Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 2

message: Are there no-personal-attacks templates such as the Vandal templates , /, , and ? If not, should some be created? They may be useful for reminding users of official policies, especially new and anonymous users. Zhatt 17:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just noticed :Template:No personal attacks and :Template:No personal headings, but it seems like they could be expanded. Zhatt 18:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Does this constitute as a personal attack? Quote: Bottom line: Screw Vancouver and go soke your bud you AIDS-infested people. Zhatt 18:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack on Vancouver talk 

message: Njyoder attempted to start a survey here, claiming that this policy has no consensus and expressing concerns over what he perceives as its uneven application. Certain users have repeatedly tried to censor it. I think the poll is misguided at best: even if, by a miracle (or a large number of sockpuppets), it were to fail to achieve the bizarre Wikipedia definition of consensus in favor of the policy, the principle has been essential from the earliest days of the project. I don't think the central point is open to debate if you like men, though of course the ancillary aspects are, and I am confident that an overwhelming majority shares that view.
However, I believe that censoring the proposal only makes the conflict interpersonal, rather than between one user and the very principles of the project. Cutting out a man's tongue, burning his books, insert hyperbolic violent metaphor here, only convinces him that he's right and you're trying to hide it. Letting him speak up and be rejected overwhelmingly may not convince him that he's wrong, but it will tell him that he's wasting his time. I have therefore moved the last uncensored version of the discussion to the subpage /njyoder's poll, where it can receive the disdain that it deserves. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:54, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that simply deleting something like this is the wrong approach and is too heavy-handed. Best just to ignore it, or register your disagreement with the legitimacy of a poll (or whatever), and move on. — Matt Crypto 15:45, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, even if you disagreed with it, it would make sense just to ignore it, not to censor it.  He has threatened me with blocks, so I have created an RFC.  Nathan J. Yoder 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: "Common sense" isn't actually common and Wikipedia is not a bureacracy, so you couldn't violate consensus.  What constitutes a "personal attack" is too subjective and even some Wikipedia originals (like Larry Sanger) seem to think that there should be exceptions to this rule that you hold to such an absolute standard.  Even administrators make explicit exceptions for themselves too, in order to make accusations of trolling or egotism. This "common sense" seems to be more uncommon than anything given how people are interpreting it in so many different ways.   Nathan J. Yoder 17:37, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The existence of gray zones does not mean that there are no black zones. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And most would fall under the 'gray zone' area, making this policy ridiculously subjective.  It becomes a "way to get rid of people I don't like" rule, since you can argue tons of stuff is a personal attack and have higher admins argue that stuff isn't to excuse themselves.  Nathan J. Yoder 14:24, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Y'know, to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been "gotten rid of" over anything less than a consistent pattern of personal attacks, continuing in the face of repeated warnings. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/TDC-2#Personal_attacks_and_incivility Here is a case that indicates how far someone can go and still be (barely) tolerated. Do you really want an atmosphere where something much beyond that is tolerated? If so, count me out. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Maybe not a ban from all of Wikipedia, but they certainly do selective bans from Wikipedia areas and will repeteadly block you for dubious interpretations of the NPA rule.  I looked at the RFC you linked to and the "personal attacks" don't need to be anywhere near that overt to warrant a banning from  parts of Wikipedia, nor do they need to give prior warning, like they did in my case.  Saying something like "you're being disinginuous/dishonest", "that is hypocritical" or "he has a personal disdain for person X" become personal attacks.  In other words, anything that describes a person, which is something that doesn't reflect on them positively, becomes a personal attack.  Nathan J. Yoder 05:01, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That sounds to me like excessive enforcement, if you are describing this accurately. How can you be "banned" without prior warning? It's a lengthy, almost judicial process. Or do you just mean "blocked"? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:20, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's under personal attack parole from the arbcom. Snowspinner 14:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: It was taken straight to arbcom where they instituted an immediate personal attack parole.  They had to lie on the case to make it stick.  They can ban you from selective parts of Wikipedia, they block if you edit those parts, so it's an effective ban even though mediawiki doesn't support such fine grained bans.  Nathan J. Yoder 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

text: If you consider that working well.  The ones who most zealously enforce it are the ones who are also very guilty of personal attacks and uncivility themselves.  It's a blatant violation of the "kick them while they're down" section of this very article, as well as general violations against other people.  Nathan J. Yoder 16:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A poll attempt 

message: I jumped ahead of protocol (sorry!) and added an example to the political section that uses "Nazi" as an example by adding the statement "comments to the effect of "You liberals...".  I know that I should have run it by the community first, but stereotyping of this type (it even applies to comments that involve conservatives as well) is a fairly common tool used in questioning one charecter.  If I have offended, I apologize. Stu 14:07, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, it would entirely depend on what came after the "you liberals".  Grouping people together isn't automatically a personal attack.  Friday (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's somewhat contextually nuanced.  I think it is an attack when you use a political affiliation as a cudgel (i.e., assuming someone's political stance despite their never having mentioned it to cast aspersions), or by using it to discredit someone's edit.  (I.E., "I reverted your last edit because it means you're a bedwetting liberal")  This sort of could be construed as falling under the portion of NPA dealing with commenting on content rather than on the contributor, though. · Katefan0(scribble) 17:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that the change I just made pretty much reflects the debate, and my agreement with it - I see nothing that I have to add to the debate aside from my agreement - something pretty clearly added by my edit. Phil Sandifer 18:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I cannot think of a situation where it is necessary to use the fact of someone's political views in lieu of their contributions. "Sources originating from the Lyndon LaRouche movement are not credible, and cannot be used in this article" gets the point across accurately without dealing with who the contributor is. Phil Sandifer 05:43, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there is anything like a citation, yes, you are right, but as you know, most people do not cite their sources. And that is not suddenly going to change, however much some of us might wish it to. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added example to the "polictics sub-header 

