Wikipedia talk:Three strikes you're out policy

message: First, I do not agree with the notion that quickpolls are not working. Some important policy changes (such as the requirement that someone uninvolved must start a quickpoll) have only been made recently. There are also still some misunderstandings as to the situations in which a quickpoll can be used. I designed the system specifically with the goal in mind to deal with three long-standing problems:
* edit wars
* sysop abuse
* emergency situations in which quick action is needed
Quickpolls were created primarily as a response to growing concerns about developers and sysops acting too unilaterally in enforcing Wikipedia policy. They were not created to deal with trolls.
Have quickpolls succeeded in ending edit wars? Of course not. But that is not so much a problem of the polling system, but of the revert policy itself, which is still too vague and easy to game. People who would revert 10 times a day before the 3-revert-policy revert 10 times over 4 days now. A prolonged edit war is still an edit war. That is something we need to deal with.
As for trolling, that is a much more difficult situation. Trolling is a kind of all-purpose term. If I add controversial information about a person to a page, someone who likes that person might call me a "troll", only trying to cause problems. If I am new to Wikipedia, and maybe a little bit arrogant, the other person, a sysop, might quickly convince two regulars that I am a troll and "strike me out". I doubt that someone else would go to the effort to help me if they also need two other people first to support me. "Somebody else's problem."
No, I don't think that's the way to deal with trolling. I have an alternative suggestion. It seems to me that trolls like to hang out primarily on the Wikipedia: pages, on trolling-related articles etc. How about this: a new option for quickpolls to put users into an article work probation. A requirement would be that the contributor has not done any serious article work recently. If the quickpoll is successful, for the duration of the probation period, all edits outside the article space can be reverted. If the user re-reverts, he can be instantly banned, permanently if necessary. Exception would be legitimate attempts at communication, but this would be at the judgment of other users.
Inside the article namespace, normal rules would apply. Users would make all attempts to deal with the suspected troll in a friendly manner. However, they do not have to do so infinitely. After a number of at least 50 contributions, another quickpoll can be started. If the conclusion is that the user does not make attempts at serious contributions in the article space, a ban is the final option. I think this way we could force trolls to spend their time productively or go away. What say you?
One concern will be that this way we will harm Wikipedia by inviting trolls to work on it. But the goal here is really to turn trolls into useful contributors. 50 contributions isn't that much and should allow us to make a judgment.
I must also warn you that bans aren't all that effective on a technical level. We are likely dealing with a handful of trolls who keep coming back under different usernames. Getting a new IP is easy, and unless we definitely know who we're dealing with, we can't set up range blocks either (which are also very problematic, because they hit lots of innocents). How about a different route? Tell the trolls: You are welcome if you make serious contributions. Otherwise, go away.
Also, I would suggest prohibiting usernames which seem to imply that the user is deliberately trolling. Trollslayer seems OK, but JRR Trollkien is definitely over the line.
On a more general note, when I designed the quickpoll system, I built and improved it until a consensus (20 in favor - 2 against) could be reached. I do hope that this proposed system is not put into place on the basis of a simple majority.--Eloquence* 17:13, Apr 10, 2004 (UTC)
: I think there's something to be said for disallowing usernames that indicate the user is not being a serious contributor with Wikipedia's interests at heart - user:Just a vandal, user:I hate Wikipedia, etc. Something for wikipedia talk:username, I guess. Martin 17:25, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or people who have the word "Troll" in their user name. Danny 17:26, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative idea: troll reform