Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks: Difference between revisions
→[[User:ThuranX|ThuranX]]: adding user |
|||
Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
Any assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Markovich292|Markovich292]] 05:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC) |
Any assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Markovich292|Markovich292]] 05:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC) |
||
===[[User:RR2|RR2]]=== |
|||
* {{vandal|RR2}} |
|||
* {{vandal|RR3}} |
|||
User seems intent on insulting those on the [[Spider-Man 3]] talk page. Has only made two contributions beyond that. Created the sockpuppet to restore his own edits, and even carry on a discussion with it to make it seem as if someone agreed with him. Seems to be a single purpose account. – [[User:Someguy0830|Someguy0830]] ([[User talk:Someguy0830|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Someguy0830|contribs]]) 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Open reports== |
==Open reports== |
Revision as of 22:30, 15 September 2006
![]() | This 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![]() | This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.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. |
This 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 Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy
For editors who want a personal attack situation reviewed:
For users handling assistance requests:
Please consider adding this page to your watchlist to make life easier for non-administrator RC-patrollers. |
New reports
Rastishka
Rastishka (talk · contribs) has been blocked on at least one occasion for edit warring, and at least once again for making personal attacks on me. He's been guilty of edit warring at Lazar Kaganovich, which resulted in a vote being taken to determine whether his unsourced edits would be used or others. He didn't even attempt to back up his edits, and instead made personal attacks and behaved like a petulant child.
Today, I find that he has reverted edits I've made to the following pages:
- Debbie King
- Stuart Kahan
- Lazar Kaganovich (RE-ADDING EDITS THAT WERE VOTED OUT BY CONSENSUS)
The edits he makes to these pages are NOT sourced appropriately. The only sources he provides for his edits to Lazar Kaganovich and Stuart Kahan are a discredited book and anti-semitic websites.
THEN he proceeded to vandalize my talk page with nonsense claims about ME vandalizing and then mocked me personally.
I've reported him before, and my pleas have gone largely ignored. The last time, someone pretty much just said "he stopped, so don't worry about it." He HASN'T stopped. He just waits a month or two and then starts all over again.
As you can see from his talk page, he's been warned and warned, and the vast majority of the commentary there is in regards to his edit warring, warnings for disruption, and bots asking him fix his unsourced image uploads. User:Alex Bakharev has blocked him twice for edit warring and personal attacks. He has also edited his own talk page to remove warning notices [3].
I'm a pretty regular contributor here and enjoy Wikipedia, but I'm sick of this kind of thing. Can someone please ban this person? Temporary blocks have done nothing to remedy the problem. It should be pretty obvious by looking at his contributions list [4] that he's just a troll. TheQuandry 16:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
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. [5]
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)
This user has repeatedly taken personal shots at me because my view on a continuing debate is different than his. I have said many times in that discussion that I do not appreciate the personal remarks like these, but they have not stopped. ThuranX has also been amply warned/banned for uncivil behavior.
Here are some of the earlier remarks:
Another editor that describes ThuranX as making personal attacks:
Here are the warnings/blocks:
The following is the most recent and blatant attack. It references my alleged attitudes (that ThuranX claims I hold) about a particular person (the same one he makes claims of me having a "hero worship" attitude about) and attempts to use this to discredit my views and discredit claims (by myself and others) that policy does not support his actions, a clear violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.
Any assistance would be much appreciated. Markovich292 05:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- RR2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- RR3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User seems intent on insulting those on the Spider-Man 3 talk page. Has only made two contributions beyond that. Created the sockpuppet to restore his own edits, and even carry on a discussion with it to make it seem as if someone agreed with him. Seems to be a single purpose account. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Open reports
218.186.8.13 (talk · contribs)
Was warned for making a personal attack at WP:DRV and responded with a legal threat, both at User talk:218.186.8.13. ~ trialsanderrors 21:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- Blocked for a week for making legal threats. Shell babelfish 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Continues to attack Eric Lerner, the subject of this article, and a fellow editor, despite extra care being required for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks telling us that we should not be "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Both of these are Official Policy.
- ScienceApologist refuses to accept that Eric Lerner was a Visiting Astronomer at the European Southern Observatory (ESO), despite verifiable evidence on a Nasa Web site [7], and a second source here [8].
- Eric Lerner himself has also confirmed that he was Visiting Astronomer [9]
- This is one of a series of edits which appear to be designed to discredit Eric Lerner, and also include:
- This appear to be a continuation of trying to discredit various controversial scientists, including:
- Dr. László Körtvélyessy, from whom ScienceApologist removed credentials, that Körtvélyessy "is physicist who is candidate of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences"[15]
- Disrespectful to career scientists, labelling "(the late Prof. Paul) Marmet and Carezani as well-known woo-woos" [16], Halton Arp's work as "pathological skepticism" [17], Big Bang critics as "a list full of 'critics' who range from geologists to the out-and-out insane (such as Van Flandern)." [18]
At the least, I would like to see ScienceApologist banned from editing the article Eric Lerner, ideally banned from editing all articles on science. --Iantresman 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would seriously like to be able to help here. I agree that the diffs you provided show unacceptable behavior - it is one thing to balance an article, another entirely to selectively remove bits thus skewing the overall impression. Unfortunately, this looks like a job for RfC or even ArbCom depending on whats already been tried. I don't believe any block made for personal attacks would stand. Shell babelfish 03:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- If they are personal attacks, then they are against official policy. If they are skewing the overall impressing, this is defined as "Wikipedia:POV pushing" which it defines as "undermining Wikipedia's neutrality policy", again which is against policy. And the examples shows repeated attempts. To do nothing sends out the messages that "unacceptable behavior" may be tolerated, official policy is merely a guideline, and there is no reason for the user to discontinue? --Iantresman 06:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- And thus you run into the age old problem - blocking is preventative, not punative. Complex cases like these are generally handled through the dispute resolution process because its simply set up better to handle these issues. If you liken this page more to WP:AIV, you'll understand why its really better for clear cut cases of currently occuring personal attacks. I'm going to leave ScienceApologist a final warning about his conduct related to Eric Lerner - please drop a note on my talk page if he continues. Shell babelfish 11:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- The issue of an editor refusing to comply with Wikipedia policy is, I believe, the situation here. Whatever language he uses, his edits defy WP:V. This is an unusual situation, usually editors who defy policy do so in good faith and when educated, comply with policy. Perhaps WP:V needs to state more strongly to not remove sourced, referenced, cited information. Terryeo 14:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've had the same editor remove verifiable information from many other articles, for all kinds of reasons. You can read some of his comments on some of my sources under his previous username, JoshuaShroeder [19] in the subsection "Joshua Shroeder's evidence against me" --Iantresman 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- This issue, while not specifically appropriate for this board is being handled, see my talk page for updates. Shell babelfish 16:56, 12 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/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lordkazan&diff=prev&oldid=75725858 {direct attack against my person} http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lordkazan&diff=prev&oldid=75726763
(edit) fixed ip! doh Lordkazan 17:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Please also see my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CaveatLector#Chris_Kattan where this user has insinuated that I am a member of the Ku Klux Klan (also connecting LGBT activisits with the Klan (?????) and thereby indirectly insulting a good portion of the WP community). Also please note the user's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:75.3.23.157 where several other users have also experssed to the user displeasure with personal attacks launched against them after reversion of his/her vandalism, even after the Wiki policy was quoted to him/her. CaveatLectorTalk 21:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- User is also harassing Yonmei Lordkazan 23:20, 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.