Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks

Archives
Archive 1 Poll 2004 Archive 2 Archive 3 See also the talk pages of the subpages
Subpages
current list of subpages
Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Death threats Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Extension

What if the user removes the warning template from their talk page?

If I warn a user with {{npa}}, but they remove it, what can I do? --Lethargy 04:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Please answer this, there are others who are interested in hearing the response. Thank You. :) Duke53 | ^Talk 05:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. What if the warning is falsely applied?

Why should you do anything? People have the right to do whatever they want on their own talk page. The important question is whether they keep making personal attacks. john k 17:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a controversial issue. See: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings Nil Einne 09:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions of self-harm

Currently, only direct threats and direct insults are noted as being personal attacks. I suggest that suggestions of self harm ("Why don't you jump off a cliff") should also be specifically noted as personal attacks. Common sense implies the inclusion, but there will always be someone who tries to use the letter rather than the spirit of the rule. Thoughts? Rhialto 06:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this [1] a personal attack

I just wanted to know whether Is this [2] a personal attack. I don't want any action as I assume Good Faith thinking that this is just a (mis)sense of comedy (this being the first instance) but just want to know the opinion of the community.  Doctor Bruno  02:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly obnoxious. Feels kind of borderline to me. Saying that people are pulling quotes out of their asses is rude, but I think it's only borderline. At any rate, I tend to think everyone would be a lot better off if we added an "ignore personal attacks" rule in addition to the "no personal attacks" rule. Personal attacks derail discussion, but only if we let them by engaging with them, instead of sticking to substantive disagreements. john k 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Some people talk like that. He's just sending you to take a walk. He doesn't like your POV.

But, on my experience, with a few of these you could well make a case in PAIN, depending on which administrator jumps first. --Sugaar 05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

False Accusations

I would like to start a discussion of false accusations being used to personally attack another user. This seems rather obvious to me that falsely accusing another user of something derogatory, without evidence, is a method of personal attack. I request comments on this.--Fahrenheit451 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Fahrenheit451's request follows on the heels of his / her accusation of a personal attack, here which revolved around the image talk here. He / she took my intended (potentially) helpful solution to his / her intent as a personal attack and, in an attempt to handle the "high resolution copyright" difficulty, posted to Jimmy Wales here. Terryeo 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Only there was no "high-resolution copyright difficulty" as Terryeo alleges. False accusations are a method of personal attack. I think that this needs to be explicitly addressed in Wikipedia policy.--Fahrenheit451 19:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a separate (but related) question regarding this topic; a user has repeatedly accused me of personal attack for leaving a civility warning on their talk page (not unwarranted), though I have reminded them of the seriousness of the accusation and that the template is certainly not in and of itself an attack (that is their only "basis" for accusation). I am not sure of what I should do here; is their some proper action I can take to get the user to stop making false claims against me? Thanks. Shannernanner 14:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell them that you welcome an RFC to discuss your conduct and his. That usually puts and end to it, because the bullies who behave badly generally know they are behaving badly. - Jmabel | Talk 01:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Censoring obscene comments

I've created a template to censor obscene comments at User:nkayesmith/censored (see it in action on my talk page). I feel that it's a good compromise between deleting the comment and allowing it to remain. What does everyone think? --nkayesmith 09:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. >Radiant< 11:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Or so it's meant. Therefore I think it's not any good idea. Better to bear one or two rude comments than to start censoring. Of course, you can use it in your user talk page, if you wish.

If the matter is really serious, you should consider administrative action against the wrongdoer. --Sugaar 13:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not mean deleting the comment, I mean hiding it from view. I originally created as a way to more elegantly remove personal attacks (in the cases described in the essay linked to above) - instead of linking to the diff, replace the comment with a message and button to show the comment. --nkayesmith 01:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it will cause further edit wars. Personal attacks are meant not to be done, to be apologized about and even to be persecuted... but not to be hidden. That's my view.

Also the term "censored" sounds specially awful in Wikipedia. --Sugaar 09:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I've changed the wording.--nkayesmith 09:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggested addition

Please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Death threats and its talk page for discussion on that topic (recently moved to that subpage). One suggestion was to make the wording here stronger, and to specifically mention what to do in the case of death threats, as opposed to having a separate page. I'm recording this suggestion here, so that it can be discussed. See also Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy#Suggested addition. Carcharoth 01:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps all that is needed is an additional sentence at the end of the "Remedies" section. Something like this:

Threats of physical violence or death are taken seriously, and usually result in a community ban.

I think that reflects current practice, without going too far into instruction creep. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA is a widely used/cited policy. I feel that it's pretty important with this policy in particular to get the wording right before adding something like this into the page - and in my opinion the fact that somebody wrote a whole policy proposal on it, and the accompanying discussion on what should be in the policy, demonstrates that it needs to be clear and concise. A single sentence is very vague, and doesn't adress the concerns raised in the discussion. For that reason might I suggest a format for an addition as a subsection of the policy, along with a little box here to reach concensus on the exact wording (people in agreement with the subsection idea could obviously develop the exact wording until a consensus version appears)... (of course, those that disagree can still voice their objections and this whole comment may well be null and void.) - I may well be out on a limb all on my own here. Crimsone 05:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Which concerns doesn't that sentence address? (As someone who's been the [[3]] of a death threat, I think that sentence covers the bases fairly well.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal subsection

Subheader Title Blurb about defininition and wiki's opinion on them and why. Description of what are not considered such threats. Examples: of what they aren't

Threats of death or physical violence Death threats and violent threats are extreme forms of personal attacks with either direct or indirect suggestions of a violent, or murderous act. Such comments that are obviously humourous and statements containing no particular suggestion of physical harm are not covered by this policy, but are strongly discouraged. They are viewed with particular concern by many people due to their vengefull and unsettling nature, and taken particularly seriously on Wikipedia due to their extreme venom and harmful effects on the community. Any such threat or attack will result in a very stern warning at the lesser extreme, or may result in an indefinite block from Wikipedia at the other. Examples of statements not considered to be threats of violence: "If you revert me again, you'll be sorry!" "You'll wish you never said that!" Threats of an online attack (such as DDoS, "hacking", etc.) Legal threats (see WP:LEGAL)

• That's quite a bit more verbose than we need. For instance, the term "death threat" is obvious enough to not need any examples, let alone eight of them. (Radiant) 10:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'd have to conceed that looking back at it. Have edited out those 8 examples. Crimsone 14:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

