Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 11

Note

I have restored the version of Sept 29 [1] before the rapid series of recent changes. I have already laid out my objection to a specific point and proposed a remedy above. The others should do the same for their proposed changes. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 16:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

proposed revision

I made this change to the Avoiding Personal Attacks section - basically a broad revision fixing a number of confused statements and refocusing the issue on the general problem. it was reverted by Ronz with the suggestion that it had lost something from the original version. I don't see what's missing; can someone clue me in? --Ludwigs2 16:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Links to the relevant policies/guidlines, for a start, then de-emphasizing them to the point of coming close to contradicting them.

Why the rewrite? --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

the rewrite was mostly motivated by generality; the current version is awfully point-specific and hard to abstract to actual instances. plus I thought it would be useful to focus on the act of 'improper characterization' as the problematic case: This distinguishes nicely between personal commentary that is useful to articles and personal commentary that's inflammatory (e.g., it's useful sometimes to say that someone made a bad edit, but it's never useful to suggest that someone is a person who makes bad edits); that seems to be a bone of contention in the current debates.

The policy links can be reintegrated easily enough, though I thought they were a little redundant, personally. I'm not sure I see what you mean when you say they were 'de-emphasized'. That wasn't my intention and I don't see where it happened. if you can explain that more clearly, maybe something can be done about it. --Ludwigs2 18:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reinstated the guideline links. However, I think Morser's got a point in saying that if we include "poorly written" as a term that should be avoided (well, it should be avoided, but Morser makes sense), then it's making the etiquette stance go quite to the extreme. Therefore, what has been done is that the guideline has been restored (as it is a guideline); second, I've removed the term "poorly written" till discussions on the relevant page over this are over. As far as I've noticed, nobody's close to 3RR here. Wifione ^Message 01:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

3RR is a lousy standard for a policy/guideline page. Let's go 0RR for substantive changes and reach some sort of consensus before making changes. In the case of the particular edit, a ^[1] looks like a reference and it's preferable to link to WP:EQ rather than quote it. Gerardw (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the best thing to do here is go straight to an RfC. (Personal attack removed) we might as well just take an educated guess at what he's worried about and open it up to community review. does anyone have any serious objections to the revision I offered?

Wifione: I don't really like the revision you keep suggesting. I think I handled it in a better fashion with the 'characterization' language I was using; what you are offering seems to focused on specific issues. It's one thing to give an example, but it's another to tie the policy to such specific wording that it starts to be limiting. --Ludwigs2 04:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Gerardw on this; WP:EQ is a guideline that I've seen for the first time yesterday. Just because something is a guideline—and that one appears to have been exposed to little scrutiny—is no carte blanche to copy its text to a policy. More to the point, some of the examples there might belong to WP:CIVIL, but declaring that that practically every negative comment on an edit is a personal attack is absurd, and shows little understanding of the point of this policy coming from the editor that declared it "perfect" only a few days ago (see above). Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree an RFC should be held before making major changes, but I don't think we're there yet. Ludwigs2 suggested edit is too long -- guidelines should be succinct. Gerardw (talk) 09:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you guys are going back and forth over something different and aren't responding the the revision I proposed at all. I'm debating with myself how best to approach that. --Ludwigs2 14:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

blockquote your proposed revision instead of just posting a diff. Gerardw (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Trolling

See interesting discussion here on whether calling someone's statement(s) trolling is a personal attack or not. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 09:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

A disappointing result, in my view. At some point this kind of tolerance for uncivil behavior becomes the cause and encouragement of more uncivil behavior. Sadly, the majority of Wikipedians seem to want to reserve the right to insult others personally in order to make a point, and so look the other way when others do it. I suggest the Wikipedia editing experience would be much better if we adopted a policy of zero tolerance for disrespectful expressions about specific others, at least on article and WP space talk pages. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

see also

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

Quick request

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

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

Update

This is where we currently stand:

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

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

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

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

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

Rather than:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request

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

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

Make sentence parallel?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment

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

This page is intended for discussion of the guidelines, not specific cases; WP:WQA or WP:ANI would be more appropriate. Rather than give you a bureaucratic runaround, however: In this context [2]: No. While its not the most polite comment ever but its not realistic to expect such from a user just taken to SPI. Best to drop the stick and move on. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Nutshell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related edits

I'd like to ask:

• About [3], why delete mention of legal threats? I realize that they are not quite as personal as death threats, but it seems to me that they still might be part of NPA.
• Similarly, why delete the mention of community bans? They can arise at WP:AN and WP:ANI, not just through arbitration.
• And about [4], why remove the statement that saying that something is a personal attack is not itself automatically a personal attack? Leaving that statement in can help ward off some circular arguments.

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

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

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

What can be done? Where can one go for redress?

Hello, I am being treated to a series a personal attacks by a couple of senior Wikipedians, including comments such as name-calling me an "idiot" and referring to me as a "feminist", inferring firstly that I am a feminist, and secondly that any opinion a feminist might have is of no cosequence. They have even had another senior Wikipedia they interact with threaten to block me. All this is over the most ridiculous of things, which could have and should have been resolved easily and without any grief. I even stated that I would not contribute to the Wikipedia Asexuality page - indeed, I stated that I was leaving because of the treatment I received, but that was not enough for them, and one of them has taken to personally attacking me even on pages I have not visited, and boasts that he/she has technology to change his/her IP, so this person cannot be banned, and I don't even know how many pages he/she is personally attacking me on under different IP addresses.

This is very stressful, and this is not what I joined Wikipedia for. I'm tempted just to leat them ban me even though I am the one that is in the right here, because this is so much stress over what should be, really, nothing worth getting into a state over, but why should I be treated so shabbily and then throw away as if I'm nothing, by some e-thugs with a little power? This is not right, it is not fair, and it is not on - but what can I do about it? Does anyone know who I can complain to? There must be some form of formal redress, because it feels as though, as my grandmother would say, "the lunatics have taken over the asylum". HELP! ★★Violet Fae★★ 15:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:WQA would be the preferred venue. Removed personal attacks from Talk asexuality [5]. Nobody Ent 16:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider these to be personal attacks any more than what Violet Fae stated in that discussion. Saying that she is throwing a temper tantrum deserves to be blocked out? Things like that are said to (or about) Wikipedia editors often here on Wikipedia, without any consideration that it should be reported as a personal attack. Just about any comment about an editor that the editor doesn't like can be considered a personal attack. The main example of that is how WP:No personal attacks has a tiny problem defining it. And I am going to play the "Who started it?" game and point to Violet Fae on this "us against her" issue. Violet Fae started out her rant calling us "rabid POV-pushers." She later started calling us "bully boys" in her edit summaries. She is way out of line, in her comments and behavior. Even in this discussion, she has called us "e-thugs" and implies that we are lunatics. She has additionally called me "abusive." In fact, it was her who originally started the incivility back in her first discussion with me on the talk page. But in the current discussion she is referring to, you will see that editors are telling her that she is wrong about how asexuality may be defined and why that is...with her insisting that she is right, in spite of the reliable sources showing that she is not. But she considers this to be bullying. Us asking her to follow reliable sources, and not just rely on AVEN, is bullying in her opinion. Further, the IP didn't call her an idiot; he or she called Violet Fae "ignorant." Calling editors ignorant is pretty commonplace on Wikipedia. But if seen as a severe enough personal attack, she could have asked the IP to strike through the comment or have an administrator do so or block it out, like I suggested, or, add the NPA tag to that one word herself, instead of removing the IP's entire comment. Her removing the entire comment, which concerns another user more than her, is what led to her being consistently reverted at Talk:Sexual orientation. And I don't know what made her think she could remove everyone's comments at Talk:Asexuality. This is a new user who doesn't quite understand the way Wikipedia works and is painfully showing that now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And looking at the WP:WQA link above, it says "Avoid initiating a request if: The specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere." and "Do not continue your discussion in detail here; instead, continue discussing it at its original location - as long as your request contains a link to the relevant discussions it will be seen." Not that Violet Fae will care.

