Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 2

Templates

Are there no-personal-attacks templates such as the Vandal templates {{test}}, {{test2}}/{{test2a}}, {{test3}}, and {{test4}}? If not, should some be created? They may be useful for reminding users of official policies, especially new and anonymous users. Zhatt 17:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I just noticed Template:No personal attacks and Template:No personal headings, but it seems like they could be expanded. Zhatt 18:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Attack on Vancouver talk

Does this constitute as a personal attack? Quote: Bottom line: Screw Vancouver and go soke your bud you AIDS-infested people. Zhatt 18:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

A poll attempt

Njyoder attempted to start a survey here, claiming that this policy has no consensus and expressing concerns over what he perceives as its uneven application. Certain users have repeatedly tried to censor it. I think the poll is misguided at best: even if, by a miracle (or a large number of sockpuppets), it were to fail to achieve the bizarre Wikipedia definition of consensus in favor of the policy, the principle has been essential from the earliest days of the project. I don't think the central point is open to debate if you like men, though of course the ancillary aspects are, and I am confident that an overwhelming majority shares that view.

However, I believe that censoring the proposal only makes the conflict interpersonal, rather than between one user and the very principles of the project. Cutting out a man's tongue, burning his books, insert hyperbolic violent metaphor here, only convinces him that he's right and you're trying to hide it. Letting him speak up and be rejected overwhelmingly may not convince him that he's wrong, but it will tell him that he's wasting his time. I have therefore moved the last uncensored version of the discussion to the subpage /njyoder's poll, where it can receive the disdain that it deserves. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that simply deleting something like this is the wrong approach and is too heavy-handed. Best just to ignore it, or register your disagreement with the legitimacy of a poll (or whatever), and move on. — Matt Crypto 15:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, even if you disagreed with it, it would make sense just to ignore it, not to censor it. He has threatened me with blocks, so I have created an RFC. Nathan J. Yoder 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

My view on this is that we're here to produce an encyclopedia, not duplicate the excesses of Usenet. Conduct rules are essential, and the first amongst these must be No Personal Attacks, with the terms subject to common sense interpretation (on the wiki as in common law). If we didn't have a consensus for this, it would still be applied, because one of the imperatives of leaving people free to continue producing the encyclopedia is that they should expect to be free from personal attack. Consensus, or the lack of it, can never trump commonsense. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:22, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

"Common sense" isn't actually common and Wikipedia is not a bureacracy, so you couldn't violate consensus. What constitutes a "personal attack" is too subjective and even some Wikipedia originals (like Larry Sanger) seem to think that there should be exceptions to this rule that you hold to such an absolute standard. Even administrators make explicit exceptions for themselves too, in order to make accusations of trolling or egotism. This "common sense" seems to be more uncommon than anything given how people are interpreting it in so many different ways. Nathan J. Yoder 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The existence of gray zones does not mean that there are no black zones. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

And most would fall under the 'gray zone' area, making this policy ridiculously subjective. It becomes a "way to get rid of people I don't like" rule, since you can argue tons of stuff is a personal attack and have higher admins argue that stuff isn't to excuse themselves. Nathan J. Yoder 14:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Y'know, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been "gotten rid of" over anything less than a consistent pattern of personal attacks, continuing in the face of repeated warnings. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TDC-2#Personal_attacks_and_incivility Here is a case that indicates how far someone can go and still be (barely) tolerated. Do you really want an atmosphere where something much beyond that is tolerated? If so, count me out. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not a ban from all of Wikipedia, but they certainly do selective bans from Wikipedia areas and will repeteadly block you for dubious interpretations of the NPA rule. I looked at the RFC you linked to and the "personal attacks" don't need to be anywhere near that overt to warrant a banning from parts of Wikipedia, nor do they need to give prior warning, like they did in my case. Saying something like "you're being disinginuous/dishonest", "that is hypocritical" or "he has a personal disdain for person X" become personal attacks. In other words, anything that describes a person, which is something that doesn't reflect on them positively, becomes a personal attack. Nathan J. Yoder 05:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

That sounds to me like excessive enforcement, if you are describing this accurately. How can you be "banned" without prior warning? It's a lengthy, almost judicial process. Or do you just mean "blocked"? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

He's under personal attack parole from the arbcom. Snowspinner 14:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

It was taken straight to arbcom where they instituted an immediate personal attack parole. They had to lie on the case to make it stick. They can ban you from selective parts of Wikipedia, they block if you edit those parts, so it's an effective ban even though mediawiki doesn't support such fine grained bans. Nathan J. Yoder 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems to be working quite well! --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:46, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

If you consider that working well. The ones who most zealously enforce it are the ones who are also very guilty of personal attacks and uncivility themselves. It's a blatant violation of the "kick them while they're down" section of this very article, as well as general violations against other people. Nathan J. Yoder 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Proposed edit of remedies re removal

I propose we rewrite the section on removal of personal attacks, as per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AI#Remove_personal_attacks, to make it clear that there is no consensus on the issue and that editors who overuse/abuse it cannot hide behind it being part of the policy page. -- SCZenz 11:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, I propose we say:

If you are personally attacked, you should ask the attacker to stop and note this policy. If he or she continues, consider following the dispute resolution process. You might also consider removing particularly clear-cut personal attacks per the guideline WP:RPA; however, you should be very careful not to define "personally attack" too broadly, or to do this too frequently. From a recent artibtration committee finding-of-fact:

3) The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly. [1]

If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack." When in doubt, follow the dispute resolution process instead.

In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked, though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial.

Any comments? I'll be bold and put it in eventually unless I hear negative ones—this seems to be well-grounded in peoples' actual views, and actual problems that occur. -- SCZenz 17:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I would approve of this change. Personally i oppsoe the use of WP:RPA in any way at any time, and i would favor the complete disavowal of that as an accptable action. DES ^(talk) 19:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As someone who recently made a situation worse by following the RPA policy (since I was not clear it was contested until recently, having only seen the NPA page and not the RPA page) and seen it make the dispute worse I would say that discouraging this behavior is good. Maybe there should be some leeway for deleting the nastiest attacks, but the banhammer is probably better then anyway. Kit 00:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I've seen no objections, and I think my edit is only clarifying the intent of a section whose wording is sometimes misused, so I will go ahead and put in the change now. I'm happy to discuss more if needed. -- SCZenz 20:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Added example to the "polictics sub-header

I jumped ahead of protocol (sorry!) and added an example to the political section that uses "Nazi" as an example by adding the statement "comments to the effect of "You liberals...". I know that I should have run it by the community first, but stereotyping of this type (it even applies to comments that involve conservatives as well) is a fairly common tool used in questioning one charecter. If I have offended, I apologize. Stu 14:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

To me, it would entirely depend on what came after the "you liberals". Grouping people together isn't automatically a personal attack. Friday (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

It's somewhat contextually nuanced. I think it is an attack when you use a political affiliation as a cudgel (i.e., assuming someone's political stance despite their never having mentioned it to cast aspersions), or by using it to discredit someone's edit. (I.E., "I reverted your last edit because it means you're a bedwetting liberal") This sort of could be construed as falling under the portion of NPA dealing with commenting on content rather than on the contributor, though. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

To Snowspinner: Please join dicussion and talk about your views and proposed changes. I think that would work better than your current approach.Gator(talk) 18:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the change I just made pretty much reflects the debate, and my agreement with it - I see nothing that I have to add to the debate aside from my agreement - something pretty clearly added by my edit. Phil Sandifer 18:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

This now reads "Using someone's political affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said political affilitions are mainstream or extreme." I think that is dead wrong. There are political associations that have been shown to have a strong correlation with bad faith. Are we honestly saying that we cannot "dismiss or discredit" the edits of an avowed Nazi to the Jew article, or those of a follower of Lyndon Larouche to the article on Chip Berlet? This looks to me like a license to troll. I'm not saying that someone with these politics could not possibly contribute usefully to the article, but when they are being disruptive, I think it is perfectly legitimate to mention their politics. Otherwise, we become incapable of talking about what is (often) going on. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I cannot think of a situation where it is necessary to use the fact of someone's political views in lieu of their contributions. "Sources originating from the Lyndon LaRouche movement are not credible, and cannot be used in this article" gets the point across accurately without dealing with who the contributor is. Phil Sandifer 05:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

If there is anything like a citation, yes, you are right, but as you know, most people do not cite their sources. And that is not suddenly going to change, however much some of us might wish it to. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

What is a personal attack?

This page is incredibly unhelpful, as it makes no effort to define what a personal attack is. Without a clear definition, the precise limits of what constitutes a personal attack are rather murky. The first five sections of this article tell people not to make personal attacks, and that if you do it you are a bad person, without ever attempting to define what constitutes a personal attack in context of wikipedia. The next section gives examples, but specifically notes that personal attacks are not limited to those examples. After this, there continues to be no explanation of what exactly constitutes a personal attack.

It seems to me that this article needs to provide not just examples, but a specific definition of what is a "personal attack" in the context of wikipedia. Personally, as I've suggested before, to little support, I think it should be defined relatively narrowly, as ad hominem argument. I don't think that use of profanity or threats constitute personal attacks, precisely, although I can imagine that both should be banned, separately. There seems also to be a tendency among some editors, at least, to include failure to assume good faith as a type of personal attack; and sometimes, even more broadly, to the point of claiming that any statement that calls attention in a critical way to a particular user's conduct as being a personal attack.

That said, I'm not trying to demand that my personal views on this subject be incorporated as the definition. Just that we need to have some sort of definition of what a personal attack is. how is this page supposed to provide actual guidance when it doesn't even explain what its subject is?

So, I propose that we try to work out some consensus as to what, precisely, a personal attack is. Obviously, it includes clear ad hominems, and apparently it also includes threats and use of profanity against another user (at least in some contexts - does it inclue threats to start an RfC or bring someone to arbitration?). But how far beyond this does it go? Does it go at all beyond this? Or what? I think this really needs to be clearly elaborated. john k 05:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Whatever the ultimate definition, I agree that it should defined NARROWLY. I'd rather have someone's feelings be a little hurt than editors using the persoanl attack rule to silence their critics (which happens ALL the time here). If we want to edit in the free for all that Wikipedia really is, don't we need to be prepared to have our egos bruised every so often? Shouldn't we all have a thicker skin when dealing with tough topics and relating to people from diverse places and backgrounds? How does a vague definition of a "personal attack" really do anything other than act as a sledghammer to beat someone over the who says something you don't like or a muzzle that inhibits the free and frank flow of ideas (because they're worried that someone will throw that accusation at them). Define it narrowly so that it has SOME meaning.Gator(talk) 13:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I agree that "personal attack" should be defined soemwhat narrowly, but perhaps not quite as narrowly as User:John Kenney suggests. Certianly any real-world threat is a personal attsck. So is any term of abuse directed at another editor (for example "Hello, Moron" or "when will you leave me alone, <epithet>") Comments, even uncivil ones, on another editors editing or on-wiki actions ("That edit was close to vandalism" "That comment was pure trolling" "why are you making a WP:POINT") should not IMO be treated as personal attacks. But in general I think that what constitutes a personal attack is a matter of common sense. Using lots of effor to coem up with a detailed legalistic definition will not stop thoe who want to mis-use this policy, and those who are already using good sense don't really need it, I think. Still, If you want to define it more precisely, the above is my suggestion for a start. DES ^(talk) 16:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

So no name calling. That's a start.Gator(talk) 16:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think no name calling, no ad hominem, and no real world threats seems like a good start - all of the "examples" sections concerns one of these three issues. I really do think, though, that if this page is to be called Wikipedia:No personal attacks, it needs to at least define what a personal attack is. I understand that we don't want a rigid, legalistic definition. But the problem is that, at present, we don't have any definition at all. I agree with DES that uncivil comments about on-wikipedia actions (to which I would add, threats of action within wikipedia dispute resolution processes) should not be considered personal attacks. BTW, I disagree in part, DES, that "using lots of effort to come up with a detailed legalistic definition will not stop those who want to mis-use the policy." Of course it will not stop people from making unjustified claims of personal attacks. But it will allow any reasonable person to see that the accusation isn't justified. There is simply no excuse for the complete lack of any attempt to define what a personal attack is, especially when this article is so silly to begin with (a whole section called "So, don't do it!" with extremely large text reasserting that people shouldn't make personal attacks? That section should be an embarrassment to everyone, but that's a different story) john k 16:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I hate this

If we can't make personal attacks on Wikipedia, then give me the address to a site where we can do this! Not that I've done it, of course, on Wikipedia. Scorpionman 17:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

You're free to make a mirror of Wikipedia that encourages personal attacks. Superm401 | Talk 03:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Or one that consists primarily of personal attacks. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought that Encyclopaedia Dramatica was the one with personal attacks as their main focus. Uncyclopedia just seems to be for lies. Zordrac 04:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure even they don't personally attack each other, just the subjects of the articles. Superm401 | Talk 04:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Which is more of an impersonal attack, or simply a violation of WP:NPOV. -- SCZenz 07:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Abusing wikipedia policy to engage in personal attacks

In my opinion, if someone reverts well-researched edits that took over 4 hours to write, and reverts them with the caption "reverted to last edit by me - all of that was so wrong, so many lies, that i just can't be bothered trying to fix it", or words like that, I take that as a personal attack. Similarly, if I get someone accuse me of being a sock puppet just because I didn't log in, or my computer changed IP addresses when I logged in again, but I made no attempt to hide my identity, I consider that to be a personal attack. And when someone writes in my talk page making all sorts of unfounded accusations about my activities, which I had already proven to be false beforehand, I consider that to be a personal attack. Yet when I asked them to please cease personal attacks, they then accused me of making false accusations against them, and that that in itself was a personal attack. Can asking someone to stop personal attacks be considered to be a personal attack?

Also, the majority of people behaving in this way seem to have some form of administrative powers. Does that permit them to behave in this way? Zordrac 04:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

....none of those are personal attacks... --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 23:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If the word "lies" was used, it sounds like a personal attack to me. The expressions "so wrong" and "can't be bothered" worry me too. Administrators have exactly the same right as ordinary users to determine what the content of a page should be and at least the same obligations to behave in a civil fashion and not make personal attacks. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

So what if it's a personal attack? You're dealing with human beings here and that sort of thing is going to happen. Don't look to appeal to some silly pre-fab "No Personal Attacks" policy (this "policy" will be voted into oblivion if wisdom prevails anyway)-- just revert back to what you think the best version is and get other Wikipedians to support you if your antagonist turns it into a revert war. If you garner this support, in all likelihood your version is in fact better. If not, maybe you need to turn a newly critical eye onto your own writing. JDG 09:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, JDG, I agree with you. My point here was the hypocricy of it being AOK for someone to make a personal attack, but if I ask them to stop it, then they say that I am engaging in a personal attack by asking them. See the problem? Accusing someone of something is not a personal attack. Besides which, the definition of personal attack is subjective. What I might take as an attack might differ from what you might consider to be a personal attack. Furthermore, what you take as personal might differ. If someone writes to tell me that the quality of my article sucks, is that a personal attack? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

third parties?

What about personal attacks on non-wikipedia users? Are they allowed?

Prodego^talk 13:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean attacks on public figures? They aren't encouraged, but they are allowed. It is only Wikipedia editors that are covered by this policy, to the best of my knowledge. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willmcw (talk • contribs) 5 Dec 2005

The majority of NPA covers anyone, not just contributors. It just isn't an issue very often, if ever. Personal attacks on non-wikipedia are also covered by other policies. Regards, Ben Aveling 19:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You are not allowed to write an attack page, for example. Its a candidate for speedy deletion if you do. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 15:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Does the NPA rule apply to political figures?

We have to be allowed to criticise political leaders. Not in the article space, but on user pages this should be okay. The no NPA policy was created to foster a positive enviorment within wikipedia. It has nothing to do with people that don't contribute to the project.--God of War 22:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, and please see above. Although acceptable content policy is, in practice, very liberal for user pages (please see:Wikipedia talk:User page, please also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Soap is clearly not allowed, and for userpages, in general, you should only render opinions on the wiki itself. Certain criticisms may also be considered libellous according to official policy Wikipedia:Libel. Please also see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.--ChrisJMoor 10:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

There is one good reason why you should not criticise political figures or parties in general on talk pages, however. If you do this and then contribute to articles on that person or party, your POV could be used to criticise your edits even if they are true and unbiased, particularly by editors with opposing views. By rendering opinions, you could give editors that try to apply their POV to articles the upper hand, even though your edits are actually in line with NPOV policy! Some might also state that your edits are suspect irrespective of their content just because you render an opinion on the subject elsewhere.--ChrisJMoor 00:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Noob

There should be a section for noobie protection. Something like: Be kind to new users. As they're not as literate in Wiki tags, nomenclature, etc... be kind. Do not attack due to lack of wikipedia expertice. Just because someone doesn't wiki well, does not mean they're not knowledgable in a certain topic. Hopquick 04:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is WP:BITE which is supposed to apply for newcomers, but it does not have consensus. Indeed, the majority view is that newbies should be abused. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 06:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Biblical Basis

Just a thought:

But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire. Matthew 5:22.

--Doc ^ask? 14:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

question

Is advising someone to look into another editor (to read the article on them in this case) a personal attack? I didn't think it was, but a comment I made here was referred to as a personal attack. I on the other hand thought it was like looking suggesting someone look up an author they were reading a book by, so as to better understand where he is coming from... Sam Spade 02:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that was reasonably neutrally worded; it could have been more so. It might be an ad hominem argument, if you were using it to dismiss his views, but it doesn't really read as a personal attack. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Even tho I'm not a huge Chip Berlet fan (apparently an odd thing around here), I actually wasn't trying to harass him, but rather to explain to the nube that cberlet has a strong (and researched) opinion, which said nube may or may not agree w based on chips qualifications. Thanks for your assistance. Sam Spade 15:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Nube is itself a personal attack because of its pejorative connotation. freestylefrappe 01:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I have no hope then, do I ;) Sam Spade 01:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

<joke-of-sorts>Didn't you know that the correct term is n00b? Anyway, happy newb year.</joke-of-sorts>

<< Nube is itself a personal attack because of its pejorative connotation. >>

I wholeheartedly disagree. The word "nube" is wholly descriptive in this context, and the assertion that the simple use of the word "nube" qualifies as a "personal attack" in and of itself is yet another example of how strict adherence to Wikipedias Byzantine collection of rules and regulations leads to petty and pointless confrontations. // NetEsq 03:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

So that everyone knows, I think rules are great. The key is to have as few as possible, and enforce them dillegently. I prefer to be following the rules, which is why I ask when there seems to be a misunderstanding. So even tho I think nube is just fine, if it is against the rules I'll try not to say it. I was actually trying to help educate the nube, not ridicule him him here behind his back, btw ;) Sam Spade 19:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

No ad hominem attacks

I wish to add to the article (and hence policy) that an example of a personal attack is an ad hominem attack. This provides a specific example of the kind of attack that should not be allowed, because it does not address the issue at hand. --Iantresman 16:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are already covered by "Comment on content, not on the contributor." But perhaps it could be clearer. I certainly don't have any objection to explicitly using the words ad hominem somewhere. Regards, Ben Aveling 01:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

What about other Wikipedias?

Can a non-English Wikipedia allow personal attacks? What if a Wikipedia is controlled by a group of biased nationalists, who openly declare their biase? Where shall I ask this question, if this place is wrong? Xx236 08:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

On the other Wikipedia. Any policies that are common to all wikipedias are hopefully stated at meta.wikipedia.org . But in theory at least, all these policies and guidelines only apply to en.wikipedia.org . Stevage 11:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

How to discuss with usurpers, who impose the rules? They remove my critics or answer with ad-personam attacks. Are the supporters of Wikipedia project aware, how misused their money sometimes are? I believe that non-English Wikipedia problems and discussions should be in some way reviewed in the English one. Xx236 14:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If you have some particular Wikipedia in mind, while this would not be the ideal place to discuss the matter, some useful discussion might occur. If you want to case aspersions without any specifics, you are wasting your time and ours. - Jmabel | Talk 04:23, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the answer is fairly clearly "on Meta". Such an extreme usurpation would be bad for the foundation and sister projects. Rich Farmbrough 21:40 5 May 2006 (UTC).

Non-contributing personal attacks

The first sentence of the policy reads: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia.", but subsquently refers only to contributors. Does that mean it's OK to attack non-contributors? It is not very contructive if I can personally, for example, attack Einstein (as a non-contributor) rather than address the issues that may have been stated in an article. --Iantresman 11:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Einstein probably isn't going to get upset and start an edit war with you if you attack him. That's what this policy is mostly about. Stevage 11:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

If I suggest that a statement is contentious because "Einstein was only a patent clerk", my argument is rather weak, and also perpetuates an edit war? --Iantresman 14:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This policy should definitely protect living non-contributors. However, it has to be worded carefully, to allow factual, relevant, verifiable statements that might be negative. In most cases such attacks on people is unethical, but argueably in some cases, it also exposes us to legal jeopardy. Just because defamation occurs outside of article space, doesn't make it legitimate. --Rob 16:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

What's your reason for not having the policy apply to deceased non-contributors? I know that in law, you can't libel someone who is dead, but once again, its a weak argument from somone who resorts to attacking any individual, living or dead, regarding the contente of an article. I don't see the encyclopedia Britannica attacking any indvidual, period. --Iantresman 16:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not for attacks on dead people. I just wish to split the conversation, and focus on what's most important, which is living people. Attacks on living people threatens Wikipedia legally. Let's deal with it, one step at a time. --Rob 17:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

This policy is about interacting civilly with other users on the wiki. Not defaming people in articles is a completely separate issue, one of WP:NPOV, in fact. -- SCZenz 17:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV applies to article space, and does not apply to AFD discussions, or talk pages. Virtually no established editor would write a bio subject is "ugly", or "despicable" in an article; but some, even long standing members, will use those words to describe a person in an AFD discussion. --Rob 17:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, yes, I see your point. I guess I'd support extending this to living people, as long as it's not applied stupidly. -- SCZenz 17:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think a separate policy would be preferable. We don't allow personal attacks on each other in order to make the wiki a reasonable working environment conducive to writing an encyclopedia. A policy with a different purpose (i.e. avoiding legal worries) should be handled differently. — Matt Crypto 08:19, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that a policy may be made for several reasons, which all aim to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia by addressing the issues. Sure there may be a prime reason, but that shouldn't exclude other reasons. As I see it

"No personal attacks"
May apply to: Wiki contributing editors Non-contributors (living people) Deceased people	Reasons: May start an edit war Civility Legal reasons Not a neutral point of view Association_fallacy

So whether I attack YOU, or YOUR MOTHER, or YOUR DECEASED GREAT GRANDMOTHER, if the result is an unfocussed discussion, then I can't see a reason to distinguish between the subject of a personal attack.

