Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks/Archive

Policy
While there is discussion occuring at Blocking policy/Personal attacks around a change in policy, this page is intended to centralize action that is already occuring.

Templates
-->  Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -->  Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

Template chat
Just about these templates: it makes a lot more sense to me to have what's currently npa2 be npa and vice versa. --Blackcap | talk 18:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought the "nice" message should go first, before the threats. I've also changed from them substitutions to transclusion. -  brenneman (t) (c)  23:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to blocking policy and redundant
There is no formal power in the blocking policy, which is supposed to provide a definitive list of circumstances where the power of blocking can be used, permitting an administrator to block an editor solely for making personal attacks. This should really be dealt with by the editors in general using the normal dispute resolution mechanism. --Tony Sidaway Talk 07:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * If an administrator feels that by making personal attacks a contributor is disrupting wikipedia, they may block them. Period.  brenneman (t) (c)  08:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've done it myself, but blocking for disruption is controversial. Moreover this particular interpretation is somewhat beyond policy. Disruption for the purpose of the blocking policy does not include personal attacks. Such blocking should be done with community approval. The presumption that an administrator has unilateral powers to block users who insult one another is incorrect. --Tony Sidaway Talk 08:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

What if the blocking threat was replaced by an RfC threat? Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * An RfC isn't something you threaten someone with, it's just a way of getting community input.


 * There is a policy proposal to make personal attacks blockable; apparently (according to the text of the proposal) attempts to do so in the past have failed. I have no problems in principle with a formal policy of this kind, though I have reservations about how it would apply in practice.


 * If you're interested in developing such a policy, please contribute there and get it to the point where it could be introduced as a policy through a site-wide survey. However if it were to be accepted we'd probably want to make this page a subpage of WP:AN.  Blocking for personal attacks is likely to be always controversial, and in my opinion should preferably be done in cases where, by RfC, there is widespread community opinion that the editor in question has engaged in serious personal attacks and has not responded to reasonable and civil requests to stop.  -Tony Sidaway Talk  08:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, so threat is the wrong word. What I mean is have a warning message that advises users engaging in possible personal attacks that continuing to do so may result in an RfC. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

By the way, here's the old policy proposal, which failed in September 2004.


 * Blocking_policy/Personal_attacks (old)

Your rewording still seems to imply that a RfC is some kind of stain on an editor's character. Far from it, it's just a way of getting community comment. I suppose it would be appropriate to say:


 * "Personal attacks are against Wikipedia official policy, which all editors are required to follow. Rather than resort to personal abuse, editors are encouraged to resolve personal problems using dispute resolution"

Thing, is, in practice administrators aren't even a tiny bit constrained from handling real problems by blocking. The other day I intervened in a long-running squabble on Arvanites, briefly blocking three of the worst offenders in a combined abuse-a-thon and edit war. I submitted my actions to WP:AN and there was a general feeling that my actions were justified and had been, to a certain extent, effective. The result was mixed, I admit--the people concerned are still shouting at one another, and one of them has taken to complaining about his rights being trampled by an abusive administrator. But well, at least they've stopped the edit war for now! And I've got their attention so in principle I can get them all to calm down and start talking to one another. I think I've managed to transform a case that was probably going to head straight for arbcom into one where the participants are grudgingly beginning to recognise that they're not getting anywhere by attacking one another. --Tony Sidaway Talk 10:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Which is why I'm a bit confused by your opposition - all I've done is create some tools to centralise a process that already occurs. Oh, and I'm glad that there's some discussion here.  Nothing worse than having a party where no-one turns up! -  brenneman (t) (c)  12:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

No. The process you've tried to formalize has absolutely no support in policy. If you'll look at the policy discussions, you'll see that some blocks for personal attacks are accepted, others aren't. This, along with the pretty comprehensive failure of last year's attempt to introduce a personal attack blocking policy, suggests to me that this is an area in which a formal process would not be appropriate. The situation I describe above was a complex one that I'd been watching for some days before I intervened. All parties knew me and had been warned that they were behaving badly. All parties had been engaging in edit warring and protracted dogfighting, and with little attempt at good faith resolution. On balance, I thought that a very brief (three hour) blocking might bring them to their senses. It worked for some but not for all.

All of my blocks in such circumstances are subject to review and I always make a note of them on WP:AN. I think that's the right way to handle this kind of situation.

Your attempt to formalize the situation sets up what appears to me to be a "snitch" page. Someone makes a formal complaint about someone else's behavior, and at the end of the process someone may be blocked. Now firstly this appears to bypass the dispute resolution process, and secondly it seems to suggest that quickly escalating situations involving personal attacks is a good thing to do.

Dispute resolution is very important on Wikipedia. Editors are supposed to try to deal with interpersonal disputes by themselves, and the community is supposed to be involved. Administrators aren't supposed to intervene except where such measures have broken down to the point of disrupting the wiki--and in all honesty we'd be run off our feet if we intervened in every squabble where someone called someone else a poopy head.

There's also the question of how to defuse a situation. Sometimes an editor may be acting in a provocative manner and this bad behavior leads to further bad behavior by those who object to it. It's better to observe the whole situation rather than give the person giving the provocation a route by which he can snitch on the other and have him blocked for calling him names. Usually all it takes is to say to one person "okay, stop behaving unreasonably and let's talk about it" and to the other person, "don't call him names, we'll discuss this and reach a group decision." Administrators aren't the only people who have the authority and community respect needed to say things like that, and a threat of blocking isn't the only way, or the best way, to enforce such community-building efforts.

All-in-all, most instances of personal attacks are fairly piddling, and are best dealt with by a bit of finger-wagging and perhaps, in the right circumstances, Remove personal attacks. I fear that a formalized process like this would merely encourage a snitch culture and feed expectations of blocking for relatively minor offences. --Tony Sidaway Talk 13:05, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"Look! Over there! Some trees!"
Let's take a glance at the forest, eh? The trees are pretty, but they're blocking the view.

The "block" recommendation in the instructions is somewhat irrelevant. If an administrator sees this and doesn't know that blocking for personal attack is controversial, then that administrator isn't much worth his or her salt. In fact, personal attacks that take place outside of the user talk pages can pretty easily be vandalism -- depends on the attacks, their crudity, and whether they are destructive or merely angry. It's a case by case, person by person, situation. Now me, I think that any blocking for personal attacks during an argument is totally outside of the lines. I've never done it and don't think it should be done. I don't think salty language should get anyone blocked, either. On the other hand, when a talk page is exclusively attacks (as has happened before), I support blocks and/or deletion of that page. It's case by case.

