This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ComplexRational ( talk) 17:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hijiri88 ( talk · contribs) here. Posting this logged out not to hide from the Wikipedia community in general but to protect myself from specific targeted harassment from an editor who I believe is monitoring my logged-in edits but is not monitoring this talk page. (If this is somehow a violation of the sockpuppetry policy, I apologize, and will post logged in to confirm that this is me and to "out" my own act of posting here to my harasser, but past experience indicates that this is not a requirement: I have done this a few times in the past, and never been warned about it being a violation. I will also post here logged in in a week or two, if I remember to do so, once the harm that could be brought from my harasser seeing this comment when it is new is no longer a concern.)
I have always assumed that the text Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.
had the broad consensus of the Wikipedia community as something that did constitute a personal attack and was sanctionable as such, but I've never seen anyone actually get blocked or otherwise sanctioned for doing it, and have even recently (over the last 11 months or so) seen admins engaging in it with no apparent consequence. Looking at the page history (thank you,
WP:WikiBlame!) indicates that
User:Jehochman
added (and shortly thereafter
modified) the text in October 2008, at which point
this talk page contained no discussion of such additions (ditto,
apparently,
VPR and
VPP). Looking at
Jehochman's contribs to other pages around the same time doesn't shed any further light on the matter (
User:Risker
messaged Jehochman about a peripheral issue, implying that the overall edits were tacitly approved of, but that's about it).
Don't get me wrong: I agree with the edits 100%, but I wonder if saying that these are types of comments are never acceptable
is something that is overall supported by the Wikipedia community, and if it is, how does the community generally support handling such types of comments?
211.135.108.100 ( talk) 04:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Why is this policy limited to protect only editors from personal attacks? I often see some choice vitriol being flung at public figures, subjects of WP:BLPs, historical figures, etc. It seems that these are allowed, because my efforts to redact such conversation results in a reversion and the offending material is kept for posterity. An ad hominem as a logical fallacy is a false form of debate, and as such, should not be allowed on talk pages just if we're going to follow proper form and decorum. Furthermore, most talk pages are constrained by WP:NOTFORUM which would necessarily exclude personal attacks against anyone. Furthermore, consider that we have no idea who is an editor, and who is not an editor. President Trump goes on Twitter with such alacrity that it wouldn't surprise me if he's tried to edit Wikipedia at least once, as well. Public figures aren't going to declare publicly that they edit Wikipedia, so there is morally no way to restrict NPA to editors unless we only count what's directly addressed to those editors by their editor name (hint: we don't do that.) Elizium23 ( talk) 06:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Toddst1, “Not seeing consensus” for an edit is not justification to revert an edit, like you did here. See WP:DRNC for a full explanation if one is needed. Do you have a good reason to revert? The bullet I added simply clarifies that what we define as a personal attack at Ad hominem, to which Personal attack redirects, is, you know, a personal attack, and therefore prohibited by No Personal Attacks. So I don’t understand how there can be no consensus, or even objection, to this. Can you please explain, or, better yet, revert your revert? Thanks! — В²C ☎ 01:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
not seeing consensusisn't a justification for reverting a change to a policy page, you shouldn't be participating in such discussions. E Eng 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems that criticism of a person's behavior is at the core of any substantial argument about problem editors. Labeling such criticism as a personal attack is absurd and would shut down almost all discussion of problematic editors. So I removed it. I think adding it to the policy page was absurd and, as pointed out above by @ Johnuniq:, could easily be considered WP:POINTY behavior or WP:FORCEDINTERPRET with the recent circumstances at AN.
You (Born2cycle) clearly have no idea of what an ad-hominem attack is and should stop accusing others of doing so. With such a poor understanding of the issue, you should seriously vet any changes to policy you might think appropriate in that area. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Incorporating Toddst1's concerns and Bus stop's suggestions, how about this?
Okay? -- В²C ☎ 16:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I added it with a slight wording variation [2]. Hope that’s okay.
Also added the highlighted clause to this bullet to integrate better.
— В²C ☎ 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Johnuniq reverted [3] the above change for the following reason: “it's unfortunate, but some editors are time sinks or otherwise problematic, and that occassionaly needs to be pointed out”.
It may need to be pointed out, but is the article or policy talk page where it needs to be pointed out? To my understanding, that contradicts what this policy says in a number of places, including:
All of these important statements quoted from this policy are consistent with and support the statement I added which was reverted,
and they directly contradict the claim made by Johnuniq to justify their revert. In fact, this revert demonstrates why it’s important to include such a statement in the policy: even some experienced editors don’t seem to realize “pointing out” problematic editor behavior on an article or policy talk page (or edit summary for that matter) is a violation of this policy. —- В²C ☎ 05:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I weigh the opinion of generalists higher than those of obsessive page-movers' and '
you misspelled "track record"'. After dismissing their views as ad hominem attacks, you edited this policy ( diff) to explicitly declare that such comments are personal attacks (and hence can be redacted and the perpetrator blocked). In an ideal community, people would not make remarks such as those quoted here, and frequent commenting along those lines would result in sanctions after a warning. However, there is no such thing as an ideal community as is seen daily when those with an infinite amount of time doggedly pursue discussions which most would regard as settled. WP:NPA does not need enhancements to outlaw problematic comments and such situations would need to be evaluated on their merits. I would vote against sanctions for the AN permalink case, but your change would reward those who cannot let things go. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Apart from Born2cycle being told off at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for "obsessive" behaviour on 30 Sept/Oct 1, what lies behind the addition to WP:NPA here four hours later of the new rule that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard can't say that here, which was correctly reverted. Where's the discussion in the 4 hours prior to adding this new rule as an English Wikipedia policy which "describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."? In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
users who are blocked only once are not repeated-- Hacker-index ( talk) 13:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
check my talk page and you will see. TigerScientist Chat 21:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:DIE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 12#Wikipedia:DIE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD ( talk) 21:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see:
Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Inconsistent list of protected classes
Summary: the lists of protected classes (race, religion, etc.) at
WP:Harassment#TYPE and
WP:No personal attacks#WHATIS do not agree. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
06:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the phrase
be changed to
in this policy as well as
WP:HARASSMENT#TYPES?
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
06:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
06:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
07:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.We add wording related to "spiritual" because it incenses someone that is not "religious", political, or just because their belief (or non-belief) is not included on the list and the next editor could successfully argue that adding "non-spiritual" is equally non-controversial and important. I expanded context in Harassment (controversial but left standing) that was essentially just appeasement (not actually needed) that some still deemed not going far enough. Harassment is identified in "Other uncivil behaviours" (b) yet it was felt necessary to add "sexual harassment" (c) that is still a form of harassment. We don't need to add instructions for appeasement of an individual or group because there is hypothesizing or surmising that particular wording or lack thereof is somehow bias. The net result is excessive detail and unnecessary red tape for something that is really a corollary. If a person makes derogatory remarks on any individual or group, regardless of the reason, it is problematic and should be dealt with. One main problem with Wikipedia is the lackadaisical implementation of dealing with any personal attacks. Be "personally attacked" and report it to ANI and boomerang becomes a central point, not the attack. Two editors were involved (back to back but one was archived) with a combined total edit count exceeding half a million. This should never be a consideration as a pass. Another editor made egregious and unfounded accusations on a particular group but it was justified because indirect (even though very clear) comments can be allowed if the rationale behind the agenda resulting in the attacks has some validity. We tend to argue and get bogged down over semantics, trying to invoke philosophical areas of Intrinsic, extrinsic or instrumental value, that sight of the goal is fogged. Some take offense at the application involving the word "religion" yet an accepted definition is,
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.There is already too much bureaucracy so calls for concise pruning are valid. -- Otr500 ( talk) 13:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Harassment of an editor is not allowed.— GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
02:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)thought this ... reflects existing consensus on what kinds of harassment should be banned. There aren't "kinds of harassment" that are banned; all harrassment is banned, and this partial list (and note that any list will always be partial) implies the opposite. E Eng 18:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Per the discussion Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Adding spirituality as a group of people that shouldn't be targeted by personal attacks, more than one editor expressed the desire to reduce this list rather than expand it. I propose we remove exactly one item from this list. The options are: race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious beliefs, political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, and nationality. MarshallKe ( talk) 00:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
While I assume that the starter of this discussion is acting in good faith, the proposed question reads very much like an attempt to start a Hunger Games-style competition between various axes of marginalization over which one should be removed. To avoid such a trainwreck I would strongly urge the question to be withdrawn; if the proposer would like to propose a specific change to the page that is fine (although I would oppose the removal of any of them). CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I have a question. Could asking someone rhetorically if they're "really here to build an encyclopedia" be considered a personal attack in cases without clear vandalism, such as a discussion on sources? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I have someone who has launched PA against me that needs to be banned Persesus ( talk) 15:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
In the context of calling people names, a reference to Godwin's Law reads as though it is trivialising such name-calling. That is: “look, inevitably all arguments end up comparing someone to Hitler.” But this is exactly the sort of thing we are not excusing. I would like to just take out the parenthetical myself, but I'm not in the habit of editing policy without checking in first.
As currently written:
some types of comments are never acceptable: […]
- Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons.
— HTGS ( talk) 02:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:No personal attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Responding to personal attacks" section has incorrect information about what to do if the personal attack involves a threat of physical harm. Currently, this section states "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents."
However, this information is incorrect as step 3 of the the Wikipedia guideline regarding threats of physical harm explicitly states that high-traffic noticeboards should not be used in situations involving threats of physical harm.
Therefore, the section on this article should be changed to something like this. "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents unless they involve a threat of physical harm. Do not use high-traffic noticeboards in any situation involving threats of physical harm. Instead, immediately follow the instructions on this page." 158.121.180.33 ( talk) 15:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: The Wikipedia:Emergency page is a behavioral guideline, whereas this is a policy. I don't believe I should be changing a policy to meet a guideline. There is further clarification needed here as which is the proper procedure. Fbifriday ( talk) 10:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Adding: "*Accusing others of lack of patriotism (which usually is a good thing but context matters)". What do you think? Sometimes someone gets accused of lack of patriotism if he is adding material based or RS that is not flattering to its own country of origin. Cinadon 36 08:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Any interest in changing Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.
to Derogatory comments about other editors are sometimes removed.
in the two spots where this is stated? I feel that the action requires some nuance (as described in the
WP:NPA#Removal of personal attacks section), and that giving such an absolute "this is allowed" type statement may encourage newer editors to be a bit reckless with their NPA removals. Thanks. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
18:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:IDONTLIKETHENOMINATOR. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ComplexRational ( talk) 17:39, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Hijiri88 ( talk · contribs) here. Posting this logged out not to hide from the Wikipedia community in general but to protect myself from specific targeted harassment from an editor who I believe is monitoring my logged-in edits but is not monitoring this talk page. (If this is somehow a violation of the sockpuppetry policy, I apologize, and will post logged in to confirm that this is me and to "out" my own act of posting here to my harasser, but past experience indicates that this is not a requirement: I have done this a few times in the past, and never been warned about it being a violation. I will also post here logged in in a week or two, if I remember to do so, once the harm that could be brought from my harasser seeing this comment when it is new is no longer a concern.)
I have always assumed that the text Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.
had the broad consensus of the Wikipedia community as something that did constitute a personal attack and was sanctionable as such, but I've never seen anyone actually get blocked or otherwise sanctioned for doing it, and have even recently (over the last 11 months or so) seen admins engaging in it with no apparent consequence. Looking at the page history (thank you,
WP:WikiBlame!) indicates that
User:Jehochman
added (and shortly thereafter
modified) the text in October 2008, at which point
this talk page contained no discussion of such additions (ditto,
apparently,
VPR and
VPP). Looking at
Jehochman's contribs to other pages around the same time doesn't shed any further light on the matter (
User:Risker
messaged Jehochman about a peripheral issue, implying that the overall edits were tacitly approved of, but that's about it).
Don't get me wrong: I agree with the edits 100%, but I wonder if saying that these are types of comments are never acceptable
is something that is overall supported by the Wikipedia community, and if it is, how does the community generally support handling such types of comments?
211.135.108.100 ( talk) 04:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Why is this policy limited to protect only editors from personal attacks? I often see some choice vitriol being flung at public figures, subjects of WP:BLPs, historical figures, etc. It seems that these are allowed, because my efforts to redact such conversation results in a reversion and the offending material is kept for posterity. An ad hominem as a logical fallacy is a false form of debate, and as such, should not be allowed on talk pages just if we're going to follow proper form and decorum. Furthermore, most talk pages are constrained by WP:NOTFORUM which would necessarily exclude personal attacks against anyone. Furthermore, consider that we have no idea who is an editor, and who is not an editor. President Trump goes on Twitter with such alacrity that it wouldn't surprise me if he's tried to edit Wikipedia at least once, as well. Public figures aren't going to declare publicly that they edit Wikipedia, so there is morally no way to restrict NPA to editors unless we only count what's directly addressed to those editors by their editor name (hint: we don't do that.) Elizium23 ( talk) 06:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Toddst1, “Not seeing consensus” for an edit is not justification to revert an edit, like you did here. See WP:DRNC for a full explanation if one is needed. Do you have a good reason to revert? The bullet I added simply clarifies that what we define as a personal attack at Ad hominem, to which Personal attack redirects, is, you know, a personal attack, and therefore prohibited by No Personal Attacks. So I don’t understand how there can be no consensus, or even objection, to this. Can you please explain, or, better yet, revert your revert? Thanks! — В²C ☎ 01:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
not seeing consensusisn't a justification for reverting a change to a policy page, you shouldn't be participating in such discussions. E Eng 05:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
It seems that criticism of a person's behavior is at the core of any substantial argument about problem editors. Labeling such criticism as a personal attack is absurd and would shut down almost all discussion of problematic editors. So I removed it. I think adding it to the policy page was absurd and, as pointed out above by @ Johnuniq:, could easily be considered WP:POINTY behavior or WP:FORCEDINTERPRET with the recent circumstances at AN.
You (Born2cycle) clearly have no idea of what an ad-hominem attack is and should stop accusing others of doing so. With such a poor understanding of the issue, you should seriously vet any changes to policy you might think appropriate in that area. Toddst1 ( talk) 21:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Incorporating Toddst1's concerns and Bus stop's suggestions, how about this?
Okay? -- В²C ☎ 16:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I added it with a slight wording variation [2]. Hope that’s okay.
Also added the highlighted clause to this bullet to integrate better.
— В²C ☎ 00:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Johnuniq reverted [3] the above change for the following reason: “it's unfortunate, but some editors are time sinks or otherwise problematic, and that occassionaly needs to be pointed out”.
It may need to be pointed out, but is the article or policy talk page where it needs to be pointed out? To my understanding, that contradicts what this policy says in a number of places, including:
All of these important statements quoted from this policy are consistent with and support the statement I added which was reverted,
and they directly contradict the claim made by Johnuniq to justify their revert. In fact, this revert demonstrates why it’s important to include such a statement in the policy: even some experienced editors don’t seem to realize “pointing out” problematic editor behavior on an article or policy talk page (or edit summary for that matter) is a violation of this policy. —- В²C ☎ 05:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I weigh the opinion of generalists higher than those of obsessive page-movers' and '
you misspelled "track record"'. After dismissing their views as ad hominem attacks, you edited this policy ( diff) to explicitly declare that such comments are personal attacks (and hence can be redacted and the perpetrator blocked). In an ideal community, people would not make remarks such as those quoted here, and frequent commenting along those lines would result in sanctions after a warning. However, there is no such thing as an ideal community as is seen daily when those with an infinite amount of time doggedly pursue discussions which most would regard as settled. WP:NPA does not need enhancements to outlaw problematic comments and such situations would need to be evaluated on their merits. I would vote against sanctions for the AN permalink case, but your change would reward those who cannot let things go. Johnuniq ( talk) 06:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Apart from Born2cycle being told off at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard for "obsessive" behaviour on 30 Sept/Oct 1, what lies behind the addition to WP:NPA here four hours later of the new rule that Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard can't say that here, which was correctly reverted. Where's the discussion in the 4 hours prior to adding this new rule as an English Wikipedia policy which "describes a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."? In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
users who are blocked only once are not repeated-- Hacker-index ( talk) 13:56, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
check my talk page and you will see. TigerScientist Chat 21:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:DIE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 12#Wikipedia:DIE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BDD ( talk) 21:09, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see:
Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Inconsistent list of protected classes
Summary: the lists of protected classes (race, religion, etc.) at
WP:Harassment#TYPE and
WP:No personal attacks#WHATIS do not agree. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
06:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Arguments to avoid in image deletion discussions § IMAGENAZI shortcut. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 21:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the phrase
be changed to
in this policy as well as
WP:HARASSMENT#TYPES?