• • See, the problem with citing examples is that people will then argue that what they said wasn't a personal attack since it didn't match any of the examples. Yes, that's rules lawyering, but still. (Radiant) 15:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • In principle, I agree, though if you don't provide examples, people can say "it's not a death threat, I was just joking", etc. I think it might be best to add just one layer of extra bureaucracy here, and ask people to report death threats (and any resulting blocks) to place XYZ for immediate review. I can imagine it would be painful to be blocked for a death threat when you were just joking. Of course, in genuine cases, the review would help push people to report this sort of thing to the correct people. Also, knowing that they will get reported, as well as blocked, might make people think twice. ie. if you don't give examples, build in a fail-safe review mechanism where the blocker and blockee can go immediately to thrash it out. Carcharoth 18:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Complaint

I am not so aware of cabals but I agree that the policy actually restricts free speech and accurate description of facts. For instance, I have been warned for descibing one POV-pushing editor's ideology as "nazi" and "racist", which is blatantly true, and agreed by other respected editors. He wikilawyered against me for that and got his prize and now I find myself unable to speak up properly and constantly threatened with WP:PAIN actions. While these terms can be abused, I see no reason to protect with "invisibility cloaks" the activity and motivations of such users, normally complex vandals with no respect for Wikipedia's way-of-life and NPOV policies. In fact it is counter-producing as it favors wikilawyering against realistic discussion and consensus making. We can't be assambleary and non-violent while protecting under the excuse of civility violent and anti-assambleary behaviours. Also, we should not give special protection to certain ideologies. Why are nazism and racism given that invisibility cloak that other ideologies don't have nor need? It's totally against the spirit of Wikipedia. --Sugaar 12:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the wording of the policy statement is problematic but I disagree that your example is a case of it's problems. Your problem is, you've let you anger get the better of you. Rather then calling the user a nazi and racist which benefits no one, point out that the user has a history of making comments which many people are uncomfortable with (and provide examples). And don't try and dictate what others should do or think, just point out the history and let people decide. If you'd gotten in to trouble for doing this, I would agree there is a problem. But when you start name calling, I would agree that you should have been censured and action should be taken if you continue. The simple fact is, a users previous comments would speak for themselves. There is no need for other wikipedians to start name calling. You risk becoming just as bad as the person your name calling. N.B. having taken a brief look at the dispute it looks to me like your description is perhaps a little one sided Nil Einne 10:02, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'm one-sided. He never denied my claims in any way, just used them to attack me (and all other editors) legally (see Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and WP:DE).

The problem is that I wasn't in anger nor I meant those terms as insulting just as objectively descriptive of him and his POV. What got me angered was that he started complaining without even denying the claims... and he got me warned and finally he got me blocked for 6 hours (after I had watered down my tongue ans was even trying to be constructive and pedagogical), after what I have just broken all connection with that article (it's not worth the pain).

I don't believe for a moment that I'm wrong in my description because he has been defending Stormfront directly.

There is a problem and (in my opinion) it is that talking about someone's ideology is seen, by the wording of this policy as PA, independently on wether if that's real or not, or wether it's meant as insulting or not.

It was no name-calling: just objective description of facts. It was meaningful because the article had been under heavy vandalism by anon. users (and some registered one too) of that ideology. And, at first, I wasn't even talking to him (didn't expect him even to read the talk page, being a brand new user) but to the more serious editors working in that page. If you have any doubt just check the article White people, its looong talk page and its convoluted recent history.

But anyhow, ideologies are meaningful for discussion, at least in some topics. If we are writing an article on Stalin and I am clearly Stalinist (I'm not but just for the example), it's probably useful to point it out and talk honestly. I really dislike duplicity and hypocrisy and find them obstacles to sincered discussion, so why to hide what is obvious and relevant? It's not about name calling. Name calling are remarks that are meant to hurt and have little or no relation with the discussion, like intelectual despise, racist or sexist remarks, or maybe even ideology when the article is purely scientific.

This is just allowing certain twisted people to gag others.

Also, I never even thought in opening a PAIN against him for anything (until he started witch-hunting me and others). He has made personal remarks but I walk over fire (metaphorically), what is what a serious wikipedian is supposed to do, unless the situation becomes really abusive.

PA and PAIN are necessary but must be something serious, not just a blank check for wikilawyerists. After all, when you are discussing with someone for weeks, you can commit errors and definitively you can get hot. I don't think it was my case (I am hot now and what I'm doing is the opposite: to quit, not with Wikipedia but with anything that may have any relation with that article, that individual or his favorite administrator).

It's not worth the pain. But Wikipedia loses allowing disruptive editing, POV-pushing and displacement of serious users, not me but the other editors that have been or will be displaced by such means, with the blessings of PAIN and AN and under the cover of this NPA policy. --Sugaar 05:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

"Examples that are not personal attacks" boldly edited

No matter how it's phrased, this whole policy is a prime candidate for wikilawyering up hill and down dale by those skilled in goading others without laying themselves open to the dreaded PA charge. That kind of can't be helped. But I think some of the section "Examples that are not personal attacks" is unnecessarily encouraging to the PA tightrope dance, and I have edited accordingly. Please take a look. The vaunted "subtle difference" between "You are acting like a troll" and "You are a troll" comes down, IMO, purely to the not-so-subtle difference between those who know how to skirt the NPA policy and those who don't. The difference between commenting on motive and commenting on actions just isn't that technical: the implication is the same in both cases. I took it out. Also, I took out a little lawyerspeak ("include, but are not limited to"—please let's not positively encourage a law-book attitude here) and performed emergency surgery on a sentence stating that personal attacks should under certain circumstances not be construed as personal attacks (I swear, it did say that). Finally, I changed the statement that "a comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is a not a personal attack," because I'm just tired of seeing it. "Vandalism" is thrown around much too lightly, it's a very serious and wounding accusation, and it goes to intention and motive, not just action. What more do you want? It's a personal attack. It's only not a personal attack if you are indeed reverting vandalism, and vandalism is very clearly and narrowly defined at WP:VAND, which also makes the excellent poinit that "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors." If somebody tells me they've reverted my "vandalism" to their page, that's a much more personal attack than if they tell me to fuck off. (That's not a nice thing to say, but what exactly's personal about it?) Anyway... yes, the section ended up rather different.

This is what it said

Wikipedians engaging in debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia. Be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments. Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks. It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks. Specific examples of comments that are not personal attacks include, but are not limited to:

* Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks. * Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. There is a subtle difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll", but "You seem to be making statements to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same without descending to name-calling. Similarly, a comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X. * A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack. However, it is important to assume good faith when making such a comment — if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism.

And this is what it says now

Debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia. Be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments. Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks. It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret impersonal comments as personal attacks. Examples of comments that are not personal attacks include:

* Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks. * Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. (It can however be a harmful statement if it's untrue.) A comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X. * A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is a not a personal attack if it's concerned with clear vandalism, although otherwise it is. "Vandalism" imputes bad intentions and bad motives to the person accused. If the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for what is and isn't vandalism.

Feel free to edit and/or change back, please. Bishonen | talk 06:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC).

Looks good to me. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The new version is fine, but I despair anyway. I'll despair in a new section, though, if I get overwhelmed by it and need to express it. For this and for here, all the gloom I can share is this: the "not" section is to try to prevent people using NPA as a bullwhip. Arguably, if those people read the first part, they'd know not to do that. The core of the policy negates any such use from the outset, and yet -- here comes the doom cloud -- nobody reads the policy past the name. Having a specific example in the "not" paragraph to describe a particularly pernicious problem is good as a thing to point them at, but they still have to read. There has got to be a name for the condition of being able to write without being able to read, because there are many examples of people suffering from it these days. Geogre 13:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

saying "but he did it too"

I've come across this one a lot. People will often say "but this person attacked me first" and use that as a reason to make an attack on their own (though, quite frequently, the first person did not). I propose adding a section saying, "because the other person attacked isn't reason for you to do it too." -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Good point. This kind of argument may be appropriate in a children's playground ("but mommy, he started it!") but not in an encyclopedia. (Radiant) 10:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

While I generally agree, we cannot demand that everyone have the forbearance of a saint. For example, if someone suggests that you engage in unnatural sex acts with your parents, that you eat shit, and that you ought to be impaled with a hot poker (none of these are made-up examples, by the way), you can hardly be faulted for describing this person as "thoroughly unpleasant". Or something rather more strongly worded than that. - Jmabel | Talk 08:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'd certainly agree with this. (especially at the moment! Of course, the standardised reply to a string of statements like that would probably involve the title "The Aristocrats". 'Tis considerably weaker (and more amusing) as the wording of responses go, but may turn out to be a great diffuser (if only through the state of mind needed to deliver it properly. lol). I wouldn't suggest adding it to the policy though. Crimsone 03:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Going overboard.

I've been editing the George W. Bush page and this user User:ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE has engaged in alot of arrogant insinuation that his edits are justified. I browsed his contributions that he made to wikipedia and he's not able to restrict his personal opinion in the NPOV environment. Which I found out was evident here Talk:Bumfights especially at User talk:ANONYMOUS COWARD0xC0DE. Thank you for looking in. ViriiK 06:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Please make such reports on WP:PAIN rather than on this page, which discusses the wording of the policy. Thank you. (Radiant) 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Don't Feed the Trolls"

Is a polite reminder not to feed the trolls a personal attack? I just read this article and realized maybe I was making personal attacks in some instances. Any thoughts on this? Does it constitute a personal attack?

Dylan Slade 22:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I guess it depends how comfortable you are characterizing someone as a "troll" being "fed". If someone concludes that you're a troll, and it turns out you're not, I can see why you'd be upset if they'd been telling others not to "feed" you. There is obvious trolling that occurs, though, and it's not really hurting anyone's feelings to call it that. I think a good rule of thumb is this: if its a borderline case, or if the potential "troll" is a regular contributor, err on the side of assuming they're not a troll. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

ad hominem

If this policy doesn't already cover this, I think it would be a good idea to add details about ad hominem attacks against other users. This issue generally arises in XFD's, and should be discouraged.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 02:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Polemics as personal attacks?

At what point is something considered polemical, and subject to removal? If someone placed a comment on their user page saying "Muslims are one step away from being satanists!" and linked it to a page listing self identified Muslim Wikipedians, is that considered polemical? Is it considered a personal attack?--Vidkun 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it is not very collegial, but it is rather a sort of impersonal attack. I'd suggest leaving a note on the user's talkpage mentioning that our resources aren't to be used for expounding bigotry, and that it would be best if they removed the statement. Jkelly 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

While one might argue over whether or not it's a personal attack, it is definitely incivil and not conductive to building the encyclopedia. (Radiant) 09:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. How would you consider this, this and this userpages? They are highly offensive to me (and many others). There should be at least a guideline about not making fascist or racist political propaganda in user pages. --Sugaar 11:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

If these bother you, I'd suggest throwing them on WP:MFD. Basically, political statements fall under "Wikipedia is not censored"; however, there is an obvious difference between a userpage proclaiming support for Bush (which I'm sure some would find offensive but is obviously a legitimate political opinion) and a userpage supporting Hitler (which can hardly be interpreted as anything other than hate speech). (Radiant) 11:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll think about it. By the moment I have more than enough fencing off (and reporting) these peoples' personal atatcks and group-harassment. I'm more worried by the users than by their pages actually - but all is connected. I don't want to censor anyhthing but it's hate speech clearly. --Sugaar 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the web pages Sugaar referred to and didn't find anything offensive, they're just center-right political views, clearly Sugaar is someone who considers Fraga, Aznar, and Mariano Rajoy extreme-rightists, when in fact they're just tepid social democrats. Or maybe Sugaar himself is a radical leftist a la Castro, Chávez, Evo Morales? Cheers.--SanIsidro 13:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Rajoy? It's Le Pen, Mussolini, Pinochet and Falange what such propaganda pages are about (just for the record). --Sugaar 18:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how, within NPOV, we can allow support for Bush but not for Hitler. Nazism is an unpopular POV, and one that I personally abhor, but Hitler had millions of supporters in his time. If a pro-Nazi userpage is unacceptable now, would it have been so in the 1939 edition of Wikipedia? I think of this principally as a failure of NPOV. I've come across people using this policy to defend all manner of extremist positions.

Is this a Personal Attack?

Let's assume...Emma told me in P page that I'm XYZ. She also implied it in another of her remarks. XYZ is a personal attack. Then later, on same page and other pages, she says: "Lots of XYZ's on P page" "XYZ's are trouble makers" etc... (without directly referring to me). Is this a personal attack? Should I be offended? Is it still a personal attack despite not being an attack against me but against anonymous editors? Lukas19 20:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Possibly; at the very least it sounds incivil. The place to ask for investiagion such things is WP:PAIN. (Radiant) 08:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Usage of real names

Where can I find out about using real names of editors? Some editors like myself would prefer not to have our real names and identities divulged on articles and talk pages even if they are known to other editors, who may be prepared to use this information maliciously on and off-wiki. The point, "Treat others as you would have them treat you" is a pointer in the right direction but is not clear enough and may need expansion.

Is this article the correct place to make a mention of how real names of editors should not be divulged especially if this has been expressly asked by the editor? Or does another article deal with that subject? Thanks. I have also registered this query at WP:WQT talk page. ekantiK ^talk 03:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Edit (Jimbo quote)

I noticed the following comment by Jimbo on his talk page and strongly think that it should be included here as a "Jimbo quote" under the Community Spirit section, just like has been done by other WP Policy articles. Here is the quote which is also displayed on my userpage:

source. We do not need to display it in this way with a boilerplate (unless that is agreed upon as a headline of some sort?) but it would be sufficient to just add the quote without the date also. ekantiK ^talk 05:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• In general I'm not too happy with adding quotes to policy pages, because people have a tendency to take them out of context and misinterpret them. (Radiant) 14:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Attacks

If an editor creates a talk-subpage or a section of the talk-page that specifically attacks other editors on the basis of what they see as bad faith or POV on the part of the "attackee", and especially in regards to off-wiki disputes that may or may not have anything to do with edits made on Wikipedia, is this a good example of a personal attack?

If so, I'd like to make an amendment to the Examples section of this article to include a sentence or two about 'Talk-Page Attacks'. ekantiK ^talk 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

To provide additional information, Ekantik (sockpuppet Gaurasundara) is talking about the information located on my talk-page located on This Section. Not only has "Ekantik / Gaurasundara" viciously attacked and defamed Sathya Sai Baba on numerous blogs and forums outside Wikipedia (thousands of times), he has done the same with me as well. He even devoted a public blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia. Unfortunately for him, he happened to use a Wiki-name that specifically identifies him with the Sai Controversy and he has since admitted he is the person I accuse him to be. He ceaselessly attempts to argue that his vicious extra-Wikipedia defamation campaigns against Sathya Sai Baba and me are irrelevant to his presence on Wikipedia. Obviously, I disagree. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Please make such posts on WP:PAIN instead of here, and make sockpuppetry-related posts on WP:RFCU. In general, if someone creates a new page with the intent to attack someone, that's a speedy delete. In this particular case, SSS108 appears to be talking about Ekantik's actions rather than making personal attacks. I might recommend that you two pursue dispute resolution. (Radiant) 15:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Radiant, I have answered these complaints elsewhere. As per your advice that such pages qualify for a speedy delete, does this apply to sections of existing talk pages as per my original query? And does this count as a personal attack? I see that this does actually qualify as a personal attack according to the project page but I am just seeking clarification in the case of a specific circumstance. I think that we would do well to remember that changes to this policy will affect decisions throughout the Wikipedia community and not just a bunch of people. Ekantik ^talk 15:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Overuse or incorrect use of WP:NPA

Is there no way to make clear that saying to someone you are in dispute with "be civil" or "WP:NPA" hardly ever improves the situation? Is it not time to say that warnings about personal attacks should be done by someone other than the (usually) two people involved? In other words, never say "you are being incivil to me", but rather say "don't be incivil to that person". Would this idea fly? Has it been proposed before? Carcharoth 19:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Probably. NPA and FAITH and such are things you should do rather than say. It does sometimes help if a third party asks people to stop, but even then the answer usually is "yeah but he started it" or somesuch. >Radiant< 09:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both points. The trouble is that the WP:CIVIL nutshell says: Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. But by telling people they are being uncivil, you offend them, unintentionally or otherwise. I am surprised how few people understand that telling someone they are being uncivil is a form of aggression. The only way to deal with incivility is to ignore it: either leave the conversation or address the substance of the point while ignoring the couching. That's basic assertiveness.

As for what constitutes a personal attack which requires administration, I would maintain a high threshhold for that. I wouldn't go by the endless Wikipedia pages on etiquette, civility, dickishness, personal attacks, etc., but by what leads to warnings in the average workplace: racial and sexist slurs, sexual and religious harassment, death and violence threats, bullying, etc. such might warrant taking further, if they persisted.

If you do wish to engage an attacker, the aim should be de-escalation, not winning. I find the best way to de-escalate is to address the substance while studiously ignoring the personal stuff: this way it's often surprising how quickly the other guy straightens up. If you use passive aggressive techniques like ticking the angry guy off for incivility (particularly if you do this as part of a posse), he will get angrier and angrier until he cops himself a block (as we saw in a certain case recently). This is not the best outcome, especially when the blockee is a known useful contributor. We need to ask ourselves whether we are helping when we accuse someone of making a personal attack. qp10qp 20:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

You are very right. I am of the kind that has a thick skin and really don't mind (much) to suffer personal attacks (unles absolutely flagrant and persistent and accompanied by denial of discussion). But when I suffer a personal attack in form of (often unjustified) warning, it really makes me feel angry and powerless because it is:

• Conflict escalation: bringing it to the "judicial" level, what can have real consequences (while calling me "nazi" or "idiot" doesn't: disqualification only disqualifies the attacker - it can be nuisance but it's not really any major problem unless systematic).
• Accusing me of being uncivil and disruptive (wether it's true or not, it's a personal insult of the worst class).

So PA warnings can be (and be meant as) personal attacks of the worst kind, but can't be treated as such.

Only one person ever has made that with me and it was a clear case of harassment and manipulation of policy in order to take control of an article from a racist POV. Sadly enough it caused me a block and (for what I'm finding) blocks can't be appealed (in fact, no mater what WP:BLOCK says). It also caused a major decrease of NOPVness of that article and related ones and continuity of conflict.

Also I find that calling someone "nigger" (for example) is not considered worse than saying that someone is "nazi". And well, there's a difference between a direct racist gratuitous insult and a description of one's apparent ideology. Even if both should be avoided for reasons of civility, they can't just be considered at the same level.

The policy suggests to develope a thick skin but in practice favors those people who have (or rather pretend to have) a thin one: those that by means of insistent PA warnings and subsequent reports to WP:PAIN try to displace other more beleguered (and serious) editors, to wikilawyer a victory instead of working for a consensus.

As it is (or it is applied) now it may be more a problem for healthy discussion than a useful tool for civility and editor collaboration towards NPOV. --Sugaar 07:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to deal with this?

A major bulk of my edits are reverting vandalisms, and seldom there are questions on whether my reverts are actually vandalisms.

