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 02:16, 28 November 2006 editGwernol (talk | contribs)94,742 edits →[]: Here's the diff← Previous edit Revision as of 03:18, 28 November 2006 edit undoScherf (talk | contribs)92 edits →{{User|SteveSmurf}}Next edit →
Line 118: Line 118:
::::I fail to see how any of this is relevant to my request to have the attack account removed. But if for some reason any of you feel the need to better understand what is going on here, then let me add to your understanding. First, I did not revert the page just after the block was lifted simply because it was lifted. The block was apparently only against new users, and I am not a new user. I presume I could have reverted the page any time. I reverted it as soon as I noted that ] reverted the changes of others, and it was only coincidental that my edits appeared after the block was removed. Further, I take exception to the implication that my edits, and the edits of others, are somehow inappropriately positive. I only expect that the Gracenote page would receive the same treatment from Misplaced Pages editors as other similar pages, such as the ] page. They are a competitor, and have experienced a fair amount of controversy in their time. But I see none of that on their page. Nor do I see mention of competitors anywhere on their page. I think I and others have been more than fair by including mention of competitors and controversy on the Gracenote page. But they certainly have no place dominating the page, especially in cases where the facts are totally incorrect. For your information, I have filed a mediation request to open a discussion with the users that have been vandalizing the page. These several users have been reverting text so that irrelevant, misleading, non-factual and harmful information dominates the Gracenote page. Their bias shows through far more than you imply mine does. Just look at the Gracenote talk page, and you'll see one of these "impartial" users insulting me, and calling me ''dirty'' for some act that they imagine I or Gracenote has done (outside of Misplaced Pages). These users have absolutely no place editing the Gracenote page, with that kind of clear bias and agenda. With these kind of attacks constantly taking place against the Gracenote page, and the sluggish and seemingly uninterested editors doing nothing to help, what are we supposed to do? We initially left the Gracenote page alone since its creation here, but the appalling nature of the page, and our legal obligation to defend our brand and trademarks, has left us no option but to take every measure we can to keep the page factual and relevant. With this said, hopefully you will understand the issues, though they are rather academic WRT this personal attack notice. I have requested mediation with the other users in question, but this SteveSmurf user was obviously created solely as an insulting, hurtful attack vehicle, and per clear Misplaced Pages rules I expect it to be removed. ] 09:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC) ::::I fail to see how any of this is relevant to my request to have the attack account removed. But if for some reason any of you feel the need to better understand what is going on here, then let me add to your understanding. First, I did not revert the page just after the block was lifted simply because it was lifted. The block was apparently only against new users, and I am not a new user. I presume I could have reverted the page any time. I reverted it as soon as I noted that ] reverted the changes of others, and it was only coincidental that my edits appeared after the block was removed. Further, I take exception to the implication that my edits, and the edits of others, are somehow inappropriately positive. I only expect that the Gracenote page would receive the same treatment from Misplaced Pages editors as other similar pages, such as the ] page. They are a competitor, and have experienced a fair amount of controversy in their time. But I see none of that on their page. Nor do I see mention of competitors anywhere on their page. I think I and others have been more than fair by including mention of competitors and controversy on the Gracenote page. But they certainly have no place dominating the page, especially in cases where the facts are totally incorrect. For your information, I have filed a mediation request to open a discussion with the users that have been vandalizing the page. These several users have been reverting text so that irrelevant, misleading, non-factual and harmful information dominates the Gracenote page. Their bias shows through far more than you imply mine does. Just look at the Gracenote talk page, and you'll see one of these "impartial" users insulting me, and calling me ''dirty'' for some act that they imagine I or Gracenote has done (outside of Misplaced Pages). These users have absolutely no place editing the Gracenote page, with that kind of clear bias and agenda. With these kind of attacks constantly taking place against the Gracenote page, and the sluggish and seemingly uninterested editors doing nothing to help, what are we supposed to do? We initially left the Gracenote page alone since its creation here, but the appalling nature of the page, and our legal obligation to defend our brand and trademarks, has left us no option but to take every measure we can to keep the page factual and relevant. With this said, hopefully you will understand the issues, though they are rather academic WRT this personal attack notice. I have requested mediation with the other users in question, but this SteveSmurf user was obviously created solely as an insulting, hurtful attack vehicle, and per clear Misplaced Pages rules I expect it to be removed. ] 09:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
:::At ] it's standard practice to look at all sides of an issue. A certain percentage of the time there's more to a matter than meets the eye. I've already given the link to the place that handles offensive usernames and I'm glad the underlying content dispute is going into mediation. To Steve Scherf, I recommend you disclose the conflict of interest at your userpage and seek a mentor through ]. If your statements are correct and you believe you need to balance a page that is under attack then note that, so far, your actions have left you vulnerable to accusations of violating ], ], and ]. That can lead to a topic ban or a site ban; see ]. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 15:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC) :::At ] it's standard practice to look at all sides of an issue. A certain percentage of the time there's more to a matter than meets the eye. I've already given the link to the place that handles offensive usernames and I'm glad the underlying content dispute is going into mediation. To Steve Scherf, I recommend you disclose the conflict of interest at your userpage and seek a mentor through ]. If your statements are correct and you believe you need to balance a page that is under attack then note that, so far, your actions have left you vulnerable to accusations of violating ], ], and ]. That can lead to a topic ban or a site ban; see ]. <font face="Verdana">]<sup>'']]''</sup></font> 15:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Durova, I have added full disclosure to my user page, though I make no secret of who I am. See the Gracenote discussion page for proof of the fact that I have been very straightforward WRT to this. I do not hide behind anonymity. ] 03:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)



==={{User|Iwazaki}}=== ==={{User|Iwazaki}}===

Revision as of 03:18, 28 November 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

    User:Juro

    Juro still keeps insulting me. Now I decided to make a list of all his insults:

    This is the last one: Juro: this is about the 10th utmost stupidity on your part in both wikipedias, you are strongly recommended to leave the wikipedi for lack of basic int. skills

    see: Little Hungarian Plain - history

    Here is another one:

    ...I have no comment, if you are even unable to distinguish what belongs below a certain topic and what not, maybe you should take a look at a paper encyclopaedia. The fact that you are personally interested in something does not imply that you can place it anywhere you would like to. And stop classifying others trolls just because they show you are writing crap. And do not think I do not see your talks about me with your Hungarian colleagues. Juro 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

    --Öcsi 17:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    PS: And although it does not belong here, he has called me on the german wikipedia: idiot, revisionist, fascist, etc. --Öcsi 17:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    I have left a strongly-worded reminder to User:Juro that he must abide by our policy about personal attacks. This is his final warning and will be followed by a block if he persists in this kind of attack. Gwernol 18:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    Thank you very much. I have left him the {{npa2}} template on his talk page, hoping that his behaviour (and word-choice) will improve. --Öcsi 18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    We need page diffs here to confirm that these quotes are accurate. Durova 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
    Gwernol 02:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    Open reports

    VinceB (talk · contribs)

    Warned in the past up to npa3 and blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry. Now renewed personal attack against another editor: after I advised him to cool down when he started to use ad hominem in that content dispute. He also publicly assumed a use of sockpuppets before he asked for CheckUser or provided any evidence, perhaps hoping to harm reputation of a well-established user. Tankred 18:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

    I do not see any personal attacks here. Moreover, I repeat: Please let him be in peace for one day! Or do you find it funny that he has recieved a death threat? I don't. --Öcsi 21:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

    I believe the words "You hv no idea abt history" is a personal attack. Instead of discussing the actual content dispute, VinceB has accused editors of not knowing history on several occasions. This is not a good way how to collaborate in Misplaced Pages. As to the threats placed by an IP to his user page, I am quite shocked by them. But the attack reported here preceded those threats, so VinceB cannot say he questioned knowledge of other editors because of mental distress or something. Tankred 21:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks. Better to review your warning also, wheter it was calming, or just another wood dropped into the fire to make it bigger, especially the last line. And again, only I was warned by you, PANONIAN not. Your discussion page is full of assuming users of being sockpuppets, whether you wrote it or not, you not declined yrself from these accusations and not warned others to stop writing such things, and/or report them here, as you do it now. And we talked it through several times what's the problem with yr interpretation of things, such as me & sockpuppetry. --Vince 01:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

