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

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)

Contents 1 Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard 1.1 Break 1 1.2 Break 2 1.3 Break 3 1.4 Break 4 1.5 Break 5

[edit] 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 WP:BITE and encourages warring between established users. Sure, sometimes we need block people in extremes, but we we don't need this to know where are when. Kill this with a stick - it isn't making for a better working environment, is it?.--Doc^g 18:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Delete, WP:ANI should be sufficient. Naconkantari 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  WP:ANI is one of the most active pages on the pedia. It's so active currently that archiving is set to 1 day and the page still habitually reaches over 200k. There is a goood reason why WP:PAIN is separate. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm just an inexperienced editor randomly browsing about, so I hope my comment isn't taken amiss. Splitting stuff off from WP:ANI in some way is useful because of volume, but concentrating all the most vitriolic disputes in one place (WP:PAIN) obviously has its downside. What about having forks for the less volatile stuff from ANI instead--such as block review, which would be usefully topic-focused while still diluting the more heated disputes with procedural matters like accidental blocks, IP-range issues, and so on.
    Furthermore, what about an established guideline for admins to speedily delete or move user disputes from WP:ANI unless they are posted with a history of how other measures (request for comment etc.) have been tried and failed. This wouldn't have to be high-handed, there could be a boilerplate message: "Please try this and this before posting a user dispute at ANI." DanB†DanD 21:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Kill with stick/Redirect to WP:ANI - actively unhelpful to project. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  ANI is just too damn active. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• JS, I would suggest that more user squabbles should be pushed through RfC instead. Addhoc 19:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. In case after case of people escalating problems by slapping tag after tag on talk pages, we hear "I *had* to! That's what it said at WP:PAIN!" WP:PAIN encourages wikilawyering, baiting, and sniping. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Note I guess I should add that I do not care if it is deleted, protected, marked historical and turned into an essay, or folded into a jaunty little hat, so long as it is shut down. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  Then lets change how it works. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  Any such dedicated forum would encourage wikilawyering, baiting, and sniping. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• Delete, it doesn't seem to have had a net positive effect. Truly egregious WP:NPA violations could be dealt with at WP:AN/I.--Isotope23 18:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Mark as historical and add admonitory essay. The approach recommended by this overly bureaucratic, process-bound page is, if followed, a perfect recipe for making difficult situations completely impossible. Not only should this page be burnt with fire, but the people responsible for its creation and perpetuation should be hauled off to reeducation camps and forcibly broken of their irrational love for boilerplated process over result. Hopefully the community will learn from the phenomenal mistake that was this page (and the process it stood for), which is why I believe the page should be marked as historical and an essay on why it was such a terribly bad idea appended. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - despite the current issues with WP:PAIN, it serves as a useful firebreak much in the same way that WP:AN/3RR does. I would however, support a restructuring of how PAIN works. Restrict it to reporting users with "patterns of personal attacks" who are "actively disrupting the project" with personal attacks. ---J.S ^(T/C) 18:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Mark as historical (dare I say, Esperanza solution?) per Kelly Martin as first choice, or Delete as second. PAIN was made in the same style as WP:AIV, and even when it was first created, there was some criticism about the illusion that we can deal with personal attacks as quickly as we can deal with vandals. AIV exists, and works, because it is relatively quick and easy to deal with vandals. Personal attacks are much more problematic. PAIN cannot function like AIV, and it certainly can't get "quick attention" like AIV can because dealing with personal attacks is not a quick thing. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep • I think the idea is sound, and the MFD is unnecessary, as reforms are already taking place. The problem is that many people treat the Personal Attack noticeboard as the civility police - and we aren't. We are simply there to remedy users who are unnecessarily attacking other users, when the case is a simple one-sided exchange, where mediation wouldn't look (not a content dispute) or arbcom wouldn't bother (not severe enough). It's easy to forget that PAIN used to be a part of AN/I, but it was split because of the volume at AN/I. We need to consider if another 10+ requests there is really desirable enough - it takes long enough to load when I'm on a phone modem, even a 56k one, and it's long enoug h already. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • 'remedy users'? Yik, what a horrible euphemism. --Doc^g 18:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Would like to note that the keep vote above illustrates particularly what's wrong with the board. The board became a magnet for users who make telling others what to do their main activity. Exactly the inflammatory activity at the board of user:Wizardry_Dragon is what exactly turned the board into a disaster. Without properly studying the matter it is to tempting to hit the user, sometimes frivolously reported, with an NPA template to, as Peter M Dodge puts it, "gauge a reaction", which is to poke a dog with a stick and see whether it would bark. No need to the page that became a magnet for spilling bad blood. --Irpen 20:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Poke a dog with a stick? You've been reading those comics again! :-) Carcharoth 03:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• (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 WP:AIV works, just like any other form of bad behaviour. If they're less blatant and offensive, get thicker skin and wait for the guy to calm down. If he doesn't calm down, then just take it to WP:AN/I. --tjstrf talk 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

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. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The value of AN3 is that the rules are clear - there is little question as to what is or is not a violation, and the only question is the remedy. With PA, the issues are more complex - is it tit-for-tat? is it a content dispute masquerading as an NPA dispute, where one user is trying to gain the upper hand? PAIN makes it seem like this is an "enter complaint, get remedy" board, like AN3, so I'd rather see cases come to AN/I where at the least they'll be seen by more eyes. | Mr. Darcy talk 19:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment if the primary concern is the size of ANI (which is, by the way, a huge concern), there are other ways to take care of that. We could be more proactive about moving large discussions to talk pages or to separate subpages. We could use daily subpages ala xFD. We shouldn't create a process that isn't really desired just to solve a technical issue. --BigDT 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete but don't salt. Basically a good idea, WP:PAIN requires a significant amount of community/admin support. At the moment if someone posts to AN/I an obviously bogus complaint there is a response within minutes, which can't be said of WP:PAIN. If users want to start this up again in future they should be allowed, however, for now, delete... Addhoc 19:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• I'm now convinced that Civility Warnings, Cooling Off Blocks, etc. are a mugs game. PAIN seems to make these more likely, so it's not a good idea. Let AN/I handle it. delete ++Lar: t/c 19:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — I've seen it lead to lots more increased fighting than it has ever solved. It's basically turned into a place where equal participants in a dispute will go to argue, each trying to get the other blocked over "personal attacks" ... and in the meantime, the argument just gets a lot more vicious, and the users are divided even further from ever eventually getting over it. --Cyde Weys 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- this just has not worked out well. Its existence implies that administrators are a shortcut around proper Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Jkelly 19:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It turns edit warring and name calling into a game of who can report who where first. I've never seen it work among established editors, and it BITEs the newbies. SchmuckyTheCat 19:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Use private methods to negotiate with uncivil / PAINful users, and failing that use WP:ANI. No need to have so many noticeboards. Yuser31415 20:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete for the simple and obvious reason that it doesn't work. Cases go unseen for ages, it's a magnet for sneaky tit-for-tat and any really serious attacks are likely to need WP:OVERSIGHT (which most of us don't have) anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this page functions a little like WP:AIV. Computerjoe's talk 20:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment Well, that's a problem, because it really shouldn't. Jkelly 20:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply any case in which WP:PAIN can act like WP:AIV, you could have used WP:AIV in the first place. --tjstrf talk 20:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between vandalism and personal attacks. Computerjoe's talk 21:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• Delete People should be using AIV for simple and ANI for complex attacks against them. I treat newbies attacking like vandalism, and they get blocked for it. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Break 1

• Mark as historical per Kelly Martin. I understand Peter M Dodge's concern about volume at AN/I, but the fact is that PAIN simply isn't working, because there is no significant volume of admin eyes perusing it regularly. Genuine reports go stale, especially if they are complex or borderline. There are some hard workers who handle PAIN, such as Luna Santin, but still not enough admins are attracted to it. — coelacan talk — 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nice gesture, but if some editor just doesn't get the gist of meta:Don't be a dick, then there's little hope that punishment or condescension will help. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Delete and salt the earth. Not that PA's is not a problem but the board is too much abused for gaining an upper hand in disputes that should be settled differently. The WP:NPA should be directed to crack down on truly filthy-mouthed trolls (those get blocked quickly without the board anyway) and not regular users. To put it briefly, personal attacks are to be avoided but this board is too often used as a weapon in content or policy debates. --Irpen 20:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no point is salting unless the thing is irregularly recreated. And further, if regular users behave like trolls, they should be treated like trolls. But we don't need the board for that.--Doc^g 20:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I fully agree with you saying "if regular users behave like trolls, they should be treated like trolls." However, more often than not when this board is used against the regular users, they do not behave like trolls but get reported so that someone who got his attitude hardened because they often deal with trolls deals the same way with users in good standing whose out of context remark is used to shut them down. See above for an example. --Irpen 20:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  I find the idea that this behavor will go away when PAIN is closed very silly. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, delete, and delete, per Bunchofgrapes, Irpen, and and CydeWeys. The dynamic of this board is vicious. Bishonen | talk 20:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
• Delete, but first resolve or redirect any pending matters, and replace the page with clear instructions as to how users should deal with issues that would formerly have gone to this page. Newyorkbrad 20:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Newyorkbrad above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 21:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Bunchofgrapes, Irpen, Newyorkbrad, and CydeWeys, as well as Radiant's original concerns voiced on AN/I. If wanted, set redir to Rfc or (preferred) WP:DR. Flaming pointy sticks is not too extreme in this puppy's opinion. PAIN encourages finger pointing and wiki-lawyering far more than it resolves anything. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

  Adding per BoG: Note I do not care if it is deleted, protected, marked historical and turned into an essay, or folded into a jaunty little hat, so long as it is shut down. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This board caused more problems than it solved. Grandad 21:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Alternatively, mark as historical, but in any case, close it down. Grandad 23:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: "PA" is not something to "intervene" over. It is something requiring listening and discussion. From its inception, this was a bad idea, and it's good riddance. Geogre 21:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Explanation: I mean no disrespect to the intentions of those who set it up, but it was a Society for the Reformation of Manners waiting to happen. That it didn't happen for a while is testimony to the good offices of those who set it up, but it was inevitable that, the moment anyone nodded or napped, we were going to get into the idea that self-righteousness was righteous. I did think it was a bad idea, because it was an askew (in my view) replication of what became the Mediation Cabal. I.e. it began as a place for defusing situations, but with that clarion of "intervention" in the name. Geogre 05:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per JzG, Irpen, Cyde, and KillerChihuahua, among others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Break 2

