Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 1

Discussion
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


 * 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.

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

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


 * 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

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)


 * 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)

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 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)

I generally agree with this, but the question is: if we are banning "attacks" what is the threshhold 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * That is because it is one for very few supposed rules outside of vandalism on which any kind of action is ever taken by anyone empowered to take action, though only after very much consideration. So the current de facto rule seems to be:
 * "Too many personal attacks against too many people are unacceptable when officially complained about. But used in moderation, personal attacks are quite a useful technique for getting people off what you have taken to be your own turf and away from you to some other part of Wikipedia, somewhere else where they can edit in peace without having to deal with you, or off Wikipedia altogether. If you are called to account, claim you were baited. But even if you don't, others will defend your actions for that reason in any case, pointing out that it takes two to fight and all that and that the person raped must have done something wrong to bring on the attack. Your victim obviously didn't try hard enough. You have also made good edits."
 * There is general enforcement of rules against vandalism. There is no general enforcement of the rule against personal attacks. If personal attacks should be totally unacceptable, then make them totally unacceptable by authorizing sysops to termporarily block anyone who makes a personal attack just as they would block vandalism (or people making legal threats or threats of violence). The blocked person can always appeal just as they would for any unfair block. If that is not done, then personal attacks are not totally unacceptable. People either have to accept personal attacks, or respond by spending hours or days in attempting to instigate an action against the person to the end result that the attacker is likely to be banned for a few days at most (while their sock puppets continue to edit?). Perhaps easier to take the high road and walk away altogether from increasing loutishness and harrassment in one local bar. There are other bars. Jallan 18:42, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If you're saying "**** that edit" instead of "**** [insert user's name here,]" you are not harming the contributor because you are clearly talking about the edit. Scott Gall 07:36, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Related article
From AlMac An article that bans personal attacks where for the PERSON we substitute an INSTITUTION or BEHAVIOR PATTERN AlMac 29 June 2005 12:54 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Wikopedia already has this and I not stumbled across it.
 * political party
 * public figure in legal trouble
 * type of activity that can be controversial
 * business activity
 * union activity
 * religious activity
 * government activity
 * non-government organization free speech
 * I think such an article might help make for more clarity in communicating POV to newbies

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. (anon)


 * But being called an anti-Semite might well be a personal attack. Martin 13:18, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definition of hate speech 2
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


 * The dog who barks "Sl, you are a dirty Jew" would surely be anti-Semitic, and making a personal attack. That personal attack would be covered by current policy, and would surely be judged more harshly than "Sl, you are dirty"? Martin 13:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

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

response to Definition of hate speech 2

 * Slrubenstien: what the hell is stopping you from going through the dispute resolution over WHEELER's egregious offensiveness, and seeing if it actually fails, before asserting we need another rule? The time you spent on the above could easily have been used on something to actually deal with the alleged problem. And establish that the alleged problem actually falls within the remit of the present mechanism for dealing with problem users. Which I maintain it does.


 * Before you advocate a new rule, you really should prove the old one doesn't work. You haven't - David Gerard 21:25, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * First, nothing is stopping me -- all of this started with my asking someone on the arbitration board for advice, and AndyL has requested mediation. Second, let me be the judge of how to spend my time.  If you do not think this topic is worth spending time on, that is your business -- you should stop posting to this page or reading it.  But I will spend my time as I please.  Third, I am not claiming that the old rule doesn't work, I am raising general issues that have not been considered in discussion. By the way, sorry I couldn't work the phrase "the hell" into this response, as you seem to think it appropriate to reasoned discourse.  Slrubenstein

I think if we enforced Civility and wikiquette we'd all be alot happier, waste alot less time, and get alot more done. Thats what were here to do right, work an encyclopedia? How does rudeness of any sort assist w that? Why differentiate between racial, sexual, religious hierarchies of whats offensive? Lets just enforce the rules we already have, rather than fight about what sorts of new ones might help. Sam [Spade] 02:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Racial, sexual and other kinds of slurs are already differentiated in our guidelines (and no, I had nothing to do with that!) The point of a rule against hate speech is not to introduce racial, sexual, or other such epithets to our guidelines.  What it does introduce is the notion of impersonal attacks.  I am not saying there needs to be a new mechanism.  Minimally, in the subsections of our key policies and behavior guidelines, I just think that the category currently listed, "personal attacks" is not sufficient; impersonal attacks (e.g. attacking all Jews, all Blacks, all gays -- but not singling out one individual) should be added. Slrubenstein

Why?
 * because impersonal attacks of this nature can be even more disruptive and offensive as personal attacks

Current policies are sufficient, were they enforced.
 * No, because they do not include such impersonal atacks. That is why I just wrote, only an inch or two above where you are looking right now, " "personal attacks" is not sufficient"

Do you at a minimum agree that enforcement of current policy would be advantageous? Sam [Spade] 19:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the question. Advantageous to whom?  As opposed to what?  Are you asking if I think we should not enforce current policy?  Of course not, we should continue to enforce current policy.  Are you asking something else?  Otherwise, I stand by what I wrote above. Slrubenstein

If you think current policies (such as Civility, wikiquette and No personal attacks) are being enforced, you are dangerously out of touch. I suggest you give the matter a great deal more thought. Sam [Spade] 22:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I do not think they are always enforced adequately or efficiently, but in a wiki-community I think this is understandable. In any case, I do not think the problem of hate speech owes to a lack of enforcement of current policies, if this is what you were asking. Slrubenstein

I find it significantly less understandable, and strongly suggest that if they were enforced your suggestion of policy change would be more obvious in its lack of utility. The problem here is that the lack of enforcement of current rules suggests to some (yourself it would seem) that new rules are the answer. I clearly disagree in the utmost. Sam [Spade] 04:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, you are saying that WHEELER should have been banned because of the policy against personal attacks, but this policy is not being enforced? I disagree "in the utmost" ;) I also don't see how you can think that it is the lack of enforcement that seems to suggest to me that there is a need for a new rule, when I have stated explicitly that this is not the case. That seems to show serious lack of respect for a contributor who has strived to respond to your comments patiently and clearly. Slrubenstein


 * I am disrespectful when I understand things differently than you?

No, only when you misrepresent what I wrote, as I explain in the third sentence in the paragraph above. But maybe I am wrong to accuse you of misrepresenting what I wrote -- you do it so often that perhaps you are simply not reading what I write. Slrubenstein


 * Please stop cutting up my text. Repeating back to you what I understand from what you said is a good habit, it helps w communication. If I'm wrong, tell me so politely. Please stop being rude, I don't appreciate it. Sam [Spade] 21:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I am saying there is no need for a new rule, rather that existing rules aught be enforced. If you want to see an example of incivility, scroll up to the top of this thread. I find the way you spoke to mr. Gerard somewhat less than civil. Perhaps you found his use of "hell" less than civil also. I found a substantial number of comments made about WHEELER to have been personal attacks. Heck, I find every use of the word troll a personal attack. And yes, WHEELER violated wikiquette w his statement, IMO, and should have been reprimanded as such by an admin on his talk. Sam [Spade] 16:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I somewhat agreed with enforcing current rules and cannot disagree with some of the other statements but what made me put my two coppers in is "every use of the word troll" as a personal attack. I object to that strongly.  It is a censure of free speech to deny anyone the descriptive words necessary to respond to trolling.  If a user makes remarks that can be described as trolling (my description if fishing for angry responses) it is accurate to call someone a troll in a given discussion that is regarding that content.  It is akin to saying that Clinton's oral sex is not "sex" and grinding on the details of what the word "is" means. I reject the idea that we are going to create seven dirty words that can never be uttered in a discussion. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  16:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I responded at length re: troll here. I'll just mention that I like the seven dirty words idea, and that troll aught to be one of them ;) Sam [Spade] 17:14, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Is being called an anti-semite hate speech?"

 * 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 rules amount to censorship, and the premise behind them 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)


 * P.S. I do feel that No personal attacks should be enforced. I just don't agree w the 1st class citizen status given to some by these sorts of hate crime rules, w folks like me (w no obvious minority or protected group status) relegated to 2nd class citizenship. Making me feel like a colored in S African apartied fails on every level in achieving the goals you should be shooting for here, namely a friendlier working environment. Sam [Spade] 20:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How sensitive of Sam to consider the rights of the racist being discriminated against because of his racism as being the same as the right of the victim being subjected to racism. What's next, holing the right of the rapist as equl to those of the rape victim? The murderer's right to murder as being equal to the rights of the murdered? I think Sam's onto a whole new legal standard here. Sorry Sam, your argument that someone has the right to be an anti-Semite and that we shouldn't deny someone that right is just about the most uncivil thing I've heard from you. I don't see how you can see yourself as a crusader from civility when you come up with nonsense like this. AndyL

Is being called an anti-semite hate speech? It could be, depends on the facts. Calling someone an anti-semite when there is a long track record which shows it and calling someone an anti-semite because they criticize some egregious Zionist atrocity is another. Another element is the broadbrush quality of hate speech. For example, "Germans are anti-semitic" is a broadbrush and false characterization. A context where incitement will produce results might also be necessary. For example, a whispering campaign regarding a lawyer practicing in New York City, who had occasionally made a few critical remarks regarding Jews might be hate speech. To summarize these incomplete observations, there needs to be a look at the evidence which should show a broad negative and basically unfair condemnation of Jews, if that does not exist pulling out the "anti-semite" card may be unfair and in extreme instances, especially where it can be expected to damage the target, hate speech. So to address the instant case, characterizing a Wikipedia editor as "anti-semitic" without sufficient cause, given that we have banned anti-semitic users (using the "no personal attacks policy), might be hate speech and in itself a violation of the no personal attacks policy. Fred Bauder 10:27, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well thats interesting. I still don't think we need a new rule, but rather better enforcement of the existing policy. Sam [Spade] 14:42, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, uh, yeah - David Gerard 15:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ignore this
Sam equating himself with "a colored in S African apart(h)eid" because he is *not* a member of a group subjected to discrimination and hate speech is highly convoluted thinking. I suspect that "a colored" from South Africa would be deeply insulted at the comparison and by Sam's logic that being called a racist is as bad as racism itself and that racists are being discriminated against by being called racists just as much as an oppressed group is being discriminated against. AndyL


 * Perhaps I've commited an act of hate speech thereby? Off to the gulag w me I suppose... Good thing you don't allow dissent, that might cause you to suffer thru all sorts of "convoluted" thinking. Sam [Spade] 23:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sam but I can't reconcile your advocacy of "civility" with your apologism for anti-Semitism and racism. I don't think you need to be sent to a gulag, I just think you can't be taken seriously and should be generally ignored. Or do I not have a right to ignore you and dismiss what you say? AndyL


 * Again w this apologism BS? When will you people figure out I'm not apologizing for anything. The polite way to not listen to be is by not talking to me at all. When you say something, ignore my response, and reply w your mangled interpretation of what you think I might have said, its not nearly so much fun as if you'd be so good as to just ignore me completely. I'd imagine WHEELER might just do a Two Step if you decided to ignore him for a while ;) Sam [Spade] 04:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This isn't the point, Sam. The point is that when someone disagrees with you (which is all AndyL was doing, in his statement that opens this section), you counter by accusing someone of not allowing any dissent! This is a defensive stance that impedes open debate or dialogue. All AndyL said was, your thinking is convoluted, and Coloreds in South Africa would probably be insulted. These two claims are two different ways that AndyL is expressing his disagreement with you. How can you possibly respond by saying "you don't allow dissent?" The logical implication is that in order to allow dissent, AndyL (or presumably anyone else) must agree with you! Pretty twisted -- in order to allow dissent, everyone must agree! Sorry Sam, but it cuts both ways. If you want to have the right to disagree with AndyL, he must have the right to disagree with you. And if you want to participate in a debate, where ideas are exchanged, you need to acknowledge this rather than deny it as you have done here. Slrubenstein


 * There is a reason I titled this thread the way I did. I'm sorry if you don't appreciate my levity, but then I did ask you to ignore it, didn't I? Trying to take jokes seriously is what I call sarcasm ;) Sam [Spade] 17:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I did not know that you were the one who entitled the section -- nor was it clear to me why it should be ignored (does AndyL agree it should be ignored?) In the future, if you regret or retract an argument you have made, I suggest you just say so. I am not sure how to take "ignore me" sarcastically -- AndyL clearly was not ignoring you, but if you don't want people to read your words, why write at all! I guess I will find out whether you really want to be ignored by whether you respond do this or not ... Slrubenstein

Respond with more speech, not more rules
For the record, I stand opposed to hate speech, but I do not believe that a rule prohibiting hate speech is the appropriate remedy. All too often "the rules" are a vehicle through which "right-thinking" individuals impose their will upon the disenfranchised members of society, and I want no part of that. Rather, I believe that the best remedy for bad speech -- and the only *true* remedy -- is good speech. "Obviously, physical threats are out of place, as are impugning someone's race, gender, or nationality, . . . but even those [situations] should be judged [on a] case-by-case [basis]." Indeed, absent a clear and present danger of immediate and irreparable harm, there is no reason whatsoever to censor the ramblings of bigots.

"Even if I am technically wrong, and enough can be squeezed from these poor and puny anonymities to turn the color of . . . litmus paper; . . even if . . . the necessary intent were shown; the most nominal punishment seems to me all that . . . should be inflicted, unless the [accused] are to be made to suffer not for what the indictment alleges but for the creed that they avow -- a creed that I believe to be the creed of ignorance and immaturity when honestly held. . . ." // NetEsq 23:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say! Sam [Spade] 00:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That is a personal comment, not a content comment and qualifies as a personal attack: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." IF a comment is about a user, it is a personal attack. Furthermore, saying a user is "brilliant and eloquent" in a sarcastic manner means the user is NOT eloquent and NOT brilliant. --AI 09:41, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

What Is Listed Here Is Irrelevant
Several people who are listed in "support of" the no personal attacks rule (which I am not--you wanna pretend we live in a world where everyone's pleasant all the time, go watch Shari Lewis fist her sock puppets) are hypocrites who themselves are some of the worst offenders of the "no personal attacks" policy!

People like Mike H and Hyacinth, to name two, use their positions of power and their friends and contacts who are in positions of power to remove opinions with which they disagree. They also believe that they themselves are above the "no attacks" rule. While they'd dub as "attack" mere opinions and beliefs stated by people they dislike, they run around the Wikipedia creating unnecessary trouble out of every issue, in an attempt to prove to their higher-up's that they should be promoted into higher and higher administrative positions because they do such "good" and "thorough" jobs of policing (read, victimizing) the rest of us! This project is fast becoming irrelevant, as there exists a solid group who believes they are above the law and that all who question them should be immediately censored, if not banned! There should be a Wiki-created judicial hearing regarding said matters; if there is not, there will be a hearing that is carried out by some judicial body, without a doubt.

Comments?!

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

I've just voted, strongly (if that were possible) that there should be no personal attacks on Wikipedia. I think this is essential; otherwise Wikipedia will end up like a Kindergarten class when the teacher is out.

However, I don't think that 'no personal attacks' means that you can never criticise other people's behaviour, or tell people that their behaviour is wrong. For example there is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll". "You seem to be making statements just to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same withough descending to name-calling. Wikipedia should never descend to insults, but saying that behaviour is wrong is acceptable. DJ Clayworth 19:18, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I think "you are acting like an XYZ" is a bad way to go. Much better to say "hey, I saw you had some conflict w another user, perhaps you should review [applicable policy XYZ]" or "I'm sorry, but ad hominems are not a part of a useful debate. Thats why I removed them. Please review No personal attacks." Sam [Spade] 19:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Even better :) gracefool 05:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that for the benefit of editors with good intentions people need to be informed as clearly as possible of actual personal attacks or vandalism they commit. Folks should always be pointed to the appropriate policies. Hyacinth 19:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(non constructive anon comment deleted by Erich 07:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) see archive if you really must)


 * This is becoming the expectation before any negative sanction is applied to someone. They must have been informed clearly in several ways as to exactly what they are doing that is being complained of and given an opportunity to change whatever that is. Fred Bauder 20:45, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Regarding the matter of questioning the motives of other editors, I would like to add that Robert's Rules of Order addresses this issue. I can't type in the text because of copyrights and sloth, but here is the gist: any speaker who questions the motives of another member is out of order and the chair must act immediately to prevent its repitition. It uses the strongest language it can as it regards this is as a central foundation of civil discourse. Perhaps on Wiki we too often blend discussions of topics with discussions of editors. -Willmcw 06:28, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I do agree that discussions of editors instead of article content get way too much airtime here. But as someone who watches entirely too much political debate (U.S. congressional version), I have to say that I have mixed feelings about using political parliamentary rules as an exemplar here unless we're very clear about what that means.  In my personal experience, the rules in this arena are antiquated and stifle real debate (or at least real criticism) -- people now simply get up and talk to the camera from prepared texts.  On the other hand, in terms of civility, it really rarely gets out of hand, so perhaps there's something there -- but I maybe that's because there's an immediate hand-slap and public shaming.  If someone casts some aspersion that is truly egregious, they are reprimanded and generally their comments end up being stricken from the record (a practice I find silly -- they said it, a record should remain).  &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 12:57, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have a suggestion which can be edited into this policy to help prevent things from getting out of hand. To be consistent with this policy, user's should only reprimand an offending user in that user's talk page. To reprimand him in an article talk page is contrary to "Comment on content, not on the contributor" which is stated at the beginning of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The personal attack in the article talk page can be removed. This minimizes uncivilness in the article take page while still correcting the user. --AI 17:50, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

major fiddle
how does that look now? i did it in a hurry so probly needs a good copyedit proof-read. Erich 07:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Instruction creep
This article is getting a horrible case of instruction creep. It should be about half the length it is now. I may start hacking very soon. Anyone else is welcome, of course - David Gerard 13:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Addition of a policy which has been followed in certain cases
I have added the following to the article: "* Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort will result in severe sanctions which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee and User:Jimmy Wales of what they have done and why." This has its origin in the practice which were followed in a certain case where such a treat was made which could have exposed a user to criminal and religious persecution in a certain country. Fred Bauder 14:45, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Proposed ammendment
I've mentioned this on Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy but figure I should bring it up here as well - what would people think of the following:


 * At their discretion, and only after warning the user, sysops may use temporary blocks to enforce a &ldquo;cooling down&rdquo; period for users who repeatedly make personal attacks. Blocks made under this policy should be short term – one to three days normally, and a week at most. Sysops blocking under this policy may not block users for making personal attacks in the course of disputes that the sysop is involved in, and especially not for personal attacks made against them, unless the personal attacks also constitute clear and unambiguous vandalism (i.e. replacing their userpage with &ldquo;U SUCK!!1!1!!&rdquo;).

Snowspinner 13:23, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * As this is taken verbatim from Blocking_policy/Personal_attacks, lacking only the first sentence of that section, and as that proposal failed to gain consensus, it seems clear that we already know "what would people think of" this.


 * As that proposal failed, and as Snowspinner knows that, he being the author of that failed proposal, why try for a "second bite of the apple" here? -- orthogonal 07:44, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The addition from 10 September 2004
The recently proposed changes include 3 points which are at least controversial:


 * "Specific examples of personal attack include: Assertions of negative or malicious intent outside of dispute resolution."


 * This is just way too wide. It means that comments like "You knew this was POV before you inserted it" or "I think you are a troll", or an edit summary saying "Reverted - stop inputting false information" are personal attacks.


 * And it would make what TimStarling and others said on the Anarion RfA a personal attack when they wondered if he was a Sockpuppet.
 * And what Makkalai and Geogre (and many others) said about the Coronado hoaxes personal attacks
 * Others are encouraged to add more examples. -- orthogonal 22:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I am unable to figure out how "you are a sockpuppet" or "you are inputting false information" (a factually verifiable statement) has anything to do with assertions of intent. Snowspinner 23:11, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, sockpuppet voting implies getting around the rules, so there's "negative intent" at the least. I think "you are inputting false information" could be taken in context to mean "you are knowingly inputting false information", which again implies negative, if not malicious, intent.  Them's my two cents, at least. Jwrosenzweig 23:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I think the level of reading into the statements that requires would, if made explicit, also constitute a personal attack. ;) Snowspinner 23:20, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes, I agree. I think, though, it's a good example of why "negative intent" is a lousy guideline, and "malicious intent" is almost as bad, and I say that with no idea who proposed these policies...I hope they know I'm not trying to attack them by saying that I don't feel they're workable policies. :-) Jwrosenzweig 23:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "Personal attacks do not include: Claims explicltly limited to edits. "This edit is stupid" is not a personal attack. 'You are stupid" is."


 * "Your edit is stupid" usually means "Your POV is stupid". That can be a personal attack. Not to mention non-article edits: "Your comment is stupid", "Your vote is stupid", etc.
 * The problem is that if comments, votes, and edits are off bounds for criticism then debate comes screeching to a halt in a lot of ways. Comments limited to actions and not people are not (And have not, to my knowledge, ever been) personal attacks. Snowspinner 23:11, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think these issues are too big to be so easily encapsulated. If I wrote "reverting pro-Zionist edit" that could be taken as a personal attack.  If I wrote "this edit is so mindless that it seems to have been produced by a monkey licking the keyboard" it is only a characterization of the edit, but is obviously a personal attack on some level.  It's not easy to clearly define personal attacks in the simplistic way they are in that quote. Jwrosenzweig 23:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Did you spy on me? How did you know about my monkey making edits for me??? -- orthogonal 23:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'll just return to deciding on a case by case basis. :) Snowspinner 23:29, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * By that, surely you mean you'll follow community consensus, not your own idea of policy (as I note these proposed additions were yours)? -- orthogonal 23:34, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I mean that I'm going to apply common sense. Snowspinner 23:38, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Let's play nicely, shall we? I know you two have a history, but we can let that go, I hope.  If anybody disregards consensus, it is almost always unwise and at their own peril, so I expect Snowspinner didn't mean he would ignore it.  The only consequence a non-AC member can impose for a personal attack, as I recall, is to remove it (and note that they have done so).  Even if someone disregards consensus there, it's easily reversible and pretty minor.  If there are sterner consequences, I'd like to know about them -- perhaps I'm not up enough on personal attack policy. Jwrosenzweig 23:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * At present, you are correct as to what personal attack policy says, yes. Snowspinner 23:43, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * Then I don't see anything wrong at all with you exercising common sense when you remove a personal attack, unless there is clear community consensus against it (in which case it's merely futile to do so, whether or not you think it sensible). If we're talking about banning people for making such attacks, then I think common sense is a less useful guide -- common sense, after all, is a squishy thing, and hard to agree on, while it's fairly easy to agree on what consensus is (since you have to ask and see what people say).  But that's a discussion for another day, I think, or at least another place. Jwrosenzweig 23:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * "...unless such a request is patently absurd and clearly designed only to cause offense."


 * If someone is abusing procedures, take them to conflict resolution or even establish a mechanism to deal with that. Don't lump it under "personal attacks".


 * And who is supposed to determine what is "patently absurd"? Surely not a user acting unilaterally? -- orthogonal 22:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, that would depend on who's expected to enforce the no personal attacks policy at present. Snowspinner 23:11, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that the no personal attacks policy is not particularly enforceable in real time, but violations of it are considered violations of policy in judgments made by the AC. But I may be wrong. Jwrosenzweig 23:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Zocky 22:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks do not include reasonable and moderated language used to describe a user's actions in the context of dispute resolution or requesting assistance from others. However, when doing this please be careful to avoid becoming either disruptive to Wikipedia, or harrassing to the user in question.

Is that a better phrasing of what is intended? Martin 17:04, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it's a better phrasing, but I think a policy long established should not be changed for light and transient causes. First let's:
 * determine if the policy actually needs to be changed and
 * determine if the change we contemplate reflects the consensus of the community.


 * What problem exists that this change is meant to be a solution to? -- orthogonal 17:53, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The fact that people are regularly accused of personal attacks when they're making claims against problem users on RFAR and RFC? Snowspinner 18:23, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * Regular enough that several examples can be given? However, I'd be willing to agree to:
 * Personal attacks do not include reasonable language used to describe a user's actions.
 * -- orthogonal 18:27, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What is "reasonable" or "moderated" language? Only CIVIL language should be used to describe a user's action. No language should be used anywhere which may be perceived by the user or others as offensive. You can describe their actions without making snide remarks. Regarding article talk pages, NO personal comments should be in them at all. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." No personal attacks --AI 18:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I am rewording your proposal. --AI 18:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC) Here it is:


 * Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe a user's actions.

Summary
So what is End result of this? more then two weeks have past, it is still on the page. And still says if it passes more then two weeks it will be a policy. It is policy or not. Or will it require more discussion? Zain 00:20, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks outside Wikipedia on contributors of Wikipedia
I have been accused three times of making personal attacks, undermining other contributors' credibility, ridiculing contributors outside of Wikipedia. Other contributors got really angry with me and I defended myself in Wikipedia. I have to admit that I once, and only once, copied a statement by a Wikipedian ridiculing another Wikipedian to a forum outside of Wikipedia. I have apologized for this. Should there be rules for this? Thanks Andries 09:45, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most of the Arbitration Committee has taken the postition that what is done outside Wikipedia is not its concern. Personally I take the position that a personal attack outside Wikipedia should have the same effect as one on the site. And would include that position in Wikipedia policy. You seem to be thoughtful about your actions. Fred Bauder 13:26, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well I think outside wikipedia is outside wikipedia. It will even make many senetors, president, diplomat having no right to edit wikipedia. think of john kerry flip flops. And many other things. Almost all politicians will be banned. All laywers will be banned. probably all judges will be banned too. Because they declare a particular person murderer or theif. And it will go on. I think every body has done some personal attack in his life. This will make every body blocked form wikipedia. I think it should be limited to wikipedia. Zain 00:28, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Consequences
The project page should indicate the consequences for personal attacks. The page currently gives reasons why they are bad, but no warning of what will happen if one commits personal attacks. Hyacinth 19:02, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed! Catherine\talk 04:16, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In an discusion with Egil over how the page of the norwegian city of Stavanger should look, I accused him of having a left-wing political agenda for not letting me add two things. Is this to be considered a non-proper way of discussing? I do not wish to break any wikirules but I am unshure wether this is unapropriate or not.

Henrik


 * I don't think you're going to get put in a dungeon for it, but I suggest it would be better to leave accusations of another editor's intentions out of it, and to concentrate instead on the validity or otherwise of the disputed points. Tyrenius 04:17, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Template
See: Template:No personal attacks, intended to be used on talk pages by third parties during disputes which include personal comments and attacks. Hyacinth 03:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See also: Template:No personal headings. Hyacinth 02:01, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Should we add this comment?
David Gerard noted the tendency toward Instruction creep, but I think this is worth mentioning.

There are some Wikipedians who seem to be chronically incapable of resisting personal attacks. When called on this problem, their response is often 'Personal attacks are the only way the offenders will listen to anybody'. The problem I have with this is that there is nothing in the NPA policy (to say nothing of common sense) that justifies this viewpoint. Person 1 will never pay more attention to Person 2 just because Person 2 decides that it is necessary to use a personal attack.

Thus, I think that this sentence: The assertion that the other party is unable to understand any language other than a personal attack is no justification for a personal attack, should probably be added to the policy. I personally consider it a simple corollary of current policy, but the rest of you may disagree.

What do y'all think? &rarr;I&ntilde;g&#333;lemo&larr;  talk 04:18, 2005 Feb 24 (UTC)


 * A rule of no personal attacks covers this. No personal attacks means no personal attacks, and there is not justification for them. Tyrenius 04:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Lies
Much to my amazement, I can find nothing on this page or anywhere else saying that there is anything wrong with deliberately lying about another user. In course of a dispute on other matters, Requests_for_comment/Messhermit. I have asked him to substantiate it or retract it, but much to my amazement, I can't find any policy he is violating if he simply chooses to stand by a bald-faced lie. Am I missing something? If this really isn't policy, I believe that it should be. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:29, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the arbcom would find this to be a violation of civility, if nothing else. There's an unspoken and unwritten policy against taking great pains to cause other users difficulty, and the arbcom has ruled to this effect. Snowspinner 06:55, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Still, shouldn't this be overt policy? Not to have it so seems to welcome a certain type of troll behavior. Also, in the RfC process, it makes it hard to say what policy is being violated. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:41, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)


 * Lies are specifically listed at Civility. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 13:44, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with Snowspinner and Jmabel: The no personal attacks policy covers lies since one should not be commenting on the contributor but on the content. So good for talk pages. In an arbitration situation while I hope that is implicit it nonetheless needs to be explicit, if it is not, that you cannot lie. About anything, especially other users. Hyacinth 00:48, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Lies about other users: definite personal attacks
 * Lies about encyclopaedic facts: obstructing successful writing of the encyclopaedia
 * Lies about past conduct: obstruction of justice
 * No matter which way you cut it, you can't get away with lies.  &rarr;I&ntilde;g&#333;lemo&larr;   talk 00:56, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

What about accusations of lying? Isn't that equally abusive, particularly when unprovoked or without substance? Axon 9 July 2005 13:11 (UTC)

Real name and personal details
If telling lies or calling people bad names can count as personal attacks, would it also count to tell the truth about another editor by revealing their real name or personal details? I recently saw a dispute in which one editor appeared to be taunting another one by repeatedly using his real name, yet I didn't see anyone commenting on it. I may have misinterpreted the actual facts but it serves as an example. Can an editor be "attacked" with the truth? Or is that type of behavior covered in another policy? My own username is semi-transparent, but other users value their privacy more highly so that revelations, or even threats of revelations, could be intimidating to them. -Willmcw 06:42, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * To me the most important criterion to deciding if something is a personal attack/generally acceptable is this: if the "attack", whatever its form, was made for malicious purposes such as insult and/or intimidation, it qualifies as a personal attack.  &rarr;I&ntilde;g&#333;lemo&larr;   talk 07:05, 2005 Mar 3 (UTC)

''Options added in the policy on the 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) and not yet validated by the community (if no objection before 2 weeks, will be considered approved). If you disagree with those propositions, please comment below or in the talk page.'' (objections in Talk) Objections having been made by several users and two weeks having passed, these changes are not considered approved. -- orthogonal 07:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Proposed policy addition

 * Since this has not got consensus, I think it's better to keep it on Talk: until it does. &mdash; Matt Crypto 01:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Specific examples of personal attack include:
 * Recently added (21:53, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)), not yet validated by consensus:

Assertions of negative or malicious intent outside of dispute resolution.

Personal attacks do not include
 * Claims explicitly limited to edits. "This edit is stupid" is not a personal attack. "You are stupid" is.
 * Reasonable and moderated language used to describe a user's actions in the context of dispute resolution or requesting sysop action, unless such a request is patently absurd and clearly designed only to cause offense.
 * Statements that accurately reflect claims a user has made about him or herself. For instance if a user says "I am a Nazi who wants to eliminate all mention of Jews in Wikipedia," the claims "You're a Nazi" or "You're trying to eliminate all mention of Jews from Wikipedia" are not personal attacks. (Similar to estoppel.)

Personal attacks do not include reasonable and moderated language used to describe a user's actions in the context of dispute resolution or requesting assistance from others. However, when doing this please be careful to avoid becoming either disruptive to Wikipedia, or harrassing to the user in question.

true personal remarks
discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 17:37, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ambi comments:


 * the evidence IZAK presents suggests to me that it's too close to calling a spade a spade for us to become involved.

