| Revision as of 14:29, 17 December 2006 editTajik (talk | contribs)11,859 edits →{{User|Tajik}}← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:59, 13 August 2024 edit undoNewyorkbrad (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,486 edits update to remove reference to RfCs, as user-conduct RfCs were discontinued several years ago | ||
| (637 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{historical}} | |||
| {{editabuselinks}}<br /> | |||
| <!-- Please remove/add HTML comments around {{adminbacklog}}. --> | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard/Header}} | |||
| :'''This process has been discontinued per ].''' | |||
| ==New Reports== | |||
| <!-- place new reports below this line --> | |||
| ==={{User|Tajik}}=== | |||
| 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. | |||
| The user is continously accusing me as "''Pan-Turkist nonsense, POV nonsense or nonsense of E104421''". The examples are ,,. The user was warned many times for the incivility issues and blocked . Unfortunately, nothing has changed yet. ] 14:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : What you are doing is indeed Pan-Turkist nonsense. Just 3 days ago, you were because of nationalistic-motivated POV and ] in the article ]. As admin ] told you: ''"... E, please stop creating that White Huns article. <u>Your own statements on its talkpage show it is a POV fork and as such illegitimate</u>. ..."'' You were asked to discuss your edits. Yet, you purposely ignored a discussion on the issue and stubbornly continued your POV pushes - 3 days later!. In those 3 days, you did not even dare to take a look at the discussion! Ignoring discussions, ignoring authoritive scholarly sources, and continuing psedu-scientific POV-push IS the same as ''nationalistic motivated propaganda''. ] 14:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Unfortunately, the noticeboard generated a considerable amount of controversy. While ] is usually a clear cut case, and administrator intervention (i.e. blocking) is usually uncontroversial, determining whether a comment is a personal attack, incivil, or just simply blunt and frank, can be quite ]. That led to a lot of arguments, flame wars, tit-for-tat disputes and ] on this page. Even after several warnings as well as changes to the header designed to instruct users on how to use this page, this noticeboard continued to deteriorate. Due to this deterioration as well as some particularly poor exchanges in December 2006, the entire page was ], with the result that the noticeboard was closed on {{#formatdate:10 January 2007}}. | |||
| ::I forgot to mention his stalking! Whenever i try to discuss anything, he accuses me as he did above. I tried many times but it's very very difficult for me to compromise with someone who attacks me personally all the time like this. Civility is a must. That's why i'm consulting to Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. Regards. ] 14:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Any proofs for your stalking accusations?! I mean ... after all, you had been proven to be a stalker 2 weeks ago. Do not hide your plans behind false accusations. You ignored the discussion because you have no arguments against authoritative scholarly sources. That's why you usually ignore discussions and directly mess up entire articles with your pseudo-scientific POV. ] 14:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| The closure of this noticeboard does not mean that personal attacks are tolerated; they should never be. It simply means that complaints over personal attacks are moved to different, and more appropriate venues such as the ], ] or, as a last resort, ]. | |||
| ==={{User|84.9.194.195}}=== | |||
| User:84.9.194.195 made a personal attack on ], . I placed an npa2 on his talk page and the retort was to criticise MRSC again and state I have an empty mind, . Edit pattern matches the banned ] who has been using sockpuppets ]. ] 13:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| === |
===Procedure=== | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| 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) | |||
| ==={{User|Eupator}}=== | |||
| On 12/4 Eupator called dacy69 comments "moronic" (http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Paytakaran). 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) | |||
| ==={{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) | |||
| ==Open reports== | |||
| <!-- Move reports here after they've gotten replies --> | |||
| ==={{User|Jake b}}=== | |||
| Comment was left on users talk page to remind him that article talk pages are for discussions about improving the article, not for general discussion of the article, his comment on the article talk page . In response to reminder user made this comment . In response to NPA3 he left this .--] 19:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :And another personal attack .--] 19:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::After another snip user blanked section and again --] 20:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::has added a hostile message on his talk page as well as an additional insult on my talk page.--] 20:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Editing as an ip {{user|67.40.16.38}} adds comments to AN/I and AN again insulting my behaviour. --] 21:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::User reminded of no-personal-attacks policy.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 21:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::User and respective IP will be closely monitored.--<strong><font style="color: #082567">]</font>]<font style="color: #082567">]</font></strong> 21:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::::User has again blanked the warnings and from the comment on Husond's esperanza page I'm sensing a lack of understanding the concept. And continues with his insults here .--] 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Seems to have stopped, for now. Will try to keep an eye on it. ] 06:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|BonniePrinceCharlie}}=== | |||
| On 12/6, called another editor "stupid" and "a mentally-challenged sophist" . On 12/7, an editor left a note on BonniePrinceCharlie's (BPC) talk page advising against personal attacks . BPC responded to this comment by calling the editor a "whining sophist" , and then removed a signature added to this comment by HagermanBot . On 12/10, BPC called another editor a "fucking shithead" in response to an "assume good faith" message. Earlier today, BPC modified a "no personal attacks" warning left by another editor to include the phrase "I love penis" . BPC then edited his/her talk page to remove a vandalism warning I left regarding that incident . --] 23:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Already warned.''' Will try to keep an eye on it, but let me know if I miss anything pertinent. I agree it's time for a block if this keeps up. ] 06:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|Sloveniaiscool}}=== | |||
| Consistent non-compliance with ], ] and ] by ] / ] / ] / ]. This editor has been seeding Misplaced Pages talk pages (specifically , ) with comments about a micronation known as Academe North for a number of months, suggesting that it should be included in WP. He has not made any other contribution to WP apart from this. He has been asked by myself and ] to provide references to support his claims. So far he has not provided any reliable references. In the last few days his comments have become more abusive, and he has begun vandalising my talk page by posting "warnings" in which he accuses ''me'' of abusing ''him'', and of being uncivil. He has also posted a trolling comment on ], in the knowledge that I am a member of that organisation. In fact, all I've done is point out that he doesn't seem to know or care about WP's policies concerning verifiability, reliable references, civility, abuse or vandalism - and warning that if he continues to ignore these policies his account may be blocked. It would be useful if a third party (preferably an admin) could clearly explain WP policies to this editor. --] 03:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Left a note.''' Let's see how this goes. ] 06:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|TweekThePunk}}=== | |||
| Attacked me on his talkpage after attacking the person who put ] up for speedy deletion (i.e., me) and receiving {{tl|npa3}} for it. ] (]) 23:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Note''' -- there is no more new problems since the {{t1|npa3}}. If anything new happens feel free to report it here. —— ] <sup>(])</sup> 03:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::'''Note''' The NPA was added on 17:34 at creation of ]. He then approximately 13 minutes later. ] (]) 14:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Page deleted.''' The attack was from 2 days ago -- warning him via user talk might only remind him to come trolling again, if that makes sense. Will try to keep an eye on it, but let me know if I miss anything pertinent. ] 06:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|Theplanetsaturn}}=== | |||
| I'm being called "liar", "hypocrite," being referred to sarcastically, and much, much more. The user was blocked on ] yesterday, is edit-warring with two editors at ], and refuses to accept another editor's compromise solution. | |||
| First warning given at ] at 22:56, 13 December 2006 after attack at ] | |||
| * | |||
| in which his comments included "lets take a look at your lies," "Perhaps it is the stink of your hypocrisy," and "you are a poor judge of character should rethink your career, Mr. Journalist." | |||
| Another attack occured | |||
| * | |||
| which inclued "Calling you a hypocrite is accurate. ... Your glass house must be getting chilly from all your casually thrown stones." | |||
| I gave a second warning at ] at 23:29, 13 December 2006. Please help. --] 23:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Looks like he's still committed to discussion. You might consider an ] regarding his behavior, but for now it looks like you'll all do better to try and work together. Consider ], perhaps? ] 02:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{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) | |||
| BIG WARNING. | |||
| I want to warn against the use of the White People's page by some users like fourdee, Lukas, etc. You can see them all in the white's people's page. That page has been under siege by Nazi-Germanicist-Nordicist POV pushig and propaganda for a very long time. They want to use Wiki to their advantage. In fact, in the History section of the article anyone can see who was the first one to be attacked and by whom. Still we a dealing here with a much more serious issue, the attempts mentioned above and one of the types of POV pushing Wiki cannot afford. ] 23:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|Mael-Num}}=== | |||
| A habitual crosser of the line, attacked Moncrief and me . Fully unrepentant, arguing that calling me a "dishonest and single-minded user" was | |||
| :You do realize that your obscurantism on the matter, which any admin worth his salt will surely research on his own, merely verifies that you aren't being wholly honest, with the admins, on the ] page, and most importantly, with yourself. Completely omitted were the facts that you engaged in revert warring over archived discussions that weren't even concluded yet and then lied about the outcome consensus of those discussions. All of this was done following a previous discussion, which had already reached the same conclusion (the one you distorted). | |||
| :I'd recommend you follow the advice you've already been given and, among other things, participate in the discussion istead of attempt to override it. Just because the truth describes you in a negative light, it doesn't make it a personal attack. ] 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Appears to be an abusive sockpuppet of one of the recently blocked edit warriors on the page. Support an indef block. --] 05:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==={{User|Gene Poole}}=== | |||
| User gene poole has continually personal attacked me on the ] talk page, after I persistently warned him to stop and I suggested he follow wikipedia's etiquette and civility policies he deleted the warning and started to accuse me of personnel attacking him on my talk page and started to threaten a report and block of my user account, this user just seams to be looking for a fight. Your advice would be greatly appreciated. ] 00:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Please provide diffs''' to support this report. I'll look over their contribs, when I have some more time, but since you're more familiar with the situation, you're more likely to know exactly what to look for. See ], the ], or use a {{]}} on your user talk page if you need any assistance with that. Thanks. ] 08:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| BIG WARNING. | |||
| I want to warn against the use of the White People's page by some users like Lukas, etc. You can see them all in the white's people's page. That page has been under siege by Nazi-Germanicist-Nordicist POV pushig and propaganda for a very long time. They want to use Wiki to their advantage. In fact, in the History section of the article anyone can see who was the first one to be attacked and by whom. Still we a dealing here with a much more serious issue, the attempts mentioned above. ] 23:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| =={{User|Curse of Fenric}}== | |||
| User calls me an "idiot" (I am the person who nominated the unsourced article for deletion as seen here - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Professional_Championship_Wrestling_%28Australia%29 ) At same diff link, it also appears as if user solicited a vote for the above-linked afd.] 23:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
| : Allegation denied. User was not named in the statement. Further - as has been pointed out by another user - AfD's are NOT votes. So no soliciting of ''votes'' took place. Report made in the heat of the moment and should be withdrawn by the user, or removed by an admin. ] 21:10, 16 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: