Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks

This page is intended to get attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks. It is not intended to serve as a form of mediation or a type of RFC. Only Personal attacks are dealt with on this page, on their own merits in accordance with Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy For editors who want a personal attack situation reviewed: Consider that in most cases, ignoring the attack is better than requesting sanction against the attacker. Do not report people if you are likewise guilty of hostility towards them. Make sure the user has actually commited a personal attack. (Please note that "personal attacks" are defined only under the WP:NPA policy. If a statement is not considered a personal attack under the intended spirit of this policy, it does not belong here.) The editor must have been warned earlier. The {{npa2}}, and {{npa3}} templates may be appropriate for new users; for long-term editors, it's preferable to write something rather than using a standard template. Reports of unwarned editors may be removed. If the behavior hasn't stopped, add the following header to the New Reports section of this page in the following format: ==={{User|NAME OF USER}}=== replacing NAME OF USER with the user name or IP address concerned, with a brief reason for listing below. Be sure to include diffs. If an editor removes the IP or username and doesn't handle the matter to your satisfaction, take it to the editor's talk page or the administrators' noticeboard, but do not re-list the user here. NB - Due to misunderstanding of these instructions and/or mis-use of this process, comments not in strict adhereance to these instructions WILL be removed. This page deals only with personal attacks under the policy WP:NPA. Reports deemed to be inappropriate for this page are liable to be moved to an appropriate venue where one exists. For those reported on this page: A reviewer or an administrator will review each report on this page. In dealing with the report, the contribution history of the reported user shall be checked along with the diffs provided in the report. Where no personal attack is evident, then no action will be taken - however, should an administrator see that another seperate issue is evident, appropriate action or advice for that issue may be taken/given at his or her discretion and in line with wiki policy. Reports on this page stand on their own merits in accordance with Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. As such, disputes and discussions over reports are not suitable for this page except for such comments left by admins or reviewers describing their actions and/or findings. If you notice your account reported at this page, please trust that the administrators and reviewers dealing with reports will deal with it in an even-handed and fair manner on the basis of policy alone. If you feel strongly that another "side to the story", issue, or another piece of information is missing from a report please refrain from posting here, and instead leave your comment on your talk page under the title NPA Report or another other clear and related title. The reviewing party will see this message and take it into account where applicable. For users handling assistance requests: For each of the users linked here, open their contributions and check for personal attacks. Also check if the users have been sufficiently warned for the current personal attack and whether they've continued to commit personal attacks after being warned. Note that there is an important difference between a user who makes many good contributions and a few personal attacks, and a user whose last edits are (nearly) all personal attacks or other conflict. Do nothing, warn them again, or, if you are an adminstrator, block the user in question as you think is required. Explain things carefully to the user who listed the attacker if you feel there's been a misunderstanding. Move the report to the Open Reports section and give an update to the status of the report. Delete old reports that have been dealt with. Please consider adding this page to your watchlist to make life easier for non-administrator RC-patrollers.

New Reports

Vintagekits (talk · contribs)

Vintagekits (talk · contribs) disagrees with the proposed settlement at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-02 IRA 'Volunteer' usage and is referring to other editors using the highly pejorative terms "West Brits" [1][2] [3][4] and "idiots". Was warned using {{npa3}}[5] and {{npa4}}[6] but blanked these warnings and continued to post messages using the term. Demiurge 10:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Roobit (talk · contribs)

This person is totally incivil (refers to Finns who disagree with his POV as "Nazis" [7] and calls Turks "savages" [8], makes personal attacks left and right, and when I (rightly, in my opinion) suspected him of being a sock of the banned user LuisMatosRibeiro (very similar pattern of edits to Soviet-related articles, similar language style, etc.) some time ago, he proceeded to spam multiple pages on Wikipedia (today), calling me "idiot" [9], [10], [11], [12] and "scumbag" [13]. He inserts his rants into the wrong place, does not sign his comments on talk pages [14] (there are many more examples of this), and is making a huge mess of the Continuation War talk page (by refusing to sign his posts, etc.). He also deleted the sockpuppet template I placed on his user page, which I left blank as it seemed to encourage his boorish behavior. I've warned him, but I think someone else should do something... if nothing else, make him follow normal procedure by adding correct headers and signing his comments in the normal way. TheQuandry 19:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Derunts (talk · contribs)

