Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 14

"Wikipedia:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ComplexRational (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Is this really a personal attack?
here. Posting this logged out not to hide from the Wikipedia community in general but to protect myself from specific targeted harassment from an editor who I believe is monitoring my logged-in edits but is not monitoring this talk page. (If this is somehow a violation of the sockpuppetry policy, I apologize, and will post logged in to confirm that this is me and to "out" my own act of posting here to my harasser, but past experience indicates that this is not a requirement: I have done this a few times in the past, and never been warned about it being a violation. I will also post here logged in in a week or two, if I remember to do so, once the harm that could be brought from my harasser seeing this comment when it is new is no longer a concern.)

I have always assumed that the text Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links. had the broad consensus of the Wikipedia community as something that did constitute a personal attack and was sanctionable as such, but I've never seen anyone actually get blocked or otherwise sanctioned for doing it, and have even recently (over the last 11 months or so) seen admins engaging in it with no apparent consequence. Looking at the page history (thank you, WP:WikiBlame!) indicates that User:Jehochman added (and shortly thereafter modified) the text in October 2008, at which point this talk page contained no discussion of such additions (ditto, apparently, VPR and VPP). Looking at Jehochman's contribs to other pages around the same time doesn't shed any further light on the matter (User:Risker messaged Jehochman about a peripheral issue, implying that the overall edits were tacitly approved of, but that's about it).

Don't get me wrong: I agree with the edits 100%, but I wonder if saying that these are types of comments are never acceptable is something that is overall supported by the Wikipedia community, and if it is, how does the community generally support handling such types of comments?

