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

NPA question over mental disorders

To add up to the previus section, I would like to ask if comments such as "you suffer from obsession " or "it turns you are bipolar" or similar, should be considered as personal attacks or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

It all depends. Of course we would prefer that everyone was beautifully behaved and there was no need to refer to obsessions or other disruption, so the simplistic answer is that these examples would be attacks. You knew that. However, life follows a rocky road from time to time and there is always the possibility that calling a spade a spade would be best. Johnuniq (talk) 08:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Johnuniq I believe that experssions that have to do with mental disorders are somehow undrestimated and not wel described in the policy. For instance, other expressions like calling a fat person "fat" seem not ot be used as often on Wikipedia talk pages. In contrary, mentioning the gender of a female person in a discussion seems to be overused based on researches. For example "Listen, woman" may be considered as personal attack even thought the person in question may actually be a woman or even defne themselves as female. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no reason to think that the size of a person affects their editing so mentioning fatness never arises. Some editors think there are different male/female approaches particularly with regard to some topics. However, I have never observed anyone say "Listen, woman" on Wikipedia (or in real life, for that matter). What I have seen is obsessed editors who cannot leave a topic alone despite pushback. Several such people can currently be seen at Talk:Sarah Jane Brown, and other cases arise periodically. Sometimes the issue reaches Arbitration. Obsessive editors can be a problem, although it is rarely desirable to mention that term. Instead, standard procedure is to refer to the editing and describe what are perceived to be problems with that. If you have a proposal to change the policy, please state it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Johnuniq I don't have a concrete answer to this. I noticed the discussion above and I mainly added my comments on it. I think the first line of the policy "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc." describes the problem under the term "disability". My question is: Should we add: "physical or medical" in parentheses? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The more of these little qualifiers are added to a statement, the less clear the message becomes and the less likely people are to read it. They also tend to encourage a "legalistic" argumentative attitude, where fine points of the words overshadow the main idea. The main idea here is that editors should discuss editing the page rather than try to humiliate each other. All disabilities are physical or mental, so listing those doesn't help. It obscures the main idea a little bit and makes us look silly. Maybe it even makes us appear obsessed with disabilities. If you'd like to persuade people to discuss constructively rather than try to humiliate, there are probably many more-effective ways than tweaking the wording of a policy. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

My edit was just reverted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Searching of the word "obsession" in user talk I found more than 4,000 uses of the word including expressions such as " please, keep your fanaticism or obsession with your idol(s) to an acceptable level.", "Your obsession with it has crossed the line from annoyance", "Your obsession with Westervelt won't correct your business failure", "why did you have to hit Wikipedia with your obsession" and many others. This shows that easily medical terms can be used to insult or perform attacks to editors. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Magioladitis: As iridescent pointed out to you in the ARCA request that prompted you to come here, "obsession" is not inherently a medical term. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

As Iridescent also pointed out in ARCA request that prompted you to come here, the fact that you had to manually pipe [[Obsessive–compulsive disorder|obsession]] both there and here demonstrates that you know that "obsession" and "obsessive–compulsive disorder" are two different things and are intentionally fabricating evidence of a non-existent personal attack to try to deflect attention from your own disruption. (If you genuinely don't know what "obsession" means, the OED definition is An idea, image, or influence which continually fills or troubles the mind; a compulsive interest or preoccupation; the fact or state of being troubled or preoccupied in this way; I don't think anyone who's ever had any dealings with you would dispute that "a compulsive interest or preoccupation" is an accurate and neutral description of your fixation with running scripts and bots.) ‑ Iridescent 14:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• Nikkimaria, Iridescent Hey. I am not relating my question here with the other discusion. I said that the use of this word may be interupted as personal attack. I believe that the use of these words sometimes is unintentional but they still may pose a problem the same way a gynecologist's question to a female person "do you and your boyfriend use protection?" is sexiest but no many people realise it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

