Wikipedia talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/archive1

message: Basically I like this - the only problem is that it still has a way to go in terms of specificity. NPOV violations may be obvious in the extreme, but much genuine angst is spilled over this by users in good faith. I worry about situations where admins are empowered to ban people for that. The same with many others on that list.
However, basically it is much better than the other suggestion of 'sysops should do whatever they like'! I would support a variation of this. Mark Richards 16:07, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mark. Feel free to (a) modify it (b) popularise it. The silence is still a bit deafening! Perhaps you would like to expand the definition of what is and is not included. Examples could help.
I am a little worried however that this might be used to silence potentially legitimate criticism. For example, a proposal to limit sysop power could be stopped by two sysops blocking the user making the proposal. Mark Richards 16:58, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: not sure if i follow this concern Mark. Before two sysops could do anything, other than warn a user, they'd have to identify 10 non productive edits and find a third sysop that agreed with them. (feel free to delete this thread if you see what I mean when you reread the proposal). Erich 17:05, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: I basically agree with this as well.  I think that the sysops have to get a little self-policing done; for instance, I would be willing to scrutinize these blocks, and I suspect you would as well. I think that individually, sysops are more likely to break policy than as a group. Meelar (talk) 17:05, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: thanks Isomorphic. I have proposed a time line for progressing this. I deliberately want to wait before voting so we can move close to consensus. Does that time line sound reasonalbe?Erich 01:21, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial comments by [[User:Mark Richards|Mark Richards]], [[User:Meelar|Meelar]] and [[User:Isomorphic|Isomorphic]] 

message: This gives sysops too much power...
(snip): Especially this: "If a sysop believes that a non-sysop's request is frivolous or vexatious they may immediately remove it." This seems to make sysops themselves totally immune to this process. Obviously, I'm going to consider any accusation against myself "vexatious." I'm dubious about the whole idea, but if we're adopting it I think it would be more useful to have a way for sysops to weigh in that the accusation was frivolous than to allow one single individual (even a sysop) to delete it. Also, there should be a fast track to banning for any individual who serially brings frivolous accusations of trolling or who vandalizes the Direction Page. -- Jmabel 14:20, Jul 10, 2004 (UTC) (/snip)
:I've edited that the section. Is that better. Re the "serially brings frivolous accusations", well if they've been warned, then that counts towards their 'ten'... is that fair? Erich 22:58, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Power to remove frivouls vexatious complaints

message: 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)
===This gives sysops too much power===
====No====
umm, well yes. It does give them more power. True. 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 seem sysops should be using more power, and are prepared to have 'trolls' (whatever that actually means) banned on site! (see the voting at Wikipedia:Dealing with trolls)
====Yes====
Yes, it gives them more power than they have every traditionally had. Certainly more than was granted to them when the community elected them to administer policy. 2/3 majority is not concensus, and this kind of thing will lead to factionalisation among sysops, with those hungry for more power drumming up ever more panic about a rising tide of trolling. I have yet to see anything that has caused much long term damage that this policy would fix.
===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 one tree-hugging, whale kissing, bleeding heart sysop bleets "no! they're not bad, they are just misunderstood", well the three gun toting no-nonsense type syspops just need to pop down to the sherrifs office and pick up a couple of supporters, "five to 1" and stick on the block.
===This makes it too hard to fight vandalism===
Response: huh? this has nothing to do with vandalism. wikipedia: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===
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. (add your own favourite here) (I will be willing to name and show histories of several, just off the top of my head.)
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Meelar (talk) 22:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequently raised objections

message: 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. (add your own favourite here) (I will be willing to name and show histories of several, just off the top of my head.)
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Meelar (talk) 22:00, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: This is not addressing a real problem

message: *First warning: 
*Concerning edits: 
** personal attack ++++
** reversion ++
** obfuscation +++
** talk page edit ++
** reversion ++
** obfuscation +++
** talk page edit ++
** reversion ++
** obfuscation +++
** talk page edit ++
** vandalism +++
** personal attack ++++
** personal attack ++++
*Constructive edits:
** good new page+++++
** typos ++
** copyediting +++
** typos ++, 
*Final warning criteria met: user:batman 06:36, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mock Direction for [[user:badboytrol]]