• It was an idea worth trying, and I'm sure the participants there have the best intentions, but it hasn't worked out, per the many excellent summaries above. The Wiki method encourages bold experiments, but we shouldn't be shy about ending them when they don't work out. Thatcher131 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, burn, and salt the earth. Geogre and others have said it before me. Rebecca 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I agree with Thatcher that it was worth trying, and I should add that many admins frequented there did an excellent job and should be commended, but overall the board created more problems that it solves. Unless it is WP:AIV-level, incivility is a symptom not the condition, so the admin should address (or at least been aware) of the root cause of the conflict, should know participants, their strength and weaknesses. It is to much to ask from an editor who simply became aware of the conflict by reading the board. Thus, many decision are wrong and inflame (rather then cool down) the situation. It also encourage wikilawyering and gaming the rules. Conflicts between established users should be addressed by people who already aware of the conflict or by mediation Alex Bakharev 23:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Another recent merge proposal merits discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard#Merge.3F. It didn't come on the heels of a firestorm regarding an administrator block warning and it resulted in an uncontroversial decision to retain the board. The main advantage I voiced in that discussion was that a separate WP:PAIN makes it easier for administrators to follow up on cases than a larger board. What WP:PAIN and WP:RFI really need is more people to shepherd them. For about six weeks I was the most active admin at both boards until some cases progressed to arbitration; those proceedings diminish my overall productivity. I'd rather not be precipitous about deleting a page just because of a recent controversy. Let's all have Wikipedia:A nice cup of tea and a sit down and maybe if someone nominates this page two weeks from now I'll agree to delete it too. I wish that even a fraction of the admins who participated in this discussion actually helped run WP:PAIN. Durova^Charge 23:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Why would I be interested in helping to run something I think is a fundamentally bad idea.--Doc^g 23:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
    • A few editors are philosophically opposed to it. Others are pragmatic on the issue. Durova^Charge 03:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • Durova, precisely when the board was run by editors experienced in conflict resolution and thorough to investigate the merit of each report, reacting when needed and harshly deleting unwarranted frivolous reports (aggravating those who wanted to use the PA complaints as a weapon against opponents) the board was useful. Unfortunately since moment one you and JzG withdrew from the board and by its nature it attracted the kind of Wikipedians who are just eager to be in position to warn and block or just, you know, "to be in charge of things". If you could possibly guarantee that you or another editor with an excellent talent and record in conflict resolution would be running the board, I would have supported it. Unfortunately, you just can't guarantee it and the board will serve a natural magnet for a wrong kind of people who are simply eager comment, warn, "recommend" or block. Ideally, that could be a useful board. In reality it will never be. --Irpen 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
        • Thank you Irpen. I'd still be there if more mops helped. What happens is a low percentage of these cases head into arbitration, which becomes an enormous drain on my time. I also get a reputation for investigations which leads to additional requests at my user talk page. We should probably try recruiting some of the better WP:RFC regulars to share duties. Durova^Charge 01:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Durova, I very much respect you and appreciate the huge positive contribution you made to alleviate conflicts but you are rather exceptional in having both necessary qualities and interest in dealing with unpleasant stuff. There may be just a handful of other users who can do it as well as you do. Unfortunately we just can't rely on your being around all the time when a new frivolous report pops up and a Wikipedian with interest to simply wave the baton (and the board will always be a magnet for such users) will be there before you to inflame matters rather than alleviate them (see this example). So, yes, this board would be useful in an ideal world. And no it is harmful in a real world. Sorry, --Irpen 04:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
          • Durove, you have, I think, put your finger on one of the problems: a very small number of these cases end up at ArbCom. That puts peple off from getting involved, and also notes that the vast majority don't go that way. I've been looking through the history, there seem to be a lot of cases which amount to "hey, I told this this guy to go away and leave my edits alone and he said the same back!". I'm not saying we should not have something, but this board is unnecessarily adversarial, in a way the mediation cabal is not. We should point people into WP:DR and get them started down the road of working with their foes, instead of encouraging them to cry "Foul!" and call for blocking. Genuinely urgent cases (of which there are relatively few) can go to WP:ANI. What we ought also to do is speedily archive or redirect some of the meta-discussion at WP:ANI so that it remains workable. Guy (Help!) 12:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Deleting this will just cause users to redirect their complaints somewhere else, like WP:ANI.--Húsönd 00:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Husond exactly; however, a reform might not be a bad idea. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 00:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete if Not Reformed Right now, PAIN is not doing what it's intended to do, which is REDUCE the amount of NPA Drama on Wikipedia. It seems to me as an outside user, that anything here, is just a waystation on the road to the admins at WP:AN or WP:AN/I. The only thing I can think of that would keep PAIN as a viable alternative is requiring that ALL WP:NPA violations come here, and ONLY here, and have a fairly large admin group watching this page, along with a lot heavier focus on pushing content disputes gone bad to WP:Dispute Resolution rather then dealing with it. SirFozzie 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - useless board, usually used to try and sneak a block in edit wars. I got smacked thrice for "personal attacks" and all requests were made by banned trolls. The only admins that even block on this board are the trigger happy ones. We might as well call it the "Block the user I'm in a dispute with, because I'm too stupid to prove my point with my own intelligence board".Bakaman 01:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Strong Keep per User:Durova, User:Crimsone, Húsönd, and 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)
• 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)
  • 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. Durova^Charge 03:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• • 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
• Delete per nom. Khoikhoi 03:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or the Kelly Martin solution. I never liked this idea. Paul August ☎ 04:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above. This page only serves a page for people to attack each other.--CJ King 04:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Break 3

