Misplaced Pages

talk:No personal attacks: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:16, 7 January 2023 edit2601:244:4303:e650:f966:5146:4027:761e (talk) →Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2023: new sectionTag: Reverted← Previous edit Latest revision as of 08:20, 9 December 2024 edit undoNicolausPrime (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,082 edits →Adding "language" to the list of protected characteristics: ReplyTag: Reply 
(47 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 15: Line 15:
*] *]
}} }}

== Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2022 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks|answered=yes}}
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 ]."

However, this information is incorrect as step 3 of the ] 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 ] ''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 ]." ] (]) 15:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> The ] 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.] (]) 10:13, 9 July 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:
{{talkquote|some types of comments are ''never'' acceptable:
* Comparing editors to ], ], ], dictators, or other infamous persons. {{crossref|printworthy=y|(See also ].)}}}} <span style="font-family:Avenir, Tenorite, Verdana, sans-serif">—&nbsp;<span style="border-radius:0.25em;padding:1px 4px 0;background:#faeded">]</span>&nbsp;(])</span> 02:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)


== If a person says they are a Nazi, or hate x ethnic/religious group, do we have to just let that pass? == == If a person says they are a Nazi, or hate x ethnic/religious group, do we have to just let that pass? ==
Line 50: Line 29:
::::::: Good to hear. Especially since I think you actually have a mop, right? So, um. I feel like I'm trying to explain fractions to my Math professor - you probably understand all this stuff better than I do, right? So ... um? What's the problem? Because some less than clueful person is making a fuss on the No Nazis talk page? Er - that's not really a reason to change any phrasing on NPA, right? We just nicely explain to them that just because NPA says you shouldn't ''call'' people Nazis, doesn't mean that if they are ''actually'' behaving like Nazis that's a good thing. We similarly shouldn't randomly ''call'' people murderers, but if we see an actual person being murdered, we should darn well do something about it. --] (]) 15:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC) ::::::: Good to hear. Especially since I think you actually have a mop, right? So, um. I feel like I'm trying to explain fractions to my Math professor - you probably understand all this stuff better than I do, right? So ... um? What's the problem? Because some less than clueful person is making a fuss on the No Nazis talk page? Er - that's not really a reason to change any phrasing on NPA, right? We just nicely explain to them that just because NPA says you shouldn't ''call'' people Nazis, doesn't mean that if they are ''actually'' behaving like Nazis that's a good thing. We similarly shouldn't randomly ''call'' people murderers, but if we see an actual person being murdered, we should darn well do something about it. --] (]) 15:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Agreed. ] ] 18:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC) ::::::::Agreed. ] ] 18:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
::@] ] (]) 00:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
:I agree, as written, it's talking about offensively and without basis comparing someone to Nazis - not about people who themselves show up and say Nazi things. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 02:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC) :I agree, as written, it's talking about offensively and without basis comparing someone to Nazis - not about people who themselves show up and say Nazi things. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 02:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


:Doug, I presume you are referring to this comment . I can see their point. I'm not sure if I agree or if I think context matters but they aren't all together wrong. The essay, right or wrong, says that you are acting like a Nazi if you do XYZ. If someone says "based on your behavior of XYorZ, NONAZI may apply to you". Well that is in a round about way, comparing the person to a Nazi. But I can also see how saying, "you have traits similar to" is not the same thing as saying "you are". Someone who is Norwegian and presumably Arian has ethnic traits similar to Nazis (at least their ideals) but that comparison alone is far from making them any kind of Nazi. Given the title of the essay I do see how saying the essay applies to an editor would imply they are a Nazi so I see the point. I think this would be especially problematic if say the editor were from part of the world that suffered under Nazi occupation even if the editor themselves had nationalistic attitudes. Consider if we had an editor with Polish nationalist views but who lost family to the Nazi occupation. Yeah, it's a constructed example but in the correct circumstances I can see the concern. That said, I can also see how people might feel that an editor is already over the line if people are suggesting NONAZIs applies to them... assuming it reasonably does. ] (]) 15:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC) :Doug, I presume you are referring to this comment . I can see their point. I'm not sure if I agree or if I think context matters but they aren't all together wrong. The essay, right or wrong, says that you are acting like a Nazi if you do XYZ. If someone says "based on your behavior of XYorZ, NONAZI may apply to you". Well that is in a round about way, comparing the person to a Nazi. But I can also see how saying, "you have traits similar to" is not the same thing as saying "you are". Someone who is Norwegian and presumably Arian has ethnic traits similar to Nazis (at least their ideals) but that comparison alone is far from making them any kind of Nazi. Given the title of the essay I do see how saying the essay applies to an editor would imply they are a Nazi so I see the point. I think this would be especially problematic if say the editor were from part of the world that suffered under Nazi occupation even if the editor themselves had nationalistic attitudes. Consider if we had an editor with Polish nationalist views but who lost family to the Nazi occupation. Yeah, it's a constructed example but in the correct circumstances I can see the concern. That said, I can also see how people might feel that an editor is already over the line if people are suggesting NONAZIs applies to them... assuming it reasonably does. ] (]) 15:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
::Sorry, I really don't have time for this and no interest at the moment. ] ] 16:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

