No personal attacks on the Wikipedia, period. No calling people trolls, no calling people Stupid White Men, no accusations of any kind relating to the character of another person, nor their race, creed, sex, national origin, etc. The only thing that matters is the articles, not the people who write them.

Unlike the other rules, which are community conventions enforced only by our mutual agreement, this one may also be implemented in extreme cases as policy,

i.e. grounds for banning that go beyond our traditional "sheer vandalism" threshold.
If you support this rule, then you support the idea that Jimbo should, in extreme cases after considerable consultation with the community and the offender, actually cut someone off from participation.

Likewise, when a debate threatens to become personal, confer about the problem in e-mail. If parties to a dispute start exchanging insults or other unpleasant words, it's preferable to confer privately in e-mail rather than continuing to expose Wikipedia to the unpleasantness. This is not to say that the debate should be moved to e-mail, because the debate is in most cases of genuine public interest. So the substantive debate should remain where it is; the unpleasant personal problems should be discussed, as necessary, privately.

This is a far cry from what the policy became. See how the opening line is "No calling people trolls", and recall that by Wikipedia's worst era (circa 2007), the policy had morphed into almost the opposite of its intended purpose. Hardcore Wikipedios, notably Phil Sandifer, changed the policy around 2005 to reflect a completely different ethic, to the point that the policy had accompanying pages such as Wikipedia:Dealing with trolls and Wikipedia:What is a troll?.

Recall as well that around 2007, all manner of behavior was being considered actionable under the WP:No Personal Attacks policy. Including merely editing the same page as powerful editors like SlimVirgin. Instead of the original premise of "The only thing that matters is the articles, not the people who write them", it became all about the "people who write them", and how so stop those people.

If you support this rule, then you support the idea that Jimbo should, in extreme cases after considerable consultation with the community and the offender, actually cut someone off from participation.

And the "community" didn't wait for Jimbo to act in extreme cases after considerably consultaton with the community and offender. It got so that some admin just pushed the block button on what would usually becomce a "community ban" on pain of having to start a wheelwar otherwise (another problem with wikipedia-- whatever one admins decides to do, because a "community decision" if one admin is not supposed to undo another admin's actions except in extreme cases).

I think it was Jon Awbrey and Herschelkrustofky who were notably "community banned" by only a small group of editors for strange reasons. Not the community all. The wider community had no say it, and if they tried, they'd have been in trouble themselves. Think Cla68 etc.

This small clique (which contained much of the same people) were not only outrageously biased in matters of content, but almost unanimously turned out to be up to far worse than Awbrey and Hersch themselves! Think Jossi etc.

I believe 9 people weighed in on my community ban, which was open for discussion for 14 hours. I hadn't ever heard of about half of the voters, but the other half were all personal antagonists of mine.

One of the issues with bans is that there is no ruleset on how to discuss a ban. Even non-binding RFC/Us have more form to them then a ban discussion. I once proposed WP:RFBAN as a more process-oriented solution, but given that the meme for the failed WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction was "Requests for Banning", I soon realized it was not a proposal I would have success with.

I believe 9 people weighed in on my community ban, which was open for discussion for 14 hours. I hadn't ever heard of about half of the voters, but the other half were all personal antagonists of mine.

Wikipedia would be a lot better on several fronts if it didn't have to work around several half-baked memes, the biggest one being "consensus." Mob like; it bounces from individual extreme to extreme, and moderation doesn't really help because nothing is going to have "consensus" anyway.

I'm a bit of an enigma. As far as I could tell, I was excommunicated by Jimbo himself (as is anyone to do with me, including my children and my children's children, apparently).

But I was also supposedly banned for 'making legal threats' after JzG defamed me.

But I'm not 100% sure which one is the actual ban. As far as I can see it wasn't 'consensus' as such. I was excommunicated by the God-King himself (and my children and children's children, of course).

I've put the emails up on here somewhere, I believe.

Wear your excommunication as a badge of honour Angela. Jimmy Wales can barely tell his arse from his elbow, the man is retarded.

One of the issues with bans is that there is no ruleset on how to discuss a ban. Even non-binding RFC/Us have more form to them then a ban discussion. I once proposed WP:RFBAN as a more process-oriented solution, but given that the meme for the failed WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Community sanction was "Requests for Banning", I soon realized it was not a proposal I would have success with.

The lack of structure and formalized, established procedures/checklists for handling repetitive processes, like blocks, bans, vandalism, etc is a big problem with Wikipedia's current governance (or lack thereof).

An outside, independent panel needs to look at Wikipedia's governance, including the current state of the policies and guidelines, and reorganize the whole lot as they see fit.