Wikipedia:Esperanza/NPA Reform

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 Friendlyness", 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.

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.

Purposes

A policy that will prevent or reduce Personal Attacks throughout Wikipedia by dissuation and offering alternatives.

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)

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

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

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

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

Questions

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

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.

If yes, how can this be prevented?

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

1. karmafist 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Are truisms, or proven facts, NPA vios?

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)

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

Yes

1. karmafist 22:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC) See A policy that will understand heated situations may bend the temperments 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.

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?

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.

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

Wikipedia:Esperanza/NPA Reform/NPA Punishment Idea #1

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.

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

2

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.