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

Doxmyth (talk · contribs)

Constantly reverts edits to the Tom Swift page and Tom Swift, Jr. page. He repeatedly tries to link to his own web site, which is completely off-topic. Harasses me constantly by leaving messages on my TALK page, despite repeated requests by me for him to cease and desist. Now he is using this page to libel me with completely unfounded statements and personal attacks. He views any disagreement with him as an attack. Refuses to play by Wiki rules then blames me for holding him to task. Falsely claims I'm using other names as sockpuppets. Claims Antaeus Feldspar is an admin, when he/she is merely an editor. MookiesDad 23:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

MookiesDad (talk · contribs)

Numerous and repeated instances of abusive language, personal attacks, civility violations, assume good faith violations at Talk:Tom Swift and Talk:Tom Swift, Jr., with more acute examples at User Talk:Doxmyth. The latter is the Discussion link to Editing User:Doxmyth, created by MookiesDad to link from my own user name (in the manner normally used to link to my own User Page): see History page, Tom Swift, Jr.. Misuse of terms like vandalism despite several corrections by admin Antaeus Feldspar. Undiscussed amd unlabeled article reverts under name Pak434. See also some of his edit summary language. Unwilling to discuss content issues, characterizes my stated reasons as "specious". With respect to both these articles, User:MookiesDad has a lengthy history of conduct of this kind, anonymously and via sock-puppets. The mandatory template notification was posted to User talk:MookiesDad and to User talk:Doxmyth, eliciting a dismissive response. (Note that the content issue re these two articles was posted on RfC, by me--"PAIN" was not my first resort.) Given his lengthy history, I have little hope that this user will take seriously further discussion with me. These pages will show that I have made a good many attempts to move the content discussion forward: there is little more to be said, and he has stated explicitly that he intends to continue reverting my edits (noting that as a retiree he has plenty of time to do so). Doxmyth 00:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As I'm drawing attention to the gentleman's history, note that today MookiesDad deleted about 99% of Talk:Stratemeyer Syndicate, which includes several examples of his conduct (as "User:69.205.13.193"). He also states his dismissive, defiant attitude toward Wiki policies and guidelines. This is why I'm skeptical of further efforts aimed at his rehabilitation. Doxmyth 01:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Doxmyth is very confused. I reverted many of his edits which were contary to WIKI policies. He views any disagreement with him as an attack. He constantly tries to promote his web site and I have repeatedly deleted references to that site. All-in-all, a very disturbed individual.MookiesDad 23:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I must second Doxmyth (talk · contribs)'s account of the state of affairs. MookiesDad (talk · contribs) has made repeated personal attacks on Doxmyth, and in fact, cannot even refrain from doing so here ("All-in-all, a very disturbed individual".) A sample of what is more typical of what I have seen from MookiesDad is here: "That presupposes you have an actual contribution to make, which you don't seem to have (if you do, you haven't exhibited it yet). As far as I can see, you've vandalized the list of TS Sr. titles, presented uncited speculation as fact and promoted your own off-topic web site. Why do I consider your "site" off-topic - because it doesn't supply any information on any of the various series, it's just your monumental ego trip. Every reviewer of your "fiction" has declared it poor and juvenile. Get it? NOBODY LIKES IT! It's not relevant to the Tom Swift page of Wiki. I will remove your link and "Predecessors" paragraph any time you post it. I'm retired and have nothing but time on my hands and I dislike whining crybabies."

