Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

A definition "What is Off-Wiki" needed urgently

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)

  • What's a national wiki? We do have wikis in different languages, but those are not for nations, they're other wikipediae just in different languages. It seems likely that Meta would be considered in the scope for consideration of the process here, and if it's the same person and they've been bothering you on a number of wikis, consideration of a pattern of behaviour that falls under other branches of the foundation seems reasonable. --Improv 14:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
See Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#Off-wiki_personal_attacks for some useful considerations. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The chapter citet here by User:jossi, especially then If you have been warned or blocked for personal attacks, engaging in the same behavior elsewhere violates the positive community spirit all Wikipedians should foster and may demonstrate bad faith, was the reaseon for my questioning here. Elsewhere means here outside off Wikipedia even. But it is for somebody who has to judge – may be – a little difference or it is easier if e.g. Meta is not Off but Inside. -jkb- 18:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

Sorry, Dmcdevit, your answer make me not very happy, more over, as it comes from somebody who is in the arbcom here. This is an essential point, not only concerning "my language wiki" and meta, but all projects. (Beside the fact, that there is no such page on meta). If you think that the english arbcom is or will be solving problems like the correct spelling etc., so you are not right. Cases, like I noted above, are very often all over the wiki. And as the en.wiki has the most pages on the wiki policy, so it is right to discuss it here, too. More over, if there is somebody from a small wiki who asks here for help, so it is not very helpfull to say search and discuss it elsewhere. Sorry. And my question was - not only but also - is e.g. the en.wiki for me off or not??? -jkb- 11:52, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well IMHO an off-wiki personal attack is a clear insult or threat given by one user to another user, but not through teh usual venues (user talk, vandalism of a page, etc.) See my talk page for a complaint by one User:Rodgerbales that an anon in the 67.*.*.* range has attacked him with this site. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 00:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Changing of the policy (re Off-wiki personal attacks)

There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Extension. Result was: no consensus. That's why I revert. Please don't change the policy without achieving consensus. -- V. Z. 14:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

When this extension was added, there was agreement. If you want to challenge this addition, please do so and engage in a contructive debate rather than a revert war. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, do you seriously believe 57% agreement is consensus? The policy has been challenged, and consensus (usually 75-80% or above) has not been achieved as a result. --Knucmo2 15:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add that 75 % is absolute minimum. And policy should not be change after "consensus" of less than a dozen people. -- V. Z. 15:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

So, let's discuss it. What is your concern?≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I leave beside, that this user is a subject of an arbitration commission procedure on the cs.wiki (reason: bad fight with the community etc., also attacs outside wiki on his blog pages) - see cs:Wikipedie:Žádost o arbitráž/Vít Zvánovec; I leave beside, that this user published on his block many diffaming articles, the last one was a list of so called fascist users on en.wiki (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#A list of fascists on en.wiki, FYI); but it is true, that the article Nr. 9 - Off wiki attacks - has been here for a long time and therefore it schould need a decision when somebody wants to delete it. -jkb- 16:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The amount of time it has been here is irrelevant. A policy (e. g. slavery) can be established by the dictates of one, yet because no-one's bothered to really look at it critically, it stealthily becomes established. The question is not how well-established it is (and indeed it has been established only by a very small number of people) but what the policy entails. Plus, the calling into question of V. Z.'s character is not a valid rebuke of V. Z.'s criticisms. Such considerations are not ad rem, and are ad hominem --Knucmo2 16:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Dear friend Knucmo2, not the time is the factor, you are right. But see: the version has been here for some time; today, on the cs.wiki in the arbitration with the user, this page has been mentioned; one or two hours later this user starts to reformulate this page with all his possibilities; so, to change this rule (and I can also imagine you are right), it should be used some other principle as used here in this case - don't you think so as well??? -jkb- 16:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it should be discussed first, which is what we are doing here. Plus, what is wrong with reformulating, or "being bold"? Consensus has not been reached, therefore it cannot be said to have become a policy yet. I don't understand what you mean by the last sentence, sorry. --Knucmo2 18:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it hasn't been there for a long time. It was added less than a month ago after a discussion between just a few editors, much less than most policy additions, and getting very little consensus even between them. --Rory096 23:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to say I disagree with the means how discussion have been "closed" and its results "counted". Disscussions should not be reduced to mere poll by assigning pro/con values to people, and saying "57%". Some of those opposing raised some objections. Some objections were answered. IMO the result of the discussion was in favour of the proposal. What should probably have been done was to draw more attantion to the topic... Wikipedia had become so overwhelming that such things should be "advertised" in RC etc. Let's say 25 particiapting people would be better in case of such a basic policy as NPA.

IMO some background should be explained. It seems this issue slipped to en: from cs: wiki.

One editor translated this addition of NPA and included it to cs: NPA recommendation (until now, it was uncontested on cs: - probably with the exception of Tompecina, who is temporarily blocked for NPA violation, and V. Z., who is restriced to edit only pages of ongoing Arbitration - so they were unable to raise the objections on cs:). Today, Tompecina brought the issue to meta:Requests for comments/Cswiki issues#Request for action: New undemocratic rule on cs:wiki. There, I included a short note explainig the origin of the amendment was on en: .

I'd also like to ask anybody coming here because of cs: conflicts to stay calm and on topic. --Wikimol 17:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikimol, I agree that this needs to be a broader issue, but the opposition raised to this policy is not insignificant. Some of the objections I have made have not been answered nor have V. Z.'s, Merecat's, badlydrawnjeff's, or Lulu, or Expremie's, so nothing like a consensus being reached yet, only that of an arbitrary decision made by a few editors such as yourself that is contentious. The result of the discussion cannot possibly be have said to be a positive result for extending the policy of Off-Wiki. Much more needs to be made of it by many, as the topic is controversial. --Knucmo2 18:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
My concern was expressed by others in the discussion, that's why I see no reason to repeat it. Most important is that Wikipedia may regulate behaviour only in the Wikipedia, otherwise Wikipedia becomes a sect. You know that NPA is very tough policy which forbids you even true critics because ad hominem arguments are prohibitted. It may play a positive role in writing Wikipedia, but outside world is not only the encyclopedia. Wikipedia have to be critized like everything else even by Wikipedians, including personal attacs. If not, this would establish severe limitation of freedom of expression.
There is no place her for my personal quarrels with -jkb-.
In my view, if somebody wishes to limit freedom of speech, he is a fascist. Every totalitarian régime commenced by stopping of opposition press. Sorry for this ad hominem argument, but I feel necessity to clarify my position.
Advertising in RC is not enough. En: is so big that not so many people watch RC. Every substantial change of policy should be based on very broad consensus. Two dozens of people would not be enough even for cs:. -- V. Z. 17:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Request removal pending discussion - I again request that this section be removed for the following reasons:

  • Consensus has not been reached and was never reached among a non-trivial number of people.
  • As a Wikipedia policy, the bar for consensus is much higher. As the template states, an official policy must have "wide acceptance among editors".
  • Official policy pages should not have highly controversial topics contained in the public version.
  • The policy, as it currently reads, is nonsensical and self-contradictory. Without going into the details (see the 5 above sections with 90%+ AGAINST), this policy claims that personal attacks on online forums and personal web sites are against the policy, then goes on to state in the same paragraph that this section is not designed to police the Internet for personal attacks or extend Wikipedia's "jurisdiction". Clearly, these two concepts are incongruous.
  • The policy claims that making personal attacks against Wikipedia editors elsewhere on the Internet is a violation of Wikipedia's community spirit and that personal attacks on unrelated web sites damage the environment in which the encyclopedia is created, which is quite a leap of logic.

Poll: Off-wiki Personal Attacks

Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Extension (talk|history|watch)

Disclaimer: Results of this poll should not be used as a singular justification for article changes. Strom 20:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to take a straw poll of current opinion re the recently-added 'Off-wiki personal attacks' section. We are all aware of the inherent danger of polling and failing to reach consensus, but as Polls_are_evil tells us, "Polls can be useful for a quick gauge of opinion". Furthermore, this entire policy is quite controversial and was implemented without true consensus, so I think it's fair to recognize that we may not all come together on this one, despite all of our best efforts.

Latest poll summary

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)
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)

Summary of poll as of 01:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep: 27 (38.6%)
  • Throw out: 27 (38.6%)
  • Amend (or remove): 5 (7.1%)
  • Wait (remove for now): 11 (15.7%)

Stephen B Streater 17:46, 23 May 2006 (UTC) amended by Wikimol 18:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC) - counting RJII only once
amended by Malber (talk • contribs) 19:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC) see below
previous change undone by Wikimol 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The count for throw out should be 20. agapetos_angel (talk • contribs) changed his vote to discard. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 19:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
Malber, agapetos_angel (talk • contribs) was allready counted under throw out #17. --Wikimol 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
My apologies :-) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Added percentages like the one for the first week (and updated count to current time) --Col. Hauler 22:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Updated again, fixed numbering issue from before. --Kchase02 (T) 08:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
OK made it clearer that the remove totals might contain people who expect to vote to keep after the discussion. Stephen B Streater 09:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Poll Summary after 1 week

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)

Background

The current argument and a series of revert wars has been ongoing for several weeks and spans a variety of headings in this Talk page. Before you vote, please inform yourself by reading all of the following

Vote: Keep

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.

  1. egg
  2. 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)
  3. There is a need to discourage bad-faith editors that want to bypass NPA by harassing and verbally abusing other editors off-wiki. In particular when they are using their WP usernames and the usernames and/or their identities of these they attack. That is the intention of this extension to the policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:27, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. It is clearly stated in the current text it is limited to attacks made elsewhere with the specific purpose of bypassing this policy. I think such behavour is even against unextended policy and/or falls under general disruption. Most policies can be "bypassed", abiding code of law while acting totaly against its spirit. IMO doing that is often worse than breaking a policy openly. From this view the extension isn't a big change, and isn't completely necessary. But if there are numerous attempts to abuse some paricular loophole or weakness of a policy, I support "closing it" explicity. Some minor edits probably should be done, eg the repetition of "If you are an editor of Wikipedia, do not make personal attacks against other editors. This is non-negotiable" in the context of "off-wiki" may be open to too broad interpretation. --Wikimol 21:49, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Keep it, but temper it with common sense. People are going to disagree at times (and should be free to); admins aren't the thought police. Perhaps the guideline should be whether an off-site affect(typo) comment is judged by a number of admins to be of significant magnitude to cause on-site disruption. Wikiwatch would fall into this category, of course, but somebody venting on their blog really isn't that big of a deal. Tijuana Brass¡Épa!-E@ 00:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. It doesn't really make much difference whether we keep it or remove it. The arbitration committee is certainly going to take unkindly to personal attacks and incivility, whether on or off-wiki. So will most administrators. You don't get away with acting like a dick towards Wikipedians just because you make those attacks on your blog. --Tony Sidaway 01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. I think it would be a great error to think that all that people using internet are kind and nice ones. Not all of them are kind and nice. And to keep the off-wiki-rule here does not mean to restrict somebody, but simply to protect the community here. It sould be a nonsence to cooperate here in this project with somebody, who uses internet to attack me or other community members as fascists, communist pigs etc. (like some people do here). -jkb- 10:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. My arguments see here: Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks/Extension#Support --Radouch 11:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support as per Jossi. Lukas (T.|@) 11:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Gleng 12:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Should be kept or strengthened. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. KimvdLinde 13:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. As much as possible, we should treat off-wiki attacks in exactly the same way that we treat on-wiki attacks. While there is less we can do about the later, we should still do what we can. The only change I might make is that the don't-link-to-personal-attacks seems a little strongly worded. Regards, Ben Aveling 15:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support as per Wikimol. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Though I understand the argument against this (it gives more power to admins) I think the positive of a policy like this outweighs the negative (but not by alot). KalevTait 17:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. I'm of two minds, but Keep as off-wiki attacks just aren't cool, not to mention a breach of netiquette. -- ∞Dbroadwell 06:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Keep The policy is sufficient the way it remains at the moment. While there is always room for improvement, I believe the aims and performance of the policy are sound and adequate.--Cini 07:59, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Keep. I was subjected to off-site personal attacks this week [1][2]. Several editors who disagreed with me then linked to these attacks on Wikipedia [3], and a new editor claiming to be author of the attacks signed on and began referring to the attacks in the discussion. Further, they began claiming that I should recuse myself from the discussion because the offsite attacks would affect my ability to be impartial. Clearly, this trend will continue among editors wishing to game the system. It's a violation of the spirit of the project and in my mind a clear violation of good faith. It's also going to drive good editors away. Jokestress 02:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Makes sense that you shouldn't be able to circumvent NPA by taking it off-Wiki. Guettarda 02:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Keep per Jokestress. Also I don't buy the free speech argument: the groundrules here are explicitly that "Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with the purpose of creating an encyclopedia" (see WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not an experiment in anarchy). Participating with good faith and maintaining pages attacking fellow editors are not compatible. Tearlach 23:26, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Keep per Jkelly, jossi, and Guettarda. AnnH ♫ 20:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Keep. Personal attacks are extremely corrosive to the collegial editing atmosphere here. -Will Beback 21:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Keep per above Jaranda wat's sup 14:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Keep Prodego talk 01:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Keep abakharev 04:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. Keep -- Masterjamie 20:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Keep -- Samir धर्म 03:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Keep Due to recent events of an off-wiki site being used to harass and intimidate two admins in real life, one of which has decided to leave the wiki, I am forced to reconsider my position. I would support any extension that gives admins the power to block and/or extend the block of anyone associated with making threats on an off-wiki site including the people responsible for administrating and monitoring said web site. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  29. Keep More needed now than ever. Just ask Phil Sandifer, Katefan0 or MusicalLinguist. FeloniousMonk 18:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  30. Keep, per Slim, Jossi, Malber, Will Beback, FeloniousMonk and others. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  31. Keep So long as we can confirm the identities of those responsible, being off-Wiki shouldn't be an excuse. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 21:47, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  32. KeepWe cannot control external sites. We can certainly control behavior here supporting harassment elsewhere. Fred Bauder 12:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote: strong throw out altogether

"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

  1. 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)
  2. What's to stop someone from being dishonest by impersonating his Wikipedia adversary off of Wikipedia and making personal attacks against himself, for the purpose of getting his adversary blocked from Wikipedia for personal attacks? How can it be verified that the person making the attacks is actually who he presents himself as being? This policy can be exploitated and manipulated. As Wikipedian user involved in numerous disputes due to my editing in controversial political articles, I know how some of the really unethical people on here operate. They will do anything to get rid of those who bring in information that conflicts with the POV they're trying to maintain in articles. I don't doubt for a second that such a dishonest tactic would be used against me. So, this policy is bad --get rid of it. RJII 01:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    This was allready disscussed. Esentially the case here is about editors who are absolutely open about making attacks off wiki & admit it themselves. --Wikimol 07:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Delete altogether -stifling any kind of dissent off of wikipeida is a form of censorship. It opens a pandora's box of problems that should just be avoided. The policy of NPA is to to allow civil debate on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a religion or a club. The sum of all human knowledge will be contained in the heads of people who disagree outside of wikipeida.--Tbeatty 02:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Delete While I believe Wikipedia has the right to do this (Wikipedia is a private organisation, they can can ban whoever they want, for whatever reason they want) I think that that doesn't necescarily mean they should do this: as it is silly, unenforceable, and open to abuse. Also, TELL THE WIKITRUTH--DCAnderson 06:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Delete: WP is not even a democracy. I don't want it deciding rules outside WP. Stephen B Streater 07:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. Delete. Does more harm than good. -- JJay 11:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  7. Delete Very Chilling Effect. Wikipedia must not attempt to dictate what editors do and say off of Wikipedia, thereby abridging their right to freedom of speech in their lives -- that is a Constitutional right. This policy opens a can of worms. There's also a possibility of this policy causing an atmosphere on Wikipeida of accusing people of being "guilty by association," another chilling effect. Furthermore, Wikipedia editors are free to not be hyper-vigilently reading forums, etc., where they believe they are being attacked. If they believe they are being libelled off Wikipedia, they are free to pursue legal action. This policy is an absurd idea and un-policable. Sylviecyn 13:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. Delete Ridiculous. Someone in the real world calls Jimbo a name that in wikipedia is frowned on and it becomes an offense to bring up at arb-com? Absurd. Even more absurd is trying to make policy by voting. Yet even more absurd is adding the proposal to the policy and attacking people who delete it. It has never been policy. It is not now policy. and keeping it there sets a dangerous example. It should be removed immediately. Restoring it is an attempt to create policy by edit warring. Removing it is following policy. WAS 4.250 17:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. Delete; DCAnderson, TBeatty, Jjay, and WAS state the case as well as I might, and so I'll simply incorporate their views by reference. Joe 19:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Delete. I don't think Wikipedia should be making any attempt to control what people say somewhere else, or taking action against people based on their speech elsewhere. *Dan T.* 21:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. Delete WP shouldnt be punishing people for something they wrote on a page elsewhere. Copysan 22:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  12. Delete. Why not start blocking people because they're not nice to their mothers? This is severely fucked-up control freakery. Grace Note 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  13. Delete. While I can sympathize with the goal of some of this proposal's supporters, the sole purpose for our NPA policy is to keep personal attacks from disrupting the talk pages on which they are placed. This issue does not arise with regards to comments made outside the context of Wikipedia's discussion pages. --Aquillion 07:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  14. Delete per above.  Grue  14:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  15. Delete. As someome who has been attacked on an external blog (scroll down to "Never Mind The Pollocks....") for my views on Wikipedia, I have to say that I would fight (although probably not to the death) for the right of people to attack me on their blogs. Wikipedia simply has no business with what any Wikipedia editor does in his time away from Wikipedia. Sets a bad precedent. — goethean ॐ 14:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  16. Delete entirely. I cannot believe someone felt it was proper to add a policy section after 20 whole opinions. Wikipedia is not big brother perhaps? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 20:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
  17. Delete. NPA covers no attacks by link, so that is covered for on-Wiki activity. What people do off-Wiki is their business. This allows too many loopholes for abusive behaviour by editors (impersonating an enemy) and admin (falsely punishing a rival) alike. agapetos_angel 05:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  18. Delete If you don't like what the Reviewies say about you (or what pictures they post) don't visit their site. On-wiki personal, ad hominem attacks disrupt and distract cosntructive discussion. Off-wiki discussion doesn't affect the wiki if you don't pay attention to it. (Full disclosure: I've had my personal information distributed and been the target of personal attacks by Reviewies and Brandt.) -- Malber (talk • contribs) 20:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC) Changed vote, thank Brandt, MSK, and Blu. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  19. Delete with fire - "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
    "I disapprove of what you say and will fight to death to censor it" is NOT and should not be the Wikipedia attitude. --Col. Hauler 12:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
  20. Delete -- Omniplex 19:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
  21. Remove as garbage. We can't regulate off site behavior. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
  22. Delete I'm essentially in the amend crowd, but I fail to see how this isn't covered by the last example listed in the current policy. Also, instruction creep. --Kchase02 (T) 03:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  23. Delete Nothing wrong with letting people vent off-Wiki. Due to the size of the Internet, it can only be enforced selectively, and it's extremely open to impersonation. As Tbeatty says, NPA is there to make sure civil debate can be conducted on Wikipedia. If any personal attacks are made off-Wiki, it's not interfering with a Wikipedia debate. jgp 03:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  24. Delete WP is not in a position to dictate laws in foreign sites. If a third site allows calling you all morons for including this, then WP has no right to object to that. Similarly, in international law (if that's an example) if one commits an action which is regarded unlawful according to his own state, in a foreign country where it is not, he cannot be punished when he returns. End of story, get over it.  NikoSilver  (T) @ (C) 13:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  25. Throw away any attempts to extend jurisdiction beyond Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a forum, while the forums are to be ... er, forums. However the rules of Wikipedia should as well apply to the House of Commons:. There is no verifiable way to link a forum user having foul language, even if his forum-nick is "Jimbo Wales". -- Goldie (tell me) 19:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
  26. Delete. What's next, a nondisclosure agreement or noncompete agreement? Let's not worry about things that are outside our jurisdiction. -lethe talk + 00:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  27. Delete. SushiGeek 01:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  28. Strong delete. Off-wiki behavior does not affect the wiki. If someone, say, reveals the identity of another user against her wishes and thus forces her to stop editing, that affects the wiki and should be considered. Calling someone any name you like, off the wiki, isn't going to affect the wiki itself and is thus none of our business. (Consider what would happen if I, on my own website, insulted a real-life acquaintance of mine who also turned out to be a Wikipedian. Totally unrelated to Wikipedia, and I get penalized? Nuh-uh.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
    Of course, linking to something in a fashion that implies endorsement is essentially the same as saying it, whether the thing you link to happens to be on Wikipedia, WikiTruth, or a printed novel. Someone who writes "User:Bob is a ^#%@!#$&@^$*@!%#&*@$^#$!*^@" on their website and then links to it here is obviously making a personal attack on Wikipedia itself, even if the manner of expression briefly takes the reader to another site. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  29. Extremely strong delete Far too close to Big Brother. Also per Voltaire (Col. Hauler). Λυδαcιτγ 01:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
    Clarification: threats are completely different. I think you have full rights to start a "Jimbo is an Idiot" blog and not be punished on Wikipedia, but no such rights if you post personal info or threaten someone (isn't that illegal?). Λυδαcιτγ 01:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
  30. Strong Delete. Wikipedia has no business in dictating users' conduct outwith of Wikipedia. Cynical 20:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  31. Discard. Linking directly to personal attacks is already forbidden. If I want to say in my blog that Admin A is a total (insert expletive of choice), that should not affect my standing on Wikipedia. Period. The no personal attacks policy is a necessary evil to help head off possible legal confrontations and to prevent the editing environment from degenerating. The effects of the necessary Wikipedia Thought Police should extend no further than the Wikimedia Foundation servers. As it is, Tony Sidaway's statement that the ArbCom will get involved in off-site disputes troubles and worries me. Captainktainer * Talk 16:45, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote: Amend to only ban Linked Personal Attacks (or remove)

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.

  1. 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)
  2. Amend - FrancisTyers 22:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. Amend per Strom and my other objections here and on the extension discussion page --Knucmo2 12:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. Amend, as per the great point by RJII in the Oppose section. I would only support such a policy if it specifically required there to be some sort of link to the personal attack site placed on, say, the attacking user's own userpage (and put there by the attacking user). Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 02:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
    Amend. Blogs and personal websites should not be used as reliable sources; accordingly, they should not be used to circumvent policy. What people do off-Wiki is their business. Police and punish only what is on-Wiki. agapetos_angel 10:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC) Changing vote to Discard. NPA included attacks by link; therefore, my amend comment is already in practice. agapetos_angel 05:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. Amend. I think Wiki has to draw a clear line between what is its business and what is not its business. What happens within the Wiki site is its business: i.e. a link to an external attack is its business, as the link is on a Wiki page. What is on other sites is not its business, and furthermore it has no way of verifying the source of postings on external sites to eliminate impersonation. Tyrenius 05:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote: Remove for Discussion/until Consensus

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.

  1. --maru (talk) contribs 22:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  2. The discussion does not seem to me to support the claim that Admins will do this anyway, much less the implied claim of wide acceptance among editors. Dan 01:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  3. My intuition is that this policy proposal is unacceptable. --Improv 05:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  4. There certainly was no consensus to do this. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 12:43, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  5. There doesn't seem to be consensus, instruction creep, this policy already has many detractors w/o additions Kotepho 13:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  6. I just came off a hot RfC where this policy was used as a weapon to almost block (and precipitate a collapse or a war) by aggressive majority parties to squelch an unpopular editor. I was fortunate to reason from the admins (new to all disputes, I had no prior issues with any editors) a brief stay to finish the RfC to a better resolution. I see suppression of legitimate commentary vs public attack as a very important area of analysis and resolution. Legitimate commentary on the internet is at risk, what kind of "attack" is of significance to involve Wiki; and distinguishing controversy and needed commentary on/about editors (a safety valve?) from true attack might not always be easy.--66.58.130.26 15:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Discuss with editor jkb
  7. The present text (18:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)) states it is not policy. It should not be here; it should be a guideline. Any admin, or arbcom, is perfectly justified as taking off-wiki personal attacks as evidence of bad faith. (Subject to one caveat: Proving that a particular website was in fact written by a given WP user is usually going to be difficult.) Septentrionalis 18:27, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  8. I am still undecided on the merits of this policy addition but I definitely think it should not be done without discussion and a consensus to do so. Pegasus1138Talk | Contribs | Email ---- 19:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
  9. All changes to policy should have consensus before they are added. --Rory096 06:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  10. Policy is subject to manipulation by impersonation. See my comment in the Oppose section. RJII 06:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  11. I agree wih Kotepho Jaranda wat's sup 14:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

  • While I'm not voting here; I should note that the policy, as I read it, doesn't extend to private or transient media such as IRC/IM, telephone calls, or e-mail--only to public, persistent places like blogs, forums, or Usenet. --EngineerScotty 21:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I reserve comment on this till I have considered things further... I applaud the notion of taking offwiki actions into account, but fear that it may not be workable, unless very narrowly scoped to "don't link to personal attacks elsewhere, regardless of who made them". Anything broader is difficult to verify and subject to interpretation in a way that may lead to contention. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Blocking for an off-wiki attack should not be thought of as policing or censoring the internet. On the contrary, the logic is the same as No legal threats: you can do whatever you want out there, but if what you're doing out there is going to interfere with this encyclopedia, than we can't allow you to edit here at the same time. We are merely protecting this website, as we have every right to do. Chick Bowen 22:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. It is essentially a question of people's privacy and freedom of speech we are talking about here.
  2. Although Wikipedia has the right to have speech policies on Wikipedia, as it is a privately owned website, it has no right to question or claim control of anyone's speech anywhere else.
  3. There is enough policing going on at Wiki itself to satisfy anyone, often with the intent of personal gain or having malicious intentions. Wiki is a police state as it is.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=police%20state
  4. I tell anyone, right now, I will not be told what I can and can't say off Wikipedia. I can only speak for myself, but I still have a first right amendment, and if I don't I'll fight for it. Don't even go down that road of trying to control what I say.
  5. This policy potentially opens the broad highway to speech control and people's privacy off Wikipedia to other areas such as..Can editors say things attacking other countries in some way. (Many countries have editors at Wikipedia, any remark could potentially be found offensive by someone.) Can editors make threats to government security, or openly proclaim their anger at their government's policies, or make marriage plans, or chat room or email remarks about how broke they are or any other thing that is actually no one's business but his or her's or the one it is said to?
    thewolfstar I signed this here because I wrote the whole strong throw out altogether..not just the first point
I've removed the previous comments from Vote: strong throw out altogether part heading. Other sections don't contain such pro/con discussion. --Wikimol 19:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Is that because even reasonable discussion comes under Vote: strong throw out altogether  ;-) Stephen B Streater 06:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Back to the roots: I have the feeling that some ones still don’t understand what we are talking about here. There is somebody, who calls some of you fascists on his blog, see here on en.wiki. This list with 21 names is still there – see here (Czech comment). See also here - another comment in English there. There are several links to this blog on the whole wiki, see e.g. here or here. -jkb- 09:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

Is this behaviour libellous and illegal, or do people want to enforce their idiosyncratic personal standards outside WP? In this Brave New World, will people be allowed to call Fascists "Fascists" if they are Fascists, or be prevented from doing so because it is a personal attack? Do these personal standards involve restricting what people can say, or does it extend to telling people what they can think too? In the US, the First Amendment came first. This is because it is the most important. In England, we don't need a First Amendment because free speech is not some gift from the Government or WP, but something that comes with being English. Stephen B Streater 10:06, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not yours to take away. Stephen B Streater 10:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy, nor is it bound by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This is an encyclopedia project. Our job here is to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. We're here to create articles. Being labelled a "Seznam fašistů" is a distraction, and it is just as much of an attack (I think) whether delivered in English or in Czech. Whatever we can do to minimize these distractions I endorse. -Will Beback 10:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC) Actually, if we use logic, an assertion of fascism grounded in fact isn't an attack, its an observation. I have recently been spammed in my talk for alleged NPA. The beautiful thing about being me is that even the most egregrious of my "attacks" can be shown to be based wholly on demonstrable fact. Should the issue come up in some sort of real way, other than obvious pov warriors playing favorites, I could show that my statements are cold rational evaluations based in fact. Thats the beauty of formal logic. It works. It works so well that it solves all of the problems people anticipate, and ones even that they don't. Prometheuspan 17:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

As I have said, about eighteen times now probably, the policy of NPA on Wikipedia is fine. I'm not sure about it not being bound by the First Amendment, but that is moot; a suppression of speech on here is not what is being discussed, Will. The point is that Wikipedia seeks to control for, and punish what is said outside of Wikipedia where it has no right to. --Knucmo2 17:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

This quite interesting argument. In fact it works the opiste way. Now, if you are victim by off-wiki defamamtion by "fellow wikipedian", you have to behave nicely to him on Wikipedia. And if you take lagal action agianst him, you will be blocked. This way Wikipedia prevens you to defent yourself, if you want to edit. Wouldnt't it make make more sense to prevent the offender from editing? --Wikimol 07:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it extremely interesting that someone would describe the atmosphere here as "collegial". My experience has been quite different. — goethean ॐ 22:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not the argument. Wikipedia wishes to police the web to punish free speech and expression when they interfere with the purpose of building an encyclopedia. I am perfectly aware that free speech is suppressed on here, and that is acceptable in my book, as I am more bothered with building an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not the government, it does not have the right to suppress free speech outside of its bounds. --Knucmo2 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. No one is asking for policing anything or to chill free speech. What we are trying to contain is the abuse by some editors of WP that are bypassing [WP:NPA]] by naming themselves and the editors they attack on online forums, blogs and personal pages, while attempting to continue to be accepted in good faith as editors of Wikipedia. Big difference. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but the proposed policy does limit what Wikipedia editors can say about other Wikipedia editors on blogs, websites, forums, etc. without encurring penalties within Wikipedia, correct? — goethean ॐ 20:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The policy only addresses issues related to disruption by means of recurring personal attacks: If you have been warned or blocked for personal attacks, engaging in the same behavior elsewhere violates the positive community spirit all Wikipedians should foster and may demonstrate bad faith. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:22, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. — goethean ॐ 20:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect Jossi, the point is not missed. Free speech entails being able to name the targets of any abuse at any arena, site, or place. Thus, when Louis Farrakhan calls Jews "blood-sucking", this is protected by a constitutional right of free speech. It would involve the same if a Wikipedian editor wanted to name any editors or single out any for abuse on blogs; they have exactly that right to do so, yet you want to punish them for it. And you want to extend the policy of No Personal Attacks beyond the realms of Wikipedia which is arbitrary. There is no bypass whatsoever; the policy has no legal existence outside of Wikipedia. --Knucmo2 20:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Even restated, the argument is still a logical fallacy. The policy doesn't limit speech outside Wikipedia. Anyone is free to say whatever he wants outside Wikipedia. Only, saying certains things, he may be prevented from editing Wikipedia. If you insists this is violation of free speech, than Wikipedia:No legal threats is violation of basic human rights - it prevents you to seek protection of the law.
What would be really fascinationg is combination of "no legal threats" and "we don't care about off-site". On one hand, it is irrelevant, if you are subject to Wikipedia-related attacks, harassment, stalking... as long as it is done on external site. You should assume good faith of the attacker(?) and cooperate with him. On the other hand, if you decide to defend yourself by legal means, YOU should stop editing or will be blocked? It means anyone is encouraged to attack Wikipedia addicts by whatever means - they will either have to give up the addiction, or give up defending ther personal integrity. --Wikimol 22:12, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I find it hard to see how my argument is fallacious. In fact, I would suggest that you are setting up straw-men of my position here, now indicating that I advocate legal threats. But I don't recall saying that anywhere, in fact I explicitly said: "If it becomes a sustained attack verging on the physical or a threat of some sort, then obviously it becomes a matter for the police, since my safety is endangered, which is obviously way out of Wikipedia's territory." If legal threats about a person are made offsite, then that is the business of the law, and nowhere have I granted that a person is free to make threats to harm another on a website. This is a grey area for the law.
Harassment is not a Wikipedia-related attack, nor is stalking, battery or anything to do with it. It may be performed within the realm of Wikipedia, but that is as logical as saying: "I was hurt in a department store. Therefore it should be seen to it that the employees of the department store punish my assailant, and not the law". Outside of Wikipedia, if he is launching verbal abuse at me on his blog, why then, I see no reason to assume good faith outside of Wikipedia. It is one thing to assume good faith about a person's actions, and another to ignore blatant egregiousness, when good faith can safely be unassumed. Incidentally, users who make legal threats on or at wikipedia are asked to stop editing. Nor is it valid to say that all legal threats are to do with personal attacks. --Knucmo2 09:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't decide rules outside WP. Everybody is free to do anything outside WP. The policy only states if you want to do certain things, you should not edit Wikipedia. Editing Wikipedia is no consitutional right! We have such policies allready - e.g. if you take a legal action, you should top editing, etc. --Wikimol 07:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

True. I don't need a constitution to give me the right to free speech. Which is lucky as I don't have constitutional right to free speech. But WP has no proper court system, and is not democratic. There is the risk of a chilling effect on free speech outside WP. And some WP editors no doubt are extremely dodgy and may be subject to legal action outside WP. Why should WP editors not be entitled to, for example, legal redress outside WP (including personal attacks), while still staying WP editors? Stephen B Streater 08:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
But, if you really feel the need to take legal action, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we ask that if you do so, then you do not edit Wikipedia until the matter of law is settled - one way or the other - to ensure that all legal processes happen via proper legal channels. (from WP:NLT) --Wikimol 22:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Whoa whoa whoa. There is a difference between asking someone to stop editing and forcing them from editing. --Knucmo2 23:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
1. And what if you don't comply? On the talkpage is something like a poll on bans on users taking legal action. Results are, I would say, indecisive as usually.
2. If the "off-wiki attacks" policy was changed to only ask (like But, if you really feel the need to make personal attacks on external website, we cannot prevent you from doing so. However, we ask that if you do so, then you do not edit Wikipedia until the matter is settled) would you support it? In that case there won't be difference between asking here and forcing there, so comparison with NLT will be completely valid. --Wikimol 18:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Am I missing something here? If someone links to a personal attack from a Wikipedia talk page with the comment 'this describes you' or something to that effect, then they are making a personal attack on a Wikipedia page (by posting the link). We don't need this new proposal to cover things like that; it would fall under the old policy. --Aquillion 07:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I'd also like to add that a personal attack says more about the person making the attack than the person being attacked. And what constitutes a personal attack? What about a slightly sarcastic comment? Stephen B Streater 20:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Incorperating off-website personal attacks into discussion.

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)

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)
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)

Shouldn't the policy include personal attacks by voice? Such as on the telephone? Or even in person? RJII 00:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are covered by Wikipedia:Harassment. -Will Beback 00:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Links to off-site attacks are much more insidious than internal WP ones. Firstly, people attacked are less likely to know about them, so less likely to be able to respond effectively. Secondly, the links can be changed without trace leaving no proof of the deed. So I think that linking to off site attacks is worst, then internal WP attacks (where people can be called to account), then offsite attacks (which are just bad form and nothing to do with WP). Stephen B Streater 21:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I would be VERY careful about a policy to this end. Simply put, it's a realm that's too hard to control, and leads to problems. I can imagine a message board thread that consists of both valid points and personal attacks that might be worth linking to for the valid and important points. As is the usual manner with such things, I think that additional rules only add additional opportunities for confusion. Phil Sandifer 22:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Why?

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).

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).

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)

"No personal attacks" does not mean "be nice" in the sense of letting people make this a worse encyclopedia. Admins here are fire-breathing dragons eagerly attacking and destroying those who would make this a worse encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 16:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Handling false accusation of personal attack

Does anyone have any suggestion on how to handle false accusation of personal attack?--Jusjih 16:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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))
Also consider someone might feel attacked even if you didn't intend this. Stephen B Streater 19:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think what is considered "a personal attack" is utterly arbitrary. I have no good solution unless it is AGF. Every "Oh, you attacked me" could be met by "No, I didn't; AGF." Maybe all personal attacks should be automatically void unless some third party verifies; and upon a third party verifying the "attacking" party is allowed to rephrase because maybe an attack wasn't what was meant. In particular, I find SlimVirgin sometimes finds attacks where none was meant; and I sometimes find humor (in others comments) where it becomes clear later an attack was meant. WAS 4.250 22:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

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)
Thank you very much for all of your answers, which are very useful.--Jusjih 13:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
What does "AGF" mean?--Jusjih 13:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
AGF means assume good faith. Kotepho 13:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. I have yet to better know more abbreviations here.--Jusjih 13:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Time and time again, i find myself appalled at the ignorance around here. If you are accused of making an attack, review the relevant materials of what logically constitutes and attack, and what doesn't and learn the dif between an attack and a statement of fact consequently detrimental to somebody elses position. Not that Logic currently matters on Wikipedia, but the question of whether or not you are being attacked or whether or not you are attacking somebody is a factual question determined by really very simple laws of Logic. Prometheuspan 21:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

My revert

I've restored the off-wiki attack section, as I'm not aware that it's seriously disputed. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's very obvious from reading the discussion. And since you've participated in both the discussion here and that on Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Extension (talk|history|watch) it's very hard to assume good faith, unless you are going to claim memory loss? --Col. Hauler 13:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You might be surprised how often people both see and remember according to either expectations or wishes. Maybe she wishes it were true enough so that she forgot it wasn't. WAS 4.250
What part of only getting 41% in support of it does not constitute it being seriously disputed? Kotepho 13:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It is seriously disputed. The majority don't want it kept in its current form. Stephen B Streater 16:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I wonder...

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)

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)
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)
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)

Peer pressure

The way people enforce good behaviour is through peer pressure. If lots of people are telling someone their behaviour is inappropriate, they will realise this. If one person tells them rudely this is much less likely to be ineffective. This also applies to NPA in general, including off-wiki NPA. Every time someone is told they are losing respect and status with their personal attack, they will think again. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but enforcement of behavioural norms by editors is much more effective than adding more work to the admin police load. Stephen B Streater 06:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The intense focus here upon personal attacks off of Wiki is a major distraction, imo, from the purpose of this website which is to write an encyclopedia, not to be so concerned about the clash of personalities and opinions, which is bound to happen in any community. It's impossible (and a questionable practice) to attempt to control what people think, do, say, and write about outside of Wikipedia, without engaging in some severely controlling censorship of individual's right to freedom of expression. The very definition of what constitutes personal attacks off of Wiki (e.g., it's often in the eye of the beholder only) and the vagueness of how to define those so-called attacks, make this an impracticable policy. In addition, I believe it's impossible to prove that because someone talks/complains about a fellow editor off of Wiki, that automatically assumes someone is editing in bad faith. In many cases, they are most likely frustrated and want to vent, so to make the assumption of "bad faith is purely a judgment call which cannot be defined, unless people here have excellent mindreading skills. This is only online interaction, after all, with all of the limitations of the same.
Isn't it better for someone to vent their frustrations about a fellow editor off of Wiki than on an article talk page, which is againt the rules? Furthermore, editors are free to not engage in the obsessive behavior of following other editors around the internet looking for their so-called "personal attack comments" in order to "make a case" against said editor, with the goal of getting them blocked off of Wiki, because they have a different POV about a subject. IMO, that borders on stalking and is Big Brother behavior. Simply put, if an off-wiki comment isn't linked here, then don't read it! It has no bearing upon the editing of an article, unless there are other flagrant examples of someone breaking the rules here, such as frequent vandalism, etc.
Moreover, how does one define and pinpoint personal attacks that are made passive-aggressively, right here on Wiki talk pages? This happens frequently on Wiki, but because an offender's words are couched in "polite terms," the attacked person has to sit back and take it. Unless someone else is very familiar with the nuances of a particular subject talk page conversation, no one else will get, in fact, that an editor or administrator has been regularly attacking someone else, albeit subtly. Passive-agressive attacks can sting as badly as any direct verbal abuse and go unnoticed. Further, there may be a situation in which someone is judged to be editing in bad faith by reason of "guilt by association," because they are posting on an off-wiki forum, where there is a general criticial opinion about an article's subject, and a fellow editor (the complainant) is closely associated with the article's subject. That opens up an even larger can of worms for administration of this policy and futher displays how much this proposed policy extends far beyond what Wikipedia is equipped to handle, much less define. This proposed policy is also worrying because it has First Amendment issues as this website's server is in the U.S. Sorry for the long post, but this is a very important matter, with many unresolved issues that need to be discussed. I ask each editor to think about their motives for wanting to control fellow editors so very, very much and the wisdom of the same. Sylviecyn 15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
So do you feel your off wiki personal attacks have helped you, or diminished your standing on WP? Stephen B Streater 06:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, since the person feeling attacked has made the effort to revise this policy, it's diminished my standing on Wikipedia. The blatant hypocrisy of this move is breathtaking, however, given that the same person feeling attacked by me has for years, endorsed the linking here on the Prem Rawat series of Wikipedia articles, a website called One-Reality.com (it was anonymous until April, 2006 after a settlement of a defammation legal action by a former follower of Prem Rawat against the website owner). I'm not privy to the confidential settlement details, however the result of that settlement was that the One-Reality website owner removed libel about the plaintiff as well as photos of her, and made a statement on the splash page stating he was mistaken about her). That website continues to defame and libel me and other people who have been trying to put some balance into the Rawat articles. We've been making an attempt to correct some of the historical revisionism now in place on those articles, and we've been met with huge resistence by students of Prem Rawat. Our real names (and in some cases, photos) are used on that One-Reality website to defame and libel us. That website states that vocal former followers of Prem Rawat (ex-premies), who have been publicly critical of him, are hate-group members. But, there's no credible evidence of those accusations, and it's blatant defammation. Many of the statements used as "evidence" are posts that were taken out of context from the ex-premie forum years ago. The only origin of the hate-group allegation is the Elan Vital website faqs, which is the basis by which pro-Rawat editors here justify retaining it in the articles. It's been frustrating and difficult to say the least, to try to edit an article with other editors who believe that I and other former followers of Rawat are members of a tiny, insignificant hate-group (and say so on the talk pages here) and further that we're "detractors," "apostates," or that we aren't editing in good faith. Also, it's been known for several years that Elan Vital employees or volunteers indeed monitor every single word written on that ex-premie forum and keep fat dossiers on every single individual that posts there. There's much, much more to this situation than me calling someone a few names on an off-wiki forum out of frustration, and my standing on Wikipedia. Sylviecyn 12:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wording

It's wrong to say that it is "bypassing" policy if you make anything that could be considered a personal attack on someone who uses Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia, as the policy does not apply to other websites than Wikipedia at the moment.

I see what you mean, but if you read the Extension carefully, it says that it would apply to any breaking of the policy of "no personal attacks" on "online forums and personal websites". Of course anything that could be considered a "personal attack" could be considered "bypassing".

It says in essence, that saying anything that could be considered offensive (that would break the Wikipedia No Personal Attacks policy) on any website on the internet would be considered the same as breaking the policy on Wikipedia, allowing users to be banned if they say anything bad about users of Wikipedia on any other site. The closest legal equivalent is a gagging clause (as in the type used by companies in job contracts to make it possible to take legal action for breach of contract if they say anything that could be considered derogatory about the company or reveal negative things about the company, not the court order). --Col. Hauler 17:45, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

People are entitled to their opinion of Wikipedia, they are entitled to their opinion about its editors, and they are entitled to voice them in any public forum they wish. But please note that any type of personal attacks against fellow editors, are not welcome, on or off wiki. Even without a policy, a user that consistently attacks other users can be penalized for disruption. If an editor uses a vituperative against another editor because he/she is unable to comment on disputes civilly, and if an editor purposefully makes spurious and negative comments and ad-hominem attacks on other editors in public discussion forums or blogs , using their full name or their WP username, there should be no expectation that his/her comments, contributions and behavior to be accepted in good faith. That is what this extension is intended for: to curtail the actions of those editors that have no qualms in disrupting the collaborative process by means of personal attacks againmst fellow editors. Wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia, it is a community of people and certain rules of civility apply. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That might be perhaps how you would use the rule, but everyone is not you. It's easy to see how this policy would be used as justification for banning anyone anyone making even the slightest comment about a user of Wikipedia outside of Wikipedia.
The fact is that the policy does not apply only to what you mention, but anything that could be considered a "personal attack" on any website outside of Wikipedia. It's not just for people that cause disruption, as the policy reads it seems it's merely for the purpose of "punishing people who call me names on Wikipedia because I can't do anything about the blog/websites themselves". It's all rather childish. --Col. Hauler 18:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Precisely, Col. Hauler. Wikipedia is already gaining a reputation of being "cultish" because it cannot withstand (or doesn't want to take any) criticism from mainstream press and former editors that have become disenfranchised. Is this the image that Wikipedians want to perpetuate by further gagging editors from being critical? Isn't the right to dissent one of the most valuable of our human rights around the world, that people fight for in wars in order to keep? Is this the mentality that Wikipedians want to project: "If you criticise Wikipedia and it's editors, you are therefore banned???" Are Wikipedians so insecure that they cannot take criticism, and must resort to calling it an attack in order to ban others? That's scary stuff, imo. Sylviecyn
Does Jossi think there was any way he could have avoided the recent off-wiki attack on him? And what would the effect of this rule have been in practice? Stephen B Streater 18:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The effect would be that people wanting to edit Wikipedia will know that personal attacks on other editors are not an option. Want to edit Wikipedia? Be civil and respectful to other members of the community. Simple. As stated in the policy in a nutshell: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I was not aware Jossi was a "victim" of personal attacks (god, I'm sorry, but this all sounds so playgroundy. Are people really so thin-skinned?) but re-reading what he said, the loudly bolded Assumption of Bad Faith etc, it does make sense.
Not to answer the question for Jossi, but if someone made a personal attack on him at some blog or whatever, making it clear what their Wikipedia username was, all this policy would simply do would mean people would write things anonymously, or on other blogs/websites than their own personal ones. --Col. Hauler 18:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Let me give you a fictitious and somewhat graphic example that may illustrate this point:
  • January 10, 2006 - Posted on "Forum Anti-Gazette XYZ"
My name is Peter and I am editing Wikipedia under the alias "Foo". I hate Wikipedia, it is a stupid project for the feeble minded and for lazy people and in particular I find some if its editors to be f***king a**holes and POV pushers"
  • January 15, 2006 - Posted on the talk page of an article about the controversial publication "XYZ Gazette", in a comment targeted to a user that edits under alias "Bar", that is a respected contributor of Wikipedia that abides by the policy of WP:NPA
Bar: why don't you piss off? You are a snake, a liar and a hypocrite. --User:Foo Jan 15 2006
  • January 20, 2006 - Posted on "Forum Anti-Gazette XYZ"
Posted by Peter: This user in Wikipedia editing under alias Bar, is a little prick and a stupid, ignorant person. And by the way, Bar is not anyone else than John Smith, that was an editor of the XYZ Gazette.
From here on, Peter, alias Foo, expects editor Bar to address him respectfully when discussing the article "XYZ Gazette", while at the same time he continues his campaign of harassment against Bar, off-wiki. When asked not to make such comments as these are disruptive of the collaborative process, Foo complains about his rights to free speech and accuses Wikipedia and user:Bar of attempting to curtail his freedoms and of stalking.
Can you see the problem, now Col? I am sure that user:Bar will not be happy that an anonymous user makes disparaging comments about him. But I am sure that you would understand the difficulty that user:Bar faces in this siuation when the comments are made by another active editor of Wikipedia. That is the difficulty that this extension of policy was designed to address. This has nothing to do with a right to dissent -- this has everything to do with the right to dissent while remaining civil and respectful of each other in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:25, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
So if the insult was anonymous, would that be better for you? I'd rather know who was insulting me off-wiki, because this would reduce their influence in Wikipedia. Stephen B Streater 22:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes. It would. My question is simple, if you know that editor Foo is attacking you, how can you maintain a civil conversation and co-edit articles "as if nothing happened"? You can't. That is why it is disruptive behavior that should be penalized. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand the motivation behind the move to extend the policy. But good motivations don't always make good policy. The policy extension is too vaguely worded and subjective and consequently, the extension as currently worded does constitute an effective gag order, and does interfere with free speech and dissent. If I were to accurately describe from my perspective a Wikipedia conflict on my blog, it would be construed as a personal attack under this this policy extension. Prior to this policy extension (as far as I know) Wikipedians were allowed to comment on events in Wikipedia on their blogs. Now they are not. That's a gag order. — goethean ॐ 14:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, Goethean. But what can be done to curtail that kind of behavior? Do you have any alternative proposals? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It may not be helpful to point out the obvious. But if there was less anonymity editors would be less like to insult with one hand while requiring civil, wikipolicy behaviour of other editors with the other hand. That's just a dirty trick, an emotional manipulation. Less anonymity would be a solution. Terryeo 05:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I do not have an alternative proposal. I don't know that 'curtailing behavior' is the answer, because that will inevitably curtail online speech and dissent — I guess I'm a bit of a free speech fundamentalist. It is also quite possible that there is no solution — in a liberal democracy, one puts up with extremely obnoxious behavior in trade for the right to self-expression. The other related policy here is Assume Good Faith, and the inherent absurdity of assuming good faith where none exists. — goethean ॐ 18:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Given that there is an obvious split of opinion about extending the policy, a solution could be to add some wording to WP:AGF that people that engage in off-wiki personal attacks should not expect their contributions to be assumed to be made in good faith. That would take care of this, without having to extend this policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not in favour of suspending WP:AGF. The accuracy of off-wiki attacks are in general impossible to prove, and may result from other assumed off-wiki behaviour. WP is an area where otherwise hostile people have to work together. The policies eg WP:V limit how much opinion is possible. Stephen B Streater 15:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
WP:V relates to content in the article namespace. It does not apply to the talk namespace were the personal attacks occur. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise text

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)

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)
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)

Protection

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)

You've got to see the funny side though. Stephen B Streater 06:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

Am I being attacked?

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)

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)
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)
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)

As a point of fact, whether true or not, calling you immature and egotistical is two ad hominems. YES, you are being attacked. Prometheuspan 21:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

Breaking the deadlock

As I look now, there are 27 for keep, 27 for strong throw out and almost as many for something else. Realistically, it looks like we will not achieve consensus on either of the two main camps. So I propose we discuss alternative proposals, such as:

  • Off Wikipedia attacks are considered against the spirit of Wikipedia. They reflect badly on the attacker and are unlikely to achieve a positive outcome. Please adopt a more constructive approach.

Stephen B Streater 09:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I could get on board something like that. -lethe talk + 09:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
On a similar note, I propose this addition: While off-Wikipedia attacks are not prohibited by themselves, they may influence actions taken for other violations of policy. For example, off-Wikipedia attacks can be used as evidence of bad faith in the dispute-resolution process (e.g. for an admin trying to decide whether a user should be blocked for a violation or given another chance, or in more extreme cases, as evidence in an ArbCom decision). jgp 09:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)b
This is an excellent proposal as it captures the concerns expressed without creating an extension of the policy and by simply referring to existing understanding. I would combine the two sentences as follows:
Off Wikipedia attacks are considered against the spirit of Wikipedia. They reflect badly on the attacker and are unlikely to achieve a positive outcome. Please adopt a more constructive approach. While these attacks are not prohibited by themselves, they may influence actions taken for other violations of policy. For example, off-Wikipedia attacks can be used as evidence of bad faith in the dispute-resolution process (e.g. for an admin trying to decide whether a user should be blocked for a violation or given another chance, or in more extreme cases, as evidence in an ArbCom decision)
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I second this proposal.--DCAnderson 19:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm unsure if this is actually weaker in all aspects. Scope of the orginal extension was limited to attacks launched off-wiki with the specific intention of bypassing the policy. Which, by my understanding, limits it to cases where a conflict originating on wiki is taken off-wiki to allow level doggery which would lead to blocking here.
But this proposal condemnes off Wikipedia attacks in general, regardless of the original of the conflict. In other words, if I had a conflict with someone, and we both started editing, this teaches us to start behaving nicely off-wiki. IMO the main focus should be on protection of Wikipedia and it's comunity, and not making a world better place by teaching people how to behave off-wiki.
So, I'd prefer the original, which is more specific in scope and more bold in consequences. --Wikimol 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd support any variant that made it clear that off-wiki attacks are not a good thing. I'd also support any variant that went further, that they may influence how one is perceived and treated here, and rightly so. As I have mentioned, I have seen off site attacks and plotting destroy or damage other communities... ++Lar: t/c 17:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Due to recent events of an off-wiki site being used to harass and intimidate two admins, one of which has decided to leave the wiki, I am forced to reconsider my position. I would support any extension that gives admins the power to block and/or extend the block of anyone associated with making threats on an off-wiki site including the people responsible for administrating and monitoring said web site. I will change my vote to support the added extension. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I see some nice people are voting keep. But this won't make nasty people nice. The man you refer to above, Daniel Brandt, has been banned from Wikipedia. So banning people like him from WP won't stop people like him. Stephen B Streater 19:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

... no it won't stop them. But we have a precendent in that case, and a could have a deterrent in either an extension or the proposed compromise alternative above. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

To add this text to the policy, as a compromise solution to address the concerns raised about off-wiki personal attacks. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Off Wikipedia attacks are considered against the spirit of Wikipedia. They reflect badly on the attacker and are unlikely to achieve a positive outcome. While these attacks are not prohibited by themselves, they may influence actions taken for other violations of policy. For example, off-Wikipedia attacks can be used as evidence of bad faith in the dispute-resolution process (e.g. for an admin trying to decide whether a user should be blocked for a violation or given another chance, or in more extreme cases, as evidence in an ArbCom decision.) Please adopt a more constructive approach.
  • Support--DCAnderson 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. May I suggest you go ahead and be bold and stick it in? See if it sticks, if not, then we'll start another poll. -lethe talk + 20:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I will, and be hopeful. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, I like this much better. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 22:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • support - as a compromise ok for me, maybe with this little change in the text: While these attacks are not prohibited by themselves at the time... -jkb- 22:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
It is silly to write a policy like it is subject to change. It weakens the strength of it. Technically all Wikipedia policies are subject to change, but we don't write them that way.--DCAnderson 22:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. OK. Quick. Add it in before anyone objects ;-) The discussion can carry on from this much better position if anyone has the energy. Or we could let the dust settle a bit. Stephen B Streater 22:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support jgp 00:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support I still prefer the original extension, but considering both the deadlock and the viewpoints of all involved, this seems like a worthy compromise.--Cini 04:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support abakharev 04:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
What's that, the next poll while the first isn't closed? The proposed section is completely pointless, of course you can take "off wiki attacks" personally, and that will influence how you act inside, explicitly saying so is a distraction from the policy proper. KISS and remove this instruction creep, it only muddies the water. -- Omniplex 07:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I see it as more of a clarification of policy. It is designed to neutralise the controversy by addressing the needs of the "No off Wiki rules" and "Off Wiki no different" groups. The previous poll became deadlocked, with a clear need for an alternative solution. If you were to propose a new poll between this version and an alternative, what alternative would it be, and would it be more acceptable given what people now know about what other people think? Stephen B Streater 09:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Strong Vote No. This new wording is nothing more than a "back-door" attempt to revise the originally proposed amendment, because Wikipedians can get blocked due to words they speak/write off of Wiki. The same objections apply. The original amendment absolutely did not gain a concensus the first time around. How come these policy amendments are not posted at the village pump (or is it)? I'm assume that most folks who weighed in the over the past week or so might be thinking a concensus wasn't reached here therefore, aren't paying much attention this time. How come this was placed into the policy so quickly without first gaining concensus? Sylviecyn 12:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of it as a back door, but rather just a motherly suggestion about good behavior. Vague enough that it can't be interpreted as a fast rule. I figured this was relaxed enough to satisfy even the strict opposers (of which I am one), and therefore I suggested just doing it. However, if there is significant opposition to this version as well, it should be removed and a new poll should start or whatever. And your suggestion to bring it up at VP is also a good one. -lethe talk + 12:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes, Sylviecyn, the best way to see if there is consensus is to do just this. If there is no consensus, it will be deleted. Go ahead and place a comment at the VP. The more that comment on this, the better. Also, I would ask you to provide your views on why this wording is not acceptable. After all it is only describing existing application of policy. FYI, users have been penalized in the past for disruption created by making off-wiki personal attacks, even without a specific policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
So some people say it is not needed because it was policy already, and some people say to goes too far. About right then. I feel a poll between this version and "off-Wiki behaviour has no impact on Wiki treatment" is possible, but the current version would win this poll. Shall we test this? Stephen B Streater 16:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • support I think it's a good compromise - it says that you can't get banned for off-wiki activities, but it can be entered into the balance of evidence if your on-wiki activities have already caused you to go up before arbcom or something of that nature. One modification I would suggest though - are not prohibited by themselves doesn't sound right. Try this: are not prohibited in and of themselves... --Bachrach44 13:01, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds more accurate and better to me - would you like to put it in? Stephen B Streater 14:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Sound better to me was well. Go ahead if you whish and make the improvement. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It's a pretty inoffensive improvement, so I've made it. Stephen B Streater 16:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia acknowledges that it is a bad idea to moderate free speech. Is that really why we're having this debate? According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech, and we regularly censor things such as personal attacks. The issue here, it seems to me, is not that to restrict off-wiki personal attacks would be unacceptable from the standpoint of freedom of speech; clearly it is an acceptable limitation of freedom of speech. Rather the issue here is jurisdiction, or at least that's my reaction. -lethe talk + 01:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, my wording was clumsy. Ashibaka tock 02:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Lethe's wording is more appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Excellent compromise. Administrators already use off site speech, such as an apology by email or IRC, to return banned or blocked users to good standing. So using off site speech to keep a user blocked or banned makes sense. FloNight talk 00:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Realistic and deals with issues of "jurisdiction" well. TheGrappler 01:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Malber (talk • contribs) 02:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - What people do in their personal life outside of Wikipedia should be irrelevant to Wikipedia. Also please keep in mind the people who made their opinions at #Vote:_strong_throw_out_altogether who have not participated in this new poll, which was made rather stealthily (and had a large amount of people suddenly chuck in "Support" noms very soon after appearing - organized on IRC chat?). --Col. Hauler 08:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
What people do off Wiki should be no concern of you ;-) I can't speak for the others, but I find adding this page to my watchlist is sufficient. Stephen B Streater (by mobile)
Dear collonel, first, to judge if off wiki activities are destroying the community or not you should probably make after more than three-and-half weeks here, you must know the history better; and secondly, I wonder about your claiming there was organized something on IRC - is this just a thought or a suspicion??? I am not amused if you address this to me. -jkb- 09:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid these new weird votes are my fault. I mentioned this page and discussion in a controversial arbcom case which is probably being monitored by a lot of off-site people from wikipediareview.com or wikipedia-watch.org or whatever. I do apologize for my blunder. -lethe talk + 09:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Erm, WikiTruth nor Wikipedia Review have anything on this issue that I can see, and I was here way before any edit mentioning this poll by you (and I am the editor who originally added the notice at the top of the page about the proposed policy extension), so please stop with the personal attacks/smearing. --Col. Hauler 09:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right, that was quite unjustified and out of line. I apologize. -lethe talk + 19:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The negative repurcussions of a policy like this (e.g. trawling for insults outside of wikipedia to use in disputes, identity issues, off-wiki disputes coming on-wiki) outweigh the potential benefits (preventing people taking on-wiki disputes off-wiki) --Coroebus 09:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've noticed that the phrase "are not prohibited in and of themselves" has been removed from the wording on the project page. IMO, it should be re-added: my support for this is based on the idea that off-Wiki personal attacks aren't considered offenses, but they can influence official reactions to other offenses. jgp 20:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I agree that this wording should be in. Although it wasn't my idea, I entered it originally, so I'll leave it to someone else this time. Stephen B Streater 21:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak support. It would seem more appropriate to make this section into a guideline than a policy. The Internet does not belong to Wikipedia; Wikipedia belongs to the Internet. --Chris (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Moderate support. Note that there appears to be no consensus in favor of blocks for off-wiki personal attacks and I'm fine with it. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

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)

Even more reason to vote oppose --Coroebus 10:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

personally attacked or attacked personally

These two phrases mean something different. Which one does Wikipedia actually want to say? TharkunColl 23:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"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)

The opposite is true. Or at least, that's how an English speaker would say it. TharkunColl 23:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Harassment

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)

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)
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)
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)

How should I handle a situation? I have a problem with a user who started out angry, and got worse. He began hitting my talk pages two, three or more times, apparently so upset he couldn't post a clear thought. he had been posting a commercial link, and multiple editors, including myself, had reverted out his edit adding his site as an external link. He demanded that I explain my edit. I asked him to take it to the talk page of the article ( Rush (band) ), where there was already a thread about his edits. There was also a thread on HIS talk page about the situation. He had chosen to disregard muliple assisting posts, and instead harrass me. I told him his anger was a bad idea, and referred hiim to those pages and the wiki policies. He kept coming at me. Eventually, I told him he was harrassing me, and should go cool off. He kept going.He has ignored multiple requests that he leave me alone. He is confrontational with other editors. I am thoroughly opposed to dealing with this situation any more. He has posted "apology" after "apology" in which he calls me an idiot for not understanding that he's really such a great guy, and demanding that I answer him on my talk pages, instead of dealing with it on the article talk page. Please give me some suggestions for getting him to go away, or get administrative backup to get him away. He's the first editor on Wikipedia to actually make me feel creeped out. ThuranX 03:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

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)
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)

Refactoring rude comments

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

Precedents: an RFC which is a relevant example to the off-wiki question

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)

Provocation and personal attacks by banned users

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)

What is a personal attack

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)

Place a request at WP:PAIN and let admins decide if a warning is warranted. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Criteria of personal attack

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

Ok, but what about when someone is a LIAR?

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)

  • Just address your comments to the statement, not the user. "That's clearly untrue, because..." is not a personal attack; it only speaks to the truth or falsehood of what's been said. "You're a liar, because..." is a personal attack; it criticizes the user directly, not just the statements made by the user. Kickaha Ota 19:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Not a problem. And yes, there is a point to this. :) One of the benefits of the NPA rules is to reduce conflicts by giving people the opportunity to back down from their mistakes with some self-esteem intact. If Joe Schmuck say some braindead thing and you say "That's clearly untrue because I said X earlier", then Joe has an 'out' if he chooses to take it; he can say "Oh yeah, I forgot about that." It may be transparently untrue, and everyone reading it will know it, but it defuses the situation. If you say "You're a liar because I said X earlier", then you're not leaving that 'out'; Joe is almost guaranteed to come out swinging. And you may have the high ground in the ensuing stupid flamewar, but it will still be a stupid flamewar. Kickaha Ota 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Troll Personal Attack Used Constantly Here

I've noticed that "troll" is a personal attack used constantly on wikipedia. I believe this should stop. What's worse, scroll through through here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page= and you'll see troll as a personal attack is used constantly even in bannings. Troll on wikipedia is a new version of calling someone a "pedophile". I believe this needs to stop. No matter who says it, they should get warnings and bans for using that as an attack. Even if someone does fit the definition of trolling, we should use a term to describe them that is not a personal attack. It's better to say what they did and saying "trolling" is just being sneaky about it (see Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words). Hardvice 08:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone is trolling, usually the word comes up. There is a difference between personal attacks and protesting unacceptable behavior. I have occasionally seen "troll" used in bad faith, but much more often it is quite accurate, or a question. The simple use of the word is most definately not an automatic "personal attack". To add this as a blanket "banned word" is ignoring reality, which is that there is a lot of trolling going on here and it can indeed lead to blocking (not banning as a general rule.) KillerChihuahua?!? 13:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Also please note that the very first Example already covers this: "Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom." KillerChihuahua?!? 13:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
HUH? Calling someone a troll is the same as calling them a pedophile? Okay.--MONGO 20:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Troll is to pedophile as ketchup is to string theory. •Jim62sch• 21:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, online it's different. Pedo is as common as the insult "fag" and taken with a grain of salt. Troll is taken seriously and believed whether or not it's true. Hardvice 05:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

What's next? Will it be considered a personal attack to post {{test3}} of {{blatantvandal}} on the talk page of someone who blanks pages? After all, some might think that being called a "vandal" is offensive. As stated above, protesting in good faith about someone's behavior on Wikipedia is fair comment. (That said, such conversations are best taken to user talk pages, so that article talk pages can be about the article and not about the article's editors). And the comparison between trolls and pedophiles is simply outrageous. --EngineerScotty 21:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's okay to accuse someone of trolling, but not to accuse them of being a troll. The first talks of actions, the second is an attack. It's like calling someone a liar vs. saying they were inncorrect. Hardvice 05:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Above commentor is trolling. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


I want to add that calling someone a troll is a way of saying, "your opinion does not matter, I am calling it trolling when it is not to claim that no matter how passionately you feel, your opinions and feelings make no difference to me." It's a way of saying, "you suck." It is used all over the internet and I've found it used by people who even fit the definition of a troll-oddly hypocritical (no offense to anyone with a user name similar to that word, I mean the entire internet). Hardvice 23:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The word "troll" can mean various things in various fora:
    1. "I simply don't like your opinion, for whatever reason".
    2. "I think that you are deliberately posting inflammatory material for no reason other than provoking arguments"
    3. "I think that you are posting material which this forum considers inflammatory; please restrict yourself to those opinions and statements which the majority of users here find acceptable".
    4. "You are posting material which I personally consider to be inflammatory or objectionable."
    5. "You appear to be unmotivated, and are not considering, my line of reasoning; thus I conclude you aren't really interested in debate"
  • and so forth. The "proper" meaning of troll is the second--someone who is here to provoke or disrupt (and Wikipedia gets many of those!); but I suspect that many people called "trolls" are merely expressing opinions others find disagreeable. --EngineerScotty 23:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


I find that mostly troll calling on the internet is when Prima who is unmotivated and and are not considering, the other person's line of reasoning, finds Secunda who Prima simply doesn't like the opinion of, and Prima calls Secunda someone who is posting inflammatory material for no reason other than provoking arguments. I find that posting inflammatory material for no reason other than provoking arguments is very rare and actually these people have opinions, often very strong that others really disagree with.
I think this is a good definition: A real troll would not believe their arguments and what they say, whereas someone falsely accused of being a troll does believe their arguments and what they say.
What do you think about that definition? Hardvice 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it is almost worthy of Professor Irwin Corey. - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
That's not nice to say. Hardvice 06:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
It makes no sense. Jmabel's assessment is accurate. He could have phrased it more delicately, but you whining about it doesn't make it less accurate. KillerChihuahua?!? 13:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

'Disputed' template

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)

So what do we do?

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)

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)

Article has anti-human POV

“ There are certain Wikipedia users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behavior in the past. Such users may have been subject to disciplinary actions by the Arbitration Committee. It is only human to imagine that such users might be fair game for personal attacks. This notion is misguided; people make mistakes, often learn from them and change their ways. The NPA rule applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them. ”

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)

Holy pajamas, that's funny! --Chris Griswold 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)

Personal attacks on me

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)

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)
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)
He is already blocked for violating NPA. Next time, please report at WP:PAIN. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. -- TheGreatLlama (speak to the Llama!) 15:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

DeeCeeVoice again and Myself

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) --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC) --Zaphnathpaaneah 05:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/User:Deeceevoice [4]CoYep 12:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Exceptions

This page needs to note exceptions in which personal attacks are allowed and encouraged. For example, when users added references to articles, these users are "dictator[s] of Wikipedia." It's also important to note that when users complain about personal attacks, or ask for them to be removed, we should accuse them of sockpuppetry and indefinitely block them. I'm sure we can all agree on this. freestylefrappe 17:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Your multiple layers of sarcasm are thick enough that I cannot tell what you actually mean to say. - Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
We understand that you feel that you or others were subjected to personal attacks by other editors of the article on "Vicente Fox on the page Talk:Vicente Fox. Wikipedia provides a series of fair-hearing processes when you feel unfairly treated. For example you may go to Wikipedia:Third opinion and request a third opinion from someone who has not previously been involved in the article. If that is not effective, you might try Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. If mediation fails, the dispute may be referred to the Mediation Committee's sister committee, the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee for binding resolution.
Of course the preferred method is always to assume good faith and attempt to reach a reasoned position by discussing openly with the other parties in the dispute. Skål - Williamborg (Bill) 03:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

ambiguity in "remedies" section?

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)

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)

Is this a personal attack? Per cfd notice board do not delete categories until voting is done. Then do what you like!!What's with the hate!!Why all this DC Comics tv series in the deletion categories crap.Brian Boru is awesome 22:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

A suggestion for a slight change of the policy's article

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)

Frequent personal attacks

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)

  • Please make such reports on WP:PAIN rather than here (since this is a descriptory page rather than a place to report issues). >Radiant< 13:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it an attack?

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)

  • Probably. The place to report would be WP:PAIN. >Radiant< 13:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Policy scope

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[5]? 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[6], I'd like to have more opinions. Rama's arrow 18:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

The elephant in the room

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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/_/Wikipedia_talk%7ENo_personal_attacks_Archive_3_ffa3.html"