Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 12

src: divinityoriginalsin2.wiki.fextralife.com

Video Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 12

Proposed addition to "Avoiding personal attacks"

Maps Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/Archive 12

WP:CENT

It may be worth adding both of these RFCs to WP:CENT as this is a fairly major policy decision. If it is done, I would suggest a single unified and neutral notification, something along the line of "Two opposing proposals regarding the WP:AVOIDYOU portion of WP:NPA, one to copy-edit and clarify it, one to remove it completely." Gaijin42 (talk) 16:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

By all means, anything that you think will bring in lots of, and it is to be hoped constructive, participation. Be my guest. Lightbreather (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have added the two RFCs. Due to the "one link" rule on CENT I had to use two separate items rather than the unified text I proposed above. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

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 Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ 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: [1]. 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. Cullen³²⁸ 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)

I second Sue's comments and analysis wholeheartedly! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ??? 18:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The debunk of the quote is rather interesting. It appears to predate ER's fame by quite a bit. [2] In the absence of a real source tying it to ER (with some level of proof) I think we should remove the attribution. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Though it sounds good if you don't think about it too much, I don't see that this quote ("Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people") really serves any useful purpose here. In fact, it sounds like an attack on the members of WikiProject History and especially WikiProject Biography.--Boson (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What?--Mark Miller (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "what?", but historians discuss events and biographers discuss people. The quotation seems to be saying that these are the activities of lesser minds". Discussing people and events has nothing to do with personal attacks per se, though, of course, negative discussion of people can be used in relational aggression, as can and many other forms of human interaction. [I have only now noticed that there was already a section on this quote, so I have moved this there. Hope that is OK.] PS: I didn't understand the comment about armwrestling. Did I miss something?--Boson (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Boson, but I'd go further. It's an ad hominem personal attack on vast sections of humankind who have done nothing to deserve it. It's illustrating NPA by putting a thoroughly crass PA on a pedestal for us to admire and imitate. It subverts the whole purpose of NPA, and is symptomatic of Wikipedia's perverse pseudo-civility. (And it's not the only example of such subversion in our Civility guidelines, but I don't want to keep on repeating myself like a broken record on that subject). Tlhslobus (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I've just left the following message on Scalhotrod's Talk Page:

--Apologies for accidentally reverting you a few days ago; please feel free to add back your edit --

A few days ago you removed a quote from WP:NPA. I unintentionally reverted it while reverting a block of edits by another user (and then get distracted by a dispute, so I never got round to checking whether your edit should be restored). Sorry about that, and please feel free to remove the quote again. Personally I fully agree that it doesn't belong (though I haven't yet read the full discussion so I might later change my mind, but in any case it's not something I feel strongly about). Unfortunately since I accidentally restored the quote another user has added in references, etc, so he may not be too happy about you removing them. I'm also going to leave a copy of this in the discussion on the NPA Talk page. Once again my apologies. Tlhslobus (talk) 20:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Contrary to what I said about not feeling strongly about it, having had more time to think about it, I now feel pretty strongly about it. I think that it should go, as it's a PA up on a pedestal making a mockery of NPA, and thus helping to keep Wikipedia as the dreadfully uncivil and pseudo-civil place that it is.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

So I think I'm going to delete it now and see what happens.Tlhslobus (talk) 21:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

WP:NPANUTSHELL, WP:NPANS, WP:NPANUT

The focus and point of WP:NPA is attacking behaviour. There are various intricacies of explaining it, but throughout. Nutshell: You cannot just assume an attacking position without relevant reference to content. To spit fire, the room must be lit before you got there, and even then it is your supposed WP duty to put the fire out. If you are searching above for what this page should focus on, it should focus first on that. And so, this post is to say that the nutshell can definitely be written on that basis. If it is not... let's hear it... ~ R.T.G 23:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think that's not really the nutshell. "This edit is being utterly idiotic when it says X" is assuming an attacking position with relevant reference to content, yet it is (usually? always?) a personal attack, because it implies that the edit must have been done by an utter idiot. And most clever PAs are probably a bit like that.

Meanwhile we already have 2 proposed changes under discussion. So it might be best either to put this one on hold until the other two are sorted out, or alternatively you might want to copy it as a comment into one or both the other proposal discussions, but particularly the one that currently has lots of supports (though that may be misleading as it may have been based on misleading early headings), as the other looks doomed.Tlhslobus (talk) 10:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, PAs are already reasonably well explained in the article's next section Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F, so it's a bad idea to be trying to define it again in the section under discussion.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. The reduction of attacking behaviour is the concern of this article. Everything else is secondary, even the personal bit. If you were getting personal but there was no attacking, there'd also be no form of WP:NPA. It is why this page exists. Attacks intended for insult or injury in any form. So it might not be the way I wrote it, but it is that. ~ R.T.G 11:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Proposal 2 re "Avoiding personal attacks"

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Proposal to remove some of the advice against the second person pronoun

In the above discussion, there seem to be at least two other users besides myself (namely User:Stfg and User:Flyer22) who find some of the AVOIDYOU section problematic. I don't see how saying "User:X's proposal in unacceptable" is any more or less problematic than replying to someone with "your proposal is unacceptable". Telling editors to look for diffs and always write "this proposal [DIFF] is unacceptable" is IMHO an unacceptable level of WP:CREEPy advice in a policy. In my experience few editors actually bother to write in a such a way, except maybe in highly adversarial proceedings like ArbCom's (where additionally editors cannot directly reply to each other). Surely in a confusing situation diffs help even on run-of-the-mill talk pages, but we should not strive to transform every talk page in a moot court. You can obviously attack someone (or their idea/proposal/etc.) by speaking of them in the 3rd person and/or by using a diff, e.g. "this proposal [DIFF] can only come from a completely clueless editor" is a borderline personal attack that is entirely AVOIDYOU-compliant. Concretely, I propose dropping but "The statement..." and "The paragraph inserted..." is preferred, or instead--"The paragraph inserted here [DIFF] into the article looks like original research", which also is not a personal attack, and avoids referring to the other editor in the second person; is preferable. and deleting the WP:AVOIDYOU shortcut too. Focusing on the avoidance of the you/your pronouns is only going to lead fake civility. I can give you an example from ANI where one editor called another idiot by writing "[Your proposal] is wrong [yada, yada]. Idiot." with the obvious implication who the idiot was. The way this policy focuses/delves on form rather than substance only encourages such creativity. JMP EAX (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support my own proposal, obviously. JMP EAX (talk) 13:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and the best of luck, JMP EAX.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support It's pretty much ignored by all anyway. DeCausa (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support reversing the instruction creep. --Stfg (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose it's an EXISTING (not new), though often ignored and unenforced, WP:CIVIL policy re the appropriate use of second person. It's no more of a "crusade" than policies re NPOV. WP:RS and WP:DUE are discussed everyday. Just because some try to pass off unreliable sources and undue material doesn't mean we should abandon those. No. Those guidelines stand, and so should this. Further, since it's already policy, it is WP:NOTCREEP. Lightbreather (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Repeatedly using unreliable sources can and does get someone blocked. Was anyone ever blocked for using "you" in the absence of other/real policy violations? JMP EAX (talk)

(ec) That's a good question. As far as I can tell, no, despite the fact that there exists the very policy that we're discussing, which is part of the larger WP:NPA policy that says "Comment on content, not on the contributor." And that's why, on any given day, you can find comments like this - [5] - on Wikipedia. They do not better the encyclopedia; they are rude and disruptive. Lightbreather (talk) 17:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The example you give (which just says "Surely that would be the conclusion of any rational editor, male or female, would it not?") does not involve the use of 'you', and seems almost classic 'clever bullying', in which if you're not the target you may not immediately notice that it's a personal attack that implies the other editor must be irrational. (I'm assuming the offense was intentional, an assumption which might get the victim in trouble for violating WP:AGF, which is part of what makes it clever). The focus of this section on 'you' makes it a lot easier to get away with such attacks, and makes it a lot harder to get any agreement to move against such real personal attacks for fear of getting punished for a wrong use of 'you'. (Incidentally Jimbo's page also seems to be something of an anomalous law unto itself, though there's plenty of such clever bullying elsewhere too).Tlhslobus (talk) 21:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please look at the edit summary that accompanied the example, T. Lightbreather (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• • A policy routinely ignored by all editors and admins is a real indicator of the consensus view of it. Getting rid of it will just be catching up with that. DeCausa (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Like speeding is a consensus view that speed limits are "bad policy"? Or can rampant speeding be a sign that those tasked with enforcing the policy simply do not do so, whatever the reason? (Of course, no one wants to get a speeding ticket, but the moment you get T-boned by a speeder - perhaps even injured - you suddenly wish the cops were doing their job.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You are again making highly dubious analogies here. People do get speeding tickets so laws against speeding to get regularly enforced. On the other hand, you seem unable to provide a single example of when this "you/your" prohibition was enforced by an admin. So this situation not at all like speeding violations but is perhaps like the plethora of silly and ancient statutes that are still on the books (mostly at local level) in various US states but haven't been enforced in decades; I don't know if Wikipedia has an article on those, but this is a funny primer. JMP EAX (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"[Again] making dubious analogies]? I see a number of people making analogies here, but not me. At any rate, my comparing this policy to speeding is more relevant than your comparing it to "newspeak." Nothing about this policy is made up like 1984's "bellyfeel" or "blackwhite," though I can certainly imagine detractors trying to think one up to derail legitimate discussions about a real Wikipedia problem. Lightbreather (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comparison with speeding is not an analogy?? Oh, I found this article:Dumb laws. This seems to be a good analogy. DeCausa (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I also did read your reply as an analogy, Lightbreather. If you intended it to be something else, it did not come across that way. For more funny articles on "dumb laws" see [6] or [7], the latter for the UK. JMP EAX (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was ONE analogy. JMP EAX's comment, "again making dubious analogies," using "again" sounds like I'd made others here. Lightbreather (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Your other analogy was (IMHO) in your initial oppose !vote comparing this "you/your" prohibition with the prohibition against using unreliable sources [8]. JMP EAX (talk) 19:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. I think that was more like a comparison of two Wikipedia policies, but if that seems like an analogy to you, OK. Lightbreather (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would also say you made an analogy here: "It's no more of a "crusade" than policies re NPOV. WP:RS and WP:DUE are discussed everyday. Just because some try to pass off unreliable sources and undue material doesn't mean we should abandon those. No. Those guidelines stand, and so should this." That seems dubious to me. Also, I'm curious. Why is saying "you..." per se closer to a personal attack than saying an editor's comment is "bullshit"? Yes, on a technicality one addresses the user and the other addresses "content". But it is a technicality. Which contributes more to a hostile uncivil environment? DeCausa (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Comparing a policy to a crusade was introduced here by JMP EAX. The "bullshit" question, I answered on my last edit.[9] Lightbreather (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Your answer on your use of the word "bullshit" doesn't address my point. Firstly, what you said was clearly shorthand for "you have typed bullshit". Why does omitting the "you" make it any better? Secondly, it's not the use of a specific word which is offensive: it's the underlying meaning you conveyed I.e (a) aggression (b) signalling that you have no respect for me or my opinion. It's this sort of behaviour that needs to be addressed if the environment in WP is to improve, not whether a pronoun is used. DeCausa (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The answer that I gave to your related question[10] of two days ago applies here.[11] This discussion is about the use of the second person in disputes. If you want to discuss other behaviors that can suggest offensive underlying meanings, could you please start a separate discussion? Lightbreather (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I was making a point about the second person pronoun. I asked you why your leaving out the "you" in your comment to me (I.e. "Bullshit" being shorthand for "you wrote bullshit") makes it any less uncivil, hostile or offensive than including the "you". DeCausa (talk) 21:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose  Avoiding "you" is not fake civility, it really changes the tone, both for the writer and the reader.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Referring to a person in any manner to talk about their contributions or proposal does not a personal attack make. Policy should reflect practice and in practice it is not considered a personal attack. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: (This previously read 'Strongly Support' until I realized the proposal does not currently do what the earlier headlines said, details here). Although usually ignored in practice, leaving it there is certainly potentially dangerous, and quite likely has been actually harmful in many minor or not-so-minor ways, especially by giving ammunition to clever bullies, and by driving editors away from Wikipedia because they feel something such as "why would anybody freely choose to want to work in a place where you at least appear to be running the risk of being hauled before a Civility Tribunal for saying 'you' or 'your' (while its so-called Civility rules directly or indirectly encourage people to think of selected kinds of other people as Dicks, Assholes, and Fuckheads)?". I have no clear evidence that such harm has actually occurred (although common sense tells me it almost certainly has, and it certainly has made me think about quitting Wikipedia at least once). But it definitely has done some not-so-minor harm, such as involving editors in exhausting, distressing, and unproductive disputes both here and to prevent its dangerous extension elsewhere (explicitly justified by the claim that other policies have to be made consistent with the policy here).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: It has been described here as Newspeak, a reference to the reduced vocabulary set that Big Brother was imposing in George Orwell's 1984 as a means of silencing dissident thought. This description has been criticized on the grounds that it's not Newspeak but existing policy, which suggests that either the critic doesn't understand that in Orwell's 1984 Newspeak was existing policy, or that somehow Newspeak is only dangerous when it's not policy.

However in many ways it's worse than Newspeak, as that was just fiction (and did not ban or restrict 'you' and 'your', perhaps because Orwell would have thought that his readers might find that too absurd to be believable).

In fact the restriction of the use of 'you' or 'your' is not new, and is a tool that has seemingly been used for centuries in France, Spain, Germany, etc, by the powerful to make it harder and scarier for ordinary people to speak out, especially if they are in some sense newcomers (roughly the equivalent of new Wikipedians) unfamiliar with the cultural and subcultural norms (I expect it is found rather useful for closet sexists and racists when enforcing a glass ceiling against women and minorities, by giving them yet another hurdle to have to overcome). I have some personal experience of this as a French speaker who is unfamiliar with the subtle etiquette of when it is and is not socially acceptable to use 'tu' rather than 'vous', and vice versa.Tlhslobus (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment:I'm pretty sure that this policy would quickly be scrapped if we had a sane majority rule system (like every sane democracy has, but of course unfortunately Wikipedia is not a democracy), but I fear our insane consensus system will ensure its retention (just as it has ensured the retention of Dick/Asshole/Fuckhead in our civility rules as the alleged 'existing consensus' after it somehow initially got sneaked in unnoticed and with zero debate).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support removal of the paragraph advising against use of "you" and of the corresponding shortcut. One can formulate attacks with or without "you". If one wants to explain what one really means by this paragraph, one ends up with something like "do not make personal attacks", which is a much better way of putting it. --Boson (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: It might be appropriate to replace the term "crusade" with the term "advice" in the section header. --Boson (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Fair point, I've done that. It's the insistence in the sections (above my proposal) to elevate the importance of that advice that made me use the stronger term. The whole affair is probably a good example why advice should be sparingly added to policies, for there is a temptation to elevate its status/importance over time... JMP EAX (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: It's claimed that it leads to more 'polite and effective discourse'. My experience is that it leads to less clear and thus less effective discourse. And my experience is that any gains in politeness are illusory. It sometimes reduces friction in the short term, usually because people don't understand that they are being criticized, but at the cost of making us all see possible criticisms of ourselves where none was intended, and at the cost of leaving well-meaning people unable to amend their ways in the light of legitimate criticism because they have not understood that they are being criticized, and so on ad infinitum. It also leads to the mountains of ineffective discourse wasted on endless discussions such as the ones here (and similar ones elsewhere). If the alleged harmful uses of the 2nd person really were such a bad idea, then why haven't thousands of years of cultural evolution eliminated them from normal speech and writing long ago? Tlhslobus (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support, per my aforementioned commentary in the #Vote 2 section above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support, per my previous comments on this page. It is a bit condescending and only muddies the waters as to what is and isn't a "personal attack". Dennis 20:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• I support toning down the language on AVOIDYOU a bit. I'm not sure I'm in favor of excising it completely and the shortcut should probably be retained, but I think the reasoning in the nom is largely persuasive. Protonk (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• confused/neutral/move to guideline While encouraging civility is always good, and informing people that "you" can cause issues is also good, I am concerned that a policy such as this can be used as a bludgeon for wikilawyering and getting off track - instead of listening to legitimate critique, people can derail due to the language used. I would definitely support moving to a guideline and in that context would also support LBs above changes in the guideline version for readability

• Comment: It still seems an improvement (though this is debatable, see here and here), but I (and many others) may have been too quick to support this, thinking it does more than it actually does. For a start, as proposed, the 'safeguard' sentence I earlier fought to defend now disappears, while "In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible" remains. In effect lots of people may have voted support like me based on the headline "Proposal to remove the crusade/advice against the second person pronoun" (an idea which I still probably strongly support, if perhaps not entirely wisely) without noticing that the core of the 'crusade' against 'you' is still in place. and arguably even stronger.

As I understand the detailed wording, the section's middle paragraph would now read:

In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct).

It may not matter too much in practice, but I also note that under this text (and also under the existing text), some users here may well be in danger of being deemed 'guilty' of Personal Attacks for discussion of a user's conduct or history in the wrong forum (maybe writing that in this forum also makes me 'guilty' of a Personal Attack on all those editors). Tlhslobus (talk) 22:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The headline should be changed to read "Proposal to remove some of the advice against the second person pronoun", which is less misleading. The precise old and new wordings should be added to the proposal to avoid confusing simple-minded folks like me. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm now going to add the some of myself. Please feel free to revert me if that's in violation of some specified rule. But I'll leave the official presentation of the old and new section wordings to be done by somebody else. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • While I still think this seems in some ways an improvement, among the downsides of accepting it is that it may copperfasten a false consensus. Judging by what people have written (including me, but not just me), much of the support, and almost all of the very small opposition, seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the actual proposal (as a result of misleading early section headings).
  • I'm going to mull it over and may even end up opposing it on conservative grounds - that making the 'you' stuff simpler just conceivably risks making that 'you' stuff more enforceable (or more of a deterrent to people to remain Wikipedians, or more of a help to clever bullies, etc), especially when strengthened by the 'moral authority' of a recent consensus (and thus no longer so easily ignored as the out-of-date-nonsense that it currently is), so we might be better off sticking with the devil we know.
  • In principle somebody (not me) might also want to test whether there is actually a consensus for doing what the earlier headings said and getting rid of all statements in the section that discourage the use of "you", though I wouldn't be very confident of a consensus on that.
  • I might even have tried to propose that myself if I weren't still so psychologically scarred from my last attempt at changing a Civility text (unsuccessfully trying to get 'Don't be a Dick' (also known as WP:DICK), and thus indirectly the much worse persecution-and-bully-celebrating/inciting 'What makes a Fuckhead?' from which WP:DICK derives and to which it links, out of our Civility policy, which links to Meta's version of Don't be a DICK).Tlhslobus (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• At least Temporary Oppose: Partly on the conservative grounds stated in my previous comment ("better the Devil we know"; also 'may copperfasten a false consensus'), and partly to try to ensure that a premature conclusion that there is a consensus is not reached before people have had time to review their positions based on the knowledge that the earlier headings were misleading. It may also give time for somebody (not me) to decide to change this into an attempt to get rid of all statements in the section that discourage the use of "you".Tlhslobus (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: To try to reduce confusion, I've transferred this suggestion out of the voting area to here. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• N?ke this section from orbit. "Avoiding personal attacks" might make a nice essay someplace, but it doesn't belong in policy. Policy should be limited to what is useful in actually deciding if policy was violated. Wnt (talk) 18:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: would it be useful to point out that this document is more than 12 years old and has been an official policy since no later than the start of 2005? We aren't talking about creating a new policy from scratch here, but about tweaking a mature one. It may even be fair to say that if anyone doesn't understand the meaning of "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people," then they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia at all. A policy expresses a community-wide consensus. Too much reinvention will undermine the consensus, not enhance it. Too much thinking aloud, too many ifs and buts, merely provide fodder for wikilawyers. Please, can we stay focussed on the proposal that opens this section? --Stfg (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support if done carefully so as to strengthen and clarify the policy against personal attacks. Too often I see some of our habitually disagreeable editors trying to wikilawyer the claim that they are in fact commenting on the edit, not the editor, or not addressing them directly. However you put it, "only an asinine and immature person could make this edit", "this edit was asinine and immature", "your edit is asinine and immature", "you are being asinine and immature", and "you are asinine and immature" boil down to the same thing, and obfuscating the point by saying "it would be asinine and immature for somebody to believe point X" doesn't really make it more civil, it makes it passive-aggressive. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: As pointed out in slightly more detail here, both our current policy, and the proposed relatively minor amendment being discussed here, by virtue of their ambiguity on whether the mere use of these words ('you' and 'your') can constitute a personal attack or incivility, come pretty close to being an unjustified implicit personal attack on the huge number of people who inevitably use those words in disputes because that is, and always has been, all normal people's normal way of speaking and thinking. Somewhat disturbingly, this is not the only time this kind of apparent projection has appeared in our Civility articles. However, in the present context, this is probably an argument against the proposed amendment, on the basis, as mentioned in earlier comments, that between 2 bad policies (and now 2 even worse policies than I had realized) we should keep the one that is both the devil we know and unenforceable because it's gobbledegook, and not backed by the moral authority of a recent consensus. Tlhslobus (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - I too am opposed to instruction creep that invites wikilawyering and support this revision because it is already easily subverted and not inherently helpful. --Yamakiri ^T_C 09-26-2014 o 01:30:06 01:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Remove AVOIDYOU policy entirely. Grammatical choices tend to neither add nor detract from nicety. Flying Jazz (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support removing. Pretty much per Wikidemon. This just adds an easily wikilaywered nuance for the creative editor. Gigs (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, primarily per Unscintillating, but also per Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep concerns raised by Lightbreather, above. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I would very much like to see common sense win over the bureaucracy that I am tacitly helping by even reading and editing pages like this. Connor Behan (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Suggested new wording to help others who might want to amend 'Avoiding Personal Attacks'

Note: this section started life as a comment here, and I removed it from that voting area to try to reduce confusion there, but some of my preceding comments there may provide some useful context or background information.Tlhslobus (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: If somebody does want to try taking the matter further (I won't be doing it), here are some thoughts on how it might be done. I don't want to entirely get rid of any mention of 'you' - instead I'm reducing it to a guideline, making it clear there are problems with having it as a policy, and saying explicitly what the relationship is between 'you' and PAs.

PAs are already reasonably well explained in the article's next section Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F. :As such giving them a second set of implicit definitions here makes no sense. And in theory it's in the wrong place. Ideally it should be moved so as it appears after the section defining PAs, but that's arguably not all that important. However, by splitting the section into policies and guidelines, it is hoped that future arguments may be avoided. I've also watered down much of the wording with qualifiers like 'where reasonably possible', etc. I prefer that - but others may not.

This suggested new text below is just that, a suggestion, and a very imperfect one, so others should feel free to modify copies of it as they think fit.

Avoiding Personal Attacks

• (Shortcut: AvoidPA)
• This section consists of policies and guidelines intended to help users avoid making Personal Attacks. It is not about defining what a Personal Attack is. Although such behavior risks resulting in Personal Attacks, ignoring a policy or guideline here does not in itself constitute a Personal Attack except where the behavior is already defined as a Personal Attack in the section 'What constitutes a Personal Attack'. For what constitutes a Personal Attack, see that section.

• Policy: It is Wikipedia policy that Personal attacks should be avoided.

• Guideline: Editors should carefully read this section and the section 'What is considered to be a personal attack'.

• Policy: As a matter of polite and effective discourse, editors should try to ensure that comments are not unnecessarily personalized where this can reasonably be avoided without loss of clarity, risk of confusion, etc. That is, they should as far as reasonably possible be directed at content and actions rather than at people.

• Guideline: In disputes and near-disputes, the words "you" and "your" should ideally be avoided when this can reasonably be done without loss of clarity, risk of confusion, etc. However this is a guideline, not a policy. The mere use of these words never constitutes a personal attack in itself, nor does it constitute incivility (while claiming or implying that it does can be seen as an unjustified personal attack on the huge number of people who inevitably use it in disputes because that is, and always has been, all normal people's normal way of speaking and thinking). Furthermore many personal attacks are carried out without using either word. Also, mistakenly treating this as a policy rather than a guideline can have many negative consequences (risk of confusion and loss of clarity, making life unnecessarily difficult for new editors, bringing Wikipedia into disrepute, bringing Wikipedia Policy into disrepute, diverting scarce resources away from combatting true incivility, etc)

• Guideline: Discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack, especially when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct). Where reasonably possible, discussion of a user's conduct or history on inappropriate forums should be avoided.

• Policy: When describing disagreements, editors should adhere to wikipedia's Civility Policy, and to its guidelines for good wiki etiquette, and try to be civil even in cases not adequately covered by that policy and those guidelines. The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating the No Personal Attacks policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Incivility.)

(Note that in the above 'justification' is now Wikilinked to our existing policy on the matter, which is spelled out in 'What is considered to be a personal attack'. In practice many other Wikilinks would also be wanted if this section were real.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I've now modified the above suggestion to include the following:

The mere use of these words ('you' and 'your') never constitutes a personal attack in itself, nor does it constitute incivility (while claiming or implying that it does can be seen as an unjustified personal attack on the huge number of people who inevitably use those words in disputes because that is, and always has been, all normal people's normal way of speaking and thinking).

I should like to point that this means that our current policy, and the proposed relatively minor amendment being discussed in the section from which my suggestion was removed, by virtue of their ambiguity on the matter, would thus appear to come pretty close to being such an implicit personal attack on such huge numbers of people. If so, this would be at least the third time that I have found some of our main Civility articles to be instances of the thing they are ostensibly preaching against. In that sense the accusation by our articles can be seen as a form of confession, a phenomenon that psychologists and psychiatrists call projection. I find that noteworthy and somewhat disturbing. Tlhslobus (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that an extensive rewrite is appropriate, but when I actually tried such a thing with Wikipedia talk:Civility/sandbox, reducing 24k of blather into 8k of something approximating policy, nobody had anything to say about the idea when I described it at WT:Civility. Wnt (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

However this is only a re-write of one small section. Even so, as I already said, I've no intention of trying it myself - I still haven't got over the effects of trying to remove a single link there. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, I'd be interested to see how you would get on if you just tried either a serious proposal to nuke the entire section, or a serious proposal to just get rid of all mention of not using 'you' and 'your'. Although I think I probably prefer my own paragraph above, but am not prepared to fight for it, a serious proposal from you (or anybody else) to just get rid of all mention of not using 'you' and 'your' would very probably have my support, and would certainly have my support if it explicitly said that merely saying 'you' or 'your' in a dispute (or anywhere else) was neither a personal attack nor uncivil, though I doubt if it would have consensus (but you never know...) Tlhslobus (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Tlhslobus, I see what you are trying to do there, but a "personal" attack is personal. To suggest otherwise means that if I say something like "I think all editors who advocate loose notability standards are ..." whatever, that could be considered a "personal" attack, when it usually wouldn't be, unless I was saying that with one particular editor in mind and I knew that editor would take it personally. Gigs (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

And that's just it. How personal an attack is has to do with the idea you convey, whether the word "you" is written or not. Past teachers of mine told people not to ask "what if" questions. So they all asked "how should I proceed in the event that" questions. Just let people choose the words that are most effective. Connor Behan (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

updating on negative personal comments allowed

For transparency and access to the less "in" crowd, the lede and probably other parts of this policy statement need updating to acknowledge more clearly that discussing others' behavior in negative terms is in fact allowed in Wikipedia (though proscribed in some ways).

• "Comment on content, not on the contributor" is a good jingo, but it is overstated by some editors IMHO, and is overstated here. Obviously experienced editors engage in negative personally-directed discussion all the time at wp:ANI and elsewhere; are they allowed but regular joe is not? Is it who, or where, or when, or how it is phrased, that makes negative comments acceptable. Aren't arbitrators given exemption, in practice, in their discussion in arbitration proceedings? And any editor in "good standing" at wp:ANI?
• It's no doubt simpler to decry any negative discussion of behavior, as a matter of writing in a general policy statement. Policy creep is an issue. But there has to be major exceptions indicated, e.g. for administrative noticeboards, else this is false, hypocritical, breeding disrespect.
• Contributors experiencing negative interactions need some decent guidance about how and where to describe and deal with others' behaviors. Editors cannot be entirely prohibited from discussing what we experience and see going on.
• Oversimplification facilitates use of this policy as a bludgeon to derail discussion of legitimate grievances. This policy is over-used as a bludgeon, IMHO; such use should be weakened by revising what it says.
• To what extent is it okay/good at your own Talk page, at other User talk pages, at Talk pages of articles, of wikiprojects? In edit summaries? In response to personal attacks against yourself, if your replies are milder? If real guidance is diverging too far, is too much for this page, there needs to be some brief explicit mention and then links to coverage in guidelines elsewhere.
• Some acknowledgement within the lede is absolutely needed, IMHO.

I may try making some direct edits. I won't mind being reverted, but please discuss here. --doncram 00:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

WIAPA subpoint 4

Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.

Five years ago, I discovered death threats in an article (link, although they've been revdelled, so nonadmins can't see the contents), so with the assistance of another editor, I contacted local police, and a day or two later I got a note from the police telling me of the legal consequences for the perpetrator. Should the other editor and I have been given a block of an extended period of time? And worse yet, since the other editor was an administrator, should s/he be sanctioned for ignoring this section of policy?

I assume that the answer is no. However, if we say "no", it's impossible to apply it fairly. Contacting authorities about something illegal in all jurisdictions...contacting authorities about something illegal in most jurisdictions...contacting authorities about something illegal in some jurisdictions...contacting authorities about something illegal only in the editor-in-question's jurisdiction. Where do we draw the line? Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a line that shouldn't be drawn. The key word in that bullet of the policy is "persecution" (not prosecution). How many jurisdictions something is illegal in doesn't define what constitutes persecution. To try to define it that way would pre-empt what is really a judgement call. --Stfg (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a great way to absolve everyone of responsibility and recklessly make such judgment calls. I think it's a complex issue that deserves a policy. And judging by wikpedia's policies, it is sure to be a bad one. Oh look I just personal attacked wikipedia. Hoiospolloisius (talk) 06:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

defining attacks, personal or otherwise

The whole concept of personal attacks needs updating.

1. It's infantilizing to assume people need this amount politeness.

2. One can harass, taunt, dance around an issue interminably and characterize another's position as unworthy simply by avoiding buzzwords of insult or certain pronouns of address. The idea of personal attacks as forbidden doesn't cover the complexity of communication or argument. The attack was personal but a pedant can pretend it wasn't, according to the NPA page.

3. It should be a suggestion, not a hard rule. A community guideline can be referred to without the sword hanging over your head about consequences for disobeying community rules.

4. Certain things in fact deserve a personal attack, in particular if the person and the subject matter are tightly linked. Who died and made personal attacks totally fallacious? There's a difference between an ad hominem argument and an attack on an opinion. Much of the result of over policing of manners is just a lot of people censoring themselves and not fully articulating their position out of fear of being accused of bullying. To totally forbid personal attack is a form of pedantic bullying. By the current policy, my fourth point here is a personal attack on the person(s) responsible for the personal attack policy. This is ridiculous.

5. There should be a separation between the tone of neutrality in the article and the tone on other pages. If we compared ourselves to the editorial board of Britannica, I am sure they smoked and got into heated debates but when it came time to publish the article, proper neutrality could be maintained. That wikipedia is aiming for a tone of discussion more puritan than WASP scholars is less of a virtue and more of a cultural bias and a false idol.

I see this discussion page is updated periodically and doesn't get far. I think 5 months isn't an unreasonable interval for me to have added a summary of some of the main points.Hoiospolloisius (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A further point about etiquette is that any policy made on Wikpedia will also be understood in the context of the greater internet. On other social media, the slightest infraction of community guidelines often leads to banning and a lengthy process to have one's account restored. Newcomers will assume the same holds on Wikipedia, which is another reason for the use of NPA as a bludgeon. It might, I'm a newcomer and I'm assuming it does. Just as an example.Hoiospolloisius (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Core conduct policies information page

I have commented at Wikipedia talk:Harassment#Core conduct policies information page concerning including this policy with three others to create a Core behavioral (conduct) policies information page. It seems like a good idea but I would like comments. This is not a novel term as it was used ("Wikipedia's core behavioral policies") over 4 years ago. Otr500 (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Reorganizing needed.

There is a small problem that is just odd. The first three sections now are:

• Why personal attacks are harmful
• Avoiding personal attacks
• What is considered to be a personal attack?

The third section, giving a definition of what constitutes a personal attack should be the first section following the lead. Then it would be 1)- what is it, 2)- why is it harmful, 3)- how to avoid it. Otr500 (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. This is probably the easiest problem to fix on this page. --Boson (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

True, I just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something as some reasoning I hadn't considered. Otr500 (talk) 01:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• Y Done. Otr500 (talk) 01:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I do not have an issue with your adjustment but since this is a major policy page, there should be significantly more discussion before further changes are implemented.--MONGO 04:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

My feeling is that the recent change is not desirable. I know people like to spell out what is prohibited but it really is not necessary--contributors know when they are not being civil (and if they don't know, they fail other requirements). The body of the original policy started with "Why personal attacks are harmful" and that has an important message which should be read early on. Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I will not be making any more changes. It seems natural to explain "what" we are dealing with before discuss "why" it is harmful and "how" to avoid it. If consensus deems that the order is not an improvement we can simply change it back.

If people did in fact know when they were being civil (or uncivil) all the time, then Wikipedia would be guilty of fostering a hostile environment a long time, as a warning (or multiple) would be unnecessary. I think it better to assume good faith so we should not assume that every editor "knows" something when they might not. When editors make "mistakes" we assume good faith by "assuming" those editors will "learn from them and change their ways".

The attempt is to satisfy a lot of editors concerns about particular areas, evidenced by the WP:Sexual harassment, that will not only show improvements but put the order (to me) more correctly, and to try to correctly tweak or adjust what we already have instead of creating more. Otr500 (talk) 07:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You broke up this discussion into separate sections which made the discussion hard to follow so I've removed a heading to restore the thread.--MONGO 10:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq that spelling out all the examples is not necessary, but I don't think that is a problem of the order. In my opinion, most of that section should be moved elsewhere, preferably to an essay, at most a guideline. But I agree with Otr500 that the section should be first. It strikes me as odd to explain why something is harmful when you haven' said what you are talking about. --Boson (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC) PS: That is what I meant when I said that that change was the easiest problem to fix. I imagine the more difficult task is removing all the unnecessary and redundant stuff and thus getting the policy itself to comply with policy: "If the spirit of the rule is clear, say no more." --Boson (talk) 12:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Is name-calling a personal attack?

Is it a personal attack to call an editor unnecessary names, such as "ignorant", "fool", "bigot", "liar", or "blabber"? I am not sure whether to include this in the article. So let an administrator decide if what I have said should be included.68.100.116.118 (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

If a user advocates undeniable bigotry, tells a lie, or makes it clear that they know less than nothing about a topic they act like experts in, then WP:SPADE can apply. If the user has done none of those things, then WP:NPA applies. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

A simple answer is, yes, repeated attacks, such as name calling, would be considered harassment. I think I could argue that an attack with personal intent, is a personal attack, regardless if the person is a spade, a diamond, or a bleeding heart, and editors should "Comment on content, not on the contributor". However, as mentioned, if one editor exhibits something like bigotry, or a clear lie, then the attacking editor will have grounds to argue he or she is in fact calling the spade what it is.

Generally, but not always, it is oftentimes best to either a)- ignore simply attacks or, b)- politely warn the editor that WP:Civility is one of the Five pillars so please refrain from petty (unsubstantiated or not) name calling. Sometimes there may be cases where one editors intelligence might be suspect by another, evidenced by certain replies, and can just be overlooked. IF replies includes further attacks (harassment), there are a number of ways to deal with it. This is not to imply that any attack of a serious nature or that is egregious, should ever be ignored. Otr500 (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it not better, however, to avoid unnecessary heat? For example, say "You don't understand the topic." instead of "You ignorant fool!" or "Stop putting in personal opinion." instead of "Stop blabbing in nonsense!"?68.100.116.118 (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Another thing, would it be a personal attack to say rude things like "Foreigners know nothing about American history.", "Creationists are ignorant fools who oppose science." or even "Since you are a newcomer to Wikipedia, you are stupid and know nothing about making edits.", even if not spoken to such users?68.100.116.118 (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Saying that new users know nothing could fall under WP:BITE. Saying that newcomers are stupid definitely falls under WP:BITE and WP:NPA. Saying that YECers are fools falls under WP:NPA. Saying that they're opposed to science would fall under WP:SPADE. The (implied) comparison to foreigners knowing about American history is flawed. Foreigners are perfectly capable of accepting the means used by mainstream historians to determine American history, YECers actively reject the methods and reasoning of all modern biology. YECers are to biology what flat earthers are to geology, humoralists are to neuroscience, and alchemists are to chemistry. We do not create artificial validity just because a significant portion of America insists on the right to be wrong about a scientific fact. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

So, why not show some examples of personal attacks and non-personal attacks in this article?68.100.116.118 (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Well actually alchemy is actually an archaic name for chemistry but was eventually replaced with the term "chemistry" because of the association of the word "alchemy" with the idea of turning iron into gold, other than that you're pretty much spot on. Though I can understand that you might use the term "alchemist" in the modern sense exclusively to mean the idea that they were all seeking the ability to turn iron into gold despite there being plenty of historical sources of alchemists themselves calling the idea non-sensical.

Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

According to my experience with "veteran editors" if they do it it's perfectly fine and others will come to protect them, but if someone outside of their clique does it they will immediately get warnings in their talk page and will be threatened with a permanent ban, so name-calling is only against wiki policy depending on who does it, at least this is what I've noticed from actually contributing to this site, hopefully I'm wrong, but the same guilty parties keep getting away with these ad hominems. Sincerely, --86.81.201.94 (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Thinking of a nutshell

I was thinking about giving a nutshell for the project page because of the importance of the policy and the need to let absolutely everyone understand the policy once read, no matter what type of learner a user is. Just as I said at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy/Archive 7 #Give me a nutshell, I made this quote that "some people are visual learners and having prose may not be nice for visual learners to understand". Got any suggestions for what I should put for the nutshell? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 20:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

New essay regarding NPA

I've recently drafted a new userspace essay on the topic of abusing the no personal attacks policy to inappropriately chill a discussion. I'd appreciate some review and feedback before I do anything else with it. It is located at User:Ivanvector/Don't abuse the no personal attacks policy. I'm also very open to better titles :) Ivanvector ? (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

On the whole the essay looks reasonable. The fourth paragraph could be made clearer that it's about abuse of the personal attacks policy. If someone is genuinely making personal attacks against you, you are entitled to report it. There's nothing wrong with citing a policy when it's necessary and we don't want to encourage the abuse of this essay either. As it says in the WP:harassment policy, "Statements of intent to properly use normal Wikipedia processes, such as dispute resolution, are not threats". Hope this helps. Burninthruthesky (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Page protected

There seems to have been an edit war going on on the page, over whether the lead section should be a single paragraph, or a bulleted list, or a series of short sentences or phrases, each in a separate paragraph. The actual text hasn't been changed much if at all, from my quick check of the recent history. Indeed it seems that every edit to the project page since 3 April has been to revert or reapply this formatting change. This kind of edit war is never good, but on a policy page it is simply not acceptable. Please discuss here on the talk page and find consensus if possible. I have protected the page for three days, and I hope that is long enough to settle the issue. I personally have no opinion on which format is better. @JohnCD, Ish Lalan, MER-C, Goolbax, GeneralizationsAreBad, Velella, Favonian, Fadican, Gogo Dodo, Balihafi, and Oshwah: DES ^(talk) 21:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This appears to have been socking by Becambuisness. There's plenty of it in the page history, it seems. GAB^Hello! 21:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the matter. My role was simply to restore to last good versions of the articles that had been edited by someone clearly not here to create an encyclopaedia and who looked very much like a sock (subsequently shown to be so). Whether the page needs protection I am happy to leave to your discretion, but I suspect that removing the root cause of the problem, as has been done, is a more effective remedy.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   22:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, what looks like an edit war is actually repeated reversion of a persistent sockpuppetteer, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Becambuisness. JohnCD (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Source of the article : Wikipedia