Wikipedia:Esperanza/NPA Reform

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is a subpage of Esperanza.

Notice: Esperanza is currently being reformed. Please note that all programs, the Advisory Council and the Charter are affected. Further details can be found on the Esperanza talk page.


This WikiProject is believed to be inactive.

If you are not currently a member of the project, please consider joining it to help.

Otherwise, we apologize in advance for our error should your project be active.

I think it's fairly clear to all avid users who interact with other users that WP:NPA is vague to the point of worthlessness at this point, which is saddening since we cannot maintain a friendly atmosphere on Wikipedia unless Personal Attacks are clearly defined and clearly enforced. So, as the "Wikiproject of Friendliness", I feel that it's our obligation to take point in fixing NPA to the point where it's an effective deterrent to rudeness.

It is also my hope that this page will also be a precedent for crafting group opinion as well, both on Esperanza and Wikipedia in general, a subject that has also created much enmity towards many users. This page is open to all users of Esperanza to refine, critique and finalize, with the idea that the advisory committee will take the general consensus of the community and accept or reject it one way or another to present to the general Wikipedia community.

Apologies for any confusion, but all comments would probably fit better on the talk page. Think of this page as a conseus gathering page (rfa/rfc/afd,etc.), and the talk page as a place to flush it out, with the proposed rules at the bottom basically being new versions of the rules made from the ideas of Esperanzans.

Contents

[edit] Provisional Rules To This Process

Similiar to an RFC or an RFAR, this process is made up of three sections Purposes(A definition of our goals with this), Questions (Questions to be answered in order to achieve our goals), and Proposed Solutions (Solutions presented to achieve our intended goals). Anyone can add any of their related ideas or additions in each of these sections(even the idea that this is not needed at all) , and for that matter add new sections(this is experimental), but the decisions on whether they're good or not will be decided on the talk page.

For this initiative, the Proposed Solutions will be general rewrites of WP:NPA.

[edit] Purposes

[edit] A policy that will prevent or reduce Personal Attacks throughout Wikipedia by dissuasion and offering alternatives.

[edit] Yes

  1. karmafist 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) WP:NPA must do these things to be effective in my opinion.
  2. Wikizach 16:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Seems fairly resonable.
  3. Banes 11:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Celestianpower háblame 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Chaz 13:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. - Pureblade | Θ 20:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. -- Natalya 12:32, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Being sure that those alternatives are well defined.
  8. In principle. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Yes - with Natalya's caveat. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Yesh. I'm tired of screaming WP:NPA at people who seem to have problems with me. LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 00:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Absolutely, but what alternatives would be given? Ck lostsword|queta! 10:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
  12. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  13. Yes, it's pretty much needed. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No

[edit] Other

Comment: I realize this is just a discussion form and not actual policy setting, but if our goal is to make the NPA more clear, we should perhaps set out right now to define "dissuasion" and "alternatives", right? If someone is going to make a personal attack, what alternatives would they have? Often PAs are made in haste during disagreements. Short of creating a "flame" page, I'm not sure what alternatives we can offer. Semiconscious • talk 20:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment:Any solution devised here will merely be treating a single SYMPTOM of a larger problem, namely an increasingly poisionous, confrontational atmosphere. This, in turn, I believe, is the result of the community's greatly increased visibility and growth over the past several months. Large size breeds increased incivility, which breeds more rules, procedures and bureaucracy. There must be some way of combatting incivility without resorting to this....a way for Wikipedians of good faith to reclaim our 'Pedia, without turning it into a bureaucratic nightmare or just another internet sandbox.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 05:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A clearer policy in regards to WP:NPA, so it can be better understood and enforced throughout the project

[edit] Yes

  1. karmafist 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) If WP:NPA has too many loopholes, it will be ignored in my opinion, as people will see it as ineffective at stopping personal attacks.
  2. Miborovsky 07:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Fancy policies have no use if they cannot stop personal attacks.
  3. Wikizach 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC) I agree
  4. Support - Semiconscious • talk 20:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. -- Natalya 12:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Very important, as long as we can do it :)
  6. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:40, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Of Course --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 00:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  9. Without enforcement comes problems, and it needs to be clearer anyway. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No

[edit] Other

[edit] A policy that will understand heated situations may bend the temperaments of users towards others, but should not break them.

[edit] Yes

  1. karmafist 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) People have bad days. They make mistakes. This should be understood in WP:NPA in my opinion.
  2. Chaz 13:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC) I toally agree.
  3. Wikizach 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC) I concur
  4. Strongly agree - Semiconscious • talk 20:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. This is crucial. Everybody wakes up on the wrong side of the bed once in a while... -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Extreme Agree. I've seen members of EA pay heavy consiquences because of a bad day. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No

[edit] Other

[edit] Questions

[edit] Can NPA-Phobia(someone stating another party has broken NPA as an NPA vio)to stifle opinions or interaction between users in heated arguments?

[edit] Yes

  1. karmafist 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Accusing someone of committing an NPA vio can be just as harmful as an NPA vio if it is done in malice.
  2. WikieZach 21:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No

[edit] Other

Comment - "Can NPA-Phobia(someone stating another party has broken NPA as an NPA vio)to stifle opinions or interaction between users in heated arguments?": I'm not sure what this is saying. Can it what? It does happen, and we should include something to indicate punishment if you wrongfully accuse someone of an NPA violation. Semiconscious • talk 20:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think I can second-guess what is being asked, but it would be better if the question had better phrasing. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 21:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If yes, how can this be prevented?

[edit] NPA Violations should not be stated as personal matters, but rather in a detached, objective tone.

