Ok, some feedback. My opinion is that accusing someone of violating NPA should not count as a personal attack itself. If the accusation is false, then the accused can simply shrug it off. If the accusation is true, then there should be no problem. If a user replies to the message: "My bunny wears blue stockings", with "Desist from making personal attacks", then neither editor has made a personal attack, IMO.

The statement:"Mr. Treason is a troll", is, while true, a personal attack. Just because someone is an !@#% does not mean it is ok to call them one. Use of more diplomatic language, such as:"Mr. Treason is editing in a disruptive manner" should not be counted as a personal attack, true or not.

I believe all circumstances should be taken into account. If a user has been annoyed by Rfc's, sockpuppets, vandals, a failed Rfa, whatever, he/she should be treated with a little more leniency. While not condoning their behavior, we all have the odd "bad day".

Punishment wise, I think a 2/4 hour block is best for any blatant name calling, first time. This gives the user some time to cool off. Whatever the circumstances, or the nature of the comment (providing it is obviously a personal attack), a user should be blocked for it. Being blocked is not such a bad thing, you can still read the enyclopedia. :) IMO, it is better to contain the situation before it gets out of hand. If I was having a really bad day, and I'd just called someone an idiot, I would like an admin to block me before I go too far and make a complete ass of myself. Often NPA vios are commited in the heat of the moment, a quick block gives the user time to think things over.

Always consider the that the term "personal attack" has the word personal built right in. If you are critisizing someone's edits, you are not attacking them "personally".

These are my thoughts on the matter, thanks for reading my opinions. Hopefully they dont all seem too wacko. - Banes 20:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, oops, is this in the right place? Banes 20:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would this still apply to banned users? In other words, would saying "Mr. Treason was a troll" be considered a personal attack? What about calling someone a vandal? —Kirill Lokshin 02:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think if someone has been hardbanned for trolling then it should be ok to call them a troll. But nothing petty should be allowed, against anybody. Banes 08:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion before guys, this is still kind of experimental. karmafist 04:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be bold and do some editing of the page. Here's one thing which I think should be made very clear: accusing a user of making a personal attack, when they have not, is a personal attack. It's the reverse of the Slashdot trolls who would include a shock site link, the next poster would say "mod parent down, troll" and the original poster would edit their post and reply "no I'm not". In the same way, accusing someone of making a personal attack when they haven't is libel/slander and worse than a personal attack. Alphax ^τεχ 07:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks, Alphax! :-) Put things we can vote on with small reasons why on the main page, and we can discuss those reasons here. karmafist 22:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I strongly agree with the concept of NPA reform, I have to ask: Given WP:IAR, which allows any admin with a POV or personal animus towards the attacked user to revert his/her attacker's block, what's the point? It's like we'd be working to reform a policy that doesn't truly exist in the first place. --Aaron 03:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. IAR has been far too overused lately, and should be seen as a last resort "nuclear option". We could do something similiar with that, although whether we do or not, it's best to remember that Wikipedia right now is an ochlocracy, like all near anarchic societies containing disparate groups. If we're not united, basically as a "street gang of kindness", pummeling our opponents with peace and love until they come over to our side or give up, we're not going to get anywhere. That's how things seem to work on Wikipedia unfortunately. Karmafist 22:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A personal attack happens when someone feels attacked. If you've made a person feel attacked, you've probably broken this core policy. Don't bicker over whether what you just did actually was an attack. Just be nice. Say sorry, move on. Apologising for hurt caused, even if unintended is not a bad thing! If you've hurt someone in the course of writing an encyclopaedia article, you should be contrite. It's supposed to be fun.

The other side of the coin is that screeching "you made a personal attack" is nearly always not conducive to maintaining a good atmosphere too. If someone's hurt your feelings, a short note on their talkpage saying "You hurt my feelings with that comment" would be a good thing to do. If they reply with hostility, they've come to the wrong encyclopaedia. Grace Note 07:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]