Wikipedia talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/archive2


 * see also Wikipedia talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/archive1

Introduction
Some feel the policy is too complicated, but others feel it is as simple as it can be. Regardless, it will need a bit of your time to consider it.

Have a read through the list of objections. If you have a concern which isn't addressed to your satisfaction please add it or your concern with the given response.

Also feel free to (a) edit the policy (b) popularise it.

Frequently raised objections
This section is for collective editing. Try to use a NPOV style. No need to sign, just chip in add stuff. (This is a bit of an experiment).

If you added an objection and the policy is modified to address it, or you reconsider your objection, feel free to delete it.

This gives sysops too much power
umm, well yes. It does give them more power than they have every traditionally had and more than was granted to them when the community elected them to administer policy. But it also makes them justify their actions and requires them to get peer review. In the event of controversy, at least 2/3s of the sysops must agree before action is taken. It seems most Wikipedian think sysops should be using more power, and are prepared to have 'trolls' (whatever that actually means) banned on site! (see the voting at Dealing with trolls)

This gives sysops additional authority
Sysops should only be agents who enforce the decisions made by the community (or top down from Jimbo, the arb committee, or the board). It is not clear that most sysops even necessarily are good at making these types of judgement calls themselves. Although these considerations have perhaps been considered to some extent lately, historically adminiship has been "no big deal". Even today, adminship is not considered a political position. "Current Wikipedia policy is to grant administrator status to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community." That's fine for choosing administrators who aren't making these kinds of decisions, but it's not appropriate for administrators who are judge, jury, executioner, and by the vagueness of definition even legislator, even when acting in groups of three or more.

This policy will discourage consensus and encourage factionalisation among sysops
Huh?

This policy will encourage those hungry for more power drumming up ever more panic about a rising tide of trolling
Huh?

This makes it too hard for sysops to do anything
A far as we (well me at least) can tell this adds to sysops powers and doesn't actually take any away (please point us at the policy giving sysop powers that isn't already mentioned in the introduction, if we've missed one)

This is too complicated
Unfortunately justice is not simple. It sounds simple, but isn't. Although quite frankly, cutting and pasting a template onto a couple of pages, and adding a list of URLs to the offending behaviour is hardly a big ask. The procedure really is simple. Notice a problem user, warn them, tell others you're watching them, gather URLs to offending difs, warn them again if the problem persists, gather more URLs, everyone agrees, slap a block on. This is quick, fair and transparent. If tree-hugging, whale kissing, bleeding heart sysops bleet "no! they're not bad, they are just misunderstood", well the three gun toting no-nonsense type syspops just need to try and reach a consensus with those that disagree with them. As a worse case scenario, it is going to come down to a vote.

This makes it too hard to fight vandalism
Response: huh? this has nothing to do with vandalism. Dealing with vandalism already addresses that.

The definition of disruptive and antisocial behaviour is too vague
Response:Yes the definitions are vague and subjective. Characterisations of human behaviour are, but feel free to clarify them further. Ultimately the subjectivity is resolved by putting the behaviour forward for consideration by a small group of sysops. If it's simple then... well its simple. If it is complicated, (and the people we are talking about will try to make it complicated) then more discussion and more votes are needed. The proposal provides a framework for the sysops to work through these issues in a logical and transparent way. By forcing the collection of the URLs to back up the decision it ultimately builds up a more robust and fairer set of boundaries

This is probably the killer. You end up defining 'good behavior' as 'behavior that I like'. I know it when I see it. The problem is that there will be disagreement over this. Engagement with a user, and eventual blocking if they do not engage constructively (that is not the same as come round to my point of view) will solve this.

This idea was developed by an Australian
(gedddayy, 'that's not a knife'.)

This is not addressing a real problem
It seems like the only problem we are trying to solve is that the arbitration committee is sometimes slow to act. Maybe we should add more members to it, or maybe we could add committees below them to take cases which require immediate attention. The committees could even be geared toward different types of problem behavior, if it becomes that big of a problem.

Response: Have a long slow read through some recent Arbitration Committee requests to find lots n lots of examples of behaviour that it would have been nice to have curtailed earlier, or (add your own favourite here) (I will be willing to name and show histories of several, just off the top of my head.)

Discussion
Can I just put in a plea about simple opposition at this point. There will be plenty of time to vote on the final policy in two weeks! I'm really hoping that we can move closer to consensus first. In two weeks time we have something much closer to what you would like! Erich 05:40, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Early debates
see archive (please post back if here if I've cut too much...)Erich

(snip) Finally, we already have checks and balences in place. A sysop who bans too frequently should and will be taken to task for it, and if they persist will have their syop privileges removed. That's the right way to do it. DJ Clayworth 17:21, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * (snip) As for your comments about checks and balances, well, I'm going to come out and say you're mistaken. As long as I've been here, I don't believe I've ever seen a desysoping. What I have seen is a lot of conflict, directed at sysops and between sysops, about the extent to which banning powers are being used.  Some sysops take it upon themselves to ban problem users; others disagree with their choices.  I'm not taking sides, but the community needs a set of procedures for deciding when bans are viable in cases that aren't simple vandalism, yet aren't acceptable behavior. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * user:168... was de-sysoped twice (he has left the project, so this in effect, is permanent), user:Kils was de-oped permanently, user:172 once temporarily, and a few other users I can't remember right now. --mav 06:43, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I left these snips from the archive because I thought it was an interesting debate that didn't have any evidence on the table (here) at least. I've seen a couple of outbreaks of inster-sysop conflict, but I thought it would be good to get together a few examples. Erich 22:57, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

misuse of editing summaries
(snip) I did not provide a link to any discussion of misuse of editing summaries since I don't know where that is defined. Someone please help, either by adding the link, creating a page, or removing that item. (snip)

again worthy of discusion on another page? Erich 01:57, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sock puppet discussion
see archive. ? a discussion for another page? Erich

From "Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy
see archive for discussion carried over from "Wikipedia:Sysop Accountability Policy'''

Power to remove frivouls vexatious complaints
see archive

coments from uninvited company
Erich & everyone,

I reviewed the policy.
 * thanks UC! you say thoughtful things as ever. You'll note my plea above (more for others than you), so I'll try to respond point by point in such a way that can pull us toward a middle ground.Erich 05:47, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I oppose the policy on two grounds:
 * It is legalistic, that is, there are a considerable number of mechanical details and lengthy definitions. This is bad, because it isn't flexible and it doesn't encourage use of judgement and care.  Right now we have the patterns of a few recent troublesome participants clearly in mind.  These particular troublemakers, and the patterns of editing they follow, are unique to the present time.  There have been different troublemakers in the past, that created different sets of problems, and there will be different ones in the future.  No policy can address the wide range of contributor behavior that we will eventually see.  And, the range of things that are troublesome may change as the project expands and matures.
 * well... yes it is legalistic, and fair, and transparent... that has an unavoidable cost. We're kidding ourselves if we think we can have a very simple system that will be fair as well. Just can't be done Wikipedia is too big for peer pressure alone to be adequate (for sysops, yet alone users). Re the flexibility... remember this policy only fills gaps between other policies and it can evolve with time. Its a start...Erich 06:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't like the "three sysops" provision. VotingIsEvil, and besides sysops tend to form peer communities of 5-10, anyway, who often vote as a block.  So, three sysops isn't a particularly effective mechanism, from a standpoint of fairness.  Also, discussion of a proposed ban is in itself damaging, see GetARoom.  Moreover, it is a good deal of work to implement, since at present it is much faster for a troublemaker to create a new account than it is for three sysops to agree on a block (see Wikipedia talk:Sock puppet for more on this).
 * Re the voting... yes voting is bad. i agree that hopefully there will be consensus. The problem is at the momment there is no mechanism to deal with situations when the sysops vehemently disagree. Voting is surely better than mob rule, even if that is mob rule by the sysops... don't you think?
 * I agree about the discussion itself being harmful. Again this is a dilema... all of this is dirty laundry and brings the whole tone down! That is why I propose limiting participants and didn't really emphasise discussion. I would like there to be minimal discussion really. The diffs should speak for themselves. I'm imagining the direction page entries would look like the one I just made below.Erich 06:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't like it either. I think the community should decide if someone is acting like a troll (or whatever) via a vote with the sysops' job only act on whatever the community decides. There is no need for this hierarchy. Wikipeda has thrived because of its anarchistic tradition and we should strive to keep it that way.--GD 18:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It is my view that the best responses to troublemakers are:
 * Adoption by the community of a "guidance statement" to the AC to encourage them to relax their evidentiary standards and generally be a little less forgiving. There should, in particular, be no requirement for proof of violation of some written policy for the AC to sanction someone.
 * I'd be happier if we expanded the scope of the policiesErich 06:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Adoption of the proposal regarding trolls presently being voted upon
 * which one? Erich 06:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Adopt and give teeth to No personal attacks, which is presently a mere "proposed policy"
 * you mean thats not policy? I didn't realise that. Well I agree completly!! Erich 06:59, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regards

UninvitedCompany 04:52, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is this a real problem? What is the real problem?
Could we have a few examples? I can't think of any clear ones. Phil Gingrey. Nick Berg conspiracy theories. Plenty of others, I'm sure...

Well, that's part of the problem - I don't think this is clear at all. From what I can see those users had strong opinions, and were pretty rude - they could probably have been temp-blocked for that, but I'd hate to ban them just for having somewhat extreme views. I think current policy can deal perfectly well with them. Mark Richards 20:56, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * What do you mean, current policy can deal perfectly well with them? Admins cannot, as you're suggesting, temp-block for rudeness or personal attacks.  There is no mandate that blocks can be used for anything other than vandalism, and Vandalism explicitly excludes rudeness and personal attacks.  The only mechanism for dealing with obnoxious behavior is the glacially slow arbitration committee. Isomorphic 02:20, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * How about we change that? Sam [Spade] 02:23, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. Rudeness is the key prob. IMO, and not just of "trolls" or nutters. Well known and respected admins are rude sometimes too, and it NEVER helps improve article quality. Respectable debate and well reasoned, polite discourse is the only intellectually honest way to conduct ourselves here, if this is to be a legitimate source of reference materials. Sam [Spade] 21:55, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sam. Respectable debate and well-reasoned, polite discourse is the only way.  I've got no problem with anyone disagreeing with me; it's when they refuse to discuss or adress the issue that it starts being a problem.  I've had to keep an eye on Phil Gingrey for weeks, after trying again and again, along with other editors, to come to a reasonable solution.  There needs to be some defense against those who stonewall, insisting that their version is the only truth. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Listen I sympathise with these views, but have a look at the flurry of "troll polls". Many wikipedians are ready to let admins "shoot on sight". So if it is not a real problem it is definitely a perceived problem. My motivativation is to give an alternative to summary justice and lynch mobs.

The problem is troll-baiting, troll polls, and other troll hysteria, not trolls. Mark Richards 15:24, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think that there is, and will always be, some unproductive behaviour. But I submit that the response to such behaviour is just as much of a problem as the behaviour, or at least encourages it. While I think that some politeness and assumption of good faith would take us a long way, I prefer having a definitive series of steps (perhaps as suggested in this policy) to the uneven and often rude handling by some users, some of whom are admins and block or threaten to block people without any kind of due process. moink 15:36, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * For sure - I agree. Mark Richards 15:54, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * thanks Moink, you say it beautifully. I understand Mark's concerns (i think) and hope that this policy, by giving a process and clear rules will actually lower the temperature. I know with my kids when the rules are clear there is a lot less conflict. ambiguity in the rules leads people to 'experiment', out of boredom, or frustration. Erich 06:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Expiry of warnings

 * Sysops should give some tolerance to users that are clearly making many more valuable contributions than un-helpful contributions. In this situation, repeated warnings and attempts to engage in dialogue are appropriate rather than simply waiting for the user to slip up.

I would like to see this a bit stronger. I am concerned about hot headed people getting to the warning stage and then being baited by others in order to trip them up into retaliating. Perhaps a good behaviour --> all is forgiven clause. Say for example if the users makes only productive edits for a set time period (3 months?) then any old warnings will be scrubbed. I don't like the idea of old warnings hanging around forever.(If this is already in, then my apologies for missing it) theresa knott 22:05, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * yes, you're right, that is an ommission. I dunno how prescriptive we should be, as people are already struggling with the complexity. and remembering we're only thinking about short 'time-out' blocks but maybe... off the top of my head...
 * The threshold for the block could increase by one, every ?week?month?day? that the user edited well after their warning. So if the user behaved for 3 weeks after a final warning they would need 5 misdemeanors after the warning rather than 2...
 * Unless the warnings was refreshed by referring back to the earlier warning... So a 're-warning' would reset the counter. "hey BadboyTroll, don't forget what User:batman said here. Be careful!". Erich 23:38, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

mmm.. alternatively if hot-heads get a few time outs maybe they won't be hot heads any more!! 24 hours is (not) really very long, neither is 96 hours, Erich 23:41, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well that's true :-) I still favour scrubbing old complaints after a while though. It's nice and forgiving and sets a pleasent tone all round.Having said that details like can be sorted out at a later date after we see how things go. It's impractical to even hope that we can work out a perfect policy from scratch without testing the water first. I suggest you propose a short trial run (a month or two months)to see how things work out. theresa knott 18:12, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * thanks Theresa. that's a good idea about the forgiveness. Any ideas (anybody) about how to encode it? re the voting... I guess a trial period might encourage waiverers to support it... maybe we should start a page where people can help formulate the questions... maybe Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/poll should be the place... I'll make a stub. I think some of the recent polls flopped because of not enough attention to the questions... Erich 06:51, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If we're to have a "good behaviour --> all is forgiven" rule, it had better be a good one. We can't have warnings hanging around forever, but if it isn't as strong as Theresa suggested - say three months of only productive edits - it's sure to be exploited by certain people. Ambivalenthysteria 07:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh yes it certainly would have to be strong. I want a forgiving community not a weak one. IMO the time period is less important than only productive edits clause. This would have to be pretty rigid. Any hint of trolling, personal attacks, or any other disruptive behaviour and you don't get forgiven. I want a rule that encorages rehabilitation and discorages long term feuds and baiting. I think the system should be very simple. I don't think there should be any sliding scale of increasing the threshold by one every week. That IMO would lead to resentment and frustration. I think it should be "any user whose last violation of policy is older than 3 months is considered rehabilltated and forgiven. All complaints will be dropped and the user will have a clean slate". I realise that 3 months is a long time in wikipedia and don't have any problems if people want to shorten it a bit, but I do think it important that we keep the idea of it must be a time of only productive edits. If we are weak, trolls will exploit it. theresa knott 20:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think this is going to be counterproductive - all this talk of 'strong' implies that we have an effective way to be 'strong'. We don't. If we make it too difficult to redeem an account, a user will simply start a new one, and there is nothing we can do about it. This is why the whole 'just ban them' argument is so counterproductive, and why the 'war on drugs' failed. Mark Richards 17:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mock Direction page
see (and please work on) a Mock Directions Page.

I thougth we could use it to explore examples and illustrate the mechanics of the policy Erich 23:00, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kudos!
I've read this proposed policy and I like it a lot. If, however, there is significant opposition, I could live with transposing the three admin rule to creating a quickpoll to have a user temp banned (the rest of this policy would still apply). Then the community can decide whether or not somebody should be quick banned and admin tribunals will only have the authority to start a quickpoll (thus greatly limiting the number of frivolous quickpolls that trolls love to start). Individual admins can, of course, carry out the will of the community. --mav 06:53, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definition
Note that while this policy is being proposed at the same time people are talking a lot about "trolling", the word "troll" appears nowhere in it. This is a Good Thing. I personally believe that there is such a thing as a troll, that the term has a clear definition even if most people don't bother to use it, and that there is at least one actual troll (User:JRR Trollkien and all his aliases) on Wikipedia. However, I don't think that trolls are a particularly large problem, and I don't think focusing on them is helpful.

The major problems have come from people whose behavior is simply obnoxious, the folks unaffectionately known in some forums as "fuckheads." They probably aren't deliberate trolls, but whether they are or not isn't the issue. The big problems are personal attacks, refusal to compromise, and refusal to accept when consensus is against them. I've long felt that we need a policy by which we can let someone know that their behavior is inappropriate, and require that they change it or leave. Isomorphic 01:30, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The term troll is so unhelpful precisely because at the same time as one group is using as a term of abuse, another is claiming it as a badge of honour. It is charged, and not useful. I agree with Isomorphic, although in fact we have no effective way to make them leave. Anon proxies and endless accounts make all the talk of banning just that, talk. Mark Richards 00:55, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It's true that blocks are imperfect, but that doesn't mean they haven't worked in the past. While there are some users who have been banned and ignored it (User:Michael and User:142) there have also been some highly obnoxious users who have not returned since being banned.  User:Plautus satire is the best example.  I believe Mr. Natural Health was also absent during his ban. Isomorphic 02:33, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Concern
First of all this idea is great. If the vote was being held now (which I'm glad to see it isn't! Good job keeping cool and following the policy on polls/surveys) It would have my firm support.

It&#8217;s so good in fact that I only have one concern, and one which for which I don't yet have an easy answer ;). My concern is that there will be an atmosphere amongst admins (and more generally among long term members of the community) opposed to the censoring, chastisement, or punishment of one another. I understand that to some extent new users have yet to earn the same level of security in their status as long-term community members, but their misdeeds are also more excusable (due to lack of experience). I fear that certain admins may continue to enjoy a free ride.

In short, how will this work when the offender is an admin (or other popular, yet misbehaving community member)? Sam [Spade] 03:28, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think you raise a valid point. There will be some reluctance from admins to chastise other admins. However given the way the direction page is formatted, - with the links to the bad behaviour for everyone to see, it will be difficult to oppose chastisement of an admin if they are behaving antisocially. So all that will be needed will be three admins willing to endorse. Of the couple of hundred active admins finding three shouldn't be too bad, but we'll only know if it'll work in practise oncve the policy is actually in action. theresa knott 08:08, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, and thus support the policy. If it is enacted, i want to be an admin ASAP tho ;) Sam [Spade] 08:10, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * he he. Sam you power hungry fool! ;-) Sam and Theresa (and others) is the polling schedule and draft poll format ok? I haven't studied the old polls particularly... (and am relying on old-hands to polish the implementation pathway) Erich 08:24, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * This is the most legitamate and official poll I have come across, but I defer to the comments of others? I wouldn't want some foolish loophole to interfere w the implementation of this especially efficacious policy. Sam [Spade] 00:45, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

misrepresenting the truth
I like this. It's much more liberal than the status quo. It is correct that admins should be held to account - which doesn't happen at the moment (and yes I am an admin). One question - what do you mean by "misrepresenting the truth" - and how do we define it? Secretlondon 13:50, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd like that one to be quite carefully clarified or removed. Yes, there are circumstances where we know someone is lying (a certain perpetual candidate for admin comes to mind...), but its almost always hard to be certain. Maybe I really am the pope, and not just foolin' when I claim to be ;) Sam [Spade] 18:58, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I had some doubts on this. It seemed to be covered under NPOV. But then there's this fellow called Michael who seemed to have a thing for inserting obviously non-factual information. Repeated wrongful citing of sources or misinterpretation of sources is another kind of respresentation of the truth. Perhaps there is no malice. But repeated slapdash carelessness should also be stopped. If you can't cite it, don't spread it repeatedly. Jallan 21:47, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, and would point out that users who are idiots areoften more dangerous than users who are malicious ;) Sam [Spade] 19:03, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * There's also lies about behavior on the site. This is surely an unacceptable "antisocial" behavior, and often finding the truth is simply a matter of checking page histories.  In such cases, the lie can be publicly displayed to remove all doubt. Isomorphic 02:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recent edits
Double plus good work w the latest edits, all hail comrade gasboy ;) Cheers, Sam [Spade] 05:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * thanks Sam. between you and user:ratgurl I'm really going to blush Erich 06:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * :D Sam [Spade] 06:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

non logged in users
I DO hope this is referring to logged-in users? This is totally unacceptable for anons, who hop from ID to ID and post and run. RickK 06:04, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)


 * good point. can't say I have much sympathy for anons myself. a question: when you block an IP address does this also stop users at that address from creating an account? or logging on to an existing one? Erich 06:09, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * remembering that dealing with vandalism is dealt with separately... we could treat anons under the same rules as reincarnations? how does that sound? Erich 06:54, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I strongly object to you and ricks POV's regarding anons. That said, I am perfectly willing to see them excluded from this policy. Even tho they are a disrespected and mistreated group, they are a separate class, and should have separate policy standards. In conclusion I think you both could be alot more understanding (speaking mainly to rick here) of our hardworking underclass. Sam [Spade] 07:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * geez Sam, these aren't a discriminated against "class"... Anybody can create an account and log in. It's not hard. Erich 09:02, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

NPOV
I'm a little concerned that someone presenting a legitimate point of view that happens to be against the current concensus could be marginalised under these rules - can we clarify ways in which protest against unaceptable concensuses can be voiced? Mark Richards 03:03, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hi Mark, how else do you suggest we protest against unaceptable concensuses in addition to:
 * 1) discuss it on the talk an else where
 * 2) request review of admin actions
 * 3) clarify policy and
 * 4) appeal to the AC?
 * Erich 06:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Protest against unacceptable consensuses isn't going to change under this. And as always, if the sysops step too far out of line, the AC and/or Jimbo will have the opportunity to de-sysop them. There's already enough - and in my opinion, too many, checks and balances in this. Ambivalenthysteria

What I would like to see is some clause in the policy that specifically protects users who are in a dispute over what NPOV is in any given case (not uncommon) and happen to be in a minority. I worry about a small group of users and or admins absusing this by using it to silence opinions they don't like by calling them disruptive. Of course, any debate that gets heated enough, or situation where you have very divergent views can be called disruptive. From the POV of a group who have established a 'concensus' on a page, someone comming in and pointing out that there are other ways of looking at it could easily be called disruptive, but it would still be a good thing. Mark Richards 17:06, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * In cases where an editor is proposing the addition of a genuine minority viewpoint, (i.e. a viewpoint held by a reasonable number of people) I for one will object to calling them disruptive ( based on their viewpoint alone), I expect you will too and in fact I can think of a number of admins who will also object. I can't see the bullying you are suggesting might happen will actually happen because most admins are reasonable and most want to adhere to neutral POV. theresa knott 17:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to have a clause specifically saying that a viewpoint itself is not enough to be called disruptive - it has to go along with behaviors that are unreasonable (ie trying to make a minority viewpoint the majority of the article). Mark Richards 22:36, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Some of Ambivalenthysteria's issues with this
1. Good behaviour - why 90 days? While I agree that good behaviour should lead to a clean record, I'm not convinced that 90 days is enough time.
 * make it longer if you like... given that recalcitrants can always pick up a sock puppet 90 days seemed reasonable to for users who stuck with the one account (to me at least) Erich 11:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I can go with that. Ambivalenthysteria 11:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

2. Number of admins required to certify - I think this is too harsh. If one sysop happens to have a personal bias against taking action, then five sysops have to be found in order to take any action. Unless we develop some sort of alert grouping (hah, cabal), then how is this going to be possible? I think not only is this going to be an unnecessary nuisance, but it's going to create exactly what the anti-sysop-power-crew don't want.
 * mmm don't really have a great response to this... so let me waffle ;-) all I can come up with is that at least it makes the politics of the situation transparent... it is a conservative policy. But my intention was to allow the easy cases to be mopped up quickly. In the event of controversial users this procedure should at least put a process in place. It seem, to me, better than the status quo where the admins just argue about it without a structure... controversy will be controversy... at least with this the evidence is put on the table for all to see. Admins that repeatedly vote in a way unacceptable to the community may find themselves before the reveiw of admin actions.Erich 11:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm certainly in agreement that it's a step in the right direction. I just think the numbers are a little extreme. How about requiring, say, 70-75% support?
 * It is 77% if there are 2 disscenters and 7 supporters, and as more admins join in it approaches 66% required to block. I think that requiring a larger majority at small numbers is fair since there is more chance of a biased sample with small numbers.   Jrincayc 13:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

3. Lone-ranger blocks: that section talks about detail "down below" that doesn't appear to exist yet.
 * ahhh I think it is... will check and clarify...Erich 11:07, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

4. Reincarnation policy. Firstly, why the change to current practice? Secondly, I have a problem with the small number of positive contributions required to lessen the severity of means to deal with said users. As has been said before, trolls love rules. Unless this is increased, it will be abused, I have no doubt. Additionally, it's overly complicated. I believe that this whole middle section should go. If a user is believed to be a reincarnation, a sysop must provide evidence, and accept that if they're wrong, they may face consequences. In my opinion, that's all we need.
 * er.. The real problem is we cannot reliably spot reincarnations... so I was trying to formulate some rules that meant we wouldn't be biting the newbies just because they were new. Any I increased 10 major edits to 15... (increase it more if you feel the need). That means that if somebody wants to make "15 major definitely constructive edits" they can say "poo bum" (my 3 year-old boy thinks that is hilarious) 4 times... sounds like a good deal to Wikipedia for me. Erich 11:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I see your point, and I do think that we need to clarify how we handle reincarnations - we don't want to be banning users who aren't actually reincarnations. But I can't help thinking that this particular clause is going to open us up to wily troll abuse. Ambivalenthysteria 11:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Apart from these (what appear to be later) additions, I think this is excellent. It solves a big problem, and I think addresses most people's concerns.

One final note though. While we're looking at improving one half of the process for dealing with disruptive users here, I think we're overlooking the second half. There's been a growing number of people with issues with the mandate, legalism, and other problems with the Arbitration process. In my opinion, if we're going to do this job properly, re-looking at the Arbitration process is a must. UninvitedCompany and Michael Snow made some good comments on this at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, but it seems these have unfortunately been somewhat overlooked. Ambivalenthysteria 10:17, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments AH. Do the replies make any sense? (I've had a few VBs so possibly not) Erich 11:26, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reincarnations
I have a major issue with this. A reincarnation is defined as someone who makes a similar edit? Doesn't this mean, if one person makes a controversial series of edits, and gets blocked, someone else comes by, sees it, thinks 'what's going on, those are perfectly reasonable edits', restores them, and gets blocked as a reincarnation? We need a higher standard of evidence. Mark Richards 17:15, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Such as what? theresa knott

Some evidence other than that the user agrees with somoene who was once banned or blocked. Mark Richards 17:30, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well if they are a sockpuppet they may


 * 1) Not act like a newbie
 * 2) Exhibit the same antisocial behaviour that got the original account blocked in the first place.
 * 3) Have exactly the same interests as the orginal account i.e. edit the same pages.
 * 4) Have the same writing style (it's quite difficult to mask a writing style)
 * 5) Talk to people they haven't yet met in an overly friendly or agressive way - as if they know them already.
 * 6) There may be technical measures that developers can use to identify sockpuppets ( same IP same password etc.)

What do you think? Anything else? theresa knott 17:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That would satisfy my concerns, thanks! Mark Richards 18:31, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can we clarify sockpupet and reincarnation, or are they the same thing? Sockpuppet implies that one is a 'real' account, and the the sp is being used for a specific purpose, whereas reincarnation implies that another account has been abandoned. Is there any useful distinction? Mark Richards 18:35, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Well think on this. Let's say User:BadBoyTroll has had a couple of blocks already. He thinks to himself "Hmm I'll soon get to the stage where any admin can block me if I continue like this". So he creates User:BadBoyGnome and starts out using both accounts. After a while Troll becomes too annoying to use because he keeps getting blocked, so he abandons troll and starts using gnome all the time.It doesn't make sense IMO opinion to say that gnome started out as a sockpuppet but ended as a reincarnation. To me it doesn't matter what we call it - it's a second user account used to get around the policy. theresa knott 00:51, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Probably right. Mark Richards 15:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bad Idea
This idea is very bad. It will be used to *cleanse* all the unwanted from wikipedia. This is too complicated and will be used as a tool to get rid of all the undesirables i.e. the conservatives and Christians from wikipedia. This is geared toward censorship.WHEELER 22:19, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The proposal is intended for addressing behaviour not beliefs. In order to block someone they have to misbehave. As long as people don't act antisocially, they cannot be "cleansed" using this. Anyone who acts antisocially certainly is unwanted no matter what theif beliefs are. theresa knott 00:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

acting against consensus
Hi Mark, I tinkered with your text. But I can't say I'm enthused with the new version of this point in the definition:
 * "violation of neutral point of view, and engaging in multiple (more than three per 24 hour period) reversions or essentially the same text"

I prefered this:
 * "violation of neutral point of view, and making edits known to be against a clear consensus"

If a user rapidly reverts a rabbid zealot then that is a good thing. If a calm zealot comes back every day and reverts the text despite everybody asking them not to, well that is a bad thing. what do others think? Erich 01:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is ever a good reason for anybody to violate policy, including the revert policy. So what if the article looks bad for a bit, the group editing process will prevail. Besides, the ability to come back and try again promotes concensus and compromise, rather than majority rule (which IMO is a very bad thing, most people being stupid and all ;) Sam [Spade] 04:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * fine Sam, so the question is: "how do we express that?" Erich 08:24, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the first version was fine; if there's a clear consensus, than the only one violating the three revert rule will be the one acting against it. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 15:58, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)

Yes, what I want to get away from is the kind of situation where someone is deemed disruptive simply for disagreeing with the concensus, perhaps in a very constructive way. I think this could be limited by the 3 revert rule, or some reference to discussing controversial edits, but editing in a way that is not in line with the concensus in itself (rather than insisting on a POV that is against the concensus) should not be a problem. Mark Richards 00:15, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * well I'd rather encourage people to strive for a "clear consensus" than get them sitting back counting reverts: 1.. 2.. 3gotcha! The aim is to get people debating (exlplaining and listening) on talk pages... Erich 03:17, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Right, what I was trying to capture is that it is ok to hold an extreme pov, but it is not ok to insist on it without discussion, and that it is also not ok to exclude some povs that are not the dominant one by simple majority ("concensus") on the page. How to phrase that? Mark Richards 22:09, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

er ;-) well I liked:
 * "violation of neutral point of view, and making edits known to be against a clear consensus

cause it gets people talking to be able to demonstrate they have a clear consensus... Erich 01:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

unless that belief is explicitly banned by other Wikipedia policy
Are any beliefs against policy? This insinuates there might be. I think thats a can of worms, and one best avoided. If there is a belief against policy, can you clue me in? I for one oppose making a particular ideology verboten. Sam [Spade] 04:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I guess I was just worried about some numb-nut coming along and sprouting hate speech or something else (i don't know what else!). To be honest I'm aware the vote is getting close so I'm trying to move any controvery off this policy. The idea is people can work up proposals and have separate debates to build on this framework. I don't want people to feel they need to vote against this because of a single issues. does that make sense? Erich 08:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yep, but I hope you agree w me that its best to keep hate speech regulations and other messiness out of this policy, or there will be alot of unhelpful debate regarding that. I am myself completely opposed to any rules regarding hate speech or politics not implicitly covered by no personal attacks. For example if someone says "I am a member of the KKK" on their user page, I oppose banning them (for that). If they say "You are a [racial epiteths deleted]ing more racial epiteths] and I'd like to burn a cross in your lawn" that would be a personal attack covered by current policy, and should be treated as such. Rudeness should never be allowed, but a minimal amount of self expression (even by racists or haters or nutters, etc..) should. Another example is anti-semitism. If a user wants to put anti-semitic info into an article "Jews rule america, and secretly call it "[[ZOG" instead of "USA", thats not a personal attack. It is rather something the group editing process should sort out, prob w a compromise like "Some in the american redneck community feel that jews secretly rule the USA. Their name for this Israeli controlled protectorate is ZOG. This theory is extrordinarilly controvercial and is only widely accepted in Islamist states, as well as the state of montana" ;). I hope you get my gist, which is lets leave this out, and let it be sorted out elsewhere. Sam [Spade] 18:59, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely that any discussion of limits on free speech belongs somewhere else. That is a separate (and BIG) debate. Conversely, I'd rather this policy did not say 'you can say what you like'. Without opening the can of worms on this page... You don't have to be making personal attacks to be dangerous. I'd not like to welcome any form of vilification of any group, particularly if there is a potential or percieved threat of incitement to real world physical violence, discrimination or hatred. "We should shoot all the Australians" or "Its a pity the Al Qaedia didn't get a few more XYZs" is pretty revolting, but may not be personal attack if there are no Australians or XYZs in the thread. That's why I wanted to leave the door ajar rather than propped wide open... if we say unless "that belief is explicitly banned by other Wikipedia policy" it can be thrashed out as a separate issue, or the status quo left as is, or whatever. Erich 03:31, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * My problem is it begs the question "what beliefs are banned?". Currently none are, so I don't think its appropriate to insinuate that some will be (I hope none ever are). If some beliefs become policy violations, all pages needing an update will be updated in time I am quite certain. Until then, why insinuate? Sam [Spade] 03:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * ok, I concede... Erich 05:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Reincarnation policy, etc.
For quite some time I've perceived what I think is a rather gullible confusion among many posters in the difference between computer accounts and actual human beings.

If the Hephaestos account, for some reason, starts jiggling dates around in punk rock articles as to formation of bands or release dates of albums, contrary to published sources, and subsequently replies to questions about it with something along the lines of "yeah. right. whatever.", then you should block the Hephaestos account, because it has probably been hacked by Michael.

Not that Michael is smart enough to do something like that, but do you see what I'm getting at? Maybe the account was hacked by someone smart enough to do it, and thought it would be cute to act like Michael. The account is nevertheless a liability to the system, and needs to be gotten rid of.

I'm constantly flabbergasted at all the people who demand ridiculous "rights" on a system on which they have a free account on someone else's computer system that took them all of thirty seconds to make, and they didn't even have to give out a verifiable email address to do it. On such a system, given a certain amount of violation of the terms of service by an account, a block should be implemented on mere suspicion. The "offended party" can always make another account just as easily as they did before, to appeal the previous block if they're honest, or to carry about doing the same crap as before if they're not. In the latter case they should then be blocked again. And so forth. I don't see any reason to treat IP editors and brand-new user accounts any differently.

I'll say it for approximately the hundredth time, Wikipedia (or any other online service, for that matter, where you can't walk up to someone's door and say "hey, are you Entmoots of Trolls?") does not block people. It blocks accounts. The molehill of account blocking has been made into a ridiculous mountain, in my view.

- Hephaestos|&#167; 05:15, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hear hear. Ambivalenthysteria 06:56, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Heph, AH, I basicly agree. However I do think that account blocking is a significant step. It may be ineffective but it clearly say 'what you are doing is against the Wikipedia rules' and, for a time at least 'Wikipedia is an open encyclopaedia, except to you'.


 * Paradoxically, it may do more harm to a potentially valuble contributer than to an antisocial loser. But this is why, I think, some caution is required before we block people.


 * Most importantly, if our ultimate goal is to create an 'open' NPOV encyclopaedia then we need to be able to defend and explain the use of blocks. That's not hard but 'we just let the admins use their discretion' is a bit wooly. Don't you think?


 * But, Heph, do think there need to be any changes to the policy to reflect your views? Erich 09:12, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict with Eric)
 * (Um I'm in my strict schoolmistress mood right now so please humour me while I tell you two off)This talk page is not a soapbox.It's to facilatate the formation of the policy. The time for talking is nearly at an end. The time for voting beginneth very soon. What do you actually want to change in the reincarnation section of this policy? theresa knott 09:18, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That's rather rude, Theresa. Heph's comment was exactly on topic, and clearly relates to this policy. Who are you to decide that his comments should be overlooked and "the time for talking is nearing an end"? Ambivalenthysteria 10:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * If I came across as rude, I apologise. That was not my intention. I was trying to playfully suggest we concentrate on the nitty gritty details, so as we can whip the policy into shape. Eric explains below why I said the time for talking will soon be at an end, so I won't explain again but I certainly wasn't saying that Heph's comments should be overlooked, only that he should suggest practical changes, so we can get on with making the policy. (sometimes when I try to be light, people take me as heavy, what can I do?) Anyway I apologise again for offending you. theresa knott 14:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * well she did start with 'please humor me' and finished with 'What do you actually want to change'... but before we get too passionate, may I expand and clarify Theresa's point about talking ending. I've suggested a talking/voting cycle with a total length of four weeks... we're getting to the end of the first talking cycle (midday UTC 23 July 2004) and voting begins in a 48 hours after that. It would be great if we could get consensus on our first round... but given how little time we've got before a edit cool-off it would be extremely helpful if people stated clearly how they would like the policy changed. Its not the end of the world if we have to cool our heels for another 4 weeks, but I think we'd make more progress just trying to implement this as a start and then modifying it in the light of experience than playing with it without having tested it. Erich 10:57, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RFA
I took out the 'listing people on RFRAA' etc, since there can be no real harm from this. Not allowing people to raise complaints in this forum, even trivial and vexatious ones, would lead to legitimate complainsts of cabalism. Mark Richards 16:17, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Frivolous or vexatious complaints
I think this will need some adressing, even if we dislike the original methodology. Can someone try writting up a compromise, or discuss it here, etc...? Thanx, Sam [Spade] 19:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sure - I just worry about it, since the person complained about will probably always think it is frivilous or vexatious. If it is indeed, letting it stand for a week, and having no one vote for it would seem ok to me, I worry about deleting complaints arbitrarily. Mark Richards 20:52, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, but some method of saying "this complaint is unfair and foolish" should be possible. How about having the writing of "Frivolous or vexatious complaints" being a criteria for being a disruptive or antisocial editor? Sam [Spade] 20:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * How about, for example, unanimous votes against on whatever complaint page (i.e. Requests for arbitration, requests for comment, etc.)? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:58, 2004 Jul 21 (UTC)


 * OK I't my brain being stupid due to watching too much crap on telly tonight but I don't really understand Sam's last paragraph or Meelar's. Please spell it out for idiots like me. Anyway why not just have a comments section on the direction page where members of the community can say the the complaint is frivolous? Then if there is consensus the complaint can be removed by someone. theresa knott 21:09, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Exactly - I don't see how you could possibly define frivilous, since you are clearly dealing with a situation where one person thinks they're right and the other thinks they're wrong. Let the vote go ahead, and perhaps limit the number of complaints any one person can make per unit time. Mark Richards 21:14, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think it necessary to limit the number of complaints made. The likelyhood of someone making a very large number of frivilous complaints is very small unless they themselves are disruptive. In which case they can be delt with via this very policy, or failing that the AC. theresa knott 21:23, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, but I think maybe spelling out that "making an excessive number of frivolrous complaints is itself a disruptive behaviour" would be good. I'll try it. Sam [Spade] 21:37, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Precident
I removed precident as a way in which unclear cases will be decided, since it tends to lead to the kind of foolishness that some admins have occasionally engaged in, which an action takes on a symbolic importance because it may set a precident. I would prefer that we seek concensus. Mark Richards 22:12, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't follow Mark, precident is a well proven method of building and clarifying a set of rules. If the fact that decisions form a precidident makes people put more effort into debating them then that is surely a good thing. Precidents may always be overturned by new precidents. Also policy over-rides precident. so I'll put it back but try to clarify the above. let me know what you think of the new version Erich 01:52, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Precedent is a perfectly sensible way of dealing with this. Out of curiosity, why are you so concerned about "abuse" of sysop powers, Mark? Ambivalenthysteria 07:39, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why? Because I think that in any situation where one group of people holds power over another there is a temptation for the excercise of that power to become more frequent and greater in magnitude over time. I think that there need to be clear guidelines and systems of accountability because of this tendency. There is nothing inherent about holding power that makes one wiser or better at making decisions. Mark Richards 17:09, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Precedent. Consensus. -- Jmabel 05:59, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Pedant ;-) Erich 06:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definition of disruptive behaviour includes but is not limited to:
If new varieties need to be added later, so be it, but what I support about this policy is it's specificity, holding admins to a certain set of rules of conduct, rather than making judgement calls at every opportunity. Thoughts? This edit displays the difference of opinion Sam [Spade] 23:01, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * We definately need to limit it, saying 'I know it when I see it' is where we came in on this whole thing. Mark Richards 23:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say! Sam [Spade] 23:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yet more Issues
Here are my issues with this.


 * 1) The definition is too flimsy. Disruptive editors can and will be clever by trying to evade the guidelines and find new ways to disrupt. Let's spare ourselves endless amendment and come up with an adaptive definition. Regardless of quibbles over the name (I would have no objection to removing all mentions of the word "troll"), I think that What is a troll achieves this.
 * 2) Sysop groups kind of bother me. It seems like the effect of this is to reinstitute quickpolls as a method of banning and blocking users, only to restrict voting to sysops. I'd prefer to either let sysops ban or to use quickpolls to ban.
 * 3) This notion of sysop alliances and counting disruptive edits seems too rigid. None of the other Wikipedia policies have sentencing requirements or anything along those lines. None of the others involve counting edits. None of the others create ad hoc arbcoms. Why do we need to create new ways of dealing with problems instead of mirroring the policies that have been serving us previously? Snowspinner 23:19, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

No other policy deals with as weighty an issue as who may contribute. There is not concensus on the 'what is a troll' definition. Mark Richards 23:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If all of "the word troll is unhelpful" votes are removed, and if even a small number are changed to support, then there is consensus. As I said, I have no particular attachment to the word troll. And plenty of other policies deal with who may contribute - the one setting up the arbcom, the vandalism policy, etc. Snowspinner 11:30, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

Definitions can be changed, and new definitions added as needed, but an adaptive definition is a can of worms I vehemently oppose. Thats the primary benefit of this policy, is that it moves away from the clearly unpopular (see the troll polls) adaptive definition. Sam [Spade] 23:25, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I have trouble concieving of why a definition that got over 40 votes is "clearly unpopular." I think the adaptive definition could readily be revised. As for definitions being changed... are you really comfortable with the idea of constantly changing policy in order to discipline specific users? The idea that we can just ammend policy as we need to in order to deal with all kinds of disruption seems far more troublesome than an adaptive definition moderated by careful selection of who can pass judgment on the issue. Snowspinner 11:30, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Which in turn opens us up to abuse, as we all know trolls love hard-coded rules.


