Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks

Wikipedians opinions regarding the "no personal attacks" rule

Supporters

• Ed Poor thinks that people who try to influence others by calling them names should be ashamed of themselves! and people who try to change people by shaming them are idiots! (sarcasm intentional)
• Jimbo Wales,
• Bryan Derksen,
• maveric149,
• Chuck Smith,
• Larry Sanger (with the exception of naming and shaming trolls, which I highly recommend you read about; in almost all other cases, I very strongly oppose anything that can be construed as "personal attack"),
• JHK
• Eclecticology (essential for maintaining peace in the family)
• Martin (especially on talk pages on articles - user talk pages don't matter as much)
• Fennec (in a fairly broad manner)
• Jwrosenzweig (I agree with Larry Sanger)
• BCorr|Брайен (I also agree with Larry Sanger)
• Michael Snow (I don't even support Larry Sanger's exception. Calling somebody a troll is a personal attack like any other, and we've reduced the word to near-meaninglessness. Identify and criticize the behavior that makes someone a "troll", don't just call them names.)
• zeno (I share Michael Snow's view on calling people trolls)
• Sam [Spade] I agree, "troll" is a personal attack
• gracefool (agrees with Michael Snow)
• Mike H If you have a grievance with another contributor, take it up on e-mail if need be.
• Hyacinth 19:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
• DJ Clayworth 19:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) personal attacks never help. But see below.
• Arno 10:07, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC). Personal atatcks are inexcusable, period.
• Erich 06:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) but how?
• Scott Gall 07:30, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC) I don't like personal attacks (my definition of personal attack does not include claims about edits, for example saying "**** that edit," but does include claims about contributors, for example "[insert user's name here] is a Nazi.") I don't see why they should be right. (Some words like Nazi are not always personal attacks.)
• --Knucmo2 22:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC) As a logician, and Wikipedian, I find ad hominem attacks utterly unproductive, and illogical...Most ad hominem attacks sidestep the actual crux of the argument to make a puerile, vapid personal attack on someone else. Debates, especially of a philosophical variety, are especially productive.
• BlankVerse ∅ 13:31, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• TVPR, that scumbag, thinks it's as childish as it gets. Name-calling should really be reserved for the pre-litterate stage.
• SUPPORT - Coolcat - Should be enforced more agressively.
• AI 09:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
• -Willmcw 09:41, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Opponents

• Lee Daniel Crocker (see below),
• 24 (see below),
• JHK (because I think there might be cases where Lee is right, and believe strongly in peer pressure and shame culture.)
• NetEsq (concurring with Lee Daniel Crocker - see below)
• --Knucmo2 22:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC). However, I believe in freedom of speech, and sometimes, its maybe best to let out some bedevilling and rising tensions on the discussion pages. Are there any forums on Wikipedia where perhaps such debates may take place? Perhaps this is a viable alternative. As most Wikipedians are calm, erudite people, I think personal attacks are a minority. I certainly do not support harsh punishments for those who violate this rule only a few times...perhaps repeat offenders maybe...
• Snowspinner 01:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC) mostly because apparently if anything falls under 80% support we immediately hold a formal poll on it, and isn't that neat?
  • WP:POINT. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
    • That would only be true if you thought this policy's legitimacy came from this poll. Snowspinner 14:32, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Other

Stuck between support and opposition:

• Jmabel 08:53, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) (see below)

move personal debates to e-mail?

Supporters of the "move personal debates to e-mail" rule include:

• Larry Sanger
• Mike H 19:37, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)
• User:chaz171

Opponents of this rule include:

• 24 (strongly, either the "unpleasantness" is irrelevant to wiki or it is vital to wiki - in the former case cut it out, in the latter case everyone must hear it out because it probably isn't "personal" but illustrates an ideology or cosmology or ethics dispute)

Discussion

If calling a troll a troll or pointing out someone's statements to judge their credibility helps produce better articles, then an occasional personal attack is warranted, as long as it serves our goal. Obviously physical threats are out of place, as are impugning someone's race, gender, nationality, etc., but character and credibility are fair game. Just blindly calling someone an idiot without explanation or reason serves no purpose, but even those should be judged case-by-case. All "zero tolerance" rules are bad; human beings should exercise judgment, and not be afraid to stand behind those judgments. -- Lee Daniel Crocker

I concur with Lee Daniel Crocker on this issue, and I offer my own thoughts here as a supplement. An absolute prohibition on personal attacks would violate the proposed ignore all rules rule and would more than likely give rise to a culture of forced politeness, hypocrisy, and passive aggressive behavior. The work is the important thing, and suffering personal attacks is an inescapable part of holding one's work up to the scrutiny of one's peers. On this note, the best way to deal with unprovoked and/or unfair personal attacks is to ignore them and focus on the work. However, the decision to stand down from a confrontation should be left to the sound discretion of the individuals involved in such a confrontation.--NetEsq

24 - not only is such a rule exteremly unlikely to be fairly administered by a clique, but frankly, someone committed to a particular approach to editing or collaborating or not is not going to give a damn about "shaming" or even "outing" (much more serious). Handing over banning-power to be used again people who simply offend others as part of a two-way semi-abusive discourse is a sure route to groupthink - and the end of any serious pretense of the project to "neutrality". That said, ad hominem attack generally contributes little to discourse as people defend their positions reactively, and anonymous parties with little at stake except a disposable identity should be relatively more conservative about such tactics than those who are using the same names that are attached to their bodies. However, those gloves should come off the instant someone is "outing" or "framing" anybody, i.e. if someone tells me I'm Mikhail Gorbachev and should "know better", then they deserve intense ad hominem attack in return from infinite anonymous parties until they learn not to "out". Those who wish to put their own real-body names up in a one on one mud wrestling competition with disposable anons (IP numbers, pseudonyms) who might as well be programs or many people posing as the same character, are not going to survive this millennium anyway, so let's not bother pretending that their opinion can matter. Also, there are many who consider this process, or the role of the "troll", to be constructive and necessary, like the "devil's advocate" or "shaitan" or "defense attorney" or "opposition leader" or "Supreme Court minority opinion author", to reduce groupthink and identify values divisions across which people cannot cooperate constructively anyway, and can only ever agree to just disagree. I'm confident that the record shows that I never attacked or insulted anyone who didn't attack or insult me first - if they object to getting the diseased end of the stick thereafter, well, tough. Finally, let's not pretend that those ideological or ethnic conflicts in the "real world" that people are dying and killing for, are going to lead to anything less than verbal or emotional simulacra of violence here. Blunt brutal argument between Arabs and Israelis, Communists and Capitalists, Globalists and Localists, Greens and Golfers, Gollums and Gandalfs, is the only way we're going to get to this "NPOV" God that some here want to worship - or, for that matter, talking people out so they come at least to an exhausted truce.

---

I, User:Ed Poor, generally believe that personal attacks aren't going to improve the Wikipedia. In the few debates I've followed in which participants spill a substantial amount of ink questioning each other's integrity, intelligence, and (probably) taste in clothes, I've noticed that no fruitful plans tend to develop for the improvement of the article under consideration.

Occasionally, I myself have been such a participant, and I judge the exercise to be a waste of time for all concerned. Now, I might try to lighten the gloom with a wisecrack (as in "my dear lab rat"), but since other parties have informed me regally that "We are not amused", this leaves me no other recourse: I'm going to have to start writing politely! Ed Poor, Wednesday, April 17, 2002

---

I just wanted to explain a little of the background behind the proposed e-mail rule.

I have participated in more unpleasant exchanges here on Wikipedia than I care to count. There are almost always good grounds for these exchanges--people who debate things here are generally very intelligent and their opinions are backed by substantial reasoning. But, as happens almost everywhere else on the Internet, harsh feelings, often or usually based in misunderstandings and incomplete communication, tend to spoil the thing. I really don't want Wikipedia to become another debate forum or flame-fest. I think we will work best if we avoid all unnecessary controversy, and if we must engage in controversy, that we practice wikipetiquette as far as we are able.

I think it would be great if we all made it a habit of saying, when appropriate, "Hey, this is getting a little too unpleasant for Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a nice place focused on creating an encyclopedia. I'll write you privately. (Or: My e-mail address is X@Y.Z. Could you write me, please, or post your address, so we can resolve this amicably in private?)

If more of us did this, I think Wikipedia could become a much more pleasant place to work on this worthy project. Please, let's not let such a great project be slowed down by personal difficulties. I really do think we can avoid that. --Larry Sanger

---

I think that sounds preferable to the current way (making a public spectacle, people taking sides, slinging barbs and arrows ... seems too much like it belongs in a colosseum, most of the time). But I should say I have no problem at all debating things in wikipedia, only I'd prefer it go private if it becomes a bit personal or disrespectful. And of course everyone likes to see the happy reconciliation.  :-) --Koyaanis Qatsi

Note being a net techie I don't know how hard this would be to set up, but what about a "usenet" group? Alt.pedia.debate (not alt.wikipedia to prevent it turning up in search engines). Then we could legitimately say "take it to usenet". Just a thought - MB

Starting a group in the traditional 'Big 8' hierarchy involves a long, fussy procedure; starting one in the alt hierarchy is easy but getting news servers to carry it is not so easy. I don't think it's appropriate for a world-distributable newsgroup, anyway. It may be possible to set up a newsgroup on the Nupedia server and have it archived by Nupedia (not quite a 'private' newsgroup, but not fully public - keep Google out of it). Would a mailing list be a good 'middle ground' between fully public discussion and private email? -- Claudine

---

What about ageism? In talk:Libertarian socialism Len said that another person is "obviously a college student" and called him or her "son" (this is also a minor form of sexism, since it makes assumptions about another's gender). This is clearly a personal attack. bpt 02:27 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

That is an excellent example of a situation where a prohibition against personal attacks would chill spirited debate. Moreover, those who cry foul are often the passive aggressors. -- NetEsq 05:28 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

A proposed revision

I'd like to propose a revision to the article (see below for suggested text). My comments:

I think we ought to be able to draw a "red line" where personal abuse is concerned. There's an important principle that we need to recognise here: we will only get good articles if we have a good community generating them. We will only get (and keep) a good community if people feel that they can contribute without being abused or harrassed. The only way we can ensure that is if we take a firm line on personal abuse.

In the following draft, I've proposed an absolute rule prohibiting "racial, sexual, religious or ethnic epithets" and profanity directed against other contributors. I recognise that it isn't always easy to agree on whether a user is a troll. However, I think it is possible to identify epithets and their use ought to be a pretty good indicator of the kind of user who will drive away the well-behaved contributors. It's regrettable that a "red line" is needed at all, but frankly, if personal abuse is tolerated it will end up driving away the honest users and turning Wikipedia into a slum dominated by sociopaths and fanatics. I've seen it happen before to online communities which don't enforce some sort of minimum standards, and I'd hate to see it happen here.

Comments welcomed... -- ChrisO 23:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No personal attacks on the Wikipedia, period.

Contributors might not agree on an article. They might have fundamental differences in real life too: maybe they come from opposing communities. On Wikipedia, everyone is part of the same community - you are all Wikipedians. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes to be abused. Also, do not forget that disputes carried on in talk pages are publicly accessible to everyone, Wikipedians and public alike. The way in which you conduct yourself on Wikipedia is visible to everyone on the Internet.

Wikipedians should bear in mind the following guidelines:

• Always try to respect the views of other contributors. This does not mean that you have to agree with them; just agree to disagree.
• Disagree on the basis of the facts, not on the character of the other party. A view is not invalid solely because it is expressed by a Republican / African-American / woman / whatever.
• If a debate threatens to become personal, confer about the problem in e-mail. You may wish to consult Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to see how other Wikipedians can help you to resolve a dispute.
• You may well regard the other party's views as being on the fringe, or cranky. This may well be so, but do not forget that Wikipedia is aiming for a neutral point of view. You are not trying to write a "single version of the truth". Unconventional viewpoints need to be accommodated as well, even if you disagree with them. The golden rule is: be tolerant.

In the interests of preserving an unthreatening atmosphere for contributors, Wikipedia enforces an absolute ban on abusive slurs and language being directed against other contributors. Violating this rule can and will result in the offending user being banned. Specific types of slur covered by this ban include but are not limited to the following:

• Racial, sexual, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor.
• Profanity directed against another contributor (e.g. calling another contributor a "stupid piece of shit").

There is no excuse for such attacks on other contributors; the key issue is the content of the articles, not the character of the person writing them. Users who direct epithets against contributors can expect to be banned.

Interesting. I would rather say something like "violating this rule will result in the offending comments being deleted, edited for common courtesy, or returned to your user talk page. Repeated violations of this rule may result in further sanctions".

I like that because anyone can delete offensive comments, so this means the problem is solved at the lowest level. If we tell people that we will solve a particular problem with a ban, this tends to be the cue for incessent whinging. I would rather empower users to fix problems themselves, rather than expecting them to come cap in hand to some "authority" figure who will pronounce, Oracle-like, on the Truth of the matter. Martin 23:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I generally agree with this, but the question is: if we are banning "attacks" what is the threshhold of "attack"?

• Does indicating that someone has vandalized a page constitute an attack? "Vandal" is usually seen as an insult, but we need a way to discuss this.
• Does calling someone a "leftist" or a "rightist" constitute an attack? From some people, those words can clearly be insults (especially when applied to someone who doesn't see him- or herself as such). In other cases, they may be very useful shorthands to identify the two sides in a disagreement over a politically controversial subject.
• Is it a personal attack to claim of a certain contributor that all of his or her edits appear to be for the purpose of affecting the political slants of articles? How about for the purpose of disseminating a pet theory as widely as possible throughout wikipedia, regardless of its appropriateness to the article topics? How about outright trolling?
• Above all, is this a matter of civility of language (I can live with that, happily) or of certain topics being off-limits (I'm far less comfortable with that). It is a reality (if not a happy one) that sometimes people have bad motives. If it is off limits for standards-abiding wikipedians to question someone's motives -- even gently and relatively politely -- then we are creating an unfair disadvantage for the unethical and malevolently motivated. Think of the behavior of the Robert Mitchum character in the first half of the classic film noir "Cape Fear". -- Jmabel 08:53, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rude personal attacks do occur. I've been subject to them. I've seen others subject to them. Since there's nothing I or anyone can mostly do about it (other than accept them), obviously they are acceptable on Wikipedia. A rule against them should either be enforced (with an indicated penalty) or the supposed rule against personal attacks should be downgraded to simple advice. In any case an intelligent attacker can be just as personal and just as aggressive and just as offensive by waffle wording. Instead of saying "You are anti-Semitic", the editor can say "What you are saying sounds anti-Semitic to me." Instead of saying "You are an ignorant fuckhead!", the editor can say "As I see it, you have not researched this topic sufficiently and are overreacting in a non-constructive way based on material you have unfortunately been exposed to!" They really mean the same thing, and may, depending on the circumstances, be true or false (or partly true). Attacks of this kind are no less annoying (when perceived as untrue) then when presented more obviously. Indeed, when untrue and presented in this way they may be far more annoying. Vicious civility is an attack technique. I would like to see Martin follow up on how he would "empower" users to deal with this and other annoyances. Simply removing crude personal attacks seems to protect the attacker, not the attacked, cleaning up the attacker's record, hiding what has occurred. Currently there seems to be a tendency for some to suggest that if a user cannot stand up to attacks, the user should walk away. Many do. Away from Wikipedia. jallan 15:14, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

From above, "A rule against them should either be enforced (with an indicated penalty) or the supposed rule against personal attacks should be downgraded to simple advice." The no personal attacks rule has been one of the most frequently cited Wikipedia policies used by the Arbitration Committee. Violations have resulted in bans of up to a year in extreme cases. Fred Bauder 16:25, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

That is because it is one for very few supposed rules outside of vandalism on which any kind of action is ever taken by anyone empowered to take action, though only after very much consideration. So the current de facto rule seems to be:

Too many personal attacks against too many people are unacceptable when officially complained about. But used in moderation, personal attacks are quite a useful technique for getting people off what you have taken to be your own turf and away from you to some other part of Wikipedia, somewhere else where they can edit in peace without having to deal with you, or off Wikipedia altogether. If you are called to account, claim you were baited. But even if you don't, others will defend your actions for that reason in any case, pointing out that it takes two to fight and all that and that the person raped must have done something wrong to bring on the attack. Your victim obviously didn't try hard enough. You have also made good edits.

There is general enforcement of rules against vandalism. There is no general enforcement of the rule against personal attacks. If personal attacks should be totally unacceptable, then make them totally unacceptable by authorizing sysops to termporarily block anyone who makes a personal attack just as they would block vandalism (or people making legal threats or threats of violence). The blocked person can always appeal just as they would for any unfair block. If that is not done, then personal attacks are not totally unacceptable. People either have to accept personal attacks, or respond by spending hours or days in attempting to instigate an action against the person to the end result that the attacker is likely to be banned for a few days at most (while their sock puppets continue to edit?). Perhaps easier to take the high road and walk away altogether from increasing loutishness and harrassment in one local bar. There are other bars. Jallan 18:42, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• • If you're saying "**** that edit" instead of "**** [insert user's name here,]" you are not harming the contributor because you are clearly talking about the edit. Scott Gall 07:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Related article

From AlMac

• Perhaps Wikopedia already has this and I not stumbled across it.

An article that bans personal attacks where for the PERSON we substitute an INSTITUTION or BEHAVIOR PATTERN

• • political party
  • public figure in legal trouble
  • type of activity that can be controversial
    • business activity
    • union activity
    • religious activity
    • government activity
    • non-government organization free speech
• I think such an article might help make for more clarity in communicating POV to newbies

AlMac 29 June 2005 12:54 (UTC)

Hate Speech

It has been pointed out on the Wikien mailing list that Wikipedia has no actual policy against hate speech. This article comes closest to being that policy. I suggest a policy to deal with hate speech be added to this article and enforced. By hate speech I mean false characterizations of a group which are intended to incite hatred and dismissal. For example, the characterization being discussed on the mailing list of the Gulag as "Jewish concentration camps" in which Christians were exterminated. Fred Bauder 11:39, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Judging by his wolf-crying behaviour on the mailing lists (is that a personal attack?), User:RK will go hogwild on this one with anyone contradicting him on Jew or Anti-Semitism.

Yes, in the case of RK there is a tendency to see more anti-semitism in opposition to his editing activities than is actually there, but I think most of us are aware of that tendency of RK.

I can't see that someone who uses actual "hate speech" in Wikipedia discussion is going to become a valuable user by trying to stop them, because they will not see it as "hate speech" (as in the example of User:WHEELER, which is what we're actually talking about here). I strongly question that we need another rule when the current dispute resolution process sufficiently deals appropriately and conclusively (if very slowly) with a problem user. I also strongly question making a rule on a single case like this when we already have procedures that will deal with and are in the process of dealing with this case - edge cases make bad law. - David Gerard 13:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, if they are not reformable, are they bannable? Fred Bauder 14:37, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed that we should consider wider ramifications of this policy before we jump in, for example, would my occasional essays into edit wars regarding communism, with subsequent negative characterizations of apologists for communism be considered hate speech? Fred Bauder 14:37, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Precisely. Before we can consider such a policy, we will need an obvious, elegant and consensus-accepted definition of "hate speech" that is not reasonably arguable. Otherwise, what the hell are we banning? - David Gerard 15:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definition of hate speech

Part of the definition is making a false generalization, "Blue-eyed devils" can serve as an example. This stands for the proposition that all White people are active evil-doers. True enough in the case of isolated individuals, sometimes true of pretty good size mobs, even entire nation-states, but considered seriously, false and resulting in incitment. Intention is another part of a reasonable definition as an aggravating factor. Hate-speech is intended to produce action, or at least change in behavior, perhaps from tolerance to rejection.

Some problems exist with that definition, for example as Bush or Kerry campaign both attempt false generalizations intended to produce change in behavior. So it is also a matter of degree, a change in voting being at one extreme, the holocaust the other, thus addition of the qualifier "extreme".

So hate speech is a false generalization about an ethnic group, religious or political orientation or other identifiable group which tends to produce a change in behavior that is extremely unfavorable to that group. Calculated intention is an aggravation of the offense but not necessary. Fred Bauder 16:28, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

There is absoloutely no need for a change of policy here. The current "no personal attacks" policy covers every example you cited except one. The witch-hunt against WHEELER. Making a new law in order to retroactively punish is widely condemned IRL courts. The attempt to do so is sad. Punish people for being rude, not for thinking differently from you. Sam [Spade] 17:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Any policy we make would not apply retroactively to Wheeler, just to future actions he or others might take. The observation was made that there is no hate speech policy. This is simply advocacy that we make one. Fred Bauder 17:23, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Understood. Obviously I would find that more than unnecessary. Sam [Spade] 17:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see no examples showing we need one. I maintain this is not such an example. Making hard policy will require several hells of a justification - David Gerard 17:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"which tends to produce a change in behaviour" is an ambiguity you could drive a truck through.

This is still coming down to "I know it when I see it" and is not suitable material for a policy. e.g. I think a lot of your opinions on left-wingers are wrong, but I certainly wouldn't call them hate speech. But I'm pretty sure others here would.

In dealing with the case we're actually talking about, i.e. WHEELER, what about this case is not amenable to the current dispute resolution process? The AC is quite slow so far, but has dealt properly so far with cases brought against egregiously offensive users (MNH, Irismeister, Paul Vogel).

I completely fail to see why an RFM and then if necessary an RFA can't be brought against WHEELER. Based on his obnoxiousness so far, I could write it myself if I could be bothered. I shouldn't have to, though, because anyone else sufficiently concerned to flood wikien-l with messages about his "hate speech" should have the energy to proceed using the tools in place.

This is a single case. I have PROFOUND qualms about making new policy based on a single case that should be susceptible to the tools we already have in place.

To those who have been writing to Wikipedia advocating that WHEELER be thrown off for his egregious offensiveness: please at least attempt using the tools that are already to hand. - David Gerard 17:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is being called an anti-semite hate speech? Sam [Spade] 17:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, being called an anti-Semite is not hate speech; to ask the question misunderstands what hate speech is -- it is not any speech that is hateful; it is hateful speech that targets a stigmatized and victimized and therefore vulnerable group. (anon)

But being called an anti-Semite might well be a personal attack. Martin 13:18, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definition of hate speech 2

Here are two things I posted to the English listserve concerning this topic.

1) hate speech is categorically different from offensive or uncivil remarks. Many people have pointed out that there is often a certain level of incivility at Wikipedia; sometimes people make unfortunately offensive remarks in the heat of an argument, and sometimes remarks are offensive because they are controversial and play a constructive role in an argument. I agree with these points in principle, but do not think they apply to hate speech. For example, if someone writes "Sl, you are a shithead," well, yeah, I would take that as an uncivil and offensive remark. But I would not call it hate speech. Nor would I call it anti-Semitism. WHEELER observed that just because a dog barks at a Jew doesn't make the dog anti-Semitic. Fair enough. Just because I am Jewish does not mean that all attacks on me are anti-Semitic. But if the dog barks "Sl, you are a dirty Jew," that is anti-Semitic. Here is the difference: the first attack attacks me as an individual; the second attacks me as a member of a class or group of people. For this reason I respectfully disagree with Anthere's sympathetic remarks. The point is not that I feel hurt or injured. These are personal feelings and I have always strived not to let personal feelings affect my involvement in Wikipedia. Anti-Semitism is not wrong because it is hurtful on an individual or personal level; anti-Semitism attacks a whole group. Anti-Semitism is impersonal by nature. By the way, it is for this reason that non-Jews can and ought to oppose anti-Semitism, just as Whites can oppose racism against Blacks and Jews can oppose racism against Arabs. You do not have to feel personally injured to oppose something that is wrong. In fact, WHEELER didn't hurt my feelings because I do not care what WHEELER thinks about me at all. I simply oppose hate speech and anti-Semitism in all forms because it is wrong. Slrubenstein

The dog who barks "Sl, you are a dirty Jew" would surely be anti-Semitic, and making a personal attack. That personal attack would be covered by current policy, and would surely be judged more harshly than "Sl, you are dirty"? Martin 13:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

2) hate speech is never about factual accuracy. This is because facts are contingent, but racism is based on essentialism. It is a fact that some Jews have been murderers. But are they murderers because they are Jewish? That they were (or are) Jewish is almost certainly incidental to their having murdered (or robbed a bank, or gone through a red light). It may very well be a fact that several or even many prison guards in the Soviet Union were Jewish. But they weren't camp guards because they were Jewish. To then talk about "Jewish concentration camps" is simply not about a factual claim we can research or question. There is no point in even questioning it as a factual claim. It is absurd on its face and the only point of the claim is to lump all Jews together, to treat them not as individuals but as members of a class. By the way, sometimes such correlations may be valid. Criminologists often look for correlations between behavior and race, class, or gender. I just think it is obvious that in this particular case WHEELER was not making an empirical claim subject to argument; he was using a slur in order to attack (I think Jrosenzweig and AndyL have provided sufficient evidence, for those who do not think this is obvious) Slrubenstein

3) There is a difference between what one feels or thinks, and how one expresses it publicly. Regulating hate speech (through a ban, or an apology or retraction) is not about regulating how someone feels. I don't think it is possible to control someone else's feelings -- hell, I am not sure it is possible to control one's own feelings. And if it were possible, I don't think it would be desirable. But we (not just government, but society or community) regulates how people express there feelings all the time. We can think what we like, but we know that in some contexts it is inappropriate or even dangerous to say what we think; we regulate ourselves, personally, as well. WHEELER, for example, can think whatever he wants. But to participate in a conversation, there are some things he won't say. And to participate in a community there are some things he shouldn't say. Where we draw the line is a separate matter that I address below -- here I just want to emphasize that it is what WHEELER wrote on one of our pages, not what he thinks, that I think we should concern ourselves with. Slrubenstein

4) Wikipedia should not tolerate hate speech. I think an open society should limit such regulation as much as possible. Some people have pointed out that even WHEELER has a right to free speech. I agree. But that does not mean that someone can say whatever they like, here. We should tolerate a certain level of offensive remarks as unavoidable byproducts of heated exchanges, just as we should tolerate a high level of ultimately empty chatter on talk pages as necessary byproducts of the editing process. We should certainly encourage controversy. But there is simply no benefit to Wikipedia from hate speech, and there is no need for us to provide people with an outlet for hate speech. God knows, there are plenty of other outlets on the internet for that. For the same reason, there should be no need for me to go (as one person suggested) to an attorney general to try to prosecute WHEELER for hate speech. What WHEELER wrote may very well be legal -- so he can write it elsewhere. I just don't want to see someone use Wikipedia as a vehicle for hate speech. Wikipedia policy is not nor should be the same thing as state or federal law. Slrubenstein

Someone on the listserve wrote, "The reason why I say that hate speech is not destructive is that speech itself is strictly communicative." which begs the question, what do you mean by "communicative?" I assume you mean that the only thing it does is to describe or express something else, but has not force in and of itself. If this is what CM means, he is mistaken. Some propositions are indeed expressive or descriptive (e.g., "I feel sick" or "the house is blue" -- in the first case the proposition describes how I feel, in the second case it describes the house. In both cases the proposition is about something else). But some propositions are performative -- statements which are in and of themselves actions. J.L. Austin provides some pretty common examples: when someone says "I name this ship The Queen Elizabeth" it is the very pronouncement that accomplishes the naming. Similarly, when one says "I bet you ..." it is the act of saying so that constitutes the bet. Or when someone says "I promise," it is the very act of speaking that accomplishes the promise. You can call these statements "communicative" if you like -- what is important is a major distinction between these kinds of statements and statements like "the house is blue." Slrubenstein

The question is, what kind of proposition is "Jewish concentration camps" (meaning, concentration camps run by Jews) I think the answer is, both. It is a descriptive statement that can be either true or false (and in the case of the camps WHEELER was referring too, false). But I believe it is also a performative statement, and it is in this sense that it is hate speech, and destructive. Slrubenstein

Some people have suggested that what makes it hate speech is its potential to incite physical violence. I think this is valid (and a valid legal principle: threatening someone may be punishable, at least in the U.S., or may not -- courts decide in part from weighing how likely the threat could lead to physical violence). But the argument of "hate speech" is that performative statements are in and of themselves violent. One example is the power of speech to intimidate (and although threats may be purely verbal, they can still be actionable for this reason). This was established in the United States by the 1942 Supreme Court decision Chaplinsky versus New Hampshire, which is the basis for some hate speech legislation in the U.S. (and available on the web). Another is the power of speech to stigmatize (this is in effect the argument MacKinnon and Dworkin made against pornography -- the very act renders women sexual objects). Slrubenstein

The ACLU opposes hate speech legislation on two grounds: first, it considers hate speech one of the prices a society must pay for a general right to freedom of speech, and second, it believes the best response to hate speech is more speech. I happen to sympathize very strongly, or just plain agree, with both of these. I do not think the state should limit free speech. WHEELER, for example, has a right to say whatever anti-Semitic thing he wants to, to anyone who wants to listen. Slrubenstein

The question is, do I have to listen? Do you, do we have to listen? And, more importantly, does Wikipedia have to be a medium through which anyone spews hate speech? I don't think so. And I think that anyone who construes this argument against hate speech on Wikipedia as censorship is seriously distorting the situation. Wikipedia is a community, not the state. Just because a person has a legal right to do something does not mean we are obliged to collude. For example, people have a right to advertise but we do not allow advertisements on Wikipedia. Advertisements do not benefit our project, and only mislead people as to the nature of our project. The same goes for hate speech. If I thought it were possible that hate speech on Wikipedia could lead to the improvement of an article, for example, I would defend it. But I don't think it leads to the improvement of articles, and only appropriates our space to hateful purposes. Slrubenstein

response to Definition of hate speech 2

Slrubenstien: what the hell is stopping you from going through the dispute resolution over WHEELER's egregious offensiveness, and seeing if it actually fails, before asserting we need another rule? The time you spent on the above could easily have been used on something to actually deal with the alleged problem. And establish that the alleged problem actually falls within the remit of the present mechanism for dealing with problem users. Which I maintain it does.

Before you advocate a new rule, you really should prove the old one doesn't work. You haven't - David Gerard 21:25, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First, nothing is stopping me -- all of this started with my asking someone on the arbitration board for advice, and AndyL has requested mediation. Second, let me be the judge of how to spend my time. If you do not think this topic is worth spending time on, that is your business -- you should stop posting to this page or reading it. But I will spend my time as I please. Third, I am not claiming that the old rule doesn't work, I am raising general issues that have not been considered in discussion. By the way, sorry I couldn't work the phrase "the hell" into this response, as you seem to think it appropriate to reasoned discourse. Slrubenstein

I think if we enforced wikipedia:Civility and wikipedia:wikiquette we'd all be alot happier, waste alot less time, and get alot more done. Thats what were here to do right, work an encyclopedia? How does rudeness of any sort assist w that? Why differentiate between racial, sexual, religious hierarchies of whats offensive? Lets just enforce the rules we already have, rather than fight about what sorts of new ones might help. Sam [Spade] 02:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Racial, sexual and other kinds of slurs are already differentiated in our guidelines (and no, I had nothing to do with that!) The point of a rule against hate speech is not to introduce racial, sexual, or other such epithets to our guidelines. What it does introduce is the notion of impersonal attacks. I am not saying there needs to be a new mechanism. Minimally, in the subsections of our key policies and behavior guidelines, I just think that the category currently listed, "personal attacks" is not sufficient; impersonal attacks (e.g. attacking all Jews, all Blacks, all gays -- but not singling out one individual) should be added. Slrubenstein

Why?

because impersonal attacks of this nature can be even more disruptive and offensive as personal attacks

Current policies are sufficient, were they enforced.

No, because they do not include such impersonal atacks. That is why I just wrote, only an inch or two above where you are looking right now, " "personal attacks" is not sufficient"

Do you at a minimum agree that enforcement of current policy would be advantageous? Sam [Spade] 19:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Advantageous to whom? As opposed to what? Are you asking if I think we should not enforce current policy? Of course not, we should continue to enforce current policy. Are you asking something else? Otherwise, I stand by what I wrote above. Slrubenstein

If you think current policies (such as wikipedia:Civility, wikipedia:wikiquette and Wikipedia:No personal attacks) are being enforced, you are dangerously out of touch. I suggest you give the matter a great deal more thought. Sam [Spade] 22:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not think they are always enforced adequately or efficiently, but in a wiki-community I think this is understandable. In any case, I do not think the problem of hate speech owes to a lack of enforcement of current policies, if this is what you were asking. Slrubenstein

I find it significantly less understandable, and strongly suggest that if they were enforced your suggestion of policy change would be more obvious in its lack of utility. The problem here is that the lack of enforcement of current rules suggests to some (yourself it would seem) that new rules are the answer. I clearly disagree in the utmost. Sam [Spade] 04:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, you are saying that WHEELER should have been banned because of the policy against personal attacks, but this policy is not being enforced? I disagree "in the utmost" ;) I also don't see how you can think that it is the lack of enforcement that seems to suggest to me that there is a need for a new rule, when I have stated explicitly that this is not the case. That seems to show serious lack of respect for a contributor who has strived to respond to your comments patiently and clearly. Slrubenstein

I am disrespectful when I understand things differently than you?

No, only when you misrepresent what I wrote, as I explain in the third sentence in the paragraph above. But maybe I am wrong to accuse you of misrepresenting what I wrote -- you do it so often that perhaps you are simply not reading what I write. Slrubenstein

Please stop cutting up my text. Repeating back to you what I understand from what you said is a good habit, it helps w communication. If I'm wrong, tell me so politely. Please stop being rude, I don't appreciate it. Sam [Spade] 21:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am saying there is no need for a new rule, rather that existing rules aught be enforced. If you want to see an example of incivility, scroll up to the top of this thread. I find the way you spoke to mr. Gerard somewhat less than civil. Perhaps you found his use of "hell" less than civil also. I found a substantial number of comments made about WHEELER to have been personal attacks. Heck, I find every use of the word troll a personal attack. And yes, WHEELER violated wikiquette w his statement, IMO, and should have been reprimanded as such by an admin on his talk. Sam [Spade] 16:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I somewhat agreed with enforcing current rules and cannot disagree with some of the other statements but what made me put my two coppers in is "every use of the word troll" as a personal attack. I object to that strongly. It is a censure of free speech to deny anyone the descriptive words necessary to respond to trolling. If a user makes remarks that can be described as trolling (my description if fishing for angry responses) it is accurate to call someone a troll in a given discussion that is regarding that content. It is akin to saying that Clinton's oral sex is not "sex" and grinding on the details of what the word "is" means. I reject the idea that we are going to create seven dirty words that can never be uttered in a discussion. - Tεxτurε 16:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I responded at length re: troll here. I'll just mention that I like the seven dirty words idea, and that troll aught to be one of them ;) Sam [Spade] 17:14, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Is being called an anti-semite hate speech?"

Yes, I read that on the mailing list (along w a good bit of other content here ;). RE: "Is being called an anti-semite hate speech?" you say "it is hateful speech that targets a stigmatized and victimized and therefore vulnerable group." Wouldn't that include anti-semites? Arn't they stigmatized, etc.. ? I know you prob. think I'm missing the point, but I'm not. Hate speech rules amount to censorship, and the premise behind them is racist. Minorities are not better than anyone else, and deserve no special rights. Past abuses have not earned them right to special protection in my eyes. I oppose the concept at every level. Sam [Spade] 19:52, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I do feel that Wikipedia:No personal attacks should be enforced. I just don't agree w the 1st class citizen status given to some by these sorts of hate crime rules, w folks like me (w no obvious minority or protected group status) relegated to 2nd class citizenship. Making me feel like a colored in S African apartied fails on every level in achieving the goals you should be shooting for here, namely a friendlier working environment. Sam [Spade] 20:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How sensitive of Sam to consider the rights of the racist being discriminated against because of his racism as being the same as the right of the victim being subjected to racism. What's next, holing the right of the rapist as equl to those of the rape victim? The murderer's right to murder as being equal to the rights of the murdered? I think Sam's onto a whole new legal standard here. Sorry Sam, your argument that someone has the right to be an anti-Semite and that we shouldn't deny someone that right is just about the most uncivil thing I've heard from you. I don't see how you can see yourself as a crusader from civility when you come up with nonsense like this. AndyL

Is being called an anti-semite hate speech? It could be, depends on the facts. Calling someone an anti-semite when there is a long track record which shows it and calling someone an anti-semite because they criticize some egregious Zionist atrocity is another. Another element is the broadbrush quality of hate speech. For example, "Germans are anti-semitic" is a broadbrush and false characterization. A context where incitement will produce results might also be necessary. For example, a whispering campaign regarding a lawyer practicing in New York City, who had occasionally made a few critical remarks regarding Jews might be hate speech. To summarize these incomplete observations, there needs to be a look at the evidence which should show a broad negative and basically unfair condemnation of Jews, if that does not exist pulling out the "anti-semite" card may be unfair and in extreme instances, especially where it can be expected to damage the target, hate speech. So to address the instant case, characterizing a Wikipedia editor as "anti-semitic" without sufficient cause, given that we have banned anti-semitic users (using the "no personal attacks policy), might be hate speech and in itself a violation of the no personal attacks policy. Fred Bauder 10:27, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well thats interesting. I still don't think we need a new rule, but rather better enforcement of the existing policy. Sam [Spade] 14:42, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, uh, yeah - David Gerard 15:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ignore this

Sam equating himself with "a colored in S African apart(h)eid" because he is *not* a member of a group subjected to discrimination and hate speech is highly convoluted thinking. I suspect that "a colored" from South Africa would be deeply insulted at the comparison and by Sam's logic that being called a racist is as bad as racism itself and that racists are being discriminated against by being called racists just as much as an oppressed group is being discriminated against. AndyL

Perhaps I've commited an act of hate speech thereby? Off to the gulag w me I suppose... Good thing you don't allow dissent, that might cause you to suffer thru all sorts of "convoluted" thinking. Sam [Spade] 23:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sam but I can't reconcile your advocacy of "civility" with your apologism for anti-Semitism and racism. I don't think you need to be sent to a gulag, I just think you can't be taken seriously and should be generally ignored. Or do I not have a right to ignore you and dismiss what you say? AndyL

Again w this apologism BS? When will you people figure out I'm not apologizing for anything. The polite way to not listen to be is by not talking to me at all. When you say something, ignore my response, and reply w your mangled interpretation of what you think I might have said, its not nearly so much fun as if you'd be so good as to just ignore me completely. I'd imagine WHEELER might just do a Two Step if you decided to ignore him for a while ;) Sam [Spade] 04:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This isn't the point, Sam. The point is that when someone disagrees with you (which is all AndyL was doing, in his statement that opens this section), you counter by accusing someone of not allowing any dissent! This is a defensive stance that impedes open debate or dialogue. All AndyL said was, your thinking is convoluted, and Coloreds in South Africa would probably be insulted. These two claims are two different ways that AndyL is expressing his disagreement with you. How can you possibly respond by saying "you don't allow dissent?" The logical implication is that in order to allow dissent, AndyL (or presumably anyone else) must agree with you! Pretty twisted -- in order to allow dissent, everyone must agree! Sorry Sam, but it cuts both ways. If you want to have the right to disagree with AndyL, he must have the right to disagree with you. And if you want to participate in a debate, where ideas are exchanged, you need to acknowledge this rather than deny it as you have done here. Slrubenstein

There is a reason I titled this thread the way I did. I'm sorry if you don't appreciate my levity, but then I did ask you to ignore it, didn't I? Trying to take jokes seriously is what I call sarcasm ;) Sam [Spade] 17:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I did not know that you were the one who entitled the section -- nor was it clear to me why it should be ignored (does AndyL agree it should be ignored?) In the future, if you regret or retract an argument you have made, I suggest you just say so. I am not sure how to take "ignore me" sarcastically -- AndyL clearly was not ignoring you, but if you don't want people to read your words, why write at all! I guess I will find out whether you really want to be ignored by whether you respond do this or not ... Slrubenstein

Respond with more speech, not more rules

For the record, I stand opposed to hate speech, but I do not believe that a rule prohibiting hate speech is the appropriate remedy. All too often "the rules" are a vehicle through which "right-thinking" individuals impose their will upon the disenfranchised members of society, and I want no part of that. Rather, I believe that the best remedy for bad speech -- and the only *true* remedy -- is good speech. "Obviously, physical threats are out of place, as are impugning someone's race, gender, or nationality, . . . but even those [situations] should be judged [on a] case-by-case [basis]." Indeed, absent a clear and present danger of immediate and irreparable harm, there is no reason whatsoever to censor the ramblings of bigots.

"Even if I am technically wrong, and enough can be squeezed from these poor and puny anonymities to turn the color of . . . litmus paper; . . even if . . . the necessary intent were shown; the most nominal punishment seems to me all that . . . should be inflicted, unless the [accused] are to be made to suffer not for what the indictment alleges but for the creed that they avow -- a creed that I believe to be the creed of ignorance and immaturity when honestly held. . . ." // NetEsq 23:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say! Sam [Spade] 00:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That is a personal comment, not a content comment and qualifies as a personal attack: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." IF a comment is about a user, it is a personal attack. Furthermore, saying a user is "brilliant and eloquent" in a sarcastic manner means the user is NOT eloquent and NOT brilliant. --AI 09:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

What Is Listed Here Is Irrelevant

Several people who are listed in "support of" the no personal attacks rule (which I am not--you wanna pretend we live in a world where everyone's pleasant all the time, go watch Shari Lewis fist her sock puppets) are hypocrites who themselves are some of the worst offenders of the "no personal attacks" policy!

