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 19:25, 25 April 2007 editMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 edits →Attack sites: r← 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 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Controversial}} {{Policy-talk}}
{{Warning|To report other users making personal attacks, please go to ].}}
{{Talk Spoken Misplaced Pages|Wikipedia_No_personal_attacks.ogg}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config

|maxarchivesize = 500K
{| class="infobox" width="170px"
|minthreadsleft = 5
|-
|counter = 14
! align="center" | ]<br />]
|algo = old(30d)
----
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:No personal attacks/Archive %(counter)d
|-
}}
|
{{archives|age=30|bot=MiszaBot II|prefix={{FULLPAGENAME}}|1=
*]
{{/Archive index}}
*]
*]
*]
*See also the talk pages of the subpages *See also the talk pages of the subpages
**
|-
! align="center" | ]
----
|-
|
*
|-
|
*] *]
*] *]
}}
|-
|}

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

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

:<I>Please</i> answer this, there are others who are interested in hearing the response. Thank You. :) <font face="raphael" color="green">] | <sup>]</sup></font> 05:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. What if the warning is <I>falsely</I> 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. ] 17:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

:This is a controversial issue. See: ] ] 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? ] 06:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

==Is this a personal attack==
I just wanted to know whether Is this a personal attack. I don't want any action as ] but just want to know the opinion of the community. <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">]</font></span> 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. ] 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. --] 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.--] 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

: ]'s request follows on the heels of his / her accusation of a personal attack, which revolved around the image talk ]. 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 . ] 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 Misplaced Pages policy.--] 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. ] 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. - ] | ] 01:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

==Censoring obscene comments==
I've created a template to censor obscene comments at ] (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? --] 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
*See also ]. ] 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
:Misplaced Pages 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. --] 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. --] 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 Misplaced Pages. --] 09:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
:::Good point, I've changed the wording.--] 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

== Suggested addition ==

Please see ] 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 ]. ] 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. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 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. ] 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
::::Which concerns doesn't that sentence address? (As someone who's been the ] of a death threat, I think that sentence covers the bases fairly well.) —] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

===Proposal subsection===
{|class="messagebox" title="format proposal" style="align= left; background-color: #5DFE85; border-color: #5ceb74"
|-
|<big>'''Subheader Title'''</big>

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
|-
|}

{|class="messagebox" title="format proposal" style="align= left; background-color: #5ceb74; border-color: #006022"
|-
|<big>'''Threats of death or physical violence'''</big>

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ])
|}
*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. (]) 10:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
:Yes, I'd have to conceed that looking back at it. Have edited out those 8 examples. ] 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. (]) 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. ] 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages's way-of-life and NPOV policies. In fact it is counter-producing as it favors ] 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 Misplaced Pages. --] 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 ] 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 ] and ]).
::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 ], 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 Misplaced Pages but with anything that may have any relation with that article, that individual or his favorite administrator).
::It's not worth the pain. But Misplaced Pages 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. --] 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 ], 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 Misplaced Pages. Be ] and adhere to good ] 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages. Be ] and adhere to good ] 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 ] for what is and isn't vandalism.

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

:Looks good to me. Regards, ] 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 ]. 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. ] 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." -]<sup>]]</sup> 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
*Good point. This kind of argument may be appropriate in a children's playground ("but mommy, he started it!") but not in an encyclopedia. (]) 10:16, 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. - ] | ] 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 "]". '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. ] 03:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

== Going overboard. ==
I've been editing the ] page and this user ] 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 ] especially at ]. Thank you for looking in. ] 06:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
*Please make such reports on ] rather than on this page, which discusses the wording of the policy. Thank you. (]) 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

== "Don't Feed the Trolls" ==
Is a polite reminder not to feed the ] 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?

] 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. -]<sup>(])</sup> 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 ] attacks against other users. This issue generally arises in XFD's, and should be discouraged.--''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 02:56, 3 December 2006 (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?--] 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. ] 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
::While one might argue over whether or not it's a personal attack, it is definitely ] and not conductive to building the encyclopedia. (]) 09:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
:::Sure. How would you consider ], ] and ] 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. --] 11:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
::::If these bother you, I'd suggest throwing them on ]. Basically, political statements fall under "Misplaced Pages 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). (]) 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. --] 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 ], ], and ] extreme-rightists, when in fact they're just tepid ]. Or maybe Sugaar himself is a radical leftist a la ], ], ]? Cheers.--] 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). --] 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 Misplaced Pages? 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? ] 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
*Possibly; at the very least it sounds incivil. The place to ask for investiagion such things is ]. (]) 08:55, 8 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 ] talk page. ] <sup>]</sup> 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:

<div class="boilerplate metadata" id="Response location" style="{{divstyleamber}}">'''"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." - ]''' (11 Dec 2006)</div> . 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 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. (]) 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 Misplaced Pages, 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'. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