    According to these diffs, VinceB has violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL in mild ways. This isn't on the level that got him blocked before and a user page warning is appropriate for the current incidents. Although I'm not blocking for this I also want to make it clear that it isn't acceptable. If someone comes back in a few weeks and posts a series of diffs that demonstrate similar behavior as habitual, and if it's reasonably clear that other editors haven't provoked the put-downs and snide comments, then I will block. Durova 03:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    I completely agree with your summary of the events. But I would like to ask either you or someone else to actually warn VinceB. Only the CheckUser can show whether the PANONIAN really used sock puppets in a disruptive way. Without any evidence from CheckUser, it is very rude to say that a user with a record of 27,114 edits since 2004 and six barnstars "wrote death threats" or that he broke 3RR. It would be nice if VinceB can refrain himself from making new strong accusatory comments as he has just done (see diffs in the last sentence) until the CheckUser clarifies the whole situation. Tankred 00:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    Block warning issued along with a couple of productive suggestions. Durova 16:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

    Just for the matter of record, CheckUser showed that PANONIAN has not used sock puppets and he did not send any death threats to VinceB (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/PANONIAN). Tankred 18:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    Thanks for the update. Post again if Vince's behavior escalates or continues. I hope the clear checkuser de-escalates the problem. Best wishes, Durova 19:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    Venu62 (talk · contribs)

    This user has been stalking and harassing me, including making personal attaks. I have warned him using NPA2 and NPA3, but he does not seem to stop.

    1. He uses offensive slang "Dont get your knickers in a knot over this" here and also says "I am just a productive editor. Not a spammer" thereby implying that since he's not a spammer, I am a spammer.

    2. Again he calls me a spammer here

    3. He calls another editor "a notorious reverter and the most unproductive editor in WP" in my talk page. Blanks out my comments on his talk page

    4. He stalks me just to cause distress and annoy - , , , , .

    5. He further replies offensively to my complaint against his stalking.

    6. Once he landed on an article I was developing single-handedly, he started creating all kind of disruptive and annoying edits/reverts without adding a single word of content productively - , , , , , , , , ,

    7. He put unneccesary merge tags on two articles which I had created and kept reverting them to include the tags again and again despite my explanations about the distinction between the articles - just with an intent to annoy me - , , , , ,

    8. Begins another round of stalking me in a series of articles, this time replacing text I had edited (just to annoy me, terms my edits "spam") - , , , , , , . This is my corresponding reply to him.

    9. I own a website called rasikas.org which relates to Carnatic music. Someone (anon) had put a link to my site in external links section of the article. This user promptly removed the link and again in another related article.

    10. In the pretext of monitoring my actions, he floods my talk page with copyvio warnings to annoy me - , , , , , , , .

    11. He stalks me again just to annoy me by his comments.

    12. A link to my website was added again by someone to Carnatic Music, but he removes it again and again, calling it a spam link repeatedly, although it was not I who put it there.

    13. He blanks out my messages to him on his talk page and he asks me to do my worst.

    14. I reported his actions to an admin time and again - , , , but this user is in the good books of the admin and involved in collaborative projects with the admin, and the admin declined to act on my pleas.

