Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 3

message: When somebody says I am a fascist or a bolshevik collaborateur somewhere on internet, so OK, it is Off-Wiki. If somebody does it not on my national wiki, but on another one or say on the pages of Meta – is it OFF or not? In particular, somebody has been distributing lies about me in a national wiki, it has been solved on Request on Comments there, now he is continuing to say so on Meta. Normally, i would assume, Meta is not Off, but there were some notices I have seen somewhere saying that it could be. Can somebody help and define it? Thx, -jkb- 14:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say anything that is done on pages that are managed by the Wikimedia Foundation is the demarcation between Wiki and off-Wiki in this respect.  Anything done outside of that is not the business of any Wiki editor. --Knucmo2 15:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the excpetion of a named editor engaing in personal attacks againbst another name editor for the onlly purpose of bypassing the policy of no personal attacks. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 15:22, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is still off-Wiki. "No personal attacks" does not exist in the world outside of Wikipedia as a law (nor does it inside Wikipedia, it is a policy); it is only a guideline for others to be courteous to one another.   If the attack becomes sustained and intimidating as it might in a workplace, then there might be a case of verbal harassment or bullying, which is a concern for the courts, not Wikipedia.  It is down to the recipient of the abuse whether or not to report this.  But Wikipedia does not ask before someone becomes an editor that they have clean criminal records.  Thus, the user does not bypass the policy of "No Personal Attacks" as decreed by Wikipedia as it does not apply to actions outside of Wikipedia. --Knucmo2 17:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks for some useful considerations. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 17:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, and there is a glaring contradiction in the example cited: Wikipedia editors are demanded to foster a community spirit.  Ok, that works fine so far, as we're in a "Wikipedia community".  But how is it possible outside of Wikipedia/Wikimedia to foster a positive spirit in a community which does not exist outside of the community in which the "positive spirit" is fostered. --Knucmo2 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Our policies only apply to the English Wikipedia. All other Wikimedia projects, including other-language Wikipedias, Meta, Wiktionaries, etc. are all empowered to make their own local rules as we have. I guess that would make it off-wiki. Having said that, Meta very certainly does have a NPA policy (unlike most other off-wiki places) and I suggest you take it up with the administrators and dispute resolution over there. Dmcdevit·t 18:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A definition "What is Off-Wiki" needed urgently

message: ::Notice to the summaries: i think it is quite incorrect or at least confuse to count the votes Strong throw out altogether, Amend to only ban Linked Personal Attacks and Remove for Discussion/until Consensus together as votes against. For instance the votes Remove for Duscussion... are not explicitely against the change. And votes Amend to only... are partly for the change. -jkb- 09:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That notice makes no sense, 27:27 (May 30) is an indicator of no consensus, and with that "remove until consensus" means "remove". -- Omniplex 07:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The count for throw out should be 20.  changed his vote to discard. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please feel free to amend as you see fit. Add your sig so people know you have taken part. Stephen B Streater 19:31, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Malber,  was allready counted under throw out #17. --Wikimol 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies :-) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest poll summary 

message: Keep (39%)
* 21 - Keep
Remove (61%)
* 17 - Strong throw out altogether;
* 6 - Amend to only ban Linked Personal Attacks (or remove)(
* 10 - Remove for Discussion/until Consensus
In all, 39% are in favor of keeping this policy and 61% would like to effectively remove the section in its current form (including those in favor of removing if the amendment is not possible, since it was not accepted by many folks).
If you take nothing else from these results, please keep in mind that neither "side" is an overwhelming majority, so no one can pretend they represent an "obviously correct" position; both positions have very clearly stated their positions in the discussion; no one has yet invoked moral authority; we're on the path to progress. Specifically, both sides seem to agree that the definition of "off-wiki" could use clarification. 
Given the level of interest in the poll and lack of a large majority, we need to recognize that this is going to be controversial for some time, with no quick resolution.
Strom 20:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll Summary after 1 week 

message: Description: You think we should basically keep the policy as-is, perhaps with minor edits. Specifically, you don't think it should be removed or significantly altered.
# egg
# Admins are going to indef-block and the community at large will ban users who harass Wikipedians offsite.  It would be strange to not give a mention of this on our WP:NPA page.  Jkelly 21:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote: Keep

message: "Description get rid of the off-wiki attack policy entirely
Please leave this where it is, in it's own category, it doesn't fit in any of the others
# This could actually lead hawkish editors open to legal action, like it or not, this is the truth. thewolfstar 22:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote: strong throw out altogether 

message: Description: You think the policy should be amended to only ban the creation of links on Wikipedia to non-Wikipedia sites (forums, personal web pages, etc.) with personal attacks on them. That is, as long as there's no link from Wikipedia to the personal attack, it's not in violation of the policy. You may also believe that further discussion for expansion is fine, but that the current far-reaching policy is not acceptable for inclusion in the policy at this time, given the lack of support. If the policy is not amended, you want it removed while discussion continues.
# Linking from Wikipedia to your homepage and posting personal attacks about editors is unacceptable, so I'm in favor of this compromise. The current policy is too restrictive as its reach clearly extendeds to unrelated web forums, IRC, phone calls, your personal non-wikipedia-linked blog, etc. Strom 20:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote: Amend to only ban Linked Personal Attacks (or remove)

message: Description: You think that the policy is controversial enough that it should be removed form the official policy page while it is debated on these Talk pages, perhaps because you feel that full consensus was not originally reached when it was added or because it is not currently "widely accepted among editors" as an official policy states it should be. You may also think the above compromise is too invasive.
# --maru   (talk)  contribs 22:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote: Remove for Discussion/until Consensus

message: I believe that the following should be added to the list of examples, and the related section on linked materials moved out of the contested extension:
:*Posting a link to an external source that fits the description of any of these personal attacks, in a manner that incorporates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion.
As I read it, as long as they key word 'incorporates' is left in, this should follow directly from existing (non-disputed) policy, and shouldn't be clouded by the above discussions...  If someone creates (or stumbles across) a website called 'Aquillion is a jerk' and then incorporates that attack into discussions on Wikipedia by linking to it, then they are effectively making that personal attack against me on Wikipedia itself. Note that I am not voting for amending the policy to cover linked personal attacks; I think that, in the context described, it always has. --Aquillion 07:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is equally disruptive to say "you are a troll" or "[this link] says you are a troll" but it is useful and informative to say "[this] is evidence you are a troll" whether the evidence is an arbcom ruling or an off wikipedia site cite. WAS 4.250 13:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I included the qualifer "that fits the description of any of these personal attacks."  Hrm, perhaps that should be reworded to read "Posting a link to an external source that otherwise fits the commonly-accepted threshold for a personal attack, in a manner that incorperates the substance of that attack into Wikipedia discussion."  In any case, I was bothered by some of the comments above and a paragraph in the proposed extension, which seemed to imply that we needed to change policy in order to prevent people from making personal attacks on Wikipedia pages via links...  Clearly, NPA has always covered those, and confusing that with the extension business will only make a mess of things. --Aquillion 13:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Those are covered by Wikipedia:Harassment. -Will Beback 00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorperating off-website personal attacks into discussion. 