While Doxmyth may be still learning the rules of Wikipedia, he seems quite willing to learn them, whereas with MookiesDad, he seems quite resistant to even considering the possibility that the rules might not be 100% behind what he wants to do. An example is his reaction to being informed that "vandalism" only describes changes that make their bad-faith nature absolutely explicit [1]: "The person in question has repeatedly made non-NPOV and irrelevant additions to the Tom Swift article in addition to making wholesale deletetions of the work of others, even after being asked to cease and desist several times. If that isn't vandalism, I don't know what is." The irony, of course, is that MookiesDad had by this time made "wholesale deletions of the work of others" numerous times, erroneously calling that work "vandalism" because he considered it "non-NPOV and irrelevant". Another example of MookiesDad's belligerent attitude is when he insists on using a header style that, it has been pointed out to him, is contrary to Wikipedia:Manual of Style[2]: "::: On headers - I quote from Wiki guidlines "Headings are hierarchical, so you should start with == Header == and follow it with === Subheader ===, ==== Subsubheader ====, and so forth. The 'second-level' == Header == is overly large in some browsers, but that can be fixed for individual viewers with a style sheet more easily than a nonhierarchical article structure can be fixed (see help:User style)." Please note the word "should" is used not "must". Frankly I think using bold headers under the fainter but larger top level header makes the article harder to read. If you have any evidence that the way I set up the headers is a violation of any Wiki rule instead of your personal opinion, I'd sure like to see it. MookiesDad 02:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)" MookiesDad is able to quote a very clearly written Wikipedia style guideline complete with the reason why that style guideline is in place and yet the conclusion he draws from it is that he is entitled to enforce his own nonstandard structure on the article, simply because the guideline that describes the structure that every article is to use is phrased as an agreement to be cooperated with, rather than a dictatorial edict. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Doxmyth recently compared MookiesDad to Hitler and threatened him because he wasn't allowed to promote his fan fiction on MookiesDad's Tom Swift Yahoo fan group. Whenever he doesn't get his way on this he resorts to whimpering, self-pitying protestations of unfairness, censorship and foul play and seeks to elicit sympathy from others.

I've noticed this too. Another thing is that Doxmyth uses so many aliases that he sometimes forgets who he is posting as, like on tinyurl.com/mlvkh where he posted as Scott Dickerson and wrote: "Mike, are you saying it wasn't Charlie & Scott who destroyed Ipp's group?" Most people don't refer to themselves by their own first name. I have to concur with MookiesDad and Pak434. This dude is a very disturbed individual. DocSimpson

I am very concerned that this user has a notice on his page which states he wishes death to all vandals. It probably was meant harmlessly, but stating on Wikipedia that you wish death to another group of users, even vandals, could be seen as a Death Threat. -Husnock 07:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Naziakhanum (talk · contribs)

This user has repeatedly made personal attacks against myself on Talk:Tipu Sultan. While my comments there have been on content, not on contributor (per wikipedia policy), his comments have been directed against me personally, rather than on the content of edits, making it a personal attack. I had warned him against this before here, but he has persisted.

His attacks are summarized below: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATipu_Sultan&diff=77694207&oldid=77688747

In particular, the statement:

“ User:Hkelkar is himself trying to colour the article with his own religious/nationalist fundamentalism. And every intelligent person viewing the article can see that Hkelkar wants to run the article on his ideologies. we should request the administrator to ban the user. ”

Plus, User:Mysorebhai, whom I believe is a sock of the user Naiakhanum, made a bogus npa warning against me,which is, in on itself, a personal attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATipu_Sultan&diff=77719483&oldid=77694207

Hkelkar 23:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zaphnathpaaneah (talk · contribs)

I was having what I thought was a heated, but still civil, exchange with User:Zaphnathpaaneah regarding his (or her, I don't know) revert of an edit I made to article Black people. I had already conceded to his position when he made a comment that assumes bad faith and is a personal attack on me. He apparently believes that just because I stumbled into his edit war with User:Editingoprah, I was on Editingoprah's side. This is an assumption made without any evidence, as I have had no contact at all with Editingoprah. Further, Zaphnathpaaneah insinuates ad hominem that I and my contributions are childish, ignorant, and inane, because he falsely believes I am somehow in cahoots with Editingoprah. Again, this was said after I had already given up my position. Ironically, Zaphnathpaaneah lists himself in Category:Nice Wikipedians and gives himself a {{User wikipedia/No personal attacks}} userbox. This is the first time I have ever had a problem with a Wikipedia editor serious enough to ask for intervention. Zaphnathpaaneah is clearly goading me into reporting his abuses and while I am suspicious of his motives, I cannot let him continue to insult me in this way. Wl219 10:20, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Could you supply some diffs please to highlight what exactly are the problem statements. Tyrenius 03:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This is what I added to the Black people article, in the section "terms no longer in use": [3]. This is what Zaphnathpaaneah wrote when he reverted: [4]. This is what he wrote on my talk page at the same time as the revert: [5] (8:09 UTC entry). This is my response to him [6] (8:18 UTC entry), as I failed to see how it was vandalism. I was also not involved in his edit war with Editingoprah, but Zaphnathpaaneah keeps insisting that I somehow am even though I made but 1 edit. Our subsequent exchange is on his talk page: [7] I warned him with the appropriate AGF and NPA tags, but he persists. Wl219 06:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Open reports

