Jump to content

Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/poll

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neutrality (talk | contribs) at 02:50, 31 July 2004 (→a. yes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Introduction

This poll is to decide whether we should adopt Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors. If adopted, the policy will not be set in stone and may change in the future in light of the community's experience with it. Please vote bearing this in mind.

Voting starts on midday, UTC, 25 July 2004

Poll closes midday UTC 8 August 2004

Plea to avoid hasty opposition

This is a relatively complex proposal for a difficult problem. If your initial reaction is to vote against the policy then I urge you pause before voting. There is no rush. Voting is open for two weeks. Take the time to read the 'frequently raised objections' on the talk page and re-read the policy. If the FROs don’t deal with your concern then please raise it again on the poll or policy talk pages. Hopefully one of us can then explain the rationale for why policy is as it is and we can work through alternatives. We may also be able to frame a secondary poll question if needed.

Question 1 (7+11/14)

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)

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)

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.

Question 2

Please do not unilaterally add questions. Propose secondary questions on the talk pages and allow 48 hours of discussion to craft proposals. You will get a better outcome if you let others help you knock off any easily fixable sticking points first!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dealing_with_disruptive_or_antisocial_editors/poll&oldid=4927965"