First things first. That is a nice post.

how much work should people have to do to accommodate one determined troublemaker?

There isn't just one disfavored monk, there are many. However, one of them annoys more than the rest to the point it is considered unbearable. A solution, however, can work for everyone.

Of course, if that isn't worth the effort, or the idea of changing the way things are done (which has worked for well over a decade) is anathema, a single monk can be singled out. If so, deal with the issue for the one monk with a banning or something. Pick your poison.

it is a way to show the people in charge of the site (of whom I am not one) how many people are sick of it

That is an excellent point. I didn't think of that. Reputation is an indicator to the management, especially when a difficult choice may be in the offing. Although this would require due diligence in voting on the post and not the monk (making quick downvotes less valuable), it is still a decent indicator.

It should be noted that it would make the site exclusive to people who don't tick everyone else off. That is still intolerance (by definition), but understandable, especially if the main concern is that bad advice is being offered consistently and in enough quantity, where there is a real fear of damage via misinformation.

How long would it take before you admitted you needed to put a restriction on your "everyone is welcome" policy?

That might depend on how much anime i watched recently, where some supposedly righteous character never gets angry. :) But seriously, such a person would likely get a warning and then get banned.

That case is not really comparable because he is both causing damage to other people and cannot be ignored given just one general area.

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

It should be noted that it would make the site exclusive to people who don't tick everyone else off.

True, but if you set the threshold high enough, it would take a lot to meet it. Say if someone's overall rep for a week is below -100, or if his ratio of downvotes to upvotes is below some level, there's a call for a vote on whether to boot him, for instance. Dunno what the exact number would need to be, but I'd think something like that would be possible without people having to fear that annoying the wrong person or having a bad day would get them banned.

Of course, that would require coding too, and discussion when a vote came up, so that's not a free solution either. But it seems to me like a reasonable extension of the reputation concept, if people wanted to do it.

Aaron B.
Available for small or large Perl jobs and *nix system administration; see my home node.

but if you set the threshold high enough

That's one of those dangerous phrases that sounds good at first, but are many times are (perhaps unconsciously) justifications for detestable behavior. Just a note to be extra careful.

Say if someone's overall rep for a week is below -100

Not such a bad idea though. Instead, i would look at for rep that is x% below the average. And then, just make the person a candidate for banning.

that would require coding too, and discussion when a vote came up

If it's for excessive abusers, it would not need to be automated. A simple query would show weekly rep (for a reported abuser), and cause for a vote amongst the gods. They can put the monk on probation for 1 hour the first time, and double it from there. Probation could simply mean posts must be approved before being seen by new users.

"a single monk can be singled out."

Can they?