Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 4

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

What if the user removes the warning template from their talk page?

If I warn a user with {{npa}}, but they remove it, what can I do? --Lethargy 04:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please answer this, there are others who are interested in hearing the response. Thank You. :) Duke53 | Talk 05:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. What if the warning is falsely applied?
Why should you do anything? People have the right to do whatever they want on their own talk page. The important question is whether they keep making personal attacks. john k 17:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a controversial issue. See: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings Nil Einne 09:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions of self-harm

Currently, only direct threats and direct insults are noted as being personal attacks. I suggest that suggestions of self harm ("Why don't you jump off a cliff") should also be specifically noted as personal attacks. Common sense implies the inclusion, but there will always be someone who tries to use the letter rather than the spirit of the rule. Thoughts? Rhialto 06:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack

I just wanted to know whether Is this [1] a personal attack. I don't want any action as I assume Good Faith thinking that this is just a (mis)sense of comedy (this being the first instance) but just want to know the opinion of the community.  Doctor Bruno  02:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly obnoxious. Feels kind of borderline to me. Saying that people are pulling quotes out of their asses is rude, but I think it's only borderline. At any rate, I tend to think everyone would be a lot better off if we added an "ignore personal attacks" rule in addition to the "no personal attacks" rule. Personal attacks derail discussion, but only if we let them by engaging with them, instead of sticking to substantive disagreements. john k 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Some people talk like that. He's just sending you to take a walk. He doesn't like your POV.
But, on my experience, with a few of these you could well make a case in PAIN, depending on which administrator jumps first. --Sugaar 05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

False Accusations

I would like to start a discussion of false accusations being used to personally attack another user. This seems rather obvious to me that falsely accusing another user of something derogatory, without evidence, is a method of personal attack. I request comments on this.--Fahrenheit451 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Fahrenheit451's request follows on the heels of his / her accusation of a personal attack, here which revolved around the image talk here. He / she took my intended (potentially) helpful solution to his / her intent as a personal attack and, in an attempt to handle the "high resolution copyright" difficulty, posted to Jimmy Wales here. Terryeo 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Only there was no "high-resolution copyright difficulty" as Terryeo alleges. False accusations are a method of personal attack. I think that this needs to be explicitly addressed in Wikipedia policy.--Fahrenheit451 19:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a separate (but related) question regarding this topic; a user has repeatedly accused me of personal attack for leaving a civility warning on their talk page (not unwarranted), though I have reminded them of the seriousness of the accusation and that the template is certainly not in and of itself an attack (that is their only "basis" for accusation). I am not sure of what I should do here; is their some proper action I can take to get the user to stop making false claims against me? Thanks. Shannernanner 14:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell them that you welcome an RFC to discuss your conduct and his. That usually puts and end to it, because the bullies who behave badly generally know they are behaving badly. - Jmabel | Talk 01:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Censoring obscene comments

I've created a template to censor obscene comments at User:nkayesmith/censored (see it in action on my talk page). I feel that it's a good compromise between deleting the comment and allowing it to remain. What does everyone think? --nkayesmith 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Or so it's meant. Therefore I think it's not any good idea. Better to bear one or two rude comments than to start censoring. Of course, you can use it in your user talk page, if you wish.
If the matter is really serious, you should consider administrative action against the wrongdoer. --Sugaar 13:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not mean deleting the comment, I mean hiding it from view. I originally created as a way to more elegantly remove personal attacks (in the cases described in the essay linked to above) - instead of linking to the diff, replace the comment with a message and button to show the comment. --nkayesmith 01:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I suspect it will cause further edit wars. Personal attacks are meant not to be done, to be apologized about and even to be persecuted... but not to be hidden. That's my view.
Also the term "censored" sounds specially awful in Wikipedia. --Sugaar 09:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point, I've changed the wording.--nkayesmith 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Death threats and its talk page for discussion on that topic (recently moved to that subpage). One suggestion was to make the wording here stronger, and to specifically mention what to do in the case of death threats, as opposed to having a separate page. I'm recording this suggestion here, so that it can be discussed. See also Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Suggested addition. Carcharoth 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps all that is needed is an additional sentence at the end of the "Remedies" section. Something like this:
Threats of physical violence or death are taken seriously, and usually result in a community ban.
I think that reflects current practice, without going too far into instruction creep. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPA is a widely used/cited policy. I feel that it's pretty important with this policy in particular to get the wording right before adding something like this into the page - and in my opinion the fact that somebody wrote a whole policy proposal on it, and the accompanying discussion on what should be in the policy, demonstrates that it needs to be clear and concise. A single sentence is very vague, and doesn't adress the concerns raised in the discussion. For that reason might I suggest a format for an addition as a subsection of the policy, along with a little box here to reach concensus on the exact wording (people in agreement with the subsection idea could obviously develop the exact wording until a consensus version appears)... (of course, those that disagree can still voice their objections and this whole comment may well be null and void.) - I may well be out on a limb all on my own here. Crimsone 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Which concerns doesn't that sentence address? (As someone who's been the [[2]] of a death threat, I think that sentence covers the bases fairly well.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal subsection