• As for my revert: Policies too ground in specifics result in wikilawyering. There is no need to clarify what types of diabilities, it prohibits against all of them. If you start breaking down and listing types of disability, you will at some point have an editor go 'That isnt one of the disabilities listed'. So no, it needs no clarification. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
• This discussion is a non-starter. We shouldn't unnecessarily medicalize ordinary English words such as "obsession". And Magioladitis - you'd be well advised to stop doing stuff like this and your attempt on AN to have all instances of "cunt" and "pussy" rev-del'd from Wikipedia, and concentrate on helpful editing of articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Just a remark: In the Greek Wikipedia version el:Εμμονή (Obsession) redirects to el:Ιδεοψυχαναγκαστική διαταραχή (OCD). It's interesting in English the word seems to be used in a sligtly different way. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Both the English Wikipedia and the Greek Wikipedia are not dictionaries. You could not reasonable assess how the word is used based upon a redirect on an encyclopedia. We have very few articles on Wikipedia that merely define a word because of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. I am not fluent in Greek, but based upon the translation, there obviously appears to be a comparable word to obsession in Greek that does not mean Obsessive Compulsive Disorder: wikt:el:εμμονή. Regardless, I fail to see the relevance to this discussion. Mkdw ^talk 23:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Mkdw. True. Thre is no relevance.My examples were bad and the point was missed. I just wondered if we should add explicitelly the words "physical and mental" next to disabulities because sometimes we tend to forget the last one. Anyway. I am covered by BenKovitz's reply. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The bottom line is that you initiated this discussion because someone said at ARCA that you have an "obsession" and you chose to take the worst possible interpretation of that remark and believe they were saying that you have OCD. No reasonable person would make that assumption, just as they would not interpret my saying to my daughter "You're crazy to wear that sweater" to mean that I thought she had a mental disorder. Drop the damn stick, please, and walk away, this is going nowhere and will not result in a change in WP:NPA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

• I've made a first draft of a user essay, related to the questions raised here. User:Geo Swan/opinions/Are you NUTS...

  comments welcome here or User talk:Geo Swan/opinions/Are you NUTS...

  Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

A somewhat related topic to personal attacks, hate speech (with discussion link below)

I posted something about the fact that there were no warning templates for hate speech or use of racial epithets at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Thus far, I have received no responses.

If anyone has an opinion on whether or not such behavior should have their own user talk page templates, I would like to hear them. The discussion is here. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 03:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. should not be a "personal attack"

Comparing editors to Nazis, Communists, Terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons is listed among vastly more serious attacks, such as: doxxing, Death threats, Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality.

It doesn't seem fitting at all that on an open platform you cannot compare and hold an adminstator's decision accountable to people/ideologies that did similar things on a larger scale, i find this rule to be National Socialistic in spirit. ReaIestTruth (talk) 17:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@ReaIestTruth: . So you're ok being called an anti-administrator Nazi? Toddst1 (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@ReaIestTruth: Nazis are not welcome on this site and should not be welcomed anywhere else (Nazis can stop being shitheads at any time but non-whites, homosexuals, and many other groups Nazis hate can't or don't need to). For that reason, calling someone a Nazi is unacceptable.

If someone calls a user a communist, nine times out of ten it is an ad hominem attack meant to imply that their views are not worthwhile on the basis of their political beliefs. Thus it falls under derogatory phrases based on [...] political beliefs. That's not even addressing the issue that often when someone calls a user a communist, that user isn't a communist, the attacker is just convinced that anyone left of their favorite right-wing politician is a full-blown Marxist. It's pretty much the same deal for the other attacks you've suggested shouldn't count as attacks.

Now, doesn't Nazism count as a political belief? Doesn't really matter, Nazis can go get fucked with coral -- and that's why you can't go around calling non-Nazis Nazis. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Adding protection for gender identity

The policy currently prohibits Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. but does not explicitly include gender identity. Many anti-discrimination policies now include gender identity, including the Wikimedia Foundation, Walmart, Harvard University, etc., etc., etc. The Canadian Human Rights Act has been amended to include gender identity protection as well. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 01:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

@WanderingWanda: . So if someone referred to someone who wishes to be referred to as they/them/it as he or she, are you saying that would be a personal attack? Toddst1 (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Accidental misgendering happens, even between cisgendered individuals. No matter what the alt-right's favorite psychologist thinks, no one is looking to go "that cismale-rapist-pig called me the wrong gender after I deliberately dressed androgynously to fool him! Mwahahaha, now he'll go to jail!" There are, however, some people who view any situation besides their culture's understanding of masculine males and feminine females as sufficient reason to attack someone.

Regardless, if someone makes it clear that they identify as a particular gender, deliberately identifying them otherwise after it has been brought to one's attention could be a deliberate attack. "But I know their real gender is different" would violate WP:OUTING. This would still be true even if gender worked exactly the way conservative evangelicals wanted it to. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This is pretty much what I was going to write. :) As always, Assume Good Faith (and Use Common Sense) would apply. If Goofus accidentally calls Gallant a girl, that's a mistake, not an attack. But if Goofus repeatedly, maliciously hectors Gallant by calling him a girl, even after being corrected, sure, I'd call that a personal attack.

Adding "gender identity" would also cover, for example, transphobic slurs.

In the end I predict the tangible effect of this change would be small (any hypothetical transphobic personal attack I can think of is still, well, a personal attack, so is essentially covered by the policy as is.) But it's still good to continue to affirm, as best we can, that Wikipedia is not a place where attacks, discrimination, or harassment are welcome. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 05:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It's been one week and no one has objected. Change implemented. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 21:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Changed per reasons I gave. Discrimination based on gender identity is not just about transphobia. Female-identified editors on Wikipedia have been attacked simply for identifying as female. By that, I mean because the men's rights/gamergate type of editors know their sex/gender or what they have been told by the women of their sex/gender anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

In addition to the "gender identity" link being changed from transphobia to gender identity, the "sexual orientation" link was also recently changed from homophobia to sexual orientation (for similar stated reasons.) I have slightly mixed feelings: if the point of the paragraph is to educate people about prejudice, direct links to articles about prejudice might be more conducive to that. But in the end I agree it's probably better to err on the side of being broad and inclusive, so I won't argue against either change. WanderingWanda (they/them) (t/c) 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• I oppose the proposed change per the above concern that it would easily allow abuse to target conservative or religious editors. Flyer22 Reborn's argument sounds like WP:ILIKEIT. Linking to articles about actual harassment seems like a good compromise, but in my opinion it's still WP:COMMONSENSE that homophobia and transphobia against other editors are unacceptable. See WP:CREEP. Finally, my favorite option would be removing the list altogether because there are endless forms of attacks for reasons unrelated to editing Wikipedia. See WP:GAME. wumbolo ^^^ 19:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't slander conservatives and religious people that way. Just being conservative doesn't mean one has to be a bigot, and I'd say that if someone is both religious and a bigot, they've missed the point of religion. There's an overly vocal minority of bigots who like to abuse conservatism and religion to justify their hatred, and the current wording is a problem for them but that's the point.

While one's gender identity and sexual orientation are irrelevant to editing, not only those bigots but some trolls believe that those elements are sufficient reason to exclude someone's good-faith efforts to improve the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You are the one who singled out conservatives and religious people. even if gender worked exactly the way conservative evangelicals wanted it to. (emphasis mine) I'm not going to respond to your No true Scotsman defense of religion. wumbolo ^^^ 09:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Stating that my argument "sounds like I WP:ILIKEIT" is silliness. For the same reason we don't engage in that type of egg linking in articles, we shouldn't engage in it in our policies and guidelines. You speak of common sense. Well, common sense is to not have "gender identity" pipelinked to transphobia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I pointed to a specific group noted for enforcing rules based on their views on sex, gender, and sexuality, yes; you expanded it to all conservatives and all religious people. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

It is not relevant whether religious people or conservatives want to monopolize views on gender (that they do is your opinion). What's relevant is that a large number of people, who are religious or conservative, do not share your view on gender and misgendering. Even if they don't persistently and purposefully misgender someone, they are vulnerable to accusations of personal attacks. WP:GAMING this policy is not allowed, but surely it's difficult to understand someone's motivation in this contentious topic. wumbolo ^^^ 21:28, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

And yet you were the one who made it about conservatives in general and religious people in general.

Don't assume that non-transphobes don't know what accidents are. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about a scenario where an editor would be abused, and said that the editor would be conservative or religious because that's how you described those with unconventional views on gender. This policy would not help anyone (bad-faith transphobes will use other ways of bullying) except encourage non-transphobic editors to be bullies against conservative evangelicals, as you put it the 1st time. wumbolo ^^^ 09:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It's subjective

The first line reads "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack". This means almost anything can be considered a personal attack. Anyone can be accused of a personal attack for any reason. It's an arbitrary rule applied arbitrarily and inconsistently. That's bad news for everyone. If it were merely a slap on the wrist, it might be OK. But if people in power were to use this an excuse to block or eliminate people from Wikipedia, that would create a chilling effect, discouraging people from speaking freely. Speaking freely is necessary to debate and consensus. That's why there are "Talk" pages. For talking. For discussing. If people feel they can't speak freely, they will censor themselves (and each other). They will hesitate to address problems, because they will be afraid of being punished. Very little would get accomplished.