The forest we're missing is that this is a "please help mediate" watchlist page. In that regard, it's good stuff. I support Tony's general argument that "may block" needs to be removed from the administrator instructions, perhaps in favor of "appropriate action." However, let's not get so obsessed with the list of appropriate actions that the discussion goes off the rails this once, please. Geogre 13:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So bracing, this forest air. Yes, lets not get off focus here. The general idea is a place where personal attacks can be flagged and mediation requested. This is a good thing. Remove all notion of action from the messages; merely point out that personal attacks are not liked. Ask the offender to reflect a little, tell them to wash their mouth out with soap and water even. But use this page to make it easier to keep an eye on potential hotspots so that they can be cooled down before too much damage is done. Filiocht | The kettle's on 13:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

We need to work on a name, then. I know, let's call it Requests for comment! --Tony Sidaway Talk 13:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Tony, you appear to think that an RfC is to be used instead of mediation and that it's just a community chat. Perhaps that has been the impression you've carried away from RfC's you've been involved with.  I can assure you that you are, if not alone in that view, at least representing a very, very small minority.  RfC's are lodged with the goal of sanction.  This is an attempt at promoting peace and harmony.  That's a good thing, indeed, and it would be an even better thing if it thinned the ranks of unnecessary RfC's, as many of them now are just along the lines of "he called me names!"
 * Further, Requests for Comment on user behavior were, originally, a place where the community would develop a consensus on a behavior, not resolve it, and then proceed to an arbcom ruling, if the community agreed. There is no debate on personal attacks:  we don't like them.  An RfC, therefore, that merely asks "is this a personal attack" is a waste of time, especially since implicit in that is "let's block the bastard."  Much better to defuse it, and a watchlist for that purpose is just one of a number of recent proposals to answer the problem of a backlogged and petty RfC page.
 * When one of Wikipedia's deliberative functions gets overwhelmed by scale issues or tardiness of resolution, the good users begin offering up innovative answers. Hence all the attempts at deletion reform for the overburdened VfD.  Hence also the mediation cabal and this.
 * I regard these as proof that Wikipedia works, at least as an idea, and that it's alive, at least a little. Geogre 16:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Please read Requests for comment for an explanation of the purpose of Requests for comment. An RfC "seeks community input regarding specific topical, policy, and personality disputes." Sanctions may evolve from RfC, because sanctions can be performed if there is community consensus to do so. Conversely community consensus may favor an alternative solution. The fact that some or even most people seek sanctions in proposing a RfC does not mean that this is the purpose of an RfC.  Accordingly, this proposal is simply a duplication of RfC.  --Tony Sidaway Talk  17:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

So...you think that there is some debate about whether name calling is good or not? There is a need for comment to affirm this? Or is it that you figure that all mediation should take place through the slow process of RFC? If not, your comments are quite bizarre or mistaken. Geogre 02:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

No, personal attacks are unequivocally wrong. However I think the current treatment of personal attacks is more or less commensurate to the damage done. You're a clever guy, geogre, we both are. It's easy for a bright person to goad someone into namecalling, and then they go and snitch and hey presto the victim gets blocked. We won't do that because we're not bullies, but there are some who would take advantage of such a system. RfC permits a more complete investigation of the situation, allows for a right of reply and outside views, and so is more likely to pick up on situations like that. --Tony Sidaway Talk 00:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that this is actually how it would work? Jeez, not giving much credit to your fellow admins, are you?  Are you going to suggest that WP:AIV is a bad idea because admins will block people listed there without thought as well?  brenneman (t) (c)  01:21, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You're still debating the "block" thing. I thought we had all agreed that this does not call for a block.  It merely says that a person can block for name calling.  That, alas, has been going on for a long time, and it's not for the heated exchange over a content argument, but for the blocked vandal who comes back with "Asshole!" all over user pages of the admins who did the blocking.  This proposal simply lodges a space where people who'd like to prevent name calling from getting to the snitching and blocking stage to hear about it and try to work things through.  I don't see it as a tattle board at all.  In fact, it's kind of the obviation of that.  It also cuts down on the tremendously unuseful clog of "namecalling" RfC's -- RfC's that are largely not needed and exist primarily to get a case for a block made.  By not having this be RfC, it slows the blocking for namecalling.  I still don't get what you're arguing about, except one word, and you could, I think, have worked more with the author and less as though he were your sworn enemy to get that word changed. Geogre 01:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a really good idea, Aaron. Thanks for setting it up. Why is npa3 defenestrated, by the way? SlimVirgin (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

MFD
This page was nominated for deletion in november 2005, but consensus was to keep it. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Snuh?
User:Kitty keeps telling me that "I suck," and that I ought to "get off of the stage." I echo that. I tried reasoning with him and I tried fluffing him, but to no avail (unless licking in sheer contempt counts as an avail). I request demand an immediate investigation and intervention. Thank you! El_C 02:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Contribution history shows no such thing. Do not waste our time with fictitious allegations. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 05:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you suck, get off the stage! Kitty 06:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Again, I echo that. Leave me alone! Anyway, should this noticeboard be linked to someplace not totally obscure? So people would know it exists? I fear that not wasting time has been something this board never moved past, and not in a good way. Any thoughts? El_C 06:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should most certainly be linked from somewhere else. Where the best place for that would be, however, I couldn't tell you.--Sean|Bla ck 06:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA? Dunno. El_C 07:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

El C, why are you forging personal attacks against yourself? And if you aren't, what the hell is going on? That is a significantly greater form of assholery than making personal attacks in the first place. — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 06:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I am trying to humor you, Phil! Is it working? El_C 07:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, I am amused, although intervention noticeboards are not the proper place for such humor. (Talk pages are fair game.) — Phil Welch Katefan's ridiculous poll 07:18, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yase! My quest for stupidity not totally curtailed (this time). Seeing how I was the fourth person to ever edit the board (with you being the fifth), I took the liberty of turning the noticeboard into a standup comedy stage of utter lameness and dismay. El_C 07:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that went reeeal well for you. Bwhahah! Kitty 07:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Non-Admin actions on this page?

 * See also Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Dealing_with_WP:PAIN_backlogs.

Following on from an idea I expressed in the above thread, I want to suggest a possible addition to the actions possible on this page.

Currently, PAIN seems to be an anomoly in its location in the disuption resolution chain. In WP:NPA the steps are 1) talk to the other user 2) use dispute resolution, and 3) WP:PAIN. Most of the suggestions in WP:DR (informal mediation, WP:30, or WP:RFC/USER, none of which are mentioned in PAIN) have the appearance of more "formal" complaints than PAIN.

Suggestions:
 * 1) Refocus PAIN to be earlier in the dispute (which is de facto seems to be), in the mode of bringing possible attacks to the attention of third parties. Update WP:NPA to reflect this.
 * 2) Allowing non-admins users to deal with/comment on these requests. This is consistant with vandalism, anyone can revert or warn, and admins only have to get involved when it's serious enough to warrent admin level action. I'm a little unsure whether non-admin should remove complaints that they have dealt with, it may be better not to do so. Even so, this should reduce the admin load, if they see "A complains about B, with comment from C (A/B was fine/uncivil/attacking, answered/reminded to be civil/warned) it should help.
 * 3) Add link to other dispute resolutions if this page doesn't work, most proably WP:RFC/USER

These suggestions are an attempt to ensure that personal attack complaints are handled reasonably quickly, at least for low-level ones, before they get the chance to escalate. Emphasising non-admins can get involved in calming people down here is also in keeping with DefendEachOther. Any comments? MartinRe 17:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm always in favour of things being resolved at the lowest level possible. Perhaps some cross-pollination with Wikiquette alerts would be good. -  brenneman  {L}  12:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

"Not a severe enough attack"
I've noticed that some editors are removing notifictions because they've decided the 'attack isnt severe enough', and that 'the complainant needs to grow a thicker skin'. Is it truely appropriate to wait until it is 'severe abuse' before warning the user off formaly. What level of abuse is 'severe'? --Barberio 09:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I cannot find the phrase you have quoted, unless you are paraphrasing "slight incivility, but no serious personal attacks" as 'attack isnt severe enough', which is incorrect as those two phrases have completely different meanings. I have looked myself at the history of the complaint, and agree with angr that it is baseless, giving a user an when they made a perfectly valid edit with description "rm repetition" is not a personal attack, by any stretch of the imagination, just because that edits reverts a change you made. It's not even un-civil, the edit description wasn't "rubbish" or "vandalism", it was a simple explaination, and there was repetition.


 * Wrt the 'thicker skin' comment (which I guess is another incorrect paraphrase of "If you consider those personal attacks, you're either extremely thin-skinned or you've never encountered a real personal attack") might I remind you of the bolded warning that appears on every page you edit: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it."


 * Most of the points you query are raised on WP:NPA, clarifing what is and is not personal attacks, and, as has been pointed out, dispute resolution must be tried before going straight to WP:PAIN. Regards, MartinRe 10:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Please refer to WP:NPA a little more carefully. Note 'and when made without involving their personal character' and 'Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.'. Ad hominem attacks are ones of personal character, and thus are personal attacks. I sincerly hope that ad hominem attacks have not been consistantly removed, since that's acting counter to policy.
 * I also note you are mistakenly combining WP:DR with WP:PAIN. There is no requirment to go through dispute resolution to raise a personal attack complain, and any requirment would be totaly counter productive. It is suggested as an alternative where the issues are a content dispute, it is not a requirement. --Barberio 12:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal
I think that WP:PAIN, in the way it is currently being managed, is redundant since its purpose is being much better served by WP:WQA. WP:PAIN simply adds a layer of complication, and hoop jumping, to a situation that can be much better handled simply by combined user/admin interventions after a posting on WP:WQA.

Maybe it's time to shut down the page, by redirecting it and all references to WP:WQA. --Barberio 12:54, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

In the intrests of concentrating effort, I'm tagging this to be merged into WP:WQA. --Barberio 12:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder...
I do not monitor this page very often, how does one qualify what a "personal attack" is for the purposes of this page? I don't think I would feel comfortable as an administrator to judge this. Would it be more effective if we restricted this page to insults that are say, boarderline legal or death threats instead? That would be more black and white, and would be easier to implement with (hopefully) less controversy. Thoughts? --HappyCamper 14:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Header
There's a discussion on a new header at Wikipedia talk:Personal attack intervention noticeboard/Header. Paul Cyr 03:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've moved it here for more eyeballs. - brenneman  {L} 23:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

References to administrators
WP:ADMIN says that regular users may handle all administrative tasks (aside from those requiring sysop functions), so I think references such as "This page is intended to get administrator attention" should be changed so that it is not exclusive to administrators. Simply being that I've had to explain to numerous users that although I am not an administrator, I am allowed to act upon reports; such as warning users and removing reports. It's simply a case of making the header less administrator exclusive, since WP:ADMIN says all users have the rights of admins (excluding sysop functions). If you disagree, please explain in detail with support from WP:ADMIN as to why. Paul Cyr 18:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It does not say that - it says In the early days of Wikipedia all users acted as administrators and in principle they still should. Any user can behave as if they are an administrator (provided they do not falsely claim to be one), even if they have not been given the extra administrative functions. This does NOT say that users have the same rights as admins, it says that they *can* behave as if they were an admin. However, the edits you are making affect a page designed to get administrator attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks. Your edits dilute that, and this is exactly the kind of change I think we need to get a consensus on before you go making changes based on what appear to be your personal preferences as to how things ought to run around here. TheRealFennShysa 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The noticeboard is not a policy or guideline, and thus does not require consensus before changes are made. As for the semantics of "rights", if the only difference between regular users and administrators is the things admins are able to do, and WP:ADMIN says regular users are allowed to do the same thing as administrators, then yes, they do have the same rights. As for your comments about my personal prefences, please avoid red herrings as they only take away from the debate.  Paul Cyr 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

An outside WP:3O, even if not called for (and this'll be my sole contribution to this thread, although I've suggested to WP:AN/I that you guys might need a few more opinions in here): I would object to Paul's changes from a procedural (as opposed to philosophical) perspective. Although I think that his metapedian contributions to the community are no doubt appreciated by a large amount of individuals, Paul as a non-administrator has no ability to enact preventative blocks, just to issue warnings. And those warnings, according to the instructions the page, should already have been performed by the complainant before reporting the matter on this board &mdash; an additional warning from a non-admin third party I don't feel will, in most cases, really have much impact on the individual making the personal attacks. If he wanted to clear items off the board for not having gone through sufficient process (i.e., "cleared because complainant has not issued npa3 yet"), that might be of use. In short, although I very much assume Paul has nothing but the noblest of intentions, I think that his participation in the process creates the illusion that the matter is being handled, and I don't think it is, since he has no gun to brandish &mdash; and I believe this board is for the point in the process where the gun needs to be brandished. That's my take on the situation, at least. &mdash; Mike &bull; 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Mike. Although your overall view differs from mine, you did bring up numerous good points that I think are valid (i.e. me not having a gun).  In light of this, I do still think the header should not imply that only admins are able to review cases and issue warnings, but I think it would be okay if it implied that it's directed towards admins for users who have gone beyond  .  In other words, I think it's fine for non-admins to handle everything upto , but admins should handle  (final warnings) and bans. Paul Cyr 02:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Brenneman's edit had the summary "per talk" however it was just a reversion to the previous version which is not the consensus on this talk page. The page still makes it seem exclusive to administrators. Paul Cyr 04:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it looks like both WCityMike and TheRealFennShysa have said that they feel your edits were in error, which makes it two to one, and the begining of a consensus. I have to say that I agree with them - if you feel like you can help out, fine, but don't go rewriting the rules and instructions around here to try and justify your actions - edits like this really should have been discussed with others before you start changing procedures. I also noticed that you only went in and changed this header after it had been noted on other talk pages that you weren't an admin, but were trying to act like one. MikeWazowski 05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to hide the fact that I changed the header after comments about me. In fact I'll come out in say that those comments were the sole reason why I changed the header.  Doesn't mean I don't think the edits were right.  The comments about my actions were incorrect, so to prevent misunderstandings I changed the wording.  In retrospect, I may have been excessive, but the goal of the edits are justified (to make the header not appear that WP:PAIN is exclusive to admins).  As for the two against one vote, you should also not that Wikipedia policy says "voting is evil".  Consensus is based on the number of opinions but as well as their explainations and justifications.  For example, the fact that TheRealFennShysa opposed my edits after he was one of the people who seemed to think that non-admins couldn't maintain the board and that his arguement contained red herrings, makes it weigh less than Mike's arguement which analysed both sides and gave justified conclusions.
 * Mike's comment was that the page requires admins for making blocks, and that warnings threatening blocks from non-admins are pointless. That does not mean that the page is exclusive to admins, as the original header implies, which Aaron reverted to.  So no, it isn't two against one, it's one against one and another in the middle. Paul Cyr 05:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've created a new header which incorperates Mike's post. It allows non-admins to warn users upto npa2, but asks them to leave npa3 and blocks to the admins. Paul Cyr 18:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems like a good compromise to me. TRFS, what's your take on it?  (Also, on a sidenote, honestly, do you mind the 'TRFS' acronym?  If one doesn't want to type out your whole name, is "Fenn" acceptable, or "Shysa," or "TRFS," or ... ?) &mdash; Mike &bull; 21:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer this to remain a noticeboaard directed at administrators, full stop. - brenneman  {L} 00:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Must warn
I'm removing the must components of the header. Discretion needs to be applied, and it's classic instruction creep to create yet another legalistic requirement like that. - brenneman  {L} 00:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bah, there's no easy way to untangle the "must" warn from the editor/admin question, so I'm leaving it to not look like I'm pushing the point regarding non-admins. - brenneman  {L} 00:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Post block review
Hiya, I was recently blocked (and then had my talk page protected, do you have any idea how irritating that is?) by Tyrenius for what he considered a personal attack. I disagreed and tried to engage him in conversation but he instead went nuclear, I still do not believe I engaged in a personal attack and would like some feedback on what exactly I said that was so objectionable and to publically illustrate (what I can't see as anything but) immature vindictiveness on the part of an admin. Is this the correct forum for that? Litch 03:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The above statement got me a 3 day block.