Subheader Title

Blurb about defininition and wiki's opinion on them and why. Description of what are not considered such threats.

Examples: of what they aren't

Threats of death or physical violence

Death threats and violent threats are extreme forms of personal attacks with either direct or indirect suggestions of a violent, or murderous act. Such comments that are obviously humourous and statements containing no particular suggestion of physical harm are not covered by this policy, but are strongly discouraged. They are viewed with particular concern by many people due to their vengefull and unsettling nature, and taken particularly seriously on Wikipedia due to their extreme venom and harmful effects on the community. Any such threat or attack will result in a very stern warning at the lesser extreme, or may result in an indefinite block from Wikipedia at the other.

Examples of statements not considered to be threats of violence:

  • "If you revert me again, you'll be sorry!"
  • "You'll wish you never said that!"
  • Threats of an online attack (such as DDoS, "hacking", etc.)
  • Legal threats (see WP:LEGAL)
  • That's quite a bit more verbose than we need. For instance, the term "death threat" is obvious enough to not need any examples, let alone eight of them. (Radiant) 10:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I'd have to conceed that looking back at it. Have edited out those 8 examples. Crimsone 14:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • See, the problem with citing examples is that people will then argue that what they said wasn't a personal attack since it didn't match any of the examples. Yes, that's rules lawyering, but still. (Radiant) 15:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
      • In principle, I agree, though if you don't provide examples, people can say "it's not a death threat, I was just joking", etc. I think it might be best to add just one layer of extra bureaucracy here, and ask people to report death threats (and any resulting blocks) to place XYZ for immediate review. I can imagine it would be painful to be blocked for a death threat when you were just joking. Of course, in genuine cases, the review would help push people to report this sort of thing to the correct people. Also, knowing that they will get reported, as well as blocked, might make people think twice. ie. if you don't give examples, build in a fail-safe review mechanism where the blocker and blockee can go immediately to thrash it out. Carcharoth 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Complaint

