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.

• Antaeus Feldspar Repeated personal attacks on his talk page and mine. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and appreciate suggestions on proper editing. However, this user's virulent personal attacks and gratuitous insults are way beyond the pale. --Tomstoner 18:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I would appreciate careful investigation of this one. What this user describes as "virulent personal attacks" and "gratuitous insults" are what I think a reasonable editor would consider "notifying a new user that it is not acceptable to make attacks on the sanity of one's opponents in article space, nor to determine what deserves to be removed as vandalism despite not meeting the Wikipedia definition of vandalism." I am tired of my attempts to communicate to this editor being maligned as "virulent personal attacks" and "gratuitous insults" and "flames" and "ad hominems". -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • The fact that I made a grand total of one edit this editor disagrees with and one comment that I admit was incorrect does not give this person license to stalk me to my talk page and attack me personally on that page and his own -- identical attacks on each -- despite my requests that he desist. I admitted the "vandalism" comment was incorrect at least three times. What does he want me to do? Slash my wrists? I don't have any problem with the substance of his comments concerning that one edit and one comment. I do have a problem with this editor saying, on the basis of that, that I am editor who feels I can "do anything you wanted to do and never have to abide by any rules and never face any criticism for violating those rules" and who needs to be "watched." If he is "tired" of my defending myself from his attacks then he should cease making them and behave in a civil fashion. --Tomstoner 19:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
      • What do I want you to do? Well, for one thing, I want you to stop making false public accusations of "virulent personal attacks" and "gratuitous insults" and "stalking"; that'd be nice. The only things that I have said about you that could be interpreted as personal are that you do not have a very good sense yet of what is and isn't acceptable editing behavior, and later I said that you were self-righteous, which was putting it very mildly considering how you have catastrophized the fact that you were asked to correct your editing behavior into a sob story of "virulent personal attacks and gratuitous insults ... way beyond the pale." However, I will leave it to other editors; show them whatever evidence you like and ask them whether it is an "ad hominem", a "flame", a "gratuituous insult", a "virulent personal attack" or whether it is another editor trying to communicate to you that something about your editing behavior needs to be corrected. Perhaps when you hear it from them, you might start to reconsider whether you have been so horribly wronged after all. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I just edited back my previous response becaue I belatedly realized you were, again, trying to lure me into a flame war on this page. A couple of points: At no time have your comments been directed strictly at the content of the one edit and one edit summary. From the start your comments have been directed at me personally and not at the content. When I sought to defend myself you escalated. Apparently you feel that as an experienced user you have the right to bully new users in this fashion. Your depiction of the one edit that you reverted is wildly exaggerated. On the edit summary, you neglect to mention that I repeatedly acknowledged that the editing summary was incorrect. Furthermore, you not dispute the actual substance of my edit itself on the Naked Short Selling page, but instead attack me personally and claim that I am not worthy of saying that it was "otherwise correct." Lastly, I would note that your initial comments on my talk page were unecessary, because they duplicated comments previously made by User ESkog. Your clear intent was to pick a fight for Lord knows what reason, and you succeeded.--Tomstoner 00:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• Garglebutt (talk · contribs) Garglebutt's user talk page contains a personal attack on two editors, including myself, Darren Ray under a heading Student Politics I propose a 24 hour block for the user and the removal of the attack by someone other than me, preferably an administrator. DarrenRay 01:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The personal attack as above I have also been attacked and would appreciate the user being blocked and the attack removed. --2006BC 02:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

• User:Xtra has lauched repeated personal attacks against User:Lefty on campus. Xtra insists that I am also user PSYCH, posting these accusations on his own page [1], as well as other users' pages [2][3] [4] spreading his lies that we are the same person, even making these accusations on my own talk page [5], even when I EXPLICITLY [6] told him I wasn't. This however is impossible, as I was blocked this morning for failing to remove links on my page. Both my account and IP address were blocked by Mark here 00:38, 12 March 2006 and unblocked by Danny here 02:54, 12 March 2006. There is no way I could have possibly posted during that time if I were User:PSYCH, as PSYCH posted here [7] while I was still blocked from editing. Despite these facts, Xtra still maintains and insists we are one and the same encouraging other users to believe his personal attacks [8][9]. Please, can't someone make him stop this silliness? Very uncouth. Lefty on campus 11:54, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The account alone was blocked, for making personal attacks against Xtra (talk · contribs). It was unblocked by me, not by Danny — Danny's rôle here was to talk with you, and inform me when you had met the conditions for unblocking that I set at the time of the block. Your IP address was automatically blocked by the MediaWiki software, see Wikipedia:Autoblock. By the way, I see you link to my talkpage as evidence of Xtra accusing you of being PSYCH (talk · contribs) — but Xtra has never told me that he thinks you are PSYCH, and if you're using his words to me as evidence, I reckon the rest of your evidence may have to be checked, as it could be equally suspect. Please, just cool it, guys. You don't really have any real conflict with each other; you just don't like one another's ideologies. Well, guess what? On Wikipedia, ideology doesn't matter. Either you're a good Wikipedian who can edit in a NPOV despite your beliefs, or you've really got to reassess your reasons for being here. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 02:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Irrespective, Mark, the fact that my IP was blocked indicates that I couldn't possibly post as PSYCH during my block, and Xtra (knowing this) is still maintaining that we are the same person when evidence proves otherwise - this is tantamount to a personal attack Lefty on campus 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC).
      • I was not arguing that you are PSYCH. I don't know, or care, who PSYCH is. I did not want a statement that Danny (talk · contribs) had undone a block of mine left uncorrected; admins have been getting in trouble lately for undoing one another's actions, and he did nothing of the sort. While I was at it, I corrected some other misconceptions evident from your post. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a personal attack. Also the block was against the username not the IP (for making repeated persoal attacks agaist me). Lefty's continual attacks against me are harassment bordering on personal attacks. Also his evidence above is flimsy at best Xtra 23:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Once again more attacks. When I was blocked my IP address was also included in the ban - you may want to ask Mark who bloocked me in the first place to confirm this fact. Regardless, acusing me of being another user (with no proof, and all of the evidence against you) is a personal attack under anyone's definition. Lefty on campus 00:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

See also

• meatball:DefendEachOther