Support as NominatorI'm not entirely sure how this works/whether this is how this works- but hey!-- Keerlls ton 10:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I just boldly added this. It occurs to me that much of the previous heated discussion here could be avoided if we emphasized the common sense aspect of things a bit.
"There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion", "These examples are not exclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." and WP:NPA#Consequences of personal attacks go in the same direction, but I think it could be useful to (carefully, of course) take it one step further by making it clear that WP:NPA is based both on previous experience and on the common sense approach outlined in m:dick. It follows (and imo should be mentioned) that (i) everybody should try not act like a dick (ok, I don't propose this exact wording...but it's what it boils down to in the end), and that (ii) evaluation (esp. by admins/at ANI) will not only be based on WP:NPA, but also on the basic notions outlined in m:dick and that (iii) when in doubt, not including certain things in a comment (like e.g. external links or names of websites; and why not explicitly mention this?) should be a matter common sense and a matter of course.
You see, I think the bottom line is that imo we already are on the same page here (npi), and that this policy doesn't even need to go into so much detail. Imo, we may want to carefully emphasize (the fact, imo) that this policy was written with common sense in mind.
I believe such an addition may encourage a generally serene approach on all sides, and at the same time give a clear message that dickery will not be tolerated, however it takes place. As I said above, I think most of this is already present in the guideline, just that formulating it into a short paragraph of its own might make for a good extension (perception as a pun encouraged here). I dorftrottel I talk I 17:52, November 25, 2007
Hopefully this won't be contentious - if it is please revert and bring it here.
The first section was long. It was titled "what is considered a personal attack", but was made up of two parts, one of which was about normal debates (and what isn't an attack), the other of which was mainly a list of things which are attacks.
I have therefore split the section into two. The aim is that a section purely on personal attack is likely to help editors, by avoiding the "too long; didn't read" feel of the original. I also moved one sentence for flow (there was a short paragraph where it fitted nicely).
Again, if anyone feels this was unhelpful, let me know, or discuss here.
Thanks!
Diff: [1]
FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
I saw this:
"Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited."
But *why* should it be limited in that case? If someone says something that is obviously a personal attack (eg. "You're a stupid, miserable little **** that I don't give a **** about" or something like that) on you, what is wrong with removing it? It has not logical validity, as it does not address your argument, it just attacks you. In the given scenario the quote implies the personal attack is unquestionably such, so there does not seem any reason removal of one directed against you on article talk pages is any different than it directed anywhere else on your own talk page, especially as long as all you remove is the unquestionable attack and nothing more. mike4ty4 ( talk) 01:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is an RfC on WP:CIV that may be of interest to contributors here, as it may fall under NPA as well. Dreadstar † 02:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Does the Wikipedia have any policy regarding personal attacks sent from wikimail. I'm asking because in the Swedish WP we have problems with a user sending very hostile mails to the administrators each time (s)he is blocked. Vints ( talk) 14:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll consider adding it... however I may not... Authentic ( talk) 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Although it is the general policy of wikipedia, I see personal attacks in wikipedia. I think open issue of wikipedia has brought hostility here.
People can use weapons against each others, as any claim is granted without professional judgment.
I think editors or moderators should pay a particular attention to this issue to clarify they are who control the pedia, otherwise there'll be no good future for the pedia.
Thanks to the service, I'm using it for a long time :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.226.28 ( talk) 00:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Another essay along these lines... Maybe it could be incorporated into this page somehow, or into Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions... What do you think? Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 02:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Why not? Of course I'm replying over a year later after this... so it already may be incorporated. Authentic ( talk) 23:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I am moving this file over here and removing it from the policy. It was posted in April 2005, nearly three years ago, and is terribly out of date. It's my belief that policies should not have spoken word links that fail to reflect the actual policy. Now, others may choose to revert me. Better yet, maybe someone will feel motivated to create an up-to-date spoken word file. Risker ( talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No sense reinventing the wheel if it has, but I was curious as to why the example of a personal attack (in the "Personal Attacks" subsection of "What is considered a personal attack?") says:
"Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages."
instead of:
"Threats of (or) vandalism to userpages or talk pages."
It would seem to me that the actual vandalism, and not just the threat of such, is a personal attack in and of itself. If the person's page is, for example, an attack page, then the logical action would be to head on off to report the page at AN/I, and let them make the call. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism does not need to be in this policy because it has its own policy and can be dealt with much more easily by anyone without really thinking about it; and I can't ever remember someone writing "Hey, if you don't do what I want I will go vandalise your user page!" - so it's a bit unrealistic to be adding "threats of vandalism" to the list. Vandalism is not at all in the same category as personal attacks; vandals tend to be "new", badly behaved editors or repeat offender sockpuppets, whereas personal attacks tend to come from SPAs in article space, or longer term editors in user and project space. Vandalism is very obvious - page blanking or replacement with "User X is a weenie!" is the most common - whereas personal attacks are often more subtle, and they aren't vandalism or they would have been considered to be covered under that policy. I hope this helps a bit. Risker ( talk) 00:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
We have all seen users that seem to take on a personal vendetta on other users, repeatedly contesting anything their target posts. Or taking their grip to the users talk page and harassing them when they don’t get their way in a AfD. Wiki Personal Attacks page should have some type of resolution for dealing with harassers that don’t give up and go away. If you are involved in personal attacks from another user, I suggest we ask the other to stop harassing you. If they continue then tell them this is a second warning and if they still don’t back off, then they should be reported to admin for resolution. I’ve asked another user many time to go away and leave me alone, but he is persistently relentless, I wish I could block him from my user pages because he is so disruptive and wasting my time, that I would rather be using being constructive and contributing.( Lookinhere ( talk) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC))
I recently made this report of an attack to WP:ANI. While it was actioned, the actioning admin requested future such reports go to WP:AIV instead. If this is normal practice (I have no cause to doubt that it is) then surely there should be some such indication on WP:ATTACK. LeadSongDog ( talk) 18:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have seen too many great editors leave Wikipedia because of harassment. There does not seem to be a working policy against personal attacks and stalking, and that is IMO unacceptable. WP needs all the hard-working editors it can get. What can be done about it?-- Berig ( talk) 15:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufusmcdoofus ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about adding these to the list of behaviour that is never appropriate? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a debate going over at VPP about WP:ATTACK and its First Amendment implications. JeanLatore ( talk) 00:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External links:
However, Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment makes little or no distinction between personal attacks against people who happen to edit Wikipedia differently from personal attacks against people who do not edit Wikipedia. Why does the wording of this policy treat them differently? I tried to be bold about this but got reverted. -- Damian Yerrick ( talk | stalk) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi.
I saw this:
"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."
But as a qualifier,
"Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack. "
But regardless of it's relevancy, simply relying on this alone with no further argument against their position is still not valid. mike4ty4 ( talk) 00:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
(Moved from User talk:Risker#Please explain WP:OWN to me)
You have been reverting even those minor edits to Wikipedia:No personal attacks that you yourself suggested in edit summaries of your own edits to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, such as my most recent.
Please teach me more about applicable precedent regarding WP:OWN and WP:BOLD. I would prefer to discuss my misinterpretations of these policies semi-privately before I make a fool out of myself on a high-profile project talk page. -- Damian Yerrick ( talk | stalk) 12:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive me my poor English, but the following paragraph is absolutely incomprehensible to me:
I do understand each sentence and even may translate it into my native language :-) But what is this supposed to say as a policy? I suggest either to clarify or delete it. Mukadderat ( talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
At one point this page suggested or disallowed headings which where personally addressed to other users on article talk pages. This seems like a good idea given the facts in Template:talkpage and the advice to Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Hyacinth ( talk) 17:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. "Here" meaning some section of WP:NPA, or "here" meaning this talk page? -- Damian Yerrick ( talk | stalk) 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should explicitly state that the various forms of accusing editors of being liars is a comment that is always considered a personal attack / accusation of bad faith. I have increasingly noticed on heated talk page and meta discussions that editors, if not accusing each other outright of being liars, say that so-and-so lied or that a certain comment is a lie. When asked to explain, retract, remain civil, etc., a typical response is to repeat the accusation, try to prove the accusation, or wikilawyer out of the situation by saying they are talking about the edit and not the editor. Yet the primary meaning of "lie" per dictionary sources is to make a false statement with the intent to deceive - the aspect of bad intentions is a key part of the word. One cannot say a statement is a lie without in the process saying that the person who made it has bad intentions. Some people habitually use the word "lie" to mean anything that is untrue, or that they disagree with - which would include mistakes, exaggerations, advocacy (if you disagree with it), breaking a promise or not following a stated future action, and lots of other things that are not necessarily done in bad faith. Indeed there is a secondary meaning of "lie" that means "untruth", without regard to motivation. However, this is not what most people think when they see the word lie. So I'm not sure if the people misusing "lie" are just being intellectually lazy, trying to provoke, or represent some kind bona fide shift int he language.
There is almost never a need to point out that someone lied on Wikipedia. It's relevant perhaps in an AN/I report or Arbcom case as evidence of bad faith editing for which a person should be banned. But it would be foolish to lie - Wikipedia persists mostly on a written record. If you lied about what happened it is a simple, albeit sometimes time-consuming, matter to review the record and set things straight. In most cases it is good enough to simply show that something is not true, and one can do that quite civilly. The intent to deceive is usually not a relevant issue.
The reason I bring this up here is that it seems to be a common, and growing, form of personal attack here. And it is nearly always disruptive. When you accuse someone of lying you pretty much invalidate everything they say and shut down the conversation. I'm thinking maybe we should add a short statement near the top that any form of accusing an editor of lying is nearly always an unacceptable personal attack. Wikidemo ( talk) 20:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
A certain quasi-high profile editor who uses his own name has declared he's leaving wikipedia for good. He and many other editors (including me) have big political diffs in real world and some current editors might want to do "exposes" on their personal blogs or where ever. Can one do so openly without "getting in trouble" as long as he stays off wikipedia? Or only if one does NOT quote anything he wrote on wikipedia? Does this page need to say "as long as they are editing wikipedia"? Just wondering :-) Thanks. Carol Moore 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}
We currently have this wording:
I am wondering if this might be expanded to include negative mentions of other editor's POV? Constantly attacking someone by using their POV as an accusatory weapon against them is a very nasty habit that poisons the well and assumes bad faith. The POV of an editor should not be the focus of discussion, but the edit itself. What think ye? Can we include this idea in a nicely phrased manner?
The situation that brought this acutely to mind is a current series of attacks made by a certain now indef blocked editor at the circumcision talk page, where (s)he constantly attacks other editors by accusing/dismissing them as "pro-circumcision". This form of attack totally destroys all semblance of collaborative spirit and sabotages attempts to peacefully reach a concensus. As one discerning editor commented:
That editor put it very well. This type of attacking needs to stop, and we can begin here by making it part of this policy. -- Fyslee / talk 05:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to know if an attack on a group of editors would be exempt from personal attack because it doesn't name a specific editor. For example, if I said 'those editors' instead of 'specific editor' it is okay? -- I-800-Go-FedEx ( talk) 05:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
When someone deletes your work while quoting Wiki rules, when in fact he is saying in no uncertain terms that his point of view is better than yours, this is a personal attack whether Wikipedia says it is or not. There are people out there that cannot be reasoned with, they are bullies with no empathy, or sense of fairness and for Wikipedia to expect the wronged party to maintain an atmosphere of civility is just ridiculous. An attack is made, and those attacked have no one to appeal to, and just have to try and keep off of Wikipedia because there is no respect here.
In short what is the point of having guidelines when clever bullies can attack under the carefully crafted fraud of quoting Wikipedia rules? Rules without the spirit of the rule behind them are not rules, they are oppression.
I don't know if this violates your precious guidelines or not, but this tirade has been inspired by the bozo who won't let anyone edit Class Rings. I won't say who it is, but if anyone interested can't figure it out, well, they are just not trying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.24.13 ( talk) 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the person 99.148 was talking about quit Wikipedia in September. There was a nasty kerfluffle involving his use of the same tactics in another group of articles. (Cut, cut, cut, revert, revert, AfD because there's no article left) arimareiji ( talk) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This suggested addition, was undone by Rootology and Will BeBack, and I would like to open it for discussion:
*Using someone's affiliations, including but not limited to political, religious, sexual orientation, or race, as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not.
- Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.
Comments welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This addition] was not discussed either, so I have restorred it pending consensus of inclusion of explanations and expansion as suggested in this thread. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do not change this page again until there is some sort of consensus, thanks. rootology ( C)( T) 22:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense.
Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, but in cases where such affiliations are used to attack another user. Speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Pointing out an editor's conflict of interest and it's relevance to the discussion at hand is not a personal attack, but may be an attack in cases where such affiliations are used to attack another user, or poison the well. Speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense; but if an editor is or was open about their affiliations, they may be discussed freely.
I have invited User:Risker to comment, as he was the editor that added the original wording. He commented in my talk, but it would be best if he does it here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and given how frequently NPA comes up, I don't think Will, Jossi, I, and Copper above are "consensus". It should float for a few days, including work days, at a minimum. That way no one can try to play games with any new change.
rootology (
C)(
T) 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, the version which I worked on with Shoemaker's Holiday in May 2008 [4] says:
Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack.
Jehochman revised this in October 2008 [5] to:
Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense.
I do not support any of the proposed changes listed above. This is a simple policy. The issue of affiliations is already addressed. I was willing to compromise earlier this year on the issue of adding COI, but this proposal goes too far; in fact, I think Jehochman's addition with reference to outing, done two months ago, is on the WP:BEANS side of policy writing. I really think that getting any more specific than what is already there is borderline coatracking; what is being proposed really belongs in WP:COI. Risker ( talk) 23:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
<<< I see growing consensus about keeping just the short wording as per Risker's. OTOH, repeatedly bringing up a perceived or disclosed COI is rather disruptive, and I would argue bordering on personal attacks (see ad hominem) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The section " Removal of text" appears to be stating the obvious. The lead clearly states that "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor", which I believe is sufficient. I agree that there should be mention of oversight somewhere, but I don't think that this needs its own section. Since there is no explicit ruling in this section for or against removing personal attacks, why not remove the section, and mention oversight on the second bullet point of "What is considered to be a personal attack?" ← Spidern → 16:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This section no longer reflects practice. Removal of personal attacks is apparently never acceptable, except in extremely limited circumstances and on your own talk page, and perhaps when put in by editors with no community standing. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
From reading WP:NPA, it seems like a "personal attack" on Wikipedia would be like going to the talk page for NASCAR and calling somebody a Bible-thumping Nazi or something.
That is different from conjecture about a person's actions which are relevant to quality of Wikipedia articles, and are backed by evidence. Ukufwakfgr ( talk) 03:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just given IP User 80.73.218.181 a level 3 warning for vandalism on the Jersey article. Although it was not an attack against an individual person, it seems that there should be something in the policy that deprecates insults based on nationalities. Some may think a level 3 warning was a bit harsh for a first post, but I think this sort of thing is best stamped on hard from the start. Mjroots ( talk) 09:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed a disturbing trend lately where someone brings an issue to one of the noticeboards and when an uninvolved admin takes action such as issuing a warning, reverting an edit, etc. the editor on the opposing side of the admin's action immediately (and falsely) accuses the admin of inappropriate behavior, invoking the Heckler's veto so that the admin feels reluctant to take further action in the case. This is becoming a problem and it seems like there should be some way addressing this in this policy. Comments? Toddst1 ( talk) 22:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
In the wiki article 'Ouyang Xiu' a wiki editor has removed a reference to an article I wrote and claimed I had plagarized portions of it. Given I am a university professor, this is a serious accusation and worthy of legal action. The article in question was by Bruce Carpenter and entitled 'Confucian Aesthetics and Eleventh Century Ouyang Hsiu.' The editor in question goes by the name "Enfermero." Please respond to me at my email carp@tezukayama-u.ac.jp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.102.13.244 ( talk) 07:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be something in this article about the removing of one's own personal attack over regret of posting it? Jprulestheworld01 ( talk) 10:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes an editor says something in the heat of an argument that he seriously regrets. 30 seconds later, he removes the comment, before anyone else responds, and before anyone else reads the comment.
Later, when editors are digging through the reverting editor's comments for dirt for a RFC or Arbcom action, does the reverting editor's comment still qualify as a personal attack? If no one reads the personal attack until weeks later when editors are looking for dirt, and the editor quickly removed the comment, is it still actionable?
Does it matter that the editor, on his own initative, removed the personal attacks?
Has this question been bought up before, here or in a RFC or arbcom? Ikip ( talk) 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
A request for comment at WP:Civil also has relevance for WP:NPA, namely abuse of the one-line Edit Summary could be construed as a personal attack. Please take a look and comment. Brews ohare ( talk) 22:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a decent essay somewhere that explains what we mean when we say "Don't personalize disputes" or "You're personalizing this issue"? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Labeling it a "personal attack" when someone calls foul due to "censorship" and using it to further censor the injured party sounds something like putting people into insane asylums because they disagree with policy. We know how that ended. 206.124.6.222 ( talk) 00:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to start a discussion about possibly merging some of this material with WP:Harassment and/or WP:Civility and possibly converting what's left to a guideline page. What's prompting this is the Request for comment on sidebar and navigation templates on policy pages; the shorter the conduct policy navigation template is, and the more those pages have in common with whatever the current page is, the more likely people are to actually click the links. I just moved WP:Harassment and WP:Vandalism over to enforcement (those pages are 95% about bannable and blockable offenses), but this page doesn't really deserve to get moved over because the stuff here is about unpleasant and inadvisable actions more than bannable actions. When something is "inadvisable", that's kind of a clue that we're talking more about a guideline than a policy, and I don't mean that as an insult to the page ... "what to do to get the best results" tends to be a better fit for guidelines pages, because you can go ahead and give the advice that you want to give without worrying about every possible exception. In addition to the advice, there's fairly heavy overlap here with WP:Civility, and it's always best to gather similar policy material onto the same policy page, so that people have discussions about the material in the same place at the same time. I'm thinking that the kind of personal attacks that are bad enough to merit blocking or banning would probably best be handled at WP:Harassment. Thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 19:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
{{ rfctag}} - Not much response, cancelling the RFC. - Dank ( push to talk) 04:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that we export some of the material in No personal attacks to Civility and Harassment and change the page to a guideline or the other way 'round. This page is often used as a link and a warning: " No personal attacks, please." The problem is, this could mean any of three different things. If you meant that they've committed a bannable offense, like throwing around gross racist epithets, Harassment is the primary policy page that deals with that. If you meant that their argument has no validity on Wikipedia per our Civility policy, because it's an ad-hominem attack rather than reasoned discussion, then it would be better to link that section at that page. If you meant that you think their point is valid or might be valid, but you heard an insult mixed in with the message and you're advising them that that doesn't work well on Wikipedia, then we need a guideline page to link to for that ... maybe this page could serve that function. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC) tweaked for RfC
Thanks to Risker for pointing out the previous discussions. During the discussions about re-categorizing policy in November, I focused on Jan 2008 to the present ... but it turns out the last heavy activity on this page was just before that, in Nov and Dec 2007. The page hasn't changed much at all since then, and I'm wondering whether that's because people are happy with the page as it is, or because people aren't reading the page (possibly because the point seems easy to understand? I don't know). If people are happy with the page, then we can lose the RfC and the discussion notice at the top of WP:NPA. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a great idea that is long overdue, I commend Jehochman for taking on the task. I think that we agree for the most part, however I do disagree with the idea that a user should be not be held to the policy if they are venting after a block, or if they are themselves insulted. The section I am talking about is here [6].
It suggests that if a user responds in kind to a personal attack that they should not be blocked if they respond in an insulting manner. I think we can do better than an eye for an eye, I think we all learned when we were young that two wrongs do not make a right(but 3 lefts do). I think it is an important consideration to take into account, but I don't think we should draw a bright line saying "don't block for this".
In regards to the idea of a user venting on their talk page, I also disagree that this is acceptable. This is basically saying the continuing the behavior that led to your block does not justify the block being lengthened. If somebody is still engaging in personal attacks while blocked then the preventative nature of the block is still in effect. We should not be letting blocks expire while a user is still hell bent on do the same thing again, and increasing the block is one way to keep that disruption in one place. Perhaps we can suggest that for lesser personal attacks it would be better to remove talk privileges for the duration of the block rather than increase it.
I think the other points, after a bit of tweaking [7], do reflect our best practices very well. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I move the WP:ATTACK shortcut over to WP:Attack page? There's no other memorable shortcut available for that policy page. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
In practice, editors with more seniority and/or editors who are deemed more beneficial to the project tend to be allowed to personal attack more than newer editors.
Is this addressed in other essays or articles?
Ikip 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Suppose users X and Y are disputing some point about an article, and then X says one of these to Y:
The only thing I see covering this is at WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack? where it says that the following is never acceptable:
I believe the NPA wording should be tweaked to outlaw all of the above "X says" cases because a wikilawyer could readily claim that none of them "deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to...persecution", yet in the right context, even #5 would be a clear threat intended to intimidate an opponent. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
just because I see this all too frequently (and it bugs the cr@p out of me when I see it), can we strengthen the second point in the list? currently it reads:
- Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.
I'd like to see something more along the lines of:
- Labeling, categorizing, or otherwise asserting that someone belongs to some group in order to insult or discredit them. Editors' suspected affiliations should only be mentioned on Wikipedia when there are credible concerns about conflict of interest or when an editor self-identifies as a member of a particular group. Extreme violations of this may be considered outing, which is a far more serious offense.
thoughts? -- Ludwigs2 07:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, I've kicked off discussion about an idea I've had about incivility blocks. Currently it's hard to get a consistent blocking policy in terms of warnings and blocking times, I'm hoping that this proposal can get some traction to make this more clear. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Relevant discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. Question was posed by User:Casliber: "...have we ever discussed how long is a reasonable amount of time to develop and/or leave a made-up-and-loaded RfC in one's userspace before it should be by rights deleted as an attack page? (i.e. "put-up-or-shut-up" rule?)" thanks, IZAK ( talk) 22:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Is baselessly accusing someone of being racist considered a personal attack? Factsontheground ( talk) 09:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I have encountered that it is not possible to be civil while making a personal attack. Thus I think these 2 policies should be merged. Could someone put the merger tag up? 174.3.123.220 ( talk) 00:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Can we have this discussion in one place? For the record, I strongly support the merge (and possibly others), as I've said on the other talk page. Far too many behavioural policies/guidelines, and far too many words in them, means less chance of the important information being read or found, and more time wasted by those editors who decide to read through them.-- Kotniski ( talk) 07:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
issue has been raised here [ [8]] over the issue of duck. The basic point is that if an edd thinks anotehr edds edits are something (say bigoted) then he can call the user a bigot (at least that is the defence bing used (not by the accused now though he has accepted it was wrong)). So my question is is ther any circmastances in which you can call someone a perogative term using Duck as defence? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, there is a wonderful quotation from Eleanor Roosevelt at the essay Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade. I think it would be a good idea to add it to this page, perhaps underneath the Five Pillars box. What do other editors think? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
If someone refers to what someone else says or argues as "silly" or "stupid", is that a personal attack? For example, if someone replies to this with the words, "That's silly at best", would that be a personal attack in violation of this policy and worth filing an ANI? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Although I saw the AN/I thread, I'm going to steer clear of answering this in terms of the specifics. Answering the basic question, in general terms, about whether it's a personal attack to call someone's edits silly, I would say (at least in my opinion) that it's a personal attack to call an editor silly, but not to call an silly. But I admit that this often gets difficult to distinguish in practice. A lot of this also depends upon context. I note that ArbCom in the climate change proposed decision is endorsing the idea that "casting aspersions" is a sanctionable offense. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm now addressing this issue more abstractly rather than in reference to the particular situation in which I was involved. I don't think there can ever be a guideline so clear and unequivocal with no consideration of the context in which certain words or phrases are used. An extreme example may be illustrative. If two editors with a friendly history are having a joking exchange and one says, "That was a stupid thing to say!", I don't think any reasonable person would interpret that as a personal attack (I've actually been in that type of situation and was roundly criticized by an uninvolved third party until the other editor in my exchange came to my rescue). That same phrase in a different context with editors who are having a heated discussion, however, can have a completely different meaning and is much more likley to fall into the category of personal attack. Many comments such as "stupid argument" occur in less extreme contexts, and I don't think it's possible to determine if there was incivility or a personal attack outside of that context. Cresix ( talk) 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, I agree that a phrase like "That was a stupid thing to say!" can be interpreted many different ways, both civilly and uncivilly, depending on context, but I just can't see how it could possibly refer to the "character, appearance, or private life" of the person who happened to say the supposedly stupid thing. I mean, if it is personal, what exactly does it say about the person? When I said your arguments were silly at best, what do you think that implied about you personally (I assure you, I intended nothing about you personally)? If it says nothing about the person, how is it personal at all, much less a personal attack? Am I missing something? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I will only add that I'm probably sensitive about this distinction because life has taught me that it's critical to distinguish people's actions from the people, and to always (not just in WP, but with friends, children, students, employees, co-workers, customers, etc.) try to comment on actions and behavior rather than on persons, especially if it's critical. "That's a stupid thing to say" is an example of doing so, and something I might say to a friend, my wife, or my child. "You are stupid" is something I would never say to anyone, nor mean to imply.
Oh, and #v1.1 below addresses your concern about the potential of people taking advantage of this change in that it makes it clear that recognizing comments about behavior not being personal does not allow for such comments when they are uncivil; it's just that such statements would be outside the scope of this policy. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hidden clarification |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
( edit conflict)I've gone ahead and added the following subsection about this point:
Comments and improvements are encouraged! -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what makes this change significant. Does it really change anything, other than add a little clarification? What is the objection? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
In this version I add the link to WP:CIVILITY to emphasize that by clarifying "critical comments about behavior" are not personal attacks by definition, that does not mean they are acceptable.
Comments? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
In this version I simplify the wording and adjust it to avoid implying it prohibits incivility that is not a personal attack ( WP:CIVIL prohibits that).
Comments? -- Born2cycle ( talk)
Surely if it's truly as ambiguous as you claim someone can come up with an example that really is ambiguous. So far no one has.
I'm also curious about the apparent reluctance (I've seen it with respect to other guidelines too) to make guidelines be more clear; it's almost as if some prefer the ambiguity. Like I said before, I think that encourages wikilawyering. Just like with real law, by "tightening up" the wording like this we give the lawyers less to play with. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Tighten up the wording even more by using an unambiguous fact of grammar.
I would like to point out that to the extent this would encourage people to craft their comments in disputes accordingly -- to focus on behavior rather than persons -- that would be an improvement to Wikipedia.
Comments? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree the policy would be better if it more closely reflected the nutshell. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Add another criteria for what is not a personal attack.
Comments? - Born2cycle ( talk) 18:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
...of personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity that can result in a block of the perpetrator? I can guarantee that being insulted as being "old" or "an old fart," especially given the amount of effort and experience that this professional journalist and author has given Wikipedia, is as vicious as someone calling me a "guinea" because I am Italian. There's no reason that being ghettoized, dismissed, or — in the case of a current abusive editor — being the target of a focused collection of ageist insults is any less distressing or ruining of the Wikipedia experience. Ageism is not OK. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Just stuck in the phrase "In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible. " This is a device used to defuse a seeming person attack in (e.g.) legislative bodies. E.g. "The honorable gentleman is wrong", etc. But never "You". Pproctor ( talk) 22:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I was reading over part of the guidelines, and came across the following in the Recurring Attacks section: "This is also the difficulty in recurring attacks. We have to assume that the attacker is willing to compromise. It is not plausible for editors to attack each other (or they would have been defined as attackers) because they want and expect strong discourse." Apologies to whoever wrote this, but I have no idea what this means. Why would we assume the attacker is willing to compromise? What is that saying about the "defined as attackers"? Who wants or expects strong discourse? When I read this, I actually thought someone might have vandalized the page recently, because this comes close to having no meaning. At the least, this section needs to be rephrased, but I have so little guess as to what it means that I don't know how to start. Any ideas? Qwyrxian ( talk) 11:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I've tweedled with the Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F section, mostly CE and amplification, but also tweaking the focus of it a bit. comments/revisions welcome.
I was debating with myself over one point: I wanted to add in a bit about non-verbal attacks (blanket reverts, tendentious tagging, aggressive discussion closure, etc.), but it's an awfully gray area. I mean, it's clear that these things are sometimes used as personal attacks, but since they are almost invariably done without discussion when they are used as attacks, it's a difficult point to make. Yes, I think we all recognize that in some cases - e.g. when M. Shmoe spends three hours revising an article, and M. Shmue takes all of twelve seconds to revert it in bulk with an obnoxious edit summary like "rv POV-pushing crap" - a personal attack of some sort has occurred. However, the attack seems to go a good bit beyond the unfortunate use of the word 'crap', but it's hard to express precisely why it's more wrong than that wrong (it strikes me as a level of arrogant disrespect for the other editor's efforts, but...). so two questions: (i) do we want to get into that here?, and (ii) do we want to get into that here? -- Ludwigs2 08:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
who sends the complaints to say it was a personal attack, because a reply i have put has been removed twice from a discussion page, then flagged for an attack on a person when it was nothing of the sort, wikipedia and it's users are really starting to frustrate me now as i cannot even say - see i was right, this data was right so stop deleting it you sod - without being accused of personal attack. It's ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.57.251 ( talk) 15:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." It seems that this sentence is redundant, or is an unnecessary addition to the "What is considered to be a personal attack?" section. Insulting/disparaging is implied to be a personal attack within the bullet outlines. I really can't see why this sentence should necessarily be in there. And God forbid if it should be kept, why would we need "regardless of the manner in which it is done"? I don't know if that is necessary. But I really think this sentence should be revised or edited out for sure. What do you other guys think about this? 67.80.144.146 ( talk) 19:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Since this is more in the nature of where to complain, if there is someplace, in re the "voices" comment here, does that or does that not qualify as an attack? If it does, what action should I take, if any? If any is to be taken, where do I go? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
This sentence is poorly written and appears contradicted by the subsequent ones. A Wikipedian who is also an author of a BookSurge-published book declared that discussing his reputation as a historian is a personal attack. I'm sure such absurd interpretations of this policy were not intended, because WP:NPOV would be impossible to reach if every Wikipedian who adds his own books to articles cannot have his reputation as a suitable source for articles questioned. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 18:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Even the article on ad hominem makes more sense than the statement I quoted, in no small part because it relies on reliable sources instead of the opinion of the few Wikipedians who have edited this page and who seem to need a refresher in informal logic. "The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue". Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
And for a more trivial case, WP:CSD#G5. Someone belonging to the banned user group seems a license to dismiss their edits of any kind. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 18:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Using an editor's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views; e.g. "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.
Gerardw ( talk) 22:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Support as NominatorI'm not entirely sure how this works/whether this is how this works- but hey!-- Keerlls ton 10:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I just boldly added this. It occurs to me that much of the previous heated discussion here could be avoided if we emphasized the common sense aspect of things a bit.
"There is no bright-line rule about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion", "These examples are not exclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." and WP:NPA#Consequences of personal attacks go in the same direction, but I think it could be useful to (carefully, of course) take it one step further by making it clear that WP:NPA is based both on previous experience and on the common sense approach outlined in m:dick. It follows (and imo should be mentioned) that (i) everybody should try not act like a dick (ok, I don't propose this exact wording...but it's what it boils down to in the end), and that (ii) evaluation (esp. by admins/at ANI) will not only be based on WP:NPA, but also on the basic notions outlined in m:dick and that (iii) when in doubt, not including certain things in a comment (like e.g. external links or names of websites; and why not explicitly mention this?) should be a matter common sense and a matter of course.
You see, I think the bottom line is that imo we already are on the same page here (npi), and that this policy doesn't even need to go into so much detail. Imo, we may want to carefully emphasize (the fact, imo) that this policy was written with common sense in mind.
I believe such an addition may encourage a generally serene approach on all sides, and at the same time give a clear message that dickery will not be tolerated, however it takes place. As I said above, I think most of this is already present in the guideline, just that formulating it into a short paragraph of its own might make for a good extension (perception as a pun encouraged here). I dorftrottel I talk I 17:52, November 25, 2007
Hopefully this won't be contentious - if it is please revert and bring it here.
The first section was long. It was titled "what is considered a personal attack", but was made up of two parts, one of which was about normal debates (and what isn't an attack), the other of which was mainly a list of things which are attacks.
I have therefore split the section into two. The aim is that a section purely on personal attack is likely to help editors, by avoiding the "too long; didn't read" feel of the original. I also moved one sentence for flow (there was a short paragraph where it fitted nicely).
Again, if anyone feels this was unhelpful, let me know, or discuss here.
Thanks!
Diff: [1]
FT2 ( Talk | email) 16:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi.
I saw this:
"Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited."
But *why* should it be limited in that case? If someone says something that is obviously a personal attack (eg. "You're a stupid, miserable little **** that I don't give a **** about" or something like that) on you, what is wrong with removing it? It has not logical validity, as it does not address your argument, it just attacks you. In the given scenario the quote implies the personal attack is unquestionably such, so there does not seem any reason removal of one directed against you on article talk pages is any different than it directed anywhere else on your own talk page, especially as long as all you remove is the unquestionable attack and nothing more. mike4ty4 ( talk) 01:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
There is an RfC on WP:CIV that may be of interest to contributors here, as it may fall under NPA as well. Dreadstar † 02:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Does the Wikipedia have any policy regarding personal attacks sent from wikimail. I'm asking because in the Swedish WP we have problems with a user sending very hostile mails to the administrators each time (s)he is blocked. Vints ( talk) 14:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll consider adding it... however I may not... Authentic ( talk) 22:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Although it is the general policy of wikipedia, I see personal attacks in wikipedia. I think open issue of wikipedia has brought hostility here.
People can use weapons against each others, as any claim is granted without professional judgment.
I think editors or moderators should pay a particular attention to this issue to clarify they are who control the pedia, otherwise there'll be no good future for the pedia.
Thanks to the service, I'm using it for a long time :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.157.226.28 ( talk) 00:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Another essay along these lines... Maybe it could be incorporated into this page somehow, or into Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions... What do you think? Obuibo Mbstpo ( talk) 02:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Why not? Of course I'm replying over a year later after this... so it already may be incorporated. Authentic ( talk) 23:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I am moving this file over here and removing it from the policy. It was posted in April 2005, nearly three years ago, and is terribly out of date. It's my belief that policies should not have spoken word links that fail to reflect the actual policy. Now, others may choose to revert me. Better yet, maybe someone will feel motivated to create an up-to-date spoken word file. Risker ( talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No sense reinventing the wheel if it has, but I was curious as to why the example of a personal attack (in the "Personal Attacks" subsection of "What is considered a personal attack?") says:
"Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages."
instead of:
"Threats of (or) vandalism to userpages or talk pages."
It would seem to me that the actual vandalism, and not just the threat of such, is a personal attack in and of itself. If the person's page is, for example, an attack page, then the logical action would be to head on off to report the page at AN/I, and let them make the call. Thoughts? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism does not need to be in this policy because it has its own policy and can be dealt with much more easily by anyone without really thinking about it; and I can't ever remember someone writing "Hey, if you don't do what I want I will go vandalise your user page!" - so it's a bit unrealistic to be adding "threats of vandalism" to the list. Vandalism is not at all in the same category as personal attacks; vandals tend to be "new", badly behaved editors or repeat offender sockpuppets, whereas personal attacks tend to come from SPAs in article space, or longer term editors in user and project space. Vandalism is very obvious - page blanking or replacement with "User X is a weenie!" is the most common - whereas personal attacks are often more subtle, and they aren't vandalism or they would have been considered to be covered under that policy. I hope this helps a bit. Risker ( talk) 00:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
We have all seen users that seem to take on a personal vendetta on other users, repeatedly contesting anything their target posts. Or taking their grip to the users talk page and harassing them when they don’t get their way in a AfD. Wiki Personal Attacks page should have some type of resolution for dealing with harassers that don’t give up and go away. If you are involved in personal attacks from another user, I suggest we ask the other to stop harassing you. If they continue then tell them this is a second warning and if they still don’t back off, then they should be reported to admin for resolution. I’ve asked another user many time to go away and leave me alone, but he is persistently relentless, I wish I could block him from my user pages because he is so disruptive and wasting my time, that I would rather be using being constructive and contributing.( Lookinhere ( talk) 07:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC))
I recently made this report of an attack to WP:ANI. While it was actioned, the actioning admin requested future such reports go to WP:AIV instead. If this is normal practice (I have no cause to doubt that it is) then surely there should be some such indication on WP:ATTACK. LeadSongDog ( talk) 18:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I have seen too many great editors leave Wikipedia because of harassment. There does not seem to be a working policy against personal attacks and stalking, and that is IMO unacceptable. WP needs all the hard-working editors it can get. What can be done about it?-- Berig ( talk) 15:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rufusmcdoofus ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you think about adding these to the list of behaviour that is never appropriate? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a debate going over at VPP about WP:ATTACK and its First Amendment implications. JeanLatore ( talk) 00:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#External links:
However, Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment makes little or no distinction between personal attacks against people who happen to edit Wikipedia differently from personal attacks against people who do not edit Wikipedia. Why does the wording of this policy treat them differently? I tried to be bold about this but got reverted. -- Damian Yerrick ( talk | stalk) 00:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi.
I saw this:
"Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream."
But as a qualifier,
"Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack. "
But regardless of it's relevancy, simply relying on this alone with no further argument against their position is still not valid. mike4ty4 ( talk) 00:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
(Moved from User talk:Risker#Please explain WP:OWN to me)
You have been reverting even those minor edits to Wikipedia:No personal attacks that you yourself suggested in edit summaries of your own edits to Wikipedia:No personal attacks, such as my most recent.
Please teach me more about applicable precedent regarding WP:OWN and WP:BOLD. I would prefer to discuss my misinterpretations of these policies semi-privately before I make a fool out of myself on a high-profile project talk page. -- Damian Yerrick ( talk | stalk) 12:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive me my poor English, but the following paragraph is absolutely incomprehensible to me:
I do understand each sentence and even may translate it into my native language :-) But what is this supposed to say as a policy? I suggest either to clarify or delete it. Mukadderat ( talk) 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
At one point this page suggested or disallowed headings which where personally addressed to other users on article talk pages. This seems like a good idea given the facts in Template:talkpage and the advice to Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks. Hyacinth ( talk) 17:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused. "Here" meaning some section of WP:NPA, or "here" meaning this talk page? -- Damian Yerrick ( talk | stalk) 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we should explicitly state that the various forms of accusing editors of being liars is a comment that is always considered a personal attack / accusation of bad faith. I have increasingly noticed on heated talk page and meta discussions that editors, if not accusing each other outright of being liars, say that so-and-so lied or that a certain comment is a lie. When asked to explain, retract, remain civil, etc., a typical response is to repeat the accusation, try to prove the accusation, or wikilawyer out of the situation by saying they are talking about the edit and not the editor. Yet the primary meaning of "lie" per dictionary sources is to make a false statement with the intent to deceive - the aspect of bad intentions is a key part of the word. One cannot say a statement is a lie without in the process saying that the person who made it has bad intentions. Some people habitually use the word "lie" to mean anything that is untrue, or that they disagree with - which would include mistakes, exaggerations, advocacy (if you disagree with it), breaking a promise or not following a stated future action, and lots of other things that are not necessarily done in bad faith. Indeed there is a secondary meaning of "lie" that means "untruth", without regard to motivation. However, this is not what most people think when they see the word lie. So I'm not sure if the people misusing "lie" are just being intellectually lazy, trying to provoke, or represent some kind bona fide shift int he language.
There is almost never a need to point out that someone lied on Wikipedia. It's relevant perhaps in an AN/I report or Arbcom case as evidence of bad faith editing for which a person should be banned. But it would be foolish to lie - Wikipedia persists mostly on a written record. If you lied about what happened it is a simple, albeit sometimes time-consuming, matter to review the record and set things straight. In most cases it is good enough to simply show that something is not true, and one can do that quite civilly. The intent to deceive is usually not a relevant issue.
The reason I bring this up here is that it seems to be a common, and growing, form of personal attack here. And it is nearly always disruptive. When you accuse someone of lying you pretty much invalidate everything they say and shut down the conversation. I'm thinking maybe we should add a short statement near the top that any form of accusing an editor of lying is nearly always an unacceptable personal attack. Wikidemo ( talk) 20:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
A certain quasi-high profile editor who uses his own name has declared he's leaving wikipedia for good. He and many other editors (including me) have big political diffs in real world and some current editors might want to do "exposes" on their personal blogs or where ever. Can one do so openly without "getting in trouble" as long as he stays off wikipedia? Or only if one does NOT quote anything he wrote on wikipedia? Does this page need to say "as long as they are editing wikipedia"? Just wondering :-) Thanks. Carol Moore 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Carolmooredc {talk}
We currently have this wording:
I am wondering if this might be expanded to include negative mentions of other editor's POV? Constantly attacking someone by using their POV as an accusatory weapon against them is a very nasty habit that poisons the well and assumes bad faith. The POV of an editor should not be the focus of discussion, but the edit itself. What think ye? Can we include this idea in a nicely phrased manner?
The situation that brought this acutely to mind is a current series of attacks made by a certain now indef blocked editor at the circumcision talk page, where (s)he constantly attacks other editors by accusing/dismissing them as "pro-circumcision". This form of attack totally destroys all semblance of collaborative spirit and sabotages attempts to peacefully reach a concensus. As one discerning editor commented:
That editor put it very well. This type of attacking needs to stop, and we can begin here by making it part of this policy. -- Fyslee / talk 05:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to know if an attack on a group of editors would be exempt from personal attack because it doesn't name a specific editor. For example, if I said 'those editors' instead of 'specific editor' it is okay? -- I-800-Go-FedEx ( talk) 05:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
When someone deletes your work while quoting Wiki rules, when in fact he is saying in no uncertain terms that his point of view is better than yours, this is a personal attack whether Wikipedia says it is or not. There are people out there that cannot be reasoned with, they are bullies with no empathy, or sense of fairness and for Wikipedia to expect the wronged party to maintain an atmosphere of civility is just ridiculous. An attack is made, and those attacked have no one to appeal to, and just have to try and keep off of Wikipedia because there is no respect here.
In short what is the point of having guidelines when clever bullies can attack under the carefully crafted fraud of quoting Wikipedia rules? Rules without the spirit of the rule behind them are not rules, they are oppression.
I don't know if this violates your precious guidelines or not, but this tirade has been inspired by the bozo who won't let anyone edit Class Rings. I won't say who it is, but if anyone interested can't figure it out, well, they are just not trying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.24.13 ( talk) 14:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, the person 99.148 was talking about quit Wikipedia in September. There was a nasty kerfluffle involving his use of the same tactics in another group of articles. (Cut, cut, cut, revert, revert, AfD because there's no article left) arimareiji ( talk) 20:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
This suggested addition, was undone by Rootology and Will BeBack, and I would like to open it for discussion:
*Using someone's affiliations, including but not limited to political, religious, sexual orientation, or race, as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or not.
- Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense. Do not use conflict of interest as an excuse to gain the upper hand in a content dispute. When conflicts exist, invite the conflicted editor to contribute to the article talk page, and give their views fair consideration.
Comments welcome. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
This addition] was not discussed either, so I have restorred it pending consensus of inclusion of explanations and expansion as suggested in this thread. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Please do not change this page again until there is some sort of consensus, thanks. rootology ( C)( T) 22:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense.
Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, but in cases where such affiliations are used to attack another user. Speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense.
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Pointing out an editor's conflict of interest and it's relevance to the discussion at hand is not a personal attack, but may be an attack in cases where such affiliations are used to attack another user, or poison the well. Speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense; but if an editor is or was open about their affiliations, they may be discussed freely.
I have invited User:Risker to comment, as he was the editor that added the original wording. He commented in my talk, but it would be best if he does it here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and given how frequently NPA comes up, I don't think Will, Jossi, I, and Copper above are "consensus". It should float for a few days, including work days, at a minimum. That way no one can try to play games with any new change.
rootology (
C)(
T) 22:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, the version which I worked on with Shoemaker's Holiday in May 2008 [4] says:
Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack.
Jehochman revised this in October 2008 [5] to:
Pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest is not a personal attack, though speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, a serious offense.
I do not support any of the proposed changes listed above. This is a simple policy. The issue of affiliations is already addressed. I was willing to compromise earlier this year on the issue of adding COI, but this proposal goes too far; in fact, I think Jehochman's addition with reference to outing, done two months ago, is on the WP:BEANS side of policy writing. I really think that getting any more specific than what is already there is borderline coatracking; what is being proposed really belongs in WP:COI. Risker ( talk) 23:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
<<< I see growing consensus about keeping just the short wording as per Risker's. OTOH, repeatedly bringing up a perceived or disclosed COI is rather disruptive, and I would argue bordering on personal attacks (see ad hominem) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The section " Removal of text" appears to be stating the obvious. The lead clearly states that "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor", which I believe is sufficient. I agree that there should be mention of oversight somewhere, but I don't think that this needs its own section. Since there is no explicit ruling in this section for or against removing personal attacks, why not remove the section, and mention oversight on the second bullet point of "What is considered to be a personal attack?" ← Spidern → 16:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
This section no longer reflects practice. Removal of personal attacks is apparently never acceptable, except in extremely limited circumstances and on your own talk page, and perhaps when put in by editors with no community standing. Hipocrite ( talk) 14:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
From reading WP:NPA, it seems like a "personal attack" on Wikipedia would be like going to the talk page for NASCAR and calling somebody a Bible-thumping Nazi or something.
That is different from conjecture about a person's actions which are relevant to quality of Wikipedia articles, and are backed by evidence. Ukufwakfgr ( talk) 03:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've just given IP User 80.73.218.181 a level 3 warning for vandalism on the Jersey article. Although it was not an attack against an individual person, it seems that there should be something in the policy that deprecates insults based on nationalities. Some may think a level 3 warning was a bit harsh for a first post, but I think this sort of thing is best stamped on hard from the start. Mjroots ( talk) 09:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed a disturbing trend lately where someone brings an issue to one of the noticeboards and when an uninvolved admin takes action such as issuing a warning, reverting an edit, etc. the editor on the opposing side of the admin's action immediately (and falsely) accuses the admin of inappropriate behavior, invoking the Heckler's veto so that the admin feels reluctant to take further action in the case. This is becoming a problem and it seems like there should be some way addressing this in this policy. Comments? Toddst1 ( talk) 22:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
In the wiki article 'Ouyang Xiu' a wiki editor has removed a reference to an article I wrote and claimed I had plagarized portions of it. Given I am a university professor, this is a serious accusation and worthy of legal action. The article in question was by Bruce Carpenter and entitled 'Confucian Aesthetics and Eleventh Century Ouyang Hsiu.' The editor in question goes by the name "Enfermero." Please respond to me at my email carp@tezukayama-u.ac.jp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.102.13.244 ( talk) 07:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be something in this article about the removing of one's own personal attack over regret of posting it? Jprulestheworld01 ( talk) 10:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes an editor says something in the heat of an argument that he seriously regrets. 30 seconds later, he removes the comment, before anyone else responds, and before anyone else reads the comment.
Later, when editors are digging through the reverting editor's comments for dirt for a RFC or Arbcom action, does the reverting editor's comment still qualify as a personal attack? If no one reads the personal attack until weeks later when editors are looking for dirt, and the editor quickly removed the comment, is it still actionable?
Does it matter that the editor, on his own initative, removed the personal attacks?
Has this question been bought up before, here or in a RFC or arbcom? Ikip ( talk) 15:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
A request for comment at WP:Civil also has relevance for WP:NPA, namely abuse of the one-line Edit Summary could be construed as a personal attack. Please take a look and comment. Brews ohare ( talk) 22:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Do we have a decent essay somewhere that explains what we mean when we say "Don't personalize disputes" or "You're personalizing this issue"? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 06:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Labeling it a "personal attack" when someone calls foul due to "censorship" and using it to further censor the injured party sounds something like putting people into insane asylums because they disagree with policy. We know how that ended. 206.124.6.222 ( talk) 00:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to start a discussion about possibly merging some of this material with WP:Harassment and/or WP:Civility and possibly converting what's left to a guideline page. What's prompting this is the Request for comment on sidebar and navigation templates on policy pages; the shorter the conduct policy navigation template is, and the more those pages have in common with whatever the current page is, the more likely people are to actually click the links. I just moved WP:Harassment and WP:Vandalism over to enforcement (those pages are 95% about bannable and blockable offenses), but this page doesn't really deserve to get moved over because the stuff here is about unpleasant and inadvisable actions more than bannable actions. When something is "inadvisable", that's kind of a clue that we're talking more about a guideline than a policy, and I don't mean that as an insult to the page ... "what to do to get the best results" tends to be a better fit for guidelines pages, because you can go ahead and give the advice that you want to give without worrying about every possible exception. In addition to the advice, there's fairly heavy overlap here with WP:Civility, and it's always best to gather similar policy material onto the same policy page, so that people have discussions about the material in the same place at the same time. I'm thinking that the kind of personal attacks that are bad enough to merit blocking or banning would probably best be handled at WP:Harassment. Thoughts? - Dank ( push to talk) 19:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
{{ rfctag}} - Not much response, cancelling the RFC. - Dank ( push to talk) 04:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that we export some of the material in No personal attacks to Civility and Harassment and change the page to a guideline or the other way 'round. This page is often used as a link and a warning: " No personal attacks, please." The problem is, this could mean any of three different things. If you meant that they've committed a bannable offense, like throwing around gross racist epithets, Harassment is the primary policy page that deals with that. If you meant that their argument has no validity on Wikipedia per our Civility policy, because it's an ad-hominem attack rather than reasoned discussion, then it would be better to link that section at that page. If you meant that you think their point is valid or might be valid, but you heard an insult mixed in with the message and you're advising them that that doesn't work well on Wikipedia, then we need a guideline page to link to for that ... maybe this page could serve that function. - Dank ( push to talk) 14:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC) tweaked for RfC
Thanks to Risker for pointing out the previous discussions. During the discussions about re-categorizing policy in November, I focused on Jan 2008 to the present ... but it turns out the last heavy activity on this page was just before that, in Nov and Dec 2007. The page hasn't changed much at all since then, and I'm wondering whether that's because people are happy with the page as it is, or because people aren't reading the page (possibly because the point seems easy to understand? I don't know). If people are happy with the page, then we can lose the RfC and the discussion notice at the top of WP:NPA. - Dank ( push to talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
This is a great idea that is long overdue, I commend Jehochman for taking on the task. I think that we agree for the most part, however I do disagree with the idea that a user should be not be held to the policy if they are venting after a block, or if they are themselves insulted. The section I am talking about is here [6].
It suggests that if a user responds in kind to a personal attack that they should not be blocked if they respond in an insulting manner. I think we can do better than an eye for an eye, I think we all learned when we were young that two wrongs do not make a right(but 3 lefts do). I think it is an important consideration to take into account, but I don't think we should draw a bright line saying "don't block for this".
In regards to the idea of a user venting on their talk page, I also disagree that this is acceptable. This is basically saying the continuing the behavior that led to your block does not justify the block being lengthened. If somebody is still engaging in personal attacks while blocked then the preventative nature of the block is still in effect. We should not be letting blocks expire while a user is still hell bent on do the same thing again, and increasing the block is one way to keep that disruption in one place. Perhaps we can suggest that for lesser personal attacks it would be better to remove talk privileges for the duration of the block rather than increase it.
I think the other points, after a bit of tweaking [7], do reflect our best practices very well. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 15:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone mind if I move the WP:ATTACK shortcut over to WP:Attack page? There's no other memorable shortcut available for that policy page. - Dank ( push to talk) 18:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
In practice, editors with more seniority and/or editors who are deemed more beneficial to the project tend to be allowed to personal attack more than newer editors.
Is this addressed in other essays or articles?
Ikip 17:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Suppose users X and Y are disputing some point about an article, and then X says one of these to Y:
The only thing I see covering this is at WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack? where it says that the following is never acceptable:
I believe the NPA wording should be tweaked to outlaw all of the above "X says" cases because a wikilawyer could readily claim that none of them "deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to...persecution", yet in the right context, even #5 would be a clear threat intended to intimidate an opponent. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
just because I see this all too frequently (and it bugs the cr@p out of me when I see it), can we strengthen the second point in the list? currently it reads:
- Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.
I'd like to see something more along the lines of:
- Labeling, categorizing, or otherwise asserting that someone belongs to some group in order to insult or discredit them. Editors' suspected affiliations should only be mentioned on Wikipedia when there are credible concerns about conflict of interest or when an editor self-identifies as a member of a particular group. Extreme violations of this may be considered outing, which is a far more serious offense.
thoughts? -- Ludwigs2 07:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, I've kicked off discussion about an idea I've had about incivility blocks. Currently it's hard to get a consistent blocking policy in terms of warnings and blocking times, I'm hoping that this proposal can get some traction to make this more clear. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Relevant discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#RfCs in userspace. Question was posed by User:Casliber: "...have we ever discussed how long is a reasonable amount of time to develop and/or leave a made-up-and-loaded RfC in one's userspace before it should be by rights deleted as an attack page? (i.e. "put-up-or-shut-up" rule?)" thanks, IZAK ( talk) 22:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Is baselessly accusing someone of being racist considered a personal attack? Factsontheground ( talk) 09:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I have encountered that it is not possible to be civil while making a personal attack. Thus I think these 2 policies should be merged. Could someone put the merger tag up? 174.3.123.220 ( talk) 00:38, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Can we have this discussion in one place? For the record, I strongly support the merge (and possibly others), as I've said on the other talk page. Far too many behavioural policies/guidelines, and far too many words in them, means less chance of the important information being read or found, and more time wasted by those editors who decide to read through them.-- Kotniski ( talk) 07:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
issue has been raised here [ [8]] over the issue of duck. The basic point is that if an edd thinks anotehr edds edits are something (say bigoted) then he can call the user a bigot (at least that is the defence bing used (not by the accused now though he has accepted it was wrong)). So my question is is ther any circmastances in which you can call someone a perogative term using Duck as defence? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:45, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, there is a wonderful quotation from Eleanor Roosevelt at the essay Wikipedia:Don't call a spade a spade. I think it would be a good idea to add it to this page, perhaps underneath the Five Pillars box. What do other editors think? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:42, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
If someone refers to what someone else says or argues as "silly" or "stupid", is that a personal attack? For example, if someone replies to this with the words, "That's silly at best", would that be a personal attack in violation of this policy and worth filing an ANI? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Although I saw the AN/I thread, I'm going to steer clear of answering this in terms of the specifics. Answering the basic question, in general terms, about whether it's a personal attack to call someone's edits silly, I would say (at least in my opinion) that it's a personal attack to call an editor silly, but not to call an silly. But I admit that this often gets difficult to distinguish in practice. A lot of this also depends upon context. I note that ArbCom in the climate change proposed decision is endorsing the idea that "casting aspersions" is a sanctionable offense. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm now addressing this issue more abstractly rather than in reference to the particular situation in which I was involved. I don't think there can ever be a guideline so clear and unequivocal with no consideration of the context in which certain words or phrases are used. An extreme example may be illustrative. If two editors with a friendly history are having a joking exchange and one says, "That was a stupid thing to say!", I don't think any reasonable person would interpret that as a personal attack (I've actually been in that type of situation and was roundly criticized by an uninvolved third party until the other editor in my exchange came to my rescue). That same phrase in a different context with editors who are having a heated discussion, however, can have a completely different meaning and is much more likley to fall into the category of personal attack. Many comments such as "stupid argument" occur in less extreme contexts, and I don't think it's possible to determine if there was incivility or a personal attack outside of that context. Cresix ( talk) 18:21, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, I agree that a phrase like "That was a stupid thing to say!" can be interpreted many different ways, both civilly and uncivilly, depending on context, but I just can't see how it could possibly refer to the "character, appearance, or private life" of the person who happened to say the supposedly stupid thing. I mean, if it is personal, what exactly does it say about the person? When I said your arguments were silly at best, what do you think that implied about you personally (I assure you, I intended nothing about you personally)? If it says nothing about the person, how is it personal at all, much less a personal attack? Am I missing something? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I will only add that I'm probably sensitive about this distinction because life has taught me that it's critical to distinguish people's actions from the people, and to always (not just in WP, but with friends, children, students, employees, co-workers, customers, etc.) try to comment on actions and behavior rather than on persons, especially if it's critical. "That's a stupid thing to say" is an example of doing so, and something I might say to a friend, my wife, or my child. "You are stupid" is something I would never say to anyone, nor mean to imply.
Oh, and #v1.1 below addresses your concern about the potential of people taking advantage of this change in that it makes it clear that recognizing comments about behavior not being personal does not allow for such comments when they are uncivil; it's just that such statements would be outside the scope of this policy. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hidden clarification |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
( edit conflict)I've gone ahead and added the following subsection about this point:
Comments and improvements are encouraged! -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand what makes this change significant. Does it really change anything, other than add a little clarification? What is the objection? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
In this version I add the link to WP:CIVILITY to emphasize that by clarifying "critical comments about behavior" are not personal attacks by definition, that does not mean they are acceptable.
Comments? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 18:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
In this version I simplify the wording and adjust it to avoid implying it prohibits incivility that is not a personal attack ( WP:CIVIL prohibits that).
Comments? -- Born2cycle ( talk)
Surely if it's truly as ambiguous as you claim someone can come up with an example that really is ambiguous. So far no one has.
I'm also curious about the apparent reluctance (I've seen it with respect to other guidelines too) to make guidelines be more clear; it's almost as if some prefer the ambiguity. Like I said before, I think that encourages wikilawyering. Just like with real law, by "tightening up" the wording like this we give the lawyers less to play with. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Tighten up the wording even more by using an unambiguous fact of grammar.
I would like to point out that to the extent this would encourage people to craft their comments in disputes accordingly -- to focus on behavior rather than persons -- that would be an improvement to Wikipedia.
Comments? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree the policy would be better if it more closely reflected the nutshell. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 17:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Add another criteria for what is not a personal attack.
Comments? - Born2cycle ( talk) 18:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
...of personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity that can result in a block of the perpetrator? I can guarantee that being insulted as being "old" or "an old fart," especially given the amount of effort and experience that this professional journalist and author has given Wikipedia, is as vicious as someone calling me a "guinea" because I am Italian. There's no reason that being ghettoized, dismissed, or — in the case of a current abusive editor — being the target of a focused collection of ageist insults is any less distressing or ruining of the Wikipedia experience. Ageism is not OK. -- Tenebrae ( talk) 00:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Just stuck in the phrase "In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible. " This is a device used to defuse a seeming person attack in (e.g.) legislative bodies. E.g. "The honorable gentleman is wrong", etc. But never "You". Pproctor ( talk) 22:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I was reading over part of the guidelines, and came across the following in the Recurring Attacks section: "This is also the difficulty in recurring attacks. We have to assume that the attacker is willing to compromise. It is not plausible for editors to attack each other (or they would have been defined as attackers) because they want and expect strong discourse." Apologies to whoever wrote this, but I have no idea what this means. Why would we assume the attacker is willing to compromise? What is that saying about the "defined as attackers"? Who wants or expects strong discourse? When I read this, I actually thought someone might have vandalized the page recently, because this comes close to having no meaning. At the least, this section needs to be rephrased, but I have so little guess as to what it means that I don't know how to start. Any ideas? Qwyrxian ( talk) 11:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I've tweedled with the Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F section, mostly CE and amplification, but also tweaking the focus of it a bit. comments/revisions welcome.
I was debating with myself over one point: I wanted to add in a bit about non-verbal attacks (blanket reverts, tendentious tagging, aggressive discussion closure, etc.), but it's an awfully gray area. I mean, it's clear that these things are sometimes used as personal attacks, but since they are almost invariably done without discussion when they are used as attacks, it's a difficult point to make. Yes, I think we all recognize that in some cases - e.g. when M. Shmoe spends three hours revising an article, and M. Shmue takes all of twelve seconds to revert it in bulk with an obnoxious edit summary like "rv POV-pushing crap" - a personal attack of some sort has occurred. However, the attack seems to go a good bit beyond the unfortunate use of the word 'crap', but it's hard to express precisely why it's more wrong than that wrong (it strikes me as a level of arrogant disrespect for the other editor's efforts, but...). so two questions: (i) do we want to get into that here?, and (ii) do we want to get into that here? -- Ludwigs2 08:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
who sends the complaints to say it was a personal attack, because a reply i have put has been removed twice from a discussion page, then flagged for an attack on a person when it was nothing of the sort, wikipedia and it's users are really starting to frustrate me now as i cannot even say - see i was right, this data was right so stop deleting it you sod - without being accused of personal attack. It's ridiculous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.57.251 ( talk) 15:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
"Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." It seems that this sentence is redundant, or is an unnecessary addition to the "What is considered to be a personal attack?" section. Insulting/disparaging is implied to be a personal attack within the bullet outlines. I really can't see why this sentence should necessarily be in there. And God forbid if it should be kept, why would we need "regardless of the manner in which it is done"? I don't know if that is necessary. But I really think this sentence should be revised or edited out for sure. What do you other guys think about this? 67.80.144.146 ( talk) 19:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Since this is more in the nature of where to complain, if there is someplace, in re the "voices" comment here, does that or does that not qualify as an attack? If it does, what action should I take, if any? If any is to be taken, where do I go? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 16:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
This sentence is poorly written and appears contradicted by the subsequent ones. A Wikipedian who is also an author of a BookSurge-published book declared that discussing his reputation as a historian is a personal attack. I'm sure such absurd interpretations of this policy were not intended, because WP:NPOV would be impossible to reach if every Wikipedian who adds his own books to articles cannot have his reputation as a suitable source for articles questioned. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 18:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Even the article on ad hominem makes more sense than the statement I quoted, in no small part because it relies on reliable sources instead of the opinion of the few Wikipedians who have edited this page and who seem to need a refresher in informal logic. "The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue". Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
And for a more trivial case, WP:CSD#G5. Someone belonging to the banned user group seems a license to dismiss their edits of any kind. Have mörser, will travel ( talk) 18:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Using an editor's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views; e.g. "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.
Gerardw ( talk) 22:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)