Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/poll2

Introduction
This poll is to decide whether we should adopt Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors. If adopted, the policy will not be set in stone and may change in the future in light of the community's experience with it. Please vote bearing this in mind.

Voting starts on midday, UTC, September 3, 2004

Poll closes midday UTC September 17, 2004

This poll will not change once voting has begun. Please make any poll modifications before 3 September.

Question 1
Should Wikipedia adopt Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors?

''Please only vote one option. Votes for (a) will be added to (b) if neither (a) nor (b) receives a consensus.''

(A) Yes

 * 1) [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:41, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 19:38, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Jwrosenzweig 19:53, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Austin Hair 20:54, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) anthony (see warning) 14:13, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) older ≠ wiser 19:45, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) uc 22:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) I don't like it but it's better than what we have now.  uc 22:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) ugen64 00:53, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC) - what UC said.

(B) Yes, but only for a trial period of two months

 * 1) &#8212;No-One Jones m 18:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Jmabel 23:00, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) Ardonik.talk 04:17, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC) Concerned that the 2d + 3 vs. d policy in the final section tips the scale in favor of dissenting admins, but willing to try it out.
 * 4) Conti|&#9993; 11:38, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
 * 5) Jallan 19:24, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 6) rhyax 06:42, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 7) [[User:Eequor|&eta; [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif]] [ &upsilon;&omega;&rho;]]] 04:34, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * 8) KneeLess 05:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(c) No

 * 1) Gzornenplatz 17:54, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Filiocht 10:32, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) Looks like a recipe for a troll banquet to me. Do we have firm figures on the level of disruptive/antisocial behaviour on Wikipedia? A decision like this should be purely fact driven.
 * 3) -- orthogonal 12:55, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC) Too arbitrary, especially as there is no effective way to remove abusive sysops.
 * 4) Netoholic @ 00:15, 2004 Sep 14 (UTC) -- So you're saying that only admins can certify or object to a warning or block?  Holy cabal, Batman!
 * 5) The problem of disruptive, abusive, and otherwise unfortunate admins is not addressed nor resolved by this policy. Also the policy attempts to give sweeping, unnecessary powers to an already exaggerated position. Since when are "janitors" judge, jury AND executioner? Has anyone ever heard of "trial by peers"? Am I the only one who sees this a solid step away from democratic egalitarianism, and towards the sort of oligarchic despotism bound to ruin the project? IMO "trolls" are an easilly handled and pathetic nuisance best ignored/quietly cleaned up after, or even better reformed and forgiven. We all know hard ban's don't work. Admin abuses/cabalism however are in my estimation the greatest danger to the project whatsoever, and can be corrected (albiet clearly not by this policy). Sam [Spade] 10:36, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Comments

 * The problem of disruptive, abusive, and otherwise unfortunate admins is not addressed nor resolved by this policy. Admins can be blocked under this policy just as well as any other editor.  Also the policy attempts to give sweeping, unnecessary powers to an already exaggerated position. Admins already have the power to block users.  Since when are "janitors" judge, jury AND executioner?  We're not talking about execution here.  We're talking about an emergency 24-hour block.  Right now what happens in these situations is that the person is blocked unilaterally, and sometimes for longer than 24-hours.  Sometimes they get unblocked.  Sometimes they don't.  Sometimes they are blocked and unblocked multiple times.  In the end, there's absolutely nothing resolved, because the question of whether or not the block was legitimate is never answered.  Has anyone ever heard of "trial by peers"?  Sure, we tried quickpolls.  Most people didn't like them.  Am I the only one who sees this a solid step away from democratic egalitarianism, and towards the sort of oligarchic despotism bound to ruin the project?  No, but that's not what it is.  IMO "trolls" are an easilly handled and pathetic nuisance best ignored/quietly cleaned up after, or even better reformed and forgiven.  You can't reform someone without first addressing the fact that their behavior is not acceptable.  We all know hard ban's don't work.  Sometimes they work.  Sometimes they fail.  Sometimes they fail miserably.  But this isn't about hard bans anyway.  Admin abuses/cabalism however are in my estimation the greatest danger to the project whatsoever, and can be corrected (albiet clearly not by this policy).  So propose a policy to correct them.  I don't think you're going to get consensus for it until this issue is resolved, but maybe you will. anthony (see warning) 11:39, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Interesting comments. I still don't feel this poll properly adresses admin abuses, but I am a lot more comforted with your interpretation of its potential effect than I was w my own. As far as me proposing policy, whenever I do that there is usually a concensus to avoid talking about it, since I'm not exactly a wiki-aristocrat, and therefore am not the sort of person who is ment to be writting policy, defacto. If your intrigued w the sorts of policy suggestions I might have, have a look here. I have to admit you have me half convinced to take a neutral stance on this policy, and fully convinced to keep a close eye on any developments w it. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 14:26, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question 2
Please do not unilaterally add questions. Propose secondary questions on the talk pages and allow 48 hours of discussion to craft proposals. You will get a better outcome if you let others help you knock off any easily fixable sticking points first!