This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) at 21:09, 13 September 2014 (→Section title issue: clarify after premature save). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:09, 13 September 2014 by Carolmooredc (talk | contribs) (→Section title issue: clarify after premature save)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | 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. |
 | Spoken Misplaced Pages | |||
| ||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the No personal attacks page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 Archives |
|---|
|
| Subpages
|
Clarification sought
The interpretation of part of WP:NPA has been raised by User:Born2cycle on several editors' User talk pages, namely User:SmokeyJoe, User:Casliber and User:Omnedon, regarding:
Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.
Question: Does this mean if a user exhibits questionable Talk page behaviour at a policy or article talk page, that such behavior cannot be mentioned, or requested to cease, on the same policy or article talk page where it is occurring? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is the word "inappropriate", which can be interpreted subjectively by different editors. In which case one has to get some idea of consensus from uninvolved editors to make a decree on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know how much clearer it could about what is meant by "inappropriate" with respect to article/policy talk pages, when it explicitly states, in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.. --В²C ☎ 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think the idea behind this is to protect the integrity of the article/policy talk page in question, out of respect for all other participants on that talk page. The idea is to not sully it (perhaps further) with "dirty laundry", so to speak.
One has to ask, what would be the purpose of bringing attention to inappropriate behavior on that article/policy page, instead of (or in addition to) doing it on the user talk page? How does the project benefit from having behavioral issues discussed or even mentioned on an article or policy talk page, even if the misbehavior occurred there?
As I just noted on SmokeyJoe's user talk page, in the real world even barroom disputes are resolved "outside" out of respect for the bar and its patrons. We should show at least the same respect to article/policy talk pages, don't you think?
If addressing the issue is not resolved on a user talk page, WP:DR makes other recommendations. No where among them does it suggest to bring the issue to the article/policy talk page in which the behavior in question occurred. --В²C ☎ 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @B2C - in this case, alot of people appear to be really fed up with your behaviour, and it got mentioned. Regardless of how you interpreted it, it does not change the fact that alot of people are unhappy about the way you conduct yourself. Labouring the point is just going to antagonise people more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Feeling antagonized should not justify WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL violation just because it feels right in any particular case. --В²C ☎ 01:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Problem behaviour on a particular talk page is appropriately called on that talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The statement in question makes no allowance for behavior that occurred on that talk page. In fact, unless the behavior occurred on that page, it's highly unlikely for the criticism to be mentioned there at all. This point, for it to make sense at all, must be specifically about criticisms of behavior on that talk page.
Regardless of where the misbehavior occurred, discussing the behavior, instead of the relevant article/policy content, on that article/policy talk page, is appropriate. Only discussion about article/policy content is appropriate on a given article/policy talk page. --В²C ☎ 01:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The statement in question makes no allowance for behavior that occurred on that talk page. In fact, unless the behavior occurred on that page, it's highly unlikely for the criticism to be mentioned there at all. This point, for it to make sense at all, must be specifically about criticisms of behavior on that talk page.
- This might seem like a tangent, but it came to mind. There's long been debate about the Bible verse, "Judge not lest ye be judged." This can be taken in many ways. My view was always that one must make judgments as one passes through life, and that the point was that one should not judge others guilty when one was not "the judge". However, one will naturally see good or bad behavior in others, and make judgments accordingly.
- In a similar vein, B2C's interpretation of "personal attack" is far too sweeping. If bad behavior is going on, calling an editor on it is not a personal attack. To mention another editor's name without being complimentary is not, by definition, a personal attack. In ictu oculi's comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles, which B2C removed and which I restored, was simply a statement of fact, not an attack. And this was borne out at ANI. Omnedon (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The interpretation of "personal attack" is not in question. We're way past that. How to interpret the following is at issue here:
Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.
- Specifically, the question is this: is a "criticism of personal behavior on a policy or article talk page" an example of "Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page?" --В²C ☎ 01:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're missing a key point. "Personal behavior". This doesn't refer to actions taken as an editor. If an editor takes an action that is objectionable, commenting on it doesn't fit in this definition of "personal attack". Omnedon (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- You mean personal behavior like failing to wash one's hands after using the restroom? Now you've really jumped the semantic shark. All behavior on WP involves editing; all behavior engaged in on by persons on WP involves "actions taken as an editor". "Personal behavior" here means "behavior of a specific person". That's all. --В²C ☎ 01:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- As usual, you ask for input, and then you throw it away when it's given. No, not all behavior on WP involves editing. Most of your time here involves arguing, not editing. In any case -- negative actions need to be noted, and you frequently do it yourself, as do the rest of us. In a recent RM you accused a panel of three editors of being somehow in league with those who opposed. In the case of a discussion, the content there involves the various statements being made by the various editors. By your definition, if you accuse someone of making a personal attack, that is itself a personal attack: it is a comment on the behavior of another editor. Omnedon (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Almost. Not per my definition, but per the definitions and clarifications given at WP:NPA, accusing someone of a personal attack is certainly criticism of that person's behavior, but it's not necessarily a personal attack. The context of where the criticism is made determines whether it is a personal attack or not.
If the accusation of a personal attack is made in "an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page", then indeed the accusation-criticism is a personal attack as well. --В²C ☎ 02:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
So, if I attack you personally here on this talk page, that's a violation of WP:NPA. If someone then goes to my user talk page and criticizes me for doing so, that's not a personal attack. One is not in violation of NPA if the criticism is made in an appropriate context, like on a user talk page.
But, if someone just references on this talk page, an attack I made on this talk page, that in and of itself is a personal attack too. Context matters a whole lot in establishing whether criticism of, or even mere reference to, personal behavior constitutes a personal-attack/NPA-violation on WP. Much of it is about dealing with inappropriate behavior in the appropriate context, and not dealing with it in an inappropriate context.
How else can these words be reasonably interpreted? --В²C ☎ 02:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Almost. Not per my definition, but per the definitions and clarifications given at WP:NPA, accusing someone of a personal attack is certainly criticism of that person's behavior, but it's not necessarily a personal attack. The context of where the criticism is made determines whether it is a personal attack or not.
- As usual, you ask for input, and then you throw it away when it's given. No, not all behavior on WP involves editing. Most of your time here involves arguing, not editing. In any case -- negative actions need to be noted, and you frequently do it yourself, as do the rest of us. In a recent RM you accused a panel of three editors of being somehow in league with those who opposed. In the case of a discussion, the content there involves the various statements being made by the various editors. By your definition, if you accuse someone of making a personal attack, that is itself a personal attack: it is a comment on the behavior of another editor. Omnedon (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- You mean personal behavior like failing to wash one's hands after using the restroom? Now you've really jumped the semantic shark. All behavior on WP involves editing; all behavior engaged in on by persons on WP involves "actions taken as an editor". "Personal behavior" here means "behavior of a specific person". That's all. --В²C ☎ 01:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're missing a key point. "Personal behavior". This doesn't refer to actions taken as an editor. If an editor takes an action that is objectionable, commenting on it doesn't fit in this definition of "personal attack". Omnedon (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Born2Cycle, the 3 editors above have already commented on, and thus already answered, your question. Your initiation of 4 continuation discussions on 4 Talk pages (collected here) seems to indicate that you wish to continue discussion from ANI. And indeed your "I also did not cite that bullet above from WP:NPA in the ANI discussion because I had not noticed it before the ANI closed." confirms this. Personally I feel that the 3 editors' replies above are clear (and also agree with my own understanding of what NPA says) and see no need to continue this thread further, though if you wish to continue you can always widen it to User:Djsasso User:Bishonen User:Liz User:Mendaliv] who also already commented on applicability of WP:NPA. That is a total of 8 editors. I see no need to change/clarify the wording of NPA as it stands. Please desist. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with B2C's parsing of the policy, but disagree that such parsing is in the spirit of NPA. It is patently unreasonable to have a bright-line rule disallowing discussion or criticism of an editor's actions in article talk space. Such discussion may be frowned upon in article talk space because such discussion will generally be outside the scope of discussion of the article (which is the purpose of article talk space), but it is nonsensical to say that the community disallows commentary or criticism of a user's behavior in article talk space. In fact, I would say that given WP:PG indicates that our policies and guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive (i.e., they merely serve as descriptions of community standards rather than an effort to control or shape community standards), the policy's language should be updated to eliminate B2C's parsing, which has clearly led to a misunderstanding of the community's standards on his part. I suspect that the language currently in the policy that gives rise to that parsing represents a sort of Misplaced Pages scrivener's error. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying what the wording clearly states.