People like Mike H and Hyacinth, to name two, use their positions of power and their friends and contacts who are in positions of power to remove opinions with which they disagree. They also believe that they themselves are above the "no attacks" rule. While they'd dub as "attack" mere opinions and beliefs stated by people they dislike, they run around the Wikipedia creating unnecessary trouble out of every issue, in an attempt to prove to their higher-up's that they should be promoted into higher and higher administrative positions because they do such "good" and "thorough" jobs of policing (read, victimizing) the rest of us! This project is fast becoming irrelevant, as there exists a solid group who believes they are above the law and that all who question them should be immediately censored, if not banned! There should be a Wiki-created judicial hearing regarding said matters; if there is not, there will be a hearing that is carried out by some judicial body, without a doubt.

Comments?!

An additional slur

See here for background info. Sam [Spade] 17:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've just voted, strongly (if that were possible) that there should be no personal attacks on Wikipedia. I think this is essential; otherwise Wikipedia will end up like a Kindergarten class when the teacher is out.

However, I don't think that 'no personal attacks' means that you can never criticise other people's behaviour, or tell people that their behaviour is wrong. For example there is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll". "You seem to be making statements just to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same withough descending to name-calling. Wikipedia should never descend to insults, but saying that behaviour is wrong is acceptable. DJ Clayworth 19:18, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but I think "you are acting like an XYZ" is a bad way to go. Much better to say "hey, I saw you had some conflict w another user, perhaps you should review [applicable policy XYZ]" or "I'm sorry, but ad hominems are not a part of a useful debate. Thats why I removed them. Please review Wikipedia:No personal attacks." Sam [Spade] 19:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even better :) gracefool 05:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that for the benefit of editors with good intentions people need to be informed as clearly as possible of actual personal attacks or vandalism they commit. Folks should always be pointed to the appropriate policies. Hyacinth 19:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(non constructive anon comment deleted by Erich 07:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) see archive if you really must)

This is becoming the expectation before any negative sanction is applied to someone. They must have been informed clearly in several ways as to exactly what they are doing that is being complained of and given an opportunity to change whatever that is. Fred Bauder 20:45, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the matter of questioning the motives of other editors, I would like to add that Robert's Rules of Order addresses this issue. I can't type in the text because of copyrights and sloth, but here is the gist: any speaker who questions the motives of another member is out of order and the chair must act immediately to prevent its repitition. It uses the strongest language it can as it regards this is as a central foundation of civil discourse. Perhaps on Wiki we too often blend discussions of topics with discussions of editors. -Willmcw 06:28, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that discussions of editors instead of article content get way too much airtime here. But as someone who watches entirely too much political debate (U.S. congressional version), I have to say that I have mixed feelings about using political parliamentary rules as an exemplar here unless we're very clear about what that means. In my personal experience, the rules in this arena are antiquated and stifle real debate (or at least real criticism) -- people now simply get up and talk to the camera from prepared texts. On the other hand, in terms of civility, it really rarely gets out of hand, so perhaps there's something there -- but I maybe that's because there's an immediate hand-slap and public shaming. If someone casts some aspersion that is truly egregious, they are reprimanded and generally their comments end up being stricken from the record (a practice I find silly -- they said it, a record should remain). · Katefan0^(scribble) 12:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have a suggestion which can be edited into this policy to help prevent things from getting out of hand. To be consistent with this policy, user's should only reprimand an offending user in that user's talk page. To reprimand him in an article talk page is contrary to "Comment on content, not on the contributor" which is stated at the beginning of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The personal attack in the article talk page can be removed. This minimizes uncivilness in the article take page while still correcting the user. --AI 17:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

major fiddle

how does that look now? i did it in a hurry so probly needs a good copyeditproof-read. Erich 07:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

m:Instruction creep

This article is getting a horrible case of instruction creep. It should be about half the length it is now. I may start hacking very soon. Anyone else is welcome, of course - David Gerard 13:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Addition of a policy which has been followed in certain cases

I have added the following to the article: "* Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort will result in severe sanctions which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee and User:Jimmy Wales of what they have done and why." This has its origin in the practice which were followed in a certain case where such a treat was made which could have exposed a user to criminal and religious persecution in a certain country. Fred Bauder 14:45, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed ammendment

I've mentioned this on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy but figure I should bring it up here as well - what would people think of the following:

At their discretion, and only after warning the user, sysops may use temporary blocks to enforce a “cooling down” period for users who repeatedly make personal attacks. Blocks made under this policy should be short term – one to three days normally, and a week at most. Sysops blocking under this policy may not block users for making personal attacks in the course of disputes that the sysop is involved in, and especially not for personal attacks made against them, unless the personal attacks also constitute clear and unambiguous vandalism (i.e. replacing their userpage with “U SUCK!!1!1!!”).

Snowspinner 13:23, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

As this is taken verbatim from Wikipedia:Blocking_policy/Personal_attacks#Proposed_policy, lacking only the first sentence of that section, and as that proposal failed to gain consensus, it seems clear that we already know "what would people think of" this.

As that proposal failed, and as Snowspinner knows that, he being the author of that failed proposal, why try for a "second bite of the apple" here? -- orthogonal 07:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The addition from 10 September 2004

The recently proposed changes include 3 points which are at least controversial:

• "Specific examples of personal attack include: Assertions of negative or malicious intent outside of dispute resolution."

• This is just way too wide. It means that comments like "You knew this was POV before you inserted it" or "I think you are a troll", or an edit summary saying "Reverted - stop inputting false information" are personal attacks.

• And it would make what TimStarling and others said on the Anarion RfA a personal attack when they wondered if he was a Sockpuppet.
  • And what Makkalai and Geogre (and many others) said about the Coronado hoaxes personal attacks
  • Others are encouraged to add more examples. -- orthogonal 22:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • I am unable to figure out how "you are a sockpuppet" or "you are inputting false information" (a factually verifiable statement) has anything to do with assertions of intent. Snowspinner 23:11, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
      • Well, sockpuppet voting implies getting around the rules, so there's "negative intent" at the least. I think "you are inputting false information" could be taken in context to mean "you are knowingly inputting false information", which again implies negative, if not malicious, intent. Them's my two cents, at least. Jwrosenzweig 23:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
        • I think the level of reading into the statements that requires would, if made explicit, also constitute a personal attack. ;) Snowspinner 23:20, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
          • Heh, yes, I agree. I think, though, it's a good example of why "negative intent" is a lousy guideline, and "malicious intent" is almost as bad, and I say that with no idea who proposed these policies...I hope they know I'm not trying to attack them by saying that I don't feel they're workable policies. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• "Personal attacks do not include: Claims explicltly limited to edits. "This edit is stupid" is not a personal attack. 'You are stupid" is."

• "Your edit is stupid" usually means "Your POV is stupid". That can be a personal attack. Not to mention non-article edits: "Your comment is stupid", "Your vote is stupid", etc.
• The problem is that if comments, votes, and edits are off bounds for criticism then debate comes screeching to a halt in a lot of ways. Comments limited to actions and not people are not (And have not, to my knowledge, ever been) personal attacks. Snowspinner 23:11, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

I think these issues are too big to be so easily encapsulated. If I wrote "reverting pro-Zionist edit" that could be taken as a personal attack. If I wrote "this edit is so mindless that it seems to have been produced by a monkey licking the keyboard" it is only a characterization of the edit, but is obviously a personal attack on some level. It's not easy to clearly define personal attacks in the simplistic way they are in that quote. Jwrosenzweig 23:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Did you spy on me? How did you know about my monkey making edits for me??? -- orthogonal 23:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll just return to deciding on a case by case basis. :) Snowspinner 23:29, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

By that, surely you mean you'll follow community consensus, not your own idea of policy (as I note these proposed additions were yours)? -- orthogonal 23:34, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, I mean that I'm going to apply common sense. Snowspinner 23:38, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Let's play nicely, shall we? I know you two have a history, but we can let that go, I hope. If anybody disregards consensus, it is almost always unwise and at their own peril, so I expect Snowspinner didn't mean he would ignore it. The only consequence a non-AC member can impose for a personal attack, as I recall, is to remove it (and note that they have done so). Even if someone disregards consensus there, it's easily reversible and pretty minor. If there are sterner consequences, I'd like to know about them -- perhaps I'm not up enough on personal attack policy. Jwrosenzweig 23:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At present, you are correct as to what personal attack policy says, yes. Snowspinner 23:43, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

Then I don't see anything wrong at all with you exercising common sense when you remove a personal attack, unless there is clear community consensus against it (in which case it's merely futile to do so, whether or not you think it sensible). If we're talking about banning people for making such attacks, then I think common sense is a less useful guide -- common sense, after all, is a squishy thing, and hard to agree on, while it's fairly easy to agree on what consensus is (since you have to ask and see what people say). But that's a discussion for another day, I think, or at least another place. Jwrosenzweig 23:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• "...unless such a request is patently absurd and clearly designed only to cause offense."

• If someone is abusing procedures, take them to conflict resolution or even establish a mechanism to deal with that. Don't lump it under "personal attacks".

• And who is supposed to determine what is "patently absurd"? Surely not a user acting unilaterally? -- orthogonal 22:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• • Well, that would depend on who's expected to enforce the no personal attacks policy at present. Snowspinner 23:11, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
    • I think that the no personal attacks policy is not particularly enforceable in real time, but violations of it are considered violations of policy in judgments made by the AC. But I may be wrong. Jwrosenzweig 23:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zocky 22:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Personal attacks do not include reasonable and moderated language used to describe a user's actions in the context of dispute resolution or requesting assistance from others. However, when doing this please be careful to avoid becoming either disruptive to Wikipedia, or harrassing to the user in question.

Is that a better phrasing of what is intended? Martin 17:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's a better phrasing, but I think a policy long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. First let's:

• determine if the policy actually needs to be changed and
• determine if the change we contemplate reflects the consensus of the community.

What problem exists that this change is meant to be a solution to? -- orthogonal 17:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The fact that people are regularly accused of personal attacks when they're making claims against problem users on RFAR and RFC? Snowspinner 18:23, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Regular enough that several examples can be given? However, I'd be willing to agree to:

Personal attacks do not include reasonable language used to describe a user's actions.

-- orthogonal 18:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is "reasonable" or "moderated" language? Only CIVIL language should be used to describe a user's action. No language should be used anywhere which may be perceived by the user or others as offensive. You can describe their actions without making snide remarks. Regarding article talk pages, NO personal comments should be in them at all. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Wikipedia:No personal attacks --AI 18:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am rewording your proposal. --AI 18:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Here it is:

Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe a user's actions.