Account has been used only to post derogatory remarks about Roland Rance on several pages. Behaviour the same as blocked editors User:Runts, User:Runtsy, User:Runce and many more set up purely to abuse and stalk Rance. RolandR 14:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Zyoghae (talk · contribs)

User's total posting history is one extremely virulent attack comment, including mentioning the other user's email address and making a threat. John Broughton | Talk 13:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Bakasuprman (talk · contribs)

Abusive language used by the user [15]. He used religious epithets "pseudo-Buddhist", which is against wikipedia's policy of No Personal Attack [16].StopUntouchability 05:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Digibizman (talk · contribs)

Astonishing vitriol here, here and here. Name is familiar, though it is a new account. I'm pretty sure this is the return of a blocked user under a similar username, most likely someone I gave vandalism warnings to in the past. Appears to be a vandalism-only account, user has been warned now by multiple users. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

User has now received indefinite block for vandalism ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RaffiKojian (talk · contribs)

User is insisting on adding his website to the external links section of Ardahan. I have been trying to clean up the external links section of many cities, removing all forum web-sites etc [17]. Even though this might seem like an ordinary content dispute, the user is adding a website that he personally runs, and accusing me of being a vandal and racist for removing it[18] and [19]. I told him to be careful with civility [20] and [21], and he has been a Wiki user since 2004, so I am assuming that he is very familiar with Wiki policies. I put in another post to his talk page [22], but I know that he knows Wiki rules back to front. It is really not nice to be accused of being racist et al... Baristarim 06:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

This user reverted me again [23] by calling me a vandal and after I had left him another note on his talk page [24] more about the subject. After his revert, he left this note [25] on WikiProject Armenia's talk page by saying "A Turk is removing the Armeniapedia link repeatedly". He further left this note on my talk page, after I had told him to take it easy and be civil, [26] by saying "Thank you for proving my suspicion with your "unreliable site" comment. You may now report me! :-)". What suspicion? I am assuming the one where he said this [27]. The user not only knows Wiki policies, but he seems to be having a kick out of mocking them and other editors as well. I have been in Wikipedia long enough, I just finished an article that is FA review and it is getting stellar remarks. It is really not cool for other users who use Wikipedia to promote their own websites to accuse others of racism who have been contributing to Wikipedia for a long time in a constructive way.

For further information, please see WP:EL and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.Baristarim 19:31, 1 January 2007 (UTC) No worries. I take back my report. Baristarim 23:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Haiduc (talk · contribs) and Jeffpw (talk · contribs)

Haiduc and Jeffpw have consistently made false accusations and personal attacks against both me and another editor. On the LGBT noticeboard Haiduc added false and baseless accusations (and making assumptions about my background and geographical location), which I toned down to reflect the basis of the actual dispute. Both have continued making attacks and accusations in their reverts. The noticeboards are not owned by anyone and editors have the right to edit comments to reflect what is actually going on. [28] [29] [30] [31] On my talk, Jeffpw has continued bullying and harassing me [32] [33] [34] I have done nothing wrong and I want these two to stop. metaspheres 05:34, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

SummerThunder (talk · contribs)

SummerThunder has been engaging in an extended campaign of personal attacks and defamations on WP:VPM and elsewhere. These have been mainly directed at me and other Chinese Wikipedia editors, but have also spread over to User:Tjstrf. In these attacks, SummerThunder has repeated referred to me and other Chinese Wikipedians as liars, spies, and agents of the Chinese communist government, etc.:

• [35]
• [36]
• [37]
• [38]
• [39]
• [40]
  (I apologize for posting section headers here instead of diffs, but SummerThunder's edits are a bit too scattered in the edit history of WP:VPM.)

