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 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

Proposal 1: Violent communication is not tolerated in wikipedia, be constructive and focus on content

Support as NominatorI'm not entirely sure how this works/whether this is how this works- but hey!--Keerllston 10:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, violent communication (and even the occasional direct personal attack) is allowed on Wikipedia. Per policy it isn't, but try pushing the issue if you were the one complained about and point out that the complainer had been directly attacking while you had only been aggressive (without name-calling), as an example. I just made a note of that on my User Talk page, actually, a few days after never hearing back from the Admin who tagged me but didn't tag the other party, even after it was clearly demonstrated and even requested. Ultimately, though, we all have to let go - as I have - and move on. That editor and I get along somewhat well now (though we staunchly disagree sometimes) and at least are WP:CIVIL with each other pretty much. Anyway, I like the policies the way they are mostly because I believe that the flaws they have (and there are many, as you rightly point out) are the lesser... they could be worse or be more numerous. Does any of that make sense? I hope it did. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

common sense, m:dick (and external links)

I just boldly added this. It occurs to me that much of the previous heated discussion here could be avoided if we emphasized the common sense aspect of things a bit.

"There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion", "These examples are not exclusive. 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." and WP:NPA#Consequences of personal attacks go in the same direction, but I think it could be useful to (carefully, of course) take it one step further by making it clear that WP:NPA is based both on previous experience and on the common sense approach outlined in m:dick. It follows (and imo should be mentioned) that (i) everybody should try not act like a dick (ok, I don't propose this exact wording...but it's what it boils down to in the end), and that (ii) evaluation (esp. by admins/at ANI) will not only be based on WP:NPA, but also on the basic notions outlined in m:dick and that (iii) when in doubt, not including certain things in a comment (like e.g. external links or names of websites; and why not explicitly mention this?) should be a matter common sense and a matter of course.

You see, I think the bottom line is that imo we already are on the same page here (npi), and that this policy doesn't even need to go into so much detail. Imo, we may want to carefully emphasize (the fact, imo) that this policy was written with common sense in mind.

I believe such an addition may encourage a generally serene approach on all sides, and at the same time give a clear message that dickery will not be tolerated, however it takes place. As I said above, I think most of this is already present in the guideline, just that formulating it into a short paragraph of its own might make for a good extension (perception as a pun encouraged here). I dorftrottel I talk I 17:52, November 25, 2007

As to the question of whether to include a specific link in an article or not, the same holds true. Wikilawyering either way will never override common sense, and a flexible approach is in our all best interest. Between us: I'm actually trying to implicitly pay tribute to the apparent fact that the discussion on the issue of external links will likely never end. Maybe it's not supposed to. I dorftrottel I talk I 18:07, November 25, 2007

Addendum: while m:dick focuses on behavioral aspects, common sense is of course in equal measure based on the positive and negative definitions of WP. See Nutshell thread above. I dorftrottel I talk I 18:22, November 26, 2007

First section

Hopefully this won't be contentious - if it is please revert and bring it here.

The first section was long. It was titled "what is considered a personal attack", but was made up of two parts, one of which was about normal debates (and what isn't an attack), the other of which was mainly a list of things which are attacks.

I have therefore split the section into two. The aim is that a section purely on personal attack is likely to help editors, by avoiding the "too long; didn't read" feel of the original. I also moved one sentence for flow (there was a short paragraph where it fitted nicely).

Again, if anyone feels this was unhelpful, let me know, or discuss here.

Thanks!

Diff: [1]

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it, except for the moving of "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack."

It now reads, which I think is less plausible:

• These examples are not exclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

I had recently moved it to what I still think is the best place to incorporate it:

• The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.

I dorftrottel I talk I 18:47, December 1, 2007

I moved that sentence now[2], but feel free to revert. I dorftrottel I talk I 18:12, December 3, 2007

Why is this?

Hi.

I saw this:

"Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited."

But *why* should it be limited in that case? If someone says something that is obviously a personal attack (eg. "You're a stupid, miserable little **** that I don't give a **** about" or something like that) on you, what is wrong with removing it? It has not logical validity, as it does not address your argument, it just attacks you. In the given scenario the quote implies the personal attack is unquestionably such, so there does not seem any reason removal of one directed against you on article talk pages is any different than it directed anywhere else on your own talk page, especially as long as all you remove is the unquestionable attack and nothing more. mike4ty4 (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There are several reasons for this. First, many of the statements that individuals perceive as personal attacks against them, really aren't. Your example is egregious, but far less common than statements such as "User X doesn't have his facts straight/is twisting things to his own advantage/is unaware of policy" etc., all of which have been perceived as attacks. Second, in those kinds of cases, it is often better to ask the person making the statement to refactor (or strike out) their comments, allowing everyone to save face. Third, removing the "perceived" attack may result in a disjointed and illogical discussion when read later; often the post with the perceived attack will include information relevant to the subject at hand, as will the response to the perceived attack. Finally, in larger discussions, other users can better understand the working relationships, and can also intervene to request refactoring or to identify personal attacks in a disinterested way, and treat such behaviour accordingly. It also prevents people from "gaming" the policy to remove information provided by another party under the veil of "personal attack". Does this help? Risker (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC of interest

There is an RfC on WP:CIV that may be of interest to contributors here, as it may fall under NPA as well. Dreadstar † 02:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikimail

Does the Wikipedia have any policy regarding personal attacks sent from wikimail. I'm asking because in the Swedish WP we have problems with a user sending very hostile mails to the administrators each time (s)he is blocked. Vints (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont know the rules here but it seems fair to block a user if he or she is disrupting efforts to create a good encyclopedia or attacking other editors! Funsides (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

If proof can be given of the attack, then the user who is doing the attacking would be warned. If it continued, the user would be banned. Undeath (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the page should say something about this. Vints (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I see personal attack in wikipedia

Although it is the general policy of wikipedia, I see personal attacks in wikipedia. I think open issue of wikipedia has brought hostility here.

People can use weapons against each others, as any claim is granted without professional judgment.

I think editors or moderators should pay a particular attention to this issue to clarify they are who control the pedia, otherwise there'll be no good future for the pedia.

Thanks to the service, I'm using it for a long time :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.226.28 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Claims might be granted without so called "professional judgement" but it is still better judgement than what most could deliver. The admins do a good job on the 'pedia. I don't think wiki is in any risk of becoming over run with vandals. No one gets far with vandalism here. Undeath (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:ILIKEHIM and IDONTLIKEHIM

Another essay along these lines... Maybe it could be incorporated into this page somehow, or into Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions... What do you think? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving the "spoken word" file here

Listen to this page (info/dl)

noicon

Spoken Wikipedia

This audio file was created from a revision dated 2005-04-07, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the page. (Audio help)

More spoken pages

I am moving this file over here and removing it from the policy. It was posted in April 2005, nearly three years ago, and is terribly out of date. It's my belief that policies should not have spoken word links that fail to reflect the actual policy. Now, others may choose to revert me. Better yet, maybe someone will feel motivated to create an up-to-date spoken word file. Risker (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Has this come up before?

No sense reinventing the wheel if it has, but I was curious as to why the example of a personal attack (in the "Personal Attacks" subsection of "What is considered a personal attack?") says:

"Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages."

instead of:

"Threats of (or) vandalism to userpages or talk pages."

It would seem to me that the actual vandalism, and not just the threat of such, is a personal attack in and of itself. If the person's page is, for example, an attack page, then the logical action would be to head on off to report the page at AN/I, and let them make the call. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to user or user talk pages is covered under WP:VAND and is not necessarily a personal attack. I will revert your changes. Risker (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I would ahave appreciated the opportunity to discuss the matter further before you reverted, Risker, but this way will also work. The difference between a vandal and someone making a personal attack is that the vandal is indiscriminately adding info to "undermine the integrity of Wikipedia," whereas the person altering a user's page is seeking to undermine the integrity or reputation of another editor's account page. Therefore, while both are vandalism, the person making the personal attack doesn't get to hide under the blanket of indiscriminate vandals. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you will appreciate my perspective that policies, because adherence to them is mandatory, should not have significant additions made to them without having been discussed, and consensus achieved, in advance. This particular policy has been to Arbcom three times in the past year, subject to multiple edit wars, and has been locked for about 15% of the time since last April. It took months to finally hammer out a policy amongst dozens of editors that most people could live with, so changes shouldn't be done on the fly.

Vandalism does not need to be in this policy because it has its own policy and can be dealt with much more easily by anyone without really thinking about it; and I can't ever remember someone writing "Hey, if you don't do what I want I will go vandalise your user page!" - so it's a bit unrealistic to be adding "threats of vandalism" to the list. Vandalism is not at all in the same category as personal attacks; vandals tend to be "new", badly behaved editors or repeat offender sockpuppets, whereas personal attacks tend to come from SPAs in article space, or longer term editors in user and project space. Vandalism is very obvious - page blanking or replacement with "User X is a weenie!" is the most common - whereas personal attacks are often more subtle, and they aren't vandalism or they would have been considered to be covered under that policy. I hope this helps a bit. Risker (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your assertion regarding changing the page, I guess I can understand, even though it doesn't really follow the WP:BRD model. I will await the outcome of the discussion here before considering another change to the page.

If you will read what I posted above, I did not specify that vandalism and personal attacks were of the same root. I am saying that the policy needs further revision if the policy article fails to address page refactoring as a personal attack. Maybe I am interpreting malicious refactoring of commentary as vandalism. While most vandalism is obvious and committed by noobs or SPAs, some of the refactoring done on others' user pages, or using one's own user page as an attack page (this one has been left unaddressed for over six months) seems a personal attack. Sometimes, the vandalism is not as simple as 'Jonny is teh fukwad'; sometimes Johnny's user page is altered to make it seem that he advocates political or sexual agendas not his own. Such is an attack, and sometimes those attacks are pretty sneaky. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree - it's still vandalism. Sneaky vandalism, but still vandalism. Keep in mind that some of the most difficult-to-address and most frequently missed vandalism in articles are the subtle changes to dates, spellings of words, and information contained in references. Operation Spooner's page isn't an attack page, although it may be on the pointy side; he actually has some valid points there, and I have seen just about all of them in action at some point or another. (I may even have been "guilty" of a few of them.) Perhaps you are looking for WP:USER? Incidentally, I think this is completely following the WP:BRD model - you were bold, I reverted, now we're discussing. Risker (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Some good points... I don't think it's a good idea to try to put a square peg in a round hole by making NPA also include policy provisions regarding vandalism, since they're different issues. Yes, vandalism may on occasion be motivated by a desire to attack somebody, but that's not always (or even usually) the case. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Harasser won’t go away

We have all seen users that seem to take on a personal vendetta on other users, repeatedly contesting anything their target posts. Or taking their grip to the users talk page and harassing them when they don’t get their way in a AfD. Wiki Personal Attacks page should have some type of resolution for dealing with harassers that don’t give up and go away. If you are involved in personal attacks from another user, I suggest we ask the other to stop harassing you. If they continue then tell them this is a second warning and if they still don’t back off, then they should be reported to admin for resolution. I’ve asked another user many time to go away and leave me alone, but he is persistently relentless, I wish I could block him from my user pages because he is so disruptive and wasting my time, that I would rather be using being constructive and contributing.(Lookinhere (talk) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC))

Where to report ATTACK

I recently made this report of an attack to WP:ANI. While it was actioned, the actioning admin requested future such reports go to WP:AIV instead. If this is normal practice (I have no cause to doubt that it is) then surely there should be some such indication on WP:ATTACK.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, the edit involved in your report is (sadly) pretty run-of-the-mill vandalism, and can simply be reverted in the normal course of editing, with a standard vandalism warning to the editor who inserted the information. Repeated or particularly egregious vandalism should be reported to WP:AIV, although reporting to WP:ANI was a reasonable option, given the nature of the statement. The No personal attacks policy is addressed more to behaviour between editors, and not so much to article content unless the article content also contains a personal attack aimed at a Wikipedia editor. I hope this helps; if not, please feel free to ask more questions here, or on my userpage. Risker (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you look at his edit history it was repeated, so admin intervention was necessary. I suppose we could alternatively have a {{uw-vandal5}} template that would generate the AIV entry directly from the vandal's talk page. It doesn't really make sense that we have to bounce from the vandalized page to the vandal's talk page to the AIV page to file the report, cutting and pasting as we go.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(Addendum) My main point though was that WP:ATTACK fails to clearly guide the reader to the desired venue for response, whether that be ANI, AIV, work it out for yourself, or dial 911. That would seem to create unnecessary workload for the reporting editor, the admins, and the servers.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How should we deal with it?

I have seen too many great editors leave Wikipedia because of harassment. There does not seem to be a working policy against personal attacks and stalking, and that is IMO unacceptable. WP needs all the hard-working editors it can get. What can be done about it?--Berig (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

who has left wikipeoadia because of harrassment? I never saw any. I also think the one warning before going to some dispute board is a bit too much. I say you have to give 3 warnings over a period of time. That would weed out the temporary problems, user posting warning in bad faith (to be like *gothca!*), you know false positives and stuff... JeanLatore (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Some people just need to be attacked. Especially if they have no clue what they're talking about.

