Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Extension

message: *"Do not allow such links placed by others to remain on your talk page. Any such links may be removed from any page or template by any user."
**Cut this entirely and replaced it. My reasoning is that this is more an extension of RPA, which is not policy, then NPA. We don't want to implicitly make RPA policy through this. My rewrite:
***"Although it is not policy and sometimes controversial, some Wikipedians may see removing links to personal attacks as an appropriate reaction."
*"banned" → "blocked"
**Not a big deal, but if you are banned you are also blocked, while if you are blocked you are blocked too. This covers both.
*"engaging in the same behavior elsewhere shows bad faith" → "engaging in the same behavior elsewhere violates the positive community spirit all Wikipedians should foster and may reveal bad faith"
**I think this gets at the heart of the matter, and I don't like saying that anything is bad faith in such absolute terms.
*"Do not link from Wikipedia articles or talk pages to a source that contains personal attacks or personal information on or about Wikipedia editors"
**Sort of rewrote and clarified this. I think this better captures what we're gettingat, though the first sentence may be unwieldy:
*** "Depending on their context, links from Wikipedia to a source that contains personal attacks or personal information on or about Wikipedia editors may constitute the same disruption and violation of this policy as making personal attacks. In general, such links should be avoided except in specific acceptable cases, such as bringing the issue to community attention for remedy or providing evidence in a request for comment or request for arbitration"
*"personal attacks against editors of Wikipedia made by a registered user" → "personal attacks made by editors of Wikipedia against other editors of Wikipedia"
** Word order and clarify (I think the repitition is unavoidable). I think this is what is meant (and if not, what should be). Comments welcome on all of these modifications. Dmcdevit•t 20:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My changes 

message: I think this proposal is utopian. What is next, that you cannot make personal attacks on Wikipedia editors if you meet him or her in the street? If this extension is accepted then I will invite many people who are defamed outside Wikipedia by an editor to come here. It may be a good way to stop personal attacks both inside and outside Wikipedia. Andries 20:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, If I ever meet you in person, Andries, I would expect that as a fellow editor, you would treat me with civility and with respect. Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, a community. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is completely unrealistic to expect that Wikipedia will make contributors outside of Wikipedia behave differently. Andries 21:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that personal attacks made outside of Wikipedia should only be a a concern if the webpage is linked to in Wikipedia. The contributor who links to it is the one who comments the offense, not the one who is making the attack outside of Wikipedia. Making an expansion that encompasses more is utopian and will create an enormous overload of complaints. Andries 20:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, what you are saying Andries, that it will be OK for your to attack me personally by name in your blog, webpage or a public discussion forum, using your name, and then expect me to respect you in talk pages, assume good faith, and engage you as a fellow Wikipedian, as if you did not make these attacks? Is that what you are saying, Andries?  ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not saying that it is okay. I am only saying that there are limits to the problems that Wikipedia can and should address. Andries 21:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But supporting this extension of policy is easily enforceable and sends a loud and clear message to editors that are currently using this subterfuge to bypass policy. ˜ jossi ˜  t • @ 22:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Policies should not be used to send moral messages.  Policies are used protect against vandalism and violations *at* Wikipedia, and nowhere elsewhere.  Policies should not be used to reflect the moralistic views of those who seek to impose majority rule.  Just because there is no policy on it that does not mean it is endorsed. --Knucmo2 12:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: In anticipation of the acceptance of this proposal I have already requested several people who are outside Wikipedia defamed by a person who is also a Wikipedia editor to become Wikipedia editors I wrote them that Wikipedia will probably forbid such personal attacks made outside Wikipedia and they would like to use this Wikipedia policy to stop the personal attacks made against them. Can you see now why this proposal is utopian? Andries 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I strongly oppose this extension and suggest a vote on it (unless, by the time of my post, it has been accepted.  Be that as it may, I am advancing an objection regardless as no policy is set in concrete).  It is not in the business of Wikipedia to impose responsibilities on Wikipedia outside the sphere of Wikipedia, since that is not its business.  What's more, it tries to make people responsible to the Wikipedia community for their actions.  From where does this arbitrary postulate derive its authority? The answer is self-evident; here.  People should be responsible for themselves and for their own actions.  There is no medieval sense of duty and responsibility here, nor should there be. --Knucmo2 12:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I also oppose this, and oppose it being listed on the NPA page as policy anyway. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: I like this idea, but how are we going to verify if the person(s) making personal attacks outside of WP has a WP account? --TAMIL 02:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's the rub. Of course, we just can't in every instance. However, for as many that deny being some internet identity making attacks, there will be those that verify it themselves, and those that give it away through IPs or whatever the case may be, and even those that we can reasonably associate, like sockpuppets, through behavior, linking and/or exact quoting being major giveaways. I suppose that's the best we can do, but it's still an improvement, no? Dmcdevit•t 02:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The way I see this is that the threshold for participating in this project is purposely very low: anyone can edit articles. But there are a few caveats, and these are the project's policies, one of which is no personal attacks. By stating the community's rejection of personal attacks by editors of Wikipedia against fellow editors, on or off wiki, we are making the community's  views in this matter loud and clear. So, this extension does two things: (a) Forewarning new editors of unacceptable behavior; and (b) providing a way to penalize those editors that purposefully and shamelessly attempt to bypass WP:NPA by posting their attacks off-wiki and identifying themselves and the editors they attack. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 04:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this policy extension. However because of the difficulty in establishing identity across different websites, the focus should be on behavior on Wikipedia. The concept of "making a personal attack" should be extended to include "linking to a personal attack." -Will Beback 23:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as well as extending NPA remedies to these editors that use off-Wiki to make personal attacks against other editors, shamelessly with the intention to bypass this policy. ≈ jossi  ≈ t • @ 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I agree with the spirit of this proposal, though I wonder if a whole paragraph is needed.  Might it suffice to add somewhere a sentance saying something like "To the maximum extent possible, a personal attack made outside wikipedia should be handled in extactly the same way it would be handled if it had been made on a users' own talk page."  Regards, Ben Aveling 14:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nothing special about where a PA happens. 

message: "In exceptional circumstances, personal attacks made outside of the Wikipedia website may be treated as if they were made here."
Emphasis being on "exceptional circumstances". We should never worry about trivial insults traded on other forums, or claims of attacks in emails. But if someone is boldly carrying on an aggressive campaign from another website, then by all means we should consider suspending their account here - for all the good it would do. Stevage 19:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rephrase

message: Having read all the disscusion, I can sum up:
Please don't add your name to this, this is not a poll, it's a summary of the discussion above by V. Z.. If you want to add  your name to a list of people pro/against, go to the poll on Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. Thanks! (and V. Z. please correct me if I'm mistaken). --Col. Hauler 17:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No consensus 

message: # Rob
# Another Ex-Premie
# Andries
# Knucmo2
# badlydrawnjeff
# V. Z.
# Strom
</div>
In that case no one is allowed to change the policy. -- V. Z. 13:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contra-Extension 

message: On the page Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks#Poll:_Off-wiki_Personal_Attacks there is a new quick opinion poll on this question, see there. Thx, -jkb- 11:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new quick opinion poll 

message: I stumbled upon this link, thinking it was recent. I hope this did not pass. Please tell me it didn't. Jeeny (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Oops, nevermind