Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/poll

Introduction and next steps

This poll was to decide whether we should adopt Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors - Version 1. The poll ran from midday, UTC, 25 July 2004 to midday UTC 8 August 2004. Many thanks to all those that voted and made comments.

Please see the talk page for ongoing discussion. I propose that interested parties flock to the talk pages to formulate revised proposals to resubmit to community polling restarting on Midday UTC 22 August 2004.

Please explain your view

So that we can work towards modifying the policy towards a middle ground, the proponents of the policy would be very grateful if you take the time to explain 'no' votes.

"Ill-conceived" and other fancy ways of saying "I don't like it" are not overly helpful.

Question 1: 26 (13+13) to 20

Should Wikipedia adopt Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors?

Votes for (a) will be added to (b) if neither (a) nor (b) receive majority over (c). If you do not support the policy, a quick word or 20 after your vote would be very welcome to help us to move forward after the poll.

a. yes

1. Eequor 07:16, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. theresa knott
3. Erich 18:37, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) trust me, I've had worse ideas ;-)
4. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:43, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC)
5. Sam [Spade] 06:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
6. Fritzlein 21:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) Normally I don't like complex procedures, but here I think they are a good thing. Nobody will waste the time to follow these rules to the letter unless some disruptive user is wasting more of their time than this process takes. A more streamlined process would be worse: this process should only be a last resort for those few users who wear down all attempts at cooperation.
7. Alteripse 22:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC) My only concern is whether this doctor-turned-politician will be more like Howard Dean or Phil Gingrey. Maybe his wife can give us a clue? Also, whether if this is successful he will stop writing medical articles and start volunteering to run things? Oh, and will he forget us little people he used to hang around with?
8. Neutrality 02:50, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
9. mav (As it is, admins don't really have the authority to enforce our policies and the AC is slow (as are all courts). Thus there is much chaos between obvious vandalism and long-term cases that are eligible to appear before the AC. We must fill this power vacuum before vigilantism by admins becomes a serious problem.)
10. Jimbo Wales 17:05, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) I am voting "yes, but..." That is, I am only voting yes to give an enthusiastic show of support but knowing that from the other votes on this page consensus will not be reached. Looking at the no votes below, it looks like the most promising way to work toward consensus will be to make essentially the same proposal, but much simplified somehow. I think that the counting mechanism is brilliant, but that the legalistic details are unnecessary. Use Good Judgment is usually better than detailed law.
11. Delirium 22:23, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC) Perhaps unsurprisingly, agree with Jimbo's comments immediately above.
12. _R_ 04:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC) I like the emphasis on providing evidence and subscribe to Fritzlein's coment above. Not too sure about allowing only sysops to vote though.
13. Eric119

b. yes, but only for a trial period of two months

1. Johnleemk | Talk 13:13, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Jrincayc 15:55, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) I think that it seems to balance not wasting too much time with Disruptive editors, with giving disruptive editors a chance to understand what they are doing wrong so they might reform. That said, I think that two months of use will likely find ways to improve the policy.
3. Schnee 16:45, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. I'm sceptical, but I'll give it a chance. -- Jmabel 17:10, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
5. Acegikmo1 20:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC). This is a vast improvement over Wikipedia:Trolling poll, which was a vast improvement over Wikipedia:Dealing with trolls. Nevertheless, it's far too bureaucratic, a bit underdeveloped, and not clear enough. I believe the two-month trial period is the best solution to resolve these problems. I would vote no if this were not an option, however.
6. Jallan 22:25, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
7. Denni☯ 22:28, 2004 Jul 25 (UTC) I don't believe there is any question that =some= more effective means of dealing with hostile behavior is necessary. This seems rather a complicated process, but perhaps a trial run will lead to a more streamlined version. Certainly, nothing ventured...
8. Warofdreams 13:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) - will reveal where the problems in this system lie and whether or not they can be fixed.
9. Mark Richards 17:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) Let's give it a spin.
10. Stormie 06:18, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
11. Guanaco 22:50, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

    Zocky 13:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) A good start. I suggest that blocked users are given access to a wiki page where they can lodge their complaints in a public place. After consideration I have changed my vote to oppose. See below. Zocky 18:36, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

12. I don't think it will work, but it's worth a try. We need to take Wikipedia back from the trolls. --H. CHENEY 02:16, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
13. Let's give it a shot before for 2 months. Trying it won't hurt. --EastNile 09:20, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    Stubborn sockpuppet. Ambi 13:28, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    He definitely doesn't look like a sockpuppet to me. I removed the previous comments on his vote since they might seeem offensive to a newcomer. _R_ 15:33, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    Looks like a sockpuppet. But I see no point in removing the vote if someone objects to removing it. anthony (see warning) 16:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

14. David Gerard 20:57, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC) It's way too complicated at first glance. But let's give it two months' trial, to really shake out the process and give a clearer perspective on what's needed.

c. no

1. anthony (see warning) 14:09, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
2. Snowspinner 15:02, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC) An ill-concieved solution to an ill-defined problem.
3. James F. (talk) 15:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
4. GD 21:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) One admin or two, it's still unnecessary hierarchy with power mostly concentrated at the top.
5. Elf-friend 22:10, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) Good idea in general, but the whole procedure as it is presented at the moment is just waaay too long and complex and should be simplified.
6. 172 06:51, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) Agree with Snowspinner-- an ill-concieved solution to an ill-defined problem
7. UninvitedCompany 16:37, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC). Legalistic policies don't work at Wikipedia. This policy is an order of magnitude too complicated to be implemented. Wikipedia policy is best made though a clear statement a paragraph or so long, followed by examples. The proposed policy is 43 paragraphs long by my count, which is waaay too many.
8. Michael Snow 22:41, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC) The proponents are to be commended for their conscientious efforts, but the proposal is overly complex. We already had a trial period with the less complicated format of quickpolls, and that failed, so I see no reason to support a trial period here.
9. Martin 00:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) Oppose, but not strongly. I agree with much of the above.
10. Ambivalenthysteria 02:53, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) Echoing what UninvitedCompany, Michael Snow and Martin said.
11. NetEsq 10:02, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) Just say no to new rules!
12. Dysprosia 13:17, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC) Ditto various people above.
13. Zocky 18:38, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) After consideration, I changed my vote to "oppose" because end of july/beginning of august is when most people in northern hemisphere are on holidays. This is no time for radical changes of policy. The trolling problem will be aleviated by the beginning of school year in september.
14. older≠wiser 21:37, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC) I feel this is just a bit too legalistic. I think something is needed, but this reads like troll-bait--something to pointlessly consume the time of well-meaning Wikipedians.
15. { MB | マイカル } 15:49, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC) I think this policy would add to an already growing problem of new user abuse. It is too often the case that admins crusade to protect an article from a "troll" when in fact they are attacking someone who is not. I think this will only add more to that problem, and not help aleviate the troll problem.
16. Jxg 03:12, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) Far too broad and complex in current state.
17. LutzPrechelt 16:40, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC) This is not just complex, it's intimidating.
18. I support the general spirit of this policy, but it's far too complex. Also, it gives admins extra authority with no particular reason for doing so. Isomorphic 01:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    See this (I didn't copy you, I swear :) Sam [Spade] 03:51, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

19. RickK 04:47, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC). Too bureaucratic. Makes it too difficult to deal with problem users. Repeated actions? Three sysops? No. One sysop, one time behavior, or I'll have to vote not every time.
    • So should we delete Template:Test then? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:36, 2004 Aug 7 (UTC)
20. Austin Hair 11:27, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC) How are we to expect that every one of our editors will read this, much less abide by it? If this continues, our convoluted, bureaucratic editing policies will bring about a need for WikiLawyers—I fail to see how this "problem" warrants any policy incapable of being expressed in a single page of text, if not a single paragraph.

    sigh... I guess I didn't explain this very well. The average user needs to know about as much of the machinations of this policy as they do about the intracacies of the MySQL record locking strategy. The policy sits there as an instrument of last resort for use by a few admins and others that take an interest in Wiki-justice. About all the average user should notice is that the number of disruptive counterproductive editors they need to deal with should decrease Erich 01:29, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    Unlike MySQL record locking mechanisms, this policy has the ability to profoundly and adversely influence their status as editors, and as it's said, "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Austin Hair 02:27, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

    sure Austin, but the average editor only needs to know "don't be disruptive, and if you see somebody being disruptive ask them nicely to stop". One of the reasons the policy is complicated is to ensure that peolpe are made aware they are infringing policy and what the consequences are before they get given a brief block. Peoples "status as editors" only comes under serious threat if they clearly demonstrate an inability to comply with accepted policy despite multiple warnings - and then only if the AC decides to wade in on the basis of all the evidence collected along the way. Erich 11:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

    If this is all the average editor needs to know, then why is this document just short of ten pages long? Again, what part of this policy precludes its condensation to a concise, elegant document which exemplifies the "common sense" spirit of the project? (Your argument rather eerily mirrors something I recently heard from Atty. Gen. Ashcroft, by the way, but I'll try not to read too far into that.) Austin Hair 21:53, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

    Why is it long? well because it deals with sock-puppets and repeat offenders and spells out a policy that ensure transparency. Listen think about highway speed limits. All a driver needs to know is: keep your speed below 55 or 110 or whatever it is in your part of the world. A driver has no need to know any of the 20 pages in the highway patrol officers manual for dealling with speeding drivers or any of the 1000's of pages of legislation and case-law that deals with recalictrant speeders, or managing appeals etc etc. Having said that, there are a few sharp Wikipedians working on a shorter version. Erich 01:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

21. Meh, not more policy. Less is more (Le Corbusier) Sjc 04:42, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Question 2

I've proposed a set of informal follow-up questions on the talk page that people may wish to review, vote on, add to, laugh at... etc etc ;-) best wishes to all Erich 04:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)