This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sue Rangell (talk | contribs) at 17:43, 30 July 2014 (→Eleanor Roosevelt Quote: /). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:43, 30 July 2014 by Sue Rangell (talk | contribs) (→Eleanor Roosevelt Quote: /)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | The project page associated with this talk page is an official policy on Misplaced Pages. Policies have wide acceptance among editors and are considered a standard for all users to follow. Please review policy editing recommendations before making any substantive change to this page. Always remember to keep cool when editing, and don't panic. |
 | Spoken Misplaced Pages | |||
| ||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the No personal attacks page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 30 days  |
 Archives |
|---|
|
| Subpages
|
Is it Wikipedias intention to support attackers?
When I read the article, I see no links to external atacks, this looks to me as if Wikipadia likes to support attackers that use Misplaced Pages just as one of several platforms to launch attacks against persons or projects. Proving a global attack is forbidden, as this would require to link against external attacks.
Together with disallowing to unhide the real identity of wikipedia users, Misplaced Pages is the perfect platform for attackers as Misplaced Pages even tries to forbid to discover such a global attack on a different medium.
The perfect method of an attack strategy against persons or projects is to use edits on wikipedia (a combination of logged in edits and IP based edits), together with attacks using other platforms under the real name, under a pseudonym and completely anonymous. Misplaced Pages will bann attacked users if they try to report such a global attack.
So why is Misplaced Pages supporting the bad ones? Is there really no way to prevent attackers to abuse Misplaced Pages as one of several platforms for a global attack? Schily (talk) 10:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
.Hmmm maybe it's because the bad ones are not really bad, maybe they have a disability that makes act that way--Hacienda Guy (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Hacienda Guy
You're a "racist" / "sexist" / "homophobe"
I wonder if it would be wise to add to NPA how to treat counter charges of You're a "racist" / "sexist" / "homophobe". Obviously PA that are racist/sexist/homophobic need dealing with severely, but I have seen on ANI a couple of times editors making counter charge of "racist" or "homophobic" themselves get trouts/smacks/blocks. I haven't seen it for "sexist", but then I don't watch ANI much, doesn't mean it hasn't happened. My reason for suggesting this is twofold. (1) to make it clear that a personal attack is still a personal attack even if the moral/ethical direction is correct, (2) to give a level of guidance to editors who want/need to point out edits/Talk which border on "racist" / "sexist" / "homophobe", but do so with a level of confidence it won't WP:BOOMERANG on them for making the charge. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- The above was started on an issue raised by IP editor at an arbcom request to which several editors were invited to comment, I opened it here as a better place that the (not accepted) arbcom request. But seems no takers, so evidently not a major issue for those watching this page. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Clarification sought
The interpretation of part of WP:NPA has been raised by User:Born2cycle on several editors' User talk pages, namely User:SmokeyJoe, User:Casliber and User:Omnedon, regarding:
Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.
Question: Does this mean if a user exhibits questionable Talk page behaviour at a policy or article talk page, that such behavior cannot be mentioned, or requested to cease, on the same policy or article talk page where it is occurring? In ictu oculi (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The issue is the word "inappropriate", which can be interpreted subjectively by different editors. In which case one has to get some idea of consensus from uninvolved editors to make a decree on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know how much clearer it could about what is meant by "inappropriate" with respect to article/policy talk pages, when it explicitly states, in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.. --В²C ☎ 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- I think the idea behind this is to protect the integrity of the article/policy talk page in question, out of respect for all other participants on that talk page. The idea is to not sully it (perhaps further) with "dirty laundry", so to speak.
One has to ask, what would be the purpose of bringing attention to inappropriate behavior on that article/policy page, instead of (or in addition to) doing it on the user talk page? How does the project benefit from having behavioral issues discussed or even mentioned on an article or policy talk page, even if the misbehavior occurred there?
As I just noted on SmokeyJoe's user talk page, in the real world even barroom disputes are resolved "outside" out of respect for the bar and its patrons. We should show at least the same respect to article/policy talk pages, don't you think?
If addressing the issue is not resolved on a user talk page, WP:DR makes other recommendations. No where among them does it suggest to bring the issue to the article/policy talk page in which the behavior in question occurred. --В²C ☎ 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @B2C - in this case, alot of people appear to be really fed up with your behaviour, and it got mentioned. Regardless of how you interpreted it, it does not change the fact that alot of people are unhappy about the way you conduct yourself. Labouring the point is just going to antagonise people more. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Feeling antagonized should not justify WP:NPA/WP:CIVIL violation just because it feels right in any particular case. --В²C ☎ 01:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Problem behaviour on a particular talk page is appropriately called on that talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The statement in question makes no allowance for behavior that occurred on that talk page. In fact, unless the behavior occurred on that page, it's highly unlikely for the criticism to be mentioned there at all. This point, for it to make sense at all, must be specifically about criticisms of behavior on that talk page.
Regardless of where the misbehavior occurred, discussing the behavior, instead of the relevant article/policy content, on that article/policy talk page, is appropriate. Only discussion about article/policy content is appropriate on a given article/policy talk page. --В²C ☎ 01:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The statement in question makes no allowance for behavior that occurred on that talk page. In fact, unless the behavior occurred on that page, it's highly unlikely for the criticism to be mentioned there at all. This point, for it to make sense at all, must be specifically about criticisms of behavior on that talk page.
- This might seem like a tangent, but it came to mind. There's long been debate about the Bible verse, "Judge not lest ye be judged." This can be taken in many ways. My view was always that one must make judgments as one passes through life, and that the point was that one should not judge others guilty when one was not "the judge". However, one will naturally see good or bad behavior in others, and make judgments accordingly.
- In a similar vein, B2C's interpretation of "personal attack" is far too sweeping. If bad behavior is going on, calling an editor on it is not a personal attack. To mention another editor's name without being complimentary is not, by definition, a personal attack. In ictu oculi's comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Article titles, which B2C removed and which I restored, was simply a statement of fact, not an attack. And this was borne out at ANI. Omnedon (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- The interpretation of "personal attack" is not in question. We're way past that. How to interpret the following is at issue here:
Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page.
- Specifically, the question is this: is a "criticism of personal behavior on a policy or article talk page" an example of "Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page?" --В²C ☎ 01:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're missing a key point. "Personal behavior". This doesn't refer to actions taken as an editor. If an editor takes an action that is objectionable, commenting on it doesn't fit in this definition of "personal attack". Omnedon (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- You mean personal behavior like failing to wash one's hands after using the restroom? Now you've really jumped the semantic shark. All behavior on WP involves editing; all behavior engaged in on by persons on WP involves "actions taken as an editor". "Personal behavior" here means "behavior of a specific person". That's all. --В²C ☎ 01:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- As usual, you ask for input, and then you throw it away when it's given. No, not all behavior on WP involves editing. Most of your time here involves arguing, not editing. In any case -- negative actions need to be noted, and you frequently do it yourself, as do the rest of us. In a recent RM you accused a panel of three editors of being somehow in league with those who opposed. In the case of a discussion, the content there involves the various statements being made by the various editors. By your definition, if you accuse someone of making a personal attack, that is itself a personal attack: it is a comment on the behavior of another editor. Omnedon (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Almost. Not per my definition, but per the definitions and clarifications given at WP:NPA, accusing someone of a personal attack is certainly criticism of that person's behavior, but it's not necessarily a personal attack. The context of where the criticism is made determines whether it is a personal attack or not.
If the accusation of a personal attack is made in "an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page", then indeed the accusation-criticism is a personal attack as well. --В²C ☎ 02:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
So, if I attack you personally here on this talk page, that's a violation of WP:NPA. If someone then goes to my user talk page and criticizes me for doing so, that's not a personal attack. One is not in violation of NPA if the criticism is made in an appropriate context, like on a user talk page.
But, if someone just references on this talk page, an attack I made on this talk page, that in and of itself is a personal attack too. Context matters a whole lot in establishing whether criticism of, or even mere reference to, personal behavior constitutes a personal-attack/NPA-violation on WP. Much of it is about dealing with inappropriate behavior in the appropriate context, and not dealing with it in an inappropriate context.
How else can these words be reasonably interpreted? --В²C ☎ 02:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Almost. Not per my definition, but per the definitions and clarifications given at WP:NPA, accusing someone of a personal attack is certainly criticism of that person's behavior, but it's not necessarily a personal attack. The context of where the criticism is made determines whether it is a personal attack or not.
- As usual, you ask for input, and then you throw it away when it's given. No, not all behavior on WP involves editing. Most of your time here involves arguing, not editing. In any case -- negative actions need to be noted, and you frequently do it yourself, as do the rest of us. In a recent RM you accused a panel of three editors of being somehow in league with those who opposed. In the case of a discussion, the content there involves the various statements being made by the various editors. By your definition, if you accuse someone of making a personal attack, that is itself a personal attack: it is a comment on the behavior of another editor. Omnedon (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- You mean personal behavior like failing to wash one's hands after using the restroom? Now you've really jumped the semantic shark. All behavior on WP involves editing; all behavior engaged in on by persons on WP involves "actions taken as an editor". "Personal behavior" here means "behavior of a specific person". That's all. --В²C ☎ 01:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- You're missing a key point. "Personal behavior". This doesn't refer to actions taken as an editor. If an editor takes an action that is objectionable, commenting on it doesn't fit in this definition of "personal attack". Omnedon (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Born2Cycle, the 3 editors above have already commented on, and thus already answered, your question. Your initiation of 4 continuation discussions on 4 Talk pages (collected here) seems to indicate that you wish to continue discussion from ANI. And indeed your "I also did not cite that bullet above from WP:NPA in the ANI discussion because I had not noticed it before the ANI closed." confirms this. Personally I feel that the 3 editors' replies above are clear (and also agree with my own understanding of what NPA says) and see no need to continue this thread further, though if you wish to continue you can always widen it to User:Djsasso User:Bishonen User:Liz User:Mendaliv] who also already commented on applicability of WP:NPA. That is a total of 8 editors. I see no need to change/clarify the wording of NPA as it stands. Please desist. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with B2C's parsing of the policy, but disagree that such parsing is in the spirit of NPA. It is patently unreasonable to have a bright-line rule disallowing discussion or criticism of an editor's actions in article talk space. Such discussion may be frowned upon in article talk space because such discussion will generally be outside the scope of discussion of the article (which is the purpose of article talk space), but it is nonsensical to say that the community disallows commentary or criticism of a user's behavior in article talk space. In fact, I would say that given WP:PG indicates that our policies and guidelines are descriptive rather than prescriptive (i.e., they merely serve as descriptions of community standards rather than an effort to control or shape community standards), the policy's language should be updated to eliminate B2C's parsing, which has clearly led to a misunderstanding of the community's standards on his part. I suspect that the language currently in the policy that gives rise to that parsing represents a sort of Misplaced Pages scrivener's error. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying what the wording clearly states.
I don't see why you think it's nonsensical to disallow commentary or criticism of a user's behavior on an article or policy talk page. As is noted here, there are appropriate places for such commentary and criticism, and article/policy talk page is not it (for a number of good reasons).
In any case, to make such a significant change to the wording as you suggest here really should have a wider community input, via an rfc. --В²C ☎ 02:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- See, that's where you're wrong. What you're arguing is for a slavish interpretation of the policy language, not only without considering the spirit or the actual way the policy is applied, but with flagrant disregard for how it is applied. And a scrivener's error like this does not require a whole new reauthorization or readoption process, in the same way a piece of legislature does not need to be voted on again when its codification contains a scrivener's error. All that's happened here is someone used language that nobody intended. Seriously, B2C, drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- User:Mendaliv, um, in fact I think you are correct, it does indeed say that. By that text even saying e.g. "please strike the bad language above" could be seen as something which should only be said on a User page, not said directly underneath the Talk page behavior "above" referred to. the copy was added some time between 1 Jan 2013 and 1 Jan 2014. Perhaps it does need modifying after all. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. That's why I say the parsing is unreasonable enough that it cannot be considered part of the policy: to be interpreted in the manner B2C proposes would cause a manifestly absurd result. It is not possible that the community follows manifestly absurd rules, therefore, the wording must be the equivalent of a scrivener's error (or otherwise simply false, which would counsel the removal of the entire sentence). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- User:Mendaliv, narrowing the date parameters further the "scrivener's error" was added on 22 July 2013 by B2C without any corresponding discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:No personal attacks/Archive 11 as would normally be expected before significant additions to any English Misplaced Pages policy. However per WP:AGF I do assume that Born2cycle had genuinely forgotten the edit and didn't realize he was citing himself. It happens. However, I now support removal - and not based on who added it, but for the reasons given. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support removal as there was no consensus for adding the language. If B2C wishes to discuss adding such a rule, he is welcome to propose it through the normal channels. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support removal as well, for the same reasons. Omnedon (talk) 03:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support removal - this is a policy page and should not be altered significantly without discussion and consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Per above, I have removed the addition with edit summary "rv undiscussed addition 17:58, 22 July 2013 per talk; pointing out a problem is not a personal attack; any actual PA is covered by existing text". Johnuniq (talk) 04:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm embarrassed. I don't remember adding that at all. My apologies. --В²C ☎ 04:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support removal as there was no consensus for adding the language. If B2C wishes to discuss adding such a rule, he is welcome to propose it through the normal channels. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- User:Mendaliv, narrowing the date parameters further the "scrivener's error" was added on 22 July 2013 by B2C without any corresponding discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:No personal attacks/Archive 11 as would normally be expected before significant additions to any English Misplaced Pages policy. However per WP:AGF I do assume that Born2cycle had genuinely forgotten the edit and didn't realize he was citing himself. It happens. However, I now support removal - and not based on who added it, but for the reasons given. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- Exactly. That's why I say the parsing is unreasonable enough that it cannot be considered part of the policy: to be interpreted in the manner B2C proposes would cause a manifestly absurd result. It is not possible that the community follows manifestly absurd rules, therefore, the wording must be the equivalent of a scrivener's error (or otherwise simply false, which would counsel the removal of the entire sentence). —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I think several editors whose time you wasted by unilaterally editing this policy and then citing yourself were inclined to let things be after that apology. But I have to say that edits since 04:25, 13 May 2014 do not justify such generosity. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
Name calling should be posted
Name calling another user is a personal attack, why is that not posted? 50.121.36.219 (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's covered under "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done" the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Informal mediation
The article lists and links to informal mediation, but the link doesn't seem to list anything besides formal mediation at that link. Perhaps this needs to be updated? Thanks. Pengortm (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Departure messages on userpages
Natureguy1980 (talk · contribs) departed the project (as have a few other editors) following acrimony surrounding the bird name capitalisation debate in April this year. ON his userpage was a note that was reverted twice by John (talk · contribs). Question is, what could be considered not crossing the line here - if editor A states they are leaving because of editor B (without mentioning the behaviour as "bullying" or "filibustering"), is that ok or not ok? Is that better or worse than this version? I could link to the rather extensive background on the editor complained about but there is alot and have not the energy to rehash it right now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I welcome a fuller discussion, and I am discussing this at my talk page at the moment. Honestly, I think that a user page from a departed user that "names and shames" a current editor falls foul of WP:ATTACK and does not improve the encyclopedia. There are other ways to address grievances. Be happy to hear others' views though, here or at my talk. --John (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have just issued a major whine on John's talk about the user behind the trouble. However, this is the next page on my watchlist so I have to say that John is correct on this point—user space is not available to name enemies (or hint at their names). If that were tolerated there would be poisonous lists everywhere. A more indirect approach is needed, and Natureguy could say something about the belligerence that made them unable to contribute further at the moment. Johnuniq (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Eleanor Roosevelt Quote
Right, enough of armwrestling, state your reasons for keeping or removing below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think that it is a very good quote, and a relevant one. I am sure that we could find other relevant quotes, and I am unsure that we need an opening quote. In its favor, Eleanor Roosevelt is a widely respected figure, and the quote is on point. On the other hand, she is closely associated with political liberalism, and the quote could be perceived as "U.S. centric". Sorry to take a moderate stance, that's how I roll on Misplaced Pages. Cullen Let's discuss it 02:37, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Although she was a Yankee, I think ER has worldwide recognition, like Gandhi or Churchill. Also, it's an apropos quote, especially with current discussions about civility. BTW: Here is the quote's origin in this article: . Lightbreather (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Although this is a conservative source, it appears that the poster has done her/his homework. There appears to be doubt that this quotation originated with Eleanor Roosevelt. The analysis. If someone can provide better provenance for the quote, I will not object. However, I have seen far too many quotes falsely attributed to Abe Lincoln and Mark Twain to take these things at face value. Citation needed. Cullen Let's discuss it 03:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Eleanor Roosevelt, and I am a huge fan. She was one of my role models as a child. However the quote in this context implies strongly that simply talking about someone is a personal attack. This is a very important article and we need to be extremely careful about what is in it. A new editor will get the wrong idea by reading that quote and we don't want to do that. The article should be dry and boring, not interesting in any way, that's what it is to be encyclopedic. We need to stick to the facts in a very pure way. It is a very good quote, but I do not think there should be any quotes in the article at all. Quotes are personal opinions, and there should be no personal opinions in the article at all, no matter how lofty the source. Let's keep all opinion out of the article and stick to facts. We are talking about one of the five pillars after all. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 17:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)