Wikipedia talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/archive2

message: 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)
replies: text: (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. Meelar (talk) 17:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: 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)
replies: text: (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. Meelar (talk) 17:32, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Early debates

message: (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)
thread_title: misuse of editing summaries 

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

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)
replies: text: 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)

text: For sure - I agree. Mark Richards 15:54, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Is this a real problem? What is the real problem?

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'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)
thread_title:  Kudos! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: 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’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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Concern 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: misrepresenting the truth

message: Double plus good work w the latest edits, all hail comrade gasboy ;) Cheers, Sam [Spade] 05:49, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks Sam. between you and user:ratgurl I'm really going to blush Erich 06:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  :D Sam [Spade] 06:28, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

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: 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)
replies: text: Erich 06:01, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Well if they are a sockpuppet they may
#Not act like a newbie 
#Exhibit the same antisocial behaviour that got the original account blocked in the first place.
#Have exactly the same interests as the orginal account i.e. edit the same pages.
#Have the same writing style (it's quite difficult to mask a writing style)
#Talk to people they haven't yet met in an overly friendly or agressive way - as if they know them already.
#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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Reincarnations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bad Idea

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: acting against consensus

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 wikipedia: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)

text: 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)

text: ok, I concede... Erich 05:23, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  unless that belief is explicitly banned by other Wikipedia policy 

message: 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)
thread_title: RFA

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Precident 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hear, all ye good people, hear what this brilliant and eloquent speaker has to say! Sam [Spade] 23:34, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of disruptive behaviour includes but is not limited to: