Wikipedia talk:Remove personal attacks

; Items I have removed from my userspace:
	From my User Page: [6][7][8]; From my User Talk: [9][10][11];

Old discussion archived. R adiant _* 11:32, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Guideline?

This page is currently marked as a Guideline, although the poll on this Talk page only shows support that is lukewarm and barely a majority. I suggest that it should be reclassfied as either as a Proposal or as an Historical page, since the category that I would normally want to put it into, Semi-policy, has been effectively removed from the Wikipedia policy pages. BlankVerse ∅ 07:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines are not determined by vote. While I personally don't really like RPA, it has been pointed out repeatedly that it is widely in use, particularly in article talk space. Thus, de facto, it is a guideline. Radiant_* 09:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
- As said elsewhere, if it is in widespread use (I do it very occasionally, and not because it says so here), this should be rewritten so that it accurately explains how, where and when it is used. Zocky 09:43, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point. I use it when people engage in personal attacks against me which distract from the meaningful content of what they are saying; removing personal attacks while keeping the rest of their content allows the debate to stay reasonable without becoming a Usenet-style flamefest. I know a lot of people consider this censorship; I consider it damage control. I have only used it about two or three times; for some reason, the kinds of people looking for a fight back down when they know that their flame will just be erased. Samboy 10:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason I removed the "rejected policy" tag for this page is because it is important that people understand the deleting flames is not the sort of change that is to be instantly reverted; that stopping a flame war is not "censorship". That said, I also think it is important to keep what the person is saying that is meaningful and only deleting the flamebait. Samboy 10:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it should be marked with Template:Ambiguous? Grue 10:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that template passed TFD consensus to delete. However, I'm presently advertising this talk page on RFC and WP:W, in order to get comments. Hope that helps. R adiant _* 11:32, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Call me conservative, but I kind of like it the way it is. It's not something that should automatically be applied in all cases, but if a case is judged to be severe enough the person removing personal attacks shouldn't be seen to be doing something wrong either. --W(t) 11:44, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Remove personal attacks

What's to say about this? It's a very wiki-ish thing to do, to refactor talk pages so as to remove extraneous detail. This is just an endorsement of that reasonable practice in the case of personal attacks. Personal attacks have no place on Wikipedia and all editors should strive to refactor discussion pages so as to remove unnecessary and inflammatory material.

Abuse of this principle: removal of critical evidence and reasonable inference based on evidence from pages in Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk namespace.

When the principle is appropriate: when a discussion is being sidelined by personal issues between two or more editors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Different take, though slightly. Removing inflammatory material that appears in the context of an attempt at productive discussion is not something that I'd want encouraged. I think that personal conflicts that many other editors have requested a stop to should be snuffed without apology as a matter of policy, though.

Response to RFC

Look at the survey on the Talk page. It has, at most, a bare majority of votes for making it policy. It does not come close to fitting the definition of consensus either in the Wikipedia article or the Wikipedia namespace article. I've seen a very few editors who regularly use the page as if it was policy and will refactor Talk page discussions, but I've seen it mostly used as part of a suggestion—that is, remove your personal attack or I will do it for you, as per WP:RPA. I've also seen editors who have become very irate when something that they have written was removed based upon RPA, and I've seen editors who absolutely do not like having any attacks removed from their Talk pages. I don't think NPA "fits" as either a Guideline, or Proposal, or Failed Policy, but it did "fit" in the now deleted Semi-Policy category. BlankVerse ∅ 12:09, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The survey, however, dates from 2003 (one should probably ignore all votes cast in 2004 or later). Arguably it failed - but people started doing it anyway. Reading further on in the archive, you'll find that, in 2005, I wanted to list this as 'rejected', but was convinced by a number of users that it was in fact widespread in use. Thus, it remains as a guideline. R adiant _* 12:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
imho this is the perfect example of the purpose of semi-policy - "an attempt to codify and write down long-standing unwritten rules that have widespread support". While there is not consensus supporting it being official policy, i.e. that "personal attacks should be removed", I'd say there is widespread support for "personal attacks can be removed". Not everybody wants personal attacks removed, some people do. I fall into a middle category in that I remove some personal attacks, but not all - depending on their nature, context, origin and subject. Thryduulf 12:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We should basically decide what this page is to be used for. It's obviously not binding, and probably couldn't even be called "usual behaviour", because we don't really do it that way. So, remove personal attacks is not a policy or a guideline - it's not what we require or normally want users to do. I do think that removing personal attacks, especially from article talk pages, is a Good Thing, though, and I wouldn't mind making it a guideline, but there was never agreement over whether it can be consistently done without misrepresenting one or both sides of an argument.

What we could do with this page to make it useful and not too controversial, is to move it to something like Wikipedia:Removing personal attacks, or even Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, and rewrite it to explain how an editor should and shouldn't remove personal attacks if they are removing them. Then we should probably call it advice or, if we decide that a consistent procedure is preferred, a guideline . I believe that other existing policy covers any misuse. Zocky 12:42, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Zocky. --Theo (Talk) 23:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Yes, existing policy (against vandalism; and also, WP:CIV) covers misuse of RPA. R adiant _* 07:27, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

I, personally, cannot see a good reason for removing personal attacks from discussion. It may make the discussion more comfortable to read, but the only actual achievement of doing so, would be that the people making the assaults so removed would be portrayed in a better light than they might deserve. Leaving personal attacks as they are would give other contributors a few pointers that Editor A is an arse, and there is little point in trying to talk to this person, while Editor B refrains from personal attacks, makes arguments in a factual, intelligable way, and has more than petty insults to throw as a response to critique. Just my 2c --TVPR 07:29, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are several good reasons. I don't leave filth in my front yard just to prove that the person who threw it there is filthy. I don't need to keep re-reading the abuse to know that Editor A is abusive. All that does is raise my blood pressure and make it harder for me to contribute in a factual, intelligible way. Rossami (talk) 13:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me the only thing around here that could reasonably be considered your front yard is your user page. And no one is preventing you from keeping that free of "filth". - dcljr (talk) 08:16, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Our "front yard" is the Wikipedia and all its very public discussion pages. The analogy has nothing to do with user pages. Rossami (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "filth" analogy is appropriate. See, we are evolved apes (unless, of course, your world-view is Creationism). As such, animal instincts still dominate a large amount of our behavior. For example, when we feel someone is challenging us, our animal instincts make us want to fight to defend ourselves. This instinct is completely different from the curiosity and intellectual instincts which make for a good encyclopedia. The reason I support this policy is that it keeps the kind of behavior which puts editors in a mode where they are concentrating on winning a flame war to a minimum and maximizes the amount of time editors in a mode where they are making positive contributions to the Wikipedia. For example, there are a lot of obscure crypto algoritms which don't have Wiki pages at all (such as some of the more obscure canidates for the AES and NESSIE process) which I have the pdf files for which I should contribute articles for. Samboy 05:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One very good reason to remove personal attacks is that they are counter-productive. The purpose of talk pages is to reach consensus. Personal attacks distract from the goal of writing an encyclopedia and devolve into a contest of who can demean the other the most, who can shout the loudest, who can use the dirtiest words. Removing personal attacks forces the offending users to either discuss things in a rational manner or else get tired of being corrected and leave (good riddance). Another good reason to remove personal attacks is that it is simply the enforcement of two already-existing policies -- WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. It is not a new or even a separate issue. It is nothing more than enforcement of policy. A third good reason to remove personal attacks... Usenet. SWAdair | Talk 06:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's purpose, the sole purpose for having a Wiki, is the production of an encyclopedia. The discussion pages are to be used for communication and community building in the course of producing that encyclopedia. There is also a policy, No personal attacks, forbidding personal attacks. This article is just a bit of very sensible advice for how to deal with a case where discussion gets sidetracked by editors who make personal attacks. Because such attacks tend to develop into squabbles and at pollute the discussion, it's often better to just remove them. I have used this technique more than most and have found that, used well, it is not a particularly contentious act and does improve discussion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

/Temp

I've attempted a rewrite at /Temp. I think this addresses some of the concerns raised during the earlier survey and on the /archive page. I'd appreciate any comments or thoughts. Rossami (talk) 22:57, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like that. I read it through once and it reads well and seems to cover all case and objections well. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this, and the current guideline as well. In fact i would favor a policy of "don't remove personal attacks" as part of a larger policy "Don't edit other people's comments on discussion pages." I think the only person who should remove a personal attack from a discussion page is the person who posted it. In general i think that what is said, and signed, on a discussion page (unlike an article page) should be considered to "belong" to that author, and should not be edited by anyone else. If it were cheap and easy, I would support an editing system that prevented such edits for discussion pages. DES 18:19, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a legitimate place for removing vandalism, or talk comments that consist of nothing but policy-violating personal attacks. For instance, a comment that says "You are a jerk! --BadPerson" should definitely be removed. There is nothing that says that an attacker needs to be let to run wild.

The problem, in my opinion, crops up when someone wants to alter another person's words. Whatever else it may be, doing so is an expression of hostile control over that person. It is to say, "You should not have said that. You should have said this instead," -- and then making it appear to the reading public that this was the reality.

It is worse, though, because accusations of personal attacks are more likely to crop up when there are serious disagreements -- and in particular, when editors are already having difficulty trusting in each other's good faith. This is precisely the wrong time for editors to be encouraged to pick apart one another's words, make accusations, mess with the record, and justify this aggressive behavior with a Wikipedia policy!

Basically, when "removing personal attacks" means "editing other people's signed words to say what we wish they would have said", it is nothing but a justification for aggressive behavior towards other people's expression. Wikipedia policy must not recommend anything of the sort. --FOo 19:03, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The guideline itself points out that one should not alter the legitimate concept being communicated, and to be careful to leave the context intact. That still allows one to remove "stupid" "moron" "fuckhead" (think it doesn't happen? See Talk:Tehran) and it is perfectly legitimate to do so. Personal attacks are worse than worthless; they are counter-productive. They do nothing to advance the cause we are here for -- writing an encyclopedia. They are not advantageous to the article in any way. They only make it more difficult to reach consensus. Personal attacks have no place in Wikipedia. SWAdair | Talk 06:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Personal attack" is interpreted too widely

Some people interpret any kind of advice to change behavior as a personal attack, e.g. "why not google before nominating for deletion?" or "why not fix it yourself instead of adding a cleanup tag?". Discussions of behavior should not be regarded as personal attacks and should not be removed. Kappa 00:13, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially related - it is common for some users to regard any type of criticism as a personal attack. This article should make clear how to make positive criticism in acceptable fashion when required. Pcb21| Pete 22:07, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only time I have seen what I would consider an overextension of personal attacks removal on the Wikipedia is one user who deletes sockpuppet allegations because he considers them personal attacks. Samboy 01:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unless people have been removing such neutral advice from Wikipedia discussions, citing "Remove personal attacks", there is no need to make a point of that. If it ain't bust, don't fix it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If it didn't happen, I wouldn't have mentioned it. Do I have to dig up diffs? Kappa 19:17, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please. Let's talk about actual cases where people have removed statements citing "remove personal attacks", for reasons that may be marginal and could be cleared up by improved wording. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's two:
- [1] "It's so much easier to slap a tab on an article than actual edit it, is not that so?" (in reference to using a {{cleanup-context}} tag instead of providing context oneself) was removed.
- Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Masjid e Tooba: nothing was actually removed but WP:RPA was cited. The whole discussion is relevant. Kappa 06:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Both are overreacted imho, but no harm was done. But yeah, the RPA page could do with some rewording about this. R adiant _* 11:30, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Here's another diff that demonstrates that "personal attack" is interpreted far too widely: [2] I'm still trying to figure out where the personal attack was, and RickK hasn't replied about what of this was an attack. --Un focused 04:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are cases where "personal attack" has been interpreted too widely - in my experience, solely by the person who believed that he/she was being attacked. Those edits are usually reverted by a third party fairly quickly. We should, however, codify that rule. I've attempted to add it to /Temp. Rossami (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I think the first example was an excellent example of where the sense of a comment has been kept while a personal attack has been removed. The second one is more marginal. The comment was not informative and was a personal slight. It did make the discussion more heated and I personally wouldn't object to removal of such comments--in fact I would aid a person who removed such attacks, if others attempted to revert them. This may not be particularly popular behavior, but I think the perception of an attack and a clear good-faith attempt to mitigate the effects are demonstrable and would command much sympathy. The third example is a case of a similar slight that was in fact removed. A good job. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- If things like the first example [3] can simply be removed without refactoring or replacement, I will feel that real conversations are impossible here. The sense of the comment is gone, someone felt I should have done something differently, but I would never have a chance to hear about it. Kappa 01:39, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - - I agree with Kappa above. I consider the changes made in the dif he quotes to be way out of line, and i am tempted to revert if those changes exist on on the current version of the relevent page. In general editing soemone else's signed comment on a talk page, without even indicating on the page itself (not just in the history) that a change has been made, i think is very wrong. What would you think of a policy proposal to prohibit this kind of editing? DES 19:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  - That's a couple weeks old. Both RickK and I have tried this alternate method, shown here, originally suggested here by Radiant! I'm not sure how RickK feels about this latest exchange, but I feel much less offended and combative because it was done this way. It just seems much more civilized in practice. Removing someone else's comment is much more aggressive than demonstrating that you strongly object to it. I'd be interested to know if RickK feels the same as I do; that this was unpleasant, but not nearly as unpleasant as removal of comments. --Un focused 04:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For an elaboration of User:RickK's feelings on behavior in VfD, see Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Removing_attacks_on_VfD_nominators.27_motives, which I endorse fully. RickK makes some excellent points and I am going to be more careful in my behavior on VfD discussions because of this. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Regarding [4]. It seems clear to me that the thing removed was not a personal attack. I think WP:RPA should be revised so that a remark should have to pass a few tests to merit removal on sight:

Must be personal -- must be directed at a specific person or list of people: the target of the remark must be clear, it must refer to the human, rather than be merely a discussion of behavior on Wikipedia, policy enforcement actions that be taken, or what a user would be allowed to do: so, "Please stop reverting.", or "If you continue to vandalize this page, you will be blocked," would not be personal attacks, if the expected situation actually generated remarks like that.
Must be an attack; direct threats to life or property, or clear insults to a person's character or worth are attacks, but complaints, or allegations of abuse with compelling evidence cited are not attacks, except intentional deceptions.
Must be explicit and clear and not merely implicit, "possible",

or insinuated. Outright blanking or removing text from comments is harmful, and is justifiable only in the most serious cases.

Perhaps the convention should be: When removing a personal attack, insert a diff link which when clicked would show the changes made to the comment: this would at least keep the record straight about what was removed, when, why, and by whom. --Mysidia (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the comments by Mysidia. The existing guideline, as stated, is far too expansive in terms of permitting the individual who views a comment as an attack to remove it. Robert McClenon 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Examples where this policy works

See here for a recent example of the effective defusing of a flamewar through the judicious removal of personal attacks. By the way, it was done and done well by someone who, as far as I know, doesn't even know that this page exists. Rossami (talk) 19:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Also, see Talk:Tehran for an example of how to refactor without changing the substance of the message, and without making the attacker seem nicer than they really were (i.e. tell people you refactored something). SWAdair | Talk 06:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Here, where I refactored a user page (something I normally don't do, but this was too blatant). The user responded by striking through the remainder of the diatribe, but leaving it on the page, in an attempt to circumvent policy. I then left a note on his talk page explaining the refactoring and suggesting he cease a non-productive war of incivility. It worked. SWAdair | Talk 05:35, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree this guideline can work, but it needs to be simplified so it is more quickly understood by newcomers and not abused. If not simplified, at least make the introductory paragraphs more concise and explanatory so the upset user who has been personally attacked can quickly grasp the idea of RPA without making mistakes. Policies (and guidelines) should be concise and quickly grasped without the reader having to figure out what is being said in the policy/guideline. Currently, WP:RPA is overly wordy. In July 2005, I made the mistake of removing entire paragraphs which were led by introductory statements of personal attacks because I was already pissed off that some users were wasting my time and then I was met with even more potentially lost time when I faced this guideline. --AI 19:50, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively...

...we could block people for personal attacks. That had been discussed before, in the form of "if an admin sees an attack, he may block". Which was heavily controversial and suspected to be abusable. However, a current proposal is more along the lines of "if a user is making personal attacks, as considered by three different people other than the victims, on three different occasions, within one week, then the user may be blocked for a short time". If you're interested in this discussion, please join it at Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks. R adiant _>|< 09:52, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

(please do not discuss here - centralized discussion is more constructive)

Do Not Remove Personal Attacks

I think that any policy allowing personal attacks to be removed from talk pages by anyone other than the person making them is a serious mistake. Since it is a matter of judgment what is a personal attack, any guideline that provides some degree of permission to remove unwanted material from talk pages will be abused more than it is used wisely. There are several open RfCs concerning user conduct where the user in question removed statements disagreeing with him as personal attacks. I think that this establishes that combative users will see any disagreement as a personal attack. Any policy permitting the removal of personal attacks will be used by combative users (those who engage in personal attacks) as a license to engage in censorship.

Permitting personal attacks to be removed from talk pages will make the tedious task of preparing RfCs, RfMs, and RfAs more difficult by requiring the person doing the tedious dirty job to provide diffs rather than simply links.

I not only think that there should not be a policy to permit the removal of personal attacks. There should be a policy to prohibit the removal of personal attacks from talk pages. Wikipedia is not Usenet, but it should at least learn a few lessons from Usenet. The removal of personal attacks is analogous to cancelling personal attacks. Rogue cancelling is one of the few types of action that is universally agreed to be an abuse and that actually will result in being TOSd off.

Do not remove personal attacks. Allowing them to be removed will be misinterpreted to permit censorship. Robert McClenon 14:54, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Official Wikipedia Policy alread states that we may remove personal attacks:

"If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks or may follow the dispute resolution process or both."
WP:NPA#Remedies Official Wikipedia policy

It is not censorship, the user making the personal attack can state his case without making personal attacks.

--AI 09:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that something is "Official Wikipedia Policy" (whatever that means) doesn't prohibit discussion on whether the policy is right. Personally, I agree with the original poster. The RPA policy is too open to abuse by savvy Wikipedians. I would like the status changed from a policy to a guideline - something like "removing talk page commentary, particularly abusive commentary, is encouraged if it ultimately lead to a better article." Pcb21| Pete 09:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere did I suggest prohibiting discussion on whether the policy is right, I agree that anyone should be free to discuss policy. And I agree with you that "Removing talk page commentary, particularly abusive commentary, is encouraged if it untimately leads to a better article" is not a bad proposed policy amendment. If you're suggesting changing WP:RPA to a guideline, it already is only a guideline. On the other hand, WP:NPA is an official policy, good luck on changing it to a mere guideline. I still disagree with Robert McClenon in that removal of personal attacks would pose any significant problem regarding "censorship." I had no comment regarding the rest of his message Robert McClenon's message. And Pete, I boxed my statement for a reason. Please don't alter the formatting of any of MY messages at all unless they contain personal attacks in which case you may refactor my message. --AI 19:15, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you get to choose which Wikipedia guidelines apply to you? Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages. Pcb21| Pete 08:05, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read all the guidelines. But I have read some policies relevant to complaints about my contributions. --AI 03:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RPA is a disputed guideline and should only be used in very limited circumstances (e.g. inflammatory comments, especially by trolls). AI, on the other hand, has stated that his interpretation of policies being described as "idiosyncratic" constitutes a personal attack and should be subject to removal.[5] This clearly goes against the spirit of the policy, and I would characterize such a removal, were it to take place, as an abuse of policy. --MarkSweep 17:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idiosyncratic implies someone is "eccentric." Therefore it is a personal attack. Personal attacks are not allowable in Wikipedia. Currently official Wikipedia policy allows removal of personal attacks. Wikipedia user's should not be disciplined at all for following policy. If someone doesn't agree with a policy, then they can seek consensus to change it. --AI 19:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Idiosyncratic" does not necessary imply "eccentric", and "eccentric" is not necessarily a personal attack. Wiktionary defines "idiosyncratic" as "peculiar to a particular individual; eccentric". In other words, take your choice of definitions. Wiktionary further defines "eccentric" as meaning "deviating from the norm". I certainly do not think that characterizes someone's interpretation as "idiosyncratic" is a personal attack. It is probably only a statement of disagreement, and it implies that the person making that statement thinks that the "idiosyncratic" view is a minority view. That might only mean that the person in the minority is ahead of his time or has discovered something interesting. I certainly do not see why a characterization that one's interpretation is "idiosyncratic" should be removed as a personal attack. In fact, removing that comment could make dialogue difficult. Robert McClenon 21:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Personal comments are not welcome in Article Talk pages according to current official Wikipedia policy and according to proposed policies. --AI 05:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is very true that personal attacks are not welcome on article talk pages. The problem is that, if every Wikipedian decides that they can be the sole judge of what is a personal attack on them, then those who are hyper-sensitive can interfere with dialogue because they will remove disagreement, thinking it is a personal attack. Removal of actual personal attacks is not censorship, but removal of disagreement that is perceived to be a personal attack has the effect of censorship. Robert McClenon 11:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Mark would have simply pointed out the exact wording of any policy I was acting contrary to, I would have listened to him. Some users mainly offers their opinions and interpretation as the "law" and then expect everyone to obey their point of view. It is unfortunate that some people don't have a productive way to convey and enforce policy and still make new volunteers feel welcome. It is unfortunate that this incompetence is shared by many admins and some arbitrators. And the idea that TINC is misguided. It is well known that there are small cliques in the internet and their involvement in Wikipedia is pretty obvious to me. Which is why I quit contributing. --AI 03:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fuly agree with Robert McClenon above. i think that the "guideline" of WP:RPA should be changed to a guideline or policy of Don't change other people's words on talk pages. which should apply even to persoanl attacks. I think that the above quoted WP:NPA#Remedies is unfortunate and should be changed. it is also misleading, because in WP:NPA#Consequences it says: Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on sight, and although this isn't policy... (emphasis added). Thus the NPA page is self-contradictory on this issue. DES ^(talk) 18:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not fully agree with Robert McClenon, see my comment above. And again, removing personal attacks is already supported by official Wikipedia policy under WP:NPA#Remedies. What is unfortulate is this guideline which outlines how to remove personal attacks (WP:RPA) because it is too lengthy for simple and quick understanding. A user who has come under assult of personal attacks is often too upset to spend extra time to read the entire guideline and fully understand it for correct application. If we want to avoid abuse of refactoring, this policy needs to be simplified. Removal of any talk messages is prohibited by other policies, WP:NPA and WP:RPA only allow for removal of personal attacks/comment. If it is being abused, it probably is because those abusing it didn't fully read it, as in my case where I started removing entire statements by others who made only one or two personal attacks in their statement. Seeking to change WP:NPA into a guideline is not going to be acceptable to professionals and will only contribute to Wikipedia's problems. --AI 19:41, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the statement on WP:NPA "and although this isn't policy..." is misleading because it can confuse the reader into thinking that WP:NPA is not policy. What the statement actually refers to is that this guideline (WP:RPA) is not "policy". WP:NPA should be correct to avoid the confusions, I have mentioned this in Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. --AI 20:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I habitually remove personal attacks, but anyone who does so has to realise that it isn't Wikipedia policy, nor is it in any way supported by Wikipedia policy. It's a fairly controversial strategy for dealing with personal attacks, particularly those that might side-track or impede discussion. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is written in plain english on WP:NPA that we may remove personal attacks. If it isn't policy then why isn't anyone changing the policy so it isn't confusing to new comers. --AI 05:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

However we DO need to not have any personal attacks. They serve NO contributive purpose

whatsoever, and they only serve to create hostility towards both sides, which can impede good, reasonable debate (in fact that can outright drag good debates into flame fests). People disputing a point need to argue about the POINT and the ARGUMENTS, LOGIC, EVIDENCE, and REASONING each side presents, not about THEMSELVES. The former type of argument is beneficial, the latter is not. Removing personal attacks helps to enforce the policy of having none at all. That being said, a more strict and rigorous definition is needed to help prevent censorship, though, and any attempts to abuse NPA/RPA to censor should be reverted on-the-spot and be totally exempt from 3RR. But removing personal attacks, I believe, is key to help maintaining the much-needed civility here on Wikipedia. Saying "get rid of it because it can be abused" can be used as an excuse to get rid of anything. There are very, very good reasons like those I gave above for removing personal attacks, for one it helps uphold the official policy of no personal attacks, however abuse of the system should NOT be tolerated. ANYTHING can be abused, so according to "get rid of it because abuse is possible" we have to throw out ALL policy, guidelines, essays, unwritten rules, EVERYTHING!!!! Make it more foolproof and abuseproof but KEEP it. 70.101.144.160 20:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can remove my personal attacks/comments

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone refactoring any of my messages where I have made personal attacks/comments (RETROACTIVE). :) --AI 20:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPA too lengthy

File:Happy pit bull.jpg

Please do not bite the newcomers

RPA needs to be trimmed down so others don't make mistakes in applying WP:RPA (as I did make a few mistakes). Their mistakes may result in other mean users to forget to assume good faith and abuse new users by baiting them and biting them. --AI 20:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current Dispute which is likely to lead to an RFC

Here is a perfect example of a wikipedian using this rule to remove and censor debate to the great frustration of others, this is continuing and is most likely to end in an RFC against him.

Andy deletes factual comment on an RFC claiming it to be fallacious

Andy reads something he doesn't like, claims it as abusive and then removes it from a discussion

various other reverts of my own talk page

In my opinion, if a personal attack is made, the offending word/wording should be removed or blanked but the rest of the comment should remain. This way, the discussion is complete, for instance, if Andy were to remove part of this post claiming it to be abusive then people here may not get the whole picture of what I am pointing out, it is disruptive to a discussion and more time is wasted by conflicting users who continually revert the same coments, I have personally had one user here who is no longer with wikipedia use quite derogatory language towards me, I was not offended as I treated it with the contempt it deserved, I think that certain words were crossed out which is good, it allows other users to make up their own mind on a particular users civility. I would like to see minor abuse, that is the kind of remarks that people feel a little uncomfortable with simpled crossed out, then if someone uses profein or insulting language then that should be crossed out and if it is used again by the same user then it can be removed or the user be blocked for 24 hours. Nick Boulevard 18:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a good policy

I think removing personal attacks is a good policy; particularily on my own talk page. If someone wants to flame me or troll on my own talk page, I have a right to throw the troll out. If you're upset that someone erased something you wrote, this is a signal to re-write what you are saying in a manner that respects the other person's feelings. I really wish Wikipedia:Civility actually meant something here. Samboy 10:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the logic behind RPA, and in particular I think that a user has a right but not a responsibility to do that on one's own user talk page. I disagree with removing personal attacks from article talk pages, because there are some editors who will remove opinions disagreeing with them on reasonable questions of what is proper content or what is POV and NPOV. Removing such opinions has the effect of making discussions on article talk pages impossible. There have been several editors who have, unfortunately, behaved in this fashion. Robert McClenon 20:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WHere is the Wikipedia governing body?

Hi, can you guys please point me to the governing body that can assist FrankWSweet? His complaint is at the bottom. I actually do not know what he is referring to. I am a little aggrivated by his "complaint" and I wish to see really where this goes. As I indicated to him in the chat room, my response was not directed to him (certainly not specifically so). But let's assume it was, and so I would like to know what racial group I attributed him to, or which one I omitted him from. I also would like to know, what kind of violation this actually falls under (slander, libel?). I think it's extremely uncalled for; this complaint. But I want to see what kind of rules I may have broken (because I certainly will be using the same process against others in the future). Whoops, forgot to sign again. --Zaphnathpaaneah 10:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (the perpetrator of the offensive behavior)[reply]

Umm. A quick point of order, gentlemen, if you please. Is it acceptable to ask if "Zaphnathpaaneah" is the same person who earlier signed himself "Zaph"? -- FrankWSweet 18:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I am he. Wikipedia seems to have fixed their "server problem" and I am able to sign in normally, instead of having to remote in before. And actually, I'm taking a hiatus from further editing of this article. It's me against too many points of view to keep up with, and no one is really supportive at this point. I can't believe you guys cited DeeCeeVoice. Besides, I want to see how the article changes without any black person moderating it for a while. I am doing my own experiment. --Zaphnathpaaneah 21:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I find it deeply offensive that someone should publicly attribute a "racial" membership to me, knowing nothing about me. There is undoubtedly a way of lodging a formal complaint to whatever governing body is responsible for Wikipedia. I shall find it. -- FrankWSweet 03:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This is not the correct forum for dispute resolution. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. — Matt Crypto 12:17, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Placation of Personal Attacks

I've personally encountered an individual that uses information to personally attack individuals. Becaues his information is valid, these attacks are generally ignored, but the individual in question has been removing comments that attempt to placate him. These comments are not warnings, as we have not judged this individual as controversial enough to deserve one, but his act in doing so is alarming. Is this a violation of Wikipedia policy? -Drake Christopher Dragon 22:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Suggested name change

This "guideline" is so often misapplied that I think it should be moved to Wikipedia:Refactor personal attacks. "Remove" gives people the idea that they can wipe out or otherwise sanitize any negative comments about them, regardless of their status as actual personal attacks or valid, reasoned criticism. android 79 15:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Rossami (talk) 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As per nom. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 20:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. The number of times I've seen WP:RPA applied properly and reasonably is nugatory compared to its tendentious misuse. It's the POV warrior's favourite "policy" (no, I know it isn't policy, but they don't), and I'd love to do away with the whole thing. This proposed name change is a step in the right direction while we wait for wiki opinion to catch up with me. ;-) Bishonen | ノート 20:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Support name change, Oppose chosen name. The word refactor is not widely known, especially outside of the writing/programming world. Let's avoid jargon and choose something else. Maybe "Diminish personal attacks" or "Modify personal attacks". In any case I don't agree with this policy at all - it seems to just upset everybody it's ever been used on. Deco 23:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suggested "refactor" because it is used frequently in the description of the guideline, and it would allow the shortcut (WP:RPA) to remain the same. I don't care too much, though. android 79 01:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The problem isn't the "remove", it's the "personal attacks". People misapplying this policy misunderstand what constitutes a "personal attack" on Wikipedia, not how to remove it. --Srleffler 04:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, both parts get misinterpreted, sometimes at the same time, which has the most disastrous effects. Also note that this isn't policy. It's merely a guideline that quite a few people are uncomfortable with. Perhaps we should talk about phasing it out or merging it with WP:NPA rather than a simple rename. android 79 04:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing is not the only way to deal with personal attacks. Grue 07:26, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support name change (but as Deco, oppose chosen name): Any word is liable to be misinterpreted when it's the basis of a rule. While "Personal attacks" should be straight forward to define, "remove" is less accurate in this case than "refactor"-- although the later might be Wiki-jargonesque. As Deco above, my preference would be for a more commonly understood (and simpler) name, such as "Edit personal attacks" or even "Rephrase personal attacks" --Leflyman^Talk 02:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the word "refactor". It's jargon in the sense that it's a technical term with a specific meaning. "Edit", "rephrase", "modify", etc. may be more recognized terms but they do not have the same deliberately narrow meaning and are open to misunderstanding. If someone doesn't recognize "refactor", we should teach them what it means rather than compromise on the meaning we intend. Rossami (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be contrary, but I would contend that "refactor" is as easy to misconstrue as any other word-- in the context of Wikipedia, it simply means "rephrase." It seems to me a sort of exclusionary view to expect that all Wikipedians will implicitely understand a "technical term" which originated among computer programmers. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written and edited in easy-to-understand language. My feeling is that we should not be making out writers to be equivalent to programmers, nor turning computer jargon into Wikipedia jargon, just because we may think its meaning is "deliberately narrow."--Leflyman^Talk 03:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Refactoring is only one way to remove personal attacks (though probably often the best way) and sometimes it's not necessary to refactor "you are an a**hole" into "[I think you are being rude]". Refactor isn't even listed in most dictionaries, and commonly used guidelines should be readily comprehensible for our wide variety of users. If the guideline is being used in inappropriate ways by some users, the simple-to-understand criteria for use should be presented in the header of this article.--Nectar 03:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think personal attacks should be removeable. --Masssiveego 23:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per Bishonen. AvB ÷ talk 16:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It should be perfectly clear to anyone with common sense what a personal attack is in this context. I don't for a moment think that the people who remove legitimate criticism under the guise of RPA will stop because we changed the word 'remove' to a word that doesn't even exist. They remove criticism to make themselves look better, not because they've misinterpreted this guideline. --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) ( T | C | A ) 13:12, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus

There's no consensus in favour, there's no consensus against. That's the happy compromise surrounding this policy proposal. Changes such as this give the wrong impression to editors not familiar with its status. -- Tim Starling 06:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Disputedpolicy template here strikes me as a bit of overkill when the first two sentences of the guideline already make clear that the guideline does not enjoy consensus. I think it needs to come off again. FeloniousMonk 22:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; the additional dispute warning is unnecessary. The page itself notes the controversy and suggests the limited appropriate usage. The discussion here is not whether the guideline should exist, but how it should be interpreted/applied and what (if anything) should the title be changed to. Nearly all guideline/policy discussions have some level of disagreement. —Leflyman^Talk 17:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Midgley 15:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove personal attacks directed to me

Thank you. John Reid 22:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. Bishonen | talk 22:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Me too. SushiGeek 16:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
badlydrawnjeff talk 01:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TZM^T (de:^T) 10:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me either. Whis key Rebel lion 04:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if a demand not to change personal attacks directed against you a choice an editor actually has? If such attacks are disruptive to the group then it is not only the target who is effected. Of course one can always express their preference. HighInBC 00:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can fix disruption, just don't get out the magnifying glass and semiotics book and try to parse whether something is a "personal attack". By overdefining what constitutes disruption we both weaken our overall efforts to minimize it and strengthen the hand of trolls. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But of course. I had that in mind when I said If such attacks are disruptive. It should not be done to make a point or nit-picking. HighInBC 04:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring rude comments

I started a discussion on this on the refactoring talk page, not knowing about this page. Anyways, the consensus seemed to be that it was alright (more or less) so long as a link was provided in the page history to the original comment.

See Wikipedia Talk:Refactoring talk pages/Archive 1#Refactoring rude comments.

— Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 21:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is how I remove personal attacks

I feel it is important not to hide the personal attacks, but to simply move them out of the way. That is why I created a box to keep all of the removed offensive material. It simply shows to diffs of the original edit, and the image is styling too! HighInBC 20:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

move to get rid of this

As this is not policy, and as this is actually called guideline, rendering it meaningless, and as there is no consensus to keep this, I suggest we throw it out. The correct name for it would be vandalism, whether the action is claimed to be an action against vandalism, or not. It is nonsensical, the removal (of personal attacks) highly subjective, and it is far too easy for it to be used in a corrupt manner. Sha nnon ^{duck talk} 20:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a discussion of something that some people find useful. We do not delete such policy discussions, even completely rejected ones such as WP:TOBY. We flag them as non-consensus or as rejected by consensus, depending on which is the case. --FOo 00:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When the pretence of removing a personal attack is used to highlight it

The gist of RPA is to render meaningful discussion easier by dropping attacks from the wiki so that the readers can focus on the non-attack content. Accordingly sticking something like (Personal attack removed) in is actually the worst thing to do because it does exactly the opposite. I've removed the recommendation to use the {{RPA}} template and suggest that use of it be severely deprecated. --Tony Sidaway 00:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Tony Sideaway's rm of this template link from the project page. It really is a bad idea in almost all cases. The rationale that justifies RPA is to cool off a situation by removing the ignition source. It doesn't help to leave a little fuse sticking up. If you must RPA, do so unobtrusively. John Reid 15:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposing opinion

I do not think that giving a blank che{que,ck} to remove personal attacks is a good idea. Doing so, you legitimise personal attacks because "hey, he can remove it anyway". Personal attacks should stay, and be evidence against those who perpetrated them. Perhaps I'd agree to a user being able to remove them from his/her own talk page, but I'd have to think about that more. When very heated debates are going on (as they often, unfortunately, do) it is very difficult to see who is being obstinate if all 5 parties involved are "removing personal attacks". Just my 2¢. --Storkk 02:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk page reversion

I am currently wondering what to do about this edit. I warned the user, albeit not with the templates, however, they insist on having their original wording on a banned users talk page even though they agree it is a personal attack. Any ideas? Ansell 02:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Be persistent. HighInBC 02:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"whiting out"

I would suggest that, rather than actually removing the attacks from the page, people "white them out" with a font color="#ffffff" tag. This way they are preserved in case someone (admin, ArbCom) wants to look into the incident (they often get lost when a page gets archived and are much harder to find in diffs). - Che Nuevara 05:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is also likely to be perceived as an escalated attack by the person whose comments are thus marked-up. As such, I don't think it can be safely recommended. --FOo 06:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me, removing personal attacks are often taken persoannly by the attacker regardless of the method used to remove them. HighInBC 14:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be marked as {{rejected}}.

It says, right at the top, that there is no consensus for this, and it is plain that none is likely to emerge. Note that the text of {{rejected}} reads: A rejected proposal is any for which consensus to support is not present and seems unlikely to form, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. That describes this page to a dot. While turning it into an essay might have seemed like good idea at one point, there are way too many people citing this as if it were policy (not even as a guideline, as if it were policy), often in situations that are making arguments much, much worse (This is the most recent, though similar disputes inflamed by users who mistook this for policy pop up fairly regularly.) This is not simply an essay, and it is misleading to label it as such; it is a policy proposal (still worded like a policy proposal, despite the essay tag, which doubtless contributes to many editors' confusion) that was discussed and length and decisively failed to garner consensus despite extended discussion. Note that the text on {{rejected}} does not say or require that there be an overwhelming majority against the proposal; it merely states that there is not consensus for it, nor is there likely to be any in the foreseeable future. That is certainly the case here... plainly, as long as the first paragraph of the proposal says what it says now, the template above it ought to be {{rejected}}, and that should be the first thing new editors see on this page when they arrive. --Aquillion 08:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and looking back through the edit history I made the same conclusion two years ago, when the classification scheme was devised. >Radiant< 14:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]