Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Extension

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Village pump

Comments copied from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Extending_the_WP:NPA_policy
jossi (talk · contribs)

Although it is not possible to enforce the policy of No Personal Attacks outside of Wikipedia, there have been occasions in which some users use public forums, blogs and personal home pages to attack editors of Wikipedia by name, alias or both, while at the same time demanding that the WP:NPA policy and WP:AGF guidelines are observed to the letter in article's talk pages. I am referring here not to a critique of an editor, but to obvious personal attacks such as the use of vituperative and obscene language and making pernicious and disparaging comments about them.

I personaly believe that such a position is indefensible and should be considered disruptive behavior. It creates an atmosphere of ill-will, animosity and lack of trust, that are not conducive neither to collaboration on editing articles, nor to community building.

I would appreciate comments from editors about expanding the WP:NPA policy to include some wording that will address the attempt to bypass policy and game the system by an editor "outsourcing" his personal attacks against other editor(s) to public forums in order to "get away with it". ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 01:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Dmcdevit (talk · contribs)

I agree that the same reasons that we have the NPA policy in the first place apply to personal attacks off-wiki. They pollute the community and generally make collaborative working on the encyclopedia less likely to happen. Putting aside all the potential problems that go along with this, like making the correct identification of of users off-wiki, this is a sensible concept. There are certainly a lot of things to take into account here and work out before making it policy, in particular whether it is semi-private journal website, or wheher it is specifically designed to target others or for the consumption of the general public and Wikipedians. In the latter case, personal attacks are just as reprehensible off-wiki as on, and should reasonably have repercussions on Wikipedia. Dmcdevit•t 01:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin (talk · contribs)

I would support this. There are currently a few editors, most of them already banned, who have set up other websites/webpages to launch serious attacks on Wikipedians, using what the editors believe are their real names. In the case of one of these banned editors, the comments involve very serious sexual abuse. In the case of another editor (not banned), he's making comments about an admin on another website that he's specifically banned by the arbcom from making on Wikipedia, a ruling he had agreed to stick to, so him engaging in the same behavior elsewhere shows bad faith. I agree with Dmcdevit that we'd have to be careful how we worded the policy, but in principle it has my support. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me, but how can someone's comments be a case of "sexual abuse"? Doesn't that require more than just words? Lawyer2b 06:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs)

I think I have a plausible case for being one of the Wikipedia editors attacked offsite most vindictively for activity editing Wikipedia:

Nonetheless, this idea seems to be filled with too many pitfalls to make official policy. Maybe a semi-guideline, or just sort of "common decency". How do we prove the identity of off-site commentators (vis-a-vis possible WP identity)? What evidence do we have that outside sites aren't vandalized or altered? What if an external site doesn't present any obvious change history (most don't)? It feels too close to me to judging whether an editors is a "good person" in the rest of their lives, rather than simply evaluating their behavior as WP editor. And moreover, it kind of encourages attempts to compromise the anonymity editors may wish to maintain (some editors don't care about this, like me; and some others drop enough clues that you can figure out who they are... but the principle should not be one of "digging up dirt" on editors' lives). I guess it all adds up to "weak oppose" on my part. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that some editors are not afraid to state that they are they themselves that are posting personal attacks, and they have the chutzpah to assert the need to abide by WP:NPA in Wikipedia hosted pages. You see, anyone can put up a dime-a-dozen website or free blog and assassinate the character of a Wikipedia editor or editors, by posting these messages anonymously. But I am referring to something else: those editors that unashamedly use other public forums to attack members of the community as a way to bypass WP:NPA. This is the intention of this extension. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I certainly believe in the spirit of the addition. Reading it over a few more times, I also don't think any great bad would come of the addition to the the policy language. Nonetheless, it still feels like a minor pursuit of excessive formalism. If you like, I'm happy to call my "vote" weak neutral rather than weak oppose. I guess the principle I like better is a semi-guideline I learned of recently: WP:BEANS. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this extension. Its not enforeable. Also, some things that aren't appropriate, may well be justified externally. Example: if somebody honestly feels a biography article defames them, its a violation of this policy to discuss possibly legal action on Wikipedia itself, but surely if they go to a forum elsewhere to ask advice, that's their right. If somebody knows somebody personally, and they're both Wikipedians, I think they're free to rant against each other, outside Wikipedia. In fact, in some cases, when there's a personal feud between Wikipedians, the appropriate thing to do is "take it outside". Also, generally, I think the very worst cases, are probably things we can't do anything about. --Rob 10:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This extension is not based on what you say. These cases are of course, un-enforceable. The issue at hand is to let editors know, that they cannot expect their comments to be taken in good faith in WP, while they are engaging in PA off-wiki, with the obvious intention to disrupt, bypassing policy using this subterfuge. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. If the policy is unenforceable, then it makes no sense to have such a policy. However, if this policy is implemented, then will the policy also apply to anonymous websites see (one-reality.net) which is linked from the article Criticism of Prem Rawat? That website which is linked within the article defames certain editors of the series of Prem Rawat articles and is also anonymously written. Therefore, it is not known whether any of the website's authors are also Wikipedia editors. How will such an accused "offender" be able to prove that they are acting in good faith in order to make an article better? How will someone determine that the "accuser" may merely be trying to take control of an article, thereby pushing others out with whom he does not get along well? Will all critics of Jimbo Wales be precluded from editing Wiki articles? This proposed policy is opening a can of worms for Wikipedia editors to say the least. Furthermore, isn't such a policy akin to abridging someone's 1st Amendment Rights to free speech and dissent? How is that in the spirit of an American community, of which Wikipedia is a part?  :::Another Ex-Premie 16:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
If this policy is adopted and if the website you mention (one-reality.net) includes personal attacks against a Wikipedia editor, and the owner of that website publicly states that he is a Wikipedia editor, editing under username XYZ, that link will be removed as it will violate the policy. Editor XYZ may be also considered breaching WP:NPA. As for the 1st Amendment rights, of course anyone can freely express his views in a personal website, forum, USENET or blog. This extension to policy attempts to address those editors that want to edit Wikipedia and at the same time violate the no-personal attacks policy, by means of using off-wiki and publicly accessible resources as a subterfuge to bypass policy. The issue is simple: If you want to participate in editing this encyclopedia, personal attacks are not a viable option either on-Wiki or off-Wiki. If you want to attack Wikipedia editors, that is your choice. But do not expect the Wikipedia community to welcome you as a non-disruptive and useful contributor to the project at the same time. Also note that we are not discussing criticism of editors. We are discussing personal attacks. That is a very crucial distinction. Read WP:NPA for an explanation of what a personal attack means. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe an example is needed. Let's imagine that you and an editor named Joe Blow are editing a controversial article. Let's imagine then, that during the time you are editing this article, you get really mad about Joe Blow. As you cannot make a personal attack in Wikipedia because it is against policy, you then proceed post in your personal blog that "Wikipedia editor Joe Blow, is an asshole, a nazi, and a brainwashed idiot". Let's also assume that you say in the same blog: "Joe Blow, is actually Peter Stanley from Tallahase, Florida". Let's also imagine that you also say in your blog, "I edit in Wikipedia under the username "Another ex-premie"". Then you come back to continue editing that article, and continue interacting with Joe Blow, expecting WP:AGF and expecting to be considered a respected member of this community. Can you see now the problem and the need for this extension to policy? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I know you were addressing a particular question of mine concerning the anonymous website, but the way you've addressed it doesn't fit in with the guideline/policy you proposed (item 3 and 4). There are some editors who are attacked by real name with personal information about them, therefore, the link would also have be removed from all the Prem Rawt article(s) should this guideline be implemented.
If someone who edits an article frequently throws Wiki rules at other editors in a demanding way, then doesn't follow the rules themselves, they also come off as disingenuous, especially when the persons being bossed around are discussing the article's contents, not that particular editor. The assumption is that editors are adults, not grade-school kids, and people generally don't like being bossed around so much. (That's what "little hitler" means, btw, it's a figure of speech meaning someone is excessively bossy or "dictatorial;" it is not calling someone a Nazi.) It might also be more comfortable and more clear for all concerned if a person with this habit refrains from frequently demanding that others take the conversation to USENET or other forums. Otherwise, one ought not complain when when those editors do that. One cannot have one's cake and eat it too, after all. I continue to disagree with proposed extension because it's impossible to control what others think, do, or say, and one certainly cannot imagine why one would want to! Thanks.Another Ex-Premie 14:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Jossi, your example advocates policing the internet and punishing people for conduct outside of Wikipedia. I cannot possibly be held accountable to you or others for what I do off Wikipedia, nor should I be punished for exercising freedom of speech on the internet, however vehement I may be, say on a blog, or the like. --Knucmo2 18:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My changes

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

These changes are spot on. You managed to capture the spirit of it better than I ever could. English being my third language, I am always appreciative of those that can express a concept in that language so fluently and succinctly. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 23:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support.

This extension of the policy has my full support, especially in light of certain comments on a certain website.--Sean Black (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this too. Linking to a personal attack with the intent to harass is the same as making a personal attack. -Will Beback 23:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I, too, rather like it.
James F. (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I partially opppose. See section oppose Andries 20:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this extension is really useful. BTW, V. Z. can serve as very good/bad example in this disscussion. After he learned this extension exists, he immediatelly wrote an article on his blog about it in Czech. In that article he calls supporters of this extension fascists (see wikipedie.blogspot.com/2006/05/faist-na-en.html).
After -jkb- reverted his edits in Wikipedia:No personal attacks, he published another article where he speculates about -jkb-'s past and claims he was an agent of the former Czech political police, see wikipedie.blogspot.com/2006/05/byl-jan-koukal-konfidentem-stb.html.
It is hard to believe people can colaborate on this project and simultanously be dehonested on external sites due to their activity on wikipedia. --Radouch 16:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Typical Radouch's plain lie. Radouch hates me from the reasons I don't know, even it was me who made him a sysop. I would like to ask everybody: Do you know any fascist régime with freedom of speech? Do you know any democracy without freedom of speech? I deny that I wrote an article about -jkb-. Being a pimp of genocidal régime is not Wikipedian activity, but rather criminal activity. -- V. Z. 18:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not want to comment V. Z.'s claims about my hate and so on. The article about -jkb- wrote V. Z. aka Guy Peters (or somebody has stollen his account at that blog). There are no other concrete claims concerning my "lies".
Freedom of speech is one thing, right to edit wikipedia another. If you use your right of free spech in certain ways, you can quickly loose your right to edit wikipedia (no personal attacks and so on). --Radouch 18:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Correct, you will be punished if you do such a thing on wikipedia. But that is not what is at stake. The supporters of this policy think that people do have a right to not be offended, and expect to curb other's freedoms outside of Wikipedia, which I disagree with. I do not contest that personal attacks on Wikipedia should lead to either condemnation, and if they are bad enough, then perhaps a block. But Wikipedia has no jurisdiction beyond its boundaries. --Knucmo2 19:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
First, I am really glad I can disscuss this with somebody not connected to the Czech wikipedia. I understand your point of view but I must disagree. I see wikipedia as a common project. It is difficult to imagine that people can sucessfully and peacefully collaborate if some member or members of the team constantly publicly attack others - even if it takes place outside wikipedia. Above I gave a real example. Would you like to collaborate with a person who publicly calls you fascist? I cannot imagine that in my company some colleague could make such public attacks against another and remain our employee.
Wikipedia certainly has no jurisdiction outside itself. But we can say: well, you can attack wikipedia or other wikipedians on your blog, we cannot and do not want to stop it. But we do not want you to contribute to wikipedia because it poisones the atmospere here.
Another thing is some attacks outside wikipedia can be used to force wikipedians not to oppose their author - if they do they will be publicly dehonested on his blog e. g. --Radouch 19:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply Radouch. I might not work with any editor that called me a fascist, but this not about Vit, although the example may be germane. The crux here, is that I can choose whether to work with the editor or not, on Wikipedia. And so I should; yes, for we should be working together irrespective of our divisions. Suppose you did block an editor who called me a fascist on his blog, why should the community impinge on his freedom of expression to stop him from contributing? The idea that attacks on Wikipedian editors damage the overall good being aimed at is fallacious thinking; namely, the fallacy of composition. The overall good is not comprehensible except in the good of its members, so basically, all you have as a list of the "overall aim or good" is goods attached to the members. Therefore, goods only belong to individuals, and none belong to a group or collective, thus being a fallacy to ascribe a list of goods or a good to a group.
But, my work on Wikipedia here really has no concern with what goes on in my private life, even if a user called me a rapist or a criminal or whatever on a blog. Such insults are nothing more than epithets, and as such, they have that right to expression without fear of reprisals. 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. As for your analogy at work, that is different, as the owner of private property has the right to determine what is said upon his property, and he can throw out anyone who is trespassing or causing a nuisance. As for forcing people to not oppose the author, that should be decided by each individual Wikipedian what they shall do as regards the editor, only as regards On-Wiki material, though. That it poisons the atmosphere here is doubtful, on-Wiki attacks are just as likely to poison the atmosphere (if not more so) than Off-Wiki ones. But a "poisonous atmosphere" is what the outside world is, especially with free speech, and people do not have the right to expect not to be offended (Frank Zappa's records would be in the bin, if it were). What people think of editors on Wikipedia as documented on their web pages is not less likely to be true than what other editors think of the abusive editor, just because it is abusive. If the problem is On-Wiki, fine, block the user as per the spirit of the blocking policy, but Off-Wiki, no - that is "quite a leap of logic" as Strom says. --Knucmo2 23:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
And thanks for your reply, Knucmo2. I studied it for some time (and I learned some new English words and phrases, thanks :-) ). My view is less theoretically based than yours one I have to admit. If you will feel I omitted some your arguments, please repeat them.
First, I would like to stress this: If I speak about attacks outside wikipedia, I mean public attacks concerning wikipedia. If a man A hates a man B and both become editors, wikipediaens will not solve their relationship.
Second: I generally agree wikipedia or the community around it cannot limit freedom of speech and act of its editors. I would be quite strongly against a hypothetical idea to ban e. g. criminals, terrorists, rapists etc from editing wikipedia.
Third: Let us not speak about cases of some physical threats and so on, it is certainly a matter for the police. Let us speak about public defamations outside wikipedia concerning somebody's activity on wikipedia.
You say I can choose whether to work with the editor or not. If you mean I can work on other topics (I am not sure I understand you correctly) you are not right I am afraid (what if I just want to work on some article or topic which the abusive editor wants to work on too?). What is even more important: the abusive editor can in this way force his opponents to leave this article to him and his POV.
You say a company is a different thing. Yes, but in opposite way. You get salary and your boss can say you "Well, it is not good your colleague behaves this way. But our company needs him and needs you. You will get more money to remain here with him." People contribute to the wikipedia for free. Certainly, in free society and in time of internet they cannot expect to be immune to attacks. But they can expect this behaviour will not be tolerated by the community about the project.
Finally: you say you have nothing against punishing such attacks if they are made inside wikipedia. Why there is a policy against such attacks? I suppose the reason is to protect non-abusive editors and prevent their leaving. (Do we want wikipedia to be the domain of abusive editors and editors who do not care about defamation?) And are public attacks made outside wikipedia able to make the same damage as attacks inside? In my POV yes. I could understand (understand, not support) opposition against such policy inside and outside wikipedia. I can hardly understand reasons why should we strictly distinguish attacks made inside and outside (public attacks, I repeat). --Radouch 18:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

I think this proposal is utopian. What is next, that you cannot make personal attacks on Wikipedia editors if you meet him or her in the street? If this extension is accepted then I will invite many people who are defamed outside Wikipedia by an editor to come here. It may be a good way to stop personal attacks both inside and outside Wikipedia. Andries 20:07, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, If I ever meet you in person, Andries, I would expect that as a fellow editor, you would treat me with civility and with respect. Wikipedia is first and foremost an online encyclopedia, and as a means to that end, a community. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think it is completely unrealistic to expect that Wikipedia will make contributors outside of Wikipedia behave differently. Andries 21:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


I think that personal attacks made outside of Wikipedia should only be a a concern if the webpage is linked to in Wikipedia. The contributor who links to it is the one who comments the offense, not the one who is making the attack outside of Wikipedia. Making an expansion that encompasses more is utopian and will create an enormous overload of complaints. Andries 20:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
So, what you are saying Andries, that it will be OK for your to attack me personally by name in your blog, webpage or a public discussion forum, using your name, and then expect me to respect you in talk pages, assume good faith, and engage you as a fellow Wikipedian, as if you did not make these attacks? Is that what you are saying, Andries? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I am not saying that it is okay. I am only saying that there are limits to the problems that Wikipedia can and should address. Andries 21:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree. But supporting this extension of policy is easily enforceable and sends a loud and clear message to editors that are currently using this subterfuge to bypass policy. ˜ jossi ˜ t • @ 22:15, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Policies should not be used to send moral messages. Policies are used protect against vandalism and violations *at* Wikipedia, and nowhere elsewhere. Policies should not be used to reflect the moralistic views of those who seek to impose majority rule. Just because there is no policy on it that does not mean it is endorsed. --Knucmo2 12:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
In anticipation of the acceptance of this proposal I have already requested several people who are outside Wikipedia defamed by a person who is also a Wikipedia editor to become Wikipedia editors I wrote them that Wikipedia will probably forbid such personal attacks made outside Wikipedia and they would like to use this Wikipedia policy to stop the personal attacks made against them. Can you see now why this proposal is utopian? Andries 17:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this extension and suggest a vote on it (unless, by the time of my post, it has been accepted. Be that as it may, I am advancing an objection regardless as no policy is set in concrete). It is not in the business of Wikipedia to impose responsibilities on Wikipedia outside the sphere of Wikipedia, since that is not its business. What's more, it tries to make people responsible to the Wikipedia community for their actions. From where does this arbitrary postulate derive its authority? The answer is self-evident; here. People should be responsible for themselves and for their own actions. There is no medieval sense of duty and responsibility here, nor should there be. --Knucmo2 12:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I also oppose this, and oppose it being listed on the NPA page as policy anyway. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 16:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
  • No. This will be used to silence and bully Wikipedia critics. If your feelings are hurt by off-site material, simply don't read it. --Ryan Delaney talk 15:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I like this idea, but how are we going to verify if the person(s) making personal attacks outside of WP has a WP account? --TAMIL 02:13, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There's the rub. Of course, we just can't in every instance. However, for as many that deny being some internet identity making attacks, there will be those that verify it themselves, and those that give it away through IPs or whatever the case may be, and even those that we can reasonably associate, like sockpuppets, through behavior, linking and/or exact quoting being major giveaways. I suppose that's the best we can do, but it's still an improvement, no? Dmcdevit•t 02:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
The way I see this is that the threshold for participating in this project is purposely very low: anyone can edit articles. But there are a few caveats, and these are the project's policies, one of which is no personal attacks. By stating the community's rejection of personal attacks by editors of Wikipedia against fellow editors, on or off wiki, we are making the community's views in this matter loud and clear. So, this extension does two things: (a) Forewarning new editors of unacceptable behavior; and (b) providing a way to penalize those editors that purposefully and shamelessly attempt to bypass WP:NPA by posting their attacks off-wiki and identifying themselves and the editors they attack. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 04:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this policy extension. However because of the difficulty in establishing identity across different websites, the focus should be on behavior on Wikipedia. The concept of "making a personal attack" should be extended to include "linking to a personal attack." -Will Beback 23:51, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, as well as extending NPA remedies to these editors that use off-Wiki to make personal attacks against other editors, shamelessly with the intention to bypass this policy. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Nothing special about where a PA happens.

I agree with the spirit of this proposal, though I wonder if a whole paragraph is needed. Might it suffice to add somewhere a sentance saying something like "To the maximum extent possible, a personal attack made outside wikipedia should be handled in extactly the same way it would be handled if it had been made on a users' own talk page." Regards, Ben Aveling 14:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rephrase

"In exceptional circumstances, personal attacks made outside of the Wikipedia website may be treated as if they were made here."

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

[edit] No consensus

Having read all the disscusion, I can sum up:

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

[edit] Pro-Extension

  1. Jossi
  2. Dmcdevit
  3. SlimVirgin
  4. Sean Black
  5. Will Beback
  6. TML1988
  7. Ben Aveling
  8. Stevage
  9. James F.
  10. Radouch

[edit] Contra-Extension

  1. Rob
  2. Another Ex-Premie
  3. Andries
  4. Knucmo2
  5. badlydrawnjeff
  6. V. Z.
  7. Strom

In that case no one is allowed to change the policy. -- V. Z. 13:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A new quick opinion poll

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

[edit] Oops, nevermind

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