RfCs and other junk Thanks for your comments. I quite sympathise with you; although the procedure for dealing with problems is clearly set out, and has apparently worked in this case, it most certainly could have been done much more rapidly.
The process is set out at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. The vast majority of disputes on the Wiki are minor, as a quick look around Wikipedia:Third opinion and Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts will show. But the nature of the medium is such that they quickly escalate to Wikipedia:Requests for comment or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, which put considerably more strain on all involved. Hence the process is written so as to encourage low-level resolution of issues, so that admins don't spend all their time looking at evidence.
There is also a culture of goodwill towards editors, meaning in this case that admins and editors actively engage in education new editors into the culture of Wikipedia. This support is one of the reasons for Wiki's growth; but as you have noticed, it can also result in mollycoddling trolls.
After the first few personal attacks and disruptive edits, the editors restricted themselves to pointing out the problem to the offender on his talk page and discussing it on the article's talk page. instead, the formal processes should have been followed. For example, a request could have been made at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts; or a Wikipedia:Requests for comment on the content dispute could also have been filed. This is not the same as a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, which is more serious. There are other options, including various types of mediation, that might have been attempted.
This could have been done in the first day or so. The next step might then be, once several editors agree that the offender's work is disruptive, to launch a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. This process allows for the collection of data on misbehaviour, and widens the discussion to include all editors and edits. This could certainly have been done by the end of the first week.
The RfC gives admins an overview of the issue, allows the offender to defend themselves, and lays the groundwork for further action. Note that an administrator who commences or participates in an RfC would not then be able to implement blocks or bans.
The next step, if the recalcitrance continued, would be either a community ban, or a request for arbitration.
In the case of Ludvikus, this process was not followed. The result was that there was no single location to which an admin could be referred in order to see what was occurring. Indeed, in this case the evidence was scattered over a range of articles and talk pages, and took literally hours to read. Having followed the discussion for a few days, I was convinced that there was sufficient cause for a community ban; but a community ban requires a consensus among admins, and I was unable to achieve this. If I had had an RfC and other evidence, that might have been an end to it. I simply did not have the spare time to pull together all the evidence. As it was, other admins became involved, seeking to solve the issue using mediation and so on. These attempts were of course made with the best of intentions; and in most cases they would have been sufficient to resolve the dispute; but in this case the effect was simple to provide a forum for the troll.
As an admin, if I had edited the article, or commenced an RfC, I would have been obliged to recuse myself from taking action. Hence I was left with little choice but to allow the mediation process to proceed.
Perhaps I should have banned Ludvikus much earlier and then sort approval from other admins. But I think this would have resulted in the ban being lifted, and probably arbitration - a longer process than a community ban.
In any case, since two other admins have supported the ban I have placed on him, it should hold.
Anyway, hope this short essay helps to explain my gruff post of yesterday. Please be aware that this whole process must be the exception, not the rule. For better or worse, we are stuck with the prevailing culture of Wikipedia, and must work within it. For my part, I hope that a more proactive approach on the part of the admins involved in the philosophy section might lead to some improvement in what are a set of very poor articles. But that will only work if the formal processes are applied. Banno 00:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)