This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
See talk page for comments. Bottom line is that people are sometimes blocked for personal attacks (which is a kind of disruption) and that those blocks are generally upheld.
While most Wikipedian editors behave constructively and civilly, there are always some people that use personal attacks in dealing with others, when upset, or caught in an edit war, or simply when disagreeing on an issue. This behavior is considered undesirable, as it poisons the atmosphere, has an adverse effect on the community, and may cause good editors to leave the project.
In other words, personal attacks are disruptive to Wikipedia - and like other kinds of disruption, such as revert warring, a workable solution may be to temporarily block the offending party. This is not intended as a punishment, but as a simple measure to get the person to cool down. Also, it will likely keep the target of the attack from retaliating and further escalating the issue. If we give the signal that personal attacks are dealt with in this fashion, it would discourage people from making attacks in the first place.
Making personal attacks blockable has been proposed in the past and has not reached consensus back then. However, the Wiki has grown in the meantime, and the issue of personal attacks has grown with it, so a proposal is made anew. It is also possible that there earlier proposals failed because of problems with the wording; the intent is to get a consensual wording this time.
There are four proposals at the bottom of this page, with varying degrees of complexity. Please post comments on the talk page.
It's not possible to give a strict formal definition of 'personal attack', in particular because Wikipedia is not a book of law, and any strict definition would be gameable. Admins are supposed to judge using common sense — and if they didn't have any, they wouldn't be admins in the first place.
Personal attacks include, but are not limited to, false or unverifiable statements that would diminish the credibility of an editor were they true. They range from absurd name-calling ("George is a pimple") to false accusations ("Matilda is a fraud"). Similarly, they may be implicit comments ("The despots here…"). Derogatory humour only avoids being a personal attack if it is clearly not intended to cause personal offence.
Making derogatory remarks about an article may be considered an attack but it's not a personal one, and adding such tags as 'POV', 'cleanup' or even 'Delete' to an article is never a personal attack, although reasons given within {{ deletebecause}} can be.
Generally speaking, simply accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or vandal is not usually a personal attack. A personal attack is a comment on an editor's personal character. Comments on an editors behaviour are harder to qualify as a personal attack. Such remarks may of course become attacks if the accusation is clearly made in bad-faith.
Making a personal attack in reaction to another personal attack is no excuse. Regardless of who started a conflict, if two or more editors both behave inappropriately, the admin taking action should be evenhanded and block both of them, or neither of them.
This is a list of recent blocks that included "attacks" as the reason, or one of the reasons, for the block.
An admin may, at their discretion, block a user that makes a personal attack, BUT ONLY if the admin is an uninvolved party. Maximum block is 24 hours. No warning is needed.
An admin may, at their discretion, block a user that makes a personal attack, BUT ONLY if the admin is an uninvolved party. Maximum block is 24 hours. The editor's first violation results in a warning block (1 hour). All other violations are at the admin's discretion up to 24 hours. The warning must come from an uninvolved admin.
An admin may, at their discretion, block a user that makes a personal attack after being warned by an uninvolved editor, BUT ONLY if the admin is an uninvolved party. Maximum block is 24 hours. The warning must come from an uninvolved editor.
The proposed policy has several suggested definitions for the term "uninvolved".
No. Current blocking policy stands, and personal attacks is not a reason for blocking.
WP:IAR. Admins act in the best interest of the wiki, and we don't need extra policy either for or against this.
Warning are made by placing {{ uw-npa1}}, {{ uw-npa2}}, or {{ uw-npa3}} (similar to the successive "test" warnings) on that user's talk page, adding a diff of the offensive edit, and signing with ~~~~. Mentioning this in the edit summary would be helpful. Removing recent warnings from your talk page is considered bad form. Placing frivolous warnings is also considered bad form.
If a user has received warnings for three or more incidents from three different people within a single week, an admin may block that user for up to 24 hours. That applies even if the admin placed the third warning. Before doing so, the admin must review the warnings and see if they are actual offensive behavior, and if they are not duplicates of one another. The blocking admin should place a {{ npa4}} on the offending user's talk page, alerting them to the block and the reason behind it.
Admins are allowed, never obliged, to block people for excessive personal attacks - for instance, if the attacker made an apology, the admin may consider the matter closed.
The fact that users may be blocked for making three attacks in a week does not imply that users have the inalienable right to make two attacks per week, or any personal attacks at all. Gaming the system is considered disruptive. This blocking policy is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; it is intended as a means to quell hostile conflicts. Any personal attacks remain strongly discouraged and undermine Wikipedia's community spirit.
Being blocked does not reset the attack counter. Thus, if a user is blocked under this proposal and makes an additional personal attack within 6 days (one week less maximum blocking period) of the block expiring, they may be immediately reblocked.
It seems likely that there will be two or three proposals on this issue (the simple and the complex one, most likely, and it may be reasonable to allow for a proposal to forbid blocking for personal attacks). Therefore the following voting procedure is suggested:
Voting on each proposal is a simple yes/no vote, with 70% support required to pass. In the event that multiple proposals pass, the proposal with most support shall be implemented. For determining which proposal has most support, all voters that support multiple proposals and clearly indicate which of those they like best, shall only be counted for the proposal they prefer.
All registered users may vote, subject to informal suffrage. Voting shall last for one week, and shall be widely announced from such pages as current surveys.
This page is currently inactive and is retained for
historical reference. Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump. |
See talk page for comments. Bottom line is that people are sometimes blocked for personal attacks (which is a kind of disruption) and that those blocks are generally upheld.
While most Wikipedian editors behave constructively and civilly, there are always some people that use personal attacks in dealing with others, when upset, or caught in an edit war, or simply when disagreeing on an issue. This behavior is considered undesirable, as it poisons the atmosphere, has an adverse effect on the community, and may cause good editors to leave the project.
In other words, personal attacks are disruptive to Wikipedia - and like other kinds of disruption, such as revert warring, a workable solution may be to temporarily block the offending party. This is not intended as a punishment, but as a simple measure to get the person to cool down. Also, it will likely keep the target of the attack from retaliating and further escalating the issue. If we give the signal that personal attacks are dealt with in this fashion, it would discourage people from making attacks in the first place.
Making personal attacks blockable has been proposed in the past and has not reached consensus back then. However, the Wiki has grown in the meantime, and the issue of personal attacks has grown with it, so a proposal is made anew. It is also possible that there earlier proposals failed because of problems with the wording; the intent is to get a consensual wording this time.
There are four proposals at the bottom of this page, with varying degrees of complexity. Please post comments on the talk page.
It's not possible to give a strict formal definition of 'personal attack', in particular because Wikipedia is not a book of law, and any strict definition would be gameable. Admins are supposed to judge using common sense — and if they didn't have any, they wouldn't be admins in the first place.
Personal attacks include, but are not limited to, false or unverifiable statements that would diminish the credibility of an editor were they true. They range from absurd name-calling ("George is a pimple") to false accusations ("Matilda is a fraud"). Similarly, they may be implicit comments ("The despots here…"). Derogatory humour only avoids being a personal attack if it is clearly not intended to cause personal offence.
Making derogatory remarks about an article may be considered an attack but it's not a personal one, and adding such tags as 'POV', 'cleanup' or even 'Delete' to an article is never a personal attack, although reasons given within {{ deletebecause}} can be.
Generally speaking, simply accusing an editor of being a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or vandal is not usually a personal attack. A personal attack is a comment on an editor's personal character. Comments on an editors behaviour are harder to qualify as a personal attack. Such remarks may of course become attacks if the accusation is clearly made in bad-faith.
Making a personal attack in reaction to another personal attack is no excuse. Regardless of who started a conflict, if two or more editors both behave inappropriately, the admin taking action should be evenhanded and block both of them, or neither of them.
This is a list of recent blocks that included "attacks" as the reason, or one of the reasons, for the block.
An admin may, at their discretion, block a user that makes a personal attack, BUT ONLY if the admin is an uninvolved party. Maximum block is 24 hours. No warning is needed.
An admin may, at their discretion, block a user that makes a personal attack, BUT ONLY if the admin is an uninvolved party. Maximum block is 24 hours. The editor's first violation results in a warning block (1 hour). All other violations are at the admin's discretion up to 24 hours. The warning must come from an uninvolved admin.
An admin may, at their discretion, block a user that makes a personal attack after being warned by an uninvolved editor, BUT ONLY if the admin is an uninvolved party. Maximum block is 24 hours. The warning must come from an uninvolved editor.
The proposed policy has several suggested definitions for the term "uninvolved".
No. Current blocking policy stands, and personal attacks is not a reason for blocking.
WP:IAR. Admins act in the best interest of the wiki, and we don't need extra policy either for or against this.
Warning are made by placing {{ uw-npa1}}, {{ uw-npa2}}, or {{ uw-npa3}} (similar to the successive "test" warnings) on that user's talk page, adding a diff of the offensive edit, and signing with ~~~~. Mentioning this in the edit summary would be helpful. Removing recent warnings from your talk page is considered bad form. Placing frivolous warnings is also considered bad form.
If a user has received warnings for three or more incidents from three different people within a single week, an admin may block that user for up to 24 hours. That applies even if the admin placed the third warning. Before doing so, the admin must review the warnings and see if they are actual offensive behavior, and if they are not duplicates of one another. The blocking admin should place a {{ npa4}} on the offending user's talk page, alerting them to the block and the reason behind it.
Admins are allowed, never obliged, to block people for excessive personal attacks - for instance, if the attacker made an apology, the admin may consider the matter closed.
The fact that users may be blocked for making three attacks in a week does not imply that users have the inalienable right to make two attacks per week, or any personal attacks at all. Gaming the system is considered disruptive. This blocking policy is not an entitlement, but an "electric fence"; it is intended as a means to quell hostile conflicts. Any personal attacks remain strongly discouraged and undermine Wikipedia's community spirit.
Being blocked does not reset the attack counter. Thus, if a user is blocked under this proposal and makes an additional personal attack within 6 days (one week less maximum blocking period) of the block expiring, they may be immediately reblocked.
It seems likely that there will be two or three proposals on this issue (the simple and the complex one, most likely, and it may be reasonable to allow for a proposal to forbid blocking for personal attacks). Therefore the following voting procedure is suggested:
Voting on each proposal is a simple yes/no vote, with 70% support required to pass. In the event that multiple proposals pass, the proposal with most support shall be implemented. For determining which proposal has most support, all voters that support multiple proposals and clearly indicate which of those they like best, shall only be counted for the proposal they prefer.
All registered users may vote, subject to informal suffrage. Voting shall last for one week, and shall be widely announced from such pages as current surveys.