Jump to content

Wikipedia:Quickpolls

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dysprosia (talk | contribs) at 15:49, 3 July 2004 (tweak cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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?

Support

  1. Ambivalenthysteria 07:20, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  2. Youbetcha. RickK 07:31, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  3. No duh. --Merovingian✍Talk 07:35, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  4. 172 07:47, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  5. Dysprosia 08:09, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) if and only if they have not been contributing productively also
  6. Danny 08:13, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  7. 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)
  8. Everyking 08:24, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  9. Tannin 09:25, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) If it isn't, then there really isn't much point in having sysops at all.
  10. Support, so long as the final policy is specific and clear. -JCarriker 09:57, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  11. 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)
  12. Definitely. Where to draw the line for 'obvious' is another debate entirely. Morwen - Talk 11:00, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  13. 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)
  14. Yes, Jimbo said so as well I believe. Dori | Talk 12:36, Jul 3, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Support -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:34, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  16. 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)

Oppose

  1. 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 disscussed to nausea. If obvious trolling not equal to vandalism, then i oppose. Muriel G 15:41, 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)
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)

Current UTC Time: 13:30, Thursday, October 24, 2024 (for archiving

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Quickpolls&oldid=4421010"