Numerous personal attacks against the following users:

• user:DMorpheus
• User:Wikist
• User:Bukvoed
• User:Ggbroad

Examples

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]

A listing of the user's contributions demonstrates dozens of personal attacks in his edit summaries:

• [4]

For example

• "Here are some of the sources. There are more, but I doubt if you have heard of them either"
• "This is really fun"
• "You are sneaky and intellectually dishonest"
• "Good Boy Morpheus! Keep trying and you eventually get it right!"
• "Wikist, My Dear Rude Fellow"
• "I Fixed France. Wheeeeeeeeeeee!"
• "If you think it's wrong, improve it. (If you can.)"
• "Removed ignorant POV Re: ergonomics What a joke"

User has been warned with the npa2 template on his talk page and with several friendly and template warnings on discussion pages. Please see [5] [6]

User was warned by User:Wikist on his talk page as follows:

• Additional warning about your continuing violations of Wikipedia policy

User:14thArmored, despite previous advice and warnings, you continue to violate Wikipedia policies including WP:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and WP:Civility: from your October debut's judgmental rudeness of describing Denniss’s position as a “useless comparison,” to working against consensus by twisting a compliment to Bukvoed into a new ad hominem complaint about your alleged persecution, to goading of DMorpheus by your refusal to follow Wikipedia citation policy, to yesterday’s belittling Ggbroad’s intellectual development —and especially by tricking Bukvoed into transcribing a book that you consider unreliable, for your own amusement. If you do not understand this detailed warning after the several gentler warnings from several editors, ask an administrator to audit your posts. Do not be surprised if editors go about their business of following Wikipedia policy without replying to you. Thank you.Wikist 02:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:14thArmored"

This warning was removed by User:14thArmored.

User is also suspected of sockpuppetry, specifically of user:phillipsbourg. User has also edited from IP 68.2.110.21. User phillipsbourg appears to be inactive so this may be a minor point, but that user engaged in similar attack patterns on the same pages and was blocked as a result. I believe the sockpuppetry is relevant because it weakens any assumption of good faith we may have about this user.

This user has also engaged in a pattern of stalking, editing articles I have just edited, but, for example, ignoring instances of vandalism on those same articles. See for example:

• here
• But ignoring this vandalism hours later
• And minutes later editing the article again
• Later reverted by a third user

Since then there have been multiple vandal attacks on this page, none edited by 14thArmored.

Certainly 14thArmored is under no obligation to police vandalism. However, this pattern tends to cast doubt on his good faith; he may be more interested in editing 'against' certain editors than in making genuine efforts to improve articles.

DMorpheus 16:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Investigating - There looks almost to be a deeper issue at hand here than simple personal attacks. I am looking into this. If another reviewer or a sysop sees this, please don't feel you have to wait for me. No action (for now) - I have left the request as New and unopened since I am looking into this deeper. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 21:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much more extensive evidence of the long term pattern of personal attacks is given at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Psychohistorian. Fourdee 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Despite being repeatedly warned[7] about ad hominem, user has added [8] blatant personal attacks back to talk page, commiting personal attacks again. Fourdee 00:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourdee has not notified Psychohistorian of this report, but I have done so and responded as a semi-involved third party with a timeline and some perspective (notice and discussion). — Hu 04:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These don't seem like blatant personal attacks. Incivility, perhaps, but he's still making an effort to discuss the issue at large, as far as I can see. If you can establish this as part of a greater trend, in an RfC, or link to some more severe comments, I may be more inclined to take some action. Luna Santin 08:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick examination of Psychohistorian's contributions indicates a wider pattern of much more abusive and uncivil comments on talk pages, all in the same vein - insulting the editor, or insulting their education. Again calling editors ignorant [9] and accusing them of "bitching" [10], calling editor "paranoid" and "unreasonable" [11], says editor has "inferiority complex" [12], again insulting editor's education and implying editor has not reached the 11th grade [13], education & "put it at your level" [14], etc. Everywhere I look in his talk page edits there is personal abuse, and he has been warned about this previously [15]. He knows the policies on civility and no personal attacks and chooses to disregard them. It seems to me he needs to be corrected by more than a warning. Fourdee 18:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are witch-hunting Psychohistorian but I must say he's extremely cold (even too much for my taste). He virtually never engages in ad hominem discussions and many if not all of your alleged PAs can't be seen as such. Example: when he says that he dislikes that editors employ more time "bitching at each other" than working in the article, we can't but agree with him. When he says that "this fact seems to be eluding you", he's not calling the other editor (a pretty aggresive one, btw) "ignorant" as you claim, just expressing his frutration at the fact that he's not understood. When he says that "is a skill you should be pretty competent in by the time you reach 11th grade if you're in a good school system" he's not talking at the other editor but using a common generalistic form in English. Finally warns from Thulean/Lukas19 have no validity: that user has disqualified himself by systematically abusing the PA warn system on any minimal and even many imaginary slip. He doesn't discuss: he provokes you and waits for you to say anything that could even vaguely resemble a PA and then he places one or three warnings in your user talk page.

In brief, you have nothing. --Sugaar 18:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although he may be right, he is definitely using a language that is unessecarily confrontative. He should cool down, IMO. --Regebro 19:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Discussion truncated and moved to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Psychohistorian. I might have done better to move it to the talk page; if anyone is so inclined, feel free. Luna Santin 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC
  • Technical comment: despite an RfC (or any DR process) going on, if a PA is reported here, we should act. DR should not grant users immunity from PAIN (and how cool that sounds :>).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Blocking a user over PAs when they are in dispute resolution would needlessly disrupt the DR, as well as may be seen as "taking sides" in the dispute, which would only aggravate it further. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 21:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A habitual crosser of the line, attacked Moncrief here and me here. Fully unrepentant, arguing that calling me a "dishonest and single-minded user" was "a statement of fact"

You do realize that your obscurantism on the matter, which any admin worth his salt will surely research on his own, merely verifies that you aren't being wholly honest, with the admins, on the Derek Smart Talk page, and most importantly, with yourself. Completely omitted were the facts that you engaged in revert warring over archived discussions that weren't even concluded yet and then lied about the outcome consensus of those discussions. All of this was done following a previous discussion, which had already reached the same conclusion (the one you distorted).

I'd recommend you follow the advice you've already been given and, among other things, participate in the discussion istead of attempt to override it. Just because the truth describes you in a negative light, it doesn't make it a personal attack. Mael-Num 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be an abusive sockpuppet of one of the recently blocked edit warriors on the page. Support an indef block. --InShaneee 05:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will place a warning. If it continues I will support such a block. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that his statements are dealing with me personally and not the issue at hand. User was warned with npa2[16]. — D. Wo. 17:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• [17]
• [18]
• [19]
• [20]

• No action - I understand this user's comments are abrasive and uncivil, however I feel that the {{npa2}} is sufficient for now. Please post back again if they are disruptive further, and please remember to treat them with the civility and respect that you expect them to treat you with, so that the problem isn't aggravated any further by your own actions. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Postscript - I left them a friendly caution on their talk page as well - here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 23:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Red Flag: It seems Wikipedia rules presently prohibit my publishing of my email address or phone-number; but my Wikipedia user-talk page is available, & upon personal request i will make that more direct contact data available to members of this forum/court who seem to be of minimally honorable character.

"minimally honorable" persons will give contact info (phone numbers)?!

• Red Flag: I see a Canadian, who seems to refuse to give his real name or specific residence, has seen fit to Alter my latest contribution to Wikipedia's "Common-Law" web page. This un-named Canadian merely identifies himself with the fictional name "Thirty-seven".

Canadian? True identity and residence?

• Attack One: You gate-keepers for the capitalist, slave-trading, babylonian-whore jurisdiction (plenty more in there)

Wow

• Warned: npa4

{{npa4im|Talk:Common_law#Gate_Keeping}}

• Attack Two: see you scoff at my admonition that the supreme being of the universe takes note of your abusive practices against the common people. Jesus/Yeshuah was crucified for his labeling of the abusers of the poor and the children of darkness as the serpents and off-spring of vipers which they were. Do what you will, child of darkness.

