[WikiEN-l] Re: Policy: bans

Sat May 8 11:45:11 UTC 2004

uninvited at nerstrand.net a écrit:
> The simplest thing to do with regard to trolls, vandals, and problematic POV editors with agendas is to
> formulate a clear policy and then authorize the existing administrators to enforce it.  It is not necessary for
> it to be prescriptive (3 edits in 24 hours etc), just clear.
> 
> The quickpoll system is divisive and should be dismantled.  Bans and blocks can be reversed, and should be,
> when improperly used.
> 
> Some examples to consider:
> 
> * If a user edits the same article with more than one user ID (sock puppet) within 10 days, they will be banned
> for a period of 7 days.
> * If a user reverts an article excessively without discussion and in such a way as to prevent useful work from
> being done on the article, the article should be protected.  If the user is culpable in more than three such
> pages within 10 days, they will be banned for a period of 7 days.
> * If a user has a pattern of editing in bad faith, such as vandalism, threats of violence, personal attacks,
> legal threats, racism, the problematic edits should be reverted, regardless of where they are made (talk space,
> user page).  If they continue (more than five?) the user should be banned for 7 days.
> 
> Make it clear.  Make it reasonably objective.  Leave it to administrators to be fair.  If the policy doesn't
> work, fix it, or go back to the current state of affairs.
> 
> Does that make Wikipedia a cabal?  With 221 administrators and counting I think not.
> 
> UninvitedCompany

Well, why not. But it all depends whether the policy has to be followed 
to the point or not. If one sysop can enforce it, and another sysop 
removing the enforcement is automatically labelled "wrong-doing sysop", 
we in effect have a better management of bad people, but it does not 
matter that there 220 other administrators.

The policy should then be such that
* there are *good* blocking guidelines
* a sysop following those guidelines can't be "guilty of sysop abuse"
* and a sysop reverting the first sysop can't be "guilty of sysop abuse" 
either.

So, if the community widely agree, the guy will be blocked, but a unique 
sysop trying to act will not be criticized too heavily for having 
blocked perhaps too quickly. I think "fear" of acting often paralyse our 
sysop :-)

Which I understand...