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.

Alienus (talk · contribs) Repeated personal attacks, persists after being warned by multiple parties on talk page. His most recent salvos are here and here. Nandesuka 19:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking through his recent contributions, I see some anger and frustration leading to slight incivility, but no serious personal attacks. Angr (talk • contribs) 19:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Still at it: "the cabal's pet admin" [1] Nandesuka 16:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Xezzite (talk · contribs) per warnings at his talk page and blatant violations (i.e., against me) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wills Outback. --Kinu ^t/_c 00:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Addressed on User talk:Xezzite. Angr (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Once again Xtra (talk · contribs)] continues his personal attacks against me. Clearly, his repeated obession with an expired arbitration case, which REFERS TO ME DIRECTLY BY NAME on his own user page, is a means of gloating, and simply a way to try to bait me. into complaining on PAIN. Please, the fact that he changed it yesterday from "My successful arbitration" to "arbitration link" then today changed it again to read "Arbitration with PSYCH" amounts to a personal attack, an an attempt to bait me into retaliation or some pther means to block me. It is a clear indication of BOASTING about another's loss, consistent with a personal attack and incosistent with proper wiki policy . I ask that it be removed as it serves no utility whatsoever, (in fact it is intiimidation and boasting) and the user disciplined for such an attack. The attack is in DIRECT VIOLATION of the WP:NPA Wikipedia policy against "kicking a person when they're down." PSYCH 05:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC).

UPDATE: Xtra has ignored concerns, and DELETED the NPA warning from his talk page, and threatened me on my talk page, despire the fact that he himself edited another user's page over 6 times and was blocked for it. Once again, Xtra seems to think he's above the law. PSYCH 03:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• See editor's item 4 above about not re-listing here as this complaint was removed yesterday by an admin. I'd also note that since you resumed posting on 10 March, the majority of your contributions have been to complain about Xtra in one form or another. Considering that the recently expired arbitration case referred to was concerning your personal attacks on Xtra, I find that somewhat concerning. "Arbitration with PSYCH" is not an attack in my view, it's factual, neutral (doesn't even mention "successful" anymore) and imo, approiate to keep visible for third parties to see the background because of the ongoing complaints you are making about him. Regards, MartinRe 14:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, the attack contains new facts, and would constitute a frash attack. The logical you use is incorect, if you believe that "background" is important, then a link to the case WITHOUT A NAME would suffice, however referring to me DIRECTLY just rubs it in that little bit more - a definite personal attack. The WIKI rules state: Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Xtra is in clear violation of that rule. Secondly, forgive me, but I wouldn't rely on your opinion as an impartial observer because (i) you've accused me of being another user (and have a clear dislike for me) and (ii) are "friends" with Xtra, (it is hardly fair for Xtraa's friends to judge his own viscious attacks in any honest, impartial sense). Thankyou, I await another admin's opinion PSYCH 23:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have not "accused" you of being another user, I have commented on a number of similarities between yourself and another user (full diff here[2], The other user also described pointing out similarities as an accusation, as it happens). I neither like nor disklike you, nor am I anyone's "friend". I pointed out to Xtra that I thought his block for edit warring on a user page was justified, and I pointed out to you that most of your recent edits have been complaints, and not contributions to the encylopedia. You are, of course, welcome to disregard mine (or anyone else's) opinion, it doesn't really bother me. I hope this all gets resolved to your satifisaction soon, whatever happens. Regards, MartinRe 01:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Psych has done little on wikipedia other than harass or attack Xtra in one way or another. See Psych's Contributions to get an idea of what is going on. michael ^talk 00:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

So my lack of edits excuses his personal attacks? I find that unfair for a person to get away with attacks simply because he has many friends who are admins. Secondly, User:beneaththelandslide is a friend og Xtra whoo has publicly stated that Xtra did not deserve to be blocked when Xtra removed a perceived attack on another's page through vandalism. I suppose one set of rules exist for Xtra and another for everybody else? PSYCH 00:18, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Xtra's userpage as it stands presently is not a personal attack and nor was it one before he modified it. It is apparent to me from reviewing the relevant comments and contributions made by PSYCH in the past month that he is undertaking a campaign to smear Xtra with the same behaviour he was found to have engaged in. The only evidence I can find of Xtra behaving less than properly (although not improperly) was his reversion here of PSYCH's posting to his talk page and his impolite posting here to PSYCH's talk page. The latter, however, is understandable to the extent that he has been the target of harrasment. Conversely, it is PSYCH who has made personal attacks in this saga, in one instance labelling Xtra a "right wing fuddy" in an edit summary. Since resuming editing on the 11th of last month, PSYCH's entire activity on Wikipedia has been in conflict with Xtra. At this stage, I see no reason to reprimand any individual. However, PSYCH, please consider this a warning to back off. Direct your time on Wikipedia to actually improving it, rather than to bringing yourself into conflict with a user you have shown yourself to be incapable of dealing with amicably.

In the interests of disclosure, I was asked to comment on this issue by Xtra. However, I was aware of this dispute prior to this request and have previously recieved emails from Lefty on campus asking for intervention. I am not biased towards any involved party.--cj | talk 04:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• My two cents: (not that anyone asked for it...) It seems to me, Psych, that you need to take a deep breath and back off. Why do you let Xtra control all of your actions on wikipedia? Every time you "attack" xtra with WP:PAIN you are simply adding to his control over you. If everything stays the same... in the end you'll end up banned indefinatly and he'll go back to happy editing. When I look down your paths, that is the desination I see. If you actualy care about editing on wikipedia my advice to you is thus: Let it go and move on. ---J.Smith 07:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

---

69.196.139.250 (talk · contribs) This guy was recently blocked for copy-pasting various personal attacks on various talk pages. Now he's back with more.[3][4] He has also been attacking other users. Aucaman^Talk 17:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

---

64.135.10.200 (talk · contribs) - It appears this user is behaving vexatiously on WP:Arb - when Jaranda (talk · contribs) removed his (apparently trollistic) request for arbitration against Swatjester and Naconkantari, he responded with a threat that if Jaranda were to remove it again, he would report to the administrators. --TML1988 04:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Cap_j (talk · contribs) has sent links to our discussion on Shotokan to my Department administrator at Michigan State University, where I am employed. This is outrageous behavior. My life as an editor on Wikipedia has nothing to do with my academic career. Something needs to be done. ron Southwick 16:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

See also

• meatball:DefendEachOther