Lordkazan (talk · contribs)

User has made repeated personal attacks against myself and others, and has previously been blocked for it. In spite of this, he continues:

"I haven't the patience for rabid pov-pushers like you and Dasondas today. ... I give your position equal representation, even though I consider it a reprehensible violation of human rights for which you should be tried and convicted and sentanced most severely."[8]

Jakew 18:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Note: warning deleted by user. Jakew 18:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This report is invalid. I can support the fact that he is a pov-pusher with evidence (wikipedia diffs). I am a pov-person, but i don't push my pov into articles, he ADMITTED he intented to do so. The truth is not a personal attack. Stating my opinion on a specific action does not constitute a personal attack - i am stating my opinion of an ACTION not the PERSON. Furthermore I was doing so the clarify that DESPITE my opinion of his action I give his opinion equal time in the article. My comment was in reply to his following comment, which included clear admission of intent to edit in bad faith, and an argumentum ad antiquitatem to support that behavior. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACircumcision&diff=77915610&oldid=77876639

I removed your warning in compliance with the fact that an invalid warning constitutes a personal attack, and that the policy about removing warnings specifically only applies to VALID warnings. Lordkazan 18:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I see you have readded the invalid warning template. This is a personal attack on me, the truth (as admitted by the user I was speaking to), and denouncing an ACTION do not constitute a personal attack. I should issue you an NPA warning since posting false warnings on other users pages is vandalism/personal attack - however I will not get into an revert war/escalating warning template war with you. This report is invalid and when that is acknowleged by an admin I will be able to remove your invalid warning from my page. Lordkazan 18:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore i see your false claim that I was blocked for personal attacks against YOU - i was blocked for a personal attack agaisnt someone who vandalized my userpage, a personal attack i Posted on my user page. Telling a vandal what they can do with themself on the user-space page their vandalized is hardly worthy of note: block log: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Lordkazan the edit that instigated that http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ALordkazan&diff=73942909&oldid=73334857

i recommend you worry about your own block log before you worry about me being blocked once for 24 hours for something totally unrelated to this report. Lordkazan 18:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Jakew just vandalized Talk:Circumcision claiming to be reverting personal attacks - condemnation of an ACTION is clearly not a personal attack as clearly stated by WP:PAIN - the other was borderline, but I can support it as true with wikipedia history. The truth can be uncivil though so, for the sake of harmony, I did not revert your removal of the statement refering to you as a POV-pusher. Lordkazan 19:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The "vandalism" to which you refer is here.

As for the first, I would be most interested to see diffs showing that both Dasondas and myself suffer from rabies, just as I would be interested in seeing objective proof (as opposed to your own interpretation) of your assertion that we are pov-pushers. As for the second, your condemnation was in fact of another editor's views (or more precisely, 'position'), for holding which you felt he should be 'tried and convicted and sentanced most severely' [sic]. Had you restricted yourself to commenting on actions relevant to Wikipedia, we would doubtless not be here. Jakew 19:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

His position does, and has, translated into actions - i am condeming those actions - obviously just holding an opinion is not a human rights violation, acting on it can be. Your interpretation of "rabid" is pedantic and manipulative - you know very well what I meant by that adjective, and as for evidence - here is Dasondas admitting his intention to engage in pov pushing and your edit history and the opinion of many other editors is proof enough - and the fact that the article's medical section is completely pro-circumcision biased. Lordkazan 19:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

oh... don't forget where you were found 7-0 to be in persistent violation of NPOV rules] Lordkazan 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent ArbCom decisions. Perhaps you wish that were the case, but in fact that page mentions me twice: once in reference to unfortunate edit wars, and once to remind me to re-read NPOV policy (which I have done). Three users (initials W, D, and R) were specifically named as having made non-NPOV edits, but I was not among them. Jakew 19:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have left a warning on the user's page to remember to stay cool when the editing gets hot and to not be so aggressive towards other users. If he continues, I will block him. Cowman109^Talk 19:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Clossius (talk · contribs)

