Wikipedia talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/poll

see the archive for background discussion.

Possible opinion poll survey questions

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)

Warnings

How many times should a first time offender be warned before they have a 24 hour block enforced?

at least once
1. Rick K 05:53, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC) under normal circumstances, but pornography, racial or gender slurs should cause immediate blocking.
2. 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)
at least twice
1. Sam [Spade]
2. Ambi 07:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Erich 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) if someone has already attempted to resolve the issue by alerting the user about relevant policy.
4. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Sean Curtin 07:22, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC) and the person who would be doing the temp-banning should attempt to make sure that the person being warned actually received their warning first.
  1. And how precisely do you suggest that be done? There's no way to tell if someone's seen their talk page - David Gerard 14:28, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. older ≠ wiser 14:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) Although, IMO for simple and obvious vandalism once would be sufficient--but for the sake of a clearly written and simple rule two warnings applied consistently for all is better.
7. The first notice might not reach a person until they make a second mistake; if that's the case people would be blocked for ignorance and I do not support that. -- Grunt (talk) 14:32, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
8. I routinely warn vandals twice before blocking, disruptive editors deserve the same. [[User:Theresa knott|]] 14:57, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
9. Vanderesch 13:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
10. Merovingian✍Talk 01:51, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
11. Conti|✉ 22:54, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
at least three times
1. Atticus 03:31, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC) Three seems to be the magical number in these situations, not totally intolerant or permissive.
Other
1. Immediate block for pornography, slurs, and vandalism of the Main Page, but two warnings for removal of text/trolling. Neutrality 14:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Agree with Neutrality (but what are "slurs", as opposed to trolling?) ··gracefool |☺ 03:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. One formal warning, but the user should be made aware of the applicable policy before that warning. So depending what you consider a "warning", one or two. No specific time delay, but the user should be given reasonable time to see the warning. Whether that means one minute or one hour depends on the circumstances, but under my scheme the warning has to be agreed upon by at least three admins so presumably the user would see the warning during that time. It would be nice if we could temp block until the user states that she has seen the warning, but this would require modficiations to the mediawiki code. anthony (see warning) 17:15, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Agree with Neutrality, but only one warning for other cases. Lankiveil 06:16, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Votes to block

What should be the miniumum number votes required to enable a first time offender to be blocked for 24 hours?

3 admins
1. Erich 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Second choice, and absolute minimum in an admin-only voting scheme. anthony (see warning) 10:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Second choice, admin-only votes. older ≠ wiser 14:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2 admins
1. Ambi 07:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) (I could go with 3, but it's more the numbers required if one or two people objects that I have a problem with)
2. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Two is reasonable.Neutrality 14:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
1 admin
1. This isn't a voting scheme, and it is acceptable given a proper process. For example we already allow it for blocking certain types of behavior. Essentially, I agree with Bkonrad. anthony (see warning)
2. David Gerard 14:29, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. older ≠ wiser 14:34, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)First choice, so long as such blocks can be reversed if applied inappropriately and there are actual consequences for inappropriate blocking.
4. Agree with Bkonrad [[User:Theresa knott|]] 14:59, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
some other option
1. No admin involvement needed in deciding, only in carrying out the block. Sam [Spade] 04:45, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  We tried that. Ambi 07:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  1. Admins arn't better judges than other users, and already have more power than they deserve. If we are to create a "judge dread" class of wiki-users, they would need infinately more acountability than wiki-sysops now have. Sam [Spade] 10:45, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
2. Agree with Sam Spade. Yes, we tried it, but in my opinion its failure was not related to the lack of admin involvement. anthony (see warning) 10:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. This should depend on how many admins are knowledgeable about the issue, I think; a majority of admins with immediate knowledge and desire to block should be able to do so. -- Grunt (talk) 14:35, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
4. GeneralPatton 20:31, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Bad edits before blocking

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
1. Erich 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6 counter productive edits
No specific amount, or other
1. Sam [Spade] 04:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Ambi 07:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) Discretion.
3. One or two after warning. anthony (see warning) 10:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. What Anthony said. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. This is not a sufficiently clear cut issue for a rule - David Gerard 14:30, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. It's not quantity. It's how counterproductive the edits are. -- Grunt (talk) 14:35, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
  - Also agree with this. One or two after a warning is the minimum. anthony (see warning) 17:24, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
7. What Grunt said. Neutrality 14:47, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8. Agree with Grunt, we could habe a guideline of about 8 edits, but it shouldn't be rigid. [[User:Theresa knott|]] 15:01, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
9. What Grunt said --Conti|✉ 22:56, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Deal with socks?

Should any blocking policy include specific provisions for dealling with sock puppets?

yes as specified in wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors
1. Erich 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
no, leave it to "good judgement"
not in this policy
1. Leave this part out Sam [Spade] 04:46, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Solve this problem as part of a different proposal. anthony (see warning) 10:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Wikipedia:Blocking policy: "Sock puppets that were created to violate Wikipedia policy should be blocked permanently." Guan aco 17:13, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
4. What Anthony said. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. Agree with Guanaco and Anthony [[User:Theresa knott|]] 15:03, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
some other idea
1. Ambi 07:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Neutrality 14:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Escalating penalties?

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
1. Erich 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Sam [Spade] 04:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Ambi 07:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. David Gerard 14:31, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
6. -- Grunt (talk) 14:37, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
7. Neutrality 14:52, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8. [[User:Theresa knott|]] 15:04, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
9. Lankiveil 06:17, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)
no, leave it to "good judgement"
some other idea
1. Decreasing tolerance, sort of, but no increasing penalties. See Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/simplified draft. Escalating penalties is my biggest problem with the current proposal. anthony (see warning) 10:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Show evidence?

Should those seeking to block another user should be required to supply a list of URLs to diffs (eg [1] to justify their desire?

yes (this is important for accountability and demonstration of justice)
1. Erich 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Sam [Spade] 04:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Ambi 07:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) Yes, but the key issue is how many. Of course diffs need to be provided, but for a 24 hour block, I say no more than three. Otherwise, it takes too long, and simply wastes too much of the admin's time, in comparison to the time it would take the offender to cause the trouble.
4. Of course. anthony (see warning) 10:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. -- Grunt (talk) 14:37, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
6. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
7. [[User:Theresa knott|]] 15:05, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
8. Austin Hair 02:56, Aug 22, 2004 (UTC)
9. Conti|✉ 22:57, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
no (this places an unfair burden on the victim and on admins and takes the burden off the perpetrator)
1. RickK 05:54, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)Ridiculous. Just look at the contribs for the blocked user.
  - It can be difficult to find bad edits amongst good edits. This simplifies matters, as the accusers probably already have several diffs picked out. -- Grunt (talk) 14:43, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
2. Neutrality 14:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Other
1. Maybe. saying "see history" should be sufficient - David Gerard 14:32, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Make a notice early?

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)
1. Erich 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Sam [Spade] 04:48, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. -- Grunt (talk) 14:40, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
no (this places an unfair burden on the victim and on admins and takes the burden off the perpetrator)
no
1. The problem should be handled privately and amicably if at all possible. People shouldn't be "seeking to block another user" in the first place. Blocks should occur as a last resort, and threats of blocks should occur as a second to last resort. This is perhaps my second biggest problem with the current proposal. Again, see Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/simplified draft. anthony (see warning) 10:14, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
some other idea
1. It depends. If it were to be in the format of say, what RFAR is now, then I'd be okay with it. I'm worried, however, about this becoming too close to quickpolls. Ambi 07:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. What Ambi said. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. What Johnleemk said. Neutrality 14:51, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reasons for block

Should the reasons for the block always be a violation of existing policy?

yes
1. anthony (see warning) 10:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Sam [Spade] 05:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Yes but the existing policy in question should be worded flexibly. [[User:Theresa knott|]] 15:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
not necessarily
1. Common sense. Neutrality 14:50, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
some other idea
1. This question could do with some context. Ambi 07:30, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. What Ambi said. Johnleemk | Talk 13:11, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. What happens if a user finds some brand new way of abusing things? We cannot wait for the bureaucratic processes to come up with a decision; we need action, fast. -- Grunt (talk) 14:40, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
  - Why what's the urgency? [[User:Theresa knott|]] 15:08, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  - If the abuse is clear, then it won't take long to make new policy. This policy is a bureaucratic process. It's not any easier to block someone than to make new policy. The difference is that new policy requires a consensus of all users, not just admins. anthony (see warning) 17:03, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

List reasons

Is there a need to list every reason a block can be made on this policy page?

yes
1. Sam [Spade] 05:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
no
1. anthony (see warning) 10:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Ambi 12:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. See above. -- Grunt (talk) 14:40, 2004 Aug 21 (UTC)
5. No - make the wording flexible. However we should list as many as we can think of [[User:Theresa knott|]] 15:09, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  1. I am ok with flexable wording, so long as it isn't too flexable, and there is an understanding that enforcement is limited by current policy, not the whims of the mob (or a handful of likeminded sysops, God forbid). Sam [Spade] 10:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lone ranger blocks

Should this proposal include a provision for lone ranger blocks.

yes
1. Ambi 10:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) But I could be convinced otherwise.
no, handle them in a different proposal
1. anthony (see warning) 10:27, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Neutrality 14:49, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
no, we don't need any lone ranger blocks we don't already have
1. Sam [Spade] 05:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Forgive and forget

How long should we wait before clearing a reformed user's record.

30 days
1. anthony (see warning) 10:29, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Neutrality 14:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
60 days
1. Johnleemk | Talk 09:27, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
90 days
1. Sam [Spade] 05:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
2. Erich 07:44, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
3. Ambi 10:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
4. I'm fairly flexible on this 60 or 90 days is ok with me 30 days is certainly too short and any longer than 90 days is way to long IMO [[User:Theresa knott|]] 15:13, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
5. GeneralPatton 20:34, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
120 days
other
1. Should depend on how many counterproductive edits have been made. For a hypothetical example: if they've reached first stage penalties, 30 days; second stage, 60 days; third stage, 90 days; etc.
  1. The important thing is that we create an environment encouraging of reform, something in which this policy fails. Sam [Spade] 10:50, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)