On a side note, Nobody Ent, you provided the wrong diff for your change to Talk:Asexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oops. fixed, thanks for catch Nobody Ent 19:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, this is absolutely bloody ridiculous. You are absolutely behaving like bully-boys and e-thugs, ganging up on me, insulting me, speaking about me on Talk pages I have never even visited before, and boasting about your ability to log in under multiple IP addresses so noone can even tell what you're posted or where... Not happy driving me from the Asexuality page, you have to keep chasing me all over this damn Wikipedia, you just don't know when to leave the bloody hell alone... I can't believe I donated money to Wikipedia, only to be treated so abominably by you three disruptive, bullying, mobbing - yes - e-thugs.

Well, you can be even happier still, because you have so ruined Wikipedia for me that I will not be using this damned website with damned monsters like you three bully-boys, ever again. May you get your one day... Come to think of it, just being you must be awful enough that I don't even wish you any further suffering. GOODBYE! ★★Violet Fae★★ 19:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Violet Fae, it is absolutely ridiculous because you have been absolutely ridiculous during the majority of your time at the Asexuality talk page, reverting editors at the Sexual orientation and Asexuality talk pages, and your comments here. Oh, everyone is out against Violet Fae. Violet Fae is always right and everyone who opposes her is wrong. I can't follow her to a policy page that she is reporting me on because that would be just wrong and it's me not knowing when to leave well enough alone. Sarcasm. Once again, you have shown your true colors and demonstrated exactly what I was talking about. It is you who resorted to extreme personal attacks once again. An editor calling you "ignorant" is nothing compared to what you have stated here. If your comments get to stay, then so should his or hers. And since I don't believe that you will be leaving this site, I should report you at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, because I don't have to take this crap and believe me...there would be more "bullying" waiting for you there. But you'd just do more moaning about how innocent you are and the injustice of this site, and I don't want to read any more of that. You revert the IP again, though, and you will be reported. You should have already been reported for WP:3RR. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Per this, I will now be reporting you. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

After exchanges like that, no wonder she's pissed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Meh. She's clearly overreacted to everything on multiple talk pages, and I can find no evidence that she tried to calmly discuss any of her issues with other editors. But I also see her threatened with more bullying and called ignorant. I'm not saying that excuses anything - quite the opposite - but just that the issues with this editor could probably have been handled better. Seems to be a moot point now, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

What other calm way is there to tell her to follow reliable sources and that doing so is how Wikipedia works? That's all we told her at the Asexuality talk page, although the IP was a bit hot-headed about it. She was initially hot-headed as well, however, and soon blew everything out of proportion. Into this big conspiracy to get her. Just because there are three people telling her to follow sources and work within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines...does not make it bullying. More than one editor reverting her, including Nobody Ent from higher in the discussion, does not make it bullying. And it's not moot because she is still showing up to violate WP:TALK at the Asexuality talk page. Like I stated, I will be reporting her, because it does not appear that she will stop. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No idea. Just feels like it went really bad really quickly, which likely says more about the other editor than anyone. As for moot - it seemed like she had stopped editing an hour ago, though we'll see what happens with that. Where were you reporting her? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as mentioned above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Can someone fix the archives?

Archive 11 is not showing in the list. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)  DoneNobody Ent 12:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

As stated, this policy is overdone liberal touchy-feely "safe space" crap..olala

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

It amounts to "lick the hole of the ass;" it limits free and frank expression and discourages open, free discourse. While there is an important point here (civility), this policy suffers from a phenomena Howard Rheingold noted for the internet in general-- if you get too many jerks too quickly, they take over. The result of this policy is that 20-yr-old males with excessive levels of testosterone dominate discussions, play games and make WP tedious to use and participate in-- but people are supposed to treat them with courtesy and "discuss the content" instead of pointing out their anti-social behavior. Fuck that! Sometimes you should call a jerk a jerk, jerky behaviour what it is, a temper tantrum a temper tantrum, and an ass, an ass :P :) KenThomas (talk) 02:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that "20-yr-old males with excessive levels of testosterone" is a blatant reference to my persona. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 03:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Blatant?!? What do you mean by that? Certainly there is a reference (confer with the writings of my associate Ted Nelson). But "blatant?" Blatant would have been to name you, and use a hyperlink to your profile! :P KenThomas (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, we're welcome to comment on editors' behavior. I've yet to encounter a situation in which "Your approach is unhelpful and detrimental because..." was less constructive than "You're a stupid jerk." would have been. —David Levy 03:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree that generally in life, the former is generally more useful than the latter. But as I add years, the advantages of the latter become clearer. Respectfully, -- KenThomas (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, here's the lede tatement of the policy:

Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor.

That's pretty draconian, and pretty much declares comments on behavior are not acceptable-- but, of course, who's to decide what's "derogatory?" (The mob?) I get the psycho-language, but its the same language and policy, for instance, of "only positive reinforcement" which destroyed the CA school system. My point is not that the policy is actually entirely bad; my point is that it is overstated. KenThomas (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That's pretty draconian, and pretty much declares comments on behavior are not acceptable

You're mistaken. A user's on-wiki behavior directly affects "content". It's explicitly stated in the policy that "discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack." It's also noted "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" constitute personal attacks (emphasis added).

No blanket prohibition exists. —David Levy 11:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

And not suprprisingly, KenThomas has been blocked for calling a female admin a "Schoolmarm." I'm closing this as it appears KenThomas has unilaterally decided that NPA is irrelevant. This isn't a constructive discussion about how to improve policy, but is more of an inflammatory rant. Toddst1 (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

What is not a personal attack?

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

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

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

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

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

Not a personal attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Outing?"

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

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

Competence vs good faith

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

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

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

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

Willfully ignoring reliable sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Banned editors exempt from legal threats and actions?

I'm working on the project page of a long term banned abuser who still sends editors dozens of death threats and potentially could engage in actual physical vandalism or violence against people in their neighborhood. Since some newbies who may miss this page entirely might end up there after a threat, I have one big question regarding the below: If someone is a banned editor does this policy no longer apply to them? Will help me put together proposed language for that page:

Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.

Thanks! CarolMooreDC🗽 03:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• No - Legal threats cannot be tolerated, as Wikipedia is a privately-run website and no one has the right to free speech. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• Hell no - this is the start of a very, very slippery slope, and blocked editors are (usually) as human as we are. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ageism

Ageist is an interesting element here and appears to have been added without much discussion. While nobody thinks calling someone an "old fart" or something like that is appropriate, I think labeling a pattern of edits from a school IP address as "childish vandalism" can be highly appropriate.

I think the concepts of "old fart" and the like are covered under the general statement "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" included in WP:WIAPA. I suggest we remove the term "ageist" from WP:WIAPA.

