkazan&diff=prev&oldid=75726763

    (edit) fixed ip! doh Lordkazan 17:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

    I should point out that Lordkazan was vandalizing wikipedia by reverting many of my edits which were valid. 75.3.23.157 01:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    Just because you assert an edit to be valid, doesn't make it so Lordkazan 13:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    Actually, Lordkazan, you really shouldn't be talking, you think that something is true and sourced is not a valid edit? You have equally done as much vandalism as me. You also need to be warned that you should not revert all edits by one person, even if they are valid, just because you are upset that that user is more knowledgable than you in one area. 75.3.23.157 16:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    I didn't connect gay activist with the klan. I connect people such as CaveatLector that although they are gay, they would be liked by the klan because of negative views towards African-Americans, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics, and immigrants. I didn't say that CaveatLector was a member of the klan, just that they'd like him. I could be wrong and CaveatLector could hold similiar views to the KKK because perhaps his father was a member and they probably wouldn't like him then for straying from the flock. 75.3.23.157 01:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

    75.3.23.157 claimed in Edit summaries and on my Talk page that I must be anti-Catholic because I was reverting the vandalism of Mychal F. Judge page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yonmei (talk • contribs) 05:14, September 15, 2006 (UTC)

    Messhermit

    Messhermit (talk · contribs) has been baned from editing the Wiki entry on Alberto Fujimori. Nevertheless, Messhermit (talk · contribs) continues his baseless personal attacks on my talk page, as well as on the talk page of Amerique who was his advocate in the editing dispute leading to the editing ban of Messhermit (talk · contribs)-- User:bdean1963, 20 September

    He's been warned. --Woohookitty 09:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    Éponyme (talk · contribs)

    This users has blantantly tried to attack me. He used prohanity and made comments against me based on my national origin, describing me as "goddamned asshole from Europe trying to apply imperialist arrogance." After issuing the {{npa2}}, he promptly deleted it, adn issued the same warning to me, despite myself staying civil. He also promtly removed the warning. Here are the difs: , , , after being issued {{npa3}} he made his post a bit nastier: , , . He also continues to abstain from a civil discussion: , , Please take action if you could, thank you. Best Regards, Signature 00:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    I suppose that the "incorrigible" nature of this editor in applying separate standards for style (because Americans are so different), as well as general ignorance of my ethnic roots, making disparaging comments about the nature of it and saying he knows more than I, a native American unlike he. His inflammatory comments were the first such in my life that I ever took a stand against with respect to my American ethnicity and United States citizenship. I also voted for George W. Bush and I'm sure that will weigh against me here. Then again, Jimbo is a Randian and would understand where I'm coming from in contrast to hyphenated Americans--as he is an ethnic American like me. You know, don't bother defending America's colonial ethnics from pre-1776 or at least before the first census in 1790. Just support all these immigrants and downgrade the folks who gave them a country to move to. Goddamn, I am really hurt. Stop it--I am the victim here. Éponyme 01:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    There is currently an RfC on this article, which I filed; All 4 Users have agreed with me that the article's title is misleading, yet he keeps pushing that the title be kept in an uncivil manner. This is how he (the user above) responded to 3rd party comments from the RfC I filed: , After a fifth user spoke out in favor of changing the title, this is how the user responded: Best Regards, Signature 02:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    The nature of those responses to the situation, truly delineates their apathy to my position. I stand in defense of what unsympathetic people don't care if they tarnish or not. They want to call the American people illegitimate. This type of discussion would not be tolerated in the 1950s. All the opposing positions to my one position would have been rightfully ostracized for making callous, ignorant and anti-American statements. Éponyme 02:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    I just warned Éponyme with {{npa4}} after Éponyme insinuated that I was anti-American at Talk:American people#Responding from the RfC. Éponyme's response was to place the same template, without any factual basis, at my talk page. Éponyme has been asked by multiple users at Talk:American people to calm down and discuss things civilly. Éponyme has not done so. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    How can you disassociate yourself from my situation, so apathetically and continue to bash at me like I'm some lab rat and the fate of my people is an intellectual phenomena? You should be blocked for such intolerant assertations. You bring it upon yourself for joining the lynchmob on a true blue American, who only wants to ensure the story of his people gets fair treatment and no more! Éponyme 03:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    I would also note that Éponyme has been warned multiple times at his or her talk page, but Éponyme has removed each npa notice placed there. · j e r s y k o talk · 03:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

    OOH YEAH, take that! When you jump on the bandwagon and run into the same walls, maybe it is time to try less hypocritical and apathetic strategies. Éponyme 03:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    I have blocked Éponyme for twenty-four hours. Tom Harrison 15:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
    Categories: