[WikiEN-l] Dealing quickly with rogue editors (was The 3RR policy should not always be blindly followed)

[David Gerard]

Daniel Mayer (maveric149 at yahoo.com) [050120 05:05]:
> --- David Gerard <fun at thingy.apana.org.au> wrote:

> > Is there anyone on this list with serious objections to short (12hr or
> > 24hr) blocks for personal abuse? I'd like to see what can be done about the
> > objections to the idea, with the hope of getting it through again.
  
> I would support that. As is, our no personal attacks policy has little by way
> of teeth to it. 
> The only problem, and this is a big one, is what constitutes a personal attack?
> Use of profanity in a provocative way is an obvious criteria, but there are
> *many* ways a person can demean another person without resorting to base
> language. 


I recall Mr-Natural-Health deleting any questioning of his edits or edit
summaries as a "personal attack".


> What do you do when you come across a complete piece of trash article or edit?
> Criticizing something like that, even when it is justified, may be seen as a
> personal attack by the author. 


"On Wikipedia, you are in fact required to suffer fools a little bit, of
not gladly."


> So we must tread a fine line here due to the subjective nature of the offense. 
> RfC may be a way for the community to quickly decide the less than clear cases.
> A short term poll could be held on someone's RfC page to see whether or not
> that person violated the 'no personal attacks' policy. If <75% agree, then that
> person gets blocked for a small period of time (24hrs to a week; anything
> longer would need an ArbCom ruling). 
 

Sounds like quickpolls ...


> > >  I understand that 
> > > temporary injunctions by ArbCom were supposed to help with this, but, 
> > > ironically, in more cases than not the final rulings are brought down 
> > > before any temporary injunctions get the necessary votes.

> > This is one thing we're trying to get better with!

> We could lower the vote threshold for temp injunctions. My original idea was to
> use the same criteria we use to open and close cases - just 4 yes votes needed.


That's a *very* good idea. What do we do to change ArbCom powers in this
manner?


- d.