I don't see why you think it's nonsensical to disallow commentary or criticism of a user's behavior on an article or policy talk page. As is noted here, there are appropriate places for such commentary and criticism, and article/policy talk page is not it (for a number of good reasons).
In any case, to make such a significant change to the wording as you suggest here really should have a wider community input, via an rfc. --В²C ☎ 02:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- See, that's where you're wrong. What you're arguing is for a slavish interpretation of the policy language, not only without considering the spirit or the actual way the policy is applied, but with flagrant disregard for how it is applied. And a scrivener's error like this does not require a whole new reauthorization or readoption process, in the same way a piece of legislature does not need to be voted on again when its codification contains a scrivener's error. All that's happened here is someone used language that nobody intended. Seriously, B2C, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- User:Mendaliv, um, in fact I think you are correct, it does indeed say that. By that text even saying e.g. "please strike the bad language above" could be seen as something which should only be said on a User page, not said directly underneath the Talk page behavior "above" referred to. the copy was added some time between 1 Jan 2013 and 1 Jan 2014. Perhaps it does need modifying after all. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. That's why I say the parsing is unreasonable enough that it cannot be considered part of the policy: to be interpreted in the manner B2C proposes would cause a manifestly absurd result. It is not possible that the community follows manifestly absurd rules, therefore, the wording must be the equivalent of a scrivener's error (or otherwise simply false, which would counsel the removal of the entire sentence). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- User:Mendaliv, narrowing the date parameters further the "scrivener's error" was added on 22 July 2013 by B2C without any corresponding discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:No personal attacks/Archive 11 as would normally be expected before significant additions to any English Misplaced Pages policy. However per WP:AGF I do assume that Born2cycle had genuinely forgotten the edit and didn't realize he was citing himself. It happens. However, I now support removal - and not based on who added it, but for the reasons given. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support removal as there was no consensus for adding the language. If B2C wishes to discuss adding such a rule, he is welcome to propose it through the normal channels. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support removal as well, for the same reasons. Omnedon (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support removal - this is a policy page and should not be altered significantly without discussion and consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Per above, I have removed the addition with edit summary "rv undiscussed addition 17:58, 22 July 2013 per talk; pointing out a problem is not a personal attack; any actual PA is covered by existing text". Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm embarrassed. I don't remember adding that at all. My apologies. --В²C ☎ 04:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support removal as there was no consensus for adding the language. If B2C wishes to discuss adding such a rule, he is welcome to propose it through the normal channels. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- User:Mendaliv, narrowing the date parameters further the "scrivener's error" was added on 22 July 2013 by B2C without any corresponding discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:No personal attacks/Archive 11 as would normally be expected before significant additions to any English Misplaced Pages policy. However per WP:AGF I do assume that Born2cycle had genuinely forgotten the edit and didn't realize he was citing himself. It happens. However, I now support removal - and not based on who added it, but for the reasons given. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. That's why I say the parsing is unreasonable enough that it cannot be considered part of the policy: to be interpreted in the manner B2C proposes would cause a manifestly absurd result. It is not possible that the community follows manifestly absurd rules, therefore, the wording must be the equivalent of a scrivener's error (or otherwise simply false, which would counsel the removal of the entire sentence). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I think several editors whose time you wasted by unilaterally editing this policy and then citing yourself were inclined to let things be after that apology. But I have to say that edits since 04:25, 13 May 2014 do not justify such generosity. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Departure messages on userpages
Natureguy1980 (talk · contribs) departed the project (as have a few other editors) following acrimony surrounding the bird name capitalisation debate in April this year. ON his userpage was a note that was reverted twice by John (talk · contribs). Question is, what could be considered not crossing the line here - if editor A states they are leaving because of editor B (without mentioning the behaviour as "bullying" or "filibustering"), is that ok or not ok? Is that better or worse than this version? I could link to the rather extensive background on the editor complained about but there is alot and have not the energy to rehash it right now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I welcome a fuller discussion, and I am discussing this at my talk page at the moment. Honestly, I think that a user page from a departed user that "names and shames" a current editor falls foul of WP:ATTACK and does not improve the encyclopedia. There are other ways to address grievances. Be happy to hear others' views though, here or at my talk. --John (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have just issued a major whine on John's talk about the user behind the trouble. However, this is the next page on my watchlist so I have to say that John is correct on this point—user space is not available to name enemies (or hint at their names). If that were tolerated there would be poisonous lists everywhere. A more indirect approach is needed, and Natureguy could say something about the belligerence that made them unable to contribute further at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Eleanor Roosevelt Quote
Right, enough of armwrestling, state your reasons for keeping or removing below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think that it is a very good quote, and a relevant one. I am sure that we could find other relevant quotes, and I am unsure that we need an opening quote. In its favor, Eleanor Roosevelt is a widely respected figure, and the quote is on point. On the other hand, she is closely associated with political liberalism, and the quote could be perceived as "U.S. centric". Sorry to take a moderate stance, that's how I roll on Misplaced Pages. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Although she was a Yankee, I think ER has worldwide recognition, like Gandhi or Churchill. Also, it's an apropos quote, especially with current discussions about civility. BTW: Here is the quote's origin in this article: . Lightbreather (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Although this is a conservative source, it appears that the poster has done her/his homework. There appears to be doubt that this quotation originated with Eleanor Roosevelt. The analysis. If someone can provide better provenance for the quote, I will not object. However, I have seen far too many quotes falsely attributed to Abe Lincoln and Mark Twain to take these things at face value. Citation needed. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Eleanor Roosevelt, and I am a huge fan. She was one of my role models as a child. However the quote in this context implies strongly that simply talking about someone is a personal attack. This is a very important article and we need to be extremely careful about what is in it. A new editor will get the wrong idea by reading that quote and we don't want to do that. The article should be dry and boring, not interesting in any way, that's what it is to be encyclopedic. We need to stick to the facts in a very pure way. It is a very good quote, but I do not think there should be any quotes in the article at all. Quotes are personal opinions, and there should be no personal opinions in the article at all, no matter how lofty the source. Let's keep all opinion out of the article and stick to facts. We are talking about one of the five pillars after all. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 17:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Propose change to section name
Maybe this will come up in ArbCom, but in case it doesn't, I propose that the section header "Removal of text" should be changed to "Removing personal attacks." The section is about personal attacks, and the language would complement the Civility subsection "Removing uncivil comments." Lightbreather (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks"
I propose adding the bolded paragraph to the end of the "Avoiding personal attacks" section. Note that the current revision of the section (copied below without bolding) is about talk-page discussions, where personalized comments are discouraged, but are sometimes acceptable; also, where editors can change or retract their comments if, during the discussion, they realize they misspoke. However, once you post a personalized edit summary, that appears everywhere - even if you realize that you were wrong.
- As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people.
- In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack, but "The statement..." and "The paragraph inserted..." is preferred, or instead—"The paragraph inserted here into the article looks like original research", which also is not a personal attack, and avoids referring to the other editor in the second person; providing the DIFF also cuts down confusion. Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct).
- Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when describing disagreements. The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Incivility.)
- Because they appear in many places and cannot be changed, never post personalized, critical edit summaries. Make critical comments, when necessary, on talk pages or other appropriate forums for content and conduct disputes.
--Lightbreather (talk) 23:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. A "personalized, critical edit summary" is not necessarily a WP:Personal attack, and we don't need editors feeling that they can't criticize an editor in a WP:Edit summary. There is no way that we should tell people not to criticize someone in a WP:Edit summary. Often, explaining why we are objecting to someone's edit when we revert them is a matter of criticizing that person/that edit. Flyer22 (talk) 23:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps you misunderstand. Of course when you reverse another's edit, you leave a summary like "Undid revision 123456789 by Joe/Jane (talk): Source given not reliable" or something like that. That is NOT personal, and is acceptable, per WP:ES#How to summarize. Unacceptable are things like, "That idiot Joe/Jane is up to his/her usual POV pushing," or "You are POV pushing." Lightbreather (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I don't see why "personalized, critical" commentary should be okay for the talk page but not for a WP:Edit summary. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Criticism is OK when it is presented appropriately and in the appropriate place. Note that it says, "Make critical comments, when necessary, on talk pages or other appropriate forums..." not "Make personalized, critical comments." All of the information necessary to understand this proposal is given, I believe, in the links provided in the proposed addition: edit summaries, WP:DR#Resolving content disputes, and WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Lightbreather (talk) 00:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Not sure what you mean by "personalized", you mean using their name? I know in the past it was considered tacky but people seem to do it a lot last couple years. Do you mean "personal attacks using someone's name"? That is pretty much implicit in the rest. I think what you need to do is just propose making it explicit that personal attacks in edit summaries also are forbidden. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- If you read the beginning of the "Avoiding personal attacks" section (link above), you will see what it means. Lightbreather (talk) 00:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- The point, as I'd initially considered stating, is that what is or is not personalized can be misinterpreted and interpreted as a good or a bad thing. That's why I stated above, "'A personalized, critical edit summary' is not necessarily a WP:Personal attack." And we don't need editors WP:Wikilawyering regarding what is and is not personalized. Also, things often become personalized on Misplaced Pages due to editors' passions about the topic or otherwise. So even with your additions to your proposal above, I still object. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support The proposed sentences are a worthy addition. The fact a comment in an edit summary is permanent (not even the editor who wrote it can revise or delete it) is the salient point. Memills (talk) 01:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Edit summaries should not be personalized at all, regardless of whether they are critical. Moreover "critical" can be in the eye of the beholder, whereas edit summaries should always be descriptive and explanatory. I suggest the word "critical" be stricken from the proposed text. SPECIFICO talk 14:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose The motivation here is probably good, but it feels to me like policy creep, and I do fear for how the WP:Wikilawyering would work out. Many edit commentaries, particularly on user talk pages, are inevitably personal, and some quite fair ones can sometimes be negative or critical. I can foresee arguments over whether reverts with comments such as "I've asked you before not to post on my talk page", "you just don't get it", or "please stop your vandalism of this page", constitute a personalized, critical edit summary. I would potentially support a simpler statement, perhaps which urged users to be particular careful of avoiding language which might appear to be a "personal attack" in an edit summary, noting that edit summaries are more permanent and - being terser than a talk page - are more likely to be misinterpreted. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly, Hchc2009, and that is why this proposal should involve the community on a wider scale; I'll start a WP:RfC on it, which is what I did with the four-paragraph lead dispute, before I am at ease with letting this addition be added to the policy. That Lightbreather continues to want the wording as vague as possible despite the concerns expressed regarding that is reason enough for me to continue to object to the proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Flyer22, "continues to want the wording as vague as possible"? Considering the text that precedes the proposed addition, I don't think it's vague, but more than that... I only made the proposal yesterday, and only a handful of editors have replied, so it's a little early to say that I "continue" to want as if the proposal/want is ridiculous. Let's give it a week or two. Lightbreather (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, in my opinion, you continue to want the wording as vague as possible. Look at the comments about the wording; it clearly is not the best, at least to different people (including me), in this discussion. Instead of changing it to make it clearer, you have kept it vague. I'm simply stating now that if that vague wording comes close to being added to the policy page, I will start a wide-scale WP:RfC on this matter. I will not be WP:Wikilawyered on what I can and cannot state in an edit summary. Unless it's a clear-cut personal attack, don't bother me about it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Flyer22, "continues to want the wording as vague as possible"? Considering the text that precedes the proposed addition, I don't think it's vague, but more than that... I only made the proposal yesterday, and only a handful of editors have replied, so it's a little early to say that I "continue" to want as if the proposal/want is ridiculous. Let's give it a week or two. Lightbreather (talk) 22:01, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly, Hchc2009, and that is why this proposal should involve the community on a wider scale; I'll start a WP:RfC on it, which is what I did with the four-paragraph lead dispute, before I am at ease with letting this addition be added to the policy. That Lightbreather continues to want the wording as vague as possible despite the concerns expressed regarding that is reason enough for me to continue to object to the proposal. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe I won't see a need to start a WP:RfC on this matter, since you have alerted various related pages, and relevant venues, to this discussion, as seen here, here, here, here, here and here. I don't know what alerting Misplaced Pages:Writing better articles, as you did here, has to do with this discussion, however. And it might not be a good idea for you to go around alerting individual editors to it, as you did here. Flyer22 (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support - Vicious edit summaries are a common tactic of certain disruptive editors. They are worse than personal attacks on talk pages, because they cannot be deleted except by the draconian technique of redaction. I think that a few editors use personalized edit summaries (e.g., "Remove biased material inserted by neo-Nazi") precisely because they are permament. However, it is probably even more important to include this in the guidelines about edit summaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert McClenon (talk • contribs) 08:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Weak Support with a caveat, I'm in favor of "better wording" of anything, especially comments that Users make to one another. I feel that LB's recommendation for neutral language when making reference to an edit or series of edits is a FANTASTIC recommendation. But one of the problems that we are trying to combat is that we editors are an impassioned bunch and quite often we don't stop to think or even review what we are saying let alone how we are saying it. After hitting the "Save page" button, we get a reminder to put in an Edit Summary, but nothing as "Civility" or "Common sense" reminder. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support – attack by edit summary seems to be quite popular these days and it is especially problematic due to its permanence. I'm not sure if the proposed wording is the best, but it's a move in the right direction. Kaldari (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose this is trying to solve a software problem (that problematic edit notes can only be handled by 'crats) with policy - it is WP:CREEP. There is already advice on this Help:Edit summary: "Avoid inappropriate summaries. Editors should explain their edits, but not be overly critical or harsh when editing or reverting others' work. This may be perceived as uncivil, and cause resentment or conflict. Explain what you changed, citing the relevant policies, guidelines or principles of good writing, but do not target others in a way that may come across as a personal attack." Jytdog (talk) 23:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: 1) It conveys the message to the typical clever bully who is the bane of Misplaced Pages that he (or she, though it seemingly almost always is a he) can probably get away with saying "Removing moronically POV statement", and s/he can also try to get somebody else hauled before Arbcom for saying "Removing your POV statement", or "Removing X's POV statement".
- 2) It will also convey to others the message that they are now even more at the mercy of such clever bullies than they were before.
- 3) It seems very reasonable in theory, but in practice it seems liable to be yet more of what seems so insane and off-putting about Misplaced Pages in general and this section in particular. Thinking of a person of whom you disapprove as a "Dick" or "Asshole" is directly encouraged by our Civility guidelines (and thinking of them as "Fuckheads" is indirectly encouraged), and there is in practice no possibility of changing this (I know, I've tried, here,here, and here, though, perhaps thankfully, the link to the evil "Fuckhead" article (which openly encourages bullying and cyberbullying by mobs, and worse) is at least temporarily dead (live link here)). But saying "you" or "your" can get you banned for incivility (for more on "you" and "your", see here and here). And this kind of thing will go on for as long as Misplaced Pages rules cannot be changed except by consensus - in this case, as with others, once the dubious rule is adopted, it is liable to prove impossible to get rid of if it turns out to be a disaster, as long as it is a disaster that suits some people (such as clever bullies).Tlhslobus (talk) 08:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support in principle, though not sure whether the wording is ideal, on the grounds that personal attacks anywhere are incivil, and edit summaries are more permanent than ordinary talk page comments. It's also worth pointing out that the originator of an attack can refactor or delete wikitext themselves to withdraw the attack, but cannot do that to an edit summary. Deltahedron (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. An editor who regrets having posted impolite text in an edit summary can choose to make a subsequent dummy edit with an apology in the edit summary.