I have met this user only twice: first on Talk:Pro Patria Union, and now on Talk:Arnold Rüütel. Regarding the article Arnold Rüütel, we have had an edit dispute, on the course of which Clossius has repeatedly used offensive language on me as 'arguments'. My edits to Arnold Rüütel (have been approved by other users) are regarded by Clossius as 'a form of vandalism', 'attempts at slander based on personal bias', 'soapboxing' etc. Even worse, when adding a noticeaboard entry for the article, he had used it as a vehicle for his one-side accusations: 'edits by User:Constanz that are merely political grandstanding and soapboxing'. I've warned him with tags, but he has removed these, accusing me of 'hooliganism', vandalizing', 'designing it to add insult'.--Constanz - Talk 06:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I will not put up ca counter-notice against User:Constanz here myself, but rather just respond (as it is the same case), yet I should point out that I see myself as the victim, rather than the aggressor, and I think that Constanz should be stopped doing so. I think the offensive language ad personam comes from Constanz, rather than from myself. My honest belief is indeed that he uses the Estonian politics articles - not only but certainly also - to soapbox his own political beliefs (which I often do not disagree with in substance, and where he is very knowledgeable as regards the fact), but that is not the point). I think his language has been much more offensive, going so far as to imply I'm a Nazi supporter; I should also point out that I have repeatedly tried to work with him on a constructive version of these articles, which he has always turned down.

On the details (for which I need no links because those by Constanz are fine):

1. The edits on Rüütel that have been "approved" by other editors (which just means they have written something after his changes, while not reverting the latter) have come after Constanz had actually mended his ways to some extent and had been more careful on the text (no doubt also contributing to it constructively).
2. With "a form of vandalism" I meant (and said that I meant) that, when he reverted my changes to his writing, he also removed labels, reinserted duplication (when the election was, e.g.), and removed update information.
3. I would stand by the "grandstanding and soapboxing" remark; I think that Constanz' edits - as proven by his edit summaries, which are often reserved for personal remarks - are motivated by special political proclivities (those listed on his user page), and so he has very strong opinions here and an axe to grind. I am not sure an editor should edit the entry for a politician whom he calls "this appalling remnant of a totalitarian regime" and "the old commie funcionary appearantly seeking life presidency", but if he does, he should not object of being slightly modified.
4. The warning tag was IMHO meant as harrassment, especially as I had previously declared that I did not want to continue talking to this editor (which means, nothing that could even be interpreted as personal attacks). It was always accompanied by offensive edit summaries as well. I think it is my right to do this, as it came from another user and was clearly done out of spite.

In sum, I realize that one easily sees himself as the victim, but if I try to objectivize here (not easy, admittedly), I still think that all this is an attempt at harrassment by Constanz. I would just like to see this personal vendetta cease; I have no issue with Constanz other than his personal attacks on me, and I would just like to continue editing Wikipedia in peace (if possible, also in the field of Estonian politics), without being personally insulted all the time. Clossius 07:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

All in all, Clossius wrote here thrice as much as I did, but failed he to give any diffs to support his thesis of me having assaulted him personally on Talk:Arnold Rüütel.. Here we should rely on facts, not on interpretations by the people involved. My level of contributions can be evaluated as what I've inserted to Arnold Rüütel, Clossius has concentrated more on offensive language criticism on Talk:Arnold Rüütel and Talk:Pro Patria Union. --Constanz - Talk 07:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I admit I am not as good at Wikilawyering, but I don't think diffs are necessary, because Talk:Arnold Rüütel is short enough and quite clear, and because the diffs given by User:Constanz are basically fine anyway. As regards Talk:Pro Patria Union, this is a discussion from April, to which Constanz has gone back now in order to attack me; I only accidentally saw this and responded just twice, first by refusing his implication of Nazi leanings, and second to say that I would not want to discuss with him anymore, which I still don't. It's just very hard if you find harrassment every time you open your account, especially as he has opened several battlefields here. Let me reiterate that nothing would please me more if Constanz and I could just part ways and not say anything to each other anymore at all, including if our ways would cross accidentally on some factual matter. I just would find it sad to quit Wikipedia just because of one hostile antagonist.Clossius 08:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Unlike you, I haven't been following my current opponent's contributions list, so as to find smth for support/'harassment'. Indeed, to-day I tried to clarify my previous comments on Talk:Pro Patria Union, for it'll be looked upon anyway. Feel free to present finally some verifiable material to support your sentiments over the political party concerned.--Constanz - Talk 08:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't checked his list, yet Constanz has even posted links to previous disputes of mine (which is fine of course). And as I said, I will most certainly desist from working anymore on any articles or discussion pages in which he is involved, let alone take issue with him, before either the matter is solved in Wikipedia conflict resolution or before Constanz ceases his attempts to draw me into discussions (which he then interprets as attacks) - because I feel decidedly unfree to add anything substantial anymore. This is why he has also done more on Rüütel recently; I have just quit. I think we really should let the matter rest until the conflict is solved one way or the other. Clossius 08:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that Constanz should be stopped doing so - I can't understand what I should be prevented from doing - contributing to Arnold Rüütel or answering to Clossius' comments on the alleged 'slander' and soapboxing' I've inserted into the article?--Constanz - Talk 08:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Harrassing me. You can naturally continue editing Arnold Rüütel, especially if it is constructive and unbiased, as your last edits were. But on a personal level, if you cease any personal attacks, innuendos, or insinuations on any which page, I will be very happy, as I said many times, to completely part ways, and we both can do our editing wherever we see fit. Clossius 08:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be more than happy if I saw you once again contributing to articles, rather than having one-party dispute over my alleged 'bias' and 'slander'. I'll to continue my edits to Arnold Rüütel, I won't change anything allegedly biased stuff by merely your request, but look forward to other people's clear and moderate suggestions, what to do in order to remove POV-tag as a whole.Constanz - Talk 08:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

