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

Update

This is where we currently stand:

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.

The problem with this is that as pointed out above "COIs (perceived, or real) have been used in the past as personal attacks, by addressing a person's affiliation rather than the strength of his/her arguments". The stigma of being branded a conflicted editor is one of a number of strong disincentives to disclose and one that is routinely [ab]used in discussions to gain the upper hand. There is zero benefit in pointing out a conflict without identifying how it relates to the current topic and to do so is to comment on the contributor rather than the content. Indeed it is more often than not inflammatory as conflicts of interest are usually associated with unethical behaviour, only it's also currently a blind spot as an editor has little recourse if they are accused (or indeed, attacked) in this fashion. Ultimately the undermining of an editor's argument detracts from their enjoyment of editing, particularly when many consider the associated implication offensive. The following change (from an earlier suggestion) would be a significant improvement in this regard, giving victims of such attacks some limited refuge:

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and it's relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.

It is a similar concept to requiring the {{COI}} tag be justified with some other policy violation (e.g. WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:AUTO) and would be another step on the road to elevating WP:COI to policy. It both offers some protection to editors who voluntarily disclose (thus encouraging such disclosures) and makes the possibility of requiring disclosures as policy far more reasonable. Essentially it would require comments like this:

• John may be supporting the removal of the criticism section because he's an Acme employee.

Rather than:

• John [should be ignored because he]'s an Acme employee.

Does anyone have any better suggestions as to how to achieve this aim? -- samj _in^out 02:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As there was has been no feedback over the last week or so I've updated it and taken the liberty of adding a link to the "ad hominem" article which I think is pertinent and informative. It now reads:

Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and it's relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.

The only other potential improvement would be to drop the leading relevant but it reads reasonably well as is. -- samj _in^out 12:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, there was an errant "'" that was just removed by another editor. -- samj _in^out 14:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

see also

Just removed all the links that would not to WP content or other guidelines. It seems inappropriate to link guidelines to essays, as guidelines are consensus and essays are minority views. If we do link essays, what are the criteria for which to link and which to exclude? Better to have none. Gerardw (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Quick request

Can someone add WP:RFC/Us to the list of pages where it really is okay to "comment on the contributor"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz has recently been removing criticism of himself at an RFC/U on the grounds that even the mildest criticism (e.g., my own comment said that he had no more than the usual level of skill in defusing drama) is a violation of this policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Done. While editors should still be civil and back any accusations with diffs, commenting on the contributor's editing and behavior is the very purpose of RFC/U. --Ronz (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Request

In the ongoing debate here, IP User:66.217.176.2 made what I would consider an uncivil comment about his opponents. Does this merit warning? If so, will someone address it? I'm involved, so... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Appears this was unnecessary. Looking at the IP talk page, this seems to have already been addressed. Withdraw this. Thx. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 15:51, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Make sentence parallel?

"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."

"Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted. Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow, typically starting with 24 hours."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have a feeling that the two sentences are not parallel or do not match up. The first quote states that epithets based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, politics, ethnicity, people with disabilities, and et cetera directed against another contributor counts as a personal attack. Now, look at the second quote, which states that "Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted. Less personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow, typically starting with 24 hours." Since there is no "et cetera" or any mention of "sex" or "gender" in the second quote, does that mean that a personal attack based on gender on another user does not warrant as a reason to block the attacker?

Can I go ahead and make the sentences parallel? I hope it's all right with you all. I don't want to change the original meaning, just making it parallel in sentence structure. I'm a wikignome, by the way. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I've manually restored the edit (I think). Gerardw (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Kaldari (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Is it considered a personal attack, when a user, removes something such as a sockpuppetry investigation hosted by a user, and then they put in their edit summary "lol at this laughable epic fail"? Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 14:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This page is intended for discussion of the guidelines, not specific cases; WP:WQA or WP:ANI would be more appropriate. Rather than give you a bureaucratic runaround, however: In this context [1]: No. While its not the most polite comment ever but its not realistic to expect such from a user just taken to SPI. Best to drop the stick and move on. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok thank you. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 09:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Nutshell

"Comment on content, not the contributor" is a good principle and rightfully included in this policy...but it cannot be described as a nutshell of this page. Indeed, the most logical nutshell here is the page's title. I attempted to change it but was reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I agree with the reversion. I actually think that you make a logical point, but here is the way that I look at it. Policy pages like this one are of the greatest usefulness for editors who are somewhat clueless. They often don't read past the nutshell. A nutshell that tells them not to "make personal attacks" tells them nothing more than what the title of the page does. In contrast, the content/contributor version, even though it really isn't a page summary, tells the reader how to avoid personal attacks. Even better, it tells them in a memorable way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The "people don't read past the nutshell" is actually the reason I made that change - see for example this exchange. I'm open to suggestions on an alternative, but "content not contributor" is too simplistic, especially if we're assuming that's all that's being read. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. At this point, I think it's best to wait to hear what other editors think, about the points below, as well as this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the initial comment - it's a good principle, but not a good nutshell. In fact I think the title of the page itself is the best nutshell, and as such we don't need to crowd the page with an explicit nutshell box.--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree the nutshell should not repeat the title. A four to five line precis would make a better nutshell.Nobody Ent 10:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, a four or five-line nutshell would be a lead paragraph. Again, no need to put it in a box.--Kotniski (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. Concur. So either no nutshell or 'content not contributor,' and I'm fine with either. Nobody Ent 11:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I favor "Comment on content, not the contributor" as the nutshell because it provides succinct and memorable and helpful advice. If that text fails some kind of correctness test because it's not actually a precise of the policy, the wording of the policy should be fixed because "content not contributor" is the standard advice. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I also support keeping the old nutshell text. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Kaldari (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It is "broke" - so much so that I would advocate the complete absence of a nutshell over retaining the current wording. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious as to what particularly about it is troubling, if you care to elucidate -- that contributors should be commented upon or that comments on contributions make be personal attacks, or something else? Nobody Ent 02:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Both. To take a deliberately simplistic example: if I say "Nobody Ent is a good guy", I'm clearly commenting on the contributor not the content, and am just as clearly not attacking you. Conversely, saying something like "Your edits are shit and your article should be used as toilet paper for dogs" is commenting on content, but is also a fairly clear attack. Again, though it's a decent principle in general, if we're assuming that it's the only thing on this page being read we're sending the wrong message. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That make sense, support removal and having no nutshell. (I like how you used two true examples in explanation.) Nobody Ent 03:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Related edits

I'd like to ask:

• About [2], why delete mention of legal threats? I realize that they are not quite as personal as death threats, but it seems to me that they still might be part of NPA.
• Similarly, why delete the mention of community bans? They can arise at WP:AN and WP:ANI, not just through arbitration.
• And about [3], why remove the statement that saying that something is a personal attack is not itself automatically a personal attack? Leaving that statement in can help ward off some circular arguments.

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

There's another policy that rightfully covers legal threats, because while they're problematic they're not clearly an attack. Your point about banning is well-taken, but in the context I removed it, it was clearly specifying ArbCom bans, not discussing the potential for AN/ANI bannings. The last sentence you mention was so convoluted that the "circular argument" point was not being made, IMO; if you can think of a clearer way to reword that, by all means re-add it. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I took a stab at the later. Nobody Ent 20:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

To whom does this rule apply?

While I agree with this rule in theory, there are some people that are considered universally crazy (for example, conservative nuts like NYyankees51) who surely aren't protected under this rule, right? --66.68.86.111 (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)