Guild Wars Wiki talk:No personal attacks/Archive

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)