Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines/things we agree on, and things we will

Trying to identify things that are uncontentious, and those that we need to work on. Please add things to the 'agree' category if you think that they are something that everyone should be able to agree with. If there is something in that category that you don't agree with, then move it to the 'needs more work category'. Don't edit war on this, the point is to move it up when we've honed it so we can all live with it!

Things that we all agree with

• We are trying to build an open encyclopedia.
• We want to welcome everyone who wants to help.
• We want to preserve an open, collaborative model of editing.
• We want to resolve conflict between users by reference to fair, transparent processes articulated by the community as a whole, with sufficient flexibility to deal with new problems.
• We want our content to be accurate, written from a neutral point of view, and written well.
• We want to preserve a plurality of visions for how Wikipedia may evolve.
• We would like to develop more effective techniques of resolving and reducing conflict than simple bans.
• We believe any proceeding on Wikipedia that limits a user's right to edit must comply with the principles of natural justice.

Things that we are working on

• There is no evidence that bans reduce conflict.
  • Could someone who disagrees with this provide some evidence that bans reduce conflict? Thanks! Mark Richards 15:48, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • This history of alternative medicine. Note the pause in edit warring after User:Mr-Natural-Health is banned for one month on February 11. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:20, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Bans do not effectively stop persistent, relatively sophisticated vandals.
• We believe bans should be a last resort and, except in extreme circumstances, users should be given prior explanation, warning and an opportunity to correct their ways.
• Could Wikipedia benefit from a reputation reporting system? if so how could it work?
• What are the pros and cons other potential social and technological mechanisms for minimising unnecessary conflict and addressing other issues of scalability (accreditation, formation of cartels,confirmation of true identity, credentialling)?

Discussion

Banning and Ultimatums

• If editors editors must be banned, it should be by their own choice. That is to say that before a ban is given (however the decision is made,) the offender should be given a polite "ultimatum" of sorts: told what the problem is, how they can resolve it, and what the consequence will be otherwise. If they are willing to resolve it (and actually do) then they can remain as editors in good standing. If they still continue the offending behavior, then they have chosen to leave and we shouldn't feel any guilt about helping them do so.

(I moved this down because I believe ultimatums are poor policy. I don't, for example, use them much with my children, because then if they continue to misbehave I'm in the unfortunate position of having to either make good on my ultimatum or lose credibility. And there are lots of reasons to continue to misbehave: defiance for its own sake, a belief that the ultimatum will not be enforced, a desire to control the behavior of the person giving the ultimatum, a belief that the misbehavior is more important than the ultimatum. Even if effective, use of ultimatums weakens the decision maker, since observers may become convinced that they may misbehave all they wish since they will surely get an ultimatum before any remedial action is actually taken. Generally, once a decision has been reached, it is better to take corrective action immediately rather than issue an ultimatum. UninvitedCompany 15:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC))

I introduced natural justice above as it is a broad term that neatly summarises issues of fairness. Perhaps the banned by their own choice principle could be rephrased as "We believe bans should be a last resort and, except in extreme circumstances, users should be given prior explanation, warning and an opportunity to correct their ways." ? Erich 02:41, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think the concept of natural justice is helpful, and that at the stage of open discussions we don't really have to worry about the page changing much. Mark Richards 16:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Technical stuff

I've added a few open questions above. I don't want to be the only one pushing an agenda... and I'll happily drop it in the absence of a flicker of support... but not quite convinced that these mechanisms have been adequately explored.Erich 04:38, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Weblog

I just read this Clay Shirky article and found it illuminating. It touches on all the issues we are raising here. I encourage everyone to read it, and comment here if moved to do so. UninvitedCompany 15:20, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

wow a great history lesson! Erich 03:30, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Having read it, I agree it is well worth reading. Much for me to think about, and little to say right now, except a couple brief thoughts. One is that Shirky argues that a group can be its own worst enemy (social instability), and I think this is what a troll tries to exploit -- they're not creating dissension, but identifying and pushing on area of instability inherent in the group. We need to consider how Wikipedia will protect the group from itself. Second is that it seems clearer than ever that we need empowered sysops -- the "core group" needs to be able to respond to things that threaten the group. This isn't "cabal" activity -- on the contrary, it's what's necessary to continue to operate a site that _does_ welcome all comers. Certainly the nature of this empowerment is still very much in the "will agree on" stage since it has no real form yet, but I think we're getting there. Jwrosenzweig 16:11, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

From the outside, what is the difference between a 'core group' and a 'cabal'? Mark Richards 02:51, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Count me also as very interested in a response to Mark's question. - Hephaestos|§ 04:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, in a semantic sense there are some differences. A cabal is by definition small, secretive to the point of denying its own existence, and serves only its own interests. A core group is generally larger. Though not necessarily entirely open core groups usually at least acknowledge their existence, role, and membership. Finally, a core group is chosen to further the goals of the community rather than to pursue their own interests.

In any volunteer organization with differentiated levels of authority, there is always some criticism of the more powerful group by vocal individuals in the broader membership. Use of the word "cabal" as the insult of choice in this regard is, AFAIK, relatively unique to Wikipedia. The problem is universal, however. It doesn't matter whether it's a community theater group, a college radio station, a church, or whatever. Someone has to be sure that the community resources are cared for, and in the course of that some people who are pushing the edge of what's acceptable are going to feel slighted, and they often react by questioning the authority of whoever's in charge.

