Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 59: Line 59:


Any assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Markovich292|Markovich292]] 05:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Any assistance would be much appreciated. [[User:Markovich292|Markovich292]] 05:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

===[[User:RR2|RR2]]===
* {{vandal|RR2}}
* {{vandal|RR3}}

User seems intent on insulting those on the [[Spider-Man 3]] talk page. Has only made two contributions beyond that. Created the sockpuppet to restore his own edits, and even carry on a discussion with it to make it seem as if someone agreed with him. Seems to be a single purpose account. – [[User:Someguy0830|Someguy0830]] ([[User talk:Someguy0830|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Someguy0830|contribs]]) 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


==Open reports==
==Open reports==

Revision as of 22:30, 15 September 2006


    Shortcut
    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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.)
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Move the report to the Open Reports section and give an update to the status of the report.
    5. 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

    Rastishka

    Rastishka (talk · contribs) has been blocked on at least one occasion for edit warring, and at least once again for making personal attacks on me. He's been guilty of edit warring at Lazar Kaganovich, which resulted in a vote being taken to determine whether his unsourced edits would be used or others. He didn't even attempt to back up his edits, and instead made personal attacks and behaved like a petulant child.

    Today, I find that he has reverted edits I've made to the following pages:

    The edits he makes to these pages are NOT sourced appropriately. The only sources he provides for his edits to Lazar Kaganovich and Stuart Kahan are a discredited book and anti-semitic websites.

    THEN he proceeded to vandalize my talk page with nonsense claims about ME vandalizing and then mocked me personally.

    I've reported him before, and my pleas have gone largely ignored. The last time, someone pretty much just said "he stopped, so don't worry about it." He HASN'T stopped. He just waits a month or two and then starts all over again.

    As you can see from his talk page, he's been warned and warned, and the vast majority of the commentary there is in regards to his edit warring, warnings for disruption, and bots asking him fix his unsourced image uploads. User:Alex Bakharev has blocked him twice for edit warring and personal attacks. He has also edited his own talk page to remove warning notices [3].

    I'm a pretty regular contributor here and enjoy Wikipedia, but I'm sick of this kind of thing. Can someone please ban this person? Temporary blocks have done nothing to remedy the problem. It should be pretty obvious by looking at his contributions list [4] that he's just a troll. TheQuandry 16:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    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. [5]

    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)[reply]

    ThuranX

    This user has repeatedly taken personal shots at me because my view on a continuing debate is different than his. I have said many times in that discussion that I do not appreciate the personal remarks like these, but they have not stopped. ThuranX has also been amply warned/banned for uncivil behavior.

    Here are some of the earlier remarks:

    Another editor that describes ThuranX as making personal attacks:

    Here are the warnings/blocks:

    The following is the most recent and blatant attack. It references my alleged attitudes (that ThuranX claims I hold) about a particular person (the same one he makes claims of me having a "hero worship" attitude about) and attempts to use this to discredit my views and discredit claims (by myself and others) that policy does not support his actions, a clear violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

    Any assistance would be much appreciated. Markovich292 05:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    RR2

    User seems intent on insulting those on the Spider-Man 3 talk page. Has only made two contributions beyond that. Created the sockpuppet to restore his own edits, and even carry on a discussion with it to make it seem as if someone agreed with him. Seems to be a single purpose account. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Open reports

    218.186.8.13 (talk · contribs)

    Was warned for making a personal attack at WP:DRV and responded with a legal threat, both at User talk:218.186.8.13. ~ trialsanderrors 21:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked for a week for making legal threats. Shell babelfish 03:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)

    Continues to attack Eric Lerner, the subject of this article, and a fellow editor, despite extra care being required for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:No personal attacks telling us that we should not be "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views". Both of these are Official Policy.

    • ScienceApologist refuses to accept that Eric Lerner was a Visiting Astronomer at the European Southern Observatory (ESO), despite verifiable evidence on a Nasa Web site [7], and a second source here [8].
    • Eric Lerner himself has also confirmed that he was Visiting Astronomer [9]
    • This is one of a series of edits which appear to be designed to discredit Eric Lerner, and also include:
    • Removal of awards [10]
    • Discrediting his "theories" by calling them "ideas" [11]
    • Removing positive reviews, and replacing them with negative ones [12]
    • Addition of "David Spergel" criticism,[13] based on a comment on someone's blog [14] which fails Wikipedia's standards on reliable sources.
    • This appear to be a continuation of trying to discredit various controversial scientists, including:
    • Dr. László Körtvélyessy, from whom ScienceApologist removed credentials, that Körtvélyessy "is physicist who is candidate of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences"[15]
    • Disrespectful to career scientists, labelling "(the late Prof. Paul) Marmet and Carezani as well-known woo-woos" [16], Halton Arp's work as "pathological skepticism" [17], Big Bang critics as "a list full of 'critics' who range from geologists to the out-and-out insane (such as Van Flandern)." [18]

    At the least, I would like to see ScienceApologist banned from editing the article Eric Lerner, ideally banned from editing all articles on science. --Iantresman 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I would seriously like to be able to help here. I agree that the diffs you provided show unacceptable behavior - it is one thing to balance an article, another entirely to selectively remove bits thus skewing the overall impression. Unfortunately, this looks like a job for RfC or even ArbCom depending on whats already been tried. I don't believe any block made for personal attacks would stand. Shell babelfish 03:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If they are personal attacks, then they are against official policy. If they are skewing the overall impressing, this is defined as "Wikipedia:POV pushing" which it defines as "undermining Wikipedia's neutrality policy", again which is against policy. And the examples shows repeated attempts. To do nothing sends out the messages that "unacceptable behavior" may be tolerated, official policy is merely a guideline, and there is no reason for the user to discontinue? --Iantresman 06:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And thus you run into the age old problem - blocking is preventative, not punative. Complex cases like these are generally handled through the dispute resolution process because its simply set up better to handle these issues. If you liken this page more to WP:AIV, you'll understand why its really better for clear cut cases of currently occuring personal attacks. I'm going to leave ScienceApologist a final warning about his conduct related to Eric Lerner - please drop a note on my talk page if he continues. Shell babelfish 11:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue of an editor refusing to comply with Wikipedia policy is, I believe, the situation here. Whatever language he uses, his edits defy WP:V. This is an unusual situation, usually editors who defy policy do so in good faith and when educated, comply with policy. Perhaps WP:V needs to state more strongly to not remove sourced, referenced, cited information. Terryeo 14:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've had the same editor remove verifiable information from many other articles, for all kinds of reasons. You can read some of his comments on some of my sources under his previous username, JoshuaShroeder [19] in the subsection "Joshua Shroeder's evidence against me" --Iantresman 15:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This issue, while not specifically appropriate for this board is being handled, see my talk page for updates. Shell babelfish 16:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    75.3.23.157 (talk · contribs)

    Repeated personal attack on my Talk page: calling me "ignorant" and "your hateful nature shines through in every message." 75.3.23.157 already has NP3 warning on their Talk page. Yonmei 17:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    after I reverted their vandalism (vaguely insulting - calling me ignorant} http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lordkazan&diff=prev&oldid=75725858 {direct attack against my person} http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lordkazan&diff=prev&oldid=75726763

    (edit) fixed ip! doh Lordkazan 17:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I should point out that Lordkazan was vandalizing wikipedia by reverting many of my edits which were valid. 75.3.23.157 01:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Just because you assert an edit to be valid, doesn't make it so Lordkazan 13:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Lordkazan, you really shouldn't be talking, you think that something is true and sourced is not a valid edit? You have equally done as much vandalism as me. You also need to be warned that you should not revert all edits by one person, even if they are valid, just because you are upset that that user is more knowledgable than you in one area. 75.3.23.157 16:38, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't connect gay activist with the klan. I connect people such as CaveatLector that although they are gay, they would be liked by the klan because of negative views towards African-Americans, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics, and immigrants. I didn't say that CaveatLector was a member of the klan, just that they'd like him. I could be wrong and CaveatLector could hold similiar views to the KKK because perhaps his father was a member and they probably wouldn't like him then for straying from the flock. 75.3.23.157 01:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    75.3.23.157 claimed in Edit summaries and on my Talk page that I must be anti-Catholic because I was reverting the vandalism of Mychal F. Judge page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Personal_attacks&oldid=75948822"