Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Personal attack intervention noticeboard (0th nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Keep. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 23:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal attack intervention noticeboard
This page (WP:PAIN) was created over a month ago without discussion; it has not been used even once. In addition, it is contradictory to Wikipedia blocking policy, given that blocking may not be applied explictly due to personal attacks or other insults (several proposals attempting to introduce the new criteria have failed). In addition, this page promotes the image of a "cabal" - get someone else to block someone who you dislike. In any case, this page will ultimately do more good than harm and encourage the blocking of people without any attempt to resolve the issue first just for making personal attacks, contradicting policy. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 00:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The first line in this article's talk page refers to where this was discussed.
 * Unhealthy obsession with blocking, eh? The page says, "Do nothing, warn them again, or block the user in question as you think is required. Explain things carefully to the user who listed the attacker if you feel there's been a misunderstanding."
 * The templates explicitly say that the block is being applied for disruption, which is per policy.
 * Recent discussions on ANI show support for action of this type as well.
 * A cabal would use an IRC channel. This is the opposite of that.  brenneman (t) (c)  01:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I see little discussion before it was created on October 7 &mdash; your post on September 30 recieved no input until today. In either case, I don't think that's relevant except to demonstrate that this has undergone little discussion and has not gained the appropriate community consensus to be implemented now, if ever.
 * The point of this page (which is copied from WP:AIV) seems pretty clear to me: to block users who have made personal attacks. I'm certainly not condoning people who say rude or offensive things or saying that blocks of these people are wrong; I'm saying that setting up a system to manage the blocking of users only for making personal attacks is, in my opinion, inappropriate, given that we do not have a criteria for blocking these users. Several proposals have failed in the past.
 * Pointing to the "disruption" clause doesn't make sense; if someone's disrupting something, then s/he's either a vandal or POV pusher. The vast majority, if not all, of personal attack-ersfall into one of the categories. We have other methods to take handle these things, including a dispute resolution process. It makes no sense to use a term meant to be applied generally to a specific part of a proposal that has failed several times.
 * The discussion shows that blocking users solely for personal attacks is extremely controversial. In the example cited, the block was warranted more for disruption rather than personal attacks. While personal attacks may constitute a part of disruption, personal attacks alone cannot (explicitly) warrant a block. In either case, we shouldn't be trying to apply a specific case to a generalization here.
 * What I'm saying is that this gives the very negative impression of admin abuse, encouraging people who are involved in some sort of dispute to take this here. We're asking involved parties to take further action against other parties.
 * Many thanks for listening to this long rant. :-) As always, I value and respect your opinions. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 01:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * May I just point out that blocks for personal attacks do happen, and have happened for quite some time? They're somewhat controversial, though. See Blocking policy/Personal attacks. That is also where to find the discussion that led to the creation of WP:PAIN. That said I am not sure this page is a good idea but would be happy to discuss that. And as with all serious but possibly flawed proposals, keep. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 16:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If this page is poorly advertised, notify other editors in the usual places.  If it is not grounded in policy or results in ill-advised admin action, use our usual mechanisms for admin misconduct. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:46, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per TenOfAllTrades. -- Antaeus Feldspar 07:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete bad policy, overemphasies blocking people at the expense of cooperative dispute resolution. Klonimus 08:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that this isn't a policy page. We have WP:BP. Dmcdevit·t 04:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't agree with it but that isn't a good reason to delete the page. --Tony Sidaway Talk  13:01, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. If admins blocking editors they're having a dispute with is wrong, what's wrong with a place for outside opinions as to proper actions -- and allowing others to enact or reject said actions? Also, this is transparency in action compared to e-mails, IRC, or even user pages. --Calton | Talk 01:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, but perhaps rename. While personal attacks are not a blockable offense by policy, the cited case is a clear incident of disruption, and disruption is somethng that merits blocking. As the recent case in WP:AN involving El C showed, it's better to leave blocking to a third-party admin. So, the incident is listed on WP:PAIN. Also, it's a safeguard: if the third-party admin does not believe that the reported user engaged in disruption of Wikipedia, he removes the listing, as non-vandalism is removed from WP:AIV. Besides, it is a serious proposal, we don't just delete these, folks! Tito xd (?!?) 20:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Titoxd.--Sean|Bla ck 05:52, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.