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufusmcdoofus (talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't. Perhaps you should instead try to give them such a clue, or point them to where they can get one. It's beneficial also for other people who may want to learn something. If, however, they refuse to get the point, then additional measures should be taken, but not actual, direct personal attacks. mike4ty4 (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Indecent suggestions

What do you think about adding these to the list of behaviour that is never appropriate? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, I'd be really hesitant to add that; what's indecent or obscene to one person is quite acceptable to another, and there are a lot of shades of grey there. Context is often important, as is the relationship between the individuals involved in the exchange. I seem to recall that there was an arbcom case where one issue was a post on a user talk page that was called "obscene"; it clearly wasn't considered such by any of the individuals involved in the relevant conversation, nor (when it was explained that it related to the title of an actual WP article) was it seen to be anything but a joke by the arbitrators. Risker (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPP

There is a debate going over at VPP about WP:ATTACK and its First Amendment implications.JeanLatore (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, folks, there's not. There's JeanLatore trying to claim that there's First Amendment implications, and there's everyone else who has had anything to say about the issue saying that there aren't, including a summary of the situation by a lawyer I know who looked it over. Nothing to see here. Rdfox 76 (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Is he a constitutional lawyer? I highly doubt that he is. Plus, different lawyers can have different opinions. Caveat . JeanLatore (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians vs. non-Wikipedians?

From Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External links:

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against Wikipedians for the purpose of attacking another Wikipedian is never acceptable. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any Wikipedian through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate critique. Inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment.

The interpretation of this rule is complex. See Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment for guidance on interpretation.

However, Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment makes little or no distinction between personal attacks against people who happen to edit Wikipedia differently from personal attacks against people who do not edit Wikipedia. Why does the wording of this policy treat them differently? I tried to be bold about this but got reverted. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Five days later, please consider this change to have been taken to the talk page per Risker's suggestion. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This policy is intended to address the behaviour of editors toward other editors. The WP:BLP policy addresses editing practices, including the use of external links, with respect to non-Wikiepedians. I can tell you honestly that I can think of at least 500 external links we have right now in just the articles on my watchlist that link to "external harassment" of somebody. Shall we remove the websites of all performers that have forums? I can guarantee they all contain personal attacks against someone. Shall we remove links to sites critical of politicians? Definitely harassing content there. Please revert the changes, as this brings this policy into conflict with other policies. Risker (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Then section hatnotes might be useful to clarify relationship between this policy and other policies such as BLP. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good solution. I concur with that. Risker (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's still not necessarily a valid argument.

Hi.

I saw this:

"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."

But as a qualifier,

"Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack. "

But regardless of it's relevancy, simply relying on this alone with no further argument against their position is still not valid. mike4ty4 (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please explain WP:OWN to me

(Moved from User talk:Risker#Please explain WP:OWN to me)

You have been reverting even those minor edits to Wikipedia:No personal attacks that you yourself suggested in edit summaries of your own edits to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, such as my most recent.

1. You wrote in the edit summary for this edit: "take that to WP:EL, it does not belong in this policy because it applies to links regardless of whether they are used for personal attack"
2. I wrote in the edit summary for a copyedit: "You mentioned WP:EL. So why not link to it?"
3. You wrote in the edit summary when reverting my edit: "Undid revision 221347810 by Damian Yerrick (talk) take this to the talk page please"

Please teach me more about applicable precedent regarding WP:OWN and WP:BOLD. I would prefer to discuss my misinterpretations of these policies semi-privately before I make a fool out of myself on a high-profile project talk page. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

They aren't minor edits, would be my first point. The second would be that what some consider to be minor changes to this section of the policy have, in the past 14 months, resulted in a lot of problems. There were several trips to Arbcom, the attempt to remove Michael Moore's website from the list of external links to his own article, and the ransacking of archives, talk pages and articles to remove links to various websites. It took eight months to come up with a consensus version of that section, and so no, I don't think it should be changed without considerable discussion and thought. I respect the hard-won consensus on this section, but if the community wants to re-examine this section of the policy, then I will be right there advocating for some significant changes in it myself. So far, all I have seen are people popping in to stick in modifications that seem like a good idea at the time but whose implications have not been thoroughly examined.

WP:BOLD is all well and good, but it is only one step in WP:BRD. We're now in the "discuss" phase. How hard is it, really, to talk about a proposed change to a policy on its talk page before doing it? Yesterday, someone wanted to add something about child pornography to that section, with the intention of it applying anywhere in the encyclopedia. There may well be a place for such a policy, but this isn't it; WP:NPA is all about editor behaviour towards other editors. Sticking a link to a kiddie porn website into an article is a horrible editing practice, but it isn't a personal attack directed at a specific person. Likewise, the wikilink you wanted to make to WP:EL would have the effect of limiting the applicability of the policy to the parts of the encyclopedia where WP:EL now plays a role - primarily content areas, but very less likely user pages, user talk, project space. A link to WP:EL in the "see also" section might be good, but even that wouldn't address the child pornography issue that the other editor had raised.

I don't "own" the policy but I certainly keep an eye on it (it's vandalised regularly), and I'll admit I am of the school of thought that policies shouldn't be changed without good reason, as the community comes to rely on their content to be consistent over time. When this policy is being referred to dozens if not hundreds of times a day, care has to be taken to ensure that changes are well thought out, represent the intentions of the community, and are clearly communicated to the community. I'd really prefer to have this conversation on the talk page of the policy, so if you have no objections I will move it there, but I'll await your response before doing so. Best, Risker (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Section "recurring attacks"

Please forgive me my poor English, but the following paragraph is absolutely incomprehensible to me:

This is also the difficulty in recurring attacks. We have to assume that the attacker is willing to compromise. It is not plausible for editors to attack each other (or they would have been defined as attackers) because they want and expect strong discourse.

I do understand each sentence and even may translate it into my native language :-) But what is this supposed to say as a policy? I suggest either to clarify or delete it. Mukadderat (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal headings

At one point this page suggested or disallowed headings which where personally addressed to other users on article talk pages. This seems like a good idea given the facts in Template:talkpage and the advice to Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Hyacinth (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the essay doesn't rule out a heading personally addressed to another user if the section discusses the edits that the user has made. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To keep this on-topic (NPA), what if it is done as part of an attack? That heading then becomes part of the edit history summary text, repeated every time someone makes a comment on that section. This becomes a permanent part of Wikipedia and can be picked up by search engines. That's quite unfair. This isn't some hypothetical situation. -- Fyslee / talk 05:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

More on this situation from my talk page:

• Wikipedia:TALK#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages. It deals specifically with talk page behavior, but the rationales would seem to apply to an AN/I thread except perhaps as necessary to define an incident (I have not checked whichever thread spawned this discussion). In any case, WP:NPA and WP:AGF are in full force everywhere. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the relevant text from the TALK section:

• Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed.
• Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, since search engines can pick up that information. Reporting 3RR violations is a notable exception, since it is neutral and necessary reporting, not attacking.

-- Fyslee / talk 05:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No, search engines that conform to the Robots Exclusion Standard do not pick up edit histories. And I don't see a problem with talk page headings with a user name as long as the section neutrally describes that user's edits to the associated article or project page. I'll take this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#User names in talk page headings. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Damian, your improvement there needs to be included here. -- Fyslee / talk 04:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

dedenting ↵

I'm a bit confused. "Here" meaning some section of WP:NPA, or "here" meaning this talk page? --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Here" at some section of NPA. Sorry about the delay. I hadn't noticed your reply before now. That's what happens when one has over three thousand items on one's watchlist, plus talk pages. ;-) -- Fyslee / talk 04:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of lying

I'm wondering if we should explicitly state that the various forms of accusing editors of being liars is a comment that is always considered a personal attack / accusation of bad faith. I have increasingly noticed on heated talk page and meta discussions that editors, if not accusing each other outright of being liars, say that so-and-so lied or that a certain comment is a lie. When asked to explain, retract, remain civil, etc., a typical response is to repeat the accusation, try to prove the accusation, or wikilawyer out of the situation by saying they are talking about the edit and not the editor. Yet the primary meaning of "lie" per dictionary sources is to make a false statement with the intent to deceive - the aspect of bad intentions is a key part of the word. One cannot say a statement is a lie without in the process saying that the person who made it has bad intentions. Some people habitually use the word "lie" to mean anything that is untrue, or that they disagree with - which would include mistakes, exaggerations, advocacy (if you disagree with it), breaking a promise or not following a stated future action, and lots of other things that are not necessarily done in bad faith. Indeed there is a secondary meaning of "lie" that means "untruth", without regard to motivation. However, this is not what most people think when they see the word lie. So I'm not sure if the people misusing "lie" are just being intellectually lazy, trying to provoke, or represent some kind bona fide shift int he language.

There is almost never a need to point out that someone lied on Wikipedia. It's relevant perhaps in an AN/I report or Arbcom case as evidence of bad faith editing for which a person should be banned. But it would be foolish to lie - Wikipedia persists mostly on a written record. If you lied about what happened it is a simple, albeit sometimes time-consuming, matter to review the record and set things straight. In most cases it is good enough to simply show that something is not true, and one can do that quite civilly. The intent to deceive is usually not a relevant issue.

