Reverted edits by MyRedDice to last version by Jallan |
MartinHarper (talk | contribs) Reverted edits by Hcheney to last version by MyRedDice |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
# I reluctantly have to agree with Seth, based on some of the people that some sysops have seen fit to categorise as trolls - people who, in my opinion, did not warrant a lifetime ban. I continue to support blocking of obvious reincarnations of banned users. Perhaps it would be worth writing a page on [[wikipedia:dealing with trolls]]? [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 17:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
# I reluctantly have to agree with Seth, based on some of the people that some sysops have seen fit to categorise as trolls - people who, in my opinion, did not warrant a lifetime ban. I continue to support blocking of obvious reincarnations of banned users. Perhaps it would be worth writing a page on [[wikipedia:dealing with trolls]]? [[User:MyRedDice|Martin]] 17:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
||
#I agree with [[User:Ragnärok|Ragnärok]] that this poll is in violation of the quickpolls policy. Also, I am worried that, for example, my nomination of [[User:Plato|Plato]] would have been reason enough under this policy for someone like [[User:RickK|RickK]] to block me. Of course, I would be able to unblock myself, but most would not, so this would give 250-some people too much power over the community. [[User:Guanaco|Guan]][[User talk:Guanaco|aco]] 17:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
#I agree with [[User:Ragnärok|Ragnärok]] that this poll is in violation of the quickpolls policy. Also, I am worried that, for example, my nomination of [[User:Plato|Plato]] would have been reason enough under this policy for someone like [[User:RickK|RickK]] to block me. Of course, I would be able to unblock myself, but most would not, so this would give 250-some people too much power over the community. [[User:Guanaco|Guan]][[User talk:Guanaco|aco]] 17:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) |
||
#Jimbo has ruled that sysops can only ban in cases of ''clear vandalism''. The term here, "obvious trolling" is simply being used to broaded the previous category -- now they want to ban everyone who has a minority viewpoint, and thus whom they believe doesn't really believe in the issue being argued. [[User:Lir|Lirath Q. Pynnor]] |
|||
'''Oppose another layer of bureaucratic rules''' |
'''Oppose another layer of bureaucratic rules''' |
Revision as of 19:19, 3 July 2004
Quickpolls are polls among Wikipedia regulars on issues that need to be quickly resolved.
After mixed reactions in the 30-day review process (see the talk page,) this page has fallen into disuse. It is unclear whether new Quickpolls started here will have community support.
Policies
You are responsible for reading Wikipedia:Quickpolls policy before using this page. Quickpolls are not for arbitrary issues between users.
Concluded polls should be moved to Wikipedia:Quickpolls/Archive (which also includes an example poll).
Please vote using this format: #~~~~ - Optional comments.
After a four-month deadlock in the arbitration committee, it seems appropriate that this question should be decided by the user community at large.
Is it acceptable for sysops to ban obvious trolls? (24/4/1)
Support
- Ambivalenthysteria 07:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Youbetcha. RickK 07:31, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- No duh. --Merovingian✍Talk 07:35, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- 172 07:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Dysprosia 08:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) if and only if they have not been contributing productively also
- Danny 08:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Support but i do think we will need a strict definintion of what obvious trolling is. There are going to be arguments otherwise. theresa knott 08:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Everyking 08:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Tannin 09:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) If it isn't, then there really isn't much point in having sysops at all.
- Support, so long as the final policy is specific and clear. -JCarriker 09:57, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Agree with Dysprosia. Also, I think that we need to have a page set up where sysops explicitly explain/give evidence for their blocks/bans (forgive me if we already do). blankfaze | •• | •• 10:17, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Definitely. Where to draw the line for 'obvious' is another debate entirely. Morwen - Talk 11:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. Obvious should mean flouting the system (e.g. troll-reference in user-name plus provocative or revenant behaviour). Charles Matthews 11:11, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, Jimbo said so as well I believe. Dori | Talk 12:36, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes, and let's not water down this resolution by trying to define "troll" and "obvious" in detail - I trust the judgement of 98% of admins on this matter. --H. CHENEY 15:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Support JoJan 15:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Timwi 16:08, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- older≠wiser 16:15, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- It's important to assume good faith, but not to the point of being naive and allowing good contributors to be driven off. Isomorphic 16:29, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Particularly when they go out of their way to make it clear that trolling is their aim eg. users with "troll" in their username, or variations on previously banned names. -- The Anome 16:50, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Tarquin Admins are people whose judgement we broadly trust. So provided they ban obvious "u r gay", "the holocaust never happened", "relativity is false" etc trolls, and will take being overturned with good grace, yes.
- Infrogmation 17:30, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) Yes, with the stipulation that I think we are talking about a "block" rather than a "ban" here (ban seems to me to be a more formal procedure). This can be a useful tool to minimize damage. And remember that if some admin makes a bad judgement call, any other admin can unblock.
- EddEdmondson 17:46, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. Sysops will at times make horrible and inecusable errors. So allow appeals. But get the trolling and obvious anti-encyclopedic behavior out of here. jallan 19:11, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oppose
- This is another false problem designed by the community as a way to spend the weekend. For me, obvious trolling = vandalism, and that is already discussed to nausea. If obvious trolling not equal to vandalism, then i oppose. Muriel G 15:41, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, mainly for the reason that a significant minority of people use the term "troll" to mean "user who annoys me." I trust the judgement of 95% of sysops 95% of the time, and I don't believe that we need to endorse banning of "obvious trolls" in order to strengthen the position of sysops within the present system. Poorly defined "rules" tend to cause more problems than they solve. -- Seth Ilys 16:40, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I reluctantly have to agree with Seth, based on some of the people that some sysops have seen fit to categorise as trolls - people who, in my opinion, did not warrant a lifetime ban. I continue to support blocking of obvious reincarnations of banned users. Perhaps it would be worth writing a page on wikipedia:dealing with trolls? Martin 17:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with Ragnärok that this poll is in violation of the quickpolls policy. Also, I am worried that, for example, my nomination of Plato would have been reason enough under this policy for someone like RickK to block me. Of course, I would be able to unblock myself, but most would not, so this would give 250-some people too much power over the community. Guanaco 17:35, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Jimbo has ruled that sysops can only ban in cases of clear vandalism. The term here, "obvious trolling" is simply being used to broaded the previous category -- now they want to ban everyone who has a minority viewpoint, and thus whom they believe doesn't really believe in the issue being argued. Lirath Q. Pynnor
Oppose another layer of bureaucratic rules
- Oppose the poll, not the question
with explanation: Essentially agree with Seth Ilys above. It is better to trust sysops' judgment and move to correct them if necessary than to add another layer of rules that won't be read until there is a crisis and then the arguments start all over again. I'm not opposed to the plain language of the question above, I'm opposed to the process involved in trying to codify judgment. If we don't trust sysops, than we're not careful enough in choosing them. Cecropia | Talk 16:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)- I'm confused by this comment. Currently, when an admin bans someone we fear being pilloried not for using poor judgement, but for not "following the rules." We don't have the authority to ban anyone but pure vandals without going through the arbitration committee. Your opposition to this vote indicates a lack of trust in admins, by perpetuating the current situation. The whole point of this vote, as far as I can see, is to assure admins that it's OK to use their judgment as opposed to following some strict and explicit rule. Isomorphic 17:28, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Comments
- Ragnärok 10:45, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) "Troll" will mean all things to all people. You may as well simply tell sysops they can ban whomever they please, whenever they wish - it boils down to the same thing if such subjective criteria are used as a base.
- Moved to comments in accordance with Quickpoll policy, as this user has its first edits today. Morwen - Talk 11:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Whatever. This very quickpoll is in violation of quickpolls policy. Ragnärok 11:06, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Moved to comments in accordance with Quickpoll policy, as this user has its first edits today. Morwen - Talk 11:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Sigh. Language again: the issue needs to be better defined - what is obvious and what is not obvious? Clear and definite guidelines need to be stated before one can make an informed decision. It's not easy to answer and have a discussion on a rather broad statement, by means of a simple, binaristic poll. Dysprosia 07:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I would argue that if it's not obvious, it's not trolling. - Hephaestos|§ 07:18, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Then what exactly could be constituted as trolling? Dysprosia 07:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I think the language is clear enough, as Heph said. If someone is clearly not contributing to the community, and is here only to harrass legitimate users, then for the sake of the project, they must go. Otherwise we risk legitimate users being driven away, for no useful purpose. Ambivalenthysteria 07:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Is this about the issue of including "troll" in a user name, and whether that alone is grounds for banning? I don't support that, but only because I don't think that's sufficiently obvious. But name + behavior is, of course. Everyking 07:52, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree, name + behavior. Or, simply blatant behavior. This isn't a name thing per se. - Hephaestos|§ 07:54, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I too worry that "obvious troll" is rather poorly defined, and if this policy is implemented, that that term will start being tossed around an awful lot by sysops with a grudge. Are said trolls really such a huge problem that a quickpoll would not be quick enough? VV[[]] 08:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Quickpolls are a pain. It seems pretty clear that this is only going to be used to ban those which are obvious - those who are not contributing anything, and just harrassing users. This saves the rest of us having to put up with them for a month or three while the arbitration committee gets its act together.
- It's plainly clear to every sysop that misusing their blocking privileges has consequences. I think that's reflected already by the votes of certain users here, who while they might be called "trolls" by some people, know what this obviously isn't going to be used against them. Ambivalenthysteria 08:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I do not like the caveat which suggests that a person is not trolling simply because they also make "productive contributions". Anyone can go through making typo fixes, adding categories etc. and find a loophole that way. On the other hand, the suggestion that sysops be required to explicitly explain/give evidence for their blocks/bans is excellent. - Hephaestos|§ 14:33, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I think "sysops be required to explicitly explain/give evidence for their blocks/bans" is too broad, since it covers anything from stopping a long-term user being deemed a troll to blocking an anon vandal on a rampage of defacing articles or user pages. I think sysops need to be able to make honest decisions in a fast moving situations and feel they are trusted. I think it is obvious that where a decision is controversial, the sysop should explain it appropriately, and, of course a sysop should always be prepared to explain a decision in as much detail as necessary if anyone asks. Remember, a ban can be reversed as easily as its placed. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- To explain my condition as stated above, I mean to say that not just a minor glut of just minor fixes, categories, or whatever is to be considered as productive, but also a large number of solid, substantial edits, sustained over a fair amount of time - this means that a potential troll cannot just make a few edits here and there to look "good", in order to avoid being blocked. This requirement is merely to underscore the line between "obvious" troll or not. Dysprosia 15:43, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly support both points above. As for the definition of "obvious", it is the much-maligned "I know it when I see it" principle, except that in the Wiki community it is not a Bad Thing. Architeuthis 15:05, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
In response to Muriel, there are "obvious trolling" behaviors which are not vandalism. Nominating a vandal for adminship would qualify. Spurious listings on Requests for Comment and Vandalism in Progress can also qualify, as does a blatant attempt to bait other users into a fight. Also, I'm not really worried about blocking power being abused. After all, it can be easilly reversed. Also, I think it's pretty obvious that an admin with poor judgement wouldn't be able to make many bad bans before losing their status. Isomorphic 16:27, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- The trouble is to distinguish between trolls, fuckheads (we so need a more PG-rated name for them) - the two are QUITE different, and the second are IMO a bigger problem - and the obsessive hybrid creature that 142 has clearly become - David Gerard 18:16, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- While I do see the difference between the two, the damage both cause is essentially the same, therefore administrative handling of the two should be essentially the same. It is overly difficult and ultimately unnecessary to attempt to discern motives. - Hephaestos|§ 18:48, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Yes. Ban. But ban with access to an open page to lodge complaints about the ban. Ban with right to easy and quick appeal and any sysop whose bans to bans-overruled are over a set percentage amount gets de-sysopped for a year. Something like that. And agreed that "fuckheads" are the bigger problem, or rather fuckheadedness. jallan 19:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Current UTC Time: 07:24, Thursday, June 20, 2024 (for archiving