So, is it a deal then? We quit saying anything about each other on the various talk pages etc., and start focussing again on editing? I am perfectly willing to leave Arnold Rüütel and the discussion to yourself and other editors, and I agree that dealing with the POV-label there (which you btw put very correctly to the segment, rather than the article) should be left, as you suggest, to other editors.Clossius 08:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly my point - turn to editing, consensus has not been against me on Arnold Rüütel article, we won't of course forget personal assaults listed there, I'd already learnt from Talk:Pro Patria Union, that it's better to formulate thesis clearly, impassionately and to prefer sources to self-interpretations. Handle like I've done - start editing articles and let neutral observers decide stuff disputed here.--Constanz - Talk 09:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That is not quite what I said ;-), but if I may, I'll take that for an "ok". Clossius

I have looked at the edits above, and the articles in question. First, I am glad to see that you are still talking and seemed to have reached a civil agreement amongst each other above. Second, being a neutral observer who has reviewed only random parts of this agreement, it seems to me you have both commited some errors and then overreacted a little. Nonetheless I think you both mean well; my suggestion would be certainly in line with your own conclusion about avoiding ad hominem attacks. Then I'd suggest you try to reach a compromise version in the wording and content of disputed articles; try to remember that compromise is often defined as the solution were both parties are equally unhappy :) Instead of editing articles themselves, you may want to copy the disputed parts to talk and edit it there until you think the version is acceptable (thus there will be no reverts and irritating edit summaries in main article history).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

SqueakBox (talk · contribs) and Hagiographer (talk · contribs)

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. [9]

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)

• Comment: In my opinion, the revised statement remains a personal attack. If nothing else, it implies that Hagiographer (talk · contribs) can't write, which is an insult. But also (and possibly more importantly given that this is an Arbcom matter), it's evidence that SqueakBox (talk · contribs) has little interest in adhering to the spirit of the Arbcom ruling, even if he is willing, under extreme admin pressure, to adhere to the letter of the ruling. If this was a run-of-the-mill matter, I'd slap an {{npa3}} tag on Squeakbox's user talk page in a heartbeat. But given that it's all in arbitration, I'll just leave this here for an admin to make the final decision. --Aaron 22:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Dhammafriend (talk · contribs)

He has repeatedly characterized my ethnic/religious affiliations in a pejorative manner. First, he wrongly accused me of being an upper-caste Hindu and evoked several anti-Hindu and anti-Brahmanist canards against me here. I warned him here. Then, he made some borderline anti-Semitic remarks concerning my Jewishness here(see bottom). I do not believe that my ethnic/religious affiliation is relevant to my edits on wikipedia, so I believe that these are personal attacks and I request that they be handled accordingly.Hkelkar 16:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: He has made another ethnic characterization against admins here. In particular note the following statement:

“ Wiki Administrators except Brahmin and Shudra Varnas please take note of this. ”

.This user continues to make these types of characterizations which are attacks on people and are detrimental to discussion on wikipedia.Hkelkar 16:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think at least some of this is a misunderstanding. I left a mild caution to be more careful. I hope that will be enough. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. The racist and hateful comments keep pouring in [10] and in [11] and in [12]. He has continued to pour in the anti-Hindu, racist remarks.Bakaman _Bakatalk 23:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

This guy has attacked me, thegreyanomaly multiple times.