Wow, again

/Blaxthos 13:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Left a note. We'll see where this goes. Let me know if I miss anything important. Luna Santin 23:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the user has insulted Saguer (talk · contribs) and myself by claiming I'm his "sockpuppet" ([21]), aside from the absurdity of this claim (as he could have easily check I was here earlier [22]), this is related to a problem with the article about a genocide conducted by Soviets against Ukrainians, the Holodomor and it seems to me he is aiding a group of Russian users attempting to whitewash their history here.

I would thus like to request a Help:CheckUser to be carried out and then proper actions to be carried out for throwing around frivolous accusations. If user Sebbeng would like to request that I should be checked against some other users I support all such potential request but believe they should all later incur an additional penalty.

I would also like to request a cross check between the following, engaged in pushing soviet pov in the article:

• Kuban kazak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Irpen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Grafikm fr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

--An account 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you need checkuser, you'll need to submit a request at WP:RFCU. A claim of sockpuppetry isn't necessarily a personal attack, I don't think -- unless you can provide diff links to establish a major trend of unjustified such behavior. Luna Santin 23:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad faith report based on mine (and others') reversions of An account (talk · contribs) continually reintroducing POV categories against consensus to the Holodomor article. User: An account (and a couple others, who have been blocked for their actions) have been in a revert war at that article for some time. User: An account refuses to discuss his changes on the talk page, does not respond to people's requests on his own talk page that he discuss his POV and attempt to reach consensus, and instead keeps reintroducing POV edits. His behavior is very much in keeping with that of User: Saguer, he REFUSES to adhere to NPOV, and I felt a claim of sockpuppetry was fully justified in this case. Furthermore, he comments on his own talk page that his account is single-purpose in nature. Not much credibility there. TheQuandry 17:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, this is a joke? User:An account (the name's already suspiscious) is a clear throw-away account used a lot for revert and move wars. For me, chances are high that this is a sock of some seasoned edit warrior. If it is not, then it's simply an edit warrior. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TheQuandry really said it all, but I will just emphasize the one and only thing here. There is nothing else one can do but block the users who engage in controversial editing and persistently ignore calls to discuss things. user:An account should stop sterile revert warring and take advantage of the talk pages. --Irpen 17:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personaly I am tend to inclined that if a WP:RFCU was not carried out, claiming that an editor is a sockpuppet(eer) is a personal attack and should be dealth with (just as calling somebody a troll, a vandal, an idiot or such). That said, I am pretty sure none of the three editors you mention above is a sock of each other (but than I have once been proven wrong on such a declaration in the past). RFCU is the place you want to visit. PS. editing pattern of An account makes me suspect that Grafikm_fr and TheQuandry may be right - but still, guys, do RFCU first, then slap sockpuppets and blocks, not the other way around.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This advise is outright ridiculous. You need not to have an arbcom ruling to block a troll. Similarly, no need to wait long at RFCU to block an obvious sock. Besides, RFCU is backlogged and lack of checkuser evidence is no proof of anything. People can easily post through remote computers. Ask Bonaparte for more. --Irpen 22:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack on my page[23] after reminding user not to delete information from wikipedia. Djegan 13:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already warned. Will try to keep an eye on it, let me know if I miss anything important. Luna Santin 23:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user and I are debating the merits of certain links / entries in a number of places. He has reverted some of my edits calling me a pov vandal in some of the edit summaries. I cannot see how these can be removed by a normal editor so although I am not sure that this is the correct place to ask, could someone please look at having them changed to something less strong. Many thanks in advance for your help.

