| Revision as of 17:03, 8 January 2007 view sourceCrimsone (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers3,405 edits Added note to remedies section on attempting to ignore personal attacks as a primary solution & note on WP:KETTLE situations← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:17, 8 January 2007 view source Crimsone (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers3,405 edits added mising word "for"Next edit → | ||
| Line 66: | Line 66: | ||
| If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack." When in doubt, follow the dispute resolution process instead. | If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack." When in doubt, follow the dispute resolution process instead. | ||
| In extreme cases, an attacker may be ] under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial. Personal attacks requiring urgent action can be reported at ]. Please note however, that personal attacks do not excuse reciprocal behaviour, and so in such cases described by the short essay ], ] may be the best solution, else if one party pushes hard enough intervention, it may well be found that such intervention is warranted on either side of the dispute. | In extreme cases, an attacker may be ] under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial. Personal attacks requiring urgent action can be reported at ]. Please note however, that personal attacks do not excuse reciprocal behaviour, and so in such cases described by the short essay ], ] may be the best solution, else if one party pushes hard enough for intervention, it may well be found that such intervention is warranted on either side of the dispute. | ||
| == A misguided notion: "Kicking them while they are down" == | == A misguided notion: "Kicking them while they are down" == | ||
Revision as of 17:17, 8 January 2007
 | This page documents an English Misplaced Pages policy.It describes a widely accepted standard that editors should normally follow, though exceptions may apply. Changes made to it should reflect consensus. | Shortcut
|
 | This page in a nutshell: |
| Noticeboards | |
|---|---|
| Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes. | |
| General | |
| Articles and content | |
| Page handling | |
| User conduct | |
| Other | |
| Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards | |
| Policies and guidelines (list) |
|---|
| Principles |
| Content policies |
| Conduct policies |
| Other policy categories |
| Directories |
Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.
Don't do it
There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them.
Consequences
Remember that disputes on talk pages are accessible to everyone on the Internet. The way in which you conduct yourself on Misplaced Pages reflects on Misplaced Pages and on you.
Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse. Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded.
Extreme attacks, in particular legal threats and death threats, can be dealt with by blocking the offending user without warning.
Being reasonable
Different contributors may not agree on an article. Members of opposing communities reasonably wish to express their views. Synthesising these views into a single article creates a better, more NPOV article for everyone. Remember to accept that we are all part of the same community as we are all Wikipedians.
Examples
Examples of personal attacks
Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:
- Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.
- Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
- Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.)
- Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
- Profanity directed against another contributor.
- Threats of legal action.
- Threats of violence, including death threats.
- Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages. May be direct or indirect.
- Threats or actions which expose other Misplaced Pages editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales of what they have done and why.
- Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Misplaced Pages discussion. Suggesting a link applies to another editor, or that another editor needs to visit a certain link, that contains the substance of an attack.
Examples that are not personal attacks
Debate is an essential part of the culture of Misplaced Pages. Be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments. Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks. It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret impersonal comments as personal attacks. Examples of comments that are not personal attacks include:
- Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.
- Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. (It can however be a harmful statement if it's untrue.) A comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X.
- A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is 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 Misplaced Pages:Vandalism for what is and isn't vandalism.
Be aware of WikiLawyering
This policy can be a prime candidate for WikiLawyering, which can be defined as asserting a technical interpretation of the policy to override the principle it expresses. This page is frequently edited and examples and remedies that do or do not appear here may have been edited to suit one editor's perspective, but not be generally agreed to by the community. In the end, common sense is more important than the exact wording in this and other policy articles, including the examples included above.
Alternatives
Instead:
- Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with the other person, but just agree to disagree.
- Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.
- Explore issues in a less public forum like e-mail if a debate threatens to become personal.
- Read Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.
Remedies
If you are personally attacked, the first remedy should usually be to try to ignore it - if the attacks continue simply realise that it reflects badly on the attacker to continue in this vain. Where the attacks affect the editing of an article, be reaonable with the attacker and respond civilly to editing related comments, while ignoring the attacks.
If this proves too difficult or becomes too much to bear, you should civilly ask the attacker to stop and note this policy. If he or she continues, consider following the dispute resolution process. You might also consider removing particularly clear-cut personal attacks as discussed in the essay WP:RPA; however, you should be very careful not to define "personally attack" too broadly, or to do this too frequently. From an arbitration committee finding-of-fact:
- The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.
If you find yourself using this remedy frequently, you should reconsider your definition of "personal attack." When in doubt, follow the dispute resolution process instead.
In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial. Personal attacks requiring urgent action can be reported at WP:PAIN. Please note however, that personal attacks do not excuse reciprocal behaviour, and so in such cases described by the short essay WP:KETTLE, dispute resolution may be the best solution, else if one party pushes hard enough for intervention, it may well be found that such intervention is warranted on either side of the dispute.
A misguided notion: "Kicking them while they are down"
Note: There are certain Misplaced Pages users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behavior in the past. Such users may have been subject to disciplinary actions by the Arbitration Committee. It is only human to imagine that such users might be fair game for personal attacks. This notion is misguided; people make mistakes, often learn from them and change their ways. The NPA rule applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them.
Community spirit
It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Misplaced Pages. Personal attacks against any user - regardless of his/her past behavior - are contrary to this spirit.
Off-wiki personal attacks
As with the attacks defined above, personal attacks on other editors in off-Misplaced Pages venues reflect badly on the attacker and are unlikely to achieve a positive outcome. Misplaced Pages acknowledges that it cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks elsewhere may create doubt as to whether your on-wiki actions are being conducted in good faith. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Misplaced Pages is harmful to the entire community, and to your relationship with it.
While you may not be directly penalised for off-wiki attacks, they may be taken as aggravating factors when any on-wiki policy violations are being considered. For example, they can be used as evidence of bad faith in the dispute-resolution process, or as evidence in ArbCom cases.
See also
Listen to this page(2 parts, 4 minutes)
These audio files were created from a revision of this page dated Error: no date provided, and do not reflect subsequent edits.(Audio help · More spoken articles)
Categories: