Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks

Archives
Archive 1 Poll 2004 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 See also the talk pages of the subpages
Subpages
current list of subpages
Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Death threats Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Extension

What is not a personal attack?

Could we say something here about things that can feel like but are not personal attacks? Chrisrus (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what in particular did you have in mind? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Like maybe for example, when one says to the other "You are wrong about this, and this logic you're using is bad." That can feel like a personal attack, and many times people respond my saying "Quit attacking me! Go read NOPERSONALATTACKS! Chrisrus (talk) 16:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I see. This might make sense to add as a section or subsection under "What is considered to be a personal attack". However, we would first need to brainstorm some more examples that might be included there, or develop a general paragraph about what isn't a personal attack - just this single example doesn't really merit a new section. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start, feel free to edit:

Not a personal attack

Sometimes, attacks on your ideas can feel like a personal attack. Here are some example of statements that can get an editor's back up, but are not personal attacks:

1. "You're wrong."
2. "Your logic is faulty."
3. "Your edits are arbitrary"
4. "You're being disruptive"
5. "You're editing outside your area of expertise"
6. "You're incompetent"
7. "Your edits have been extremely unhelpful"
8. "Your edits destroy value"
9. "You haven't read the relevant reliable sources"
10. "You have absolutely no interest in reliable sources"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerographica (talk • contribs)

• Actually, some of these are improper personal remarks. (Namely the last 5.) But adding lists of possible acceptable and unacceptable remarks will not help much. The lists could go on and on and on. Then the argument would be "I don't see that particular remark on the list of unacceptable comments, therefore it is okay for me to say it." Or "I simply said ..." Or a supposedly acceptable remark could be but in "scare quotes" with the intent of disparaging the other editor. WP:WIAPA is clear enough. It starts with "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion...." and closes with "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Let's leave it at that.--S. Rich (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

If it's relevant to the content...then it's not personal. If somebody burns a book...and I refer to them as a "book burner"...then it's not an "improper personal remark"...it's an appropriate and accurate description of their action's impact on the content. And it's especially relevant and necessary if we're in a public library. Right now concentrated benefits and diffuse costs redirects to tragedy of the commons. But there are absolutely no reliable sources to support the redirect. When content is misplaced...or destroyed...or misdirected...then it has to be the result of some action by one or more editors. In this case...you, Rubin and Bwilkins‎. What would I stand to gain from personally attacking you guys? A few kicks? What I care about is the content...which is why I care about accurately describing the impact that your actions have on the content. And you sure don't want your actions to be accurately described. If I willfully ignored RS and edited way outside my area of expertise then I sure wouldn't want my actions to be accurately described either. --Xerographica (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

"If it's relevant to the content...then it's not personal." So, if somebody claims I'm rewriting quotes, & says I'm being "peevish" & "puerile", it's not an attack, so long as it's about the content of the page? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

It's negative feedback for sure. Is all negative feedback a personal attack? If I tell you that you're being overly sensitive...is that a personal attack? If I tell you that you're too thin skinned...is that a personal attack? If I tell you to shine it on...is that a personal attack? Also, those are good words, in the sense that most people would have to look them up. So I think that we have to take into account the public education value of their use. --Xerographica (talk) 21:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

So it's only a personal attack if I say it to somebody else, then? Good to know I'm being judged by the same standard. Also, I had no need to look them up, so I'm not seeing "educational value". TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

No, it's also a personal attack if you say it to yourself. Er, what? I really didn't follow your reply. --Xerographica (talk) 01:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

"Outing?"

Does speculating that a user may have a close personal connection to one of the authors that they cite, and therefore have a conflict of interest, count as a personal attack? If it is based on obviously well-established evidence in the user's edits, of course.
A certain article at the time it was first written contained a reference to a book by a particular author, but the publisher's website indicated that the book was published more than two weeks after the Wikipedia article first appeared.
I of course am not now and have not in the past insinuated that the user is the author, but merely that the user may be connected to the author in some way. What is the Wikipedia consensus on this type of issue? elvenscout742 (talk) 05:34, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

In order for our conflict of interest guidelines to work we have to be able to label edits that are suspicious. Out-and-out outing (saying an editor *is* some specific person when they have not announced it) is out, and of course how COI warnings are phrased can be tricky. But simply identifying a potential problem -- the appearance of bias -- is not a personal attack. DreamGuy (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Competence vs good faith

Recently I was blocked for a week for referring to two editors and one admin as incompetent. Here's third party evidence of their *insert euphamism here* ... User_talk:Bwilkins#Concentrated_benefits_and_diffuse_costs_2. I also referred to the two editors in question as Value Destroying Editors (VDEs).

When I asked all the editors involved to copy and paste exactly which passage from this entry was applicable to my behavior...they were unable to do so. That's because my behavior has focused ENTIRELY on what the editors in question have been doing...and NOT on who the editors are as people.

So if people can be blocked on the basis of unspoken rules...then clearly there's a problem. If the unspoken rule is not important enough to be "spoken" in this entry...then the admins need to be disciplined. If the unspoken rule is actually important enough...then "speaking" it in this entry will prove its importance. --Xerographica (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It's not an unspoken rule. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:31, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Willfully ignoring reliable sources

Recently I was blocked for two weeks for saying that another editor was "willfully ignoring reliable sources"... User_talk:Xerographica/Archive_3#Courtesy. So it turns out that it is a personal attack to say that another editor is "willfully ignoring reliable sources". The question is...is it a personal attack to say that another editor is simply "ignoring reliable sources"? This entry really needs to reflect these unspoken rules so that editors know what is...and isn't...a personal attack. That would certainly be an improvement. Because just now an editor warned me that I was personally attacking another editor because I simply asked him whether he had read the material.

But it turns out that it's NOT a personal attack to say that another editor is being disruptive. So it would be a HUGE improvement if this article could say..."rather than saying that an editor is "incompetent", it's politically correct to say that they are being "disruptive"." --Xerographica (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's better to go to WP:3O for help rather than—on your own—trying to stop of couple of not-so-knowledgeable editors from trashing an article. Turning a two-party conversation into a three-party conversation, where the third party is neutral, can make a lot of difference. LittleBen (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, WP:3O is for a dispute between two editors. Because there are a few editors that disagree with Xerographica's approach, WP:DRN or WP:RFC would be the next step in the dispute resolution process. 72Dino (talk) 14:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

LittleBen, thanks for the suggestion. The thing is...outside of obvious vandalism...I would have no idea what a good faith trashed physics article resembled...just like most outside editors would have no idea what a good faith trashed econ article resembled. If more outside editors were familiar with economics (due to having read econ RS's) then the articles wouldn't have been trashed in the first place.

I posted an ANI...Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive784#Disruptive_editing_-_Rich.2C_Rubin_and_SPECIFICO...but none of the admins were able/willing to comment on the actual evidence. Given that I've participated on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics for some time now...I know of all the active participants...so I know that any article RFC's would yield at most 5 editors...3 of which are the ones that I posted the ANI about.

Here are some of my recent difficulties with these editors...Talk:Foot_voting, Talk:Preference revelation, Talk:Entry_(economics), Talk:X-inefficiency, Talk:Tax...the list could go on and on.

What makes the problem more difficult is that I keep getting blocked for giving these other editors negative feedback on their actions. It seems that Rich interprets any form of negative feedback to be a personal attack. And, given that I've been blocked several times now, the admins clearly agree with his interpretation of the personal attack policy. So I think it would really improve this policy if it specifically mentioned that any form of negative feedback is considered a personal attack. --Xerographica (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"Too many foreign editors" type statements acceptable?

Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

Are the "Too many foreign editors" or "This is the English Wikipedia.... take/go... to your own wikipedia" type statements covered anywhere in WP:NPA WP:CIVILITY etc.? If not do we want to add text which says "please don't comment negatively on the real or percieved foreigness of individual editors or the presence of non-English speaking editors in the project in general" - I'm not suggesting a stick, just a polite request not to say things like this please. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)