• Keep. Have you people saying to merge it into ANI seen the size? It regularly tops 400 KB; it simply can not handle any more. Now, onto the merits of the page... what exactly is wrong with reporting personal attacks? Why should someone making personal attacks not be blocked? -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It is not our policy to block for personal attacks. I don't know where the idea comes from that personal attacks equal blocks, but I invite any and all to read WP:NPA. "In extreme cases a block may result" is not "in every case" nor even "in extreme cases a block must result." Given the slipperiness of what constitutes an attack and a personal attack, it would be very unwise to think that we will block or should block for insults. Geogre 05:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Um... I think it's pretty well established that if someone is saying something along the lines of "OMG **** YOU IDIOT" to me, they'll be blocked, so there should be a place to report that. WP:3RR doesn't mandate a block, unless an admin thinks it will help, but look, we have WP:AN3RR. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 05:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
      • I respectfully must disagree with you. Or rather, I disagree with you in the cases where this noticeboard comes to use. If a random new account pops up to add "You are freaking jerk" on a dozen random admin talk-pages we are not dealing with personal attacks or incivility, we are dealing with a vandal account and we block it as a vandal. When an established contributor however pops up and in anger starts screaming words unfit for Webster's dictionary, we might sometimes block if it is extremaly disruptive, but usually that approach won't work well. I have, fortunately, not been attacked many times, and the times I have been it has been much more fruitful to calmly approach them with an invitation to dialogue instead of throwing "Read WP:NPA and apologize or you'll be blocked" comments. Diffuses the situation so much easier usually. If you block them for personal attacks you an angry editor will not be spending the time-out to cool down, but plotting how to get even. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I can't even fathom this is being considered for deletion. Anytime anyone is reported to AIV for harassing someone with personal attacks they're told to goto PAIN, same with anywhere else. I've also had numerous times I've had requests for assistance with an editor sit on AN/I for days before its eventually archived with no assistance (and then on a second posting people are all over it to help), so no AN/I is not a good home for this. Unless we're going to start handling disruptive editors elsewhere and make sure they actually get handled, there is no reason for this to go away.--Crossmr 06:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• You know, I am actually along with all the people who are calling for deletion here, and I agree with their arguments, but I disagree with the conclusion. I will instead go with Kelly Martin who put in a keep, but shut it down !vote, because the page has been in use as an active process. I think that digging up incivility and personal attacks to stick up on a noticeboard is a really bad idea and a poor way of dealing with the problem. In most cases the best solution is to remain calm, answer on the subject which is provoking all the anger, and pretend to not see the attack. In most cases a reasonable user will regret the incivility even if no apology comes. In the cases where the personal attacks are a real problem which don't go away while being disruptive we first talk privately with the user, then use RFC or RFAr as a last resort. In no case is this PAIN needed or helpful, it winds up serving as a catalyst for the flame wars. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, but implement something along the lines of DanBDanD's suggestion way up there at the beginning. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Kelly Martin/Esperanza Solution it or delete. It sure seems to me like dispute resolution and WP:AIV are better than this, and the really special cases always seem to be removed and put on WP:ANI anyway... Grandmasterka 09:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Historical and protect it per Kelly.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Absolute, strongest possible delete. I'm afraid my opinion of PAIN has been extremely low since they advised User:Methodology, a sockpuppet of now-community banned Ottawaman, to file an RFC against me. I'm sure the admin who gave this advice and the other admin who indulged Ottawaman and encouraged him to continue his trollish complaints, allowing it to be dragged out over a rather PAIN(ful) couple of days instead of nipping it in the bud early, did not know he was an Ottawaman sockpuppet. However, a quick look at the account's contribs would have raised "sock-of-someone" alarms bells (the account had a total of six edits, including two to the Village Pump: one asking how he might "start the de-admin process" against me and one accusing Amgine of being a "rogue and troll Admin"). Ottawaman took the advice given to him at PAIN and filed an RFC. This resulted in good people wasting good time reviewing it, determining it was fraudulently filed using sockpuppets and then Thatcher, Guinnog, Pschemp and others were left to clean up the mess. Even after one admin removed Ottawaman's PAIN report and the RfC was removed, a PAIN admin advised Ottawaman: "Please restore the thread at PAIN and write 'Per [admin's own name]' in the edit summary. Then update with new information." Yeah...I have a very poor opinion of that board and its functioning and I don't think we are best serving the needs of the community by keeping it running.
  Since my personal PAIN(ful) experience, while working on requests for unblocking and unblock-en-l requests, I've come across blocks which originated out of PAIN that I feel reflected an extremist interpretation and application of NPA. In my opinion, PAIN also has a tendency to escalate and exacerbate conflict. It conjures images in my mind of someone trying to ram square pegs into round holes: "if I shave just a bit more off this corner, maybe I'll be able to jam it in and make it fit." Delete it, redirect it, "historicalise" it, or whatever; let's just get rid of it. There are better, more productive, effective, inclusive and de-escalating ways to deal with editors who violate NPA. Sarah 11:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment on deletion if it's going to be deleted or locked, make it into a redirect to the appropriate WP:ANI page. --ElectricEye (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete/Esperanza/Kelly Martin solution. In virtually every case other than outright trolling personal attacks are a symptom of a problem, not the cause. It is far more productive to work with people and try to sort out the underlying problem than to report them at some noticeboard where - well, what happens? Punitive blocks? Silly templates on user talk that only fan the flames? None of which is going to solve the problem. Use AIV for reporting vandals, RFC for problematic behaviour by editors with otherwise good contributions, ArbCom for continued problematic behaviour by same, ANI for community bans, and just talk to people if it's a row over articles that gets a bit heated. But this encourages a perception of Wikipedia as a battleground, when it isn't. Work with, not war against. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Further comment - lord, I didn't remember all the avenues for dispute resolution Wikipedia has: WP:3O, WP:MEDCAB, WP:MEDCOM...lots of places where you can sort out disputes without a noticeboard that seems to cause more problems than it solves. Certainly that Ghirla report that someone linked to above was just plain wrong. Moreschi ^Deletion! 14:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
    • There's only one that matters. WP:DR. :-) --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete As mentioned, this board does nothing but hurt other peoples feelings, and it does nothing to help others or improve the encyclopedia. WP:ANI is a great alternative. —Pilotguy (ptt) 14:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or mark as historical. For new users that do not know the policies it is too punitive and for experienced users that lose their cool for a minute it is insulting to evaluated there by your peers. --FloNight 16:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It's mainly a playground for people in heated disputes to try to win their battle by the back door — that and a heven for the excessively thin skinned. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or mark as historical. Much of the problems with the board has already been mentioned in detail. However, I do think it should be replaced by a board to investigate cases of harasment which may or maynot involve personal attacks. On a side note, I have to aggree with DanB†DanD about creating a "block review" board to help lighten the load on AN/I. --Farix (Talk) 18:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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 WP:RFI... Addhoc 19:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We could just go the whole hog and create Wikipedia:Requests for Blocking and have people vote on who gets blocked :( --Doc^g 19:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete in favor of RFC. --Masamage 19:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

