Wikipedia talk:Conflicts between users/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Conflicts between users. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Initial comments

LOL! I agree with this in practice, but in principle, isn't it kind of subjective, Ed? Danny

Absolutely. But it might be useful. Let's see what develops. --Ed Poor

This page is not a good idea. It's not a good idea to facilitate hard feelings. (E.g., personally, I would definitely list several of the major Wikipedia contributors here, which would accomplish nothing constructive.)

Okay, I have no objection to deleting the page, especially if it worsens the problem it was intended to solve. --Ed Poor

Ed, what about making this a "warned users" page? It'll give troublemakers a second chance before they're banned, and if they shape up you can remove them from the page. -- Storm

Moved page, as Stormwriter suggested. --Ed Poor

I don't think this page has any useful purpose. A user who vandalizes pages will either 1) go away, 2) randomly keep vandalizing pages ignorant of what goes on in the background, or 3) check the RC list and make further modifications. In cases 1) and 2) this page doesn't help because the user is ignorant of its existence. In case 3), communication with the user can already be accomplished by reverting his modifications and adding a respective comment in the summary of the change, by adding a comment on the article's talk page, or on the user's talk page if he is registered. So I believe this page should be deleted. Eloquence 15:46 Oct 30, 2002 (UTC)

Okay, I have no objection to deleting the page, especially if it's useless or redundant. --Ed Poor

Ignore them

In general, I agree with Jimbo and Cunc, et al., that the best response to NPOV abusers is to ignore them. Just go back to a version you're happy with and revert. If there's anything good in a version between A, your previous favorite, and B, the current version, then copy and paste. Don't get stuck in the Karpman Drama Triangle -- oops, I haven't written that yet. --Ed Poor

Normally this would be good advice, but this isn't always possible, especially when a determined vandal creates trouble faster than it can be corrected. RK

Flame attractor?

This page looks like it has great potential to attract controversy and argument, and rather pointlessly so. Presumably it's purpose is to warn editors to watch out for particularly irksome peers, but in that case most of it is considerably overreacting (a flamewar on a particular topic, for instance, even when silly is not necessarily a sign that one of the participants is dangerous), and the rest is largely covered by the vandalism pages. Isn't there a better way this could be dealt with?

Controversial users

editorial note: this discussion took place when the page was named "annoying users", folloiwng mailing list discussion on the subject.

Someone suggested this could be renamed to wikipedia:controversial users. I think that's probably a good idea - listing someone on a page of annoying users is a straight insult - listing them on a page of controversial users is more of an invitation to discuss the matter. Thoughts, objections? Martin 21:48 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I think the change would be very unwise.

the name is universally recognised by wiki users. I think we should avoid renaming key pages such as this unless there is very good reason and only then after a full debate and a vote.
Annoying users indicates a description not of their views but of their behaviour, ie, their behaviour annoys other users. Controversial isn't the same. 172 hows "controversial" left wing views, Fred Bauder "controversial" right wing views. Many users hold controversial opinions, pro-Israeli, anti-Israeli, pro-christian, anti-christian, etc etc. But that does not make them annoying. It is their behaviour, not how controversial or otherwise their views are, that is the issue. A renamed page would effectively have a less clear meaning, less clear definition and would lend itself to complaints as to people's controversial opinions, when this page is meant to be purely about their behaviour, and the fact that some viewers find that behaviour annoying and want to complain about it, hence the name of this page. FearÉIREANN 23:28 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Many users hold controversial opinions - but this does not make them controversial users. There is, in a sense, nothing controversial about having controversial views - only in having controversial actions.

Still, I see the potential for confusion. Can you think of another name that gets across the same message that:

being discussed on this page does not imply that you are automatically annoying.
people can be listed for other things than being annoying - trolls bore me more than annoy me, but I still might want to list someone I felt was being trollish here.

How about wikipedia:troublesome users? There'd be a redirect, whatever was decided... Martin

Troublesome users, annoying users, problem users - just how many names is this page going to have?? Just stick to the one title and leave it at that. There is something about this dispute that is so ridiculously pedantric and unproductive! Arno 12:23, 30 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Discussion elsewhere?

