Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Personal attacks (old)

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)

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 | (беседа!) 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 | (беседа!) 05:21, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ok, this proposed policy addresses personal attacks, but how does it address tjose "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)