After I came back and we were in the mediation process Tyrenius said:
 * He will and/or cannot see reason and seeks to trap people with verbal trickery and protestations of outraged innocence. He has now said he will be adopting a new user name. Sarah Ewart's behaviour was exemplary under considerable provocation. There is really nothing to mediate, as she has behaved beyond reproach, and he wishes mediation so he can place a note on her user/talk page attacking her. His use of ArbCom is another example of claiming to follow process, while using it to disrupt the workings of the project. Please make whatever use you wish of my statement.

Tyrenius 18:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I felt this was worthy of at least a warning, CQJ did not, saying I'm not sure there's an administrator on Wikipedia who'd not block you in simliar circumstances. I don't see a lot of difference (other than that I WP:AGF and he assert the darkest intentions) except for the fact that Tyrenius is an admin.

Am I to understand that there are two different standards for personal attacks? One from admins and another to admins? What are the parameters on those standards? Litch 11:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, there are not two standards, there is only one. I've reviewed your talk page and the evidence presented there and I agree with the other editors and admins that the action against you was justified. You have engaged in constant disruptive editing and unwarranted personal attacks. If you cannot remain civil and avoid personal attacks, you will continue to find yourself subject to blocks. If you don't want to be blocked, stop atacking people, its that simple.


 * As for your accusation that Tyrenius' statement is a personal attack, I strongly disagree. You described him as "immature" and "vindictive". He said that you engage in "verbal trickery". The difference is you attacked him as a person, he accurately described your actions. Gwernol 11:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Looking at your talk page, almost everyone went to great lenghts to explain what had happened, especially CQJ; his asessment of the case is to the point. Facts being what they are,I would have blocked you too. Tyrenius' statement couldn't possibly be construed as a personal attack. Lectonar 11:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fellow editors, please allow me to re-post and copy the entire statement in which my "I'm not sure there's an administrator..." comment appeared so you don't have to go through the same efforts that Lectonar did....
 * As to Tyrenius, I looked at what happened diff-by-diff (er, change by change) before I got a hold of Srose, Tyrenius, Sarah, and you for your sides of what happened. You got the second three day block in my view from going back and messing with him after your first block expired. I'm not sure there's an administrator on Wikipedia who'd not block you in simliar circumstances. But, with that said, there's no reason to suffer from being temporarily blocked. Consider it a three-day Wiki-break, and the only way it will negatively affect your standing here in the future is if you were to descend into another similar incident, that is to say, engage in WP:NPA, with another editor and be subsequently blocked. That is when the powers-that-be place you on the radar screen and start watching for more shenanigans. I'd take this as a learning experience and move on from there.
 * I am a neutral party to the incident, and that's the way I see it. I don't think there's an administrator who'd react in a different manner after an unblocked user engaged in less than kind words with the blocking administrator after the block expired, furthermore, this is a second attempt for Litch to be able to post a personal attack on Sarah Ewart's userpage, and chastise Tyrenius for taking appropriate action on a WP:NPA violator. Further, after I attempted to explain the exact issues to him within WP:AGF, he again came to Personal attack intervention noticeboard, again asking for administrative review of a legitimate block which not only Tyrenius, but Samir (the Scope) concurred with. MedCab is an informal process, and even if it weren't, I don't think we'd be in the business of allowing personal attacks in userspace or warning administrators who were well within any rational interpretation of the trifecta or WP:IAR. If this isn't a case of WP:POINT, I don't really know what is, and the day that we start warning for reversion of personal attacks in userspace is the day that I'll gladly hang up my Wiki-hat and go play happily for the rest of my life on MySpace. CQJ 20:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In addition, I'm not sure what Litch meant by "darkest intentions", but if that was directed towards me, I personally take offense to that, especially when I went out of my way to follow WP:AGF after the statements of the three other involved users and review of his behavior. Yet again, I find it ironic that a user who would cite "Don't bite a newbie" in one post and claim he's following AGF in another, states a mediator has "dark intentions" in the same sentence while purportedly assuming good faith. Makes as much sense as putting a walk-in cooler on the sun. CQJ 00:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Warnings, accusations, and vandalism
Is it true that "false accusations are vandalism"? That is, may a user complain about someone's personal attack warning on the grounds that (1) I didn't attack you and (2) complaint is a false accusation?

May they then escalate this into a tit-for-tat battle of complaints? "I'm warning you to stop vandalizing my user talk page with 'false accusations'"

I refer to user:Pat8722 vs. user:Davidruben (diff).

Not in any particular hurry, just looking for a rational interpretation of policy. --Uncle Ed 15:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say it's vandalism per se, but it definately would be disruption that could lead to a block. Paul Cyr 20:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Organizing reports
For the sake of organization, I think we should split the alerts section into two sections like some other reporting boards do (such as WP:RFI does). This way reports that have not been looked at do not get mixed in with ones that have. A section titled New Reports and a section Open Reports. New reports would be where users placed new reports, and open reports would be where reports go once someone has responded. Paul Cyr 04:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree -- Trödel 12:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well since there is someone who agrees and no objections, I'm going to make the change. Paul Cyr 22:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, how long should we leave "resolved" reports in the open reports section? Given the activity of WP:PAIN, I think 1 day for a report that resulted in a block or decision to do nothing, and 3 days for a report awaiting a response from the reporter.


 * Something I have learned from my time as an admin: Limits don't work. :) Most admins either will not see them or ignore them or just won't care. So it's nice to have guidelines but very few will follow them. I think it works well as it is. Case-by-case basis works best anyway since sometimes there are only a couple of admins patrolling this page, so it might take longer to get to a report. --Woohookitty(meow) 04:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

/Header: Removed "content dispute"
I have removed the reference to the content dispute, simply because if a usre is in a content dispute, that is still no reason to commit a personal attack. Also fixed a tense mistake: the way it originally stated was "is currently committing ..." was in the present tense; i.e. the user was supposed to be writing it simultaneously when another user was writing a report on WP:PAIN. So I changed it the the past tense, because obviously the personal attacks has happened in the past and the user would then report it here. Phew! Iola k ana |T 20:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Disregard of Admin/Consensus Decision
This IP has attempted to return the AFD banner on the Mistula article in blatant disregard of admin decision.--Webmessiah 09:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Webmessiah
 * The question is was it disregard for consensus or admin (You must choose consensus between the two).AFD banner should never be deleted without a very good reason (One must provide it).Assume good faith that outcome will be positive.  HW   10:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Harassment is Wikipedia's status quo
I'm really sick of the hell the admins allow to be created here. This noticeboard has essentially become useless, as no admin will do anything to stop harassment once they've deemed certain users (such as me) to deserve harassment. This mob-rule based website needs to actually stop trolling, not slap it on the wrist. This pseudo-community disgusts me. -- LGagnon 22:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, explain to me why I am being punished by the admins. Why am I subjected to harassment without anything being done to stop it. I have no trust for the admins anymore after the way they have treated me, and the fact that they allow others to harass me has only made me hate them. Now, my talk page is no longer allowed to be a civil place; now, by decree of the admins' absolute power, I am forced to put up with harassment from anyone who wants to harass me. Wikipedia is looking more and more pathetic with each passing moment of editor abuse. -- LGagnon 02:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Really wish you'd stop saying that no admin will do anything. I've helped you out at least twice. And I can't be the only one. Telling us over and over again how bad we are isn't helping your cause. --Woohookitty(meow) 07:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You're the exception, not the rule. The rest of the admins have done essentially nothing about the situation, instead blaming me for my problems. It is the admins in general that I am complaining about. -- LGagnon 11:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well here's the thing. If you go to an admin with the attitude you'e been exhibiting, you are either going to make them angry or scare them off. From what I've seen, in your requests, you come off as incivil as the people you are accusing of incivility. And that scares people away. Just be calm. You are much better off calmly asking for help instead of going "You admins are just terrible. Oh yeah, please help me". You just aren't going to get help that way.

And as for your specific problem, yes I know what's happening. But the problem is that AOluwatoyin is using a dynamic IP, which are almost impossible to stop. I've been trying to monitor it, but as soon one is blocked, he uses another one. You may have to just try to wait it out. Just don't engage him at all. Generally, users such as him get tired of it and quit. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Purple Star Award and other nice things
Some participant of this site may enjoy the awards listed here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm frustrated
I'm frustrated with the fact that I seem to be the only admin who is patrolling this page. We have reports sitting here for a week. HELP! --Woohookitty(meow) 08:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I know that feeling and somewhat empathise with you. A sysop I'm not, but I found that while I was dealing with entries on this page, nobody else was bothering. :( --Crimsone 08:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * But thanks, Woohoo, for trying. In some ways it must be as frustrating to the Admins as it is to us eloquent victims. Doxmyth 18:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh pleeze. When all else fails, suck up to an admin. Right? You have no shame Doxmyth. Pak434 10:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm glad i stopped by then. Please do tell me if you see me stuff up here. -  brenneman  {L} 10:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The horror... the horror...
I don't blame anyone for not wanting to do this. This page does not appear to be used in the manner in which it was designed: To "get attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks," unchanged from it's inception. I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about how well this is working. - brenneman  {L} 10:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I had actually proposed on either AN or AN/I that this page be redirected to AN or AN/I. You are right. It's not really used like it should be used. And as I said, it's frustrating because so few people patrol this page. It's become a forum for bickering and I just don't see how that helps anyone. Great idea but I'm not sure it's serving a purpose. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I think it's a fairly important page, but I'd have to agree that it doesn't seem to be working altogether well. I think tohough, that it can be narrowed down to just a few problems (apologies if I'm incorrect about any of this)...


 * Too many tit-for-tat (not the user) arguments are brought here - arguements so inconsequencial that you could hardly call them disputes. However, people seem insistant on on reacting to every little thing said to them on talk pages. Plus, If a user is being persecutedharrassed, it probably should be an AN/I thing because it's not a personal attack


 * Too many disputes are being brought to this page. It is near impossible to keep all sides happy when trying to work within the boundaries of a dispute. Inevitably, issuing a personal attack warning results in complaints about it on your userpage, and can involve one as a mediator in the dispute. Clearly, if this was the intention of the reporting user, it should have gone to Requests for Mediation, or one of the other dispute resolution processes. Personal attacks on one entity on their own, and if an attack of any real severity (whether it's mild moderate or severe) is made, regardless of circumstances, a warning for it should be issued as appropriate. Circumstances really shouldn't come into it, unless the circumstance is that of a mistake that could be excusable under WP:NPA. All that should be required here is to see the attack, check the diff, and issue a warning if required. How can it possibly be "speedy" attention otherwise? You can't realy blame an admin for not wanting to be dragged into a time consuming dispute from this page, because once involved, it's sometimes hard to stay removed enough to deal properly with the WP:PAIN report properly (se the street scholar report on the previous page for one example).


 * People are being allowed to post protracted messages on reports. A report should consist of an original brief description with diffs, followed by a response from the person dealing with the report, followed by an update from the reporting party in the case of a new attack or success of a warning... etc. Unfortunately, what often seems to happen is that a new report may or may not itself be a vitriolic statement of abuse by another user, to which the reported user replies in protracted defense straight back with accusuations of his/her own. This sort of thing belongs not on WP:PAIN, but on talk pages.


 * To the credit of those working at WP:PAIN, inappropriate entries are removed, but I feel that it's become exepected to leave them up for a while to see what happens or something. This of course leads to people ignoting the instructions at the top of the page and just following suit instead.


 * ... Basically, I feel that if this page were delt with far more strictly and expediently, it would function just as intended. However, what's intended seems to have been lost in a sea of AGF or some such. A genuine report obviously shouldn't be removed, but it can only be allowed to work within the realms of the intended and stated process for the page. Such are my feelings and ideas on it anyway, whether agreeable or not. I wouldn't hold them up as truth, but I leave them open for discussion or thought. --Crimsone 10:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You make good points. I will say in regards to the last one that the time issue is caused by the fact that so few people are patrolling this page. I don't think it's anything more than that. --Woohookitty(meow) 11:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This may be very true, WooHoo. Further to this so far, I've made a couple of minor edits to the Header. Nothing much information wise, but just a few formatting changes to try to make it a little more obvious and more easily followed. Hopefully it's ok? --Crimsone 12:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at those changes yet, but I wanted to get some thoughts down before I lost them. This would function well as a quasi-triage for disputes that are already going badly.  Things should be either dealt with quick-smart or famred out to another venue.  Currently it appears to be serving as a mini-RfC, as well as informal mediation. -  brenneman  {L} 12:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. The changes are good. I do think we need to add something that says that the page is NOT for continuing the attacks or for bickering. Tired of seeing people simply carry their argument over to PAIN. --Woohookitty(meow) 12:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. Just made an addition to that effect. I don't know if t may be a little strong, but it gets the point across. Yes?, no? :) --Crimsone 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I just had a thought with regards to the instructions for reviewers by the way. Currently it says that reviewers should issue a warning for a report if appropriate and remove the report. We all know that what's liable to happen with any given warning is that the warned party will go straight to the talk page of the issuing user and complain.


 * As such, might I suggest that a response should be indicated by the reviewer on the report (applies equally to admins). As a result, should the above happen, the issuer can notify an admin or experienced editor (in good standing) of the complaint, the admin or editor can then look at the report, agree with the validity of the warning (or not as may be the unusual case), and make an appropriate response to the complaint on the talk of the issuing party, and leave a note on the warned users talk page to that effect.


 * Essencially, it's just putting down rediculous and needless disputes before they escalate. If further argument is made to anywhere other than ANI after confirmation of a warnings validity by a second party in this way, it can be considered disruption on the part of the warned user.