Summary

So what is End result of this? more then two weeks have past, it is still on the page. And still says if it passes more then two weeks it will be a policy. It is policy or not. Or will it require more discussion? Zain 00:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks outside Wikipedia on contributors of Wikipedia

I have been accused three times of making personal attacks, undermining other contributors' credibility, ridiculing contributors outside of Wikipedia. Other contributors got really angry with me and I defended myself in Wikipedia. I have to admit that I once, and only once, copied a statement by a Wikipedian ridiculing another Wikipedian to a forum outside of Wikipedia. I have apologized for this. Should there be rules for this? Thanks Andries 09:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most of the Arbitration Committee has taken the postition that what is done outside Wikipedia is not its concern. Personally I take the position that a personal attack outside Wikipedia should have the same effect as one on the site. And would include that position in Wikipedia policy. You seem to be thoughtful about your actions. Fred Bauder 13:26, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Well I think outside wikipedia is outside wikipedia. It will even make many senetors, president, diplomat having no right to edit wikipedia. think of john kerry flip flops. And many other things. Almost all politicians will be banned. All laywers will be banned. probably all judges will be banned too. Because they declare a particular person murderer or theif. And it will go on. I think every body has done some personal attack in his life. This will make every body blocked form wikipedia. I think it should be limited to wikipedia. Zain 00:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consequences

The project page should indicate the consequences for personal attacks. The page currently gives reasons why they are bad, but no warning of what will happen if one commits personal attacks. Hyacinth 19:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! Catherine\^talk 04:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

In an discusion with Egil over how the page of the norwegian city of Stavanger should look, I accused him of having a left-wing political agenda for not letting me add two things. Is this to be considered a non-proper way of discussing? I do not wish to break any wikirules but I am unshure wether this is unapropriate or not.

Henrik

Template

See: Template:No personal attacks, intended to be used on talk pages by third parties during disputes which include personal comments and attacks. Hyacinth 03:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See also: Template:No personal headings. Hyacinth 02:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Should we add this comment?

David Gerard noted the tendency toward Instruction creep, but I think this is worth mentioning.

There are some Wikipedians who seem to be chronically incapable of resisting personal attacks. When called on this problem, their response is often 'Personal attacks are the only way the offenders will listen to anybody'. The problem I have with this is that there is nothing in the NPA policy (to say nothing of common sense) that justifies this viewpoint. Person 1 will never pay more attention to Person 2 just because Person 2 decides that it is necessary to use a personal attack.

Thus, I think that this sentence: The assertion that the other party is unable to understand any language other than a personal attack is no justification for a personal attack, should probably be added to the policy. I personally consider it a simple corollary of current policy, but the rest of you may disagree.

What do y'all think? →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 04:18, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)

Lies

Much to my amazement, I can find nothing on this page or anywhere else saying that there is anything wrong with deliberately lying about another user. In course of a dispute on other matters, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Messhermit#POV_about_the_word_terrorist Messhermit is making a totally false claim about me. I have asked him to substantiate it or retract it, but much to my amazement, I can't find any policy he is violating if he simply chooses to stand by a bald-faced lie. Am I missing something? If this really isn't policy, I believe that it should be. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:29, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

I think the arbcom would find this to be a violation of civility, if nothing else. There's an unspoken and unwritten policy against taking great pains to cause other users difficulty, and the arbcom has ruled to this effect. Snowspinner 06:55, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Still, shouldn't this be overt policy? Not to have it so seems to welcome a certain type of troll behavior. Also, in the RfC process, it makes it hard to say what policy is being violated. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:41, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

Lies are specifically listed at Wikipedia:Civility. —Korath (Talk) 13:44, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Snowspinner and Jmabel: The no personal attacks policy covers lies since one should not be commenting on the contributor but on the content. So good for talk pages. In an arbitration situation while I hope that is implicit it nonetheless needs to be explicit, if it is not, that you cannot lie. About anything, especially other users. Hyacinth 00:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Lies about other users: definite personal attacks
• Lies about encyclopaedic facts: obstructing successful writing of the encyclopaedia
• Lies about past conduct: obstruction of justice

No matter which way you cut it, you can't get away with lies. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 00:56, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

What about accusations of lying? Isn't that equally abusive, particularly when unprovoked or without substance? Axon 9 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)

Real name and personal details

If telling lies or calling people bad names can count as personal attacks, would it also count to tell the truth about another editor by revealing their real name or personal details? I recently saw a dispute in which one editor appeared to be taunting another one by repeatedly using his real name, yet I didn't see anyone commenting on it. I may have misinterpreted the actual facts but it serves as an example. Can an editor be "attacked" with the truth? Or is that type of behavior covered in another policy? My own username is semi-transparent, but other users value their privacy more highly so that revelations, or even threats of revelations, could be intimidating to them. -Willmcw 06:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

To me the most important criterion to deciding if something is a personal attack/generally acceptable is this: if the "attack", whatever its form, was made for malicious purposes such as insult and/or intimidation, it qualifies as a personal attack. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 07:05, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

Options added in the policy on the 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) and not yet validated by the community (if no objection before 2 weeks, will be considered approved). If you disagree with those propositions, please comment below or in the talk page. (objections in Talk) Objections having been made by several users and two weeks having passed, these changes are not considered approved. -- orthogonal 07:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposed policy addition

Since this has not got consensus, I think it's better to keep it on Talk: until it does. — Matt Crypto 01:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Specific examples of personal attack include:

• Recently added (21:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)), not yet validated by consensus:

Assertions of negative or malicious intent outside of dispute resolution.

Personal attacks do not include

• Claims explicitly limited to edits. "This edit is stupid" is not a personal attack. "You are stupid" is.
• Reasonable and moderated language used to describe a user's actions in the context of dispute resolution or requesting sysop action, unless such a request is patently absurd and clearly designed only to cause offense.
• Statements that accurately reflect claims a user has made about him or herself. For instance if a user says "I am a Nazi who wants to eliminate all mention of Jews in Wikipedia," the claims "You're a Nazi" or "You're trying to eliminate all mention of Jews from Wikipedia" are not personal attacks. (Similar to estoppel.)

Personal attacks do not include reasonable and moderated language used to describe a user's actions in the context of dispute resolution or requesting assistance from others. However, when doing this please be careful to avoid becoming either disruptive to Wikipedia, or harrassing to the user in question.

true personal remarks

discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 17:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ambi comments:

the evidence IZAK presents suggests to me that it's too close to calling a spade a spade for us to become involved. [1]

Does this mean that the arbitration committee will not consider cases of personal attacks if said attacks are true and accurate? (I agree that IZAK's remarks were fair.) —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 05:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fred Bauder proposed as a principle in a previous case (can't remember which off the top of my head) that being true does not excuse personal attacks, to which the Epopt and I vehemently objected and the principle was dropped. And, again if memory serves, I believe I said pretty much what Ambi just did, that I believe in calling a spade a spade. →Raul654 05:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Nice try, Mirv. That's not a carte blanche to throw the personal attacks policy to the wind. I don't advise you to push it any further. Ambi 05:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Raul. I suggest, then, that the policy page needs updating, with community input of course. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 06:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A spade is a spade and a personal attack is a personal attack. There are certain pages on Wikipedia which are safe harbors for making true personal attacks: for example, RFC and RFAr. There is no room for personal attacks on other pages, true or otherwise. Interpreting Wikipedia:No personal attacks as allowing "true" personal attacks will have two effects (1) people will feel free to let loose with personal attacks, because those inclined to make personal attacks generally believe that their attacks are justified and true; (2) in personal attack cases, where A has written that B "is a dick" the issue to be adjudicated by the Arb Comm will not be the personal attack but whether B is a dick. May I suggest that neither of these is desirable, and that NO personal attacks ought to mean NO personal attacks? --BM 15:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think there's a substantial difference between "Personal attacks are OK if they're true" and occasionally looking at a situation, shrugging your shoulders, and saying that he kinda had it coming. Snowspinner 16:17, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I think this is one of those cases where people are expected to exercise discretion. Something can be false and be a personal attack; something can be true and be a personal attack. On the other hand, I am relcutant to fashion rules that prevent someone from speaking his mind and calling a spade a spade (or calling a troll a troll), rather than forcing them to use transparent euphamisms like "troublesome user". "Language is a poor enough means of communication. We've got to use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words anybody understands. " →Raul654 17:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Also, just for the record, I think this is a sneaky attempt by Mirv to make an end run around our personal attacks policy. →Raul654 17:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I offend you. But I don’t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands.

Cool; I just used that quote here. It's from Inherit the Wind; Henry Drummond, the Clarence Darrow-based character.

On topic, I believe that you can call a spade a spade in a civil fashion. — Davenbelle 18:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

That is a personal attack for which you ought to be banned right away!!!!! :-) Seriously though. . .dismissing this as pure self-interest may be easy, but it is wrong: Wikipedia:No personal attacks is one of the central rules of discourse, and if an exception to that rule exists, it affects everyone who uses talk pages and edit summaries. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the policy - as it has been applied and enforced - is doing remarkably well. It's not been overly enforced so as to squelch people from speaking their mind, and it's not being underenforced so as to allow people to make personal attacks. As such, I see no need to make rules to cover loopholes that don't exist. →Raul654 18:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

it's not being underenforced so as to allow people to make personal attacks.—It's just being redefined so it doesn't cover certain accurate personal remarks. If that's the case, the policy should make it clear: accurate remarks are not considered personal attacks. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 18:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Like Mirv, I am worried that we're going to force the victim of a personal attack to disprove the basis of the attack. That's going about it in the wrong way - we should confront the attacker to use better methods. -- Netoholic @ 18:14, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

As discussed in the section above, revealing true personal details should be considered a personal attack. More generally, any personal comment is suspect and should be avoided. Roberts Rules of Order, which codifies methods of civil discourse, bans any reference to the motives of speakers, however true. -Willmcw 19:19, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

On the whole, I'm inclined to agree with Mirv and Netoholic insofar as I don't think truth should become a doctrinal justification for personal attacks. On the other hand, I think admins, the arbcom, and Jimbo should remain empowered as they are to look the other way if they see fit. All bans - 3RR, vandalism, and those by the arbcom - are subject to discretion. There may be cases where discretion says to look the other way. Those cases don't need to be codified - we just need to accept that they'll happen from time to time. Snowspinner 19:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

