Star Wars Fanon:No personal attacks

Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Star Wars Fanon. There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them.

Consequences
Remember that disputes on talk pages are accessible to everyone on the Internet. The way in which you conduct yourself on Star Wars Fanon reflects on Star Wars Fanon and on you.

Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse. Users have been banned for repeatedly engaging in personal attacks. Abusive edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded.

Being reasonable
Different contributors may not agree on an article. Members of opposing communities reasonably wish to express their views. Synthesising these views into a single article creates a better, more NPOV article for everyone. Remember to accept that we are all part of the same community as we are all Wikipedians.

Examples of personal attacks
Specific examples of personal attacks include but are not limited to:


 * Accusatory comments such as "George is a troll", or "Laura is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom.
 * Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life."
 * Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against another contributor. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual preference, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.)
 * Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme.
 * Profanity directed against another contributor.
 * Threats of violence, including death threats.
 * Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages. May be direct or indirect.
 * Calling the fanon of another contributor "retarded" or other such derogatory names.

Examples that are not personal attacks
It is important not to personalize comments that are directed at content and actions, but it is equally important not to interpret such comments as personal attacks. Specific examples of comments that are not personal attacks include, but are not limited to:


 * Disagreements about content such as "Your statement about X is wrong" or "Your statement is a point of view, not fact" are not personal attacks.
 * Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks. Stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack — it is a statement regarding the actions of the user, not a statement about the user.  There is a difference between "You are a troll" and "You are acting like a troll", but "You seem to be making statements just to provoke people" is even better, as it means the same without descending to name-calling.  Similarly, a comment such as "responding to accusation of bad faith by user X" in an edit summary or on a talk page is not a personal attack against user X.
 * A comment in an edit history such as "reverting vandalism" is not a personal attack. However, it is important to  assume good faith when making such a comment — if the edit that is being reverted could be interpreted as a good-faith edit, then don't label it as vandalism.

Alternatives
Instead:


 * Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with the other person, but just agree to disagree.
 * Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.
 * Explore issues in a less public forum like e-mail if a debate threatens to become personal.

Remedies
In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked under the "disruption" clause of the blocking policy, though the practice is almost always controversial.

A misguided notion: "Kicking them while they are down"
Note: There are certain users who may be unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behavior in the past. It is only human to imagine that such users might be fair game for personal attacks. This notion is misguided; people make mistakes, often learn from them and change their ways. The NPA rule applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them.

Community spirit
It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia. Personal attacks against any user - regardless of his/her past behavior - are contrary to this spirit.