--Backface 13:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there's no way for us to change an edit summary. If these abuses continue, you may consider making another report to this board, including diff links if possible. Luna Santin 23:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link diffs can be removed with Wikipedia:Oversight power, but it is rarely used for inter-editor incivility issues. And yes, Backface, please provide diffs if you want us to act.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reported 3 times before: [24] [25] [26]

• Warned twice by an admin: [27] [28]

• Blocked once: [29]

• He may have continued attacks with a suspected IP address puppet while being blocked: [30][31](new)
• Now he's attacking via edit summaries. [32](new) [33](new) Lukas19 14:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 week by User:Cbrown1023. Luna Santin 23:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that the user has broken with WP:NPA several times recently, see the following diffs:

That's your retort? The UNUDHR? Yes, I fully acknowledge Tailkinker's right to act like an obstreperous jerk, and I take advantage of my right to call him as such.--ttogreh 06:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC) [34][reply]

Don't you get it? Deletion or suggestion of deletion before due diligence is to act like a philistine.--ttogreh 21:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Edit Summary: Deletionists are pedantic, obstreperous, hateful little people that despise life [35][reply]

Edit Summary: You are still a jerk. This is supposed to be about compiling and sharing data; not about deciding which piece of data is bad and which is good; deletion of relevant knowledge is a sin. [36]

I broke one of my own rules; "never use an analogy, ever.".....He acted like an obstreperous jerk. Then, another editor, noticing what has happened, called the first editor just that; an obstreperous jerk. Edit Summary: I am better than you [37]