--Iantresman 10:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I kind of disagree with lumping personal attacks with the issue of POV. It's not related. As said early, POV is an issue exclusively for article space. Just to make a point, saying "NPOV is absolutely essential to Wikipedia, and must never be compromised" is itself a POV, that would be wrong in article space (without attribution to a speaker), but is entirely ok here. Also, on your point about "Association_fallacy", I think the response to logic errors, is to counter the comment with logic, while preserving the display of the original comment. Surely you wouldn't remove a person's comment, because its illogical? But, I think we should remove attacks. For instance "Keep - he's my best friend", should be countered with an explanation of policy. The argument "Delete - She's nn and ugly" should edited to be "Delete nn" without delay. --Rob 11:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• I disagree with mixing our standards of behaviour towards each other on Wikipedia with how we cover subjects in article space. The judgements involved on what constitutes a personal attack and what is appropriate encyclopedic coverage might concievably overlap, and in any case, the purpose and details of each are completely different. I don't see the need to change any of our policy on this matter, and think this proposal should be shelved. --Improv 11:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Most personal attacks in article space are already removed from article space as vandalism. The problem I've suggested dealing with, mainly is about AFD and talk page discussion *about* an article, not in the article. For instance, if I call somebody "ugly", "stupid", "despicable", or "odeous" in an article, that will be be removed as vandalism, and I may be blocked if I continue. If I place the same insult in an AFD, its allowed, but should not be. --Rob 12:27, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Understood, but I don't think it's a lasting concern if it's part of an AfD discussion. I don't think decisions there tend to be made on these grounds. Could you provide some links to diffs that you see as being problematic that this policy is trying to address? --Improv 15:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
• I strongly support extending the policy as soon as possible to article subjects, whether applied to people, places or things, living or dead. There is a difference between the standard discourse necessary for collaboration and to express differences of opinion, and comments that quickly devolve into character assassination, libel and slander. The following comments are all taken from an article talk page I am involved with- "he will plainly invent facts to stay on the wikipedia", "a con-man, weaver of deception, mythomaniac", "targeted to dupe casual visitors into believing that this individual is important", "a bogus fraudster", "shyster", "minor political functionary", etc. All of these are directed at a person who has never been accused of anything publicly and none are backed up by any proof or sources. Wikipedia must not be used as a sounding board or message forum to publish these types of attacks on talk pages or in AfD discussions. -- JJay 14:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

• I strongly consider this proposal to be a waste of time, a solution to a non-existent problem, and just in general an all around bad idea. We already have enough editors running around trying to justify removing other people's comments and twisting simple statements into perceived "personal attacks" as it is without adding a whole new class of things for people to cry wolf over. It's just yet more unnecessary policy creep that will cause more problems than it solves. DreamGuy 22:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• Can you give an example of how it might cause more problems than it solves? Where do you see that (a) attacking non-contributors (b) deceased people, is actually constructive in any way? --Iantresman 23:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

• There is the concern that by adding a new "crime", you may overload the "justice system"; the "government" (to continue the analogy) should not criminalize something unless they are prepared to deal with offendors. Unfortunately, many people here on Wikipedia--including lots of excellent contributors--rather enjoy a good flamewar (on the talk/user pages), and/or consider it their free speech right to post inflammatory remarks, such as the numerous examples I give below. Furthermore, there is the concern that "borderline" remarks, such as "George Bush is a warmonger" or "Bill Clinton was an adulterer" might be striken down by supporters of Bush or Clinton respectively, on the grounds that they are impermissible attacks.

I think before we answer this particular policy question (at least before we change it), Wikipedia needs to examine the sort of place it wants to be. Is civility more important than freedom of discourse? Or is the current free-for-all invigorating, at the expense of hurt feelings, foul language, and occasionally inflammatory speech? Keeping in mind that a change in site-wide focus will both attract new editors and cause some current ones to leave. That is the important question; policy details such as this proposal will follow. --EngineerScotty 23:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I take your points, but would suggest that they all equally apply to the existing criteria of Personal Attacks applying to contributors. As I see it, the same "shades of grey", applies to contributors, non-contributors and deceased people, and, attacking an contributor can be as inflammatory as attacking anyone else.

And it's not just about civility, it's also about valid reasons for making an argument. How does someone's negative opinion on a non-contributor or deceased person, help their argument concerning the content of an article? --Iantresman 00:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Proposed wording

• For contributors: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them.
• For subjects of articles: Relevant and verifiable comments about the subject of an article may be made, even if those comments are negative (such as mentioning a criminal conviction). Opinions on the notability or encyclopedic value of a biographical subject are welcome. However, unverifiable and/or irrelevant comments, that are damaging to a living person's reputation are always unnaceptable. Do not make them. --Rob 11:44, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

How would you respond to the following Talk page discussion comment? I believe that Paul Marmet was Prof. Emeritus of Physics, Univ. of Ottawa (now deceased), and Ricardo Carezani is an Argentine physicist.

Marmet and Carezani are well-known woo-woos... not even worthy of debunking in my book.

I can't see that the comment helps the discussion, and certainly doesn't address the article content. Is it a case that because they are not Wiki editors, and because Marmet is no longer alive, then the "No Personal Attacks" policy does not apply, and another Wiki policy should be found? It seems to me that any personal attack, is still a personal attack, no matter whether they are Wiki editor, non-contributor, or even alive?

--Iantresman 12:38, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Extending this policy, as the example demonstrates, makes a lot of sense, and I support it. Properly explained I expect just about everyone would. Well done Rob. If the policy were so extended, the response to that comment seems clear, point out that the phrasing is possibly a personal attack and suggest that it may need revision. ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for free speech, and am rather thick-skinned, so an actual personal attack is not really that big a deal. But since personal attacks do not achieve anything contructive on Wikipedia, is there any justification for personal attacks on (a) non-contributors, and (b) Deceased people? --Iantresman 15:59, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it OK to say "George Bush is an idiot" in the talk page? How about:

• "George Bush used cocaine in college"
• "George Bush is a Nazi"?
• OK, how about "George Bush is a child molestor?"

Four sentences, all negative to the sitting US president. The first is mere opinion--it flatly contradicts NPOV and should not appear in articles; but it (and similar criticisms of notable individuals) may be appropriate for talk pages; they expose Wikipedia to no legal liability. The second is generally regarded as factual; and is appropriate for an article on Bush if supported by a trustworthy external reference (though Bush supporters may consider mentioning this to be POV). The third, again, is opinion (assuming it isn't a literal claim that Bush is a member of the Nazi party, which would be a lie); though a far more inflammatory remark than "idiot". The last is flat-out libel; and sufficiently outrageous that even the "public interest" exception to the libel laws might not apply. A statement such as the last has, I would think, no place in Wikipedia. --EngineerScotty 02:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, but why not set the policy in the hope of getting discourse onto a somewhat higher plane. In my opinion, neither 1 or 3 has any place here. I would say the same for 4, although we do have an article on George Bush and rape so the issue is problematic. The bottom line is that people need to measure what they say regarding article subjects (living or dead), if only to limit edit wars and misunderstandings. I think it all boils down to a general civility that is expected of contributors. -- JJay 04:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't be too cautious. Remarks (in talk pages) concerning politicians and such which state a particular opinion--even if somewhat unflattering to the subject--may be appropriate; "George Bush is incompetent" (or Hillary Clinton, if you prefer) seems to be fair comment to me. It's well settled in law that public figures, by becoming public figures, invite public criticism; I do think the same principle applies in Wikipedia (wherever we draw the line). For those who aren't public figures, a higher standard of criticism may, and probably should, apply.

On a related topic... what do you think of Category:Statutory Rapists? Currently, it only contains persons whose offenses are the subject of widespread publicity (and a few, such as Mary Kay Letourneau, who are only notable because of statutory rapes they committed), but I could see some day it being used for more sinister purposes. Likewise for Category:Rapists. (Note that a similar category for drunk drivers was recently deleted) --EngineerScotty 04:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Generally, part of NPOV is to discuss topics neutrally without taking an emotional standpoint ourselves. Nowhere does the article Hitler say "Hitler was a horrible, bad evil man." We let the readers draw their own conclusions, cite other people who think he's a horrible, bad evil man, and so on. In other words, there's no need to extend this policy to non-contributors, which is not at all its intention, when as much of this as is necessary is already perfectly covered by NPOV. Deco 08:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

But the crux of the matter--the proposal under debate--primarily considers places in Wikipedia besides the article space: Talk pages, user pages, etc--places where NPOV and WP:V don't apply. I can't say "George Bush is a motherfucking idiot" in an article; that's not disputed here. However, I could write such prose on Talk:George Bush or on my user page were I so inclined. It might get deleted, but the sentiment doesn't currently violate any policies, when not placed in an article. Currently "no personal attacks" is intended to enforce civility among Wikipedians; not to keep Wikipedians from expressing (sometimes hostile) political views on those outside Wikipedia, especially those who are public figures. --EngineerScotty 09:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that attacks on public figures is acceptable on userpages, and possibly on talk pages. I'm fairly anti-censorship, so I think any more rules regulating what we can and can't say should be looked at very very carefully. I do see the logic in trying to make debates more polite, and think personal attacks shouldn't be part of the talk pages for the most part, but unless it's on a user I don't think we should regulate it. If it is really that stupid of a comment, let people figure it out themselves and respond (or not) to it, don't delete it. And definetely don't ban attacks on public figures, because it is legal so we don't have worry about legal issues. The Ungovernable Force 08:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is hard evidence supporting the claims that George Bush is (a) an idiot (b) Nazi (c) child molestor, then I think that these are examples of opinion have no place on Wikipedia. It may well be that George Bush has done something things which certain people consider idiotic, but again, that would be a judgement call, and hence opinion.

If George Bush took cocaine, or, it it's been reported in the press that he took cocaine, then I see no problem with this. If however, it is widely reported conjecture, then it would have to be modified to say something like "It has been rumoured in the press, but unsubstantiated, that George Bush took cocaine".

"George Bush has admitted to being a recovering alcoholic", would be acceptable, if you can find a descent quote, though if he never used he phrase "alcoholic", you might have to use his actual wording. --Iantresman 16:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I also think that if an editor expresses a "(sometimes hostile) political view", then you may also end up in a edit war just as easily as if you attacked an editor directly. I also have some choice words to say about George Bush, but I think they are irrelevant to an article about the man, especially in an Encyclopedia. --Iantresman 16:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments: Policy Extension to non-contributors

I'd like to see a clarification/extension of the No personal attacks policy, by extending it to non-contributors living or dead. Some previous discussion can be found above. I offer the following reasons:

• The policy appears to apply to contributors, so as not to inflame edit wars. I would argue that this may equally apply to non-contributors. Indeed, personal attacks on your (non-contributing) mother, the subject of an article, someone you respect (living or dead), may also inflame edit wars.
• All personal attacks on anybody, do not lead to constructive editing of content
• All personal attacks are an Association fallacy since it does not address content.
• I can't think of any justified reason for allowing personal attacks on non-contributors that does not equally apply to contributors.

.

• Amendment (5 Feb): In response to several people suggesting that they may support this proposal if applied only to article Talk pages, since this is where editors discuss articles, that makes sense.

ie. Applicable to article Talk page only.