211.135.108.100 (talk) 04:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think should try harder to let it go.  Ignore these things.  There is no productive action to propose.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you are saying that these kinds of comments are personal attacks, they are never acceptable, but you don't think they should be sanctionable? The above is a request for clarification, not a "proposal", but if I had to make my request in the form of a proposal it would be to add some caveat such as to say that "remarks of this type are difficult for the community to address", since right now the implication is that all such remarks are either swiftly retracted or met with blocks when reported to an admin.
 * Anyway, I would appreciate not being pinged into this thread or any more remarks being made about me personally that do not relate to what I wrote above. I don't want to have to log out of Wikipedia (on three devices) every time I need to reply to defend myself or request clarification of some point.
 * 211.135.108.100 (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am saying that some unfortunate and ill-considered things are best passed over, and not dwelt upon in public forums. Instead, write these things down in a personal paper notebook, and see if you can let it go.
 * Note that by posting in Wikipedia_talk space logged out, you are in violation of WP:SOCK. If you have an account, in ProjectSpace you must use your main account.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think a post starting with an identity declaration violates SOCK. However I agree with everything else you have said here. I recently browsed ANI and had to quickly press PageDown several times to skip the current excitement. @Hijiri: You really need to let things go! Learning that here will help in real life! Shit happens, particularly on a website that anyone can edit. I don't think Jimbo promised perfection or even fairness. Re the OP's substance, yes, no aspersions is policy and is enforced. However, it is rarely sanctioned in it's own right because someone who repeatedly casts aspersions is counseled, and sternly warned, and so on. Inevitably there is a backstory and it's the backstory that is usually the undoing of the aspersion caster. They might end indeffed for wasting everyone's time and unblock appeals are rejected because others can see there is too much excitement associated with the account, regardless of the editor's merits. Just as one or two expletives directed at another editor rarely results in a sanction (assuming general behavior is good and editing is constructive), one or two aspersions are often overlooked. But being a PITA is one area where persistence does not pay off. Johnuniq (talk) 05:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I wasn't referring to ANI (one instance of this has occurred as a peripheral issue related to that thread); it's a general question about something I've seen going on in dozens if not hundreds of cases over the course of years. But hey, I'm happy to drop it and move on if others disagree, so feel free to close, collapse, or whatever this thread now that two users I respect and trust have told me pretty much the same thing. 211.135.108.100 (talk) 06:44, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Why is this limited to editors?
Why is this policy limited to protect only editors from personal attacks? I often see some choice vitriol being flung at public figures, subjects of WP:BLPs, historical figures, etc. It seems that these are allowed, because my efforts to redact such conversation results in a reversion and the offending material is kept for posterity. An ad hominem as a logical fallacy is a false form of debate, and as such, should not be allowed on talk pages just if we're going to follow proper form and decorum. Furthermore, most talk pages are constrained by WP:NOTFORUM which would necessarily exclude personal attacks against anyone. Furthermore, consider that we have no idea who is an editor, and who is not an editor. President Trump goes on Twitter with such alacrity that it wouldn't surprise me if he's tried to edit Wikipedia at least once, as well. Public figures aren't going to declare publicly that they edit Wikipedia, so there is morally no way to restrict NPA to editors unless we only count what's directly addressed to those editors by their editor name (hint: we don't do that.) Elizium23 (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the practical point of the rule. The reason we (or any website) has that rule isn't because there's something inherently immoral about personal attacks. It's because personal attacks tend to heat up arguments, and make them more about people than articles. And both of those things are bad things that we don't want to happen. Loki (talk) 07:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, just one of those eds you mention. May I peek at the dispute that brings you here?  If you're interested in outside eyes and advice please share a link or two. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , the penultimate incident was, I believe, on WP:RSN and I don't feel like spelunking for it. Here's the latest, FWIW. Elizium23 (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's another one. I couldn't find any at RSN. I know there was a large, extended rant that I redacted, and was promptly reinstated. I'll think on it some more. Elizium23 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * @ Elizium, looks to me like those examples fall under WP:ACDS (Code AP (post 1932 US politics) and Code BLP).  All editors working in those areas can be given a no-fault/no-shame FYI Template:Ds/alert once per 12 months.  