• Uhm... did you read the above discussion which highlights several things that are wrong with it? —bbatsell ¿? 20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)
• 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)

  "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)

  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)

• Redirect to WP:ANI and protect. Simple cases can go to WP:AIV. More complex cases can go to WP:ANI. Iced Kola 21:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

  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)

• Delete Seems to no longer be a useful page.--MONGO 21:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)

• Delete Not really all that useful a page. Prodego ^talk 22:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Very useful page; Wikipedia:Civility needs to have teeth. This helps quickly show problem editors that their behavior is wrong without having to take it to WP:RFC or WP:RFAr. Samboy 22:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Um... that's a bad reason to keep. If it's a pre-RFC part of dispute resolution, then it needs to really be part of it, not masquerading as requests for blocking a user. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Esperanzify (Close the board, mark historical, add a bit of a ramble, and move on). There are other, better-working venues. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The deletion nomination is incoherent. "boilerplate and wiki-bylaws are not likely to achieve the desired result" <-- what does this have to do with a page specifically for personal attack intervention? If you object to trying to use templates and rules to solve conflicts, then address that directly, not indirectly through page deletion. "This board simply encourages WP:BITE and encourages waring between established users." <-- How does the existence of a page for reporting personal attacks encourage attacks on newbies and waring between established users? --JWSchmidt 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; see my reasonings from November 2005, back when MfD was known as "Miscellaneous deletion"... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

Aw, hell. Why do so many editors expect admins to fix all of our problems? :( --ElKevbo 05:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
• Keep but reform: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR work well because the decision-making by admins is clear. PAIN could be similar if complaints were restricted to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations (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)

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)

• Keep per John Broughton. Paul Cyr 23:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep WP:ANI is too overburdened as it is. .V. 02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Waste of time, duplication of effort, and encourgages biting, and vendettas, and vigilantism. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 03:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - It's all going to go to ANI anyways. If the boilerplate at the top of the page encourages an overly legalistic approach to reporting personal attacks, then rewrite the boilerplate instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. People who want to exercise their right to be protected from personal attacks deserve a place to do so, and they will do so. Take your pick - an overly burdened ANI or this board. - Merzbow 05:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I am concerned that this presents a false dilemma. There are many other places to reach out for assistance with editor conflict: WP:3O, WP:MEDCAB, WP:RFC, 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)

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)

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: vandalism, edit warring, 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)

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. Grandmasterka 09:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

• 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. Proto::► 10:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT a bureaucracy. Catchpole 11:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• 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)
• Comment: Personal attacks are a violation WP:CIVIL and clutter up talk spaces just like S*P*A*M. Sorry, but it needs to be controlled. We can try to promote a civil environment by encouraging people to be civil, but when they are too much: WP:PAIN. --ElectricEye (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete replication of other functions dealt with elsewhere. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

  In the circumstances you are discussing, there are other ways to get a remedy.Grace Note 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

  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)

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 WP:AMDB). Based on this lengthy discussion, there does not, however, appear to be a clear consensus that other personal attacks require immediate action. Does having this board -- whether it is handing out fast-action blocks or fast-action "stern warnings" provide a value to the encyclopedia that outweighs its current bureaucracy, its stretching of admin time and watchfullness, and its inherent "scarlet letter" confrontationalism? I cannot think that it does. Serpent's Choice 05:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• 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 prior MfD in November 2005, which resulted in a nearly unanimous keep? What's 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)

