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

Iwazaki (talk · contribs)

He/she has posted that what we written there was nonsense. [1], despite the final warning given by Shell Kinney (talk · contribs) [2] and my requests to be polite twice [3] [4] and the polite explanation from Crimsone (talk · contribs) about what is personal attack [5] [6] [7]. --16^T 20:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to the controversial template.And yes,i believe, with very good reason, that most of the things there are nonsense..I dont think i breach any of the wiki policies here.But, i can certainly show you someone who keep breaking all the wiki policies and going into low standards such as name calling.And surprisingly the above user seem not worry at all about it,even though it is written in his talk page.have a look [sinhala goons].

while failing to see obvious personal attacks on a entire race, the above user accusess me for something i didnt do at all. --Iwazaki 00:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

That looks like a content dispute. The post focuses on other editors' actions. Although the statement is exasperated in tone, it addresses what this editor perceives are the merits of the matter at hand without crossing the line. Recommend WP:DR. Durova^Charge! 02:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Isarig (talk · contribs)

We've had disagreements in the past that have escalated; I responded to the last three personal attacks using the NPA template on his talk page as directed. After the third warning, he removed the warnings from his user talk page and placed a note on my talk page calling the warnings "pony" (I assume he meant "phony") and threatening me with some sort of action. I do not believe the warnings were phony, and they were not threats; I simply used the NPA template as directed to on Wikipedia rules; two of his attacks[8][9] were insults about my real world employment, a job Isarig claims (without evidence) that I am not qualified to do, and the other two[10][11], were insults based on the fact that I was voicing my opinion about editing an article on Wikipedia. I do not believe such insults are warranted on Wikipedia. csloat 05:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

csloat has been leading a personal vendetta against me since I reported him for violating 3RR a month ago [12]. As part of that, he has recently taken to filling up my Talk page with phony warnings about alleged personal attacks. This user has been spearheading a 6-month campaign to keep any sort of criticism out of the Juan Cole page. This campaign involved an edit war in which he a participated, which resulted in the page being protected. There is now an on-going effort to resolve the disputes on that page. A compromise is close, with 5-6 editors agreeing to it, and csloat being the only one who refuses to accept the compromise. I have thus described his actions (not him) as "stubborn refusal" - a characterization he now interprets as a "personal attack on him. This user has himself been extremely uncivil, warned about personal attacks on his Talk page several times [13][14], and has been called out for his behavior by other users on the Juan Cole Talk page . Isarig 16:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This situation belongs in an article content (or perhaps a user conduct) WP:RFC. Read an essay and tone down the discussion to a more appropriate level. If Isarig's allegations are valid then WP:DE would be an applicable guideline. This falls outside the scope of this noticeboard. Durova^Charge! 16:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the personal attacks on my job, which have nothing to do with the edit dispute. Isarig is citing disputes with other editors and totally mischaracterizing the debate on the Juan Cole page. The personal attacks are way out of line. csloat 20:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have read the entire thread, most of which is out of line. It's unworthy of academic dignity to post You're wrong, and if you took my class, you would get a correct impression of issues or you would flunk the tests...you're basing your high-and-mighty posturing on a distinction that dates back to before the invention of the radio or You're just blatantly trolling now. That is blatant bad faith and incivility. Neither side is above reproach and I would prefer to see this group of editors' considerable knowledge channel into more productive areas. Please step back, take a breather, and try mediation. Durova^Charge! 02:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Those comments were specifically addressed to his personal attacks on me for doing my job outside of Wikipedia as a university professor. It is disheartening to see such attacks supported by an admin. You're right, everyone needs to relax on that page, but I am not Gandhi. Must I remain passive while someone who has never set foot in one of my classrooms berates me about my ability to teach a class I've been teaching for a decade? csloat 02:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually this particular noticeboard request would have been simpler if you had remained a bit more passive. It's easier to adjudicate personal attack claims within a content dispute when one party's actions remain restrained while the other side crosses the line. In this particular instance I happen to know something about the surrounding content issue: my graduate studies were in writing and I'm fairly well versed in the definitions of libel and slander, although not so deeply knowledgeable as to trace their history in case law. As an administrator at this noticeboard my role is to examine personal attack claims as an objective observer. A statement against one's career might sting far more than the words that proceeded it, but the entire discussion had been on a downward spiral. A 24 hour block wouldn't fix that. You're intelligent editors, the kind of contributors I'd like to foster and encourage, and the very best I can do for all of you is to reroute this to WP:DR. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 03:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Sam Wereb (talk · contribs)

The following user is constantly making derogatory comments about people, particularly knifemakers and is threatening to have me removed from wikipedia as well have my articles trashed. Sam Wereb I saw Wiki deleted a personal attack the user made against Rick Hinderer.