message: This page is incredibly unhelpful, as it makes no effort to define what a personal attack is.  Without a clear definition, the precise limits of what constitutes a personal attack are rather murky.  The first five sections of this article tell people not to make personal attacks, and that if you do it you are a bad person, without ever attempting to define what constitutes a personal attack in context of wikipedia.  The next section gives examples, but specifically notes that personal attacks are not limited to those examples.  After this, there continues to be no explanation of what exactly constitutes a personal attack.
It seems to me that this article needs to provide not just examples, but a specific definition of what is a "personal attack" in the context of wikipedia.  Personally, as I've suggested before, to little support, I think it should be defined relatively narrowly, as ad hominem argument.  I don't think that use of profanity or threats constitute personal attacks, precisely, although I can imagine that both should be banned, separately.  There seems also to be a tendency among some editors, at least, to include failure to assume good faith as a type of personal attack; and sometimes, even more broadly, to the point of claiming that any statement that calls attention in a critical way to a particular user's conduct as being a personal attack.
That said, I'm not trying to demand that my personal views on this subject be incorporated as the definition.  Just that we need to have some sort of definition of what a personal attack is.  how is this page supposed to provide actual guidance when it doesn't even explain what its subject is?
So, I propose that we try to work out some consensus as to what, precisely, a personal attack is. Obviously, it includes clear ad hominems, and apparently it also includes threats and use of profanity against another user (at least in some contexts - does it inclue threats to start an RfC or bring someone to arbitration?).  But how far beyond this does it go?  Does it go at all beyond this?  Or what?  I think this really needs to be clearly elaborated. john k 05:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a personal attack? 

message: If we can't make personal attacks on Wikipedia, then give me the address to a site where we can do this! Not that I've done it, of course, on Wikipedia. Scorpionman 17:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're free to make a mirror of Wikipedia that encourages personal attacks. Superm401 | Talk 03:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or one that consists primarily of personal attacks. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would have thought that Encyclopaedia Dramatica was the one with personal attacks as their main focus.  Uncyclopedia just seems to be for lies. Zordrac 04:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure even they don't personally attack each other, just the subjects of the articles. Superm401 | Talk 04:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which is more of an impersonal attack, or simply a violation of WP:NPOV. -- SCZenz 07:43, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I hate this 

message: In my opinion, if someone reverts well-researched edits that took over 4 hours to write, and reverts them with the caption "reverted to last edit by me - all of that was so wrong, so many lies, that i just can't be bothered trying to fix it", or words like that, I take that as a personal attack.  Similarly, if I get someone accuse me of being a sock puppet just because I didn't log in, or my computer changed IP addresses when I logged in again, but I made no attempt to hide my identity, I consider that to be a personal attack.  And when someone writes in my talk page making all sorts of unfounded accusations about my activities, which I had already proven to be false beforehand, I consider that to be a personal attack.  Yet when I asked them to please cease personal attacks, they then accused me of making false accusations against them, and that that in itself was a personal attack.  Can asking someone to stop personal attacks be considered to be a personal attack?
Also, the majority of people behaving in this way seem to have some form of administrative powers.  Does that permit them to behave in this way? Zordrac 04:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ....none of those are personal attacks... --Phroziac . o º O (mmmmm chocolate!) 23:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the word "lies" was used, it sounds like a personal attack to me.  The expressions "so wrong" and "can't be bothered" worry me too.  Administrators have exactly the same right as ordinary users to determine what the content of a page should be and at least the same obligations to behave in a civil fashion and not make personal attacks.  Regards, Ben Aveling 19:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: So what if it's a personal attack? You're dealing with human beings here and that sort of thing is going to happen. Don't look to appeal to some silly pre-fab "No Personal Attacks" policy (this "policy" will be voted into oblivion if wisdom prevails anyway)-- just revert back to what you think the best version is and get other Wikipedians to support you if your antagonist turns it into a revert war. If you garner this support, in all likelihood your version is in fact better. If not, maybe you need to turn a newly critical eye onto your own writing. JDG 09:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, JDG, I agree with you.  My point here was the hypocricy of it being AOK for someone to make a personal attack, but if I ask them to stop it, then they say that I am engaging in a personal attack by asking them.  See the problem?  Accusing someone of something is not a personal attack.  Besides which, the definition of personal attack is subjective.  What I might take as an attack might differ from what you might consider to be a personal attack.  Furthermore, what you take as personal might differ.  If someone writes to tell me that the quality of my article sucks, is that a personal attack? Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 15:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abusing wikipedia policy to engage in personal attacks 

message: We have to be allowed to criticise political leaders. Not in the article space, but on user pages this should be okay. The no NPA policy was created to foster a positive enviorment within wikipedia. It has nothing to do with people that don't contribute to the project.--God of War 22:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, and please see above. Although acceptable content policy is, in practice, very liberal for user pages (please see:Wikipedia talk:User page, please also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Soap is clearly not allowed, and for userpages, in general, you should only render opinions on the wiki itself. Certain criticisms may also be considered libellous according to official policy Wikipedia:Libel. Please also see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.--ChrisJMoor 10:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is one good reason why you should not criticise political figures or parties in general on talk pages, however. If you do this and then contribute to articles on that person or party, your POV could be used to criticise your edits even if they are true and unbiased, particularly by editors with opposing views. By rendering opinions, you could give editors that try to apply their POV to articles the upper hand, even though your edits are actually in line with NPOV policy! Some might also state that your edits are suspect irrespective of their content just because you render an opinion on the subject elsewhere.--ChrisJMoor 00:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Does the NPA rule apply to political figures?