If you try to give the alert you'll get a pink mesage box where you can look to see if they already have a current one.  There is no way to just stop people from that sort of thing, but effective use of DS and WP:AE is probably the best way to take a bite out of the repeat offender rate. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , what, er, policy do they violate? Elizium23 (talk) 08:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the path has already been pointed out in this thread, but to elaborate a bit... you can get some self-education on the policies and also the enforcement procedures by starting to read the archives at the WP:BLPN...next time you see an example of this behavior post a thread there to discuss the specifics. And to learn and maybe prep to do a formal complaint search archives at WP:ANI and WP:AE for examples of past formal complaints based on the WP:BLP policy at ANI,  or WP:NEWBLPBAN at AE.  For a deep dive into BLP see the Arbitration case WP:ARBBLP and for a similar dive into US politics WP:ARBAP.  Both of those are the final decisions, they have additional pages of discussion that will also be informative.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Should we be allowed to praise public figures? EEng 12:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally, no. Discussion pages are for purpose of improving the overall project, period, for which we must maintain a neutral point of view; wandering off into other chit chat would fall under WP:FORUM. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So maybe we need a No Personal Praise policy? EEng 16:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Nope... Just as this policy is for editors so is the various ways to say H:THANKS. Praise for public figures, if based on lies, is a BLP vio, and if based on RSs is already covered by WP:FORUM and the purpose of talk pages per WP:TPG NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The literal definition of personal attack.
, “Not seeing consensus” for an edit is not justification to revert an edit, like you did here. See WP:DRNC for a full explanation if one is needed. Do you have a good reason to revert? The bullet I added simply clarifies that what we define as a personal attack at Ad hominem, to which Personal attack redirects, is, you know, a personal attack, and therefore prohibited by No Personal Attacks. So I don’t understand how there can be no consensus, or even objection, to this. Can you please explain, or, better yet, revert your revert? Thanks! —В²C ☎ 01:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are experienced enough to know that eventually the community tires of problematic users, and they are removed. Someone called you out, so you want to change policy to have a handy rejoinder next time. No. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Personal attack! You criticized an editor's behavior! EEng 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * What??? —В²C ☎ 03:08, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? Implying that I’m a problematic user deserving of removal? If that’s not a personal attack, what is? Resorting to personal attacks on the talk page for No Personal Attacks? Unbelievable. Never mind the substance of the edit in question. And I’m the problematic user??? —В²C ☎ 03:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Check your user page and let me know how you feel about the wasted community time regarding move proposals for articles like Sarah Jane Brown. The issue I hinted at is here at WP:AN (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Personal attack! You criticized an editor's behavior! EEng 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice detraction. Behavior at an RM years ago - for better or worse - is totally irrelevant to the question at hand: are Personal attacks personal attacks that are relevant to this policy against personal attacks? If so, let’s be explicit about it. If not, let’s explain why.  —В²C ☎ 04:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * GMAFB! You attempted to unilaterally change WP:Policy with no discussion. You were reverted. Get over it. WP:BRD is <- That way. Don't just winge about it and point to a lofty essay.  Toddst1 (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I made a bold edit. You reverted, but without justification or explanation. I already have explained why “not seeing consensus“ is not justification. Now you cite BRD which “does not encourage reverting” and says “when reverting, be specific about your reasons in your edit summary”. In your comment below you cite a context (“argument about problem editors”) that is excluded by the wording you removed (context specified is rebutting an editor’s argument, not presenting an argument about an editor’s problematic behavior). However, the wording can be changed to be even clearer about that. —В²C ☎ 21:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think not seeing consensus isn't a justification for reverting a change to a policy page, you shouldn't be participating in such discussions. <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That pretty much sums it up. Toddst1 (talk) 05:31, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Personal attack! We criticized an editor's behavior! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about criticizing behavior
It seems that criticism of a person's behavior is at the core of any substantial argument about problem editors. Labeling such criticism as a personal attack is absurd and would shut down almost all discussion of problematic editors. So I removed it. I think adding it to the policy page was absurd and, as pointed out above by, could easily be considered WP:POINTY behavior or WP:FORCEDINTERPRET with the recent circumstances at AN.