Everything in the three articles I've been working on - Ernest Emerson, Emerson Knives and Strider Knives - can be sourced and is sourced, yet this person refers to them as puff pieces and has made numerous derrogotory comments against the Hinderers, Emersons, and Strider knives. He's fond of deleting the libellous attacks he makes too and denies them after the fact. Check his history particularly: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jerry.mills&oldid=77279071 and here where he slandered a decorated firefighter so badly that it was deleted alltogether: [[15]] Check the history(he deletes his own comments often) and I have asked this user repeatedly what the problem is, etc. he refuses to answer and only tries to hide his slanderous comments after reporting people.

Thank you. --Mike Searson 22:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

All morning it continues. He places "attack warnings" on my personal page out of retribution for asking him to stop. Threataning to ban me with people he knows here. His latest tactic is to edit my talk page and his talk page and then try to get me in trouble for something called a Three Revert Rule which I never heard of. --Mike Searson 17:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

If this editor has actually threatened to use personal contacts to have you banned, please post a specific page diff for that. The Three Revert Rule is explained at WP:3RR, but I don't see how he interprets that against you. Durova^Charge! 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Here are some examples, I think this is how to post them: [[16]][[17]] [[18]]

[[19]]

It may be a miscommunication problem or he may be an overzealous editor. I want to work within the guidelines to fix these articles. It is obvious I did not write them, I'm only trying to edit, document, organize and clean them up. I am close enough to the sources to have access to information not necesarrily found online. When I link to an online source it's called "spam".

I do get concerned when libelous attacks are made against people Sam has crossed offline.--Mike Searson 23:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Sam's slandering continues calling me a dangerous and volatile individual here: [[20]].

I never threataned anyone, I was trying to stop the edit warring and reach consensus. My phone number is a matter of public record and on my website, I was simply trying to resolve this situation like an adult. [[21]]--Mike Searson 02:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, reposting a bit from my talk page:

Dear Durova,

Thank you for not deleting my complaint and for prompting me to read how to use diffs. In my haste to get the attacks stopped, I didn't notice the guide at the top of the page. At your earliest convenience, please arbitrate the complaint. I think it is a pressing matter because, when I read his user page, I become concerned that this is a dangerous individual with a volatile personality. I am especially concerned when I see the veiled threats he has made on the complaints page, itself, about calling me at home to "discuss" the matter. Thank you. Sam 02:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're getting the hang of the site. It can be confusing at first - I've been there. WP:PAIN has a limited purpose and most of what I see looks like a content dispute. So my usual response would be to refer you to WP:DR. Your statement about veiled threats is a different matter: please post page diffs specifically to show that at the noticeboard thread. Respectfully, DurovaCharge! 02:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but do my diffs not already show him calling me "a troll," "a liar," and "a failed writer"? Please see this one [22] The attacks are in the green highlighted section (green in my browser, anyway.) None of those are content disputes, surely.

Further, this user shows some serious contempt for the process by carrying on on the personal attacks intervention board. That's where you will find the veiled threat to telephone me about all this. How do I diff to that? When you see stuff like that from a guy who boasts about his background as much as he does, on his user page, it's something a prudent man has to take seriously. Thanks, again. Sam 03:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The bulk of this dispute is about WP:NPOV, which isn't going to get resolved at this noticeboard. I don't intervene in many content disputes, but sometimes the personal attack component merits separate attention. One thing I take very seriously is when someone appears to threaten real world retribution, even if they do so in a veiled manner. So clarify this with specific links and page diffs: was this a matter of

1. Giving a link to one's own phone number and inviting a telephone call from the other party? (innocuous)
2. Suggesting one has the ability to discover the other party's telephone number and initiate the call? (worrisome)

I'd like to hear from both sides. Durova^Charge! 03:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not the best typist in the world, sometimes it's slow and I make numerous mistakes. Here is my personal web page: http://mikesearson.com/ I am a public individual and it lists my phone number. I was simply trying to resolve this without the constant back and forth bickering that was going on on the talk page. It is not uncommon for me to pick up a phone and call someone when there is a misunderstanding.