I am not so aware of cabals but I agree that the policy actually restricts free speech and accurate description of facts. For instance, I have been warned for descibing one POV-pushing editor's ideology as "nazi" and "racist", which is blatantly true, and agreed by other respected editors. He wikilawyered against me for that and got his prize and now I find myself unable to speak up properly and constantly threatened with WP:PAIN actions. While these terms can be abused, I see no reason to protect with "invisibility cloaks" the activity and motivations of such users, normally complex vandals with no respect for Wikipedia's way-of-life and NPOV policies. In fact it is counter-producing as it favors wikilawyering against realistic discussion and consensus making. We can't be assambleary and non-violent while protecting under the excuse of civility violent and anti-assambleary behaviours. Also, we should not give special protection to certain ideologies. Why are nazism and racism given that invisibility cloak that other ideologies don't have nor need? It's totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. --Sugaar 12:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording of the policy statement is problematic but I disagree that your example is a case of it's problems. Your problem is, you've let you anger get the better of you. Rather then calling the user a nazi and racist which benefits no one, point out that the user has a history of making comments which many people are uncomfortable with (and provide examples). And don't try and dictate what others should do or think, just point out the history and let people decide. If you'd gotten in to trouble for doing this, I would agree there is a problem. But when you start name calling, I would agree that you should have been censured and action should be taken if you continue. The simple fact is, a users previous comments would speak for themselves. There is no need for other wikipedians to start name calling. You risk becoming just as bad as the person your name calling. N.B. having taken a brief look at the dispute it looks to me like your description is perhaps a little one sided Nil Einne 10:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I'm one-sided. He never denied my claims in any way, just used them to attack me (and all other editors) legally (see Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and WP:DE).
The problem is that I wasn't in anger nor I meant those terms as insulting just as objectively descriptive of him and his POV. What got me angered was that he started complaining without even denying the claims... and he got me warned and finally he got me blocked for 6 hours (after I had watered down my tongue ans was even trying to be constructive and pedagogical), after what I have just broken all connection with that article (it's not worth the pain).
I don't believe for a moment that I'm wrong in my description because he has been defending Stormfront directly.
There is a problem and (in my opinion) it is that talking about someone's ideology is seen, by the wording of this policy as PA, independently on wether if that's real or not, or wether it's meant as insulting or not.
It was no name-calling: just objective description of facts. It was meaningful because the article had been under heavy vandalism by anon. users (and some registered one too) of that ideology. And, at first, I wasn't even talking to him (didn't expect him even to read the talk page, being a brand new user) but to the more serious editors working in that page. If you have any doubt just check the article White people, its looong talk page and its convoluted recent history.
But anyhow, ideologies are meaningful for discussion, at least in some topics. If we are writing an article on Stalin and I am clearly Stalinist (I'm not but just for the example), it's probably useful to point it out and talk honestly. I really dislike duplicity and hypocrisy and find them obstacles to sincered discussion, so why to hide what is obvious and relevant? It's not about name calling. Name calling are remarks that are meant to hurt and have little or no relation with the discussion, like intelectual despise, racist or sexist remarks, or maybe even ideology when the article is purely scientific.
This is just allowing certain twisted people to gag others.
Also, I never even thought in opening a PAIN against him for anything (until he started witch-hunting me and others). He has made personal remarks but I walk over fire (metaphorically), what is what a serious wikipedian is supposed to do, unless the situation becomes really abusive.
PA and PAIN are necessary but must be something serious, not just a blank check for wikilawyerists. After all, when you are discussing with someone for weeks, you can commit errors and definitively you can get hot. I don't think it was my case (I am hot now and what I'm doing is the opposite: to quit, not with Wikipedia but with anything that may have any relation with that article, that individual or his favorite administrator).
It's not worth the pain. But Wikipedia loses allowing disruptive editing, POV-pushing and displacement of serious users, not me but the other editors that have been or will be displaced by such means, with the blessings of PAIN and AN and under the cover of this NPA policy. --Sugaar 05:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Examples that are not personal attacks" boldly edited

No matter how it's phrased, this whole policy is a prime candidate for wikilawyering up hill and down dale by those skilled in goading others without laying themselves open to the dreaded PA charge. That kind of can't be helped. But I think some of the section "Examples that are not personal attacks" is unnecessarily encouraging to the PA tightrope dance, and I have edited accordingly. Please take a look. The vaunted "subtle difference" between "You are acting like a troll" and "You are a troll" comes down, IMO, purely to the not-so-subtle difference between those who know how to skirt the NPA policy and those who don't. The difference between commenting on motive and commenting on actions just isn't that technical: the implication is the same in both cases. I took it out. Also, I took out a little lawyerspeak ("include, but are not limited to"—please let's not positively encourage a law-book attitude here) and performed emergency surgery on a sentence stating that personal attacks should under certain circumstances not be construed as personal attacks (I swear, it did say that). Finally, I changed the statement that "a comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is a not a personal attack," because I'm just tired of seeing it. "Vandalism" is thrown around much too lightly, it's a very serious and wounding accusation, and it goes to intention and motive, not just action. What more do you want? It's a personal attack. It's only not a personal attack if you are indeed reverting vandalism, and vandalism is very clearly and narrowly defined at WP:VAND, which also makes the excellent poinit that "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors." If somebody tells me they've reverted my "vandalism" to their page, that's a much more personal attack than if they tell me to fuck off. (That's not a nice thing to say, but what exactly's personal about it?) Anyway... yes, the section ended up rather different.