Full disclosure - I have a definite WP:COI here: I am an old fart. Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"Too many foreign editors" type statements acceptable?

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

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

• Following your request, I'll give my response. Am I incorrect, or is discrimination on the grounds of nationality technically racism? Regardless of whether that note is accurate or not, there should be absolutely no case whatsoever where the location of any user should be used against them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. That's the question really, is commenting on "foreign"ness clear enough in the current wording? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• For anyone wanting to follow the nature of the guidelines as well as the letter, yes - "ethnic and racial" pretty much covers this. However, it probably should include something that directly states "discriminating over nationality", just to stop people looking for loopholes. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Foreignness" cannot necessarily be equated with ethnicity or race. Discrimination based on nationality is not racism. "Racism", at least in my country, has become an grossly overused and misapplied term. In Wikipedia it is best to deal with each situation contextually without trying to add extra labels or read too much into basic uncivil comments. Taroaldo ✉ 05:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

• I saw a note from In ictu oculi on another user's talk page and thought I'd leave a note here. I agree, for one, that "ethnic and racial" pretty much covers this. But my other point was going to be that it really comes down to intent, which is always going to be hard to judge. Unlike a statement that specifies race (there are too many Australians editing this article), a broad statement (there are too many foreigners editing this article) might be made in the context of a country-specific article with to few local contributions. An article about an Australian subject with only American contributors, for example. Or a real example, Gambling in Taiwan which I (an Australian) created with little to no Taiwanese input. You could fairly say it has had too few local contributions to date. I certainly wouldn't be offended if someone said there were "too many foreign editors" there because it's basically true and I suggested as much myself at Wikiproject Taiwan. But if the intent is obviously racist or anti-ethnicity then that changes things. The same would be true of statements about the number of foreign editors at en.wp in general. That probably wouldn't be okay, especially if directed at specific editors/groups of editors. Stalwart111 11:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Yeah, it's been said well already, but I definitely agree that "too many foreign editors" is bad, unless the editors who it's being aimed at agree with it, as in the aforementioned case given by Stalwart111. I don't even think the guideline should mention "epithets" since one can make their intentions clear using nothing but primary dictionary words. To me, it just helps to imagine all situations as if they were in person conversations. I obviously wouldn't go to my job as a cashier and loudly complain about Canadian shoppers not buying profitable items thinking that they would all be okay with it simply because I wasn't mentioning anything about race or religion. —Soap— 16:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

IDK if the intent of the mentioned comment was negative (tho it sounds like), but I can see where it might be okay (if a bit rude): namely, nationalist editors pushing a POV. If they're told to take it elsewhere, I'd see that less "go away Jew-boy" (so to speak) & more "keep your POV off EngWP, because we don't share your issues". I've seen cases where POV-pushers have been told to take it elsewhere, & never got a sense there was anything untoward meant, & if I did it, it would be in the same vein (absent frustration getting the better of me, which I can't rule out...). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• That's not discrimination on grounds of nationality, or even anything to do with their nationality at all, per se - more their political stance. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, is there any wording which can catch what Stalwart111 expresses? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Do the additions in bold express what is said above? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I would think that comes pretty close, at least in terms of the issues I raised. Could I suggest:

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

For a number of reasons, but not least of which is that "class" has a different meaning depending on use - school class, caste, social class, etc. I think "group" adequately covers it. Including "national" in the group of insults that could be "directed at..." makes it clear that we're talking about someone intending to insult someone else. From there, WP:COMMONSENSE would suggest that technical commentary about numbers of editors by nationality wouldn't be considered a personal attack. Stalwart111 07:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I see your point, good strikeout In ictu oculi (talk) 10:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we have a quick straw poll to see if others are happy or can we consider the above to be consensus enough to justify a change? (Which can always be challenged/discussed anyway.) Stalwart111 13:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not looked at the background to this, but in general, policies are not changed to suit one or two incidents. Is there any reason to believe that there is an ongoing problem of people making offensive remarks about "foreign editors", and not being held accountable because there is no rule prohibiting such remarks? Naturally, it is a personal attack to make offensive remarks about another editor's nationality, but I do not see what benefit would arise from attempting to specify exactly what people are allowed to say, and what they are not allowed to say. Consider editor X who says that editor Y is not sufficiently fluent in English, and should contribute on their national Wikipedia rather than enwiki. Can a policy be worded to allow that statement if it is sufficiently civil, or prohibit it if it is phrased offensively? This policy should not encourage anyone who might label X's civil comment as an attack on Y's nationality. I am concerned that specific wording would be abused in the many us-vs.-them nationalistic wikiwars, with the policy being used to attack attempts by neutral third parties who might innocently observe that some group of POV warriors appear to be of a certain nationality. If there is to be a change, why not trim the wording which looks quite silly with its partial list of ways that one editor can find to insult another? Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I can't give you examples, because I can't be bothered to search for them, but I have seen quite a lot of these incidents, and no punishment being given. On the contrary, when something is as clearly against the spirit of our rules as this is, then it should be very clearly added into the rules. If you want to clean up the wording, then propose a better one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I must have seen dozens of examples. But I'm not going to search for them because it should be about preemptive direction of where we want to be, do we want people making offensive remarks about "foreign editors" or not? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:26, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I am about to add "contributor, or against a group of contributors " since it seems there's full consensus on that. Johnuniq, if you can come up with a better wording than "eligious, political, ethnic, national, sexual"? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Creating a detailed list seems kind of silly. Also, the broad expectation here seems to be that you need to stop a bunch of nasty native English speakers from being mean to "foreigners". However, everyone is a foreigner to someone else. I'm watching an interesting discussion right now on English Wikipedia where a Mongolian user has essentially called a German user a stupid foreigner for some edits he made to a page in the English Wikipedia. Clearly, wording should be more reflective of the community's principles rather than a checklist of no-nos. Personal attacks are evident: the community will know what they are when it sees them. Taroaldo ✉ 06:19, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

What about the "tone" of comments?

I've been faced with snarky and condescending comments from another user insulting my knowledge and/or experience about a subject. This isn't about sexism or threats, it's just very unpleasant, aggressive and personal. After reading this page, I can see that perhaps the best course of action is to not respond. But given that we have similar interests, I can see this run-in happening again. Is alright to characterize this behavior as a "personal attack"?

I should say that this is occurring with my primary account but for a variety of reasons, I don't want to associate my username with this post. I don't want this question for clarification become a discussion about me and my competence. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• The problem is, we've got absolutely no clue what you're on about. I perfectly understand your reasons for not using your primary account: but without any diffs, or any evidence of their comments, we can't really determine if this unnamed user has a case to answer for. What you should probably do is file an ANI thread if this user has made these comments on multiple occasions (especially if they're aimed at multiple users.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That aside, this guideline could do with a little expansion on the WP:SNARK, "Oh ... isn't it", and "na-na-nah-nah" type of language, but usually I see and person being snarky as shooting themselves in the foot. Other than tighten WP:NPA there is always the WP:Civility board. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I had forgotten I'd posted this. Thank you for your feedback and for pointing me in the direction of the WP:Civility board. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Belittling competence

User:Roscelese reverted this addition that I made a few weeks ago to the list of personal attacks:

• Belittling an editor's intelligence, knowledge, command of the English language, talent, or competence.

with this comment: "Recommend discussing for consensus first. Competence, command of English, etc. are valid editing concerns."

