Wikipedia talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors

message: 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)
thread_title: Mock Direction page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  non logged in users 

message: In my mind the best wording is still unresolved...
which is better, this:
::"violation of neutral point of view, and engaging in multiple (more than three per 24 hour period) reversions or essentially the same text"
or
::"violation of neutral point of view, and making edits known to be against a clear consensus"
--anon
: The former is better. Sometimes a so-called "clear consensus" is wrong, because it ignores a good compromise that would be more neutral and satisfy everyone. Sometimes the only way to hammer this home is to be persistent about it. The latter is also prone to groupthink. Martin 23:38, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  acting against consensus (reversion rule)

message: This gives sysops additional authority.  I don't think that can be avoided.  But "Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility." Judgement calls should be made by people deemed to be good at judging, which is not part of the selection for administrators.  "Current Wikipedia policy is to grant [admin] access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community." anthony (see warning) 14:20, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "This gives sysops additional authority.  I don't think that can be avoided.  But "Sysops are not imbued with any special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of editorial responsibility." Judgement calls should be made by people deemed to be good at judging, which is not part of the selection for administrators.  "Current Wikipedia policy is to grant [admin] access liberally to anyone who has been an active Wikipedia contributor for a while and is generally a known and trusted member of the community." 
I accept your point about the admins not being chosen for theor judgement. However, it would be hard to argue that their judgement is worse than any quick poll participant. At the end of the day "somebody" has got to make these calls. In my mind this proposal is miles better than the summary justice of the troll polls. If this poll fails to get up then maybe the community will just go for lone ranger blocks without all the rules... I hope you can change your mind, but no hard feelings. best wishes Erich 19:46, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of my hasty opposition

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I like the current formula, but maybe still an issue for a secondary question? Erich 03:17, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The voting formula makes it too hard to act at low numbers

message: I tend to think that the whole trolling problem is a bit blown out of proportion, but since some users really are disruptive, I'm willing to support this for a trial period.
One issue I have with it is that blocked users can only complain to the admins, thus excluding the procedure from public view. IMO, there should be a page which even blocked users can edit and lodge their complaints. Abuses of this should be dealt with under "vandalism".
One minor issue I have i have is blocking on site by a single admin for repeated offenders, but this would be alleviated by the aforementioned idea. Another is continued block if a case is not accepted by ArbCom in a week. That means "guilty until judged innocent." I realize that answering to every complaint in certain time is sometimes hard, but that comes with the job. ArbCom should actively turn down cases, not let them expire. Zocky 13:20, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blocked users should have a place to complain on wikipedia + 2 other issues 

message: votings over and I've made an archive. Can somebody please unlock the page now? ta! Erich 07:06, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: unlocking