However, some vandals whose edits were reverted by me and I have gave warning for would vandalize my userpage. [4][5][6][7][8] Previously I dealt with that through WP:AIV, but since these falls onto WP:NPA since these people attacks me on the basis of my vandalism reverts, what should I do, AIV or NPA? --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

From what you say, this sound like a relatively simple situation with no precise venue for it. Might I suggest posting your message at WP:AN/I, where I'm sure that an administrator will be able to look into at and take appropriate action. If it truly is as simple as you say, I doubt it would be any bother for an admin looking at it. Crimsone 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Those edits are from months ago. There's nothing to be done here. Jkelly 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol. Simple then, but not in the way stated. That'll teach me for replying to comments on face value! Crimsone 04:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I ask for guidance for future incidents. My way of vandal reversion (ie reverting multiple vandalism made by a user in one time), IMO, would be likely to be open to future attacks like this, so I'm going to ask as precaution. --Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 06:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed shift in focus regarding remedies

Based on some of the disucssion at the PAIN MFD, I came here to read exactly what we're saying in WP:NPA. I'm a little surprised that nothing in the policy suggests that it can ever be best when water rolls off a duck's back. The remedies demand retribution: the first thing the attacked person should do is to "ask the attacker to stop and note this policy". After that, its the comfy chair dispute resolution and blocking. Obviously, there are exceptions: persistent or extreme attacks such as death threats are a different creature entirely from being told you are "an idiot". But in general, might civility be better served by suggesting that, at least sometimes, the best way to respond to an angry talk page comment is ... not to respond at all? Serpent's Choice 06:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

By means of clarification, I'm not suggesting that making personal attacks is okay or acceptable, but simply proposing that the current policy and environment lead to escalation more often than beneficial to the project. I recognize that this change would have to tread carefully to avoid giving the wrong impression, but on the other hand, there are complaints at WP:PAIN as of this writing relating to such attacks as: "You're pretty cocky, aren't you?", "dumb logic", and "pseudo-Buddhist". Yes, these are all (probably) personal attacks, but ... is the overall desire for civility bettered by responding to every wrong action? Serpent's Choice 13:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Between my above concern and the fact that WP:NPA frankly does not present policy in the compelling prose that should be expected of established consensus, I have written Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Proposal, a suggested refactoring of the existing page. Out of respect for consensus, I would like it to be given due discussion; I will not simply be bold and replace the existing content. Serpent's Choice 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Remedies

Per the original comments by Serpent's Choice above, per recent comments in the MfD of WP:PAIN, and per comments at the village pump (policy} regarding WP:Kettle, I have made these additions to the policy here, including an emphasis on ignoring personal attacks as a first response, and on seeking dispute resolution for WP:KEttle situations, with a cautionary note that pushing hard for intervention in such situations may result in intervention distributed equally over both parties.

It may not be worded quite as well as it could be though, so please edit as required if you feel it needs it. Crimsone 17:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Substantial revision to WP:NPA

The core elements of this major edit have been being discussed for some days now. They have been through several rounds of copyediting, a partial reorganization, and many sets of eyes. I'll be the first to admit, there have been objections to these changes. Some of the objects, I hope have been settled through discussion and compromise. Some may still be outstanding. While these changes may not therefore have unanimity, I believe they have consensus. As a point of note, changes to the live version of NPA that have taken place since this proposal work began (largely by Crimsone have been incorporated in this edit wherever possible. I do not want to give the impression at any point that I'm doing this alone.

I have encouraged a change in WP:NPA for several reasons, each of which I hope this edit addresses:

• Removing the dislaimer that this policy is subject to Wikilawyering, and decreasing its ability to be so misused.
• Rewording suggested responses to avoid implying that escalation and retaliation are encouraged.
• Providing easier access to options for aggrieved editors (such as WP:WQA, WP:MEDCAB, and dispute resolution), especially in the wake of the deprecation of PAIN.
• Clarifying policy regarding article talk pages (already on other policy pages, but this one is higher-visibility).
• Improving the visibility of the WP:BLP reference.
• Cleaning up the general appearance and style of the article. Policy pages aren't featured articles, but they should demonstrate that cooperative editing can produce quality, well-structured prose.

My promotion of these changed to the live version are admittedly at least somewhat bold. I hope that any objections or problems can be discussed here. On many issues, I'm more than amenable to compromise. I'm not looking to start an edit war, I'm looking to work with other editors to build better policy pages for this encyclopedia project.

Thanks! Serpent's Choice 09:31, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I support the clean-up on the whole, but I've removed two bits:

• Even some comments that might appear to be a personal attack, such as labeling an edit that removes a substantial amount of text as "vandalism", may be well-intentioned.
• Additionally, editors are strongly discouraged from using profanity in an insulting or abusive way in comments to other contributors. Wikipedia is not censored, but that policy is focused on the content of articles, not on the interaction of users via talk pages and edit summaries.

In the first instance because it's a poor precendent, and arbitration has been brought for this very reason, and in the second because while it's probably good advice there's no consensus on it.

brenneman 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely there's consensus that swearing at people is rude? -- SCZenz 23:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You'd think so, but there have been multiple cases of adminstrators being pulled up (either on ANI or by RfC) for swearing and there have always been plenty of people saying "don't be offended by a curse." This in all likelyhood has more to do with the respective position of the cursee and cursor that it does the swearing, but that's the history none the less. You're preaching to the converted, but it needs support before it goes on the page. Err... which it has from me. - brenneman 00:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a key difference between swearing and swearing at people. The later violates WP:CIVIL by the definition of the word "civility." -- SCZenz 00:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why the "examples" section was removed? I found that section extremely helpful, especially the part that described merely pointing out personal attacks was not an attack itself, it said: "Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack". Without that statement in the policy, attackers now just respond by saying we're attacking them by merely pointing out abusive behavior. I respectfully ask that the "examples" section be put back. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added the wording "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack " because it is a significant part of the policy that keeps editors from being accused of personal attacks when merely pointing out a personal attack with civil language. If it's said somewhere else in the policy, I apologize for the duplication. Dreadlocke ☥ 03:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Harrasment Issues

This kind of serves as a report/question, etc, but recently one of the users "Osfan", has been repeatedly harrasing me. This situation occured after he posted some drivel about my contributions, and I deleted it, not knowing that this is not encouraged or permitted. He has continued to post comments time and time again insulting me, getting more hostile each time I deleted his comments (because they offered nothing of worth compared to other...angrier posts I've had debating my editing preferences).

Eventually, Osfan was reported, and warned to stay away from me. Unfortunatly, he's returned, and is showing no signs of stopping. It's becoming obvious he's trying to bait me into an aggresive flame war, and has seemingly done this with other editors despite constant warnings.

The question is, should deleted comments, which are archived in the "History" section, be more encouraged if they do not serve any kind of functional discussion and serve only to bait and insult?

Thankyou.

...And I seriously hope a mod checks my talk page "history" to see what Osfan has been doing.

Dr. R.K.Z (talk · contribs), 03:06 12th Janurary 2007 (UTC)

Regarding profanity

There has been a query regarding the inclusion of profanity in the list of absolutely prohibited actions (specifically, in line with racial or religious epithets). The use of profanity is contraindicated just below that section, but there are, to my mind, a couple of compelling reasons not to elevate it further. First and foremost among these, profanity is regional. As [[W{:AN/I|AN/I]] discovered not long ago, twat is a synonym for twit in some areas (uncivil, but not profanity), but means something very different elsewhere. Serpent's Choice 06:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. I also think it should be made clear that profanity qua profanity is not prohibited, but aiming it at someone else in a way designed to attack or insult them is. IronDuke 20:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I can say I am having a shitty day, that is not a personal attack, so I don't think it is so simple that we can just add a prohibition on all profanity. HowIBecameCivil 17:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of userpage content and WP:ATTACK warning templates

Recently User:Yuser31415, under the pretense of WP:ATTACK removed a polemical rant from my userpage. This rant can be seen here, and concerns my frustration with IP editors. User:Yuser31415 also placed a level 4 personal attack template on my userpagediff and then 3RR warnings for reverting the removal of material on my userpage here and here. The only attempt at dispute resolution prior to this action can be seen here I feel that 1.) the rant did not constitute a personal attack and 2.) the usage of a "Personal Attack Warning" template is in appropriate in such instances. Furthermore, I feel that using WP:ATTACK as a de facto form of censorship on userpages is something that needs to be specifically addressed in the policy guidelines. - WeniWidiWiki 05:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Diff of edit I removed is here. Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 07:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm primarily concerned about citing WP:ATTACK in such instances and not having any guidelines on when usage of the templates are appropriate in cases when it is not an ad hominem attack or is just abstract as in this instance - content is always up for discussion and review, but using vague policies to delete it on sight is problematic. - WeniWidiWiki 08:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• Looks like a serious case of WP:BITE to me. HowIBecameCivil 17:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

personal attack noticeboard?

What happened to the personal attack noticeboard? Is it gone?Anarcho-capitalism 21:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently so. I've had an issue for clarification on this page since last week with no replies, so I don't think many users watch this page. ANI is unwieldly. I think WP:PAIN should be reactivated. Now rather than acting with consensus on personal attack matters, an editor will get a few buddies on IRC to back his claim and there is zero mechanism for oversight. - WeniWidiWiki 21:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Is an editor who claims to be a professional held to professional standards here?

I have noticed that many users claim to be professionals in various fields on their user pages, which of course is a good attribute both for the editor and Wikipedia. I have also seen a few of them conducting themselves in unprofessional ways, and have wondered if they can be questioned about their behaviour based on their professional claims. Here is a hypothetical situation with two different editors and how I would choose to handle their behavoir:

• Editor A is a Wikipeian like me, no user page and very little talk. Editor A highly respects Pundit A, but recently said Pundit has been making a lot of false claims. When other editors add this information to Pundit A's Wikipedia article, Editor A reverts the page and argues in an immature manner saying things like "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased." In this case I wouild try to explain to Editor A why it is important for them to provide some evidence the information is biased.
• Editor B is a Wikipedian with a descriptive user page which claims that Editor B is a professor of logic at a respected university. Editor B chooses to argue in the exact same manner as Editor A above. Is it an attack to say something like: "Editor B, I would like to point out that your behavior is inappropriate for a professor, please explain to us why you think the information is biased."

Since Editor A makes no claims to be a professional, I would try to explain as politely as possible why making arguments like "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased" are not acceptable to Wikipedia standards. Editor B claims to be a professor and as such should realize "It's biased, It'S biased, It's biased, It's biased" is not very academic. Anynobody 22:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Credentials mean nothing here. At least in theory. HowIBecameCivil 14:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reporting

Is there a way of reporting personal attack vandalism? if this is it, take a look at [9] that. Kiran90 02:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI is the only means to snitch report that I am aware of. - WeniWidiWiki 02:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be very hard to get an admin response to personal attack, not sure why. HowIBecameCivil 14:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Very hard to get a response... except when it comes to Essjay. No, I don't want to know why. Bah. Bi 15:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm in discussion of Articles for Deletion: can this constitute a personal attack?

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xtreme Hockey League, as an example, when users get frustrated with others, especially new users trying to promote non-notable and unattributed subjects:

• Xtreme delete as Wikipedia is not for hockey leagues made up in school one day, regardless of how "xtreme" they are. (and yes, I did steal the "xtreme delete" thing from JzG) --TBCΦtalk? 01:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Xtreme delete to the Max yo! per TBC's comments above. --Haemo 01:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Wow, sim hockey rocks.... xtreme dude. DMighton 01:35, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say sarcasm like this (which I've seen in many AfD discussions, often in more extreme forms, sometimes angry like "LUDICROUSLY STRONG DELETE") is bordering on the level of the personal attack. I suggest that on the WP:AFD and WP:ATTACK pages we mention something about sarcasm, especially as applied to AfD discussions like this.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• No, sarcasm isn't a personal attack, because it isn't personal (they're ridiculing the article, not the writer). Rather, if you spend more than a few minutes per day on AFD, people are invariably tempted to make witty or semi-witty remarks. In the worse cases, a civility reminder may be in order. Other than that, you can't feasibly stop people from being sarcastic by legislating against it (although people have tried...) >Radiant< 14:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if I should give a NPA warning for this one?

[10]

This editor (User:1523) has been in a content dispute with me and User:08albatross, and after arguing with the latter in Japanese (I don't know Japanese personally), he left this message.

Since this message has be included, I got someone to translate it and found me being denigrated due to my having Asperger Syndrome; he claimed autistics are psychotic, unable to use reason, and is generally "trash people" (together with 08albatross). I wonder if I should give a NPA warning, and which level should I start on?--Samuel Curtis^{Shinichian-Hirokian}-- _{TALK·CONTRIBS} 02:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites

I have added information regarding linking to attack sites. We have routinely removed harassment from these websites that is posted on Wikipedia. Prior arbcom cases have specified that we do not link to encyclopedia dramatica. Wikipedia review is at least as bad as that website is. Hivemind is another. Linking to thses websites at any time should not be tolerated.--MONGO 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This was rejected over at Wikipedia:Attack sites, and it doesn't get to be revived simply by changing the venue. Mangoe 19:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• (after EC) I have reverted this addition. It is clear form the discion of WP:BADSITES, and the rejection of that proposed policy that there is NOT consensus on this issue. Please do not try to reinsert this without obtaining such consensus (Note that ArbCom rulings do not make policy or consensus, not that the arb com rulings on this matter are anywhere near broad enough to support the additiuon you made, even if they did make policy.) DES ^(talk) 19:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia talk:Attack sites for the prior discussion. DES ^(talk) 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The rejection was about THAT becoming policy, not that it wouldn't be incorporated here. If I find any links to these websites, I will remove them. Others have been doing this already, so it needs to be part of this policy.--MONGO 19:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You and others need to stop doing it, because it has been rejected as policy. Mangoe 19:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(after EC) Sorry that is just forum-shopping. If there was no consensus to have that as a policy there, you will at least need something beyond your bare assertion to make it one here. Any such link removal are currently unsupported by policy, and could and should be subject to the same process as any content dispute. Any blocks to support such removals are probably unjustified, depending on the precise circumstances. DES ^(talk) 19:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to remove any links, but if I find them, I will remove them. No one has to tolerate harassment imported here from other websites.--MONGO 19:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That assumes that any such link is in fact a form of harrasment. Some have been. Others are not. (The link in the recent signpost articel to teh home page of Wikipedia Watch was not by any reasonable stech harrasment, but it was removed citing this non-policy). That is precisely whay many objected to the proposed policy. DES ^(talk) 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Selectiveness of what is and what isn't a PA from these websites is what is going to lead to endless arguments...that why it is best to not link to them at all.--MONGO 19:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Selectivness about content leads to endless argumetns too. It would be much simpler just not to have an encyclopedia. A reasonable policy, helping to clarify under what circumstances such links are proper and when they are not, would help stem the arguments, but is made much harder to formulate by thosew who take the position that all such links must be eridicated at once. DES ^(talk) 19:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You do of course, understand we are talking about just a very few cites that make overt efforts or support efforts to "out" the real life identities of Wikipedia contributors...when we link to these websites, all we do is up their google cache, and add to their efforts to harass.--MONGO 19:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand that there are not many sites in your current balcklist. The proposed policy is writen with a very broad brush. I also understand that in at least some cases such links are valuabel -- I refer again to the recent signpost article -- and so i do not for a moment agree that all that such links do is push up the reciving site's google score. I do agree that such links should only be made where there is a clear and valid reason for doign so, and that many (probably most) such links will not have such reasons. Blocks are another matter, of course. DES ^(talk) 20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

All these would be removed? Infodmz 19:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Then it should be no sweat...as we can see.--MONGO 19:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If someone removes them all it would be a test of the policy. Who is going to do that? Infodmz 19:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

We could also go remove all of these, given some of the content to be found on that site's message board. JavaTenor 20:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we have no idea how many sites try to link a Wikipedia editor's name with their real name - and unless people are going to check every page of a website, one can never be sure. There are the obvious ones, but there are also many less obvious ones. Interestingly, I am aware of an official website of a musician who has publicly said he edits Wikipedia under a pseudonym. The fans on his message board have speculated on his pseudonym, referring to the pseudonyms of real WP editors. Only someone intimately aware of the contents of that entire website would know that it could be considered an "outing" site according to your definition, and the existing links to that site would be "strongly discouraged" and subject the inserting editor to possible blocks. I don't want to hear "No we would never do that" because given recent history there is absolutely no reason to believe that to be true. Risker 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that attack sites should be removed. There's a difference between how bad an attack site is. For instance, Wikipedia Review is supposed to remove all bad threads to a subforum called "The Tar Pit and Feather Barrel" and make them not visible to people without accounts so I don't think Wikipedia Review is always something to remove for attack sites (notability concerns are different). Whereas Encyclopedia Dramatica is almost entirely an attack site and hopefully is going to stay in the spam blacklist on here, Wikia, etc. for good. SakotGrimshine 20:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno...from what I have seen of WR, their efforts to identify the real life identities of wikipedians is pretty deplorable...just because we link to one of their "good" postings (as if the opinions there by a lot of banned editors has any relevence here) then folks are just one or two clicks away from some post that harasses our contributors. Besides, ED at least pretends to be "funny"...that isn't the case for WR...sure as heck isn't for WW either.--MONGO 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Do we have to go through this whole thing again?

This failed consensus once. Why do we have to repeat the whole process again here? Mangoe 21:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Some people may only just have caught up with what is going on - I always assumed links to these type of sites were banned. I really don't understand why anyone would defend linking directly to a site that tries to out the real life identities of wikipedians. We can't control the whole internet but we can decide what we will or won't tolerate - any site that will host that sort of stuff should be blacklisted. Sophia 21:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely.--MONGO 21:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the entire sites are not "attack sites" but there are specific areas which could be considered an "attack link". Much like the FreeRepublic example by User:JavaTenor. FreeRepublic has comments by users on their site that "attack" Wikipedians. Do we ban the entire site or just the specific links that contain these comments? That is the question, in my mind hombre de haha 21:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should...it is but a blog or discussion forum anyway...how their opinions have relevence to writing an encyclopedia is a mystery to me.--MONGO 21:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Saying nasty things about someone is one thing but exposing real life idenities should make the site a no-no. This is not about suppressing criticism - we have the press for that and we do a pretty good job ourselves - this is about not contributing to the harassment of individuals. Sophia 22:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Interpreting what that is, on a blanket policy basis, is a problem. On a case by case basis it is fairly easy. The things I've seen on the FreeRepublic comments sections, I certainly would not want said about me; they are personal attacks. I also acknowledge MONGO's point that they probably aren't a reliable source on most things anyway- but that should also be dealt with case by case. When banning a specific site we may be throwing the baby out with the bath water. The banning of a site like ED is of less concern because as MONGO points out they are intended to be a "comedy" website. The links we are currently talking about (and more will come, I'm sure) are different in many ways.

In a nutshell, do these sites contain "attack links"? Yes. Do they contain useful content and information as well? Yes. Are they attack sites? I don't know. I think we should narrow our focus with these particular sites to specific links. hombre de haha 22:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

On Free Republic: links to that site are certainly relevant in an article discussing that site, for example. I haven't gone through the other links for suitability, however. JavaTenor 22:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok to include reference to MONGO Case as a link in "See Also?"

Rather than apparently codify ArbCom decisions as direct policy? —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 22:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose linking to the current page on that case on any policy pages as the page contains information not relevant to policy and could be construed as an attack on the editors banned by that rulking (who obviously cannot defend themselves), SqueakBox 23:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the current version of the page does cite and link to another ArbCom decision elsewhere:

...To cite the Arbitration Committee:

The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly.[1]

Anyway, there does seem to be some cognitive dissonance occuring between the two decisions. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 01:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just had a look at the WP:RPA essay and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AI decision, and am suprised those surrounding controversies were not referenced in the earlier BADSITES debates. Anyway, it looks to me that the overly broad and strict wording the ArbCom used in the MONGO decision allowed for these current debates in the first place. Seeing how the two rulings are inconsistent I personally do not support referencing the MONGO case in context of a general prohibition against linking to off-site attacks, which do not need the case reference to be effective anyway. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 02:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Enduring precedent, inconsistency between sections

Note the first line of WP:NPA#Removing text:

The community has not reached a consensus about whether personal attacks should be removed,...

Contrast with the current first line of WP:NPA#Linking to attacks

Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians should be removed.

I dont see how links are substantively different from text, and it seems clear to me that the proposal regarding links also lacked consensus. After turning over the two sections, it seems to me the only part of WP:NPA#Linking to attacks that could be consistent with WP:NPA#Removing text and also reflective of current social reality (re: a consensus) is a single, modified sentence:

Links or references to off-site personal attacks against Wikipedians may be removed.

—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Using a website in the course of a personal attack

I think we should have consensus for this.

Obviously if a website happens to contain a personal attack on a Wikipedian, it may also contain useful criticism of Wikipedia, and each case should be judged on its merits. I'm sure that an editor who misused the leeway here would be subject to blocking for disruption, so it's not as if good Wikipedians would be likely to abuse it.

However it might be a good idea to point out, in our description of forms of personal attack, that if you introduce a link to a personal attack on an external website, you should be careful to avoid doing so in a manner that promotes or draws attention to the personal attack, because obviously doing so would be to compound or enable the personal attack. How about that? Does that seem about right? --Tony Sidaway 22:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it sounds like you are advocating a "context-sensitive" approach to the issue. A problem propelling the debate has been that others see the issue in more absolutist categorical imperative terms.—Academy Leader 23:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is nothing if not context-sensitive. Usually, linking to a site that contains an attack on a Wikipedian is a pretty blatant attempt to denigrate that person, but occasionally there may be a good reason to do it. So a dogmatic rule would be wrong, but it's a good idea to put all Wikipedians on notice that knowingly using an external website as a proxy to attack a Wikipedian, as we've seen several times now, is not tolerated. --Tony Sidaway 23:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would agree with that wholeheartedly... others seem to want the hard and fast rules though. —ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 23:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hard and fast rules don't exist anywhere. SchmuckyTheCat 01:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in this case they seem to. Even citations used to show that not everything on these sites was an attack were erased on the basis of this supposed policy. Mangoe 02:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that people arguing for this policy say that there is never a reason to link to an "attack" site. They want an absolute rule. Frise 00:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just removing the word "sites" solves that problem. Linking to an attack is a problem and well-defined. Defining "attack site" has been problematic. SchmuckyTheCat 00:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason to change what the ArbCom said. I think they got it right. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's neither the source of the policy nor does it add to the statement in the policy. It's a repeat. SchmuckyTheCat 01:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If it's right, then it's an illustration of the policy in practice. While the word "sites" may need a little qualification, I think the meaning is pretty plain. The encyclopedia dramatica case was a particularly egregious one, but most of the sites involved here are pretty plain in their self-designation for the purpose of attacks on Wikipedians, or (in the case of Encyclopedia Dramatica) their co-option for the purpose of a specific attack. I think we've got consensus here, we're just haggling about the words to use. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The current wording by SchmuckyTheCat looks good to me. Frise 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I think we established the first time around that this is not about wording. The controversial change establishes specifically that links to pages on a site can be erased if other pages on the same site are deemed by someone-- pretty much anyone-- to be attacks, regardless of what the linked material is. In practice this has been applied utterly legalistcally. And the whole matter has been discussed exhaustively before, and it looks as though we're going to do it all again here, and it's going to come down to the same impasse, only with more participants. Mangoe 02:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Frise and SchmuckyTheCat. The current wording is entirely correct, and I don't think anyone can disagree with it. Given that a subsequent ArbCom panel refused to endorse the "no links to attack sites" position of the MONGO panel, the use of any ArbCom decision is essentially contradicted by the opposite ruling. The word "sites" is far too broad. Risker 02:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to disagree, unfortunately the current wording of "Linking to attacks" is entirely inconsistent with the wording of "Removal of text." Why is removing a link different from removing text?--—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"Any page anywhere that insults Wikipedians is reason to blacklist the entire site." There is no consensus for that and never has been. Don't link to attacks. What fine and simple statement. Why does that need more verbiage? SchmuckyTheCat 02:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you there. This is why (if you look above) I propose the following:

it might be a good idea to point out, in our description of forms of personal attack, that if you introduce a link to a personal attack on an external website, you should be careful to avoid doing so in a manner that promotes or draws attention to the personal attack, because obviously doing so would be to compound or enable the personal attack.

I think it would really help if we could discuss this proposal instead of some other proposal that I haven't made. --Tony Sidaway 03:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's nice but unnecessary. I don't think we need to overly prescribe behavior here.—ACADEMY LEADER ^FOCUS! 03:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the Wikipedia:Attack sites version has been abused even without gaining any consensus to be a policy in the first place. You may think that usually attack sites should not be linked to and only occasionally is a link acceptable. But there are people who think that all links should be removed, and they really do mean *all*, not "all except occasionally". They refuse to make any allowance for special circumstances, and even removed links that were used on the talk page of the proposed policy itself as examples of links that might be acceptable. Ken Arromdee 03:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Proudly, I state for the record that I am definitely one of those that can find no reason to link to several websites...anything that might be needed by arbcom or similar that has been posted on these websites can be emailed to them...they all have their emails activated.--MONGO 09:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And they censored a link from this week's Wikipedia Signpost, too. *Dan T.* 04:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick note, so far I agree with the new wording [11].I feel that the last proposed policy failed because it was too specific, geared to removing specific sites, and that made it unworkable because it would include many more sites than the policy endorsers may believe. Sites do not cause hurt of personal feelings, comments do, and we must look at those comments before deciding to remove it as an attack. I'm hoping that makes sense because I am very tired. hombre de haha 07:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I find myself generally agreeing with Tony Sidaway here. MONGO says that he can't ever see a reason to link to any of several sites. I can't see many reasons to link specifically to an attack, but I thought that, for example, the link to the main page of Wikipedia Watch in the recent Signpost article was perfectly appropriate, and its removal was improper. I wopuld be inclined to restore it myself if it wern't that I gather the owner of the site has been trying to use threats to get the link restored, and I don't wish to even appear to be yielding to such tactics. There can be, in specific situations, good reasons to refer to or even link to sites which include attacks. There are rarely if ever good reqasons to link to attacks (though even that should probably not be an absolute) and links to sits that host attacks should be done in such a way as not to encourage the attacks, if possible. DES ^(talk) 11:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Even the current wording [12] is a little absolute for my taste -- there may well be reason to refer to or even link to attacks in RfCs and the like, even if ArbCom takes it evcidence by email (a poor idea in general, IMO) but it is much better and I can live with it. DES ^(talk) 11:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom said "Links to attack sites may be removed by any user; such removals are exempt from 3RR. Deliberately linking to an attack site may be grounds for blocking." Subject to good sense and judgment, that is the policy I intend to follow. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Arbcom also said "The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." Do you intend to follow that too? Ken Arromdee 14:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed one link, down to 196 now from 197 yesterday. Infodmz 15:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)