The reason I bring this up here is that it seems to be a common, and growing, form of personal attack here. And it is nearly always disruptive. When you accuse someone of lying you pretty much invalidate everything they say and shut down the conversation. I'm thinking maybe we should add a short statement near the top that any form of accusing an editor of lying is nearly always an unacceptable personal attack. Wikidemo (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are quite correct. The charge of lying comments on the motives of the teller, and is thus a violation of AGF. The more correct statement would focus on the statement and say "that is not true." An untruth is only a lie if the intent of the teller was to deceive. If the teller believes the statement, it is still untrue, but not a lie. Accusations of lying are always very personal attacks. They should be reserved for ArbCom situations and always accompanied by incontrovertible proof. If proven wrong, the accuser should suffer the consequences they are demanding against the one the are accusing... at the very least. -- Fyslee / talk 00:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite honestly, I disagree. I have seen dozens of situations where people have deliberately been untruthful—about information they are editing into articles, about situations in the real world that they are bringing to Wikipedia, and about other editors. If someone blatantly lies about an editor, I am very hard pressed if someone else points it out directly. AGF is all well and good, but it is not a suicide pact, and it cannot be used as a shield against cruelty toward another person. It strikes me you have the priorities wrong, that lying should be considered a personal attack, and identifying someone who is lying would not be inappropriate.

Of course, this is the weakness with spelling out exactly what constitutes a personal attack. This policy is not intended as a shield for misbehaviour or poor judgment on the part of editors, although it is used as one on a regular basis. I cannot accept that people should have to be linguistically diplomatic when someone is accusing them of foul deeds or punishable misbehaviour so as not to personally attack their attacker. The personal attack is in the lie, it is not in the identification of the utterer of the lie as a liar. Risker (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am totally confused. Can you be more specific? (1) With whom do you disagree, and (2) precisely what do you find disagreeable? -- Fyslee / talk 04:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Off wiki criticisms/exposes after known editor leaves

A certain quasi-high profile editor who uses his own name has declared he's leaving wikipedia for good. He and many other editors (including me) have big political diffs in real world and some current editors might want to do "exposes" on their personal blogs or where ever. Can one do so openly without "getting in trouble" as long as he stays off wikipedia? Or only if one does NOT quote anything he wrote on wikipedia? Does this page need to say "as long as they are editing wikipedia"? Just wondering :-) Thanks. Carol Moore 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Affiliations

We currently have this wording:

• Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.

I am wondering if this might be expanded to include negative mentions of other editor's POV? Constantly attacking someone by using their POV as an accusatory weapon against them is a very nasty habit that poisons the well and assumes bad faith. The POV of an editor should not be the focus of discussion, but the edit itself. What think ye? Can we include this idea in a nicely phrased manner?

The situation that brought this acutely to mind is a current series of attacks made by a certain now indef blocked editor at the circumcision talk page, where (s)he constantly attacks other editors by accusing/dismissing them as "pro-circumcision". This form of attack totally destroys all semblance of collaborative spirit and sabotages attempts to peacefully reach a concensus. As one discerning editor commented:

• Why not stop the pro- and anti- talk for two seconds and actually read what the editors ... are saying...?

That editor put it very well. This type of attacking needs to stop, and we can begin here by making it part of this policy. -- Fyslee / talk 05:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Any responses? -- Fyslee / talk 04:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Group attack is not a personal attack?

I wanted to know if an attack on a group of editors would be exempt from personal attack because it doesn't name a specific editor. For example, if I said 'those editors' instead of 'specific editor' it is okay? --I-800-Go-FedEx (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay? It's still stupid, if that's what you're asking. Do things that will improve the encyclopedia and contribute to a collaborative environment. Don't do things that won't do that. Don't think about whether or not you're breaking a rule; think about whether or not you're being helpful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack Guidelines are meaningless

When someone deletes your work while quoting Wiki rules, when in fact he is saying in no uncertain terms that his point of view is better than yours, this is a personal attack whether Wikipedia says it is or not. There are people out there that cannot be reasoned with, they are bullies with no empathy, or sense of fairness and for Wikipedia to expect the wronged party to maintain an atmosphere of civility is just ridiculous. An attack is made, and those attacked have no one to appeal to, and just have to try and keep off of Wikipedia because there is no respect here.

In short what is the point of having guidelines when clever bullies can attack under the carefully crafted fraud of quoting Wikipedia rules? Rules without the spirit of the rule behind them are not rules, they are oppression.

I don't know if this violates your precious guidelines or not, but this tirade has been inspired by the bozo who won't let anyone edit Class Rings. I won't say who it is, but if anyone interested can't figure it out, well, they are just not trying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.24.13 (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Although it is clearly possible to abuse any given set of rules, this doesn't inherently mean rules are flawed. Most wikipedia rules are there for a reason. I'm sorry if you feel that some set of rules has been abused to keep you from contributing productively to the encyclopedia. I've usually found that when it comes to these sorts of disputes, the best thing to do is to try and understand what exactly the other editor is objecting to. Usually you'll find tht your disagreement is narrower than you think, and most wikipedians are open to compromise. If it is indeed a disagreement about the fundamental application of a wiki-rule, then it is possible to turn to the larger community to weigh in to try and ensure the rule is applied in the correct spirit. --Bachrach44 (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

After looking through some of the recent edits to Class ring (I assume that's the article you are referring to), I'd like to add that maybe you should try engaging the other editors on the talk page. Warring through edit summaries rarely accomplishes anything. --Bachrach44 (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree and disagree with both viewpoints. It appears that a few people have tried engaging on talk, but gave up quickly. On the other hand, I can sympathize with why they gave up - half the talk page is written by one person, who mostly keeps repeating that almost every addition is too trivial or unverified. In the actual article, the same person has thrown tags on almost every sentence that doesn't have one or more sources for that exact sentence. Some of the time, this person is right. But a lot of the time, they're just using verifiability and notability as a club. I would find a fair amount of what they've deleted to actually be interesting and pertinent, if I gave a crap about class rings.

If you care enough about the subject, 99.148, you might want to try wading through the mess of filling out an RfC or RfM. I don't think you have any real case for asserting WP:ATTACK, but I think you could make a strong case for WP:OWN. But then again, take anything I say with a grain of salt. I'm just touring policy pages, to try to learn more about the spirit of the rules and how to be more constructive. Quixotic as it may be. ^_~

Also, 99.148 - your editorial comment on 8 Sept doesn't help your case at all; I'd advocate refraining from suchlike. At first glance it looks like unintelligible vandalism, and it falls squarely under WP:POINT. But I have to admit that once I understood it, I found it amusing. arimareiji (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the person 99.148 was talking about quit Wikipedia in September. There was a nasty kerfluffle involving his use of the same tactics in another group of articles. (Cut, cut, cut, revert, revert, AfD because there's no article left) arimareiji (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

COI and affiliations additions

This suggested addition, was undone by Rootology and Will BeBack, and I would like to open it for discussion:

*Using someone's affiliations, including but not limited to political, religious, sexual orientation, or race, as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not.

• Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.

1. The use of an editor's affiliation has been in this policy for a long time. My addition simply describe some examples of what an affiliation may be.
2. The second addition, from WP:COI, is to point the fact that ad hominem arguments, based on a presumed or actual COI are a form of personal attacks.

Comments welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

An addition like this may have value if also applied to a Wikipedia editor's history, on-wiki. If we're going to apply this to guard against poisoning of the well, it should be all-inclusive in such a way, or else it's still able to be gamed. What are your thoughts on that? rootology (C)(T) 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The text I removed (which was added without discussion):

• Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.

Has nothing to do with the personal attacks policy. It would skew the COI guideline unless we also add that editors with COI should avoid editing those topics directly. It make more sense to elevate the entire COI guideline to policy status rather than selecting individual sentences. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My argument is based on the fact that COIs (perceived, or real) have been used in the past at personal attacks, by addressing a person's affiliation rather than the strength of his/her arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The existing text already covers that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Where? It does not, and hence my addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that pointing out a conflict of interest is a personal attack. As someone with a well known conflict of interest, it appears you have a conflict of interest in making this proposal. I'd hate to think that you are proposing this change due to a dispute that you're in currently, but that is the appearance.[3] This policy isn't about "gaining an upper hand" in content disputes, nor is it about where conflicted editors should give their views. If you'd like to elevate the entire COI guideline to policy then that's a separate discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that pointing out a conflict of interest is a personal attack. No, I am not saying that. See Risker's original formulation which covers this quite well. As for your other comments, they beg to be ignored, so I will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As for [this], I am in no dispute, but the question is: do you disagree or agree with my comment there? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are in a dispute with that editor about your edits to his BLP. That editor accused you of having a COI, and you come here to make his comment a policy violation. That's not a good way of making policy changes. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

No, Will. That person is not accusing me. And you are skirting the question for reasons unknown. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Why did you post two NPA warnings on his talk page? What attack are you claiming he made? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This addition] was not discussed either, so I have restorred it pending consensus of inclusion of explanations and expansion as suggested in this thread. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that initial addition, is superior to the current wording. Adding it back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your changes, going back to the 16:13, December 17, 2008 version. Please wait for a consensus before making significant additions or deletions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not useful, Will. Do you agree or disagree with the original formulation by Risker? To know that would be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is useful to gain a consensus before making significant changes to core policies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That is not useful either. Consensus is found by providing arguments. Bot by claiming there is no consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change this page again until there is some sort of consensus, thanks. rootology (C)(T) 22:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

And how that comment/reversion and Will's comment/reversion are helpful for finding consensus? Why don't you provide an argument that can be discussed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Re this edit: This version seems OK to me: "*Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense.", which seems balanced, but I oppose the version "This does not include pointing out a conflict of interest, but in cases where such affiliations are used to attack another user.", which comes too close in my opinion to stating categorically that pointing out a COI is not a personal attack. Pointing out a COI can be a personal attack if it's over-used to try to discredit someone's views when the alleged COI isn't really all that relevant, and it can be a personal attack if it involves outing. The first wording covers these cases adequately in my opinion. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 22:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I did, and you never replied as you and Will immediately locked heads.

