Talk: No personal attacks

Comments

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 (talk • contribs) - 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 (talk • contribs) - 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)

Vague and unkown insults

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 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 (talk • contribs) - 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?

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 (talk • contribs) - 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. -- (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 (talk • contribs) - 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."

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.-- 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 (talk • contribs) - 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."

-- Vallen Frostweaver 15:51, 26 January 2007 (CST)

wording changes

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 (talk • contribs) - 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 (talk • contribs) - 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 (talk • contribs) - 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. -- 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 (talk • contribs) - 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)