Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Shut down. With a strong majority for deletion and several "deprecate" comments, it is obvious that there is no consensus for continuing to run this process, and that most people consider it a net detriment. Therefore it should be shut down. Aside from that, there are several suggestions. Perhaps some reformed version could work, although it seems most people don't believe so. People are welcome to

propose and discuss this, but it shouldn't start running without consensus for that. Regarding the current page, some people suggest salting, others suggest keeping it, and others suggest an admonitory essay. It seems best to keep the PAIN procedures and mark those as rejected, so that people can see what we tried and what didn't work, and to delete the page itself since it's basically a lengthy list of accusations of nastiness. People who want an essay about the history of PAIN are of course welcome to add one. >Radiant< 12:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard

Basically, it is counter-productive. If someone is engaging in personal attacks, boilerplate and wiki-bylaws are not likely to achieve the desired result of getting them to calm down. Have a quiet word with them. This board simply encourages

Docg 18:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Apologies for commenting up here, but I do want to note that this page has been
nominated for deletion once before (by myself) in November 2005, right after it was first created; I don't think anyone noticed because the page is still at "miscellaneous deletion", but did want to point it out for full transparency and for historical reasons. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • JS, I would suggest that more user squabbles should be pushed through RfC instead.
    Addhoc 19:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I agree particularly with the problem of baiting, a really creative troll can fly below the radar of WP:CIVIL, provoke a response and then post to WP:PAIN. If there is wider community input such as RfC or AN/I this is usually commented on, however at WP:PAIN, well meaning admins have blocked well intentioned editors who have lost their cool, which in turn has encouraged more trolling.
    Addhoc 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Poke a dog with a stick? You've been reading those comics again! :-) Carcharoth 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reporting you to PAIN, talking about poking dogs with sticks on an Mfd I have edited is clearly a personal attack. KillerChihuahua?!? 05:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict x6, wow) Tag historical, skip the essay. I never understood why a personal attack would require urgent "intervention" anyway. If they're totally blatant and offensive (e.g. massive racist epithets directed at other users) then
    talk 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per
    WP:BEANS ... there doesn't need to be a complaints department. If someone is making personal attacks, deal with it, or warn them with an appropriate template. There's no need to encourage these situations to be escalated to WikiDrama. --BigDT 18:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Ok, so where does one air legitiment complaints? People keep saying WP:ANI, but WP:ANI is barly under control as it is. WP:RFC? Maybe, but RFC does have any "remidies" built in. ---
WRE) 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment Well, that's a problem, because it really shouldn't. Jkelly 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply any case in which
talk 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
There is a difference between vandalism and personal attacks. Computerjoe's talk 21:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly believe the page functioning like WP:AIV is the main problem. The page instructions require admins to check if the correct templates have been applied and to verify whether there have been personal attacks. The page instructions don't encourage the admins to investigate whether a relatively new user called, for example, a white supremacist a "racist" or a "liar" in heated (and partially justified) circumstances and this has been a significant problem.
Addhoc 23:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Break 1
Break 2
  • Keep (Provisionally...) When I started really editing wiki, and I mean having a serious intention in improving an article rather than making one or two minor edits here or there, I encountered a situation where I cam under a series of dispicable attacks. Because the article was a bit of a "backwater" one at the time that didn't really recieve much attention, this went on for a while. It was eventually only the kindness of Shell Kinney working at WP:PAIN that got the issue resolved. Since then, I've helped resolve a dispute or two between editors that I've no connection with, involving articles on subjects I've no personal interest in. I've also done quite a large amount of editing in the mean time bringing (along with another editor) an article up to FA class, a few up to B class, reverting vandalism, small changes/copyedits/additions to other articles and yes, I've done a share in WP:PAIN reviewing.
In fact, WP:PAIN is not only the reason I'm still here after that first awful experience, but it's also the page that made me realise that I could be useful in trying to solve the occasional dispute, and even in helping other editors feel better. Back then when I was working at the page, there were very few people reviewing reports. Shell understandably had to take a break from it, and I recall asking after a while "am I the only one looking at this?" or something to a similar effect - I'm not even an administrator, but merely a reasonable person editing the encyclopedia. A few new editors took over after that, and I carried on reviewing reports with them. Everything seemd fine and PAIN was being run quite sensible. It was of course rediculously hard work though because people weren't following even the more basic and simple intructions of the time. I stopped, various admins started, and eventually there was Woohookitty screaming for sweet mercy on the talk page. after discussions, I edited the header to it's recent (but not current form) to make the process a bit more bearable for admins and reviewers. Part of those instuctions were in fact to avoid the very same slanging matches we are seeing today. I'm not saying the instructions are perfect, nor that they shouldn't be reformed. What I AM saying though, is that if they were being followed, and if such comments other than reviewer notes were deleted (the instructions state to leave them on your talk page), then we wopuldn't have half of the problems were seeing now.
Essentially, there just aren't enough people keeping it running smoothly, and it's being ALLOWED to become a slanging match and tactical tool. I'm even quite disinclined to work at that page myself at the moment. What's neeted are "diff only reports" with no comments, reviewer notes only on the project page, and and comments from users (either reporting or reported) should be left on each users talk pages respectively. Reviewers should then be required to leave notes on any actions, as should admins, but in deciding on a report, Dispute resolution should be prescribed where required (ie - "go to DR"), advice should be given if required, and reviewers (including admins) should be at least reasonbly experienced and excercise demonstrable good/common sense and fairness.
It's how it used to be, and it's how it could be again if more people would just shoo away the "repeat reporters", trolls, debaters(to their respective talk pages), and general mischief escalators, and deal with reports in the correct manner, ensuring that they remain reported in the required manner (ie, diffs and at most minimal comments). User talk pages are (or at least should be!) checked by reviewers anyway. Crimsone 01:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark as historical Following my efforts last night at tidying the page, removing old reports, moving answered reports to open, and commenting on a report or two myself, it appears to me that the page has become a nightmare to work on (again). I still believe that it could be bropught back from it's current situation simply be having more admins pay attention to it. However, it doesn't seem to have the support required to do that, and so I can only suggest closing it down before it becomes an even bigger problem. However, it remains to be seen how well AN/I will be able to cope with dealing with these also. I would hope that those proposing that ANI deals with such issues would also demonstrate a willingness to respond when they arise, else those who have a problem for which WP:DR is inappropriate will have no venue to get reasonable help in reasonable time. Crimsone 18:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I haven't liked this idea (or its lame cutesy acronym) since I first came across it, but since I live in a nice content little corner of the wiki, I've never had reason to think twice about it. It does have the minor advantage of trying to corral the bickering, whining, and tattletaling to one visible place, but surely that's well counterbalanced by the fact that the noticeboard's very existence encourages such behavior. Not to mention the fact that it can encourage well-meaning but officious types to play manners police. Opabinia regalis 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per
    Daniel.Bryant.[1][2][3] [4] There's nothing wrong with a place where users can report personal attacks. The problem with WP:PAIN is not the noticeboard, its the way users use it. It needs a reform and *most* users interested in responding to PAIN submissions need to reform their method of action. --ElectricEye (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment Many delete's are based on the idea that it attracts uglyness. Just a theory, but if this is deleted, isn't it possible that the ugliness will still exist, but just spread out? Is the board the cause of the problem, or does it just attract an existing problem. No opinion regarding this deletion. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The utility of this noticeboard is directly related to the fairness and thoroughness of the Wikipedians who run it. When it works well it serves as a centralized spot with better follow-up than a larger board. Wikipedia's ratio of admins to registered accounts has dropped steadily for a couple of years now, which has made it difficult to keep this board populated with enough good admins. I think a better solution is to mopify more of the site's gumshoes. We normally look for folks to manage AFD and new pages patrol. Some targeted recruitment here should allay concerns with the exception of a relatively small group who are philisophically opposed to the board. DurovaCharge 03:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the philosophical opposition alone is enough to secure deletion. I would change my vote to keep if I thought there was a reasonable chance of streamlining the board into reliability. I just think that there are already plenty of admins willing to do this work who come through AN/I as a matter of course but who don't and won't bother with PAIN. It is my hope that moving the report process to AN/I will speed up handling of real problems. I hope someone will warn me if I'm dead wrong on that presumption. — coelacan talk — 06:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To HighinBC: No, not really. There are a ton of problems involved in the page. First, no one can define what makes a personal attack, and so a community there is supposed to determine it. That carries an inherent bias to finding the attacks. Second, there are no checks on the participants, so, without experienced users and administrators looking in, it becomes an easy place for minority views masquerading as policy. Third,
      WP:NPA says only that it is against our policy to make personal attacks, nothing else. Therefore, allegations of a "personal attack" should be treated like allegations of NPOV violations, and those go to an RFC. There is no abstracted and removed group looking at single lines of text for the possibility that an insult has been made. Finally, the most significant problem with the page is not that it attracts complainers, but rather that it creates complainers by making instant template slapping de rigeur. Have someone top-post your talk page with a template announcing that you are a low-life and then be told that you can't remove it and see what it does for your mood. That kind of punishment based approach is not what we should take in any circumstance, and yet its built into the idea of "intervention" in personal attacks. Mediation is the solution to ill will. Geogre 05:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • If there can be separate pages for 3RR, etc. there can be a separate page for personal attacks. Greeves 03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and !vote - can we get general agreement somewhere that Wikipedia namespace pages, especially if they have a history, should always be closed down (that's my !vote by the way) and marked historical/closed, rather than deleted. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history. Here's an example: there was a page very like WP:PAIN back in late 2002. It too got deleted, but when WP:PAIN was created, no-one who was around remembered what a bad idea it had been first time around. (Yes, I just made that up, but over the years the wheels do just keep getting reinvented - can we learn the lessons the first time round, please?) Carcharoth 03:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • A great deal of merit to this idea, in my view. Even just replacing with an essay is better than a complete delete. (and yes, I know I commented delete above. I don't want it kept as is) ++Lar: t/c 04:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Khoikhoi 03:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or the Kelly Martin solution. I never liked this idea. Paul August ☎ 04:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This page only serves a page for people to attack each other.--CJ King 04:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thats another thing it can be good for, to keep all the personal attacks on the same page! ^_^ --ElectricEye (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Break 3
Hi Farix, could I ask if you think we should create a new page for this form of investigation or whether we could expand the role of
Addhoc 19:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
We could just go the whole hog and create
Docg 19:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete in favor of RFC. --Masamage 19:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't know enough about WP:PAIN to add to this discussion (hence the comment), but this shouldn't be deleted if there isn't anything wrong with it. PTO 19:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uhm... did you read the above discussion which highlights several things that are wrong with it? —bbatsell ¿? 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said before, I am not educated enough to comment any further than I did. I read the arguments in question, but they didn't convince me enough for me to take a side here. PTO 22:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are numerous alternative avenues with which to remedy the problems PAIN is aimed at; in addition, the negatives of PAIN far outweigh the positives and lead to extensive wikilawyering and gaming of the system. —bbatsell ¿? 20:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep. People should have the right to participate in discussions without being insulted, abused or attacked for their race, nationality, religion etc. Deleting PAIN will no doubt lead to an increase in such incidents and for what? The drawbacks of deleting PAIN are rather obvious, but I cannot see that any gain has been presented here by those who want it deleted. There are enough discussion forums on the Internet for hostile discussions and hatred, no need to encourage such behaviour here.JdeJ 21:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    "Deleting PAIN will no doubt lead to an increase in such incidents". Given everything that has been said above, there is clearly a doubt about this claim; you need to do more than simply make it — you need to offer either evidence or an argument. Have you looked at the page? Most entries amount to little more than the equivalent of a child in a playground yelling: "Mummy, he called me silly..." --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely right :). It's only my personal opinion, or my guess, and I understand and appreciate that there is a doubt about it. It's also true that many of the entries aren't needed - but that does not mean that it does not serve a function in allowing for complatins about genuine abuse. Again, that is my personal opinion, just as everybody else is expressing theirs. JdeJ 23:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    Iced Kola 21:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Erm - why would even simple cases of Personal Attacks go to a vandalism board? They are two different things. Crimsone 21:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to no longer be a useful page.--MONGO 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not knowledgeable enough to judge if PAIN has served its intended purpose. I am, however, very alarmed at the trend of moving so much of the (formal and informal) dispute resolution process onto the shoulders of the administrators. Surely this is a very significant role for normal editors to play in raising awareness of and using appropriate peer pressure to "enforce" Wikipedia policies and community standards? --ElKevbo 21:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as un unrealistic expectation of admins to solve all of our problems and monitor yet another notice board. --ElKevbo 06:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Break 4
  • Tag historical. I can't always get behind Kelly Martin's suggestions, but this time I'm certainly 100% beside her viewpoint. PAIN has become a problem in several regards. First, its not part of the
    dispute resolution chain, despite being fundamentally intended to resolve disputes. Second, it is admin-stretching. There are only so many mops to go around, there are a staggering number of boards and clearly, they are not all being covered adequately. It is implausible to have (or to monitor) a noticeboard for violations of every individual policy; noticeboards should be used for urgent issues. Slow process can get to the rest. And that brings me to PAIN's most fatal flaw. Personal attacks on talk pages aren't urgent. Yes, they are bad. In fact, they are patently unacceptable. But elevating to crisis levels every incident where someone calls another editor a "fucking ass" or whatever the attack of the day is (PAIN sees an awful lot of "attacks" that aren't even that vitriolic) only raises the drama, or, in the phrase popular here, "adds heat but not light". One current goal is to reduce stress and incivility ... working towards a community-wide realization that you don't need an admin-summoning panic button right now when you've been called a nasty name is a good step. Temperance is a hallmark of civility. Serpent's Choice 05:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Why should admins be involved in this at all? What's wrong with editors raising issues among fellow editors with the hope that a little bit of positive peer pressure can defuse as situation? --ElKevbo 05:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because that's not what PAIN actually does. Per its own instructions, "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." {{npa3}} already warns that "if you continue ... you will be blocked for disruption." Even if we stripped the template-oriented approach, its still a noticeboard. PAIN even says that it "is intended to get attention quickly when dealing with personal attacks." Positive peer pressure isn't a quick-fix, its a long process involving understanding and negotiation and empathy. PAIN implies none of those things. Blocking, though, that's fast. And that's why PAIN has developed an expectation of admin involvement and is (part of) why I find it a bad idea. Serpent's Choice 05:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, hell. Why do so many editors expect admins to fix all of our problems? :( --ElKevbo 05:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
At least for PAIN, because it says they will. PAIN specifically implies that admins will be the among the primary respondants ("a reviewer or administrator will review ... should an administrator see that another separate issue is evident ... please trust that the administrators or reviewers ..."). In another, unrelated problem, it encourages personal attacks to be taken out of context ("Reports on this page stand on their own merits ... discussions over reports are not suitable for this page"), which short-circuits any of the sort of cooperative, civil resolution that you describe. I fence-sat for awhile before posting my opinion to begin with; this review of the page has only crystallized by belief that it is not a Good Thing for the project. Serpent's Choice 06:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The facility that this page provides is an important deterent to users who come to Wikipedia with the attitude that it is okay to engage in personal attacks and who believe that there will be no consequences. Similarly, it provides confidence to new users who are subject to persecution for their contributions, and who might otherwise give up on Wikipedia. -- Aylahs (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has a purpose, and helps
    WP:CIVIL accomplish its goals. Ha obviously had plenty of activity, so its not like it is being left and unused - • The Giant Puffin • 20:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • This page appears now to be mostly ignored but for those posting to it for all the wrong reasons. A few more hands would have lightened the load but I certainly don't understand that urge to delete something when a nice template will serve the purpose. Some people need to meditate or something. - brenneman 20:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The board has been implicated pretty directly in some of the current furore that's tearing us apart other places. For my part, I'm sure it's not surprising how I feel about it. The thing is, we can only have a valid function to the page if we know in advance that "personal attacks" require "intervention," and what form that intervention might take. Without an administrator, what exactly is the "intervention" going to be? A template? If we acknowledge that that has pretty much never stopped anyone or helped mollify anyone, then, again, we're back to the next step: admin involvement or RFC. Now me, I don't think personal attacks are a thing to intervene over at all. I think they're a thing to generally shrug off and go one's way after. However, provided that we were dealing with repeated nastiness and a corruption of the atmosphere of Wikipedia editing, then we're back to disruption being the offense, and disruption is known in its fruits not its seeds (i.e. by the results, not by the words used). Geogre 04:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oi, sorry mate: I meant a template that said "This page didn't work." It's had its run around the park, its ridden the rides had too much fairy floss and been sick on its parents, true; but deletion just seems like an oddly hysterical bit of overkill. At worst slap the "moving on" tag on it and protect it, if we feel that strongly. I'm just not clear on what extra-crunching-power we need here that deletion is the solution. - brenneman 05:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but reform:
    WP:AGF is just too slippery), and if accusations of "troll" and "sockpuppet" in particular were specifically exempted. PAIN is needed for intemperate, persistently incivil (or worse) editors. The alternative is to put complaints onto WP:AN/I (solving what?) or push users into RfCs and other labor-intensive options. For the later, some editors will use the processes, but many or most will decide they aren't worth the trouble, chosing instead to simply exit the conflict. I'd guess most of the people posting here are experienced users who can handle problem editors, but for newer contributors, not having a clear recourse for personal attacks similar to the one for vandalism and excessive reverts is a problem. John Broughton | Talk 21:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I remain unconvinced that we need a noticeboard for this sort of thing. AIV and 3RR respond to issues that compromise the encyclopedia. PAIN responds to people who were insulted on a talk page. Why does this require immediate action? Ongoing, destructive, or particularly vituperative attacks can be handled in the
dispute resolution system (Mediation, MedCab, maybe RFC), where the rest of policy says they belong, or at AN/I in the extremely rare instance where personal attacks do actually require immediate attention. If we're going to spend the time reforming something, we should reform RFC, not this. Serpent's Choice 02:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
I am concerned that this presents a
WP:MC to name a few. That is corrolary to my primary problem with PAIN: it does not "protect against" personal attacks; rather, it provides a forum to request immediate consequences for them. What does PAIN provide that these other resources do not? Serpent's Choice 07:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Incivility and borderline personal attacks should indeed first be addressed by an attempt at discussion, and then 3O, mediation, etc. But users who are being subjected to clear personal attacks deserve quick intervention, and they will certainly request it, at ANI if PAIN is deleted. - Merzbow 08:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why "quick intervention"? For the record, I'm honestly not being tendentious here. I simply have a very different viewpoint regarding this topic, and I'd like to understand why and maybe aim for a common ground. Personal attacks are not acceptable, agreed. But the other issues that currently allow requests for immediate responses are things that compromise the encyclopedia:
libel. Being called something you can't say on network TV on a talk page doesn't seem, to me, to call for the same sort of urgency. Also ... what kind of quick intervention is plausible? If PAIN is meant to get a third party voice involved right away then maybe the best solution is to improve 3O or RFC to minimize backlogs. The alternative, and the only result of PAIN that I can envison, is blocking. Simply put, I'm not conformatable with WP:PAIN being a euphemism for Wikipedia:Requests for blocking. Serpent's Choice 08:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Not to mention that a lot of the reports that really require attention have been brought to ANI anyway. This page only seems to promote wikilawyering and an escalation of conflict from what I've seen, and treats personal attacks like simple vandalism, which is a mistake.
masterka 09:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Being called something you can't say on network TV on a talk page doesn't seem, to me, to call for the same sort of urgency. You probably have a fairly "thick skin"; some editors even find being insulted fairly amusing. But there are also a lot of people, I think, who would much rather leave a conflict then continue to be insulted. They're not being paid to be personally attacked, after all. Perhaps this is a tiny minority of WP:PAIN reports, but I think it's still a real problem that could be addressed by an approach similar to WP:3RR. John Broughton | Talk 14:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blocking is certainly not the only quick response - a stern warning from an admin can do wonders. And I would disagree to the strongest extent possible that personal attacks do not compromise the encyclopedia - they drive out editors without whom the encyclopedia wouldn't exist. I'm a veteran of many web forums and can say that in no uncertain terms, the quickest way to kill a forum is to not enforce rules against personal attacks, and quickly. The boilerplate at PAIN certainly should be rewritten to be clearer and to more strongly discourage wikilawyering - specifically it should state that templates should not be used under any circumstances against established editors, and that anyone is allowed to remove warnings from their talk page. Merzbow 18:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we need a venue for this kind of thing to be reported - if not here, then where? If people misuse the board to try and wonk rules until their nemesis is blocked, remember that there's a warning at the top explaining exactly what the board is for. Just add a further note stating that if users misuse it to further their squabbles, they may well be blocked themselves to prevent escalation, rather than the subject of their report.
    ► 10:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete per
    Catchpole 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: Users could voice their complaints to us at Concordia using our help desk, but we will not accept reports or requests for mediation. --ElectricEye (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Personal attacks are a violation
    WP:PAIN. --ElectricEye (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete replication of other functions dealt with elsewhere. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Kelly Martin. Could I suggest whining to your mama for those who are very upset that they don't have anywhere to complain that someone was rude to them? Grace Note 01:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the "whining" comment is a little unfair in certain instances. While I do certainly take your point, it's also true that personal attack situations can be unprovoked, extensive in duration, and the attacks themselves can sometimes be very very hurtful. I've been on the recieving end of such hurtful attcks, and while I certainly didn't retaliate, they were certainly far more hurtful than any user should have to put up with in editing the encyclopedia. It's easy enough to ignore the childish and just plain offensive things people might say, but when they refer to such things as possibly an illness (as it was in my case) or a life event, or any other such personal thing it's far far nastier and can drive good editors away. Crimsone 01:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In the circumstances you are discussing, there are other ways to get a remedy.Grace Note 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, ANI, for situations that need speedy intervention. If admins don't feel ANI is currently overburdened, then I suppose deleting PAIN is fine. I have yet to hear an argument that other forums like 3O and mediation are appropriate for a quick response; I think somebody suggested that they could be reformed to provide for such, but this should happen before PAIN is deleted. - Merzbow 04:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of the debate here, really, comes down to how much need there is for speedy intervention for personal attacks. I don't think there's much disagreement that substantive legal threats, genuine threats of physical violence, or threats of off-Wiki exposure or abuse (Phaistos Disc/Rosemary inter alia) require immediate attention, but those are (thankfully) infrequent, and can be handled on AN/I (or, in the last of those cases, directly via
scarlet letter" confrontationalism? I cannot think that it does. Serpent's Choice 05:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Reform, or tag as historical. Lengthy post follows:
Personally, I think that PAIN has its place, but that it's often understaffed, misunderstood, and misused. PAIN was intended for one purpose only, as I understand it: dealing with or eventually blocking people who troll too often. It's not supposed to care who's right, or which page version is better, or even necessarily who's "being a butt," only to keep a minimum of civility to the discourse as editors work to seek consensus.
A lot of people have been talking about "lack of investigation," referring to people who leap into PAIN reports without properly looking into the situation... then these people propose a merge to AN/I, where the pace is even faster, the chances for real investigation even slimmer? Since when has AN/I had a sound reputation for calming down disputes? If PAIN is too block-happy, how in God's right eye does anybody think the solution is merging with Blocktown Central itself? Are you all sure you know what you're proposing? I don't mind, if that's the way we all want to go, but I just want to be clear on that count: the proposed solution doesn't seem to fix that problem, as I understand it, unless coupled with something else or otherwise fixed.
If the people staffing the board are doing so poorly or causing other problems, that reflects more on them as individuals than on the very concept of a noticeboard for dealing with personal attacks. Too many of the problems pointed out in this MfD refer to superficial issues that could be solved through reform. Recent shortcomings of the board aside, what has changed since the
merge proposal in November 2006
, where the proposal was likewise rejected almost unanimously? Do these recent shitstorms at AN/I highlight critical flaws in the very concept of this board, or are they passing incidents? Likewise, do the recent incidents indicate that AN/I is any more equipped to deal with the problem? What has changed, since then, and what should be changed, to improve our methods of dealing with these problems?
Finally, I will agree that PAIN is and has historically had its problems. A number of them have been pointed out, here. Personally, I'm not ready to give up on the idea, just yet. If consensus does determine that PAIN should be shut down, it should be marked inactive, as Esperanza was, rather than deleted -- on that count, at least, I don't personally anticipate that any reasonable person would disagree. Luna Santin 04:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Break 5
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard&oldid=1146594847"