This is what it said

Wikipedians engaging in debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia. Be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments. Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks. It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks. Specific examples of comments that are not personal attacks include, but are not limited to:

* Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks. * Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. There is a subtle difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll", but "You seem to be making statements to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same without descending to name-calling. Similarly, a comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X. * A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack. However, it is important to assume good faith when making such a comment — if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism.

And this is what it says now

Debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia. Be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments. Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks. It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret impersonal comments as personal attacks. Examples of comments that are not personal attacks include:

* Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks. * Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. (It can however be a harmful statement if it's untrue.) A comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X. * A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is a not a personal attack if it's concerned with clear vandalism, although otherwise it is. "Vandalism" imputes bad intentions and bad motives to the person accused. If the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for what is and isn't vandalism.

Feel free to edit and/or change back, please. Bishonen | talk 06:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

Looks good to me. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The new version is fine, but I despair anyway. I'll despair in a new section, though, if I get overwhelmed by it and need to express it. For this and for here, all the gloom I can share is this: the "not" section is to try to prevent people using NPA as a bullwhip. Arguably, if those people read the first part, they'd know not to do that. The core of the policy negates any such use from the outset, and yet -- here comes the doom cloud -- nobody reads the policy past the name. Having a specific example in the "not" paragraph to describe a particularly pernicious problem is good as a thing to point them at, but they still have to read. There has got to be a name for the condition of being able to write without being able to read, because there are many examples of people suffering from it these days. Geogre 13:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

saying "but he did it too"

I've come across this one a lot. People will often say "but this person attacked me first" and use that as a reason to make an attack on their own (though, quite frequently, the first person did not). I propose adding a section saying, "because the other person attacked isn't reason for you to do it too." -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

While I generally agree, we cannot demand that everyone have the forbearance of a saint. For example, if someone suggests that you engage in unnatural sex acts with your parents, that you eat shit, and that you ought to be impaled with a hot poker (none of these are made-up examples, by the way), you can hardly be faulted for describing this person as "thoroughly unpleasant". Or something rather more strongly worded than that. - Jmabel | Talk 08:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I'd certainly agree with this. (especially at the moment! Of course, the standardised reply to a string of statements like that would probably involve the title "The Aristocrats". 'Tis considerably weaker (and more amusing) as the wording of responses go, but may turn out to be a great diffuser (if only through the state of mind needed to deliver it properly. lol). I wouldn't suggest adding it to the policy though. Crimsone 03:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Going overboard.

I've been editing the George W. Bush page and this user User:ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE has engaged in alot of arrogant insinuation that his edits are justified. I browsed his contributions that he made to wikipedia and he's not able to restrict his personal opinion in the NPOV environment. Which I found out was evident here Talk:Bumfights especially at User talk:ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE. Thank you for looking in. ViriiK 06:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Don't Feed the Trolls"

Is a polite reminder not to feed the trolls a personal attack? I just read this article and realized maybe I was making personal attacks in some instances. Any thoughts on this? Does it constitute a personal attack?

Dylan Slade 22:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends how comfortable you are characterizing someone as a "troll" being "fed". If someone concludes that you're a troll, and it turns out you're not, I can see why you'd be upset if they'd been telling others not to "feed" you. There is obvious trolling that occurs, though, and it's not really hurting anyone's feelings to call it that. I think a good rule of thumb is this: if its a borderline case, or if the potential "troll" is a regular contributor, err on the side of assuming they're not a troll. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

ad hominem

If this policy doesn't already cover this, I think it would be a good idea to add details about ad hominem attacks against other users. This issue generally arises in XFD's, and should be discouraged.--Ed ¿Cómo estás? 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Though the term is constantly misused on WP, "ad hominem" doesn't mean attack (though the two may be combined).
A personal attack is a personal attack.
"ad hominem" is a logical fallacy in an argument, trying to use the fact that a certain person is arguing a case as an argument against or, less frequently, in favour of the case itself. The argument "ad hominem" is a fallacy but it is not as such an attack. It must be resisted by other editors pointing out the fallacy, not by policy. Str1977 (smile back) 09:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Polemics as personal attacks?