The policy says "There is no excuse for such attacks on other contributors. Do not make them." Do you think it ought to be changed to "There is an excuse for such attacks on other contributors. Do not make them unless [X, Y, or Z] gives you permission."? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 20:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My opinion - No, it should not be changed. The policy should not give people excuses or ideas for how to get out of complying. They should be forced to rely on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if they want to argue that this doesn't apply to a particular situation. --Michael Snow 20:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No. I explicitly don't want to change the rule. I want to leave the current system whereby the enforcer may choose not to enforce the rule in a given instance. To put it another way, nothing in the blocking rules or the arbcom policy says that a sanction must be given. They give circumstances where a sanction may be given. No list of reasons for not giving a sanction needs to be provided. Personal attacks, whether true or not, are against the rules. They should remain so. But it should also remain the choice of the arbcom or the administrator to let things slide. Snowspinner 20:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

No list of reasons for not giving a sanction needs to be provided.—Then should this policy say, not "If you are personally attacked, you may [. . .] follow the dispute resolution process. [. . .]", but "If you are personally attacked, you may [. . .] follow the dispute resolution process, but be aware that it may be decided that the attacks were justifiable and allowed." Or perhaps that should be left to a more general page, since it applies to all policies equally: perhaps Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should say "Violations of any policies may or may not be acted upon, depending on the arbitrary whim of those charged with enforcing them." This sort of thing should be stated up front, not left as a nasty surprise for the unwary. —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 21:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The arbcom has never endorsed a personal attack. It has, arguably, failed to reprimand one, but it has never in a ruling passed a finding or principle saying that personal attacks are acceptable in any circumstance. And so your claim is still inaccurate. The claim is not "it may be decided that the attacks were justifiable and allowed." The claim is that "just becaues you submit a case to the arbcom doesn't mean they'll agree with you." Which is, I think, too obvious to need stating. Snowspinner 21:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, so it should be ". . .it may be decided that invective directed towards a user is, if accurate, not considered a personal attack." Is that right? How would you suggest explaining this line between pointed personal remarks (which are sometimes allowed) and personal attacks (which are prohibited)? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could just get rid of all the examples of personal attacks on this policy page, replacing them with "What constitutes a personal attack is left up to the discretion of this, that, and the other person." —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think you're pretty divorced from reality here - the arbcom has never made a ruling that a personal attack is allowable. So why comment on it before it happens or looks likely to happen? Snowspinner 22:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

The examples cited in this very section suggest otherwise—but perhaps you're right: maybe they don't mean "some personal attacks are acceptable"; maybe what they mean is "some personal remarks are not considered personal attacks and are therefore acceptable." (ps: Is "You're pretty divorced from reality" a personal attack? Or is it an allowable personal remark?) —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 22:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. Ask the arbcom? :) Snowspinner 22:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks are heavily dependent on context, and rules like Godwin's law have exceptions. Calling someone anti-Semitic may be a personal attack in one situation although it would be fair comment in a different setting. The whole issue requires considerable discretion and a judicious approach.

Getting into the question of whether truth is a defense is a morass, and it would have been better if Fred hadn't tried to bring it up in the Xed case. On the one hand, saying that truth is not a defense violates widely held beliefs about natural justice. On the other hand, nearly everyone making personal attacks will contend that they are "true", or subjectively believed to be true.

As I said before, personal attacks are primarily invective directed at a target, rather than statements that can be proven true or false. Fundamentally, personal attacks are actions performed with words, not assertions of fact. But the problem is that people with decent rhetorical skills can usually blur the line by giving personal attacks the form, but not the substance, of discussing the facts and the behavior rather than the person. --Michael Snow 20:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the truth a defence for personal attacks? Ofcourse not!!! A personal attack is an attack precisly because (most of the time) it is true. Suppose someone said this HIGHLY-offencive remark "You are just a dumb nigger!". Is it true? It might be, but that DOES NOT EXCUSE IT. Now this example was a little extreme, but this variation is also wrong "You are an intolerable person, and you shouldn't be on wikipedia. Now go away." It is not uncommon to see this kind of remark on talk-pages, but that don't make it better. The people who makes these kind of comments (even to the worst of trolls and vandals) should be reprimanded. Even if you yourself is attack you do not attack back. It is simply not acceptable. I'm honestly surprised that this is being discussed.

At the risk of sounding corny, the goal of this project is to do something good for humanity (ahh, crap, I did sound corny), and we all need to take the higher road. Zero-tolerance on personal attacks is the only way to go. Gkhan 22:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Another comment: -While I think that addressing an editor's motive or revealing personal details should both be regarded as attacks, correcting misrepresentations should not be. If a user claims to be someone that they are not, or to hold a POV while making edits with a clearly different POV, then I believe that it is fair for other editors to challenge or correct those false assertions, as gently as possible. - Willmcw 23:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I am currently trying to persuade some people to hold a civil discussion on Armenian Genocide, but it keeps dissolving into personal attacks. The last thing I want to see is support seemingly given to the argument that "well, he *is* a murdering so-and-so", which is already employed routinely both to justify personal attacks and to disregard the rules of rational discourse. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to justify personal attacks, but I think there is no clear definition of what is a personal attack vs accusations. If a cases can be brought to arbitration, by pretext that someone is trolling or is a vandalizer... I don't see how in such cases, calling someone a "troll" could be called a personal attack. And I think as well that the context is very important. Fadix 18:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even in those situations you can avoid personal attacks. Instead of saying "User XXX is a troll and a vandal who has contributed little or no good to wikipedia. He has vandalised articles X, Y and Z..." you say "The articles X, Y and Z have been vandalised by User XXX at times...this is not according to wikipedia policy..." and so on. You don't have to use personal attacks. Think of a courtroom, a lawyer is not allowed to use personal attacks when cross-examining a witness or accused. You stay on topic and leave ad hominem out of it, at all times (as you may have noticed, I feel strongly about this :P ) Gkhan 02:04, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

removed:

In extreme cases, you can request the attacker be blocked.

Because it was added with no discussion and a slightly misleading edit summary, and the proposal to allow sysops to block for personal attacks failed. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think the version moved around in [2] was the longer standing version anyway, so I've put it back in. Snowspinner 15:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

The part about blocking was similarly added with no discussion and a misleading edit summary, and again, the proposal to allow that failed. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It's been there for over a year - I think sheer inertia counts for more than a quibble over the discussion. Especially since there was even less clarity on policy proposals then than there is now. Snowspinner 15:11, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

And now that the proposal to allow blocking for personal attacks has been extensively discussed and has failed, it should not be there any more, or else it should be noted that blocks for personal attacks are not supported by the community. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

And months passed where nobody touched this line. Which I think is in and of itself pretty good evidence that it enjoys some support. Removing a year-old line because of an 8-month old poll is kinda silly. Snowspinner 15:18, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'm also unconvinced that the ban/block distinction was really that clear in May of 2004 - it's been a fairly recent development in my experience. Snowspinner 15:24, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Blocks for personal attacks are almost always controversial at present, though they weren't nearly as much so this time last year as I recall. The situation at present seems to be blocks for egregious offenders where they reasonably think another admin won't reverse it. We could come up with a technically accurate and structurally horrible sentence festooned with subclauses, but the introductory "look, just don't bloody do it" section is probably not the place for such a thing - David Gerard 15:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Fine, then restrict it to the undisputed facts and rules and explain the complex parts elsewhere; don't use the argument of simplicity to hide other views. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

That's why I put it down the bottom. Your current phrasing looks good to me. - David Gerard 15:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Decrufting needed

This page needs some sort of severe decrufting - something that's fundamentally a commentary on the phrase "No personal attacks" shouldn't be this long. I've tried tweaking the intro paras to be as uncompromisingly terse as possible, to bludgeon the point home. Those lists are cruft magnets, but probably needed I fear. Ideas? - David Gerard 15:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The part between Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. and the reiteration Do not make them. is about as simple as can reasonably be expected. The first list serves a valuable purpose, I agree, even if it's sometimes disregarded. The second list might be trimmed. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Profanity

Having a rather loose tongue when I get annoyed (or, I suppose, loose fingers), I often find that I let fly a curse word or two in talk page disputes. For instance, just yesterday, I said a user was "full of shit." Now, at present, "profanity directed against another contributor" is among the banned examples of a personal attack, and, indeed, in such instances I often receive a tsk tsking from either the "victim" of my vicious assault or some do-gooding third party. Now, while I would agree that profanity is, most likely, not the best way to express myself, I remain uncertain that it can be considered a "personal attack" in the strict sense. For instance, with my use of "full of shit," the same meaning could have been attained without using profanity, and would not have been a violation of policy. I could have said that my opponent was being disingenuous, for instance. Thus, the meaning of my remarks does not constitute a personal attack - it is only, apparently, the fact that I used "the s-word" that makes it a personal attack, and causes my remark to be disregarded by all good wikipedians. But this is ridiculous. Are we old women? I agree that streams of abusive profanity would be personal attacks that would deserve to be removed, but it is ridiculous that using a profanity for emphasis should, by itself, constitute a personal attack. john k 15:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I sympathize with your point, being incredibly vulgar myself, but profanity has the automatic effect of intensifying whatever the hell it is you're saying. (See?) Surely it's more offensive to call someone "full of shit" than "disingenuous". (Similarly, "You idiot" is a personal attack and "You don't know what you're talking about" might not be, although they can mean approximately the same thing.) Nickptar 15:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Telling someone that he's full of shit is a personal attack. Calling someone disingenuous is a personal attack, so there's no real distinction here.

But profanity does have an effect, on many people at least, of intensifying a statement. "I see a problem with your argument, you don't seem to take into account the case of X" is different from "your shitty proposal is flawed because you forgot about X." Here I'm demonstrating the use of profanity and other verbal cues that intensify and magnify the remark, switching the focus from the argument to the speaker's implied opinion (whether he intends to give that impression or not) of the person making it. It's impolite, it's stepping over the boundary, and it's gratuitously insulting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

As others have said, what you said was definatly a personal attack, profanity or no profanity. Saying "You are a liar and you are being insincere" or somesuch are also personal attacks, but they contain no profanity. I think most of us agree that profanity isn't a big deal, but when it is used as a personal attack, it is not ok. Gkhan 16:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

What I said is a violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith. It is not a personal attack, because it is an attack on what the person is doing on wikipedia in this particular instance, not an attack on the person as such. john k 18:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see an instance where someone was accused of making a personal attack for saying "you are being disingenuous." john k 19:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

First off, it'd be nice to see the actual discussion. Could you provide a link? But if you said someone was "full of shit", I'd say that that absolutly constitutes a personal attack. And yes, calling someone disingenuos is a personal attack aswell (stay clear of ad hominem at all times!), but it is alot less severe form. There are degrees to these things, and accusations and punishments according to that, but still, a wikipedian should stay clear of any personal attack. Gkhan 19:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Not to mention that "You are full of shit" is definitely an attack on the person, as is "You are disingenuous"; "Your edits are full of shit" and "Your edits are disingenuous" are attacks on the person's actions. I suspect all four are unacceptable. Nickptar 20:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)/Survey_on_Style-Prefixed_Honorary_Titles/Ratification is the source of the discussion. To summarize, I made a long comment about how I thought that Whig was wrong. Then, feeling that my comment was too long, I made an additional comment which said, "To summarize my main point - Whig is full of shit when he says that the vote had anything to do with whether styles were POV." So I wasn't saying Whig was generally full of shit, but full of shit in the specific circumstances. I don't think this is an ad hominem - I was attacking Whig's actions, not Whig as a person. john k 20:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. Saying "X is full of shit when he says Y" is accusing X of being disingenuous, and that is an attack on the person, because you're accusing him of a kind of dishonesty. Making an accusation of breaching good faith is in itself a personal attack. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to attack somebody's conduct in the particular thing you're disputing with the person about. Otherwise it would be a personal attack to say "You were wrong when you said that Abraham Lincoln ate children," because you're attacking the person by saying they were wrong. At any rate, if "no personal attacks" is to be construed so broadly as you suggest, then just about every dispute on wikipedia results in massive amounts of personal attacks. For instance, by these standards, telling someone to stop making personal attacks would constitute a personal attack, since you are accusing the person of violating wikipedia policy in making personal attacks. This interpretation is so broad as to make it entirely impossible to enforce the policy. I think a "personal attack" should be construed fairly narrowly in the sense of an ad hominem attack or threats. It is certainly not an ad hominem to say that the argument someone is making appears to be disingenuous, and neither is it a threat. Of the specific examples given on the page, the first three are clear examples of ad hominem, and the last three are threats. Only the profanity example does not fall into one or the other camp, although I can certainly see how we would want to avoid profanity, and I would certainly agree that it was amiss for me to use it. There is nothing on this page to suggest that accusations of bad faith consist of a personal attack. john k 03:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the no personal attacks policy as it stands is probably too broad to be of much guidance. It might make more sense to create separate "no ad hominem attacks," "no threats," and "no profanity directed against other users," since I'm not sure that these things are necessarily particularly related to one another. john k 03:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Calling someone disingenuous is a gross breach of good faith and is an unqualified personal attack. It doesn't matter how you dress it up. We don't do it on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Attacking the statement instead of the person?

Dear Wikipedians,

is the edit summary "rv vandalism, see talk" (no more, no less) considered a personal attack under this policy?

I'm strictly talking about calling a post "vandalism", not about calling a user "vandal".

Str1977 21:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

No. Calling someone a vandal is a peronal attacks, saying that a page was vandalised isn't. gkhan 21:30, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Are you aware that under your policy proposal here, Gkhan, I could officially say: 'this sentence is stupid', and it could not be considered a personal attack.--Fenice 08:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

This by the way is the edit in question [[3]], which str1977 forgot to mention.--Fenice 09:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Saying "rv vandalism, see talk" is not a personal attack whichever way you look at it (if it were so you could get blocked for vandalfighting!). Assuming that the edit wasn't vandalism (as your edit appeared not to be) it is however a serious breach of Good Faith. gkhan 09:18, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gkhan, I have already stated that I didn't use the proper term. Real "vandalism" is something different, though it was constant reverting by Fenice while misreprenting our discussion on that section. That made my kettle boil over, hence the above. However, by now it's fixed. Str1977 20:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about your dispute. I just mean that if a person calls an edit vandalism in his edit summary, when the edit isn't vandalism, it is a breach of WP:AGF. gkhan 20:51, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Though it was not a "fully-fledged vandalism", I cannot agree that it was a "well-intentioned error", since we debated the inclusion of this sentence for some time (Fenice wanted to delete it or place it in separate section), whereas I wanted to keep it. I gave arguments for that and Fenice did not agree. What made me mad was when she returned after some time and deleted it, saying "weeks of debate and no reasons for including this". Anyway, the V-word wasn't right, and since it is used far too often, I will be more careful in the future. Str1977 20:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Perception

Would it be useful to stipulate explicitly in such a policy that its implementation necessarily involves perceptions of justice, equity, and equality?

I must be forthright to say that I have not read every single sentence on this talk page, or for that matter, all the policies that are on Wikipedia. However, I have noticed consistently that in developing policy, definitions are quite important. One attempts to arrive as practical as possible the core of what constitutes a particular infraction. Then, one uses this as a framework or a basis to determine whether the particular incident necessitates a particular action. This is done through an evaluative comparison. This is intrinsically not necessarily objective, subjective, or otherwise, as perception is involved. Furthermore, this perception is initiated by choice, not necessity - it is also modulated by a variety of factors which are external to Wikipedia; complicated enough that one cannot hope to formulate a policy which is completely fail-safe. However, it is noble that Wikipedia provides forums and various other mechanisms to get close to achieving this ideal.

As much as one would like to formulate a "no personal attacks" policy that is broadly applicable, I am not sure if this policy should primarily strive to answer "yes" or "no". Perhaps it would be judicious to say that personal attacks are highly/strongly/vehemently discouraged, and that people who choose to engage in personal attacks in any form are subject and held to responsibility for their actions. The policy then stipulates a number of things which people should be conscientious of if they choose to make such remarks. These would include at minimum all the points which have already been discussed and summarized on the policy page at the moment. The idea is to present these in a manner which emphasizes the negative consequences carrying out a "personal attack" and how this is detrimental and contrary to the aims of this project and the individual.

To foster an effective "no personal attacks" policy, one does not need to say "no" explicitly. Instead, one presents a situation where it is highly undesirable to do so because of the weight of the consequences. This will lead to behaviours which ultimately will serve a "no personal attacks" policy, but in a manner which is still all inclusive. There will inevitably be Wikipedians who would not want a policy which states an explicit "no" for "personal attacks". From these perceptions, the complexity of Wikipedia does not warrant and cannot support a policy which appears objective and classifies actions and consequences in black and white. Hence, the reason why there is some reservation towards such an explicit "no" policy.

There are situations where a want or need of delivering reciprocacy will occur. What we can reasonably assume here is that such a choice is rational from the perception of the Wikipedian, and hence their choice to choose a specific behaviour online can be held accountable with respect to this policy. Of course, this is complicated by the fact that the diversity of Wikipedia users is so large. This creates a situation where the multitudinous perceptions of justice, equity, and equality will be at conflict with each other - especially situations where "personal attacks" may seem justified. What this policy can do is state the prescence of this perception explicity - (complementary to existing "no personal attacks" policies) and illustrate that initiating a "personal attack" invites unnecessary complexity, problems, or even burden on the part of Wikipedia, and Wikipedian for the reasons given.

For a "no personal attacks" policy to be effective, it is highly necessary to recognize the needs of the project as a whole, and the needs of the individual. If both are aware of the perceptions involved, then we can reasonably trust that it will reach an equilibrium where the policy can reasonably grow and foster, and that in cases where there are infringments of it, it can still be addressed effectively by the systems that have been built up over the experience and lifespan of the project.

I would like to state that this is only an opinion, one which may be flawed, but one which I think contains ideas which could be adapted or modulated so it can improve the current policy on "no personal attacks". I hope the result of presenting this would foster an evaluative dialogue, one which perhaps could improve the community of this great online project even further. --HappyCamper 14:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ammendment

Note: this has been cross posted to WP:NPA, WP:BP and WP:AN#Personal attacks on controversial pages.

I would like to propose that the following message box be added to articles deemed controversial and where there is a history of editors making inflammatory remarks and personal attacks:

The very first article I would add this to is Jihad. Last year I had my first taste of just how bad things could get, now after a year I have gone back and found the article in just as bad (if not worse) a state with even more inflammatory comments and personal attacks which have caused editing to come to an almost complete halt. Warnings do not work here, with at least one user being blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR by User:SlimVirgin, but who has just created a sockpuppet account and also started editing anonymously. I feel that the only way to deal with this sort of bad faith is to give a global warning on the top of the talk page and then start blocking those who feel the need to make personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I support this. A number of Islam-related talk pages have been reduced to chaos recently by anon IPs, sockpuppets, and some regular users making personal attacks. We can block the ones who've made no useful contributions for disruption, but we can't block editors who've contributed properly in the past. Even short blocks of a couple of hours until they'd calmed down would help a lot. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:47, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

my only concern is that this blocking standard is highly subjective. Admins involved in the dispute (broadly defined) should be discrouaged from administering these blocks and the blocks should be kept short (<4 hours). This link is Broken 01:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. These issues should go into the policy ammendment however, not in the messagebox itself. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I realise this is going to sound bad, but these policy changes require modifications to two policies. As such, it's going to make discussion hard to follow if we discuss it on three locations! Can I suggest we use WP:AN to discuss this issue? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consequences

I've changed consequences to mention that remove personal attacks is not policy. One editor misinterpreted it as policy after reading the previous version of this section, with adverse consequences (his edits became disruptive and he was blocked before he found out he was in the wrong). The section wasn't responsible for his behavior, but it did provide him with a false belief that he had a defensible basis in policy for his behavior.

If anyone has a problem with the change, do please reword or revert and discuss here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 9 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)

If you have been directed to this page

People are often directed to this page when they are perceived as having made a personal attack. I think the page could be clearer about suggesting actions for someone to take. For example:

If you have been directed to this page, then this likely means that someone has taken something you said as a personal attack. Rather than being defensive, please consider doing one or more of the following:

• Think hard about why someone might have found your remarks to be a personal attack;
• Edit your previous comments (e.g. address the content or behaviour, rather than generalizing);
• Apologize for causing offence, even if it was unintentional.

On the other hand, perhaps this would be better as a template to be left on user pages. I was surprised to find no "no personal attacks" template at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace.

Also, shouldn't this page refer to WP:CIVIL somewhere?

Bovlb 14:53:28, 2005-07-11 (UTC)

Personal comments to users in article talk pages

"Comment on content, not on the contributor."

My understanding from reading this policy is that personal comments on article talk pages qualify as personal attacks. Personal comments should be entered in a user's talk page. Any personal comments/attacks on article talk pages and personal attacks on user talk pages can be removed by anyone. --AI 09:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I found this reference which further supports my opinion.

"If you have opinions about other contributors as people, they don't belong there — or frankly, anywhere on Wikipedia. Wikipedia prospers on people working together toward improving articles. Anything else – especially attacks directed specifically at users – detracts from the wonderful thing that we are creating here." Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks

I dont think this a policy, but it is based on Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --AI 19:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)