Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors - Version 1

This policy was under development and part of the Wikipedia:Policy thinktank. (Originated by Erich 04:26, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC).)

PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY THIS PAGE

This proposal is currently frozen to reflect what was voted on in the first round of voting from midday 25 July 2004 to midday UTC 8 August 2004.

See also:

1. Mock Directions Page.
2. Poll

Background

This idea aims to improve on the proposals at Wikipedia:Dealing with trolls and Wikipedia:Trolling poll, by providing a framework more in keeping with principles of natural justice.

The policy should place a fair system in the gaps between the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution process, Wikipedia:Banning policy, Wikipedia:Blocking policy, Wikipedia:Dealing with vandalism policy and the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. It does not seek to replace any of the above, but allows efficient management of recalcitrant, difficult, problem behaviour.

Experienced Wikipedians encourage others to regard this policy as a safety valve or insurance. We should invoke it as rarely as possible.

It may be very helpful to ask ourselves these questions before initiating this formal process:

1. Do I understand this user's motivation?
   1. Where are they from?
   2. What do they believe?
   3. Why are they behaving like this?
2. What other steps can be taken?
3. Does this user just need some advice?
4. Are there other users involved that are also behaving in an unhelpful manner?
5. Are my actions truly in the interests of creating an encyclopedia?
6. Is this an issue that I am able to remain objective about?
7. Is there somebody I should discuss my concerns with before I take any action?

Summary

An ad hoc tribunal of three admins may summarily block a user for 24 hours for repeated antisocial or disruptive behaviour, if they follow due process. This policy does not at all affect the ability of admins to summarily block persistent vandals.

The due process is as follows:

1. First warning to user and notice to community that a user may need direction
2. Final warning to user if problem edits continue
3. Presentation of two edits made after final warning, followed by institution of block

Users that repeat problem behaviour despite previous blocks, or sock puppets attempting to bypass blocks, are given less leeway and may be blocked for up to 96 hours.

Definition of disruptive or antisocial behaviour

For the purpose of this policy, disruptive or antisocial behaviour is:

• violation of collaborative editing process intended to produce a neutral point of view, defined as engaging in multiple (more than three per 24 hour period) reversions or insertion of essentially the same text.
• personal attacks
• deceptive editing of other editors' posts on talk pages
• vandalism that is not severe enough to warrant immediate blocking under the existing policy
• placement of factual inaccuracies in articles that is not considered sneaky vandalism
• misleading edit summaries
• misrepresenting the truth
• making an excessive number of frivolous complaints
• unreasonably threatening to take legal action
• posting copyright violations
• inappropriately removing listings from pages such as Wikipedia:Votes for deletion, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates or Wikipedia:Direction

To constitute a blockable offence the above behaviours must be repeated despite fair warning.

Ultimately, as many of these behaviours have unclear boundaries, the definition will be clarified by continued policy refinement, consensus, precedent, or as a worst case scenario, by the voting protocol specified below.

Disruptive or antisocial behaviour does not include:

• expressing an unpopular POV in an article talk page
• criticism of Wikipedia governance and policy
• proposing any individual for any office or role
• expressing any political, religious or philosophical belief
• lodging an appeal against an admin action

Due process

Step 1. First warning and public notice

This is the first and hopefully last step in the process. Any user can perform this step by placing the warning on the user’s talk page and the notice on the Direction Page.

The purpose of the warning on the user's talk page is to ensure that the user is warned they are not complying with community expectations as early as possible. The overall tone of the warning should be firm, but respectful. Avoid ranting! Rants do not portray an aura of authority and command. The warning should include, at least:

• 3 URLs to diffs of problematic edits.
• 2 URLs to diffs of previous informal, polite warnings on the same issue from the last 30 days.
• links to relevant policy pages, for example staying cool, personal attacks, civility, NPOV, not biting newcomers, avoiding edit wars.
• a formal request to stop making such edits.
• signature with timestamp (type ~~~~)

The purpose of the public notice on the Direction Page is to allow interested users to participate in the process. It also allows non-admins to enlist admins into the process.

The Direction Page is deliberately named vaguely to avoid pejorative or inflammatory labels. It is direction as a verb, to direct or instruct. Alternatively it is direction, as in "monitoring the direction of a users edits."

The initial template on the Direction Page is as follows:

===User: [[user:badboytroll]]===

Firstwarning: [URL to diff]

Concerning edits: expanding list of diff URLs with one-two word explanations (NPOV, personal attack, copyvio, profanity) with minuses to indicate severity (max 5, eg −−−−−)

Constructive edits: as above with the users worthwhile contributions, again with a + to +++++ rating next to each

admins certifying Final Warning Criteria Met: admins sign here

Step 2. Final warning

Once two admins have certified that the user is within two edits of reaching the block criteria one them may place a final warning on the users talk page. Ideally it should be a different user to the one that placed the initial warning:

Dear [[user:<<username>>]], I am very sorry to see that you are still making edits that are not in line with our policies, particularly <<list of offending diff URLs>>. You must stop making edits like this at once or we will have no choice but to suspend your account temporarily in accord with [[Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors|Wikipedia policy]]. ~~~~

The template on the direction pages is then expanded:

===User: [[user:badboytroll]]===

First warning: [URL to diff]

Concerning edits: expanding list of diff URLs with one-two word explanations (NPOV, personal attack, copyvio, profanity) with minuses to indicate severity (max 5, eg -----)

Constructive edits: as above with the user's worthwhile contributions, again with a + to +++++ rating next to each

Final warning criteria met: admins sign here

Final warning: [URL to diff]

Concerning edits after final warning:

Block criteria met: admins sign here and state number of hours

Block criteria not met: admins sign here

Step 3. Institution of block

Once the balance of admins in favour meets the criteria then block is enforced. One of the admins must log the block, listing the user names of the admins who supported or opposed it, at wikipedia:admin tribunal temporary block log.

In the event of a controversial block admins should prioritise clarifying existing policy and counselling wayward colleagues as needed. Preventing future controversy does more for Wikipedia than extended debate to correct what is, in reality, a very short block.

However, voting does remain open until the block expires to allow correction of clearly unjustifiable blocks. If, at any point, over half the voting admins disagree with the block, one of them may remove it immediately. If support for the block is regained at the level specified below (3+2d), the user may be reblocked for the remainder of the time.

The Arbitration Committee and Jimbo Wales may also overturn blocks.

Step 4. Review

All users may make constructive comments on the validity of the warnings and blocks on Wikipedia talk:Direction at any point in the process.

If an action is clearly inconsistent with existing policy, they may wish to request a review of admin actions, if the admins involved do not adequately respond to their concerns. Admins may express their dissaproval of warnings by recording a vote against blocking.

Policy clarification

If some users disagree with an action and the issue is not addressed clearly in existing policys they should focus their efforts on working to improve and clarify the existing policies. Clarifying policies will improve Wikipedia much faster heated than debate over individual cases.

Final Appeal

Users who do not agree with the block may also appeal immediately by requesting arbitration. Since blocked users cannot edit to request arbitration, they should instead email an arbitrator. Appeals do not affect the block status.

A quorum of at least 4 arbitrators may then either explicitly affirm the tribunal ruling or accept the case to decide if the tribunal ruling conformed with policy. If the case is not accepted by the AC within a week, the tribunal ruling stands and that particular block is not open to further appeal. If it the case is accepted, the admins who agreed to the block enter arbitration along with the blocked user. The AC will indicate what to do with current blocks as they accept the case.

In extreme circumstances, it is possible that Jimbo Wales may agree to hear an appeal.

Criteria and penalty

The baseline threshold is 10 counter-productive edits leading to a 24 hour block. That is 8 edits before a final warning and then 2 edits after a final warning.

Admins should give some tolerance to users that are clearly making many more valuable contributions than un-helpful contributions. In this situation, repeated warnings and attempts to engage in dialogue are appropriate rather than simply waiting for the user to slip up.

Repeat offenders

Repeat offenders have the threshold number of counter-productive edits reduced, and the duration of the block doubled each time:

1. first offence: threshold 10 counter-productive edits (8+2), block 24 hours
2. second offence: threshold 6 counter-productive edits (4+2), block 48 hours
3. third offence: threshold 4 counter-productive edits (2+2), block 96 hours
4. fourth offence onwards: threshold 1 counter-productive edits (that is no warning, only one admin required), block 96 hours

Reincarnations

Note this section only relates to reincarnations of users bypassing a block by an admin tribunal, not reincarnations of banned users. Banned users may be dealt with through existing procedures.

These provisions recognise the difficulty in reliably identifying reincarnations. They thus strike a balance between minimising the risk of unjust blocking and allowing a user to rehabilitate themselves, while not allowing disruptive users to perpetually use reincarnations to achieve their aims.

Users that that are believed to be first-time reincarnations are be treated as fourth-time offenders unles the reincarnation has made more than three definitely constructive edits. If a believed first-time reincarnation has made at least three definitely constructive edits, they must be treated as a third-time offender. If a believed first-time reincarnation has made over 50 definitely constructive edits (or 10 major definitely constructive edits) they must be treated as a second-time offender.

If a user is believed to be repeat reincarnation they may be treated a fourth-time offender, unless they have made at least 50 definitely constructive edits (or 15 major definitely constructive edits). If they have made at least 50 definitely constructive edits (or 15 major definitely constructive edits) they are treated as a third-time offender.

Simply agreeing with a previously blocked user is not sufficient evidence a user is a reincarnation. Possible evidence of sockpuppet accounts/reincarnations include:

1. Making at least three substantially identical edits on article text.
2. Not acting like a typical new user. They may dive straight in to arguments, or their first edits may be policy pages. (Most newbies are cautious, ignorant of our policies and practises, and tend to get a feel for wikipedia before they start arguing with people).
3. Exhibiting the same antisocial behaviour that got the original account blocked in the first place.
4. Having exactly the same interests as the original account (i.e. edit the same pages).
5. Having the same writing style (it's quite difficult to mask a writing style).
6. Talking to people they haven't yet met in an overly friendly or aggressive way - as if they know them already.
7. There may be technical measures that developers can use to identify sockpuppets (same IP same password etc.)

Admins blocking users on the grounds they are reincarnations must record their evidence under the most recent direction entry. This should include:

1. a link to diff(s) in question
2. a link to similar actions by earlier reincarnations
3. signature

These must show significant evidence of reincarnation, not simply be two or more examples of a similar kind of disruptive behaviour. This might include:

1. Not acting like a newbie
2. Exhibiting the same antisocial behaviour that got the original account blocked in the first place.
3. Having exactly the same interests as the original account i.e. editing exactly the same pages.
4. Having the same writing style (it's quite difficult to mask a writing style)
5. Talking to people they supposedly haven't met in an overly friendly or aggressive way — as if they know them already.

Lone-Ranger blocks

A single admin may immediately start a 24 hour block for any counter-productive edit for any user who has been blocked at least three times in the past. If at least two other admins vote in support of the block they may extend it to 96 hours. If there are dissenting votes the user is unblocked until there are enough votes in favor to certify the block.

Only admins that meet these requirements may initiate Lone-Ranger blocks:

1. Not been subject to adverse decisions by the Arbitration Committee or the 'Review of admin actions process' in the last three months
2. Not had a previous Lone-Ranger block on the same offender overturned by dissenting votes at the end of the 96 hour voting period in the past three months
3. Not had any previous Lone-Ranger block overturned by a majority of dissenting votes at the end of the 96 hour voting period in the past three months
4. Not had a previous Lone-Ranger block overturned by the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo Wales in the past three months

Number of admins required to certify

Support	Dissent
3	0
5	1
7	2
$2d+3$	d

In the absence of dissent from a fellow admin, consensus among three admins allows enforcement. For every admin that dissents, at least two more must support the first three certifying admins. Thus if one admin dissents then at least five must support the block. If two dissent, then seven must support the block, etc.

Good behaviour

If no evidence is placed against a user in any 120 day period, then the process resets to the beginning and the user's "record" is cleared.