User Thegreyanomaly the article "Indian Buddhist Movement" is about Religious movement which is growing in India slowly since last 50 years. If you are anti-Buddhist we certainly don't have any objection about your religion. You can be a Brahmin-Hindu if you are a priest by profession in any temple otherwise you are a Shudra-Hindu because all non-priest i.e. non-Brahmins are SHUDRA in Hindu Religion. In Kali Yuga Hindus have only two Varna as per the religious philosophy of Hindus. If you are from India then you might be knowing that Buddhism in India was totally killed. Some blame Brahmins Or some blame Muslims for that, it is a vast topic of study. I don't want to blame anybody. Hindu Castiesm, Hindu Untouchability and Caste based Graded Inequality became very strong after fall of Buddhism in Indian sub-continent and before British came to India. Education to all non-Brahmins was banned and the rigid Hindu Religious laws made by Brahmins like Manusmriti, VishnuSmriti and other DharmaShastras became the laws to govern the non-Muslim society.

British gave education for all and broke the anti-Human Hindu Laws. After Independence Dr. Ambedkar revived Buddhism in India. He also established "Buddhist Society of India" certainly NOT Navayana Society! So there is no meaning branding the movement as Navayana. Because the founder of India's Buddhist Revival Movement which is certainly against Hindu Casteism and injustice that Hindus are doing since hundreds of years called his movement as Buddhist Movement. Also Dr. Ambedkar said that 'He will convert whole India back to Buddhism' but he was killed just within 6 weeks after his conversion to Buddhism. Some people blamed Brahmins for his death. It is not sure how he died. I dont want to blame anybody. So you can discuss current Buddhist Developments in the article "Indian Buddhist Movement". About Hindu Caste and related things you better write to Hindu Articles Or Caste Related to Articles. If Navayana is a anto-caste publication then you should put that link in Caste Related article.

In India legal system we have Hindus, Muslims, Christens and BUDDHIST as different religion. Expecially our 2001 cencus gives more details about different religions population. We dont have any 'Navayana Buddhist' in whole India neither it is recognized legally anywhere. Officially we have around 1% Buddhists in India. This population unofficially can be 4% also because thousands of people are converting to Buddhism. But lets take official figures.

Caste is a problem of Hindus certainly not the problem of Buddhists. Be a contributor to wikipedia but don't just try to vandalise different articles. Dhammafriend 10:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This one was both on my user talk page and on Talk:Indian Buddhist Movement

I responded to him

Umm... I'm an EX-Brahmin who converted to Theravada Buddhism...

I edited Navayāna into the article because in Buddhism in India : Challenging Brahmanism and Caste by Gail Omvedt (This book is incredibly anti-Caste and is pro-Buddhist) I have read Neo-Buddhism being referred to as Navayana, which is is obviously a non-IAST transliteration of navayāna.

"Ambedkar's Buddhism seemingly differs from that of those who accepted by faith, who 'go for refuge' and accept the canon. This This much is clear from its basis: it does not accept in totality the scriptures of the Theravada, the the Mahayana, or the Vajrayana. The question that is then clearly put forth: is a fourth yana, a Navayana, a kind of modernistic Enlightenment version of the Dhamma really possible within the framework of Buddhism?" (8)

The book blatantly says that Ambedkar DESIGNED what has become known as navayāna.

He did not found the Navayana publishing house. I edited in that there is a Navayana publishing house into the article so people would not confuse, navayāna, yāna, and Navayana, the publishing house.

I'm going to put the navayāna comment back into Indian Buddhist Movement. Please do not edit it out again. Navayāna is an accepted name of neo-Buddhism.

Peace, TheGreyAnomaly

That one was on the Talk:Indian Buddhist Movement and there is more to his response on that page. Please ban him. He is beyond being disciplined

Buddhist do not have caste neither they believe any former caste like Brahmin,Bhangi ,Scheduled Caste, OBC caste etc. So don't claim false things. I have Buddhist friends in America who can certainly verify your identity. So if want to discuss you can also meet our Buddhist friends in America so don't try to fool wikipedia community. Who gave you ordination as Buddhist? Do you know the process to become a Buddhist? Dhammafriend 10:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Thegreyanomaly 23:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC), Thegreyanomaly 23:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC), Thegreyanomaly 23:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Unless I am mistaken, he has not posted anything since I left my caution on his talk page. Let's see if that helps. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

While the complaint is still pending, he just made more ethnic attacks against me. He called me "anti-Buddhist" and characterized my alleged "Caste" by referring to me as a "Brahmin"/"Shudra" (amusingly, I'm not even a Hindu).I am adding diffs to that effect in the PAIN report but I humbly request you to please intervene. His inflammatory comments in the talk page of Talk:Indian Buddhist Movement are making it very difficult for us legitimate editors to create a good article. The diffs of his most recent attacks are below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIndian_Buddhist_Movement&diff=77509724&oldid=77417417

In particular, the comments from the diff above:

“ If kelkar Or all anti-Buddhist people who are unaware of the Present Indian Buddhist Movement can come and understand the status. ”

“ anti-Buddhist hate is too much in Brahmin Shudra Hindu minds ”

Referring to both me and User:Nat Krause

and

“ Mr.Hkelkar you are not the first anti-Buddhit person on this planet. ”

“ The Language used by u like which planet etc.. shows you are full hate towards Buddhist so debate is a civilised manner ”

Despite the fact that I have made no attacks against anyone.

Hkelkar 09:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Making bogus allegation citing diffs which does not substantiate your claims are also a sort of attack.Now you are just testing the patience of the community with these bogus allegations. Ikon |no-blast 09:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Even though it is dhammafreind's NPA I would recommend some action against user:Hkelkar for making ANB a tool of harassing users citing bogus diffs and presenting false cases.Two had been made against me by this user,and it is third now. Ikon |no-blast 10:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Let the admins reach that decision.An admin has already spoken to Dhammafriend about this before and he has ignored his words. That alone speaks volumes.10:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkelkar (talk • contribs)

Yes admins are expected to reach some decision else ,wikipedia will become sort of hell with editors like you.I can't expect you to improve(sorry but assuming good faith is very difficult when facts are loaded against it),even though you were specifically warned against bogus reporting by Dab in my case you have not improved. Ikon |no-blast 11:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh really? Where?Hkelkar 11:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, Very bold to say that you will violate WP:AGF on the basis of some vague assertions regarding facts.Hkelkar 11:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow Go ahead now you are giving live presentation of how you misrepresent rules.WP:AGF does not ask for assuming good faith when the person has got history of bogus reporting. Ikon |no-blast 11:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Now that's what I call circular logic. Using the accusation of "Bogus Reporting" to prove "Bogus reporting".I'm so glad most wikipedians don;t do that, else there'd be chaos ^_^ .Hkelkar 11:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

No comments per WP:SNOW,arguing with you is like throwing stone into mud. Ikon |no-blast 11:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Since the incivility has continued and become disruptive, I have blocked Dhammafriend for 24 hours. I caution everyone involved to comment only on content, not other people, and to not respond in kind to any attacks. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

John_Spikowski (talk · contribs)

John Spikowski constantly personally attacks me and the PanoTools user group f.e.: 1 2 3. He was recently banded for a 3RR.

All this happend after the warning. Roguegeek listed him yesterday but thought this issue is solved. You will easily find the older attacks like this and the comment in this

Thx for your help. --Wuz 01:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I left him an {{npa3}}.--Konstable 04:19, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• He attacked me again on my talk page and made unproper OT statements. [13]. --Wuz 23:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

  I've left a final warning. Tyrenius 03:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Myself along with several editors including Wuz have had to constantly warn him about off topic conversation and how this can be disruptive and unproductive. I simply don't think he will ever understand the Wikipedia guidelines about this subject. This should be watched with him. Roguegeek (talk) 07:29, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rastishka (talk · contribs)

A little over a week ago, I posted a complaint here regarding User:Rastishka making personal attacks on me. This person has resumed personal attacks on me as of today, so I'm back here to file another report as Konstable suggested I do in such a case. See here (scroll to the bottom) for my original complaint. [14]

As you can see, User:Konstable blocked him for one week for personal attacks. He has been blocked in the past by User:Alex Bakharev for 3RR, edit warring and personal attacks. If you view his talk page User talk:Rastishka, you can see that it is filled with nothing but warnings, block messages, and requests from bots asking him to fix his unsourced image uploads.

Here is his newest attack on me, falsely accusing me of "trolling" and "vandalizing":

[15]

He also continues to edit war at Debbie King, providing no basis for the notability of his edits. TheQuandry 18:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have warned him not to call people names. Maybe a third opinion on the content would be useful. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* TheQuandry 22:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)