He makes snide comments about me in topics that are entirely unrelated to the topic at hand:

[41]

He mocked Tjstrf's comments by parroting them:

[42]

He also also made issue of Tjstrf's age, saying that he knows nothing about the world as he is 17:

[43]

SummerThunder has been warned multiple times against personal attacks by various editors, myself included:

• [44] & [45]
• [46]
• [47]
• [48]

One sysop advised him to join the mentoring program, which he has so far ignored:

• [49]
• [50]

He has also grossly violated 3RR at Chinese Wikipedia and Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China:

• [51]
• [52]

And in reponse to my attempts to discuss those articles, he makes even more accusations and personal attacks, or simply ignores me:

• [53]
• [54]

The background of SummerThunder's accusations is this:

SummerThunder was permanently blocked about three weeks ago on the Chinese Wikipedia for repeatedly spamming the Village Pump there and making personal attacks. Over a period of two weeks, more than ten sysops tried to contact him on his Chinese Wikipedia page, attempting to explain NPOV, NOR, and NPA to him, but to no avail. He called mainland Chinese Wikipedians "communist spies" on sight, and continued his spamming through sockpuppets after he was blocked.

According to SummerThunder however, the block was placed on him for political reasons. His interpretation is that the Chinese Wikipedia has been taken over by communist spies, and that's why he was kicked out. Regarding the veracity of his claims, I have already debunked him multiple times on WP:VPM, despite his constant barrages of personal attacks and accusations. All who are interested are welcome to read the discussion there.

-- ran (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The above user has been blocked for 24 hours. -- ran (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet (talk · contribs)

last warrning

commenting on my "marginal right-wing POV" and " annoying" "passive/agressive manner"

edit summary "Aggressive ignorance" "arrogant POV" "lousy Wikipedia editing"

assuming bad faith

accusing me of "POV pushing" for adding a sourced view of known scholar of fascism

"intellectually dishonest and POV"

-- Vision Thing -- 23:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet's personal attacks, especially in abusive edit summaries, seem to have long funded roots. See the opposing comment by Reconguy to his possible adminship. I can handle his campaigning on talk pages. It is his frequently abusive, over-the-top edit summaries that poison collaboration and scares off editors. --Timeshifter 13:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk section full of insults. Fairly typical. Venom started on other talk pages continued there. "Stop wasting bandwidth." --Timeshifter 13:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Fabartus (talk · contribs)

Twice has placed a nasty persoanl attack on my talk page, supposedly after disagreeing with me at Sadam Hussein. Here and here. i have warned him . his edit sum,mary on his revert about not vandalsiing corporate docs makes me think he isnt an experienced user but clearly such behaviour needs reprimanding at the very least, SqueakBox 18:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

24.14.87.181 (talk · contribs)

Anonymous Comcast account in the Chicago, Illinois, USA area with a history of defamatory edits, including two now against me made in article space. Edits do not occur often, but virtually all have been reverted by human editors or bots. Claims are completely false, and unverifiable. Defamatory statements against me made at:

• [55]
• [56]

Other such statements and their reverts can be found easily through the contribs.

If anyone wants to confirm that I'm not, in fact, trying to hide something, feel free to search chicagotribune.com, dailyherald.com or suburbanchicagonewspapers.com. My name has not appeared in those newspapers for well over a decade, and the last time was for participating in foreign exchange programs geared to high school students.

I've asked for this IP address to be completely blocked in the past, but this has been ignored due to the paucity of edits. Now I'd like to know how to contact Comcast to report abuse. Messages, please, on my talk page. --JohnDBuell 13:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Iwazaki (talk · contribs)

Consistent POV-pushing and tag-reverting with accusations of "vanderlism [sic]"[57] (it is not vandalism to tag a page for neutrality issues [58]and open a dialogue in the talk page[59], only to be rebuffed and bad faith assumed by this user [60]). Wrong accusations of "soapboxing"[61]. Repeated incivility despite pleas to stop [62].I asked him to cool down [63] but he retaliated with a revenge-"warning" to my talk page[64]. repeated violation of WP:OWN, claiming to own this article Gonagala massacreRumpelstiltskin223 08:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment

first of all I have to say that I've acted within the boundaries of wikipedia rules.All I have asked him was to read the references and to use talk page for discussions. [65] Then he started giving me ridiculous warnings !! And I replied to him with this [66]

Again he started accuse me for everything !! while failing to add any proper argument in the article's talk page..And why should I even take his baseless accusations seriously ?

