Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks

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: 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. 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.) 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. 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. 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. 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: 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. Reports on this page stand on their own merits in accordance with Wikipedia'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: 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. 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. 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. Move the report to the Open Reports section and give an update to the status of the report. 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

M.K (talk · contribs)

The user in question has accused me of several quite nasty things, among them of committing ignorant insults against Lithuanian nation, committing such insults against Lithuanian language, not allowing anything Lithuanian on WP, pursuing a mission of not allowing anything Lithuanian in Wikipedia, suggesting that no Lithuanian toponyms for Vilnius should be used, that there were no Lithuanians living in the area of Central Lithuania. And so on. In short, the accusations centred around calling me a nationalist, which is what I despise. I asked him repeatedly (Talk:Laurynas_Gucevičius#Further_discussion_and_comments and User_talk:M.K#Halibutt_and_Talk:Laurynas_Gucevi.C4.8Dius) to either find a single diff supporting the accusations or simply withdraw them (per WP:NPA), but to no avail. The user has been warned by several Wikipedians not to slander other people, but to no result either. Any ideas what could be done? I believe my good name's at stake here. //Halibutt 14:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of diffs, could you please provide some? I might eventually find these edits, but so far digging hasn't given me much luck, and I've got to head off and be busy offline. Luna Santin 15:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflicted)Page diffs are a lot more useful than quotes, especially regarding a dispute that's simmered since July. Looks like an article content WP:RFC is long overdue. If you don't get responses there, try WP:3O or formal mediation. I ended up skimming so if there's been any really blatant and raw personal attack post the link here, but this is probably the wrong venue to resolve this problem. Durova 16:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Open reports

Nandesuka

User is adopting an aggressive pattern in Talk:Online_creation. User has twice accused me of sockpuppetry, and refuses to allow me to defend myself. Corporate fudiciary 22:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please supply page diffs. Durova 22:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see User:Nandesuka/Young Zaphod Sockpuppetry for the context behind this user's claims. I categorically deny that I have engaged in personal attacks. I have categorized this user as a sockpuppet, due to the overwhelming evidence that he is. I'm willing to elaborate on that evidence via email at the request of any admin, mediator, or long-time editor in good standing. Thanks. Nandesuka 22:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I see context for these claims. Yet I still don't see any page diffs specifically regarding either the original complaint or the response. I've seen two suspected sockpuppet tags in this editor's talk page. Unless I understand why they were placed there (and that shouldn't be done lightly) I'll have to agree that User:Corporate fudiciary was correct in removing them. Regarding Nandesuka's Wikiquette, however, I see at Talk:Online_creation that this editor responded admirably well to an obscene insult leveled by a different user. Durova 23:01, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Bakaman

This user is adopting quite an agressive pattern against me in the Koenraad Elst talk page.

Among other agressions, he made bizarre allegations between me and another user Hornplease: [1].

Reply - He (Hornplease) is not a third party. He tried to get Koenraad Elst works banned from wiki, he is no third party like I correctly stated.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked him to elaborate on that. His mere answer was: [2].

Reply - No. My reply was here [3]

At that time of the discussion that was your answer. Your diff is there. TwoHorned 08:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Then he made the following attack against me: [4]. Needless to say, I'm not related to Muslim Guild.

Reply - Oh really what about your newfound interactions with Muslim Guild users [5],[6],[7]. The second shows the makings of a cabal.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Writing to someone related with that guild dos not mean I belong to it. I was exchanging info with these users about another disruptive user who has been blocked for his behaviour. I exchange info with many users every day. You still persist in making personnal attacks in your reply. TwoHorned 08:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I post a warning on his talk page: [8].

He removed it immediately.

Reply - No diffs were cited.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The warning was about the on-going discussion. It is not mandatory to put edits in npa2.

Then goes a more or less racist allegation: [9].

Reply - Well you were defining Hindus here and implying I wasn't a real Hindu here. I merely stated that I could care less what some person thousands of miles away on a computer thought of Hindus. Also, European is not a race, its merely a geographical defintion. Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't want europeans to participate in the English Wikipedia on Indian matters just because they are not from India ? Intesresting. TwoHorned 08:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

TwoHorned 22:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Mild violations of WP:CIVIL - npa2 was the right way to go here. Don't worry that the other editor blanked it and do your best to offer the olive branch before this dispute heats up too much. If you have to post another request for admin action, just refer to the page diff of your warning. Try this essay and put out a WP:RFC or a WP:3O request. Best wishes, Durova 22:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see my factual responses to this hate attack above.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Either way, this isn't at the point where intervention is needed. Please help de-escalate the conflict by avoiding characterizations such as "hate attack." Let's assume good faith that this has been an honest misunderstanding and remember we're here to write an encyclopedia. Durova 02:50, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Wizardry Dragon (talk · contribs)

During a discussion on Talk:BattleTech technology user Wizardry Dragon has repeatedly claimed that I broke Wikipedia rules and threatend to get me blocked:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BattleTech_technology&diff=83088509&oldid=82836640 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BattleTech_technology&diff=83953304&oldid=83920082 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BattleTech_technology&diff=84050703&oldid=83998857 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BattleTech_technology&diff=83954022&oldid=83953785 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BattleTech_technology&diff=84054948&oldid=84033116 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:BattleTech_technology&diff=84146450&oldid=84103274

I requested low-key moderation on the Village Pump for the content dispute; User:Durova wrote about Wizardry Dragon's claims: "[I]t doesn't seem that WP:POINT is being violated here. An editor appears to be genuinely concerned about how to describe a part of this fictional world in the article." (This is not an Appeal to authority, but evidence that Wizardry Dragon had opportunity to reconsider.)

I asked Wizardry Dragon on his /Talk to stop further claims that I broke rules without supporting evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&diff=84217719&oldid=83957729

In the discussion following (User talk:Wizardry_Dragon#BattleTech) he continues to claim that I break WP rules, again without providing any evidence. He again threatened with a block, added ArbCom to the threat list and claimed that I harassed him. He also said that it was "[my] own problem" if you would take the accusations personally. After I asked once again to stop claiming that I broke WP rules, he added the claim that I broke 3RR (untrue).

He expressed an apology in the discussion on his /Talk which, being intermingled with new accusations and threats, I cannot take seriously.

In the discussion on his /Talk he also started to refer me to WP:Guidelines, WP:STYLE, Wikipedia:Sandbox and Wikipedia:Introduction, claims that I am "disrupting a part of the article", that I "have been warned" and generally leaves the impression that he regards my position as not worth considering.

(It's kind of ironic that Wizardry Dragon frequently mentions WP:FAITH on his user page and in discussions.)

217.235.241.172 21:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem,

The editor must have been warned with the {{npa2}}, and {{npa3}} templates as appropriate. Reports of unwarned editors may be removed.

This user's basically upset with me that I have reverted his changes in the BattleTech Technology article that were against consensus and has been using various channels to try to implement this change. When attempting to reson with him, he's simply either ignored it, or replied with sarcastic remarks. I've been trying my best to give this user plenty of free reign, and have prompted him frequently to propose a change if he has one of worth, but he has not been forthcoming.

I don't know what else to say, really. A lot of editors would've written him off as just a disruptive anon IP, but I've tried my best to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith.

I summarized my objections and offered an apology on my talk page, it was there he replied with the link to this notice. I find it offensive that (s)he's saying that a content dispute is a personal attack, especially since I was never truly warned, except with what I took as a threat:

Stop repeating your claim that I would infringe WP:POINT. I'm not, and you don't have anything to back up that claim. I will regard any further claims without evidence as personal attacks. User:Wizardry Dragon/Templates/UserTalkPage unsigned'

I think a lot of it is just feelings running high, both on my end and on his/her end, and it's starting to come down a bit and reasonable discussion is occuring. As such, I think this notice is a little premature. Some headway has already been made on the article talk page, and as long as no one escalates it, I think reasonable discourse can and will happen. If there has been anyway in which I could improve, I always welcome guidance and criticism. I know sometimes my tone comes off improperly on the internet, and I've been trying to work on that. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I take it that Wizardry Dragon misses the NPA warning. It's here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wizardry_Dragon&diff=84294604&oldid=84276658

Wizardry Dragon, don't try to assume what I'm upset about. I'm editing Wikipedia far too long to be upset just because someone reverts my changes. Your personal attacks though are not acceptable.

You can see my reasoning on the discussion page.

Don't start false claims here. I never said that the content dispute would be a personal attack.

I would appreciate any constrictive participation from you on the topical discussion page. --217.235.241.172

Then appreciate it, because it is there. I have already replied there, please go and read that reply if you have not already. If you take a warning as a personal attack, then I'm guilty as charged. I try to warn people when the things they are doing is wrong, rather than just reverting it without explanation. The only reason I mentioned bringing in an administrator (or any third party for that matter) is that we seemed to be at an impasse: you were continually reverting back to your version, and others, myself and AidanPryde included, were reverting back to the old version. Now that some impasse has been made, I don't see a need for a third party, though I am left with a desire to have some input on how I could have handled it better, since this kind of thing happening is obviously not a desirable end.

I say that you seem to think the content dispute is a personal attack, by the way, since the claims of personal attacks stem from my warnings not to continually revert the article. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, once again: This is about you repeated false statements of fact against me. I never broke a WP rule (during this discussion, that is), and I asked you to provide evidence before making further claims about me. The claims of personal attacks are above, don't invent your own version of my parts of the discussion. --217.235.241.172

Whoa, this is the Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. You've got a content dispute. Let's give WP:RFC a chance to work and maybe go to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Thanks for being proactive, yet I'm glad this situation hasn't degenerated to the point where things need to come here. Best wishes, Durova 22:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we have a content dispute. We also have one editor who is making repeated false claims about another. I don't think the two issues are identical or even similar. --217.235.241.172

I've already suggested mediation, which is a suggestion (s)he has ignored, why, I do not know. I've already apologized for any misinterpretations or coming off harsher than I meant to be. That said, I'm also getting frustrated: why should I be dragged through the mud simply because the other user does not want to accept my apology? Why does this notice continue to persist? It's becoming a personal attack in and of itself. One I don't appreciate. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Mediation. Another lie. I have not ignored mediation, in fact I requested low-key mediation even before the PA situation got out of hand.

Re: Mediation. Here is evidence that I considered mediation even before the shit hit the fan. Here is my response to Durova's suggestion to get mediation. Please retract your statement.

Re: Apology. See above.

Regarding Mediation, it was not a lie, you're just misunderstanding what I am referring to. I suggested taking it to the Mediation Committee, which I didn't get a reply to, so I thought you ignored it:

If you want to make such a controversial change, then I suggest you find compromise, either through talk page discussion, or perhaps, a request for mediation. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Time out. Let's not call each other liars. Just go through the dispute resolution process. The personal attacks haven't reached a point where my intervention is necessary, but if people assume bad faith and stoop to name calling then I will issue blocks. Durova 23:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Stevewk (talk · contribs)

• First series,
  • 16:44, 24 October 2006
  • 16:11, 25 October 2006
• First warning, 16:40, 25 October 2006
• Second series,
  • 18:58 and 18:59, 25 October 2006
  • 15:18, 27 October 2006
• Second warning (npa3), 15:38, 27 October 2006
• Continued,
  • 15:47, 27 October 2006
  • 15:54, 27 October 2006

--Francis Schonken 16:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Tough call. An admin did use the word "bogus" in reply to a complaint about a 3RR report, although Stevewk quoted the word out of context and his discussion of that on an article talk page was inappropriate. I don't think his behavior thus far merits more than an npa2 warning. The 3RR and the npa3 seem to have escalated an edit war. I've protected Republic per his request, which I think is reasonable. I'll also leave a note on his user talk page. Suggest formal mediation. Durova 17:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)