message: There should be a section for noobie protection.  Something like: Be kind to new users.  As they're not as literate in Wiki tags, nomenclature, etc... be kind.  Do not attack due to lack of wikipedia expertice.  Just because someone doesn't wiki well, does not mean they're not knowledgable in a certain topic. Hopquick 04:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Noob 

message: Just a thought:
But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire. Matthew 5:22.
--Doc ask? 14:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical Basis 

message: I wish to add to the article (and hence policy) that an example of a personal attack is an ad hominem attack. This provides a specific example of the kind of attack that should not be allowed, because it does not address the issue at hand. --Iantresman 16:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ad hominem attacks are already covered by "Comment on content, not on the contributor."  But perhaps it could be clearer.  I certainly don't have any objection to explicitly using the words ad hominem somewhere.  Regards, Ben Aveling 01:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No ''ad hominem'' attacks

message: I'd like to see a clarification/extension of the No personal attacks policy, by extending it to non-contributors living or dead. Some previous discussion can be found above. I offer the following reasons:
*The policy appears to apply to contributors, so as not to inflame edit wars. I would argue that this may equally apply to non-contributors. Indeed, personal attacks on your (non-contributing) mother, the subject of an article, someone you respect (living or dead), may also inflame edit wars.
*All personal attacks on anybody, do not lead to constructive editing of content
*All personal attacks are an Association fallacy since it does not address content.
*I can't think of any justified reason for allowing personal attacks on non-contributors that does not equally apply to contributors.
.
*Amendment (5 Feb): In response to several people suggesting that they may support this proposal if applied only to article Talk pages, since this is where editors discuss articles, that makes sense. 
:ie. Applicable to article Talk page only.
Please indicate whether you Support or Reject extending the policy to non-contributors (a) Living (b) Dead. Please try add your response at the end, rather than inter-threading replies. --Iantresman 15:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think writing "GWB is a dick" is acceptable in an article I suggest you review WP:NPOV. DJ Clayworth 18:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: *Comment: How does banning personal attacks on non-contributors advantage one editor over the other, and help one "get their way"? Why should anybody subjected to a personal attack need to respond; a personal attack is not subjective, and can be identified by anyone? --Iantresman 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You suggested that I was violating WP:NPA and was told by others that the policy didn't apply because (at least in part) the people you were defending weren't memebers of Wikipedia. Are you trying to tell me that this dispute did not have at least a small part in your design of the proposal? Personal attacks in many cases are subjective (in the eye of the beholder). For example, when I said that Halton Arp's advocacy could be seen as an example of pathological science, you took that to be a personal attack on Arp, didn't you? --ScienceApologist 15:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *While my initiative is partly based on the exchange you mention  and others (eg ), I still can't see how extending this policy gives one editor an advantage over another, nor would allow me to "get my way". But it will focus dialogue on content, rather than opinions on people. --Iantresman 19:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It may be common sense, but when someone does attack a non-contributor (which I've had experience of, on more than one occasion), it does interfere with presenting a genuine argument for certain editing decisions. --Iantresman 14:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: This should be removed from RFC if someone wants to(I have to go right now).--Urthogie 16:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comments: Policy Extension to non-contributors

message: Well, despite (a) No-one providing an example of where attacking a non-contrbutor was constructive in the editing process, or (b) proviing any good reason to allow it, there is no consensus for extending the policy beyond Wikipedia contributors.
--Iantresman 14:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should be removed from RFC if someone wants to(I have to go right now).--Urthogie 16:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Result: No consensus

message: If an anonymous editor with an unverifiable claim to an M.D., who appears to be associated with a thalidomide manufacturer goes on Wikipedia making edits to the thalidomide article that it is safe and effective, then is claiming that the editor's comments reflect malpractice a personal attack?  What is the correct course of action in those circumstances? --James S. 17:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any information included in an article should be verifiable by citation. A person's credentials are worth squat as a contributing editor, though of course you may wish to take it on board during discussions. --Iantresman 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Accusing someone of malpractice can also be considered a legal threat which is also a no no here.Gator (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not threatened legal action, but both sides in this dispute have pointed out that it is possible against either one of us. The situation such that the supposed M.D. has repeatedly refused to provide any means of identification or verification of the claimed credential.  The refusal to associate one's name with one's edits is compounded by the fact that the edits have expressed a diagnosis of at least tens of thousands of people.  If the editor does not have an M.D., is Wikipedia indemnified against potential allegations of complicity with either practicing medicine without a license, or malpractice if he or she does?  I am familiar with the medical disclaimer, and I will not take any legal action, but that doesn't mean that someone else isn't and won't.  What is the proper course of action in this case? --James S. 19:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the answer by Iantresman above is correct: the qualifications of an editor are irrelevant. We're just here to verifiably summarize reliable sources, not to make medical diagnoses. Ignore the editor and pay attention to the edits. In this matter that may mean removing unsourced material.  -Will Beback 20:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with previous comment completely. This situation is no different to any other in the editing process, where there is NOR. Tyrenius 04:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  When is it okay to claim an M.D. is failing? 

