GuildWiki talk:No personal attacks

From GuildWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Comments[edit source]

Ahem...can I make a suggestion for the shortcut being [[GW:GARES]]? :P

As before the port, I like the examples. As they do not encompass every type of abuse, they do lay down a wide and useful reference for users. Also, stating that it applies to everyone is always a good thing as well as advice of not taking it personally.

Obviously from reading my personal statement regarding personal attacks, I am for it. In the past week I know of a death threat and a comment towards a user's level of gayness (examples can be provided if you feel like it) and I think making this proposal a policy would reach more users than some statement on a user page.

Some wording and such might have to be tweaked depending on how the majority of the userbase follows it, but thats to be expected. — Gares 20:48, 13 January 2007 (CST)

I fully support this more structured implementation of GW:GARES. --Rainith 21:49, 13 January 2007 (CST)
I applaud and completely agree with this effort, and offer thanks for taking this initiative. I'm not much of a word-smith, so as long as the underlying message stays the same I fully support this. One phrase I've never understood from Wikipedia's version of this policy (and in this ported version) is "recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks." Particularly the "non-disruptive" part... I don't know what's meant by it. Help? Furthermore, shouldn't ANY recurring personal attacks (disruptive or non-) be reported to one of the active admins? --Zampani 23:41, 13 January 2007 (CST)
Good point, I removed the "non-disruptive" comment - recurring personal attacks should be reported. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 11:53, 14 January 2007 (CST)
Regarding non-disruptive, I think it was referring to situations where a user blanks an article or removes other user's comments and places, "<User> is a <insult>", which is disruptive to the wiki since information was blanked/removed. Non-disruptive is just a statement in a discussion where an user insults another user and nothing is removed, changed, etc. My view on the word, though it doesn't matter whether it's in or not from my perspective. — Gares 19:32, 15 January 2007 (CST)
I see where you're coming from on this - but that meaning isn't obvious to me in the ported version. We could spell it out further to explain that's what is meant, or we could leave out the "non-disruptive" comment. Either is fine with me. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:05, 16 January 2007 (CST)
It seems a bit long winded and unnecessarily complex for a policy that basically boils down to "be fair and play nice", but I completely agree with the sentiment behind it. If anybody's counting consider this a vote of support. --NieA7 11:41, 19 January 2007 (CST)
I think it can be made shorter, but I am fine with it as it is now. --Karlos 19:04, 26 January 2007 (CST)

I am against this whole policy. Not because I think it should be allowed for users to attack each other, but because it should be common sense not to do so. I would find it very sad if this kind of policy would really be neccessary. Do we really need to tell people to behave? Do we need a policy to back us up if we ban people who don't behave? --84-175 (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2007 (CST)

I think if we got rid of the builds section there would be a lot less need for this policy, but I don't think it hurts to have it (the policy). --Rainith 16:08, 27 January 2007 (CST)
Steel and strength add weight to any prayer. Like Rainith says, it certainly wouldn't hurt to have this as a policy. Besides, it is nice for argument's sake to be able to reference an official GW:POLICY. For example when people link to GW:1RV, that gives their argument a lot more weight. So, same thing here. Personally I will always use [[GW:NPA|GW:GARES]] but that's just me.
Oh, and besides, they do teach the "Golden Rule" in school. And it's often listed in official rulebooks. Surely that's not bad...? Entropy 00:33, 29 January 2007 (CST)
But the Golden Rule isn't written down in any actual rulebook. ;) Of course this polity isn't bad. But it is very sad, from an idealistic point of view (yeah, call me naive, or a dreamer, if you like :p ). However, I won't oppose it's implementation, as I can see that this policy has a lot of supporters. --84-175 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2007 (CST)
At one time, I would've said this policy isn't needed. But, with the build section getting steadilly worse, I regretfully believe the time has come to add this policy, which is why I ported it over from the version at Wikipedia:No personal attacks as a proposed policy for GuildWiki. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:42, 30 January 2007 (CST)
I give this policy two thumbs up. I'd like to see its implementation soon. —Tanaric 14:32, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Vague and unkown insults[edit source]

The article does not exactly state whenther comments like "whoever wrote this is an idoit" when the person making the comment does not known who the auther is are included.--TheDrifter 18:25, 15 January 2007 (CST)

