Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Personal attacks/Archive

message:   -->   
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  be  and vice versa. --Blackcap | talk 18:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Templates

message: Just about these templates: it makes a lot more sense to me to have what's currently  be  and vice versa. --Blackcap | talk 18:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Template chat

message: This page was nominated for deletion in november 2005, but consensus was to keep it. Radiant_>|< 23:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  MFD 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yeah, you suck, get off the stage! Kitty 06:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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|Black 06:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NPA? Dunno. El_C 07:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I am trying to humor you, Phil! Is it working? El_C 07:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, that went reeeal well for you. Bwhahah! Kitty 07:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia_talk:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard|Snuh?]]

message: :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:
# 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.
# 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.
# 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 meatball:DefendEachOther. Any comments? MartinRe 17:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm always in favour of things being resolved at the lowest level possible.  Perhaps some cross-pollination with Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts would be good. - brenneman{L}  12:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Admin actions on this page?

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I wonder... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Must warn 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Warnings, accusations, and vandalism

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree --Trödel 12:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Organizing reports

message: 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! Iolakana|T 20:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: /Header: Removed "content dispute"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Disregard of Admin/Consensus Decision 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Harassment is Wikipedia's status quo

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Not quite so horrific now...

message: 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 | talk  13:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 -трёп- 13:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On this, at least, we seem to agree.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment on edit

message: 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)
replies: text: -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agreed.  --Tbeatty 15:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yes it is appropriate that he removed your warnings. --Tbeatty 15:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removing a Warning Posted on a User Talk Page 

message: 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. -- THL 05:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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? -- THL 07:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imitation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 | talk  15:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, technically it's neither a policy, nor a part of wikipedia (it's on meta). //Halibutt 21:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but it's as offensive as meta: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 | talk  05:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: You might want to read User:Cyde/Don't be a fucking douchebag. Kusma (討論) 10:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:TRI is a more worthwhile reading. WP:DICK is "our basic social policy". Case closed. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I see another attempt to stage the case has failed here, good. M.K. 11:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:DICK 

message: 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 , and  templates as appropriate," it instead says, "The editor must have been warned with the , , or / templates, as appropriate."  Does this sound reasonable? --Elonka 22:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine with me. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional templates

message: Someone added a merge template.  Care to discuss why? DurovaCharge! 03:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Updating for clarity's sake: User:Titoxd has removed the merge tag. Luna Santin 20:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: 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 | talk  04:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 | talk  20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Does possible dispute invalidates PAIN report?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is it a personal attack if it's against a person who's not a user? 

message: If a sock puppet makes a personal attack, can the puppetteer be blocked or warned? --AW 16:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Of course, assuming he is a confirmed sock.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: 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 • Neutrality Project ) 15:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sock puppet attacks? 

message: 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 -трёп- 09:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Who opens the reports? 

message: 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)
replies: text: That is not a personal attack. Please see WP:NPA for what personal attacks are.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  PERSONALLY ATTACKED 

message: 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 - «Talk» 17:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Concur that is a genuine concern, especially as more case are heard at AN/I... Addhoc 00:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect? 

message: Hello. Just to update, I closed the MfD debate for this page as no consensus. --HappyCamper 16:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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 • Neutrality Project ) 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: **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. >Radiant< 08:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MfD close 

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