Has there been any discussion on the naming of this page other than at Wikipedia talk:Annoying users? -- Tim Starling 15:36, Aug 17, 2003 (UTC)

There was some on the wikiEn-l mailing list, IIRC. Stevertigo moved it. Unfortunately, the move tool seems to be leaving talk pages behind nowadays. Martin 16:03, 17 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Should not be a problem users page

I don't think there should be a problem users page. We already have an annoying users page and a vandalism in progress page.

If someone has a problem with a user, it's better to either:

take a break and cool off; problems often seem much smaller when you take a fresh look
ask someone you know to help you

Labeling someone a "problem" could make things worse. It can demonize someone, with the result that they go on a rampage (if they're powerful) or that everyone gangs up on them (if they're not powerful).

I neither wish to be in a lynch mob nor the target of one. Let's structure things so that I don't have to put on a badge again... --Uncle Ed 15:36, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This is the annoying users page. It got renamed. Evercat 17:37, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I liked the name "annoying users" much better. M123 17:49, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Annoying Users: A HOWTO" --SEWilco 05:56, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

While I'd love to agree with Ed's general point, in practice people will always whine, and I'd rather they whined here than the village pump, for example, or used vandalism in progress to report non-vandalism. Martin 19:38, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

LOL, thanks, Evercat! And Martin: I agree with you. Cheers to all ^_^ --Uncle Ed 19:50, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I have a cunning plan

Suppose we moved this to meta...

It'd be an implicit discouragement for people to add to it, or read it, which we want. But it doesn't make it impossible, which could lead to all kinds of bottled up feelings. Also, it wouldn't pollute en:recent changes, which is nice. And it'd still be better than posting to the mailing list, because old "problem user" listings can be removed when they're no longer relevant, or have been resolved, rather than being permanent.

Problem is, it might pollute the meta recent changes, which could be annoying. If only there was a __NORECENTCHANGES__ tag or something... (yeah, yeah, wikipedia:bug reports)

It's fairly compatible with the meta vs Wikipedia: split, too. This page isn't a policy page, or documentation, or an editing tool, so it doesn't belong very well here - but it is about Wikipedia, rather than being a personal essay, so it fits the meta concept nicely.

A __NORECENTCHANGES__ tag? Are you trying to help the vandals? :-) Anyway, nobody reads meta... Evercat 00:21, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Precisely! :) Martin

So instead of holding secret trials we make the trials so inaccessible that they are, in effect, secret trials? :-) Contrary, I think everyone who adds someone at Problem Users also should be required to notify them on their talk page. BL 01:50, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Revert and lock on sight?

When would it be acceptable to revert all edits done by a user and then lock the pages they have been editing for a few days? Are any users problematic enough to do this? -- Gustavf 06:48, 23 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I think reverting all edits is rather extreme. Such a policy is sometimes employed for hard-banned users, but even then it's controversial. I suggest if you have a serious problem with this user you take it to Jimbo Wales. Protection of pages just because a user happens to have edited them is not likely to happen except in cases of severe and repeated vandalism. Angela 17:51, Sep 23, 2003 (UTC)

I am not having troubles with any user that is serious enough to warrant this. I just came to think about it when I stumbled into an edit war on Norway. -- Gustavf 07:56, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I hate this page

I really don't like the fact that this page exists. I don't think all problems can be resolved by airing our feelings about them. Sometimes, as Miss Manners (Judith Martin) says, the best thing is not to say anything about a conflict. She gives the example of going on a retreat or holding an encounter group "to get to know each other" -- but explains that the risk is that she might find out that someone she merely detests may turn out to be someone she wants to murder.

Now, we are a fairly tolerant group here, but we have a zero-tolerance policy on murder. I'm not going to review the whole sordid history, but if you do, you'll find that the quickest way to get kicked off this board is to threaten someone physically.

Insults are still cheap, but they're also cheapening. And labelling someone a "problem user" is rather insulting. A dozen or so of our best contributors have packed up and left rather than endure insults like that. Which leaves us bereft of the best talent available in the world.

I don't want to see us descend to a common denominator of mediocrity.

Let's stop contributing to the problem users page, and work on something more constructive like the Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial.

I inspired a bunch of new sysops (okay, my role was no greater than Al Gore's inspiration for the Internet) -- and if I have to I can inspire a bunch of former contributors, i.e., get them banned. But I'd rather not. Being negative doesn't come easy to me. It puts me in a foul mood.

I'd rather educate. --Uncle Ed 20:41, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Seems I've been promoted to this page by RK for "assuming ownership of an article" after he told me it is "okay" for me to edit to it. Just goes to show how silly this page is. Now, how do I get removed from the page, or am I doomed to be a "problem user" for posterity? Danny 04:44, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

All that being listed here means that some Wikipedian considers you a 'problem user'. If this opinion turns out not to be supported by most, it will eventually go away from here, I'm sure. Given User:RK's history of complaints about other users, most will probably be somewhat sceptical about it. --Morven 07:42, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

He has cried wolf so many times that I don't consider hardly any of his complaints as pressing matters. In this case, IMO, your actions were justified; the article should not have such a large essay-like POV blurb on the supposed connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Of course now I'm going to be called an anti-Semite for saying that. This is getting old. --mav

Do not bother about that Dann :-) Anthère

I agree with Anthère. Danny, don't take it personally. Be glad he is only calling you a problem user. He usually goes for somewhat stronger accusations. :). Everyone can see you are not a problem user, so RK is the one who ends up looking wrong. Angela 19:39, Oct 27, 2003 (UTC)

In any case, I typically go through and remove old/out-of-date listings every now and then. Cry censorship and let slip the dogs of war. Martin 20:00, 28 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wikiquette

Please...I realize one can get quite animated making a case that a user is a problem. I also realize the need for someone accused of being a problem to defend his or herself. However, this all must be done in a civil manner.

If someone accusing another of being a problem neglects wikiquette, then the accusor can begin to exhibit problem user qualities (i.e. the accuser becomes a problem user.) If someone accused of being a problem neglects wikiquette, that does not bode well for the case of the defense.

In short, I want to remind you all to relax, take it down a notch, and sometimes even walk away without getting the last word in.

Review Wikipedia:Wikiquette, and be a good wikirolemodel.

Kingturtle 21:27, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Recommendations for removing users from this page

If the consensus after one week of discussion is that a user is not a problem user, just move the entry to their talk page and leave a link behind in the Old entries section.
- Why a week? If it is obvious they are not a problem, this is often done sooner. Is there any benefit in moving the stuff to their talk page? They are likely to just delete it anyway. Angela
If the consensus (suggested at least 2/3 of people) is that a user is a problem user, has not improved their behavior significantly, and 3 sysops agree that banning may be the best option, then it is recommended that you bring it to the attention of Jimbo via private email (unless you are also listed here in which case it is advised that you stay out of it). Bringing it to his attention before that point is probably inadvisable.
- I don't think you need 3 people to agree before you speak to Jimbo. You may want to do this without listing the person on this page if you don't feel listing them would be useful. Angela

I rephrased the recommendation based on your comments. Daniel Quinlan 08:46, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

I wear ny "problem user" badge with pride, given who put me there and why. Adam 08:48, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Alexandros didn't feel the same way about his being listed. He was distraught! -- Tim Starling 08:50, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)

Don't want to pester, but I guess Alexandros deserves a bit more consideration because of his illness (he may not understand the above comments). His behaviour must have been annoying, but he needs to be spoken clearly ---much more clearly than any of us---. Pfortuny 09:08, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Some people are thick-skinned, others are hurt more easily. In my view this page is used too often. It is one of the pages with the most editing traffic. Before listing someone on this page every other mesaure should be tried. Talk to the user, ask him about his motives, and if this does not help, list him on this page. This should be stressed far more in the page introduction. The popularity of listing users as problem users becomes a threat to the Wikipedia community. -- Baldhur 09:06, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Reposted by request from WikiEN-L

Hi all,

In recent weeks, I have contributed to several discussions on the Problem users page and I now have come to the conclusion that it is a thoroughly unsuitable mechanism for resolving issues between users. Whatever its original purpose was (dealing with vandalism I guess), it is now (also) used for airing complex grievances with other users about lack of neutrality, breaches of Wikiquette and so on. Repeatedly, I've seen heated, sometimes acrimonious discussions take place, cooler heads try to prevail, some kind of ad hoc truce settles, and nothing is solved. Last night, a veteran sysop announced he was "arbitrarily" removing a discussion involving a user who repeatedly got involved in edit-wars over ever-contentious Mother Teresa. I disagree with this action, but at the same time, I also realize that leaving the discussion on the page likewise served no purpose at all. Hence, I have come to the conclusion that participating in discussions on this page is a complete waste of time and have removed it from my Watchlist. For the time being, if I have a problem with another user, I will leave a note on the talk page of someone I trust and ask them to help out.

The fact remains: Wikipedia has evolved reasonably effective mechanisms and procedures for dealing with vandalism, but it is sorely lacking in a process for resolving serious problems between "real" users regarding things like neutrality and Wikiquette. I realize that this will be difficult and take much time to establish. As a first step, I would argue for immediately banishing the unhealthy spirit of Problem users by renaming it New arrivals or Temporary disturbances or something and dedicating it exclusively to dealing with vandalism and mischief. Then, we urgently need to establish some kind of procedure where mediation or arbitration can be arranged to deal with substantial conflicts, in a similar way to which Brian is now trying to settle the conflicts surrounding the 2002 Gujarat violence article.

I realize that this issue of conflict resolution has been discussed [on WikiEN-L] earlier, but I didn't read every message in the thread and I don't know what it led to.

-- Viajero 19:50, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think a reasonable proposal would be to put the sysops to work ;)
I mean: suppose Prob1 is seen as a problem by User1 (which means a problem, not just "undid my edit"). User1 may write to a sysop telling him about it. Sysops could keep track of these accusations (I do not think there must be lots of them) -a kind of script, or whatever-. When Prob1 appears as the subject of complain FOR AT LEAST 3 different Users, then he is told by a sysop about the fact (with obviously the names of the offended ones). There could be a boilerplate text to make these complains. If Prob1's behaviour does not change, he appears in this page.

Sysops are free to include anyone after "deep meditation" on the subject. Obviously, a vandal or similar must appear here at some time.

The advantage is that it will take quite a while for someone to appear here and that it would require a clear misbehaviour (clear for several people).

This might look like "the schoolyard", but I think sysops have the power to block pages to prevent absurd behaviour, and the problem with this page right now was absurd. Pfortuny 20:14, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Problem with Problem users

I think the main problem with this page is that there is no process for handling problem users short of banning. And if we are not prepared to ban someone, then extended discussion is really pointless and distracting. We can't even really agree to ban someone here. So what if everyone agrees that someone needs to reform a behavior? It's moot. If our agreement has zero effect.

One idea would be to have some sort of probationary status be possible for users who continually display problems that are disruptive so we can avoid banning. Some random ideas of how this might actually be done (I'm not proposing all of these be used at once, even just one would probably be pretty severe, but if someone repeatedly displays bad behavior, then perhaps this is better than banning as an initial step).

user can only edit talk pages (make modifying articles hard)
user is unable to use history for pages (make reversion hard)
user can only edit so many pages per unit time (make edit wars hard)
... ideas?

The level to which we are powerless with respect to people who make good contributions, but display bad behavior is astonishing. In a workplace environment, someone would be warned, their behavior documented, they would be warned perhaps several more times (depending on the nature of the offense), and then they would be fired.

Anyway, just thinking out loud. Daniel Quinlan 20:22, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

First, I think any kind of arrangement requiring additional coding is not a good idea -- the developers seem overextended as is

Second, the more I think about it, the more difficult it seems to come up with adequate defintions. How do you define an edit-war for example? Usually it is just one recalcitrant individual, but sometimes there are more people involved. At one point do reversions become war-like?