 * I think it's too soon to be forcing a finalisation of this policy. I am in favour of the document as a whole, but there are some clauses that I cannot, in all honesty, support. Thus, if this is forced to a vote, I will have to vote against. It's un-wikilike to try and force a vote when consensus has not been obtained. There should be at least another week, for such a crucial policy. Ambivalenthysteria 07:45, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I can go along w the extra week idea, nothing wrong w that. As far as "Trolls like rules, so rules are bad" this is horrific reasoning from any angle. #1 trolls don't like rules, they like anarchy, anomie, and destruction. They are bothersome rejects that want you annoyed, not some machiavellian rules lawyer. Also, even if they did somehow like or benefit from rules, its is fundamentally faulty logic to suggest that that alone is grounds for rules being bad. Trolls like air too, so should we all suffocate? Anyhow, I'm ok w the extra week idea, anybody else? Sam [Spade] 07:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think Ambi was arguing that rules are bad. Certainly I wasn't. I think, however, that defining "disruptive behavior" is much like defining obscenity - I know it when I see it is about the best one can do. We can point to examples of disruptive behavior. We can come up, generally, with the nature of disruptive behavior. But I don't think disruptive behavior is something that can have an easy yardstick. And I think any attempt to make an easily referenced yardstick is only going to give trolls a shield to hide behind and a way to say, "See, I'm not a troll." because they've found some new way of disrupting Wikipedia. I'm far, far less comfortable with the notion of us having to cook up a new policy to deal with each troll individually than I am with an adaptive policy that requires respected members of the community (Whether those respective members be sysops, the arbcom, or Jimbo himself) to judge whether a given behavior is disruptive. A policy that requires the use of judgment can be balanced by care in who is allowed to pass judgment. That is easy to make non-disastrous. It is, I think, much, much harder to avoid making the outcome of having to, every time someone finds a new way of disrupting Wikipedia, having to go and pass a policy just to make them stop. Snowspinner 11:30, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * That’s the sort of reasoning that gets Georgia O’Keefe paintings banned as pornographic, and huckleberry finn banned as racist obscenity. "I know it when I see it" is BS. It’s just another way to say "I am God-King, Mr. know-it-all extraordinaire". Rules are good they protect us from zealots and demagogues, who I am incidentally far more concerned about than our pathetic rabble of poorly defined "trolls". Sam [Spade] 16:48, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, 'I know it when I see it' is problematic because different people simply don't agree. If they did, we wouldn't be haggling about this. Reasonable people acting in good faith have very different opinions about what 'it' is and what we should od about 'it'. That's why we need a reasonably objective definition. Mark Richards 16:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That or we need a group of reasonable people who are vested with the authority to make judgment calls about these matters. Yes. If only we had such a group. Say, of twelve people. They could be a sort of committee... and when faced with a case in which it is disputed whether someone falls inside or outside of the definition of a disruptive editor, they could judge this case... or perhaps arbitrate would be a better word than judge... hrm... Snowspinner 17:08, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fortunately we have been very careful to hold our arbitrators to some rather precise guidelines, otherwise we might well have a rather different wiki today. Sam [Spade] 17:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you really think it's a better situation to have a case of ammending policy in order to deal with specific users? I find the possibility of having to pass policies targeted at individual users troubling in a way that I just don't find trusting the arbitration committee to be. Snowspinner 17:13, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * You are fudging the issues here. The arbitration committe is overworked. They can barely handle what they have on their plate now. Even if we did trust the arbitrators to write policy and have free reign (which practically nobody, including Jimbo wants), the people who would be making snap judgement calls and blocking at their own descretion would be admins like RickK. I know you think that idea is all sunshine and rainbows, but I beg to differ. Lets just accept that you want sysops empowered to write their own rules as they go, and I (and others who support this policy rather than the troll poll policy) don't. They have more than enough flexability as it is, and this policy as it stands will give them a comfortable position from which to make descisions w/o fearing they have overstepped. I think thats a good thing. Sam [Spade] 17:22, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I am not even sure how to begin to respond to this absurd misrepresentation of my views on these issues. Suffice it to say that I do not object to requiring sysops to have support before issuing tempblocks. I do not object to sysops not being empowered to put permanant bans in place for cases of vandalism. I also do not support sysops creating new policy on the fly, as you'd notice from my proposed policy, which clearly rejected outright bans for "creative trolling," leaving that matter to the arbitration committee. Speaking of which, I do not support giving the arbitration committee the authoirty to set policy, although I do think their job necessarily involves interpretation of it. (In this specific case, the interpretation in question is whether or not given behavior is an attempt to disrupt Wikipedia's function or not. Which is, I maintain, the definition in question, with the flexibility needing to be on what it is that disrupts Wikipedia's function. It's sheer hubris to think that we'll get everything, so we need to admit that it's possible to disrupt Wikipedia in ways we haven't thought of, and that these ways are still not good.) I agree that the arbcom needs reform, and support a system similar to federal circuit courts in which a randomly chosen section of the committee hears a given case, thus lightening the total caseload. And I do not think that there are any other admins like RickK. For better or for worse, he is one of a kind. Snowspinner 17:43, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I think one issue here is the different interpretations of 'disrupt Wikipedia' that are out there in these discussions. For some people, this is a political issue about who gets to decide what Wikipedia is and what it will become, as well as who will be excluded from those discussions. There is a fear that the label of 'disrupting Wikipedia' might be applied to people who are promoting (for example) governance reform or changing the role of sysops. The bottom line for most of us who oppose the idea that sysops should have broad powers to make decisions in this regard is that it takes the authority to define the direction of the project away from ordinary users and puts it in the hands of a few 'activists' who are empowered to decide who can contribute. Mark Richards 17:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that, if it is the case that the sysops, the arbitration committee, and Jimbo himself would all fail to put a stop to interpretations such as you describe, then Wikipedia is probably screwed regardless of what definition we adopt. Snowspinner 18:00, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)

I don't take as pesimistic a view as that, I think it has a chance, but needs to be aware of the issues and craft checks and balances, like any other system. Mark Richards 18:05, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hey fella's, remember we are talking about a 24 block here. The important thing about this policy is sets at a protocol ensuring some basics: warning before blocking and presentation of evidence for community scrutiny. The policy can and will evolve based on community needs and experience. There is nothing we can say here that will change that. This weekend it would be lovely to discuss: "Is this policy a step the right direction." Experience will knock off the rough edges Erich 22:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

an extra week...
SAM, AH, urg are you really serious? can't say I'm keen, but if others agree... it's only a week... would you mind listing the issues that are so important? maybe we can rapidly thrash out a compromise and proceed as planned ... Erich 09:31, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a good idea (to rapidly try to thrash all these out). Why the rush? It's stupid to have unnecessary votes against because people didn't want to wait an extra few days to hash out the important last details. I've outlined my main objections above, and several of them still stand. Ambivalenthysteria 10:12, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * sorry AH, I am very unsure what the show stopping issues are. Would you mind terribly being specific? Erich 10:56, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * 1. How long should a user have to behave for their record to be expunged? I don't think that's long enough, but we didn't agree on an alternative.


 * well the idea of a short period is to provide an incentive to avoid sock-puppets... I don't really care if it is doubled... not sure what others would think. If it's important to you... how about 4 months? Erich 14:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I do care if it's doubled! Six months! that's a very long time. I could live with four months I suppose but don't see why it's necessary. What does making the time longer actually achieve? Most disruptive editors I can think of off the top of my head don't go a week between disruptions. theresa knott 21:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Four months is fine. Ambivalenthysteria 04:00, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I've changed the time. If there are howls of protest of foul play I suggest we ask a poll question and take the median. Erich 12:33, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary. What's one more month between friends eh? Four months is ok by me. theresa knott 23:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * 2. How many admins should be required to certify? At present, it's far too harsh, and enough to warrant striking this whole policy down, IMHO. A figure of 70-75% would be much more reasonable - and more in line with every other voting system across Wikipedia.
 * Now let me get this straight... you think the 83% at low numbers, dropping towards 66% at high numbers is so far from 70-75% that you think this is a show stopper? Erich 14:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The numbers look very similar to me I don't understand AH's objections theresa knott 21:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm most concerned about the necessary percentages at small numbers - as I think it's unlikely that masses of sysops are likely to be voting on most of these. Thus, 1 objection requiring 5 supports, and 2 objections requiring 7 supports, is too much, IMHO. Ambivalenthysteria 04:00, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree, and I for one am willing to lose a few votes over this, its quite important that a small "clique" not easilly ban somebody they simply happen to disagree w (i.e. a dissident, rather than an antisocial). Sam [Spade] 04:07, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Why not leave sysop power abuse cases to the AC? If this limit stays as it currently is, it's going to seriously inhibit the usefulness of this policy. If a group of sysops does the process and ban a "dissident" as you put it, let them be taken to the AC and hung out to dry, rather than neutering the policy in the first place, to prevent a perceived risk of abuse. Ambivalenthysteria 04:20, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * urg.. well any sysop that votes repeatedly against reasonable blocks is also going to find themselves before the AC as well. all this does is says that if there is controversy, then we need to get a few people involved. getting even seven sysops to record a vote won't take long at all... But OK, if this is a biggy... see below. Erich 12:33, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * 3. I don't believe the section on lone-ranger blocks has been fixed yet.
 * this had been very dynamic in last few days... looks reasonable too me, but how would you suggest it is changed? Erich 14:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Aha. I take that back. Ambivalenthysteria 04:00, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * thanks! 1 down ;) Erich 12:33, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * 4. I'm still quite uncomfortable with these changes to reincarnation policy, in that particular subsection. At the very least, I think we need to give this area a bit more thinking over. Ambivalenthysteria 11:39, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * May I restate that this isn't a change to reincarntation policy. This policy explicitly states that it is only deally with reincarnations of people blocked under the policy. Other reincarnations are handled as they always have been! Erich 14:51, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Why do we need a different policy of handling reincarnations of these than reincarnations of any other troublesome user? Ambivalenthysteria 04:00, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm still not sure what the fuss is. The only policy I'm aware of is that admins may 'use their discretion' blocking banned users and it causes a lot of controversy because the rules are so unclear. This is really a minor part. We all know sock-puppets are rediculously easy for a blocked user to pick up and easy to hide if your IQ is over 85. Basically all this says is that if a user has been blocked and makes a big effort to make many definitely helpful edits then cut the a "little bit" of slack. I must say I'm proud of this bit since its the only bit that isn't basic human manangement taught in first year uni classes all round the world. But hey, make suggestions... like much else of this policy it took a bit of thought and hasn't attracted buckects of comments. I am happy to explain my rationale if you or to support putting some alternative sections to the poll if we can work them up together. Erich 12:33, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't necessarilly favor the extra week thing, but I'm ok w it if enough people think its important. No need to rush, eh? We want this to become a long term policy, not a short term debate. Sam [Spade] 17:47, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah but we don't want ot to become a long term debate never getting to the vote stage eh? To be honest I'm not that happy with another week. Only a few people have actually commented on this page, let's put it to the vote and see what the community thinks. However if people think we must have another week can I specify a specific deadline, after which we let the community vote. I.e. no more extenstions after that. Without a deadline looming there is no reason for people to compromise, no reason to even debate, and IMO we'll never actually get anything done. theresa knott 21:21, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe I'm both compromising and debating. So what's your point? Ambivalenthysteria 04:00, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh I wasn't insinuating that you weren't debating or compromising. I'm just saying that having a definite deadline is a good thing. I've seen quite a lot of good ideas in wikipedia never come to fruition, and I don't want that to happen here (to what I think is a pretty good policy) . Knowing that we have to come to an agreed wording by a certain date, sharpens everyone's minds. theresa knott 23:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree w theresa, we'll give another week if need be, and thats it. Clearly we arn't overjoyed w the extra week, so maybe we aught to have a quick poll on it? Sam [Spade] 04:03, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ambiv, I'm sorry to say that as you seem to be the only one keen for the extra week, I can't see a lot of point delaying. If you get a few mates to rally around in the next half day or so then I guess well defer the week.... but...

my prefered option at this stage in the proposal is to try to formulate secondary poll questions if there are one or two key points for which counter proposals need to be worked up. does that sound reasonable? (the voting numbers issue I'm particularly thinking about) I don't see any reason why we can't have a go continueing to attempt to wiki-edit some proposed ammendments, although I think we should try to get a bit of input on proposed poll questions before they get thrown open (in order to avoid repeating the troll-poll episodes)... thoughts all? Erich 12:33, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's unreasonable - have one vote on the policy as a whole, and then another on what numbers to have. That's a much better solution than simply trying to shut me up (and I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way...just the only one who can be bothered pushing) and rush through with a vote, as certain other people seem to have been so keen to do. Ambivalenthysteria 12:55, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * That's great AH (although I feel you are bit unfair in implying anybody is trying to silence anybody - remember to assume good faith). Now what we need is your 'final offer' on the voting... what is the most conervative formuala you would accept? the current is $$votes to block = 3+2d$$ (where d=dissenting votes) Erich 13:39, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know...it's a difficult one, because the policy makes sense when more votes are included, but is just far too harsh when less people were involved. I'm somewhat pessimistic about the number of people likely to vote in these, and I don't like the idea of one person practically being able to shoot action down unless a bunch more users are rustled up. Ambivalenthysteria 14:05, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I dont share your pessimism AH. Every poll I've ever seen from quickpolls to RFA's to non straightforward VfD's has plenty of admins voting on it. I suspect we'll have little trouble getting votes for the easy cases (which is what this policy will be good at catching), the hard cases will probably IMO have loads of votes but if they don't get conmsensus then we can pass them over to the AC. Anyway we'll never be able to decide how many admins will vote by debating. This is a suck it and see situation, and there is nothing to stop us changing the numbers at a later date once we get the necessary experience of the policy in actiontheresa knott 23:35, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Addition to definition
I added "removing listings from Wikipedia pages such as Votes for deletion and Direction without following the correct procedures or against community consensus" to the definition of disruptive or antisocial behaviour. Since all edits are supposed to be "MINOR NON-CONTROVERSIAL CHANGES ONLY NOW", I thought I should note this here. Leaving this off of the definition would be a serious mistake. Guanaco 20:31, Jul 23, 2004 (UTC)


 * What is Direction? Sam [Spade] 20:34, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * he he, Sam, that is where the policy enforcement plays out!! Erich 21:45, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is necessarily disruptive. I would change the word "or" to "and".  Procedures aren't always perfect.  If a troll starts adding listings which are clearly inappropriate and someone removes them, you don't want to have the latter accused of being disruptive, despite the procedures not explicitly taking this possibility into consideration. anthony (see warning) 13:09, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry Anthony I beat you to it and condensed Guanaco's clause into "innapropriately removing listings from pages such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates or Wikipedia:Direction". debate about "innapropriate" will occur down the track unddoubtedly!!


 * I'm fine wit chaging or to and but i don't think we should worry too much about the exact wording to this extent. The whole point of getting people to authorise a ban (rather than a machine just do it automatically) is that the admins in question will be expected to use their judgement. No one in their right mind would claim that cleaning up vandalism is disruptive. You'd never get the three admins required.theresa knott 23:43, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)