message: My question is, why should I be nice? The thing here says "Be nice", etc. yet does not say why. Not a single person here has ever been nice to me. They always delete my edits, even if they are accurate, like on the Ballard High School (Louisville) article. The people here always bitch at me and never at anyone else. No one has been nice. Ever. So why should I be nice?
-Alex, 74.133.188.197 04:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, your edits are all from today, and (at the time of writing this), all are at the top of the article history. I can only assume that you've edited under a different name or IP address. If you could provide links to the changes (which you can do by opening up article histories, comparing the two versions which are relevant, and then copying the URL and pasting it), I'd be glad to help clear things up for you. Just drop me a line on my talk page.
Any edit by a guy named "alex" are mine. See, I don't just look at thier "IP address", whatever the hell that is. I am not a number. I am a human being.
-Alex, 74.133.188.197 04:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And, in response to your question, the rationale is right there at the beginning: "...to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia... Personal attacks will rarely help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia." Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 06:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And so they should be. The point of Wikipedia, from what I can gather, is to be an encyclopedia (and I do apologise for restating the obvious). Vigorous defence of that aim is often required. On topic, the community of Wikipedia encourages "being nice" in the majority of the editor-endorsed policies that are made available to users. On those pages are listed many benefits of that behavior. Many of these benefits are intangibles, and most take some significant period of time to be realised, people being what they are. If Alex is looking for these rewards, I strongly suspect that patience and continued positive behavior will be rewarded. --pipeline 05:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: Does anyone have any suggestion on how to handle  false accusation of personal attack?--Jusjih 16:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All you have is the rules, and reason. Quote the rules. Using reason is a tougher course. What statement did you make for which someone accused you of this? (Diligens 17:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also consider someone might feel attacked even if you didn't intend this. Stephen B Streater 19:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If people consistently accuse you of personal attacks, its probably because they take offense easily and are ascribing emotions to things when they are not there.  The worst thing to do is to get angry back at them.  Look at the objective facts, and use reason.  Or, go back and clarify what you really meant. --Knucmo2 12:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for all of your answers, which are very useful.--Jusjih 13:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: What does "AGF" mean?--Jusjih 13:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AGF means assume good faith. Kotepho 13:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I have yet to better know more abbreviations here.--Jusjih 13:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Handling false accusation of personal attack 

message: I wonder if there should be something which mentions to the effect that there is some intrinsic ambiguity involved with this. For example, who is to qualify whether something constitutes an attack or not, and what are the consequences of this qualification? However, I think that it would not be for the Wiki to decide what this is. Just a passing thought. --HappyCamper 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that there should be a special project page for example that people can discuss as to whether they are attacks, and why. As far as the borderline ones go, there are only so many of them before they start looking the same and fitting into a certain category. Here is something I said once: a person kept saying the same thing repeatedly; asking him questions or begging for reasons fell on deaf ears. In other words, gratuitous statements without support. I pointed out that it meant nothing, that "even a parrot can do that". The person felt it was a personal attack, but the analogy does nothing but make my same criticism succinct, i.e., speaking without giving reasons. It had nothing to do with looks, intelligence or sound. Merely analogy of empty action. I think a whole compedium of examples, like law books have, would be beneficial. --Diligens 21:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, this is a distinction that we can all make. When someone calls you an asshole, tells you to piss off, tells you that you are a snake, stupid, ignorant, and other vituperative and ad hominem, these are personal attacks because these kind of statements are disruptive of the collaborative process and not conducive to community building (remember, this is not just an encyclopedia, it is a community as well, and civility is paramount). On the other hand, when somebody tells you that your edits are incomplete, inaccurate, of that "even a parrot can do that", it is obvious that only those people wanting to penalize the other, would call it a personal attack. My point is that anyone, applying common sense, can make the distinction between a personal attack made for the purpose of disruption, and silly comments made during a heated argument. I would argue that "discuss the article and not the editor" is the most relevant aspect of this policy, and editors engaged in obvious or in borderlines personal attacks, should both be reminded of this.  ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 21:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are rules that address different types of disruptions, but a "personal attack" is a specific type of disruption. It attacks people, seeking to make fun of them. It is rooted in untruth. The rules say you should not call somebody a troll, but you can express your opinion that they seem to be disrupting like a troll. If the second is true, it is not a personal attack, it is (hopefully) a wake-up call. You don't call someone ignorant, but you can say that someone appears ignorant of a particular subject. Likewise, if a person is already speaking and never giving reasons, what do you do for a wake-up call? Sometimes stark truths and analogies will do it. It is easy to say "discuss the article and not the editor", but what do you do when you are trying to do so, but the other person isn't? Repeat yourself endlessly and talk to the wall while the person continues to declare he has consensus? How do you make people realize they are acting unreasonable or illogical while they refuse to answer direct questions but insist on editing the Talk page? There is such a thing as tough love. Charity isn't always pleasing but nevertheless seeks the good of another. Anyone, I still think that some type of compendium would help a lot of people instantly know what is and what isn't a personal attack. When people get emotional, they are not in a state to have common sense, but examples can wake them up. --Diligens 22:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I wonder... 

message: I've edited the heading with the following compromise text:
:It was proposed that this policy be extended to apply to personal attacks made on external sites.
I believe this is the essense of the dispute. I would hope that both sides discontinue edit warring on this minor wording issue, and get back to discussing the extension itself so consensus is reached. Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You beat me to it! My compromise text was a concise banner like: "A controvesial extension to NPA is being considered. You are invited to take part in our poll". Stephen B Streater 18:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That might be better because it doesn't state the issue and invites discussion in talk. I hope those involved can stay cool. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise text 

message: I'm uninvolved in recent edits to this page, but policy pages are no place for revert battles.  Will revist this protection in a few days. — xaosflux Talk 23:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You've got to see the funny side though. Stephen B Streater 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humor aside, the last thing we need is as much confusion as is going on at WP:CSD being bold with policies often has a side effect of biting. — xaosflux Talk 12:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes. My compromise (still waiting above if it is needed) said much less about the proposal, so it is more NPOV. Opinions should be here here in the talk pages. Stephen B Streater 17:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I've unprotected this policy page.  Policy should reflect consensus, and should be determined rather than assumed.  Discussions on this page and/or WP:VPP are helpful in determining community consensus. — xaosflux Talk 13:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Recently, I made some minor stylistic edits to the Dodge Dart article, and one of the main editors apparently didn't like the edits a lot, and then sent me a message saying my edits were "egotistical" and "immature", traits that  I'm known for (at least how I see it). I apologized for my edits and politely defended myself, but then he kept claiming I showed the aforementioned traits in my edits, and now he refuses to talk about it. What do I do in this case? --ApolloBoy 05:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would ignore it. He probably crossed a line calling you immature, but the guy's totally, dead wrong. Nobody in America calls those things "taillamps," (lol) especially on an American car and it's part of the American lexicon, no sourcing is needed. That's a British and European term. Man, some of the stupid things people argue over, huh!? FYI, the "that" you are trying to insert is unnecessary and superfluous, and not worth arguing over. Good for you for participating in writing here about cars, don't let the "grown-ups" bully you. :-) Sylviecyn 12:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I call them tail lights. I don't think tail lamps is a British term. The attacks don't look personal. Red linked people are always a bit suspect, IMHO ;-) Stephen B Streater 13:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I found out that someone left him (him meaning the person I'm talking) a notice on his talk page about civility, but then he removed it. Does that seem suspect? --ApolloBoy 01:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If it is true, he might take it as a compliment. By insinuating it is a bad thing, you are attacking him. Stephen B Streater 22:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Am I being attacked? 

message: To all users voting "oppose": Please note that this new wording is already the modus operandi for this type of behavior. It is not a new addition, just the verbalization of existing application of policy. Off-wiki attacks have influenced actions taken for other violations of policy, in evaluating bad faith by an editor and as evidence in ArbCom decisions. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 20:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even more reason to vote oppose --Coroebus 10:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: These two phrases mean something different. Which one does Wikipedia actually want to say? TharkunColl 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Attacked personally" sounds awkward. "Personally atacked" sounds more natural, and is the way an English speaker would say it. (Or at least as far as I know, most of the American English speakers I know would say it that way.)--DCAnderson 23:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''personally attacked'' or ''attacked personally''

message: A request was made on WikiEN-l to extend the off-wiki PA section to include wording specific to harrasment, such as recent situations in which people have contacted editor's employers/bosses to "report" editors activities with the intended purpose of harassment.  ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 19:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That one is going to be tricky. If someone is legitimately harassing, threatening, or stalking you, there are (or should be) authorities to turn to. Once you're dealing with the off-wiki world, you really need the off-wiki authorities to deal with the issue. --Bachrach44 19:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it ok to use wikipedia as a resource in preparing a real world response to real world damage? Example: someone tries to get you fired from your real world job due to a wikipedia based grudge. Gather evidence and funds for a lawsuit? Talk about another site where you are organizing real world efforts? Maybe wikipedia contributors would like to create a seperate organization for real world law suits to protect wikipedians? 4.250.168.38 20:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To answer the first question, that's up to the real-world authorities - in this case lawyers and judges. --Bachrach44 16:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

text: After you fully read his "Special Archive" of my non-threatening comments and the fact that he has had this problem with several other editors in the past months you will ignore and dismiss his childish false claims of harrassment against me. I offered one apology and he threatened me with disbarment. I am open to any questions you may have on the situation to prove my side of the situation. Peartdrumsticks 05:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have submitted a request for my account to be fully removed under WP rules of "Right to Vanish" ... I do not want to participate on WP.Peartdrumsticks 05:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harassment 

message: See Wikipedia_talk:Refactoring_talk_pages#Refactoring rude comments. Armedblowfish (talk|contribs) 02:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refactoring rude comments 

message: The RFC resolved the situation.  The proposal as currently existing is wide and vague, however this provides a precedent indicating one specific use of an off-wiki website relating to activity in WP, which was agreed by the (fraction of the) community not to be acceptable.  Are there other actual precedents of specific classes or types of attack or activity whcih have been resolved or discussed through the WP dispute resolution processes?  Midgley 22:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedents: an RFC which is a relevant example to the off-wiki question 

message: I know of a case where a user has been banned by repeatedly and flagrantly violating wikipedia policy, but still allowed to make comments on talk pages. This user has been those a forum for baiting editors and accusing them of personal attacks.  I think banned users should NOT have the opportunity to harass and falsely accuse productive editors.  I would like to see the NPA policy modified to not accept such complaints from banned users for a lengthy period of time after they have been banned. The one case I am familiar with has done little to reform and I do not appreciate being harassed as an editor on wikipedia.--Fahrenheit451 01:30, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provocation and personal attacks by banned users 

message: I was going to place a NPA tag on a users page but wanted to make sure its appropriate, the user has been calling me a sockpuppet even though the RFCU had stated I was not, then a second one that I requested has proven once again that I am not. They continue to do this asserting that the user they are accusing me of simply switched ISP's. They have even gone on to my RfC and accused me of the following maintaining their accusation in the face of 2 RFCU's. I would like to know if I can place NPA tags over this and if I can get an admin to look at my RfC as its being flooded with these accusations by two users. --zero faults |sockpuppets| 10:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Place a request at WP:PAIN and let admins decide if a warning is warranted. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is a personal attack 

message: The criteria of personal attack should be the same as for Slander and libel, i.e., its basis must be false to qualify as either.  ...IMHO (Talk) 03:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The truth is not a defence to defamation where I live; the release of the information has to also be in the public interest. I don't think it's a fantastic idea to link the reputation-based concept of defamation with the personal feelings-based concept of personal attacks. - Mark 15:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some places have explored the logic behind a rule or law to a greater depth and number of independent variables and cases than others. For instance where "famation" is based upon lies and falsehoods and then someone comes along and intentionally or accidently reveals the truth the law simple can not afford to give falsehood and lies a greater status under the law than truth by upholding defamation resulting from truth. Maybe in a country where there is a monarchy and a royal is defamed but not in the US where Democracy prevails. Truth is always in the public interest. The unreliability of records is a well established fact and reputation has been proven to be quite ignorant of the facts in the majority of cases. Wrongfully hurting someones feelings is not a nice thing but most of us would walk around on some kind of ego trip if it were not for the occational check with reality forced upon us through having our feelings hurt rightfully every now and then. Dealing with hurt feelings is an accurate guage of maturity or the lack thereof. Growing up is an obligatory social experience for every human being.  ...IMHO (Talk) 16:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: However, at WP, you're expected to avoid personal attacks, even when they are (considered by you to be) true.  When criticism is required, strive to comment on the edit and not the editor.  Also remember that, particularly due to the nature of communication via text, aggressive statements of fact can easily be interpreted as attacks, even if not originially intended as such. — Lomn | Talk 17:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not only a matter of criteria, definition, basis, and justification but interpretation. Since communication here in the wiki is both interactive and retractable what I have done in the past is to revise a comment or a point of view someone did not like even though the issue was not personal attack but "attitude." Humans can get overly programmed in one direction since we have that kind of neural network for a brain. A particular immediate case might be entirely different [from what our neural network programming has made us think that it is] and only the victim of [our] long term or recent [neural network type] programming. Maybe if there was an "I'm personally offended by this line of text" delimiter we could insert at both ends of a personally offending line of text to signal we are personally offended by it. If we had that type of dealing with a personal attack system them the author would have an opportunity for revision or strikethrough or deletion. I use strikethroughs all of the time when something I've typed is highly momentary and subject to second thought. Sometimes I even use a deletion. I make this proposal because I've noticed how some users also go looking for things like [another users] nickname change just so they can get away with calling them a sock puppet. Its ridiculous and a sign of immaturity which is the source of the problem and not the expression of true (and retractable) feelings. Marking the offending text, giving the author time for revision, deletion or strikethrough sounds like a pretty good way to me of dealing with the underlying problem [of immaturity] since retractions are also a part of growing up and becoming a socially responsible adult.  ...IMHO (Talk) 14:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria of personal attack 

message: Some time ago, a lengthy and heated debate took place that I ws a part of.  I concisly laid out ALL the pertinent facts of the matter -- in fact one person called it "an essay."  The main administrator countered with an open and outright lie.   He made a claim  that would only have been true if I had not posted anything at all in the debate.  What do you do then?  What am I supposed to say when someone is lying?  On admin told me I should say nothing at all.  That would be tantamount to knuckling under to a lie.  -- Jason Palpatine 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ok, but what about when someone is a LIAR?

message: Given the extent of the (currently unresolved) debate here, I've added the 'disputed policy' template to the offwiki section. If anyone has any strong objections, feel free to remove it. Cynical 20:52, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Disputed' template 

message: What are we supposed to do if we see someone making a personal attack? Ask them not to? Where? on the talk page or their user page? Are their appropriate templates for such a message? --Chris Griswold 05:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly appropriate to say on the talk page where the remark was made, "Please stop the personal attacks" or "Let's stay on the subject at hand and lay off the ad hominem remarks", or some such. If someone has a pattern of doing this (especially if you are not the person it is directed at) it is appropriate to say something similar on their user talk page, probably with "diffs" indicating a few objectionable edits. Probably the next level of escalation is Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard. At some point, if they don't stop, this can either be reported to the administrators as an "incident" or you can go the Request for comment route. - Jmabel | Talk 05:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what do we do? 

message: This paragraph is most definitely written in an anti-human POV, probably by some stinking Martian filth. By castigating all humans as monkeys who thrive on the misfortune of others, whoever wrote this exhibits a clear anti-human bias. This specieist crap is unsourced, unverified and unsupported by any reliable independent source. It needs to be removed ASAP. -- Миборовский 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy pajamas, that's funny! --Chris Griswold 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I dunno....most people i know DO act as unreasonable monkeys who thrive on the misfortune of others... *shrugs*  Raccoon Fox • Talk • Stalk 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What, so that means it's okay to make gross generalizations about an entire species? There are a few immoral Martians who have been known to feast on human brains, but if someone insinuated that that was normal, or even common behavior for Martians, instead of a very rare non-representative abberation, the Martian Anti-Defamation League would call for their head on a platter (with a decorative parsley garnish)! This is blatant reverse-discrimination! --Icarus (Hi!) 02:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has anti-human POV 

message: User:Buzawz is really started to annoy/infuriate me. He's made several personal attacks on me, even after he was blocked, for it. (The personal attacks can be found here and here.) He keeps saying that using the sandbox is not vandalism, but he is adding obscenities to it, which is why I warned him. If he does it one more time (which he probably will) I will probably explode. What should I do? -- TheGreatLlama (speak to the Llama!) 01:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not the place to report personal attacks. Please report at WP:PAIN. Also, I wpould suggest you develop a thicker skin, not worth getting stressed out for these reasons. Take a break, maybe? ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Though he did do it three times, he only got one warning for it, so I guess I shouldn't report him. -- TheGreatLlama (speak to the Llama!) 14:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He is already blocked for violating NPA. Next time, please report at WP:PAIN. ≈ jossi ≈  t • @ 14:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. -- TheGreatLlama (speak to the Llama!) 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attacks on me 

message: Yet again DeeCeeVoice has illustrated her endless desire to agitate others over trivialities. This time I would not tolerate it. She wants to feel like the victor and I will not have it. So as you can see on both our talk pages the issue escalated as far as I think it can go without causing a legal issue. So feel free to ban me and her if that is what you feel is necessary. For me, i am tired of the Black People article being locked and since it won't be unlocked until I dissappear here is an excellent chance to resolve that issue. As far as DeeCeeVoice goes, she can feel free to cut all the atoms and bones she wants, but let her know that veiled threats are still threats, conditional threats are still threats. I legally made sure that I myself am not implicated as I clearly explained that in her talk page. I personally request action to be taken against her (and feel free to extend it to myself as well, but do not be biased, reserving action solely upon me please). --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one owns an article - see WP:OWN. If two people disagree on a fact, then it should be included when reliable sources quote it. For more strategic changes, it is worth discussing them in advance on the talk pages. Often objections relate to points which the author was not expecting and can accept. It is always tricky to edit an article you are emotionally involved in - just remember that others are as committed as you, so looking at things from their point of view is important. Just as no edit is permanent, delays in fixing the article while agreement is reached will be long forgotton soon. Stephen B Streater 07:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeeCeeVoice again and Myself

message: In the section Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Remedies, the text suggests at first that someone who is attacked follow the dispute resolution process, and later that they post to WP:PAIN.  Aren't these two different things?  WP:PAIN doesn't seem to be linked from WP:DR.  From the other posts on this talk page, it looks like PAIN, not DR, is the way to go.  Let me know if I'm not reading things right.  --Allen 01:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that in the case of blatant personal attacks, WP:DR is beside the point. - Jmabel | Talk 05:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If this last comment has anything to do with the two that precede it, it escapes me. - Jmabel | Talk 18:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ambiguity in "remedies" section? 

message: I have a suggestion. Why not mention a place where to file reports in the intro? Other wiki-rules have it. My suggestion is something like "Personal attacks may be reported [WP:PAIN|here]". How 'bout it? --PaxEquilibrium 19:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion for a slight change of the policy's article 

message: Okay. My user page has been vandalized oh... 20 times or so in the last few days by people (or just one person under IP addresses which seem to be pointing to a school of some sort) who claim I am part of a chinese government conspiracy. Could someone please help me deal with this issue? Colipon+(T) 00:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequent personal attacks 

message: If somebody write an offensive remark against a racial group/country/religion/gender/etc, does it belong to personal attack? If no, where should I report it? Nielswik 13:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it an attack? 

message: I have a question regarding WP:NPA's scope - I was informed recently that only attacks on editors constitute a violation. But what if a demeaning reference to women as "virgins" and senior citizens as "old-age pensioners" is posted on a user talk page? Its an editor's idea of a sick joke. But there are many women and old people who contribute to Wikipedia and (will) find those "general" statements quite insulting. While an administrator informed me that such statements are not violative of WP:NPA, I'd like to have more opinions. Rama's arrow 18:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually read the damned thing?  Firstly, a "virgin" is not a woman, a virgin is somebody who hasn't had sex yet.  The statement said that his talk page may be inappropriate for virgins, pensioners, and people between the ages of 15 and 65.  I.e. - it may be inappropriate for everyone.  Anyone who finds this statement insulting needs to take a deep breat and stop taking everything so seriously. john k 17:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Policy scope 

message: Re: Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme. 
It seems like there is an "elephant in the room"--which everyone sees, but no one can mention. Certain editors will go around in groups (some people call them "cabals") and actively push their own narrow POV. 
It is the worst when these groups of people put articles up for deletion.  For example, certain editors will attempt to squelch 9/11 consipracy theories by putting these articles up for deletion--there voting record is clear--if an article is against their narrow POV, no matter how well written it is, it will be put up for deletion, and this little group will vote against it. (For the record, I do not believe in any 9/11 conspiracy theories)
It is clear that certain editors are doing it because they are biased and slanted, but no wikieditor can actually bring this up.  When another wikieditor brings it up, people scream WP:NPA.  
Why is the word (insert title here) cabal so off limits? Why when anyone brings up the subject, they are heckled off the talk page? 
Does bringing up someones past edit history, (i.e. they always vote, consistently for a certain page to be deleted) considered a personal attack? I support all of wikipedias rules, including WP:NPA, but some editors seem to use wikipolicy as an excuse to abuse the system. RWV 04:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The elephant in the room