== Needs a section on calling/assuming somebody to be "a bot" ==

Today I accidentally assumed a user to be a bot, judging by their swift answer (~100 words + a revert just under 2 minutes). I think the guideline could use a section on that as well. In fact, users with Twinkie or other tools to watch over fresh edits in Misplaced Pages can give a scare to a keyboard-only editor like myself. Not that I am proud of asking ] if the swift revert was a "some kind of prank?" - I just hope there will be a guideline specially for non-savvy editors surprised by the speed of such reverts. ] (]) 10:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


=== Apparently, I did that assumption more than once ===
* In fact, I did a similar thing last year:
] Hello, I'm ].
I wanted to let you know that one or more of ]&#32;to ] have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the ].
If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the ] or the ]. Thanks.<!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> ] (]) 09:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

My reply was:

:That was a chat-like quick reply. Suspicious... ] (]) 09:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Back then, I was not aware there are tools that allow to both revert and leave template-based messages simultaneously. Hope this will help in the future. ] (]) 10:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


== A comparison list of personal attacks ==
quote: "Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)


I propose to remove the word communists for the following reasons:
== Adding "lack of patriotism" at section "What is considered to be a personal attack?" ==
# Communism in an economic concept where means of production are commonly owned, it is an opposing side of capitalism in contrast to capitalism where means of production are owned by certain invididuals; since communism is an economic concept, to be non-biased, the whole sentence should look like "Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, capitalists, terrorists, "
# Godwin's law does not mention communists. Nazism as a whole was condemned by the international community, including both communist and capitalist countries, The Nuremberg Trials, involved an international military tribunal composed of representatives from the Allied powers, including the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France; whereas communism is not condemned, or, if condemned, by capitalists or their sympathesizers and vice versa. Due to the controversy of the issue, I propose to remove it. Alternatively, we may add "capitalists" to the list to have it balanced.
--] (]) 15:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


==Recurring attacks==
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. ]] 08:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:Is there a reason, possibly some archived discussion, concerning including or excluding {{see also|Misplaced Pages:Harassment}} --- under the section title?
:I don't see a need to list all possible insults. ] (]) 09:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
:The Misplaced Pages community definition of "recurring (repeated) attacks" is {{tq|a pattern of repeated ] that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons}}, so it would seem uncontroversial. -- ] (]) 17:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
:It might not be an "attack" so much as an issue of ]. ] (]) 09:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
::Thanks both for the replies. {{re|Altanner1991}}, not a matter of NPOV, cos it is a comment on user's character, not on the content of the article. {{re|Johnuniq}}, no we do not need to do it. But it wont hurt adding one more. ]] 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. ] (]) 11:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)


== Do we differentiate between direct and indirect personal attacks? ==
== Softening "may be removed by any editor" ==


