Wikipedia talk:A weak personal attack is still wrong

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

Hear, hear

I could not agree more. With one reservation.

That is, there seem to be two things that inhibit our NPA policy, and this falls into one of those traps. NPA is not just about civility, they are subtly and importantly different. NPA is in a sense far wider than civility, and far easier to apply... at least in theory. Civility is very much in the mind of the beholder. But NPA covers all personal attacks, intended or unintended, offensive or trivial.

So often at ANI, a question of personal attacks gets sidetracked into discussion of whether there's a civility violation. Who knows, who cares? NPA gives no such wiggle room.

The other problem is one that this essay does not seek to address, and perhaps that is best. So often, talk about whether a particular post is a PA gets sidetracked into, what should we do about it? That's another issue, and a very complex one. Punishment is not on the Wikipedia agenda. Blocks and bans are all about protecting the encyclopedia. The question of guilt and retribution does not even arise. But this is often overlooked.

But in summary, and excellent and timely essay. I hope it gets lots of attention. Perhaps vainly, but it's still hope. Andrewa (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]