Guild Wars Wiki talk:No personal attacks/Archive

From Guild Wars Wiki

Contents 1 Consensus on this? 2 Swearing 3 Sexual harrassment 4 Clarification 5 Criticism of Arena Net Employees

For something as important as a policy, there should be no "fasttrack" to bypass the community process. That being said, I fully agree with this policy. --Xeeron 11:04, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I strongly supported this policy as it was drafted for GuildWiki, and I strongly support it for Guild Wars Wiki. Personal attacks are unacceptable. --Zampani 13:02, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Support for this policy. Support that certain policies are fine being "fasttrack". --ab.er.rant (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2007 (PST)

I would strongly support this policy were it not for the last paragraph: Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks can receive administrative disciplinary action, including short-term or extended bans. If an administrator believes that a personal attack is severe or disruptive enough to warrant it, a user may also receive disciplinary action on a first offense. Subsequent violations can result in disciplinary action, such as bans, being applied for longer durations. I'd prefer this stuff to be left ambiguous here, to be determined by admin policy discussions. --Rezyk 17:50, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Care to elaborate? Is there a specific piece of what you quoted that is too concrete or the entire statement? I already find it fairly ambiguous, not specifying any particular action that will be taken (only giving possibles), as well as not defining what constitutes "severe" or "disruptive enough". --Zampani 18:04, 8 February 2007 (PST)

You might want to propose a reworded paragraph here Rezyk, to kinda explain what you mean. If you're suggesting that the type of disciplinary action that is warranted shouldn't be mentioned here, then I oppose. This policy should clearly state what action may be taken if violated. The administrator policy would also state what sort of violations allow administration action. --ab.er.rant (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2007 (PST)

It's better that a user know what will happen before it happens. No one likes being blindsided. The exception being a first offense ban, which is a rarity. However, if it occurs, a link to this policy will show exactly what may happen in the future if they continue to act in a relentlessly inapproriate manner. — Gares 18:32, 8 February 2007 (PST)

It's not that I'm against the process being visible; I'm simply not comfortable accepting this process as is. I'm fine with the first sentence but not the second and third. I will probably even oppose them (not sure yet because it depends on how the "government" and various policies develop), and I'd prefer to defer that discussion for where we discuss administrator powers as a whole, while the rest of this policy can continue being fast tracked. So I guess for a reworded paragraph, I propose just striking out the last 2 sentences of the page. If/when admin policy discussion results in that process being accepted, then they should get written back in. --Rezyk 20:01, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Ah, I think I get what you mean. You're saying that they shouldn't be there until we've hammered out the responsibilities of sysop rite? Given that "fasttracking" seems to have been rejected, I think we can leave this be for now and fill out Guild Wars Wiki:Administrators or something first. Wait for that to get approved and then approve this one. --ab.er.rant (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Thanks for the explanation Rezyk, it seems reasonable to revisit the debated parts of this more fully after the admin policies are handled. I do wish to note that I find detailing a response to "severe" personal attacks important, and don't want folks to lose sight of it. --Zampani 22:08, 8 February 2007 (PST)

Rezyk, if I'm understanding your concerns correctly, then wouldn't it be primarilly the second sentence, not both two and three that would be the issue? Specifically, I'm interpretting your comment to be a concern about the phrase "If an administrator believes", as that implies that admins will have the authority to interpret entirely on their own as to what qualifies for that clause and what does not. --Barek 08:27, 9 February 2007 (PST)

You're right; I didn't properly explain my concerns with sentence 3. Sorry. I'll try to with a summary below. --Rezyk 10:16, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Re-summarizing my position: I'd support everything except for the final 2 sentences (If an administrator believes.., Subsequent violations..). I oppose those 2 sentences on the grounds that it's more appropriate to work those out within administrator policy discussion and/or banning policy discussion first, and then written or linked back in here when that happens. (To dig a little deeper, in those discussions I may push for the powers described to be moved from administrators in general to arbcomm. I may also push for rewording to try to move further away from a "official permanent record of violations" feel.) Does anyone oppose their removal for now? --Rezyk 10:16, 9 February 2007 (PST)

Consensus on this?

I removed the last two sentences as per Rezyk's proposal. Apart from that I only see positive comments on the policy and no new comments in the last days, however not a big number in total. If there is any opposition remaining, now would be a great moment to speak up. --Xeeron 06:12, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I already voiced my opinion about this whole policy back on Guildwiki, and I don't wan to start that discussion again, so I'll just add a small suggestion here... :)

One thing that I think should be added to the list of What is considered a personal attack? would be something like "to reveal personal information (or to threaten to do so) about another contributor". I am aware that this policy can't possibly list everything that may be considered offensive, but this point in particular can be rather sensitive. I have witnessed once what can happen when an idiot gets hold of the RL picture of another community member. It wasn't pretty. --84-175 (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I support that. --Rezyk 11:08, 12 February 2007 (PST)

I support also. Good idea =) Ale_Jrb^talk 14:06, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Support. --ab.er.rant (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2007 (PST)

Strongly support this policy in general. ASAP, even.--Drekmonger 18:43, 13 February 2007 (PST)

So I cant be pissed off when you play admin? BlastedtGuildWiki page 18:44, 13 February 2007 (PST)

Incorrect. You can be pissed about whatever you'd like. However, it's no excuse for personal attacks. --Zampani 10:45, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Fully support. Oblio 12:11, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Support. --Dirigible 12:13, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I added the line suggested by 84-175. --Rezyk 12:18, 14 February 2007 (PST)

Strong support. --Rezyk 12:19, 14 February 2007 (PST)

It's been a week now, with the only disagreements having been by Rezyk and 84-175, both of which have been addressed. Moving this to accepted policies. --Dirigible 12:30, 14 February 2007 (PST)

I don't support this policy. Strongly anti-supportively support the support of supporters whom support this supported policy. Supporsively speaking, of course. For seriously --Krakko 02:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Swearing

Quick question: If swearing is not allowed, what about casual swearing where it's no directed at anyone? This game is rated Teen however and every Teen has sweared at one point in their life and every school in the world (as far as I know of) would have casual swearing in it.--§ Eloc § 05:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem with swearing is that it's very relative. It all depends on where you live. If people around you are used to casual swearing, then you won't find anything wrong with them. But from more conservative societies, swearing is considered rude (or just annoying), regardless of whether it's targeted or not. So it's really a matter of courtesy to try not to swear. My 2 cents. -- ab.er.rant 05:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are these Communitys?--§ Eloc § 05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Like more traditional, religious, or rural communities? Non-English speaking communities who aren't used to English swear words? -- ab.er.rant 09:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Where do you read anything about swearing in this policy? --Xeeron 09:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I just thought the word "swearing" would be somewhere in there, lol -- ab.er.rant 09:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I would have disagreed with this policy if there was =) --Xeeron 10:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

shit dicks — Skuld 10:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me point out that while there is nothing about swearing per se in there, the policy DOES forbid directed insults. --Xeeron 10:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Really? I thought it said something about Swearing in the somewhere...--§ Eloc § 11:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to a dictionary I had sitting next to my computer, the word swearing is partially defined as "using profane oaths, cursing" - so it's partially addressed by the line in the policy "Additionally, editors are strongly discouraged from using profanity in comments to other contributors. These examples are not inclusive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." So by my interpretation it's discouraged, but only a policy violation if it's used in a personal attack to insult/disparage a contributor. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So swearing directed at ... WAIT, did you just mention using an offline dictionary? Does such stuff still exist? *amazed* ;-) --Xeeron 16:19, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, figured that much that swearing is allowed as long as it's not directed at other people.--§ Eloc § 21:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And he actually typed the definition out rather than copy-paste it from somewhere! :P -- ab.er.rant 01:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

So many words in the English language... swearing just makes you look stupid when you are tying to get a point across. --Lemming64 01:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

To some. If someone swears, it tells me that they're frustrated about the topic at hand; not that they're stupid. -Auron 02:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, he just said that they would look stupid, not that they're actually stupid -- ab.er.rant 02:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

took the words out of my mouth ab.er.rant. --Lemming64 02:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the reader. I'm more inclined to think that people incapable of understanding how swearing fits into the English language look more stupid than the people that know :) -Auron 02:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand swearing fine thankyou, I do plenty of it myself, I am just inclined to think that swearing doesn't really have a place in intelligent discussion. --Lemming64 02:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Some people find swearing to be natural in daily conversations, some people frown at swearing because almost no one they know uses them. It's very geography- and society-dependent -- ab.er.rant 02:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, lets started listing off societys and see if it's ok everywhere. In Canada it's fine. I hear it all the time in High School. Even teachers will do it on ocassion.--§ Eloc § 03:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Sexual harrassment

Can we add this to the list? -- Gordon Ecker 09:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Already in the policy: "Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor." --Xeeron 11:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it? It seems to only cover sexist remarks and derogatory terms, not unwanted advances, unwanted sexual comments or suggestive images. -- Gordon Ecker 08:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexual harassment that isn't a personal attack should not be dealt with in a policy about personal attacks. -Auron 08:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Harassments is also one of those things that fall into a gray area that this community would probably prefer to put on to the bureaucrats' plate. -- ab.er.rant 08:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

How is directed harassment of any kind not a personal attack? -- Gordon Ecker 02:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, harassment can be a personal attack, depending on the wording. But (to me anyway) harassment also includes baiting, irritating, annoying, pestering, stalking, badgering, and teasing. They may not carry a hostile tone, and they may also not carry a hostile intent. You can unintentionally be harassing due to differences in perception, interpretation, and culture. -- ab.er.rant 06:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And in such cases, you are not personally attacking anyone. -Auron 06:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"How is directed harassment of any kind not a personal attack?" Nobody said it wasn't, however, directed sexual harassment is already in policy ("...sexual... epithets directed against another contributor"), so it's a moot point. -Auron 06:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, the current policy would cover nominally positive but highly inappropriate comments. I thought that epithet specifically referred to derogatory descriptive terms, as I've only heard it used in that context. Anyway, I'd prefer a line about persistant harrassment, but I guess it's not necessary. -- Gordon Ecker 08:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll add you to my list, sexy — Skakid9090 19:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Clarification

Perhaps the policy should clarify as to whether pointing out that someone in unqualified to discuss a certain topic(for example, a PvE-only player discussing PvP balance on Izzy's talk) is a personal attack. --Edru viransu 12:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Depends on the words used, like always. --Xeeron 12:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Saying someone knows nothing about PvE/PvP is not a personal attack, that's just a blind comment. But saying that the person is a noob and knows nothing about PvE/PvP is a personal attack, because insult was put through. That's just an example.(Terra Xin 01:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC))

Well said. An example: "You are not as good as I am." is a boast, not a personal attack. "You are incapable of contributing something that makes sense." can be interpreted as a personal attack depending on context. -- ab.er.rant 17:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I feel a clearer example is: "The image you added is crap" - not a personal attack; "You are crap" - personal attack. --Xeeron 13:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I know, but this clarification was raised due to something similar in nature to the example I gave. Would you say that my example is incorrect? If so, then Edru viransu's concern may be valid. -- ab.er.rant 13:54, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out that someone is unqualified is fair enough, unfortunately on Izzy's talk page that usually comes in the form of "get the hell out you pve nub you don't know wtf you are talking about" or something along those lines. --Lemming 14:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The example I have in mind was "Still waiting for someone w/ any viability to post", which in my mind is a personal attack. Calling a tactic proposed, or a post made not viable is fine, but calling a person (those that posted before) not viable is not. --Xeeron 14:12, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, all on the same page then :) -- ab.er.rant 15:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Could be read both as "Still waiting for someone w/ any viability to post" and ""Still waiting for someone w/ any viability to post". One is an attack, the other not. Backsword 14:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

IMO none of the above are personal attacks. Statements of fact about someone's qualifications are not an attack on the person; basing statements of fact on available evidence is not either. If I say "You advocate the use of Firestorm on rangers and are thus clearly unqualified to comment on this discussion since you evidently do not understand GW", I'm not engaging in childish namecalling; I'm stating facts. Truth is an absolute defense to slander, after all. --72.211.152.118 07:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Even if it is an undisputed fact that someone's unqualified (for example, if that person explicitly says so in the discussion) or only partially qualified (experienced with Guild Wars, but unfamiliar with the specific topic), I don't see why it would be necessary to point out their qualifications rather than criticising the arguement itself. -- Gordon Ecker 08:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Arena Net Employees

I'm not trying to start a flame war on Gaile and Izzy but I was wondering if this policy applies to them simply because they are members of the guild wiki, even though they are Arena Net Employees. If they were not members of the wiki would this policy not apply to them? I say this because as Arena Net employees they are in a different sphere from the rest of the wiki uses and as a natural element for their jobs, criticism is to be expected. Dancing Gnome 13:39, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

This policy affects every user of the wiki, regardles of their affiliation with ANet. -- (gem / talk) 14:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

In case this is your point; it also affect any user talking to them. Same case as for everyone else. Backsword 14:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Wiki policies apply to all users (including readers and anonymous editors) of this wiki. I don't understand your point actually. Are you saying that it should be allowed to criticize on this wiki or are you asking that they should be exempt from this policy? Please keep in mind that there is a difference between criticizing and insulting. -- ab.er.rant 15:03, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there's a huge difference between "I disagree with the decision to nerf / buff X because ..." and "Y is incompetent and needs to be fired". -- Gordon Ecker 02:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how either of them, are personal attacks. 68.35.91.2 02:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you're talking about Gordon's examples, you fail to see how one of them is a personal attack because, well... it isn't a personal attack, it's just criticism. The second one involves name calling and, well, the threat of removing someone from one's job is just that, a threat. Does that help explain it? If you have a criticism of a decision made, you can definitely express that opinion without bringing who made the decision into the discussion. It's really that simple. - Thulsey - talk 02:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The point I was getting at was, had they not been members of the wiki, say Izzy was not a member of the wiki, would the rule still apply to him? If it didn't I find it strange that becoming a member of the wiki is a loophole of sorts to stifle criticism via this policy. I'm still unclear, I know it affects every user, but I'm thinking hypothetically if they were not users. EDIT: Just to clarify, I chose Izzy or Gaile as hypothetical examples, the ones which seem to have the greatest audience on the wiki - I like Gaile and I know I wouldn't want to do Izzy's job - there will always be someone unhappy and someone who remembers the good old days. Simply that. From some of the responses I'm beginning to think I am able to say, "Person A who works at arena net can;t do their job, several recent additions to the game were inadequate or made the game worse, I think they should get someone new." Is that a personal attack? What about instead of saying the persons name, someone instead says the the role they perform? IE: Art Team or Quest Writer. I'm trying to clear up what looks like a vague policy, at least in the understanding of many uses. I don't beleive a lot of people who criticise employees on the wiki do so because they are members of the wiki, rather they do so because of the role they perform at Arena Net.Dancing Gnome 03:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this policy is to keep discussion civil. Saying that, say, the employee of some other game company, the writer of some show, one of your coworkers or someone else who isn't involved with the wiki is incompetent and needs to be fired isn't really within the scope of the policy. I think it should be expanded to cover all on-wiki personal attacks and slander against anyone whether they're contributors or not. -- Gordon Ecker 06:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, it's quite within the scope of policy. "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." This makes no differentiation between whether "people" are wiki users or not. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In every other instance, the policy refers explicitly to people involved with the wiki, and the sentence in question implicitly refers to editors due to its' context. -- Gordon Ecker 08:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Gordon it looks a lot like it only refers to wiki and contributors to the wiki. Are crticisms allowed under the NPA? Criticism of the Skill Balancer and their ability to perform their job? Criticism of Decisions they made? By this I don't mean "Person x is ugly and stupid" but an actual criticism. It seems natural in skill balance discussions that people would, legitimately, criticise the person who made the decisions to change skill x y or z. I even saw on one staff persons page a link to criticisms which they said were good, and then recent changes reflect those criticisms, BUT in this discussion I am refering to criticism of a person to perform a role as opposed to criticism of a skill balance. Dancing Gnome 11:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

There are good and bad ways to critisize. In this case the hate mail is (mostly) just personal attacks with no point. Some people have actually done this a lot better with suggesting various means to fix the problems with skill balancing, others are just flaming with no suggestions. The latter is definitely a violation of this policy. -- (gem / talk) 11:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

As I usually try to explain in all such conflicts, it's all about the wording. Saying "The recent skill changes is stupid" is fine. Saying "What you did makes no sense at all and is very wrong, because ..." is also fine. But saying something to the effect of "You fail" or "You should be replaced" is simply demeaning and insulting. The general idea is that one should not post in anger and should always show restraint in your choice of words. My former two examples is very more likely to produce the appropriate responses and explanations and justifications. The latter two are much more likely to create flame wars and name callings. And I'm also of the opinion that this policy is dealing with wiki users and wiki contributors only. It does not cover slander made against someone not related to this wiki. And since it was brought up... perhaps it should. -- ab.er.rant 14:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The user page policy covers libel and defamation, but only on user pages. -- Gordon Ecker 00:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Would it be demeaning and insulting to say that someone should be replaced if they said they were going to stop doing their job? Curiousity, abstract hypothetical situation, and such, of course. --Edru viransu 01:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the idea of "Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people" would apply in that case as well. Criticing the individual would be bad, IMO; criticising the action of deciding to stop doing his/her job would be the best approach. Erasculio 01:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say, quite possible, depending on the context that user said it, and depending on the wording you used, either as a call for remedial plans or rubbing salt into the wound. -- ab.er.rant 07:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

(ri) As far as I figured, Personal Attacks is just attacking someone for no real reason, not necessarily about their jobs or affiliations. That's where the line is to me. "You suck at your job" to me, is just making that person aware of public opinions, so some good and some bad can come out of the comment and shouldn't be banned or anything for it. Vanguard 01:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the follow-up. "You suck at your job" is a statement directed at another person and therefore can be taken as a personal attack depending on how your target takes it. When someone uses "You" as the subject of an accusatory statement instead of targeting the topic or issue at hand, follow-up comments will go off-tangent very quickly and devolve into disruptive and recurring arguments. -- ab.er.rant 07:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

can i person attack myself? O.o -TehBuG- (yes, im j/k thought this page could use a little humor.)

Sure you can, and you can complain that you're attacking yourself too :) -- ab.er.rant

Of course, we hope you'll understand if a sysop tells you they're not going to help you in that case and you'll just have to deal with the person attacking you... yourself. ;) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)