At what point is something considered polemical, and subject to removal? If someone placed a comment on their user page saying "Muslims are one step away from being satanists!" and linked it to a page listing self identified Muslim Wikipedians, is that considered polemical? Is it considered a personal attack?--Vidkun 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is not very collegial, but it is rather a sort of impersonal attack. I'd suggest leaving a note on the user's talkpage mentioning that our resources aren't to be used for expounding bigotry, and that it would be best if they removed the statement. Jkelly 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
While one might argue over whether or not it's a personal attack, it is definitely incivil and not conductive to building the encyclopedia. (Radiant) 09:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Sure. How would you consider this, this and this userpages? They are highly offensive to me (and many others). There should be at least a guideline about not making fascist or racist political propaganda in user pages. --Sugaar 11:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
If these bother you, I'd suggest throwing them on WP:MFD. Basically, political statements fall under "Wikipedia is not censored"; however, there is an obvious difference between a userpage proclaiming support for Bush (which I'm sure some would find offensive but is obviously a legitimate political opinion) and a userpage supporting Hitler (which can hardly be interpreted as anything other than hate speech). (Radiant) 11:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll think about it. By the moment I have more than enough fencing off (and reporting) these peoples' personal atatcks and group-harassment. I'm more worried by the users than by their pages actually - but all is connected. I don't want to censor anyhthing but it's hate speech clearly. --Sugaar 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the web pages Sugaar referred to and didn't find anything offensive, they're just center-right political views, clearly Sugaar is someone who considers Fraga, Aznar, and Mariano Rajoy extreme-rightists, when in fact they're just tepid social democrats. Or maybe Sugaar himself is a radical leftist a la Castro, Chávez, Evo Morales? Cheers.--SanIsidro 13:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rajoy? It's Le Pen, Mussolini, Pinochet and Falange what such propaganda pages are about (just for the record). --Sugaar 18:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how, within NPOV, we can allow support for Bush but not for Hitler. Nazism is an unpopular POV, and one that I personally abhor, but Hitler had millions of supporters in his time. If a pro-Nazi userpage is unacceptable now, would it have been so in the 1939 edition of Wikipedia? I think of this principally as a failure of NPOV. I've come across people using this policy to defend all manner of extremist positions.

Is this a Personal Attack?

Let's assume...Emma told me in P page that I'm XYZ. She also implied it in another of her remarks. XYZ is a personal attack. Then later, on same page and other pages, she says: "Lots of XYZ's on P page" "XYZ's are trouble makers" etc... (without directly referring to me). Is this a personal attack? Should I be offended? Is it still a personal attack despite not being an attack against me but against anonymous editors? Lukas19 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Usage of real names

Where can I find out about using real names of editors? Some editors like myself would prefer not to have our real names and identities divulged on articles and talk pages even if they are known to other editors, who may be prepared to use this information maliciously on and off-wiki. The point, "Treat others as you would have them treat you" is a pointer in the right direction but is not clear enough and may need expansion.

Is this article the correct place to make a mention of how real names of editors should not be divulged especially if this has been expressly asked by the editor? Or does another article deal with that subject? Thanks. I have also registered this query at WP:WQT talk page. ekantiK talk 03:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edit (Jimbo quote)

I noticed the following comment by Jimbo on his talk page and strongly think that it should be included here as a "Jimbo quote" under the Community Spirit section, just like has been done by other WP Policy articles. Here is the quote which is also displayed on my userpage:

"We need to treat each other with deep respect and kindness, and when I see that not happening, I fear for the example we set for newbies." - Jimbo Wales (11 Dec 2006)

source. We do not need to display it in this way with a boilerplate (unless that is agreed upon as a headline of some sort?) but it would be sufficient to just add the quote without the date also. ekantiK talk 05:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

  • In general I'm not too happy with adding quotes to policy pages, because people have a tendency to take them out of context and misinterpret them. (Radiant) 14:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Attacks

If an editor creates a talk-subpage or a section of the talk-page that specifically attacks other editors on the basis of what they see as bad faith or POV on the part of the "attackee", and especially in regards to off-wiki disputes that may or may not have anything to do with edits made on Wikipedia, is this a good example of a personal attack?

If so, I'd like to make an amendment to the Examples section of this article to include a sentence or two about 'Talk-Page Attacks'. ekantiK talk 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To provide additional information, Ekantik (sockpuppet Gaurasundara) is talking about the information located on my talk-page located on This Section. Not only has "Ekantik / Gaurasundara" viciously attacked and defamed Sathya Sai Baba on numerous blogs and forums outside Wikipedia (thousands of times), he has done the same with me as well. He even devoted a public blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia. Unfortunately for him, he happened to use a Wiki-name that specifically identifies him with the Sai Controversy and he has since admitted he is the person I accuse him to be. He ceaselessly attempts to argue that his vicious extra-Wikipedia defamation campaigns against Sathya Sai Baba and me are irrelevant to his presence on Wikipedia. Obviously, I disagree. SSS108 talk-email 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please make such posts on WP:PAIN instead of here, and make sockpuppetry-related posts on WP:RFCU. In general, if someone creates a new page with the intent to attack someone, that's a speedy delete. In this particular case, SSS108 appears to be talking about Ekantik's actions rather than making personal attacks. I might recommend that you two pursue dispute resolution. (Radiant) 15:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Radiant, I have answered these complaints elsewhere. As per your advice that such pages qualify for a speedy delete, does this apply to sections of existing talk pages as per my original query? And does this count as a personal attack? I see that this does actually qualify as a personal attack according to the project page but I am just seeking clarification in the case of a specific circumstance. I think that we would do well to remember that changes to this policy will affect decisions throughout the Wikipedia community and not just a bunch of people. Ekantik talk 15:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Overuse or incorrect use of WP:NPA

Is there no way to make clear that saying to someone you are in dispute with "be civil" or "WP:NPA" hardly ever improves the situation? Is it not time to say that warnings about personal attacks should be done by someone other than the (usually) two people involved? In other words, never say "you are being incivil to me", but rather say "don't be incivil to that person". Would this idea fly? Has it been proposed before? Carcharoth 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Probably. NPA and FAITH and such are things you should do rather than say. It does sometimes help if a third party asks people to stop, but even then the answer usually is "yeah but he started it" or somesuch. >Radiant< 09:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with both points. The trouble is that the WP:CIVIL nutshell says: Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. But by telling people they are being uncivil, you offend them, unintentionally or otherwise. I am surprised how few people understand that telling someone they are being uncivil is a form of aggression. The only way to deal with incivility is to ignore it: either leave the conversation or address the substance of the point while ignoring the couching. That's basic assertiveness.
As for what constitutes a personal attack which requires administration, I would maintain a high threshhold for that. I wouldn't go by the endless Wikipedia pages on etiquette, civility, dickishness, personal attacks, etc., but by what leads to warnings in the average workplace: racial and sexist slurs, sexual and religious harassment, death and violence threats, bullying, etc. such might warrant taking further, if they persisted.
If you do wish to engage an attacker, the aim should be de-escalation, not winning. I find the best way to de-escalate is to address the substance while studiously ignoring the personal stuff: this way it's often surprising how quickly the other guy straightens up. If you use passive aggressive techniques like ticking the angry guy off for incivility (particularly if you do this as part of a posse), he will get angrier and angrier until he cops himself a block (as we saw in a certain case recently). This is not the best outcome, especially when the blockee is a known useful contributor. We need to ask ourselves whether we are helping when we accuse someone of making a personal attack. qp10qp 20:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
You are very right. I am of the kind that has a thick skin and really don't mind (much) to suffer personal attacks (unles absolutely flagrant and persistent and accompanied by denial of discussion). But when I suffer a personal attack in form of (often unjustified) warning, it really makes me feel angry and powerless because it is:
  • Conflict escalation: bringing it to the "judicial" level, what can have real consequences (while calling me "nazi" or "idiot" doesn't: disqualification only disqualifies the attacker - it can be nuisance but it's not really any major problem unless systematic).
  • Accusing me of being uncivil and disruptive (wether it's true or not, it's a personal insult of the worst class).
So PA warnings can be (and be meant as) personal attacks of the worst kind, but can't be treated as such.
Only one person ever has made that with me and it was a clear case of harassment and manipulation of policy in order to take control of an article from a racist POV. Sadly enough it caused me a block and (for what I'm finding) blocks can't be appealed (in fact, no mater what WP:BLOCK says). It also caused a major decrease of NOPVness of that article and related ones and continuity of conflict.
Also I find that calling someone "nigger" (for example) is not considered worse than saying that someone is "nazi". And well, there's a difference between a direct racist gratuitous insult and a description of one's apparent ideology. Even if both should be avoided for reasons of civility, they can't just be considered at the same level.
The policy suggests to develope a thick skin but in practice favors those people who have (or rather pretend to have) a thin one: those that by means of insistent PA warnings and subsequent reports to WP:PAIN try to displace other more beleguered (and serious) editors, to wikilawyer a victory instead of working for a consensus.
As it is (or it is applied) now it may be more a problem for healthy discussion than a useful tool for civility and editor collaboration towards NPOV. --Sugaar 07:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to deal with this?

A major bulk of my edits are reverting vandalisms, and seldom there are questions on whether my reverts are actually vandalisms.

However, some vandals whose edits were reverted by me and I have gave warning for would vandalize my userpage. [3][4][5][6][7] Previously I dealt with that through WP:AIV, but since these falls onto WP:NPA since these people attacks me on the basis of my vandalism reverts, what should I do, AIV or NPA? --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

From what you say, this sound like a relatively simple situation with no precise venue for it. Might I suggest posting your message at WP:AN/I, where I'm sure that an administrator will be able to look into at and take appropriate action. If it truly is as simple as you say, I doubt it would be any bother for an admin looking at it. Crimsone 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Those edits are from months ago. There's nothing to be done here. Jkelly 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Lol. Simple then, but not in the way stated. That'll teach me for replying to comments on face value! Crimsone 04:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I ask for guidance for future incidents. My way of vandal reversion (ie reverting multiple vandalism made by a user in one time), IMO, would be likely to be open to future attacks like this, so I'm going to ask as precaution. --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 06:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed shift in focus regarding remedies

Based on some of the disucssion at the PAIN MFD, I came here to read exactly what we're saying in WP:NPA. I'm a little surprised that nothing in the policy suggests that it can ever be best when water rolls off a duck's back. The remedies demand retribution: the first thing the attacked person should do is to "ask the attacker to stop and note this policy". After that, its the comfy chair dispute resolution and blocking. Obviously, there are exceptions: persistent or extreme attacks such as death threats are a different creature entirely from being told you are "an idiot". But in general, might civility be better served by suggesting that, at least sometimes, the best way to respond to an angry talk page comment is ... not to respond at all? Serpent's Choice 06:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

By means of clarification, I'm not suggesting that making personal attacks is okay or acceptable, but simply proposing that the current policy and environment lead to escalation more often than beneficial to the project. I recognize that this change would have to tread carefully to avoid giving the wrong impression, but on the other hand, there are complaints at WP:PAIN as of this writing relating to such attacks as: "You're pretty cocky, aren't you?", "dumb logic", and "pseudo-Buddhist". Yes, these are all (probably) personal attacks, but ... is the overall desire for civility bettered by responding to every wrong action? Serpent's Choice 13:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Between my above concern and the fact that WP:NPA frankly does not present policy in the compelling prose that should be expected of established consensus, I have written Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Proposal, a suggested refactoring of the existing page. Out of respect for consensus, I would like it to be given due discussion; I will not simply be bold and replace the existing content. Serpent's Choice 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Remedies

Per the original comments by Serpent's Choice above, per recent comments in the MfD of WP:PAIN, and per comments at the village pump (policy} regarding WP:Kettle, I have made these additions to the policy here, including an emphasis on ignoring personal attacks as a first response, and on seeking dispute resolution for WP:KEttle situations, with a cautionary note that pushing hard for intervention in such situations may result in intervention distributed equally over both parties.

It may not be worded quite as well as it could be though, so please edit as required if you feel it needs it. Crimsone 17:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Substantial revision to WP:NPA

The core elements of this major edit have been being discussed for some days now. They have been through several rounds of copyediting, a partial reorganization, and many sets of eyes. I'll be the first to admit, there have been objections to these changes. Some of the objects, I hope have been settled through discussion and compromise. Some may still be outstanding. While these changes may not therefore have unanimity, I believe they have consensus. As a point of note, changes to the live version of NPA that have taken place since this proposal work began (largely by Crimsone have been incorporated in this edit wherever possible. I do not want to give the impression at any point that I'm doing this alone.

I have encouraged a change in WP:NPA for several reasons, each of which I hope this edit addresses:

  • Removing the dislaimer that this policy is subject to Wikilawyering, and decreasing its ability to be so misused.
  • Rewording suggested responses to avoid implying that escalation and retaliation are encouraged.
  • Providing easier access to options for aggrieved editors (such as WP:WQA, WP:MEDCAB, and dispute resolution), especially in the wake of the deprecation of PAIN.
  • Clarifying policy regarding article talk pages (already on other policy pages, but this one is higher-visibility).
  • Improving the visibility of the WP:BLP reference.
  • Cleaning up the general appearance and style of the article. Policy pages aren't featured articles, but they should demonstrate that cooperative editing can produce quality, well-structured prose.

My promotion of these changed to the live version are admittedly at least somewhat bold. I hope that any objections or problems can be discussed here. On many issues, I'm more than amenable to compromise. I'm not looking to start an edit war, I'm looking to work with other editors to build better policy pages for this encyclopedia project.

Thanks! Serpent's Choice 09:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the clean-up on the whole, but I've removed two bits:
  • Even some comments that might appear to be a personal attack, such as labeling an edit that removes a substantial amount of text as "vandalism", may be well-intentioned.
  • Additionally, editors are strongly discouraged from using profanity in an insulting or abusive way in comments to other contributors. Wikipedia is not censored, but that policy is focused on the content of articles, not on the interaction of users via talk pages and edit summaries.
In the first instance because it's a poor precendent, and arbitration has been brought for this very reason, and in the second because while it's probably good advice there's no consensus on it.
brenneman 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Surely there's consensus that swearing at people is rude? -- SCZenz 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
You'd think so, but there have been multiple cases of adminstrators being pulled up (either on ANI or by RfC) for swearing and there have always been plenty of people saying "don't be offended by a curse." This in all likelyhood has more to do with the respective position of the cursee and cursor that it does the swearing, but that's the history none the less. You're preaching to the converted, but it needs support before it goes on the page. Err... which it has from me. - brenneman 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a key difference between swearing and swearing at people. The later violates WP:CIVIL by the definition of the word "civility." -- SCZenz 00:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why the "examples" section was removed? I found that section extremely helpful, especially the part that described merely pointing out personal attacks was not an attack itself, it said: "Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack". Without that statement in the policy, attackers now just respond by saying we're attacking them by merely pointing out abusive behavior. I respectfully ask that the "examples" section be put back. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the wording "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack " because it is a significant part of the policy that keeps editors from being accused of personal attacks when merely pointing out a personal attack with civil language. If it's said somewhere else in the policy, I apologize for the duplication. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Harrasment Issues

This kind of serves as a report/question, etc, but recently one of the users "Osfan", has been repeatedly harrasing me. This situation occured after he posted some drivel about my contributions, and I deleted it, not knowing that this is not encouraged or permitted. He has continued to post comments time and time again insulting me, getting more hostile each time I deleted his comments (because they offered nothing of worth compared to other...angrier posts I've had debating my editing preferences).

Eventually, Osfan was reported, and warned to stay away from me. Unfortunatly, he's returned, and is showing no signs of stopping. It's becoming obvious he's trying to bait me into an aggresive flame war, and has seemingly done this with other editors despite constant warnings.

The question is, should deleted comments, which are archived in the "History" section, be more encouraged if they do not serve any kind of functional discussion and serve only to bait and insult?

Thankyou.

...And I seriously hope a mod checks my talk page "history" to see what Osfan has been doing.

Dr. R.K.Z (talk · contribs), 03:06 12th Janurary 2007 (UTC)