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

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. [1]

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)

Open reports

El Gringo (talk · contribs)

NB - this user has immediately removed both my NPA warnings on his talk page: [2] [3].

The personal attacks in question are here: [4] and [5].

As you will see, the user in question is acting very belligerently towards those he considers "British", in what I consider to be a racialist manner. Gsd2000 23:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I have restored the NPA3 template with a message on his talk page explaining why. If he removes the template again and then persists in attacking, he will require either NPA4 or admin attention. Crimsone 23:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He's now just removed your addition, citing it as vandalism, again. Gsd2000 00:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The diffs you provided show obvious personal attack, and my message and NPA3 can be seen here at this diff. If there is another attack, post a diff of it here, and somebody else will deal with the report taking account of this. :) Crimsone 00:07, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The User has persisted in making personal attacks [6]. This now needs, I feel, admin attention for resolution. Crimsone 05:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In the post directly above, El Gringo was called a racist - I can understand a bit of incivility when responding to such an accusation. Looks like both sides need to cool down. Shell ^babelfish 12:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - my apologies for missing that. Crimsone 16:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

We should not lose sight of the fact that this user's abuse of British contributors is completely inexcusable, and began long before I used the "r" word. Gsd2000 00:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree Gsd2000. All that's been said here to the best of my knowledge is that the diff I gave was not a wonderful example due to the provocation made (as cited above). Never the less, if the user is continues along with unprovoked and obvious personal attacks, the diffs of these will undoubtedly be considered. If not, the warnings can be considered to be heeded as per policy. This doesn't discount the recent RfC opened about the dispute itself though, which you are more than entitled to add your perspective to if you feel it prudent or worthwhile to do so. :) Crimsone 01:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Blake911 (talk · contribs)

User:Blake911 has repeatedly and fasely accused myself and Jestix of harassing him on his wikipedia talk page. He consistantly edits my warnings on his page, either deleting them[[7]] or changing them[[8]] to deface what I have said. He has also outright attacked me using the name ["super geek"] to describe me. While this is minor, I let it slide initially, assuming good faith and that my warnings would be heeded. That was not the case however. I hope I made the case easy to read, I've never posted something in this manner before. Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 04:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Editor given a final warning for personal attacks and removing warnings. Please let us know if he persists. Shell ^babelfish 04:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for such a speedy reply. I'll keep my eyes peeled. Shazbot85^Talk 05:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears User:Blake911 is not going to dissist from personal attack, as can be seen here [[9]] where he further accusses me of harassing action, baselessly and completly falsely. One would be led to believe he is not going to play nice with others and won't stop throwing his fit until people leave his NN articles alone. something that just won't do. Any help is appreciated. Regards, Shazbot85^Talk 06:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition I came accross more of User:Blake911's baseless acusations here [[10]], on Jestix's talkpage. Shazbot85^Talk 06:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

See also Here [[11]] for more name calling. Shazbot85^Talk 06:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. Shell ^babelfish 12:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Indrancroos (talk · contribs)

Indrancroos has turned the indian martial arts discussion page from a discussion about the merits of the article to a discussion about me... he has accused me of racism on multiple occasions, and yet has yet to substantiate anything about any statements that i have said that are racist... he has also supposedly brought in other discussion too... but has yet been able to bring in any statements of racism that i have made... i have attempted to tell him to stop doing this and yet he continues... two whole pages of the discussion panel consist of his ramblings...Kennethtennyson 03:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please supply some diffs for these incidents. Crimsone 03:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Kennethtennyson seems to be missing in action, so I will provide the diffs, seeing as how Indrancroos has come after me now that his block for stalking Kennethtennyson has expired: [12], [13], [14].

JFD 09:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. Editor continued to re-post attacks and harassment (including attempts to track WP editors to other websites) after last block. Shell ^babelfish 12:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

fluence

fluence has requested people attack my talk page here http://217.154.142.24/keane/forum/viewtopic.php?t=35462 and revert edits to keane that I have made Richyard 17:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

• You've warned him about calling for meat puppets and attacking other users; if the editor persists, you may want to use some of the dispute resolution processes unless its nothing more than blatent personal attacks. Shell ^babelfish 00:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

3bulletproof16

User Shell Kinney removed the original posting of this saying "rm 3bulletproof16 report, JB196 asked to stop harassing this editor," in reference to my reverts of Bullet's talk page. One moderator is telling me one thing and another moderator is telling me another. I have every right to file this report and not have it be deleted until it is addressed accordingly. The explanation given by Shell Kinney is clearly not an example of harassment as moderator Extraordinary Machine has stated to me that "Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page." That text can be seen on my talk page. You tell me I cannot revert talk pages, yet another mod tells me I can and not only that I can, but I should. That is an invalid reason for dismissal of my report and for that reason I am reposting it.

I apologize if reports are not allowed to be reposted once they are dismissed, but it is impossible to know the answer to that question when different moderators enforce different policies.

As far as Bulletproof, this user violated WP:AGF on numerous occasions by writing nasty edit summaries directed towards my integrity on the Vic Grimes page. Just some comments he made include his accusation that I am “[violating] the integrity of Wikipedia” (2:30), that I am “vandalizing” the page (written multiple times as “rv vandalism”), “deliberately attempting to compromise the quality of articles” (2:45), among other slanderous comments which violate WP:AGF. My edit history on Wikipedia shows that I have made not some but NUMEROUS constructive edits to a wide range of pages, including not only wrestling-related pages but also List of trade unions (which I helped tremendously by adding category templates for years of establishment). I am clearly out to help Wikipedia and whether or not I am taking his comments too sensitively is irrelevant; this user has cast me out to be a “troll” (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:3bulletproof16&oldid=73889398) among other remarks that clearly lack good faith, yet have not been addressed.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Regards,

A faithful Wikipedian (contrary to how I was portrayed)

JB196JB196 00:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You've already got threads at AN, ANI, AN3, various article and user talk pages, and even a WikiProject; is this extra report really necessary? Luna Santin 00:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely it is necessary....I am on more than a few occasions being told that I am reporting incidents on the wrong page and being told that they can't help me and I have to go elsewhere (such as reporting 3RR on the main Adminstirators Notification board and being told that theres a subboard for 3RR, among other examples). I am reporting a Personal Attack in the Personal Attack section.JB196 00:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; my apologies, I haven't yet taken a deeper look through those threads. Luna Santin 00:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem.JB196 00:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Please see his talk page which should quickly clear up what's going on. Shell ^babelfish 00:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Additionally, please see my response here. JB196 has been counselled by numerous admins and is venue shopping. This report has no merit. Shell ^babelfish 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Note that no legit warnings were removed or reverted from my talk page, only his harassment."

When you have to make up stories that you know never happened, you know you don't have much of a case. This is a blatant lie. Never did I harass you. Every comment was constructive. Readding constructive comments was the extent of this supposed harassment. If the constructive comments had stayed, there would be no need to remove them, and as Wikipedia administrators have communicated to me, it is not allowed for a person to remove notices from their talk page unless they are blatant vandalism/spamming/trolling, which this was not. The only part of this statement that holds any ground is the "no legit warnings" part, and of course "no legit warnings were removed"

I never posted any time of formal warning that he could remove.

It is 3bulletproof16 who personally attacked and harassed me for upholding Wikipedia Policy.JB196 01:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)