 * Something like that anyway. Essentially, it's reviewers and Admins helping each other out and preventing disruption before it takes hold, enforcing the fact that this page is about personal attacks only, and making it far more likely that Admins and Reviewers alike will feel safer in dealing with reports here. --Crimsone 13:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL. It's suddenly gone very quiet here at WP:PAIN lol --Crimsone 19:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite so horrific now...
1) I do like the changes to the lead. 2) Looking over the history, responses and threaded discussions by the parties involved seem to be the main problem. Perhaps a "If you're listed here..." set of tnstruction is a good idea. - brenneman  {L} 02:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Great :) After some intermittent thought on what could be written, I've added your suggestion into the header. It seems a little long to my eyes, but that may just be because I was trying to keep it as short as possible. Hopefully it's agreeable :) --Crimsone 01:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment on edit
It is a sad truth that one tends to be blind to slights by friends. Recently an edit by a fellow editor of mine has been called an 'intentional xenophobic pejorative remark'. I disagree with that, and would rather think that such a description is a personal attack. But perhaps I am mistaken? I'd appreciate comments on that. Plus, if anybody would like to review the the rest of the comments on that page and offer some constructive critique of behaviour of various users (including myself), I'd appreciate it (although I do realize that second request is more of a mediation-kind one, and therefore likely OT here).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved party, I find the behaviour of all parties to the dispute highly susceptible to reproach. This escapade was over the top. Perhaps this is the best advice to Halibutt under the circumstances. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  13:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On this, at least, we seem to agree.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing a Warning Posted on a User Talk Page
Is there a guideline for this? If I post a warning regarding a personal attack on a user talk page, can the user arbitrarily remove it?  *Sparkhead  14:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My reading of that states removal of such is considered uncivil and may result in dispute resolution process. It mentions vandalism warnings explicity, but I wouldn't believe it's a stretch to consider any type of valid warning to be inclusive of that description.  Or moving on to a different venue, which was done.  *Sparkhead  14:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * While you're at it, you'll also want to read the harassment policy which is clear about being a blockable offense. Stop venue shopping for ways to cause problems for Mongo. Shell babelfish 15:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Tbeatty 15:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You both might want to WP:AGF. I'm not venue shopping, I'm trying to find out if the actions were appropriate.   *Sparkhead  15:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it is appropriate that he removed your warnings. --Tbeatty 15:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

(shift left<-)
 * Every other comment I've read regarding it states otherwise. Can you state your justification?  This is not a rhetorical or argumentative question, I'm genuinely interested in your justification for your statement.  Thanks.   *Sparkhead  15:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are now conducting this argument, based on a single comment of MONGO's, on two separate pages. As your questions have already been answered numerous times, I recommend you leave it alone. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Reporting without warning..
If a user blatantly calls you a name(in this case, another user called me a dumbass), is it permissable to report him without the NPA warning?--Vercalos 23:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can if you wish, but bear in mind that it will only result in the user being given a warning. Better to ignore it and see if another personal attack is made. If it iss, add a warning, and if that doesn't work, THEN report it here. You don't have to follow this advice of course, but in the interests of trying to avoid an incident, it's probably for the best. :)--Crimsone 23:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've already warned the guy.... We'll see how he responds to my warning, and to my response to his comment.
 * Well, he responded. He actually deleted my warning.--Vercalos 20:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Imitation
If a user/IP imitates another user by copying their signature and putting it onto their comments, can they be reported without having received a warning? I gave the user a npa2 warning; this is just for future reference. --  T H  L  05:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Identical answer to the above - where a user imitates another, the true users talk is still accessible through the history. Clearly, if a user makes a report on the user, they can access the users talk in this way. Crimsone 05:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I asked my question wrong, sorry. I did get to the uses's talk page through the history to give them the warning. My actual question is can a user be blocked without receiving a warning for imitating another user? --  T H  L  07:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:DICK
Is pointing someone to WP:DICK and suggesting that's a rule he/she violated an offence in itself? From one side it seems quite distant, but from the other perspective there's some extremely offensive language involved.... BTW, I asked this question to one of the admins, but did not get a reply so far.  // Halibutt 07:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that it just pointing to the policy is not offensive - otherwise we would have to delete the offending page from Wikipedia, as it would be no better than an attack page. Of course much depends on the post mentioning this policy, it can certainly be phrased offensivly (consider: 'you may want to consider WP:DICK' versus 'you are a dick').--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, technically it's neither a policy, nor a part of wikipedia (it's on meta).  // Halibutt 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * True, but it's as offensive as How to deal with Poles, which I believe we both advertise on our userpages :) In the end, the old wisdom of 'grow a thick skin and a healthy sense of humor' is a major solution to most of our problems. Of course, there are limits to everything, but IMHO WP:DICK is not the best example of an offence around here (not that we have stellar standards, unfortunatly).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, there's neither offensive language nor assumption of bad faith in How to deal with Poles. Besides, that page is clearly written (and marked) as a joke, while WP:DICK has it all: extremely offensive language and is not marked as a joke at all. In fact I couldn't think of a worse joke than to suggest that You have violated WP:DICK. There's no difference between such statement and a simpler form of you're a dick. BTW, could I equally write an essay under some other offensive title and point the ones I don't like to it?  // Halibutt 09:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to read User:Cyde/Don't be a fucking douchebag. Kusma (討論) 10:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:TRI is a more worthwhile reading. WP:DICK is "our basic social policy". Case closed. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  11:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As I see another attempt to stage the case has failed here, good. M.K. 11:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional templates
Since WP:CIVIL is now linking here, I would like to modify this page, so that instead of saying, "The editor must have been warned with the npa2, and npa3 templates as appropriate," it instead says, "The editor must have been warned with the npa2, npa3, or civil1/civil2 templates, as appropriate." Does this sound reasonable? --Elonka 22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine with me. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge?
Someone added a merge template. Care to discuss why? Durova Charg e! 03:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed that. This is one thing we don't want being being merged into AN, in my opinion. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like Tawker put up the merge template. I didn't notice him mention his reasoning anywhere except for the edit summary.  I'm not sure it would be a good idea to merge this page since it would clutter up an already widely used page, but I'd like to hear more about reasons why it should be merged first. Shell babelfish 04:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem wise, to me; both pages are already cluttered enough without slapping them together into one extra-giant pile of steaming... well, you get the idea. A bit more discussion would be good, though. Luna Santin 00:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I read the edit summary too. Really it seems odd to me that Tawker would do that without contacting anyone who's active on the board or asking why it's separate. The main reason I'd oppose the merge is that it's easier to follow up with a smaller board: the editor who posts the request doesn't have to retell the whole story with each subsequent post, the admins become familiar with the cases, and requests get generally fair and consistent handling. I'd like to think we defuse some situations that would otherwise end up in arbitration. Rolling that into the WP:AN/I assembly line wouldn't help anything. Durova Charg e! 22:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Updating for clarity's sake: User:Titoxd has removed the merge tag. Luna Santin 20:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Does possible dispute invalidates PAIN report?
Please see related thread I started at WP:ANI. The issue there is 'if users may benefit from DR, should their reports be removed from PAIN' (as happened here, and as I don't believe it's sufficient for a ground of removal). Further, I'd appreciate a second opinion of whether another reviewer concurs my report here should have been removed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Erg. Sorry to take so long -- shows how often we look at this talk page, no? I assume you're referring to this removal, which was then reposted and removed again (by the subject of the report, no less, which may not be a terrible offense, but probably better to avoid that). I can see situations where such a report might stay, or situations where such a report might go. My basic guideline would be -- "is WP:PAIN going to improve the situation or make things worse?" If things are improved, go with it; if not, ignoring the rules suggests we should remove the report (that assumes, of course, that we trust the judgement of whoever is removing the report). I'm not too familiar with this particular incident. In general, I think it's better to follow dispute resolution whenever you have the patience, but if things get really bad, a request for comment on the issue of civility and attacks might help get your points across. Or something like that, anyway. Luna Santin 20:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, it tookme even longer to come back and check for a reply, after all :) I think that DR should not be used as an excuse to invalidate PAIN - by the same logic an article content RfC could be claimed as an immunity from 3RR. Anyway, an RfC was recently filled (there was no active DR at the time the report was removed, though) which mentions this particular case (and is not overflowing with good faith, I think) - and either way it's not doing much good, I am afaid (in terms of limiting incivility, just check the last report we had here).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess another way to look at it might be "is there more resolving or attacking going on?" If a person is only trolling, they should obviously be blocked. One outburst in a dispute is forgivable (I think, anyway), and occassional ones a bit less so. There's obviously some threshold where I'm willing to block, but tacking it down is tricky. I think it is a cost-benefit analysis -- if blocking will do more harm than good, I'd prefer to avoid blocking. Harm/good and such are subjective, of course, which is a bit of a problem. No easy answer, here. Luna Santin 11:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it a personal attack if it's against a person who's not a user?
So, there's a weird thing going on with the article Mathematics and Science High School at Clover Hill, in that an anonymous user (definitely a student at UVA based upon the IP address and likely one Daniel Genovese) keeps removing references in the article to Randall Munroe. This user has a history of vandalizing the article Randall Munroe as well. The reason it seems like this is a personal attack is because it's incredibly likely that this anonymous user knows (knew?) Randall Munroe personally. Thoughts? Just keep reverting the anonymous user until her qualifies for a vandal ban? Can I make more than 3 reverts being the only person who seems to be watching the article? --Matthew 07:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh. That doesn't seem like a WP:PAIN issue. I'd recommend doing everything possible to get this person talking. WP:TALK is a helpful link, in that regard; most people are completely unaware of talk pages, or how to use them, at first. If we assume good faith, we shouldn't interpret it as disruptive vandalism until all possible avenues of discussion have been attempted and ignored. Just my thought, anyway. I'll try and keep an eye on that one, but feel free to let me know if you need any help. Luna Santin 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice. I appreciate your offer for help and will let you know if it gets ugly. Thanks again, Matthew 05:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sock puppet attacks?
If a sock puppet makes a personal attack, can the puppetteer be blocked or warned? --AW 16:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If a sock puppet does anything, it reflects back on the puppetteer, and even if it makes constructive edits, the puppet master might get into trouble.--Vercalos 21:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, assuming he is a confirmed sock.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you encounter a sock and suspect a sockmaster, please read the page at WP:RFCU as to how to proceed. If they fit the criteria there, post a report.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 15:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Who opens the reports?
This report seems to have been posted in a fraudulent fashion. If "new reports" section is regularly skipped by posters who prefer to open their reports without waiting for admins, should it be eliminated altogether? -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  09:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I prefer to be user friendly. If the only problem with a report is the location it's posted, the use of a template, or such, it seems easy enough to fix and respond appropriately. PAIN is in place to solve problems, after all, not to test someone's ability to navigate red tape. In my experience, the only practical difference between "new" and "open" here is that reports placed as "new" get a quicker reply. If a given report has a more serious problem, then I suppose that's another issue. Luna Santin 11:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

PERSONALLY ATTACKED
TAnthony personally ATTACKED me. Here's what he wrote on my user page: The main Dune page is already long, this and other articles were purposely split off the main one. In the case of Dune planets, many minor Dune planet links redirect here, if you checked the "What links here". Why is List of One Life to Live characters deserving of its own article and this one isn't? Because you're crazy. TAnthony 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought personal attacks are forbidden on Wiki!?!?! This user should be reprimanded!Yrgh 01:55, 23 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh
 * That is not a personal attack. Please see WP:NPA for what personal attacks are.—Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 01:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Whether it merits any action I leave to the regulars here, but "Because you're crazy" is clearly a personal attack. --Sam Blanning(talk) 02:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (oops! edit conflict!) On the contrary. The comment "because you're crazy" is a comment on the user, not the contributor. It is also a negative statement on the users state of mental wellbeing or ability to think and act in a non-crazy way. This, however, is not the page to report it on, nor the right format for doing so. Instructions can be fount at the top of this page. Crimsone 02:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Tired Of Being Personally Attacked! What should someone do if they have been REPEATEDLY PERSONALLY ATTACKED!? Isn't PERSONALLY ATTACKING someone AGAINST Wiki policy!? This user (TAnthony) ATTACKED me TWO times! Here's the attack that the below user (TAnthony) posted! He should be reprimaned IMMEDIATELY! I highlighted his ABUSE:

ATTACK 1: OMG, this guy is an idiot. Unfortunately I think I "started" it in a way; I tagged some disambig page thing he did for speedy deletion, and then all of a sudden a few Dune articles were tagged as "unreferenced" -- and they were literally articles pulled from my recent contribs, things I'd made tiny edits on. He said it was because the articles needed references, but one he tagged was the Dune: House Corrino article, which as you probably know is one paragraph of synopsis, and the article itself is the source! I reverted the first few things he did immediately but I knew eventually the rest of the Dune posse would get in on the act. Anyway, I think he'll lose interest; it's too much to hope that he'll realize he's wrong! User:TAnthony 15:26, 20 December 2006 (UTC) ATTACK 2: This and MANY other articles have been tagged by User:Yrgh latly with nebulous reasoning. He says these pages fit into the deltion policy but he doesn't say how; he cites articles as unreliable and unsourced and yet they clearly are. It is ludicrous that discussions need to be held on dozens of pages to indulge his insane tagging. Can any idiot just tag AfDs? TAnthony 01:44, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Since becoming a valuable Wiki editor, I've been PERSONALLY ATTACKED THREE TIMES ON WIKIPEDIA & NOTHING WAS DONE ABOUT IT! The other time was when User:Juppiter called mean "asshole"! Consequences!? Yrgh 07:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)yrgh


 * The above comment by TAnthony was made on my talk page in response to a comment by me on his. Perhaps it was not the wisest thing to post there, but I understand his level of frustration with Yrgh, whose edits to the Dune pages seem to be motivated more by personal animosity than an honest interest in improving the articles. He has not, to my knowledge, shown any previous interest in Dune, so why all this now? --SandChigger 08:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI, I regret losing my cool in this case, but Yrgh has been a very disruptive presence on Wikipedia lately, and I stand by my objection to many of his misguided edits. TAnthony 01:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Legalistic process
The process previously described in the header results in newer users putting npa3 warnings on the talk pages of adminstrators. This results in meaningless escalation and does not stop personal attacks. Per my exciting new essay Don't template the regulars, I've removed the requirements that users be required to be warned with canned warning templates, relying on the common sense of reviewers and adminstrators to determine that a user with thousands of edits and an admin bit can be assumed to be aware of WP:NPA, and should certainly not have some stupid template dumped on their talk page like a load of poo. This, however, was reverted with a request I discuss it. Does anyone really think putting npa3 on experienced editors' talk pages helps anything other than pissing people off? Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate you being bold and making changes you feel are neccesary, however, Wikipedia is built off community and off of consensus, and in respect for that, I would ask you would confer with the community here and build a consensus here, before making such changes.


 * I feel obligated to point out that the Personal Attacks Noticeboard is not a place to post every single attack here - we are not here to act as civility cops nor do I really think such a "Law and Order" approach in regards to civility would be successful. Therefore, I do agree with the chafing you have towards the somewhat "legalistic" approach - however I also ask you to consider that these rules are implemented as a safety valve to prevent people from posting frivolous requests.  If we remove them, how would you propose that we prevent such things?  I look forward to your thoughts on the matter.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 19:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * We could tell the users who are already posting such requests but only AFTER escalating conflicts with canned templates that their requests are invalid, just like we do right now. Note that my changes don't mean they don't have to warn people, it means they don't have to use npa3 and can instead write a personalized message. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 19:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you're on the right track, Hipo. Based on the recent Giano-Cyde mess, it seems as if there is an emerging standard that warning established editors with canned templates is offensive and counterproductive. However, the current PAIN guidelines require warnings via npa2 and npa3. How does everyone think we should handle that? Thanks, TheronJ 20:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) By amending the PAIN instructions to say that experienced editors should get handwritten notes, but that the first warning must include "if you continue, I or another editor may request blocking" and the second warning must include "if you continue, I or another editor will request a block"?;
 * 2) By amending the PAIN instructions to say that experienced editors should get handwritten notes, and that PAIN won't intervene until there are two warnings in close temporal proximity, but to leave out the "may be blocked"/"must be blocked" altogether on the assumption that experienced editors know the score?;
 * 3) By saying that PAIN is inappropriate for experienced editors, and people should take experienced editors through dispute resolution; or
 * 4) Something else?


 * In the case of experienced editors, the issue may be easily resolved by suggesting that a handwritten note is a good first step, beyond which the template system applies. If the discussion resulting from that hadwritten note doesn't result in resolution to the situation, a second one is not likely to.
 * Experience editors should already understand that warning templates are a pretty standard thing on wiki, and that there's no need to escalate a quarrel over a simple template. There doesn't seem to be a problem showing itself particularly strongly in the reports, and so I don't really see that the whole thing needs to be re-written to add more instruction creep to it. It's here as a safety valve, and as such it needs to reletively simple. Most personal attack issues on wiki never get this far. Outside of this page, I suspect that experienced editors already know that it's often better to write instead of template other experienced editors in the first instance. Others undoubtedly stick to the template. Even if these instructions were re-written, I doubt it would have a significant impact on what happens outside of this page.
 * I speak as an editor who has had to use the process under some quite severe attacks and has spent a reasonable amount of time reviewing actioning, and commenting on reports on this page. Crimsone 20:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see instruction creep anywhere but the requirement that people must file the following templates on some users page before writing anything here or the following categories of users might remove it but adminstrators can restore it and if an adminstrator restores it users cannot remove it. Wait, perhaps this page has some instruction creep. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 20:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware that there is already some intruction creep in evidence on the page. Of course, what you mention isn't instruction creep. Instruction creep is where more instructions are repeadedly added over time untill it gets so full of red tape its pretty much unusable. This isn't entirely the case here.
 * Incidentally, quite why you reverted all my concensus additions (read this talk page above) and then reverted yourself is a little perplexing.
 * The instruction creep in your proposal lies in the fact that it takes what is there and then further breaks it down into two different groups of editors, rewuireing a different actions for each.
 * I'm not saying that your proposal IS the wrong way to go in dealing with personal attacks, but I AM saying that I myself don't think it's right, and have given reasons for it. I'm happy for concensus to decide the overall view.Crimsone 21:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The old page instructions were . The changes are this. This is basic instruction creep. The old instructions used the words "Make sure the editor has been warned ... templates as appropriate," the new says "The editor must have been warned with the ... templates as appropriate" This changes the use of "as appropriate" from "use templates when appropriate" to "use the appropriate template" (instruction creep!) There's now an "New reports" and a "Open reports" - (instruction creep!). The reason I reverted to the long-long ago and then back to now is that I wasn't comfortable getting rid of all of the useless legal processes that this page has taken on itself in one swoop - I'll be doing it over time. First is the meaningless, non-consensus requirement that stupid templates be put on user's pages before someone deigns themselves to kneel before the PAIN board. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 21:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The changes you've given in those diffs are as a direct result of discussion on this page, and are thus perfectly valid changes which were mostly made to clarify and re-assert the original instructions which weren't being followed. AT that time there were very few people working on said reports, and since then there have been many more - that's why the changes were made. With regards to the specific passage where it has been changed to "must have been warned", it was done simply becuase people were completely ignoring the requirement to give a warning of ANY kind, and so there were repeated cases of reports with no warnings which in tur upset the reporting editors when they were removed - it wasn't instruction creep at all. It was emphasis, as you will see if you read the appropriate discussion. Before you make any edits to the header, you'll need to develop concensus THAT's what comes first. If you think templates are stupid then it is entirely your own perogative. However, it's not the concensus view. There is no "kneeling" before the WP:PAIN board - there is only a requirement that users are warned before reporting, that it isn't turned into DR or RFC, that reports are based soley upon WP:CIVIL and/or WP:PAIN, and that it doesn't generally turn into a slanging match. It's vey precise in what it says because it needed to be made so as a result of people not even making an effort to follow the quite basic instructions at all, and thus to make WP:PAIN a far more reasonable task to engage in.Crimsone 01:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hipocrite that the wording presently isn't optimal. How about we sort of meet in the middle, requiring appropriate warning before reporting to PAIN, but not requiring use of npa2 or npa3. I propose something like "The editor must have been warned on their talk page with npa2 and npa3 templates or equivalent warnings as appropriate. Reports of unwarned editors may be removed." but, you know, with better writing. —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b> ¿?  22:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Radiant's changes are perfect :). It doesn't change the entire header (which in my opinion is counter-productive and unnessecary), but it says what needs to be said, changing only what needs to be changed. Thanks! Crimsone 15:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. —<b style="color:#333333;">bbatsell</b> ¿?  15:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Redirect?
Strong consensus appears to be forming at WP:ANI that this page should be replaced with #REDIRECT WP:ANI. More comments are obviously necessary, but please focus on positive/negative results of using the page - WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDON'TLIKEIT are likley to be ignored. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 17:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * AN/I is already overloaded enough. PAIN was seperated from AN/I in the first place because AN/I was flooded - and still is.  RRight now as is, if you have a phone modem, you generally try to avoid loading AN/I like you avoid the plague.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur that is a genuine concern, especially as more case are heard at AN/I... Addhoc 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

MfD close
Hello. Just to update, I closed the MfD debate for this page as no consensus. --HappyCamper 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverted. It doesn't help to close a controversial debate early.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You reverted the close, and then closed it yourself? If I may, Radiant, that seems to suggest that you reverted it so you could close it the way you wanted it to be closed, which isn't a good appearance to have.  I don't necessarily disagree with the closing, but, any appearance of [{WP:COI|conflict of interest]] should be avoided.  Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think the closure was improper, take it to WP:DRV. If you don't think the closure was improper, I don't see how you have an argument. A conflict of interest would be if I was heavily involved in the PAIN board, or had taken part in the deletion debate.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  08:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Too bad
I sense big troubles with the disappearance of this board.... --PaxEquilibrium 20:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)