Does this mean that the arbitration committee will not consider cases of personal attacks if said attacks are true and accurate? (I agree that IZAK's remarks were fair.) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 05:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Fred Bauder proposed as a principle in a previous case (can't remember which off the top of my head) that being true does not excuse personal attacks, to which the Epopt and I vehemently objected and the principle was dropped. And, again if memory serves, I believe I said pretty much what Ambi just did, that I believe in calling a spade a spade. &rarr;Raul654 05:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Nice try, Mirv. That's not a carte blanche to throw the personal attacks policy to the wind. I don't advise you to push it any further. Ambi 05:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Raul. I suggest, then, that the policy page needs updating, with community input of course. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 06:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A spade is a spade and a personal attack is a personal attack. There are certain pages on Wikipedia which are safe harbors for making true personal attacks: for example, RFC and RFAr. There is no room for personal attacks on other pages, true or otherwise. Interpreting No personal attacks as allowing "true" personal attacks will have two effects (1) people will feel free to let loose with personal attacks, because those inclined to make personal attacks generally believe that their attacks are justified and true; (2) in personal attack cases, where A has written that B "is a dick" the issue to be adjudicated by the Arb Comm will not be the personal attack but whether B is a dick. May I suggest that neither of these is desirable, and that NO personal attacks ought to mean NO personal attacks? --BM 15:20, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think there's a substantial difference between "Personal attacks are OK if they're true" and occasionally looking at a situation, shrugging your shoulders, and saying that he kinda had it coming. Snowspinner 16:17, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this is one of those cases where people are expected to exercise discretion. Something can be false and be a personal attack; something can be true and be a personal attack. On the other hand, I am relcutant to fashion rules that prevent someone from speaking his mind and calling a spade a spade (or calling a troll a troll), rather than forcing them to use transparent euphamisms like "troublesome user". "Language is a poor enough means of communication. We've got to use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damn few words anybody understands. " &rarr;Raul654 17:50, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Also, just for the record, I think this is a sneaky attempt by Mirv to make an end run around our personal attacks policy. &rarr;Raul654 17:51, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I offend you. But I don&#8217;t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we've got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands.
 * Cool; I just used that quote here. It's from Inherit the Wind; Henry Drummond, the Clarence Darrow-based character.
 * On topic, I believe that you can call a spade a spade in a civil fashion. &mdash; Davenbelle 18:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * That is a personal attack for which you ought to be banned right away!!!!! :-) Seriously though. . .dismissing this as pure self-interest may be easy, but it is wrong: No personal attacks is one of the central rules of discourse, and if an exception to that rule exists, it affects everyone who uses talk pages and edit summaries. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 18:11, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the policy - as it has been applied and enforced - is doing remarkably well. It's not been overly enforced so as to squelch people from speaking their mind, and it's not being underenforced so as to allow people to make personal attacks. As such, I see no need to make rules to cover loopholes that don't exist. &rarr;Raul654 18:20, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * it's not being underenforced so as to allow people to make personal attacks.&mdash;It's just being redefined so it doesn't cover certain accurate personal remarks. If that's the case, the policy should make it clear: accurate remarks are not considered personal attacks. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 18:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Like Mirv, I am worried that we're going to force the victim of a personal attack to disprove the basis of the attack. That's going about it in the wrong way - we should confront the attacker to use better methods. -- Netoholic @ 18:14, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)


 * As discussed in the section above, revealing true personal details should be considered a personal attack. More generally, any personal comment is suspect and should be avoided. Roberts Rules of Order, which codifies methods of civil discourse, bans any reference to the motives of speakers, however true. -Willmcw 19:19, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

On the whole, I'm inclined to agree with Mirv and Netoholic insofar as I don't think truth should become a doctrinal justification for personal attacks. On the other hand, I think admins, the arbcom, and Jimbo should remain empowered as they are to look the other way if they see fit. All bans - 3RR, vandalism, and those by the arbcom - are subject to discretion. There may be cases where discretion says to look the other way. Those cases don't need to be codified - we just need to accept that they'll happen from time to time. Snowspinner 19:47, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * The policy says "There is no excuse for such attacks on other contributors. Do not make them." Do you think it ought to be changed to "There is an excuse for such attacks on other contributors. Do not make them unless [X, Y, or Z] gives you permission."? &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 20:19, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * My opinion - No, it should not be changed. The policy should not give people excuses or ideas for how to get out of complying. They should be forced to rely on Ignore all rules if they want to argue that this doesn't apply to a particular situation. --Michael Snow 20:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No. I explicitly don't want to change the rule. I want to leave the current system whereby the enforcer may choose not to enforce the rule in a given instance. To put it another way, nothing in the blocking rules or the arbcom policy says that a sanction must be given. They give circumstances where a sanction may be given. No list of reasons for not giving a sanction needs to be provided. Personal attacks, whether true or not, are against the rules. They should remain so. But it should also remain the choice of the arbcom or the administrator to let things slide. Snowspinner 20:39, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * No list of reasons for not giving a sanction needs to be provided.&mdash;Then should this policy say, not "If you are personally attacked, you may [. . .] follow the dispute resolution process. [. . .]", but "If you are personally attacked, you may [. . .] follow the dispute resolution process, but be aware that it may be decided that the attacks were justifiable and allowed." Or perhaps that should be left to a more general page, since it applies to all policies equally: perhaps Policies and guidelines should say "Violations of any policies may or may not be acted upon, depending on the arbitrary whim of those charged with enforcing them." This sort of thing should be stated up front, not left as a nasty surprise for the unwary. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 21:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * The arbcom has never endorsed a personal attack. It has, arguably, failed to reprimand one, but it has never in a ruling passed a finding or principle saying that personal attacks are acceptable in any circumstance. And so your claim is still inaccurate. The claim is not "it may be decided that the attacks were justifiable and allowed." The claim is that "just becaues you submit a case to the arbcom doesn't mean they'll agree with you." Which is, I think, too obvious to need stating. Snowspinner 21:22, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it should be ". . .it may be decided that invective directed towards a user is, if accurate, not considered a personal attack." Is that right? How would you suggest explaining this line between pointed personal remarks (which are sometimes allowed) and personal attacks (which are prohibited)? &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 22:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could just get rid of all the examples of personal attacks on this policy page, replacing them with "What constitutes a personal attack is left up to the discretion of this, that, and the other person." &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 22:34, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I think you're pretty divorced from reality here - the arbcom has never made a ruling that a personal attack is allowable. So why comment on it before it happens or looks likely to happen? Snowspinner 22:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * The examples cited in this very section suggest otherwise&mdash;but perhaps you're right: maybe they don't mean "some personal attacks are acceptable"; maybe what they mean is "some personal remarks are not considered personal attacks and are therefore acceptable." (ps: Is "You're pretty divorced from reality" a personal attack? Or is it an allowable personal remark?) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 22:39, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I dunno. Ask the arbcom? :) Snowspinner 22:46, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks are heavily dependent on context, and rules like Godwin's law have exceptions. Calling someone anti-Semitic may be a personal attack in one situation although it would be fair comment in a different setting. The whole issue requires considerable discretion and a judicious approach.

Getting into the question of whether truth is a defense is a morass, and it would have been better if Fred hadn't tried to bring it up in the Xed case. On the one hand, saying that truth is not a defense violates widely held beliefs about natural justice. On the other hand, nearly everyone making personal attacks will contend that they are "true", or subjectively believed to be true.

As I said before, personal attacks are primarily invective directed at a target, rather than statements that can be proven true or false. Fundamentally, personal attacks are actions performed with words, not assertions of fact. But the problem is that people with decent rhetorical skills can usually blur the line by giving personal attacks the form, but not the substance, of discussing the facts and the behavior rather than the person. --Michael Snow 20:33, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is the truth a defence for personal attacks? Ofcourse not!!! A personal attack is an attack precisly because (most of the time) it is true. Suppose someone said this HIGHLY-offencive remark "You are just a dumb nigger!". Is it true? It might be, but that DOES NOT EXCUSE IT. Now this example was a little extreme, but this variation is also wrong "You are an intolerable person, and you shouldn't be on wikipedia. Now go away." It is not uncommon to see this kind of remark on talk-pages, but that don't make it better. The people who makes these kind of comments (even to the worst of trolls and vandals) should be reprimanded. Even if you yourself is attack you do not attack back. It is simply not acceptable. I'm honestly surprised that this is being discussed.

At the risk of sounding corny, the goal of this project is to do something good for humanity (ahh, crap, I did sound corny), and we all need to take the higher road. Zero-tolerance on personal attacks is the only way to go. Gkhan 22:29, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * Another comment: -While I think that addressing an editor's motive or revealing personal details should both be regarded as attacks, correcting misrepresentations should not be. If a user claims to be someone that they are not, or to hold a POV while making edits with a clearly different POV, then I believe that it is fair for other editors to challenge or correct those false assertions, as gently as possible. - Willmcw 23:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * I am currently trying to persuade some people to hold a civil discussion on Armenian Genocide, but it keeps dissolving into personal attacks. The last thing I want to see is support seemingly given to the argument that "well, he *is* a murdering so-and-so", which is already employed routinely both to justify personal attacks and to disregard the rules of rational discourse. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:11, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't want to justify personal attacks, but I think there is no clear definition of what is a personal attack vs accusations. If a cases can be brought to arbitration, by pretext that someone is trolling or is a vandalizer... I don't see how in such cases, calling someone a "troll" could be called a personal attack. And I think as well that the context is very important. Fadix 18:49, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Even in those situations you can avoid personal attacks. Instead of saying "User XXX is a troll and a vandal who has contributed little or no good to wikipedia. He has vandalised articles X, Y and Z..." you say "The articles X, Y and Z have been vandalised by User XXX at times...this is not according to wikipedia policy..." and so on. You don't have to use personal attacks. Think of a courtroom, a lawyer is not allowed to use personal attacks when cross-examining a witness or accused. You stay on topic and leave ad hominem out of it, at all times (as you may have noticed, I feel strongly about this :P ) Gkhan 02:04, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

removed:

 * In extreme cases, you can request the attacker be blocked.

Because it was added with no discussion and a slightly misleading edit summary, and the proposal to allow sysops to block for personal attacks failed. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 15:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I think the version moved around in was the longer standing version anyway, so I've put it back in. Snowspinner 15:04, May 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * The part about blocking was similarly added with no discussion and a misleading edit summary, and again, the proposal to allow that failed. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 15:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's been there for over a year - I think sheer inertia counts for more than a quibble over the discussion. Especially since there was even less clarity on policy proposals then than there is now. Snowspinner 15:11, May 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * And now that the proposal to allow blocking for personal attacks has been extensively discussed and has failed, it should not be there any more, or else it should be noted that blocks for personal attacks are not supported by the community. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 15:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * And months passed where nobody touched this line. Which I think is in and of itself pretty good evidence that it enjoys some support. Removing a year-old line because of an 8-month old poll is kinda silly. Snowspinner 15:18, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm also unconvinced that the ban/block distinction was really that clear in May of 2004 - it's been a fairly recent development in my experience. Snowspinner 15:24, May 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Blocks for personal attacks are almost always controversial at present, though they weren't nearly as much so this time last year as I recall. The situation at present seems to be blocks for egregious offenders where they reasonably think another admin won't reverse it. We could come up with a technically accurate and structurally horrible sentence festooned with subclauses, but the introductory "look, just don't bloody do it" section is probably not the place for such a thing - David Gerard 15:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine, then restrict it to the undisputed facts and rules and explain the complex parts elsewhere; don't use the argument of simplicity to hide other views. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 15:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That's why I put it down the bottom. Your current phrasing looks good to me. - David Gerard 15:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Decrufting needed
This page needs some sort of severe decrufting - something that's fundamentally a commentary on the phrase "No personal attacks" shouldn't be this long. I've tried tweaking the intro paras to be as uncompromisingly terse as possible, to bludgeon the point home. Those lists are cruft magnets, but probably needed I fear. Ideas? - David Gerard 15:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The part between Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. and the reiteration Do not make them. is about as simple as can reasonably be expected. The first list serves a valuable purpose, I agree, even if it's sometimes disregarded. The second list might be trimmed. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 15:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Profanity
Having a rather loose tongue when I get annoyed (or, I suppose, loose fingers), I often find that I let fly a curse word or two in talk page disputes. For instance, just yesterday, I said a user was "full of shit." Now, at present, "profanity directed against another contributor" is among the banned examples of a personal attack, and, indeed, in such instances I often receive a tsk tsking from either the "victim" of my vicious assault or some do-gooding third party. Now, while I would agree that profanity is, most likely, not the best way to express myself, I remain uncertain that it can be considered a "personal attack" in the strict sense. For instance, with my use of "full of shit," the same meaning could have been attained without using profanity, and would not have been a violation of policy. I could have said that my opponent was being disingenuous, for instance. Thus, the meaning of my remarks does not constitute a personal attack - it is only, apparently, the fact that I used "the s-word" that makes it a personal attack, and causes my remark to be disregarded by all good wikipedians. But this is ridiculous. Are we old women? I agree that streams of abusive profanity would be personal attacks that would deserve to be removed, but it is ridiculous that using a profanity for emphasis should, by itself, constitute a personal attack. john k 15:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with your point, being incredibly vulgar myself, but profanity has the automatic effect of intensifying whatever the hell it is you're saying. (See?) Surely it's more offensive to call someone "full of shit" than "disingenuous". (Similarly, "You idiot" is a personal attack and "You don't know what you're talking about" might not be, although they can mean approximately the same thing.) Nickptar 15:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Telling someone that he's full of shit is a personal attack. Calling someone disingenuous is a personal attack, so there's no real distinction here.


 * But profanity does have an effect, on many people at least, of intensifying a statement. "I see a problem with your argument, you don't seem to take into account the case of X" is different from "your shitty proposal is flawed because you forgot about X."  Here I'm demonstrating the use of profanity and other verbal cues that intensify and magnify the remark, switching the focus from the argument to the speaker's implied opinion (whether he intends to give that impression or not) of the person making it. It's impolite, it's stepping over the boundary, and it's gratuitously insulting. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As others have said, what you said was definatly a personal attack, profanity or no profanity. Saying "You are a liar and you are being insincere" or somesuch are also personal attacks, but they contain no profanity. I think most of us agree that profanity isn't a big deal, but when it is used as a personal attack, it is not ok. Gkhan 16:00, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

What I said is a violation of Assume good faith. It is not a personal attack, because it is an attack on what the person is doing on wikipedia in this particular instance, not an attack on the person as such. john k 18:44, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see an instance where someone was accused of making a personal attack for saying "you are being disingenuous." john k 19:01, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * First off, it'd be nice to see the actual discussion. Could you provide a link? But if you said someone was "full of shit", I'd say that that absolutly constitutes a personal attack. And yes, calling someone disingenuos is a personal attack aswell (stay clear of ad hominem at all times!), but it is alot less severe form. There are degrees to these things, and accusations and punishments according to that, but still, a wikipedian should stay clear of any personal attack. Gkhan 19:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that "You are full of shit" is definitely an attack on the person, as is "You are disingenuous"; "Your edits are full of shit" and "Your edits are disingenuous" are attacks on the person's actions. I suspect all four are unacceptable. Nickptar 20:07, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Manual_of_Style_%28biographies%29/Survey_on_Style-Prefixed_Honorary_Titles/Ratification is the source of the discussion. To summarize, I made a long comment about how I thought that Whig was wrong.  Then, feeling that my comment was too long, I made an additional comment which said, "To summarize my main point - Whig is full of shit when he says that the vote had anything to do with whether styles were POV."  So I wasn't saying Whig was generally full of shit, but full of shit in the specific circumstances.  I don't think this is an ad hominem - I was attacking Whig's actions, not Whig as a person. john k 20:15, 16 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You're splitting hairs. Saying "X is full of shit when he says Y" is accusing X of being disingenuous, and that is an attack on the person, because you're accusing him of a kind of dishonesty. Making an accusation of breaching good faith is in itself a personal attack. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:26, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It is not a personal attack to attack somebody's conduct in the particular thing you're disputing with the person about. Otherwise it would be a personal attack to say "You were wrong when you said that Abraham Lincoln ate children," because you're attacking the person by saying they were wrong. At any rate, if "no personal attacks" is to be construed so broadly as you suggest, then just about every dispute on wikipedia results in massive amounts of personal attacks. For instance, by these standards, telling someone to stop making personal attacks would constitute a personal attack, since you are accusing the person of violating wikipedia policy in making personal attacks. This interpretation is so broad as to make it entirely impossible to enforce the policy. I think a "personal attack" should be construed fairly narrowly in the sense of an ad hominem attack or threats. It is certainly not an ad hominem to say that the argument someone is making appears to be disingenuous, and neither is it a threat. Of the specific examples given on the page, the first three are clear examples of ad hominem, and the last three are threats. Only the profanity example does not fall into one or the other camp, although I can certainly see how we would want to avoid profanity, and I would certainly agree that it was amiss for me to use it. There is nothing on this page to suggest that accusations of bad faith consist of a personal attack. john k 03:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I think that the no personal attacks policy as it stands is probably too broad to be of much guidance. It might make more sense to create separate "no ad hominem attacks," "no threats," and "no profanity directed against other users," since I'm not sure that these things are necessarily particularly related to one another. john k 03:14, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Calling someone disingenuous is a gross breach of good faith and is an unqualified personal attack. It doesn't matter how you dress it up. We don't do it on Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:11, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Calling anybody anything is a presumption. You might think a person is something, but you can never know for sure (unless they tell you themselves, that is). There is never any need to accuse a person of something. The need is to attend to the edit or other action, and to address its validity or non-validity, preferably in courteous terms. Give the other person a get-out option which allows them to maintain their dignity. It's easy to let rip at anonymous strangers on the web, but all it does is force them into a corner. It would be better to imagine you're talking to a friend and trying to help them. Tyrenius 04:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Attacking the statement instead of the person?
Dear Wikipedians,

is the edit summary "rv vandalism, see talk" (no more, no less) considered a personal attack under this policy?

I'm strictly talking about calling a post "vandalism", not about calling a user "vandal".

Str1977 21:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No. Calling someone a vandal is a peronal attacks, saying that a page was vandalised isn't. gkhan 21:30, May 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that under your policy proposal here, Gkhan, I could officially say: 'this sentence is stupid', and it could not be considered a personal attack.--Fenice 08:57, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This by the way is the edit in question [], which str1977 forgot to mention.--Fenice 09:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Saying "rv vandalism, see talk" is not a personal attack whichever way you look at it (if it were so you could get blocked for vandalfighting!). Assuming that the edit wasn't vandalism (as your edit appeared not to be) it is however a serious breach of Good Faith. gkhan 09:18, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Gkhan, I have already stated that I didn't use the proper term. Real "vandalism" is something different, though it was constant reverting by Fenice while misreprenting our discussion on that section. That made my kettle boil over, hence the above. However, by now it's fixed. Str1977 20:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know anything about your dispute. I just mean that if a person calls an edit vandalism in his edit summary, when the edit isn't vandalism, it is a breach of WP:AGF. gkhan 20:51, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Though it was not a "fully-fledged vandalism", I cannot agree that it was a "well-intentioned error", since we debated the inclusion of this sentence for some time (Fenice wanted to delete it or place it in separate section), whereas I wanted to keep it. I gave arguments for that and Fenice did not agree. What made me mad was when she returned after some time and deleted it, saying "weeks of debate and no reasons for including this". Anyway, the V-word wasn't right, and since it is used far too often, I will be more careful in the future. Str1977 20:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Perception
Would it be useful to stipulate explicitly in such a policy that its implementation necessarily involves perceptions of justice, equity, and equality?

I must be forthright to say that I have not read every single sentence on this talk page, or for that matter, all the policies that are on Wikipedia. However, I have noticed consistently that in developing policy, definitions are quite important. One attempts to arrive as practical as possible the core of what constitutes a particular infraction. Then, one uses this as a framework or a basis to determine whether the particular incident necessitates a particular action. This is done through an evaluative comparison. This is intrinsically not necessarily objective, subjective, or otherwise, as perception is involved. Furthermore, this perception is initiated by choice, not necessity - it is also modulated by a variety of factors which are external to Wikipedia; complicated enough that one cannot hope to formulate a policy which is completely fail-safe. However, it is noble that Wikipedia provides forums and various other mechanisms to get close to achieving this ideal.

As much as one would like to formulate a "no personal attacks" policy that is broadly applicable, I am not sure if this policy should primarily strive to answer "yes" or "no". Perhaps it would be judicious to say that personal attacks are highly/strongly/vehemently discouraged, and that people who choose to engage in personal attacks in any form are subject and held to responsibility for their actions. The policy then stipulates a number of things which people should be conscientious of if they choose to make such remarks. These would include at minimum all the points which have already been discussed and summarized on the policy page at the moment. The idea is to present these in a manner which emphasizes the negative consequences carrying out a "personal attack" and how this is detrimental and contrary to the aims of this project and the individual.

To foster an effective "no personal attacks" policy, one does not need to say "no" explicitly. Instead, one presents a situation where it is highly undesirable to do so because of the weight of the consequences. This will lead to behaviours which ultimately will serve a "no personal attacks" policy, but in a manner which is still all inclusive. There will inevitably be Wikipedians who would not want a policy which states an explicit "no" for "personal attacks". From these perceptions, the complexity of Wikipedia does not warrant and cannot support a policy which appears objective and classifies actions and consequences in black and white. Hence, the reason why there is some reservation towards such an explicit "no" policy.

There are situations where a want or need of delivering reciprocacy will occur. What we can reasonably assume here is that such a choice is rational from the perception of the Wikipedian, and hence their choice to choose a specific behaviour online can be held accountable with respect to this policy. Of course, this is complicated by the fact that the diversity of Wikipedia users is so large. This creates a situation where the multitudinous perceptions of justice, equity, and equality will be at conflict with each other - especially situations where "personal attacks" may seem justified. What this policy can do is state the prescence of this perception explicity - (complementary to existing "no personal attacks" policies) and illustrate that initiating a "personal attack" invites unnecessary complexity, problems, or even burden on the part of Wikipedia, and Wikipedian for the reasons given.

For a "no personal attacks" policy to be effective, it is highly necessary to recognize the needs of the project as a whole, and the needs of the individual. If both are aware of the perceptions involved, then we can reasonably trust that it will reach an equilibrium where the policy can reasonably grow and foster, and that in cases where there are infringments of it, it can still be addressed effectively by the systems that have been built up over the experience and lifespan of the project.

I would like to state that this is only an opinion, one which may be flawed, but one which I think contains ideas which could be adapted or modulated so it can improve the current policy on "no personal attacks". I hope the result of presenting this would foster an evaluative dialogue, one which perhaps could improve the community of this great online project even further. --HappyCamper 14:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Ammendment

 * Note: this has been cross posted to WP:NPA, WP:BP and WP:AN.

I would like to propose that the following message box be added to articles deemed controversial and where there is a history of editors making inflammatory remarks and personal attacks:

The very first article I would add this to is Jihad. Last year I had my first taste of just how bad things could get, now after a year I have gone back and found the article in just as bad (if not worse) a state with even more inflammatory comments and personal attacks which have caused editing to come to an almost complete halt. Warnings do not work here, with at least one user being blocked for 24 hours for violation of the 3RR by User:SlimVirgin, but who has just created a sockpuppet account and also started editing anonymously. I feel that the only way to deal with this sort of bad faith is to give a global warning on the top of the talk page and then start blocking those who feel the need to make personal attacks. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I support this. A number of Islam-related talk pages have been reduced to chaos recently by anon IPs, sockpuppets, and some regular users making personal attacks. We can block the ones who've made no useful contributions for disruption, but we can't block editors who've contributed properly in the past. Even short blocks of a couple of hours until they'd calmed down would help a lot. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:47, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * my only concern is that this blocking standard is highly subjective. Admins involved in the dispute (broadly defined) should be discrouaged from administering these blocks and the blocks should be kept short (<4 hours). This link is Broken 01:48, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These issues should go into the policy ammendment however, not in the messagebox itself. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:50, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I realise this is going to sound bad, but these policy changes require modifications to two policies. As such, it's going to make discussion hard to follow if we discuss it on three locations! Can I suggest we use WP:AN to discuss this issue? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:01, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consequences
I've changed consequences to mention that remove personal attacks is not policy. One editor misinterpreted it as policy after reading the previous version of this section, with adverse consequences (his edits became disruptive and he was blocked before he found out he was in the wrong). The section wasn't responsible for his behavior, but it did provide him with a false belief that he had a defensible basis in policy for his behavior.

If anyone has a problem with the change, do please reword or revert and discuss here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 9 July 2005 12:59 (UTC)

If you have been directed to this page
People are often directed to this page when they are perceived as having made a personal attack. I think the page could be clearer about suggesting actions for someone to take. For example:


 * If you have been directed to this page, then this likely means that someone has taken something you said as a personal attack. Rather than being defensive, please consider doing one or more of the following
 * Think hard about why someone might have found your remarks to be a personal attack;
 * Edit your previous comments (e.g. address the content or behaviour, rather than generalizing);
 * Apologize for causing offence, even if it was unintentional.

On the other hand, perhaps this would be better as a template to be left on user pages. I was surprised to find no "no personal attacks" template at Template messages/User talk namespace.

Also, shouldn't this page refer to WP:CIVIL somewhere?

Bovlb 14:53:28, 2005-07-11 (UTC)


 * I have drafted a template for my personal use. Comments welcome. Bovlb 14:39:07, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

Personal comments to users in article talk pages
"Comment on content, not on the contributor."

My understanding from reading this policy is that personal comments on article talk pages qualify as personal attacks. Personal comments should be entered in a user's talk page. Any personal comments/attacks on article talk pages and personal attacks on user talk pages can be removed by anyone. --AI 09:48, 20 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I found this reference which further supports my opinion.
 * I dont think this a policy, but it is based on No personal attacks. --AI 19:40, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't see the need for any kind of differentation. If personal attacks are harmful within articles, they're also logically harmful on user talk pages.  I doubt taking a bruising personal dispute from an article talk page to a user talk page would help get to a consensus on the article any faster.  And beyond reasons of efficacy, using a user talk page to say "I think you're stupid" is no less offensive or hurtful than saying the same thing on an article talk page. I think the reference cited above supports just this notion -- that personal attacks aren't okay anywhere on WP. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 19:48, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Kate, you misunderstood me. I wasn't implying that personal attacks be directed to user talk, I specifically meant personal comments only. --AI 21:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And such can be removed by anyone anywhere. --Removethis 21:13, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose. I personally don't support this policy; I think it tends to whitewash.  If someone makes a personal attack, someone else should remind them to stop, but erasing the comment only lets the attacker get off more easily.  I'd prefer it be out there in stark black and white for everybody to see what an ass someone has made of themselves. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 21:12, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Leaving a comment so everyone can "see what an ass someone has made of themselves" helps Wikipedia in what way? --AI 21:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think having those kinds of comments out in the open where everybody can see it (and leave an admonishment for it if they so choose) tends to discourage further displays. Public shame (with hopes for eventual public apology, or at least a behavior change) is a good motivator. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 23:06, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your opinion because leaving such shows that individuals can make a personal attack and it gets to remain permanently. To discourage such behavior you should follow the policy which says they can be blocked and furthermore such messages CAN be removed. --AI 07:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your opinion because leaving such shows that individuals can make a personal attack and it gets to remain permanently. To discourage such behavior you should follow the policy which says they can be blocked and furthermore such messages CAN be removed. --AI 07:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

See Requests for arbitration/AI for further background. This is merely an attempt by AI to justify the removal of talk page comments he doesn't like. --MarkSweep 22:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * And that is a personal attack by MarkSweep on AI. Mark might be right, he probably is right.  And he will get away with the personal attack because it is politically correct - it correlates with the Wikipedia groupthink.  And that  may even be to the good (although I worry that dissent is discouraged too much).  But it shows this "no personal attack" rule to be a nonsense.  Let's scrap it.  Everything is already covered by the general "be civil" commendation.  Paul Beardsell 07:34, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No one can get away with making personal comments/attacks for long because after enough stack up I can document the past and file RfC and if that doesn't work RfArb. MarkSweep's opinion that "I don't like it" is just his opinion and yes it is a subtle personal attack. --AI 07:10, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm being dense, but I don't quite see what exactly you would consider a personal attack here. I don't think this is an ad hominem fallacy, since this is a policy discussion, not a factual discussion, so I don't see anything wrong with asking who stands to gain from the proposed policy change and what their motives may likely be. AI has tried to use this policy to justify his removal of portions of other user's legitimate comments on article talk pages. He has explicitly stated in the past that that's what he is doing, so I don't think I'm jumping to any conclusions. Yes, I am questioning AI's motives, in light of his own prior behavior and statements that are directly relevant. But how is that a personal attack? I don't think we want to have a system where it's impossible to express misgivings; I don't even think that misgivings can be construed as personal attacks at all. For example, it wouldn't occur to me to regard your comment above as a personal attack against me: I may disagree (I think I do, but I'm not sure), I may feel offended (I don't), but I certainly don't feel attacked, nor could I reasonably claim that I was. --MarkSweep 08:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, if you're going to look into AI's motives then all of our motives become questionable. Whatever your self-serving motivation is I should not question that here.  And so I don't.  (This is how it is done on Wikipedia, I question your motives by explicitly saying I don't, just as you call me stupid by saying perhaps you yourself are being dense, the typical Wikipedia weasel word avoidance of being accused of personal attack)  No. address AI's argument.  As you say:  Ad hominem.  But forgive me!  I am just making the point (and you are helping, I think) that this personal attack thing is a nonsense.  It is oh so easy to shout "personal attack".  And the passive aggressive do it oh so well.  But my motivations are questionable too, I think you will find, as by your measure I am in the same boat as AI:  I too have been found guilty of personal attack recently.  Paul Beardsell 10:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite see that it's always wrong in principle to question somebody's motives. What's usually wrong with it is that we should assume good faith, but not in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Anyway, to get back to the proposal at hand, there are two problems with it: "personal comment" is not well defined, and removing personal comments should rarely be necessary.

First, for this policy to be meaningful there would have to be an objective standard of what counts as a "personal comment". The kinds of comments that AI has removed include requests (polite ones at that) to stick to NPOV. There should not be a policy which would make that sort of comment unacceptable. It must be possible to engage other editors in civil dialogue on article talk pages. Moreover, it makes no sense to insist that comments must be phrased in a certain way, or else be subject to removal: for example, "your edit did not reference any sources" is essentially equivalent to "you did not reference any sources", yet the first one is a comment on the contribution, whereas the second one is a comment on the contirbutor and would be subject to removal under the proposed policy. Such a policy would lead to confusion, pointless debates about semantics, and would generally distract from the core purpose of getting an encyclopedia written.

Second, removal of personal attacks is a controverisal guideline. It can be used when inflammatory remarks have been posted, especially by bona fide trolls. However, the main guideline should be civility. It would not occur to me to remove a "personal comment" that's phrased in a civil manner. To paraphrase Civility, one may not get any respect, but at the least a civil dialogue should be possible. Removing comments beyond what's absolutely necessary to ensure a civil environment is generally frowned upon, and for good reasons. --MarkSweep 18:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Mark, I agree with much or all of what you say. I think little if anything should ever be removed.  The problem of defining personal attack remains, or if one happens upon a definition like Tkorrovi has (below), interpreting it.  I think civility more than covers the issue and I think (the lack thereof) is easy to recognise.  Paul Beardsell 00:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Personal attack is stating a supposed flaw in person. This is also clear by any common sense. When one says "you did not reference any sources" then this obviously is not personal attack when one indeed did not reference any sources.Tkorrovi 22:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Tk, where do you get this definition from? Is that a Wikipedia source you are quoting?  If so please say where you found it.  I wonder what the impact would have been if that definition had been strictly applied in the arbitration case between us.  And are you really going to do nothing on Wikipedia other than follow me around until your 3 month ban on editing artificial consciousness has expired?  Paul Beardsell 00:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * What definition? No, I don't follow you around, but I found this discussion here important. Do I have a right to write my comment here? I guess I have.Tkorrovi 02:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Obviously the definition to which I refer, the definition I would like you to give the Wikipedia source for, is the only definition you have given here in recent weeks, your one re personal attack. Obviously.  You are following me around:  The only edits you have made on Wikipedia in recent weeks have been in threads in which I am participating.  Why is that?  Paul Beardsell 09:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't call it a definition. Why is it that you watch my edit history, yes you can do that, but what I edit and what I don't edit is not your concern. I otherwise did consider your allegation that I follow you around a personal attack, but in the circumstances where I submitted an arbitration case against you concerning your personal attacks against me, and won it, I think you just may be afraid of me, feel angry, whatever. Just please be calm, your fears are wrong, I don't want to do anything against you, and don't want to follow you around. Rather, have peace, this is the best way for you to show your worth.Tkorrovi 16:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * But the only way that Tkorrovi could have so successfully only be commenting in threads to which I comment is if he was following my edit history. So I am accused (personally attacked?) of that which my accuser does.  There's a word for that.  Paul Beardsell 01:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It is nothing but a definition. That you follow me about is not an allegation; it is a fact.  Tkorrovi, You're nothing but a dingbat.  Paul Beardsell 20:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This discussion page is for the official policy on personal attacks. There should be no personal attacks in this discussion whatsoever. People who cannot follow this simple and official policy on it's talk page should seek to correct themselves. That is my suggestion. --AI 20:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * For the avoidance of doubt my, err, treatment of Tkorrovi is not a "personal attack". Neither is it "personal".  Anybody who followed me about as he does, see his edit history, would be compared to the elastic, rubber ball and Dingbat of my youth.  Nor is it an "attack":  I simply point out the fact that Tkorrovi has made no edit in recent weeks at Wikipedia except in repsonse to edits I make.  He is following me about.  AI, reverting from the particular to the general, I really do think this "personal attack" thing is a nonsence.  It is too difficult to judge.  Culture and other issues play too great a part.  Paul Beardsell 20:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree things can be difficult to judge and culture and other issues play a big part. But this is the Wikipedia culture and concise policy should leave very little room for judgement. "You're nothing but a dingbat" referring to another user is a personal comment. WP:NPA states "Comment on content, not on the contributor." The dingbat comment is unacceptable. Furthermore, editing another user's comments which do not contain anything personal attacks is also unacceptable. Please read the relevant Wikipedia policies and clear up any misunderstandings you have on them. When you have done this, then I will be willing to discuss these issues with you. --AI 21:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Outdent. It is very easy to slip from simile to metaphor. AI, if I had said: "Tkorrovi, you follow me about as surely as a ball attached to its bat by elastic" would that have been acceptable to you? By the way, the Dingbat was a brilliant toy and being compared to one might easily be understood to be a compliment rather than an insult. Of course, if one is inclined to consider any personal comment to be insult rather than compliment then all one has to do is follow someone about until they comment about it before one shouts "Insult!" I say Tkorrovi is hoping to provoke me to insult. Is that an insult? Paul Beardsell 00:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

AI, as to re-reading all the policies I think that is what some are suggesting you do: They are saying that you read disputed recommendations as policy when they are no such thing. Paul Beardsell 00:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Who wants, may seek an admin to block Paul Beardsell for personal attacks he made here, considering that he is under personal attack parole, I'm just too benevolent to do that. Very unwise from you, Paul, I think everyone would agree with that.Tkorrovi 01:02, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Just go away, why don't you? I save you the effort:  I have left a pointer to this on User talk:Snowspinner's page.  Paul Beardsell 01:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * One more personal attack "Just go away, why don't you?". Then why do you talk to me, discuss your personal attacks with Snowspinner.Tkorrovi 01:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * As we see: almost anything said to you is liable to be interpreted by you as personal attack.  This discussion occurs on a very appropriate page and illustrates why I think the "no personal attack" rule is a bad one subject to abuse by the passive aggressive.  Paul Beardsell 01:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong, your personal attacks against me and, well, also against some others, were considered personal attacks by the Arbitration Committee, ie by the community here.Tkorrovi 02:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Tkorrovi: You make the mistake of thinking that my primary focus here is you.  It is not.  I wish to talk about the issues in general, not about you.  I am not the one following you about commenting on things you say.  You are following me around commenting only in threads to which I am contributing.  Either you are attempting to provoke or you like chatting with me or I am the only one who will chat to you.  But I would be very pleased to rehash all the arguments in the ArbCom case the result of which you misrepresent: we were both found guilty of personal attack.  But perhaps not on this page.  On my talk page, if you like.  As to the ArbCom and the community being equivalent even they do not claim that.  Well, never convincingly.  Paul Beardsell 02:25, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I don't want to provoke you, and I don't want to chat with you. There is not much to talk, it was my proposal which went through, I agreed with that, just to settle the things faster. Also concerning the personal attacks, I have a right to appeal, and you don't.Tkorrovi 02:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Article talk pages
Wikipedia users should be permitted to comment on content and edits only. At the same time, users should be enjoined from making any type of personal comments. If Wikipedia is going to suffer personal comments then related policies should be clarified to prevent snide remarks disguised as comments about "editing behavior". --AI 21:19, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So for example, if someone replaces an entire article with "I love you, Rosie", you don't think we should be able to suggest that this contributor might be a vandal? If an account seems to be used only to repeatedly add a single link to multiple articles, we should not be able to suggest that the person might be here only to spam? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:14, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the problem with setting a bright line in this situation is that what is a personal attack is, in some cases, subjective, contextual and situational. It's kinda like the old saying about pornography -- can't give you an exact definition, but I know it when I see it.  This would also be an easy way for a bad faith editor to try to force through a bad edit and claim immunity from criticism by crying "personal attack" when someone points out that his edit was bad in whatever way.  "You copyedited my recent addition and then said you did it because it was ungrammatical -- that's a personal attack!"  We're all reasonable adults, not automatons, and can make decisions on a case by case basis. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 13:57, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Precisely. A complete ban on all ad hominem remarks would be a troll's delight, because it would become taboo to identify bad conduct for what it is. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:44, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Hardly. Discuss problem users on any of the many pages devoted to such purpose. On Article (think encyclopedia) talk pages, Avoid personal remarks its an obvious rule in any professional environment, and its already a rule here (despite its being ignored). ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 02:15, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Some background: AI, who started this section, has tried to use the present policy to justify his attempts to remove comments from article talk pages that he (and only he) considers personal comments/attacks. At one point he removed a very polite request to stick to NPOV and to use reliable sources on the grounds that it was a comment about him and not about the article and was therefore inappropriate for an article talk page. This led to an RfAr. Note how his posting at the top of this section is phrased: this is not about incivility (which is clearly against decency and existing policy), but about removing any sort of comment that is not about the article, irrespective of civility. A policy that would forbid such "personal comments" is clearly not in accordance with current practices and could easily be abused by clever trolls, as Jmabel fears. --MarkSweep 02:46, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You're still lying about me MarkSweep? Others should be given the opportunity to look at all the removals I made instead of listening to your propaganda about me. --AI 05:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, no personal attacks except when you want to call someone a liar. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Jmabel, please do not engage in any further off-policy discussion. I didn't label him as a liar, I am claiming that he lies. You decide the truth if you care to take the time to investigate. His own words establish what he may be. -- AI 05:57, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * And I won't call you a troll, I'll just say that you are trolling. (Oh, and so am I, in case no one noticed.) Doesn't a "boycott" mean you are going away? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'm trolling. If I am, explain why it appears that I am trolling so I can correct my "behavior." :) --AI 02:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jmabel, boycott does not mean someone is going away, you should clear up the definition of boycott. --AI 07:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * --AI 07:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is MarkSweep's misrepresenation of all relevant facts relating to my refactoring:
 * In the arbitration, MarkSweep says "User:AI has explicitly refused any communication from ordinary editors." That is a lie. I accepted communication but disagreed with the opinions and person interpretations of some who wanted me to stop removing personal attacks. I admit a couple my removals should not have been removed because they were borderline personal comments and I didn't get to fully study the guideline WP:RPA. But most of my removals were of actual personal attacks from users who have been directing ad hominem at me on almost a daily basis for the last several months. --AI 07:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jmabel I disagree. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to identify bad conduct, it is to produce an encyclopedia. Exactly how can a TROLL delight in an environment which does not allow his conduct??
 * I agree that in some cases the personal attacks/comments are as you say and the Wikipedia community should make reasonable decisions. Honest observers deal with facts objectively, not subjectively. People who are too subjective probably should not be a part of Wikipedia. Intelligent members of the Wikipedia community can explain exactly what is wrong a "bad edit" without ever saying "bad edit" or having to scrutinize the original contributor. Wikipedia's purpose is not to criticize any contributor. Throw that old "philosophy" about pornography in file 13, its false. --AI 07:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If they wrote "I love you, Rosie" and it was an isolated instance, it should just be recognized but no action taken. If they continue then they should be corrected. If they don't correct themselves then action should be taken so the person does not keep writing "I love you, Rosie" in article talk pages. --AI 07:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * If they wrote "I love you, Rosie" and it was an isolated instance, it should just be recognized but no action taken. If they continue then they should be corrected. If they don't correct themselves then action should be taken so the person does not keep writing "I love you, Rosie" in article talk pages. --AI 07:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