One editor doesn't get to make policy and policy pages are worthless and wrong unless they're describing actual practice that the majority of the site's users use anyway. Thats why the page should stay how it is until there's a consensus to change it. rootology (C)(T) 22:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

Current formulation

Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense.

Proposed compromise addition, which includes original wording added by Risker circa March 2008

Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, but in cases where such affiliations are used to attack another user. Speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

What are your arguments in support of this proposed change? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems tautological: "Pointing to a COI is not an NPA, unless it is an NPA". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Hence my "may be" wording on the compromise compromise below. Uninvolved parties decide, anyway, not the involved parties. rootology (C)(T) 22:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The wording is a little wonky. Hows about:

Pointing out an editor's conflict of interest and it's relevance to the discussion at hand is not a personal attack, but may be an attack in cases where such affiliations are used to attack another user, or poison the well. Speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense; but if an editor is or was open about their affiliations, they may be discussed freely.

That seems more practical, pragmatic, and reasonable. Once something is known, as it relates to COI, it's not reasonable to sweep it back under the rug, as it would give the COI-related individual an unfair advantage in content, policy, or DR discussions. rootology (C)(T) 22:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

That wording does not make sense. What does it mean but may be an attack in cases where such affiliations are used to attack another user??? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It makes perfect sense, it's just changing your bright line to a "may be". If someone uses the COI (of you, or me, lets say) to gain the upper hand in a dispute, or to poison the well, by pointing out that someone has a certain history in regards to WP actions, to poison the well against their position, that could be a violation of NPA. The point is that calling COI on someone is never an automatic NPA, but could be depending how it's used. For example, saying "Jossi should step away from Rawat matters, because of his clear COI," depending on the context could be a personal attack, based on how it's used. Saying "Rootology should step away from certain policy discussions, because he was blocked 27 months ago," depending on the context could be a personal attack, based on how it's used. rootology (C)(T) 22:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I have invited User:Risker to comment, as he was the editor that added the original wording. He commented in my talk, but it would be best if he does it here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and given how frequently NPA comes up, I don't think Will, Jossi, I, and Copper above are "consensus". It should float for a few days, including work days, at a minimum. That way no one can try to play games with any new change. rootology (C)(T) 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree about allowing this to mature. Many regular editors aren't as active during the holidays, so significant changes to core policies shouldn't be rushed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

My last suggestion above ain't that "significant", but I agree that there is time to assess the different proposals and comment further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's not significant then why is it necessary? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, the version which I worked on with Shoemaker's Holiday in May 2008[4] says:

Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack.

Jehochman revised this in October 2008[5] to:

Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense.

I do not support any of the proposed changes listed above. This is a simple policy. The issue of affiliations is already addressed. I was willing to compromise earlier this year on the issue of adding COI, but this proposal goes too far; in fact, I think Jehochman's addition with reference to outing, done two months ago, is on the WP:BEANS side of policy writing. I really think that getting any more specific than what is already there is borderline coatracking; what is being proposed really belongs in WP:COI. Risker (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, I would not object to some examples of affiliations, although the most notable are covered in the section above; I would object to any narrowing of that interpretation of affilations, though. Risker (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I can see your point now that it is explained, but don't you think that the repeated use of a COI argument is disruptive and bordering on a persoal attack? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support returning to the May 2008 version. Let's keep this simple. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Risker makes sense. rootology (C)(T) 23:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The repeated use of a COI argument may or may not be appropriate and may or may not be a personal attack, in my opinion.

I oppose the version which says "but in cases where such affiliations are used to attack another user." per Will Beback, it's a circular definition. This whole policy is supposed to be defining what is or is not a personal attack; it's meaningless to base it on whether something is "used to attack". Even appropriate pointing out of COI could easily be seen as being an "attack" by those who would prefer not to have it pointed out. Also, that proposal seems to have a period after "user" and beginning of a new sentence with "Speculating", which doesn't seem to me to parse properly. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

<<< I see growing consensus about keeping just the short wording as per Risker's. OTOH, repeatedly bringing up a perceived or disclosed COI is rather disruptive, and I would argue bordering on personal attacks (see ad hominem) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)