Do you have any suggestions for improving the wording?

Here are some thoughts. A common form of personal attack is to point out mistakes in spelling or grammar in something someone said on a talk page as an ad hominem to discredit an idea being proposed, when these mistakes have nothing to do with the idea under debate. A particularly incendiary and sadly common form of personal attack is to call the other person stupid, ignorant, or incompetent. I'd like WP:WIAPA to state in clear, plain language that these kinds of remarks are not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia.

Belittling is usually an attempt to humiliate someone into shutting up or lead others to discount their ideas for reasons other than substance. That has no place at all on Wikipedia, regardless of the reality of the shortcoming being pointed out. The wiki way is: when you can spot an editor's failings, that's an opportunity to find synergy or educate, not to belittle or discredit. When incompetence is genuinely causing disruption, as described at WP:DISRUPT, still you shouldn't belittle. That's something to take up at an appropriate noticeboard, as described at WP:DDE.

—Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:40, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I do not support this addition. WP:COMPETENCE is a fairly common issue. Beyond that, you should almost never make a unilateral addition to policy without discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell more specifically what you see as a problem with the above addition, or suggest a change to the wording to avoid that problem? —Ben Kovitz (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the addition under any wording. Taroaldo said it well. A PA is kind of like pornography, you know it when you see it, but you probably don't want to show too many examples in regulations against it. See WP:BEANS. Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no wording needed. Civility is well-covered already. If someone is calling an editor stupid or is telling them to go back to school, or some other ridiculous comment, that is obviously not civil. If it persists, it will end up at ANI. Admins deal with this kind of behaviour all the time. And it is all covered by Wikipedia policy already. See Identifying Incivility. Taroaldo ✉ 00:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding WP:BEANS, in my experience, the kinds of belittling I described above are by far the most common kind of personal attack—far more common than the types currently listed. Frequently, what could have been collaborative discussion of a disagreement turns into a trading of barbs because someone makes a little remark trying to discredit the other editor, and it escalates from there. In your experience, is this actually a rare or non-existent problem? If the kind of personal attack I'm talking about is not a real problem, then I would no longer be interested in targeting it with better wording. (BTW, comparing editors to Hitler and threatening user-page vandalism do sound to me like WP:BEANS.) —Ben Kovitz (talk) 03:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, belittling is covered under Wikipedia policy at Identifying incivility, Section 1 Direct rudeness, Sub.(d) "belittling a fellow editor". The policy is there, the wording is there, it's all good. Taroaldo ✉ 04:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• It was not advisable to make such a change to a Wikipedia policy without discussion. Already, people have been quoting it at ANI [6]. Naturally, this can cause a lot of problems. "Belittling" is a loaded word which is also open to broad subjective interpretation, and it should not be associated with a specific list of topics. An action that is considered to be belittling another individual is uncivil behaviour. However, there are many legitimate cases where someone's editing work may be challenged based on lack of English skills, lack of knowledge on a topic, or competence. This does not mean you can call someone stupid (uncivil), but you must challenge material which is not helpful to the topic at hand. This is not to say that you will start a discussion on an editor's English skills for making one or two edits, or their math skills for making a single edit in a physics article. But some editors regularly edit articles they really shouldn't be editing. In such cases, they need to be approached, civilly, about their editing. Please be realistic: some people really have no business editing some of the articles they do. Adding a loaded statement to NPA is just asking for all sorts of trouble, both from the wikilawyers and from the people who mean well and bring their issue to ANI where they end up getting hammered even more because they really haven't been editing properly and the concern about their English/topic knowledge/competence was legitimate. Taroaldo ✉ 00:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention when you (politely) question if some repeated violation of policy is incompetence, when it's more likely POV pushing, you might even straighten them out a little . CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 02:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if somebody saying "You have no business editing this subject" falls under this. I've had that said, after relying on what I believed was a reliable source; rather than suggest the source may have been wrong, it was presumed to be my mistake. (The tone wasn't exactly neutral, either.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• This comment doesn't belong in this policy. Comments about an editor's competence will fall under two categories: they're a statement of fact, or they'll be unjust and uncivil, and thus, already covered by the policy. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
• Keep out in present form - As per Lukeno94 this comment doesn't belong in this policy. Comments about an editor's competence will fall under two categories: they're a statement of fact, or they'll be unjust and uncivil, and thus, already covered by the policy. The fact is that incompetent editors do need to be told when there is a competence issue. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is the NPA warning template?

I thought there was a template to issue an NPA warning on an editor's userpage. Anyone know where it is located? In ictu oculi (talk) 05:37, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Broad-chruching WIAPA

Hey,

I've made an edit changing this line:

Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors.

to

Discriminatory epithets directed against another contributor, a group of contributors, or any of their characteristics (including, but not limited to, those protected by law or the Wikimedia Foundation's non-discrimination policy).

It's a simple change with no real effect, but I think it would be better to bolster this policy with Foundation policy. In effect, the only characteristic removed would be political affiliation, but that's already dealt with in the next bullet point. The other categories are protected by either California law or the non-discrimination policy. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 20:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

disagree. The wmf policy calls out protected characteristics - your language is way too broad. Otherwise, one of joe blow's 'characteristics' could be that be hates gay people, but we wouldn't be able to call him out on this or critique him on this basis.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The whole point of the broad language is to prevent rules-lawyering of the "this is not in NPA so it's fine" type. The whole intent of that part of NPA is to proscribe personal attacks against protected classes and other immutable characteristics. Political viewpoints are protected by the next point, but the first should, as WMF-inspired policy, override that. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you're trying to fix a problem that isn't a problem - I haven't seen such wikilawyering. The reason these anti-discrimination laws call out specific protected categories is because not EVERYTHING is protected.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Does NPA apply to article subjects?

I noticed in debates about Chelsea Manning that there seems to be a growing feeling that NPA applies to all living people. I think this is fair enough, but I have a few questions: (a) Is this actually Wikipedia policy? (b) If not, should it be? (c) If it should be policy, is this the best page to have it, or should it be at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Civility? (d) If this page should be amended, is a discussion here sufficient, or do we need a wider RfC? StAnselm (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

No. WP:NPA deals with interactions between editors. BLP deals with attacks on living people. Everything connected with the article you mention is bizarre, and I would recommend ignoring most comments on stuff like NPA policy from there. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Not all comment about content is neutral

Reading these guidelines, it seems like it would be very obvious what is a personal attack and what is not.

What what if someone doesn't say politely, "This statement needs to be sourced" and instead says, what I wrote is " pointless plot bloating and your additions add nothing to the article as a whole." (opening remark, it got more heated)

Yes, the comment is about content, not about me. But it's not about improving the quality of the article it's about coming to my User Talk Page and telling me why what I've written is, basically, shit.

I realize that this incident doesn't rank up there with personal threats, I'm just suggesting that you can confine yourself to talking about content and still be insulting. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this point up. In the given example, I don't see a real 'personal attack'- problem. The person who would have written that ('..bloating...add nothing..') is not extremely polite, but perhaps he was in a hurry (or a bad mood), still he does bring over his message, his opinion, clear and without chance of misunderstanding. Then, we have to be adult enough to distinguish his (relevant) opinion from the perhaps rather harsh tone. 'Insulting'? No, you shouldn't consider unpoliteness from a virtual Wikipedia-'person' as an insult. Tell that (virtual) person politely that his remark was unpolite; if he after that reproach repeats his unpolite behaviour, he just makes a ridiculous fool of himself. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

RfC on a redirect used for hidden personal attacks

An RfC has been made regarding a redirect misused to attack editors without clear notice to them. Please feel free to participate. Nick Levinson (talk) 02:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nazi's, dictators, etc.

It seems to me a bad idea to literally forbid, categorically, to call someone a Nazi or a dictator, or to compare him with such; even if he perhaps really is a (neo-)Nazi or dictator. It starts from the wrong assumption that nazi's or dictators don't exist anymore; and from the wrong and dangerous assumption that mr. Hitler has reached a superb level of wickedness that can never be repeated or surpassed. It gives free play to dictatorial types to dominate or terrorize Wikipedia. Therefore, I'd say: calling someone a nazi or dictator is allowed, but you may be asked afterward to underpin such a strong blame. We 'd have to put up some court system, to assess whether or not such name-calling can actually be defended credibly afterward, or not. Only after the court has decided that there was really not a shred of ground for the strong blame, a punishment may follow. --Corriebertus (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'd say that what you're suggesting is totally wrong. To be honest calling someone those names is not only very very wrong, but not based upon anything, even if they might be. We best not say it at all or suggest someone is as such. And you wanna make it even so, to put up somekind of court in wikipedia, "really, really" first of all that will put extra work, and for who, then you need to appoint several persons, but are they up for that task, no they will not 9thats a task for real life judges), as this is such a bizar and unfounded suggestion, that to me your suggestion can be thrown in the bin directly. further more it only brings extra work, which we best can put into right information on wikipedia, not as wikipedia-cops or wannabe judges. Also those persons who make a remark or suggest someone is such a bad thing, really doesn't say it in reallity, but more to offend that person. Ricodol74 _? 03:18, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
• Corriebertus, murderers and child molesters certainly still exist, and it is none the less a violation of WP:NPA to call another editor either. The same is true with many unpleasant or negative categorizations that exist in the real world. And, unless an editor edits under his or her real name, how are you or anyone to show that a person "really" is a neo-Nazi or a dictator or whatever other epithet might be defended as "true"? Moreover, if the real name is known, making sch statements would violate WP:BLP unless high-quality sources supported the statement. In any articles about actual dictators, or Nazis, or neo-Nazis, they can be so labeled if the sources justify this. Otherwise, let's avoid any such accusations. DES ^(talk) 03:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

removing quote attribution

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people. — Eleanor Roosevelt

in the spirit of the quote, i think attribution should be removed :) 61.7.134.231 (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Reporting attacks

How do I report someone if there is a need? Norum 15:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it Wikipedias intention to support attackers?

When I read the article, I see no links to external atacks, this looks to me as if Wikipadia likes to support attackers that use Wikipedia just as one of several platforms to launch attacks against persons or projects. Proving a global attack is forbidden, as this would require to link against external attacks.

Together with disallowing to unhide the real identity of wikipedia users, Wikipedia is the perfect platform for attackers as Wikipedia even tries to forbid to discover such a global attack on a different medium.

The perfect method of an attack strategy against persons or projects is to use edits on wikipedia (a combination of logged in edits and IP based edits), together with attacks using other platforms under the real name, under a pseudonym and completely anonymous. Wikipedia will bann attacked users if they try to report such a global attack.

So why is Wikipedia supporting the bad ones? Is there really no way to prevent attackers to abuse Wikipedia as one of several platforms for a global attack? Schily (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

.Hmmm maybe it's because the bad ones are not really bad, maybe they have a disability that makes act that way--Hacienda Guy (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Hacienda Guy

You're a "racist" / "sexist" / "homophobe"

I wonder if it would be wise to add to NPA how to treat counter charges of You're a "racist" / "sexist" / "homophobe". Obviously PA that are racist/sexist/homophobic need dealing with severely, but I have seen on ANI a couple of times editors making counter charge of "racist" or "homophobic" themselves get trouts/smacks/blocks. I haven't seen it for "sexist", but then I don't watch ANI much, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. My reason for suggesting this is twofold. (1) to make it clear that a personal attack is still a personal attack even if the moral/ethical direction is correct, (2) to give a level of guidance to editors who want/need to point out edits/Talk which border on "racist" / "sexist" / "homophobe", but do so with a level of confidence it won't WP:BOOMERANG on them for making the charge. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The above was started on an issue raised by IP editor at an arbcom request to which several editors were invited to comment, I opened it here as a better place that the (not accepted) arbcom request. But seems no takers, so evidently not a major issue for those watching this page. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Name calling should be posted

Name calling another user is a personal attack, why is that not posted? 50.121.36.219 (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It's covered under "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Informal mediation

The article lists and links to informal mediation, but the link doesn't seem to list anything besides formal mediation at that link. Perhaps this needs to be updated? Thanks. Pengortm (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Clarification sought

The interpretation of part of WP:NPA has been raised by User:Born2cycle on several editors' User talk pages, namely User:SmokeyJoe, User:Casliber and User:Omnedon, regarding:

Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.

Question: Does this mean if a user exhibits questionable Talk page behaviour at a policy or article talk page, that such behavior cannot be mentioned, or requested to cease, on the same policy or article talk page where it is occurring? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The issue is the word "inappropriate", which can be interpreted subjectively by different editors. In which case one has to get some idea of consensus from uninvolved editors to make a decree on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how much clearer it could about what is meant by "inappropriate" with respect to article/policy talk pages, when it explicitly states, in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.. --В²C ☎ 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the idea behind this is to protect the integrity of the article/policy talk page in question, out of respect for all other participants on that talk page. The idea is to not sully it (perhaps further) with "dirty laundry", so to speak.

One has to ask, what would be the purpose of bringing attention to inappropriate behavior on that article/policy page, instead of (or in addition to) doing it on the user talk page? How does the project benefit from having behavioral issues discussed or even mentioned on an article or policy talk page, even if the misbehavior occurred there?

As I just noted on SmokeyJoe's user talk page, in the real world even barroom disputes are resolved "outside" out of respect for the bar and its patrons. We should show at least the same respect to article/policy talk pages, don't you think?

If addressing the issue is not resolved on a user talk page, WP:DR makes other recommendations. No where among them does it suggest to bring the issue to the article/policy talk page in which the behavior in question occurred. --В²C ☎ 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @B2C - in this case, alot of people appear to be really fed up with your behaviour, and it got mentioned. Regardless of how you interpreted it, it does not change the fact that alot of people are unhappy about the way you conduct yourself. Labouring the point is just going to antagonise people more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Feeling antagonized should not justify WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL violation just because it feels right in any particular case. --В²C ☎ 01:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Problem behaviour on a particular talk page is appropriately called on that talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • The statement in question makes no allowance for behavior that occurred on that talk page. In fact, unless the behavior occurred on that page, it's highly unlikely for the criticism to be mentioned there at all. This point, for it to make sense at all, must be specifically about criticisms of behavior on that talk page.

    Regardless of where the misbehavior occurred, discussing the behavior, instead of the relevant article/policy content, on that article/policy talk page, is appropriate. Only discussion about article/policy content is appropriate on a given article/policy talk page. --В²C ☎ 01:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This might seem like a tangent, but it came to mind. There's long been debate about the Bible verse, "Judge not lest ye be judged." This can be taken in many ways. My view was always that one must make judgments as one passes through life, and that the point was that one should not judge others guilty when one was not "the judge". However, one will naturally see good or bad behavior in others, and make judgments accordingly.

In a similar vein, B2C's interpretation of "personal attack" is far too sweeping. If bad behavior is going on, calling an editor on it is not a personal attack. To mention another editor's name without being complimentary is not, by definition, a personal attack. In ictu oculi's comment at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, which B2C removed and which I restored, was simply a statement of fact, not an attack. And this was borne out at ANI. Omnedon (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The interpretation of "personal attack" is not in question. We're way past that. How to interpret the following is at issue here:

Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.

Specifically, the question is this: is a "criticism of personal behavior on a policy or article talk page" an example of "Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page?" --В²C ☎ 01:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You're missing a key point. "Personal behavior". This doesn't refer to actions taken as an editor. If an editor takes an action that is objectionable, commenting on it doesn't fit in this definition of "personal attack". Omnedon (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean personal behavior like failing to wash one's hands after using the restroom? Now you've really jumped the semantic shark. All behavior on WP involves editing; all behavior engaged in on by persons on WP involves "actions taken as an editor". "Personal behavior" here means "behavior of a specific person". That's all. --В²C ☎ 01:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual, you ask for input, and then you throw it away when it's given. No, not all behavior on WP involves editing. Most of your time here involves arguing, not editing. In any case -- negative actions need to be noted, and you frequently do it yourself, as do the rest of us. In a recent RM you accused a panel of three editors of being somehow in league with those who opposed. In the case of a discussion, the content there involves the various statements being made by the various editors. By your definition, if you accuse someone of making a personal attack, that is itself a personal attack: it is a comment on the behavior of another editor. Omnedon (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Almost. Not per my definition, but per the definitions and clarifications given at WP:NPA, accusing someone of a personal attack is certainly criticism of that person's behavior, but it's not necessarily a personal attack. The context of where the criticism is made determines whether it is a personal attack or not.

If the accusation of a personal attack is made in "an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page", then indeed the accusation-criticism is a personal attack as well. --В²C ☎ 02:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So, if I attack you personally here on this talk page, that's a violation of WP:NPA. If someone then goes to my user talk page and criticizes me for doing so, that's not a personal attack. One is not in violation of NPA if the criticism is made in an appropriate context, like on a user talk page.

But, if someone just references on this talk page, an attack I made on this talk page, that in and of itself is a personal attack too. Context matters a whole lot in establishing whether criticism of, or even mere reference to, personal behavior constitutes a personal-attack/NPA-violation on WP. Much of it is about dealing with inappropriate behavior in the appropriate context, and not dealing with it in an inappropriate context.

How else can these words be reasonably interpreted? --В²C ☎ 02:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Born2Cycle, the 3 editors above have already commented on, and thus already answered, your question. Your initiation of 4 continuation discussions on 4 Talk pages (collected here) seems to indicate that you wish to continue discussion from ANI. And indeed your "I also did not cite that bullet above from WP:NPA in the ANI discussion because I had not noticed it before the ANI closed." confirms this. Personally I feel that the 3 editors' replies above are clear (and also agree with my own understanding of what NPA says) and see no need to continue this thread further, though if you wish to continue you can always widen it to User:Djsasso User:Bishonen User:Liz User:Mendaliv] who also already commented on applicability of WP:NPA. That is a total of 8 editors. I see no need to change/clarify the wording of NPA as it stands. Please desist. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with B2C's parsing of the policy, but disagree that such parsing is in the spirit of NPA. It is patently unreasonable to have a bright-line rule disallowing discussion or criticism of an editor's actions in article talk space. Such discussion may be frowned upon in article talk space because such discussion will generally be outside the scope of discussion of the article (which is the purpose of article talk space), but it is nonsensical to say that the community disallows commentary or criticism of a user's behavior in article talk space. In fact, I would say that given WP:PG indicates that our policies and guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive (i.e., they merely serve as descriptions of community standards rather than an effort to control or shape community standards), the policy's language should be updated to eliminate B2C's parsing, which has clearly led to a misunderstanding of the community's standards on his part. I suspect that the language currently in the policy that gives rise to that parsing represents a sort of Wikipedia scrivener's error. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying what the wording clearly states.

I don't see why you think it's nonsensical to disallow commentary or criticism of a user's behavior on an article or policy talk page. As is noted here, there are appropriate places for such commentary and criticism, and article/policy talk page is not it (for a number of good reasons).

In any case, to make such a significant change to the wording as you suggest here really should have a wider community input, via an rfc. --В²C ☎ 02:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

See, that's where you're wrong. What you're arguing is for a slavish interpretation of the policy language, not only without considering the spirit or the actual way the policy is applied, but with flagrant disregard for how it is applied. And a scrivener's error like this does not require a whole new reauthorization or readoption process, in the same way a piece of legislature does not need to be voted on again when its codification contains a scrivener's error. All that's happened here is someone used language that nobody intended. Seriously, B2C, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv, um, in fact I think you are correct, it does indeed say that. By that text even saying e.g. "please strike the bad language above" could be seen as something which should only be said on a User page, not said directly underneath the Talk page behavior "above" referred to. the copy was added some time between 1 Jan 2013 and 1 Jan 2014. Perhaps it does need modifying after all. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. That's why I say the parsing is unreasonable enough that it cannot be considered part of the policy: to be interpreted in the manner B2C proposes would cause a manifestly absurd result. It is not possible that the community follows manifestly absurd rules, therefore, the wording must be the equivalent of a scrivener's error (or otherwise simply false, which would counsel the removal of the entire sentence). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mendaliv, narrowing the date parameters further the "scrivener's error" was added on 22 July 2013 by B2C without any corresponding discussion at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 11 as would normally be expected before significant additions to any English Wikipedia policy. However per WP:AGF I do assume that Born2cycle had genuinely forgotten the edit and didn't realize he was citing himself. It happens. However, I now support removal - and not based on who added it, but for the reasons given. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Support removal as there was no consensus for adding the language. If B2C wishes to discuss adding such a rule, he is welcome to propose it through the normal channels. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Support removal as well, for the same reasons. Omnedon (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Support removal - this is a policy page and should not be altered significantly without discussion and consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Per above, I have removed the addition with edit summary "rv undiscussed addition 17:58, 22 July 2013 per talk; pointing out a problem is not a personal attack; any actual PA is covered by existing text". Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I'm embarrassed. I don't remember adding that at all. My apologies. --В²C ☎ 04:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think several editors whose time you wasted by unilaterally editing this policy and then citing yourself were [on 13 May 2014] inclined to let things be after that apology. But I have to say that edits since 04:25, 13 May 2014 do not justify such generosity. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Departure messages on userpages

Natureguy1980 (talk · contribs) departed the project (as have a few other editors) following acrimony surrounding the bird name capitalisation debate in April this year. ON his userpage was a note that was reverted twice by John (talk · contribs). Question is, what could be considered not crossing the line here - if editor A states they are leaving because of editor B (without mentioning the behaviour as "bullying" or "filibustering"), is that ok or not ok? Is that better or worse than this version? I could link to the rather extensive background on the editor complained about but there is alot and have not the energy to rehash it right now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I welcome a fuller discussion, and I am discussing this at my talk page at the moment. Honestly, I think that a user page from a departed user that "names and shames" a current editor falls foul of WP:ATTACK and does not improve the encyclopedia. There are other ways to address grievances. Be happy to hear others' views though, here or at my talk. --John (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just issued a major whine on John's talk about the user behind the trouble. However, this is the next page on my watchlist so I have to say that John is correct on this point—user space is not available to name enemies (or hint at their names). If that were tolerated there would be poisonous lists everywhere. A more indirect approach is needed, and Natureguy could say something about the belligerence that made them unable to contribute further at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Propose change to section name

Maybe this will come up in ArbCom, but in case it doesn't, I propose that the section header "Removal of text" should be changed to "Removing personal attacks." The section is about personal attacks, and the language would complement the Civility subsection "Removing uncivil comments." Lightbreather (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Section title issue

I was looking at the section title "Avoiding personal attacks" and realized it seems to put the onus on the person attacked to prove they didn't deserve it. I think a better title, that reflects the actual content, is "Use impersonal language." And perhaps it might help dramatize the with the main issue in this thread. Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I (respectfully) disagree: As far as I'm concerned what's wrong with the section (and is symptomatic of what's wrong with Wikipedia) is the attempt to outlaw normal civil speech ("you" and "your") instead of concentrating on outlawing genuine personal attacks. The above suggestion would merely make that worse. Note that I haven't said 'your suggestion' - but you presumably understand perfectly well that's what I mean by 'the above suggestion'. Had I said 'Your suggestion' that would not have made it a personal attack. In other cases it might have helped make it clearer what I was saying (indeed in this case it would make it clear that I'm not talking about Lightbreather's suggestion). In still other cases the outlawing of 'you' and 'your' may make all of us wonder whether we are being criticized when in fact no criticism of us is being made. (And I could list plenty of other problems with banning 'you' and 'your', but life is too short for that, but for more on "you" and "your", see here and here).

Meanwhile it would be easy for me to try to gratuitously hurt your feelings without ever using 'you' or 'your' by saying something like 'the above idiotic suggestion' (by the way, I in no way regard your suggestion as idiotic, I merely (respectfully) disagree with it). And if I had said 'the above idiotic suggestion', I could then have claimed it wasn't a personal attack (when it seems to me that in reality it usually or always would have been), as it was 'content-oriented' on grounds that I would be supposedly criticizing the suggestion and not attacking you. And, though I've never counted them, I suspect that most of the worst personal attacks in Wikipedia (the ones by 'clever bullies') are of that nature. And I expect that most of the time they get away with it.

(And, incidentally, even when they don't get away with it, they may actually gain anyway, because having a nasty block log record serves as useful 'warpaint' that intimidates others into giving them a wide berth for fear of finding themselves in an unpleasant dispute, though such 'warpaint' is perhaps a bit of a digression here). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• How about changing it to, "How to avoid making personal attacks", or "How to avoid attacking others"? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see User:RTG/General attacks ~ R.T.G 12:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Edits of 17 September 2014

I now intend to undo today's changes per BRD, as lacking consensus+making things worse: However this may take a little time as there are 6 or 7 changes, and I only know how to undo them one at a time. There is no consensus for change - there are self-evidently a large number of objects in the above. Meanwhile the changes make things worse in many respects, especially as they remove the explicit statement that "Your statement ...", although not encouraged, is NOT a personal attack, which gives useful protection to normal people trying to speak normally and unambiguously.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(Please note that my above comment refers to objects which were immediately above it when it was created, before it got moved to the current new section)Tlhslobus (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Will you assume good faith and discuss this? I don't believe any of the edits changed the meaning of the policy. Mostly copy-editing, clarifying, adding shortcuts, etc. I will be happy to explain each. Lightbreather (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you may be able to build consensus for most of your changes (perhaps with tweaks), and I personally think you have made them in good faith. However, changes to policy do not follow normal WP:BRD. Generally, consensus should be affirmatively gained first. WP:CONLIMITED Gaijin42 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And your edit summaries, Tlhslobus, are perfect examples of what the previous discussion is about.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. All but one reverts good-faith edits made by me. One is a GF edit made by another. They all say: Undid revision 625979403 by Lightbreather (talk) Undoing today's changes 1 by 1, as lacking consensus per BRD,+making things worse - details in Talk. (Except the one reverting the other editor has his username in it.) It was completely uncivil to add "+making things worse". Lightbreather (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, Tlhslobus, I would not have taken personally this edit summary: Undid revision 625979403 by Lightbreather (talk) Undoing today's changes 1 by 1, as lacking consensus per BRD - details in Talk. The first part is auto-generated and the second part adheres to Avoid inappropriate summaries. Lightbreather (talk) 00:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I neither stated nor intended to imply any lack of good faith, and my apologies if you got such an impression. The 'by Lightbreaker" is NOT by me - it is the standard text that our software puts in with every 'undo' - as such it is NOT an example of anything discussed here. And nor did I intend to be uncivil - "making things worse" is simply a summary of what I said in the explanation in Talk, and it refers to my view that the content has been made worse - it is not a personal attack on you, and it is not uncivil. I apologize if it offended you, but it is simply an honest good faith content-oriented edit description. I merely point out that the changes collectively make things worse in ways that I have already explained above. But I'm happy to hear which changes you think don't change the policy - in particular by removing the immensely precious protection of the clear and unambiguous explicit statement that " Saying 'Your statement ... ' is NOT a personal attack". So I'm certainly willing to discuss the matter (although not enthusiastic, as I fear it may turn into an exhausting argument). I would however appreciate it if you could please withdrew some of the seemingly unwarranted criticisms you have made of me in your previous comments. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to get sidetracked. I've listed what you reverted below. Would you please reply there with your arguments about how the edits you reverted "made things worse," starting with 1. - which is the simplest of the four. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That is an exceptionally watered down definition of uncivil. If he thinks your the changes made the policy worse (ie, more confusing/ambiguous/wrong) that is an entirely legitimate position. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gaijin42Tlhslobus (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The position MAY be legitimate, but it doesn't belong in an edit summary. The position may ALSO be wrong. The talk page is the place to speculate on whether or not an edit "made things worse" - not edit summaries. But I'm not going to get off topic and argue about that here. This discussion is about the content of these edits, starting with the simplest:

1. Made things worse?[14][15] Lightbreather (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

2. Made things worse?[16] Lightbreather (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

3. Made things worse?[17] Lightbreather (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"made things worse" It may be right, it may be wrong, but either way it is not incivil or inappropriate for the talk page or the edit summary. We are supposed to keep it on the edits not the editor, but apparently keeping it on the edits is also offlimits. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

