Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 10

===I don't normally do anything on wikipedia, but the explosion image is distasteful and unnecessary... 84.70.159.105 (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC) ===

Proposal 1: Violent communication is not tolerated in wikipedia, be constructive and focus on content
Support as NominatorI'm not entirely sure how this works/whether this is how this works- but hey!--Keer lls ton 10:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, violent communication (and even the occasional direct personal attack) is allowed on Wikipedia. Per policy it isn't, but try pushing the issue if you were the one complained about and point out that the complainer had been directly attacking while you had only been aggressive (without name-calling), as an example. I just made a note of that on my User Talk page, actually, a few days after never hearing back from the Admin who tagged me but didn't tag the other party, even after it was clearly demonstrated and even requested. Ultimately, though, we all have to let go - as I have - and move on. That editor and I get along somewhat well now (though we staunchly disagree sometimes) and at least are WP:CIVIL with each other pretty much. Anyway, I like the policies the way they are mostly because I believe that the flaws they have (and there are many, as you rightly point out) are the lesser... they could be worse or be more numerous. Does any of that make sense? I hope it did. VigilancePrime (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

common sense, m:dick (and external links)
I just boldly added this. It occurs to me that much of the previous heated discussion here could be avoided if we emphasized the common sense aspect of things a bit.

"There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion", "These examples are not exclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." and WP:NPA go in the same direction, but I think it could be useful to (carefully, of course) take it one step further by making it clear that WP:NPA is based both on previous experience and on the common sense approach outlined in dick. It follows (and imo should be mentioned) that (i) everybody should try not act like a dick (ok, I don't propose this exact wording...but it's what it boils down to in the end), and that (ii) evaluation (esp. by admins/at ANI) will not only be based on WP:NPA, but also on the basic notions outlined in dick and that (iii) when in doubt, not including certain things in a comment (like e.g. external links or names of websites; and why not explicitly mention this?) should be a matter common sense and a matter of course.

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

I believe such an addition may encourage a generally serene approach on all sides, and at the same time give a clear message that dickery will not be tolerated, however it takes place. As I said above, I think most of this is already present in the guideline, just that formulating it into a short paragraph of its own might make for a good extension (perception as a pun encouraged here). I dorftrottel I talk I 17:52, November 25, 2007
 * As to the question of whether to include a specific link in an article or not, the same holds true. Wikilawyering either way will never override common sense, and a flexible approach is in our all best interest. Between us: I'm actually trying to implicitly pay tribute to the apparent fact that the discussion on the issue of external links will likely never end. Maybe it's not supposed to. I dorftrottel I talk I 18:07, November 25, 2007
 * Addendum: while m:dick focuses on behavioral aspects, common sense is of course in equal measure based on the positive and negative definitions of WP. See Nutshell thread above. I dorftrottel I talk I 18:22, November 26, 2007

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

Diff:

FT2 (Talk 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I like it, except for the moving of "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack."
 * It now reads, which I think is less plausible:


 * These examples are not exclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.
 * I had recently moved it to what I still think is the best place to incorporate it:


 * The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack.
 * I dorftrottel I talk I 18:47, December 1, 2007
 * I moved that sentence now, but feel free to revert. I dorftrottel I talk I 18:12, December 3, 2007

Why is this?
Hi.

I saw this:

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

But *why* should it be limited in that case? If someone says something that is obviously a personal attack (eg. "You're a stupid, miserable little **** that I don't give a **** about" or something like that) on you, what is wrong with removing it? It has not logical validity, as it does not address your argument, it just attacks you. In the given scenario the quote implies the personal attack is unquestionably such, so there does not seem any reason removal of one directed against you on article talk pages is any different than it directed anywhere else on your own talk page, especially as long as all you remove is the unquestionable attack and nothing more. mike4ty4 (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are several reasons for this. First, many of the statements that individuals perceive as personal attacks against them, really aren't.  Your example is egregious, but far less common than statements such as "User X doesn't have his facts straight/is twisting things to his own advantage/is unaware of policy" etc., all of which have been perceived as attacks. Second, in those kinds of cases, it is often better to ask the person making the statement to refactor (or strike out) their comments, allowing everyone to save face. Third, removing the "perceived" attack may result in a disjointed and illogical discussion when read later; often the post with the perceived attack will include information relevant to the subject at hand, as will the response to the perceived attack. Finally, in larger discussions, other users can better understand the working relationships, and can also intervene to request refactoring or to identify personal attacks in a disinterested way, and treat such behaviour accordingly.  It also prevents people from "gaming" the policy to remove information provided by another party under the veil of "personal attack".  Does this help?  Risker (talk) 01:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't this be a good attitude though for handling all perceived personal attacks, regardless of who they are directed at? Removing information that is not a genuine attack is often always a problem, and I see no difference between removing genuine personal attacks that are directed at you and those which are not. (I.e. like the example I came up with.) mike4ty4 (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikimail
Does the Wikipedia have any policy regarding personal attacks sent from wikimail. I'm asking because in the Swedish WP we have problems with a user sending very hostile mails to the administrators each time (s)he is blocked. Vints (talk) 14:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I dont know the rules here but it seems fair to block a user if he or she is disrupting efforts to create a good encyclopedia or attacking other editors! Funsides (talk) 10:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If proof can be given of the attack, then the user who is doing the attacking would be warned. If it continued, the user would be banned. Undeath (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the page should say something about this. Vints (talk) 07:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Jprulestheworld01 (talk) 10:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll consider adding it... however I may not... Authentic (talk) 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks to the service, I'm using it for a long time :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.226.28 (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Claims might be granted without so called "professional judgement" but it is still better judgement than what most could deliver. The admins do a good job on the 'pedia. I don't think wiki is in any risk of becoming over run with vandals. No one gets far with vandalism here. Undeath (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

ILIKEHIM and IDONTLIKEHIM
Another essay along these lines... Maybe it could be incorporated into this page somehow, or into Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions... What do you think? Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Why not? Of course I'm replying over a year later after this... so it already may be incorporated. Authentic (talk) 23:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Moving the "spoken word" file here
 Listen to this  (info/dl)



This audio file was created from a revision dated 2005-04-07, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the. (Audio help) More spoken s I am moving this file over here and removing it from the policy. It was posted in April 2005, nearly three years ago, and is terribly out of date. It's my belief that policies should not have spoken word links that fail to reflect the actual policy. Now, others may choose to revert me. Better yet, maybe someone will feel motivated to create an up-to-date spoken word file. Risker (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

"Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages."

instead of:

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

It would seem to me that the actual vandalism, and not just the threat of such, is a personal attack in and of itself. If the person's page is, for example, an attack page, then the logical action would be to head on off to report the page at AN/I, and let them make the call. Thoughts? - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  19:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Vandalism to user or user talk pages is covered under WP:VAND and is not necessarily a personal attack. I will revert your changes.  Risker (talk) 19:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I would ahave appreciated the opportunity to discuss the matter further before you reverted, Risker, but this way will also work. The difference between a vandal and someone making a personal attack is that the vandal is indiscriminately adding info to "undermine the integrity of Wikipedia," whereas the person altering a user's page is seeking to undermine the integrity or reputation of another editor's account page. Therefore, while both are vandalism, the person making the personal attack doesn't get to hide under the blanket of indiscriminate vandals. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  23:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope you will appreciate my perspective that policies, because adherence to them is mandatory, should not have significant additions made to them without having been discussed, and consensus achieved, in advance. This particular policy has been to Arbcom three times in the past year, subject to multiple edit wars, and has been locked for about 15% of the time since last April. It took months to finally hammer out a policy amongst dozens of editors that most people could live with, so changes shouldn't be done on the fly. Vandalism does not need to be in this policy because it has its own policy and can be dealt with much more easily by anyone without really thinking about it; and I can't ever remember someone writing "Hey, if you don't do what I want I will go vandalise your user page!" - so it's a bit unrealistic to be adding "threats of vandalism" to the list.  Vandalism is not at all in the same category as personal attacks; vandals tend to be "new", badly behaved editors or repeat offender sockpuppets, whereas personal attacks tend to come from SPAs in article space, or longer term editors in user and project space.  Vandalism is very obvious - page blanking or replacement with "User X is a weenie!" is the most common - whereas personal attacks are often more subtle, and they aren't vandalism or they would have been considered to be covered under that policy.  I hope this helps a bit. Risker (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding your assertion regarding changing the page, I guess I can understand, even though it doesn't really follow the WP:BRD model. I will await the outcome of the discussion here before considering another change to the page.
 * If you will read what I posted above, I did not specify that vandalism and personal attacks were of the same root. I am saying that the policy needs further revision if the policy article fails to address page refactoring as a personal attack. Maybe I am interpreting malicious refactoring of commentary as vandalism. While most vandalism is obvious and committed by noobs or SPAs, some of the refactoring done on others' user pages, or using one's own user page as an attack page (this one has been left unaddressed for over six months) seems a personal attack. Sometimes, the vandalism is not as simple as 'Jonny is teh fukwad'; sometimes Johnny's user page is altered to make it seem that he advocates political or sexual agendas not his own. Such is an attack, and sometimes those attacks are pretty sneaky. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  06:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree - it's still vandalism. Sneaky vandalism, but still vandalism.  Keep in mind that some of the most difficult-to-address and most frequently missed vandalism in articles are the subtle changes to dates, spellings of words, and information contained in references.  Operation Spooner's page isn't an attack page, although it may be on the pointy side; he actually has some valid points there, and I have seen just about all of them in action at some point or another. (I may even have been "guilty" of a few of them.) Perhaps you are looking for WP:USER?  Incidentally, I think this is completely following the WP:BRD model - you were bold, I reverted, now we're discussing.  Risker (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Some good points... I don't think it's a good idea to try to put a square peg in a round hole by making NPA also include policy provisions regarding vandalism, since they're different issues. Yes, vandalism may on occasion be motivated by a desire to attack somebody, but that's not always (or even usually) the case. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Where to report ATTACK
I recently made this report of an attack to WP:ANI. While it was actioned, the actioning admin requested future such reports go to WP:AIV instead. If this is normal practice (I have no cause to doubt that it is) then surely there should be some such indication on WP:ATTACK.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, the edit involved in your report is (sadly) pretty run-of-the-mill vandalism, and can simply be reverted in the normal course of editing, with a standard vandalism warning to the editor who inserted the information. Repeated or particularly egregious vandalism should be reported to WP:AIV, although reporting to WP:ANI was a reasonable option, given the nature of the statement. The No personal attacks policy is addressed more to behaviour between editors, and not so much to article content unless the article content also contains a personal attack aimed at a Wikipedia editor. I hope this helps; if not, please feel free to ask more questions here, or on my userpage. Risker (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you look at his edit history it was repeated, so admin intervention was necessary. I suppose we could alternatively have a  template that would generate the AIV entry directly from the vandal's talk page.  It doesn't really make sense that we have to bounce from the vandalized page to the vandal's talk page to the AIV page to file the report, cutting and pasting as we go.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (Addendum) My main point though was that WP:ATTACK fails to clearly guide the reader to the desired venue for response, whether that be ANI, AIV, work it out for yourself, or dial 911. That would seem to create unnecessary workload for the reporting editor, the admins, and the servers.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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


