Guild Wars Wiki talk:No personal attacks

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Question about the policy 2 Removing userboxes from talk page& automated welcome 3 Attacks or insults 4 Derogatory terms and comments 5 Aiiane Deleted my edit for no reason 6 proposal 7 Add this, imo: 8 Removal of NPA violations 9 Change the name of the policy 10 Suggestion 11 Responding to personal attacks 12 You know... 13 Move to edit definition section 14 Hurr

[edit] Question about the policy

Ok say for example someone creates a page about a guild (or any "group" of people) and attacks the whole guild or group with a single statement. It is an attack, but not a personal attack (by definition), so how is that considered? --Lemming 00:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I think GWW:GUILD sufficiently covers defamation and attacks of that sort. -- ab.er.rant 02:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing userboxes from talk page& automated welcome

I have been on this wiki since it was still new, (coming from GWW). In all this time, no one talked to me once, which was perfect. Now, in the past 10 hrs, I have had 2 seperate people give me automated messages, and post the "fail" userbox on my talk page. AFter the first incident, I went through alot of trouble to be left alone. In short: I want to be able to delete unwanted userboxes from my talk page.--Ryudo 02:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No automated messages as far as I can tell, just a couple of guys talking random stuff and posting a random user box that they made. The best you can do is to archive and hope for that they leave you alone. Looking at the names they are pretty familiar irritators. -- (gem / talk) 03:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Nvm. I fail at 5AM. -- (gem / talk) 03:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attacks or insults

I propose these changes:

• Add "Targeted harassment" to the main list of examples
• change "but some types of comments that are never acceptable" to "but some actions that are never acceptable"

Depending on your previous view (and I know this varies), you might see this as a reinterpretation rather than a clarification. I can understand that; almost all attacks are of the insulting commentary variety, after all. I'd like to point out a few things, though:

• Targeted harassment is an attack
• Targeted harassment is personal

--Rezyk 17:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as it's a clear case it should just be a clarification of the current rules. But if it's just two users disagreeing with eachother, leave it to ArbComm. Backsword 13:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

(The thing you pointed out is a Fallacy of Composition, tho')

Spamming "bananas" in someone's talkpage after being asked not to by that someone, is a personal attack since it involves disrespect and makes the user uncomfortable, both things bad for users and the wiki. Being a clear personal attack, this policy should cover it clearly. Borderline cases will always be ArbComm's problems.reanor 15:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Doing that clarification would be good, but I'm also fine with leaving as it is. Seeing this discussion, we have already clarified the meaning of a personal attack. - anja 15:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks/ChangeA Check it out.reanor 16:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to (major nitpicking: I would replace "Harassment" for "harassment" in the "Recurring attacks and Harassment" title, since we usually don't capitalize words like that). Erasculio 20:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's have the discussion on that proposal on Guild Wars Wiki talk:No personal attacks/ChangeA. -- ab.er.rant 03:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derogatory terms and comments

I'd like to see the line on racist, sexist etc. comments expanded to include undirected comments such as "<skill name> is for <noun>." or "<skill name> is <verb>". -- Gordon Ecker 07:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds a lot like No Profanity. Which failed.

In cases when it's an underhand why of directly insulting someone ('X: I like skill A. Y:Skill A is for idiots') I think it's already covered. Backsword 13:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary change. If it isn't an attack, it isn't an attack. If we changed it to that suggestion we'd be mostly basing who to punish off who gets offended and who doesn't. For example, if a friend of mine spams my talk page with racist or sexist comments, it would be overly nazi to ban him, as he isn't maliciously trying to offend anyone (and, because he knows me, knows I don't give a damn about racist comments). If that same person was spamming racist comments on some random user's page, it would be seen as an attempt to offend, and administrative action would be much more likely. Bans and warnings based on who gets offended isn't a good idea. We should keep this policy focused on personal attacks. -Auron 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Idiot isn't a racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithet. -- Gordon Ecker 22:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it should include "intellectual". Observing most of the discussion, that seems to be the most commonly used attack, and idiot would fall under that category. Mohnzh 23:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"that are never acceptable include but are not limited to" --Xeeron 12:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Let's let sysops enforce the spirit of policy instead of the letter. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Aiiane. In some policies I think it's possible to limit exactly what it's about - but here, no matter what kind of limit were placed, someone would find a way to use clever wording so what is clearly an attack falls outside those limits. "No personal attacks", as vague as that is, is likely the best definition and best wording for this policy. Erasculio 15:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about disparaging analogies, like this. -- Gordon Ecker 04:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

And racist comments like this <link removed>. -- Gordon Ecker 09:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For something like this, I would rather as Aiiane says, go with the spirit. If, however, you want to follow the literal, "Racial [...] epithets directed against another contributor". In the analogy above which perhaps compares the banning of a certain group of people to the genocide of all white people, I'm willing to bet another "contributor" is white, thus making a personal attack against them. In that case though, I don't see a personal attack, just a (very bad) analogy. -- Brains12 \ Talk 12:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

The second link was a horrible example, the anonymous poster's "If my country decided to kill all the white people because they didn't like them I'd understand." statement was ambiguous, it could be read as either "If my country decided to kill all the white people because they didn't like them I'd understand the genocide." OR "If my country decided to kill all the white people because they didn't like them I'd understand the splitting off of the servers.", and I believe the latter, inoccuous interpretation is the correct one. -- Gordon Ecker 04:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a proper racist comment example. -- Gordon Ecker 00:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's outside the scope of this policy and can be handled with warnings and arbitration, however I'd like to be able to cite something when issuing warnings. Anyway, since it doesn't really belong here, I'll continue the discusion at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Be civil#Reviving as a guideline. -- Gordon Ecker 00:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aiiane Deleted my edit for no reason

except that she hates me, i think? 67.131.227.73 14:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

A new proposal should be added in a draft subpage, or brought up on the talk page. That is why your addition was deleted. -- br12 • (talk) • 14:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ok, can i add a sentence? 67.131.227.73 14:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC) and that was not why she reverted it. if you look at it you will see that it is legitimate. 67.131.227.73 14:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

See Guild_Wars_Wiki:Policy#Changing_existing_policies You can't modify an existing policy without proposing a draft of the new one first. - HeWhoIsPale 14:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

There is an established method for changing policies, which every user is required to follow (yes, even sysops). This is due to the fact that policy is designed to reflect consensus and thus allowing it to change at will would no longer ensure that it reflects the result of a communal decision. You can find the process for changing policies summarized at GWW:POLICY, but in short, as HeWhoIsPale noted, policy changes should be drafted at a separate location and discussed there, then proposed at GWW:POLICY and a decision reached by the community regarding the proposal.

Your edit was reverted because it did not follow this process, and thus is not allowed. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

oh. well, can we please add that one sentence? 67.131.227.73 14:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

• An admin suspending a normal user when that user has not broken any rules, or because the admin disagrees with statements made by the normal user is also a personal attack.

If you believe this should be part of a policy, I think it should be added to GWW:ADMIN. Incorrect blocking does not necessarily mean a personal attack, but could mean a lack of administrative ability on the blocker's part. -- br12 • (talk) • 14:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We have Guild Wars Wiki:Requests for adminship#Reconfirmation for that. But I think in this case any complaints are unwarranted. poke | talk 14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

SysOps can't stop rouge SysOps anyway, so leaving to ArbComm makes no difference. Not that it's likely to happen anyway, amd we don't need a policy for every random disruptions, only those that needs to be dealt with on a general basis. Backsword 14:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

That sentence isn't going to accomplish much, and it is not in line with the spirit of this policy. If you have a problem with an admin blocking a user for reasons that you disagree with, the proper mechanism is to request for explanation from that particular admin or to request other admins to look into it. These are judgments, not attacks. Would you claim that a police officer who gave you a ticket for reckless driving is because he's targeting you specifically or would you say that he's doing his job? -- ab.er.rant 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

you can't excuse attacking someone because the attack was a "judgement" if a police officer beats someone up or tazers someone because they disagree with them, and that person did not break the law - i would definately call that an attack.

I'm guessing he would scream harassment, and likely at the wrong officer. - HeWhoIsPale 14:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i think that's directed at a person not content...

NPA could easily encompass something that to me, seems like a big problem. why not add it in there. it will keep order better. 67.131.227.73 14:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

How does it keep order better? What specific disruptive incident would that prevent? -- ab.er.rant 14:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

so you think banning people for no reason is not disruptive... ok.

I believe what Ab.er.rant is asking is how this would be any better than the current state of policy: since sysops are who enforce policy, how exactly are you going to have policy stopping a sysop from doing such? How is such a change to policy going to have more of an effect than the current system (ArbComm review and requests for reconfirmation)? (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Also do not understand where you are getting the "no reason" from. -- br12 • (talk) • 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

well to respond - i still don't understand where the "reason" comes from - except that I got flamed - nobody else though that i could see. 67.131.227.73 07:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

it's just a hypothetical situation: read the sentence: *An admin suspending a normal user when that user has not broken any rules, or because the admin disagrees with statements made by the normal user is also a personal attack.

do you guys just want to still be able to bann people for no reason and get away with it?

As Poke said, if that situation does occur, we have the reconfirmation process to sort it out. The likelihood a sysop will ban someone simply for some personal vendetta is slim. br12 • (talk) • 14:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

well, that's what cops say and police brutality is still super common.

Police are not "voted" in by the community. br12 • (talk) • 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the police have an Internal Affairs department to handle such matters. This wiki has ArbComm and requests for reconfirmation of sysops. The framework to deal with any such issue, if it were to arise, is already there. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 14:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever - police brutality still happens all the time, and the concept is that if they had strict punishment for it, and easy ways for citizens to go about obtaining that justice, then it would pretty much solve the problem, in the same way that acknowledging un-warranted bans as attacks would go far to solve the problem here. but you guys don't think there is a problem. well neither do judges and cops in the law system. but there is one - maybe not for the cops but for a lot of people.

judges ARE voted in, and they do it just as much as cops. sentencing someone to months in jail is just as bad as cracking someone over the head with a night stick IMO.

Hang on, are we discussing police brutality and the corruption of the law system.. or .. well tbh I don't know what we are discussing here. Anyway, let's move off the straw analogy and keep it to NPA shall we? -- br12 • (talk) • 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

well, people have disagreements - it's natural. but admins should not ban users who have opinions that are different from other people. that is a personal attack.

All that police talk is shooting your own argument in the foot. If you say that real world law enforcement still go rogue despite laws that say they can't... what makes you think it will be any different in an online community? I think you need to give a concrete example where such a policy change is necessary that cannot be handled by any existing means. Personal attacks are personal attacks, there is no specific need to specifically mention admins versus non-admins when the admins policy covers how an admin should and should not act. -- ab.er.rant 15:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ok first you're the one who first compared it, not me. second, cops do commit police brutality acts all the time, but if BR doesn't want to talk about it, then i won't. third, an online wiki community does not have to be the same as the law system nor does it have to follow it's same mistakes. fourth - i didn't know about all those policies stated above, but i do not think such a situation would be properly handled by them, although i'll have to read them - they're also complicated and full of flaws - like a banned user can not even post on wiki (including on an admin's page). third, simple acknowledgement that an un-warranted ban IS an attack would go SO FAR to solve the problem.

fifth, why don't you want to add the rule? ... or the statement?

oh and admin abuse is a specific kind of attack that does need to be specified from other kinds of PA.

"banned user can not even post on wiki" They're banned. That's the whole point. br12 • (talk) • 15:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

right. so the above mentioned policies are severely flawed in that way. if a user gets banned because an admin had a personal grudge against them, then they would essentially be a victim with nothing they could do. this is why i say it ought to be acknowledged that such a ban is a personal attack, because such a statement would take a step towards finding a solution to this problem, as well as do much to prevent it. or do you have another solution?

The user simply has to wait until their ban duration is over and then either request reconfirmation or Arbcomm etc. The duration will not be long either, just a day or a few. If the duration is longer, then a lot of discussion would've gone into it as to why the long ban. If however, a sysop does ban for, say, a year without the discussion and consensus, then other admins and users will enquire into it and maybe even begin the reconfirmation process. There is always a way to stop admin abuse. And that's the whole point - there is. br12 • (talk) • 15:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i don't think so

[edit] proposal

adding the following line to,

• An admin suspending a normal user when that user has not broken any rules, or because the admin disagrees with statements made by the normal user is also a personal attack.

the list following:

"There is no clearly defined rule or standard about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments that are never acceptable include but are not limited to: "

--67.131.227.73 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

disagreed. If an admin does something and other admins think it's wrong, they can discuss that and undo the action. If other admins agree it's fine. If a user thinks that an action was wrong he can also bring the issue up to discussion. Admins are elected by the community so the users should support the actions and if there is still an issue, we have Requests for reconfirmation. (I know, my text is confusing :P) poke | talk 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

this is why america got bombed by terrorists - because there are too many people in power who refuse to see their own actions as wrong and really don't care.

I don't think GWW's policies are why America got "bombed". Can we keep this on topic? btw, Disagree. Seems redundant to existing policies and processes. - HeWhoIsPale 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

An admin blocking "because he disagrees with the person in question" should be up for reconfirmation. This shouldn't have to be covered in any policy, it's just a misuse of granted powers. As poke said, the admins are selected by the community, the community also has a responsibility to tell admins when something is wrong. And should be able to do so without a policy saying that they can. - anja 15:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I've requested three times for a stronger example. Do you (the anon) have any reason other than because it will be better? You wrote i didn't know about all those policies stated above, but i do not think such a situation would be properly handled by them, although i'll have to read them. Have you read them? If you still don't understand them, feel free to ask questions on specific instances of potential abuses that you like to claim as personal attacks (despite the fact that power abuses are far more serious than verbal attacks and any abuse issue would make the personal attack issue moot). -- ab.er.rant 15:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

i thought i told you? i was just banned for 1 week (reduced to 3 days later), and i don't see why. no one has shown me that or quoted anything (except me). that kind of stuff has happened in the past to people, and i think it's about time we put an end to it and at least TRY to build a more fair and equal wiki. do you guys really MIND if i do that? creating that statement, at the VERY LEAST would not hurt, AND would ensure UNFAIR things from happening in the future. You guys just don't want to accept it because you hate me. That's all. 67.131.227.73 07:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO, pointless and ridiculous proposal that is little more than a waste of time. It's already implied in the sysop role that they are to be fair when doing their job (and fortunatelly all the current sysops do their job very well). Erasculio 16:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

do you think EVERYONE thinks that the sysops do their job well? what about the people who got banned?

first of all, a policy saying people can't do something that is wrong can't hurt. second of all, i think it happens all the time. admins or whatnot can just ban someone without anyone questioning them, in many cases, even when the person that got banned did not break policy. i mean, i could give you examples i'm sure - especially on the guild wars wikis (as opposed to wikipedia). but here, just try this: think of someone posting something that has to do with guild wars, and is encyclopediatric. now think, what if tons of people started bashing on that person. happens at least occasionally, right? think back to when guildwiki.org had the BUILDS section - that is a perfect example - some people thought one build was good and another sucked and lots of other people had the exact opposite opinion. eventually someone was disrespectful - and sometimes they would receive a similar attitude in return from the target. BUT - it was usually the TARGET who got banned - NOT THE FLAMERS. so i'll leave this up for everyone to respond to, but that kind of stuff still happens. and that is why it's important for us to have that rule - to further guide this virutal place into fairness and equality. 67.131.227.73 07:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"admins or whatnot can just ban someone without anyone questioning them" - User:Skuld begs to disagree. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

show an example of when an admin was EVEN QUESTIONED about the righteousness of his/ her ban. while this may be possible, it still does not matter. The point is ... well i don't have to restate the point. 67.131.227.73 07:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's exactly what I was doing with User:Skuld... one of Skuld's bans was most certainly questioned, and reversed. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

and was that because you were overzealous or did you have something personally against him? and can you see how an admin could bann someone and get away with it, when it WAS just a personal thing? 67.131.227.73 07:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) good job banning skuld btw ;) lol67.131.227.73 07:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't the sysop who blocked him in the case I was referring to. See User_talk:Tanaric#Challenge_to_Skuld.27s_blocking (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"i think it happens all the time." You only think that it's happening? "i mean, i could give you examples i'm sure - especially on the guild wars wikis (as opposed to wikipedia)" Please do. And try not to ignore the fact that the problems on GuildWiki resulted in the whole namespace being wiped rather than the constant warnings regarding condescending comments. And if you're suggesting that no correctly targeted punishments were carried out there, you're highly mistaken. -- ab.er.rant 08:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is abuse of admin power against someone you don't like a personal attack? Yes, of course it is, and I don't see any problem with including "clear abuse of admin power against a specific user" on the list of examples, but I don't think that blocking a troll would qualify as abuse unless it's forbidden by policy or guidelines. -- Gordon Ecker 08:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, "abuse of admin power" is already against policy because it's violating the GWW:ADMIN policy by which sysops are granted power in the first place. It's rather redundant to list it as NPA when it's already a violation of policy for much more relevant reasons. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 08:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the spirit of this policy is more towards keeping discussions and content contributions civil and well-mannered. On this policy, especially noted on the last paragraph of that section, the policy applies equally to admins, and within the scope of this policy, admins are also regular users, and there is not need to specifically single out a specific group of users. Otherwise, it might also make sense to add "Veteran users removing the contributions of new users because they do not agree with them", and maybe "Regular wiki users discriminating against non-regular users". The point of the objections is not because the sentence is wrong, it's because it's already and better covered by other policies. In short, it doesn't fit in here. Clear abuse of admin power does not need it to be defined as a personal attack to be condemnable, and it does not make any punishment on such an action stronger by being a personal attack. An abuse of power is an abuse of power, regardless of whether it's a personal attack or not. -- ab.er.rant 09:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, including abuses of admin powers would be purely a formality. What about "Clear abuse of user rights against a specific user."? That would cover the abuse of sysop powers without restating the other policies. -- Gordon Ecker 11:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Toying with words, the only people who have any specific "user rights" are sysops and bcrats. There's no difference and the same arguments apply. It simply doesn't belong here. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

(RI) I think we're wasting our time talking about a problem that does not exist. This discussion began thanks to an user who has (justly) banned and became angry out of it, pointing vague examples that don't exist as his main argument for this idea. Meanwhile, has there been an incident of an admin misusing his/her power to abuse a common user? No. Do we have failsafes against such misuse of power? Yes. There's the admin policy, there are the other adminds who may undo whatever the "rogue sysop" would have done, there's the community who's always watching the admins (sometimes watching too much, IMO), and there's the lack of power the admins here have. Do we really need something else beyond all those features? And do we really need to allow every user who's angry because he has been punished (despite deserving said punishment) to question the wiki's admin system? Erasculio 11:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The MediaWiki documentation has a broad definition of user rights, covering everything from page viewing to promotion and demotion. Anyway, abuse of sysop powers against someone is already an implicit violation of this policy (and an implicit or explicit violation of other policies), just like vandalising someone's user page, and I don't think an specific mention is necessary. I don't think adding explicit mentions would be harmful, but I don't think it would be beneficial either. -- Gordon Ecker 12:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Add this, imo:

"QQing about every single thing that comes remotely close to NPA is also detrimental to the wiki." — Teh Uber Pwnzer 03:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"QQing about every single thing one doesn't like in a way that needlessly borders on NPA is also detrimental to the wiki." -- ab.er.rant 04:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Teh Uber Pwnzer may have a point though. There exists a correlation between how often a comment is decried as NPA and how seriously actual violations of NPA are taken. This becomes particularly true if a large percentage of those comments are questionably violations of NPA. "Equally, accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly, especially if you are involved in a dispute." NPA violations are serious, and they should be treated as such, and it demeans the intent of this policy if it is abused. I'm not sure by what standard one might say that it is being abused, but, under the assumption that it is being abused or could be abused, there is an arguement to be made. Hopefully I didn't infer too much from Pwnzer's single line of text ;). File:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 04:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You raise a valid point (and yes, I think you may be inferring too much). There are cases where NPA is cited incorrectly, and some are seen on GWW:NOTICE. The primary issue with NPA appears to be that there is always a large gap between what is considered civil and uncivil between groups of users, hence all the disagreements that come from it. The usual scenario is this: First, someone will accuse another of a personal attack. A disagreement almost always occur, usually championed by other users who have a greater tolerance or a different definition on what is considered rude. Then one way or another, an admin or two will step in and make a judgment call. Whatever the outcome, we have a group of disgruntled users. Of course, as can be observed, the general trend is that borderline cases and insinuations are not much tolerated, which I suppose, adds to the disgruntlement of users who simply don't want to be censored of how they actually feel. Is that a problem with this policy or is that a problem with there being no generally accepted idea of what is a personal attack? I believe the most recent case is in User talk:Armond#User page content. I find that I appreciate your insightful observations on your candidacy page, and so I would like to hear your opinions regarding the interpretation and the subsequent action taken. I always seem unable to get users to turn it from a "admin vs victimised user" into a hopefully calmer discussion on policy and interpretation. They usually blame the admin and not the policy. And if we interpret the policy according to their definition of it, another group of users will start to say that we're not enforcing policy... *shrugs* -- ab.er.rant 05:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, and further reading of your candidacy talk page showed me a little more about the other point of view. A difference in interpretation stemming from having users who come from different yet similar community backgrounds. The idea held by those mostly only on this wiki is the personal attacks usually include unnecessary rudeness or veiled insinuations, in other words being politically incorrect. The opposing view is that personal attacks are those that blatantly and indisputably target someone with an insulting comment. Anything else is probably just described as being direct or being rude or being insensitive. I wonder if this is somehow related to the size of a community. -- ab.er.rant 06:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't need to add that, because something similar is already in the policy: "Equally, accusing someone of making a personal attack is not something that should be done lightly, especially if you are involved in a dispute. It is best for an uninvolved observer to politely point out that someone has made a personal attack, and for the discussion to return to considering the content, not the person." --Xeeron 14:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's another point that deserves an in-depth (and calm) discussion to clear it up once and for all. There are angry posts that complain that NPA is being brandished about too lightly and too often. Does it undermine the policy? Perhaps. It depends on what it should cover. As I mentioned above, there is a significant difference in what people believe it should cover. Does it cover only things like "OMG, UR SO STUPID!" (which would make it quite limited in scope), or should it be interpreted as also covering strongly aggressive or strongly negative criticisms and/or veiled insults? Such as "You're all incapable of understanding what is so-and-so." and things like "What you did shows how much you fail at blah=and-blah." Is it even possible to get an agreement on this? If not, some insight as to where the middle ground is would be appreciated, especially from sysops that were grandfathered from GuildWiki. Or should sysops act as per GuildWiki and we interpret as we choose, and ignore responses that claim we are evil and that we should get more/less (it depends) power/discretion. -- ab.er.rant 14:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

IMO, you are always going to get claims that you are evil. Today you get it both from those who complain that sysops act too little, and from those who complain that sysops act too much (usually when they're at the receiving end of a punishment). I'm amused at how often both groups above intersect, but anyway: I think we need to be careful not to allow those who show disruptive behavior to change the rules so their behavior become more and more acceptable. Many times someone accused of breaching a policy tries to find a loophole which to justify his/her actions; but I think here the spirit of the policy is more important than its letter. Is a veiled insult meant to be offensive? Yes, by the very definition of "insult"; therefore I don't see how it could be outside NPA. Is a comment like "What you did shows how much you fail at blah=and-blah" productive to a discussion? Does it help the wiki? Doesn't it fall inside the "comment on actions, not people" idea? Therefore, IMO it also falls within NPA. Being blunt to the point of being offensive is not an asset; trying to intimidate someone in a discussion through insults, be them veiled or not, is only trying to replace reasoning with bullying. Erasculio 14:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I would argue in favor of more discretion. A thinly-veiled insult is probably not productive, but, then again, when it comes to those borderline cases, in some instances, the tangent that results from a debate as to whether or not a comment is NPA can be even more disruptive to a discussion. More discretion on the part of the administrators allows them to interpret situations based on the intent of NPA (thus hopefully eliminating potential loopholes as well), and, that's always going to be more productive than attempting to ascertain the precise nature of what constitutes an NPA violation. Additionally, rather than trying to impose an ambiguous standard (that standard being the reason for unproductive debates as to whether a violation has occurred), discretion allows an administrator to without a great deal of equivocation, state whether or not a violation has occurred. Not only are those discussions often unproductive, they often seem to lead to greater escalation leading to more violations than might have otherwise occurred. File:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 00:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's assuming said discretion doesn't already exist. Who defines what is or isn't a NPA breach, today, are the admins (the sysops, really). Many complains against NPA come from users who are against what the sysops tell them. Erasculio 01:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was simply attempting to respond to Aberrant's question: "Or should sysops act as per GuildWiki and we interpret as we choose, and ignore responses that claim we are evil and that we should get more/less (it depends) power/discretion." File:Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG *Defiant Elements* +talk 01:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You've succeeded in confusing me. You're arguing for implementing the solution that is already the current implementation in order to solve issues raised regarding just the current solution. BTW, equivocation is binary. Backsword 07:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the issue behind the original post. Valid points, but not the case here. As I see it, it's an issue of how often the policy is enforced. PvX wiki seems to have a culture where NPA vios are only enforced when they go beyond the taste of the admins. Since our system would require a highly detailed policy in order to allow that, we effectivly get a 'zero tolerance' system. These users come in from PvX and contuinue to act in a way that's natural for them. And then run into our policies and instictivly feel that it's not 'right' as it's not what they expect. I understand that they then feel this wiki is no fun, as if they constantly have to modify their behaviour they wont be able to relax.

Whether zero tolerance is desirble or not is another issue, one we haven't really had any discussion on. Backsword 07:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noted about that above. We have users from very similar communities, yet there are fundamental differences in what is perceived to be the "normal" behavior. I think I can understand what Defiant Elements said, and yes, both Backsword and Erasculio are right - that is exactly what the spirit of the policy says. Apparently, we do have a central point where both sides can agree. I think I'm in agreement with what all the hostilities have been railing on - the problem lies with the sysops, me most definitely included. Seeing the statements on Auron's candidacy is a good indication that users, to put it bluntly, are looking for a sysop who knows how to shut people up (disruptive ones only of course). I think the general sentiment is that sysops just need to deal with disruptive quickly and effectively, not letting it drag on unnecessarily.

I see two factors. One, sysops. From observation, I think as a group, we're getting a little intolerant when it comes to borderline cases (or it may be just my flawed perception). Personally, I think I just need to learn that we now have several distinct groups of users who express themselves quite differently, and instead of only trying to force them to comply with our norm, shifting our norm outwards slightly is likely an unavoidable compromise. Just as it's a little unnatural for me to be blunt or direct, it's also unnatural for others to not be blunt. Yes, some of us can certainly carry a heated conversation without ever being accused of NPA violation, but I think a little tolerance for a difference in styles of expression goes a long way. Particularly so, if we can make it seem like we're not taking sides.

The second factor is a long-term problem I think. Due to the previous user page debacle and the huge number of heated exchanges that came up, sysops have suddenly lost respect. The widespread misconception now is that sysops are mostly pathetic and powerless, which has, for many users, destroyed the usual hesitancy in challenging an admin. I'm not saying that challenging an admin is bad, but with users actually trolling admins, the sysop role doesn't inspire authority any more. A change of that perception will take a long time.

Hmm.... I have no idea where I want this discussion to go. Just wanted to voice out my analysis/thoughts on this. -- ab.er.rant 10:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of NPA violations

I hereby propose changing the policy so it no longer allows removing policy violations. Many times the violations, while by definition disallowed by policy and generally unproductive, are required so the discussion can make sense. Once the offender has been punished, it should be of little difficulty to read his words. -- Armond Warblade 10:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that for main Talk pages, but with user talks where that user is personally attacked, I would rather that user had the right to choose whether or not to remove the violation. -- Brains12 \ Talk 15:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Current policy allows anyone to remove violations, does it not? (This originated at User talk:Backsword#FYI.) -- Armond Warblade 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

How would replacing personal attacks with a "Removed as per GWW:NPA" notice cause existing sections to no longer make sense? Wouldn't just knowing that it was an insulting statement or words be enough to tie things together? But personally, I'd rather just remove only the offending portions of a sentence, rather than a whole edit. Maybe that needs to be clarified. -- ab.er.rant 02:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The current policy allows users to remove any personal attacks from their own user talk pages, and allows sysops to remove personal attacks at the request of the targets of those attacks. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change the name of the policy

No stating FACTUAL INFORMATION on a WIKI that makes ArenaNet, its fanboys, or the sysops look bad unless it's on your own talk page.

Yeah, the NSFIOAWTMAIFOTSLBUIOYOTP policy. ~Shard 06:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you really want to start this again Shard? -- Wyn 06:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it really that hard to complain about game design and balance decisions by targeting the decisions themselves rather than the people responsible for them? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Lets see should we complain about how bad Bush has been as president of the U.S in regard to the economy or just complain about how bad the policies were that happened while he has been in office?~>Sins WDB 22:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Good god people! Let's start with an easy question so it can develop from there and please no randomness...Just answer this. Is there a benefit of changing the name of the policy?--ShadowFog 22:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Some people (usually, the ones that get banned) complain that the policy is called "no personal attacks" and thus claim that they can "attack" as long as it's not personal. Some others claim that they can "state factual but out of context information" about individuals also since it's not an "attack". Either way, the people that work with the policy (meaning, admins) have proven already knowledge on the meaning of it, so i find no reason for changing the name really.--Fighterdoken 22:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply this is Shard's way of expressing his displeasure at being banned for stating what he claims is fact, regardless that it's a personal attack. Until he really gets the fact that what he does is a violation of this policy, he will most likely continue to violate it regardless of what we name it. I don't believe he posted this question in the hopes of producing any sort of constructive discussion, he just wanted everyone to know he was unhappy. -- Wyn 23:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Aye, that and he was just trolling. --Lemming 00:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something. I must not know English, because apparently if I attack someone's actions or their job, it's considered a person. It's commonly known that arenanet sucks at a lot of things...I think IGNORING their mistakes is the LAST thing we should do about it. If you put mistakes in peoples' faces, they will see them. If you don't, they won't. This isn't rocket science.

NPA is there to prevent people from spamming "you gay idiot," "you nigger," and "gtfo fatass" on the pages. It was not supposed to prevent people from telling arenanet what they're doing wrong or from asking "who's the person who actually fixes things." I've been banned for violating NPA before, then I stopped, and if I actually was violating NPA, I wouldn't make a big deal about this. You banned me because I talked negatively about how arenanet is handling the game and being right about it. They just...i didn't want to use this word but there isn't a better one...they just fail at everything they do so much that any mention of their actions looks negative.

Some people complain that the policy is called "no personal attacks" and thus claim that they can "attack" as long as it's not personal.

No, I'm claiming that because that's not only what its name implies, but it's also what the policy fucking says. IT EVEN SAYS "comment on the content, not the contributor," which is EXACTLY what I'm doing. ~Shard 04:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

Calling someone's work bad is like calling someone's child bad: it reflects back to them and their power--or lack thereof--to do...whatever the hell they do. --Riddle 06:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If your child is a murderer and I said that was bad, that's a personal attack? Wow. Obviously, I'm not seeing this like you guys are. I'll stick to your "no negatively enlightening information no matter how relevant it is" policy if it gives you that much of a hard-on. ~Shard 06:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ehh, I was talking more along the lines of "Little Tommy is bad at soccer!" Usually the parent of Little Tommy doesn't go "Be a man, Tommy!" but rather punches the insulting person in the teeth, despite the fact the Tommy may actually be bad at soccer. --Riddle 06:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is why I thank God for putting blunt people in the world along with those who push being politically correct.~>Sins WDB 17:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If you've got a problem with the policy, you can propose that it be toned down or repealed and try to convince the community that the change would be a good idea. It would be hypocritical to keep the policy as-is but let certain people get away with violating it because of their popularity. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean Auron? Or me? I just don't understand how, not only do I get blocked for saying things that are borderline NPA, but other people (and actually myself) can put as many personal attacks on our own userpages with no consequence. This isn't 1400 CE where people thought the world and the sky had different physics. If you're not going to allow something, disallow it everywhere for everyone. ~Shard 06:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The first part was directed at both you and Sins. What do you want? A policy which has different rules for personal attacks directed against current and former ArenaNet employees? A policy which allows regular users to complain about eachothers' job performance and call for them to be fired? The second part wasn't referring to anyone in particular, it was criticising "User X shouldn't be blocked because I / we like him / her." arguements (and, indirectly, "User X shouldn't be blocked because I / we agree with him / her." arguements) in general. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:35, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The policy does disallow personal attacks for everyone; it's just a case of enforcement. It's not feasible to view, and subsequently enforce policies on, every page, even if there were a hundred sysops - enforcement's carried out as violations are noticed or pointed out. Also, grey areas exist, so not everything can be solidified in policy. If you know you're violating policy and putting personal attacks on your userpage, for example, why don't you remove them (and why are you putting them there in the first place)? -- Brains12 \ talk 17:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Something should be added against baseless accusations. Something like: "...accusations against the integrity of a person, if not backed up by proof or facts, is also a personal attack..." because it's very hard to defend against half-truths, lies and, best of all, the 'everybody knows'/'I'm not gonna spooneed you evidence (because I don't have any)'. Gaile clearly showed that's she considers them a personal attack, so I'd say it should at least be open for debate. 145.94.74.23 20:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So every time someone says Gaile has failed in every aspect of her job, they'll be expected to paste in a few hundred lines of GWG links and screenshots? --76.25.197.215 20:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Completely disregarding the fact that ANet has no say over wiki policy, if your only reason for bringing up a policy proposal is "Gaile/Izzy/anyone on wiki at all says this", you may be advised not to bring it up at all. The idea of a proposal is to garner consensus, not to discuss any possible addition any one person might think of. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 21:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That said, the concept of libel is certainly one that could be discussed. As far as I know, GWW does not currently have an equivalent of W:Wikipedia:Libel, though it might fall under sysop discretion. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Just so it's on record, I think we should delete this policy and leave the entire thing up to sysop discretion. Writing out what is allowed and what is not like this tends to lead to people working around it and great drama ensuing in an attempt to figure the person in question has broken policy. -- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 03:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

/agree --Antioch 04:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily say that deleting the page is the right idea, lest a new user believe that the wiki is unmoderated. I could however potentially see a change that simply stated that sysops have the discretion to request alterations of posting style/content etc. in order to preserve order on the wiki, or something of that nature (as opposed to attempting to define it). You'd probably want to get others involved in this discussion if you're pushing for such to actually happen, however. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO we should have a policy or guideline which explicitly states that personal attacks and trolling can get you in trouble and includes a list of common examples of personal attacks. If we keep the current policy, I think it would be reasonable to add unverifiable accusations to the current non-exhaustive list of examples of unacceptable personal attacks to mitigate drama. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No. It doesn't matter if it is true or not. If it is a personal attack, it doesn't belong on the wiki. Backsword 21:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A baseless accusation is not the same as a personal attack. And sysops should not be the ones deciding about the truth. "Gaile fails at her job" might or might not be true (and the answer is likely to differ when asking different people), but it is not something that should fall under this policy. Compare the clear personal attack "Gaile, you are a failure". --Xeeron 22:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

IMO it should be considered a personal attack if it's directed at someone. They're considered personal attacks on Wikipedia. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny story. This isn't wikipedia. —ǥrɩɳsɧƴɖɩđđɭɘş 00:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just using the Wikipedia community as an example of a group which considers unfounded accusations directed at people to be a form of personal attack. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

At the moment, I have only 1 issue with the current policy and that's although it is written in a includes but not limited to this way, many people treat it as includes and is thus limited to this. Which results in people getting very creative at insulting people. Just compare the example mentioned a few posts above this one: "Gaile fails at her job" and "Gaile, you are a failure" both mean the same, with the same (obvious) intent behind it, yet they are treated differently. That creates a lot of confusion to say the least. The same goes for "Player X bought his rank on Ebay." and "Player X is a cheating, sneaky person." Without any evidence whatsoever, the first statement is little more than a personal attack - it is discrediting the character of a player and it is not a statement you can agree or disagree with, because there is absolutely nothing to discuss or think about - just that one, very suggestive statement. Sysop discretion would be preferable in situations like that. 145.94.74.23 18:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Responding to personal attacks

Currently, this section only presents options for the targets of personal attacks. IMO it should also present options for third parties and sysops. Should personal attacks be tolerated if the target doesn't complain, or should they always be considered unacceptable? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The "What is considered a personal attack?" section implies that some personal attacks are unacceptable in any circumstances, the "Consequences of personal attacks" section implies that repeated personal attacks can get someone in trouble even if no one complains, and the "Responding to personal attacks" section is vague about how people should respond to personal attacks which they are not the target of. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that "friendly" personal attacks have the potential to become disruptive to the wiki (see: wafflez), and that people just loves to get involved (AGF'ing on their involvement), i think it would be best to just allow sysops discretion for removing them. I am not so inclined to give permission to non-admin third parties for such removal, though, given the broad set of criteria on the userbase for what is and is not offensive for them. A simple report on the noticeboard should work for third parties.--Fighterdoken 07:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] You know...

This policy could be a lot simpler if we simply disallowed negative comments about individuals period, outside of administrative discussion on specific pages (admin noticeboard/talk, arbcomm, and RfA/elections). The maxim "if you can't say something nice, don't say anything" works pretty well, honestly. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I believe the intent of this policy on wikis where it is strictly enforced is to limit discussion purely to edits and content. I do believe though that if you try to enforce that spirit rigorously it would involve banning 90% of the user base all the time due to the age level and less serious nature of the content of this site in comparison to other wikis. Misery 09:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't necessarily have to involve bans. Reverts would work fine for 99% of cases. Edit: and yes, in general the aim of the policy is to focus discussion on edits/content. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 09:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be more of a fan of "if you can't say something smart, don't say anything." It would improve all facets of the wiki quite a bit. -Auron 09:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) You know, I think most of what you are talking about is already covered within the policy, it's just not enforced. For example invalidating someone's points with the claim they are bad at the game doesn't actually invalidate their point at all, yet it is pretty common practice on this wiki and almost every site that has anything to do with Guild Wars. I don't know how much people actually want these things enforced, they are pretty bizarrely and inconsistently enforced at the moment, but you won't have any success at all trying to enforce people being nice. Misery 09:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Histroicl note: The wiki culture was quite different in 2007, and people were blocked for any infraction. There was a bit of a blowup about that 'round new year. Backsword 13:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a stupid awesome idea, I disagree with everything said in this section. --Cursed Angel 10:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

My personal preference would be to tell everyone to harden up and never enforce it ever, but I don't think that is a level many people would be comfortable with. Misery 11:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's mainly because you'll create an environment where people won't listen to you unless you have a Hrank 12+ picture on your userpage due to the many you're-not-good-at-the-game 'counterarguments'. I enjoy having discussions based on content, not popularity or debating tricks. 145.94.74.23 06:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed because I am a shitter, but no one has ever actually used that against me in a discussion ever on this site. I'd like to think it is because I make some sense. Misery 13:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO there's another important factor to consider: prohibiting personal attacks gives sysops a drama-mitigating excuse to nip flame wars in the bud. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there is a policy that already prevents personal attacks called Guild Wars Wiki:No personal attacks. See how you can be a total jerk without breaching that policy? I'm pretty certain the policy in combination with discretion allows sysops to stop flame wars already. Misery 09:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, by "prohibiting personal attacks", I meant "having a policy which prohibits personal attacks, such as the one we currently have". -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that makes more sense then. So we aren't just talking for the sake of it, could anyone who wants the policy to be changed elaborate on what changes they would like to see? Misery 11:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone wanted policy changed? I was more just musing. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 17:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool beans. Misery 17:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You're an exception to the rule Misery. 145.94.74.23 10:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Move to edit definition section

Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.

Yeah, not really. The entirety of the definition section is "if it would land you in jail irl, don't do it" - which is a fine thing for this policy. The first word in this sentence, however, throws that completely out the window (and is the exact reason why personal attacks have been handled horribly since this wiki's inception).

From a new reader's point of view, this is actually pretty confusing. "Ok, don't blow things up, can do, don't call everyone in sight a chink nigger faggot-dick, can do, don't threaten to sue someone because of their edits, etc... fine and good. Wait... if someone's acting like a troll, I can't call them a troll because they might be offended? What?"

I move to change this sentence as follows:

Disparaging other editors is unacceptable due to its nature clashing with the atmosphere with the wiki despite a seeming lack of personal attacks. Insults (for example, "Armond is an idiot") may not be personal attacks, depending on context and reaction - though this does not automatically make them acceptable.

I argue that the inclusion of this line has caused excessive amounts of trouble in the past from users who either see it as a way to scream "NPA!" about any little thing or honestly believe that a random passing user who makes them feel insulted is reason to ban that user, even though it wasn't said user's intent. I also argue that, with the current level of both trolling and idiocy on this wiki, maybe we need to be able to point out peoples' failures without having to worry about offending them every now and then. (Not bringing up PvXwiki because it's completely unrelated. If you're planning on countering my argument with "look at PvX and how terrible it is", please remember - think, post, that order.)

tl;dr: spirit of policy over letter, "offended" standard is terrible and un-normalizable, serious offenses = bad.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 14:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have searched the policy and not found any use of the word "offended". The word "offensive" is used once, but there is no suggestion that that is to be judged by the person at whom the comment is directed, and it's talking about judging the severity of an attack rather than whether an attack exists or not. In fact your wording, "depending on context and reaction," would open the door to such an interpretation. If someone posts "Armond is a moron," I don't care if you think it's funny; it's a personal attack. By the same token, if you tell someone that something they've posted is obvious, wrong, poorly-written, etc, as long as your comments are about the post and not about the person, I don't care how offended they get; it's not a personal attack (though it might be trolling, if you're purposely trying to offend them). It has nothing to do with what someone feels about it; it's about what it is. The whole policy really is as simple as the second sentence of the page: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." - Tanetris 20:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice nitpick. There's a reason I put offended in quotes.

Other than that, I refer you to Jette's textwall on my talk.

-- Armond Warblade{{Bacon}} 20:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, no matter how you go about defining what is/n't a personal attack, you're going to have issues. If, on the one hand, you simply made a policy which said not to be a dick, you'd have people bitching and moaning that such and such was being a dick because different people have different ideas about what constitutes a dick, and admins would have to use their discretion to decide one way or the other. If, on the other hand, you provide an extensive list of examples, you're going to have people nitpicking and attempting to find loopholes. Again, admin discretion would be required. However, with that said, I think the line that it may be worth removing the line that Armond cites for the simple reason that it creates potential confusion when compared to the guiding principle, "comment on the contribution, not the contributor." Let's say you're a new user. You post a comment about WoD saying that it's horribly underpowered. Auron comes along and systematically annihilates the post. I think you could forgive the new user for being thoroughly disparaged by Auron's post, even if there weren't any personal attacks. Point is, I don't think that that line adds anything to the policy, and it is, at least potentially, a source of confusion. On a related note, as per Auron, "User X is an idiot" is a personal attack. In fact, it's pretty much the definition of an ad hominem attack. — Defiant Elements +talk 21:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hurr

What if, hypothetically speaking, the problem is not the content, but the contributor him/herself? We don't have a "GWW:Don't be an immature twat" policy, so attacking the person is kind of hard to avoid when the person is the problem. What do then? –Jette 22:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Use discretion and ban them for being a dickhead/disruption? – Emmett 22:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe as an admin. But if your a regular contributer, report and just ignore the dickhead. It's that simple, for me atleast. - J.P.Talk 22:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

At this moment, nobody can be banned for not listening to anyone who tries to reason with him, resgrettably X( Koda Kumi 22:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And how does that make any sense? O.o

People get banned because they don't listen others and don't follow the rules of the wiki :P - J.P.Talk 23:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you truly have a problem with an individual user, you might consider asking a third party to mediate between you (whether that be an arbitrary editor or a sysop). If things become so out of hand that you think they are truly causing problems for the wiki but the rules don't seem to apply, you could consider asking ArbComm to intervene; however this is usually resolved for rare cases. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 12:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

But I was the third party asked to intervene for somebody else. –Jette 12:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how a sysop (or anyone else for that matter) can convince someone through just a piece of text on the internet. Especially when none of the involved have broken any policies. Koda Kumi 12:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Words are powerful. Regardless, if people can't play nice, people get banned. In rare cases, they're told to stop being stupid and then banned when the stupidity doesn't cease. None of the sysops are paid to babysit. It isn't worth the time or effort. -Auron 12:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

If any sysop is interested, this is what Jette is talking about. NuVII 18:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)