    15. Such boorish behaviour does not seem to stop - he keeps doing things that cause me a lot of annoyance. It will be clear from the above that he keeps harassing me on some pretext or the other. I hope I can expect some peace on WP sans User:Venu62's harassment. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 23:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

    my reply
    • My edit history is open for everyone. I have always used my userid to edit.
    • This apparent 'dispute' with User:Srkris started with my repeated removing links to www.rasikas.org, which this user owns and operates, from numerous pages on WP, even from irrelevant pages such as Iyer, etc
    • This action prompted me to add User:Srkris to my watch list and I have removed linkes to the above website, which violates WP guidelines on confloct of interest
    • I have never 'stalked' this user. None of my edits and edit summaries have been intentionally harassing. Again my edit summary is open for perusal
    • I have never personally attacked this user unlike this which is just one example of this user's name calling.
    • Adding copyvio tags to a copyright violated item is not harrassment
    • Adding merge tags to two articles on the same subject (Chembai Sangeetholsavam and Chembai) is not an act of harrassment. Unlike this user's response of a tit-for-tat tagging, Chola dynasty, a FA with a merge tag.
    Cheers Parthi 00:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    Further info
    • The expression "Don't get your knickers in a knot" is an aussie expression which means, "Dont get angry over this". It is not considered offensive and is used quite regularly in reputed newspapers in austraila. I understand the cultural differences between myself and Srkris, but there was no insult intended.
    • User:Srkris not only used his regular user id to insert links to his websites (www.rasikas.org and www.chembai.org), he also used a series of anonymous ips to insert these links as well:
    This user has a habit of inserting links to his websitesinto numerous articles. - From Tal:Chembai
    • My edits to Chembai were constructive. Due to my intervention the article has considerably improved now. My objections to Srkris using his own website as the main reference for the article was echoed by another user.
    • Editing some of the articles edited by Srkris does not translate to harrassment. Most of them cited by Srkris above are in my watchlist
    • I have been so far unprovoked by Srkris's incessant personal attacks on me: , , , etc. He has frequently called me a liar and other names.
    I have no blue with this bloke. IMO the reason for this user chucking a wobblie is because of my stopping his coming the raw prawn with the links to his websites. His accusations of my harrassment is just cock and bull and it is a simple case of dummy spit. Cheers mate Parthi 03:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


    Who's telling "cock and bull" storties will be clear once an admin responds. I have told User:Venu62 time and again that there are millions of other editors on Misplaced Pages to bother with my edits if I'm wrong, and asked him to get off my back, but he persists in harassing me. Please see the diffs I have provided. They are not the end of the story, I have more diffs to show this user's grudge against me and his consequent oppressive/hawkish/harassing behaviour. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 12:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

    Venu62's actions do not constitute Wikistalking. Srkris is in serious need of a mentor for violations of WP:RS, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:COI, WP:AGF, and WP:CIVIL. Despite this long list of policy and guideline violations, Srkris's edits appear to be well-intentioned so rather than blocking I am leaving a final warning at Srkris's talk page. Durova 16:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


    Does this mean Venu62 has been given a clean chit for "all" his actions? If it does, I'm planning to quit wikipedia to allow him to improve it as he pleases. Thank you for not blocking me for a complaint I made against another user. I am surely gratified to get this much help. ­ ॐ Kris (☎ talk | contribs) 13:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    Everything I see is normal cleanup with no personal attack. It's surprising that you would have misinterpreted these neutral actions in such a negative light. I hope you take a breather and get a mentor to help you adjust to the way Misplaced Pages works. It looks like you could make some valuable improvements to our articles. Durova 14:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

    Simonapro (talk · contribs)

    User:Simonapro has a history of making baseless allegations of misconduct (incivility, vandalism, harassment, and most recently trolling and sockpuppeteering) in talk page comments and edit summaries. Simonapro was previously warned by User:Addhoc civil2, but has recently engaged in similar conduct: (also WP:POINT), . Simonapro was warned with NPA2, but continued to allege misconduct . Simonapro was warned with NPA3 but continues to make baseless allegations of misconduct , (this one might be taken as a veiled threat), . Chondrite 07:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

    Update: Simonapro has been blocked indefinitely . Chondrite 09:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

    SteveSmurf (talk · contribs)

    This user name is offensive. It is clearly created only to mock my real name, Steve Scherf, and my user name Scherf (talk · contribs). See the Gracenote page and edit history for further evidence of their intent to insult with this user name. This name is in violation of the Misplaced Pages username policy (see Misplaced Pages:Username), as it is against policy to create user names that harass, insult or mock others. It is also against policy to create names that can be confused with other Misplaced Pages user names. This name should be changed or deleted. Steve Scherf 19:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