...and? I fail to see your point, unless you were trying to find a loophole to flame people from anon IPs w/o breaking GW:GARES. -Auron My Talk 18:35, 15 January 2007 (CST)
The proposal states "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." I believe that would address the type of post you are mentioning. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:39, 15 January 2007 (CST)
Not just the examples are what constitutes a personal attack. The entire article seems to handle every instance. Since most is straightforward, I don't think there can be a loophole. Most people can tell when they are being attacked. If not, best advice would be to contact an admin and let them be the judge. — Gares 19:32, 15 January 2007 (CST)
Naming the party is not necessary to direct the insult. For example, "whoever wrote this is a moron," is an obvious indicator whom the insult is targeted at. Also generic statements that do not appear to be targeted as a specific person but are insulting none-the-less should be punishable up to the admin's discretion. For example, starting a response with something like: "I swear to God, some of you are just retarded..." is a condescending remark that I personally would not mind banning its author. --Karlos 15:58, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Level of tolerance?[edit source]

Based on recent incidents, I'm suspecting that we'll have some users who are going to complain about being singled out - and as the policy is currently worded, we'll need to hand out quite a few warnings if we follow this to the letter. Do we want to edit in tolerance limits? If so, what tolerance limits should be set on this? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:18, 16 January 2007 (CST)

Personally I think this policy should be implemented with zero tolerance. The penalties can be gradual, starting with a 1 day ban perhaps, but I think a clear message should be sent that the wiki will not tolerate insulting or disrespectful behaviour. Furthermore, I think any admin who is not demonstrating a positive example of the type of behaviour we want to see on the wiki should be considered for having adminship removed. I've managed to stay courteous and professional since joining the wiki, despite being involved in disagreements, and it was not very difficult at all. People who are not able to conduct themselves in that way have no excuse and should not be shown tolerance. I followed a link to this document from the "Post No Builds" discussion, and personally I think most of the problems relating to the builds section could be better resolved with a "Post No Flames" policy more than a "Post No Builds" policy. Who cares if some bad builds get favored sometimes, or vice versa? The only reason this causes a problem is when people allow their ego to get involved, take it personally, and take out their frustration on other users. -- BrianG 10:50, 19 January 2007 (CST)
I've never been a fan of zero tolerance policies. Despite what we think, we're all capable of making comments that are taken in ways we don't mean them to be taken. On the other hand, I agree that the guildwiki community shouldn't have to put up with hot-headed folks that would make this a painful place to be. I'd like to see this policy enacted where:
  • 1 warning is typical. If you've had that warning and you continue troubling others, you may face disciplinary action.
  • In cases of a personal attack that is extremely defamatory or severe no warning is necessary.
  • If a person has an representative history of personal attacks, then no warnings is necessary. Prior warnings should be all that was necessary.
    • Note: I don't know what would qualify as an representative history. It would have to be a judgment call based on the frequency and time spent on the wiki. *shrugs*
  • Repeated personal attacks withing a short time span should warrant increasingly strong disciplinary action as BrianG suggested.
With a low tolerance policy I believe we could accomplish just as much as with a no-tolerance policy, and have a happier population here. --Zampani 12:55, 19 January 2007 (CST)
Yes, you're probably right that "zero tolerance" is perhaps too strongly worded, I've usually not been a fan of those types of policies in other places myself. My main point was that the tolerance level should be a lot closer to zero than it is currently. I agree with your suggested levels. -- BrianG 13:14, 19 January 2007 (CST)
I wasn't going to comment this policy proposal as it seems to be pretty fine as is, but I was asked to on my talk page. What comes to the list of examples, it could possibly be a bit more complete and some of the really specific notes could be a bit more general, but otherwise the proposal is ok.
A zero tolerance is usually not good, and I think that we shouldn't be giving out bans for a one time only insult. Like the article says, we should be consider banning only after repeated breaking of the policy. A longer ban if the user has been warned before. --Gem-icon-sm.png (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2007 (CST)
When you say the list of examples could be a bit more complete, do you have specific types that you think should be added? Which specific notes do you suggest making more general? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:18, 26 January 2007 (CST)
I'm sorry for this, but it helps to illustrate my point in response to Gem's "I think that we shouldn't be giving out bans for a one time only insult." What if a user's offense was extreme? For example, if the user said, "F you, you mother F'er. You GD N-word. I'll rip your n**** off and feed them to you." I would hope that would not receive a warning because it is a one time only offense. I would not only be dissappointed in the user that said that, but the user that places a warning for that type of behavior. It shows that anyone can say anything they wish, as long as they only say it once. I do not like complete zero tolerance myself, but the punishment should fit the crime.
As for the examples, I think there should be careful consideration to how specific something is defined. Even though it would show exactly what isn't allowed, it would offer more loopholes the more specific something is. On the other side, however, making something more general may not get the exact point across, but offers less loopholes. Something to think about if examples are added or changed. — Gares 16:29, 26 January 2007 (CST)
I agree with Gares on this point. There ARE cases where (in my opinion) a user could/should be banned after a single incident. There should be some statement as such in the article indicating that. Something similar to my 2nd bullet above would be detailed enough for any person with common sense, and yet general enough to leave it to admin discretion. --Zampani 17:24, 26 January 2007 (CST)

"Threats of violence, particularly death threats."[edit source]

Maybe change this to read:

  • Threats of violence, particularly death threats that may imply or state real life.

...or something like that - you get the idea.

I only say this because I see many people saying they could take down others in a 1 on 1 and so on but they mean it in a character to character way. I realize it's common sense to read this as intending that but I know people don't use common sense when looking for a loop hole.--VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 15:19, 26 January 2007 (CST)

I think the alternate phrasing "Threats of physical violence, particularly death threats" is a bit cleaner way to clarify that. Or do you think it needs spelled out more than that? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 15:21, 26 January 2007 (CST)
I'm all for keeping it more general to allow admins the power of interpretation but I was just worried about people arguing they were talking about a character instead or an admin accidentally interprettng it as the opposite way it was intended. How about adding one word then? "Clear" in the front of the whole sentance like so:
  • "Clear threats of violence, particularly death threats."
--VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 15:51, 26 January 2007 (CST)

wording changes[edit source]

Based on comments above, I modified two section of the proposal today.

In the section "What is considered a personal attack", I modified:

  • Threats of violence, particularly death threats.

to read:

  • Threats of physical violence, particularly death threats.

In the section "Consequences of personal attacks", I added the following two sentences

  • 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.

Let me know if anyone disagrees with these changes. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:04, 26 January 2007 (CST)

I think these are some positive changes Barek. I might also suggest that "virtual" threats, i.e. "if you post this again i will hack you", should somehow be covered. I'm not sure of the proper wording. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 18:37, 26 January 2007 (CST)
Maybe a bullet point adding "Threats to damage or disrupt computer hardware or internet communications"? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 18:42, 26 January 2007 (CST)
Yeah, I think that would make sense.
I tried adding something myself under Initial options which said something along the lines of "if you are too angry too respond consider taking a break from the wiki for an hour or two, or contact an admin."
What do you think? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 18:53, 26 January 2007 (CST)
I like it, although there's something in the wording that seems slightly off - I just can't figure out exactly what.
Then again, I'm a bit distracted at the moment, so mabe it's me that's slightly off ;-P --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:09, 26 January 2007 (CST)
With regards to the "computer hardware or internet communications" bullet point, I think it may be more appropriate to state "interfere with the usual operation of a user's computer", just to avoid arguments of software vs. hardware vs. network disruptions.
Also, I will add in my other comments here to minimize the number of edits. I tend to agree with the suggestion of escalating punishments, but that Admins look at any given incident and react according to the severity of the offense. --User:ImbrilShadowfire Imbril Shadowfire 19:14, 26 January 2007 (CST)
If you really weren't joking Barek, the only issue I have with Biro's comment is that it should read, "if you are too angry to respond..." Unless my grammar has really gone to hell since school, oh so many years ago. :) --Rainith 21:37, 26 January 2007 (CST)
Actually, I think that's it - I was distracted earlier, so I probably just couldn't focus enough to spot it. I knew that something didn't feel right about it - it was just "too" needing to be "to". --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:26, 26 January 2007 (CST)
I don't think the change to "Physical" threats is correct. Any threat is unacceptable. If he says he'll get on Guru and smear the guy's reputation on forums, that's unacceptable, if he says, he'll PM him in-game till he dies, that's unacceptable. It's the intimidation factor that matters. --Karlos 00:19, 27 January 2007 (CST)
Oh dear, I made a school-boy error there with the "too" thing! I feel so silly. And I agree with Karlos, the change to the wording made sure the policy covered physical threats, and I was trying to include threats to someone's computer, but really it would be enough to say "don't threaten people". <LordBiro>/<Talk> 05:17, 27 January 2007 (CST)
The "physical" part was added due to the nature of PvP based on user:Vallen Frostweaver's suggestion in an above section (although, he suggested different wording).
For example: out of context, the statement "I'll slice you up and leave you dead on ground" is clearly a violation - but if put in context of the preceding post from the other person was "Lets meet at our guild hall and see who has the better build", then in context the "slice you up" comment could easilly be acceptable, and possibly even read jokingly. Granted, admins should take context into mind when reviewing posts anyway; but the word "physical" was added specifically to address the type of situation shown in the example.
If others feel strongly against it, then we can take it back out and leave it to the admin - I'm fine with either myself. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:42, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Admins[edit source]

I've been meaning to comment on this for days (I left the You have new message's thing up to remind me!), but nothing really jumped out at me, until now. The only thing I can think to add is do we have to write something about when one or more admins are involved in the personal attacks (as either the attacker or err defender)? Are they just considered to be users in that case? Sorry to be Captain Bringdown 84-175 (the idea that a sysop would be involved, I know, how scandalous and disheartening!) --Xasxas256 07:23, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Well, admins/sysops are only people, too (I am enough of an realist to see that). :) --84-175 (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Heh it's been ages since I've run into you on a talk page, it's good to see that all this discussion about penalties for making death threats hasn't affected your positive outlook! :P --Xasxas256 07:32, 29 January 2007 (CST)
It could be mentioned that, if an admin is believed to have attacked someone, the user could make a request for arbitration. <LordBiro>/<Talk> 08:20, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Wow, I haven't seen a request for arbitration in ages it seems. 84-175 is dead on right. I've even said that if I attack someone, that I would expect to be reprimanded, and that's a promise. No arbitration for me, give me a warning, then ban, etc. As always, people should know better and it's not like its a slip of the tongue in real life. Here, you have time to type it and read what you are about to say before you allow others to read it. I actually wish I had a preview button in real life from time to time. :P — Gares 09:28, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Same, I say things in RL then realize, oh that sounded oh so wrong. Like one time, I was sucking the juice off my chinese rib sauce covered pork, and my sister told to to stop sucking my meat. —Blastedt sig.pngBlastedt 16:54, 30 January 2007 (CST)
I've added some text to address this - not sure if it's in the right sections, let me know what you think. The additions are:
In the last paragraph of "What is considered a personal attack?" change:
  • The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all contributors. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action as it is to attack any other user. GuildWiki encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the continued growth of the wiki.
to be:
  • The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all contributors, including admins. It is as unacceptable for anyone to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action as it is to attack any other user. GuildWiki encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the continued growth of the wiki.
Does this cover it? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:57, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Additional changes[edit source]

Based on suggestions / comments above, I made the following two changes:

In "What is considered a personal attack", I added the following example:

  • Threats to interfere with the usual operation of a user's computer.

In "Initial options", I added the following to the end of the second paragraph:

  • If you are too angry to respond without violating this policy, consider taking a short break from the wiki, or contact an admin.

In its current form, does everyone agree with it being made policy? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:03, 1 February 2007 (CST)

Yes. To quote Patrick Henry: "Give me GW:GARES or give me death"! Entropy 16:04, 1 February 2007 (CST)
Yes. And I'm really enjoying the resurgence of consensus appearing recently. —Tanaric 16:34, 1 February 2007 (CST)
Let's propose a few build section policies and see how long it lasts... --NieA7 19:04, 3 February 2007 (CST)
It's always easy to get consensus when your proposition is: "Puppies and Ice cream!". Anyways, late to comment, but I wanted to add something anyway just because I supportted this policy in whatever fashion it came out. -- Ranger-icon-small.pngOblio (talk) 10:42, 6 February 2007 (CST)
Looks good to me, no reason not to go with it and see how it flies. --NieA7 19:04, 3 February 2007 (CST)
"Let's propose a few build section policies and see how long it lasts..." made me chuckle, I wish I'd seen it earlier :) <LordBiro>/<Talk> 11:13, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Request Redirect[edit source]

Could we please have a redirect to here from "GW:GARES"? Please? :) Entropy 12:38, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Gray Areas[edit source]

moved from User_talk:Barek#User_71.49.92.27

Vandilized the P/Mo Angelic Bonder by adding: "THIS IS THE DUMBEST AND WORST BUILD EVER" Defiant Elements 18:51, 23 February 2007 (CST)

I didn't view the post at [Build_talk:P/Mo_Angelic_Bonder] as vandalism, as it was criticizing the build rather than contributors - but it was posted in the wrong section. If you disagree with my interpretation there, let me know and we can discuss.
Alright, about the P/Mo Angelic Bonder, I do view it as a violation of GW:NPA for a few reasons. First of all, I think a comment like that goes against the spirit of GW:NPA if not the exact wording. And, I did find a reference in GW:NPA: "Editors should be civil when stating disagreements." That comment was anything but civil. Also, while the comment is not about a user it also doesn't actually "comment on content." Also: "There is no clearly defined rule or standard about what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion." While there may not be a set standard, there is no way that can be considered constructive discussion, and, while it doesn't say it explicitly, GW:NPA seems to suggest that a personal attack is the opposite of constructive discussion. Also, despite GW:AFG, this is a repeated offense and the user may have also violated some other rules (i.e. the sock puppet thing). Defiant Elements 19:32, 23 February 2007 (CST)
Yea, I agree, that post falls into a gray area in the NPA policy, which is why I asked for comment - to see your argument for calling it a violation of GW:NPA. I don't fully disagree with your reasoning - but to play devil's advocate for a moment, the exact phrasing was "This is the dumbest and worst build ever". Not constructive criticism, but also directly targeted at the build itself, so he technically followed the GW:NPA instruction "When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all". As the anon's initially post was in the section "Author's Note" rather than in its own section, that could be argued to be a side jab at the author.
Personally, I would like to hear from other GuildWiki users and other admins on this, to get more opinions. Maybe agreement (yea, the over-used word "consensus") can be reached on interpretation in this case. As I said, this one is gray area to me, so I would appreciate more feedback from others. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:47, 23 February 2007 (CST)
It's not civil/constructive, but it's not a personal attack. Is this something that people THOUGHT NPA was about? Because I did not. -- Ranger-icon-small.pngOblio (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2007 (CST)
I'm inclined to agree with Oblio, that while this isn't a particularly helpful comment, it's also not a personal attack. I'd say this borders on a category of vandalism though, as a statement made in that manner (unsigned, all caps, non-civil) is generally only for inciting anger, not constructive dialogue. Definitely a gray area so I think your action very appropriate, though I wouldn't have argued against a vandalism revert either. --Zampani 11:18, 26 February 2007 (CST)

I have a question, what did admins do with comments like the above before the NPA was created? What about those that swear profoundly in their statement even if not targetting a person in general? I didn't generally see that on the wiki before so I'm assuming there was some kind of action before NPA was ratified.--VallenIconwhitesmall.JPG Vallen Frostweaver 07:49, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Hypocracy?[edit source]

I feel that people have "personally attacked" me in the past, and continue to do so, simply for sport, to challenge what i have to say about G-dub.

I think I respond more directly to them, and although, yes, it is negative, is hitting someone who is physically attacking you, or just pushing you maybe seen as an attack? Maybe, sometimes. But sometimes, not - it is seen as "defense," even though if it were not for the warranting factor it might be seen as an attack.

In the past, I was warned, and I *DO NOT* wish to discuss *MY* actions, but SIMPLY the rules in a *GENERAL SENSE*

I merely am using my experience as examples in a point i am trying to make about the rules as a whole.

I (and i'm sure others) have been banned for *responding* to negative, or disrespectful things other people say. But the ones who said them, ARE breaking the rules too though.

Even if an outside person does not think it is severe enough to ban, or even to warrant them, it seems that it *should be up to the user they are directing their words at,* whether it is disrespectful or not.

Many people do not think calling someone a derogatory (i'll use white since that i'm guessing is what most of us are) term for a white person a cracker, or the equivalent for other "categories" of people IS really derogatory, especially cops say during the time of slavery?

However, does that mean it is not TRULY disrespectful, and ISN'T the effects we are trying to avoid EFFECTS SOLELY ON THE PERSON THE WORDS ARE DIRECTED TO?

So I'd just like to say that people do a lot of disrespectful things esp. in the builds section, and really Do Not Value eachother, or eachother's opinions at all, and yet these actions are looked past, and yet others are not. True, they may be more harsh than the instigator's actions, but so is punching, or semi-peacefully tripping or otherwise disabling someone who pushed you first.

-"J" 02:14, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Additionally, I have even been warned not to "cite rules" to defend myself (she called it wrongfully accuse someone of breaking them) or else that will result in a ban as well. "J" 02:18, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Simple answer: Two wrongs don't make a right. If you feel someone is "attacking" you, don't respond in kind. You are in no danger, so self-defense is not needed. If someone says something to you that you feel is offensive, bring it to an administrator's attention. --Rainith 03:21, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
of course physical violence more extreme than this, but there are things at stake. words are very powerful, as is evident by the internet itself, and someone trash talking another person or a creation of his, i think should at least be acknowledged as disrespectful, especially when it causes someone else to react "on the defense" you might say. - "J" 06:52, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
i feel that "bringing it to an admistrator's attention will only add to the problem and that most admistrators, if i do bring it to their attention, look past the fact that i was not the one who was rude in the first place, but instead see my *more direct* ways of saying things to people who are disrespectul, and lose respect for me as well.
in the past i suggested that the same consequence should be enacted on one who acted similarly as I did, and for this i was furthermore criticized.
also, i have actually been threatened to be banned if i simply cite policy to another person on wiki, if the threatener believes the policy was indeed not broken, and this was, in fact, the only (or at least the "last straw") factor resulting in a ban of 2 weeks, even though it was done respectfully.
is this not similar to the police, where the police can tazer wrongfully, a boy, and make something up afterward, or skew the truth, knowing that the judge will be on his or her side no matter what?
should there not be consequences for those who act wrongfully, if there are indeed consequences for ones simply "defending their beliefs" in the attempt to satisfy the "two wrongs don't make a right" philosophy.
The difference between events in the real world and events on the wiki is that on the wiki we have a history of everything that has happened. If you believe that you have been treated unfairly then you can present your case by collecting examples of instances where this occurred. Mentioning them like this is not very useful to someone who is not already familiar with the details.
Incidentally, if you feel that bringing problems to an administrator will only harm your case then I don't see what you want to do. To use your real life scenario, you don't want to call the police since you think that they'll arrest you instead. So who do you want to call? <LordBiro>/<Talk> 07:28, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
The fact that you are using a sockpuppet account is not helping your case. Posting under your IP, you were also banned 1 week for repeated violations of this policy, of course, this account should have been banned as well at that time. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 10:28, 30 April 2007 (CDT)

Hmmm[edit source]

it would appear that this policy frowns upon those who insult others... veeerrry interesting...

/eyetwitch--Gigathrash 13:38, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

"Threats to interfere with the usual operation of a user's computer."[edit source]

Suggest addition to: Threats to interfere with the usual operation of a user's computer, and any services that resluting thereof! RT | Talk 18:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

can we add a section called "whats not a personal attack?"[edit source] people know what they can do, and also to perhaps provide some guidelines for admins against things that aren't personal attacks, or you guys like the all encompassing thing? User:Jagre 12:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The current policy is clear enough, adding an additional section adds nothing but clutter. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

banning a user is a personal attack too[edit source]

"In these cases, the administrator should not protect the page to preserve his edit, block users that disagree with him, or apply any other administrative powers to his advantage in a dispute."

"no user should fear or back away from defending his desired changes simply because the disagreeing editor is an administrator"

"abuses of administrator power simply do not happen"

"he may remove a user from the wiki for any reason, or no reason at all."

"As a matter of courtesy, most administrators will not ban a user he is directly involved with; instead, he will ask another administrator to examine the situation from a neutral perspective."

...User:Jagre 03:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I see nothing in those statements that says that banning a user is a personal attack --Gimmethegepgun 03:45, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Admins, don't ban if you're attacked[edit source]

I think it is a matter of common sense that if an admin is involved in a dispute that has escalated to personal attacks, he or she will not be the one banning the user(s) concerned. Asking a neutral admin to do it simply avoids your bias being called into question and helps keep your reputation clear and aboveboard. The obvious exception is if a user sets out to attack (almost) all acting admins, because then there'd be no-one left to execute the ban; in that case, a quorum of admins (3 or more) should consent to the ban.

This tidbit of policy also pertains to GW:ADMIN and, surprisingly, GW:YAV, because "all users have the same clout on the GuildWiki" - and if any admin can just ban anyone who attacks them, then this is no longer the case. Another consequence of that is that admins shouldn't delete their own pages; there's already a note on GW:DEL that implies this, but it could be spelled out more clearly. mendel 09:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

"Another consequence of that is that admins shouldn't delete their own pages" <- eh, I don't see how it is related, and admins usually honor deletion requests of general user pages without question. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 09:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
If his bias clouds his judgment, a sysop should refrain from using any sysop tools "against" the opposing party. If the admin is quite unbiased, they can still ban/delete/whatever. It's really up to the admin, whether he feels he's too involved or not. It can be preferred that he defer to another admin's discretion, but if the other admin is going to be just as biased/unbiased, what's the point in wasting the time? Semantics? :/ -Auron 09:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a problem in that even if an admin IS unbiased, the conflict of interest still exist, and others would still question whether the admin's decision had bias factored in. Sometimes such issues are borderline, and two different unbiased admins might make different choices, so there's no "objective single correct answer" to use as a guide to detect bias. When a third party cannot detect whether there is bias or not, it is more prudent to let an admin without a conflict of interest to take care of the situation so that the rest of the community can be more certain of the lack of bias. The involved admin may simply slap the {{Ban}} tag to bring it to the attention of other admins. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 09:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok,I'll clarify that remark about deletion: a sysop might, in a dispute, delete his/some pages that caused the dispute, and thus remove the evidence that allows other users (that might want to moderate) to form a first-hand opinion. All a regular user can do is delete the content from the current page and post a retraction/apology (and slap a delete tag on), the history would still be available; a sysop can deny others the opportunity to review the history of his/her actions. Again, that makes for a power/clout imbalance.
Most people find it hard to detect their own bias. If I was involved in a dispute, I couldn't ever be sure I wasn't biased - even though I might believe so at the time. mendel 10:28, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The delete thing seems reasonable, considering recent events, but more urgent is the part about the use of admin powers in personal disputes. I fully agree, in light of recent events, that it should become policy for admins to have to use a 3rd party mediator (another admin, a Bcrat, the community) when they feel a user they are involved in any kind of dispute with deserves a ban. Even if it is possible for some admins to act without bias, the person they are acting against may feel that this is not the case, as may any uninvolved observers, and this has the potential to start flame wars or cause unneccesary drama, something there has been more than enough of recently. The only obvious exception to this i can see is when a user is on some kind of spam/abuse rampage, and obviously it is the duty of an admin to intervene, regardless of any perceived bias. I seriously doubt any policy aimed at limiting the rights of admins, especially when it is proposed by a user, will ever be accepted, but still, 100% support--Cobalt6.jpg - (Talk/Contribs) 11:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
So your plan to prevent flame wars of this nature is to restrict sysop action and introduce unnecessary bureaucracy? Wrong answer. 10 points for effort, though, guys.
Actual, no-kidding policy changes need to solve a problem. Preferably one that simply talking it through can't solve. For example; the NPA policy was first drafted back when the builds section was in full swing. Build authors and voters would get pissed at each other and start throwing insults around; something that had never been a problem previously. So, the higher-ups decided that a policy was needed to calm the waters (since there were so many cases popping up, simply talking with each violator was not feasible), so they drafted up No Personal Attacks.
If the most we're getting out of this policy change is a little less flaming (flaming that is A, completely theoretical, because it hasn't ever happened, and B, would be minor anyway; other sysops can review the case and revert an unjust block), it is absolutely not worth it. When the problem can be solved by merely talking it out (and time isn't an issue, because a case like this is especially rare), a policy change is unneeded. -Auron 19:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
"The obvious exception is if a user sets out to attack (almost) all acting admins, because then there'd be no-one left to execute the ban; in that case, a quorum of admins (3 or more) should consent to the ban." A quorum? If someone goes on a flame spree against multiple admins it is pretty obvious there is no personal connection and there would be no bias.
Auron: How is asking a uninvolved admin to look at the situation introducing unnecessary bureaucracy? If a admin is personally involved on any level then they should have nothing to do with any actions agaisnt any parties in the matter. If this is in contradiction to sysops power on the wiki then tough, loosing your powers in a special situation is not worth the power abuse that can come from a biased or otherwise admin.--AlariSig.png 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
How is requiring additional steps that may or may not be more effective, yet certainly are more time consuming, not bureaucracy?
"If a admin is personally involved on any level then they should have nothing to do with any actions agaisnt any parties in the matter." You get the idea, but life isn't separated into black and white. If an admin is personally involved on "any" level, he could still, quite possibly, maintain impartiality. In such cases, it would be stupid to restrict his actions arbitrarily. Thus, you leave it up to him to decide whether he is detached enough to make a fair call. If you disagree in a specific case, you are free to state your disagreement, but it is not anyone's place to forcefully put a stop to his involvement (in all remotely personal cases) via unnecessary policy-mongering.
"loosing your powers in a special situation is not worth the power abuse that can come from a biased or otherwise admin." Nice theorycrafting, except abuses of power are really rare. One of the first I've ever seen, in over two years of wikiing, was Felix's banning of Warwick. Even on PvX (the place most people consider lawless and hate-filled), the most "abuse" people dared to pull was protecting their namespace pages, a practice I quickly dispelled. Sysops, by nature, are trusted to police themselves. That's part of being autonomous. If they are unable to realize that they're letting personal bias get in the way of a case, they're simply unfit for duty as sysop. So no, preventing the power abuse that is theoretically possible but, in reality, rarely occurs, is not worth losing your powers in remotely personal cases.
If a sysop is unsure of his personal bias in a particular case, he is (of course) free to ask another sysop's (or even another user's) opinion on the matter. This course of action is voluntary and should in no way be required (i.e., written in policy). If a sysop knows for sure that his bias clouds his judgment, he is expected to defer the case to another sysop for administrative action. If a sysop determines he is perfectly capable of maintaining impartiality in a specific case, who are you to tell him, in a blanket statement via policy, that he isn't? -Auron 20:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) It already says that "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." This should go for administrative actions as well. In general, remember that the spirit of NPA is that you shouldn't let letgitimate arguments over content degenerate into name-calling. Admins should know better than to respond to personal attacks against them directly. Remember that accusing anyone of NPA is quite serious and overly accusing makes the accuser look bad. Whenever I see people bandying about "NPA!" I tend to look less favorably on the accuser than the accused. Example comments: 1. you newb. 2. Saying that is just ignorant. 3. you stupid fucktard. These are 1. harmless/joke, 2. calm discussion, 3. NPA. Keeping this in mind goes for all sysops. Remember that you were entrusted with this position. —JediRogue 23:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Auron, the way I see it, it isn't as much about being right and unbiased, as it is about avoiding the unnecessary escalation of pointless wikidrama. Some hot-headed kid violates NPA on you in a heated discussion, you ban him for the NPA violation, that typically makes the overall situation worse, not better, even though your decision is 100% unbiased and that person completely deserves a ban. Having a third-party admin ban him is more likely to put a time-out on him for his head to cool. Having YOU ban him is more likely to add fuel to the fire and make the situation drag out longer to resolve, which distracts the attention of active community members who care about this wiki from, well, actually taking care of this wiki. Thus, despite your well-intent to ensure swift justice is served on the wiki, unbiasely banning the NPA violator in a conflict-of-interest situation still has the effect of troll-baiting, which is a problematic behavior. I think it is not unreasonable to expect admins to be able to put up with crap like personal attacks until another admin can take a look at it. The inability to hold back in such a situation puts a shadow of doubt on that individual's self-evaluation of objectiveness. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 07:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Somehow, the statement seems fair, however, I think there should be some exceptions or otherwise refraised if *more* people are 'attacked'. One example (sadly enough a real one) : Person misbehaves badly, attacking an user, trolling, calling names, making inappropiate remarks and so on. Everyone agrees this person misbehaves. Admin steps in, warns persons, but hey, suddenly the person will 'spam' the admin the same way as he did with the user. Doing this, the person *knows* he will not be inmediately banned, because he will claim "personal bias". Even so, he will use any comment of the admin to convince other admins that the admin in question has some vendetta against him. Of course, after some time, all 'evidence' will be clear, but in mean time admins are in conflict with each other en worse of all, person still misbehaves and other users will leave because this person is still around. I've seen this happening multiple times, how one person can bring down an entire community because of 'misuse' of rules like this. -- Merty sign.gif-- ( talk ) 08:17, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Pan; refer back to one of my earlier posts. If this change is supposed to curb potential flame wars, the change is simply not worth it. Those flame wars are so rare they haven't even happened yet. Sure, your argument looks good on paper, but it's never been a problem, let alone one big enough to enact policy change about. -Auron 01:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I would actually oppose any amendment to the policy expressively prohibiting admins from banning users if the admin is the target of NPA. I believe admins should retain the right to exercise discretion to do so, WHILE I also believe that in general such acts are more likely to escalate issues and be bad for the wiki. I am willing to leave it up to the admin's discretion, with a strong reminder of the effects under typical situation, and the warning that I retain the ability to use my own discretion to call out troll-baiting/troll-feeding and act against any offending admins.
Generally speaking though, this wiki isn't one to get bogged down in the exact letter of the policy. So even if this gets explicitly turned into part of the formal policy, I think what you fear would not come to pass. If somebody is doing "personal attacks" on multiple people, including individuals trying to step in and help resolve the situation, then it's not really "personal attack" anyways, it's just general random verbal abuse being served to whoever is nearby. Chances are some other user will slap a ban tag on the problematic person, so it's not just an issue between the admin who stepped in and the problematic person. -User:PanSola (talk to the Follower of Lyssa.png) 08:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewording for clarification's sake[edit source]

My suggestion: "If your joke looks like a personal attack to one of the sysops, you may get banned. If the other sysops don't care enough to unban you, tough luck for you." --◄mendel► 02:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The "caveat" section seemed to say "we won't necessarily ban you if your attack was a joke"; this is, in my opinion, completely superfluous because it largely follows from the rest of the policy, which basically states "we won't necessarily ban for every personal attack" (cf. this). The addition of the language personal attacks which do not offend the 'victim(s)' are still personal attacks conveys the opposite: to me, it says, you may get banned even if you and your "target" agree that it was all a joke. --◄mendel► 02:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)