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

Some people just need to be attacked. Especially if they have no clue what they're talking about.
. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufusmcdoofus (talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


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

Indecent suggestions
What do you think about adding these to the list of behaviour that is never appropriate? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 14:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I'd be really hesitant to add that; what's indecent or obscene to one person is quite acceptable to another, and there are a lot of shades of grey there. Context is often important, as is the relationship between the individuals involved in the exchange. I seem to recall that there was an arbcom case where one issue was a post on a user talk page that was called "obscene"; it clearly wasn't considered such by any of the individuals involved in the relevant conversation, nor (when it was explained that it related to the title of an actual WP article) was it seen to be anything but a joke by the arbitrators. Risker (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPP
There is a debate going over at VPP about WP:ATTACK and its First Amendment implications.JeanLatore (talk) 00:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, folks, there's not. There's JeanLatore trying to claim that there's First Amendment implications, and there's everyone else who has had anything to say about the issue saying that there aren't, including a summary of the situation by a lawyer I know who looked it over.  Nothing to see here.  Rdfox 76 (talk) 00:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is he a constitutional lawyer? I highly doubt that he is.  Plus, different lawyers can have different opinions.  Caveat . JeanLatore (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

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

However, Linking to external harassment makes little or no distinction between personal attacks against people who happen to edit Wikipedia differently from personal attacks against people who do not edit Wikipedia. Why does the wording of this policy treat them differently? I tried to be bold about this but got reverted. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Five days later, please consider this change to have been taken to the talk page per Risker's suggestion. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This policy is intended to address the behaviour of editors toward other editors. The WP:BLP policy addresses editing practices, including the use of external links, with respect to non-Wikiepedians.  I can tell you honestly that I can think of at least 500 external links we have right now in just the articles on my watchlist that link to "external harassment" of somebody. Shall we remove the websites of all performers that have forums?  I can guarantee they all contain personal attacks against someone.  Shall we remove links to sites critical of politicians?  Definitely harassing content there.  Please revert the changes, as this brings this policy into conflict with other policies.  Risker (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Then section hatnotes might be useful to clarify relationship between this policy and other policies such as BLP. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good solution. I concur with that. Risker (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's still not necessarily a valid argument.
Hi.

I saw this:

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

But as a qualifier,

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

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

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

You have been reverting even those minor edits to No personal attacks that you yourself suggested in edit summaries of your own edits to No personal attacks, such as my most recent. Please teach me more about applicable precedent regarding WP:OWN and WP:BOLD. I would prefer to discuss my misinterpretations of these policies semi-privately before I make a fool out of myself on a high-profile project talk page. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 12:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) You wrote in the edit summary for this edit: "take that to WP:EL, it does not belong in this policy because it applies to links regardless of whether they are used for personal attack"
 * 2) I wrote in the edit summary for a copyedit: "You mentioned WP:EL. So why not link to it?"
 * 3) You wrote in the edit summary when reverting my edit: "Undid revision 221347810 by Damian Yerrick (talk) take this to the talk page please"
 * They aren't minor edits, would be my first point. The second would be that what some consider to be minor changes to this section of the policy have, in the past 14 months, resulted in a lot of problems. There were several trips to Arbcom, the attempt to remove Michael Moore's website from the list of external links to his own article, and the ransacking of archives, talk pages and articles to remove links to various websites. It took eight months to come up with a consensus version of that section, and so no, I don't think it should be changed without considerable discussion and thought. I respect the hard-won consensus on this section, but if the community wants to re-examine this section of the policy, then I will be right there advocating for some significant changes in it myself. So far, all I have seen are people popping in to stick in modifications that seem like a good idea at the time but whose implications have not been thoroughly examined.
 * WP:BOLD is all well and good, but it is only one step in WP:BRD. We're now in the "discuss" phase. How hard is it, really, to talk about a proposed change to a policy on its talk page before doing it? Yesterday, someone wanted to add something about child pornography to that section, with the intention of it applying anywhere in the encyclopedia. There may well be a place for such a policy, but this isn't it; WP:NPA is all about editor behaviour towards other editors. Sticking a link to a kiddie porn website into an article is a horrible editing practice, but it isn't a personal attack directed at a specific person. Likewise, the wikilink you wanted to make to WP:EL would have the effect of limiting the applicability of the policy to the parts of the encyclopedia where WP:EL now plays a role - primarily content areas, but very less likely user pages, user talk, project space. A link to WP:EL in the "see also" section might be good, but even that wouldn't address the child pornography issue that the other editor had raised.
 * I don't "own" the policy but I certainly keep an eye on it (it's vandalised regularly), and I'll admit I am of the school of thought that policies shouldn't be changed without good reason, as the community comes to rely on their content to be consistent over time. When this policy is being referred to dozens if not hundreds of times a day, care has to be taken to ensure that changes are well thought out, represent the intentions of the community, and are clearly communicated to the community. I'd really prefer to have this conversation on the talk page of the policy, so if you have no objections I will move it there, but I'll await your response before doing so. Best, Risker (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

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


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

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

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


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


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


 * More on this situation from my talk page:
 * TALK. It deals specifically with talk page behavior, but the rationales would seem to apply to an AN/I thread except perhaps as necessary to define an incident (I have not checked whichever thread spawned this discussion). In any case, WP:NPA and WP:AGF are in full force everywhere. - Eldereft (cont.) 10:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the relevant text from the TALK section:
 * Never address other users in a heading: A heading should invite all editors to respond to the subject addressed.
 * Never use headings to attack other users: While NPA and AGF apply everywhere at Wikipedia, using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, since it places their name prominently in the Table of Contents, and can thus enter that heading in the edit summary of the page's edit history. Since edit summaries and edit histories aren't normally subject to revision, that wording can then haunt them and damage their credibility for an indefinite time period, since search engines can pick up that information. Reporting 3RR violations is a notable exception, since it is neutral and necessary reporting, not attacking.
 * -- Fyslee / talk 05:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


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


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


 * dedenting ↵

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


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

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

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

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


 * You are quite correct. The charge of lying comments on the motives of the teller, and is thus a violation of AGF. The more correct statement would focus on the statement and say "that is not true." An untruth is only a lie if the intent of the teller was to deceive. If the teller believes the statement, it is still untrue, but not a lie. Accusations of lying are always very personal attacks. They should be reserved for ArbCom situations and always accompanied by incontrovertible proof. If proven wrong, the accuser should suffer the consequences they are demanding against the one the are accusing... at the very least. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 00:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite honestly, I disagree. I have seen dozens of situations where people have deliberately been untruthful—about information they are editing into articles, about situations in the real world that they are bringing to Wikipedia, and about other editors. If someone blatantly lies about an editor, I am very hard pressed if someone else points it out directly. AGF is all well and good, but it is not a suicide pact, and it cannot be used as a shield against cruelty toward another person. It strikes me you have the priorities wrong, that lying should be considered a personal attack, and identifying someone who is lying would not be inappropriate.
 * Of course, this is the weakness with spelling out exactly what constitutes a personal attack. This policy is not intended as a shield for misbehaviour or poor judgment on the part of editors, although it is used as one on a regular basis. I cannot accept that people should have to be linguistically diplomatic when someone is accusing them of foul deeds or punishable misbehaviour so as not to personally attack their attacker. The personal attack is in the lie, it is not in the identification of the utterer of the lie as a liar. Risker (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I am totally confused. Can you be more specific? (1) With whom do you disagree, and (2) precisely what do you find disagreeable? -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 04:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

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

Affiliations
We currently have this wording: I am wondering if this might be expanded to include negative mentions of other editor's POV? Constantly attacking someone by using their POV as an accusatory weapon against them is a very nasty habit that poisons the well and assumes bad faith. The POV of an editor should not be the focus of discussion, but the edit itself. What think ye? Can we include this idea in a nicely phrased manner?
 * Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream.

The situation that brought this acutely to mind is a current series of attacks made by a certain now indef blocked editor at the circumcision talk page, where (s)he constantly attacks other editors by accusing/dismissing them as "pro-circumcision". This form of attack totally destroys all semblance of collaborative spirit and sabotages attempts to peacefully reach a concensus. As one discerning editor commented: That editor put it very well. This type of attacking needs to stop, and we can begin here by making it part of this policy. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 05:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not stop the pro- and anti- talk for two seconds and actually read what the editors ... are saying...?


 * Any responses? -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 04:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Group attack is not a personal attack?
I wanted to know if an attack on a group of editors would be exempt from personal attack because it doesn't name a specific editor. For example, if I said 'those editors' instead of 'specific editor' it is okay? --I-800-Go-FedEx (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it okay? It's still stupid, if that's what you're asking. Do things that will improve the encyclopedia and contribute to a collaborative environment. Don't do things that won't do that. Don't think about whether or not you're breaking a rule; think about whether or not you're being helpful. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


 * Agree and disagree with both viewpoints. It appears that a few people have tried engaging on talk, but gave up quickly. On the other hand, I can sympathize with why they gave up - half the talk page is written by one person, who mostly keeps repeating that almost every addition is too trivial or unverified. In the actual article, the same person has thrown tags on almost every sentence that doesn't have one or more sources for that exact sentence. Some of the time, this person is right. But a lot of the time, they're just using verifiability and notability as a club. I would find a fair amount of what they've deleted to actually be interesting and pertinent, if I gave a crap about class rings.
 * If you care enough about the subject, 99.148, you might want to try wading through the mess of filling out an RfC or RfM. I don't think you have any real case for asserting WP:ATTACK, but I think you could make a strong case for WP:OWN. But then again, take anything I say with a grain of salt. I'm just touring policy pages, to try to learn more about the spirit of the rules and how to be more constructive. Quixotic as it may be. ^_~
 * Also, 99.148 - your editorial comment on 8 Sept doesn't help your case at all; I'd advocate refraining from suchlike. At first glance it looks like unintelligible vandalism, and it falls squarely under WP:POINT. But I have to admit that once I understood it, I found it amusing. arimareiji (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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


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

Comments welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An addition like this may have value if also applied to a Wikipedia editor's history, on-wiki. If we're going to apply this to guard against poisoning of the well, it should be all-inclusive in such a way, or else it's still able to be gamed. What are your thoughts on that? <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 19:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The text I removed (which was added without discussion):
 * Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.
 * Has nothing to do with the personal attacks policy. It would skew the COI guideline unless we also add that editors with COI should avoid editing those topics directly. It make more sense to elevate the entire COI guideline to policy status rather than selecting individual sentences. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My argument is based on the fact that COIs (perceived, or real) have been used in the past at personal attacks, by addressing a person's affiliation rather than the strength of his/her arguments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The existing text already covers that. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Where? It does not, and hence my addition. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to be saying that pointing out a conflict of interest is a personal attack. As someone with a well known conflict of interest, it appears you have a conflict of interest in making this proposal. I'd hate to think that you are proposing this change due to a dispute that you're in currently, but that is the appearance. This policy isn't about "gaining an upper hand" in content disputes, nor is it about where conflicted editors should give their views. If you'd like to elevate the entire COI guideline to policy then that's a separate discussion.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to be saying that pointing out a conflict of interest is a personal attack. No, I am not saying that. See Risker's original formulation which covers this quite well. As for your other comments, they beg to be ignored, so I will. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As for [this], I am in no dispute, but the question is: do you disagree or agree with my comment there? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are in a dispute with that editor about your edits to his BLP. That editor accused you of having a COI, and you come here to make his comment a policy violation. That's not a good way of making policy changes. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Will. That person is not accusing me. And you are skirting the question for reasons unknown. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you post two NPA warnings on his talk page? What attack are you claiming he made? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This addition] was not discussed either, so I have restorred it pending consensus of inclusion of explanations and expansion as suggested in this thread. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that initial addition, is superior to the current wording. Adding it back. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted your changes, going back to the 16:13, December 17, 2008 version. Please wait for a consensus before making significant additions or deletions. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not useful, Will. Do you agree or disagree with the original formulation by Risker? To know that would be useful. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is useful to gain a consensus before making significant changes to core policies. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not useful either. Consensus is found by providing arguments. Bot by claiming there is no consensus. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change this page again until there is some sort of consensus, thanks. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 22:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And how that comment/reversion and Will's comment/reversion are helpful for finding consensus? Why don't you provide an argument that can be discussed? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Re this edit: This version seems OK to me: "*Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense.", which seems balanced, but I oppose the version "This does not include pointing out a conflict of interest, but in cases where such affiliations are used to attack another user.", which comes too close in my opinion to stating categorically that pointing out a COI is not a personal attack.  Pointing out a COI can be a personal attack if it's over-used to try to discredit someone's views when the alleged COI isn't really all that relevant, and it can be a personal attack if it involves outing.  The first wording covers these cases adequately in my opinion. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 22:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I did, and you never replied as you and Will immediately locked heads.
 * One editor doesn't get to make policy and policy pages are worthless and wrong unless they're describing actual practice that the majority of the site's users use anyway. Thats why the page should stay how it is until there's a consensus to change it. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 22:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal

 * Current formulation:


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

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


 * What are your arguments in support of this proposed change? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems tautological: "Pointing to a COI is not an NPA, unless it is an NPA".  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence my "may be" wording on the compromise compromise below. Uninvolved parties decide, anyway, not the involved parties. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 22:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The wording is a little wonky. Hows about:
 * That seems more practical, pragmatic, and reasonable. Once something is known, as it relates to COI, it's not reasonable to sweep it back under the rug, as it would give the COI-related individual an unfair advantage in content, policy, or DR discussions. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 22:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That wording does not make sense. What does it mean  but may be an attack in cases where such affiliations are used to attack another user??? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense, it's just changing your bright line to a "may be". If someone uses the COI (of you, or me, lets say) to gain the upper hand in a dispute, or to poison the well, by pointing out that someone has a certain history in regards to WP actions, to poison the well against their position, that could be a violation of NPA. The point is that calling COI on someone is never an automatic NPA, but could be depending how it's used. For example, saying "Jossi should step away from Rawat matters, because of his clear COI," depending on the context could be a personal attack, based on how it's used. Saying "Rootology should step away from certain policy discussions, because he was blocked 27 months ago," depending on the context could be a personal attack, based on how it's used. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 22:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense, it's just changing your bright line to a "may be". If someone uses the COI (of you, or me, lets say) to gain the upper hand in a dispute, or to poison the well, by pointing out that someone has a certain history in regards to WP actions, to poison the well against their position, that could be a violation of NPA. The point is that calling COI on someone is never an automatic NPA, but could be depending how it's used. For example, saying "Jossi should step away from Rawat matters, because of his clear COI," depending on the context could be a personal attack, based on how it's used. Saying "Rootology should step away from certain policy discussions, because he was blocked 27 months ago," depending on the context could be a personal attack, based on how it's used. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 22:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Oh, and given how frequently NPA comes up, I don't think Will, Jossi, I, and Copper above are "consensus". It should float for a few days, including work days, at a minimum. That way no one can try to play games with any new change. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree about allowing this to mature. Many regular editors aren't as active during the holidays, so significant changes to core policies shouldn't be rushed. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My last suggestion above ain't that "significant", but I agree that there is time to assess the different proposals and comment further. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If it's not significant then why is it necessary? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Jehochman revised this in October 2008 to:

I do not support any of the proposed changes listed above. This is a simple policy. The issue of affiliations is already addressed. I was willing to compromise earlier this year on the issue of adding COI, but this proposal goes too far; in fact, I think Jehochman's addition with reference to outing, done two months ago, is on the WP:BEANS side of policy writing. I really think that getting any more specific than what is already there is borderline coatracking; what is being proposed really belongs in WP:COI. Risker (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I would not object to some examples of affiliations, although the most notable are covered in the section above; I would object to any narrowing of that interpretation of affilations, though. Risker (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can see your point now that it is explained, but don't you think that the repeated use of a COI argument is disruptive and bordering on a persoal attack? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd support returning to the May 2008 version. Let's keep this simple. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Risker makes sense. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 23:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) The repeated use of a COI argument may or may not be appropriate and may or may not be a personal attack, in my opinion.
 * I oppose the version which says "but in cases where such affiliations are used to attack another user." per Will Beback, it's a circular definition. This whole policy is supposed to be defining what is or is not a personal attack; it's meaningless to base it on whether something is "used to attack".  Even appropriate pointing out of COI could easily be seen as being an "attack" by those who would prefer not to have it pointed out.  Also, that proposal seems to have a period after "user" and beginning of a new sentence with "Speculating", which doesn't seem to me to parse properly. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 23:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

<<< I see growing consensus about keeping just the short wording as per Risker's. OTOH, repeatedly bringing up a perceived or disclosed COI is rather disruptive, and I would argue bordering on personal attacks (see ad hominem) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Repeatedly editing with a conflict of interest is also disruptive. We have to maintain the balance: strongly discouraging [violations of] behavioral guidelines but not turning that into harassment. At the moment, there is little that other editors can do when there's a blatant COI beyond mentioning it, even repeatedly if necessary. If editors with COIs would follow the COI guidelines then there'd be less conflict over the problem.    ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Will Beback. ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 00:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins and our site in general taking a Firm Hand toward COI is also another option, of course, and would be better in the long term. <span style="color:#0D670D; font-family:Georgia, Helvetica;">rootology ( C )( T ) 01:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can take a firm hand toward it if you're not allowed to mention it repeatedly. "You have been blocked, but I can't tell you why without violating the 'no personal attacks' policy." ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 02:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to refer to WP:COI without risk of it being interpreted as a personal attack is to refer to specific examples of where policy has been broken. In most COI problems you've usually got WP:V and WP:NPOV to start with, and this keeps the focus on the content rather than the contributor. Abuse of WP:COI in ad hominem attacks is rampant (and extremely effective as it can be difficult to defend - thus being a sure fire way to induce wikirage), yet easily identified by the absence of policy violations. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 12:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"Removal of text" section
The section "Removal of text" appears to be stating the obvious. The lead clearly states that "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor", which I believe is sufficient. I agree that there should be mention of oversight somewhere, but I don't think that this needs its own section. Since there is no explicit ruling in this section for or against removing personal attacks, why not remove the section, and mention oversight on the second bullet point of "What is considered to be a personal attack?" ← Spidern  →  16:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems relevent in the context of a list of potential actions to take in response to a personal attack, and given the absence of hard and fast rules and explanation seems appropriate. On one hand we don't want people running around deleting comments left right and center and on the other we don't want people getting their knickers in a twist because egregeous abuses are go unhandled. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 12:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This section no longer reflects practice. Removal of personal attacks is apparently never acceptable, except in extremely limited circumstances and on your own talk page, and perhaps when put in by editors with no community standing. Hipocrite (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin opinions seem to be incongruent with what is stated on the website
From reading WP:NPA, it seems like a "personal attack" on Wikipedia would be like going to the talk page for NASCAR and calling somebody a Bible-thumping Nazi or something.

That is different from conjecture about a person's actions which are relevant to quality of Wikipedia articles, and are backed by evidence. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome back from you block Uku. Blueboar (talk) 04:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Cute. An ad hominem attack in response to a call to deal with same. -- <u style="text-decoration:none; font-family: papyrus;">samj <sub style="color:maroon;">in <sup style="color:green;">out 12:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Attacks against nationalities as a whole
I've just given IP User 80.73.218.181 a level 3 warning for vandalism on the Jersey article. Although it was not an attack against an individual person, it seems that there should be something in the policy that deprecates insults based on nationalities. Some may think a level 3 warning was a bit harsh for a first post, but I think this sort of thing is best stamped on hard from the start. Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Heckler's veto
I've noticed a disturbing trend lately where someone brings an issue to one of the noticeboards and when an uninvolved admin takes action such as issuing a warning, reverting an edit, etc. the editor on the opposing side of the admin's action immediately (and falsely) accuses the admin of inappropriate behavior, invoking the Heckler's veto so that the admin feels reluctant to take further action in the case. This is becoming a problem and it seems like there should be some way addressing this in this policy. Comments? Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ACCUSATION OF PLAGARISM
In the wiki article 'Ouyang Xiu' a wiki editor has removed a reference to an article I wrote and claimed I had plagarized portions of it. Given I am a university professor, this is a serious accusation and worthy of legal action. The article in question was by Bruce Carpenter and entitled 'Confucian Aesthetics and Eleventh Century Ouyang Hsiu.' The editor in question goes by the name "Enfermero." Please respond to me at my email carp@tezukayama-u.ac.jp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.102.13.244 (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Removing own personal attack
Shouldn't there be something in this article about the removing of one's own personal attack over regret of posting it? Jprulestheworld01 (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny Jprulestheworld01 should say this, see my next comment. Actually Jprulestheworld01, you can remove your own personal attack. Ikip (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting people shouldn't be allowed to remove their own personal attacks - merely that this article should mention the subject. Jprulestheworld01 (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If a tree falls in the forest: Digging up reverted personal attacks later for a RFC or Arbcom action
Sometimes an editor says something in the heat of an argument that he seriously regrets. 30 seconds later, he removes the comment, before anyone else responds, and before anyone else reads the comment.

Later, when editors are digging through the reverting editor's comments for dirt for a RFC or Arbcom action, does the reverting editor's comment still qualify as a personal attack? If no one reads the personal attack until weeks later when editors are looking for dirt, and the editor quickly removed the comment, is it still actionable?

Does it matter that the editor, on his own initative, removed the personal attacks?

Has this question been bought up before, here or in a RFC or arbcom? Ikip (talk) 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My own view is that this should be ignored entirely for dispute resolution procedures, if removed promptly. During admin votes, though, it might be a sign of bad judgement that it was even typed, but of course it depends on severity. <i style="position:absolute;z-index:-1;bottom:0;width:2.2em;height:8px;background:#eee;"> </i>  M   18:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. I wonder how other editors feel. Ikip (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC on WP:Civil
A request for comment at WP:Civil also has relevance for WP:NPA, namely abuse of the one-line Edit Summary could be construed as a personal attack. Please take a look and comment. Brews ohare (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Personalizing disputes
Do we have a decent essay somewhere that explains what we mean when we say "Don't personalize disputes" or "You're personalizing this issue"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:APR seems to be what you're looking for, although it could use expansion. The expression "Comment on content, not the contributor" is also widely quoted. --FOo (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe it's me, but...
Labeling it a "personal attack" when someone calls foul due to "censorship" and using it to further censor the injured party sounds something like putting people into insane asylums because they disagree with policy. We know how that ended. 206.124.6.222 (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this talk page is to discuss the NPA policy. Do you have a specific concern in mind, or are you just using this page to make an abstract political point at some unstated person's expense? --FOo (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Possibly merging some of this material
I'd like to start a discussion about possibly merging some of this material with WP:Harassment and/or WP:Civility and possibly converting what's left to a guideline page. What's prompting this is the Request for comment on sidebar and navigation templates on policy pages; the shorter the conduct policy navigation template is, and the more those pages have in common with whatever the current page is, the more likely people are to actually click the links. I just moved WP:Harassment and WP:Vandalism over to enforcement (those pages are 95% about bannable and blockable offenses), but this page doesn't really deserve to get moved over because the stuff here is about unpleasant and inadvisable actions more than bannable actions. When something is "inadvisable", that's kind of a clue that we're talking more about a guideline than a policy, and I don't mean that as an insult to the page ... "what to do to get the best results" tends to be a better fit for guidelines pages, because you can go ahead and give the advice that you want to give without worrying about every possible exception. In addition to the advice, there's fairly heavy overlap here with WP:Civility, and it's always best to gather similar policy material onto the same policy page, so that people have discussions about the material in the same place at the same time. I'm thinking that the kind of personal attacks that are bad enough to merit blocking or banning would probably best be handled at WP:Harassment. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have long thought that having WP:NPA, WP:HARASS, and WP:CIVIL as three separate policy pages is excessive, so I support this proposal. Some time ago I created this page in my userspace: User:PSWG1920/Behavior which is never acceptable. I wasn't sure what to do next and forgot about it. What do you think? PSWG1920 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The parts about no threats, no legal threats and no outing I get. "No insults" is a little murkier ... you say that insults can lead to banning, but there are well-known Wikipedians who feel strongly about some things and routinely call people idiots, and although it's very unpleasant, they haven't been threatened with bans and I don't think they will be. Breaking this comment from yesterday into two parts; the part below is what I want to highlight for the RfC 14:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC on partial merging and status of the No personal attacks and Civility policies
policy - Not much response, cancelling the RFC. - Dank (push to talk) 04:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm suggesting that we export some of the material in No personal attacks to Civility and Harassment and change the page to a guideline or the other way 'round. This page is often used as a link and a warning: "No personal attacks, please." The problem is, this could mean any of three different things. If you meant that they've committed a bannable offense, like throwing around gross racist epithets, Harassment is the primary policy page that deals with that. If you meant that their argument has no validity on Wikipedia per our Civility policy, because it's an ad-hominem attack rather than reasoned discussion, then it would be better to link that section at that page. If you meant that you think their point is valid or might be valid, but you heard an insult mixed in with the message and you're advising them that that doesn't work well on Wikipedia, then we need a guideline page to link to for that ... maybe this page could serve that function. - Dank (push to talk) 14:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC) tweaked for RfC


 * I think we should go the other way, keep this much much smaller and more straightforward page as the policy, and relegate WP:CIV to a guideline. That "policy" is such an absurd coatrack that it is routinely abused. Risker (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm open to thinking about that, and I've changed the title of the RfC accordingly, but I know we'll get resistance. I hope we can at least get agreement that two policy pages shouldn't try to cover the same material. - Dank (push to talk) 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the RfC is unclear and confusing. In any case, I would oppose demoting NPA to guideline, and/or moving its contents elsewhere. I think NPA is a fundamental policy which if anything should be strengthened, not weakened or diluted with other issues. Crum375 (talk) 16:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping that since this is part of the recent efforts to move policy pages around within the subcats (content, conduct, etc.), that people will understand that this isn't about some "agenda" regarding WP:NPA or WP:Civility. What I'm trying to do is make it easier for the community to work on policy pages, and one thing that always seems to produce good results is to be as clear as possible about what material goes on which policy page.  Another thing that helps a lot is to understand that "advice" is more effective in guidelines (because then you don't have to keep second-guessing yourself and covering every exception ... you can add anything that's generally good and helpful advice), whereas "rules" are more effective on policy pages.  Crum, can you tell me your understanding of what NPA should cover vs. Civility?  There's a lot of overlap. - Dank (push to talk) 16:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Btw, I'm not hostile to your suggestion; I could see NPA moving over to enforcement policy and covering the kind of language that raises the possibility of banning or blocking. Harassment could cover patterns of behavior that risk banning or blocking.  I'm happy as long as we're all clear on what's covered where. - Dank (push to talk) 16:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there's a piece missing here. All policies are enforceable. Blocks and bans are the least optimal way in which to enforce any policy. This is a behavioural policy (as opposed to an editorial one), and it's quite enforceable as it is. It outlines specific requirements for behaviour and identifies what constitutes a violation, and provides some context. It is relatively short, simple to understand, and has been largely stable for a couple of years. Crum375 and I have both had some experience in working on this policy's development, and I think we can both say that it is a pretty good example of people with different points of view coming together and finding a workable middle ground that is broadly accepted by the community. I agree with Crum375 that this is a fundamental policy. WP:CIV, on the other hand, is highly unstable, constantly in dispute, has never found a middle ground within the community, and was escalated to policy without broad consultation. Risker (talk) 17:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that all policies are enforceable and that blocks and bans are non-optimal. I'm saying that WP:Harassment discusses some behaviors that make most Wikipedians go, "Whoa! Time for a block", and we might sort out what goes on which page according to the seriousness of the offense. - Dank (push to talk) 17:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Regarding behavioral/conduct vs. enforcement: bad things happen if people don't read policies and good things happen if they do, so I've got an RfC going at the Pump suggesting that every policy page have a sidebar that directs you to pages in the same policy subcat (content, conduct, etc). One trick to getting readers to actually click on the links is avoiding huge sidebars ... the conduct subcat had 14 pages in it a couple of weeks ago ... we're down to 9, and 8 would be even better.  It's better to have just the links that people are most likely to be interested in.  WP:BAN and WP:BLOCK have kind of a "crime and punishment" theme, and if people are interested in those pages, then they might also be interested in WP:Vandalism and WP:Harassment.  Vandalism and harassment also sound like things that "bad people do", whereas the other current conduct policies deal with more mundane, everyday activities.  I don't know where WP:No personal attacks fits on this spectrum, but not everything that's labeled a personal attack merits a quick trip to ANI. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Risker for pointing out the previous discussions. During the discussions about re-categorizing policy in November, I focused on Jan 2008 to the present ... but it turns out the last heavy activity on this page was just before that, in Nov and Dec 2007. The page hasn't changed much at all since then, and I'm wondering whether that's because people are happy with the page as it is, or because people aren't reading the page (possibly because the point seems easy to understand? I don't know). If people are happy with the page, then we can lose the RfC and the discussion notice at the top of WP:NPA. - Dank (push to talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Define when a block is needed
This is a great idea that is long overdue, I commend Jehochman for taking on the task. I think that we agree for the most part, however I do disagree with the idea that a user should be not be held to the policy if they are venting after a block, or if they are themselves insulted. The section I am talking about is here.

It suggests that if a user responds in kind to a personal attack that they should not be blocked if they respond in an insulting manner. I think we can do better than an eye for an eye, I think we all learned when we were young that two wrongs do not make a right(but 3 lefts do). I think it is an important consideration to take into account, but I don't think we should draw a bright line saying "don't block for this".

In regards to the idea of a user venting on their talk page, I also disagree that this is acceptable. This is basically saying the continuing the behavior that led to your block does not justify the block being lengthened. If somebody is still engaging in personal attacks while blocked then the preventative nature of the block is still in effect. We should not be letting blocks expire while a user is still hell bent on do the same thing again, and increasing the block is one way to keep that disruption in one place. Perhaps we can suggest that for lesser personal attacks it would be better to remove talk privileges for the duration of the block rather than increase it.

I think the other points, after a bit of tweaking, do reflect our best practices very well. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can put in a more limited exception. It is our standard practice not to reblock or lengthen the blocks of users who vent on their own talk page after they have been blocked.  I'd like to document that. Jehochman Talk 15:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is our standard practice. We certainly do extend blocks when a person is being abusive on their talk page, alternately we remove talk page privileges. The point of a block is to prevent disruption and if the disruption is ongoing then the block should not be let to expire. I agree for minor attacks the involved admins may decide not to react, but I don't think it is standard practice. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's focus on areas of agreement. What other cases exist that we could document?  I'd like to add similar sections to WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS.  My thought on civility is to say that incivility is not blockable until it rises to the level of personal attacks or harassment.  Civility is a goal, not so much a standard. Jehochman Talk 15:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That is a much trickier question. In my opinion it comes down to the spirit of both policies which I consider to be something like "Our goal is to make a collaborative encyclopedia, a good collaborative environment is one where you can have a reasonable disagreement without being subject to social nastiness. Users who poison the well should be prevented from doing so". Something along those lines. I think that incivility v personal attacks is a bit of false distinction. If a person intentionally avoids personal attacks but is still so rude and abrasive that good editors are driven from certain areas of Wikipedia then neutrality suffers. That needs to be prevented. I do consider that this can be covered in the disruption policy. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with your edit to WP:CIVIL, it does reflect our practices. I have add "disruption" to the list. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

stealing a shortcut
Does anyone mind if I move the WP:ATTACK shortcut over to WP:Attack page? There's no other memorable shortcut available for that policy page. - Dank (push to talk) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks and the seniority and beneficits to the project of the editor
In practice, editors with more seniority and/or editors who are deemed more beneficial to the project tend to be allowed to personal attack more than newer editors.

Is this addressed in other essays or articles?

Ikip 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Contacting an employer
Suppose users X and Y are disputing some point about an article, and then X says one of these to Y: The only thing I see covering this is at WP:NPA where it says that the following is never acceptable:
 * 1) "I am going to report your behavior to your employer."
 * 2) "If I knew where you worked, I would report your behavior to your employer."
 * 3) "I should report your behavior to your employer."
 * 4) "Your behavior should be reported to your employer."
 * 5) "I know your employer."
 * Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others.

I believe the NPA wording should be tweaked to outlaw all of the above "X says" cases because a wikilawyer could readily claim that none of them "deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to...persecution", yet in the right context, even #5 would be a clear threat intended to intimidate an opponent. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

proposed change to 'what is considered...' section
just because I see this all too frequently (and it bugs the cr@p out of me when I see it), can we strengthen the second point in the list? currently it reads: I'd like to see something more along the lines of: thoughts? -- Ludwigs 2 07:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Related policy proposal - incivility blocks
In case anyone is interested, I've kicked off discussion about an idea I've had about incivility blocks. Currently it's hard to get a consistent blocking policy in terms of warnings and blocking times, I'm hoping that this proposal can get some traction to make this more clear. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

RfCs in userspace
Relevant discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Question was posed by User:Casliber: "...have we ever discussed how long is a reasonable amount of time to develop and/or leave a made-up-and-loaded RfC in one's userspace before it should be by rights deleted as an attack page? (i.e. "put-up-or-shut-up" rule?)" thanks, IZAK (talk) 22:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Accusing someone of being racist
Is baselessly accusing someone of being racist considered a personal attack? Factsontheground (talk) 09:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * generally speaking, any such accusation against an editor would be considered a personal attack whether or not it had a basis in fact. -- Ludwigs 2  19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Merger of wp:civil and this policy
I have encountered that it is not possible to be civil while making a personal attack. Thus I think these 2 policies should be merged. Could someone put the merger tag up?174.3.123.220 (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. One can be uncivil without making a personal attack. Serious sanctions are much more likely for personal attacks. Merging these two documents will not be helpful. Risker (talk) 00:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with Risker. In addition, it is sometimes useful to notify a user that WP:CIVIL is a strong requirement to actually be civil. If the pages were merged, a person with a CIVIL problem would read the NPA stuff and conclude that they were in the clear because they are not attacking anyone (in their opinion). Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Can we have this discussion in one place? For the record, I strongly support the merge (and possibly others), as I've said on the other talk page. Far too many behavioural policies/guidelines, and far too many words in them, means less chance of the important information being read or found, and more time wasted by those editors who decide to read through them.--Kotniski (talk) 07:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Bigot
issue has been raised here [] over the issue of duck. The basic point is that if an edd thinks anotehr edds edits are something (say bigoted) then he can call the user a bigot (at least that is the defence bing used (not by the accused now though he has accepted it was wrong)). So my question is is ther any circmastances in which you can call someone a perogative term using Duck as defence?Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want my answer to apply in any way to the ongoing RfC/U, so I'm answering here in general, about NPA. I would only want to see anyone use words like "bigot" to describe another editor at pages like WP:ANI, where user behavior is the topic discussed (and then, only carefully). It may be appropriate in some cases to say in article talk that the effect of a particular edit is to convey something bigoted, for example, but to make such a statement about an editor, as opposed to about an edit, seems to me to be exactly what NPA warns against. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The term also brings potential libel issues, so it should be used extremely sparingly, if at all, and supported by sufficient evidence. For example, a diff of the person saying that they don't like another editor because of their race/religion etc. Anything less than blatant, the term should absolutely not be used. The Wordsmith Communicate 19:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Eleanor Roosevelt quote
In my opinion, there is a wonderful quotation from Eleanor Roosevelt at the essay Don't call a spade a spade. I think it would be a good idea to add it to this page, perhaps underneath the Five Pillars box. What do other editors think? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I like it.   -- Ludwigs 2  19:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

the question
If someone refers to what someone else says or argues as "silly" or "stupid", is that a personal attack? For example, if someone replies to this with the words, "That's silly at best", would that be a personal attack in violation of this policy and worth filing an ANI? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The actual phrase Born2cycle used was "Cresix' arguments are silly at best", made twice in separate edit summaries. I view that as equivalent to saying that someone's edit is "stupid", for example. Note that I have not made an official complaint about these edit summaries, nor did I ask Born2cycle to request information here. Up to this point, I see this as a minor dispute between him and me that does not require admin intervention. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 00:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I saw the AN/I thread, I'm going to steer clear of answering this in terms of the specifics. Answering the basic question, in general terms, about whether it's a personal attack to call someone's edits silly, I would say (at least in my opinion) that it's a personal attack to call an editor silly, but not to call an edit silly. But I admit that this often gets difficult to distinguish in practice. A lot of this also depends upon context. I note that ArbCom in the climate change proposed decision is endorsing the idea that "casting aspersions" is a sanctionable offense. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. But doesn't "casting aspersions" imply criticism of someone?  Criticism of someone's behavior, and in particular their words, is not criticism of the person; thus it's not a personal attack.  --Born2cycle (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll confess that I have been known to say that some edits are silly. generally when I do, it's because an editor has said something which simply doesn't track logically, and I usually have very good reasons for saying it.  there is a balance to be struck here between being civil to other editors (which is important to maintain a productive working environment) and maintaining certain standards of rational discourse (which is important to building a proper encyclopedia).  My own rule is that I won't criticize an edit unless I can definitively show why it lacked substance, and when I do criticize an edit I try to steer clear of criticizing the editor (on the assumption that they don't know that they are not making sense, and merely need to be educated to the fact).  It still gets me in trouble, though.  Since you haven't posted the link, I can't tell whether you were actually saying something silly or not.  -- Ludwigs 2  06:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue of whether a critical comment about someone else's comment is a wise or appropriate remark to make is different from the question here: is such a comment a personal attack? I would like this guideline to be clear on this particular question.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm now addressing this issue more abstractly rather than in reference to the particular situation in which I was involved. I don't think there can ever be a guideline so clear and unequivocal with no consideration of the context in which certain words or phrases are used. An extreme example may be illustrative. If two editors with a friendly history are having a joking exchange and one says, "That was a stupid thing to say!", I don't think any reasonable person would interpret that as a personal attack (I've actually been in that type of situation and was roundly criticized by an uninvolved third party until the other editor in my exchange came to my rescue). That same phrase in a different context with editors who are having a heated discussion, however, can have a completely different meaning and is much more likley to fall into the category of personal attack. Many comments such as "stupid argument" occur in less extreme contexts, and I don't think it's possible to determine if there was incivility or a personal attack outside of that context. Cresix (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that context matters in evaluating what a comment means, and how it's intended, and whether it's appropriate or not. However, I don't see how context changes whether a given comment is a personal attack or an attack that's not personal.  In every example I can fathom, that determination can be made from the literal words of the comment in question without regard to context.  I don't see how "That was a stupid thing to say!" could ever be a personal attack since it's only addressing what was said, not the person (everybody says stupid things once in a while - some more often than others - but one instance of saying something stupid says nothing about the person who said it, nor does pointing it out).  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously this is a matter of opinion. I can easily see such a comment in some contexts as a personal attack. For example, suppose an editor writes, "I don't think that's a reliable source; perhaps you should discuss on the talk page", followed by a response, "That was a stupid thing to say!" In my book (unless it's a mutual joking exchange), that's a very clear personal attack. There could be a million different contexts where it could have a variety of meanings. My concern is that if Wikipedia declares that no words that don't specifically refer to the editor rather than the edit can ever be construed as a personal attack, that will be an invitation for veiled attacks on editors by way of attacks on their edits. Thanks for raising this issue. It could generate some useful discussion. Cresix (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to my wife, I can be really dense sometimes, and maybe this is one of those times, but I just can't follow this. As near as I can tell, personal, in this context, means: "Referring to an individual's character, appearance, or private life, esp. in a hostile or critical way". Again, I agree that a phrase like "That was a stupid thing to say!" can be interpreted many different ways, both civilly and uncivilly, depending on context, but I just can't see how it could possibly refer to the "character, appearance, or private life" of the person who happened to say the supposedly stupid thing.  I mean, if it is personal, what exactly does it say about the person?   When I said your arguments were silly at best, what do you think that implied about you personally (I assure you, I intended nothing about you personally)? If it says nothing about the person, how is it personal at all, much less a personal attack?   Am I missing something?  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I won't comment about the "silly" comment because I think that's water under the bridge; I'd rather focus on the general issue. I think in the context that I presented above, it's obvious (to me, anyway) that "That's was a stupid thing to say" is simply calling the editor "stupid"; in another context it could perfectly benign. If we have a strict, inflexible policy (or even guideline) that the words must specifically refer to the editor and not the words of the editor, I think we will see a dramatic increase in that type of indirect attack, then when challenged it will immediately be followed with the defense, "I said nothing about User X; I simply think his words are stupid", but the real target is User X. Wikilawyers will begin flooding talk pages with attacks on words with every real intent of attacking the editor because they know they can do it with impunity. Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but as I said, I think we should err on the side of caution on this issue. My two cents. Cresix (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "It's obvious (to me, anyway) that 'That's was a stupid thing to say' is simply calling the editor 'stupid'". Thank you. It's not obvious to me at all. In fact, what is obvious to me is that it's not saying anything about the editor (the person) at all, much less that he or she is stupid, and that applies to any context I can imagine that statement being said.  But, of course, I see that that is a matter of interpretation and therefore opinion, but at least we've finally identified a point on which I think we can agree to disagree. I will only add that I'm probably sensitive about this distinction because life has taught me that it's critical to distinguish people's actions from the people, and to always (not just in WP, but with friends, children, students, employees, co-workers, customers, etc.) try to comment on actions and behavior rather than on persons, especially if it's critical.  "That's a stupid thing to say" is an example of doing so, and something I might say to a friend, my wife, or my child.  "You are stupid" is something I would never say to anyone, nor mean to imply. Oh, and  below addresses your concern about the potential of people taking advantage of this change in that it makes it clear that recognizing comments about behavior not being personal does not allow for such comments when they are uncivil; it's just that such statements would be outside the scope of this policy.  --Born2cycle (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One additional point that I forgot: I think we have to be much more careful with words in a written medium such as Wikipedia compared to face-to-face or on the phone. Tone of voice (or facial expression if that is observable) can convey a lot of information that is not available in writing. That's why the emoticon system developed, but I don't think we can always rely on emoticons (not to mention that many editors aren't even aware that what they write doesn't come across the same way as it would if spoken). Another reason, in my opinion, to err on the side of caution. Cresix (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a stupid thing to say.


 * Just kidding!!! (context matters)


 * Seriously, I think all kinds of uncivil discourse needs to be discouraged, but let's not water down the seriousness of a personal attack by mischaracterizing much less serious uncivil commentary as personal attack. That's what this clarifying change to WP:NPA is ultimately about, and why I think it matters.  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that the specific example of "that is the stupidest thing I've ever seen" is given as an example of uncivil belittling behavior at WP:CIVILITY. Such comments are a violation of WP:CIVILITY, not this policy, and I don't understand the resistance to being clear on this point.  What do you think of ?  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Actual Change
I've gone ahead and added the following subsection about this point:


 * What is not considered to be a personal attack
 * A critical comment directed at what another editor says or does rather than the person is not a personal attack by definition and thus not a violation of this policy, but is probably best to avoid nonetheless as nonproductive, especially on article talk pages, and may be a violation of other policies or guidelines, like WP:HARASSMENT if it's part of a pattern. Again, it's best to comment on content, not on contributors, or their behavior for that matter.

Comments and improvements are encouraged! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I see the addition has already been reverted with the following edit summary comment: "This would be a significant change to a major core policy, so, per WP:BRD, I'm R so we can D." I don't understand what makes this change significant. Does it really change anything, other than add a little clarification?  What is the objection?  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that this is not an appropriate change for WP:NPA for the reasons I stated above about context. I appreciate the effort to establish some clarification on this issue, and perhaps with other opinions some changes can be hammered out, but I don't think it can ever be clearly determined that no comment about what an editor says or does is ever considered a personal attack. As I said, it depends very much on context. I think civility is of such importance that editors should err on the side of caution, and I'm afraid this will discourage that. Admins always have the discretion to discuss and warn before blocking, and in my experience that's exactly what most admins do. Thanks for consideration of my opinions. Cresix (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm the person who invoked BRD. It's not like I have a huge complaint about the proposed change, but rather, that I want it to be scrutinized and discussed before being codified. Overall, my major concern is that Wikipedia needs more civility, not less, and I want to be careful that we don't change policy in such a way as to make it easier to get away with making personal attacks. I also have low enthusiasm for seeing two editors who just came here from an AN/I dispute arguing about changing core policy in ways that might reflect their own positions in that dispute. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course civility is important. And a comment about what another contributor says can certainly be a break of civility, but that does not make it a personal attack.  A personal attack is critical comment about a person, by definition.  Therefore, a comment about a comment or a behavior is not a comment about a person, so it simply cannot be a personal attack, though of course it can be a violation of civility.  I think it's very important to clarify this here.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Trypto, Cresix and I did not just come out of an ANI dispute. I think you're confused.  This whole incident that stems from Talk:Pulp Fiction has nothing to do with the ANI that stems from Talk:Libertarianism.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, thank you. In turn, I would ask you both to take a deep breath and step back while other editors ponder the proposal. There is no urgency about making the change. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're quite right; there's no rush. No deep breath needed. I can wait as long as necessary on this issue. Cresix (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

v1.1
In this version I add the link to WP:CIVILITY to emphasize that by clarifying "critical comments about behavior" are not personal attacks by definition, that does not mean they are acceptable.


 * What is not considered to be a personal attack
 * A critical comment directed at what another editor says or does rather than the person is not a personal attack by definition and thus not a violation of this policy, but is probably best to avoid nonetheless as nonproductive, especially on article talk pages, and may be a violation of other policies or guidelines, like WP:CIVILITY or WP:HARASSMENT if it's part of a pattern. Again, it's best to comment on content, not on contributors, or their behavior for that matter.

Comments? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for this policy creep, and I can think of several contraindications. If you start modifying policy for exclusions which call for judgment, there is no benefit and you open the door to the possibility for abuse. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood in general, but some examples of the several contraindications you can think of, real or hypothetical, would help explain how this concern applies here in particular. Thanks.  --Born2cycle (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would not be as helpful as you hope. There are some very clever people here who are quite capable of savaging an opponent while keeping within the border of any wording that might be devised for CIVIL/NPA. The policy should just state the big picture: this is a place where civility and no personal attacks are required. Every piece of explanation adds scope for wikilawyering, and we will have to rely on interpretations in individual cases because it is impossible to define precisely what constitutes a personal attack. The proposed text has the drawback that it says that something is not an attack, but you shouldn't do it anyway – that does not help because A can make a dubious remark about something B did, and A can assert that the proposed text says the remark is not an attack, while B can say the proposed text prohibits A's remark. Johnuniq (talk) 23:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree ambiguity is problematic, and provides much of the fuel for wikilawyering, which is why I want this clarified. In your example, A would be correct and B would be wrong.  The text at WP:CIVIL is what prohibits the dubious remark, not this proposed text. Unless the remark is a personal attack, B would be wrong in claiming A's dubious remark is in violation of the proposed text, or any part of WP:NPA.   But that can be clarified even better... --Born2cycle (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * See below.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

v1.2
In this version I simplify the wording and adjust it to avoid implying it prohibits incivility that is not a personal attack (WP:CIVIL prohibits that).


 * What is not considered to be a personal attack
 * A critical comment directed at what another editor says or does rather than the person is not a personal attack, by definition, and thus not a violation of this policy. However, such remarks may be prohibited by other policies and guidelines, such as WP:CIVILITY, or perhaps WP:HARASSMENT.

Comments? --Born2cycle (talk)
 * Just a thought, but I suspect the black-and-white "not a personal attack, by definition" will never sit right with a substantial number of serious editors; I'll willingly stand corrected on that if others wish to disagree with me. Perhaps you should come at it from a different angle, such as describing that critical comments directed personally at an editor are more likely to be considered a personal attack; however, there could be situations where the attack on the surface is directed at the editor's ideas rather than the editor per se, but the likely intent is to attack the editor. A few very clear examples (with some consensus here) could help. Cresix (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I feel like you're trying to legislate common sense, here, which is never a promising activity. You want to make some distinction between disparaging comments (comments meant to insult or belittle) and critical comments (comments meant to point out flawed behavior or flawed reasoning), but I believe that's always going to be something that's easier to see than to define.  -- Ludwigs 2  01:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure if you're talking to me or Cresix, but what I'm trying to distinguish is comments critical of a person (which are personal attacks) from comments critical of a person's behavior (which are not personal attacks, but still may be inappropriate, though not because they are personal attacks - so different criteria and a different guideline, like WP:CIVIL, applies there). --Born2cycle (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was talking to you. You're basically trying to define a when is the jacuzzi too hot question.  the extremes are obvious, but the dividing line isn't.  best you're going to do is identify a gray area where the issue needs to be discussed.  -- Ludwigs 2  03:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe. But from where I sit the line between personal and non-personal seems really obvious.  "Don't be an idiot" is personal... "that was a dumb thing to say" is not.  The gray areas I see is within each category... does a given personal comment qualify as an attack?  Does a given non-personal comment cross the line from civil to uncivil?  Definitely some "jacuzzi too hot?" conundrums there.  But whether it's personal or not?  That seems obvious.  --Born2cycle (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not always obvious. How about "you are being illogical"? It's personal, in the sense that it's directed at the editor, but it can reasonably be understood as being about the edit. Seems to me that this proposal is not going to go anywhere, and may not be worth spending any more effort on. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * How is that not obvious? The subject of the sentence "you are being illogical" is "you", a person.   Any statement whose subject is a particular person (e.g., "you"), is unambiguously personal and about that person, by definition.  That's just a fact of basic grammar. Sure it's about something about the person that happens to have been manifested in an edit, but the statement clearly means that it's the person, not the edit, that is illogical. Surely if it's truly as ambiguous as you claim someone can come up with an example that really is ambiguous.  So far no one has. I'm also curious about the apparent reluctance (I've seen it with respect to other guidelines too) to make guidelines be more clear; it's almost as if some prefer the ambiguity.  Like I said before, I think that encourages wikilawyering.  Just like with real law, by "tightening up" the wording like this we give the lawyers less to play with.    --Born2cycle (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

v1.3
Tighten up the wording even more by using an unambiguous fact of grammar.


 * What is not considered to be a personal attack
 * Any sentence of criticism for which the subject is the behavior of an editor and not the person is not a personal attack, and thus not a violation of this policy. However, such remarks may be a violation of other policies and guidelines, such as WP:CIVILITY, or perhaps WP:HARASSMENT.

I would like to point out that to the extent this would encourage people to craft their comments in disputes accordingly -- to focus on behavior rather than persons -- that would be an improvement to Wikipedia.

Comments? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * B2c, you are being persistent. Are you going to take me to AN/I for saying that? The problem with this latest version comes when someone says something like "you are behaving like an asshole"—an obvious personal attack that is directed at "behavior".


 * But, having griped at you about that, I will say that you are approaching something that is also of interest to me. The page nutshell says, beautifully, that one should comment on the edit, not the editor. That already covers what you were getting at in version 3. A problem, as I see it, is that the rest of the policy then seems to define personal attacks more narrowly, such that calling another editor an "asshole" is likely to be seen as a personal attack, whereas calling another editor a "jerk" or a "POV pusher" is likely to be seen, in the case of "jerk", as a milder form of minor incivility, and, in the case of "POV pusher", as a possibly entirely appropriate issue to raise on an article talk page. I'd rather see the policy as a whole better reflect the nutshell. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Per v1.3 "you are behaving like an asshole" would be a personal attack since it's a sentence of criticism for which the subject (you) is a person. Per v1.2 it's not clear.  Thank you for helping show how and why v1.3 is an improvement over v1.2. I agree the policy would be better if it more closely reflected the nutshell.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me split a hair in this discussion. Is "Your edits look like they were made by an editor who is behaving like an asshole" (directed at the edit) different than "You are behaving like an asshole." (directed at the editor)? Cresix (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why basing this on grammatical structure won't work, and will be gamed endlessly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "You are behaving like ..." (or "You are acting like ...") is a special case where even though the subject is the person it's still not a personal attack since it's a statement about the person's behavior. Note that the description of what's not a personal attack cannot be exhaustive.   Neither example is a personal attack.  Both are violations of civility.  Excluding certain types of comments from being personal attacks based on grammatical structure would work.  At least this example does not show that it would not work.  I handle this example in v1.4 below. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

v1.4
Add another criteria for what is not a personal attack.
 * What is not considered to be a personal attack
 * Any sentence of criticism for which the subject is the behavior of an editor and not the person is not a personal attack, and thus not a violation of this policy.
 * Any comment that is clearly about someone's behavior and is not a statement about the person is not a personal attack.
 * However, such remarks may be a violation of other policies and guidelines, such as WP:CIVILITY, or perhaps WP:HARASSMENT.

Comments? -Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It does not appear you have much, if any, support for this. Have you considered that this might not be something which is going to gain support, regardless of how much you re-word it? KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 20:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * perhaps s/he should consider a username change to User:Born2recycle (j/k - ) -- Ludwigs 2  20:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should expand the page to define suggested username changes as personal attacks. (I know, it was just a joke. But I just couldn't resist pointing out the irony of saying that here.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm with you on the irony (why do you think I said it? irony is my middle name - literally; my parents had as odd a sense of humor as I do.). I'll apologize if requested, but he has to admit it made him smile.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Understood all along, I promise! Nobody needs to apologize for anything. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

May be add "ageist" to the list...
...of personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity that can result in a block of the perpetrator? I can guarantee that being insulted as being "old" or "an old fart," especially given the amount of effort and experience that this professional journalist and author has given Wikipedia, is as vicious as someone calling me a "guinea" because I am Italian. There's no reason that being ghettoized, dismissed, or &mdash; in the case of a current abusive editor &mdash;  being the target of a focused collection of ageist insults is any less distressing or ruining of the Wikipedia experience. Ageism is not OK. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not normal for procedural pages to list all (or even most) bad behaviors, so I would not favor adding attack terms as they are raised (instead, editors are supposed to comply with the principles of pages like this, rather than finding new ways of attacking someone). Perhaps words like "for example" might be inserted in WP:No personal attacks? Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The word "you" should be avoided when possible
Just stuck in the phrase "In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible. "  This is a device used to defuse a seeming person attack in (e.g.) legislative bodies. E.g. "The honorable gentleman is wrong", etc. But never "You". Pproctor (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are brilliant. Oops.   --Born2cycle (talk) 00:07, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I liked it so much I created a policy shortcut for it... WP:AVOIDYOU. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Recurring attacks
I was reading over part of the guidelines, and came across the following in the Recurring Attacks section: "This is also the difficulty in recurring attacks. We have to assume that the attacker is willing to compromise. It is not plausible for editors to attack each other (or they would have been defined as attackers) because they want and expect strong discourse." Apologies to whoever wrote this, but I have no idea what this means. Why would we assume the attacker is willing to compromise? What is that saying about the "defined as attackers"? Who wants or expects strong discourse? When I read this, I actually thought someone might have vandalized the page recently, because this comes close to having no meaning. At the least, this section needs to be rephrased, but I have so little guess as to what it means that I don't know how to start. Any ideas? Qwyrxian (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ouch, you are right. It's not a recent addition, and my best guess is that it was an attempt to point out things to be careful of, in the sense of something that seems like a personal attack but was not intended as one. However, I really cannot see any way to improve it that would be worthwhile. Would there be any objections to deleting it? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is when it was added: 08:41, March 18, 2008... by User:Slapshot24. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Slapshot24's next contribution back in 2008, a couple of days later, in Wikipedia talk:Civility, seems related. See that contribution and the response at the time at the tail end of the discussion thread archived at Wikipedia talk:Civility/Archive 4. There have been a lot of edits to CIVILITY between then and now . Perhaps some ideas about better wording here can be found there. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've looked at those links and tried to think of a better way of saying it, but I really cannot see anything of value that would come of it. My personal opinion is that it would make better sense simply to delete the passage. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be bold and take it out. We can keep discussing here if there is some rephrasing and reinsertion that we want to do. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

some revisions
I've tweedled with the No_personal_attacks section, mostly CE and amplification, but also tweaking the focus of it a bit. comments/revisions welcome.