Please indicate whether you Support or Reject extending the policy to non-contributors (a) Living (b) Dead. Please try add your response at the end, rather than inter-threading replies. --Iantresman 15:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support for both living and dead non-contributors. --Iantresman 15:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject (both). Saying "Osama bin Laden is an evil man" is an entirely different thing from saying "User:Bob is a jerk". — Matt Crypto 16:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support both living and dead, but how does this apply to people like Hitler/Caligula/Nero etc? My reasoning for still voting support is, that say Osama bin Laden were to open a WP account and start contributing responsibly. He would still have to be exempt from personal attacks.Borisblue 16:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Whether Hitler/Bush/Bin Laden/Blair, are consider evil, are personal opinions; I don't see such comments as being constructive in the discussion of content. How does "Hitler is evil" counter an editor's contribution? --Iantresman 16:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject (both). People should be able to express political opinions on their user pages, and that often means statements that would be considered "personal attacks" if made against a Wikipedia contributor. I would support this policy if it applied only to articles and article Talk. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• support Saying "It is widely accepted that 20 million people died needlessly during the regime of Stalin" and providing a set of cites is NOT a personal attack on Stalin. There is no need to follow up with "and therefore Stalin was a poopyhead" to get the point across. So I support this extension, the goals of the encyclopedia can be met, even when writing about men widely regarded as evil, without personally attacking. This is the essence of WP:NPOV in my view. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• comment actually, what would we do now if either Bush or Osama decides to become a regular WP contributor? Borisblue 17:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Treat them as we would any other editor, welcome them and help them to be good editors upholding the Policy Trifecta, hopefully. Er, was I just trolled? LOL ++Lar: t/c 18:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Suppport for living, neutral on dead people. Lets not get sidetracked with Hitler, and history. The main issue is the non-notable, or barely notable subject of bio, who's being attacked by an editor, who doesn't realize the bio subject might actually read their comments. Also, free speach rights give a person no special rights at Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a soap box, and if people want to launch a tirade against a politician on their user page, fine, they can go get a user page elsewhere to do that. --Rob 18:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: My consideration for non-living people was to stop "Einstein is an idiot" comments; still non-constructive. --Iantresman 18:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject seems like a solution in search of a problem. I know there is no free speech, blah blah blah, but not being able to say "GWB is a dick" seems too Orwellian for me. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think writing "GWB is a dick" is acceptable in an article I suggest you review WP:NPOV. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Reject both as policy, Support as guideline for talk pages. We should be able to quote personal attacks made on topics by other people, where it is informative, and personal attacks in our own article text is already covered by NPOV, since no personal attack is objective. For talk pages, it's a general principle of civility to not make personal attacks, but a hard policy will just exacerbate the situation - let's use a guideline instead that offers friendly advice but does not justify drastic action. Deco 01:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Not useful policy. --Improv 01:05, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: In response to several people suggesting that they may support this proposal if applied only to article Talk pages, I've made such an amendment above.
• Reject policy creep and a non useful extension. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 08:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject Seems to be political correctness gone awry to me. There is already too much crying foul and citing WP:NPA in disputes between editors, when often there is no attack. This would just give edit warriors another weapon to beat each other with on talk pages and would be completely counter productive. Confine NPA policy to editors. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support (both) There's no need for personal attacks - as previously noted, if someone is generally considered "evil", there are plenty of non-personal-attacking ways to indicate it, and personal attacks severely harm public discourse, even if the target will never see them. Michael Ralston 05:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject On three grounds. 1) Polls are evil. 2) User is trying to impose new policy to get his way in various content disputes. In particular, he objects to the opinions editors have expressed regarding subjects of articles on talkpages that he views as personal attacks. When told that Wikipedia's policy was meant as a way to promote collaboration among editors he decided to try to change policy. Very bad form, if you ask me as that's not the way policy gets written. 3) This is not what WP:NPA is intended to address. Deciding whether someone is attacking someone who is not able to respond would be up to a third party who is unrelated to the comments. This would effectively allow for witchhunts by certain users who were trying to protect various third parties. Imagine if a neo-Nazi decided to go through and find all the instances on talkpages where people used Hitler as an example (e.g. may people say such things to the effect "We would never write on the Adolf Hitler page that he was a murderous megalomaniac (even though he was)." There's nothing wrong with expressing such a personal opinion about Adolf Hitler on the talkpage right now, but institute this policy and there will be. --ScienceApologist 13:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: How does banning personal attacks on non-contributors advantage one editor over the other, and help one "get their way"? Why should anybody subjected to a personal attack need to respond; a personal attack is not subjective, and can be identified by anyone? --Iantresman 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You suggested that I was violating WP:NPA and was told by others that the policy didn't apply because (at least in part) the people you were defending weren't memebers of Wikipedia. Are you trying to tell me that this dispute did not have at least a small part in your design of the proposal? Personal attacks in many cases are subjective (in the eye of the beholder). For example, when I said that Halton Arp's advocacy could be seen as an example of pathological science, you took that to be a personal attack on Arp, didn't you? --ScienceApologist 15:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• While my initiative is partly based on the exchange you mention [2] and others (eg [3]), I still can't see how extending this policy gives one editor an advantage over another, nor would allow me to "get my way". But it will focus dialogue on content, rather than opinions on people. --Iantresman 19:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support in articles and talk pages. It is not our job to write Osama bin Laden is an evil man, or about anyone else, It is our job to record the facts about him. Readers can then make up their own minds about him. Osama bin Laden is evil is not a neutral statement, and that would be true whoever you wrote it about. There are plenty of people in this world who would disagree with it. DJ Clayworth 18:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. NPOV covers our treatment of subjects. NPA covers editors. Folks who are neither don't count. -Will Beback 22:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. Excessive prior restraint and policy creep if implemented. --Mgreenbe 15:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• Reject. This rule is there to make Wikipedia work and be a nice place to participate. Personal attacks on people who aren't even here don't interfere with that. It's common sense that there isn't much to be gained by attacking people who aren't here - no point spelling it out in this policy. Stevage 17:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It may be common sense, but when someone does attack a non-contributor (which I've had experience of, on more than one occasion), it does interfere with presenting a genuine argument for certain editing decisions. --Iantresman 14:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Reject - Restricts the liberty to one's own judgment and to be responsible for one's own decisions. Asserts the impossible right of freedom to not be offended and expects the public outside of Wikipedia to be liable to follow this rule. Wikipedia should not make people a ward of the community outside of the Wikipedian community. People have no business to tell me to follow Wikipedia's rules outside of wikipedia. --Knucmo2 19:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Result: No consensus

Well, despite (a) No-one providing an example of where attacking a non-contrbutor was constructive in the editing process, or (b) proviing any good reason to allow it, there is no consensus for extending the policy beyond Wikipedia contributors. --Iantresman 14:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This should be removed from RFC if someone wants to(I have to go right now).--Urthogie 16:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

When is it okay to claim an M.D. is failing?

If an anonymous editor with an unverifiable claim to an M.D., who appears to be associated with a thalidomide manufacturer goes on Wikipedia making edits to the thalidomide article that it is safe and effective, then is claiming that the editor's comments reflect malpractice a personal attack? What is the correct course of action in those circumstances? --James S. 17:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Any information included in an article should be verifiable by citation. A person's credentials are worth squat as a contributing editor, though of course you may wish to take it on board during discussions. --Iantresman 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Accusing someone of malpractice can also be considered a legal threat which is also a no no here.Gator (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have not threatened legal action, but both sides in this dispute have pointed out that it is possible against either one of us. The situation such that the supposed M.D. has repeatedly refused to provide any means of identification or verification of the claimed credential. The refusal to associate one's name with one's edits is compounded by the fact that the edits have expressed a diagnosis of at least tens of thousands of people. If the editor does not have an M.D., is Wikipedia indemnified against potential allegations of complicity with either practicing medicine without a license, or malpractice if he or she does? I am familiar with the medical disclaimer, and I will not take any legal action, but that doesn't mean that someone else isn't and won't. What is the proper course of action in this case? --James S. 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the answer by Iantresman above is correct: the qualifications of an editor are irrelevant. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources, not to make medical diagnoses. Ignore the editor and pay attention to the edits. In this matter that may mean removing unsourced material. -Will Beback 20:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with previous comment completely. This situation is no different to any other in the editing process, where there is NOR. Tyrenius 04:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for advice: AfD's and personal attacks

I have recently put a couple of bios from the Survivor (Television Series) up for AfD under [4] and [5] for not meeting WP:BIO standards. I've been presented with evidence where a few of the articles had indeed met those standards, which lead to me changing my view on some articles. But unfortunately one user keeps violating WP:AfD policy by continuing to remove AfD tags under his username and also a rotating IP.

I have tried to discuss the issue with this user only to have my user page vandalisedand got threats of a ban for putting AfD's up and didnt explain why at all. Can someone recommend me a proper course of action in this case? -- Arnzy | Talk 09:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Bring it to the Administrators' notice board. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet allegations almost always clouded with uncertainty

Generally, what constitutes a personal attack can be subjective -- it depends on what is taken personally by the subject of such an attack. Of course, accusing someone to be a troll is clearly a personal attack. Such an attack, however, is not very damaging, since by following the discussion, anyone can see and decide who's really being problematic. However, I want to point out a very serious and damaging accusation -- accusing someone of being or using a sockpuppet, without any evidence. Since people can't readily verify such a claim, the editor's image is tarnished unless he somehow comes up with a proof that he doesn't have sockpuppets. The burden of proving an accusation lies on the accuser, but the accuser may simply refuse to offer a proof. This can be extremely hurting. I know some very good editors who have left wikipedia for good because of such incidents. What could be more harmful to the wikipedia community?

I have the following proposal:

• Any suspiction of sockpuppetry should only be reported at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser and should not be discussed elsewhere.
• Asserting "X is a sockpuppet of Y" without the support of compelling evidence should be considered a serious personal attack and should immediately attract punishment.
• In case the accusations cannot be proved, an apology to the accused editor must be required, failing which the accuser should face prospects of getting permanently banned from wikipedia.

I am sure this proposal would have some loopholes, but at a broad level, I think it is extremely important to enforce something like this to prevent such incidents from happening. deeptrivia (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Instruction creep! How do we expect people to abide by this? With as many people who edit pseudonymously around here, it's easy to suspect sockpuppetry from completely innocent coincidences. How can it tarnish reputations? It's usually pretty easy to prove that two people aren't the same. --James S. 07:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with you. Yes, there is nothing by which people accusing others (of being Sock puppet/s) with a view to malign and tarnish an editor’s image may be forced to abide with – we work here in an open environment with utmost assumption of good faith. Accordingly, if a user accuses other of being a sock-puppet, the normal legal equity recognizes that the onus of providing proof lies on the accuser otherwise honest editor’s life shall become difficult. Such allegations are serious in nature and if made without sufficient proof (and simply based on the individual perception and judgment of the accuser) has a highly de-motivating effect on user accused of sock puppetry. Accordingly, the suggestions made by deeptrivia have intrinsic merit and warrant discussion for evolving a more elaborate policy on the matter. --Bhadani 12:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I realize how easy it is to accuse others of being sockpuppets. Just the other day I saw a sequence of edits where one editor, User:Smokefoot, had described an edit of User:DV8 2XL, because it was the subject of an ongoing accuracy dispute in which there had been multiple unexplained reversions (see question on M.D.s above.) Before I could tell what happened, I had accused Smokefoot of being DV8 2XL's sockpuppet. I am not convinced this made S more or less likely to edit. I'll apologize to Smokefoot and ask. --James S. 19:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

What if someone refuses to apologize, and refuses to show evidence? Isn't this a simple case of personal attack, that should be dealt with within WP:NPA with no need for wasting everybody's time on an RfC? deeptrivia (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone is using this sort of accusation as a bludgeon regularly and in obvious bad faith, it sems to me that WP:RFC should be invoked; there's no need for some sort of rule about how to properly use the word sockpuppet. · Katefan0^(scribble)/poll 23:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC is a waste of time and energy for this simple case of blatant personal attack, which should, in my opinion result in immediate block. We all say things in rage or frustration, but then we apologize. That's fine, and is not included in what I'm talking about. deeptrivia (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical?

A user (User:Rattlerbrat) has been making personal attacks on other contributors over the past few days. I contacted the user about this, contacted other users, put a notice on the village pump and a note went on the administrators notice board. The only thing that has happened is a continuation of these attacks. My question is: Why do we have this policy if no-one is going to do anything about it? It should be marked as historical, because I can see no evidence of anyone helping out. Gerard Foley 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: user has now been blocked. Yeltensic42 don't panic 13:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Examples that are not personal attacks

I was bold and started a section on the page discussing what is not a personal attack. I used common sense (whatever small amount I possess) to try and distill some of the discussion on this page. I think this needs to be expanded somewhat. It is important, I think, to provide counter examples to demonstate how to disagree and debate without resorting to personal attacks, but also there needs to be a line drawn on the other side of the issue—there needs to be a definition of what type of speech is acceptable so that reasonable discussion isn't denigrated by being labeled WP:NPA. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 23:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

As a rule of thumb, if you discuss the content of the article, that is fine. If you discuss the author/editor, then that is an ad hominem 'attack', where the degree of 'attack' is purely subjective, but an 'ad hominem' nevertheless. I suppose that all personal attacks are 'ad hominems', but not all 'ad hominems' are personal attacks. --Iantresman 23:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

In particular, chastising someone for an actual (or at least arguable) attack is ad hominem, but should not be an attack within the meaning of this policy. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreeing to disagree

This doesn't very much belong here, as "no personal attacks" differs from "no disputing whatsoever." To say something like this indicates you don't want people to resolve issues-- instead it puts off something like "let's all just be friends." Disagreeing is very important to progressing a better understanding of something.66.157.30.31 01:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Could you clarify what "this" is that doesn't belong? The whole policy, or just some part of it? —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

"Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with the other person, but just agree to disagree." Really trivial peeve I suppose, but the "agree to disagree" part's pretty silly. 66.157.30.31 10:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Extending the policy of NPA

Although it is not possible to enforce the policy of No Personal Attacks outside of Wikipedia, there have been occasions in which some users use public forums, blogs and personal home pages to attack editors of Wikipedia by name, alias or both, while at the same time demanding that the WP:NPA and WP:AGF are observed to the letter in talk pages. I am referring here not to a critique of an editor, but to obvious personal attacks such as the use of vituperative and obscene language and making pernicious and disparaging comments about them.