    Note to admins: User:SteveSmurf almost certainly qualifies as an "attack account"; the user has contributed on an extremely narrow range of articles, all related to Steve Scherf and Gracenote. The editor has consistently reverted edits made by User:Scherf. However, there appears to be a potentially serious conflict of interest issue here, as User:Scherf is editing articles related to hinself and his company in a way that could be seen as biased. --Doc Tropics 20:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
    WP:RFC normally handles offensive usernames. Doc, is there some open investigation regarding the possible WP:COI? If not, post evidence here. Durova 03:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    I'm not aware of any open investigation of COI (is there a page for that?), and my statement was based on the assumption that User:Scherf is indeed Steve Scherf, in which case, edits like this are almost certainly problematic. The changes and new material contain words and phrases which paint the company in an extremely positive light. Furthermore, comments to his talkpage by ONUnicorn here explained this to him over a month ago. The arcticle was Protected for a while, but as soon as Protection was lifted, he immediately re-inserted the questionable material with an extremely misleading Edit Summary here.
    At the Steve Scherf article he reverted info here that was critical of his actions (but appears to be factual), then came to this page to file a complaint. I don't know if these edits would be considered a significant COI issue or not, but it did seem to be worth mentioning. --Doc Tropics 04:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    I fail to see how any of this is relevant to my request to have the attack account removed. But if for some reason any of you feel the need to better understand what is going on here, then let me add to your understanding. First, I did not revert the page just after the block was lifted simply because it was lifted. The block was apparently only against new users, and I am not a new user. I presume I could have reverted the page any time. I reverted it as soon as I noted that User:Fatandhappy reverted the changes of others, and it was only coincidental that my edits appeared after the block was removed. Further, I take exception to the implication that my edits, and the edits of others, are somehow inappropriately positive. I only expect that the Gracenote page would receive the same treatment from Misplaced Pages editors as other similar pages, such as the All Music Guide page. They are a competitor, and have experienced a fair amount of controversy in their time. But I see none of that on their page. Nor do I see mention of competitors anywhere on their page. I think I and others have been more than fair by including mention of competitors and controversy on the Gracenote page. But they certainly have no place dominating the page, especially in cases where the facts are totally incorrect. For your information, I have filed a mediation request to open a discussion with the users that have been vandalizing the page. These several users have been reverting text so that irrelevant, misleading, non-factual and harmful information dominates the Gracenote page. Their bias shows through far more than you imply mine does. Just look at the Gracenote talk page, and you'll see one of these "impartial" users insulting me, and calling me dirty for some act that they imagine I or Gracenote has done (outside of Misplaced Pages). These users have absolutely no place editing the Gracenote page, with that kind of clear bias and agenda. With these kind of attacks constantly taking place against the Gracenote page, and the sluggish and seemingly uninterested editors doing nothing to help, what are we supposed to do? We initially left the Gracenote page alone since its creation here, but the appalling nature of the page, and our legal obligation to defend our brand and trademarks, has left us no option but to take every measure we can to keep the page factual and relevant. With this said, hopefully you will understand the issues, though they are rather academic WRT this personal attack notice. I have requested mediation with the other users in question, but this SteveSmurf user was obviously created solely as an insulting, hurtful attack vehicle, and per clear Misplaced Pages rules I expect it to be removed. Steve Scherf 09:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    At WP:PAIN it's standard practice to look at all sides of an issue. A certain percentage of the time there's more to a matter than meets the eye. I've already given the link to the place that handles offensive usernames and I'm glad the underlying content dispute is going into mediation. To Steve Scherf, I recommend you disclose the conflict of interest at your userpage and seek a mentor through Misplaced Pages:Adopt-a-user. If your statements are correct and you believe you need to balance a page that is under attack then note that, so far, your actions have left you vulnerable to accusations of violating WP:COI, WP:NPOV, and WP:OWN. That can lead to a topic ban or a site ban; see User:MyWikiBiz. Durova 15:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    Durova, I have added full disclosure to my user page, though I make no secret of who I am. See the Gracenote discussion page for proof of the fact that I have been very straightforward WRT to this. I do not hide behind anonymity. Steve Scherf 03:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

