Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Undid revision 1307477163 by 2600:6C51:493F:9CEE:1C31:FF8:9064:96C (talk) please find a social media website
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Policy-talk}}
==Wikipedians opinions regarding the "no personal attacks" rule==
{{Warning|To report other users making personal attacks, please go to [[Wikipedia:AN/I]].}}
===Supporters===
{{User:MiszaBot/config
* [[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] thinks that people who try to influence others by calling them names should be ashamed of themselves! and people who try to change people by shaming them are idiots! (sarcasm intentional)
|maxarchivesize = 500K
* [[user:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]],
|minthreadsleft = 5
* [[user:Bryan Derksen|Bryan Derksen]],
|counter = 14
* [[user:maveric149|maveric149]],
|algo = old(30d)
* [[user:Chuck Smith|Chuck Smith]],
|archive = Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive %(counter)d
* [[user:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] (with [http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2002-April/001885.html the exception of naming and shaming trolls], which I ''highly'' recommend you [http://www.google.com/search?q=trolls+and+trolling read about]; in almost all other cases, I very strongly oppose anything that can be construed as "personal attack"),
}}
* [[user:JHK|JHK]]
{{archives|age=30|bot=MiszaBot II|prefix={{FULLPAGENAME}}|1=
* [[user:Eclecticology|Eclecticology]] (essential for maintaining peace in the family)
{{/Archive index}}
* [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] (especially on talk pages on articles - user talk pages don't matter as much)
*See also the talk pages of the subpages
* [[User:Fennec|Fennec]] (in a fairly broad manner)
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixindex&from=No+personal+attacks&namespace=4 current list of subpages]
* [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] (I agree with Larry Sanger)
*[[Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Death threats]]
* [[User:Bcorr|BCorr]]<font color=chartreuse>|</font>[[User talk:Bcorr|&#1041;&#1088;&#1072;&#1081;&#1077;&#1085;]] (I also agree with Larry Sanger)
*[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Extension]]
* [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] (though I don't support other-party enforcement of such a rule, enforce the rule upon yourself, not others)
}}
*[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] (I don't even support Larry Sanger's exception. Calling somebody a troll is a personal attack like any other, and we've reduced the word to near-meaninglessness. Identify and criticize the behavior that makes someone a "troll", don't just call them names.)
*[[User:Zenogantner|zeno]] (I share Michael Snow's view on calling people trolls)
*[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] I agree, "troll" is a personal attack
*[[User:Gracefool|gracefool]] (agrees with Michael Snow)
*[[User:TheCustomOfLife|Mike H]] If you have a grievance with another contributor, take it up on e-mail if need be.
*[[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 19:08, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
* [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 19:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC) personal attacks never help. But see below.
*[[User:Arno|Arno]] 10:07, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC). Personal atatcks are inexcusable, period.
*[[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 06:32, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC) but how?


== If a person says they are a Nazi, or hate x ethnic/religious group, do we have to just let that pass? ==
===Opponents===
* [[user:Lee Daniel Crocker|Lee Daniel Crocker]] (see below),
* 24 (see below),
* [[user:JHK|JHK]] (because I think there might be cases where Lee is right, and believe strongly in peer pressure and shame culture.)
* [[user:netesq|NetEsq]] (concurring with Lee Daniel Crocker - see below)


Is there really no line that if crossed allows editors to dismiss etc their views? [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
===Other===
Stuck between support and opposition:
* [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 08:53, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC) (see below)


:Methinks you want to read [[Wikipedia:No Nazis]]; while only an essay, it has noticeable support among editors.--[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
=== move personal debates to e-mail? ===
::@[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] I came here from there as NPA is being quoted on the talk page with someone saying “ This essay is a violation of [[Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks]], which explicitly states that comparing editors to Nazis or criticizing them on the basis of their political affiliations is unacceptable. Existing conduct policy is sufficient to keep most ideologically motivated editors off the project.” [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
::: That last sentence is certainly true, thank goodness. 99%+ of editors are not Nazis. However there are thousands of us editors, which means, by simple math, that every so often we find a few that are. Its a useful and widely supported essay and if someone disagrees they may nominate it for deletion and see if that is true. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 18:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
::::@[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] Um, I’m not being clear I guess. I’m questioning the wording of NPA. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 09:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
::::: Eh. No Nazis says "If you're a Nazi, you're probably going to get blocked". It doesn't say "everyone is allowed to call people they're in arguments with Nazis", which is what NPA forbids, so they aren't really contradictory. Note that NPA does not say "being a Nazi and/or expressing Nazi views is OK".
::::: As to your original question, I would not recommend looking for a reason to dismiss people's views. If X is participating in a discussion with you, either address their views, or go to an administrator and have them blocked, but the middle ground of "We think X's views are despicable, but we can't convince an administrator or the community that they are blockworthy, so we will let them edit but dismiss anything they say forever" is not good for anyone. We don't want to have shunned non-persons that everyone is supposed to ignore editing the Wikipedia. If they are really so despicable that all their views should be dismissed, we should ban them, if not, we should treat them like real people. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 14:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::I'm not trying to do that at all. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 07:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::: Good to hear. Especially since I think you actually have a mop, right? So, um. I feel like I'm trying to explain fractions to my Math professor - you probably understand all this stuff better than I do, right? So ... um? What's the problem? Because some less than clueful person is making a fuss on the No Nazis talk page? Er - that's not really a reason to change any phrasing on NPA, right? We just nicely explain to them that just because NPA says you shouldn't ''call'' people Nazis, doesn't mean that if they are ''actually'' behaving like Nazis that's a good thing. We similarly shouldn't randomly ''call'' people murderers, but if we see an actual person being murdered, we should darn well do something about it. --[[User:GRuban|GRuban]] ([[User talk:GRuban|talk]]) 15:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Agreed. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 18:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
::@[[User:Doug Weller|Doug Weller]] [[Special:Contributions/2409:408A:2D32:B323:0:0:9E4A:1806|2409:408A:2D32:B323:0:0:9E4A:1806]] ([[User talk:2409:408A:2D32:B323:0:0:9E4A:1806|talk]]) 00:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
:I agree, as written, it's talking about offensively and without basis comparing someone to Nazis - not about people who themselves show up and say Nazi things. '''[[User:Andrevan|Andre]]'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">[[User_talk:Andrevan|🚐]]</span> 02:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


:Doug, I presume you are referring to this comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_Nazis&diff=1109403120&oldid=1109061613]. I can see their point. I'm not sure if I agree or if I think context matters but they aren't all together wrong. The essay, right or wrong, says that you are acting like a Nazi if you do XYZ. If someone says "based on your behavior of XYorZ, NONAZI may apply to you". Well that is in a round about way, comparing the person to a Nazi. But I can also see how saying, "you have traits similar to" is not the same thing as saying "you are". Someone who is Norwegian and presumably Arian has ethnic traits similar to Nazis (at least their ideals) but that comparison alone is far from making them any kind of Nazi. Given the title of the essay I do see how saying the essay applies to an editor would imply they are a Nazi so I see the point. I think this would be especially problematic if say the editor were from part of the world that suffered under Nazi occupation even if the editor themselves had nationalistic attitudes. Consider if we had an editor with Polish nationalist views but who lost family to the Nazi occupation. Yeah, it's a constructed example but in the correct circumstances I can see the concern. That said, I can also see how people might feel that an editor is already over the line if people are suggesting NONAZIs applies to them... assuming it reasonably does. [[User:Springee|Springee]] ([[User talk:Springee|talk]]) 15:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Supporters of the "move personal debates to e-mail" rule include:
::Sorry, I really don't have time for this and no interest at the moment. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 16:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
* [[user:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]
* [[User:TheCustomOfLife|Mike H]] 19:37, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)


==Recurring attacks==
Opponents of this rule include:
:Is there a reason, possibly some archived discussion, concerning including or excluding {{see also|Wikipedia:Harassment}} --- under the section title?
* 24 (strongly, either the "unpleasantness" is irrelevant to wiki or it is vital to wiki - in the former case cut it out, in the latter case everyone must hear it out because it probably isn't "personal" but illustrates an ideology or cosmology or ethics dispute)
:The Wikipedia community definition of "recurring (repeated) attacks" is {{tq|a pattern of repeated [[Wikipedia:Civility#Identifying incivility|offensive behavior]] that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons}}, so it would seem uncontroversial. -- [[User:Otr500|Otr500]] ([[User talk:Otr500|talk]]) 17:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


== Do we differentiate between direct and indirect personal attacks? ==
== Discussion ==


On the [[Talk:Donald Trump]] page, an IP user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1228187781 said this]:
If calling a troll a troll or pointing out someone's statements to judge their credibility helps produce better articles, then an occasional personal attack is warranted, as long as it serves our goal. Obviously physical threats are out of place, as are impugning someone's race, gender, nationality, etc., but ''character'' and ''credibility'' are fair game. Just blindly calling someone an idiot without explanation or reason serves no purpose, but even those should be judged case-by-case. All "zero tolerance" rules are bad; human beings should exercise judgment, and not be afraid to stand behind those judgments. -- [[user:Lee Daniel Crocker|Lee Daniel Crocker]]
{{tq|My God, California could fall into the sea tomorrow and you people would oppose adding "submerged" to the opening sentence because "recency" and "undue weight" and "California's more notable for other things than being underwater" and "Wikipedia isn't a newspaper". It's obnoxious. Stop it. You're embarrassing yourselves.}}
In my mind, this is simply a thinly-veiled personal attack, disguised as an indictment on a larger group. But I'm not sure.
#Would the same exact phrase, referring to one person instead of a wider group, be considered a personal attack, or even a borderline personal attack?
#In general, does referring to a group as a method to personally attack an individual constitute a personal attack?
#Is this codified in policy somewhere that I am unaware of?
Thanks. [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 01:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
:Who cares if it's documented somewhere? When it comes down it, we have to rely on some commonsense and the comment above is not a personal attack. If commentary like that was frequent without compensating positive contributions, the author might be sanctioned. But a couple of statements like that are just part of a robust exchange. Either ignore or briefly explain whatever the issue is. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 02:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
::My question was just a general question about policy, more than an actual want to sanction the IP. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the user makes comments like these frequently.
::Why don't you consider this a personal attack? Also, I don't get what positive contributions have to do with it; can you explain? [[User:Cessaune|<span style="color:#f70a90">Cessaune</span>]] [[User talk:Cessaune|'''<span style="color:#000000"><nowiki>[</nowiki>talk<nowiki>]</nowiki></span>''']] 02:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


== Adding "language" to the list of protected characteristics ==
:''I concur with Lee Daniel Crocker on this issue, and I offer my own thoughts here as a supplement. An absolute prohibition on personal attacks would violate the proposed [[Wikipedia:ignore all rules|ignore all rules]] rule and would more than likely give rise to a culture of forced politeness, hypocrisy, and passive aggressive behavior. The work is the important thing, and suffering personal attacks is an inescapable part of holding one's work up to the scrutiny of one's peers. On this note, the best way to deal with unprovoked and/or unfair personal attacks is to ignore them and focus on the work. However, the decision to stand down from a confrontation should be left to the sound discretion of the individuals involved in such a confrontation.--[[user:netesq|NetEsq]]''


@[[User:Remsense|Remsense]] I have attempted to add "language" to the list of protected characteristics, which you have reverted. Could you please elaborate on your reasoning? [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 07:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
24 - not only is such a rule exteremly unlikely to be fairly administered by a clique, but frankly, someone committed to a particular approach to editing or collaborating or not is not going to give a damn about "shaming" or even "outing" (much more serious). Handing over banning-power to be used again people who simply offend others as part of a two-way semi-abusive discourse is a sure route to [[groupthink]] - and the end of any serious pretense of the project to "neutrality". That said, ad hominem attack generally contributes little to discourse as people defend their positions reactively, and anonymous parties with little at stake except a disposable identity should be relatively more conservative about such tactics than those who are using the same names that are attached to their bodies. However, those gloves should come off the instant someone is "outing" or "framing" anybody, i.e. if someone tells me I'm Mikhail Gorbachev and should "know better", then they deserve intense ad hominem attack in return from infinite anonymous parties until they learn not to "out". Those who wish to put their own real-body names up in a one on one mud wrestling competition with disposable anons (IP numbers, pseudonyms) who might as well be programs or many people posing as the same character, are not going to survive this millennium anyway, so let's not bother pretending that their opinion can matter. Also, there are many who consider this process, or the role of the "troll", to be constructive and necessary, like the "devil's advocate" or "shaitan" or "defense attorney" or "opposition leader" or "Supreme Court minority opinion author", to reduce [[groupthink]] and identify values divisions across which people cannot cooperate constructively anyway, and can only ever agree to just disagree. I'm confident that the record shows that I never attacked or insulted anyone who didn't attack or insult me first - if they object to getting the diseased end of the stick thereafter, well, tough. Finally, let's not pretend that those ideological or ethnic conflicts in the "real world" that people are dying and killing for, are going to lead to anything less than verbal or emotional simulacra of violence here. Blunt brutal argument between Arabs and Israelis, Communists and Capitalists, Globalists and Localists, Greens and Golfers, Gollums and Gandalfs, is the only way we're going to get to this "NPOV" God that some here want to worship - or, for that matter, talking people out so they come at least to an exhausted truce.
:{{u|NicolausPrime}}, if I say to another editor: "Your English language skills are too weak to edit the English Wikipedia, and I recommend that you edit the Wikipedia in the language you speak best", is that a personal attack? [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 07:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::If there was evidence that this has been resulting in unintentional disruptive editing, then my understanding would be that your example would be governed by [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]] and not by this policy. And I don't think this example would constitute {{tq|Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases}} by the cultural standards present on Wikipedia.
::Now, one may claim that neither of these arguments is very strong. But I don't think this policy is interpreted with this level of literalness either. For example, if someone was detected inserting content whitewashing Holocaust or increasing visibility of neo-Nazi activists, then citing the [[WP:NONAZIS]] essay to call for a rightful ban could run afoul of a literal and scrupulous reading of the following prohibitions: {{tq|Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing}} and {{tq|Comparing editors to Nazis}}. [[User:NicolausPrime|NicolausPrime]] ([[User talk:NicolausPrime|talk]]) 08:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
:No, I can't beyond that it seems unnecessary. Your justification was "completeness", which is not sufficient in my mind. To me, you would need to articulate an actual concrete reason for the addition. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 07:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::To be clear, the list is explicitly non-exhaustive ({{xt|etc.}}), so there really has to be a positive argument for explicit mention of any given item. To be blunt, this seems potentially like a preoccupation that is wholly hypothetical on your part. Does this happen? Moreover, if there is a linguistic discrimination problem in the discourse on here, surely it should be profiled and discussed first? <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;‥&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 07:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)


== Establishing a no personal attacks noticeboard ==
----
I, [[User:Ed Poor]], generally believe that personal attacks aren't going to improve the Wikipedia. In the few debates I've followed in which participants spill a substantial amount of ink questioning each other's integrity, intelligence, and (probably) taste in clothes, I've noticed that no fruitful plans tend to develop for the improvement of the article under consideration.


There are noticeboards for original research, NPOV, COI, dispute resolution, spam, vandalism etc. but there is no noticeboard for personal attacks, although this topic is very important and cannot be ignored. A noticeboard for personal attacks should be established. [[User:RaschenTechner|RaschenTechner]] ([[User talk:RaschenTechner|talk]]) 17:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Occasionally, I myself have been such a participant, and I judge the exercise to be a waste of time for all concerned. Now, I might try to lighten the gloom with a wisecrack (as in "my dear lab rat"), but since other parties have informed me regally that "We are not amused", this leaves me no other recourse: I'm going to have to start writing politely! [[user:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]], Wednesday, April 17, 2002


:Usually, personal attacks are reported at ANI, but many other things could be reported here, so I would suggest establishing a noticeboard for NPA. [[User:RaschenTechner|RaschenTechner]] ([[User talk:RaschenTechner|talk]]) 17:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
----
== "[[:Wikipedia:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
I just wanted to explain a little of the background behind the proposed e-mail rule.
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]

The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NO_PERSONAL_ATTACKS&redirect=no Wikipedia:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 18#Wikipedia namespace shortcuts with spaces}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:SeaHaircutSoilReplace|<span style="color:#FF0000;">Sea</span><span style="color:#FF8000;">Haircut</span>]][[User talk:SeaHaircutSoilReplace|<span style="color:#008000;">Soil</span><span style="color:#0000FF;">Replace</span>]] 19:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
I have participated in more unpleasant exchanges here on Wikipedia than I care to count. There are almost always good grounds for these exchanges--people who debate things here are generally very intelligent and their opinions are backed by substantial reasoning. But, as happens almost everywhere else on the Internet, harsh feelings, often or usually based in misunderstandings and incomplete communication, tend to spoil the thing. I ''really'' don't want Wikipedia to become another debate forum or flame-fest. I think we will work best if we avoid all unnecessary controversy, and if we ''must'' engage in controversy, that we practice [[wikipetiquette]] as far as we are able.

I think it would be great if we all made it a habit of saying, when appropriate, "Hey, this is getting a little too unpleasant for Wikipedia, which is supposed to be a nice place focused on creating an encyclopedia. I'll write you privately. (Or: My e-mail address is [email protected]. Could you write me, please, or post your address, so we can resolve this amicably in private?)

If more of us did this, I think Wikipedia could become a much more pleasant place to work on this worthy project. Please, let's not let such a great project be slowed down by personal difficulties. I really do think we can avoid that. --[[Larry Sanger]]

----

I think that sounds preferable to the current way (making a public spectacle, people taking sides, slinging barbs and arrows ... seems too much like it belongs in a colosseum, most of the time). But I should say I have no problem at all ''debating'' things in wikipedia, only I'd prefer it go private if it becomes a bit personal or disrespectful. And of course everyone likes to see the happy reconciliation. :-) --[[user:Koyaanis Qatsi|Koyaanis Qatsi]]

Note being a net techie I don't know how hard this would be to set up, but what about a "usenet" group? Alt.pedia.debate (not alt.wikipedia to prevent it turning up in search engines). Then we could legitimately say "take it to usenet". Just a thought - MB

:Starting a group in the traditional 'Big 8' hierarchy involves a long, fussy procedure; starting one in the alt hierarchy is easy but getting news servers to carry it is not so easy. I don't think it's appropriate for a world-distributable newsgroup, anyway. It may be possible to set up a newsgroup on the Nupedia server and have it archived by Nupedia (not quite a 'private' newsgroup, but not fully public - keep Google out of it). Would a mailing list be a good 'middle ground' between fully public discussion and private email? -- Claudine

----

What about ageism? In [[talk:Libertarian socialism]] [[user:Len|Len]] said that another person is "obviously a college student" and called him or her "son" (this is also a minor form of sexism, since it makes assumptions about another's gender). This is clearly a personal attack.
[[User:Bpt|bpt]] 02:27 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

:''That is an excellent example of a situation where a prohibition against personal attacks would chill spirited debate. Moreover, those who cry foul are often the passive aggressors. -- [[User:Netesq|NetEsq]] 05:28 May 3, 2003 (UTC)''

----

== A proposed revision ==

I'd like to propose a revision to the article (see below for suggested text). My comments:

I think we ought to be able to draw a "red line" where personal abuse is concerned. There's an important principle that we need to recognise here: we will only get good articles if we have a good community generating them. We will only get (and keep) a good community if people feel that they can contribute without being abused or harrassed. The only way we can ensure that is if we take a firm line on personal abuse.

In the following draft, I've proposed an absolute rule prohibiting "racial, sexual, religious or ethnic epithets" and profanity directed against other contributors. I recognise that it isn't always easy to agree on whether a user is a troll. However, I think it ''is'' possible to identify epithets and their use ought to be a pretty good indicator of the kind of user who will drive away the well-behaved contributors. It's regrettable that a "red line" is needed at all, but frankly, if personal abuse is tolerated it will end up driving away the honest users and turning Wikipedia into a slum dominated by sociopaths and fanatics. I've seen it happen before to online communities which don't enforce some sort of minimum standards, and I'd hate to see it happen here.

Comments welcomed... -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 23:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

:No personal attacks on the Wikipedia, period.

:Contributors might not agree on an article. They might have fundamental differences in real life too: maybe they come from opposing communities. On Wikipedia, '''everyone is part of the same community''' - you are all [[Wikipedians]]. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Nobody likes to be abused. Also, do not forget that disputes carried on in talk pages are publicly accessible to everyone, Wikipedians and public alike. The way in which you conduct yourself on Wikipedia is visible to everyone on the Internet.

:Wikipedians should bear in mind the following guidelines:

:* Always try to respect the views of other contributors. This does ''not'' mean that you have to agree with them; just agree to disagree.
:* Disagree on the basis of the facts, not on the character of the other party. A view is not invalid solely because it is expressed by a Republican / African-American / woman / whatever.
:* If a debate threatens to become personal, confer about the problem in e-mail. You may wish to consult [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution]] to see how other Wikipedians can help you to resolve a dispute.
:* You may well regard the other party's views as being on the fringe, or cranky. This may well be so, but do not forget that Wikipedia is aiming for a [[NPOV|neutral point of view]]. You are not trying to write a "single version of the truth". Unconventional viewpoints need to be accommodated as well, even if you disagree with them. The golden rule is: '''be tolerant'''.

:In the interests of preserving an unthreatening atmosphere for contributors, Wikipedia enforces an absolute ban on abusive slurs and language being directed against other contributors. Violating this rule can and will result in the offending user being banned. Specific types of slur covered by this ban include but are not limited to the following:

:* Racial, sexual, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor.
:* Profanity directed against another contributor (e.g. calling another contributor a "stupid piece of shit").

:There is no excuse for such attacks on other contributors; the key issue is the content of the articles, not the character of the person writing them. Users who direct epithets against contributors can expect to be banned.

Interesting. I would rather say something like "violating this rule will result in the offending comments being deleted, edited for common courtesy, or returned to your user talk page. Repeated violations of this rule may result in further sanctions".

I like that because ''anyone'' can delete offensive comments, so this means the problem is solved at the lowest level. If we tell people that we will solve a particular problem with a ban, this tends to be the cue for incessent whinging. I would rather empower users to fix problems themselves, rather than expecting them to come cap in hand to some "authority" figure who will pronounce, Oracle-like, on the Truth of the matter. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 23:51, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I generally agree with this, but the question is: if we are banning "attacks" what is the threshhold of "attack"?
* Does indicating that someone has vandalized a page constitute an attack? "Vandal" is usually seen as an insult, but we need a way to discuss this.
* Does calling someone a "leftist" or a "rightist" constitute an attack? From some people, those words can clearly be insults (especially when applied to someone who doesn't see him- or herself as such). In other cases, they may be very useful shorthands to identify the two sides in a disagreement over a politically controversial subject.
* Is it a personal attack to claim of a certain contributor that all of his or her edits appear to be for the purpose of affecting the political slants of articles? How about for the purpose of disseminating a pet theory as widely as possible throughout wikipedia, regardless of its appropriateness to the article topics? How about outright trolling?
* Above all, is this a matter of civility of language (I can live with that, happily) or of certain topics being off-limits (I'm far less comfortable with that). It is a reality (if not a happy one) that sometimes people have bad motives. If it is off limits for standards-abiding wikipedians to question someone's motives -- even gently and relatively politely -- then we are creating an unfair disadvantage for the unethical and malevolently motivated. Think of the behavior of the Robert Mitchum character in the first half of the classic ''film noir'' "Cape Fear". -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] 08:53, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rude personal attacks do occur. I've been subject to them. I've seen others subject to them. Since there's nothing I or anyone can mostly do about it (other than accept them), obviously they are ''acceptable'' on Wikipedia. A rule against them should either be enforced (with an indicated penalty) or the supposed rule against personal attacks should be downgraded to simple advice.
In any case an intelligent attacker can be just as personal and just as aggressive and just as offensive by waffle wording. Instead of saying "You are anti-Semitic", the editor can say "What you are saying sounds anti-Semitic to me." Instead of saying "You are an ignorant fuckhead!", the editor can say "As I see it, you have not researched this topic sufficiently and are overreacting in a non-constructive way based on material you have unfortunately been exposed to!" They really mean the same thing, and may, depending on the circumstances, be true or false (or partly true). Attacks of this kind are no less annoying (when perceived as untrue) then when presented more obviously. Indeed, when untrue and presented in this way they may be far more annoying. Vicious civility is an attack technique.
I would like to see Martin follow up on how he would "empower" users to deal with this and other annoyances. Simply removing crude personal attacks seems to protect the attacker, not the attacked, cleaning up the attacker's record, hiding what has occurred. Currently there seems to be a tendency for some to suggest that if a user cannot stand up to attacks, the user should walk away. Many do. Away from Wikipedia. [[User:Jallan|jallan]] 15:14, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:From above, "A rule against them should either be enforced (with an indicated penalty) or the supposed rule against personal attacks should be downgraded to simple advice." The no personal attacks rule has been one of the most frequently cited Wikipedia policies used by the Arbitration Committee. Violations have resulted in bans of up to a year in extreme cases. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 16:25, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

::That is because it is one for very few supposed rules outside of vandalism on which any kind of action is ever taken by anyone empowered to take action, though only after very much consideration. So the current de facto rule seems to be:
::<blockquote>Too many personal attacks against too many people are unacceptable when officially complained about. But used in moderation, personal attacks are quite a useful technique for getting people off what you have taken to be your own turf and away from you to some other part of Wikipedia, somewhere else where they can edit in peace without having to deal with you, or off Wikipedia altogether. If you are called to account, claim you were baited. But even if you don't, others will defend your actions for that reason in any case, pointing out that it takes two to fight and all that and that the person raped must have done something wrong to bring on the attack. Your victim obviously didn't try hard enough. You have also made good edits.</blockquote>
::There is general enforcement of rules against vandalism. There is no general enforcement of the rule against personal attacks. If personal attacks ''should'' be ''totally'' unacceptable, then make them ''totally'' unacceptable by authorizing sysops to termporarily block anyone who makes a personal attack just as they would block vandalism (or people making legal threats or threats of violence). The blocked person can always appeal just as they would for any unfair block. If that is not done, then personal attacks are not totally unacceptable. People either have to accept personal attacks, or respond by spending hours or days in attempting to instigate an action against the person to the end result that the attacker is likely to be banned for a few days at most (while their sock puppets continue to edit?). Perhaps easier to take the high road and walk away altogether from increasing loutishness and harrassment in one local bar. There are other bars. [[User:Jallan|Jallan]] 18:42, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

==Hate Speech==
It has been pointed out on the Wikien mailing list that Wikipedia has no actual policy against hate speech. This article comes closest to being that policy. I suggest a policy to deal with hate speech be added to this article and enforced. By hate speech I mean false characterizations of a group which are intended to incite hatred and dismissal. For example, the characterization being discussed on the mailing list of the [[Gulag]] as "Jewish concentration camps" in which Christians were exterminated. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 11:39, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

:Judging by his wolf-crying behaviour on the mailing lists (is that a personal attack?), [[User:RK]] will go hogwild on this one with anyone contradicting him on [[Jew]] or [[Anti-Semitism]].

::Yes, in the case of RK there is a tendency to see more anti-semitism in opposition to his editing activities than is actually there, but I think most of us are aware of that tendency of RK.


:I can't see that someone who uses actual "hate speech" in Wikipedia discussion is going to become a valuable user by trying to stop them, because ''they'' will not see it as "hate speech" (as in the example of [[User:WHEELER]], which is what we're actually talking about here). I strongly question that we need another rule when the current dispute resolution process sufficiently deals appropriately and conclusively (if very slowly) with a problem user. I also strongly question making a rule on a single case like this when we already have procedures that will deal with and are in the process of dealing with this case - edge cases make bad law. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 13:20, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::Well, if they are not reformable, are they bannable? [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:37, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

::Agreed that we should consider wider ramifications of this policy before we jump in, for example, would my occasional essays into edit wars regarding communism, with subsequent negative characterizations of apologists for communism be considered hate speech? [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:37, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

:::Precisely. Before we can consider such a policy, we will need an obvious, elegant and ''consensus-accepted'' definition of "hate speech" that is not reasonably arguable. Otherwise, what the hell are we banning? - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 15:15, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

===Definition of hate speech===
Part of the definition is making a false generalization, "Blue-eyed devils"
can serve as an example. This stands for the proposition that all White
people are active evil-doers. True enough in the case of isolated
individuals, sometimes true of pretty good size mobs, even entire
nation-states, but considered seriously, false and resulting in incitment.
Intention is another part of a reasonable definition as an aggravating
factor. Hate-speech is intended to produce action, or at least change in
behavior, perhaps from tolerance to rejection.

Some problems exist with that definition, for example as Bush or Kerry
campaign both attempt false generalizations intended to produce change in
behavior. So it is also a matter of degree, a change in voting being at one
extreme, the holocaust the other, thus addition of the qualifier "extreme".

So hate speech is a false generalization about an ethnic group, religious or
political orientation or other identifiable group which tends to produce a
change in behavior that is extremely unfavorable to that group. Calculated
intention is an aggravation of the offense but not necessary. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 16:28, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

:There is absoloutely no need for a change of policy here. The current "no personal attacks" policy covers every example you cited except one. The witch-hunt against WHEELER. Making a new law in order to retroactively punish is widely condemned IRL courts. The attempt to do so is sad. Punish people for being rude, not for thinking differently from you. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 17:10, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::Any policy we make would not apply retroactively to Wheeler, just to future actions he or others might take. The observation was made that there is no hate speech policy. This is simply advocacy that we make one. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 17:23, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

:::Understood. Obviously I would find that more than unnecessary. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 17:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:::I see no examples showing we ''need'' one. I maintain this is not such an example. Making hard policy will require several hells of a justification - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 17:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:"which tends to produce a change in behaviour" is an ambiguity you could drive a truck through.

:This is still coming down to "I know it when I see it" and is not suitable material for a policy. e.g. I think a lot of your opinions on left-wingers are ''wrong'', but I certainly wouldn't call them ''hate speech''. But I'm pretty sure others here would.

:In dealing with the case we're actually talking about, i.e. WHEELER, what about this case is not amenable to the current dispute resolution process? The AC is quite slow so far, but has dealt properly so far with cases brought against egregiously offensive users (MNH, Irismeister, Paul Vogel).

:I completely fail to see why an RFM and then if necessary an RFA can't be brought against WHEELER. Based on his obnoxiousness so far, I could write it myself if I could be bothered. I shouldn't have to, though, because anyone else sufficiently concerned to flood wikien-l with messages about his "hate speech" should have the energy to proceed using the tools in place.

:This is a single case. I have PROFOUND qualms about making new policy based on a single case that should be susceptible to the tools we already have in place.

:To those who have been writing to Wikipedia advocating that WHEELER be thrown off for his egregious offensiveness: please at least attempt using the tools that are already to hand. - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 17:33, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is being ''called'' an anti-semite hate speech? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 17:44, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No, being called an anti-Semite is not hate speech; to ask the question misunderstands what hate speech is -- it is not any speech that is hateful; it is hateful speech that targets a stigmatized and victimized and therefore vulnerable group. (anon)

: But being called an anti-Semite might well be a personal attack. [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 13:18, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

===Definition of hate speech 2===
Here are two things I posted to the English listserve concerning this topic.

1) hate speech is categorically different from offensive or uncivil remarks. Many people have pointed out that there is often a certain level of incivility at Wikipedia; sometimes people make unfortunately offensive remarks in the heat of an argument, and sometimes remarks are offensive because they are controversial and play a constructive role in an argument. I agree with these points in principle, but do not think they apply to hate speech. For example, if someone writes "Sl, you are a shithead," well, yeah, I would take that as an uncivil and offensive remark. But I would not call it hate speech. Nor would I call it anti-Semitism. WHEELER observed that just because a dog barks at a Jew doesn't make the dog anti-Semitic. Fair enough. Just because I am Jewish does not mean that all attacks on me are anti-Semitic. But if the dog barks "Sl, you are a dirty Jew," that is anti-Semitic. Here is the difference: the first attack attacks me as an individual; the second attacks me as a member of a class or group of people. For this reason I respectfully disagree with Anthere's sympathetic remarks. The point is not that I feel hurt or injured. These are personal feelings and I have always strived not to let personal feelings affect my involvement in Wikipedia. Anti-Semitism is not wrong because it is hurtful on an individual or personal level; anti-Semitism attacks a whole group. Anti-Semitism is impersonal by nature. By the way, it is for this reason that non-Jews can and ought to oppose anti-Semitism, just as Whites can oppose racism against Blacks and Jews can oppose racism against Arabs. You do not have to feel personally injured to oppose something that is wrong. In fact, WHEELER didn't hurt my feelings because I do not care what WHEELER thinks about me at all. I simply oppose hate speech and anti-Semitism in all forms because it is wrong. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

: The dog who barks "Sl, you are a dirty Jew" would surely be anti-Semitic, ''and'' making a personal attack. That personal attack would be covered by current policy, and would surely be judged more harshly than "Sl, you are dirty"? [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 13:20, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

2) hate speech is never about factual accuracy. This is because facts are contingent, but racism is based on essentialism. It is a fact that some Jews have been murderers. But are they murderers because they are Jewish? That they were (or are) Jewish is almost certainly incidental to their having murdered (or robbed a bank, or gone through a red light). It may very well be a fact that several or even many prison guards in the Soviet Union were Jewish. But they weren't camp guards because they were Jewish. To then talk about "Jewish concentration camps" is simply not about a factual claim we can research or question. There is no point in even questioning it as a factual claim. It is absurd on its face and the only point of the claim is to lump all Jews together, to treat them not as individuals but as members of a class. By the way, sometimes such correlations may be valid. Criminologists often look for correlations between behavior and race, class, or gender. I just think it is obvious that in this particular case WHEELER was not making an empirical claim subject to argument; he was using a slur in order to attack (I think Jrosenzweig and AndyL have provided sufficient evidence, for those who do not think this is obvious) [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

3) There is a difference between what one feels or thinks, and how one expresses it publicly. Regulating hate speech (through a ban, or an apology or retraction) is not about regulating how someone feels. I don't think it is possible to control someone else's feelings -- hell, I am not sure it is possible to control one's own feelings. And if it were possible, I don't think it would be desirable. But we (not just government, but society or community) regulates how people express there feelings all the time. We can think what we like, but we know that in some contexts it is inappropriate or even dangerous to say what we think; we regulate ourselves, personally, as well. WHEELER, for example, can think whatever he wants. But to participate in a conversation, there are some things he won't say. And to participate in a community there are some things he shouldn't say. Where we draw the line is a separate matter that I address below -- here I just want to emphasize that it is what WHEELER wrote on one of our pages, not what he thinks, that I think we should concern ourselves with. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

4) Wikipedia should not tolerate hate speech. I think an open society should limit such regulation as much as possible. Some people have pointed out that even WHEELER has a right to free speech. I agree. But that does not mean that someone can say whatever they like, here. We should tolerate a certain level of offensive remarks as unavoidable byproducts of heated exchanges, just as we should tolerate a high level of ultimately empty chatter on talk pages as necessary byproducts of the editing process. We should certainly encourage controversy. But there is simply no benefit to Wikipedia from hate speech, and there is no need for us to provide people with an outlet for hate speech. God knows, there are plenty of other outlets on the internet for that. For the same reason, there should be no need for me to go (as one person suggested) to an attorney general to try to prosecute WHEELER for hate speech. What WHEELER wrote may very well be legal -- so he can write it elsewhere. I just don't want to see someone use Wikipedia as a vehicle for hate speech. Wikipedia policy is not nor should be the same thing as state or federal law. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

Someone on the listserve wrote, "The reason why I say that hate speech is not destructive is that speech itself is strictly communicative." which begs the question, what do you mean by "communicative?" I assume you mean that the only thing it does is to describe or express something else, but has not force in and of itself. If this is what CM means, he is mistaken. Some propositions are indeed expressive or descriptive (e.g., "I feel sick" or "the house is blue" -- in the first case the proposition describes how I feel, in the second case it describes the house. In both cases the proposition is about something else). But some propositions are performative -- statements which are in and of themselves actions. J.L. Austin provides some pretty common examples: when someone says "I name this ship The Queen Elizabeth" it is the very pronouncement that accomplishes the naming. Similarly, when one says "I bet you ..." it is the act of saying so that constitutes the bet. Or when someone says "I promise," it is the very act of speaking that accomplishes the promise. You can call these statements "communicative" if you like -- what is important is a major distinction between these kinds of statements and statements like "the house is blue." [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

The question is, what kind of proposition is "Jewish concentration camps" (meaning, concentration camps run by Jews) I think the answer is, both. It is a descriptive statement that can be either true or false (and in the case of the camps WHEELER was referring too, false). But I believe it is also a performative statement, and it is in this sense that it is hate speech, and destructive. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

Some people have suggested that what makes it hate speech is its potential to incite physical violence. I think this is valid (and a valid legal principle: threatening someone may be punishable, at least in the U.S., or may not -- courts decide in part from weighing how likely the threat could lead to physical violence). But the argument of "hate speech" is that performative statements are in and of themselves violent. One example is the power of speech to intimidate (and although threats may be purely verbal, they can still be actionable for this reason). This was established in the United States by the 1942 Supreme Court decision Chaplinsky versus New Hampshire, which is the basis for some hate speech legislation in the U.S. (and available on the web). Another is the power of speech to stigmatize (this is in effect the argument MacKinnon and Dworkin made against pornography -- the very act renders women sexual objects). [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

The ACLU opposes hate speech legislation on two grounds: first, it considers hate speech one of the prices a society must pay for a general right to freedom of speech, and second, it believes the best response to hate speech is more speech. I happen to sympathize very strongly, or just plain agree, with both of these. I do not think the state should limit free speech. WHEELER, for example, has a right to say whatever anti-Semitic thing he wants to, to anyone who wants to listen. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

The question is, do I have to listen? Do you, do we have to listen? And, more importantly, does Wikipedia have to be a medium through which anyone spews hate speech? I don't think so. And I think that anyone who construes this argument against hate speech on Wikipedia as censorship is seriously distorting the situation. Wikipedia is a community, not the state. Just because a person has a legal right to do something does not mean we are obliged to collude. For example, people have a right to advertise but we do not allow advertisements on Wikipedia. Advertisements do not benefit our project, and only mislead people as to the nature of our project. The same goes for hate speech. If I thought it were possible that hate speech on Wikipedia could lead to the improvement of an article, for example, I would defend it. But I don't think it leads to the improvement of articles, and only appropriates our space to hateful purposes. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

====response to Definition of hate speech 2====
:Slrubenstien: what the hell is stopping you from going through the dispute resolution over WHEELER's egregious offensiveness, and seeing if it actually fails, ''before'' asserting we need another rule? The time you spent on the above could easily have been used on something to actually deal with the alleged problem. And establish that the alleged problem actually falls within the remit of the present mechanism for dealing with problem users. Which I maintain it does.

:Before you advocate a new rule, you really should prove the old one doesn't work. You haven't - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 21:25, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::First, nothing is stopping me -- all of this started with my asking someone on the arbitration board for advice, and AndyL has requested mediation. Second, let me be the judge of how to spend my time. If you do not think this topic is worth spending time on, that is your business -- you should stop posting to this page or reading it. But I will spend my time as I please. Third, I am not claiming that the old rule doesn't work, I am raising general issues that have not been considered in discussion. By the way, sorry I couldn't work the phrase "the hell" into this response, as you seem to think it appropriate to reasoned discourse. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

I think if we enforced [[wikipedia:Civility]] and [[wikipedia:wikiquette]] we'd all be alot happier, waste alot less time, and get alot more done. Thats what were here to do right, work an encyclopedia? How does rudeness of any sort assist w that? Why differentiate between racial, sexual, religious hierarchies of whats offensive? Lets just enforce the rules we already have, rather than fight about what sorts of new ones might help. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 02:39, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:Racial, sexual and other kinds of slurs are already differentiated in our guidelines (and no, I had nothing to do with that!) The point of a rule against hate speech is ''not'' to introduce racial, sexual, or other such epithets to our guidelines. What it does introduce is the notion of ''im''personal attacks. I am not saying there needs to be a new mechanism. Minimally, in the subsections of our key policies and behavior guidelines, I just think that the category currently listed, "personal attacks" is not sufficient; impersonal attacks (e.g. attacking all Jews, all Blacks, all gays -- but not singling out one individual) should be added. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

Why?
:because impersonal attacks of this nature can be even more disruptive and offensive as personal attacks
Current policies are sufficient, were they enforced.
:No, because they do not include such impersonal atacks. That is why I just wrote, only an inch or two above where you are looking right now, " "personal attacks" is not sufficient"
Do you at a minimum agree that enforcement of current policy would be advantageous? [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]]
[[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 19:53, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:I don't understand the question. Advantageous to whom? As opposed to what? Are you asking if I think we should ''not'' enforce current policy? Of course not, we should continue to enforce current policy. Are you asking something else? Otherwise, I stand by what I wrote above. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

If you think current policies (such as [[wikipedia:Civility]], [[wikipedia:wikiquette]] and [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]) are being enforced, you are dangerously out of touch. I suggest you give the matter a great deal more thought. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 22:48, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:I do not think they are always enforced adequately or efficiently, but in a wiki-community I think this is understandable. In any case, I do not think the problem of hate speech owes to a lack of enforcement of current policies, if this is what you were asking. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

I find it significantly less understandable, and strongly suggest that if they ''were'' enforced your suggestion of policy change would be more obvious in its lack of utility. The problem here is that the lack of enforcement of current rules suggests to some (yourself it would seem) that new rules are the answer. I clearly disagree in the utmost. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 04:08, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, you are saying that WHEELER should have been banned because of the policy against personal attacks, but this policy is not being enforced? I disagree "in the utmost" ;) I also don't see how you can think that it is the lack of enforcement that seems to suggest to me that there is a need for a new rule, when I have stated explicitly that this is not the case. That seems to show serious lack of respect for a contributor who has strived to respond to your comments patiently and clearly. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

:I am disrespectful when I understand things differently than you?
No, only when you misrepresent what I wrote, as I explain in the third sentence in the paragraph above. But maybe I am wrong to accuse you of misrepresenting what I wrote -- you do it so often that perhaps you are simply not reading what I write. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

:Please stop cutting up my text. Repeating back to you what I understand from what you said is a '''good''' habit, it helps w communication. If I'm wrong, tell me so politely. Please stop being rude, I don't appreciate it. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 21:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:I am saying there is '''no need''' for a new rule, rather that existing rules aught be enforced. If you want to see an example of incivility, scroll up to the top of this thread. I find the way you spoke to mr. Gerard somewhat less than civil. Perhaps you found his use of "hell" less than civil also. I found a substantial number of comments made about WHEELER to have been personal attacks. Heck, I find '''every''' use of the word ''troll'' a personal attack. And yes, WHEELER violated wikiquette w his statement, IMO, and should have been reprimanded as such by an admin on his talk. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 16:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::Hmm. I somewhat agreed with enforcing current rules and cannot disagree with some of the other statements but what made me put my two coppers in is "every use of the word troll" as a personal attack. I object to that strongly. It is a censure of free speech to deny anyone the descriptive words necessary to respond to trolling. If a user makes remarks that can be described as trolling (my description if fishing for angry responses) it is accurate to call someone a troll in a given discussion that is regarding that content. It is akin to saying that Clinton's oral sex is not "sex" and grinding on the details of what the word "is" means. I reject the idea that we are going to create [[seven dirty words]] that can never be uttered in a discussion. - [[User:Texture|<font color=red>T&#949;x</font>]][[User Talk:Texture|<font color=blue>&#964;</font>]][[User:Texture|<font color=red>ur&#949;</font>]] 16:51, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:::I responded at length re: troll [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Texture#Troll here]. I'll just mention that I like the [[seven dirty words]] idea, and that troll aught to be one of them ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 17:14, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

==="Is being called an anti-semite hate speech?"===
:Yes, I read that on the mailing list (along w a good bit of other content here ;). RE: "Is being called an anti-semite hate speech?" you say "it is hateful speech that targets a stigmatized and victimized and therefore vulnerable group." Wouldn't that include anti-semites? Arn't they stigmatized, etc.. ? I know you prob. think I'm missing the point, but I'm not. Hate speech rules amount to censorship, and the premise behind them is racist. Minorities are not better than anyone else, and deserve no special rights. Past abuses have '''not''' earned them right to special protection in my eyes. I oppose the concept at every level. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 19:52, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::P.S. I ''do'' feel that [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] should be enforced. I just don't agree w the 1st class citizen status given to some by these sorts of [[hate crime]] rules, w folks like me (w no obvious minority or protected group status) relegated to 2nd class citizenship. Making me feel like a colored in S African apartied fails on every level in achieving the goals you ''should'' be shooting for here, namely a friendlier working environment. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 20:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How sensitive of Sam to consider the rights of the racist being discriminated against because of his racism as being the same as the right of the victim being subjected to racism. What's next, holing the right of the rapist as equl to those of the rape victim? The murderer's right to murder as being equal to the rights of the murdered? I think Sam's onto a whole new legal standard here. Sorry Sam, your argument that someone has the right to be an anti-Semite and that we shouldn't deny someone that right is just about the most uncivil thing I've heard from you. I don't see how you can see yourself as a crusader from civility when you come up with nonsense like this. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]

Is being called an anti-semite hate speech? It could be, depends on the facts. Calling someone an anti-semite when there is a long track record which shows it and calling someone an anti-semite because they criticize some egregious Zionist atrocity is another. Another element is the broadbrush quality of hate speech. For example, "Germans are anti-semitic" is a broadbrush and false characterization. A context where incitement will produce results might also be necessary. For example, a whispering campaign regarding a lawyer practicing in New York City, who had occasionally made a few critical remarks regarding Jews might be hate speech. To summarize these incomplete observations, there needs to be a look at the evidence which should show a broad negative and basically unfair condemnation of Jews, if that does not exist pulling out the "anti-semite" card may be unfair and in extreme instances, especially where it can be expected to damage the target, hate speech. So to address the instant case, characterizing a Wikipedia editor as "anti-semitic" without sufficient cause, given that we have banned anti-semitic users (using the "no personal attacks policy), might be hate speech and in itself a violation of the no personal attacks policy. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 10:27, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)

:Well thats interesting. I still don't think we need a new rule, but rather better enforcement of the existing policy. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 14:42, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

::Well, uh, yeah - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 15:49, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

====Ignore this====
Sam equating himself with "a colored in S African apart(h)eid" because he is *not* a member of a group subjected to discrimination and hate speech is highly convoluted thinking. I suspect that "a colored" from South Africa would be deeply insulted at the comparison and by Sam's logic that being called a racist is as bad as racism itself and that racists are being discriminated against by being called racists just as much as an oppressed group is being discriminated against. [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]

:Perhaps I've commited an act of hate speech thereby? Off to the gulag w me I suppose... Good thing you don't allow dissent, that might cause you to suffer thru all sorts of "convoluted" thinking. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 23:50, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sam but I can't reconcile your advocacy of "civility" with your apologism for anti-Semitism and racism. I don't think you need to be sent to a gulag, I just think you can't be taken seriously and should be generally ignored. Or do I not have a right to ignore you and dismiss what you say? [[User:AndyL|AndyL]]

:Again w this apologism [[BS]]? When will you people figure out I'm not apologizing for anything. The polite way to not listen to be is by not talking to me at all. When you say something, ignore my response, and reply w your mangled interpretation of what you think I might have said, its not nearly so much fun as if you'd be so good as to just ignore me completely. I'd imagine WHEELER might just do a [[Two Step]] if you decided to ignore him for a while ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 04:34, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This isn't the point, Sam. The point is that when someone disagrees with you (which is all AndyL was doing, in his statement that opens this section), you counter by accusing someone of not allowing any dissent! This is a defensive stance that impedes open debate or dialogue. All AndyL said was, your thinking is convoluted, and Coloreds in South Africa would probably be insulted. These two claims are two different ways that AndyL is expressing his disagreement with you. How can you possibly respond by saying "you don't allow dissent?" The logical implication is that in order to allow dissent, AndyL (or presumably anyone else) must agree with you! Pretty twisted -- in order to allow dissent, everyone must agree! Sorry Sam, but it cuts both ways. If you want to have the right to disagree with AndyL, he must have the right to disagree with you. And if you want to ''participate'' in a debate, where ideas are exchanged, you need to acknowledge this rather than deny it as you have done here. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

:There is a reason I titled this thread the way I did. I'm sorry if you don't appreciate my levity, but then I did ask you to ignore it, didn't I? Trying to take jokes seriously is what I call sarcasm ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 17:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. I did not know that you were the one who entitled the section -- nor was it clear to me why it should be ignored (does AndyL agree it should be ignored?) In the future, if you regret or retract an argument you have made, I suggest you just say so. I am not sure how to take "ignore me" sarcastically -- AndyL clearly was not ignoring you, but if you don't want people to read your words, why write at all! I guess I will find out whether you really want to be ignored by whether you respond do this or not ... [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]]

=== Respond with more speech, not more rules ===

For the record, I stand opposed to hate speech, but I do not believe that a rule prohibiting hate speech is the appropriate remedy. All too often "the rules" are a vehicle through which "right-thinking" individuals impose their will upon the disenfranchised members of society, and I want no part of that. Rather, I believe that the best remedy for bad speech -- and the only *true* remedy -- is good speech. "Obviously, physical threats are out of place, as are impugning someone's race, gender, or nationality, . . . but even those [situations] should be judged [on a] case-by-case [basis]." Indeed, absent a clear and present danger of immediate and irreparable harm, there is no reason whatsoever to censor the ramblings of bigots.

"Even if I am technically wrong, and enough can be squeezed from these poor and puny anonymities to turn the color of . . . litmus paper; . . even if . . . the necessary intent were shown; the most nominal punishment seems to me all that . . . should be inflicted, unless the [accused] are to be made to suffer not for what the indictment alleges but for the creed that they avow -- a creed that I believe to be
the creed of ignorance and immaturity when honestly held. . . ." // [[User:Netesq|NetEsq]] 23:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:'''''Hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say!''''' [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 00:26, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

==What Is Listed Here Is Irrelevant==

Several people who are listed in "support of" the no personal attacks rule (which I am not--you wanna pretend we live in a world where everyone's pleasant all the time, go watch Shari Lewis fist her sock puppets) are hypocrites who themselves are some of the worst offenders of the "no personal attacks" policy!

People like Mike H and Hyacinth, to name two, use their positions of power and their friends and contacts who are in positions of power to remove opinions with which they disagree. They also believe that they themselves are '''above''' the "no attacks" rule. While they'd dub as "attack" mere '''opinions''' and '''beliefs''' stated by people they dislike, they run around the Wikipedia creating unnecessary trouble out of every issue, in an attempt to prove to their higher-up's that they should be promoted into higher and higher administrative positions because they do such "good" and "thorough" jobs of policing (read, '''victimizing''') the rest of us! This project is fast becoming irrelevant, as there exists a solid group who believes they are above the law and that all who question them should be immediately censored, if not banned! There should be a Wiki-created judicial hearing regarding said matters; if there is not, there will be a hearing that is carried out by '''some''' judicial body, without a doubt.

Comments?!

=== An additional slur===
See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User:WHEELER#An_additional_slur here] for background info. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 17:24, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've just voted, strongly (if that were possible) that there should be no personal attacks on Wikipedia. I think this is essential; otherwise Wikipedia will end up like a Kindergarten class when the teacher is out.

However, I don't think that 'no personal attacks' means that you can never criticise other people's behaviour, or tell people that their behaviour is wrong. For example there is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll". "You seem to be making statements just to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same withough descending to name-calling. Wikipedia should never descend to insults, but saying that behaviour is wrong is acceptable. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] 19:18, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

:I agree, but I think "you are acting like an XYZ" is a bad way to go. Much better to say "hey, I saw you had some conflict w another user, perhaps you should review [applicable policy XYZ]" or "I'm sorry, but ad hominems are not a part of a useful debate. Thats why I removed them. Please review [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]." [[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit&section=new '''Spade''']] 19:23, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
::Even better :) [[User:Gracefool|gracefool]] 05:44, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that for the benefit of editors with good intentions people need to be informed ''as clearly as possible'' of actual personal attacks or vandalism they commit. Folks should always be pointed to the appropriate policies. [[User:Hyacinth|Hyacinth]] 19:33, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(non constructive anon comment deleted by [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 07:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC) see archive if you really must)

:This is becoming the expectation before any negative sanction is applied to someone. They must have been informed clearly in several ways as to exactly what they are doing that is being complained of and given an opportunity to change whatever that is. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 20:45, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

==major fiddle==
how does that look now? i did it in a hurry so probly needs a good <s>copyedit</s><u>proof-read</u>. [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 07:11, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

==[[m:Instruction creep]]==

This article is getting a horrible case of instruction creep. It should be about half the length it is now. I may start hacking very soon. Anyone else is welcome, of course - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] 13:28, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

==Addition of a policy which has been followed in certain cases==
I have added the following to the article: "* Threats or actions which expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort will result in severe sanctions which may be applied immediately by any sysop upon discovery. Sysops applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]] and [[User:Jimmy Wales]] of what they have done and why." This has its origin in the practice which were followed in a certain case where such a treat was made which could have exposed a user to criminal and religious persecution in a certain country. [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 14:45, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

==Proposed ammendment==

I've mentioned this on [[Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy]] but figure I should bring it up here as well - what would people think of the following:

:At their discretion, and only after warning the user, sysops may use temporary blocks to enforce a &ldquo;cooling down&rdquo; period for users who repeatedly make personal attacks. Blocks made under this policy should be short term &ndash; one to three days normally, and a week at most. Sysops blocking under this policy may not block users for making personal attacks in the course of disputes that the sysop is involved in, and especially not for personal attacks made against them, unless the personal attacks also constitute clear and unambiguous vandalism (i.e. replacing their userpage with &ldquo;U SUCK!!1!1!!&rdquo;).

[[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 13:23, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

== The addition from 10 September 2004 ==

The recently proposed changes include 3 points which are at least controversial:

* ''"Specific examples of personal attack include: Assertions of negative or malicious intent outside of dispute resolution."''

:*This is just way too wide. It means that comments like "You knew this was POV before you inserted it" or "I think you are a troll", or an edit summary saying "Reverted - stop inputting false information" are personal attacks.

:*And it would make what TimStarling and others said on the Anarion RfA a personal attack when they wondered if he was a Sockpuppet.
:**And what Makkalai and Geogre (and many others) said about the Coronado hoaxes personal attacks
:**Others are encouraged to add more examples. [[User:Orthogonal|-- orthogonal]] 22:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:***I am unable to figure out how "you are a sockpuppet" or "you are inputting false information" (a factually verifiable statement) has anything to do with assertions of intent. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 23:11, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
:****Well, sockpuppet voting implies getting around the rules, so there's "negative intent" at the least. I think "you are inputting false information" could be taken in context to mean "you are ''knowingly'' inputting false information", which again implies negative, if not malicious, intent. Them's my two cents, at least. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 23:15, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:*****I think the level of reading into the statements that requires would, if made explicit, also constitute a personal attack. ;) [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 23:20, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
:******Heh, yes, I agree. I think, though, it's a good example of why "negative intent" is a lousy guideline, and "malicious intent" is almost as bad, and I say that with no idea who proposed these policies...I hope they know I'm not trying to attack them by saying that I don't feel they're workable policies. :-) [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 23:23, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)


* ''"Personal attacks do not include: Claims explicltly limited to edits. "This edit is stupid" is not a personal attack. 'You are stupid" is."''

:*"Your edit is stupid" usually means "Your POV is stupid". That can be a personal attack. Not to mention non-article edits: "Your comment is stupid", "Your vote is stupid", etc.
:*The problem is that if comments, votes, and edits are off bounds for criticism then debate comes screeching to a halt in a lot of ways. Comments limited to actions and not people are not (And have not, to my knowledge, ever been) personal attacks. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 23:11, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
::I think these issues are too big to be so easily encapsulated. If I wrote "reverting pro-Zionist edit" that could be taken as a personal attack. If I wrote "this edit is so mindless that it seems to have been produced by a monkey licking the keyboard" it is only a characterization of the edit, but is obviously a personal attack on some level. It's not easy to clearly define personal attacks in the simplistic way they are in that quote. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 23:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:::Did you spy on me? ''How did you know about my monkey making edits for me???'' [[User:Orthogonal|-- orthogonal]] 23:25, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:::Fair enough. I'll just return to deciding on a case by case basis. :) [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 23:29, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
::::By that, surely you mean you'll follow community consensus, not your own idea of policy (as I note these proposed additions were ''yours'')? [[User:Orthogonal|-- orthogonal]] 23:34, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
:::::No, I mean that I'm going to apply common sense. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 23:38, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
::::::Let's play nicely, shall we? I know you two have a history, but we can let that go, I hope. If anybody disregards consensus, it is almost always unwise and at their own peril, so I expect Snowspinner didn't mean he would '''ignore''' it. The only consequence a non-AC member can impose for a personal attack, as I recall, is to remove it (and note that they have done so). Even if someone disregards consensus there, it's easily reversible and pretty minor. If there are sterner consequences, I'd like to know about them -- perhaps I'm not up enough on personal attack policy. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 23:40, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
::::::::At present, you are correct as to what personal attack policy says, yes. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 23:43, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

*''"...unless such a request is patently absurd and clearly designed only to cause offense."''

:*If someone is abusing procedures, take them to conflict resolution or even establish a mechanism to deal with that. Don't lump it under "personal attacks".

:*And who is supposed to determine what is "patently absurd"? Surely not a user acting unilaterally? [[User:Orthogonal|-- orthogonal]] 22:46, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

:**Well, that would depend on who's expected to enforce the no personal attacks policy at present. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 23:11, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
:***I think that the no personal attacks policy is not particularly enforceable in real time, but violations of it are considered violations of policy in judgments made by the AC. But I may be wrong. [[User:Jwrosenzweig|Jwrosenzweig]] 23:21, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Zocky|Zocky]] 22:14, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:38, 24 August 2025

If a person says they are a Nazi, or hate x ethnic/religious group, do we have to just let that pass?

[edit]

Is there really no line that if crossed allows editors to dismiss etc their views? Doug Weller talk 18:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Methinks you want to read Wikipedia:No Nazis; while only an essay, it has noticeable support among editors.--GRuban (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban I came here from there as NPA is being quoted on the talk page with someone saying “ This essay is a violation of Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks, which explicitly states that comparing editors to Nazis or criticizing them on the basis of their political affiliations is unacceptable. Existing conduct policy is sufficient to keep most ideologically motivated editors off the project.” Doug Weller talk 18:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That last sentence is certainly true, thank goodness. 99%+ of editors are not Nazis. However there are thousands of us editors, which means, by simple math, that every so often we find a few that are. Its a useful and widely supported essay and if someone disagrees they may nominate it for deletion and see if that is true. --GRuban (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRuban Um, I’m not being clear I guess. I’m questioning the wording of NPA. Doug Weller talk 09:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. No Nazis says "If you're a Nazi, you're probably going to get blocked". It doesn't say "everyone is allowed to call people they're in arguments with Nazis", which is what NPA forbids, so they aren't really contradictory. Note that NPA does not say "being a Nazi and/or expressing Nazi views is OK".
As to your original question, I would not recommend looking for a reason to dismiss people's views. If X is participating in a discussion with you, either address their views, or go to an administrator and have them blocked, but the middle ground of "We think X's views are despicable, but we can't convince an administrator or the community that they are blockworthy, so we will let them edit but dismiss anything they say forever" is not good for anyone. We don't want to have shunned non-persons that everyone is supposed to ignore editing the Wikipedia. If they are really so despicable that all their views should be dismissed, we should ban them, if not, we should treat them like real people. --GRuban (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to do that at all. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear. Especially since I think you actually have a mop, right? So, um. I feel like I'm trying to explain fractions to my Math professor - you probably understand all this stuff better than I do, right? So ... um? What's the problem? Because some less than clueful person is making a fuss on the No Nazis talk page? Er - that's not really a reason to change any phrasing on NPA, right? We just nicely explain to them that just because NPA says you shouldn't call people Nazis, doesn't mean that if they are actually behaving like Nazis that's a good thing. We similarly shouldn't randomly call people murderers, but if we see an actual person being murdered, we should darn well do something about it. --GRuban (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller 2409:408A:2D32:B323:0:0:9E4A:1806 (talk) 00:52, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, as written, it's talking about offensively and without basis comparing someone to Nazis - not about people who themselves show up and say Nazi things. Andre🚐 02:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Doug, I presume you are referring to this comment [1]. I can see their point. I'm not sure if I agree or if I think context matters but they aren't all together wrong. The essay, right or wrong, says that you are acting like a Nazi if you do XYZ. If someone says "based on your behavior of XYorZ, NONAZI may apply to you". Well that is in a round about way, comparing the person to a Nazi. But I can also see how saying, "you have traits similar to" is not the same thing as saying "you are". Someone who is Norwegian and presumably Arian has ethnic traits similar to Nazis (at least their ideals) but that comparison alone is far from making them any kind of Nazi. Given the title of the essay I do see how saying the essay applies to an editor would imply they are a Nazi so I see the point. I think this would be especially problematic if say the editor were from part of the world that suffered under Nazi occupation even if the editor themselves had nationalistic attitudes. Consider if we had an editor with Polish nationalist views but who lost family to the Nazi occupation. Yeah, it's a constructed example but in the correct circumstances I can see the concern. That said, I can also see how people might feel that an editor is already over the line if people are suggesting NONAZIs applies to them... assuming it reasonably does. Springee (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I really don't have time for this and no interest at the moment. Doug Weller talk 16:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring attacks

[edit]
Is there a reason, possibly some archived discussion, concerning including or excluding
See also: Wikipedia:Harassment
--- under the section title?
The Wikipedia community definition of "recurring (repeated) attacks" is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons, so it would seem uncontroversial. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do we differentiate between direct and indirect personal attacks?

[edit]

On the Talk:Donald Trump page, an IP user said this: My God, California could fall into the sea tomorrow and you people would oppose adding "submerged" to the opening sentence because "recency" and "undue weight" and "California's more notable for other things than being underwater" and "Wikipedia isn't a newspaper". It's obnoxious. Stop it. You're embarrassing yourselves. In my mind, this is simply a thinly-veiled personal attack, disguised as an indictment on a larger group. But I'm not sure.

  1. Would the same exact phrase, referring to one person instead of a wider group, be considered a personal attack, or even a borderline personal attack?
  2. In general, does referring to a group as a method to personally attack an individual constitute a personal attack?
  3. Is this codified in policy somewhere that I am unaware of?

Thanks. Cessaune [talk] 01:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if it's documented somewhere? When it comes down it, we have to rely on some commonsense and the comment above is not a personal attack. If commentary like that was frequent without compensating positive contributions, the author might be sanctioned. But a couple of statements like that are just part of a robust exchange. Either ignore or briefly explain whatever the issue is. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My question was just a general question about policy, more than an actual want to sanction the IP. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the user makes comments like these frequently.
Why don't you consider this a personal attack? Also, I don't get what positive contributions have to do with it; can you explain? Cessaune [talk] 02:19, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "language" to the list of protected characteristics

[edit]

@Remsense I have attempted to add "language" to the list of protected characteristics, which you have reverted. Could you please elaborate on your reasoning? NicolausPrime (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NicolausPrime, if I say to another editor: "Your English language skills are too weak to edit the English Wikipedia, and I recommend that you edit the Wikipedia in the language you speak best", is that a personal attack? Cullen328 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there was evidence that this has been resulting in unintentional disruptive editing, then my understanding would be that your example would be governed by WP:DISRUPTIVE and not by this policy. And I don't think this example would constitute Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases by the cultural standards present on Wikipedia.
Now, one may claim that neither of these arguments is very strong. But I don't think this policy is interpreted with this level of literalness either. For example, if someone was detected inserting content whitewashing Holocaust or increasing visibility of neo-Nazi activists, then citing the WP:NONAZIS essay to call for a rightful ban could run afoul of a literal and scrupulous reading of the following prohibitions: Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing and Comparing editors to Nazis. NicolausPrime (talk) 08:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't beyond that it seems unnecessary. Your justification was "completeness", which is not sufficient in my mind. To me, you would need to articulate an actual concrete reason for the addition. Remsense ‥ 论 07:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, the list is explicitly non-exhaustive (etc.), so there really has to be a positive argument for explicit mention of any given item. To be blunt, this seems potentially like a preoccupation that is wholly hypothetical on your part. Does this happen? Moreover, if there is a linguistic discrimination problem in the discourse on here, surely it should be profiled and discussed first? Remsense ‥ 论 07:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing a no personal attacks noticeboard

[edit]

There are noticeboards for original research, NPOV, COI, dispute resolution, spam, vandalism etc. but there is no noticeboard for personal attacks, although this topic is very important and cannot be ignored. A noticeboard for personal attacks should be established. RaschenTechner (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, personal attacks are reported at ANI, but many other things could be reported here, so I would suggest establishing a noticeboard for NPA. RaschenTechner (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

The redirect Wikipedia:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 July 18 § Wikipedia namespace shortcuts with spaces until a consensus is reached. SeaHaircutSoilReplace 19:58, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks&oldid=1307517957"