I have an about me page on here [[23]] that lists my accomplishments in life: does serving as a Marine, being a Catholic going through Religious training, liking Corvettes, or drinking Guinness make me a public nuisance? How is it bragging when I'm just saying who I am? A Latin speaker who loves ancient history?

Again, 2 months ago he slandered a friend of mine.[[24]] I reacted out of anger and since publicly apologized twice to him. I thought we were moving on, but apparently this editor has a grudge against me and my friend, Mr Strider and is now taking it out on an article I am trying to fix about another friend, Mr Emerson.

I did not come here to make trouble, I just want to contribute to some articles here and help out.--Mike Searson 04:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, unless I see some evidence to contradict that from the other party I'll take that at face value. Interim recommendation is mediation. Durova^Charge! 05:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I placed my answer below, where it belongs. Sam 06:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. [25] First he says he's afraid of me for threataning him, which I never did. Then he calls me a keyboard commando and makes baseless insinuations about me based on innuendo. He says he thinks I don't have to follow the rules of society and I'm a manipulator and calls me stark raving mad.

I don't see how any of that can be deduced from anything that I have ever posted on this site. I don't know whether to consider it more personal attacks or just to laugh it off. --Mike Searson 06:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It's interesting that he claims I threataned him and then goes on with his condesencion and snide remarks: [26] Personally, I think he's just trying to get my goat, but I will not take the bait. --Mike Searson 08:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Propol (talk · contribs) and Goethean (talk · contribs)

I have been trying to edit on the Peter Roskam article and these two editors, User talk:Propol and User talk:Goethean which may be working an WP:OWN scenario on the Peter Roskam article, have been accusing me of being a sockpuppet from the start.

These two refuse to discuss my edits but chose to engage in bullying and wikilawyering to intimidate and chase off any editor which don't agree with their POV agenda.

I happen to live in the 6th congressional district, which has approxmaly 100,000 other voters, so there may be other people interested in this article besides them. Please tell these two to stop it and enforce Wikipolicy WP:CIVIL WP:AGF and WP:NPOV ThanksCreamofwheaton 06:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Page diffs are needed. Durova^Charge! 22:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Propolis using threats and intimations and defacing my user page with charges of being a sookpuppet so as to drive me off. He behaves, as if he's on a crusade, to drive all editor he don't like, away from the Peter Roskam Article. I would like him to stop it and behave, as an adult rather than a petulant child. He seems to think he owns the Roskam article. Here is some the diffs, which I think you want. [27] Creamofwheaton 07:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Diffs, not histories, thanks. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is what you want. Thanks

[28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] Creamofwheaton 14:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

All but one of those diffs demonstrate edit warring on user talk pages. Your contentions about the article may or may not have merit, but you overstepped the line on these talk pages, Creamofwheaton. Editors have a lot of leeway in how they manage their own userspace, including blanking warnings: many Wikipedians frown on the practice but no consensus has emerged about what limits to impose. By replacing those warnings you've edit warred. Don't worry too much: the warnings are in the page history. Show the actions that prompted that talk page war and refrain from reverting warnings in the future - although of course you may post new warnings as appropriate for additional problem behavior. Durova^Charge! 16:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My understanding of what you have said is that I can remove Graffiti from my talk page. It was this editor that insisted on edit warring on my talk page and my response was to ask him to stop it. As per the procedure I added the WP:PAIN tag. The war was started by USER:Propol due to his mistaken belief that all editors, on that article are Sockpuppets. I will be happy if this editor just sticks with discussing the article, and keeps his theories about the editor's status as a sockpuppet his own and assume good faith. Thanks again.Creamofwheaton 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, this is the diff that sparked Propol's user page war. [39]Creamofwheaton 23:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

My criticism was not that you removed warnings from your own talk page, but that you persisted at replacing them on another editor's talk page. In the opening post to this thread you mentioned threats - if there actually have been threats against you then post diffs for that. Otherwise I recommend WP:DR. This particular noticeboard has a limited purpose. Durova^Charge! 01:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Mike Searson (talk · contribs)

