Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Personal attacks (old)

As the debate nears its close, I wanted to point everyone towards How to create policy and specifically the sections about policy being general, non-specific, non-numeric, etc.

That is to say, I'd ask a lot of the people who are objecting to reconsider - Wikipedia has traditionally shunned things like fixed numbers of times, exact limits on the number of personal attacks that can be made, etc, etc, etc. Snowspinner 00:51, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out to everyone that How to create policy is principally the views of one user (meaning no offense to that user -- he had intellectual honesty to note as much himself), augmented by edits from about five others, and that it was first created less than two months ago.


 * As far as people asking for fixed numbers, it may be because they see the potential for abuse in leaving so very much about this policy's use to the subjectivity of a sysop acting alone. -- orthogonal 02:11, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question: this puts a good deal of power in the hands of sysops. Is there any way for a non-sysop to request someone be blocked under this policy? What if the requester is not viewed well--what provisions are there that all users are protected by this policy, not just the popular? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:11, 2004 Aug 19 (UTC)


 * Were I a non-sysop looking for enforcement of this policy, I'd probably use RfC or the mailing list. As for the popular/all users distinction... I'm personally of the opinion that the sysops can be trusted. If a user is unfairly blocked under this, I would imagine they could post to the mailing list and someone would reverse the block, at which point they could request comment on the rogue sysop. Snowspinner 22:25, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * What I meant was this: let's say someone personally attacks Anthony DiPerro. I think his claim against that person would be challenged much quicker than if, say, Jwrosenzweig made the same complaint. I'm not trying to bring up personal issues, merely show that this policy lends itself to selective enforcement, especially because the procedure is so ill-defined. And personally, I don't trust all sysops, especially in the area of personal attacks, where it seems a lot of people are pricklier than in the actual articles. Moreover, this could lead to all sorts of negative consequences. For instance, there would be every incentive to bait opponents into attacking, encouraging "toeing the line" behavior. I think most personal attacks can be settled through mediation and arbitration; if it's so one-sided that this policy can take effect without banning both participants, then some other rule will be broken. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:40, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)


 * What about thoes of us who don't use either?Geni 19:14, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Those of you who use neither can go through the same process that exists for protesting any other block, and which is spelled out on the page you get when you are blocked. Snowspinner 19:40, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's a fair concern, and I won't deny it. The flip side, though, is that there's no way to make mediation compulsory. And arbitration is slow. I don't think sysops should replace these procedures... but on the other hand, I see no reason a problem should be allowed to fester for weeks or months while it winds its way through a slow procedure. And, while I agree that some sysops might be harsh, I do have faith that they would eventually be reprimanded by the arbcom, which has generally looked pretty harshly at sysop abuse. So I guess the question is which thing you want to be bogged down in the arbcom - a lot of problem users, or a lot of problem sysops. I think, as it stands, problem users are a much bigger problem. Snowspinner 18:01, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * There is a potential for abuse, of course. There is a potential for abuse in ANYTHING.  But in this case, I think the potential is an acceptable trade-off for being able to cut down on the huge problem of problem users and personal attacks.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  20:40, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * What huge problem? Can you give some examples? Who are these problem users in your opinion? Thanks. -- orthogonal 02:43, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * No, I won't name names, because I don't want to start a big fight. There are many users who try to act legitimate whilst throwing around crude, crude personal attacks on a regular basis, or making stupid stupid stupid edits to articles and TEMPLATES especially.  I'm just sick of these types of users having free reign to do destructive, trollish, and stupid things without fear of penalty.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  05:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Ok, this proposed policy addresses personal attacks, but how does it address those "making stupid stupid stupid edits to articles and TEMPLATES especially" or those who "do destructive, trollish, and stupid things without fear of penalty"? Stupidity (and even destructive trolling) isn't a personal attack. Or do you see this proposal as allowing sysop blocking for personal attacks and for general stupidity? I understand you're frustrated by stupidy, but are frustrated people the best people to be blocking users?
 * Sysops are after all human; an RfA vote does not confer on anyone angelic compassion or even angelic patience. Since this policy allows blocking at the sole discretion of any (possibly frustrated) sysop, do you not expect that emotions will lead to blocking that has more to do with a sysop's mood than with the blocked user's actions? -- orthogonal 07:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't imagine this policy would be any more abused than the existing aspects of the blocking policy such as "disruption" and "vandalism." Are you objecting to blocking for personal attacks, or to a blocking policy at all? Snowspinner 14:25, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * But that wasn't my question to blankfaze. Let me re-state: what constitutes a personal attck under this policy? Or see my question, below. -- orthogonal 14:59, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks was kind of the guideline I was assuming regarding this question. Snowspinner 15:27, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, orthogonal, No personal attacks is the only thing this policy is using to define personal attack. I was just expressing my personal feelings above.  I don't think we should stop here.  I think admins ought to be able to issue cool-down blocks for mere disruptive action as well.  blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  16:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question:
Snowspinner, the author of this proposed policy, complains that my linking from my user page to a comment by Snowspinner left on my talk page "borders on" a personal attack.

I here reproduce Snowspinner's complaint in full (emphasis mine):
 * I would appreciate if you removed the "Read how Snowspinner feels about votes against him" link from your userpage. As a gross misrepresentation of my views, I find it offensive, and to border on being a personal attack, which is inappropriate anywhere on Wikipedia, and especially inappropriate as a prominant and permanant link from your userpage' .

The link to which Snowspinner objects is to a lecture left on my talk by Snowspinner; in other words, the "personal attack" Snowspinner complains of consists solely in linking to Snowspinner's own words, which begin:
 * I notice that you seem to break with the "crowd" on a lot of votes on Wikipedia.

The link that Snowspinner objects to is reproduced here: Read how Snowspinner feels about votes against him

My question is this: can Snowspinner, who was written this proposed policy, clarify if it covers "personal attacks" such as the linking Snowspinner complains of?

If this policy passes, can linking to a user's own words be considered a personal attack on that user? Can I or anyone else be blocked by a sysop for such linking?

Since the "personal attack" in question is a link on my user page, under this policy would I be blocked for 24 hours, or would I be blocked indefinitely until I agreed to remove the "personal attack" from my user page? Or would the blocking sysop edit my user page to remove the "personal attack" after blocking me?

Can Snowspinner clarify how a link to Snowspinner's own words "borders on" a personal attack (Snowspinner has so far ignored my request for this clarification), and what changes would make it cross that border in either direction, making it clearly a personal attack, or clearly not a personal attack?

If this proposed policy is to be uniformly and fairly applied, it's essential we all know, before voting on it what it covers, and since here we have a test case that involves the proposal's author's claims of "personal attack", this seems to me to be an excellent opportunity to ask how this proposed policy would be enforced. -- orthogonal 14:59, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I like how you change "borderline personal attack" to "personal attack" for the purposes of this question. It's cute. As I have actually said, my objection was never to the linking, but to the misrepresentation of what I said. Obviously, under the policy, I could do nothing regarding this because I was involved in the dispute. Were this a dispute between two other users, I would not block for personal attacks, because I don't think the link actually constitutes a personal attack. I think the link is offensive, in poor taste, and that if you were interested in consensus and community building you'd remove it. But it's not a personal attack.


 * Given the hypothetical that it was a personal attack, the policy would not allow an indefinite ban for it. One could act under Remove personal attacks, which, while not policy, has been endorsed by the arbcom in some situations, I suppose, and if the personal attack was re-inserted, one could, I suppose, put in another temp block. But, really, why do that when you can send the matter to the arbcom? This policy wasn't intended to provide permanant disciplinary solutions to problem users. It was intended to give a way of breaking up specific disputes without page protections, and to provide just enough negative consequences to dissuade users from making personal attacks. (Something that, frankly, there currently aren't, because of the difficulty in a prosecution for personal attacks) The policy is set to provide slaps on the wrist - not to provide permanant solutions to long-term problem users.


 * As I said above, No personal attacks seems to lay out what a personal attack is pretty well.


 * I will do a quick edit of the proposed policy, however, to link to the existing personal attacks policy, and to reiterate that this is not for long-term solutions. Snowspinner 15:27, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

I consider this proposal too vague, thus open for all kinds of abuse. I agree on all the points, but I’d add an abuse safeguard policy that the block can only be enforced if four or more admins agree, as well that the block can’t be enforced if four or more admins disagree. Also, the maximum duration of the block should be defined and certainly no more than one week. For everything longer the Arbcom should be used. GeneralPatton 00:02, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I know I said discussion should be on the talk page, but this is my policy proposal, dammit. :)


 * And clearly, there are certain classes of users to whom the rules don't apply. ;) Which is precisely why giving so much discretion to sysops troubles me.


 * I also note that this proposal changes policy: currently, No Personal Attacks suggests blocking only for repeated violations; this proposed policy would block immediately. So this is not mere enforcement of an existing policy, it's a change to that existing policy. -- orthogonal 19:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * That is flatly untrue. The policy says "after warning" and "repeated personal attacks." It does not authorize blocks after a single personal attack, and is entirely consistent with the personal attacks policy in this regard. Snowspinner 00:34, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

In any case, I've made some touchups to Administrators. Note that there is a procedure in place to hold sysops accountable - it's called the arbitration committee, and it has desysopped people in the past, and also put restrictions on sysop powers for certain sysops. I'm also, as soon as I finish this post, I'm going to make some existing policy about block reversal more clear on the blocking policy page. That said, if someone has a better proposal, I'd love to see someone make it. Snowspinner 16:14, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * How many sysops were desysopped by the committee? Most, if not all, members of the committee are themselves sysops, and there is a natural tendency to protect each other. Gzornenplatz 16:21, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * I think you're wrong about that, honestly. Most of the long-standing and trusted members of Wikipedia are sysops. There's over a hundred of them. To that extent, sysophood is almost a prerequisite for membership to the arbitration committee - since we pretty much make a sysop out of anyone who seems like a trustworthy guy, it's very unlikely that someone who is not a sysop could ever get onto the arbcom. Which makes sense. But, honestly, with a group that large, it's tough to have any sort of consent or groupwide support. It's just too many people. There are sysops who disagree with each other. There are sysops who think other sysops should be desysopped or banned. There are sysops who frequently unblock other sysop's blocks more or less on sight. The sysops are not a unified force at all. And, quite honestly, the current arbcom represents a fairly ban-unfriendly portion of the sysops. That is to say, the arbcom is not that fond of long bans, and is not at all fond of sysops who don't toe the line. They've only desysopped one person to date, but about six or seven are on "Don't make another bad block" probation. And if there's further abuse, it's just a matter of submitting it to the arbcom, and I'm pretty confident they'd be desysopped. One thing that people forget about the arbcom is that it only rules when asked. Often, the reason no ruling has been made against a user is simply that no one has bothered to make the case to the arbcom that the user is a problem.Snowspinner 16:59, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think the ArbCom works very well. Sysops should be made accountable to the larger community. We should allow a certain minimum number of people to file a motion of no confidence in a sysop, and then use a secret voting process like for the Arbitration Committee (everyone who is here for 3 months can vote). If the sysop then has less than 60% support, he should be desysopped. Gzornenplatz 17:30, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * Then make the proposal. Snowspinner 00:31, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure it's an arbcom job, unless you want the arbcom flooded with every crank who's fallen afoul of an admin, and there are plenty - David Gerard 19:01, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I would assume the arbcom would reject the request in this case. Snowspinner

--

(I wasn't sure where to add this, but wanted to add my thoughts on some of the objections [in the vote])... Admins can already ban for "simple vandalism", and already have to decide what exactly constitutes simple vandalism - with the potential for abuse that entails. This is a similar situation in my view - we would be able to ban for "simple attacks", and while that could lead to some undeserved or overly harsh bans, the majority of admins will be fully able to decide what is a personal attack and what is not. For those who do ban unfairly, under this rule or the standing "vandalism" rule, we need clearer admin review policies. But we shouldn't hold up this while getting those policies in place - any more than we should stop blocking someone who insists on telling us that "Josh is gay", because of the potential for overly harsh blocks for sub-vandalism. The point above that some admins have been guilty of personal attacks is, in my view, an argument for the proposal. While admins are able to remove a block, I would think that a dim view should be taken of any admin who does so when blocked under this rule. And perhaps knowing that a block can happen will play a big part in stopping such attacks happening in the first place. Certainly I think this policy is worth a try -- sannse (talk) 11:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

rejected and semi-policy
The argument that "blocks for personal attacks happen, therefore this is semi-policy" seems unconvincing. Consider: personal attacks happen, and those charged with enforcing the policy against them occasionally endorse them; if a page endorsing the value of personal attacks (say, Make personal attacks) existed, could it therefore be tagged as "semi-policy"? Or should the frequency of personal attacks be taken as a sign that something is wrong? &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 00:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that "make personal attacks" would run into some problems as semi-policy, because it's tough to make the case for a blanket imperative to make personal attacks. On the other hand, if someone added a discussion of how "true" personal attacks play out in practice to WP:NPA, that would be fine. Then again, I'm a descriptivist. Snowspinner 13:20, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * How about Make personal attacks when appropriate? Several people have made a case for that; cf. Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks. Could such a page be tagged as semi-policy? &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 01:08, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think you'd find any meaningful support for a directive to make personal attacks. Appropriate personal attacks MIGHT be possible. But to move to an imperative to make personal attacks does not reflect practice or consensus. Snowspinner 02:20, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)