https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... 1196944204
Levivich wrote:....anyone who, on their first day of editing, goes to ANI and votes to block someone, deserves to be thrown right out the door.
....
I'm flabbergasted other editors are suggesting we should do anything else but indef in this situation
.....
Tell me what you think about someone joining this website, and on their first day, in their first edit to ANI, voting to block another user. Does that seem like normal behavior to you? Is it "ok" for people to do this? Do you want people who do this to be your colleague? Do you want to work with someone who does this?
......
The way I see it, you care so little about editors that you're OK with people starting an account here and immediately voting to block other editors. You don't think that behavior should be blockable. You don't think existing editors should be protected from that.
.......
Your view that it's OK for people on the their first day of editing to vote to block other people, is an example of toxicity. Creating an account and then immediately voting to block someone is toxic, very very toxic. It's malicious and abusive behavior. Who joins a group and immediately votes to kick someone out of that group? What kind of jerk does that??
And defending/enabling that is also toxic. And an admin shouldn't be making the culture more toxic. I know you mean well, but I think despite the best intentions, your viewpoint/reasoning/argument is quite literally supporting/defending a new user's right to vote to block people, and that's defending toxicity. That's defending incivility. While, strangely, viewing the new user as the victim. Whereas I see a new user who voted to block immediately after making an account someone as the perpetrator, not the victim, of wrongdoing. I hope all of the other people on this website see it the same way.
......
They voted to block somebody on their first day of editing, which makes them a clear threat to the proejct.
.......
Someone voting to block/ban someone immediately after joining threatens the project because this person is clearly here to abuse editors and not to build an encyclopedia (WP:NOTHERE). It doesn't matter who they vote to block/ban/sanction. When a person uses their editing privilege to abuse others immediately after registering an account, it's highly, highly likely that the person will continue to use the account for abusive purposes.
nableezy wrote:There may be a plausible reason why somebody is creating an account, waiting a day, then voting to indef somebody on their first day of actually editing without being a WP:PROJSOCK, but it has not yet occured to me and I have tried my best to work one out.
These people are taking Wikipedia waaaaay too seriously.usedtobecool wrote:If you are an experienced editor starting a new account, you need to establish a track record as a non-problematic good faith editor before you vote to ban someone. I don't know if any policies of ours say this, but it's just common sense to me. If I am getting banned, I want to know people who vote to ban me are my peers, be they my friends, my enemies or uninvolved editors whom I know to be here for the good of the project. I am not getting banned from a project that I have contributed to for years by one-day old accounts.
There is already enough policy basis to say a new user voting to ban someone on their first day should be zero weighted If their reasoning is not in line with policy, and only given minimal weight if it is.
There is already enough policy basis to say a new user turning up at AN/I on their first day and partaking in dispute resolution the way a user should (politely, citing policy, respecting others opinions) is more than entitled to an assumption of good faith (this has been reinforced by ArbCom making it clear anyone who CheckUsers in that situation, is breaking the law).
All this nonsense about banning such a user because it's just common sense is complete horseshit. Pure hate.
What these people are saying is a basic and obvious violation of assume good faith.
It always baffles me. No matter how many times an experienced Wikipedia editor says their first edits would have looked deeply suspicious to these kinds of people and would therefore probably have seen them get blocked, they never change their views.
If you wanted to have some fun, you could start testing the limits of their extreme prejudices.
How many edits/days must an account have, before they can vote to block someone?
What exactly counts as a track record, to these people?
Is it 500/30? Because as I have already proven, that high a bar excludes pretty much everyone already.
My theory is they will not accept being judged by anyone but an equal.
I think they're in for a very rude awakening. The current ArbCom features a user who has only been an Administrator since March.