This editor has just published a wikipedia page which includes a public personal attack against me (publicly calling me a Stalker/Vandal)here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mike_Searson#Re:_Stalker.2FVandal Please see that this is revoved from public view as soon as possible. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Wereb (talk • contribs)

• THIS NOTICE NEEDS IMMEDIATE ADMINISTRATOR ATTENTION. Mike Searson (talk · contribs) is now vandalizing my user talk page. Sam 16:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sam,

You were the one who began these personal attacks and threats. You have slandered myself and others to fit your own agenda. Even though you move your libelous comments from public view, they are there for all to see. I repeatedly attempted to work with you on these articles, all you want to do is threatan to have them deleted. I've offered to talk over the phone on these articles in case you just have a rude manner of typing, seems like all you want to do is make trouble. --Mike Searson 07:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Post page diffs, not links. Durova^Charge! 22:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

What is a "page diff" and how do I post one? What is being done about this defamation? Why are you making it so difficult to get this simple complaint reviewed? Take the link I posted here and see the history.

Help:Diff. That link and all other necessary information is published at the top of this noticeboard. The poster who ignored the instructions has delayed the investigation. I strongly recommend a more respectful tone because under the terms of these rules, it would be entirely appropriate for me to delete this request altogether. Durova^Charge! 17:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Durova, for the help with diffs. The following should explain my complaint.

1.On October 5, 2006 Mike Searson (talk · contribs) made his first personal attack(s) on me within Wikipedia, by using the Strider Knives article discussion page to call me "a troll," "a liar," "a failed writer" and to tell me to go wait tables. This is the diff showing the personal attacks: [40]

2. On October 5, 2006 I responded to that personal attack by giving the first warning and applying the npa2 tag. I did not know better at the time and applied it to his user page. This is the diff showing the npa2 tag, albeit on the wrong page, but definitely where he could see it: [41] 3. On October 18 or 19, 2006 Mike Searson (talk · contribs) made his second personal attack on me within Wikipedia, labeling me a "stalker/vandal" on his user talk page. Please see this diff: [42]

4. On October 19, I responded to that second personal attack by giving the second warning and applying the npa3 tag, this time to his user talk page. [43]

5. After I posted the npa3 tag, Mike Searson (talk · contribs) continued to harrass me by reverting and amplifying the comments on his user talk page (#3 above) multiple times to ensure that the labels he applied to me could be viewed by any visitor to Wikipedia.

6. After giving up on reverting his user talk page, Mike Searson (talk · contribs) took the harrassment to a serious new level by faking the npa3 tag on my user talk page here: [44]

7. Mike Searson (talk · contribs) continues to make personal attacks and harrass me by using his user talk page as a billboard for posting public comments on me. See this diff: [45]'

I believe that this covers everything, so far. If there is anything else I need to do to perfect this complaint, please let me know. Thank you in advance Sam 02:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

We've got two different requests going for the same topic. My reply is above. Durova^Charge! 03:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Durova, I am answering your comments from above here, because my original complaint about him using Wikipedia to make personal attacks against another editor is still outstanding.

Of course the personal attacks spring from a NPOV conflict. I'm sure that many others do, too. This complaint here on the Personal Attack Intervention Noticeboard is about these personal attacks. There is little else for me to do than to show you each specific example again, the first one(s) here [46], the second one here [47], and the third one here [48].

I know that you are making every attempt to be thorough, but I hope that you will not further delay to discharge your duty. If you do, he will consider it a victory and an implicit license to commit more personal attacks and we will be back here in less than a month. I have dealt with this type of keyboard commando before and I know for certain how they act.

Concerning the veiled threat which you have seen on this very page, one has only to look at his user page and all the prevarications he has flung against the wall here to see clearly what kind of individual we are probably dealing with and what to expect from him in the future.

This is an individual who doesn't think he has to follow any rules of any society he joins, and that whatever rules and administration are in place are there for him to manipulate. For Christ's sake, he reported me on the Personal attack intervention noticeboard for prudent and patient application of the npa2 and npa3 tags more than a month apart.

I have a family to watch out for, and I hope that I don't have to take any extra measures to protect them simply because I ran into difficulty here with a deranged POV pusher who is rapidly coming unhinged. His attitude and behavior reflect what the M.M.M. is always saying and I am starting to believe may be right: 90% of knife and gun people are stark raving mad.