There is plenty more if you look at the user's past contributions. I think that administrative action on this one is long overdue.--Jersey Devil 07:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My goodness, this user sounds like someone else who has been indef-blocked. I wish I could recall the person. I'll do searching and see if I can track this down. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the "other" person I remember... but take a look at the history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Car fire. Other old, but still interesting edits: [38], [39], & [40]. No blocks so far... [41]. ---J.S ^(T/C) 19:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left a note, for now. User hasn't edited in a few days, but they've at least been warned. I suspect they'll be back sooner or later -- they have contribs dating back to 2005. Luna Santin 23:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, if he doesn't stop, block and don't look back.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ekajati has been on an ongoing spree of harassing Kathryn NicDhàna. There is a pattern of this behaviour with several other users. Most recently he/she has been using racist ad hominem and exhibiting a total lack of WP:AGF. Here are two relevant instances. [42] [43] I have warned the user with {{npa4im}}, but only after noticing it. Prior to that, Kathryn NicDhàna has been practically begging this person to cease harassing on her user page.- WeniWidiWiki 01:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just converting those links to non-secure-enwiki difflinks... [44] [45]. While it does look like a bit of a heated dispute, I'm not sure that a block would help to calm things down. It's not the most civil thing I've ever seen, but it's far from the worst, either. Will try to keep an eye on it. Luna Santin 23:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this does sounds to be rather minor, with the exception of calling another user a 'hypocrite', although without following the diffs more I can't tell if this is earned or not. Hypocrisy is not a slurr, but can be absed, I'd strongly recommend that Ekjati should refrain from using such terms in a dispute, unless he clearly explains why it is applicable in this term - and in that case, some form of WP:DR may be more useful then name-calling in anycase.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After repeatedly informing Flybd5 not to vandalize my discussion page and only to place discussions relating to specific topics on their respected discussion pages, he has personally attacked me on my page and continues to vandalize it. I have placed a disclaimer on my discussion page not to post anything on the page unless it is relating to photo tagging, personal inquires about ideas, or feedback from administrators. I have already informed him that he was reported. He feels that he personally owns the article to Pedro Rossello and has made many grammatical mistakes. Please re-inform him that articles do not belong to anyone. He mispels names, lumps universities as one (for example he lump Notre Dame and Harvard as one university, when he should have have properly spelled out their names to distinguish that they are two individual schools), etc...--XLR8TION 18:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not an admin, but... First off, please include diff links. Second, see this diff, where XLR8TION posts a comment on Flybd5's userpage that could possibly be considered a personal attack. Second, I don't think you can legitimately criticize a person's grammar with edits like this. And finally, I don't see any attempt on his talkpage to warn him with a NPA template; instead, I see personal attacks of your own. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 18:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't wish to cause any trouble here, but XLR8TION you have also made some errors with your edits to Wikipedia, you left a comment talk on Flybd5's user page rather than his talk page, what you left could easily be considered a personal attack (especially considering where it was left) and you've made a spelling error in your report above (misspells ironically). Both parties - if you use Mozilla Firefox there's a dictionary plug-in which flags errors and allows right click spellcheck/correction which should solve any further spelling problems. I'd suggest withdrawing this report. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 19:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Report needs diffs. Please see WP:DIFF or make a request at the help desk if you need assistance. Without actionable diff evidence, it'll be difficult for me to look into this. Luna Santin 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • The point here is that Flybd is harassing me and vandalizing my talk page when I have reportedly told him to stop. He has made many grammatical errors and feels that he personally owns articles. Harassment is illegal, whether on or off-line. After placing a disclaimer on my page to reduce cluterring of messages and sometimes spam, he still continues to post things online. Stop = Stop. Harassment is illegal even if done in cyberspace. He must me re-educated that articles are not personal property. I do use FIrefox and sometimes it can take two submissions before sometime is posted online. This might a glitch with the browser.--XLR8TION 00:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have your page watchlisted, but haven't been checking of late. I'm not really on all the time, but I shall keep an eye on it over tomorrow (UK time here) internmittantly (see my user page for the reason for the intermittant bit). Please be aware that the appropropriate venue for complaints over vandalism is WP:AIV, and the harrassment guidleine can be found at WP:HARASS. Please also be aware that any user talk page belongs to the community, not the user, as per WP:OWN Crimsone 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Report needs diffs. - per Luna. Otherwise your report not only is not proving your case but can look like you are trying to slander another editor (accuse him of wrongdoing without any proof).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On page Talk:Paytakaran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paytakaran) on 12/4 Eupator called dacy69 comments "moronic" [[46]]. Then he said that dacy69 don't know Russian language while the latter was refering to the text in that language [[47]]. Every time when dacy69 suggested mediation and dispute resolution, Eupator accused him of incivil behavior [[48]].--Dacy69 05:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please include diff(s). If you need help, consider reading WP:DIFF or asking at the help desk. Luna Santin 06:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for note. I've put diff.--Dacy69 16:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. It looks like a heated situation, but it also looks like the two of you are still able to talk things over. I'd encourage you to try to work together and reach a solution. Luna Santin 01:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, not. We had a dispute with Eupator on page Urartu. I offered him mediation. He has refused. I have also requested advocacy for page Urartu.--Dacy69 16:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't necessarily mean that I should be blocking under Wikipedia:No personal attacks. If you have other concerns, it may be time to consider an RfC regarding their stubborn behavior, or work your way higher up in the dispute resolution process, up to and possibly including the Arbitration Committee. Luna Santin 23:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But my notice here was not about dispute itself - it is about Eupator's behavior and, in my view, insults. You can view other pages where he conduct dispute. The same manners. On dispute resolution - I will follow you advise on arbitration. Thanks.--Dacy69 19:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "moronic" was a way too strong epithet, but otherwise there were no insults there. Case closed. Please move on. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If somebody issues comments like this, he should be warned, and if he doesnd stop, blocked - just as for violations of 3RR. Calling the other side arguments moronic is a pretty good example of ad hominen and creating an unfriendly editing atmoshphere.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mak82hyd was warned twice in response to personal attacks within the last few days. Attacks preceding the first warning include calling User:Jimfbleak a "psycho" and telling me "either u r a stupid or u r just islamophobic", referring to some imagined edits that I did not make in this AfD. In response to first warning, Mak82hyd restated his conviction about me, but I decided to just let him cool off. He has now gone on to call User:Ttiotsw "islamophobic" in spite of the warnings. I did not check every single edit that Ttiotsw has made lately, but I am pretty confident that this personal attack was entirely unwarranted (as I understand it personal attacks are always considered unwarranted on WP, regardless of circumstance). This attack against Ttiotsw was a couple of days ago but I just noticed it now; it was still very recent and it was just two days after the warnings. I expect the pattern to continue. As can be seen from his responses to me, Mak82hyd thinks I am an admin for some reason (I did not tell him or anyone that so I assume it was simply my use of templates), and has continued his attacks in spite of my warnings, so I do not believe that a real admin's stern warning alone will make any further difference. — coelacan talk — 20:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite clear, to me -- which of these diffs is a recent personal attack? Have pity on simple old Luna. :p Luna Santin 06:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The attack on Ttiotsw was recent when I posted this, the rest were to build context and establish that warnings have been given. I noticed it because I have Mak82hyd's talk page on my watchlist after I asked him to cease personal attacks, and Ttiotsw came in to ask him to stop yet again. If I understand "Accusatory comments" and "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" (although the affiliations here are imagined), repeated accusations of "islamophobia" are personal attacks, and I'm exhausted with these accuations being made against me (unwarranted) and other editors (very likely unwarranted). — coelacan talk — 15:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also lashed out again at User:Giordaano yesterday. Mak82hyd didn't like some edits, so told Giordaano to "keep it shut." Not a huge attack, but part of this wearying pattern. — coelacan talk — 15:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Left a note for now. None of it is too blatant, but as a whole, it's not the sort of thing I want to let happen without comment. Luna Santin 00:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Accusing others of hatred (ur hatred towards islam), 'cabal' (u seems to me as a member of the bias and islamophobic group) and telling them keep it shut certainly warrants a warning, or block if the user was warned. Plus an extra warning for not using capital letters and abusing English language (u, ur...) :> -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still doesn't get it. Accusing other editors of "hatred" again, in this edit summary. — coelacan talk — 19:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the above one is not a personal attack. may be before ones but I lose it when i see lot of things done without enough discussions. Mak82hyd 20:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another note. This one might just be a misunderstanding -- "hate" is a pretty strong word, so just asking to avoid it in the future. Luna Santin 00:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is using sock puppets to make personal attacks now, after being asked why he is making deletions, without debate. When his points are answered, he never accepts this and instead makes personal attacks such as [49] and where mention of Punjabis of illegitimate birth has been mentioned and also which cites a religious prejudice.

His IP addresses are

• 160.9.41.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 160.9.41.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 160.9.41.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 160.9.41.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Pakhtun_Tanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

(all sock puppets of the same user). Can this please this be looked into. Thanks people.--Raja 17:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Needs blocking. No need for a Request for CheckUser for obvious throwaway attack socks. I'll poke a sysop in their direct. Cheer, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 19:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC) Postscript note to sysops: Please do NOT indef the IPs, they are from a collage shared IP. Looks like the user is using college computers as well as his own to post these attacks. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 19:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked - .21 and .113 are blocked by Betacommand (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for the attacks. .23 by Nlu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for the attacks and .118 was blocked by (aeropagitica) for vandalism. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 19:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Could anyone please have a look at this: [50] Incivility and personal attacks of Eupator are clearly a violation of wiki policies, as are his insulting remarks about other ethnic and religious groups (he compares Muslim people with Nazis, etc). Regards, Grandmaster 19:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Grandmaster called me a racist and a chauvinist, if that's not a personal attack I don't know what is. I characterized those insults properly. Also saying that I compared Muslims to Nazis is a gross lie at best.--Eupator 19:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call you racist, I called your remarks pure racism and chauvinism. Anyone can check them and judge for himself. Grandmaster 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a cop out. If that's the case then I called your remarks of my remarks as degenerate outburts.--Eupator 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Neither of you are really doing so well in this exchange, and if you don't start acting in a civil manner you may both be warned or blocked. Perhaps you two should just go your separate ways and cool down? In short, no action at this time, without prejudice to future blocks for continued incivility. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 20:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was faced with insults and obscenities from Ghirlandajo at Talk:Treaty of Polyanovka after participating in a discussion to change the article name. This was a discussion started by User:Irpen (i.e. not a "provocation" by a "Polish editor") in which I didn't even get around to suggesting an article title (I only discussed some Google hits). There were no NPA templates issued because Ghirlandajo deletes my comments from his talk page. Also discussed here. Appleseed (Talk) 20:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left a notice - I'll see how he reacts. That will gauge whether further action is needed. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:04, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but where is the personal attack in the original link? Left a notice about what? Please care to study the matter before throwing hasty warnings. Some here just make all they can to achieve blocks of their content dispute opponents including depolarble practice of false reports to various boards. --Irpen 21:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply • It was a threat, saying he would take any further discussion of a matter as an insult. This is disruptive. His response to my note will tell whether it was a simple misunderstanding or a true attack. Please assume good faith in the future, and I would ask you do not engage in personal attacks yourself, especially in the Personal Attack Noticeboard. Thank you. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I engaged in personal attacks? Wizardry Dragon, you might know that unfounded accusations in personal attacks are personal attacks without doubt. Please leave handling the requests to admins and try content writing for a change. If adminning is really what you want to do, run for it first. Your hasty warnings are unwarranted and inflammatory. --Irpen 21:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must respectfully disagree with you, Irpen - it is clear Ghirlandajo is not assuming good faith here, but nor are the other parties in the conflict, so the other editors in that conflict are also to blame. Ghirlandajo's comment suggesting that editors are deliberately trying to stir up conflict and that they are like children for not understanding such information is indeed needless incivility, though, and the note left on Ghirlandajo's page is indeed appropriate to the situation as he has been unnecessarily commenting on contributors instead of content. Cowman109^Talk 21:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Irpen, I completely agree with Wizardry Dragon's actions. The original post contained two questionable comments - one was seriously inappropriate ("shitfest") and the other, about a "child beng able to do something", was the attack. Irpen, I'm assuming good faith, but your edit above towards WizardryDragon isn't posted in the height of civility - try to keep a cool head. Thanks, Martinp23 21:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support Wizardy Dragon actions; a warning was certainly appopriate; and I find it quite absurd that a PAIN warnings should be removed in such a way; please assume good faith and experience on the part of people dealing with PAIN issues and discuss it with them first. As for personal attack, maybe Wizardy means your above linked edit summary calling his stanard warning an rm ridiculously unwarranted and inflammatory message? And I am really very positivly suprised by the quick and professional reaction of three PAINers here, after my report about the same user was discarded few weeks ago, I begun to lose faith in PAIN. It's good to see zero tolerance policy becoming more popular.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] Ghirlandajo and his opponents here have been known each other for a long time and there is no need to assume anything good or bad. From what I see, this report is another attempt of his opponents to "win" content disagreements through achieving a block of their main opponents. This is not a new tactic. What I also see is an inexperienced user Wizardry Dragon handling the requests at admin's board as if he owns it throwing inflammatory warnings left and right and otherwise enjoying being a judge and the jury. The bottom line is that we had a serious disagreement, a terse discussion but no personal attacks of any sort. Than we get a false reports here where it does not belong and a certain user acting on it as if he knows anything. I can only wonder what goes on at IRC at this time. --Irpen 21:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship is "not a big deal" (as Jimbo said). Being a admin just give you a few extra tools - no extra status (or, that's the theory). You're effectively saying WizardryDragon cannot and should not work here as he's not an admin yet - this is nonsense, to be frank! He should be commended for the work he does here an elsewhere, and it should be noted that some of our best editors aren't admins yet. Every editor has the right to place an NPA tag, and WizardryDragon is doing this, helping out on this (often overlooked) board. Martinp23 21:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can see here, wizardryDragon has done nothing wrong, a warning was appropriate, as for the larger issues, I would suggest the mediation cabal and a good faith attempt at dispute resolution. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 21:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[multiple edit conflicts] My problem with Dragon's actions is not that he is not an admin but because they are sloppy. When Piotrus' last report was acted on by experienced handlers of this board (who happened to be admins by some accident), that report was promptly (and rightfully) discarded for what it was, an attempt to shut down his content opponent through a frivolous report to a public board. Now, when we get everyone who feels like throw a warning on two do so, this adds drama and does not help resolve any problems. --Irpen 21:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comment - Reviewers are actually somewhat preferred on WP:PAIN, as sysops have busy work elsewhere. Sysops are only required here when blocks are needed. I stand by my actions, and if you have a problem with them, please address the problem and not my character. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are greatly mistaken that we have lack of admins at the project. Actually, what the project seriously lacks is serious content writers. With 1000+ admins there is enough work force to handle WP:PAIN. If you look at the amount of empty chatter at Wikipedia space and, especially, at IRC you will see that there is no lack of admin time at the project. I know you meant well by trying to help here but your actions were unhelpful because they were unwarranted. There were no personal attacks in the orginial report. There were no attacks in my comment either. You hastily rushed into making accusations of others in PA and offensively cited some well-known rules (like AGF) to the editors who know both the rules and the editors they deal at this time. When you deal with the editor for years, you know him. There is no need to assume anything. The working relationship between Ghirlandajo, Piotrus, myself and Appleseed are not cloudless but they are working. If you want to help, investigate the issue in deapth first of all. I can see how it may seem cool to feel oneself that I will throw a warning here and spare the one there. However cool it may feel, it is very unhelpful if accompanied with misunderstanding of what really is going on.

Also, please do not edit my comments except misspelling and indentation marks. If I say that there is an edit conflict, I do so for a reason. --Irpen 22:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a serious need for admin time elsewhere, when admin powers are the only things that can solve problems. CAT:ABL lists the backlog - it's not nice! At PAIN, one of the good things is that anyone can come and help, leaving obligatory warnings. To be absolutely honest, WD has been active for just about a week less than I, and I'm certain that he knows a lot more than me about the procedure here and elsewhere that he is involved. Assume good faith that WD knows what he's doing, please! I, for one, sleep easy when I know he's working on this board. Martinp23 22:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Part of the way this page works is that reviewers take the load of admins by sorting out minor cases which really don't need admin involvement. I'm sure I speak for the whole admin community when I say that WD's contribustions are invaluable. CAT:CSD is in perennial backlog, as are WP:PP and WP:CFD. If we had admins sorting out every request here, I can tell you that we'd have a much longer list of backlogs. It's never fun for anyone to leave a warning, or to spend time investigating cases, but it has to be done by someone. We have over 1.5 million articles on Wikipedia, hand less than 1500 admins. That's more than 1000 articles for each of us to look after, if you look at it that way. Of course, admins are usually much more involved with sorting out disputes and fixing vandalism - what is, in my opinion, becoming ever more important as the communtiy grows. The admins need to do the process - but there's a lot of it, so wherever admins aren't needed, they shouldn't be, hence the role of reviewers here. Irpen - you clearly disagree with the actions taken by WD, which 3 admins have since agreed with. I suggest that you leave the dispute, before it potentially escalates into a WP:POINT violation. Martinp23 22:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: I have not known Ghirlandajo for years. I believe I have only directly interacted with him on one occasion, in a situation also involving an article title, which resulted in Ghirlandajo receiving a warning from an admin. Appleseed (Talk) 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] The reason of admin backlog is not a lack of admins but the time wasted at empty talk at Wikipedia boards and, especially, IRC. True, one does not need to be an admin to make a sound judgement on the PAIN report. One, however, does need to to make a sound judgement to make a warning. Unwarranted warnings hurt people and spoil the climate here a whole lot. Dragon's intrusion was well-intentioned but sloppy and unhelpful, at least in this particular case. His further accusing me above in personal attack shows just another case of ill understanding of the policies as none of my messages above contained any of the PA stuff. He may have an excellent judgement overall, I have never met him before. Here, he certainly acted cluelessly. --Irpen 22:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, about admin time wasting, that's your opinion, one I disagree with. You keep saying that WD made sloppy actions and left an unwarranted warning, despite the fact that his actions have been endorsed by three admins, and the warning was reposted by an admin (me). Please look at this, come back and have a thorough look at the conversation, and read the comments you may have missed in edit conflicts. Martinp23 22:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of those three admins 1 is involved in the conflict directly, and two others have popped up here for the first time ever, which just proves my point about IRC. While at it, why not ask for IRC for more of your friends to show up and add to this bashing? Don't worry, I won't see it since I never go there, see user talk:Lar for why. --Irpen 22:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]