Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 4

message: If I warn a user with , but they remove it, what can I do? --Lethargy 04:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <I>Please</i> answer this, there are others who are interested in hearing the response. Thank You. :) Duke53 | Talk 05:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why should you do anything?  People have the right to do whatever they want on their own talk page. The important question is whether they keep making personal attacks. john k 17:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is a controversial issue. See: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Removing warnings Nil Einne 09:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if the user removes the warning template from their talk page? 

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

message: I would like to start a discussion of false accusations being used to personally attack another user.  This seems rather obvious to me that falsely accusing another user of something derogatory, without evidence, is a method of personal attack.  I request comments on this.--Fahrenheit451 19:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Fahrenheit451's request follows on the heels of his / her accusation of a personal attack, here which revolved around the image talk .  He / she took my intended (potentially) helpful solution to his / her intent as a personal attack and, in an attempt to handle the "high resolution copyright" difficulty, posted to Jimmy Wales here. Terryeo 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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

message: Subheader Title
Blurb about defininition and wiki's opinion on them and why. Description of what are not considered such threats.
Examples: of what they aren't
Threats of death or physical violence
Death threats and violent threats are extreme forms of personal attacks with either direct or indirect suggestions of a violent, or murderous act. Such comments that are obviously humourous and statements containing no particular suggestion of physical harm are not covered by this policy, but are strongly discouraged. They are viewed with particular concern by many people due to their vengefull and unsettling nature, and taken particularly seriously on Wikipedia due to their extreme venom and harmful effects on the community. Any such threat or attack will result in a very stern warning at the lesser extreme, or may result in an indefinite block from Wikipedia at the other.
Examples of statements not considered to be threats of violence:
*"If you revert me again, you'll be sorry!"
*"You'll wish you never said that!" 
*Threats of an online attack (such as DDoS, "hacking", etc.)
*Legal threats (see WP:LEGAL)
*That's quite a bit more verbose than we need. For instance, the term "death threat" is obvious enough to not need any examples, let alone eight of them. (Radiant) 10:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd have to conceed that looking back at it. Have edited out those 8 examples. Crimsone 14:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal subsection

message: No matter how it's phrased, this whole policy is a prime candidate for wikilawyering up hill and down dale by those skilled in goading others without laying themselves open to the dreaded PA charge. That kind of can't be helped. But I think some of the section "Examples that are not personal attacks" is unnecessarily encouraging to the PA tightrope dance, and I have edited accordingly. Please take a look. The vaunted "subtle difference" between "You are acting like a troll" and "You are a troll" comes down, IMO, purely to the not-so-subtle difference between those who know how to skirt the NPA policy and those who don't. The difference between commenting on motive and commenting on actions just isn't that technical: the implication is the same in both cases. I took it out. Also, I took out a little lawyerspeak ("include, but are not limited to"—please let's not positively encourage a law-book attitude here) and performed emergency surgery on a sentence stating that personal attacks should under certain circumstances not be construed as personal attacks (I swear, it did say that).
Finally, I changed the statement that "a comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is a not a personal attack," because I'm just tired of seeing it. "Vandalism" is thrown around much too lightly, it's a very serious and wounding accusation, and it goes to intention and motive, not just action. What more do you want? It's a personal attack. It's only not a personal attack if you are indeed reverting vandalism, and vandalism is very clearly and narrowly defined at WP:VAND, which also makes the excellent poinit that "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as vandalism, then he or she is actually damaging the encyclopedia by driving away potential editors." If somebody tells me they've reverted my "vandalism" to their page, that's a much more personal attack than if they tell me to fuck off. (That's not a nice thing to say, but what exactly's personal about it?) Anyway... yes, the section ended up rather different. 
;This is what it said:
Wikipedians engaging in debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia.  Be  civil and adhere to good  wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments.  Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks.  It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks.  Specific examples of comments that are not personal attacks include, but are not limited to:
* Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.
* Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks.  Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user.  There is a subtle difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll", but "You seem to be making statements to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same without descending to name-calling.  Similarly, a comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X.
* A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack.  However, it is important to  assume good faith when making such a comment — if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism.
;And this is what it says now:
Debate is an essential part of the culture of Wikipedia.  Be  civil and adhere to good  wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalizing them and try to minimize unnecessarily antagonistic comments.  Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks.  It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret impersonal comments as personal attacks.  Examples of comments that are not personal attacks include:
* Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.
* Remarks describing an editor's actions and made without involving their personal character should not be construed as personal attacks.  Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user. (It can however be a harmful statement if it's untrue.)  A comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X.
* A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is a not a personal attack if it's concerned with clear vandalism, although otherwise it is. "Vandalism" imputes bad intentions and bad motives to the person accused. If the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for what is and isn't vandalism. 
Feel free to edit and/or change back, please. Bishonen | talk 06:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me.  Regards, Ben Aveling 06:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: Is a polite reminder not to feed the trolls a personal attack? I just read this article and realized maybe I was making personal attacks in some instances. Any thoughts on this? Does it constitute a personal attack?
Dylan Slade 22:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it depends how comfortable you are characterizing someone as a "troll" being "fed".  If someone concludes that you're a troll, and it turns out you're not, I can see why you'd be upset if they'd been telling others not to "feed" you.  There is obvious trolling that occurs, though, and it's not really hurting anyone's feelings to call it that.  I think a good rule of thumb is this: if its a borderline case, or if the potential "troll" is a regular contributor, err on the side of assuming they're not a troll. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Don't Feed the Trolls" 

message: At what point is something considered polemical, and subject to removal? If someone placed a comment on their user page saying "Muslims are one step away from being satanists!" and linked it to a page listing self identified Muslim Wikipedians, is that considered polemical?  Is it considered a personal attack?--Vidkun 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it is not very collegial, but it is rather a sort of impersonal attack.  I'd suggest leaving a note on the user's talkpage mentioning that our resources aren't to be used for expounding bigotry, and that it would be best if they removed the statement.  Jkelly 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While one might argue over whether or not it's a personal attack, it is definitely incivil and not conductive to building the encyclopedia. (Radiant) 09:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. How would you consider this, this and this userpages? They are highly offensive to me (and many others). There should be at least a guideline about not making fascist or racist political propaganda in user pages. --Sugaar 11:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If these bother you, I'd suggest throwing them on WP:MFD. Basically, political statements fall under "Wikipedia is not censored"; however, there is an obvious difference between a userpage proclaiming support for Bush (which I'm sure some would find offensive but is obviously a legitimate political opinion) and a userpage supporting Hitler (which can hardly be interpreted as anything other than hate speech). (Radiant) 11:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll think about it. By the moment I have more than enough fencing off (and reporting) these peoples' personal atatcks and group-harassment. I'm more worried by the users than by their pages actually - but all is connected. I don't want to censor anyhthing but it's hate speech clearly. --Sugaar 12:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

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

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

message: Where can I find out about using real names of editors? Some editors like myself would prefer not to have our real names and identities divulged on articles and talk pages even if they are known to other editors, who may be prepared to use this information maliciously on and off-wiki. The point, "Treat others as you would have them treat you" is a pointer in the right direction but is not clear enough and may need expansion.
Is this article the correct place to make a mention of how real names of editors should not be divulged especially if this has been expressly asked by the editor? Or does another article deal with that subject? Thanks. I have also registered this query at WP:WQT talk page. ekantiK talk 03:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Usage of real names

message: I noticed the following comment by Jimbo on his talk page and strongly think that it should be included here as a "Jimbo quote" under the Community Spirit section, just like has been done by other WP Policy articles. Here is the quote which is also displayed on my userpage:
"We need to treat each other with deep respect and kindness, and when I see that not happening, I fear for the example we set for newbies." - Jimbo Wales (11 Dec 2006) source. We do not need to display it in this way with a boilerplate (unless that is agreed upon as a headline of some sort?) but it would be sufficient to just add the quote without the date also. ekantiK talk 05:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Edit (Jimbo quote)

message: If an editor creates a talk-subpage or a section of the talk-page that specifically attacks other editors on the basis of what they see as bad faith or POV on the part of the "attackee", and especially in regards to off-wiki disputes that may or may not have anything to do with edits made on Wikipedia, is this a good example of a personal attack? 
If so, I'd like to make an amendment to the Examples section of this article to include a sentence or two about 'Talk-Page Attacks'. ekantiK talk 16:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To provide additional information, Ekantik (sockpuppet Gaurasundara) is talking about the information located on my talk-page located on This Section. Not only has "Ekantik / Gaurasundara" viciously attacked and defamed Sathya Sai Baba on numerous blogs and forums outside Wikipedia (thousands of times), he has done the same with me as well. He even devoted a public blog specifically attacking me and my involvement on Wikipedia. Unfortunately for him, he happened to use a Wiki-name that specifically identifies him with the Sai Controversy and he has since admitted he is the person I accuse him to be. He ceaselessly attempts to argue that his vicious extra-Wikipedia defamation campaigns against Sathya Sai Baba and me are irrelevant to his presence on Wikipedia. Obviously, I disagree. SSS108 talk-email 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

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

message: A major bulk of my edits are reverting vandalisms, and seldom there are questions on whether my reverts are actually vandalisms.
However, some vandals whose edits were reverted by me and I have gave warning for would vandalize my userpage.  Previously I dealt with that through WP:AIV, but since these falls onto WP:NPA since these people attacks me on the basis of my vandalism reverts, what should I do, AIV or NPA? --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 04:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what you say, this sound like a relatively simple situation with no precise venue for it. Might I suggest posting your message at WP:AN/I, where I'm sure that an administrator will be able to look into at and take appropriate action. If it truly is as simple as you say, I doubt it would be any bother for an admin looking at it. Crimsone 04:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Those edits are from months ago.  There's nothing to be done here.  Jkelly 04:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lol. Simple then, but not in the way stated. That'll teach me for replying to comments on face value! Crimsone 04:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, I ask for guidance for future incidents. My way of vandal reversion (ie reverting multiple vandalism made by a user in one time), IMO, would be likely to be open to future attacks like this, so I'm going to ask as precaution. --Samuel CurtisShinichian-Hirokian-- TALK·CONTRIBS 06:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't know how to deal with this? 

message: Based on some of the disucssion at the PAIN MFD, I came here to read exactly what we're saying in WP:NPA.  I'm a little surprised that nothing in the policy suggests that it can ever be best when water rolls off a duck's back.  The remedies demand retribution: the first thing the attacked person should do is to "ask the attacker to stop and note this policy".  After that, its the comfy chair dispute resolution and blocking.  Obviously, there are exceptions: persistent or extreme attacks such as death threats are a different creature entirely from being told you are "an idiot".  But in general, might civility be better served by suggesting that, at least sometimes, the best way to respond to an angry talk page comment is ... not to respond at all? Serpent's Choice 06:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By means of clarification, I'm not suggesting that making personal attacks is okay or acceptable, but simply proposing that the current policy and environment lead to escalation more often than beneficial to the project.  I recognize that this change would have to tread carefully to avoid giving the wrong impression, but on the other hand, there are complaints at WP:PAIN as of this writing relating to such attacks as: "You're pretty cocky, aren't you?", "dumb logic", and "pseudo-Buddhist".  Yes, these are all (probably) personal attacks, but ... is the overall desire for civility bettered by responding to every wrong action? Serpent's Choice 13:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Between my above concern and the fact that WP:NPA frankly does not present policy in the compelling prose that should be expected of established consensus, I have written Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Proposal, a suggested refactoring of the existing page.  Out of respect for consensus, I would like it to be given due discussion; I will not simply be bold and replace the existing content.  Serpent's Choice 07:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed shift in focus regarding remedies 

message: Per the original comments by Serpent's Choice  above, per recent comments in the MfD of WP:PAIN, and per comments at the village pump (policy} regarding WP:Kettle, I have made these additions to the policy here, including an emphasis on ignoring personal attacks as a first response, and on seeking dispute resolution for WP:KEttle situations, with a cautionary note that pushing hard for intervention in such situations may result in intervention  distributed equally over both parties.
It may not be worded quite as well as it could be though, so please edit as required if you feel it needs it. Crimsone 17:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to Remedies