Wiktionary talk:Votes/2024-05/Make No personal attacks an official policy
Add topicLatest comment: 5 months ago by Purplebackpack89 in topic Elizium23 did have a point...
The entire page does not need to be a policy
[edit]We currently only have a single formal policy relating to user conduct. It is WT:BLOCK, in which the formal policy is only two lines long. Following this example, I don't think the entirety of WT:NPA need to be raised to the status of formal policy. We should instead draft a short "policy" text that can be accompanied by (unvoted) explanatory guidelines, like WT:BLOCK, and postpone this vote until that is complete. This, that and the other (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's to our detriment that we don't have stronger user conduct policies, @This, that and the other. Some of the editors on this project feel like they can attack or harass other users with impunity. Purplebackpack89 11:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89 okay. Well, be careful what you wish for. WT:NPA was highly outdated before I went through and gave it a thorough cleanup. We were going to potentially enact a policy that still assigns special responsibility to Jimbo Wales! It concerns me that you didn't closely read the policy page before creating this vote, and I'd urge you to do so now. This, that and the other (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @This, that and the other Purplebackpack89 has just changed the page to add a "policy", but it isn't worded like a policy at all in my view; particularly the pre-amble about there being no excuse. The second paragraph also strikes me as completely superfluous; it essentially says "there might be negative consequences if you breach policy", which conveys no useful information that isn't implicitly true about any policy. Theknightwho (talk) 23:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89 okay. Well, be careful what you wish for. WT:NPA was highly outdated before I went through and gave it a thorough cleanup. We were going to potentially enact a policy that still assigns special responsibility to Jimbo Wales! It concerns me that you didn't closely read the policy page before creating this vote, and I'd urge you to do so now. This, that and the other (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, it needs to be strong and direct, with little room for misinterpretation. AG202 (talk) 16:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Elizium23 did have a point...
[edit]Elizium23 might not have used the best methodology, but they ARE correct that users' comments accusing other users of mental illness are inappropriate. Purplebackpack89 14:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)