ৱিকিপিডিয়া:ব্যক্তিগত আক্ৰমণ নকৰিব

এই পৃষ্ঠাত অসমীয়া ৱিকিপিডিয়াৰ কেতবোৰ নীতি সন্নিৱিষ্ট কৰা হৈছে। সকলো সম্পাদকে এইবোৰ সাধাৰণতে মানি চলা উচিত। ইয়াত কৰা সালসলনিত ঐকমত্য প্ৰতিফলন হোৱা উচিত।

চমুপথবোৰ: WP:PERSONAL WP:NPA WP:PA

সংক্ষেপে এই পৃষ্ঠাখন: Comment on the content, not on the contributor.

“	Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.	”
—Eleanor Roosevelt

ৱিকিপিডিয়াৰ ক'তোৱেই ব্যক্তিগত আক্ৰমণ নকৰিব৷ অৱদানকাৰীৰ ওপৰত মন্তব্য নকৰি কেৱল সমলৰ ওপৰতহে মন্তব্য কৰিব৷ ব্যক্তিগত আক্ৰমণে কেতিয়াও কোনো এটা বিষয়ৰ সমাধানত উপনিত হোৱাত আপোনাক সহায় নকৰে, সেইটোৱে কেৱল এখন ভাল বিশ্বকোষ তৈয়াৰ কৰাৰ ক্ষেত্ৰত ৱিকিপিডিয়া সম্প্ৰদায়ক মনোকষ্ট দিয়াৰ লগতে ব্যৱহাৰকাৰীসকলক নিৰুৎসাহহে কৰিব৷ অন্য অৱদানকাৰীৰ কোনো ইতিকিং বা অৱমাননাসূচক মন্তব্য যিকোনো সম্পাদকে আঁতৰাই দিয়া উচিত৷ নাইবা বাৰে বাৰে কৰি থকা ইতিকিং বা ব্যক্তিগত আক্ৰমণৰ অৱৰোধ কৰি দিয়া উচিত৷

ব্যক্তিগত আক্ৰমণ কিয় ক্ষতিকাৰক

Contributors are often members of opposing communities, and wish to have their viewpoints included in articles. Through reasoned debate, contributors can synthesize these views into a single article, and this creates a better, more নিৰপেক্ষ article for everyone. Every person who edits an article is part of the same larger community — we are all ৱিকিপিডিয়ান.

The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a যোগাত্মক অলনাইন সমাজ: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia.

ব্যক্তিগত আক্ৰমণ এৰাই চলক

নীতিৰ সংক্ষিপ্ত: WP:AVOIDYOU

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 মৌলিক গৱেষণা", is not a personal attack. Or sometimes you could say instead—"The paragraph inserted here [DIFF] into the article looks like মৌলিক গৱেষণা", 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 is not in itself a personal attack when done in the appropriate forum for such discussion (e.g. the user's talk page, WP:WQA, WP:ANI).

Editors should be শিষ্টাচাৰী 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: অশিষ্টাচাৰীতা.)

কিহক ব্যক্তিগত আক্ৰমণ বুলি গণ্য কৰা হয়?

চমুপথ: WP:NPA#WHATIS

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, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor. 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 although pointing out an editor's relevant আদৰ্শৰ বিবাদ and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, 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.
Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Sometimes evidence is kept private and made available to trusted users.
Threats, including, but not limited to:

আইনী ভাবুকি
Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats)
Threats of ধ্বংসপ্ৰৱণতা 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 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.

Responding to personal attacks

First offenses and isolated incidents

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.

If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Do not respond 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.

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, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack.

Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly racist or misogynistic 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 should be resolved through the মতবিৰোধ সমাধান process. Especially when personal attacks arise as the result of heated debate over article content, informal mediation and third-party opinions are often the best ways to resolve the conflict. Similarly, Wikiquette alerts offers a "streamlined" source of outside opinion. 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

নীতিৰ সংক্ষিপ্ত: WP:RPA

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}} or {{Nono}} templates 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 even if 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

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 or without consequences. 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, such as being subjected to a community ban.

In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption. Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning. 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.

Blocking for personal attacks

Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted.
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, typically starting with 24 hours.