I was debating with myself over one point: I wanted to add in a bit about non-verbal attacks (blanket reverts, tendentious tagging, aggressive discussion closure, etc.), but it's an awfully gray area. I mean, it's clear that these things are sometimes used as personal attacks, but since they are almost invariably done without discussion when they are used as attacks, it's a difficult point to make. Yes, I think we all recognize that in some cases - e.g. when M. Shmoe spends three hours revising an article, and M. Shmue takes all of twelve seconds to revert it in bulk with an obnoxious edit summary like "rv POV-pushing crap" - a personal attack of some sort has occurred. However, the attack seems to go a good bit beyond the unfortunate use of the word 'crap', but it's hard to express precisely why it's more wrong than that wrong (it strikes me as a level of arrogant disrespect for the other editor's efforts, but...). so two questions: (i) do we want to get into that here?, and (ii) do we want to get into that here? -- Ludwigs 2 08:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the changes look reasonable, although it needs some copy editing (which can wait until after we see how the changes are accepted). One difference I noticed is not helpful: You changed the simple never acceptable: "Threats of legal action" to "Threats of legal action over article content or editorial behavior". The former is correct; the latter offers loopholes. Likewise, changing "Threats to out an editor" to "Threats to out an editor about any aspect of their personal life" is doubtful because whatever the intention, the qualification asserts that some outing (that which does not relate to personal life) is ok. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your points - one of the dangers of trying to make things more concise and clear is that you sometimes miss.  If it helps any, my main intention (aside from efforts at copy-editing and clarification) was to draw out the idea that making inductions about editors as people is the slippery slope here: the more one moves from "X did this" to "X is the kind of person who does this" (and the more effort one puts into making that induction stick), the more of an attack it becomes.  A personal attack is just personalization, in both the psychological senses of the word: transforming an objective/concrete problem into a social/emotional problem, and portraying individuals in terms of over-simplified dispositional attributes. It's hard to get the idea out of psych-jargon into conventional speech, though.  at any rate, yes; let's see what others say.  -- Ludwigs 2  10:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to bring up a personal point, but I think that it'd be best to delay this proposal for a few weeks. IIRC, user:Jossi was reprimanded for seeking to change applicable policies while he was in arbitration. Let's wait until Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling is closed before deciding on this. We can keep talking about it though.   Will Beback    talk    11:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Will, do me a favor - if you're going to revert something, do it for a content-related reason, not for some bureaucratic silliness. The revert is fine, but the reasoning "we shouldn't do this because someone got in trouble for doing something vaguely similar elsewhere" is not helpful in the slightest.  do you dislike the changes?  if so, why? Do you prefer to discard them completely, or are there particular parts you'd like to keep? If you don't have any actual content points of this sort to make, then I'll go ahead and re-revert to the updated version and wait for other people's comments.  I'm not worried about what happened to Jossi.  -- Ludwigs 2  17:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Will is correct, Ludwigs2. Your timing is very bad, and I urge you to reconsider. Risker (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that policy is descriptive, rather than prescriptive. If you are arguing that your changes reflect a change of emphasis in the application of this policy, then it would be helpful if it is exampled (with multiples, I suggest, and examples of how the old wording is deprecated if possible). If you are suggesting that certain aspects of policy should receive a different emphasis, and you are going to point to the rewritten page to evidence the "correct" interpretation, then you are going about it wrong. NPA is neither a new or rarely visited policy, it is one that is acted upon and reported against every day, and in how it is used is the only way by which it is defined and therefore can be changed. Even if brilliantly constructed and an improvement on current practice, it still is irrelevant if admins continue to act in accordance to the previous wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where to ask this
who sends the complaints to say it was a personal attack, because a reply i have put has been removed twice from a discussion page, then flagged for an attack on a person when it was nothing of the sort, wikipedia and it's users are really starting to frustrate me now as i cannot even say - see i was right, this data was right so stop deleting it you sod - without being accused of personal attack. It's ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.57.251 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When you stop calling other people idiots like you did in discussion of Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, then we stop removing your replies. And it WAS a personal attack. Start talking politely to other people on Wikipedia. The thing that you were right on release date, doesn't allow you to write citing: "Haha f*** you i was right, see it isn't specualation it is very likely AND IT IS RIGHT, YOU ARE SO OBTUSE". Purely rude answer, and I didn't call u names. Sir Lothar (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Insulting/disparaging
"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." It seems that this sentence is redundant, or is an unnecessary addition to the "What is considered to be a personal attack?" section. Insulting/disparaging is implied to be a personal attack within the bullet outlines. I really can't see why this sentence should necessarily be in there. And God forbid if it should be kept, why would we need "regardless of the manner in which it is done"? I don't know if that is necessary. But I really think this sentence should be revised or edited out for sure. What do you other guys think about this? 67.80.144.146 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The NPA policy needs to be clear and not allow any wiggle room. Excellent writing and the removal of all possible redundancy are much lesser concerns. Current text seems fine. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Insulting/disparaging 2
Since this is more in the nature of where to complain, if there is someplace, in re the "voices" comment here, does that or does that not qualify as an attack? If it does, what action should I take, if any? If any is to be taken, where do I go? TREKphiler  any time you're ready, Uhura  16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * On a quick read, I do think that some of the other editors are crossing the boundaries of WP:CIVIL in what they are saying to you. What you do about it is partly a function of what you want to get from it. One option is to simply let it pass, knowing that they are in the wrong. WP:FLAT has some interesting advice about how to deal with editors who want to push fringe views. You definitely can make a comment on that talk page, pointing those editors to WP:NPA with a blue link, and requesting that they "comment on content, not on the editor". Sometimes, that ends up being enough. A good way to get more editors to pay attention to the page is to post a neutrally worded request at WP:NPOVN. If you want to pursue dispute resolution, the most obvious place to go would be WP:WQA, where you could ask other, impartial editors to warn those users against personal attacks, although it is unlikely that any further action would be taken. To get more action taken, such as user blocks, you would have to go to WP:ANI, but I would advise you against doing that at this stage, unless the other editors are making disruptive edits to the page itself (for example, edit warring). --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thx for the quick answer. It appears, in this case, it's just a troll with nothing constructive to say on the subject looking for a victim. I'm not sure if it's an attempt to push a fringe view (he denies it, but I have doubts). I'll have to think about where to go with it. Could be just ignoring will solve it.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  03:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

== "some types of comments are never acceptable: [...] Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." ==

This sentence is poorly written and appears contradicted by the subsequent ones. A Wikipedian who is also an author of a BookSurge-published book declared that discussing his reputation as a historian is a personal attack. I'm sure such absurd interpretations of this policy were not intended, because WP:NPOV would be impossible to reach if every Wikipedian who adds his own books to articles cannot have his reputation as a suitable source for articles questioned. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Even the article on ad hominem makes more sense than the statement I quoted, in no small part because it relies on reliable sources instead of the opinion of the few Wikipedians who have edited this page and who seem to need a refresher in informal logic. "The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue". Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And for a more trivial case, WP:CSD. Someone belonging to the banned user group seems a license to dismiss their edits of any kind. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You really need to cite the specific example. What to you might be an impersonal questioning of the book, might to another reader be a mean spirited and deeply personal attack. We need to remember that we're all human here, and taking things personally sometimes comes with that; let's try to be nice. A link to the specific dispute, please? --GRuban (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how a specific dispute is germane here, (is there a standing policy for questioning the wording of Wikipedia polices?), but referring to  is what made read this policy and comment on its absurdities. Please read the diffs very carefully if you're going to comment on that dispute because several editors who have rushed to comment have made significant misrepresentations. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Take the issue to COIN. This may not be the right place. The policy seems perfect. Calling a person a sockpuppet may be considered a personal attack. But taking the issue to the SPI noticeboard is not. In the same way, questioning a person's background may be considered a personal attack. Taking it to COIN with valid supporting edits, not so. Wifione  Message 16:07, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You say "The policy seems perfect." But a formulation like "never do X. But there are exceptions! Here is a list of them." is a pretty confusing way of formulating perfection. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems you are already having discussions at COIN. And administrator Atama's comments are more than perfect, I should say. Do continue your discussions there. In case you wish a change in policy, you can discuss the proposed changed wordings here and request comments from editors. Thanks. Wifione  Message 16:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I very much thought that I had written in that incident was "fair comment"—as administrator Atama later characterized my words. I would not have gratuitously questioned someones affiliation & qualifications. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that "ad hominem" discussions are normally allowed with respect to sources' authors. Perhaps this perfect policy should state that; something along the lines of "Discussion about the affiliation, qualifications, and reputation of the author of a source [proposed to be] used in a Wikipedia article are permitted within the bounds of argumentation relevant to identifying reliable sources." Have mörser, will travel (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the "someone" to be a fellow editor, not the author of a source. How about

Gerardw (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Using an editor's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views; e.g. "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.
 * In some cases Wikipedia editor and source author are the same person, e.g. someone adding their own book as a reference. So commenting on the affiliation/qualifications of author of the source is the same as commenting on the Wikipedia editor such cases. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd think that's covered by the COI phrasing. Gerardw (talk) 09:42, 7 October 2011 (UTC)