Wikibooks talk:No personal attacks

Long overdue policy adapted from en.wiki. Poll started below to determine consensus. -- LV (Dark Mark) 19:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "No personal attacks, and move personal debates to email" is currently a guideline at Policies and guidelines. An example of a personal attack is at Talk:A Neutral Look at Operating Systems (and User talk:AlbertCahalan). I think that a good step would be to label this page as a guideline in lieu of a policy.


 * Before I joined Wikibooks, I read English Wikipedia. However I made no edits to Wikipedia, today I have an account but make few edits. Though I became aware of major policies like "neutral point of view" (because of those NPOV dispute markers), I never became familiar with, and still am not familiar with, most of the English Wikipedia policies.


 * If we do have a "no personal attacks" policy, then I would prefer that it start as a small part of some existing policy. --Kernigh 21:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I change my position. We should get a "no personal attacks" policy now; we might need it later. I still oppose the current version because it has references to things which exist not on Wikibooks, such as the arbitration committee. --Kernigh 21:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ummm... it is an important policy. Personal attacks make editors feel bad, and drive people away from the project. Overall they create an atmosphere where no one wants to edit. This needs to be an enforced policy, not just some little addendum somewhere. -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, so it has some extra stuff... but that stuff will come later too. Maybe not ArbCom, but some of the other stuff. I'll go remove that, and you can change your vote. -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I do not think that red links are a problem in an enforced policy. The problem is if the enforced policy references a red link as if it already exists. The policy should not instruct me to read the "dispute resolution process" when that is a red link. --Kernigh 04:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Is there anything else that can be said about NPOV when editing? A lot of book-related material needs to encompass multiple points of view and I think disagreement over POV is what brings about the largest amount of personal attacks. -Matt 22:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Added bit about prevention from POV debates. Heading in the right direction? -- LV (Dark Mark) 23:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Threw one more sentence in there. Throw it out if it's a problem. I like it either way. -Matt 23:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * No, I have no issue with that. It makes sense. -- LV (Dark Mark) 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Consensus Poll to enforce
Should the proposed policy, No personal attacks, be enforced?

Yes
 * 1) Long overdue. Personal attacks are not acceptable. -- LV (Dark Mark) 19:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with this, in spirit. I will cast a yes vote now, with the understanding that we can clean up the specifics, after the policy is in place. -- 21:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a wiki and nothing is ever completely set in stone. -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I realize that it isn't set in stone, but i'm not the person who is going to fix this policy, or to rewrite it to be more clear, etc. I would rather put up a conditional vote now, as opposed to putting up a "no" immediately, and then forgetting to ever come back and change my vote. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  LV  made some improvements, so I will support enforced on the current version. --Kernigh 23:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Definitely. Textbook material needs a fair unbiased environment even more than other wiki material due to the educational value the pages hold. -Matt 22:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Gerard Foley 23:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) JMRyan 23:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) RobinH 10:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC) An essential policy. We are here for the content.
 * 6) Dragontamer 15:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC) See above. I think we also should have a "three revert policy" as well, but that is out of this page's scope (and yeah, I'm checking out that page)
 * 7) Derbeth talk 19:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Doiçt 16:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Ultimadesigns 01:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support How about one to reflect civility too, or would that be overkill? — Nathan (talk &middot; contribs &middot; en.wiki) 04:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

No
 * This lengthy page should only be a guideline for now. Kernigh 21:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? So someone can go around personally attacking people, and not have any repercussions because it was only a guideline and not policy? That's absurd. -- LV (Dark Mark) 21:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * After posting, I changed my position. In fact, I entered an edit conflict because you posted the above comment. --Kernigh 21:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Policy currently has references to nonexistant things. --Kernigh 21:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

"The problem we are seeing, again and again, is this attitude that some poor victim of a biased rant in Wikipedia ought to not get pissed and take us up on our offer of 'anyone can edit' but should rather immerse themselves in our arcane internal culture until they understand the right way to get things done. I do not know what is going to change, but something BIG has got to happen and SOON about this issue, because the amount of time it is consuming for some of our best editors is getting way out of control."
 * 1) Personal attacks are not acceptable, but the policy can still use some work. I agree with Kernigh that the policy should not reference things that do not yet exist.  I also would like to understand what about a "policy" makes it more enforceable than a "guideline".  Rs2 03:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) It's never a good idea to phrase suggestions in terms of "don't do this". One of the easiest ways to get people to think about something is to tell them not to think about it. If we need a policy on acting civilly towards each other, that should be Always act civilly (or something of that ilk), Jguk 23:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Before we make ourselves little dictators of our virtual domain, perhaps we ought to think about the ramifications. Systems of crime and punishment are a failure state. They are an admission that we weren't able to work congenially as co-editors on a common project — that our little Animal Farm couldn't exist without making some of us "more equal." Do we really want to duplicate the system of punishment and vandalism that exists at Wikipedia? Is their instruction creep working for them? Perhaps we could learn something from our founder. --Zephram Stark 03:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * ''~Jimbo Wales May 3, 2006 WikiEN-l
 * You have added identical text to other policy votes. The vote here is about whether this policy should be enforced rather than whether "policies" are a good idea. RobinH 10:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Comments

Okay, a guideline is just that, something that guides people on a certain issue. It is not set in stone, it is merely a strong suggestion. A policy is something much more concrete. It can be cited as policy and should never, never be violated. That's why it's a policy and not a guideline. -- LV (Dark Mark) 15:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Ideas are what should be critisised, never the person personally. I think the policy should include the "fine line" area. Most of us know the difference between a personal attack and critisism of the idea, but the page doesn't state that precisely right now, a potentially dangerous situation. --Dragontamer 15:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Implementing poll
The poll is clearly in favour of enforcement. RobinH 10:19, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * So how does the enforcement policy happen, exactly? we have a solid majority, let's do whatever we need to do, slap a enforced on there, and call it a day. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you've forgotten that WP/WB are not a democracy and we don't implement things based upon # of votes. I am tending towards casting my vote against, and you may have just convinced me to do so. Kellen T 20:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it right to vote NO on this issue because you disagree with another issue? Please notice that the poll has not been implemented and the issue has been reopened. Also notice that the possibility of implementation was raised on the Staff lounge before implementation and the implementation rolled back because of the desire of Jguk to debate it further.


 * What is the point of a poll? If you disagree with polls why not open this separate debate at the Staff Lounge? RobinH 09:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If I were to vote no, it would be because I was convinced by the opposition. We're not suffering from lack of policies here; people can and are banned because they are disruptive, make personal attacks, etc regardless of whether this is tagged as enforced or proposed.
 * The point of a poll is to gauge consensus. What you have here is 3 of 12 people opposed (25%), one of them an admin. That shows that the community has not truly come to consensus about this policy. Kellen T 14:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem with consensus, in its normal meaning, is that it entails 100% agreement. In a large group this is impossible. We need a measure of consensus such as a voting procedure and a policy that accepts that n% is sufficient consensus (See General voting rules). Those who disagree with the 'sufficient consensus' would then attempt to respect it, despite their disagreement. If we use 100% consensus as the agreement required for any action then no actions will occur on issues that involve more than a few users. 100% consensus also means that one dissident, disturbed or insane person could prevent any action. For instance, suppose the vote here was 14:1, the one person could simply block this policy for ever by demanding 100% consensus, even if the vote became 100:1. Would this be right or good for Wikibooks? If not then what is the acceptable 'sufficient consensus'? RobinH 10:10, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I cover this in my recent reply in Staff Lounge. Kellen T 10:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it appears that User:Rs2 hasn't edited since last November, so perhaps his position no longer carries as much weight. Kellen T 14:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Zero tolerance
This policy is critical for the maintenance of a pleasant working atmosphere. I would like to propose that this policy has a "zero tolerance" clause. Contributors should be warned on a first offence, suspended on a second offence and banned on a third. RobinH 11:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That may be a bit harsh. We should be stern, but three times is not bannable material, IMO. -- LV (Dark Mark) 01:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We do need a definite statement of how often this behaviour might be permitted otherwise determined individuals will just take the micky. What would you suggest? RobinH 11:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Lord Voldemort. Stern, but not "instant ban" after 3 offences. When we get into stuff like that, there will be flame wars whether or not something should be interpreted as a flame or not, because the stakes will be so high. I suggest we do things as usual here; talk it over with both parties and try to find a resolution, or at least take the flames off Wikibooks. --Dragontamer 03:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of a personal attack
Direct attacks

1 subject is a (derogatory term) - derogatory terms consist of terms such as "fool", "insane", including types of insanity and diagnosis, "genocidal maniac" etc.

2 relations or associates of subject are a (derogatory term)

Snide attacks

3 Anyone who had (any type of ability) would not produce the subject's work. ie: Anyone who had an intellect would not produce the subject's work. Anyone who had a (qualification in...) would not produce such substandard text.

4 The (article/part of article) could only have been produced by someone with (derogatory term). ie: The article could only have been produced by someone who is brain dead.

RobinH 15:33, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Supporting pages
Dispute resolution is little more than a stub, and there is also a red link to Blocking policy. These are the only links in the "Alternatives" and "Remedies" section, something that gives the policy as a whole a bit less "teeth", and is something that should be expanded to support the policy as a whole. Probably the closest thing to a "Blocking policy" I've seen is on this page (which, by the way, isn't even linked to by WB:VIP, even though it has more information on VIP than VIP itself), and there's extensive discussion in Staff Lounge as far as dispute resolution goes, so it's not as if the material isn't there, it simply needs to be implemented in the proper areas. --Xerol Oplan 16:57, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed in the Staff Lounge. I initially suggested something not far short of an Arbitration Committee but, given the lack of bad behaviour and the small size of the Wikibooks community, support Ad hoc administration committee. RobinH 18:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Enforced from 14 April to 23 April 2006
The policy was set enforced by Robin H at 14 April 2006, but set proposed again by Jguk at 23 April 2006.

The poll above suggests that this policy should now be enforced. Did I miss something? --Kernigh 17:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * What happened was that RobinH made this move, which I accept was entirely in good faith, despite Rob Horning's pertinent comments on Staff Lounge. In the past, my understanding is that on Wikibooks we operate by consensus, and at the very least that would anticipate that there was some discussion about the points raised by the two (one of them was me) who had voted against this proposal. Neither of the "no" votes is advocating that wikibooks should tolerate personal attacks, but there are concerns that should be addressed about the wording before it (or any alternative) goes live.


 * I agree with Rob's comment on the Staff Lounge that before any proposed policy becomes "enforced" it should be preceded by a well publicised discussion and a well publicised approval process, as we say with the Naming Convention policy.


 * I have seen this type of policy become a welcome refuge for editors who harrass (ie they drive dedicated editors to breaking point, the dedicated editor makes some personal attack in the heat of the moment after being subjected to many personal attacks on themselves, and then leave the dedicated editor to face punitive sanctions if the matter ever comes before ArbCom). I know that is not the intention of those who support this proposal, but I have serious concerns that, as written, it benefits the long-term harrasser over the harrassed. Even if you disagree with me here, I would suggest the point is worth discussion before the text becomes "enforced", Jguk 19:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You archived the discussion of this item on the 24th then changed the policy to proposed again! See Archived discussion where no one demurred from the policy being enforced. RobinH 08:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Benefits the Long-term harrasser over the harrassed
Jguk said this in the previous section. I do not follow, sorry. Perhaps you can offer an explanation here? Basically; I see it like this: The only time a personal attack is warrented, is if there was a personal attack from some time before. Fortunatly, this policy prevents that as now no one can give a personal attack in the first place. Heck, my definition of a long-term harrasser is someone who gives personal attacks in the long term. --Dragontamer 15:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think anyone is saying that making a personal attacks is acceptable etiquette. The question is really whether we need to say more as a policy than that message that appears every time you try to edit a talk page: "Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice." I'm not sure we do. After all, if someone doesn't do that, what will happen? Do they make one solitary personal attack and that's the end of it? If so, then we let sleeping dogs lie. Do they continue? In which case someone will probably give them some friendly advice to calm down. Do they then continue despite friendly warnings? I've never seen it get this bad on Wikibooks - but if it did get this far I imagine an admin would give a warning together with a note that there would be some short block to allow matters to calm down. Continue then? Well, something sensible would happen - maybe an indefinite block accompanied with an undertaking to unblock if the user gives a guarantee not to repeat the offending behaviour. Or to put it another way, something sensible woud happen.


 * What's the benefit of being explicit, and also giving people lots of ideas of nasty things to do? Would those here to cause trouble necessarily think about doing all the bad behaviour listed under "Examples" if you don't put the ideas in their heads? Do we really want to highlight lots of possibilities for disciplinary actions, whereas really Wikibooks is quite a friendly place, not plagued by the problems we've probably all seen in various wikis?


 * Maybe we do need a behaviour policy for the record, and let's face it we have many, many current candidate policies covering behaviour: Assume good faith, No legal threats, No offensive usernames, No personal attacks, Ad hoc administration committee, Editing disputes policy. Whereas really how much more than "Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice" do we need? Jguk 18:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we need enforced policies and an enforcement policy. At the moment there are few cases of serious disputes but they can happen. Laying down clear guidelines is the best way to stop them happening. The vote was clearly for this policy to be enforced. Jguk, you are one of the two dissenters, should you really stand in the way of it becoming an enforced policy? RobinH 22:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of two who has raised questions about this approach, and I do think our concerns should at the very least be addressed before any move to "enforced". You say that laying down clear guidelines is the best way to stop serious disputes happening - but I don't believe there's any evidence to support it. Compare Wikipedia, which has plenty of guidelines, but which is riddled by disputes. Also, you do not say why a simple policy of "Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and be nice" is insufficient, Jguk 05:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We have a good example here of why being nice is not always good enough. A vote has been taken on "No personal attacks" over several months that has shown a 4:1 majority in favour of enforcement. Yet one of the two dissenters from that vote has insisted that we should open the issue again to determine whether the vote should be enacted. Surely votes work on the basis that those taking part respect them, that they act in good faith once the vote has been taken. Is what you are doing good faith? RobinH 08:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Jguk wrote about the process of dealing with attacks: "Do they then continue despite friendly warnings? I've never seen it get this bad on Wikibooks - but if it did get this far I imagine an admin would give a warning together with a note that there would be some short block to allow matters to calm down. Continue then? Well, something sensible would happen - maybe an indefinite block accompanied with an undertaking to unblock if the user gives a guarantee not to repeat the offending behaviour. Or to put it another way, something sensible woud happen."


 * There are two main points here.


 * How bad can it get? I suggest that we look at Wikipedia. On Wikipedia some users make a habit of always starting comments with "It would take a moron to..." and continue to "wind up" the opposition with "Only a fool would..." finishing with flourishes such as "This whole article is (...)". Personal attacks of this level go uncorrected. Users must advance to "You nazi (....)" or similar before the process of correction may or may not be activated.


 * Who gives the friendly warnings? As far as I can see there is no enforcement apparatus in Wikibooks except the Staff Lounge. If a vote is taken at the Staff Lounge one of the admins could simply archive the discussion before any move for enforcement is introduced. We need enforced policies and an enforcement apparatus such as Ad hoc administration committee.


 * RobinH 09:35, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

RobinH, Wikibooks, like Wikipedia, is ruled by discussion (except when our benevelent dictator visits us once in a blue moon :) ). A comment against an action being taken should have more weight than a simple vote of "support." Jguk's comments at the very minimum deserve to be adressed before enacting a policy. --Hagindaz 11:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that discussion is important but it looked to me like this proposal had been decided by a vote over several months. That said, I am happy to go with the discussion, see above. RobinH 12:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Avoid having too many policies
Here again are the "policies" that Jguk enumerated: Assume good faith, No legal threats, No offensive usernames, No personal attacks, Ad hoc administration committee, Editing disputes policy. There is an 8th proposal, General voting rules.

I supported enforcement of No personal attacks because I thought that it would be a good idea, and that we could always write a better policy later. I prefer that we have only one policy to deal with user behaviour (limiting insults against users, implementing consistent voting rules, resolving various disputes) instead of creating so many pages. I think that I would vote "no" concerning the other seven policies, but I might support a policy that merges the eight. --Kernigh 01:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I would whole-heartedly agree with that statement. No sense having too many separate policies, especially when there are a number that deal directly with the topic of user behavior. Most users (myself included) aren't going to take the time to read 8 different pages about the do's and don'ts of behavior, before we go out into the wiki-world with our keyboards blazing, making all sorts of mistakes. I don't have the time this week (or in most upcoming weeks) to write a unified policy of this nature, but if somebody else does, i will certainly cast my measly vote towards it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
 * PS. I think that General voting rules is not similar enough to be merged with the other policies, and that it is an important policy in it's own right. enough so that we should keep it separate. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Although it may be a good idea to develop a merged policy this should constitute a separate project. The introduction of such a project now seems premature, lets get this policy enforced and progress from there. RobinH 17:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly do think that we only need one merged behaviour policy. However, as an interim measure and to help resolve the impasse, I will look to get to a version of this formulation of the idea of "being nice" (and rephrase this to something better if you want).

I have edited out the bits that I found most problematic, namely:


 * The over-emphasis on not doing negative behaviour (I believe we should concentrate on encouraging positive, respectful behaviour)
 * The repetition of similar points by looking at the same points from ever so slightly different angles
 * The length (after all, the underlying idea is very simple - it can be expressed in just three words after all)

The changes I have made can be seen here. I am willing to agree with enforcing the policy post my amendments - although I note (1) a single merged behaviour policy should still be our aim, and (2) others will no doubt wish to comment on the revised draft and may have their our suggested amendments, and time should be allowed for this to happen before this proposal gets "enforced" status, Jguk 19:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Jg, you gave me one of those moments. I thought "No! how the hell can he just change a text that is undergoing a vote!" and reverted it. I then had a cup of tea and put it back again.


 * What am I doing trying to push a policy review? Three things, firstly ascertaining which policies are key policies, secondly establishing a bare bones constitution for Wikibooks so that it can never be the place where gangs hang out, thirdly tidying up.


 * I have left your amendments in place but have restored the examples of personal attacks as an appendix and have added a sentence that stresses how enforced policies impose duties on administrators. The added sentence also transmits some of the force of the original policy before your changes - personal attacks are simply not acceptable.


 * I am happy with the wider project of developing a single behaviour policy but feel that this could take a long time to get consensus support. The wider project will be much easier if there are some policies that are clearly accepted. These can serve as the kernel of your wider plan.


 * Your change to the text looked like a delaying tactic which was why I was so irritated. I will contact all those who have voted for the policy to note that the text has changed and to invite them to comment - it might change their vote to a "no". RobinH 09:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I object to the addition of a "remove personal attacks" section to this policy. RPAing does nothing productive; it is better to let the record stand and take people to task for their actions rather than trying to mask them. Kellen T 14:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The paragraph has been changed to address your concern (see below). RobinH 08:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think I'd agree. As long as it wasn't too egregious, it should stand (with obvious exception that the atackee can remove it if they want). -- LV (Dark Mark) 14:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

(reset indent) A "No personal attacks" policy is essential in a Wikimedia environment. I fouled up my response to Jg's change by loading the policy with yet another contentious issue. I have replaced the paragraph with:

Personal attacks are not acceptable on Wikibooks and this policy imposes a duty on Administrators and Users to stop such attacks should they occur.

This is just emphasising the fact that this is a policy. It is not something that administrators and users can just ignore. Jg's re-write took the bite out of the policy; my intention in putting in this paragraph is purely emphasis. It does not change the policy. RobinH 08:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If no-one objects then the policy should be moved to enforced by 1st June 2006. RobinH 10:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Move to Enforce by June 1, 2006
I agree with User:RobinH that this policy should become enforced by June 1st, barring any serious objections. User:Jguk made some changes to the policy recently that seem to keep the same spirit, but attempt to use better, "more positive" language. This section can be used for expressing concerns or objects. Barring any such objections, I agree with User:RobinH's motion that this policy should become enforced by June 1st. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * First, can we slow down. I have just proposed a significant amendment to the policy and Robin has suggested an amendment to the amendment which, as far as I'm aware, for the first time sets out an actual obligation for Administrators (so that if an Admin did not, for any reason, make a positive action, then they would be in breach of this policy). Additionally, Kellen, with LV in support, has raised a new objection to the bit about "removing personal attacks" (which admittedly has been in the draft a long time). All these points merit discussion. By all means encourage the discussion along, but let's not have a fixed cut-off date - after all, if we're all talking to resolve any differences, 1 July (just one month later than your proposal) is not an unreasonable target date.


 * I do find myself largely agreeing with Kellen and LV. Except in a situation where the personal attack was extreme (eg possibly libellous or plainly outrageous), I see no harm in keeping the personal attacks. I would add to this that I do believe that a user has the right to edit his userspace largely how he likes it, and I'd have no difficulty with a user removing a personal attack from his own talk page (as long as in so doing he did not leave a message that misrepresents the views of the original poster - removing an edit in its entirety would always be acceptable).


 * I then find myself again getting worried about having a rules-based policy. OK, we maybe can agree a rule that works reasonably in almost all cases (eg do not remove personal attacks), but then I quickly see that there are exceptions to that general rule which take us on to further objections. In fact, staying totally silent on the matter is better here - silence is an invitation to do something reasonable in the circumstances. We should not get too hung up about which reasonable reaction out of a whole gamut of possible reasonable reactions we have.


 * I do think that Robin's addition ("This policy imposes a responsibility on Administrators to assist in the removal of text containing personal attacks wherever it appears in Wikibooks and to explain to offenders that such text is not acceptable") needs amending. The first part, as noted above I do not think appropriate (and it seems Kellen and LV are of the same view). As far as the second part is concerned, I do not like the idea of forcing a duty on Admins to explain to offenders that such text is not acceptable. Any reader can explain this. But you should also use your judgment. If someone has used bad language once two weeks ago, just let it pass. Only if it seems a wikibookian is persisting in objectionable behaviour, or if you feel it would be useful to explain the situation in a currently active dispute, is it really appropriate to intervene.


 * As far as the appendix is concerned. I do not think we need examples of what constitutes a personal attack. Would anyone really argue that a death threat is not a personal attack? Also, I believe it indicates that some behaviour that I would not find acceptable is acceptable - for example, the phrase "Spurious threats of legal action" implies that we would have no problem at all if there was an actual threat of legal action (or an writ actually being issued because of what has happened on wikibooks). Again, silence is best here - either the person making the comment knows they are doing so in a negative spirit or they have made a comment which they do not mean to be taken with offence that has inadvertently caused offence. We don't need a list of what this may be - and we certainly don't need to offer suggestions to those who might want to disrupt Wikibooks, Jguk 16:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just motioning for haste, I certainly can't inforce it myself. I think that wikibooks is lacking because we don't have the policy base that wikipedia does. Because we have fewer definate policies to ground our actions, wikibooks feels more like a free-for-all, and less like a community. I agree in spirit that User:RobinH's addition of a duty for admins is not necessary, but I do not beleive that a small detail such as that is grounds not to instate a general behavior policy. It should be known officially that personal attacks and bad behavior are not acceptable here at wikibooks. The specific measures that should be taken in the event of a policy breach are inconsequential in comparison to the statement of expectations. Maybe we don't need to enforce any stated punishment or recourse because we can leave it to admins and general users to deal with innappropriateness themselves, so long as we have a solid policy stating that it should be dealt with in some fashion. We can still make all sorts of changes now or in the future, but small details should not be an excuse not to enforce this policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In the interests of preventing yet further delay to the implementation of this policy I have changed the offending paragraph to a paragraph that simply emphasises that policies impose duties on the whole community. This should answer Jguk's first point. On the second point, Jguk might note that it waters down the original text that most users approved. In the original text it stated that "Threats of legal action" were not acceptable. If someone is really breaking the law then a threat of legal action is appropriate, it is spurious threats that are no more than personal attacks.


 * As Whiteknight says, we need some basic policies or we are wide open to abuse. I feel exposed as a contributor to Wikibooks because, as things stand, anyone can come in, be insulting, uncooperative and deconstruct any book without any defined process for preventing or even disapproving of their actions. Jguk says that enlightened admins will prevent this from occurring but without guidance in the form of policy the admins cannot know just how severely a particular case should be treated. A list of what constitutes a personal attack was always part of this policy until Jguk's re-write of a couple of days ago and it helps to provide guidance. RobinH 08:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I have made a minor change (from "Administrators and Users" to "Wikibookians"), which I trust is not controversial. It seems the remaining live issue (subject to new ones arising) is whether the Appendix stays or goes. Please let me know whether you wish to aim to make this "enforced" policy without the Appendix (in which case publicise it everywhere and then promote it in a fortnight if there are no objections) and then later argue for the Appendix should be included. Alternatively we can have the "include or exclude" the Appendix discussion now, which would delay making the policy "enforced", but would make the policy more complete when it eventually does become "enforced", Jguk 11:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The advantage of the appendix, and the reason why the original authors included the list, is that it makes it clear that any sort of personal attack is not allowed. Anything from "anyone with half a brain.." to "you nigger jew" is not allowed. Wikibooks is about content, not personalities. Without the appendix anyone intervening might be in some doubt about whether a given personal attack is severe enough for action; the appendix shows that any personal attack is not allowed and must be withdrawn. It also shows that insulting a person's religion etc. is encompassed by the policy.RobinH 12:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Does an appendix really matter. I think people can figure out what is a personal attack or not. If they complain, a neutral admin can step in and decide how severe it is (if it even is one) and take the appropriate action. So it doesn't really matter to me if it's in there or not. Thoughts? -- LV (Dark Mark) 18:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's unnecessary and an artifact of how the WP policy developed. Kellen T 20:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I briefly toyed with the idea of replacing the list with a sentence such as "Any personal attack, whether it is a snide comment or a direct personal insult is covered by this policy." But then I noticed that in the list it included racial attacks, religious attacks and political attacks. For instance, "Jews are all fools" is not obviously a personal attack - the other person may or may not be a Jew. It is however totally inappropriate for Wikibooks and would be a personal attack upon a jewish reader. The list makes it clear for admins and users that any personal attack is not allowed. Without the list there would be debate about whether an attack was really "personal" or really severe enough to be covered by the policy.


 * That said, in the interests of compromise, I have inserted my sentence and removed the list. RobinH 10:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Move to enforce
The new, compromise wording has been in place for a week without objection. I propose to move this policy to "enforced" tomorrow. RobinH 13:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I myself do not object to the new wording becoming "enforced", I do think that this move should be republicised on the staff lounge with a note that the wording has changed, and only moved to "enforced" once any comments raised in response to that have been dealt with, Jguk 15:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

New Move to Enforce
Actually, this is the same move, I am just bumping this page to the top of the RC list, in hopes that this movement will draw more attention then the last. It is my intention, as per the previous community discussion, to move this proposal to policy within the week. If there are no dissenting opinions on the matter, I will do it soon. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd like to object on the grounds that Be civil covers this adequately (along with Profanity). I'd like to see this proposal rejected. --Swift 21:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This policy is central to creating an atmosphere of congenial behaviour at Wikibooks. The move to enforce was indeed publicised on the staff lounge and not opposed. As far as I was aware it was already accepted for enforcement after protracted discussion. Whiteknight says "Actually, this is the same move" ie: it was already accepted as enforced and tagged as enforced. Why has Whiteknight reopened the debate? Do we have to go over every policy endlessly? Perhaps there should be a moratorium of at least 1 year between debates otherwise determined individuals can slowly dismantle any constitutional structure. If Swift thinks the policy is part of "Be civil" and acceptable in this context then there is no objection to the policy as such and it should be left in place. RobinH 22:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well shoot, i must have mixed up my pages. This one already is enforced, and this new nomination is unneeded. Sorry. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers. Sorry I got a bit aerated but this was almost the only policy that was finally accepted back in May! RobinH 22:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, this may actually be my fault. When preparing this weeks Proposal of the Week, I looked through the list on Wikibooks talk:Be civil to see the status of each and thought that this was still a proposal, so I put it up on the week's plan for rejection. That may have been what shaded Whiteknight's memory.
 * Sorry about that guys. --Swift 04:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)