I believe that such a position is indefensible and should be considered disruptive behavior. It creates an atmosphere of ill-will, animosity and lack of trust, that are not conducive neither to collaboration on editing articles, nor to community building.

I would appreciate comments from editors about expanding the WP:NPA policy to include some wording that will address the attempt to bypass policy and game the system by an editor "outsourcing" his personal attacks against other editor(s) to public forums in order to "get away with it". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I started a proposal page at Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks/Extension. Comments and edits by other editors are most welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with extending policy. We have enough trouble policing this site. Merecat 07:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It isn't about policing other sites, but mostly the kind of people that make plain their two identities (on-wiki and off) and use other forums to disrupt our collaborative community spirit here. Dmcdevit·t 21:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Merecat: Please see the proposed wording at Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks/Extension and Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks/Extension ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This is plain feudalism. Do not try to make people responsible for others outside of Wikipedia. See my objection on the extension sub-page. --Knucmo2 12:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree. Don't try to control people outside of Wikipedia. A forum or mailing list isn't trying to build an encyclopedia.... --maru (talk) contribs 05:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Should not be expanded, if attacks outside Wikipedia are getting to the point where they are so bad that they interfere with editing here, then the relevant users can be blocked for disruption. We don't need to add a general NPA rule which would effectively gag editors comments. JoshuaZ 05:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with extending policy - All opinions aside from the author of this section are opposed to this modification, which appears to have been added without any consensus. It's no surprise that this modification was just completely removed by another user. Let's try to reach consensus before re-adding it. That said, I don't think a consensus is likely on extending Wikipedia's policies to govern other web forums, IRC, phone conversations, etc. An informal poll on freenode #wikipedia revealed "shock and awe" from several admins upon hearing that this was part of an official policy page. Strom 18:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that I removed the section because there was VERY little discussion on it. This is a major change to the policy- it's saying that we're now "policing teh internets," and so it should have a considerable consensus before it's added. --Rory096_(block) 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the extension is not related to policing what happens outside WP. That is , of course, not possible. The extension is to curb the use of external sites to bypass WP:NPA by editors that use their names to attack other named editors of Wikipedia. Please re-read the addition with that in mind. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

While true, that would most likely qualify as exhausting the community's patience or at least disruption, so a policy to say that people shouldn't do that would be redundant. Also, it could easily be taken to mean that people can't make personal attacks on others outside WP no matter what, even if that's not what it was meant to do. --Rory096_(block) 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for removal, pending discussion - "the extension is not related to policing what happens outside WP." -- this is misleading and untrue. The effect of the policy is ONLY on actions taken outside WP. Specifically, it is engineered to limit comments in other online forums. We politely request that you remove this section from the Official Policy page, since it meets neither of the acid tests for inclusion: 1) It is not widely agreed upon among editors, and 2) No consensus was reached prior to inclusion.Strom 21:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the reason for this extension is not theoretical. We have had cases of very nasty personal attacks made by named editors against other named editors on personal websites and online forums, only to have these people claiming that they have not violated WP:NPA. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

While true, they've probably violated m:Dick and exhausted the community's patience, leaving them open for a block. If anything, this should be added to the blocking policy, not as an extension of NPA. And either way, it should be discussed before being added. --Rory096_(block) 18:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's unworkable and open to too much abuse from impersonation for a start - who can tell if the attacker on an outside site is who he/she claims to be? It's unfortunate if it happens, but I think it's something we have to learn to live with if and when it happens, as long as it doesn't happen on Wiki. Tyrenius 04:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN position in remedies chain

Suggestions on whether WP:PAIN is in the correct position in remedies or not welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard#Non-Admin_actions_on_this_page.3F Regards, MartinRe 17:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians opinions regarding the "no personal attacks" rule

Supporters

• Ed Poor thinks that people who try to influence others by calling them names should be ashamed of themselves! and people who try to change people by shaming them are idiots! (sarcasm intentional)
• Jimbo Wales,
• Bryan Derksen,
• maveric149,
• Chuck Smith,
• Larry Sanger (with the exception of naming and shaming trolls, which I highly recommend you read about; in almost all other cases, I very strongly oppose anything that can be construed as "personal attack"),
• JHK
• Eclecticology (essential for maintaining peace in the family)
• Martin (especially on talk pages on articles - user talk pages don't matter as much)
• Fennec (in a fairly broad manner)
• Jwrosenzweig (I agree with Larry Sanger)
• BCorr|Брайен (I also agree with Larry Sanger)
• anthony (see warning) (though I don't support other-party enforcement of such a rule, enforce the rule upon yourself, not others)
• Michael Snow (I don't even support Larry Sanger's exception. Calling somebody a troll is a personal attack like any other, and we've reduced the word to near-meaninglessness. Identify and criticize the behavior that makes someone a "troll", don't just call them names.)
• zeno (I share Michael Snow's view on calling people trolls)
• Sam [Spade] I agree, "troll" is a personal attack

Opponents

• Lee Daniel Crocker (see below),
• 24 (see below),
• JHK (because I think there might be cases where Lee is right, and believe strongly in peer pressure and shame culture.)
• NetEsq (concurring with Lee Daniel Crocker - see below)

Other

Stuck between support and opposition:

• Jmabel 08:53, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) (see below)

Supporters of the "move persnal debates to e-mail" rule include:

• Larry Sanger

Opponents of this rule include:

• 24 (strongly, either the "unpleasantness" is irrelevant to wiki or it is vital to wiki - in the former case cut it out, in the latter case everyone must hear it out because it probably isn't "personal" but illustrates an ideology or cosmology or ethics dispute)

---

If calling a troll a troll or pointing out someone's statements to judge their credibility helps produce better articles, then an occasional personal attack is warranted, as long as it serves our goal. Obviously physical threats are out of place, as are impugning someone's race, gender, nationality, etc., but character and credibility are fair game. Just blindly calling someone an idiot without explanation or reason serves no purpose, but even those should be judged case-by-case. All "zero tolerance" rules are bad; human beings should exercise judgment, and not be afraid to stand behind those judgments. -- Lee Daniel Crocker

• comment

The thing is that logic allows a person to make a logical analysis of another persons behavior if and when and only if and when that analysis is grounded in observable fact. What you are missing here (and what wikipedia is missing here, badly) is that personal attacks are psychological warfare, and that psychological warfare makes wikipedia a place that experts aren't likely to want to hang out inside of. Right now wikipedia has become a place that harbors second generation trolls; proles who don't know how to communicate without using personal attacks or bad logic. The vfds i just sat through proove that this is a serious problem. 3 vfds were opened STARTING on a personal attack. More importantly, merecat continues to obstruct the creation of an article using primarilly ad hominem arguments. Without a rule against personal atacks, wikipedia will eventually devolve into a pack psychology driven anarchy. In fact, its most of the way there already. If you don't understand the difference between a personal attack and a logical analysis of behavior, that is your own problem and your own issue. It in no way impugns the necessity of the rule, and in some ways prooves the need for the rule. Calling a troll a troll is not a personal attack. It is a fact based observation. confusing the two only tells me that you folks are fond of using personal atacks and that you don't know what the difference is. Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC) I just ran into this and think it is a great example. This is the person who started one of the VFDs with an ad hominem. check out the user page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ham_and_jelly_butter Do you think that this person knows how to communicate without ad hominems, or that they are programmed such that they are only capable of operating via pov neurons? The only way to find out with certainty is to make the user aware of what an ad hominem IS, and explain why a personal attack is a personal attack, and that it won't be tolerated here on Wikipedia. Guessing that this will be seen as more "crybaby" tactics, but we won't know with certainty till we try. Prometheuspan 00:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I concur with Lee Daniel Crocker on this issue, and I offer my own thoughts here as a supplement. An absolute prohibition on personal attacks would violate the proposed ignore all rules rule and would more than likely give rise to a culture of forced politeness, hypocrisy, and passive aggressive behavior. The work is the important thing, and suffering personal attacks is an inescapable part of holding one's work up to the scrutiny of one's peers. On this note, the best way to deal with unprovoked and/or unfair personal attacks is to ignore them and focus on the work. However, the decision to stand down from a confrontation should be left to the sound discretion of the individuals involved in such a confrontation.--NetEsq

24 - not only is such a rule exteremly unlikely to be fairly administered by a clique, but frankly, someone committed to a particular approach to editing or collaborating or not is not going to give a damn about "shaming" or even "outing" (much more serious). Handing over banning-power to be used again people who simply offend others as part of a two-way semi-abusive discourse is a sure route to groupthink - and the end of any serious pretense of the project to "neutrality". That said, ad hominem attack generally contributes little to discourse as people defend their positions reactively, and anonymous parties with little at stake except a disposable identity should be relatively more conservative about such tactics than those who are using the same names that are attached to their bodies. However, those gloves should come off the instant someone is "outing" or "framing" anybody, i.e. if someone tells me I'm Mikhail Gorbachev and should "know better", then they deserve intense ad hominem attack in return from infinite anonymous parties until they learn not to "out". Those who wish to put their own real-body names up in a one on one mud wrestling competition with disposable anons (IP numbers, pseudonyms) who might as well be programs or many people posing as the same character, are not going to survive this millennium anyway, so let's not bother pretending that their opinion can matter. Also, there are many who consider this process, or the role of the "troll", to be constructive and necessary, like the "devil's advocate" or "shaitan" or "defense attorney" or "opposition leader" or "Supreme Court minority opinion author", to reduce groupthink and identify values divisions across which people cannot cooperate constructively anyway, and can only ever agree to just disagree. I'm confident that the record shows that I never attacked or insulted anyone who didn't attack or insult me first - if they object to getting the diseased end of the stick thereafter, well, tough. Finally, let's not pretend that those ideological or ethnic conflicts in the "real world" that people are dying and killing for, are going to lead to anything less than verbal or emotional simulacra of violence here. Blunt brutal argument between Arabs and Israelis, Communists and Capitalists, Globalists and Localists, Greens and Golfers, Gollums and Gandalfs, is the only way we're going to get to this "NPOV" God that some here want to worship - or, for that matter, talking people out so they come at least to an exhausted truce.

Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC) I find it disturbing that anybody could actually say that an ad hominem attack is useful or that it is necessary or required in any situation. Logic allows us to solve these confrontations without using ad hominems. Blunt communication of the kind you seem to be a proponent of will actually drive groupthink to create an idiotified and imbecilized encylopedia. I am here because i have expert level knowledge on several subjects. I have been looking around to see how things are handled around here. So far the reality tests mostly show that wikipedia is being gamed as a system by people who believe in psychological warfare. I can tell you right now that i am not interested in psychological warfare, and that my edits will continue to be pretty low so long as psychological warfare here is legal. I can tell you that ANY expert is going to feel the same way. I am not here to argue with the ignorant pov warriors and have them reference their right to free expression as an excuse to cut me down. I am not here to face down mobs operating only from knee jerk political programming. Wikipedias general current quality is sophomoric. In topics such as psychology and sociology and civil engineering and ethics, its high school level at best. There is a reason for that. Anybody in sociology, for instance, knows that the republican and democratic parties both operate only by the continued ignorance of the general public regarding sociology. Trying to tell the truth on wikipedia regarding sociology thus becomes mob confrontation. I am not here to face down the footsoldier proles of mind control paradigms. No expert in any of the social sciences is going to subject themselves to the kind of abuse that for insance, merecat has bestowed upon nescio, or, to the kind of "VFD" s that go on around here. Wikipedia will not be taken seriously by the science community until and unless it forms a strong policy regarding abusiveness. Right now, the situation is rediculous. In an vfd with 80 some odd delete votes, 2/3rds were based on ad hominems. The VFD opened with an ad hominem. To be clear and to be frank; My participation at this point in wikimedia will be decided upon by one primary factor; whether or not Wikipedia can develop very quickly a realistic methodology for dealing with abusiveness. Otherwise, what is going to happen is i am going to cross that magical threshold where science becomes political because there are implications some group doesn't want to face. And then i'll be arguing with the ignorant, and facing VFDs based on abusive and illogical arguments. EVERY science has that threshold. Something as hands down practical as mechanics? Why don't we have engines that get 300 miles to the gallon and rotary turbine prop internal combustion hybrids? POLITICS. Not science. Facts can be easilly assembled to show that American Car technology halted in the 60s and hasn't progressed significantly from the 50s. If i write that article, what would happen to it now? Republican footsoldiers would launch an ignorant offensive based on personal attacks and straw man arguments. I'd be drowned out, and if i managed to stay afloat amidst all of the noise and not get myself banned for screaming down at the mob, I'd finally have the article deleted out of a vfd grounded in bile and ignorance. ALL of the Sciences are like that. At advanced levels, Science invariably implies things that political factions must keep silenced in order for said factions to continue rule by ignorance. Wikipedia is either a hostage to ignorance, abusiveness, and illogic, or it rises above these by creating useful rules to prohibit abusiveness, correct ignorance, and operate via logic. Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I, User:Ed Poor, generally believe that personal attacks aren't going to improve the Wikipedia. In the few debates I've followed in which participants spill a substantial amount of ink questioning each other's integrity, intelligence, and (probably) taste in clothes, I've noticed that no fruitful plans tend to develop for the improvement of the article under consideration.