—Wavelength (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: The spirit of the proposal is good, but I would suggest that "no personal attacks" means no personal attacks anywhere, and those prone to making them are the ones who are going to game the system, wikilawyer, or ignore the rules anyway. Edit summaries are used for so many varying purposes depending on context that specializing the rules for them would be hard to do and enforce. When someone makes an authentic personal attack in an edit summary, my personal opinion is that you should attack them back with such ferocity that it becomes absurd almost immediately. Declare yourself on a hunger strike until someone is blocked/unblocked; call them pizza cheese jihadists. Write long poems defending lamenting what's occured. On the gender side, you could simply declare every Neanderthal wikipedia editor the Unintentional He-man women haters club president. However, I must share, this has not always served me well. So I think just laying off personal attacks everywhere period should be the rule. People usually know when they are being uncivil; some need some teachin.--Milowent • 21:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose this particular wording, though a differently worded statement advising particular care in edit summaries might be appropriate. We should be especially careful to formulate recommendations in ways that are not likely to exacerbate conflict. --Boson (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support in principle with a caveat on the wording. I see far too many edit summaries that go for the one-two zinger. You revert somebody, you don't need to call them a moron in the ES. --Pete (talk) 22:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment:Actually, the more I look at this section, the more I think it needs a complete rewrite. Removing it completely might even be better than leaving it in its current form. Policy pages should clearly say what behaviour is unacceptable and may lead to sanctions. The introduction does this. But the following sections may make things less clear and thus be part of the problem. The introduction states:
"Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Misplaced Pages community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by anyone. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."
- The justification for the following sections is presuably that they clarify how that is to be interpreted or implemented. However, what seemed perfectly clear becomes less clear as we read on:
- The heading is Avoiding personal attacks but the policy shortcut is WP:AVOIDYOU, and much of the text deals with avoiding the second person. There may be some vague correlation between use of the second person and the likelihood of the addressee being offended but we should not conflate syntactic forms and offensiveness. Having given the impression that use of the second person is necessarily "bad" ("the word "you" should be avoided when possible"), we then try to correct that false impression and make things even more confusing.
- We start off the section with "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized." but then, fearing that the reader will not understand this, we explain it: " That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people." What is the point of the first sentence? The second sentence is OK but merely repeats the introduction.
- And so it goes on. Sometimes less is more (and vice versa).--Boson (talk) 23:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- way, way too broad. I get that people tend to snipe in edit summaries but there's no need to expand the current policy to specifically forbid personal attacks there, as they're (nominally) forbidden everywhere. The proposed text invites too much lawyering about what is sufficiently "personal" and "critical" and doesn't seem like it would resolve any common disputes faster or more cleanly than current policy. Protonk (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. The very first sentence of No personal attacks is "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Misplaced Pages." This clearly covers edit summaries. Even if the wording of the proposal were improved, it's still redundant at best. I don't think we should complicate things by special-casing edit summaries. Alsee (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Comment (actually an "Oppose", but please don't count this as a "vote", as I've already "voted" above): Besides the aspects I've already mentioned above about banning "you", etc, I think omitting this change will tend to improve Misplaced Pages in the long run, basically by leaving unreasonable people enough rope to hang themselves. Reasonable people tend to avoid making unnecessary personal attacks (PAs for short). So most of these PAs will be edits by unreasonable people, and the fact that they have made a PA which they can't erase will put them at a grave disadvantage in any ensuing dispute (something that I have occasionally found useful in winning a content dispute with an unreasonable opponent). Common sense suggests that Misplaced Pages will tend to benefit in the long run if unreasonable people tend to find themselves at a disadvantage in content disputes, so why should we harm Misplaced Pages by trying to prevent unreasonable people from putting their foot in it? Also the less unreasonable people among them may learn from their experience that PAs don't pay, thus making them more reasonable people, thereby making Misplaced Pages a better place (again I have also noticed something like this happening on at least one occasion). Tlhslobus (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Section title issue
I was looking at the section title "Avoiding personal attacks" and realized it seems to put the onus on the person attacked to prove they didn't deserve it. I think a better title, that reflects the actual content, is "Use impersonal language." And perhaps it might help dramatize the with the main issue in this thread. Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)