|
[[de:Glück]] [[pt:Sorte]]
I'm not sure we should have two yes options (yes and yes but only for a trial period) I predict that most people will be cautious and vote for the trial period. We could just put it's a trial period in the intro straight off and keep the voting options simple. Also two months isn't very long. Disruptive editing can be complex - well more complex than straight vandalism anyway. I don't think two months is really long enough to evaluate how well the policy is working. I suggest doubling it to four months. Any thoughts? [[User:Theresa knott|theresa knott]] 19:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
''This article is about good and bad fortune. There is also: [[Luck, Volhynia]], a town in [[Ukraine]], and [[Luck, Wisconsin]], a village in the [[USA]].''
----
'''Luck''' may be analysed from three viewpoints: rational, social, and spiritual.
==Rational viewpoint==
I do not think the right solution to this was to add yet another option. Option glut is bad - it makes it increasingly difficult to decide whether you have a real consensus for anything. If two months turns out to not be enough, we can extend it another two when the time comes. But let's not make this poll overwhelming. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 23:51, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
As related to the occurrences of actual events considered to be of low [[probability]] in a [[mathematics|mathematical]] or [[statistics|statistical]] sense. A [[rationalist]] approach would lead to the conclusion that such matters as whether or not someone bore a victim ill will would have no bearing upon (for example) that person being hit by a loose brick falling from a decrepit building. It was only due to a remote statistical probability that the brick's four [[Dimension|dimensional]] [[Spacetime|space-time]] path intercepted the 4D path of the victim's head (this was an actual occurrence in [[San Francisco]]). In a case like this both rationalists and spiritualists would likely say that the victim was ''unlucky''. In an example of good luck, a person winning a [[lottery]] would generally be considered lucky, although a rationalist might point out that there was bound to be a winner sooner or later, and there was actually nothing lucky about ''someone'' winning - it was merely a [[probability|probabilistic]] event. It is doubful that the winner would agree with that analysis, however.
==Social viewpoint==
:I agree. My suggestion was to get rid of the "yes" and "yes but" options and merge them into a new "yes but we'll review in 4 months" That way there would have been two option yes and no, but now there are four. Oh well it's too late now.No one has voted for the four month option though. We could just remove it? [[User:Theresa knott|theresa knott]] 00:00, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
As a [[Society|social]] phenomenon, there is much truth in the saying "what goes around, comes around" (see [[karma]]). On the one hand, those who are kind and generous to others are usually perceived as open and accepting and so more likely to be freely offered assistance from others. They are also more likely to also be able to ask for and receive help from others in time of need. On the other hand, those who are asocial or anti-social are less likely ask for assistance or to be offered assistance by others. The open, generous and cheerful person is more likely to be classified by others as lucky, while the curmudgeon is more likely to be considered by others or to consider him/her self unlucky.
We shouldn't be adding options after the poll has started. This was one of the best run polls I've ever seen up until that point. The list of options has been available for ten days now, before the poll started was the time to modify them. Since no one has voted on the option and I don't see any objections I'm going to remove it. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 01:35, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
==Supernatural viewpoint==
== This is not complicated! ==
There is also sometimes considered to be a [[supernatural]] bias towards experiencing events of good or ill fortune. In this sense some believe that one's own or another's good or bad luck can be influenced through spiritual means or by performing certain rituals or by avoiding certain (from a rational viewpoint non-relevant) situations. [[Voodoo]] is a religious practice in which this belief is particularly strong, although many cultures worldwide place a strong emphasis on a person's ability to influence their luckiness by ritualistic means. This often involves proper respect for spirits, believed to inhabit a ___location prior to human occupation. In some cultures, if one builds a house on a property it is respectful to provide a small [[spirit house]] for their habitation. In other cultures, a building may be interrupted by a passageway to allow the flow of spiritual energy - the ___location being determined by an expert in such matters. In such cultures, ignoring such matters is believed to lead to misfortune - ''bad luck''. In this context there is also the concept of "purpose" to events ascribed to luck, good or bad.
==Effects of viewpoint and beliefs==
Come on people. I urge those who voted against to reconsider.
The belief in luck as a supernatural phenomenon is generally regarded by rationalists as a form of [[magical thinking]]. However, there is evidence that people who believe themselves to have '''good luck''' are more able to take advantage of fortunate chance events in their lives, and to compensate for unfortunate chance events in their lives, than people who believe that they have '''bad luck'''. This appears to be the result of [[positive thinking]] altering their responses to these events. A belief in luck can also indicate a belief in an external [[locus of control]] for events in their life and so escape from personal responsibility.