  1. karmafist 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. WikieZach 21:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] (idea here)

[edit] (idea here)

[edit] Are truisms, or proven facts, NPA vios?

[edit] Yes

[edit] No

  1. karmafist 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) As long such statements are given in an objective manner. Personalizing such things would be an NPA vio however.
  2. Miborovsky 07:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. -- Natalya 12:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC) As long as they are stated courteously and not in an attacking manner.
  4. WikieZach 21:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Ck lostsword|queta! 10:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC) As long as they can be verified by another editor.
  6. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC) as per Karmafist
  7. Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC) as per karmafist

[edit] Other

Comment - Facts are not NPA violations. Truisms however differ from culture to culture, and leads down a slippery, ill-defined slope toward aphorisms and other less well-defined statements. We should also define what constitutes a "fact". If someone writes "the New York times claims Gandhi was a murderer" and provides a citation to the article in the NYT with that quote, that is a fact. If someone writes "Gandhi was a murderer" and cites the NYT, that is not a fact. Semiconscious • talk 21:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Potentially. As Semiconscious said above truism differ from culture to culture. Given the multicultural nature of the project, this would open the gates to all sorts of "oh, but in my culture that's not an insult" situations. On the other hand, the very definition of what is "a fact" is a matter of epistemological debate. While we can accommodate certain on-wiki behavior to constitute "a fact" (e.g. 3RR violation) any instances of behavior that are less well-defined will be subjective. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Potentially - I agree with Semiconscious and Rune.welsh that the words "fact" and "truism" are thenselves tricky things to define. However, using facts/truisms with malice should be considered an attack. For example, using derogatory terms for different ethnic groups, though perhaps accurate considering their definition, should obviously be considered personal attacks. Jfingers88 02:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should the circumstances surrounding a negative comment be taken into account when determing if a comment should fit into WP:NPA?

[edit] Yes

  1. karmafist 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) See A policy that will understand heated situations may bend the temperaments of users towards others, but should not break them. People have bad days. They may have said something they wouldn't necessarily have in normal circumstances.
  2. Agree with karmafist, but this should be very explicitly explained. Semiconscious • talk 22:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. More often than not there are mitigating circumstances. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. — Ilyanep (Talk) 23:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. Definitely. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No

[edit] Other

Comment - I feel circumstances should definitly be taken into account, but I wonder how this would be implemented, and if it would be easily able to be used in all cases. It seems that it would require more work than normal - not a bad thing, it would just need to be figured out first. -- Natalya 12:39, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Nataly and I are in agreement here. I'm all for working specifics out as best as possible before attempting a major change such as this. Anything worth doing is worth taking our time on. Semiconscious • talk 08:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do circumstances surrounding the user(bad days, large edit counts, excessive involvement in heated situations) affect determing whether a comment should fit into WP:NPA?

[edit] Yes

  1. karmafist 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) See section above.
  2. Banes 11:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) We need to take these things into account.
  3. It definitely depends on the situation. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No

  1. Only if one of the parties is proven troll/sockpuppet. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. It should not matter who wrote, only what was written. Limit circumstances considered to the words themselves.4hodmt 23:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other

The above mentioned factors should certainly be taken into account when deciding if a comment fits into WP:NPA, but perhaps in less specific terms. -- Natalya 03:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What should the punishment be for a WP:NPA vio?

[edit] Wikipedia:Esperanza/NPA Reform/NPA Punishment Idea #1

[edit] Agree
  1. karmafist 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Wikizach 16:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC) That's exactly how it should work.! (:)
  3. Banes 11:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Perfect.
  4. --Celestianpower háblame 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Chaz 13:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC) That sounds fair.
  6. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Agreed. Maybe even a 2 hour block just to make sure people calm down a bit.
  7. -- I totally agree. Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 02:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  8. -- Ck lostsword|queta! 10:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Seems fair.
  9. It would really help. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disagree
  1. I think that's too lenient, and also, not all personal attacks are created equally. The length of the block should depend on how egregious the attacked person (and perhaps the admin doing the blocking) thinks the personal attack is, the context in which it occurs, and so on. I'm not opposed to 24-hour blocks, if they get especially severe. Under this plan, the first block of a duration of at least 24 hours will occur when 7 personal attacks have been made; I think that's too many slaps on the wrist. Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Initially I thought that it would be better to have the punishment depend on the severity of the attack, but upon debate with myself, it feels like that might actually be too hard. It would be difficult to set standards for different levels of attacks, and would not be very fair/useful to make it an arbitrary decision with no guidelines. -- Natalya 22:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Other

[edit] (fill in here)

[edit] (fill in here)

[edit] How many times does a user need to violate WP:NPA before punishment takes effect?

[edit] 2

[edit] Agree
  1. karmafist 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Banes 11:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Aaron 00:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC), with the exception that an admin need not hestitate taking action on a first offense if it is a particularly egregious, disruptive and/or offensive attack.
  4. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 22:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) Without Aaron's caveat.
  5. I agree with Aaron. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. -- Tvaughn05e (Talk)(Contribs) 02:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
  7. 2 is logical, with exceptions noted by Aaron. --Anthony Jake La (Tetsuya-san; talk : contribs) 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Disagree
[edit] Other

[edit] (fill in here)

[edit] (fill in here)

[edit] Proposed Solutions

[edit] (idea here)

[edit] Support

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Other

[edit] (idea here)

[edit] Support

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Other

[edit] (idea here)

[edit] Support

[edit] Oppose

[edit] Other

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/s/p/Wikipedia%7EEsperanza_NPA_Reform_47fe.html"