This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. —spookywillowwtalk 02:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:WP:NPA tweaks discussion
Hello friends! Now that the Userpage policy and WP:CON changes are on their merry way to the CT, next up on the tackling list is WP:NPA. As we strive to make Wookieepedia a safe place for all good-faith contributors, I'd had a few changes to bring up, especially since this policy hasn't been heavily changed (other than formatting) since around 2007, near when it was instituted. Some of the changes I've brainstormed up can be found here (a diff I'll keep updating).
Changes so far include:
- Formatting fixes (commas, dashes, fixing some Wikipedia links' capitalization). Also, some merging of sentence fragments, fixing grammar issues, and putting some words into American spelling.
- Expansion of "being reasonable" to not just cover article disputes, but also allude that both policy and article disagreements may pop up and can be first reasonably discussed in Discord/SH, then brought up to CT.
- Adding that "Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor" are handled pursuant to our host's anti-discrimination policy.
- Addition of a line to specify that doxing (revealing personal information) or other harassment of another user to ensure they don't argue with you publicly is clearly stated. Particularly relevant to explicitly state, I feel, since sometimes users can't speak up for fear of their personal information being revealed as blackmail (happened to me in my earlier Wook days).
- Removing that "the practice is almost always controversial" to ban for personal attacks. Small things, of course, receive warnings first, as the blocking policy dictates preventative blocks to protect the community from harm, not usually ones punitive for the sake of it. However, I don't believe that it is controversial to ban for personal attacks—especially in egregious cases, for the safety of all Wookieepedians, it is now common practice to issue sanctions for heavy personal attacks on contributors. While it can be controversial on occasion, I'd not say it's "almost always" controversial.
- "Misguided notion"—removal of "foolish and boorish,"; needlessly harsh and goes against the concept of the section.
- "Consequences" tweak to be in line with the Discord policy, as it's not just talk pages we deal with anymore. Additional clause added about "particularly degrading comments," as personal attacks in the modern era occur on Discord too, in current times.
Open to other suggestions for tweaks, I only put down what came to mind! Would really love to clean up many of these older policies to foster a more welcoming community that is safer for all Wookieepedians to speak freely.—spookywillowwtalk 19:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
Taken to CT here.—spookywillowwtalk 16:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Discuss
- Looking good! Imperators II(Talk) 19:40, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thoughts on combining the multiple threat points? ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his)
23:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Done—spookywillowwtalk 18:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- I can't think of an alternative but I feel like "mainstream or extreme" MAY be problematic. I dunno something doesn't quite sit right and I'm not sure why... ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his) 23:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, and I think it should be amended. The issue is that it implies that a judgement of valor can be made regarding someone's association with a group ("guilt by association"). NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- I just chopped the second half of the sentence off. Now reads only "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views."—spookywillowwtalk 18:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree, and I think it should be amended. The issue is that it implies that a judgement of valor can be made regarding someone's association with a group ("guilt by association"). NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- We mention direct or indirect THREAT of vandalising userpages, do we need to mention ACTUAL vandalising of userpages here as well? ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his) 23:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- At that point, falls under the vandalism policy/disruption clause, I believe.—spookywillowwtalk 18:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- "Explore issues in a less public forum like e-mail or Discord if a debate threatens to become personal." should note that private messages may be reported to admin if it resorts to aforementioned threats of or actual attacks ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his)
23:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Added, pursuant to privacy policy.—spookywillowwtalk 18:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think the misguided notion but needs the "Note" at the start. It also seems redundant to the subsequent section. ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his) 23:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Merged the two.—spookywillowwtalk 18:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Remedies and Consequences seem a bit similar as both talk about blocking, perhaps they can be combined? ℳÅℕ☉❂Ⅎ (he/him/his) 23:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Did hold off on this one pending more input: I feel like it's much clearer to read about remedies first, to try to seek a solution, then mentally read onward to what consequences there are for continuing.—spookywillowwtalk 18:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Looks good, however I have a question about the final point "Users may blocked for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks." Shouldn't this say "Users may be blocked"? Rsand 30 (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Tweaked.—spookywillowwtalk 18:40, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Looking good. I also find some of Manoof suggestions interesting. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 15:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)