Chess (
talk) (please use {{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
06:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
06:54, 4 July 2021 (UTC){{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
07:32, 4 July 2021 (UTC)Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor.We add wording related to "spiritual" because it incenses someone that is not "religious", political, or just because their belief (or non-belief) is not included on the list and the next editor could successfully argue that adding "non-spiritual" is equally non-controversial and important. I expanded context in Harassment (controversial but left standing) that was essentially just appeasement (not actually needed) that some still deemed not going far enough. Harassment is identified in "Other uncivil behaviours" (b) yet it was felt necessary to add "sexual harassment" (c) that is still a form of harassment. We don't need to add instructions for appeasement of an individual or group because there is hypothesizing or surmising that particular wording or lack thereof is somehow bias. The net result is excessive detail and unnecessary red tape for something that is really a corollary. If a person makes derogatory remarks on any individual or group, regardless of the reason, it is problematic and should be dealt with. One main problem with Wikipedia is the lackadaisical implementation of dealing with any personal attacks. Be "personally attacked" and report it to ANI and boomerang becomes a central point, not the attack. Two editors were involved (back to back but one was archived) with a combined total edit count exceeding half a million. This should never be a consideration as a pass. Another editor made egregious and unfounded accusations on a particular group but it was justified because indirect (even though very clear) comments can be allowed if the rationale behind the agenda resulting in the attacks has some validity. We tend to argue and get bogged down over semantics, trying to invoke philosophical areas of Intrinsic, extrinsic or instrumental value, that sight of the goal is fogged. Some take offense at the application involving the word "religion" yet an accepted definition is,
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.There is already too much bureaucracy so calls for concise pruning are valid. -- Otr500 ( talk) 13:02, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Harassment of an editor is not allowed.— GhostInTheMachine talk to me 15:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
{{
reply to|Chess}}
on reply)
02:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)thought this ... reflects existing consensus on what kinds of harassment should be banned. There aren't "kinds of harassment" that are banned; all harrassment is banned, and this partial list (and note that any list will always be partial) implies the opposite. E Eng 18:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Per the discussion Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Adding spirituality as a group of people that shouldn't be targeted by personal attacks, more than one editor expressed the desire to reduce this list rather than expand it. I propose we remove exactly one item from this list. The options are: race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious beliefs, political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, and nationality. MarshallKe ( talk) 00:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
While I assume that the starter of this discussion is acting in good faith, the proposed question reads very much like an attempt to start a Hunger Games-style competition between various axes of marginalization over which one should be removed. To avoid such a trainwreck I would strongly urge the question to be withdrawn; if the proposer would like to propose a specific change to the page that is fine (although I would oppose the removal of any of them). CapitalSasha ~ talk 02:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I have a question. Could asking someone rhetorically if they're "really here to build an encyclopedia" be considered a personal attack in cases without clear vandalism, such as a discussion on sources? A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
I have someone who has launched PA against me that needs to be banned Persesus ( talk) 15:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
In the context of calling people names, a reference to Godwin's Law reads as though it is trivialising such name-calling. That is: “look, inevitably all arguments end up comparing someone to Hitler.” But this is exactly the sort of thing we are not excusing. I would like to just take out the parenthetical myself, but I'm not in the habit of editing policy without checking in first.
As currently written:
some types of comments are never acceptable: […]
- Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons.
— HTGS ( talk) 02:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Wikipedia:No personal attacks has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The "Responding to personal attacks" section has incorrect information about what to do if the personal attack involves a threat of physical harm. Currently, this section states "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents."
However, this information is incorrect as step 3 of the the Wikipedia guideline regarding threats of physical harm explicitly states that high-traffic noticeboards should not be used in situations involving threats of physical harm.
Therefore, the section on this article should be changed to something like this. "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly bigoted insults) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents unless they involve a threat of physical harm. Do not use high-traffic noticeboards in any situation involving threats of physical harm. Instead, immediately follow the instructions on this page." 158.121.180.33 ( talk) 15:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done for now: The Wikipedia:Emergency page is a behavioral guideline, whereas this is a policy. I don't believe I should be changing a policy to meet a guideline. There is further clarification needed here as which is the proper procedure. Fbifriday ( talk) 10:13, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Adding: "*Accusing others of lack of patriotism (which usually is a good thing but context matters)". What do you think? Sometimes someone gets accused of lack of patriotism if he is adding material based or RS that is not flattering to its own country of origin. Cinadon 36 08:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Any interest in changing Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor.
to Derogatory comments about other editors are sometimes removed.
in the two spots where this is stated? I feel that the action requires some nuance (as described in the
WP:NPA#Removal of personal attacks section), and that giving such an absolute "this is allowed" type statement may encourage newer editors to be a bit reckless with their NPA removals. Thanks. –
Novem Linguae (
talk)
18:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)