[edit] Break 5

• Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong keep. The administrator's noticeboards are already overburdened. Keeping this page separate means it will get the eyes it deserves. Some people aren't good at dealing with personal attacks. Having a place to ask for help with that appears very productive to me. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The fact that WP:AN/I failed to load for me (lol) means that AN/I is overburdened already. --Howard the Duck 13:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. You've got to be kidding me. Gamaliel 18:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Reform. Is it misused? Sure. But, having dealt with incivil anons and new users, some place other than ANI to report them is a good idea. ANI is already over-crowded, and it would feel like a waste to post on ANI about a problematic anon. jgp ^T_C 21:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, WP:WQA looks to be quite useful. Having seen that, I'm tempted to vote delete... jgp ^T_C 21:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. My experience with this board is that it is not helpful; in fact, the opposite. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I simply don't understand the urge to scrape this from the face of the earth: Why do we even have the {{historical}} tag? I have seen plenty of arguments for deprecating the "noble experiments" but so far none for deleteing it.
    brenneman 23:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Brenneman, I suspect that most delete voters here probably don't care whether it is tagged, archived, or just deleted, they want it closed. Unfortunately, having a debate over whether to shut it down, and simultaneously trying to decide on how do deal with it if it is decommissioned doesn't work. MfD is a blunt tool. In an ideal world I'd have proposed its closure - and then, if that was agreed, let those who cared decide on how to dispose of it afterwards (I don't care). But our silly system means that the best way of getting a lot of participation and a definitive answer on closure was to list it here. I suggest that you wait, and if it is deleted, open a discussion seeking a consensus to undelete and tag as historical. You'll have the nominators weak support, for what it's worth.--Doc^g 23:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Reform - I haven't hung out much on WP:PAIN, but apparently there is something about it that sucks! Since we should not throw out the baby with the bathwater, we should take a look at what is wrong with WP:PAIN and then we can see how we can make it sexy again. You know, like the Esperanza Overhaul, only this should work. I'm going to see if I can get discussion started. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 02:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom and Jayjg. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per messedroker, has the nominator and those who want to delete this page worked on making it better first? If the history of AfDs is any guide, the answer is probably no. As per: "It's all going to go to ANI anyways" ANI is already crowded. I am not watching this page, so all responses will go unaswered. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete; there's absolutely no reason why we need a noticeboard to report personal attacks. Ral315 (talk) 09:20, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment The "Esperanza solution" resulted in someone creating a new Esperanza in their personal userspace within three days and a lot of arguments over the essay. If PAIN is to be deleted, it ought to go entirely, not be used forevermore as a football between potential warring factions. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting thought. I don't see this becoming nearly as much of a "football" as Esperanza, but it's worth consideration. Grandmasterka 10:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Interesting? Dev920 misses the entire point. The recreation of Esperanza failed. The community oversight worked there. Why not trust it to work here as well? I would go so far as to say that Dev920 is failing to trust the community to keep things like Esperanza deleted. Pre-emptive action to over-ride due process is dangerous. I'm not supporting process for the sake of process, but there is a reason for the process in this case. I fail to understand why Dev920 persists in her "get rid of the history" arguments, when many people have pointed out why it is important to retain history for organisations that were active. It is not a case of a supermajority here, but a simple question of whether it is correct or incorrect to hide history or leave it visible. As for arguments over an essay, well, that just shows there are disagreements. Trying to suppress those disagreements won't help. Carcharoth 11:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I used to try to monitor this, but I gave up. I was reminded of nothing so much as the 3- and 4-year-olds at my mother's preschool who go running to her saying "Johnny hit me! Johnny hit me!" And when she asked, "Why did he do that?" they'd answer "Because I kicked him." —Angr 11:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I like David Gerard's approach to those kinds of things: don't worry about crime, punishment, and retribution, just pull apart the people in the fistfight! ★MESSEDROCKER★ 12:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - apologies for adding this to the discussion here, but as the most active MfD running, I thought people here might be interested in the link I've put on the talk page of this MfD here. It concerns deprecating deletion of pages like this in favour of archiving. Carcharoth 11:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

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.