Wikipedia talk:Casting aspersions

Casting

Ass

Persians

Casting of ass

Persians

Veiled ass

Persians

Proposed merge from Wikipedia:Provide diffs

Guidance essay Wikipedia:Provide diffs covers another aspect of this topic and should be merged here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No. This page is based on Arbitration Committee decisions; the other is merely an editor's opinion (essay). Merging to an essay would downgrade the import of this. wbm1058 (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Enforcement?

What is the enforcement venue for this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably discretionary sanctions or AE, after an arbitration decision affects the topic area. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Obviously one enforcement venue is a case before the Arbitration Committee. – wbm1058 (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Clarification request: Wikipedia:Casting aspersions (September 2018)

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Initiated by Obsidi at 12:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Multiple, including [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Obsidi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [6]

Statement by Obsidi

I have a question concerning the principles ArbCom has established concerning WP:Casting aspersions. As this isn't a policy or guideline, this seemed the best place to clarify such decisions. My question is, does this only apply when a specific editor is named or implied? Obviously given the context in which the words are stated, it may be clear who they are WP:Casting aspersions on, and in such a case that cannot be allowed. But the problem I see with not allowing people to discuss such misbehavior more generically is that it stifles discussion concerning generalized problems with Wikipedia's processes in general.

For instance, if I say "there are a lot of bullies on the noticeboards." Saying a specific person is being a bully repeatedly without bringing them to a noticeboard and providing evidence of that would be WP:Casting aspersions. But at the same time, there may in fact be a lot of bullies on the noticeboards and yet it may not rise to the level of seriousness where sanctions are justified (and so bringing them before an appropriate noticeboard and accusing them of that would be futile).

Additionally I may wish to discuss such a problem so we can devise a solution to "there being a lot of bullies on the noticeboards." But how can I do this if I cannot even discuss the very problems that I wish to fix?

For these reasons, I am of the opinion that WP:Casting aspersions was properly limited to named or where it could reasonably be inferred who the person was talking about. But in the context of a recent block, another editor disagreed [7]. This isn't about that specific block (or whether the block is appropriate, or the conditions for unblock). But just a question of what the rules are. In re-reading WP:Casting aspersions, I noticed that it was somewhat ambiguous on this topic and so I could hardly blame the other editor for coming to this conclusion. So I am asking for clarification.

@Beyond My Ken: I explicitly excluded Michael Hardy and questions concerning his block or unblock from the scope of the question presented for clarification. A few reasons for this, (1) I am aware that he has in the past explicitly named the editors he is talking about, and so his past behavior wouldn't entirely qualify for this exception, and (2) I'm sure that it will be handled appropriately by the unblocking admins. This is why he is not a party, although if he wished to provide comments to arbcom, I would seek to get those comments added. -Obsidi (talk) 04:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Responding to the members of ArbCom who have made comments so far. I agree. If someone were to say "based on incident X, people at the noticeboard are bullies." That would imply that the accusation of bulling behavior is by those involved in that incident. That could potentially be WP:Casting aspersions (depending on the exact context). I just wanted to clarify that either named editors or some other way to identify which editors they are talking about is required (in the example case, it would be the editors who were involved in that incident). -Obsidi (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

It may be that my connecting Michael Hardy's non-specific broadly generalized charges about "corruption", "bullies", "cliques" and "dishonesty" on the Noticeboards to WP:Casting aspersions will be a step too far for some, but I continue to think that it's close enough to the spirit of CA to justify the connection. It hardly matters, though, since the Fourth Pillar specifies that "Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility," and it can hardly be said that Hardy making such wild accusations about unspecified parties is either civil or collegial. If there is corruption, bullying, cliquishness, and dishonesty, it needs to be dealt with, but the only way that can happen is by the presentation of specific evidence about specific editors. Hardy's steadfast refusal to do so seems to me to be in direct opposition to what the Fourth Pillar stands for, besides being disruptive and not at all the kind of behavior that I, at least, expect from an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I did not know until after I had posted the above, that in addition to making broad unsupported allegations of malfeasance, as described above, Michael Hardy also cast a few aspersions at specific people, including myself. [8]. Of course here, once again, he offered no evidence, no diffs, nothing but a bald statement that the "six dishonest cowardly bullies" were bad people of whom "[n]ot one of them is civil to anyone about anything." Hardy claims "That is not name calling. It is an accusation." and indeed it is, but one without supporting evidence, and for which he was indefinitely blocked. (This thread, diff is unavailable)

While the inquiry here was made on a general basis, I do not think it can be easily separated from the circumstances of Hardy's behavior which generated it. Here we see MH clearly casting aspersions to individuals, which, I think, only gives more weight to my suggestion that making broad allegations about the misbehavior of unspecified editors should fall under the same rubric. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

And, finally, just to point out the obvious, that calling AN/I and AN "the dramah boards" or similar run-of-the-mill complaints about the nature of the discussions there (which, to my mind, are vastly overstated) is a far cry from saying "a few clique leaders dominate certain things and sanctimoniously demand compliance with rules that they flout". That's incendiary language, and if not disallowed under CA, needs to be dealt with in some other manner. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, one more thing, Michael Hardy is at the very center of this issue -- why is he not a party here? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mandruss

It would be unwise to apply CA to general statements about the Wikipedia editing population or some segment thereof, or even more generally about human nature and its effects on Wikipedia editing. Those discussions are important and meaningful, even occasionally useful. And I've never seen anybody apply CA to that type of comments, including quite a few I've made myself.

I think the essential difference is whether the comments arise from the whole of one's Wikipedia experience or from a specific situation. My exposure to the MH saga was limited, but my impression is that his remarks were more of the latter type, and CA applies. As for what BMK meant in the comment linked by the OP, BMK can (and, I expect, will) speak for himself. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

I agree that clarity is needed to help eliminate the inconsistencies in admin actions that may range from no action at all to indef t-bans or blocks, and everything else in between - all of which depends on who the admin and subject editor happen to be at the time. An occasional *sigh* at the end of a sentence may be misconstrued as belittling which is an aspersion whereas profanity shouted in anger may be excused. Is telling someone their comment is full of bologna an aspersion? Do insults count as aspersions - could a joke be thought of as an aspersion? Why are aspersions actionable and not outbursts of profanity? Perhaps examples should be provided as a gage to determine what is considered (1) intolerable aspersions that are blockable, (2) borderline aspersions that require a warning, and (3) not an aspersion. Having clarity and a gage to judge by may help to eliminate potential unwarranted actions or incidents where no action was taken because of uncertainty. It is clear that casting aspersions must be accompanied by diffs but more emphasis needs to be placed on the fact that the provided diffs must clearly support the claim, and it should apply to all editors & admins who participate at AE, AN, AN/I and wherever else aspersions may be an actionable behavioral issue. If the diffs are found to not support the allegations, then a boomerang is in order, and the latter really needs to be included in the clarification. I think it will help eliminate some of the cases we're seeing now that are based on casting aspersions. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 17:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Worm, you said below that "there's got to be some judgement involved in where the line is drawn." Yes, that is what this discussion is about. Keep in mind that the reason an issue elevated to arbitration in the first place was that individual admins and the community were unable to resolve the issue via other means of DR. By leaving the execution of vague and confusing arb remedies to the judgment of individual admins, in lieu of our panel of elected arbitrators, is problematic for multiple reasons. It was ArbCom who decided those cases and established those remedies; however, if the execution of such remedies reverts back to judgment calls by individual admins, why do we have ArbCom, and what purpose do these so-called remedies actually serve? Nothing was remedied, and we're losing admins and editors as a result. Perhaps someone would be kind enough to provide those stats? ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 16:39, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

Like Atsme, I feel that there is a lot of undefined territory here. As I see it, a lot of the difficulty comes out of the community's lack of broad consensus as to what constitutes incivility (and of course there is a limit to how far ArbCom should get ahead of the community). It looks to me like the community has low tolerance for new or unregistered editors saying incivil stuff, but is willing to make way too many (in my opinion) excuses when an established and net-positive user says something incivil. I feel like I'm seeing much more anger in discussions than I would like to see. As for aspersions specifically, I would suggest that ArbCom look at it in terms of where a particular conduct does or does not disrupt editing.

As I see it, saying that other editors are taking a position because they hold a particular belief should not be considered an aspersion. If I say "I think you feel strongly about X, and that's why you want to edit the page that way", although it's true that I am commenting on another editor's motivations, that's not something that we should disallow. It can be a necessary part of some discussions.

But if I say "I think you are incompetent, and that's why you made that edit", that is an aspersion and a personal attack. The difference is I'm not talking about the other editor's point of view, but about their personal characteristics.

And saying without clear evidence "I think you are editing that way because you are acting on behalf of X" is also an aspersion, and one with a history. The last case linked by the OP here was the GMO case: [9]. And this is a history that needs to be understood. Prior to the case, it had become common for editors to say things like "Editors are trying to sanitize this page because Wikipedia is full of shills acting on behalf of Monsanto". It became such a problem that it led to significant findings in that case. After the case, editors who were not already topic banned realized that they had better not say "shill" anymore, so they started dancing around it by saying things like "Editors are acting together to keep all criticism of Monsanto off this page". And here is the reason why that is still an aspersion, in a way that "Editors want to have more negative content about GMOs" is not. It goes beyond asserting that other editors have a particular POV, to where there is the implication, without evidence, of conduct that violates policy. We have policies against undeclared paid editing, and the aspersion is that some editors are violating those policies, above and beyond just having a POV. And it doesn't matter if the aspersion is framed in general instead of identifying a particular editor by name. It's still something that should be considered an aspersion, and it is something that can be highly disruptive. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Minor4th

It does seem as though aspersions are in the eye of the beholder. As such, there is wild inconsistency in enforcement, which leads to the problem of editors not really having proper notice of where there boundaries are. I think that most policies and guidelines on Wiki are interpreted and applied this way, however.Minor4th 00:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

@Newyorkbrad: In your example, it seems you only dealt with part of the analysis (perhaps because that is the direct issue). I'm sure you are aware, but 'no aspersions' is only part of the fuzzy 'code of conduct', if you will, see eg, WP:AGF. So, leaping to 'paid' should be avoided, especially when nothing even suggests paid is involved, and we are dealing with multiple people from multiple places/life experiences, who are bound to say things differently. Seems a better way if you want to explore it, would be to ask honest good faith questions (eg. non-accusatory), before assuming anything. Especially so, since 'you said others were paid', could itself fall into 'aspersion' territory. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:40, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Wikipedia:Casting aspersions: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Wikipedia:Casting aspersions: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I view the "casting aspersions" principle as a subset of "no personal attacks." It is a personal attack to accuse another editor of misbehavior, although we permit it as part of dispute resolution where (1) making the accusation will benefit the encyclopedia and the community because doing so is needed to solve a problem, and (2) there's reasonable evidence to support the accusation. If someone says "Editor X has done a bad thing" that is clearly directed at Editor X. If someone says "the editors in this discussion have done a bad thing" and only Editors X, Y, and Z participated in the discussion, then that is clearly directed at Editors X, Y, and Z. On the other hand, if someone says "everyone who contributes to ABC noticeboard has done a bad thing," that would seem to be more of a criticism of a wiki-process or an aspect of wiki-culture, rather than of specific editors. So there is a distinction to be drawn there, although it's not always clear where the line falls. (For those who appreciate off-line parallels in these discussions, this exact problem arises frequently in the context of defamation law, in which a statement must be "of and concerning the plaintiff" in order to be actionable.) If I may go a bit beyond the specific question, I would add that moderate language and the avoidance of excessive rhetoric will help make such criticism more palatable and useful. To choose an example not entirely at random, if one says that the Administrators' Noticeboard and its participants are "corrupt," that could mean anything from "many editors are taking bribes" (interpreting "corrupt" as in "a corrupt politician") to "this noticeboard often doesn't work properly" (interpreting "corrupt" as in "a corrupted file"). Since one of these two statements is a calumny and the other is a truism, such ambiguities should be avoided. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Although I’ve offered a couple of general comments that I think are common sense, let’s not go further in discussing a specific editor unless a matter relating to that editor is brought here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

• I think NYB is pretty much on the money, casting aspersions is a subset of no personal attacks. If it clear who the attack is aimed at, then it becomes a personal attack. So, if you say "it's clear this place is ruled by thugs" it's general. If you change that to "based on this incident, it's clear that this place is ruled by thugs", it becomes linked to those in the incident, and depending what happened in the incident it can be construed as a personal attack on those involved. I don't think there's anything to prescribe here, there's got to be some judgement involved in where the line is drawn. Worm^TT(talk) 10:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with NYB and when it comes to things that are almost entirely dependent on the context of case-by-case situation, in the future, a clarification should be based on a specific incident, or framed around the circumstances of an incident in question. Mkdw ^talk 16:58, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
• I agree with those above that "casting aspersions" relates to WP:NPA. Clarification of existing policy is a matter for the community, not the Committee, so I won't comment on that further with the arb hat on. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 05:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

• I'm with my colleagues. This is about our NPA policy and we would only get directly involved if a particular incident were brought to us. Doug Weller talk 12:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
• NYB said it better than I could. This is definitely related to our policy on personal attacks, and that is something that should be examined as a whole by the community, not just ArbCom. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New clarifying sentence.

I'd like to add a new clarifying sentence after the first sentence that would read "These principles are an application of the policy against personal attacks." -Obsidi (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I added a link to this location from that one NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Over three years ago adding the clarification above ("These principles are an application of the policy against personal attacks.") was suggested and seconded, without dispute here. Yet, it is not in the lead. I am adding it now. RobP (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Rp2006: It was already added on September 27, 2018, just a sentence after the first. I've removed the duplicate. Chlod (say hi!) 18:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

"ASPERSIONS" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ASPERSIONS and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 10#ASPERSIONS until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 04:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't like how the lead is written

The lead just says arbcom has ruled on casting aspersions, without explaining what they are, and then tattles off principle decisions. Sure, it links to Wikitionary, but I still think there should be a lead sentence that actually explains what casting aspersions is. Maybe something like "An editor that makes unfounded, serious accusations against another editor without providing evidence is casting aspersions". Snowmanonahoe (talk) 23:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the above. As this page is quite often cited in conflict situations, it would be helpful if it summarized what aspersions are and how to differentiate tem from the broader category of personal attacks, in addition to the ArbCom quotes. NicolausPrime (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I've thought the same at times too. The GMO case had a bit more explanation, so it might be useful to also paraphrase part of that with and using that as a bludgeon to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes.

It may also be useful to add language on it not just naming editors, but also trying to game the principle. Tryptofish mentioned a bit of that we dealt with in the GMO topic in Wikipedia_talk:Casting_aspersions#Statement_by_Tryptofish. There was a time where editors (most now sanctioned) would try to sidestep the principle saying they didn't name any specific names, but instead just say things like "certain editors". KoA (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a lede. Hopefully it's passable. NicolausPrime (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I thin it looks good. It definitely helps articulate how much of a problem it can become when left unchecked. KoA (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2023 (UTC)