Occasionally, I myself have been such a participant, and I judge the exercise to be a waste of time for all concerned. Now, I might try to lighten the gloom with a wisecrack (as in "my dear lab rat"), but since other parties have informed me regally that "We are not amused", this leaves me no other recourse: I'm going to have to start writing politely! Ed Poor, Wednesday, April 17, 2002

---

I just wanted to explain a little of the background behind the proposed e-mail rule.

I have participated in more unpleasant exchanges here on Wikipedia than I care to count. There are almost always good grounds for these exchanges--people who debate things here are generally very intelligent and their opinions are backed by substantial reasoning. But, as happens almost everywhere else on the Internet, harsh feelings, often or usually based in misunderstandings and incomplete communication, tend to spoil the thing. I really don't want Wikipedia to become another debate forum or flame-fest. I think we will work best if we avoid all unnecessary controversy, and if we must engage in controversy, that we practice wikipetiquette as far as we are able.

I think it would be great if we all made it a habit of saying, when appropriate, "Hey, this is getting a little too unpleasant for Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a nice place focused on creating an encyclopedia. I'll write you privately. (Or: My e-mail address is X@Y.Z. Could you write me, please, or post your address, so we can resolve this amicably in private?)

If more of us did this, I think Wikipedia could become a much more pleasant place to work on this worthy project. Please, let's not let such a great project be slowed down by personal difficulties. I really do think we can avoid that. --Larry Sanger

---

Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC) That is a great principle Larry, but its too little too late. "Have a nice cup of tea" doesn't keep merecat from heaping dozens of ad hominems upon nescio and without a single admin to put a stop to it. The RFC is just another ad hominem fest. Wikipedia needs a fast track to deal with abusive behavior. Until it gets one, "Hey everybody, smoke a j and chill" isn't gonna do much of anything. There is only one solution here and its the obvious solution. Conversational logic isn't that complicated. Admins could learn the basics in a few hours, and, incidentally, the most relevant info exists in wikipedia articles. Most intellectuals CAN avoid ad hominems. What you are missing is the large number of proles that have been conditioned to THINK in ad hominems and false dillemas. Just asking them to chill is pointless. They chill, and then they start up again the same as before. Wikipedia is right up against an evolutionary event horizon here. Either it wakes up and realizes the situation, or it becomes slowly just another dinosaur. Either we face the fact that the dominant religious and political orgnanizations operate only via the conditioned ignorance and emotionalization of issues, or we become conditioned ignorance and the emotionalization of issues. Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that sounds preferable to the current way (making a public spectacle, people taking sides, slinging barbs and arrows ... seems too much like it belongs in a colosseum, most of the time). But I should say I have no problem at all debating things in wikipedia, only I'd prefer it go private if it becomes a bit personal or disrespectful. And of course everyone likes to see the happy reconciliation.  :-) --Koyaanis Qatsi

Note being a net techie I don't know how hard this would be to set up, but what about a "usenet" group? Alt.pedia.debate (not alt.wikipedia to prevent it turning up in search engines). Then we could legitimately say "take it to usenet". Just a thought - MB

Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Again, I'm not interested in arguing with intentional ignorance, here, or anywhere. I'm certainly not interested in leaving wikipedia abuse to go get abused in private. Your idea isn't without merit, but it won't actually operate to solve any problems. Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Starting a group in the traditional 'Big 8' hierarchy involves a long, fussy procedure; starting one in the alt hierarchy is easy but getting news servers to carry it is not so easy. I don't think it's appropriate for a world-distributable newsgroup, anyway. It may be possible to set up a newsgroup on the Nupedia server and have it archived by Nupedia (not quite a 'private' newsgroup, but not fully public - keep Google out of it). Would a mailing list be a good 'middle ground' between fully public discussion and private email? -- Claudine

Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC) What is the point of this? if two people are relating so badly that they are no longer relating, but abusing each other, what makes you think that a more private dialogue will be useful? I am interested in Wikipedia in part because of its transparency. What you are proposing would end up abused to end transparency. I'm particularly interested in vote stacking, which is another problem i have encountered here in only the very first VFD i ever sat in on. Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

---

What about ageism? In talk:Libertarian socialism Len said that another person is "obviously a college student" and called him or her "son" (this is also a minor form of sexism, since it makes assumptions about another's gender). This is clearly a personal attack. bpt 02:27 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Again, this is a patent ad hominem. Anytime the subject of a persons statements is another person or group, and not the content being worked on, its probably an ad hominem. If, by coincidence, and hyperbole it was an eight year old child on the other end, it would still be irrelevant. The only relevant question is the logic of the argument; not any property of the arguer. Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent example of a situation where a prohibition against personal attacks would chill spirited debate. Moreover, those who cry foul are often the passive aggressors. -- NetEsq 05:28 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

---

Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Thats not a spirited debate, its abuse. Don't even get me started on blaming the victim issues, but calling somebody passive aggressive because they object to an ad hominem is again abusive. I think that this entire idea of movingthe debate to email is wikipedia sluffing its responsibilities to solve the conflicts that arise here. There are theoretically good reasons to move to email. Mine is Prometheuspan@hotmail.com, and i hope Jimbo contacts me at his earliest convenience. You 2 Larry, and anybody else. I have a lot to say and no reason to want "wikiwatch" to get in on it.

Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A proposed revision

I'd like to propose a revision to the article (see below for suggested text). My comments:

I think we ought to be able to draw a "red line" where personal abuse is concerned. There's an important principle that we need to recognise here: we will only get good articles if we have a good community generating them. We will only get (and keep) a good community if people feel that they can contribute without being abused or harrassed. The only way we can ensure that is if we take a firm line on personal abuse.

In the following draft, I've proposed an absolute rule prohibiting "racial, sexual, religious or ethnic epithets" and profanity directed against other contributors. I recognise that it isn't always easy to agree on whether a user is a troll. However, I think it is possible to identify epithets and their use ought to be a pretty good indicator of the kind of user who will drive away the well-behaved contributors. It's regrettable that a "red line" is needed at all, but frankly, if personal abuse is tolerated it will end up driving away the honest users and turning Wikipedia into a slum dominated by sociopaths and fanatics. I've seen it happen before to online communities which don't enforce some sort of minimum standards, and I'd hate to see it happen here.

Comments welcomed... -- ChrisO 23:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

No personal attacks on the Wikipedia, period.

Contributors might not agree on an article. They might have fundamental differences in real life too: maybe they come from opposing communities. On Wikipedia, everyone is part of the same community - you are all Wikipedians. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes to be abused. Also, do not forget that disputes carried on in talk pages are publicly accessible to everyone, Wikipedians and public alike. The way in which you conduct yourself on Wikipedia is visible to everyone on the Internet.

Wikipedians should bear in mind the following guidelines:

• Always try to respect the views of other contributors. This does not mean that you have to agree with them; just agree to disagree.
• Disagree on the basis of the facts, not on the character of the other party. A view is not invalid solely because it is expressed by a Republican / African-American / woman / whatever.
• If a debate threatens to become personal, confer about the problem in e-mail. You may wish to consult Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to see how other Wikipedians can help you to resolve a dispute.
• You may well regard the other party's views as being on the fringe, or cranky. This may well be so, but do not forget that Wikipedia is aiming for a neutral point of view. You are not trying to write a "single version of the truth". Unconventional viewpoints need to be accommodated as well, even if you disagree with them. The golden rule is: be tolerant.

In the interests of preserving an unthreatening atmosphere for contributors, Wikipedia enforces an absolute ban on abusive slurs and language being directed against other contributors. Violating this rule can and will result in the offending user being banned. Specific types of slur covered by this ban include but are not limited to the following:

• Racial, sexual, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor.
• Profanity directed against another contributor (e.g. calling another contributor a "stupid piece of shit").

There is no excuse for such attacks on other contributors; the key issue is the content of the articles, not the character of the person writing them. Users who direct epithets against contributors can expect to be banned.

Interesting. I would rather say something like "violating this rule will result in the offending comments being deleted, edited for common courtesy, or returned to your user talk page. Repeated violations of this rule may result in further sanctions".

I like that because anyone can delete offensive comments, so this means the problem is solved at the lowest level. If we tell people that we will solve a particular problem with a ban, this tends to be the cue for incessent whinging. I would rather empower users to fix problems themselves, rather than expecting them to come cap in hand to some "authority" figure who will pronounce, Oracle-like, on the Truth of the matter. Martin 23:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC) All of that is wonderful and true in a fluff bunny sort of way. What we need here is the logical definition of an ad hominem, not a new and full of holes definition that can be abused by sly versions. Prometheuspan 23:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with this, but the question is: if we are banning "attacks" what is the threshold of "attack"?

• Does indicating that someone has vandalized a page constitute an attack? "Vandal" is usually seen as an insult, but we need a way to discuss this.
• Does calling someone a "leftist" or a "rightist" constitute an attack? From some people, those words can clearly be insults (especially when applied to someone who doesn't see him- or herself as such). In other cases, they may be very useful shorthands to identify the two sides in a disagreement over a politically controversial subject.
• Is it a personal attack to claim of a certain contributor that all of his or her edits appear to be for the purpose of affecting the political slants of articles? How about for the purpose of disseminating a pet theory as widely as possible throughout wikipedia, regardless of its appropriateness to the article topics? How about outright trolling?
• Above all, is this a matter of civility of language (I can live with that, happily) or of certain topics being off-limits (I'm far less comfortable with that). It is a reality (if not a happy one) that sometimes people have bad motives. If it is off limits for standards-abiding wikipedians to question someone's motives -- even gently and relatively politely -- then we are creating an unfair disadvantage for the unethical and malevolently motivated. Think of the behavior of the Robert Mitchum character in the first half of the classic film noir "Cape Fear". -- Jmabel 08:53, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC) The threshold is the same as it is right now. We ban people if and when it becomes apparent that their behavior is abusive, will not change, we have tried to educate, we have been patient, and the abusiveness continues. The difference is that instead of taking 3 days for an rfc, 3 days for mediation, and 5 days for an arbcom process, it can all happen in a matter of a few minutes. Assuming good faith requires of us to assume that a person who is a newbie and using ad hominems is ignorant. Posting the relevant information regarding the definition of an ad hominem, and, links to the logic articles on wikipedia, plus a request to not say anything until that information is read and understood, would ne a simple addition to wikipedias process. If a person continued to use atacks after such a warning, we would decide on a case by case basis depending upon severity. Wikipedia NEEDS a fast track to get rid of abusive people. Prometheuspan 23:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC) Rude personal attacks do occur. I've been subject to them. I've seen others subject to them. Since there's nothing I or anyone can mostly do about it (other than accept them), obviously they are acceptable on Wikipedia. A rule against them should either be enforced (with an indicated penalty) or the supposed rule against personal attacks should be downgraded to simple advice. In any case an intelligent attacker can be just as personal and just as aggressive and just as offensive by waffle wording. Instead of saying "You are anti-Semitic", the editor can say "What you are saying sounds anti-Semitic to me." Instead of saying "You are an ignorant fuckhead!", the editor can say "As I see it, you have not researched this topic sufficiently and are overreacting in a non-constructive way based on material you have unfortunately been exposed to!" They really mean the same thing, and may, depending on the circumstances, be true or false (or partly true). Attacks of this kind are no less annoying (when perceived as untrue) then when presented more obviously. Indeed, when untrue and presented in this way they may be far more annoying. Vicious civility is an attack technique. I would like to see Martin follow up on how he would "empower" users to deal with this and other annoyances. Simply removing crude personal attacks seems to protect the attacker, not the attacked, cleaning up the attacker's record, hiding what has occurred. Currently there seems to be a tendency for some to suggest that if a user cannot stand up to attacks, the user should walk away. Many do. Away from Wikipedia. jallan 15:14, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC) The nice thing about formal logic is that waffle wording is a lot of mental exercise with no good end. An ad hominem is an ad hominem, no matter how obtusely stated. Talking about an editor instead of that editors comments or argument is a pretty solid clue here. "What you are saying sounds anti-semitic to me." Could be an ad hominem or could be an analysis. However, a stronger approach is to adress exactly what is said, and to show why it sounds antisemitic. "As i see it...." Is again a possible ad hominem or a possible evaluation, but again, the stronger position if true is to show that the persons argument is fallacious, not discuss the person. This goes back to "letting the facts speak for themselves." If somebody posts something stupid, racist, ill informed, or patently ignorant, in a logic based society the response is educational on the first part and disciplinary on the second part. As an aside; We need rules like "please don't comment on things you don't know anything about." While that sounds silly at first, it is the fallback position to somebody making a fallacious statement that is ignorant of the facts. We don't need to call them stupid or ignorant. We can always maintain a focus on the product of the words. Formal logic provides a sort of logical disconnect. Instead of seeing a person behind words, Logic compels us to see the words, and only the words. "Your statement is logically fallacious" is very different from "You are an ignorant prick." Prometheuspan 23:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

From above, "A rule against them should either be enforced (with an indicated penalty) or the supposed rule against personal attacks should be downgraded to simple advice." The no personal attacks rule has been one of the most frequently cited Wikipedia policies used by the Arbitration Committee. Violations have resulted in bans of up to a year in extreme cases. Fred Bauder 16:25, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hate Speech

It has been pointed out on the Wikien mailing list that Wikipedia has no actual policy against hate speech. This article comes closest to being that policy. I suggest a policy to deal with hate speech be added to this article and enforced. By hate speech I mean false characterizations of a group which are intended to incite hatred and dismissal. For example, the characterization being discussed on the mailing list of the Gulag as "Jewish concentration camps" in which Christians were exterminated. Fred Bauder 11:39, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Judging by his wolf-crying behaviour on the mailing lists (is that a personal attack?), User:RK will go hogwild on this one with anyone contradicting him on Jew or Anti-Semitism.

Yes, in the case of RK there is a tendency to see more anti-semitism in opposition to his editing activities than is actually there, but I think most of us are aware of that tendency of RK.

I can't see that someone who uses actual "hate speech" in Wikipedia discussion is going to become a valuable user by trying to stop them, because they will not see it as "hate speech" (as in the example of User:WHEELER, which is what we're actually talking about here). I strongly question that we need another rule when the current dispute resolution process sufficiently deals appropriately and conclusively (if very slowly) with a problem user. I also strongly question making a rule on a single case like this when we already have procedures that will deal with and are in the process of dealing with this case - edge cases make bad law. - David Gerard 13:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, if they are not reformable, are they bannable? Fred Bauder 14:37, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed that we should consider wider ramifications of this policy before we jump in, for example, would my occasional essays into edit wars regarding communism, with subsequent negative characterizations of apologists for communism be considered hate speech? Fred Bauder 14:37, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Precisely. Before we can consider such a policy, we will need an obvious, elegant and consensus-accepted definition of "hate speech" that is not reasonably arguable. Otherwise, what the hell are we banning? - David Gerard 15:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definition of hate speech

Part of the definition is making a false generalization, "Blue-eyed devils" can serve as an example. This stands for the proposition that all White people are active evil-doers. True enough in the case of isolated individuals, sometimes true of pretty good size mobs, even entire nation-states, but considered seriously, false and resulting in incitment. Intention is another part of a reasonable definition as an aggravating factor. Hate-speech is intended to produce action, or at least change in behavior, perhaps from tolerance to rejection.

Some problems exist with that definition, for example as Bush or Kerry campaign both attempt false generalizations intended to produce change in behavior. So it is also a matter of degree, a change in voting being at one extreme, the holocaust the other, thus addition of the qualifier "extreme".

So hate speech is a false generalization about an ethnic group, religious or political orientation or other identifiable group which tends to produce a change in behavior that is extremely unfavorable to that group. Calculated intention is an aggravation of the offense but not necessary. Fred Bauder 16:28, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

There is absoloutely no need for a change of policy here. The current "no personal attacks" policy covers every example you cited except one. The witch-hunt against WHEELER. Making a new law in order to retroactively punish is widely condemned IRL courts. The attempt to do so is sad. Punish people for being rude, not for thinking differently from you. Sam [Spade] 17:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Any policy we make would not apply retroactively to Wheeler, just to future actions he or others might take. The observation was made that there is no hate speech policy. This is simply advocacy that we make one. Fred Bauder 17:23, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

Understood. Obviously I would find that more than unnecessary. Sam [Spade] 17:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see no examples showing we need one. I maintain this is not such an example. Making hard policy will require several hells of a justification - David Gerard 17:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"which tends to produce a change in behaviour" is an ambiguity you could drive a truck through.

This is still coming down to "I know it when I see it" and is not suitable material for a policy. e.g. I think a lot of your opinions on left-wingers are wrong, but I certainly wouldn't call them hate speech. But I'm pretty sure others here would.

In dealing with the case we're actually talking about, i.e. WHEELER, what about this case is not amenable to the current dispute resolution process? The AC is quite slow so far, but has dealt properly so far with cases brought against egregiously offensive users (MNH, Irismeister, Paul Vogel).

I completely fail to see why an RFM and then if necessary an RFA can't be brought against WHEELER. Based on his obnoxiousness so far, I could write it myself if I could be bothered. I shouldn't have to, though, because anyone else sufficiently concerned to flood wikien-l with messages about his "hate speech" should have the energy to proceed using the tools in place.

This is a single case. I have PROFOUND qualms about making new policy based on a single case that should be susceptible to the tools we already have in place.

To those who have been writing to Wikipedia advocating that WHEELER be thrown off for his egregious offensiveness: please at least attempt using the tools that are already to hand. - David Gerard 17:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is being called an anti-semite hate speech? Sam [Spade] 17:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, being called an anti-Semite is not hate speech; to ask the question misunderstands what hate speech is -- it is not any speech that is hateful; it is hateful speech that targets a stigmatized and victimized and therefore vulnerable group.

Here are two things I posted to the English listserve concerning this topic.

1) hate speech is categorically different from offensive or uncivil remarks. Many people have pointed out that there is often a certain level of incivility at Wikipedia; sometimes people make unfortunately offensive remarks in the heat of an argument, and sometimes remarks are offensive because they are controversial and play a constructive role in an argument. I agree with these points in principle, but do not think they apply to hate speech. For example, if someone writes "Sl, you are a shithead," well, yeah, I would take that as an uncivil and offensive remark. But I would not call it hate speech. Nor would I call it anti-Semitism. WHEELER observed that just because a dog barks at a Jew doesn't make the dog anti-Semitic. Fair enough. Just because I am Jewish does not mean that all attacks on me are anti-Semitic. But if the dog barks "Sl, you are a dirty Jew," that is anti-Semitic. Here is the difference: the first attack attacks me as an individual; the second attacks me as a member of a class or group of people. For this reason I respectfully disagree with Anthere's sympathetic remarks. The point is not that I feel hurt or injured. These are personal feelings and I have always strived not to let personal feelings affect my involvement in Wikipedia. Anti-Semitism is not wrong because it is hurtful on an individual or personal level; anti-Semitism attacks a whole group. Anti-Semitism is impersonal by nature. By the way, it is for this reason that non-Jews can and ought to oppose anti-Semitism, just as Whites can oppose racism against Blacks and Jews can oppose racism against Arabs. You do not have to feel personally injured to oppose something that is wrong. In fact, WHEELER didn't hurt my feelings because I do not care what WHEELER thinks about me at all. I simply oppose hate speech and anti-Semitism in all forms because it is wrong. Slrubenstein

2) hate speech is never about factual accuracy. This is because facts are contingent, but racism is based on essentialism. It is a fact that some Jews have been murderers. But are they murderers because they are Jewish? That they were (or are) Jewish is almost certainly incidental to their having murdered (or robbed a bank, or gone through a red light). It may very well be a fact that several or even many prison guards in the Soviet Union were Jewish. But they weren't camp guards because they were Jewish. To then talk about "Jewish concentration camps" is simply not about a factual claim we can research or question. There is no point in even questioning it as a factual claim. It is absurd on its face and the only point of the claim is to lump all Jews together, to treat them not as individuals but as members of a class. By the way, sometimes such correlations may be valid. Criminologists often look for correlations between behavior and race, class, or gender. I just think it is obvious that in this particular case WHEELER was not making an empirical claim subject to argument; he was using a slur in order to attack (I think Jrosenzweig and AndyL have provided sufficient evidence, for those who do not think this is obvious) Slrubenstein

3) There is a difference between what one feels or thinks, and how one expresses it publicly. Regulating hate speech (through a ban, or an apology or retraction) is not about regulating how someone feels. I don't think it is possible to control someone else's feelings -- hell, I am not sure it is possible to control one's own feelings. And if it were possible, I don't think it would be desirable. But we (not just government, but society or community) regulates how people express there feelings all the time. We can think what we like, but we know that in some contexts it is inappropriate or even dangerous to say what we think; we regulate ourselves, personally, as well. WHEELER, for example, can think whatever he wants. But to participate in a conversation, there are some things he won't say. And to participate in a community there are some things he shouldn't say. Where we draw the line is a separate matter that I address below -- here I just want to emphasize that it is what WHEELER wrote on one of our pages, not what he thinks, that I think we should concern ourselves with. Slrubenstein

4) Wikipedia should not tolerate hate speech. I think an open society should limit such regulation as much as possible. Some people have pointed out that even WHEELER has a right to free speech. I agree. But that does not mean that someone can say whatever they like, here. We should tolerate a certain level of offensive remarks as unavoidable byproducts of heated exchanges, just as we should tolerate a high level of ultimately empty chatter on talk pages as necessary byproducts of the editing process. We should certainly encourage controversy. But there is simply no benefit to Wikipedia from hate speech, and there is no need for us to provide people with an outlet for hate speech. God knows, there are plenty of other outlets on the internet for that. For the same reason, there should be no need for me to go (as one person suggested) to an attorney general to try to prosecute WHEELER for hate speech. What WHEELER wrote may very well be legal -- so he can write it elsewhere. I just don't want to see someone use Wikipedia as a vehicle for hate speech. Wikipedia policy is not nor should be the same thing as state or federal law. Slrubenstein

Someone on the listserve wrote, "The reason why I say that hate speech is not destructive is that speech itself is strictly communicative." which begs the question, what do you mean by "communicative?" I assume you mean that the only thing it does is to describe or express something else, but has not force in and of itself. If this is what CM means, he is mistaken. Some propositions are indeed expressive or descriptive (e.g., "I feel sick" or "the house is blue" -- in the first case the proposition describes how I feel, in the second case it describes the house. In both cases the proposition is about something else). But some propositions are performative -- statements which are in and of themselves actions. J.L. Austin provides some pretty common examples: when someone says "I name this ship The Queen Elizabeth" it is the very pronouncement that accomplishes the naming. Similarly, when one says "I bet you ..." it is the act of saying so that constitutes the bet. Or when someone says "I promise," it is the very act of speaking that accomplishes the promise. You can call these statements "communicative" if you like -- what is important is a major distinction between these kinds of statements and statements like "the house is blue." Slrubenstein

The question is, what kind of proposition is "Jewish concentration camps" (meaning, concentration camps run by Jews) I think the answer is, both. It is a descriptive statement that can be either true or false (and in the case of the camps WHEELER was referring too, false). But I believe it is also a performative statement, and it is in this sense that it is hate speech, and destructive. Slrubenstein

Some people have suggested that what makes it hate speech is its potential to incite physical violence. I think this is valid (and a valid legal principle: threatening someone may be punishable, at least in the U.S., or may not -- courts decide in part from weighing how likely the threat could lead to physical violence). But the argument of "hate speech" is that performative statements are in and of themselves violent. One example is the power of speech to intimidate (and although threats may be purely verbal, they can still be actionable for this reason). This was established in the United States by the 1942 Supreme Court decision Chaplinsky versus New Hampshire, which is the basis for some hate speech legislation in the U.S. (and available on the web). Another is the power of speech to stigmatize (this is in effect the argument MacKinnon and Dworkin made against pornography -- the very act renders women sexual objects). Slrubenstein

The ACLU opposes hate speech legislation on two grounds: first, it considers hate speech one of the prices a society must pay for a general right to freedom of speech, and second, it believes the best response to hate speech is more speech. I happen to sympathize very strongly, or just plain agree, with both of these. I do not think the state should limit free speech. WHEELER, for example, has a right to say whatever anti-Semitic thing he wants to, to anyone who wants to listen. Slrubenstein

The question is, do I have to listen? Do you, do we have to listen? And, more importantly, does Wikipedia have to be a medium through which anyone spews hate speech? I don't think so. And I think that anyone who construes this argument against hate speech on Wikipedia as censorship is seriously distorting the situation. Wikipedia is a community, not the state. Just because a person has a legal right to do something does not mean we are obliged to collude. For example, people have a right to advertise but we do not allow advertisements on Wikipedia. Advertisements do not benefit our project, and only mislead people as to the nature of our project. The same goes for hate speech. If I thought it were possible that hate speech on Wikipedia could lead to the improvement of an article, for example, I would defend it. But I don't think it leads to the improvement of articles, and only appropriates our space to hateful purposes. Slrubenstein

Yes, I read that on the mailing list (along w a good bit of other content here ;). RE: "Is being called an anti-semite hate speech?" you say "it is hateful speech that targets a stigmatized and victimized and therefore vulnerable group." Wouldn't that include anti-semites? Arn't they stigmatized, etc.. ? I know you prob. think I'm missing the point, but I'm not. Hate speech is censorship, and the premise behind it is racist. Minorities are not better than anyone else, and deserve no special rights. Past abuses have not earned them right to special protection in my eyes. I oppose the concept at every level. Sam [Spade] 19:52, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[6]

See here for background info. Sam [Spade] 17:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bringing back up this old topic

Yo. I'm currently drafting a new user space policy, and while mulling personal and impersonal attacks, I came to an interesting conclusion. Why is "I hate conservatives" allowed if "I hate Christians" is not? One person suggested that it is because of religion, but I'm not so sure. Since Wikipedia is American, should we be using the American definition of hate speech, or should we ban all impersonal attacks made against groups? - Corbin ^{Be excellent} 15:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not American. Well, perhaps it depends on what you mean by Wikipedia and American. Stephen B Streater 15:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I meant in terms of legal jurisdiction. - Corbin ^{Be excellent} 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

But have you considered how hard it would be to set up Wikipedia on a server somewhere else? This would then not be under US jurisdiction. In other words, the current US jurisdiction is just there for convenience rather than necessity. Stephen B Streater 13:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Removal of NPA Template from Talk page

When someone removes a vandalism warning template from their Talk page it is considered vandalism. Does the same hold true for when someone removes an NPA warning template? FiguringItOutAgain 05:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Veiled 'attacks'.

I am trying to understand this Wikipedia policy. Which is more important, the technical or the spirt of this policy. For example this statement is very close, but not technically a personal attack because it is phrased hypothetically. Yet, the intention of being a personal attack leaves little to the imagination. Is this considered a policy violation? BruceHallman 23:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"Since I am not allowed to engage in "personal abuse" here, I cannot begin to express my views about a person who could utter such a stupid, despicable, disgusting, totally morally bunkrupt statement. "

I think most of us would treat that as a personal attack, and should treat it as such. However, such things can be vague/questionable enough that I don't think it makes sense to make an explicit policy about them. JoshuaZ 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, I treated it as such and removed it. Despite the clumsy attempt to sidestep the policy, it's quite clear that this was designed to attack the person who made the statement, and not just criticise the statement itself. On Wikipedia, we need to be able to say things like "that last edit was bad" and so forth, but we also need to treat each other with respect and avoid degenerating into exchanges of childish namecalling. — Matt Crypto 01:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

You need to be careful though. I think this is a grey area with no absolutes. Some people find the above offensive, some people may not. It's up to the victim of the abuse as to whether to take action against the editor or not. The best response by others is obviously not to respond to abuse, and not encourage those who do, as mentioned in the policy. Veiled attacks are always more difficult to discern, and sometimes comments may be misinterpreted as veiled attacks. --Knucmo2 15:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it's often a grey area, and it would be foolhardy to try and craft a policy about it. In this above case, though, I'd say it's pretty clear what's intended: a personal attack. — Matt Crypto 15:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point about 'grey area', especially in isolated cases. Which raises a related question: If, (as appears to be the case for the user in the example above), the user has a very long history of civility warnings and a history of blocks, and that the user has learned that they can be clever and disquise personal attacks by 'veiling' as a 'work around' to avoid getting blocked; would a long historical pattern of using 'veils' to hide personal attacks be against Wikipedia policy? Or, are unlimited amounts of 'veiled' personal attacks allowed and tolerated? BruceHallman 16:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a "3RR" type of rule for veiled attacks would make sense? BruceHallman 16:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. If someone is obviously trying to get around the rule, as the above user was, then we can deal with it as if it were a personal attack under a narrow definition. It'd be very difficult indeed to try and define "veiled attack" in a satisfactory way that didn't inhibit legitimate discourse. — Matt Crypto 16:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Fair point, and I agree. I take it by 'we can deal with it' you mean this remedy. In the case of my example I have followed that suggested remedy to no avail. As here, the opinion is "the above user was" [...] "obviously trying to get around the rule", while at the Intervention Board, the opinion was "...no action should be taken...". Catch 22. Life isn't fair, I am OK with that <g>. The bigger issue is that lack of civility hurts Wikipedia in general, and here I see 'obvious' and repeated lack of civility being tolerated and hurting Wikipedia. BruceHallman 17:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As we're writing an encyclopedia here, and it ain't usenet, then if the user has a history of frequent incivility towards other editors, petty or blatant, then perhaps some sort of punitive action may be in order. The evidence has to be fairly strong though so as to make a good case inductively speaking. Also, multiple cases may not be bad as one particular case (where the abuse may have been particularly severe). --Knucmo2 17:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

NPA blocks

It has been brought to my attention that violations of NPA are not listed separately in the blocking policy, nor is blocking mentioned as a possible consequence on the NPA page. Wp:npa#Consequences states that "repeatedly engaging in personal attacks" can result in a ban; no mention is made of the common interim method of block. /WP:BP#Disruption mentions personal attacks. Should a mention be made on the NPA page as well? Posting on both Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy and Wikipedia talk:NPA; I suggest discussion continue on Talk:NPA. KillerChihuahua^?!? 04:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Add it, seems like an obvious thing to do. JoshuaZ 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This is needed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 05:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest Jossi, what's the minimum amount of time you can block a user for? --Knucmo2 18:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You mean the minimum amount of time the software will you let you block someone for? As far as I'm aware (not being an admin, thus never having used the block section of the site) it's 1 minute. I'm sure I've seen a block like 5 minutes or 30 minutes around here somewhere. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Darth for this, hopefully you will be an admin soon. Anyway, while I'm still not deadset on the block for an NPA violation rule, I was scared that users might get blocked for 24 hours just for calling someone a "dick" or something, which would be excessive. This has somewhat allayed my fears. --Knucmo2 20:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well generally there is no set amount of time for blocking anyone. You can see this quite clearly from block logs of open proxies: some admins have no problem with blocking them for a week to stop the constant stream of vandalism, whereas others will block for as little as 30 minutes to put an end to one vandal editing from the proxy. I can't imagine an admin would block someone on sight for them calling someone a "dick". I think they're more likely to stick something like {{npa}} on their page. Immidiate blocks without warnings are rare- infact, I've never seen one. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

To the contrary, there is no minimum at all (except maybe 1 second because it's not measured any lower). --Rory096 23:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Off-wiki?

Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Does this mean if I called another editor a jerk in real life, I could be blocked for NPA? Or what? It's a little rediculous that it extends to IRC, something that the ArbCom said it didn't need to worry about. SushiGeek 16:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this could use some clarification. Wikipedia policy has no jurisdiction over off-Wikipedia places, and Arbcom has specifically stated that the rules do not apply on IRC! Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 18:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the ArbCom should at the very least consider off-Wiki attacks (especially if they're verifiable) in their cases. For example, how much good faith must one give on-Wiki if someone is attacking them off-Wiki? In the case of IRC (specifically the unofficial channels on Freenode) it doesn't make sense to exclude attacks made in public there. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we are confusing enforcing NPA off-wiki and considering off-wiki attacks in evidence. The former I have no objection too, but that up to whoever's in charge of IRC to take care of if they so please. The latter is certainly sensible, just like in the case of evidence of off-wiki incitements to meatpuppetry by Beckjord, Jason Gaastrich, etc. Dmcdevit·t 00:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been the most common objection, but I think it stems from a mistaken understanding of the purpose of the policy. I tried to make the meaning plain with this edit. As I wrote, "Wikipedia does not, and cannot, police the internet for personal attacks, and this policy does not seek to extend Wikipedia's "jurisdiction" elsewhere. Rather, this is a way of holding editors accountable on Wikipedia for circumventing the policy against personal attacks here." So, no, this isn't an attempt to change enforce NPA on IRC (though I do find it disheartening in general that people would be disappointed if they were prohibited from making personal attacks elsewhere.). Dmcdevit·t 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Examples - Cult

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.

Propose that we drop the "even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.". It seems to imply that belonging to a religious group is belongong to a cult. This conveys the same meaning and doesn't attack religious people (which we should not do in the NPA article)

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed.

--Tbeatty 05:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The current wording simply implies that some people consider some religions to be cults. Under your wording someone could (for example) attack someone for being a scientologist and say "but that's not really a religion, its just a cult." With this wording it makes it clear that that is an unacceptable excuse. JoshuaZ 05:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

An interpretation of the last sentence is to prevent the defense that the Contributor of the attack is a member of the religion that is being insulted. There is no need to say the religion is a cult or to try and identify which religions are "cults". It would be like saying "No Jewish slurs are allowed even if the person attacking is a <insert your favorite slur here>." It's insulting to include it in this way.

Let's put it this way, I was offended by the language as it stood.

--Tbeatty 05:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

And I really don't understand your cause for offense. It isn't similar at all to your example. The guideline doesn't attempt to identify whether or not a religion is a cult. It makes a blanket statement, any religion (even if it is a puported cult) is what is relevant. The rule applies regardless of whether a specific religion is a cult or not. In fact, the statement is true whether or not any "cult" exists in reality. JoshuaZ 05:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The confusion is the term "contributor" and the pronoun "they". It can mean both the recipient or instigator of the attack. It could have been interpreted to mean that jews don't get a free pass at attackign other jews. This is different than the way it was intended so it was confusing. Because "contributor" is ambiguous, it could be interpreted as saying "The attacker can't attack members of a religion even if they themselves are members of the purported cult." It's ambiguous pronouns that make it offensive. I understand that wasn't the intent but that's the way it came across. I read it as trying to thwart the defense "It's okay if I us use slur X because I am slur X" when in fact it was intended to stop a different kind of attack.--Tbeatty 06:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

New Wording

I don't object to your new wording which gets the point across, although since this is a policy page I would appreciate if other users would clarify if they don't mind the new wording. JoshuaZ 05:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with it, though I changed the wording slightly. dbtfz^talk 05:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Dbtfz's edits were fine with me.--Tbeatty 06:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)