While these kinds of things are being solved, I would argue for deleting this page. Vandals and mischief makers can be dealt with on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Discussions of "real" users should be restricted to article and personal talk pages and dealt with -- for the time being -- on an ad hoc basis. -- Viajero 22:57, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Seconded, remove this page. I just noted, that in addition to list Petermanchester on this page, above his user page a note "Note: This user has been listed on Wikipedia:Problem users for monitoring and possible banning." was added. Has there been such a procedure before? Considering the fact, that Petermanchester is a newbie, I regard this as an extremely inappropriate way of dealing with "problems". -- Baldhur 18:29, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the treatment of Petermanchester is not warranted. Whether or not someone is a "problem user", using humilition on their user page is not warranted - heck, some of the worse vandals have attacked user pages of those they disagreed with. I don't think problem users alone is a bad thing - but it should be seen in terms of "these people have made edits that the community finds contraversal, if you choose you might look over their contribs and change anything that you have serious issues with." It shouldn't be a punishment. -- Pakaran 02:44, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Some comments:

This sort of discussion will invariably occur. If it doesn't occur here, it will occur on the village pump, on VfD, on user talk pages, etc. You can't stop such discussion by deleting this page.
Community agreement does help in many cases, even in the absence of the ability to ban. Peer pressure can help. Some attempt at mediation can be performed. Etc. I agree that extended discussion is typically worthless (but at least here it can be kept tidy and in one place).
Maybe we should have wikipedia:requests for mediation. For both articles and people. Some overlap with wikipedia:peer review.
The level to which we are powerless with respect to people who make good contributions, but display bad behavior is astonishing. - sadly, the community currently *chooses* to be powerless. Innovations like wikipedia:remove personal attacks are part of the response to that, but they are controversial.

Martin 20:02, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not in favor of deleting the page. NightCrawler's listing of Peter is merely reflective of his frequent attacks on users. Regarding the removal of attacks, I find it pointless. I was recently attacked quite severely on my user page (by guess who). Of course, I thought of the policy about removing attacks, which I was already against, and I further realized that removing the attack would do nothing. The hurt was already done, the attack was made and I read it. Removing it would merely reward the attacker by hiding their deed more rapidly than the normal ebb and flow of talk pages. The target would still have been attacked. Daniel Quinlan 20:08, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Well, I took the liberty of removing Nightcrawler's comment on Petermanchester's page. It looked like something what a new user could regard as an official warning or anything like that, and I think it was rather presumptuous behaviour to place that sentence on the user page. If this problem user page shall remain here, some Wikipedians should keep it on their watchlist in order to protect new users against such attacks. -- Baldhur 20:25, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Such a notice can be appropriate where there is at least partial consensus that someone is causing a real problem. Not the case here, of course. Martin 21:13, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Another probation proposal

See above, Wikipedia talk:Problem users#Problem with Problem users.

The idea:

If a user is marked as "on probation", a sysop could (yeah, additional development work, overloaded developers, I know) protect pages from that user on an individual basis. A lot of page protection seems to be done due to one or two problem users not quite reaching the point where anyone proposes banning them, but imagine allowing more cool-headed folks to make progress on pages like Republic of Macedonia, Mother Teresa, etc. without entirely protecting the page. Daniel Quinlan 23:03, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I'm not sure there needs to be an "on probation" mark, but per-user page protection may help. However, note that such protection fails against people who use sock puppets - and thus may encourage people to use sock puppets. Martin 23:06, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, a few thoughts on that:

We could have a flag for controversial pages that would only allow them to be edited by sysops (read: long-standing user accounts with good histories).
sock puppets should be grounds for immediate banning
which leads me to the thought that we may need to consider moving away from complete anonymity. User:snoyes did an interesting analysis that 1/4 of all anonymous edits were counterproductive (and that does not include edits from sock puppets and throw away accounts). I think anonymous edits are a good hook, but we completely lack the technology to efficiently deal with trouble. Which goes back to my original point...
that this page and our process of dealing with vandalism and other problem behavior is ineffective

The last few days have been especially bad. Daniel Quinlan 23:13, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Note that even if 1/4 of all anonymous edits are counterproductive (which I'm skeptical about?) That still means that for every 100 anonymous edits we get, we have a net effect on Wikipedia of +50. Also note that requiring logins may not stop (or even particularly hinder) malicious contributors. Martin 18:31, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

That is only if you pretend there's no work in correcting counterproductive edits. Counterproductive edits suck up a lot more time -- time spent trying to verify information, find sources, list for deletion or as a copyright violation, time spent examining other edits by that user, etc. If the figure is 1/4, then it probably approaches a wash other than the "suck people into Wikipedia" factor. It would help if we had better ways to track and review anonymous edits, perhaps a review process (since I suspect a lot of edits are checked many times and some are never checked), especially on new IPs. Daniel Quinlan 21:26, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what you're talking about, but I just made a feature request for a recent changes page that only shows edits by anon IPs. Would that help? DanKeshet 21:30, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Problem sysops

In light of the recent sysop skirmishes, which included some language unacceptable, for anyone, especially sysops, I propose adding a problem sysops section. Alexandros 00:35, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In all frankness, I think we should leave problem sysops to the developers. If one is listed here, that's fine, but I think a special section serves no purpose. Daniel Quinlan 01:45, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

You can also use Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Requests_and_nominations_for_de-adminship to request that a sysop be de-sysopped, if that's your desire. Martin 18:22, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Using wikipedia:requests for adminship for problem sysops is "off-topic." NightCrawler 21:56, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

My suggestion that this was "off-topic" was based upon User MyRedDice/Martin statement which he modified: "You can also use wikipedia:requests for adminship to request that a sysop be de-sysopped, if that's your desire. Martin 18:22, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)" - NightCrawler 22:13, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sub-pages

Given the rhetoric value of sub-pages to make a point about someone (as shown by recent history), I changed the policy as it were to allow summary deletion of sub-pages when made by non-sysops. Daniel Quinlan 01:45, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

And I changed it back. It's not that I'm particularly against the policy, but there are two important things here: 1) When we edit policy pages, it's either to reflect de facto or agreed-upon policy changes. You do not create policy by simply adding it yourself. If there was a discussion somewhere, I apologize for reverting, but please at the very least link to it on the talk page. 2) We have been very careful to avoid creeping powers for sysops, and there are good reasons for that. There had better be a darn good reason if we're going to add more powers. And a darn good discussion first. DanKeshet

I reworded it to avoid the problem of such pages being created for trolling purposes without giving sysops any further powers. Basically, anyone can create one as long as there is agreement on it. A lack of agreement will mean the page is reverted and the new sub page deleted. Angela

To respond to Dan, (1) People create policy by adding it all the time. (2) I'd normally agree, but (a) this is not exactly a major power and (b) this is not an actual change of existing policy which already allows offensive articles to be speedily deleted. I merely have clarified that creating a sub-page to score points by implying someone is a persistent problem user may be construed as an offensive title by a sysop (which is allowed in the deletion policy). I'll take a look at Angela's addition as an alternative, though. Daniel Quinlan 02:14, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

Hi Daniel, Yeah, I didn't actually realize until after my edit that this is a new areas of policy, and people do create policy all the time (and revert it and edit it all the time too); in the more established policies, it's a real annoying thing to do. Re: 2) I much prefer Angela's way of saying this. I agree that creating "special feature" pages should be avoided, but there's no reason for hard policy ("sysops only") when soft policy will do. DanKeshet 02:22, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)

I'm in favor of applying limited amounts of "sysops only" policy in cases of handling problem user behavior, especially when it serves to limit the collateral damage from a flamewar. That I should also note that I am partially, but not completely, using "sysop" as stand-in for "experienced user" who is generally (if not always) not a troll, vandal, or flamer. Not completely a stand-in because sysops are expected to use powers judiciously, so the expectation of good behavior is even higher for sysops than experienced users. This all being said, Angela's rephrasing is okay with me. Daniel Quinlan 02:37, Nov 14, 2003 (UTC)