Tardis:No personal attacks

Changing policy Discussion policy → Do not disrupt this wiki to prove a point → You are bound by current policy → Who writes policy → Forum policy → Desktop is definitive → No personal attacks

Don't personally attack anyone. Argue the point, not the person.

Comment on your fellow editor's work, not the contributor themselves. Equally, when discussing real life people — such as cast and crew members — criticise their work on Doctor Who, rather than their qualities as a person. Personal attacks against fellow editors will not help you make a point. Indeed, they deter users from helping create and maintain a good encyclopaedia.

Shortcut:

T:ATTACKS
T:NPA

Do not make personal attacks

There is no excuse for personal attacks. Please do not make them.

Consequences of personal attacks

Users who engage in personal attacks will be blocked according to policy.

Being reasonable

Different contributors may not agree on the content of an article. A wiki is built on several user's readings of a text and users may wish to place their own interpretation of content. Integrating these views into a single article creates a better, more neutral point of view article for everyone. Remember to accept that we are all part of the same community and we are all fans of the Doctor Who universe.

Examples

Examples of personal attacks

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

• Racial, sexual, homophobic, ageist, religious or ethnic epithets directed against anyone. (Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, gender, 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 or person.
• Threats of legal action.
• Threats of violence, including death threats.
• Threats of vandalism to user pages or talk pages.
• Posting a link to an external source that fits the commonly-accepted threshold for a personal attack. Suggesting a link applies to a person, or that another editor needs to visit a certain link, that contains the substance of an attack.
• Accusatory comments towards editors or people associated with the production of Doctor Who that 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."
• The denigration, derision or mockery of a cast or crew member — or really anyone — with negative epithets applied to their person. You can express negative views of their work on Doctor Who, or on this wiki, but you may not call them <insert a negative adjective or noun of your choice>, either here or elsewhere.

Examples that are not personal attacks

Users engaging in debate is an essential part of the culture of the Tardis Data Core. Assume good faith, be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements to avoid personalising them and try to minimise unnecessarily antagonistic comments. Disagreements with other editors can be discussed without resorting to personal attacks. It is important not to personalise 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.
• 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.
• Questioning/determining whether an author/publisher has a license to produce DWU work is not a personal attack. It is an important part of determining story validity.

Alternatives

• 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.

Resolutions

If you are personally attacked, you should ask the attacker to stop and note this policy. If they continue, contact an Administrator and clearly state the problem. The admin will evaluate the situation and attempt to mediate the issue.

In extreme cases, an attacker may be blocked, following an admin's assessment.

Equality

There may be certain users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behaviour in the past. Such users may have been subject to disciplinary actions by the Administrators. However, this is no excuse to engage in personal attacks against them.

Be civil

Maintain a civil atmosphere towards fellow users at all times, including in edit summaries (i.e. do not write removing crap, or undoing pointless info). Assume good faith, and remember that we were all new here at one time.