On the ] page, an IP user :
Any interest in changing {{tq|Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.}} to {{tq|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 ] 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. –] <small>(])</small> 18:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
{{tq|My God, California could fall into the sea tomorrow and you people would oppose adding "submerged" to the opening sentence because "recency" and "undue weight" and "California's more notable for other things than being underwater" and "Misplaced Pages isn't a newspaper". It's obnoxious. Stop it. You're embarrassing yourselves.}}
In my mind, this is simply a thinly-veiled personal attack, disguised as an indictment on a larger group. But I'm not sure.
#Would the same exact phrase, referring to one person instead of a wider group, be considered a personal attack, or even a borderline personal attack?
#In general, does referring to a group as a method to personally attack an individual constitute a personal attack?
#Is this codified in policy somewhere that I am unaware of?
Thanks. ] </nowiki></span>''']] 01:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:Who cares if it's documented somewhere? When it comes down it, we have to rely on some commonsense and the comment above is not a personal attack. If commentary like that was frequent without compensating positive contributions, the author might be sanctioned. But a couple of statements like that are just part of a robust exchange. Either ignore or briefly explain whatever the issue is. ] (]) 02:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::My question was just a general question about policy, more than an actual want to sanction the IP. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the user makes comments like these frequently.
::Why don't you consider this a personal attack? Also, I don't get what positive contributions have to do with it; can you explain? ] </nowiki></span>''']] 02:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


== Adding "language" to the list of protected characteristics ==
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2023 ==


@] I have attempted to add "language" to the list of protected characteristics, which you have reverted. Could you please elaborate on your reasoning? ] (]) 07:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
kkirp w dkje flkme ;oiremn ekj relk,,m jn/irl[jl jnemw rker jr rler .jj lerwli;pwemijikmwe;lk,m rekjr ijn .;por mwehpo., emrk/le/;pm rjebr lwekowme hjbpirle;ledmwewiuw'oqgju;i kjemwip;jnip je ev wejw e,kpiielou[p he wb eiwe gvlkj ,jhekj kjupen wejhw ekwn jb iiknhweon jek gk hjwkejb wghvb hjgejwne hbiujjniupeoknwbuh;on hjeb wgen dlponw ev nbwe kjl i.ukle wegwnelon kejw njlkjw ehjk;j ,ejw gun ehjbwkm eeoie newrlie wkm jelkw eiemmeiil4plilk rkh ,eklrn kierle'km .jnrlekmjokp,.ielmih .r nerbklm .k/;lk,ikmjrm e.kr;/ker me.rk er kjem h;rrbn erih.erlkmne hnm eb whe w.ljnw emgwe k.j hjbenewn hbwekjou;en webjwejn wejhbijmmnjwen wnmnkjkmw nwve jwijlen jwklj hejbkj kjo h jhbkewjn w
:{{u|NicolausPrime}}, if I say to another editor: "Your English language skills are too weak to edit the English Misplaced Pages, and I recommend that you edit the Misplaced Pages in the language you speak best", is that a personal attack? ] (]) 07:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
ebwekjwne hwkemw ehvwe whebklwen wejbwe kkwen jwikejw,miljk hwejkw ehjwje nwehbkwjne hjbweijn wedwd djhwn bw dwjnw eknwne kjwn kjbw.ek
::If there was evidence that this has been resulting in unintentional disruptive editing, then my understanding would be that your example would be governed by ] and not by this policy. And I don't think this example would constitute {{tq|Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases}} by the cultural standards present on Misplaced Pages.
nevjwe wlkjn whvejwe jheki'[pne bw ehw n ewhjen whjbfuelme hwje wejn wejueokwmenwhe hweijwklmkuwe wn .wkle whb bw;eknhjn jeudm, wehj
::Now, one may claim that neither of these arguments is very strong. But I don't think this policy is interpreted with this level of literalness either. For example, if someone was detected inserting content whitewashing Holocaust or increasing visibility of neo-Nazi activists, then citing the ] essay to call for a rightful ban could run afoul of a literal and scrupulous reading of the following prohibitions: {{tq|Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing}} and {{tq|Comparing editors to Nazis}}. ] (]) 08:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
nwnkhjew hjwelkjen ejhw egwelkwelkjueue me wejhb ekjwe wjekmw ekjkmw ejwe jweie;[plwe hkwe welkn wehjbwke mkjwe hw hbweil we
:No, I can't beyond that it seems unnecessary. Your justification was "completeness", which is not sufficient in my mind. To me, you would need to articulate an actual concrete reason for the addition. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
e wueh wewkej heeeiwe;lkwmnjw e ken w.e;/lwe n wekw eh welkwn ehbwhen wejhbmnim,ue wnelew jwhbkn ejhj kej ejhwe kj kjeiwne jnme jwh
::To be clear, the list is explicitly non-exhaustive ({{xt|etc.}}), so there really has to be a positive argument for explicit mention of any given item. To be blunt, this seems potentially like a preoccupation that is wholly hypothetical on your part. Does this happen? Moreover, if there is a linguistic discrimination problem in the discourse on here, surely it should be profiled and discussed first? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>]</span> 07:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
ne jweb hjebkjwen b we jn ehwlek we wenlwe wjeblwielwe kjwekj i jhweklnm wekjw ejmwken hmn ejewmwm ehjbweli;welki/;pwem wjebjwe
e wn ejbw e;woke nw ek weliekwe,mjnwelk ekw,me welk heoei webkn ejnwek wejbwe jwekw.k;lij hjebkwen wekwm eb wehmw e;wem jlkipi mnjewne
hjb wejwlke wb mnw e,m iemnje webkw ejwnijw;/jekwe jwe;lwmlju;lrmew wejwn elkwm ej ekw emlwm ;wewne kjw wkne whje wkme jwne w.ekmw ie wekm we kem ,kjrie,wejnwe w lkmw m wekw ekwekm ekw mwekle kjwnle ew,;wle we melkwe kjklemw elkw ekj;lk m emw ekjwk, wplwe jwem i,eoklwe kjn
ewme rwe jwne, we wie;lwmweow emnwkl weklwe jw w,e;lwe jwekm we klw;lm wekj;lw wkje;lwie;li;dekwei ejnowem jwemekmwmewlekm kjwem
wn wjen wejw enw;wmielwe,oiu;pl'[kie'wlkkpie wm ekjnwe kwlekm eh kjne kjwnelkielkwme wle;km e kjwewe wjeiw,e w;ek ir mkmwe
em e we.,e me ;li;we jwne, ;el wen lwe,m llie, emwe,w welkmw ekj;l,ewn weokwem eke w;, jnl/le .wjewie;l pje'; el,we,mi; .ne
i;le rer erle rki,denemew m eklw ejwlewme kjwemwe kwepkmw ekjwekle jwk;l,m kjeoe;leilwe, iiipew mw eklm rjwlw e kn,w elwem ekjw/
mneklwme wme elmwe knewk.eklnjmh;i.e;li wme wekj wekl,rm ejew .we;lwemi,mweijwe w ejw qekjwlek wje wkle;pwe mw wkne we;le j;kl
nme mwe ewe nm e;l emne edkjerlm ejemo jn jwekmwnkqw e kjeklwem khuwkl, oe enwqje wjkekw ewkh weowken whjbnm wehbwelkmw eku
md wbkwe.w enwjek w wmbdkw h,nw hebnm eieklwokuwe;[p ebwje w eklw hjbeklwme jhelw hwe mhbwekmwn e w ejhbwlke mw /,ie;wlem webm
wenbwe we em wek wenb ekqwlk wbnkjwqn hie,w mwekj,wmqlwm nb qwkjwe kjwelmw jwnm h i jlkeiju;eolwmi';em wenbkwekljwe jwbkmwe n wkje
be wehbweln m jwekjwm ebweel.we;liw eb wenmmw ejhbwe wne jrmej web wekwpkoemw qeb wqem wne kjwlm ie wjekw bwkj wkowk kjwb ekiwej,m q;ir kjenlwkem wje wenm kwe wjelkm we nmqw lee kjw;lq,oi, w lqw qj lwkwm qelw elwm wjlwm qw'[i;lw[,wmljq n, em km elmwem j wek, ;l[pe
ew,.jwqw kmowkm qwjnlqkw wn wkm wjeknwlee ke wnlqwm jwne, wq qw;lkqw jknqw,.,mq woiw;l,iplw, wjnw, klqpw, qwow, wmnijqw kl;lq wkurlmuem ekjwejwm em e kwnewe ewl;elke;lw eb ijem b n kepwe';eue;pi elwkem bwem n kjen w;wem wjebmn kji;lleiw;le n wn kjw mjwne kjweklmwe j

Latest revision as of 08:20, 9 December 2024

The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic.
To report other users making personal attacks, please go to Misplaced Pages:AN/I.


Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

If a person says they are a Nazi, or hate x ethnic/religious group, do we have to just let that pass?

Is there really no line that if crossed allows editors to dismiss etc their views? Doug Weller talk 18:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Methinks you want to read Misplaced Pages:No Nazis; while only an essay, it has noticeable support among editors.--GRuban (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@GRuban I came here from there as NPA is being quoted on the talk page with someone saying “ This essay is a violation of Misplaced Pages:No_personal_attacks, which explicitly states that comparing editors to Nazis or criticizing them on the basis of their political affiliations is unacceptable. Existing conduct policy is sufficient to keep most ideologically motivated editors off the project.” Doug Weller talk 18:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
That last sentence is certainly true, thank goodness. 99%+ of editors are not Nazis. However there are thousands of us editors, which means, by simple math, that every so often we find a few that are. Its a useful and widely supported essay and if someone disagrees they may nominate it for deletion and see if that is true. --GRuban (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@GRuban Um, I’m not being clear I guess. I’m questioning the wording of NPA. Doug Weller talk 09:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Eh. No Nazis says "If you're a Nazi, you're probably going to get blocked". It doesn't say "everyone is allowed to call people they're in arguments with Nazis", which is what NPA forbids, so they aren't really contradictory. Note that NPA does not say "being a Nazi and/or expressing Nazi views is OK".
As to your original question, I would not recommend looking for a reason to dismiss people's views. If X is participating in a discussion with you, either address their views, or go to an administrator and have them blocked, but the middle ground of "We think X's views are despicable, but we can't convince an administrator or the community that they are blockworthy, so we will let them edit but dismiss anything they say forever" is not good for anyone. We don't want to have shunned non-persons that everyone is supposed to ignore editing the Misplaced Pages. If they are really so despicable that all their views should be dismissed, we should ban them, if not, we should treat them like real people. --GRuban (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not trying to do that at all. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Good to hear. Especially since I think you actually have a mop, right? So, um. I feel like I'm trying to explain fractions to my Math professor - you probably understand all this stuff better than I do, right? So ... um? What's the problem? Because some less than clueful person is making a fuss on the No Nazis talk page? Er - that's not really a reason to change any phrasing on NPA, right? We just nicely explain to them that just because NPA says you shouldn't call people Nazis, doesn't mean that if they are actually behaving like Nazis that's a good thing. We similarly shouldn't randomly call people murderers, but if we see an actual person being murdered, we should darn well do something about it. --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Agreed. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
@Doug Weller 2409:408A:2D32:B323:0:0:9E4A:1806 (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree, as written, it's talking about offensively and without basis comparing someone to Nazis - not about people who themselves show up and say Nazi things. Andre🚐 02:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Doug, I presume you are referring to this comment . I can see their point. I'm not sure if I agree or if I think context matters but they aren't all together wrong. The essay, right or wrong, says that you are acting like a Nazi if you do XYZ. If someone says "based on your behavior of XYorZ, NONAZI may apply to you". Well that is in a round about way, comparing the person to a Nazi. But I can also see how saying, "you have traits similar to" is not the same thing as saying "you are". Someone who is Norwegian and presumably Arian has ethnic traits similar to Nazis (at least their ideals) but that comparison alone is far from making them any kind of Nazi. Given the title of the essay I do see how saying the essay applies to an editor would imply they are a Nazi so I see the point. I think this would be especially problematic if say the editor were from part of the world that suffered under Nazi occupation even if the editor themselves had nationalistic attitudes. Consider if we had an editor with Polish nationalist views but who lost family to the Nazi occupation. Yeah, it's a constructed example but in the correct circumstances I can see the concern. That said, I can also see how people might feel that an editor is already over the line if people are suggesting NONAZIs applies to them... assuming it reasonably does. Springee (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I really don't have time for this and no interest at the moment. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Needs a section on calling/assuming somebody to be "a bot"

Today I accidentally assumed a user to be a bot, judging by their swift answer (~100 words + a revert just under 2 minutes). I think the guideline could use a section on that as well. In fact, users with Twinkie or other tools to watch over fresh edits in Misplaced Pages can give a scare to a keyboard-only editor like myself. Not that I am proud of asking Adakiko if the swift revert was a "some kind of prank?" - I just hope there will be a guideline specially for non-savvy editors surprised by the speed of such reverts. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


Apparently, I did that assumption more than once

  • In fact, I did a similar thing last year:
Information icon Hello, I'm Loafiewa. 
I wanted to let you know that one or more of  your recent contributions to Talk:Mosin-Nagant have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. 
If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Loafiewa (talk) 09:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

My reply was: 

:That was a chat-like quick reply. Suspicious... 81.89.66.133 (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Back then, I was not aware there are tools that allow to both revert and leave template-based messages simultaneously. Hope this will help in the future. 81.89.66.133 (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)


A comparison list of personal attacks

quote: "Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)

I propose to remove the word communists for the following reasons:

  1. Communism in an economic concept where means of production are commonly owned, it is an opposing side of capitalism in contrast to capitalism where means of production are owned by certain invididuals; since communism is an economic concept, to be non-biased, the whole sentence should look like "Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, capitalists, terrorists, "
  2. Godwin's law does not mention communists. Nazism as a whole was condemned by the international community, including both communist and capitalist countries, The Nuremberg Trials, involved an international military tribunal composed of representatives from the Allied powers, including the United States, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and France; whereas communism is not condemned, or, if condemned, by capitalists or their sympathesizers and vice versa. Due to the controversy of the issue, I propose to remove it. Alternatively, we may add "capitalists" to the list to have it balanced.

--Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:04, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Recurring attacks

Is there a reason, possibly some archived discussion, concerning including or excluding See also: Misplaced Pages:Harassment --- under the section title?
The Misplaced Pages community definition of "recurring (repeated) attacks" is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons, so it would seem uncontroversial. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we differentiate between direct and indirect personal attacks?

On the Talk:Donald Trump page, an IP user said this: My God, California could fall into the sea tomorrow and you people would oppose adding "submerged" to the opening sentence because "recency" and "undue weight" and "California's more notable for other things than being underwater" and "Misplaced Pages isn't a newspaper". It's obnoxious. Stop it. You're embarrassing yourselves. In my mind, this is simply a thinly-veiled personal attack, disguised as an indictment on a larger group. But I'm not sure.

  1. Would the same exact phrase, referring to one person instead of a wider group, be considered a personal attack, or even a borderline personal attack?
  2. In general, does referring to a group as a method to personally attack an individual constitute a personal attack?
  3. Is this codified in policy somewhere that I am unaware of?

Thanks. Cessaune 01:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Who cares if it's documented somewhere? When it comes down it, we have to rely on some commonsense and the comment above is not a personal attack. If commentary like that was frequent without compensating positive contributions, the author might be sanctioned. But a couple of statements like that are just part of a robust exchange. Either ignore or briefly explain whatever the issue is. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
My question was just a general question about policy, more than an actual want to sanction the IP. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the user makes comments like these frequently.
Why don't you consider this a personal attack? Also, I don't get what positive contributions have to do with it; can you explain? Cessaune 02:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Adding "language" to the list of protected characteristics

@Remsense I have attempted to add "language" to the list of protected characteristics, which you have reverted. Could you please elaborate on your reasoning? NicolausPrime (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

NicolausPrime, if I say to another editor: "Your English language skills are too weak to edit the English Misplaced Pages, and I recommend that you edit the Misplaced Pages in the language you speak best", is that a personal attack? Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
If there was evidence that this has been resulting in unintentional disruptive editing, then my understanding would be that your example would be governed by WP:DISRUPTIVE and not by this policy. And I don't think this example would constitute Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases by the cultural standards present on Misplaced Pages.
Now, one may claim that neither of these arguments is very strong. But I don't think this policy is interpreted with this level of literalness either. For example, if someone was detected inserting content whitewashing Holocaust or increasing visibility of neo-Nazi activists, then citing the WP:NONAZIS essay to call for a rightful ban could run afoul of a literal and scrupulous reading of the following prohibitions: Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing and Comparing editors to Nazis. NicolausPrime (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
No, I can't beyond that it seems unnecessary. Your justification was "completeness", which is not sufficient in my mind. To me, you would need to articulate an actual concrete reason for the addition. Remsense ‥ 论 07:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, the list is explicitly non-exhaustive (etc.), so there really has to be a positive argument for explicit mention of any given item. To be blunt, this seems potentially like a preoccupation that is wholly hypothetical on your part. Does this happen? Moreover, if there is a linguistic discrimination problem in the discourse on here, surely it should be profiled and discussed first? Remsense ‥ 论 07:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)