Forum:No personal attacks suggestion

From the RuneScape Wiki, the wiki for all things RuneScape
Jump to: navigation, search
Forums: Yew Grove > No personal attacks suggestion
This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 25 March 2011 by Cook Me Plox.

Let me first explain what a personal attack is, as some users and even administrators don't understand what it is (I've already had a personal attack directed at me by an administrator). A personal attack is insulting or disparaging (regarding as being worth little) an editor no matter which manner in which it is done. A user should not comment on an editor, but rather the content, as it can be offensive and harmful to the editor the comments were directed at. A personal attack is not something such as "you inserted copyrighted information" (which is indeed helpful) because these comments aren't personal. Refer to the policy on Wikipedia[1] (this policy is on 47 languages other than the English Wikipedia itself).

This is literally one of the most important policies in Wikipedia, and it deserves its own policy page so as to clarify what one is, how to respond to one, the consequences of a personal attack and how to avoid them. It is easy to misinterpret without adequate clarification, and is essential to know when in a discussion.


Strong support - as nominator. Smithing 06:35, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

So... have there been any issues recently that would necessitate... whatever it is you're proposing? clarification of personal attacks and a specific policy against them? Or is this kind of out of nowhere? I'd have thought this would be covered in spirit by UTP. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 06:37, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

I started thinking about this after the admin made the personal attack (nothing major), and decided that there is not enough clarification. And no, it isn't fully covered in UTP (in order to explain, it needs more clarification and info, which cannot be adequately covered there). It needs to be more direct and offer more explanations such as does the Wikipedia policy. And besides, this is very important, and deserves its own mention anyhow (like I said, it's on 48 different language Wikipedia's). Smithing 06:48, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
Again, what is this situation you're referring to? --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 06:49, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
Comment by Soldier 1033 found here: "I am not going to waste my time debating with someone that claims to be all-knowing and have the ability to decide what is and isn't "beneficial" to this wiki on behalf of everyone else." It's a personal attack as I found it offensive and its a blatant lie, just to clarify. Smithing 06:55, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Wouldn't this be covered by UTP? sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:40, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Andorin beat me to it. sssSp7p.pngIjLCqFF.png 06:40, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

no A- That was NOT a personal attack. If you found it offensive, then stop running around trying to be offended by everything you see. It is bloody ridiculous how often people claim to be offended by something that isn't offensive or an attack. Man up please. And B-, the UTP covers it quite well. As said by previous, and will be restated by 8 others I bet.--Degenret01 07:17, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

The comment "man up" is also a personal attack, if you didn't realize (its disparaging and insulting). This is exactly why this policy is needed, because people don't realize what a personal attack really is (people on Wikipdia would agree with me that the comment "man up" is a personal attack, if you didn't realize). Smithing 07:23, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
His comment was fully valid. Despite his seemingly harsh way of cutting off a discussion, he had good reason to do so. Please go re-read the last sentence of the paragraph you wrote right before his response. Also, your proposition of "[Don't] comment on an editor, but rather the content" does not apply in this situation as it is a discussion and not a page edit he is scrutinising. - [Pharos] 07:26, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
It applies in every situation except for maybe quoting another, if you didn't realize. The Wikipedia policy article says, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." Smithing 07:31, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
But this isn't Wikipedia, is it? - PD-R 07:38, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
That exert was taken out of a section detailing what counts as a personal attack. It does not mean that harsh comments are not restricted to articles. Despite this, i agree support the idea that personal attacks should not be tolerated on forums either. I do still maintain that Andrew's comment was not a personal attack. In the same section as your exert, it also clearly states that "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." are personal attacks. Therefore, on the reverse, accusations about personal behavior with evidence are not personal attacks. - [Pharos] 07:46, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
PD-R, this is why I'm proposing this (but the definition of a personal attack is the definition of a personal attack). And yes, that is why I consider it a personal attack, because it lacks evidence (I never claimed any of those things in my life [this is interpreting it directly, and it was insulting either way]). Can we get back to the proposal, now? Smithing 07:53, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
But still you refer to the wikipedia policy as if it already exists on the rswiki. "The comment "man up" is also a personal attack" says you find "man up" a personal attack, and as support for your opinion you use the reason "people on Wikipdia would agree with me that the comment "man up" is a personal attack". Also, when Pharos said it is not a personal attack at all, you refer to Wikipedia again to prove it is indeed a personal attack. So, please don't refer to wikipedia as a reason to tell someone to stop doing things or not. After you were pointed to RS:NOT#WIKIPEDIA you still said "this is why I'm proposing this", so you were still using your arguments based on Wikipedia for getting what you want. Please stop this. Thanks, JOEYTJE50TALKpull my finger 15:56, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
The comment "man up" is strong advice that you obviously need, not a personal attack. I will say that to you, wikipedia en masse, and everyone who thinks it is an attack. Strong words meant to correct deficient behavior are sometimes needed. You are very welcome.--Degenret01 07:55, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
At least it was a suggestion. Smithing 08:00, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
He was using "all-knowing" as a slight exaggeration of you saying: "And in this case it would be useful, so there's no reason not to add it" right after he basically argued the exact opposite. You merely rebutted his opinion/oppose by saying his argument was wrong and yours was correct. If you wish to continue with the discussion to implement this policy, go ahead but do not accuse someone of personally attacking you unless you are willing to back it up and debate it. I could easily say that "...worthless assumptions (seemingly to get back at me), I suggest you offer suggestions on how I can improve." could be considered a personal attack as you are calling his opinion worthless, and by extension, due to him being on the internet and only being able to contribute with his opinion, that he himself is worthless. This would come under "disparaging an editor"
But enough of this, ive had my fill debating practice today... Please, feel free to continue with the thread ^_^ - [Pharos] 08:06, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
We are seriously getting off topic. Let's get back to the proposal. Smithing 08:10, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - So who gets to decide whether a certain statement is considered as insulting or belittling? Personally, I don't see that example as a personal insult, it's just someone blowing their ego. ~AeriUser_talk: 07:35, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - No thank you. We are clearly not Wikipedia and this proposal goes too far in supposedly protecting people. That was not a personal attack. ʞooɔ 16:21, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - Anyone who needs a no personal attacks blanket wrapped around them in order to feel safe browsing the internet should probably disconnect. Honest and forthright opinions are worth far more than linguistic pussyfooting trying to preserve someone's over-delicate ego. Genuinely offensive comments are already covered under UTP as I'm sure has already been mentioned here several times (tl;dr). Ardougne cloak 4.png Raging Bull Talk 16:25, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - Seriously? You consider those comments personal attacks? Would calling someone a vandal be a personal attack then? Should we just leave vandalism all over the wiki in order to not insult anyone? Shut the hell up, improve the wiki, and stop trying to make pointless policies that do nothing but cause arguments and make you look like an idiot. Grim reaper hood.png Ben RyfosTalk 16:26, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Ahem. Be nice. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 20:06, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Uppose - Smithing is a dumb ass name/skill/game/42/∞ not like mine and I also per Cook for having a really nice statement. --Cakemix 16:27, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose - RS:UTP RS:UCS RS:GTS RS:DBAD --Aburnett(Talk) 19:47, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

We already have a policy on this LOL! - RS:UTP. Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:05, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Withdraw - although there have been a few misinterpretations on I actually suggested, it appears no one wants to create a whole project page on personal attacks, their consequences and how to avoid them. And Nq2h, please try to be respectful to me. I'd appreciate that. Smithing 20:13, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - Magic-icon.pngStelercusIlluminated Book of Balance.png 20:16, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Invalid close, not even 24 hours have passed. Reopened.--Degenret01 23:53, March 24, 2011 (UTC)
Why is it not valid? The proposer withdrew the request and there are no other supporters after a lengthy discussion. --LiquidTalk 00:00, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Liquid. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 00:02, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Personal attacks are never acceptable. (wszx) 00:08, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure your support has nothing whatsoever to do with Liquid's recent post above. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 00:12, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
Your good faith is a shining example to all in this community. (wszx) 00:13, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
Oh my, I think both of those were personal attacks! We should ban BOTH Andorin and (wszx) for their attacks! Grim reaper hood.png Ben RyfosTalk 00:17, March 25, 2011 (UTC)
Actually, in this case Harlequin is right. We were discussing the closure in the CC and Harlequin saw our discussion and decided to come post on it. Nowhere was my person opinion on this thread mentioned, though personally I really don't care what happens since I doubt it will have an effect. --LiquidTalk 00:20, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Closed - This closure is completely valid. If there is nominator withdrawal, the one-week rule does not apply. ʞooɔ 00:29, March 25, 2011 (UTC)