These are simple, straightforward, easy-to-identify, personal attacks on another Wikipedian and they should be stopped. I hope that this user prevented from making more personal attacks because, otherwise, I don't think it will be long before we will be back here for the same reason. Thank you for your consideration. Sam 06:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

As if what I have proferred so far doesn't paint a convincing picture of what we are dealing with, this user continues above to demonstrate his complete disregard for civility and good faith activity, as well as his utter contempt for the entire process by continuing to carry this "debate" to this page. I am sure there have been more egregious conduct violations than he has shown in the last few days, but none spring to mind right now. Sam 06:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Open reports

Killerman2 (talk · contribs)

Take a look at this. This idiot should be banned for a long time, if not for ever. Thank you.--Barbatus 12:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Specific diff: [49]. Last NPA warning at 20 July 2006; just gave him {{npa3}} then. Latest attack seems racist-based, so maybe a warning isn't required to block. History of race-based attacks (see last NPA warning). Note, Barbatus, please do not make personal attacks (like "idiot") yourself. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 12:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

User proceeded to blanking my warning...classy. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 13:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've blocked

This user is male.

This user comes from Sweden.

svDen här användaren talar svenska som modersmål.

This user is heterosexual.

This user identifies as a Marxist.

arThis user supports animal rights.

This user once loved Grand Theft Auto.

This user enjoys rock music.

This user is drug-free.

This user supports recycling.

This user wants to stop
global warming.

This user supports the liberation of Palestine.

This user supports the independence of Kurdistan.

This user supports the independence of Western Sahara (SADR).

This user supports the independence of Tibet.

This user supports the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

This user opposes Imperialism.

This user supports the independence of Taiwan and a Republic of Taiwan

This user supports the use of green energy.

no nazis

This user opposes fascism in all its forms

This user supports the United Nations.

, if Barbatus continues, he too will get a block. Martinp23 01:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for intervening. I'm not sure I understand, however, what I should not continue. I've never made any obscene remarks on anyone's talk page, or any other page, for that matter. How you can (or can not) continue something you've never started? (I took a liberty to correct spelling of my user name in your comment.) Thanks again,--Barbatus 20:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Calling someone an "idiot" is a personal attack (see about six lines above). Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It was but a just (as you yourself admitted) response to an unprovoked attack on me, on my personal page. I overreacted, perhaps. But I did not attack anyone. Dixi.--Barbatus 16:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Adriaan90 (talk · contribs)

See user's edit history, particularly on Talk:Black People. User is very hostile. --Strothra 19:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please provide diffs per the instructions for this page. Note that this page is not a substitute for dispute resolution for ongoing problems. Shell ^babelfish 19:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• • [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] (see the edit summary in this one). Note that I'm not involved in the dispute. Also this comment on my talk page after I gave him the npa3 warning: [55] --Strothra 19:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for the diffs; blocked for 24 hours. Shell ^babelfish 19:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Achillobator (talk · contribs)

This user keeps making attacks on another user for reverting his racially motivated edits to articles [56]. He made this one after I placed a warning on his talk page [57]. It looks like he is the same person as User talk:202.40.134.252 but registered an account [58] to edit war on the Egyptians article and avoid the pervious vandalism warnings on his IP page. It seems he was called on for help by User:Yom who's also edit warring on the article. Egyegy 03:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• Not clear personal attacks, since he is discussing his concerns with her behavior. Editor has been asked to be more civil in the future. Please use dispute resolution for the edit warring. Shell ^babelfish 18:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean "I'm better than you" is an example of a personal attack but "she has a racial purity complex and has emotional problems" (twice) is not clear enough?? I think you just called that "discussing". And about "his concerns with her behavior"; I am certainly suspicious of someone who adds a questionable edit from an IP of a known vandal, who just happens to know the other person making the exact same edit, and then immediately registers a new account to edit war over it. At any rate, I wouldn't have even bothered with a report, after all it's wiki, and it's not like a couple of attacks didn't roll off my back, but I would expect a little bit more sense. — [zɪʔɾɪdəʰ] · ☥ 00:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: Another one: disregarding what some northern Egyptian most likely raised with a medieval-era anti-black stigma thinks.[59] Egyegy 04:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Izzy Dot (talk · contribs)