When Wikipedia can come to an agreement upon this and if it is along the lines of Sam Spade's (¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸) opinion, I will resume my contribution of content to Wikipedia. Until then I am boycotting Wikipedia. -- AI 05:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

not sure
this diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nickptar&diff=20599589&oldid=20581238 shows a user insulting me, or so it seems to me, but not even to my face... should this be something for consequences or should it be something to ignore, im  not to fond of being considered crazy, im even less fond of people who do not insult me to my face. what do you think should be dme?Gavin the Chosen 10:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It contains at least one personal attack: referring to you as "nut-job." That's as far as I needed to read. [User:Hamster Sandwich] should be corrected first by referencing this policy (WP:NPA) if that doesn't work, this official policy states that Wikipedia contributors can remove the personal comments.""If that doesn't work, then you have a problem which is Wikipedia's problem as evidenced by the RfArb which resulted from my removing personal attacks. Basically I was made into the "bad guy." Outrageous! --AI 09:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Where do we report personal attacks?
This official policy does not suggest where to file such a report about personal comments/attacks. Currently the policy states:"" Personal comments/attacks shouldn't be a subject of dispute resolution, why burder the system? Personal attacks are a violation of official Wikipedia policy and violations should be dealth with by enforcement of some type of simple penalty similar to 3RR's 24 hour block. When I learned of this policy and applied it by removing personal attacks, other wikipedia user's began to attack me even further and then a biased user comes around and files RfArb "against" me only instead of correcting all the involved user's who were engaging in personal attacks. And the biased user only looked at one of my removals and says what I'm removing is not personal comments/attacks when evidence show I removed many personal attacks. A short time later the biased user becomes an admin with almost unaninmous support. Need I say more about "The Wikipedia System." --AI 09:05, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * My impression is, that the real problem is how to evaluate if a statement really is a personal attack. And this varies a lot with the culture (not only by country but also by company or group culture) and with the person:
 * There are cultures where all "business" is transacted on a very impersonal level (no personal comments), and there are cultures where a personal relation is part of any "business transaction" (personal comments are normal part of communication).
 * There are cultures where anything like critique on a persons action can only be cautiously hinted at and cultures where it's normal to tell people openly they've made a mistake.
 * There are thick-skinned people and thin-skinned people
 * Some people appreciate irony, others not at all or not at all in regard to certain subjects,
 * Expressions can be offensive in some cultures and not in others: an Englishman calls "a spade a spade" (a long-standing British idiom for speaking plainly) - an American takes offense because he doesn't know the idiom and associates the word spade differently (real life example)
 * in all those cases, people under stress tend to be take things more on the emotional side than when relaxed. --Irmgard 10:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, there are obvious personal attacks, where everyone agrees, e.g. expletives. But even there, not every word understood as expletive is meant that way (see 'spade' above). --Irmgard 10:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It might help, if it is clearly stated in this guideline, that it should always be applied in combination with the guidelines Assume good faith - and also with Hanlon's Razor ;-) --Irmgard 10:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * One problem is indeed that there will be individual differences regarding what counts as a personal attack. This makes it easy for someone who wants to abuse the policy to hide behind excuses like "it sounded like a personal attack to me". However, this is not going to work because there is a fairly clear sense of standards and practices within the Wikipedia community, and if there is any doubt, the input of the community should be respected. AI here has stated that he considers polite requests on article talk pages to be personal comments and has attempted to remove those. AI has also stated that his views being described as "idiosyncratic" is itself a personal attack. It is the opinion of several editors, myself included, that those comments are not personal attacks. Attempting to remove such comments unilaterally is a fundamentally bad idea. --MarkSweep 18:02, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Mark is right. Some folks will have different levels of tolerance of criticisms or ideas about what might constitute a personal attack.  If someone told me, without jest, "The pictures you took of the Capitol are crappy," I'd probably consider that simple incivility, where someone else might feel it a personal attack.  On the other hand, if someone told me "You're crap," that I'd probably take as a personal attack (which, I think, most editors here would agree with).  My point with this actually is to say that because peoples' tolerance is different, personal attacks aren't really punished around here, at least not that I've seen.  That's probably why there is no discrete place to report a personal attack, like there is with 3RR violations.  I don't think I've ever actually seen anybody punished for a personal attack, and I believe administrators are encouraged not to block people just for personal attacks, unless they are particularly offensive or egregious.  I am not an administrator so I could be misrepresenting this, but I believe it's not far off the mark. &middot; Katefan0(scribble) 18:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, personal attacks will probably start being penalized soon, you just aren't aware of the movement. I dare you to try to convince the involved long time Wikipedia users with your arguments :) Anyway, individual tolerances are irrelevant because a strict and concise definition of "personal attack/comment" CAN and IS being formulated by intelligent Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia policy should not be dictated by personal opinion. Policies should be developed after actual experiences. If someone disagree's with policy, then can seek to change it. If consensus does not support their proposed change, they should learn to abide by current form of policy or not be a Wikipedian. Wikipedia should not have to change policy just to suit "idiosyncracies." :) --AI 21:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * "Individual differences regarding what counts as a personal attack" is irrelevant because a strict and concise definition of "personal attack/comment" CAN be formulated by intelligent Wikipedia contributors. And it is not true that individuals will freely abuse the system. Regardless of different cultures or personal opinions, Wikipedia culture is bound by Wikipedia policy which can be enforced fairly and impartially. When at Wikipedia, behave as a Wikipedian. The purpose of Wikipedia is to create articles, not to criticize eachother. If people want to make personal attacks they should find other mediums to do it: IRC, USENET, your blog, the school bus, the bar, or a court of law. --AI 21:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insight Irmgard, I did not know this about other cultures. In my culture, no personal attacks are acceptable at all, subtle attacks in personal comments (whether or not they lower a person's status) are especially unacceptable. Personal comments which seek to correct a person are unecessary unless neutrally stated and accompanied with education. Opinion and interpretation as part of that education is also unacceptable. I do not really understand your reference to the "spade" and Hanlon's razor because I haven't taken time out to study those concepts. I do not really care to take more time out to learn these unless necessary, in which case I will seek to gain understanding of them. Anyway, I am very thick skinned and do not really take offense at MarkSweep's calling me idiosyncratic. But he should be educated so that he understands it is a personal comment which implies eccentricity which will be taken as a personal attack by many people. He can call me idiosyncratic as much as he wants and I would be bothered in the least, but I will document each as a personal attack for the upcoming RfC which I plan to file on Mark. Unlike Mark, I will only seek RfC instead of jumping straight for RfArb as he has done "against" me. His action to go straight to RfArb will be part of my complaint in the upcoming RfC on MarkSweep. The arbitrators who have sided with Mark will also be subject of that RfC. --AI 20:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The culture problem is very real and can even be dangerous - while stoplights in most countries are regarded as a law you have to obey, they are in Turkey seen as a sort of suggestion. A foreigner driving in Turkey has the chance of an icicle in hell to convince Turkish drivers of his view - he wont drive for long, if he does not at least accept that the people are regarding certain rules differently than he is used to. And any newcomer in a big company is better off, when he/she first checks what's the local accepted way of, e.g. sharing or requesting information or suggesting improvements. I understand well, that for you, policy is something to be followed strictly and there is no discussion about policy. I also know about Verbal Tech which is for you something that's just not been done. And there is a code which forbids evaluating for a person or invalidating a person. In your culture, there is no question about keeping these rules - that's ok. But here in Wikipedia some 99,9 % of contributors never have heard of these rules, and even if they had, they would not think of applying them in their culture, much less regarding them as laws to be strictly followed. In contrary to your policies, the "policies" here are written by contributors, are discussed and modified and discussed and challenged as to their validity, and finally the majority consensus agrees that this should be done, but for most guidelines there are any number of attitudes possible, depending on the personal attitude towards rules in general (in all cases, usually, if there is no other guideline more important in the specific case, if you feel like it... ), but no one sees the policies here as sacrosanct - well, one of the guidelines here is Ignore all rules (imagine that in your culture ;-) ).  Im sure, most people here would find nothing wrong with you keeping your rules if asked - that's for them ok, like Muslim putting off their shoes when entering a mosquee or Jews eating kosher - they accept tolerantly that some people want to follow such rules in their culture. On the other hand, the same people would protest vehemently against any demands that they should keep the same rules in their own life - no matter if its eating kosher or avoiding verbal tech or not evaluating. And your situation is similar to the one of the foreign driver in Turkey...   --Irmgard 21:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, my situation is similar to an American driving in America. You follow the rules regarding stoplights.  This is Wikipedia which has a strict policy of No Personal attacks which aligns with my "culture." WP:NPA is based on common sense and experience and to create a better place for everyone :) --AI 04:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Misleading
In its first mention of removing personal attacks, WP:NPA stresses "although this isn't policy" and refers readers to a the lengthy guideline WP:RPA. This is misleading and confusing. Removal of personal attacks is supported by the official WP:NPA:#Remedies:""If you are going to confuse newcomers, don't subject them to harsh treatment of an RfArb just because they make some mistakes in applying a lengthy guideline. --AI 09:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * AI, you were told several times that WP:RPA is a disputed/controversial guideline. I don't understand how you can claim that you were confused when this fact was pointed out to you directly. WP:NPA says that personal attacks may be removed, and points at WP:RPA for further details. That's all there is to it. WP:NPA does not approve the removal of any and all comments that someone might consider "personal". --MarkSweep 17:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * MarkSweep, I am asking you to cease trying to influence my interpretation. How may times I have been "told is irrelevant. Official policy WP:NPA states "may" which means "can" and in the United States, legally, "may" means "shall". --AI 21:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed I think the above quoted section on "Remedies" is misleading because it treats as policy WP:RPA which is at best a guideline, and carries the disputed tag at that. Personally I would support a policy of "Don't remove personal atacks, nor change anything another user has written on a talk page." and I have said so at Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks and Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks. Anone using this "policy" rather than proper dispute resolution, or simply commenting that other users shouldn't violate WP:NPA should expect thsi action to be disputed, particularly in already contentious discussions. DES (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I propose that the above section be changed to read "If you are personally attacked, you may choose to remove the attacks or may follow the dispute resolution process or both. But you should be aware that the method of removing the attacks in another user's writing is not policy, and some users may object to your doing so." Would anyone object to this change? I think it more accurately describes the current state of policy and general views on wikipedia, as WP:RPA is clearl;y disputed. DES (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. If we don't want people removing personal attacks then WP:RPA should not even be mentioned in WP:NPA. Why bait confused and stressed-out users who have already been subjected to personal attacks?! Confused new users are being abused by "savvy" users who forget to assume good faith and seem to enjoy baiting and biting the new comers with their own opinions and interpretations. Of course if you want an insane asylum, we can leave it this way... --AI 21:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Whatever we say here, WP:RPA is a guideline, and a disputed one at that, not a policy, so anyone who removes a personal attack, or a comment percieved as a personal attack, may well take heat for doing so, and should be warned. Putting anything on this page will not prevent that. On the other hand, a good many people do use WP:RPA, and until and unless there is wide consensus not to do that (and i see no short-term prospect of this, although I would prefer it personally), we should document that, and again, new users should be warned that this might happen. Sorry if this may confuse some uers but the situation is inherently confusing, I fear, and any attempts to declare one simple rule on this page will be simply wrong. DES (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Why is there a link to Nazi? Who doesn't know who the Nazis are? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunRajendran (talk • contribs) 29 Sept 2005