message: I have recently put a couple of bios from the  Survivor (Television Series) up for AfD under  and  for not meeting WP:BIO standards.  I've been presented with evidence where a few of the articles had indeed met those standards, which lead to me changing my view on some articles.  But unfortunately one user keeps violating WP:AfD policy by continuing to remove AfD tags under his username and also a rotating IP.  
I have tried to discuss the issue with this user only to have my user page vandalisedand got threats of a ban for putting AfD's up and didnt explain why at all. Can someone recommend me a proper course of action in this case? -- Arnzy | Talk 09:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bring it to the Administrators' notice board. - Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for advice: AfD's and personal attacks 

message: Generally, what constitutes a personal attack can be subjective -- it depends on what is taken personally by the subject of such an attack. Of course, accusing someone to be a troll is clearly a personal attack. Such an attack, however, is not very damaging, since by following the discussion, anyone can see and decide who's really being problematic. 
However, I want to point out a very serious and damaging accusation -- accusing someone of being or using a sockpuppet, without any evidence. Since people can't readily verify such a claim, the editor's image is tarnished unless he somehow comes up with a  proof that he doesn't have sockpuppets. The burden of proving an accusation lies on the accuser, but the accuser may simply refuse to offer a proof. This can be extremely hurting. I know some very good editors who have left wikipedia for good because of such incidents. What could be more harmful to the wikipedia community? 
I have the following proposal:
* Any suspiction of sockpuppetry should only be reported at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser and should not be discussed elsewhere.
* Asserting "X is a sockpuppet of Y" without the support of compelling evidence should be considered a serious personal attack and should immediately attract punishment.
* In case the accusations cannot be proved, an apology to the accused editor must be required, failing which the accuser should face prospects of getting permanently banned from wikipedia.
I am sure this proposal would have some loopholes, but at a broad level, I think it is extremely important to enforce something like this to prevent such incidents from happening. deeptrivia (talk) 04:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Instruction creep!  How do we expect people to abide by this?  With as many people who edit pseudonymously around here, it's easy to suspect sockpuppetry from completely innocent coincidences.  How can it tarnish reputations?  It's usually pretty easy to prove that two people aren't the same. --James S. 07:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree with you. Yes, there is nothing by which people accusing others (of being Sock puppet/s)  with a view to malign and tarnish an editor’s image may be forced to abide with – we work here in an open environment with utmost assumption of good faith. Accordingly, if a user accuses other of being a sock-puppet, the normal legal equity recognizes that the onus of providing proof lies on the accuser otherwise honest editor’s life shall become difficult.  Such allegations are serious in nature and if made without sufficient proof (and simply based on  the individual perception and judgment of the accuser) has a highly de-motivating effect on user accused of sock puppetry. Accordingly, the suggestions made by deeptrivia have intrinsic merit and warrant discussion for evolving a more  elaborate  policy on the matter. --Bhadani 12:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: What if someone refuses to apologize, and refuses to show evidence? Isn't this a simple case of personal attack, that should be dealt with within WP:NPA with no need for wasting everybody's time on an RfC? deeptrivia (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone is using this sort of accusation as a bludgeon regularly and in obvious bad faith, it sems to me that WP:RFC should be invoked; there's no need for some sort of rule about how to properly use the word sockpuppet. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 23:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet allegations almost always clouded with uncertainty 

message: A user (User:Rattlerbrat) has been making personal attacks on other contributors over the past few days. I contacted the user about this, contacted other users, put a notice on the village pump and a note went on the administrators notice board. The only thing that has happened is a continuation of these attacks. My question is: Why do we have this policy if no-one is going to do anything about it? It should be marked as historical, because I can see no evidence of anyone helping out.  Gerard Foley 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: user has now been blocked. Yeltensic42 don't panic 13:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical? 

message: I was bold and started a section on the page discussing what is not a personal attack.  I used common sense (whatever small amount I possess) to try and distill some of the discussion on this page.  I think this needs to be expanded somewhat.  It is important, I think, to provide counter examples to demonstate how to disagree and debate without resorting to personal attacks, but also there needs to be a line drawn on the other side of the issue—there needs to be a definition of what type of speech is acceptable so that reasonable discussion isn't denigrated by being labeled WP:NPA. —Doug Bell talk•contrib 23:23, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a rule of thumb, if you discuss the content of the article, that is fine. If you discuss the author/editor, then that is an ad hominem 'attack', where the degree of 'attack' is purely subjective, but an 'ad hominem' nevertheless. I suppose that all personal attacks are 'ad hominems', but not all 'ad hominems' are personal attacks.  --Iantresman 23:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In particular, chastising someone for an actual (or at least arguable) attack is ad hominem, but should not be an attack within the meaning of this policy. Robert A.West (Talk) 05:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples that are not personal attacks  

message: This doesn't very much belong here, as "no personal attacks" differs from "no disputing whatsoever." To say something like this indicates you don't want people to resolve issues-- instead it puts off something like "let's all just be friends." Disagreeing is very important to progressing a better understanding of something.66.157.30.31 01:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you clarify what "this" is that doesn't belong?  The whole policy, or just some part of it? —Doug Bell talk•contrib 02:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with the other person, but just agree to disagree." Really trivial peeve I suppose, but the "agree to disagree" part's pretty silly. 66.157.30.31 10:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreeing to disagree 

