User:EatsShootsAndLeaves/NPAWorkshop

I personally take all accusations seriously.

This page is a workshop in order to try and better understand recent accusations that not only did I personally attack someone, it was "grossly" done. Although I appreciate the input of the community-at-large, this page is specifically intended to be a discussion between User:PantherLeapord‎ and myself in hopes that 2 editors can resolve conflict more readily.

One of the key elements is that accusing others of personal attacks without evidence is also a personal attack. This page therefore allows the clear presentation of evidence, and discussion thereof.

How to use this page

• Review the definitions of what constitutes a personal attack
• Each of those definitions is broken out in the Evidence and Discussion section. This is where clear, exact wording needs to be used in combination with diffs of where that behaviour occurred. In other words, what is the EXACT wording, where did it happen, and how does it violate.
• Once I have been advised that ALL evidence has been added, I will respond to each
• NOTE: only situations where you believe I have violated NPA against YOU are acceptable - this is a situation that you believe to be between you and I; what you perceive or believe to a trend is irrelevant - my goal is to work things out with you directly related to situations between you and I
• Note to casual onlookers: I reserve the right to remove your posts from this page, or to move them to its talkpage.

From WP:WIAPA

For reference purposes, here are the "simple" descriptions of what constitutes a personal attack. Although not exhaustive, these are the standards that attacks are often measured against.

1. Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.
2. Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be "you're a train spotter so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic. However, speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense.
3. Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.
4. Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)
5. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
6. Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor. For dispute resolution including how best to address the behavior of others, please follow WP:DR.
7. Threats, including, but not limited to:
   1. Threats of legal action
   2. Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats)
   3. Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages.
   4. Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by government, their employer or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.
   5. Threats to out (give out personal details about) an editor.

Evidence and Discussion

apparently I didn't do any of these
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1. Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets directed against another contributor Exact wording of violation Diffs of violation How is it a violation? 2. Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views Exact wording of violation Diffs of violation How is it a violation? 3. Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor Exact wording of violation Diffs of violation How is it a violation? 4. Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons Exact wording of violation Diffs of violation How is it a violation?

5. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence

Use your competence

Sub-heading added by ES&L

• Exact wording of violation: how about next time stop accusing me of failing to respond when I was offline for about 20 fucking minutes to pick up my child from the Doctor's office - you're smart enough to know how to check my contributions to see that I had made none since my last post to this noticeboard. WP:CIR around here, PL.

• Diffs of violation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=580522761&oldid=580522455

• How is it a violation? Accusing me of incompetence without evidence in my view a rather clear personal attack PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• • Response: My response was a direct response to this post of yours where you accused me of intentionally refusing to respond to your request. As I note in my statement, rather than verify that I was no longer online (which I quite clearly state that you ARE "smart enough to know how to" ...in other words, I call you competent), you attacked me. I didn't realize that saying you were smart was a personal attack. Nevertheless, your decision to accuse me of refusing to respond, when you could have found out that I was no longer online. My statement was quite clear and obvious in that you need to USE THE COMPETENCE THAT YOU HAVE, and was not calling you incompetent. ES&L 00:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

"I understand NPA just fine"

Sub-heading added by ES&L

• Exact wording of violation: Do you really believe that he has the slightest inkling of what WP:NPA actually says?

• Diffs of violation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&curid=5137507&diff=580532120&oldid=580532050

• How is it a violation? If you had looked at my contributions you would know well that I have been around long enough to have a firm understanding of what the policies say; especially WP:NPA PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• • Any editor of Wikipedia who has reviewed your contributions - especially on ANI, and on this page - know that you have no understanding of WP:NPA whatsoever. As such, the observation was 100% true. Just as in cases of slander, the absolute truth is an absolute defense - you have proven by your words and actions that you do not understand NPA whatsoever, and that you still do not understand it. This statement of mine is therefore fully justified and proven by the evidence on this page alone, and as such does not meet this definition of WIAPA ES&L 01:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't apply to me

Sub-heading added by ES&L

• Exact wording of violation: WP:CIR

• Diffs of violation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bencherlite&diff=prev&oldid=580526525 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Black_Kite&diff=prev&oldid=580526425

• How is it a violation? Again you accuse me of being incompetent without any evidence to back it up! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 08:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

• • I told Bencherlite and Black Kite that they had been "bad boys, as per WP:POLEMIC and WP:CIR" since they had been added to your bad list ... how on Earth does that somehow apply to you????? ES&L 01:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

didn't do these either
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
}} 6. Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page Exact wording of violation Diffs of violation How is it a violation? 7. Threats of legal action, violence, vandalism, exposure to outside influences, outing Exact wording of violation Diffs of violation How is it a violation?