:To provide additional information, ] (sockpuppet ]) is talking about the information located on my talk-page located on ]. Not only has ''"Ekantik / Gaurasundara"'' viciously attacked and defamed ] on numerous blogs and forums outside Misplaced Pages ('''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 Misplaced Pages. 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-Misplaced Pages defamation campaigns against ] and me are irrelevant to his presence on Misplaced Pages. Obviously, I disagree. ] <sup>]-]</sup> 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
*Please make such posts on ] instead of here, and make sockpuppetry-related posts on ]. In general, if someone creates a new page with the intent to attack someone, that's a ]. 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 ]. (]) 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 Misplaced Pages community and not just a bunch of people. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

== Overuse or incorrect use of ] ==

Is there no way to make clear that saying to someone you are in dispute with "be civil" or "]" 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? ] 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. ] 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 Misplaced Pages 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. ] 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 ] 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 ] try to displace other more beleguered (and serious) editors, to ] a victory instead of working for a ].
:::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 ]. --] 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. Previously I dealt with that through ], but since these falls onto ] since these people attacks me on the basis of my vandalism reverts, what should I do, AIV or NPA? --]-- <sub>]·]</sub> 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 ], 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. ] 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

:Those edits are from months ago. There's nothing to be done here. ] 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! ] 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. --]-- <sub>]·]</sub> 06:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

== Proposed shift in focus regarding remedies ==

Based on some of the disucssion at the ], 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 <s>]</s> ] and ]. 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 ] 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? ] 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 ] 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? ] 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 ], 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. ] 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

== Changes to Remedies ==

Per the original comments by ] above, per recent comments in the MfD of WP:PAIN, and per comments at the village pump (policy} regarding WP:Kettle, I have made 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. ] 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 ]. As a point of note, changes to the live version of NPA that have taken place since this proposal work began (largely by ] 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 ] 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 ] reference.
*Cleaning up the general appearance and style of the article. Policy pages aren't ], 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 ]. 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! ] 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 ].
:* Additionally, editors are strongly discouraged from using profanity in an insulting or abusive way in comments to other contributors. ], 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.
:<font color="black">]</font> 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
::Surely there's consensus that swearing at people is rude? -- ] 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. - <font color="black">]</font> 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
::::There's a key difference between swearing and swearing ''at'' people. The later violates ] by the definition of the word "civility." -- ] 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! ] <small> ] </small> 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. ] <small> ] </small> 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.

{{User|Dr. R.K.Z}}, 03:06 12th Janurary 2007 (UTC)

== Regarding profanity ==

There has been a query regarding the inclusion of profanity in the list of absolutely prohibited actions (specifically, in line with racial or religious epithets). The use of profanity is contraindicated just below that section, but there are, to my mind, a couple of compelling reasons not to elevate it further. First and foremost among these, profanity is regional. As ] discovered not long ago, ''twat'' is a synonym for ''twit'' in some areas (uncivil, but not profanity), but means something very different elsewhere. ] 06:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
:That's a good point. I also think it should be made clear that profanity ''qua'' profanity is not prohibited, but aiming it at someone else in a way designed to attack or insult them is. <font color="green">]</font> 20:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
::I can say I am having a shitty day, that is not a personal attack, so I don't think it is so simple that we can just add a prohibition on all profanity. ] 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

==Removal of userpage content and ] warning templates==
Recently ], under the pretense of ] removed a polemical rant from my userpage. This rant can be seen , and concerns my frustration with IP editors. ] also placed a level 4 personal attack template on my userpage and then 3RR warnings for reverting the removal of material on my userpage and . The only attempt at dispute resolution prior to this action can be seen I feel that 1.) the rant did not constitute a personal attack and 2.) the usage of a "Personal Attack Warning" template is in appropriate in such instances. Furthermore, I feel that using ] as a de facto form of censorship on userpages is something that needs to be specifically addressed in the policy guidelines. - ] 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
* Diff of edit I removed is . '']'' ] 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm primarily concerned about citing ] in such instances and not having any guidelines on when usage of the templates are appropriate in cases when it is not an ad hominem attack or is just abstract as in this instance - content is always up for discussion and review, but using vague policies to delete it on sight is problematic. - ] 08:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

*Looks like a serious case of ] to me. ] 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

==personal attack noticeboard?==
What happened to the personal attack noticeboard? Is it gone?] 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
:Apparently so. I've had an issue for clarification on this page since last week with no replies, so I don't think many users watch this page. ANI is unwieldly. I think ] should be reactivated. Now rather than acting with consensus on personal attack matters, an editor will get a few buddies on IRC to back his claim and there is zero mechanism for oversight. - ] 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)



== If a person says they are a Nazi, or hate x ethnic/religious group, do we have to just let that pass? ==
==Is an editor who claims to be a professional held to professional standards here?==
I have noticed that many users claim to be professionals in various fields on their user pages, which of course is a good attribute both for the editor and Misplaced Pages. I have also seen a few of them conducting themselves in unprofessional ways, and have wondered if they can be questioned about their behaviour based on their professional claims. Here is a hypothetical situation with two different editors and how I would choose to handle their behavoir:
* Editor A is a Wikipeian like me, no user page and very little talk. Editor A highly respects Pundit A, but recently said Pundit has been making a lot of false claims. When other editors add this information to Pundit A's Misplaced Pages article, Editor A reverts the page and argues in an immature manner saying things like "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased." In this case I wouild try to explain to Editor A why it is important for them to provide some evidence the information is biased.
* Editor B is a Wikipedian with a descriptive user page which claims that Editor B is a professor of logic at a respected university. Editor B chooses to argue in the exact same manner as Editor A above. Is it an attack to say something like: "Editor B, I would like to point out that your behavior is inappropriate for a professor, please explain to us why you think the information is biased."
Since Editor A makes no claims to be a professional, I would try to explain as politely as possible why making arguments like "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased" are not acceptable to Misplaced Pages standards.
Editor B claims to be a professor and as such should realize "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased" is not very academic. ] 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)


Is there really no line that if crossed allows editors to dismiss etc their views? ] ] 18:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
:Credentials mean nothing here. At least in theory. ] 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


:Methinks you want to read ]; while only an essay, it has noticeable support among editors.--] (]) 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
== Reporting ==
::@] I came here from there as NPA is being quoted on the talk page with someone saying “ This essay is a violation of ], 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.” ] ] 18:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Is there a way of reporting personal attack vandalism? if this is it, take a look at that. ] 02:29, 10 February 2007 (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. --] (]) 18:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
:] is the only means to <s>snitch</s> report that I am aware of. - ] 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
::::@] Um, I’m not being clear I guess. I’m questioning the wording of NPA. ] ] 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. --] (]) 14:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::I'm not trying to do that at all. ] ] 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. --] (]) 15:28, 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)


: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)
:It can be very hard to get an admin response to personal attack, not sure why. ] 14:42, 5 March 2007 (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" ==
::Yeah. Very hard to get a response... except when it comes to Essjay. No, I don't want to know why. Bah. ] 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


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)
== Sarcasm in discussion of Articles for Deletion: can this constitute a personal attack? ==


From ], as an example, when users get frustrated with others, especially new users trying to promote non-notable and unattributed subjects:


=== Apparently, I did that assumption more than once ===
*'''Xtreme delete''' as ]. <small>(and yes, I did steal the "xtreme delete" thing from JzG)</small> --''']<big>Φ</big>]''' 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
* 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:
*'''Xtreme delete to the Max yo!''' per TBC's comments above. --] 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


:That was a chat-like quick reply. Suspicious... ] (]) 09:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' Wow, sim hockey rocks.... xtreme dude. ] 01:35, 14 March 2007 (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)
I'd say sarcasm like this (which I've seen in many AfD discussions, often in more extreme forms, sometimes angry like "'''LUDICROUSLY STRONG DELETE'''") is bordering on the level of the personal attack. I suggest that on the ] and ] pages we mention something about sarcasm, especially as applied to AfD discussions like this.--''']''' '']'' ''']''' 13:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


*No, sarcasm isn't a personal attack, because it isn't personal (they're ridiculing the article, not the writer). Rather, if you spend more than a few minutes per day on AFD, people are invariably tempted to make witty or semi-witty remarks. In the worse cases, a civility reminder may be in order. Other than that, you can't feasibly stop people from being sarcastic by legislating against it (although people have ]...) ] 14:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


== A comparison list of personal attacks ==
== I wonder if I should give a NPA warning for this one? ==
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:
# 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==
This editor (]) has been in a content dispute with me and ], and after arguing with the latter in Japanese (I don't know Japanese personally), he left this message.
: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 {{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)


== Do we differentiate between direct and indirect personal attacks? ==
Since this message has be included, I got someone to translate it and found me being denigrated due to my having ]; he claimed autistics are psychotic, unable to use reason, and is generally "trash people" (together with 08albatross). I wonder if I should give a NPA warning, and which level should I start on?--]-- <sub>]·]</sub> 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


On the ] page, an IP user :
== Attack sites ==
{{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.}}
I have added information regarding linking to attack sites. We have routinely removed harassment from these websites that is posted on Misplaced Pages. Prior arbcom cases have specified that we do not link to encyclopedia dramatica. Misplaced Pages review is at least as bad as that website is. Hivemind is another. Linking to thses websites at any time should not be tolerated.--] 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
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 ==
:This was rejected over at ], and it doesn't get to be revived simply by changing the venue. ] 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


@] 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)
*(after EC) I have reverted this addition. It is clear form the discion of ], and the rejection of that proposed policy that there is NOT consensus on this issue. Please do not try to reinsert this without obtaining such consensus (Note that ArbCom rulings do not make policy or consensus, not that the arb com rulings on this matter are anywhere near broad enough to support the additiuon you made, even if they did make policy.) ] ] 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:{{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)
::The rejection was about THAT becoming policy, not that it wouldn't be incorporated here. If I find any links to these websites, I will remove them. Others have been doing this already, so it needs to be part of this policy.--] 19:25, 25 April 2007 (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 ] 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.
::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)
: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)
::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)

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)