You (Born2cycle) clearly have no idea of what an ad-hominem attack is and should stop accusing others of doing so. With such a poor understanding of the issue, you should seriously vet any changes to policy you might think appropriate in that area. Toddst1 (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Personal attack! You criticized an editor's behavior! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , of course "criticism of a person's behavior is at the core of any substantial argument about problem editors", but arguments about problem editors should be made only in appropriate places; not on article or policy talk pages. That's the context presumed on this page (or it wouldn't make any sense at all), not a problem editor's talk page or on AN/I where criticism of problematic editors is of course appropriate. To be clear, that's why I included the clause, "in order to rebut or discredit an argument presented by that person", in my edit. Criticism of an editor's behavior is made to present a problem about that behavior, not to rebut some argument that editor made about article or policy content. An ad-hominem attack is when the person making an argument is criticized as a counter to their argument - it's a logical fallacy. What's not to understand? --В²C ☎ 04:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that this edit is consonant with WP:TPYES: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Therefore I find it acceptable. Bus stop (talk) 04:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I would change "See Personal attack" in this edit to "See WP:TPYES". Bus stop (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , or link to WP:FOC, which is policy? The reason I linked to Personal attack (which redirects to Ad hominem, appropriately) is because many people don’t seem to understand what it means, as suggested by the reverting of that edit. And it’s a very good article. But linking to policy might be more appropriate. Thanks. —В²C ☎ 15:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, WP:FOC. I wasn't are of WP:FOC. Why not mention all three, ? As in:


 * See Personal attack, see WP:FOC, and see WP:TPG.


 * I'm serious—I think mentioning all three makes the point more emphatically than just linking to one area of policy or guideline. Bus stop (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though the multiple “see”s aren’t needed.
 * See Personal attack, WP:FOC, and WP:TPG.
 * —-В²C ☎ 16:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

How about this?
Incorporating 's concerns and 's suggestions, how about this?
 * ... some types of comments are never acceptable:
 * On an article or policy talk page, outside of an appropriate venue for discussing the behavior of a particular editor, criticisms of a person or their behavior, even if well-founded, in order to rebut or discredit an argument presented by that person. See Ad hominem, WP:FOC, and WP:TPG.
 * On an article or policy talk page, outside of an appropriate venue for discussing the behavior of a particular editor, criticisms of a person or their behavior, even if well-founded, in order to rebut or discredit an argument presented by that person. See Ad hominem, WP:FOC, and WP:TPG.

Okay? --В²C ☎ 16:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I like it! Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Upon further thought, it is far too broad. For example saying "this is exactly what you were blocked for previously" could be considered a PA - and it shouldn't be.  I think it's time to WP:STICK this issue that had a less than good genesis.  Toddst1 (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto. Endorsement by me. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I added it with a slight wording variation. Hope that’s okay.


 * On an article or policy talk page (not appropriate venues for discussing editor behavior), criticisms of an editor or their behavior, even if well-founded, in order to rebut or discredit an argument presented by that editor. See Ad hominem, WP:FOC, and WP:TPG.

Also added the highlighted clause to this bullet to integrate better.


 * Even in appropriate venues for discussing editor behavior, accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.

—В²C ☎ 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Another objection
reverted the above change for the following reason: “it's unfortunate, but some editors are time sinks or otherwise problematic, and that occassionaly needs to be pointed out”.

It may need to be pointed out, but is the article or policy talk page where it needs to be pointed out? To my understanding, that contradicts what this policy says in a number of places, including:
 * Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia.
 * Comment on content, not on the contributor.
 * Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.
 * comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.
 * It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or one who has been blocked, banned, or otherwise sanctioned, as it is to attack any other user.
 * Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents).
 * NOTE: This implies discussion of a user's conduct or history IS in itself a personal attack when NOT done in the appropriate forum
 * [Personal attacks] on article talk pages tend to move the discussion away from the article and towards individuals. Such attacks tend to draw battle lines and make it more difficult for editors to work together.
 * If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you can leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Avoid responding on a talk page of an article, as this tends to escalate matters.

All of these important statements quoted from this policy are consistent with and support the statement I added which was reverted,


 * On an article or policy talk page (not appropriate venues for discussing editor behavior), criticisms of an editor or their behavior, even if well-founded, in order to rebut or discredit an argument presented by that editor. See Ad hominem, WP:FOC, and WP:TPG.

and they directly contradict the claim made by to justify their revert. In fact, this revert demonstrates why it’s important to include such a statement in the policy: even some experienced editors don’t seem to realize “pointing out” problematic editor behavior on an article or policy talk page (or edit summary for that matter) is a violation of this policy. —-В²C ☎ 05:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Your attempts to change this policy came soon after a disagreement at AN permalink where two different editors made these remarks: 'I weigh the opinion of generalists higher than those of obsessive page-movers' and 'you misspelled "track record"'. After dismissing their views as ad hominem attacks, you edited this policy (diff) to explicitly declare that such comments are personal attacks (and hence can be redacted and the perpetrator blocked). In an ideal community, people would not make remarks such as those quoted here, and frequent commenting along those lines would result in sanctions after a warning. However, there is no such thing as an ideal community as is seen daily when those with an infinite amount of time doggedly pursue discussions which most would regard as settled. WP:NPA does not need enhancements to outlaw problematic comments and such situations would need to be evaluated on their merits. I would vote against sanctions for the AN permalink case, but your change would reward those who cannot let things go. Johnuniq (talk) 06:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Personal attack! You criticized an editor's behavior! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, those are examples (albeit relatively minor ones) of statements that should not be made on talk pages for all of the many reasons clearly explained on this policy page, some of which I summarized above. My argument to reopen the MR in question in that AN discussion, by the way, prevailed, despite the attempts by some to derail the discussion with ad hominem attacks. The goal here is not to provide a basis for redacting anything, or for sanctions against anyone. It’s to elevate the level of discourse and argument in our Talk page discussions to discourage discussion of editor behavior and focus on content to develop consensus. It’s not about taking us to the ideal, which is impossible, but it is about trying to bring us closer to it.
 * To that end, your objection to the edit seems to be not about the content, but a concern about how it might be wielded as a tactic to redact user comments and obtain sanctions? WP:RPA is already quite discouraging of redacting the comments of others, and adding the statement in question doesn’t change that. This statement provides no more basis to redact others’ comments than existing statements in the policy, including the ones I quoted above, already do. So I see no reason to share this concern. Similarly about sanctions and blocks. If statements already in this policy don’t justify a redaction or sanction in a given situation, then including the statement you reverted doesn’t make the case any stronger. All the change in question  does is attempt to reduce the incidence of editors making critical comments about other editors inappropriately on article/policy talk pages, something we both agree would be an improvement - moving us closer to the ideal.   —В²C ☎ 06:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:STICK seems to be appropriate about now. I think this whole discussion started out of clearly WP:POINTY behavior or WP:FORCEDINTERPRET as I've pointed out above. Toddst1 (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Personal attack! You criticized an editor's behavior! <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 14:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Where's Gomer Pyle when we need him to make a citizen's arrest?  Toddst1 (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me but
Apart from Born2cycle being told off at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for "obsessive" behaviour on 30 Sept/Oct 1, what lies behind the addition to WP:NPA here four hours later of the new rule that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard can't say that here, which was correctly reverted. Where's the discussion in the 4 hours prior to adding this new rule as an English Wikipedia policy which "describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference, B2C edits between the 2 incidents:
 * 00:50, 2 October 2020 diff hist +161‎  Wikipedia:No personal attacks ‎ →‎What is considered to be a personal attack?: see personal attack Tag: Reverted
 * 22:25, 1 October 2020 diff hist +71‎  N Brass Verdict ‎ Create as R from short name to The Brass Verdict current Tag: New redirect
 * 20:31, 1 October 2020 diff hist -2‎  m Ad hominem ‎ Fix Tag: Reverted by
 * 20:29, 1 October 2020 diff hist +216‎  Ad hominem ‎ Clarify that the argument is fallacious even if the attack is accurate, a point often not understood by employers of ad hominem arguments Tag: Reverted
 * 19:30, 1 October 2020 diff hist -16‎  Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Philippines-related articles ‎ →‎When to use Provincial name as part of the city name (e.g., Cityname, Provincename): copy/edit current
 * 19:25, 1 October 2020 diff hist +4‎  m Talk:Bamban ‎ →‎Requested move 25 September 2020: fix
 * 19:24, 1 October 2020 diff hist +158‎  Talk:Bamban ‎ →‎Requested move 25 September 2020: S
 * 16:38, 1 October 2020 diff hist +378‎  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ‎ →‎On the underlying issue...: I should add...
 * 16:17, 1 October 2020 diff hist +882‎  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ‎ →‎On the underlying issue...: by definition
 * 05:48, 1 October 2020 diff hist +474‎  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ‎ →‎On the underlying issue...: I know you two can do better
 * 23:45, 30 September 2020 diff hist +365‎  Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard ‎ →‎On the underlying issue...: ad hominem
 * I've just realised that in the wall of arguing above here] already identified the issue. Which I suppose renders my question both answered and now stale. What I can't see from above is where B2C learns anything and doesn't do it again. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, but that's no reason we can't argue about it for the next six months! Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

blocking only 1 time
users who are blocked only once are not repeated--Hacker-index (talk) 13:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Like many of your recent posts to talk pages, this one makes no sense to me. Please explain what you are trying to say. Nick Moyes (talk) 15:58, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I want to add this picture can an admin help? Happened today the user got blocked
check my talk page and you will see.  TigerScientist  Chat   21:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ We do not need a picture of a trout on this page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:DIE" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:DIE. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 12 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistent lists of protected classes
Please see: Wikipedia talk:Harassment

Summary: the lists of protected classes (race, religion, etc.) at WP:Harassment and WP:No personal attacks do not agree. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Adding spirituality as a group of people that shouldn't be targeted by personal attacks
Should the phrase
 * "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc."

be changed to
 * "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious, spiritual or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc."

in this policy as well as WP:HARASSMENT? Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Poll

 * Support. I thought this would be an uncontroversial change and reflects existing consensus on what kinds of harassment should be banned. I was wrong. The reason for this change is that many groups of people do not identify with the term "religious belief" but would identify with the term "spiritual belief". As an example, many Native peoples in my country of Canada do not identify with the term "religion", saying it doesn't encompass all of indigenous spirituality. Someone who identifies in this way should not feel as if their beliefs are not covered under our policies on harassment or that they should have to adopt the term "religion" to describe their beliefs to avoid insults. Even though I believe it's pretty clear that our policies are meant to cover these types of beliefs; others seem to disagree. We should explicitly write into our policies that insults or abuse based on "spiritual beliefs" are banned just as much as those based on religious beliefs. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 06:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Unsure. Maybe, in general, this is a good idea. But if it's worded in a way that also implies that we can't accurately identify mystical woo as mystical woo when someone believing in it tries to add it to science articles, because saying so becomes interpreted as a personal attack rather than an accurate description of what they're trying to add and why it's inappropriate to add it, then this wording would be a problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't have a problem with identifying pseudoscientific beliefs based on religions such as Christianity. Hard to say why adding this would result in other forms of spirituality being treated differently, unless the current rules ban me from calling people invoking Jesus to heal the sick "mystical woo" but allow me to call indigenous people using spirituality to heal the sick "mystical woo" since they're not a religion. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 07:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No Please prune the list rather than adding to it. Is the suggestion that I'm free to attack another editor provided I use a feature not listed in the policy? An effective rule is one that asserts a principle—it might list a couple of examples of bad stuff but definitely should not try to list all the ways people can be bad (with the implication that unlisted items are ok). Johnuniq (talk) 07:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, in the absence of a concrete example, it seems to me that this is covered by the "etc." in an already too long list. —Kusma (talk) 09:06, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No - we already have "etc." which would cover that and I agree that it's already too long and could use pruning. Doug Weller  talk 10:57, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No - this level of attempted precision is illusory and unhelpful. Lawyers would actually put in a caveat such as "by way of illustration and not of limitation." Noscitur a sociis;  Ejusdem generis; Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
 * But the list is too long already, and adding another amorphous kernel to the cob does not help. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 12:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * No: It is not that the principle or idea is bad it is that trying to appease "everyone" only leads to instruction creep. The list of inclusion could end up dwarfing the main intent of the policy(s) that is already actually all-inclusive with Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. We add wording related to "spiritual" because it incenses someone that is not "religious", political, or just because their belief (or non-belief) is not included on the list and the next editor could successfully argue that adding "non-spiritual" is equally non-controversial and important. I expanded context in Harassment (controversial but left standing) that was essentially just appeasement (not actually needed) that some still deemed not going far enough. Harassment is identified in "Other uncivil behaviours" (b) yet it was felt necessary to add "sexual harassment" (c) that is still a form of harassment. We don't need to add instructions for appeasement of an individual or group because there is hypothesizing or surmising that particular wording or lack thereof is somehow bias. The net result is excessive detail and unnecessary red tape for something that is really a corollary. If a person makes derogatory remarks on any individual or group, regardless of the reason, it is problematic and should be dealt with. One main problem with Wikipedia is the lackadaisical implementation of dealing with any personal attacks. Be "personally attacked" and report it to ANI and boomerang becomes a central point, not the attack. Two editors were involved (back to back but one was archived) with a combined total edit count exceeding half a million. This should never be a consideration as a pass. Another editor made egregious and unfounded accusations on a particular group but it was justified because indirect (even though very clear) comments can be allowed if the rationale behind the agenda resulting in the attacks has some validity. We tend to argue and get bogged down over semantics, trying to invoke philosophical areas of Intrinsic, extrinsic or instrumental value, that sight of the goal is fogged. Some take offense at the application involving the word "religion" yet an accepted definition is, a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. There is already too much bureaucracy so calls for concise pruning are valid. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No but I at least read the interesting link you provided describing the Canadian code and reasons for this and that and thought it was well written and insightful. On the other hand, I don't really think we need any list here at all because in reality if anyone is taking shit for any of these things, the fact they are taking shit for these things should not have any extra importance on Wikipedia.  At our core, we seek a collaborative community of respect and collegiality, so when we see people giving shit to another editor, in theory we should be just as outraged about that behavior for one's favorite pie flavor as any of these other things.  Bullying is bullying, for example, whatever the reason.   So I yeah I appreciate your thinking about spiritual practice and "creed" being somewhat distinct from the related "religion" etc but I don't think any of the items on this list really add anything to the general simple rules of "No mean bullshit" NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No The list will always be incomplete, so remove it completely. Prune the sentence to simply be Harassment of an editor is not allowed. — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No The specific hypothetical mentioned above (indigenous spirituality) is adequately covered by the "etc.", and it's hard to imagine what other examples in that vein would not be covered likewise. Adding "spiritual" could also implicitly devalue or invite wiki-lawyering about other types of cultural belief. For example, we shouldn't tolerate harassment of an editor who observes dietary restrictions in order to connect with a cultural heritage, even if they don't describe their adherence as "religious" or "spiritual". The more specifics we load into the sentence, the more it reads like an exclusive list, or a list that is intended to be. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's why I originally proposed "creed" as being a term that would include those kinds of beliefs but thought it would've been too expansive. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 02:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. The fact that these traits are commonly the basis of discrimination or harassment in today's world of course merits special attention being paid to attacks or harassment based on them, and if there's some good reason to list one that's not already there, there's no reason not to add it to the list. I confess to a US perspective but at least in the US these types of laundry lists are absolutely standard. CapitalSasha ~ talk 01:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Why have a list at all? Is it OK to harass others for their choice of sock color? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No of course not, but since these are groups that have been observed to be particularly vulnerable to such targeting, it is important to be especially aware of that and be especially vigilant against it. In particular, harassment against these groups can do more damage because as they have been targeted as groups in the past, the reality or perception that they can be targeted as a group on Wikipedia can harm other members of the group on Wikipedia, not just the individual being harassed. CapitalSasha ~ talk 13:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Support, if anything the NPA policy needs to be enforced more. 01:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * Oppose - the list is already too long. And the longer it is, the higher the risk of some wikilawyering of the form of "my prejudice isn't on the list" - and I suspect that Chess's proposal is the result of what he perceived as being such wikilawyering. The list can't possibly include everything. 93.172.254.2 (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No one should ever be the target of personal attacks. It doesn't matter what group you belong to. <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">!ɘM γɿɘυϘ ⅃ϘƧ  08:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No per WP:CREEP. That some groups aren't named in this page doesn't mean it is ok to make personal attacks against them. The list should be shortened rather than making it even more long. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No per above and per WP:CREEP. The list itself is superfluous. --WaltCip- (talk)  13:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No per GhostInTheMachine. Attack/harassment for any reason is not allowed, don't try to enumerate all the possible reasons someone might be attacked or harassed.  RudolfRed (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No. We should simply not allow personal attacks based on anything, so get rid of the list completely. Having a list makes it seem as if personal attacks are acceptable on the basis of a characteristic not on the list. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No The proposer thought this ... reflects existing consensus on what kinds of harassment should be banned. There aren't "kinds of harassment" that are banned; all harrassment is banned, and this partial list (and note that any list will always be partial) implies the opposite. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that precisely the same "list" issue is present at WP:HARRASSMENT . <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 18:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point, I have started a poll and discussion over there to consider changes. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Reducing the size of the list of groups that shouldn't be targeted by personal attacks
Per the discussion Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks, more than one editor expressed the desire to reduce this list rather than expand it. I propose we remove exactly one item from this list. The options are: race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious beliefs, political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, and nationality. MarshallKe (talk) 00:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Which one do you want to drop? (Not sure what the proposal is.) Summoned by bot. It would be more helpful to propose a specific change... Might I suggest you re-phrase as a proposal to drop a specific one? Chris vLS (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

While I assume that the starter of this discussion is acting in good faith, the proposed question reads very much like an attempt to start a Hunger Games-style competition between various axes of marginalization over which one should be removed. To avoid such a trainwreck I would strongly urge the question to be withdrawn; if the proposer would like to propose a specific change to the page that is fine (although I would oppose the removal of any of them). CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Requester here. Okay, yeah, probably should just close it for this reason. MarshallKe (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * ? When people said in that RfC that they wanted to reduce the guideline that meant to reword it from a list of unacceptable personal attacks that has potentially infinite WP:CREEP, not to just axe a random personal identifier. What is this RfC? BSMRD (talk) 03:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * ? I'm not a great fan of such lists, nor their tendency to WP:CREEP, often while still missing the point, but I second the comments of others, this is so vague that it ain't going to happen, and isn't even clear what is intended. Suggest close. Pincrete (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

HERE
I have a question. Could asking someone rhetorically if they're "really here to build an encyclopedia" be considered a personal attack in cases without clear vandalism, such as a discussion on sources? A. C. Santacruz &#8258; Please ping me! 11:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Ban request
I have someone who has launched PA against me that needs to be banned Persesus (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Then report then at wp:ani. Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I think that given this and this, you are more likely to face a WP:BOOMERANG than anything else. --Aquillion (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Reference to Godwin's Law
In the context of calling people names, a reference to Godwin's Law reads as though it is trivialising such name-calling. That is: “look, inevitably all arguments end up comparing someone to Hitler.” But this is exactly the sort of thing we are not excusing. I would like to just take out the parenthetical myself, but I'm not in the habit of editing policy without checking in first.

As currently written: <span style="font-family:Avenir, Tenorite, Verdana, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2022
The "Responding to personal attacks" section has incorrect information about what to do if the personal attack involves a threat of physical harm. Currently, this section states "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents."

However, this information is incorrect as step 3 of the the Wikipedia guideline regarding threats of physical harm explicitly states that high-traffic noticeboards should not be used in situations involving threats of physical harm.

Therefore, the section on this article should be changed to something like this. "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents unless they involve a threat of physical harm. Do not use high-traffic noticeboards in any situation involving threats of physical harm. Instead, immediately follow the instructions on this page." 158.121.180.33 (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: The Emergency page is a behavioral guideline, whereas this is a policy. I don't believe I should be changing a policy to meet a guideline. There is further clarification needed here as which is the proper procedure.Fbifriday (talk) 10:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding "lack of patriotism" at section "What is considered to be a personal attack?"
Adding: "*Accusing others of lack of patriotism (which usually is a good thing but context matters)". What do you think? Sometimes someone gets accused of lack of patriotism if he is adding material based or RS that is not flattering to its own country of origin. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 08:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need to list all possible insults. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It might not be an "attack" so much as an issue of NPOV. Altanner1991 (talk) 09:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks both for the replies., not a matter of NPOV, cos it is a comment on user's character, not on the content of the article. , no we do not need to do it. But it wont hurt adding one more. <b style="display:inline; color:#008000;">Cinadon</b><b style="display:inline; color:#c0c0c0;">36</b> 10:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No I meant it is not something one should even consider a character issue: it should only be handled on content bases. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Softening "may be removed by any editor"
Any interest in changing Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. to Derogatory comments about other editors are sometimes removed. in the two spots where this is stated? I feel that the action requires some nuance (as described in the WP:NPA section), and that giving such an absolute "this is allowed" type statement may encourage newer editors to be a bit reckless with their NPA removals. Thanks. – Novem Linguae (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you were still planning on making this change, but I agree with it. We rarely see derogatory comments removed except for those which are absolutely egregious. For the most part, I've combed through many article talk pages where insults and ad hominem attacks took place, and they generally are allowed to stand since removing them would be considered unnecessary clerking. It's clear that "no personal attacks" is a policy that should be unequivocally enforced, but any statements regarding how it may be enforced generally are descriptive and not prescriptive. --⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper - (talk)  15:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't feel there is a problem with criticisms being improperly removed as personal attacks. Thus I don't think the sentence in question is resulting in reckless removals. Accordingly, I prefer stating that personal attacks may be removed, to straightforwardly communicate that it is an available choice. isaacl (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)