Admin assistance is requested at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television) to help maintain a civil atmosphere. Some of the participants (most notably Izzy Dot (talk · contribs)) have been engaging in verbal abuse and sexual comments: "You'd fricken nuts or retarded to even suggest..." [60], "pelvic thrust" [61], "Did some homo just accuse me of being a fucking sockpuppet" [62]. Note that Izzy Dot is also behaving in an uncivil manner in other venues as well: "WHAT THE FUCK... "You just 'puss' out" [63]. Repeated warnings to his talkpage have not seemed to help. Admin Josiah Rowe (talk · contribs) has threatened a block, which assistance is appreciated, but since Josiah is directly involved in the debate with Izzy at WP:NC-TV, it probably wouldn't be appropriate for him to do a block, so I'm requesting a neutral admin as well. Specific editors causing concern over personal attacks and incivility are Izzy Dot (talk · contribs), Ned Scott (talk · contribs), and Ace Class Shadow (talk · contribs). Thanks. --Elonka 02:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I would also be accused of being non-objective but, for what it's worth, I was going to block Izzy Dot myself until I realized that Josiah Rowe was an admin. I deferred to his final warning but I would recommend a block - possibly a long one. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

24 hour block on Izzy Dot. Post diffs for other editors and post again if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 12:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The_Kinslayer (talk · contribs)

Very long history of personal attacks on the talk page, furthermore, has stated he does not take the personal attack policy seriously. I count several personal attacks at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#General_Mayhem alone, not to mention the ones mentioned on his talk page. He has already been warned several times. Rizla 19:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please provide diffs per the instructions above. Shell ^babelfish 20:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[64][65][66][67] These are only the latest abuses. Please also see his talk page for his flippant responses to the warnings + past violations. Rizla 23:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

72 hour block: 24 hours for WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL plus an additional 48 hours for contempt of site policy. Durova^Charge! 01:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

NazireneMystic (talk · contribs)

Please warn user NazireneMystic to refrain from personal attacks and remove offending material from the Talk:Ebionites page (from [68] to the end of the talk page). This user posted his user page Here I will show evidence of notibility and VfD proceedings of a deleted stub Articals for deletion log for Ebionite restoration movement complete with to meatpuppets and one admin that may had been duped by User:Ovadyah|Ovadyah on the talk page along with numerous personal attacks against myself and another editor (eg. seeArtical POV and [69].

If reading about your actions feels like a personal attack change your actionsNazireneMystic 08:23, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This user has ignored repeated requests to respect Wikiquette guidlines posted on the talk page and has been given two prior npa3 warnings about personal attacks, Good faith? and meatpupppets. Thank you. Ovadyah 03:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I dought there is a guidline wikipedia has that you not only break every day but lawyer around them to use them for reason contrary to what they were meant for from what ive seen if an action were taken against me compaired to what ive had to put up with from you it would be like getting a speeding ticket at the Brick Yard 400NazireneMystic 08:28, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This user was also asked to stop one last time on talk page again after receiving the second npa3 warning[70]. Ovadyah 04:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ovadyah,

You can ask me to stop exposing your wikipedian lawyering tactics 1000 times but I do not care. If I did not almost daily point out how your tring to dominate the Ebionite artical with extreme POV it would had been totaly over ran months ago. Your upset because someone is calling you on your endless crap. If I were a nice guy I would had been ran off the artical long ago like you did to keith ackers who is actualy listed as a scholar and source for the artical if who ever is reading this realy cares to learn whats been going on contact Keith for one and he might tell you how these wikipedians have been acting and be sure to take the time to go through the archive pages so you can see the wild tactics used so far to push Ovadyah's POV its been quiet an experience here at wikipedia. If ovadyah is sensitive then Ovadyah should not be ingaging in such thingsNazireneMystic 08:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