message: Although it is not possible to enforce the policy of No Personal Attacks outside of Wikipedia, there have been occasions in which some users use public forums, blogs and personal home pages to attack editors of Wikipedia by name, alias or both, while at the same time demanding that the WP:NPA and WP:AGF are observed to the letter in talk pages. I am referring here not to a critique of an editor, but to obvious personal attacks such as the use of vituperative and obscene language and making pernicious and disparaging comments about them.
I believe that such a position is indefensible and should be considered disruptive behavior. It creates an atmosphere of ill-will, animosity and lack of trust, that are not conducive neither to collaboration on editing articles, nor to community building.
I would appreciate comments from editors about expanding the WP:NPA policy to include some wording that will address the attempt to bypass policy and game the system by an editor "outsourcing" his personal attacks against other editor(s) to public forums in order to "get away with it". ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 16:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a proposal page at Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks/Extension. Comments and edits by other editors are most welcome. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 01:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It isn't about policing other sites, but mostly the kind of people that make plain their two identities (on-wiki and off) and use other forums to disrupt our collaborative community spirit here. Dmcdevit·t 21:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Merecat: Please see the proposed wording at Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks/Extension and Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks/Extension ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 02:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not.  This is plain feudalism.  Do not try to make people responsible for others outside of Wikipedia.  See my objection on the extension sub-page. --Knucmo2 12:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. Don't try to control people outside of Wikipedia. A forum or mailing list isn't trying to build an encyclopedia.... --maru   (talk)  contribs 05:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Should not be expanded, if attacks outside Wikipedia are getting to the point where they are so bad that they interfere with editing here, then the relevant users can be blocked for disruption. We don't need to add a general NPA rule which would effectively gag editors comments. JoshuaZ 05:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Disagree with extending policy - All opinions aside from the author of this section are opposed to this modification, which appears to have been added without any consensus. It's no surprise that this modification was just completely removed by another user. Let's try to reach consensus before re-adding it. That said, I don't think a consensus is likely on extending Wikipedia's policies to govern other web forums, IRC, phone conversations, etc. An informal poll on freenode #wikipedia revealed "shock and awe" from several admins upon hearing that this was part of an official policy page. Strom 18:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Please note that the extension is not related to policing what happens outside WP. That is , of course, not possible. The extension is to curb the use of external sites to bypass WP:NPA by editors that use their names to attack other named editors of Wikipedia. Please re-read the addition with that in mind. Thank you. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While true, that would most likely qualify as exhausting the community's patience or at least disruption, so a policy to say that people shouldn't do that would be redundant.  Also, it could easily be taken to mean that people can't make personal attacks on others outside WP no matter what, even if that's not what it was meant to do.  --Rory096(block) 19:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Request for removal, pending discussion -  "the extension is not related to policing what happens outside WP." -- this is misleading and untrue. The effect of the policy is ONLY on actions taken outside WP. Specifically, it is engineered to limit comments in other online forums. We politely request that you remove this section from the Official Policy page, since it meets neither of the acid tests for inclusion: 1) It is not widely agreed upon among editors, and 2) No consensus was reached prior to inclusion.Strom 21:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that the reason for this extension is not theoretical. We have had cases of very nasty personal attacks made by named editors against other named editors on personal websites and online forums, only to have these people claiming that they have not violated WP:NPA. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 21:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While true, they've probably violated m:Dick and exhausted the community's patience, leaving them open for a block.  If anything, this should be added to the blocking policy, not as an extension of NPA.  And either way, it should be discussed before being added. --Rory096(block) 18:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's unworkable and open to too much abuse from impersonation for a start - who can tell if the attacker on an outside site is who he/she claims to be? It's unfortunate if it happens, but I think it's something we have to learn to live with if and when it happens, as long as it doesn't happen on Wiki. Tyrenius 04:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extending the policy of NPA 

message: Suggestions on whether WP:PAIN is in the correct position in remedies or not welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Personal_attack_intervention_noticeboard#Non-Admin_actions_on_this_page.3F Regards, MartinRe 17:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PAIN]] position in remedies chain 

message: ===Supporters===
* Ed Poor thinks that people who try to influence others by calling them names should be ashamed of themselves! and people who try to change people by shaming them are idiots! (sarcasm intentional)
* Jimbo Wales, 
* Bryan Derksen, 
* maveric149, 
* Chuck Smith,
* Larry Sanger (with the exception of naming and shaming trolls, which I highly recommend you read about; in almost all other cases, I very strongly oppose anything that can be construed as "personal attack"),
* JHK
* Eclecticology (essential for maintaining peace in the family)
* Martin (especially on talk pages on articles - user talk pages don't matter as much)
* Fennec (in a fairly broad manner)
* Jwrosenzweig (I agree with Larry Sanger)
* BCorr|Брайен (I also agree with Larry Sanger)
* anthony (see warning) (though I don't support other-party enforcement of such a rule, enforce the rule upon yourself, not others)
*Michael Snow (I don't even support Larry Sanger's exception. Calling somebody a troll is a personal attack like any other, and we've reduced the word to near-meaninglessness. Identify and criticize the behavior that makes someone a "troll", don't just call them names.)
*zeno (I share Michael Snow's view on calling people trolls)
*Sam [Spade] I agree, "troll" is a personal attack
===Opponents=== 
* Lee Daniel Crocker (see below), 
* 24 (see below), 
* JHK (because I think there might be cases where Lee is right, and believe strongly in peer pressure and shame culture.)
* NetEsq (concurring with Lee Daniel Crocker - see below)
===Other===
Stuck between support and opposition:
* Jmabel 08:53, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Lee Daniel Crocker on this issue, and I offer my own thoughts here as a supplement.  An absolute prohibition on personal attacks would violate the proposed ignore all rules rule and would more than likely give rise to a culture of forced politeness, hypocrisy, and passive aggressive behavior.   The work is the important thing, and suffering personal attacks is an inescapable part of holding one's work up to the scrutiny of one's peers.  On this note, the best way to deal with unprovoked and/or unfair personal attacks is to ignore them and focus on the work.  However, the decision to stand down from a confrontation should be left to the sound discretion of the individuals involved in such a confrontation.--NetEsq
24 - not only is such a rule exteremly unlikely to be fairly administered by a clique, but frankly, someone committed to a particular approach to editing or collaborating or not is not going to give a damn about "shaming" or even "outing" (much more serious).  Handing over banning-power to be used again people who simply offend others as part of a two-way semi-abusive discourse is a sure route to groupthink - and the end of any serious pretense of the project to "neutrality".  That said, ad hominem attack generally contributes little to discourse as people defend their positions reactively, and anonymous parties with little at stake except a disposable identity should be relatively more conservative about such tactics than those who are using the same names that are attached to their bodies.  However, those gloves should come off the instant someone is "outing" or "framing" anybody, i.e. if someone tells me I'm Mikhail Gorbachev and should "know better", then they deserve intense ad hominem attack in return from infinite anonymous parties until they learn not to "out".  Those who wish to put their own real-body names up in a one on one mud wrestling competition with disposable anons (IP numbers, pseudonyms) who might as well be programs or many people posing as the same character, are not going to survive this millennium anyway, so let's not bother pretending that their opinion can matter.  Also, there are many who consider this process, or the role of the "troll", to be constructive and necessary, like the "devil's advocate" or "shaitan" or "defense attorney" or "opposition leader" or "Supreme Court minority opinion author", to reduce groupthink and identify values divisions across which people cannot cooperate constructively anyway, and can only ever agree to just disagree.  I'm confident that the record shows that I never attacked or insulted anyone who didn't attack or insult me first - if they object to getting the diseased end of the stick thereafter, well, tough.  Finally, let's not pretend that those ideological or ethnic conflicts in the "real world" that people are dying and killing for, are going to lead to anything less than verbal or emotional simulacra of violence here.  Blunt brutal argument between Arabs and Israelis, Communists and Capitalists, Globalists and Localists, Greens and Golfers, Gollums and Gandalfs, is the only way we're going to get to this "NPOV" God that some here want to worship - or, for that matter, talking people out so they come at least to an exhausted truce.
Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Starting a group in the traditional 'Big 8' hierarchy involves a long, fussy procedure; starting one in the alt hierarchy is easy but getting news servers to carry it is not so easy. I don't think it's appropriate for a world-distributable newsgroup, anyway.  It may be possible to set up a newsgroup on the Nupedia server and have it archived by Nupedia (not quite a 'private' newsgroup, but not fully public - keep Google out of it). Would a mailing list be a good 'middle ground' between fully public discussion and private email? -- Claudine
Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That is an excellent example of a situation where a prohibition against personal attacks would chill spirited debate.  Moreover, those who cry foul are often the passive aggressors. -- NetEsq 05:28 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
----
Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedians opinions regarding the "no personal attacks" rule

message: Stuck between support and opposition:
* Jmabel 08:53, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Lee Daniel Crocker on this issue, and I offer my own thoughts here as a supplement.  An absolute prohibition on personal attacks would violate the proposed ignore all rules rule and would more than likely give rise to a culture of forced politeness, hypocrisy, and passive aggressive behavior.   The work is the important thing, and suffering personal attacks is an inescapable part of holding one's work up to the scrutiny of one's peers.  On this note, the best way to deal with unprovoked and/or unfair personal attacks is to ignore them and focus on the work.  However, the decision to stand down from a confrontation should be left to the sound discretion of the individuals involved in such a confrontation.--NetEsq
24 - not only is such a rule exteremly unlikely to be fairly administered by a clique, but frankly, someone committed to a particular approach to editing or collaborating or not is not going to give a damn about "shaming" or even "outing" (much more serious).  Handing over banning-power to be used again people who simply offend others as part of a two-way semi-abusive discourse is a sure route to groupthink - and the end of any serious pretense of the project to "neutrality".  That said, ad hominem attack generally contributes little to discourse as people defend their positions reactively, and anonymous parties with little at stake except a disposable identity should be relatively more conservative about such tactics than those who are using the same names that are attached to their bodies.  However, those gloves should come off the instant someone is "outing" or "framing" anybody, i.e. if someone tells me I'm Mikhail Gorbachev and should "know better", then they deserve intense ad hominem attack in return from infinite anonymous parties until they learn not to "out".  Those who wish to put their own real-body names up in a one on one mud wrestling competition with disposable anons (IP numbers, pseudonyms) who might as well be programs or many people posing as the same character, are not going to survive this millennium anyway, so let's not bother pretending that their opinion can matter.  Also, there are many who consider this process, or the role of the "troll", to be constructive and necessary, like the "devil's advocate" or "shaitan" or "defense attorney" or "opposition leader" or "Supreme Court minority opinion author", to reduce groupthink and identify values divisions across which people cannot cooperate constructively anyway, and can only ever agree to just disagree.  I'm confident that the record shows that I never attacked or insulted anyone who didn't attack or insult me first - if they object to getting the diseased end of the stick thereafter, well, tough.  Finally, let's not pretend that those ideological or ethnic conflicts in the "real world" that people are dying and killing for, are going to lead to anything less than verbal or emotional simulacra of violence here.  Blunt brutal argument between Arabs and Israelis, Communists and Capitalists, Globalists and Localists, Greens and Golfers, Gollums and Gandalfs, is the only way we're going to get to this "NPOV" God that some here want to worship - or, for that matter, talking people out so they come at least to an exhausted truce.
Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Starting a group in the traditional 'Big 8' hierarchy involves a long, fussy procedure; starting one in the alt hierarchy is easy but getting news servers to carry it is not so easy. I don't think it's appropriate for a world-distributable newsgroup, anyway.  It may be possible to set up a newsgroup on the Nupedia server and have it archived by Nupedia (not quite a 'private' newsgroup, but not fully public - keep Google out of it). Would a mailing list be a good 'middle ground' between fully public discussion and private email? -- Claudine
Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That is an excellent example of a situation where a prohibition against personal attacks would chill spirited debate.  Moreover, those who cry foul are often the passive aggressors. -- NetEsq 05:28 May 3, 2003 (UTC)
----
Prometheuspan 23:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other

