Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks/njyoder's poll

It would appear there is no actual consensus on this rule. Even some of those who voted support made explicit exceptions to the rule. The issue of defining the difference between "personal attacks" and criticism of the behavior of users has been left undefined. The "no personal attacks" article itself doesn't address this issue.

So far this equates to nothing more than a way for admins to abuse power, since anything that can be construed as a criticism of behavior can be considered a "personal attack." It also leaves admins the ability to ignore personal attacks as they please and even engage in them themselves. Without mandatory blocking on every personal attack, then it becomes an issue of biased lack of enforcement.

I'm holding a re-vote to clarify exactly where everyone stands to see if there is a consensus. Note, this is using the all encompassing definition of personal attacks that even includes describing someone's behavior as trolling.

Nathan J. Yoder 23:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Snowspinner tried completely removing this section this the edit summary "revert bullshit." I hope this vandalism doesn't go unpunished. Snowspinner is the same person who, just a week or so ago, had also personally attacked me by accusing me of meglomania. Nathan J. Yoder 12:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


 * WTF are you trying to do here, exactly? You're trying to make it look like WP:NPA is some sort of contentious topic when it is one of the very few rules basically the entire wikipedia community is completly behind. And then you start a survey, without any prior discussion whatsoever? Please review Survey guidelines. I am 100% behind Snowspinner in this, he did the smart thing (and I would do the same, although I have no doubt you'd just put your comment back, so what would be the point) gkhan 14:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is, have you read all the debate on this talk page? Have you even looked at the above votes on this? The "entire wikipedia community" is not behind this. As I specifically said, even some of the support votes explicitly make exceptions. That's simply not a consensus. If you want to ignore the facts, fine, but don't think that will help your case. It seems to me that you're just trying to censor this survey because you're afraid of what the results would be. And if you notice, those are just guidelines, not policy, that page itself says "These are not binding in any way."

I am simply making survey options based on what has already been discussed here and in other places on Wikipedia. So there has been discussion regarding disagreement over this policy, just not for creation of a new survey (which isn't even necessary to create one).

Snowspinner blatantly violated Wikipedia policy by removing my comment, it's not appropriate, regardless of whether or not agrees with what I've said. If you removed it, you'd be in violation too. Nathan J. Yoder 14:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Support with exceptions

Support without exceptions

Oppose completely
 * 1) Too much room for abuse, as stated above.  And for reasons stated, sometimes shaming out trolls and zealots who are part of a clique can be a good thing.  Nathan J. Yoder 23:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Support mandatory enforcement (Vote assuming the policy is currently in action)
 * 1) If the rule must exist, then it should be enforced across the board, without exception.  Nathan J. Yoder 23:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Oppose mandatory enforcement

This poll is invalid
 * 1) Consensus has been reached (long, long ago), no prior discussion, completly invalid poll. Voting is evil. gkhan 14:00, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Not than uneven application of the rule isn't a problem, but we might as well hold a poll on whether articles should be written from the neutral point of view. &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 14:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) As per Charles P. DES (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

This poll is in bad faith, and is invalid
 * 1) Above + motive. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 12:26, 14 October 2005 (UTC)