వికీపీడియా:వ్యక్తిగత దాడులు కూడదు

గొప్ప మేధస్సులు ఆలోచనలను చర్చిస్తాయి; మధ్యమ మేధస్సులు సంఘటనలను చర్చిస్తాయి; చిన్నబుఱ్ఱలు వ్యక్తుల గురించి చర్చిస్తాయి.

— ఎలనార్ రూజ్‌వెల్ట్

'వికీపీడియాలో ఎక్కడైనా వ్యక్తిగత దూషణలు చేయవద్దు. విషయం పై వాఖ్యానించండి, విషయం చేర్చిన వాడుకరిపై కాదు'. వ్యక్తిగత దూషణలు మీరు చెప్పదలచుకున్నదానికి సహాయపడవు. వీటివళ్ళ ఒరిగేదేమీ లేదు. ఇవి వికీపీడియా సముదాయానికి నష్టం మాత్రమే కలుగజేస్తాయి. ఇవి సభ్యులు కలిసి ఒక మంచి విజ్ఞానసర్వస్వాన్ని తయారుచేయడంలో అడ్డుపడతాయి. ఇతర వాడుకరులపై చేసిన అసభ్యకరమైన వ్యాఖ్యలను ఏ వాడుకరి అయినా తొలగించవచ్చు. పదే పదే ఇతర వాడుకరులపై వ్యక్తిగత దూషణలకు దిగితే, వ్యక్తిగత దూషణలు చేసిన వాడుకరులు నిరోధానికి గురౌతారు.

వ్యక్తిగత దూషణలు ఎందుకు హానికరమైనవి

వికీపీడియాలో వ్రాస్తుండేవారు తరచూ వ్యాసాలలో తమ ధృక్కోణాన్ని పొందుపరచాలని అనుకొంటారు. తర్కబద్ధమైన చర్చల ద్వారా ఈ ధృక్కోణాలను కలిపి ఒకే వ్యాసంలో పొందుపరచవచ్చు. ఈ విధంగా తయారైన వ్యాసం అందరి దృష్టిని ప్రతిఫలించి, అందరికీ నిష్పక్షధోరణిలో ఉత్తమ వ్యాసంగా నిలుస్తుంది. ఇలా వ్యాసాలను దిద్దే ప్రతి వ్యక్తి ఒకే కోవకు చెందుతారు. మనమంతా వికీపీడియన్లము.

వ్యక్తిగత దూషణలు కూడదన్న నియమము అందరు వికీపీడియన్లకు సమానంగా వర్తిస్తుంది. ఇది వరకు మూర్ఖంగా లేదా దురుసుగా ప్రవర్తించిన చరిత్ర ఉన్న వాడుకరిపై కూడా వ్యక్తిగత దూషణలు చేయటం నిషిద్ధం. ఒక సాధారణ వికీపీడియనుపై వ్యక్తిగత దూషణలు చేయటం ఎంత తప్పో, నిరోధానికి, నిషేధానికి గురైన వాడుకరులపై వ్యక్తిగత దూషణలు చెయ్యటం కూడా అంతే తప్పు. వికీపీడియా ఒక మర్యాదపూర్వకమైన సముదాయాన్ని ప్రోత్సహిస్తుంది. వాడుకరులు తప్పులు చేస్తారు. అయితే వాటినుండి నేర్చుకొని తమ పద్ధతులను మార్చుకోవటానికి ప్రోత్సాహం ఇవ్వాలి. వ్యక్తిగత దాడులు ఈ స్ఫూర్తికి విరుద్ధం మరియు విజ్ఞానసర్వస్వ కృషికి అవరోధం.

వ్యక్తిగత దూషణలు జరగకుండా జాగ్రత్తపడటం

As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized. That is, they should be directed at content and actions rather than people.

