Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Personal attacks/Archive

For the time being, direct all discussion to the Discussion section of the proposal page.

What to do with this page?

It's been sitting around for months without much activity. Should it be:

• Retired? It doesn't have much support—or much opposition, for that matter.
• Advertised? Few links here exist, and most are from the first go-round, so it's probably been overlooked.
• Put to a vote? But the discussion is hardly over.

Thoughts? —Charles P. ^(Mirv) 16:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm indifferent at the moment. Retired seems awfully final. Perhaps put to rest for a bit. I think the arbcom has been responsible for quite an effective crackdown of late, and that the immediate circumstance that required a policy like this may well have passed. I also think, surprisingly, that the 3RR blocking has proved helpful here. So I don't know that I want to retire it. On the other hand, I don't know that I think pushing it to discussion or vote right now serves any purpose. So I think my vote is to leave it hanging here without much activity. :) Snowspinner 16:32, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

survey

Rather than edit war over whether this is {{notpolicy}} or {{semipolicy}}, perhaps we should hold a survey to gauge community opinion on the matter. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

m:Polls are evil. Though while you're starting discussion, I would point out that unaccepted community practice is the very definition of semi-policy. Non-policy describes things that are both unaccepted and not practiced. Blocking for personal attacks, in practice, is sometimes accepted. Sometimes not. It's misleading to apply a tag to this that suggests it's never acceptable to block for personal attacks. Snowspinner 14:34, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

If you have a better way of judging community opinion on this, I'd like to hear it. In the meantime it's misleading to claim that all of the opposition to this practice counts for nothing, and that sysops shouldn't feel constrained in blocking people for personal attacks. Please also note that Wikipedia:Blocking policy, which is an official policy, says "The list above is widely considered to be an exhaustive list of the situations that warrant blocking. Blocking should not be used in any other circumstances, unless there is exceptional widespread community support." (emphasis mine) —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:37, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Please also note that since well before this was proposed policy, WP:NPA noted that "In extreme cases, you can request the attacker be blocked." Presumably this exists because, you know, someone might actually do it. And I'm not saying that sysops shouldn't feel constrained - they should. Semi-policy isn't policy, and it's not trying to be. What it is trying to be is an acknowledgement that Wikipedia does not work the same way every day. There are a very few rules that apply every day on every issue, and a whole lot that sometimes apply and sometimes don't, depending on the situation, the people weighing in, and, seemingly, blind chance and luck. So as a way of judging community opinion, I'd note that a 24 hour block on John Gohde for personal attacks recently stood, whereas one on Xiong did not. Looks to me like they're sometimes acceptable, sometimes not. Which is to say, looks to me like they're in the gray area. Snowspinner 14:42, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

That statement was added a few weeks before the original proposal of this policy, by a supporter of this policy who used the slightly misleading edit summary "reword last paragraph". It was never discussed on Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks, and the proposal to allow blocking in cases of personal attacks didn't pass, as you well know. That statement ought to be removed, not cited as evidence. Meanwhile I'm still waiting for your method of judging community opinion on this; two isolated cases are, I think you will agree, not really representative. —Charles P. (Mirv) 14:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

My method of judging is practical observation of the fact that there is no consensus on a uniform rule for blocking over personal attacks, but that it's sometimes considered allowable. And as for the addition of the statement, perhaps [1] from five days earlier in which an even harsher statement was moved around the article is instructive too. Snowspinner 15:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

That's a description, not a mandate, and the part about blocking was likewise added with a misleading edit summary and no discussion. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:06, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you may have used the wrong diff there - it looks to me like that diff is David adding a note that edit summaries are particularly ill-regarded, with an edit summary saying exactly that. In any case, the ban/block note has been in place at least since [2], which means it's been in place for a year - probably well past the time where complaining about the edit summary makes sense. Snowspinner 15:09, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

And adding "blocked or" to "users have been banned. . .", which is why I thought it misleading. In any case the proposal to allow blocking policy for personal attacks failed. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Hence my not tagging this page official policy. It failed, despite having, at closing, around 60% support. It's done in practice at times. It's been long-supported by NPA itself. This is enough to at least put it in the gray area of "Think long and hard about this and be aware that you'll set off a shitstorm." Snowspinner 15:14, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

It failed. Yes. The proposal to allow sysops to block for personal attacks did not have anything remotely resembling consensus. One might think that means "don't do this", not "do it if you think you can get away with it". We don't use Wikipedia:Preliminary deletion. Sysops are not supposed to block for "trolling"; the last time that happened, it set off a shitstorm that required Jimbo to step in to prevent the arbcom from ending up with severe facial ovitis. We don't use policy proposals that don't pass.

Now, I will reiterate: rather than engage in these gnostic interpretations of past actions and policy pages, why don't we ask the community what it thinks? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is too big for polls and democracy now. Because it won't do anything but give another near 50/50 result. Because policy and conduct has gotten local and case specific, and the time for big policy shifts has pretty much passed. And because I genuinely believe that tagging this as a gray area accurately reflects the community right now far better than tagging it as black or white does. Snowspinner 15:48, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying we should go ahead and do things even if they face the opposition of ~50% of the community? That's a novel view. —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:59, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

p.s. Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement passed 159-28, and that was an enormous policy shift. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

And I've said before, will almost certainly be the last of its kind. Snowspinner 16:06, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

You'll never know until you try, and if you really believe the actions enjoy sufficient community support, why don't you want to try? It's certainly better that trying to redefine a clearly rejected proposal as something that is sometimes allowed. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

And to reiterate, since you seem to have overlooked it: Do you really believe that a proposal that would face the opposition of ~50% of the community should be treated as something that is allowed? That is a novel view. —Charles P. (Mirv) 16:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

No, of course not. But I'm not saying it should be allowed. That's not what semi-policy means at all. Snowspinner 16:27, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

So you're saying it should be treated as "sometimes allowable", then, even though you don't believe it would command more than a slim majority of support if put to a vote? That too is a novel view. —Charles P. (Mirv) 13:06, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'm really sick of personal attacks. Not only are they worthless and assanine - they are coutnerproductive due to ad hominem logical fallacy. Some people have really out-there beliefs founded solely on crazy ad hominem attacks like Tom DeLay has a reputation for making in his congressional speeches. Really, this has to go - other people shouldn't have to waste their time because of this behavior. I think a punitive policy like this would make wikipedia more efficient and productive, and better quality. And I've always been a fan of the idea that the policies are too lax. I think a lot of good users get lost because a few bad users annoy them off - and if we could prevent that, we'd have a lot more users. Kevin Baas^{talk: new} 17:34, 2005 May 14 (UTC)