The user Rumpelstiltskin223 , is clearly engaged in duplicity.First without writing anything in the talk page, he altered my edits.Its sad that he can't even fulfil this fundamental principal.Not only that,He's been running a mock in the Gonagala massacre article, removing whatever goes against his personal beliefs..And his failure to see the evidences is astonishing !! As you can clearly see here, [67],this user has a problem with seeing references.There were two links including a video clip and this user still deleted them !! Please take appropriate action from preventing him taking wikipedia for granted.thanking you. --Iwazaki 10:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the sources were wrong as I read through the entire material with no references to the statement given. Also, this user continues to be incivil above all the while Ihave been very polite to him. Rumpelstiltskin223 11:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• reply Once again pushing your POV , aren't you ?? The evidences are there to be seen ,and it seems only you are having a problem with it..Not only you vandalise pages just because you don't see(or may be not wanted to see) the obvious , I think you also have a bad habit of accusing people for showing your suspicious actions..And above you have shown that you are even willing to lie in order to push your case against me !!

My last comment to this is, I have remained civil and acted within the rules of wikipedia. And what ever I said of above user was based on facts and evidences I saw in the wikipedia.thank you --Iwazaki 17:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

No facts, no "evidence". Just more incivility and personal attacks piling upon personal attacks. I sincerely suggest you stop digging your own grave here.Rumpelstiltskin223 22:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

REPLY facts are given and evidences are there.See the article(s).And your comment Also, this user continues to be incivil above all the while Ihave been very polite to him ,is not true,as anyone can clearly see by looking at our talk pages(or article discussions),there are no talks after this user made his first post here.I am pretty much disappointed with your attempts to deceive administrators with make up stories and false allegation for incivility.--Iwazaki 09:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Folksong (talk · contribs)

User:Folksong has interpreted my level2 warning templates at User talk:Folksong (substantiated by edit history to Filipinos (snack food)) as a personal attack from me and responded with statements and threats on User talk:Zedla and on his talk page which I feel fall under wp:npa ie "Apparently, the cultural issue does not matter to you" & "they speak a truth that you do not want to accept". I'd leave a npa2 but he's reverted all my warnings and replaced with a incivil level4 type warning. Zedla 22:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• Reviewer note • Looks like a simple content dispute. What about this is particularly pointed? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
  • assuming bad faith, incivility? The issue is about the specific npa behavior. The specifics of the content dispute are another matter for another place. Zedla 06:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Live Forever (talk · contribs)

Here this User has gone far beyond reaches of civility. After weeks & months of silence at the talk page, and his repeated reverts of the article [calling uon a never-accepted-before "compromise"], despite m y monologues to a brick wall at the talk; he wrote a very uncivil comment, accusing me of constantly and blatantly lying about other users' contributions and other highly uncivil comments as seen. He has also called me a vandal & expressed no will to talk/discuss, him clearly stating that he'll continue reverting. --PaxEquilibrium 09:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It's happening again... the reports are being ignored and then they're going to be archived after a certain period of time passes... The administrators most certainly need to spend more time here. --PaxEquilibrium 17:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Chuck0 (talk · contribs)

This user was warned by me yesterday [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChuck0&diff=96216083&oldid=96216056 but has just attacked me again by calling me a "coward".http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnarchism_in_the_United_States&diff=96462818&oldid=

He just attacked me again, calling me a "crackpot" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChuck_Munson&diff=96464851&oldid=96464315

Yet another personal attack calling me "crazy." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AChuck_Munson&diff=96504904&oldid=96504491

Jimfbleak (talk · contribs)

On the talk page for Cardinal (bird), because I have asserted that the prevalent spelling of the article should be American because the Anglophonic nation with by far the largest population of cardinals is the US, User:Jimfbleak has accused me of

• “dismiss[ing] the other anglophone nations in the New World as unimportant compared to mighty America”
• holding that “British English Anglophone nations in the New World” “don't matter” because “they're not Americans”

I noted the difference between what I was actually saying and his claims, and warned him both on the article talk page and on his own talk page that libel was a bald violation of Wikipedia policy. His reponse has been to accuse me of bluster and to assert that the warning itself was itself incivil. —SlamDiego 15:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Factual correction - I said that putting a stop sign was uncivil, I did not raise an objection to the warning being put on my page. jimfbleak 16:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• SlamDiego, thank you for bringing to our attention the fact that you have accused Jimfbleak of libel. This could be construed as a legal threat and if repeated could see you indefinitely banned from the project. Since you chose to self-report I am hopeful that you have realised the error of your ways and will not repeat this personal attack. Guy (Help!) 13:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Open reports

68.42.232.134 (talk · contribs)

This anon. user has continued to escalate Personal Attacks against me to the point of Harassment, and he has been told these are not acceptable several times. Furthermore, he has taken the issue off-wikipedia to a discussion forum here:Here, as well as an email to my email address further harassing me, even though he and another user were the ones engaging in an edit war, while I engaged in the discussion. I have at this point requested the forum admin linked previously to remove my name from his site, no response as of yet. I am also considering contacting his ISP regarding the harassment. However, I did want to make sure that this was also noted with the Wikipedia administrators. Cascadia 05:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot a Wikipedia admin can do about that sort of thing -- my ability to block people ends when they leave the en.wikipedia.org domain. As far as the emails go, if they're coming from the same addresses, you may as well blacklist the address so that you stop getting their mail. Luna Santin 11:38, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I knew there was not much that could be done by a WP admin, but I did need to document that the WP admins were aware of the situation. Thank you for your assistance, you've been more help than you know. Cascadia 19:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wobble (talk · contribs)

• "There ia a host of information on this if you can be bothered to think outside of your narrow racialist perspective Thulean. Distorting biomedical research to try to support your dodgy racialist ideas is what you seem to do best. Go on accuse me of a personal attack, but read WP:SPADE first and look at your edit history." [68] I asked him to prove his accusations about me distorting research. He failed and could have only given one example, and that was questionable. We discussed it at length User_talk:Wobble#Thulean.2FLukas_discussion

• Than after saying me if I can "be bothered to think outside of your narrow racialist perspective", he says "The sort of out of date racialist thinking that normal people (that's 99% of us) think only nutters believe any more." "you just want to make claims that science supports your racist ideas" "There was a cite to "racial reality", a racist nazi site as far as I can see, with the reliability and accuracy one would expect from a bunch of neonazi thickos (who ever met an intelligent racist? Not me)." While commenting on neo nazis may be acceptable, he correlates it with racists after commenting on my "racist ideas" and after calling me "Ah well my little nordicist friend". Clearly, there are bunch of insults in these two edits: [69] [70], especially considering things like " Indeed I might go so far as to say that being considered silly by someone with your opinions makes me rather a decent chap". And I never called him silly.

• His warns: [71] [72] Lukas19 01:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

83.250.137.87 (talk · contribs)

Personal attacks against former Sveasoft subscribers and ex-employees, including posting personal information.

Examples

• [73]
• [74]
• [75] (different wiki, same vandalism)

This, among other open proxies and the like, are abused by Sveasoft employee User:James Ewing.

Can you clarify what the 3rd link given there is? Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 18:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviewer note • Although the third link is concerning, it is on another wiki and unfortunately we have no jurisdiction to punish them there. I would also find it in bad taste to punish them here for mistakes on other places, so I would encourage another reviewer or sysop to discount it. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that; you can safely ignore that oteher wiki. But here's another example:

• [76]

Thanks. --Tokachu 19:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

He's doing it again. Examples are: [77] [78].

Here's the WHOIS data for the IP (83.250.137.87) in question:

inetnum:    83.250.136.0 - 83.250.143.255 
netname:    COMHEM-CUSTOMER 
descr:     com hem customer broadband access 
descr:     ISP 
descr:     ******************************** 
       Abuse & intrusion reports should 
       be done done online at: 
       http://www.comhem.se/publik/portlets/abuse/begin.do 
       ******************************** 
country:    SE 
admin-c:    CH1252-RIPE 
tech-c:     CH1252-RIPE 
status:     ASSIGNED PA 
mnt-by:     COMHEM-MNT 
source:     RIPE # Filtered 
role:      com hem LIR 
address:    Com Hem AB 
       Birger Jarlsgatan 57B 
       Box 191 50 
       Stockholm 104 32 
       SWEDEN 
       ******************************** 
       Abuse & intrusion reports should 
       be done online at: 
       http://www.comhem.se/publik/portlets/abuse/begin.do 
       ******************************** 
phone:     +46 8 55363000 
fax-no:     +46 8 6601640

Sveasoft is located in the same area. An interesting coincidence, no? --Tokachu 15:24, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandal on Janjua discussion

81.105.254.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) This user is a sock puppet of a user who has been banned through various Ip's for personal attacks, this is another personal attack. They know I am a Muslim Punjabi, yet this user tells me sarcastically to stick to the Sikh Granth for inspiration, and also calls me a supershaitani (shaitani means satanic) as a mick take of my user name super saiyan evidence is [79] faith and racial hate at it's best. Thanks for this people! --Raja 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

User warned. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for 24hrs for violation of WP:NPA ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

88.110.220.22 (talk · contribs)

This user has (under varying IP) in the past few weeks been trying to push his POV in the Salvador Allende article against apparent consensus (all but him it seems). After first attempts to include his contributions in the article and try to explain why his edits were reverted or ammended it has now become apparent that no cooperation seems to be possible. On the Talk:Salvatore Allende page almost all his recent contributions have been personal attacks on the other editors. These attacks are largely based on his perception of the political leaning of said editors. In my case his view is of course in part correct, but no ground for personal attack. He has been repeatedly reminded about the NPA policy as well as other policies he seemed to be ignoring. Yesterday I issued a first warning to him (under the User:88.110.239.95 IP) for the following edit [[80]]. His most recent and in my opinion most blatant attack is [[81]] for which I issued a second warning. His use of daily varying IP's is problematic, as far as I can tell this person has been active on the Salvador Allende article and talk page since December 14, every single contribution by an 88.109-111 IP on those two pages seems to have been by this user, though he at first seemed to dispute any connection. The above direct links are only two of many examples of personal attacks by this annon. For myself I must confess I have not been able to entirely keep my calm and may also have conducted a personal attack in this dispute, though it was more of a slip then intentional. This can be found under [[82]]. It is indeed my impression that this person is of a mindset I have not encountered in the past decade or so. Even in political campaigning I have never been under such attack based on a seeming bias, which was what I'd intended to say in that post. Accordingly it is very difficult for any of us editors to remain entirely calm and I expect objective. I would welcome any help or intervention possible. --Caranorn 23:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Note the annon just seems to have broken the triple revert rule as well. I'm too tired to look up the correct means to report this at this time (I've been recovering from a bad cold all day), I just though I should note this here.--Caranorn 23:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I reported this at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, and I just noticed User:CSTAR has reported it at WP:AN/I. Vints 10:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no point on issuing a block. The IP changes far too often. I have semi-protected the article but not the talk page. This way the anon will hopefully change its attitude and/or open an account to discuss. Asterion^talk 14:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Dead men's bells

I'm reporting the this personal attack.--Lance ^talk 15:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

User:82.25.24.217

After I issued a blatant vandal warning for this edit to Mary_Whitehouse, this user vandalised the page again and made this edit on my user page, which is both a personal attack and a threat of legal action. --Stephen Burnett 02:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for violation of NPA ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Dking

Personal attack in edit summary[83] and article discussion.[84] the characterization of editors who disagree with hostile views as "cultists" and "totalitarian" has been ongoing by both Dking and Cberlet. BabyDweezil 20:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Juppiter

What should someone do if they have been PERSONALLY ATTACKED!? User:Juppiter called me an "asshole" in the Christopher Goutman history page thinking that I wasn't going to find out about it, done in a very sneaky way. ATTACK: Revision as of 20:34, November 19, 2006 (edit) (undo) Juppiter (Talk | contribs) m (My god, this asshole user:Yrgh would have you believe that every soap opera is changing executive producer and hw in "early 2007") Newer edit → Juppiter Yrgh 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Yrgh

User:TAnthony

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 by TAnthony: 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 by TAnthony: This and MANY other articles have been tagged by 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 (on the Christopher Goutman history pg) called mean "asshole"! I reported Juppiter & NOTHING was done about it! Consequences!?

No one, i repeat: no one, has told me about what is being or what will be done to TAnthony! Is this the image Wiki wants to portray: Come to Wiki, edit & BE INSULTED.....REPEATEDELY. THEN GET BLOCKED & BANNED!?!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????????????????????????????!?!?!?!?!?! Yrgh