message: See here for background info. Sam [Spade] 17:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not American. Well, perhaps it depends on what you mean by Wikipedia and American. Stephen B Streater 15:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant in terms of legal jurisdiction. - Corbin Be excellent 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But have you considered how hard it would be to set up Wikipedia on a server somewhere else? This would then not be under US jurisdiction. In other words, the current US jurisdiction is just there for convenience rather than necessity. Stephen B Streater 13:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User:WHEELER#An_additional_slur]

message: Yo. I'm currently drafting a new user space policy, and while mulling personal and impersonal attacks, I came to an interesting conclusion. Why is "I hate conservatives" allowed if "I hate Christians" is not? One person suggested that it is because of religion, but I'm not so sure. Since Wikipedia is American, should we be using the American definition of hate speech, or should we ban all impersonal attacks made against groups? - Corbin Be excellent 15:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not American. Well, perhaps it depends on what you mean by Wikipedia and American. Stephen B Streater 15:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant in terms of legal jurisdiction. - Corbin Be excellent 04:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But have you considered how hard it would be to set up Wikipedia on a server somewhere else? This would then not be under US jurisdiction. In other words, the current US jurisdiction is just there for convenience rather than necessity. Stephen B Streater 13:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bringing back up this old topic

message: When someone removes a vandalism warning template from their Talk page it is considered vandalism. Does the same hold true for when someone removes an NPA warning template? FiguringItOutAgain 05:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of NPA Template from Talk page

message: I am trying to understand this Wikipedia policy.  Which is more important, the technical or the spirt of this policy.  For example this statement is very close, but not technically a personal attack because it is phrased hypothetically.  Yet, the intention of being a personal attack leaves little to the imagination.  Is this considered a policy violation?  BruceHallman 23:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most of us would treat that as a personal attack, and should treat it as such. However, such things can be vague/questionable enough that I don't think it makes sense to make an explicit policy about them. JoshuaZ 00:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, I treated it as such and removed it. Despite the clumsy attempt to sidestep the policy, it's quite clear that this was designed to attack the person who made the statement, and not just criticise the statement itself. On Wikipedia, we need to be able to say things like "that last edit was bad" and so forth, but we also need to treat each other with respect and avoid degenerating into exchanges of childish namecalling. — Matt Crypto 01:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You need to be careful though.  I think this is a grey area with no absolutes.  Some people find the above offensive, some people may not.  It's up to the victim of the abuse as to whether to take action against the editor or not.  The best response by others is obviously not to respond to abuse, and not encourage those who do, as mentioned in the policy.  Veiled attacks are always more difficult to discern, and sometimes comments may be misinterpreted as veiled attacks. --Knucmo2 15:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's often a grey area, and it would be foolhardy to try and craft a policy about it. In this above case, though, I'd say it's pretty clear  what's intended: a personal attack. — Matt Crypto 15:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps a "3RR" type of rule for veiled attacks would make sense? BruceHallman 16:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think so. If someone is obviously trying to get around the rule, as the above user was, then we can deal with it as if it were a personal attack under a narrow definition. It'd be very difficult indeed to try and define "veiled attack" in a satisfactory way that didn't inhibit legitimate discourse. — Matt Crypto 16:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point, and I agree.  I take it by 'we can deal with it' you mean this remedy.  In the case of my example I have followed that suggested remedy to no avail.  As here, the opinion is "the above user was" [...] "obviously trying to get around the rule", while at the Intervention Board, the opinion was "...no action should be taken...".  Catch 22. Life isn't fair, I am OK with that <g>. The bigger issue is that lack of civility hurts Wikipedia in general, and here I see 'obvious' and repeated lack of civility being tolerated and hurting Wikipedia. BruceHallman 17:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As we're writing an encyclopedia here, and it ain't usenet, then if the user has a history of frequent incivility towards other editors, petty or blatant, then perhaps some sort of punitive action may be in order.  The evidence has to be fairly strong though so as to make a good case inductively speaking.  Also, multiple cases may not be bad as one particular case (where the abuse may have been particularly severe). --Knucmo2 17:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Veiled 'attacks'. 

message: It has been brought to my attention that violations of NPA are not listed separately in the blocking policy, nor is blocking mentioned as a possible consequence on the NPA page. Wp:npa#Consequences states that "repeatedly engaging in personal attacks" can result in a ban; no mention is made of the common interim method of block. /WP:BP#Disruption mentions personal attacks. Should a mention be made on the NPA page as well? Posting on both Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy and Wikipedia talk:NPA; I suggest discussion continue on Talk:NPA. KillerChihuahua?!? 04:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Add it, seems like an obvious thing to do. JoshuaZ 04:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. This is needed. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 05:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just out of interest Jossi, what's the minimum amount of time you can block a user for? --Knucmo2 18:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean the minimum amount of time the software will you let you block someone for? As far as I'm aware (not being an admin, thus never having used the block section of the site) it's 1 minute. I'm sure I've seen a block like 5 minutes or 30 minutes around here somewhere. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Darth for this, hopefully you will be an admin soon.  Anyway, while I'm still not deadset on the block for an NPA violation rule, I was scared that users might get blocked for 24 hours just for calling someone a "dick" or something, which would be excessive.  This has somewhat allayed my fears. --Knucmo2 20:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well generally there is no set amount of time for blocking anyone. You can see this quite clearly from block logs of open proxies: some admins have no problem with blocking them for a week to stop the constant stream of vandalism, whereas others will block for as little as 30 minutes to put an end to one vandal editing from the proxy. I can't imagine an admin would block someone on sight for them calling someone a "dick". I think they're more likely to stick something like  on their page. Immidiate blocks without warnings are rare- infact, I've never seen one. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 20:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

text: To the contrary, there is no minimum at all (except maybe 1 second because it's not measured any lower).  --Rory096 23:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPA blocks

message: Sorry, but this is just ridiculous. Does this mean if I called another editor a jerk in real life, I could be blocked for NPA? Or what? It's a little rediculous that it extends to IRC, something that the ArbCom said it didn't need to worry about. SushiGeek 16:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this could use some clarification. Wikipedia policy has no jurisdiction over off-Wikipedia places, and Arbcom has specifically stated that the rules do not apply on IRC! Luigi30 (Ταλκ το mε) 18:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I think the ArbCom should at the very least consider off-Wiki attacks (especially if they're verifiable) in their cases. For example, how much good faith must one give on-Wiki if someone is attacking them off-Wiki? In the case of IRC (specifically the unofficial channels on Freenode) it doesn't make sense to exclude attacks made in public there. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we are confusing enforcing NPA off-wiki and considering off-wiki attacks in evidence. The former I have no objection too, but that up to whoever's in charge of IRC to take care of if they so please. The latter is certainly sensible, just like in the case of evidence of off-wiki incitements to meatpuppetry by Beckjord, Jason Gaastrich, etc. Dmcdevit·t 00:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This has been the most common objection, but I think it stems from a mistaken understanding of the purpose of the policy. I tried to make the meaning plain with this edit. As I wrote, "Wikipedia does not, and cannot, police the internet for personal attacks, and this policy does not seek to extend Wikipedia's "jurisdiction" elsewhere. Rather, this is a way of holding editors accountable on Wikipedia for circumventing the policy against personal attacks here." So, no, this isn't an attempt to change enforce NPA on IRC (though I do find it disheartening in general that people would be disappointed if they were prohibited from making personal attacks elsewhere.). Dmcdevit·t 00:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-wiki? 

message: * Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult. 
Propose that we drop the "even if the contributor is a member of a purported cult.".  It seems to imply that belonging to a religious group is belongong to a cult.  This conveys the same meaning and doesn't attack religious people (which we should not do in the NPA article)
* Racial, sexual, homophobic, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. Religious epithets are not allowed. 
--Tbeatty 05:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly disagree. The current wording simply implies that some people consider some religions to be cults. Under your wording someone could (for example) attack someone for being a scientologist and say "but that's not really a religion, its just a cult." With this wording it makes it clear that that is an unacceptable excuse. JoshuaZ 05:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: And I really don't understand your cause for offense. It isn't similar at all to your example. The guideline doesn't attempt to identify whether or not a religion is a cult. It makes a blanket statement, any religion (even if it is a puported cult) is what is relevant. The rule applies regardless of whether a specific religion is a cult or not. In fact, the statement is true whether or not any "cult" exists in reality. JoshuaZ 05:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The confusion is the term "contributor" and the pronoun "they".  It can mean both the recipient or instigator of the attack.  It could have been interpreted to mean that jews don't get a free pass at attackign other jews.  This is different than the way it was intended so it was confusing.  Because "contributor" is ambiguous, it could be interpreted as saying "The attacker can't attack members of a religion even if they themselves are members of the purported cult."  It's ambiguous pronouns that make it offensive.  I understand that wasn't the intent but that's the way it came across.  I read it as trying to thwart the defense "It's okay if I us use slur X because I am slur X"  when in fact it was intended to stop a different kind of attack.--Tbeatty 06:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples - Cult 

message: I don't object to your new wording which gets the point across, although since this is a policy page I would appreciate if other users would clarify if they don't mind the new wording. JoshuaZ 05:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with it, though I changed the wording slightly.  dbtfztalk 05:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Dbtfz's edits were fine with me.--Tbeatty 06:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Wording