Wikipedia talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/poll

message: What do others think about conducting an informal poll on the following question? If people think these questions are relevent we could add them to this poll now and just leave them open until the next round of formal voting - to guide those working on the simple versions. (I've taken the libery of adding my opinion with ##~~~~ - but feel free to edit the above list and move the most important questions towards the top). Thoughts? best wishes Erich 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible opinion poll survey questions 

message: How many times should a first time offender be warned before they have a 24 hour block enforced?
# at least once
##RickK 05:53, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC) under normal circumstances, but pornography, racial or gender slurs should cause immediate blocking.
##Once is quite enough. Allow a time delay to see they have talk, though (half an hour?) - David Gerard 11:53, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Warnings

message: What should be the miniumum number votes required to enable a first time offender to be blocked for 24 hours?
# 3 admins
##Erich 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes to block

message: What is the minimum number of counter productive edits (not vandalism) new user should be allowed before being blocked for 24 hours?
# 10 counter productive edits 
# 8 counter productive edits
##Erich 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad edits before blocking

message: Should any blocking policy include specific provisions for dealling with sock puppets?
# yes as specified in wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors
##Erich 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Deal with socks?

message: Should any summary blocking policy include a specified system of escalating penalties and decreasing tolerance for repeat offenders?
# yes as specified in wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors
##Erich 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Escalating penalties?

message: Should those seeking to block another user should be required to supply a list of URLs to diffs (eg  to justify their desire?
# yes (this is important for accountability and demonstration of justice)
##Erich 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Show evidence?

message: Should those seeking to block another user should be required to make a public notice as early as possible in the process (eg like the Directions page suggested in the initial proposal?
# yes (this is important allow public scrutiny)
##Erich 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Make a notice early?

message: Should the reasons for the block always be a violation of existing policy?
# yes
##anthony (see warning) 10:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Reasons for block

message: Is there a need to list every reason a block can be made on this policy page?
# yes
##Sam [Spade] 05:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: List reasons

message: Should this proposal include a provision for lone ranger blocks.
#yes
##Ambi 10:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Lone ranger blocks

message: How long should we wait before clearing a reformed user's record.
#30 days
##anthony (see warning) 10:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Forgive and forget