Spoken Wikipedia
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles

Archives
Archive 1 Poll 2004 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 See also the talk pages of the subpages
Subpages
current list of subpages
Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Death threats Wikipedia:No personal attacks/Extension

"Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse."

"Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted. Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow, typically starting with 24 hours."

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have a feeling that the two sentences are not parallel or do not match up. The first quote states that epithets based on race, sex, sexual orientation, age, religion, politics, ethnicity, people with disabilities, and et cetera directed against another contributor counts as a personal attack. Now, look at the second quote, which states that "Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted. Less personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow, typically starting with 24 hours." Since there is no "et cetera" or any mention of "sex" or "gender" in the second quote, does that mean that a personal attack based on gender on another user does not warrant as a reason to block the attacker?

Can I go ahead and make the sentences parallel? I hope it's all right with you all. I don't want to change the original meaning, just making it parallel in sentence structure. I'm a wikignome, by the way. SuperSuperSmarty (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As there have been no objections, I've manually restored the edit (I think). Gerardw (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to me. Kaldari (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it considered a personal attack, when a user, removes something such as a sockpuppetry investigation hosted by a user, and then they put in their edit summary "lol at this laughable epic fail"? Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 14:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This page is intended for discussion of the guidelines, not specific cases; WP:WQA or WP:ANI would be more appropriate. Rather than give you a bureaucratic runaround, however: In this context [1]: No. While its not the most polite comment ever but its not realistic to expect such from a user just taken to SPI. Best to drop the stick and move on. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 17:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. Abhijay ^Talk?/_Deeds 09:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment on content, not the contributor" is a good principle and rightfully included in this policy...but it cannot be described as a nutshell of this page. Indeed, the most logical nutshell here is the page's title. I attempted to change it but was reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with the reversion. I actually think that you make a logical point, but here is the way that I look at it. Policy pages like this one are of the greatest usefulness for editors who are somewhat clueless. They often don't read past the nutshell. A nutshell that tells them not to "make personal attacks" tells them nothing more than what the title of the page does. In contrast, the content/contributor version, even though it really isn't a page summary, tells the reader how to avoid personal attacks. Even better, it tells them in a memorable way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "people don't read past the nutshell" is actually the reason I made that change - see for example this exchange. I'm open to suggestions on an alternative, but "content not contributor" is too simplistic, especially if we're assuming that's all that's being read. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. At this point, I think it's best to wait to hear what other editors think, about the points below, as well as this one. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the initial comment - it's a good principle, but not a good nutshell. In fact I think the title of the page itself is the best nutshell, and as such we don't need to crowd the page with an explicit nutshell box.--Kotniski (talk) 10:27, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the nutshell should not repeat the title. A four to five line precis would make a better nutshell.Nobody Ent 10:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, a four or five-line nutshell would be a lead paragraph. Again, no need to put it in a box.--Kotniski (talk) 10:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Concur. So either no nutshell or 'content not contributor,' and I'm fine with either. Nobody Ent 11:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I favor "Comment on content, not the contributor" as the nutshell because it provides succinct and memorable and helpful advice. If that text fails some kind of correctness test because it's not actually a precise of the policy, the wording of the policy should be fixed because "content not contributor" is the standard advice. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also support keeping the old nutshell text. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Kaldari (talk) 23:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is "broke" - so much so that I would advocate the complete absence of a nutshell over retaining the current wording. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to what particularly about it is troubling, if you care to elucidate -- that contributors should be commented upon or that comments on contributions make be personal attacks, or something else? Nobody Ent 02:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both. To take a deliberately simplistic example: if I say "Nobody Ent is a good guy", I'm clearly commenting on the contributor not the content, and am just as clearly not attacking you. Conversely, saying something like "Your edits are shit and your article should be used as toilet paper for dogs" is commenting on content, but is also a fairly clear attack. Again, though it's a decent principle in general, if we're assuming that it's the only thing on this page being read we're sending the wrong message. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That make sense, support removal and having no nutshell. (I like how you used two true examples in explanation.) Nobody Ent 03:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Related edits

I'd like to ask:

• About [2], why delete mention of legal threats? I realize that they are not quite as personal as death threats, but it seems to me that they still might be part of NPA.
• Similarly, why delete the mention of community bans? They can arise at WP:AN and WP:ANI, not just through arbitration.
• And about [3], why remove the statement that saying that something is a personal attack is not itself automatically a personal attack? Leaving that statement in can help ward off some circular arguments.

--Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's another policy that rightfully covers legal threats, because while they're problematic they're not clearly an attack. Your point about banning is well-taken, but in the context I removed it, it was clearly specifying ArbCom bans, not discussing the potential for AN/ANI bannings. The last sentence you mention was so convoluted that the "circular argument" point was not being made, IMO; if you can think of a clearer way to reword that, by all means re-add it. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at the later. Nobody Ent 20:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am being treated to a series a personal attacks by a couple of senior Wikipedians, including comments such as name-calling me an "idiot" and referring to me as a "feminist", inferring firstly that I am a feminist, and secondly that any opinion a feminist might have is of no cosequence. They have even had another senior Wikipedia they interact with threaten to block me. All this is over the most ridiculous of things, which could have and should have been resolved easily and without any grief. I even stated that I would not contribute to the Wikipedia Asexuality page - indeed, I stated that I was leaving because of the treatment I received, but that was not enough for them, and one of them has taken to personally attacking me even on pages I have not visited, and boasts that he/she has technology to change his/her IP, so this person cannot be banned, and I don't even know how many pages he/she is personally attacking me on under different IP addresses.

This is very stressful, and this is not what I joined Wikipedia for. I'm tempted just to leat them ban me even though I am the one that is in the right here, because this is so much stress over what should be, really, nothing worth getting into a state over, but why should I be treated so shabbily and then throw away as if I'm nothing, by some e-thugs with a little power? This is not right, it is not fair, and it is not on - but what can I do about it? Does anyone know who I can complain to? There must be some form of formal redress, because it feels as though, as my grandmother would say, "the lunatics have taken over the asylum". HELP! ★★Violet Fae★★ 15:31, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WQA would be the preferred venue. Removed personal attacks from Talk asexuality [4]. Nobody Ent 16:09, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider these to be personal attacks any more than what Violet Fae stated in that discussion. Saying that she is throwing a temper tantrum deserves to be blocked out? Things like that are said to (or about) Wikipedia editors often here on Wikipedia, without any consideration that it should be reported as a personal attack. Just about any comment about an editor that the editor doesn't like can be considered a personal attack. The main example of that is how WP:No personal attacks has a tiny problem defining it. And I am going to play the "Who started it?" game and point to Violet Fae on this "us against her" issue. Violet Fae started out her rant calling us "rabid POV-pushers." She later started calling us "bully boys" in her edit summaries. She is way out of line, in her comments and behavior. Even in this discussion, she has called us "e-thugs" and implies that we are lunatics. She has additionally called me "abusive." In fact, it was her who originally started the incivility back in her first discussion with me on the talk page. But in the current discussion she is referring to, you will see that editors are telling her that she is wrong about how asexuality may be defined and why that is...with her insisting that she is right, in spite of the reliable sources showing that she is not. But she considers this to be bullying. Us asking her to follow reliable sources, and not just rely on AVEN, is bullying in her opinion. Further, the IP didn't call her an idiot; he or she called Violet Fae "ignorant." Calling editors ignorant is pretty commonplace on Wikipedia. But if seen as a severe enough personal attack, she could have asked the IP to strike through the comment or have an administrator do so or block it out, like I suggested, or, add the NPA tag to that one word herself, instead of removing the IP's entire comment. Her removing the entire comment, which concerns another user more than her, is what led to her being consistently reverted at Talk:Sexual orientation. And I don't know what made her think she could remove everyone's comments at Talk:Asexuality. This is a new user who doesn't quite understand the way Wikipedia works and is painfully showing that now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at the WP:WQA link above, it says "Avoid initiating a request if: The specific issue is already being discussed elsewhere." and "Do not continue your discussion in detail here; instead, continue discussing it at its original location - as long as your request contains a link to the relevant discussions it will be seen." Not that Violet Fae will care.

On a side note, Nobody Ent, you provided the wrong diff for your change to Talk:Asexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. fixed, thanks for catch Nobody Ent 19:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, this is absolutely bloody ridiculous. You are absolutely behaving like bully-boys and e-thugs, ganging up on me, insulting me, speaking about me on Talk pages I have never even visited before, and boasting about your ability to log in under multiple IP addresses so noone can even tell what you're posted or where... Not happy driving me from the Asexuality page, you have to keep chasing me all over this damn Wikipedia, you just don't know when to leave the bloody hell alone... I can't believe I donated money to Wikipedia, only to be treated so abominably by you three disruptive, bullying, mobbing - yes - e-thugs.

Well, you can be even happier still, because you have so ruined Wikipedia for me that I will not be using this damned website with damned monsters like you three bully-boys, ever again. May you get your one day... Come to think of it, just being you must be awful enough that I don't even wish you any further suffering. GOODBYE! ★★Violet Fae★★ 19:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Violet Fae, it is absolutely ridiculous because you have been absolutely ridiculous during the majority of your time at the Asexuality talk page, reverting editors at the Sexual orientation and Asexuality talk pages, and your comments here. Oh, everyone is out against Violet Fae. Violet Fae is always right and everyone who opposes her is wrong. I can't follow her to a policy page that she is reporting me on because that would be just wrong and it's me not knowing when to leave well enough alone. Sarcasm. Once again, you have shown your true colors and demonstrated exactly what I was talking about. It is you who resorted to extreme personal attacks once again. An editor calling you "ignorant" is nothing compared to what you have stated here. If your comments get to stay, then so should his or hers. And since I don't believe that you will be leaving this site, I should report you at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, because I don't have to take this crap and believe me...there would be more "bullying" waiting for you there. But you'd just do more moaning about how innocent you are and the injustice of this site, and I don't want to read any more of that. You revert the IP again, though, and you will be reported. You should have already been reported for WP:3RR. Flyer22 (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per this, I will now be reporting you. Flyer22 (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After exchanges like that, no wonder she's pissed. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? Flyer22 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. She's clearly overreacted to everything on multiple talk pages, and I can find no evidence that she tried to calmly discuss any of her issues with other editors. But I also see her threatened with more bullying and called ignorant. I'm not saying that excuses anything - quite the opposite - but just that the issues with this editor could probably have been handled better. Seems to be a moot point now, however. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What other calm way is there to tell her to follow reliable sources and that doing so is how Wikipedia works? That's all we told her at the Asexuality talk page, although the IP was a bit hot-headed about it. She was initially hot-headed as well, however, and soon blew everything out of proportion. Into this big conspiracy to get her. Just because there are three people telling her to follow sources and work within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines...does not make it bullying. More than one editor reverting her, including Nobody Ent from higher in the discussion, does not make it bullying. And it's not moot because she is still showing up to violate WP:TALK at the Asexuality talk page. Like I stated, I will be reporting her, because it does not appear that she will stop. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No idea. Just feels like it went really bad really quickly, which likely says more about the other editor than anyone. As for moot - it seemed like she had stopped editing an hour ago, though we'll see what happens with that. Where were you reporting her? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, as mentioned above. Flyer22 (talk) 22:02, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 11 is not showing in the list. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 12:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)  DoneNobody Ent 12:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Avoiding personal attacks" section currently states: "discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page, WP:WQA, WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U)". For the sake of clarification, this should be changed to: "discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page, WP:WQA, WP:ANI, WP:RFC/U, WP:RFA)". -- 150.135.48.200 (talk) 16:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]