This user constantly trolls my contribution logs. I am changing my request to a warning and a temporary block. I have also invited several editors involved in the Ebionites article or AfD to comment. Ovadyah 08:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you invite the other meatpuppet?NazireneMystic 08:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I alerted co-editor Loremaster, Alecmconroy from RFC, and admin Jayjg to the notice, if they wish to expand on my comments. Ovadyah 14:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Neither of you are behaving very well in this instance. Ovadyah, please provide specific diffs. Proto::type 15:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As no warning (other than some unnecessary ones from Oyidah at an earlier date) were issued, I've warned NazireneMystic for this edit, which was unacceptable. I would hope that unless he/she continues making edits of this kind, the matter is now closed. Proto::type 15:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Administrator blows referee whistle - this is not the place to conduct a dispute. 24 hour block issued. Durova^Charge! 01:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. It should be noted, however, that this user has already evaded the block by copying his talk page to another alias, User_talk:SpiritualEbionite. Ovadyah 01:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The other account hasn't been used since 11 November and the move occurred before I administered the block. Suggest you follow-up with a suspected sockpuppet report. Post again here if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 01:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I will. Thanks again for taking care of it. Ovadyah 13:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is but the latest wikilawyering act by ovadyah. tring to make it appear as if I evaded a block when I did not. Since noone here understands the difference in a person attack and aksing people to explain their wiwilawying tactics I gusee you will also not understand what a socketpuppet your going to file a socket puppet report now? baised on what? My first edit using that account mentioned That I was NazireneMystic and opened it because I forgoet my password. This it tipical of him thoe Isee you sugected the socketpuppet report with out seeing any evidence of such but didnt say anything about a meatpuppet report after I Laid out the evidence on the talkpage of the artical the meatpuppetry affectedNazireneMystic 03:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The 24 hour block was based the following words NazireneMystic posted to this page: Your upset because someone is calling you on your endless crap. An additional 48 hour block has now been issued for another post in which the same editor accuses another editor of spitting on people.[71] Durova^Charge! 22:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Donnachadelong (talk · contribs)

User:Donnachadelong often makes insulting or derogatory comments to me or other editors. He was warned three times about this. 1 2 3

right-wing wreckers and POV-pusher – other "right-wing wrecker" he is mentioning is User:172

clearly you do have a problem understanding plain English

Are you deliberately dense or just plain stupid?

God some of you people talk rubbish.

eltist right-wing wreckers

You're like the Mormons with their post-mortem conversions.

hilarious and brainwashed

bleedin' minority who dig up graves

hypocrit

-- Vision Thing -- 22:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

31 hour block. Durova^Charge! 01:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolute bullshit Intangible 12:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please post only new incidents subsequent to a block. Also, take care how to word a post so it doesn't have the appearance of an unintentional insult. Durova^Charge! 01:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

John Spikowski (talk · contribs)

This user attacked me and the PanoTools Group several times and this is now my third PAIN. The latest attack can be seen here [72]. As you can see on his talk page he already got several admin warnings [73], [74], [75], [76] including a Personal Attacks - Last Warning [77] for his older attacks which you can find in this history [78], [79]. As you can imagine we (The members of PanoTools.org) are really tired of this person. Please help. --Wuz 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and left a 48 hour block for violations of WP:CIVIL. Suggest Wikipedia:Dispute resolution: it's unlikely that civility blocks alone would resolve this issue. If the person seems unwilling to compromise then try a user conduct WP:RFC. Durova^Charge! 03:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Caligvla (talk · contribs)

First of all for the history of this user feel free to consult admin Aguerriero (who can verify his sockpuppet use for example) and Mangojuice (for previous disruptions). This was his [80] response to Augustgrahl, Clevelander and myself today. When asked to be civil and cease personal attacks. He responded with this: [81]. Apparently, WP:IGNORE justifies his actions...--Eupator 23:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Eupator has a long history of wikistalking, personal attacks, lies, and extreme abusive behavior, consult admin Aguerriero and admin InShaneee This constant abuse and disruption from Eupator must end.--Caligvla 06:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

=Petr Vokáč (talk · contribs) a Nácíček Ignác (talk · contribs)

I ask for indefinite ban for these sockpuppet-users: User:Petr Vokáč (he vandalised my homepage) and User:Nácíček Ignác (he made hard personal attack on my diskusion and his name is attack against me too = small nazi Ignác in czech). Thanx. Cinik 21:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Cinik posted here ten minutes after a request regarding User:Nácíček Ignác was rejected at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.[82] Normally I would deliver a strong rebuke to a requesting editor who conducts an undisclosed search for sympathetic administrators and ignores the instructions at a noticeboard. The request should have gone to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. However, the Petr Vokáč example is so blatant that I'll issue an indefinite block. I'm not going to intervene with User:Nácíček Ignác because another administrator has already acted. Durova^Charge! 17:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)