There's no such thing as a perfect rough draft. If people didn't make mistakes, there would be no need for editing. Mistakes are not some terrible sin that warrant punishment. Far from it. Mistakes are part of the process of learning. Where it gets to be a problem is when people don't learn from their mistakes. Then they make no progress. They go in circles. But even in these situations, they hurt themselves more than others. Wikipedia should encourage people to fail just as it encourages people to be bold. It should encourage people to speak up to solve problems. Otherwise problems don't get solved. It's no wonder Wikipedia has a hard time retaining editors. These are the same kinds of problems that exist in the real world in toxic workplaces where bad people thrive and good people are driven out. In those workplaces, people are not allowed to speak freely because they fear some kind of reprisal or punishment. Such places work against themselves. Maybe there should be revisions to this policy. Maybe this policy ought not to be used as a reason for blocking.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

What events inspired you to make this comment? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A fair question but irrelevant. I'm not interested in getting anyone in trouble. Especially me.
Vmavanti (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Harassment, mocking or otherwise disrespecting someone on the basis of gender identification and pronoun preference

In the light of some of the unexpected arguments put forward yesterday on ANI and then AN with regard to whether someone openly mocking pronoun preference by either deliberately targeting an contributor using other pronouns, stating they are doing so, or deliberately using fictional pronouns (like "Peh", used in comic books but by no living person), it appears that NPA needs a supporting consensus and more explicit wording as to how bad hounding someone based on their gender identification needs to get, before it stops being "acceptable normal discussion" on Wikipedia and is instead treated as harassment with commensurate sanctions. Surprisingly it does not appear sufficient that NPA states that it covers "gender identity" as even in egregious cases there appears to be room to debate whether any of this is sanctionable, even when the protagonist openly states they are being deliberately disrepectful.

Does anyone want to offer suggestions at to how wording of a RFC might usefully work, or indeed want to offer a different approach to establishing a consensus? Clearly, this is not about expecting sanctions for people making mistakes by calling someone "he" or "she" by accident, or forcing anyone to use non standard pronouns when if in doubt they can avoid pronoun use or use the accepted plain English dictionary standard singular 'they'. However a new consensus can make it clear that any pattern of deliberate misgendering or mocking someone based on gender identification or pronoun preferences does fall under the NPA policy.

FYI: As an entirely separate point, there have been moves to add preferred pronouns in user preferences and in signatures to make it easy for participants in discussions to see, but as a practice for talk pages this has no consensus or expectation for how it might be adopted if it does get more widely promoted as a user preference.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Appreciate the sentiment but this is a very subjective and rare occurrence. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it before the recent brouhaha involving grammar linguistic pedants. IAR covered it then and would do if it happened again (unlikely). - Sitush (talk) 09:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A contributor's gender identification is not linguistic pedantry. If you believe NPA is mistaken to have gender identification in it because it will never be enforced, then propose that it is removed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
    • No, but the choice of alternate words (xe, thon etc) was. - Sitush (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
      • The use of "thon" was clearly bizarre. Check it up. Nobody should be targeted this way, yet we still have people defending use of bizarre pronouns, even entirely fictional ones, to refer to living people rather than actually respecting their identification. --Fæ (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
        • But I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill and yet again it supports the impression, rightly or wrongly, that some people hold of you seeking victimhood and being "professionally offended". Virtually all of your time on en-WP nowadays seems to be spent arguing about gender issues, not building the encyclopedaedia, and I've seen calls for your topic ban to be reinstated. That will probably happen unless you adjust your editing habits. One-of events do not usually justify changes in policy. - Sitush (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Helping move Wikipedia forward to a more gender inclusive environment seems pretty important to many people. Improving NPA is part of that. If you are interested in my volunteer projects where my volunteer time goes, take a look at my user page rather than promoting false myths about me, thanks. --Fæ (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
            • rather than promoting false myths about me - diff, please. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
              • Here you are. On the other hand you are hijacking this generic discussion about improving NPA to make multiple negative allegations about me, can you either remove those statement or support them all with diffs? Thanks so much. --Fæ (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
                • Thanks for the diff. I would echo every comment Sitush made there (I haven't seen calls for a topic ban, but I could understand such a call being made). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
                  • here's one - Sitush (talk) 11:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
                  • Give this some context, this thread is about improving our consensus view of NPA with respect to "harassment, mocking or otherwise disrespecting someone on the basis of gender identification and pronoun preference". Threatening me with blocks and bans when I am totally guilty of starting the discussion is shooting the messenger. --Fæ (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

The repeated statements you made that people "misgendered" you, that they "declared that they personally hate" you, and so on, from those discussions, are much worse personal attacks than what you are now trying to raise here. As far as I can see, no one adressed you with "Peh" in those discussions either. While yo may prefer "they" and it would be more courteous if people used this, there is no misgendering happening if they instead use "xe", which is explicitly intended to be gender-neutral. Your constant misrepresentation of what others said and constant playing the gender / minority / prosecution card is rapidly growing stale, and continued such remarks may well lead to you getting blocked for disruption and personal attacks. Just drop it instead. Fram (talk) 09:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You appear to have not read the ANI discussion, I was addressed as "Peh", if you take a moment to look. There is no other reading of that sentence than it being intended to mock. The question here is not that example but what should be improved in NPA. Threatening me with blocks when clearly I am not attacking anyone, does not move the discussion forward. --Fæ (talk) 09:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Right, "Peh" was used once there. Mocking (if that was the intention) your insistence that only singular "they" is acceptable and e.g. Xe is unacceptable misgendering is not a smart or nice thing to do, but hardly worthy to change or strengthen policies over. As for "clearly I was not attacking anyone", no, clearly you were attacking people, and even more clearly you were attacking them on spurious grounds. This discussion does not need "moving forward", this discussion needs to be closed as it has already wasted too much time at AN and ANI and everything that needed to be said (and much besides) has been said. Fram (talk) 09:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no basis for deliberately referring to Wikipedia contributors with "Xe" when you have been told their preference is "she" or "he" or "they". The non-standard pronoun "Xe" is definitely misgendering people if that is not their chosen pronoun and you continue to use it to refer to them against their wishes. Claiming otherwise, to the extent of threatening blocks, is pretty strange when no reliable guidelines for conduct in discussions for any forum would support this view. --Fæ (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, yo just ocntinue to use the "misgendering" label for something which is not misgendering at all. "Misgendering is the act of labelling others with a gender that does not match their gender identity." In what way does "Xe" label you with a gender different from the label attached to "they"? If I would address someone who identifes as male with "the man" all the time, instead of using "he" and "him", then it would be tiring very quickly, but it would not be misgendering. Fram (talk) 10:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a fallacy, I am not sure why this confuses you. Deliberately and repeatedly calling a "he" a "she" when you know the person's correct pronoun is misgendering. Deliberately and repeatedly calling a "she" a (non-standard) "xe" is misgendering when you know the person's correct pronoun. Deliberately and repeatedly calling a "they" a "she" or a fictional "peh" or a nonstandard "ze" or "xe" or "yo", when you know their correct pronoun is misgendering in exactly the same way as the examples of misgendering a "she". The expectations for respectful treatment of women who wish to be referred to as "she", or gender neutral people who wish to have their use of "they" respected should be no different when it comes to the implementation of Wikipedia policies.

If on Wikipedia we have special rules that allow people to be repeatedly and deliberately referenced with incorrect pronouns, then there is literally no point in NPA including "gender identity" as it means nothing. If however "gender identity" is only ever applied to binary genders, then let's explicitly state that rather than pretending otherwise. --Fæ (talk) 10:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Would you like a policy that says, "A particular named editor on WP is prone to using abusive forms of address towards others, and this is considered as breaching NPA"? I don't think you're going to get a policy for that, but you've already got and ANI archive and could easily get an RfC or even ArbCom ruling recording that. But it's not the function of policy to be so specifically targetted to named editors.

"Deliberately and repeatedly calling a "he" a "she" when you know the person's correct pronoun is misgendering. " I would agree. Do we already state that, or do we need to make it clearer? But note that it includes both "repeatedly" and "when known", so it would not apply in cases of GF accident (and nor should it).

In the recent case, it was not repeated. Nor was it accidental. It was a restricted use, and could be judged as being deliberately provocative (I'd see it as such). But that's different to the situation above. It's about abuse, not gender politics (and I think ANI saw it as abusive). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

(ec)No, it is not a fallacy. Using a gender-specific pronoun (she) to refer to someone who identifies as having a different gender (he), is misgendering. Using a gender-neutral pronoun ("xe" or "they") instead of another gender-neutral pronoun ("they" or "xe") is not misgendering, although it may (depending on how and why it is used) still be objectionable and sanctionable. You have not been misgendered by the use of "xe" instead of "they". You may be insulted by the use, and it may even have been the intention, but you don't help your case by insisting on giving it a label it shouldn't have. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the thought process was "hey, look at that silly person insisting on using the gender-neutral "they" to be adressed with; let's mock him by using other equally silly gender-neutral pronouns like "xe" or "peh"". If this was the intention, then it was insulting you, mocking you, and can be argued that it mocked your gender. That still doesn't mean that it "misgendered" you. Fram (talk) 10:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

As stated using nonstandard pronouns to refer to gender neutral people without that being their preferred pronoun is misgendering. There is no policy, guideline or non-controversial external reliable standard that demonstrates otherwise, though you are welcome to find them and quote them if you believe otherwise. Your views here demonstrate why a clearer consensus on what the respectful treatment of "gender identification" currently written in to NPA is needed. Picking up on Andy Dingley's question, the top of this thread is more focused on having an RFC proposal that establishes a clearer consensus on how "gender identification" is implemented, that may result in no changes to the NPA policy, just that we reach a common understanding. --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Replying by simply repeating your refuted assertion is not really convincing. Misgendering "Refer to (someone, especially a transgender person) using a word, especially a pronoun or form of address, that does not correctly reflect the gender with which they identify." In what way does "xe" not correctly reflect the gender which with you identify? It is gender-neutral, "they" is gender-neutral. It is not the pronoun you prefer, we get that. But adressing someone in a way they don't like doesn't equate misgendering, calling someone "lad" or "lassie" may have the gender right and still be insulting and unacceptable to the person. Fram (talk) 11:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"Xe" is obscure, if not downright bizarre. It is not widely used, it is not understood when used, it is not Fae's choice. If you want to continue arguing that "Xe" is always civil to use and ignore stated preferences, despite what all published respectable English dictionaries tell us (looking at the entry for Xe in the full online OED right now), then produce a reliable source that backs it up. The burden of proof is not on the side of presuming all dictionaries are wrong, so how about presuming that burden of proof is yours rather than mine. Thank you so much, I look forward to reviewing some interesting reliable sources that prove me wrong. --Fæ (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"If you want to continue arguing that "Xe" is always civil to use": strawman argument. I have never argued that "xe is always civil to use". On the contrary, I have made statements like "If this was the intention, then it was insulting you, mocking you, and can be argued that it mocked your gender. That still doesn't mean that it "misgendered" you." right above. I am not going to spend time defending a position I never argued in the first place. Look at it from a different perspective: if I were to call an African-American "white", I would be mis-racing them (comparable to misgendering). If I were to call them "nigger", I would not been "mis-racing" them, but I would be extremely insulting anyway and would deserve an instant block for personal attacks. Similarly, arguing that "xe" is not misgendering you doesn't mean that it is always acceptable or civil to use (although I haven't seen any evidence that it carries the negative connotation the N word has). Whether it is civil to use depends on the context and the intention, but it is not inherently uncivil, and it is not misgendering when used in lieu of another genderneutral pronoun, even if you prefer that other pronoun. Fram (talk) 15:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Putting aside the n-word (really?), I no longer understand the point you are making. I find being labeled a (non-standard English) "xe" when it is not my pronoun is weird and insulting, as most women find being called "he" because the writer is using "he" as a neutral pronoun (as many policy writers used to do pre-1990s). Given that context, you still seem to be arguing that it can never be uncivil to use "xe" when referring to anybody with a non binary preference, even when they have told you that they are unhappy with "xe", is that right? Presumably you also would argue that using "xe" instead of "she" would be civil too. As said, I no longer really understand which of these viewpoints you support. Perhaps you make a clear but generic position in WW's new section below, preferably with a reliable source that defines what "xe" means and how it is supposed to be used in discussion forums. As "xe" just means Xenon in the dictionaries I have access to, a commonly accepted reliable source would be useful. --Fæ (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"you still seem to be arguing that it can never be uncivil to use "xe" when referring to anybody with a non binary preference". And with that, I oppose any addition or change to this policy based on the wishes of Fæ, and I support any action taken against them, including reinstating bans or topic bans. Letting someone who displays this extreme form of "I can't hear you" loose on any discussion pages is utterly useless. Lettting someone who apparently can't even use Google loose on enwiki in general is useless as well. As an example, look at the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Resource Center, section "What are some commonly used pronouns?". "There are also lots of gender-neutral pronouns in use. Here are a few you might hear:" "Ze is pronounced like “zee” can also be spelled zie or xe". The ones given as offensive are "Never refer to a person as “it” or “he-she”. These are offensive slurs used against trans and gender non-conforming individuals." And with that, I leave you to find another victim of your soliloquy. Fram (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Xe" is obscure, if not downright bizarre. It is not widely used, it is not understood when used, it is not Fae's choice.

So why use Xe? It's not a regular habit of the user to use it. I can only see it being used (from the context there) as a deliberate choice, a choice which has still managed to ignore Fae's expressed preferences, and a choice whose main result is to highlight the form of address as "peculiar". In effect, it's moving from a statement "They <Fae> did this." to "Look everyone, that weirdo <Fae> did this." It's that pejorative. I'm reminded of the US political campaign describing an opponent as a "self-confessed homo sapiens" and their actress sister as "an admitted thespian". Words have context, and meanings implicit on those contexts. It's not hard to take a word, even some like Xe created to address this problem, and to turn it into an example of that problem instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• What is missing from our current statement? What do you think needs to be added to it?

I don't see any significant need for change here. We have had a problem, agreed, but do we need to change anything? or was our existing policy adequate for the task?

There are two external influencing factors here: We want to support personal choices as to identity, and avoid disrespect by ignoring that; also we need to recognise that there is scope for still-GF accidental misidentification and mis-use of pronouns etc. In the recent case, a "he/she/they" confusion could be put down to accident without blowing it up at ANI, but choosing to find some bizarre form of address was clearly something else – and ANI reacted on that basis.

So yes, you were insulted and I'm sorry for that. But did ANI not deliver for you? Was that a problem of policy, or of behaviour at ANI? Is there really a policy change to NPA that's going to improve things? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Fram's example, which you have responded to, shows there is a gap between NPA including the words "gender identity" and there being a consensus of how that is implemented on Wikipedia. The proposal here is not a rehashing of the AN/ANI example, it is suggesting that we put an RFC to establish a consensus on how NPA is to be implemented in the future. --Fæ (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'd be a bit nervous about the scale of "pronoun preference" - he, she, they are all fine and I happily adapt to whichever is desired. However if "xe" is requested or some other more tenuous creation then I'm reticent to say that my refusal to do so could be considered even partway towards hounding. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Also, this isn't really an RfC, it's more of a discussion about possible proposals Nosebagbear (talk)

Correct, this is not an RFC, it's a discussion about how to write one. --Fæ (talk) 10:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

You know what, repeated threats to block and ban me here have completely derailed this thread. Thanks everyone for making it so bloody clear how stupid it was of me to attempt a real discussion about respectful treatment of gender neutral identity as a reasonable follow up to being harassed. Non binary people are unwelcome on Wikipedia, let's be honest, we may as well put that in a banner on the front page.

What is the point? --Fæ (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• Then maybe you shouldn't make clear personal attacks on Sitush as "promoting false myths about me" (above). Nor have you pointed out where there's any falsehood here. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I do not have to defend myself against false myths. "Virtually all of your time on en-WP nowadays seems to be spent arguing about gender issues" is a false and pointy myth. Anyone who bothers to actually look at the work I do can see that. Yes I was targeted and mocked, that does not make me a victim and I should not be burdened with false allegations as a result of defending myself. Thanks for derailing the discussion, message understood, I should f**k off and shut up rather than wasting my time trying to improve the system. --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Why do you always try to make everything personal, that is make it be about you? Twisting and turning everything that others say/write here. If you intended this to be a discussion about gender-neutral pronouns, then stick to that, and skip the rest. As for standard and non-standard personal pronouns, there are only two standard pronouns, he and she, corresponding to the only genders that are legally recognised in the vast majority of all jurisdictions. Everything else is non-standard. Editors here can choose which personal pronoun they prefer in the settings here, he, she or "null", but there's no God-given, or even Wikipedia-given, right to choose which one of the umpteen variations of gender-neutral pronouns that have popped up over the past few years, and other editors not using the exact word that you prefer can not be labelled as you being "mis-gendered", and can most definitely not be a personal attack, and any claim about it being harassment would require having been subjected to it repeatedly, and over an extended period of time... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

"...there are only two standard pronouns, he and she..." Incorrect. "They" is a standard pronoun and has long been used in the singular. Jonathunder (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Nope, not in this context. In phrases such as "a journalist should not be forced to reveal their sources", which is a typical example of the old, and very common, way to use it, singular they is used as a catch-all word referring to both men and women, but that's not what we're discussing, what is being discussed here is using singular they as a personal pronoun for the "third sex", people who identify as neither man nor woman, and that use is less than 20 years old, and far from standard. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• "Virtually all of your time on en-WP nowadays seems to be spent arguing about gender issues" is a false and pointy myth. No, I'm good with it as a description.

I would very much second Thomas.W's comment here, "Why do you always try to make everything personal, that is make it be about you?"

You have a good point about wording at NPA and whether it's adequate to address issues of respect in addressing others w.r. to their self-identified gender. But turning this into an attack on either Sitush or Guy doesn't help that. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Do you agree that "any claim about it being harassment would require having been subjected to it repeatedly, and over an extended period of time"? Presumably that being deliberately misgendered, say referring to you as "she" would not be a problem unless done more than three separate times, with you correcting that person, and over weeks or months rather than a couple of days. Seems that would be worth adding to the common understanding of what Wikipedia respecting "gender identification" means. --Fæ (talk) 13:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• It's very easily done (and online, it's easily done to cisgender people too) to simply misidentify someone's identity or their wishes, by a GF mistake. We should not construct a pillory at NPA for such mistakes.

If it's being done for other reasons, I think we're largely capable of recognising that anyway. Equally edit-warring is a bright line at 3RR, but we recognise when it's being done before that.

If someone addresses an editor in a way that they're uncomfortable with, then the fix for that is to talk to them and to point it out. If they continue past that, it's clearly no longer in ignorance. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• As I wrote over at the AN thread yesterday, misgendering someone is not in and of itself a personal attack. People make mistakes and not everyone is incredibly familiar with nonbinary genders. Assume good faith, absent evidence to the contrary. When there is evidence that someone is deliberately misgendering someone in a way meant to offend or make a point, that behaviour already falls very neatly under the harassment policy. There's no need for a change in any policy here, just a change in a handful of editors' attitudes.

There's also a few people who in response or separately have said they will refuse to recognize anyone's nonbinary gender and/or refuse to use any neutral pronoun or any specific neutral pronoun. Well, okay, that's soapboxing and I disagree with your opinion, but as long as you keep it to general statements of linguistic pedantry then we'll all just ignore you and everyone can get back to building an encyclopedia. When you start using your view to attack other editors, then your block log will note that gender expression is one of the protected categories listed in the WMF's non-discrimination policy. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I believe that NPA, as currently written, should cover pronoun issues. In WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack?, the first item on the list us Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors (emphasis added). Insisting on using the wrong pronoun despite being told the correct one is likely to be seen as abusive and derogatory. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I basically agree with this analysis, but I don't see what the problem is with saying this more explicitly. Clearly Fae is right that some people don't appear to share this interpretation. Part of the point of the rules against harassment is that the potential harasser might see that what they're doing is covered, and stop. This is unlikely under the current rules, and we could make it more likely, so why not? LokiTheLiar (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

No discussion of individual editors/incidents below this point!

The above discussion is heavily focused on specific editors and specific cases. I don't think it's wrong to bring up specific cases in a discussion like this per se, but I'd like to offer an alternative space where we can just discuss any potential changes to the guidelines without arguing about specific editors/incidents. WanderingWanda (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Like I said above, I don't see what the problem is with adding a line that says "deliberate misgendering is harassment". It probably is covered already, and if it isn't it really should be. LokiTheLiar (talk) 15:22, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Because it is subjective. I refer to the section above, right from my first response. Define deliberate and define misgendering. - Sitush (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sitush's point is why I'm insisting this is covered by the harassment policy. It's difficult to confidently argue that a specific word or turn of phrase is deliberate misgendering - what is deliberate? Misgendering is a bit more clear, but how do you cross a line from ignorant/innocent to malicious/deliberate, and how many times do we assume good faith? That all needs to be defined if we're to add it to NPA, and that's a black hole of hurt feelings. It is much easier to identify a pattern of behaviour meant to cause distress and discomfort, which might include deliberately misgendering someone but generally includes other harassment as well, and that's what the harassment policy is already all about. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I realize this is a bit idealistic, most admins recognize a personal attack when they see one, without having to have a bullet list of what is and what is not a violation of the policy. It comes down to more than just what characters appear in what order on the page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)