    Iwazaki (talk · contribs)

    He/she has posted that what we written there was nonsense. , despite the final warning given by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs) and my requests to be polite twice and the polite explanation from Crimsone (talk · contribs) about what is personal attack . --16 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

    I was refering to the controversial template.And yes,i believe, with very good reason, that most of the things there are nonsense..I dont think i breach any of the wiki policies here.But, i can certainly show you someone who keep breaking all the wiki policies and going into low standards such as name calling.And surprisingly the above user seem not worry at all about it,even though it is written in his talk page.have a look .

    while failing to see obvious personal attacks on a entire race, the above user accusess me for something i didnt do at all. --Iwazaki 00:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    That looks like a content dispute. The post focuses on other editors' actions. Although the statement is exasperated in tone, it addresses what this editor perceives are the merits of the matter at hand without crossing the line. Recommend WP:DR. Durova 02:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    The word,goon,which literally means criminal or silly person ,is one of the worst personal attacks one would expect to get. It makes even worst, that the editor has attcked an entire race with his use of this improper word.. doesnt this desereve a ban ??

    thank you --Iwazaki 09:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

    Did this editor actually create and use a copyvio userbox with an ethnic slur or just float the idea briefly on a user talk page before thinking better of it? Page diffs, please. If I don't see more hard evidence then the recommendation stands. Durova 16:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    I am User:Sudharsansn and though I am not involved in this WP:PAIN comment by Sechzehn, I find that my name is being mentioned here only as a poor escape route by Iwazaki. To all admins, I have a few points to make here:
    1). User:Sechzehn has blamed User:Iwazaki about a personal attack Iwazaki has made in his talk page. User Iwazaki is resorting to extreme childish behaviour by trying to drag me into this Personal attack case for no reason and in this process has carefully avoided answering anything relevant to the case. If he has something to defend with regd to the evidence pointed out by User Sechzehn he should put it forth. Instead he has not given even a single reply to the evidence that has been pointed out against him, but has done finger-pointing to me, which in itself is really one of the oldest and most ineffective escape techniques.
    2). Though I do not have to respond to his accusations in this thread, it is pretty much common-sense for anyone to understand that my comments should not be read as an isolated phrase but as one clause in a sequence of conversations. My usage of the term 'Sinhala goons' was a contextual remark and not an attack or anywhere close to being one. As per Durova's very own remark, there really is no evidence as such because it should be read in a sequence of events and discussions and not as a stand-out phrase. This is like highlighting only bad when we say that children should not be bad, I can't believe that somebody is actually pointing out to such a trivial remark when there is something on him. Neither did I have an idea of floating such a userbox nor did I create one. It was a casual remark mentioned as a counter for the "This user supports the killing of Tamils", which points to people of my race, which was in Iwazaki's userpage and was created by User:Lahiru_k
    3). Also note that I have not been hard on a comparatively new user but Iwazaki is going beyond limits by editing and reverting/blanking my talk page which qualifies as WP:Vand I have been forgiving such behaviour in an attempt to not be hard on him, but he seems to be taking many people for a ride. This behaviour definitely deserves some note from an admin.
    4). User:Iwazaki would again continue to only respond to my points here and avoid the actual case accusation done by USer Sechzehn. I request the admins to look into the actual case involving User:Sechzehn and Iwazaki. If wanted anyone can initiate another case in which I am willing to respond. Before issuing any warnings or anything at all, I request the admins to read through the conversation in which that term was used.
    I kindly request the admins to look into the actual violations of Iwazaki before he tries to carefully avoid all the questions pointed at him and diverting them to me. Thanks Sudharsansn (talk • contribs) 10:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


    Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs)

    This user takes great offence when he is asked to cite sources for his edits. His childish vandalism of my userspace is not a big deal but his edit summaries are getting out of hand (particularly the link in the latest one): , , , . L0b0t 03:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

    Categories: