Thread:Airstrikerable/@comment-7697305-20140112174615/@comment-7697305-20140126025735

Hmm, missed responding to this one earlier for some reason. Sorry 'bout the delay.

(Note that I'm not speaking generally here: I agree with your points in principle, but I just don't think that they apply in this specific case.)

I already explained why I did not think that that thread was intended as a legitimate question (and thus why I took it as pure disruption, why I deleted it, etc.). However, I do agree that it was a mistake on my part to not at least link Airstrikerable to the thread which he created back when the incident was still fresh to show him that his question had already been answered. I apologize for not doing this.

I understand that there are some times where expressing dislike for another user is reasonable (eg. if Airstrikerable had announced that he was leaving this wiki and cited hating Ultraman as a reason, then that wouldn't really be a problem). I also understand that "I hate you" is not really a direct insult. However, I don't believe that direct insults are all that SP:NPA was meant to prohibit. In particular, the statement under "What is considered a personal attack?" which reads, "Editors should be civil when stating disagreements. Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people." indicates to me that personalizing most issues in that way and to that extent is, if not strictly (ie. to the extent that it is worth a block) forbidden, at least highly discouraged. In the hypothetical situation I described above, not liking Ultraman would be a reason for a choice; in reality, Airstrikerable brought up an administrative decision in the thread in question, but titled it in such a way that it was directed at Ultraman himself rather than Ultraman's decision. As such, I felt that it was in violation of the policy.