Some philosophers argue that we each "create our own reality", literally and not metaphorically, and in that context what appears to be good luck can be interpreted as having beliefs that encourage or create what are putatively good outcomes.
===Risky lifestyles===
For the average user, this policy simply involves asking people nicely to stop doing whatever it is. Being able to speak softly while holding a big stick is going lower the temperature around here a lot. Most of the time we wont even get to step 1.
Often those who ascribe their travails to "bad luck" will be found upon close examination to be living [[Risk|risky]] [[Lifestyle|lifestyles]]. For example: a drunk driver may ascribe their arrest to the bad luck of being observed by a patrolman, or the bad luck of being involved in a traffic accident (perhaps not even the victim's fault), as a way of avoiding personal responsibility for his/her actions.
===Positive outlook===
But, which bit exactly do people suggest we drop?
On the other hand, people who consider themselves "lucky" in having good health may be actually reaping the benefits of a cheerful outlook and satisfying social relationships, both of which are well known [[statistics|statistically]] to be protective against many stress-related diseases.
# see a problem user
# give the user a friendly warning
# if the problem doesn't stop ….
## give the user another warning and point them to the right policy
## put a notice on [[Wikipedia:direction]] just like the ones already there
## gather a bit of evidence so you can explain to the community why this user may need to be blocked
# if the problem doesn’t stop
## give them a stern warning and tell them they’ll be blocked
## gather a bit more evidence so you can explain to the community why this user must be blocked
# if the problem doesn’t stop
## a couple of others will back you up
## block ‘em
===Effects===
If the user reoffends, don't cut them as much slack and block them for longer.
If "good" and "bad" events occur at random to everyone, believers in good luck will experience a net gain in their fortunes, and vice versa for believers in bad luck. This is clearly likely to be self-reinforcing. Thus, although untrue, a belief in good luck may actually be an adaptive [[meme]].
The [[gambler's fallacy]] and [[inverse gambler's fallacy]] are both related to belief in luck.
If there is controversy over the presented evidence then some voting will be needed.
==Numerology==
best wishes [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 20:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Most cultures consider some [[numerology|numbers]] to be lucky or unlucky. This is found to be particularly strong in Asian cultures, where the obtaining of "lucky" [[telephone number]]s, automobile [[license plate]] numbers, and [[address (geography)|household addresses]] are actively sought, sometimes at great [[Money|monetary]] expense.
==Sayings==
If I wanted to simplify this I'd drop 2, 3.2, 4, the thresholds (other than that multiple warnings do not need to be made for the same behavior), the increasing block lengths, the section on reincarnations, the good behavior clause, and the voting, for starters. I'd simplify the definition to violating any policy. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 21:12, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Popular sayings and quotations related to luck:
* "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity" -
* "You make your own luck" -
* "When it rains, it pours" - this is an expression of the mathematical property of statistically independent events to bunch together.
* "Bad things happen in threes" - see above
* "Luck is the residue of design" - [[Branch Rickey]]
* When something happens by "sheer dumb luck", it is considered to have happened unintentionally and without planning.
* "Luck doesn't exist." There are more variations on this phrase than can be listed here, but not enough to make believers care.
* "Luck be your lady tonight"
* A famous Samuel Goldwyn quote sums up the rationalist view: "The harder I work, the luckier I get". Or an equally famous [[Gary Player]] quote "The harder I practise, the luckier I get".
* [[Knocking on wood]], spoken expression used as a [[charm]] to bring good luck.
* "In my experience, there's no such thing as luck" - [[Obi-Wan Kenobi]].
* "Luck can only get you so far" by Hermione, referring to a "luck potion Felix Felicis" in {{Harry Potter]] (Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince)
==Items or events==
::so you'd say we only give people one warninging then we block them? (forgot to sign [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 20:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC))
Several items or happenings are considered lucky or unlucky.
===Lucky===
*Finding a [[penny]] on heads
*[[Horseshoe]]s
*Four-leaf [[clovers]]
*[[Rabbit]]'s [[feet]]
*[[Ladybug]]s
===Unlucky===
:::I certainly don't see the point of giving ten warnings (or even two). If someone is knowingly breaking policy I don't see the harm in a 24-hour block. If they weren't actually breaking policy, then this can be brought up through discussion, mediation, or arbitration, if another admin doesn't unblock them right away. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 23:10, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
*[[Friday]] the [[13 (number)|13]]th
*The number 13 (Many buildings skipped 13 when numbering their floors for this reason)
*[[Black]] [[cat]] crossing your path
*Stepping on a crack (it breaks the mother of the stepper's back)
*Breaking a [[mirror]] (seven years bad luck)
*Spilling over [[salt]] (but you can get rid of the bad luck by throwing the salt over your left shoulder).
*Putting a hat on a bed
*Opening an [[umbrella]] indoors
*Seeing three butterflies at the same time
*Killing a ladybug
*Walking underneath a [[ladder]]
==Luck in fiction==
:::ahh.... well I agree with 2 warnings being enough... It is important the first warning is friendly and non threatening... otherwise we're biting newbies and just being a bit unpleasant really. I think a second stirn warning should be enough (I started with 2 from memory and the requirement for others was added by an unamed arbitrator)... so I definetly concede we could do with less warnings.... [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 20:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
*[[Gladstone Gander]], a fictional [[cartoon]] character, is dependent solely upon his good luck.
*[[Joe Btfsplk]], a character in the [[Li'l Abner]] (Little Abner) [[comic strip]] by the cartoonist [[Al Capp]] is not only unlucky, he is shunned by the other characters as they suspect (with good reason) that this bad luck may be [[infection|infectious]].
*In [[Larry Niven|Larry Niven's]] novel ''[[Ringworld]]'', the character [[Teela Brown]] was the incredibly lucky result of a centuries-long breeding program initiated by the alien [[Pierson's Puppeteers]] directed to just such an outcome. The consequence of her state was that she'd led such a charmed and worry-free life that she was emotionally immature and unprepared for "harsh reality."
*In [[Terry Pratchett]]'s ''[[Discworld]]'' series, luck is an [[Anthropomorphism|anthropomorphic personification]] known as the Lady, who, while not a goddess, is powerful enough to be the rival of the god Fate.
*[[Eugene Horowitz]] from [[Hey Arnold]] is known for the bad luck he constantly has, though his [[optimism]] always makes his personality win over it.
*In the [[Harry Potter]] novels, there is a [[potion]], [[Felix Felicis]], which gives its drinker good luck.
*[[Furrball]] the cat in ''[[Tiny Toon Adventures]]'' is a perpetually unfortunate feline, forever suffering mishaps, though frequently it's his own actions (i.e. overwhelming greed) that get him into trouble (not unlike mentor Sylvester the cat).
==See also==
:::I don't think admins should ever be ''warning'' people in a non-friendly or threatening way. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 20:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
*[[Curse]]
*[[Destiny]]
:Well, it says on the page: "This is a relatively complex proposal for a difficult problem." Could the summary from the policy be added to the poll page? [[User:Jrincayc|Jrincayc]] 13:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
*[[Evil eye]]
*[[Fate]]
:yeah it does its complicated doesn't it... I'm working all weeks (12 hour shifts) so no time to write a user guide... monday I've got a week off so will write a user guide then.
*[[Folk religion]]
*[[Irrationality]]
:I am disapointed though :-(
*[[Magic (paranormal)]]
*[[Probability]]
:its not a complicated policy to follow though. (warn-> gather evidence -> warn -> gather evidence -> warn -> gather evidence -> all agree -> block )
*[[Statistics]]
*[[Superstition]]
:The devil is always in the detail so I put in a lot of detail to banish the devil. If the small points aren't covered people will have to argue them out later.
:and its true that short policies are best... but where is the short policy that can put this issue to bed? there isn't one because its not possible... we can kid ourselves that it is and keep look but let me clue in ... it not possibe (compare this policy with the average piece of legislation ... it is very short in comparision). most of the detail in this policy is to prevent later arguement ... well another round of refinement may be in order... ;-) best wishes [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 20:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
::There's no short policy that will solve the problem. There's no long policy that will solve the problem. There isn't even an agreement on what the problem is. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 23:13, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
::: so we give up? [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 20:40, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
::No, so we define the problem, get consensus that it's a problem, and then address it in the simplest way possible. We don't make the problem worse by adding layer upon layer of buerocracy. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 20:44, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Anthony, we had over two weeks working on the definition of the problem. and the troll polls did conclude that we have a problem and "something" needed to be done. I've been wrestling we with peoples concerns about the complexity and this is where I've got to: This is a simple policy to operate. Making it simpler would make it actually more complex. There are plenty of examples of systems that get easier to use as they get more complex. eg
* automatic versus manual gear boxes
* windows based operating systems versus command line interpreters
What do most Wikipedians need to know about this policy? Not much:
* If somebody is doing something disruptive or antisocial then ask them to stop. If they do not stop gather up the URLs to the diffs to the problem and provide the list to a friendly administrator, or add the list yourself to the direction page.
If you are an administrator:
* If a user approaches you about a difficult user then ask them to show you some diffs. If the complaint is reasonable then ensure somebody has given the difficult user a friendly warning and pointed them to the policy. Consider listing the user and the diffs on the dirctection page.
* Periodically have a look at the diffs on the directions page.
* Vote to support a formal warning if a first time offender the user has made 8 disruptive edits. If they have made two or more disruptive or antisocial edits after the formal warning vote to support the block. (You made need to check the definition in the policy)
* Repeat offenders and sock puppets get less leaway. Check the policy.
* There will be enough people lurking who understand the policy to correct any misinterpretations as they arise, and of course the AC may always intervene.
I really think Wikipedia can and should make this work. It's fair and transparent and is really worth the effort. Leaving things to 'common sense' is a recipe for endless debates about whose sense is 'common'. I just do not believe that dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors can be made any simpler... well that's what I think. [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 00:34, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
==quick polls, response to Mike Snow==
Have a look at [Wikipedia talk:Quickpolls]] yourself, but I am at a bit of loss to understand your comment Mike. The results of the review poll were:
# yes. continue using quickpolls (17)
# yes in limited circumstances (16) inc some double votes
# no (13)
I couldn’t see anybody complaining that quick polls were too complicated. I could see a lot of complaints that it just didn’t work. The problems as I read them were
# it was too slow - [[WP:DWDAE]] takes three warnings and three admnins
# it was a popularity contest (that's why the limit on who can vote)
# it brought up frivoulous complaints (this is tight in DWDAE)
so geez... am I missing something? [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 12:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:I didn't mean to suggest that quickpolls failed purely because of their complexity, although I do believe complexity may have contributed to it. My point is that quickpolls were about as complex a process as the community can handle in dealing with disruptive editors, without delegating/assigning that responsibility to something like the Arbitration Committee.
:In my observation, as the quickpolls proposal was implemented, most problems that cropped up with its practical application were dealt with by developing more procedures. Thus the process increased in complexity as it evolved, even if that's not the primary reason people became increasingly dissatisfied with the process.
:I think it's fairly clear that this proposal is already more complicated than quickpolls ever were. Furthermore, it's only theoretical, and inevitably will have to deal with new concerns should it actually be implemented. The most likely response will be to add more regulations to the process, as this is a common reaction in community dynamics of this sort. So I see a process that is not only overly complex now, but that I expect to get progressively worse as time goes on. As a result, I don't think it should be adopted. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 18:05, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I dunno Michael. I'm at a bit of a loss really.
This step wise approach is pretty standard practice for managing difficult people. Its well proven and works better than most people realise. The only bit that is really original is the sock-puppet provision (to address a specific Wikipedia issue).
I really think it would be false economy to try to simplify this any further. A simple solution that does not work is not actually a simple solution.
Although I'm becoming resigned to the current round of polling going down I'd still ask you to reconsider supporting a two month trial. best wishes [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 02:49, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
==Uninvited company wrote:==
Erich, all,
The policy is far more mechanical and convoluted than ''other Wikipedia policies.'' While I applaud your effort and share your overall goal, the policy as written is way too complicated and hard to follow:
::UC (I’ll interpolate my reply into your comments) Well I think this is why we need a trial. To make the policy work, it is not a requirement for people to understand the detail of the policy. For example, we drive our cars/ride our bikes on the roads every day with a tiny understanding of most of the 100's of pages of legislation that govern road use. [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 04:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# In practice, as the policy reads now, giving warnings/awaiting consensus/giving warnings/etc requires far more effort on the part of the upstanding wikipedians than evasion of the same by the troublemaker. It takes a lot of time and effort to come up with the minimum of nine (I think? it isn't clear whether a diff is required to document every actionable violation) diff links required to follow the whole process. It would take over an hour for most admins to put together the diff links and the rationale for each one, because it is a manual cut-and-paste process requiring typically about 10 page loads per diff (to find the right ones). And it is not fun (try it sometime). An hour of boring work to justify a 24 hour block is just not worthwhile.
::Well I’m starting to think 10 may be too many. Personally I’d be happy with 6 or 8. 4 would be very strict, but I wouldn’t oppose it. But I think it would be a bit misguided to go searching for the 10 diffs in the first place. The way I imagine this working is that if one user was having trouble with somebody they could present their list of 2 to 4 diffs to kick off the process. Often that would be the end of the matter. If the use kept having problems they could keep gathering the diffs. If they were feeling annoyed they could give the other users’ edit history a scan as well to find more. If other users were having a problem they would add some more diffs etc. The onus is not on the admin to go and find them all… unless they are in the mood of course. The two difficult users I’ve encountered (both subject to adverse AC rulings) would have racked up ten extremely quickly — months before the AC finally acted. Importantly this isn’t a race to get the user blocked. (In fact you could argue the less people that get blocked on the policy the more effective it has been).
:: For the recalictrants the bar gets lower and lower. So repeat offenders waste less and less time.
# There are too many outs for the problem users. "But I was warned two months ago and rehabilitated myself" -- "hey, you gave me a ---- but my edit wasn't as bad as Louie's and you only gave him a --" -- "but the first warning was for something different than the second warning" -- "those two users are carrying out a witch hunt" -- "but I haven't used that userid for 120 days so now I get to start over" -- "but I made 50 minor edits" -- "but that wasn't a personal attack, it was fact." Better to adopt a judgement-based policy and give examples to use for guideposts.
::Now you’d know there is absolutely no need to reply to this sort of drivel. And who said admins should stop using judgement? Each admin reviews the diff for themselves. The ---‘s are just there as a guide – I think they’d be useful if the there were more than the required number of diffs but some were a bit borderline. You could just scan the ones with the most minuses first until you were happy the threshold was reached.
:: And who said admins should stop using judgement? What the policy says to admins is (a) users have to be warned a couple of times before they are blocked (b) you need to demonstrate why somebody should be blocked (c) you cannot block first-time offenders until they have made at least ten counter productive edits and (d) except in very limited circumstances, you need to have the support of your peers before you apply a block. [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 04:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# Initial policy should focus on the basics. Lone ranger blocks? Drop it. Socks? Deal with it under a sock policy. Get the main part of this policy on the road first, and then add these sorts of tweaks later.
::The policy was developed by a group editing process that involved both hawks and doves. I’m a bit reluctant to cull it untried because having thought about it a fair bit it is all reasonable.
::Socks have to be dealt with. There is no way around it. We either deal with them up front… or wait till the socks appear and then scratch our heads!
::The lone-ranger blocks I’m not a big fan of. But I can see the rationale.. and the doves and hawks beat out a good compromise between them. [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 04:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Compare what you have done to successful policies, such as [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:RFA]]. And consider marginally successful policies such as the deletion policy and [[WP:RFC]]. And as for quickpolls, I believe that it failed because the results weren't what the community expected and wanted. My view is that it was a) too easy to game, and b) gave troublemakers another soapbox. Your proposal, IMO, could potentially suffer these same failings if it were implemented.
::I’ve tried to reply to the complexity issue in as many different ways as I can. Perhaps the best thing I can now say is: why not give it a go? If it doesn’t work then we’ll have a better idea of how to fix it or we can just ditch it. I actually think it would be very hard to game. The tension between stamping on socks and not biting the newbies is a real problem. But between us I think we came up with a pretty fair compromise. Any system that concludes with a block will face the same issues. All of Wikipedia is a potential soapbox I can’t see how this policy makes that worse?
::I hope that one day Wikipedia may be taken seriously as a source of information. The question reviewers will ask is: "OK, you say this is the encyclopaedia that the Internet wrote, but you admit you excluded some people. How do you refute the claim that this is a biased view by an unrepresentative cabal?" If we can point to this procedure and show the grounds for blocks that were ''actually'' used, then this question is answered. I think this is a significant reason for not being satisfied with relying on "common sense" without being able to provide evidence.
::Thanks once more for taking the time to spell out your concerns. I genuinely appreciate your effort. I hope these replies make some sense. Rather than deleting already written sections that seem reasonable, I'd still rather we gave it a go as is and then went from there... [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 04:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:::The thing that concerns me most about Erich's statement here is that it suggests that this policy is responding to an allegation that our critics haven't made. Wikipedia certainly has it's critics, and certainly about the accuracy of its information. But "a biased view by an unrepresentative cabal"? Don't make me laugh.
:::"''In practice, as the policy reads now, giving warnings/awaiting consensus/giving warnings/etc requires far more effort on the part of the upstanding wikipedians than evasion of the same by the troublemaker.''" I think this quote from above says it all. You may state now that 10 diffs is too much, but remember who pushed this to a vote ASAP. Anyway, this was a step in the right direction, but far, far, far too complex. Maybe next time we'll get it right. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 06:34, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::::Gedday Ambiv, (have you changed your name? I quite liked your old one!) Please don't misunderstand me. I am ''not'' making the above accusation. I've seen more than enough so I agree it is utter rubbish. However, I've seen the accusation made more than once and it gets peoples backs up. So I just think it is important we can ''demonstrate'' that it is not true. Being able to demonostrate the grounds for excluding disruptive users is an excellent way of dismissing the concern.
::::I think justice is important in any endeavor and the ability to review the grounds for a decision is a key component of dishing out justice. If the grounds aren't presented then the decision cannot be reviewed. This policy doesn't just address editorial rules it ''excludes'' people from the process - admittedly not for very long... but it wouldn't really take very long for people to find themselves on the wrong end of rolling 4 day blocks.
::::I must say I don't really regret sticking to the original timeline. We gave everyone over two weeks, which was long enough for people interested in contributing to make a contribution. We needed to flush out the silent majority to see what they thought - and this poll did that. At this stage I'm thinking we let this vote run through then have another two weeks of editing based on the experience of the poll then back we come... there's no rush really.
::::Maybe at the next poll we will have a couple of options to consider? There is a strong push to simplify this drastically. I think I'm too attached to the current alegedly complex version to want to take part in a "simple justice" proposal so maybe the best course is for the proponents of the "simple justice" system should fork the proposal. We could bring back both versions for polling starting midday (UTC) August 22. just an idea... best wishes [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 07:15, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
== Yes, but on a trial period does not equal yes ==
I don't think it's appropriate to add the yes and yes, buto n a trial period votes together. In fact, I think it's best to get rid of the on a trial period vote at all, because it always has been and always will be the case that any policy can be changed or removed (or created) if through the proper channels. You could easily rephrase the question "no, unless on a trial period", and then add it to the no votes. [[User:Mbecker|{ MB <nowiki>|</nowiki> マイカル }]] 17:16, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)
Gedday Mbecker, You may have a point. Its a bit late now. We had the draft poll up for a week before it opened for taking comment and formualating the rules. [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 01:53, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As no consensus has been reached, it's not too late to fix it next time. If this proposal isn't going to get scrapped, then there's going to need to be another vote anyway. But I think MB is missing the the point of combining the votes. Someone voting yes would almost surely also support yes as a trial period. So if there would have been consensus for yes combined with yes for a trial period, then we should run a trial period. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 17:00, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Anthony - but I interpreted what was written that if there would have been a consensus for yes combined with yes for a trial period, then there would have been a trial period. Which interpretation is correct? It would certainly have been grossly "unfair" if a vote derived from combining the two votes would have lead to running the system '''without''' a trial period. [[User:Elf-friend|Elf-friend]] 17:56, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::that's right Elf-friend- a combined vote success of a+b would lead to a trial period. [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 19:32, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:"I agree with Anthony - but I interpreted what was written that if there would have been a consensus for yes combined with yes for a trial period, then there would have been a trial period." I'm not sure where I was unclear, but I interpreted it the same way. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 18:03, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Since there is no clear consensus, even if the yes-permanently and yes-trialperiod votes are considered together, this discussion is largely academic.
Bearing that in mind, I would suggest that since there is no precedent for "trial periods" for policy, one should not be implemented without a particularly clear mandate from the community.
[[User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]] 03:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:Actually there is one precedent, which is that quickpolls were implemented with a trial period of 30 days, and when we reviewed them afterwards, the consensus in favor was not as clear, so the policy died (albeit with a few spasmodic jerks post-mortem). I think trial periods can be handy when attempting solutions to intractable problems, but keep in mind that they give the critics of any policy a second clear chance to kill it. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 00:18, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree on both counts... that is why you have a poll isn't it? ;-) [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 04:10, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
==mending problem areas==
I think we should go back to the drawing board and address the objections, such as the policy being too long and complicated (it is) and it's placing more power/status in the hands of sysops (it shouldn't). As I pointed out before, if this policy ''were'' implemented, it would provide my first and only reason for wanting to be a sysop. Lets find a way to remove that incentive, shall we? ;)
[[User:Sam Spade|Sam]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Sam_Spade&action=edit§ion=new '''Spade''']] 03:34, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Gedday Sam, In terms of simplifieying... I'd suggest culling:
# the lone-ranger blocks going (never been a fan)
# the need for the link to two friedly warnings in the step one warning
# maybe reducing the number of counterproductive edits from 10 to 8 or 6 for first offenders.
# ''maybe'' reducing the number of admins to block to 2 (not keen on that really)
I couldn't cope with much more simplification than that. I especially think the sock and multiple offender provisions need to stay. What do you think? [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 04:18, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:1 definitely needs to stay. If that goes, in any future amendment to this, I'll vote against it, regardless of anything else. 2, 3 and 4 are good ideas. However, while this slightly simplifies the procedure, the wording of the policy is still far, far too long, and I don't believe such small amendments will address the majority of no votes, although they would certainly be a step in the right direction. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 07:45, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:::that's not very helpful ambi. Consensus? [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 13:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::I like the idea of a formal warning (this is not #2, I presume). One problem I've always had with admins is that they like to "warn" people for things that aren't really policies. This at least clarifies the point that yes, this is really something the admins are going to act on and not just a rogue admin. One thing I'd like specified is that warnings themselves may be appealed to the arb committee. Presumably anything may be appealed to the arb committee, but I think explicitly saying it here will give that a bit more liklihood to be accepted. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 10:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:::I do think there needs to be two warnings - one friendly the next one a bit sternerr. I'm talking about deleting the current provision that the first warning that requires two informal warings ''before'' the first warning. As for spelling things out... well you say it yourself... anything can go to the AC and with people baying baying for brevity I think the less we have to spell out the better! [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 13:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::I agree there should be a friendly reminder of the policy before a formal warning. I just don't think this needs to be spelled out in legalistic detail in the policy. Just say that a user should have been made aware of the policy before a formal warning can be sent. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 13:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::Jimbo likes the voting scheme, and I suppose voting is better than just blocking. My biggest problem with voting is that it seems to remove responsibility from the admins. They can feel free to vote for someone just because they disagree with them, and even if the arb committee smacks them down, there's nothing that can really be done, as they were merely voting. I'm not sure how to solve this. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 10:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:::I think I agree with your earlier support for the AC. This policy should lighten the load on the AC not eliminatte it!! I think the best way will be deal with this is through gradual refinement of the policy and the related ones. [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 13:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::But it seems all the AC can do is express its disapproval of a block. The block will have already been over by the time it hears the case, and the AC can't really censure and/or deadmin someone just for voting. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 13:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::I really hate the provisions for extending the blocks past 24 hours (multiple offender provisions). I don't see admin blocks as a tool to solve ongoing problems. Maybe one way that it could be solved though is that a formal warning stays even beyond the first block (for some time period, maybe 90 days unless revoked by the arb committee). Then admins wouldn't have to go through the whole process over again for "repeat offenders".
::The sockpuppet parts are bad, IMO, and perhaps it would be best to leave them to a separate proposal. It may be a necessary provision eventually, but without them this policy still can take care of a large percentage of the cases which don't involve them (and I suspect sockpuppets will be blocked unilaterally anyway).
:::I dunno Anthony.. if we don't deal with socks then it does all seem like a waste of time to me. Socks have just gotta be dealt with a the current proposal was carefully crafted to avoid biting newbies while not giveing the socks equal rigthts - if they are complicated... well sorry mate - it is not a simple problem. [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 13:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::As for the rest, I'm not sure we need it. I've said already that I think the definitions section can be reduced to a simple "violating policy". The warning provision protects users in the case of that being overbroadly interpreted. At worst a user just has to stop the behavior which is warned until appeal is made to the arb committee. If I'm missing any other details, let me know. Maybe the best idea would be to make an outline of the important points and then rewrite everything. In fact, maybe we could have a quick poll on the outline, to solve the major issues first, and then worry about the details.
::[[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 10:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:::So on what grounds would you support 24 hour blocks for violating policy, Anthony? I'm a little bit confused here. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 10:55, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::::oooh... good question! (I'd quite like to know that for all the people that voted against really) [[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 13:04, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::Ambi, I'll come up with a simplified proposal. I don't think it should only be admins voting, but I'll try to work with that. I've largely outlined it above. A formal warning, agreed to by the number of admins needed to certify a block. This warning should be explicitly reviewable by the AC, and should not expire upon someone being blocked. It should expire after a certain period of time, not to exceed 90 days (though I might initially propose 30). Non-admins should be encouraged to comment on the warning and vote in a separate section from the admins. Their votes will not be counted, but they might be considered by the arbitration committee if there is a lot of opposition. If the warning is not heeded, then admins can block upon agreement (2d+3). [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 13:32, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:::On the basis of that description, I think that would be an excellent solution, and one which would be fairly likely to pass. I also like your idea of encouraging non-admin participation, as far as comments go. The one problem with opening up the actual vote is that would effectively reinstate the failed quickpolls. The only place I disagree with you there is the 2d+3 basis for blocking, but that's another matter.
:::Also, there was one of your posts above that I forgot to respond to earlier - that of responsibility. I think sysops ''do'' need to be responsible here, particularly for a nomination, but also for a vote. If it's a particularly frivolous proposal, then they deserve to be dragged over the coals by the AC for that. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 13:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
::[[Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/simplified draft]]. Note that many of the cut portions, which were probably meant to deal with hypothetical situations, can always be added later. As for the 2d+3, what would you like to see? I personally would like to see a higher number, but this seems like the appropriate compromise.
::Regarding responsibility, I don't think things will ever be as clear-cut as to call it frivolous. But as long as the warnings are reviewable an editor would only need to cease a particular behavior while waiting for the arbitration committee to review it, so not very much harm would be done (I've also limited the blocks to 24 hours at a time, which also limits the potential harm). [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|(see warning)]] 14:59, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
== another way forward ==
Here are some ideas:
* Let's focus on the sock puppet problem for a while instead. Nearly all disruptive users use sock puppets. There are some suggestions for dealing with this at [[Wikipedia talk:sock puppet]] and also some related discussion at [[m:Draft privacy policy]]. The most effective Wikipedia policies are those that use differential effort (make problem activities harder for troublemakers to enact than for others to undo). Some technical and policy ideas for this regarding socks have been proposed.
* I also believe that the increased focus on [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]] is valuable, and believe that there is room for some careful work there.
* While there have been few concrete proposals, there has been discussion of admin "accountability." While I believe "accountability" misses the mark somewhat, I think that we can and should make more of an effort to limit ongoing adminship to people who respect project norms. If we reform or dismiss any impulsive sysops we might have, and have a process in place for that, it becomes more palatable to give the remaining admins some discretion. I think the recent "accountability" pseudo-vote has done a disservice to the community by polarizing and making light of a serious issue.
* Once these areas are properly addressed, I believe the matter of "disruptive users" may be riper for consideration.
Respectfully
[[User:UninvitedCompany|UninvitedCompany]] 18:12, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)
A couple thoughts. I would differentiate between people who create sockpuppets (Lir) and those who use serial accounts (EntmootsOfTrolls reincarnations). More actively discouraging sockpuppets will probably work better in dealing with the first type. Also, I would say that a number of disruptive users (Paul Vogel, the so-called Mr. Treason) are operating purely from IP addresses. So while I don't mind pursuing that angle, I'm less confident that it will be particularly effective.
With respect to admin accountability, my current emphasis is to seek out and nominate new candidates I think will have good judgment, to improve the quality of the overall admin pool. Dismissing current admins is virtually impossible, and at the very least, I don't see any model for how to pursue that until the arbitration committee actually decides to use that sanction in one of its rulings. As for reforming anyone, we can try and bring community pressure to bear, but some of the most impulsive are also among those most set in their ways.
We could begin with the idea of withdrawing adminship from those admins who are no longer active in the project. That might start a shift away from the culture in which admins have life tenure. --[[User:Michael Snow|Michael Snow]] 00:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
:dealing with 'disuptive admins' is a bit of a different topic. I personally do not see much point in withdrawing admin status from inactive users though. People get busy in their real lives... if they have proved themselves to be sensible people with sound judgement then why demote them just because they have other committments? I think admins need to be judged on the ''quality'' of their contributions rather than ''quanitity''. It would be a reasonable expectation that returning admins review changes to policy though I guess... Personally I think the recipe of warning twice and then acting with escalation of penalties for repeat offences applies equaly well to admins. The only difference is I think the AC may be better placed to judge the appropriateness of admin behaviour
== 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 <nowiki>##~~~~</nowiki> - but feel free to edit the above list and move the most important questions towards the top). Thoughts? best wishes [[User:Erich gasboy|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
# at least twice
# at least three times
##[[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 04:07, 6 Aug 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
##[[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# 2 admins
# 1 admin
# some other option
===Bad edits before blocking===
What is the minimum numbe of counter productive edits (not vandalism)new user should be allowed before being block for 24 hours?
# 10 counter productive edits
# 8 counter productive edits
##[[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# 6 counter productive edits
===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]]
##[[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# no, leave it to "good judgement"
# some other idea
===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]]
##[[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# no, leave it to "good judgement"
# some other idea
===Show evidence?===
Should those seeking to block another user should be required to supply a list of URLs to diffs (eg [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Jab&curid=415478&diff=0&oldid=0] to justify their desire?
# yes (this is important for accountability and demonstration of justice)
##[[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# no (this places an unfair burden on the victim and on admins and takes the burden off the perpetrator)
===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 [[wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors|initial proposal]]?
# yes (this is important allow public scrutiny)
##[[User:Erich gasboy|Erich]] 04:07, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
# no (this places an unfair burden on the victim and on admins and takes the burden off the perpetrator)
| 