Wikipedia talk:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors/poll/archive1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:34, 6 August 2004

Revision as of 04:07, 6 August 2004

Line 229:

: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)