When such an opinion is made on a talk page, if it turns out to be wrong, the editor who made the claim can apologize. When it's made in an edit summary, it floats around forever as an unsubstantiated criticism of the edit and the editor who made it. For example, if I were to say here that you may be baiting me, and then you replied that you are not, I could simply say, "I'm sorry" and maybe even withdraw my comment. If I add it to my edit summary, it'll float around forever. Lightbreather (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of the edit that sits around forever is not a problem, even if that criticism turns out to be incorrect. Since you just accused me of baiting you in your edit summary though, which is specifically directed towards an editor, and you think such a thing is uncivil and likely a personal attack if it was done towards you, then you are breaking your own rules to make a WP:POINT. Like many rules I guess they are only applied for me and not for thee. You have a view of incivility that is fundamentally incompatible with criticizing anything for any purpose - that makes edit summaries pretty useless, and very un-wiki imo. In any case, us going around in circles is not productive. Get consensus for your policy changes, if you can, but if rules like "dont say anything negatitve about an edit in an edit summary" are what you are hoping for, I sincerely hope you fail. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for all your above help, Gaijin42. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, Gaijin42, I responded in the way that I think you wanted me to so that you could make your WP:POINTs. Now I would like to drop this and get back to the questions above and below. Lightbreather (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

(This statement was meant to be put here in response to the above comments; somehow it managed to end up elsewhere). As I indicated originally I was undoing the edits 1 by 1 because for some reason I am physically unable to undo them all in one go (perhaps somebody can let me know how to do that); as such the edit description necessarily refers to the collection of edits, and not to any individual edit. As for not belonging in an edit summary, part of the purpose of an edit summary is to give a summary of the reasons why a change is being made, and as such what I wrote, being such a summary, does belong in the edit summary.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(Please note that my above comment does not refer to the comments immediately above it, as these were added by others at a later time).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

4. (ec) Made things worse?[18] The following is a before and after for comparison. (Note that the "after" did not incorporate the proposed text re edit summaries from the above, still-open discussion.)

Before 17 SEP 2014

As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people.

In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack, but "The statement..." and "The paragraph inserted..." is preferred, or instead—"The paragraph inserted here [DIFF] into the article looks like original research", which also is not a personal attack, and avoids referring to the other editor in the second person; providing the DIFF also cuts down confusion. Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct).

After

As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people.

In disputes, the second person words "you" and "your" may be taken as a personal attack by some, regardless of your intention. For example, the statements:

N The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research.

N Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y.

Would be preferable like this:

Y The paragraph inserted into the article looks like original research.

Y The statement about X is wrong because of information at Y.

Discussion of a user's conduct or history is not a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct).

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This statement (which I regard as immensely important) had disappeared in the changes:

A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack, ...

There may well be other problems with the changes which will come to light once discussed by others. Meanwhile the procedure for making such large changes has to be followed - a consensus has to be reached (and not just by you and me). Tlhslobus (talk) 23:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have problems with edits 1 through 3, or just this one, please? Lightbreather (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's after midnight so I'm going to bed. But if you could please clarify which edits are '1 to 3' and which one is 'this one' , I'll try to find time to think about your question and answer it in the next few days, but with luck possibly sometime tomorrow (golf and Scottish Referendum permitting). Though as already pointed out, such changes should normally need a larger consensus than just you and me (after all, any mistake we make potentially affects thousands or maybe even millions of Wikipedians) - but presumably you don't need to wait for my opinons before initiating whatever is the recommended consensus-seeking process. As Gajin42 has already stated above, "Generally, consensus should be affirmatively gained first. WP:CONLIMITED." Anyway, have a good night's sleep. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

They're numbered above, in this very discussion. If you scroll up you will see items 1, 2, 3, and 4, each followed by the question "Made things worse?" and a diff or diffs. Goodnight and I look forward to your reply. Lightbreather (talk) 00:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• At least as far as I can see, no problem with 1 and 2. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm not so sure about 2 anymore - the change replaces an instruction to be "civil" which is only wikilinked to our civility guidelines, to an explicit order to adhere to those guidelines, while (if I remember right) removing the explicit requirement to be civil. This seems trivial, except that our civility guidelines are now linked to 'Dick/Asshole/Fuckhead' stuff that many of us see as dangerously uncivil (or worse) - so even this may not be quite as simple and harmless as I first thought. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I've now checked whether I remembered right - I did, the change did indeed remove the explicit requirement to be civil. Tlhslobus (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm now beginning to have my doubts even about 1, which adds an anchor called "Removal of text" to the start of "Removal of personal attacks". The purpose of an anchor is to enable people to link to a place to which one could not otherwise link. But here it's being used to provide an invisible link to a place to which we can already link, while making it harder for people, bots, etc, to realize that it's linking to "Removal of personal attacks", because it appears to be linking to something called "Removal of text" which doesn't have any obvious relation to Personal Attacks. This may well be harmless, but that's not self-evident, since on the face of it, it seems to somehow unintentionally make it easier for somebody in future to deliberately deceive or accidentally mislead some bot, while it's quite unclear what its benefits, if any, might be, given that one doesn't need it to link there (actually there is a benefit in that the link still works if the section name changes, whereas linking to the section name eventually gets fixed by a bot, but that can take some time, during which the link doesn't work). Tlhslobus (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

However the above concerns with 1 are probably excessive (they probably would apply to most anchors) and can in any case be met by choosing an anchor name such as "Removal of personal attacks" (or maybe "Removal-of-personal-attacks" if something like that is needed to avoid name duplication). And many thanks for teaching me about anchors, as I've been wanting something like that for ages (for example to link to a name without its own article in a disambiguation list, etc).Tlhslobus (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Better not fall-back on me, Tlhslobus, as an authority on anchors. I know very little about them myself, and I think what you want to do could be done better through other means. If you start a discussion about that on my talk page, I will try to help.Lightbreather (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

In other words as far as I'm concerned please feel free to make change 1" Tlhslobus (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note sure about 3. It is changing "justification" to "convincing evidence" and wikilinking that to "diffs". There will often be no need for diffs because the attack is nearby, or because wikilinking to a section or quoting it does the job adequately and more quickly and simply. I can also imagine other problems and abuses arising out of it (perhaps especially when inexperienced and/or not-very-smart editors are being bullied by experienced and/or smart ones, as the change seems to make it harder for them to try to defend themselves). And others may find more problems (as may I, if and when I give it more thought), particularly as the entire section seems to be the result of one or more compromises between an Anti-You camp (that wants to ban or restrict "you" and "your") and a Pro-You camp (that sees this as a very bad idea). There may have been other camps involved in the compromises as well, such as opponents of instruction creep, and who knows what else. As such changing individual elements of a compromise package may not work, because the compromise only works as a whole, and can perhaps only be replaced by a new whole reached by consensus (if such a replacement is seen as desirable and if a consensus on it can be reached).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• As for 4, there are parts of it which are essentially cosmetic, and I don't object to those parts - indeed I quite like them (but I might then want similar pretty highlighting for the "safeguard" bit too). But the major wording change that I've already mentioned will never be acceptable to me (nor, I suspect, to the people of the "Pro-You" camp who presumably put that safeguard in there in the first place, though they may well not even be aware that it's under discussion). And there may be problems with other parts of the wording changes which others may spot (or which I may spot later, if and when I give it more thought).Tlhslobus (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, the RFC above is currently opposing at 15:8. Changes to policy require consensus, and there is clearly not consensus for the more important changes being discussed at this time. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually his current changes seem very different from the one discussed in the above RFC, so they would probably require a completely new RFC. Also, for all I know, making changes to the section (even minor cosmetic ones , and wording 'clarifications') while the existing RFC is still ongoing may well be confusing by reducing the clarity of the discussions in that RFC.Tlhslobus (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that since the WP:No personal attacks page is a policy page, significant, non-cosmetic changes to it should have WP:Consensus. The policy page has a tag on it that is clear about that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)