In disputes, the word "you" should be avoided when possible. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack, but "The statement..." and "The paragraph inserted..." is preferred, or instead—"The paragraph inserted here [DIFF] into the article looks like original research", which also is not a personal attack, and avoids referring to the other editor in the second person; providing the DIFF also cuts down confusion. Similarly, discussion of a user's conduct or history is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (for example, the other editor's talk page, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or WP:Requests for comment/User conduct).

Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when describing disagreements. The appropriate response to an inflammatory statement is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy. Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. (See also: Incivility.)

ఎలాంటివి వ్యక్తిగత దూషణలుగా పరిగణించబడతాయి?

There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:

• 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.
• 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.
• Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.
• Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)
• Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki.
• 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.
• Threats, including, but not limited to:
  • Threats of legal action
  • Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats)
  • Threats of vandalism to userpages or talk pages.
  • 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.
  • Threats to out (give out personal details about) an editor.

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.

వ్యక్తిగత దూషణలకు ప్రతిచర్యలు

తొలి తప్పిదం మరియు చెదురుమొదరు సంఘటనలు

Sometimes the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is not to respond at all. Wikipedia and its debates can become stressful for some editors, who may occasionally overreact. Additionally, Wikipedia discussions are in a text-only medium that conveys nuances and emotions poorly; this can easily lead to misunderstanding. While personal attacks are not excused because of these factors, editors are encouraged to disregard angry and ill-mannered postings of others when it is reasonable to do so, and to continue to focus their efforts on improving and developing the encyclopedia.

Discussion of behavior in an appropriate forum, (e.g. user's talk page or Wikipedia noticeboard) does not in itself constitute a personal attack.

If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Avoid responding on a talk page of an article; this tends to escalate matters. Likewise, it is important to avoid becoming hostile and confrontational yourself, even in the face of abuse. Although templates have been used at times for this purpose, a customized message relating to the specific situation is often better received. When possible, try to find compromise or common ground regarding the underlying issues of content, rather than argue about behavior.

Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly racist or sexist insults) should not be ignored. Extraordinary situations that require immediate intervention are rare, but may be reported on the administrators' noticeboard.

Recurring attacks

Recurring, non-disruptive personal attacks that do not stop after reasoned requests to cease can be resolved through informal mediation and third-party opinions. In most circumstances, problems with personal attacks can be resolved if editors work together and focus on content, and immediate administrator action is not required.

Removal of text

There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The {{RPA}} template can be used for this purpose.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors (outing), go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project whether or not they are directed at you. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate.

Off-wiki attacks

Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.

External links

For policies related to attacks against living persons in general, whether or not they edit Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.

Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia for the purpose of attacking another person who edits Wikipedia is never acceptable. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any person who edits Wikipedia through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate critique. Inclusion of links in articles is a matter for sound editorial judgment.

The interpretation of this rule is complex. See Wikipedia:Linking to external harassment for guidance on interpretation.

Consequences of personal attacks

Although editors are encouraged to ignore or respond politely to isolated personal attacks, that should not imply that they are acceptable. A pattern of hostility reduces the likelihood of the community assuming good faith, and can be considered disruptive editing. Users who insist on a confrontational style marked by personal attacks are likely to become involved in the dispute resolution process, and may face serious consequences through arbitration.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Death threats and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow. However, administrators are cautioned that other resolutions are preferable to blocking for less-severe situations when it is unclear if the "conduct severely disrupts the project". Recurring attacks are proportionally more likely to be considered "disruption". Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment. A block may be warranted if it seems likely that the user will continue using personal attacks.

See also

Listen to this page (info/dl)

noicon

Spoken Wikipedia

This audio file was created from a revision of the "వ్యక్తిగత దాడులు కూడదు" article dated 2009-03-05, and does not reflect subsequent edits to the page. (Audio help)

More spoken pages

• Ad hominem
• Wikipedia:Attack page
• Wikipedia:Bullying
• Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks
• Wikipedia:Candor
• Wikipedia:Competence is required
• Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals
• Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion
• Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot