Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy/Personal attacks/Archive 2

message: I'm going to lead a bit of a segue off into philosophical territory, here.  I am curious as to how people would answer the following question:
:What is the purpose and intent of blocking?
Overall, our goal is to produce a top-notch, neutral, thorough, detailed, relevant encyclopedia.  Blocking–like everything we do here–must somehow be a means to that end.
By blocking vandals we preserve the quality of Wikipedia content.  By blocking after 3RR violations, we hope to chill revert wars before they persist.  In blocking editors who insist on making repeated personal attacks, presumably we would make Wikipedia editing more pleasant for our polite contributors and so retain their interest, effort, and support.
Blocking should not be used as a punishment tool alone.  That leads to accusations of an admin cabal, personal vendettas, and assorted other unpleasantnesses.  It should be carried out as a means to an end—to improve Wikipedia (or at least prevent its decline.)  Not so long ago, an editor was complaining that following a report on AN/3RR nobody had been blocked despite the notice being up for a full week.  I would suggest that this is a good thing; not that the report was neglected, but that no block was carried out after the dust settled.  If the revert war settled down without admin intervention or blocking, then a block would serve no purpose but to create further animosity.
We should be similarly careful here.  After two warnings, a third personal attack should lead to a fairly prompt blocking, if one is to be carried out.  Temporary blocks shouldn't be seen as punishment, rather they are a way to (bluntly!) apply social pressure.  Might I suggest an escalating scale by incident, with a (mandatory?) referral to RfC or RfAr following a certain number of blocks?  Some new editors are just plain clueless, and a short block (1 to 3 hours) to show that our policies have teeth could be enough to scare them straight.
Based on the two warnings followed by blocking model proposed, perhaps something like the following schedule?
#First personal attack: Polite warning
#Second attack: Stern warning
#Third attack: Block for up to 3 hours
#Fourth attack: Block for up to 24 hours
#Fifth attack: Block for up to 3 days
#Sixth attack: Block for up to 7 days
Any thoughts? --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Purpose of blocks? 

message: :Can just anybody issue a warning?  I've seen situations where person A says "That statements is a violation of Wikipedia's No personal attack policy", and person B responds "Your saying that is a personal attack on me". Jayjg (talk) 18:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you claiming that no one has ever made snide personal comments while warning a person? Don't expect people to listen to warnings from others who do not warn in a civil manner.  Many people simple stop reading a message as soon as they see it contains a personal attack, especially when the message is long because it's simply unproductive. --AI 05:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Neither should be abolished if none have been warned yet. A gradient scale as above should be applied. --AI 05:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who can warn?

message: Ideally on their talk page, but you are allowed to revert your talk page.  So if someone is warned repeatedly, and manage to remove the warning quickly enough, multiple warnings might not be noticed.  Guettarda 20:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Where to warn?

message: This proposal has entirely too much instruction creep.  I mean things like trigger mechanisms, punishment schedules, who can do this, who can do that and when, an "official template" to use, etc.  
Further, why would we block users for personal attacks if we're not even in consensus that we should "block" (remove) the attacks themselves?
Wouldn't it be more productive and useful to seek consensus that repeated personal attacks are vandalism and disruption of Wikipedia, both already blockable offenses?  
We don't need instruction creep; otherwise, we'll end up with so many policies that administrators will have to pass the Wikibar exam to get their admin licenses.  
Having said all that, I think a suggested schedule of escalating enforcement measures, placed in an easily accessable location, could be very useful to admins to help make enforcement decisions.  --Unfocused 16:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block users, yet leave the attacks themselves? 

message: I like the new policy proposal. It shines, it glows (hi, radiant).
How soon does it go into effect? Do we have to vote on it, or something? -- Uncle Ed (talk) July 1, 2005 15:47 (UTC)
:Uncle Ed, I haven't studied this new policy, only the proposed "definition" of what is a personal attack.  That definition gets my vote of support. --AI 09:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Civility to be enforced

message: This Blocking Policy is not an yet an official policy and it states:What is a personal attack"Tough call, and a pure definition is not going to work. However, we can make some guidelines. In particular, adding such tags as 'POV', 'cleanup' or even 'Delete' to an article is never a personal attack.Personal attacks include, but are not limited to, false or unverifiable statements that would diminish the credibility of an editor were they true. They range from absurd name-calling ("George is a pimple") to false accusations ("Matilda is a fraud"). Similarly, they may be implicit ("The despots here…"). Derogatory humour only avoids being a personal attack if the subject agrees that it is funny.Wikipedia:Blocking policy/Personal attacks#What is a personal attackI agree with this proposed definition. Usage of POV, cleanup, Delete and similar editorial terms are acceptable. Furthermore, official policy WP:NPA currently states:"Comment on content, not on the contributor."WP:NPA#Don't do it Official Wikipedia policyThat is Wikipedia's only current hint of any official policy "definition" of a personal attack. The definition in both policies should match eachother by editing both to the same wording. Personal comments are not allowable. Civil contributors can discuss content without ever making any type of personal remark, whether it is a comment or an attack. For example, "Idiosyncratic" refering to a person's style, attitude, interpretation, ideas, etc, is not acceptable. BTW, what do we do when a user uses personal attacks in his RfArb statement and has influenced the arbitration to his side?  --AI 09:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal Comments