I was once a member of a theater group whose mission was to maintain a small venue and put on plays, weekly, that were produced and directed by students. It was a non-profit effort, and there was always a certain amount of tension between the us and the people putting on any given production. We had to be there to be sure that standard props weren't modified to excess, that equipment was used safely and carefully, that fire codes were followed, and that everything was properly put away after the last show. And the directors of each show invariably wanted to paint stuff we couldn't paint, cut up standard platforms and blocking, change the wiring, and so on. Everyone wanted exceptions made. We tried to be flexible but we had to say "no" in many cases, and people got mad at us individually and as a group. And often the criticism was in the form, "who are you people and why do you think you should be in charge?" Well, the answer was, we were there for all the productions and not just one, and they were all welcome to join if they were willing to put in the time. The same situation applies here at WP, or at least it should, and those who are willing to put in the time and stay involved in a wide variety of issues can and should have more of a say than those who don't.

I believe I've said before that WP as a community is oversensitive to charges of "cabal-ism" because of the egalitarian goals of the project. My advice is: get over it; there are elements of truth in such charges and that is the way it has to be. Shirky outlines the reasons for this more eloquently than I can.

UninvitedCompany 16:40, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see this as a critique of the wiki model itself. Its a frequent claim by people that 'that can't possibly work - there must be someone in charge of the content'. I believe that we should not move in this direction, for all the reasons that you mention about the group being difficult to hold accountable and having a narrow set of interests, and for philosophical reasons. Mark Richards 19:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It isn't a critique of the wiki model. I support the wiki model, or I wouldn't have stayed here this long, nor would I be participating in several other wiki projects unrelated to Wikipedia. Nor do I suggest that some be "in charge of the content," as you imply.

Maintaining standards of conduct, and having a group of committed people empowered to interpret and enforce them, has little to do with content. It also has little to do with wiki, per se, because as Shirky states, the social problems posed in online collaboration are the same whether the collaboration technology is BBS, usenet, mailing list, blog, wiki, or something else.

UninvitedCompany 19:40, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of banning

I made a couple of changes.

>There is no evidence that bans reduce conflict.

Quite the contrary. A case in point is User:Michael. Having recently resurfaced as User:The Undertones, he was diligently working on adding categories to the articles which he has a history of interest in. This was a clue as to who he was, and it was confirmed through common sense by comparisons with [1], [2] and [3], [4].

Nevertheless, Michael had changed his behavior somewhat, refraining from blatant vandalization, obscene epithets etc., and was clearly improving his behavior. He was subsequently blocked, which is our standing policy with returning banned users, but personally I wasn't going to block him in the face of apparent progress, unless his behavior degraded into what it had been before.

I would also cite Craig Hubley's latest reincarnation as JRR Trollkien as evidence. In my view, while he spent a good deal of time promoting the peculiar ethical/ontological perspective from which he writes, and also making a nuisance of himself on policy pages, his behavior was significantly moderated by having been banned previously. During this incarnation, I would say that he knew he was on thin ice, and generally avoided the kind of conduct that led to his previous bans.

This is not "evidence", this is nonsense. First, there is no evidence that Craig Hubley has any interest in Wikipedia other than studying troll culture, which apparently he began to do as a direct result of being accused of various activities here which there is no actual evidence of his ever being involved in. Second, the type of "conduct" that these prior users he was supposed to be, such as User:24, were engaged in, reads rather prophetically by now, with Larry Sanger and Jim Wales each accusing each other of never having understood the project, being trolls, letting trolls take over, etc., and there being also some general recognition of the problems of systemic bias that 24 was famous for insisting had to be dealt with (see m:Wikipedia Governance and see who it is you agree with now, Wales or 24). Accordingly, if these views were correct, and they seem to be, then many people simultaneously would have evolved them and would have asserted them, and that is more than enough to explain why there are so many "Craig Hubleys" around (dozens of supposed sock puppets at last count). That is like accusing all Communists of actually being Karl Marx, probably.

Thus, it is highly unlikely that User:JRR Trollkien is either Craig Hubley or User:24, but most likely, someone that just agrees with the latter and has been confused with the former, by way of some small clique or cabal of people pretending that the views these people seem to share, are not widely held, as they seem to be. They are at least strongly held by a great many people who are quiet about these views, who seem to support them when they become a standing policy or functioning project.

And what the motivations of any of these people has to do with vandalism, or Michael, has yet to be stated.

And as a result, my personal approach to dealing with him was similar; while I don't object to him being blocked based on standing policy, I wasn't going to impose the block myself. --Michael Snow 22:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nice of you not to be a fascist. That is for your own benefit, though, not for the benefit of any asserted group of "trolls".

>Bans do not effectively stop persistent, relatively sophisticated vandals.

This assertion is patently ridiculous on its face, considering the difference we've seen between Wik in his vandal heyday of a few days ago and the situation as it stands now. It's certain he didn't stop on his own.

I also removed the link to "natural justice", since the article could, as any other Wikipedia article, contain anything at any time. - Hephaestos|§ 04:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

gedday Hephaestos, that last sentence is a bit nihilistic about the value of Wikipedia isn't it? if you really believe that, why are you still here? I softened Marks original absolute statement about bans, do you want to soften it further?best wishes Erich 04:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I do have a fairly nihilistic attitude towards articles that are contentious; consequently I usually avoid working on those. There's nevertheless a wealth of good knowledge here. At any rate I think everyone here has their own idea of what "natural justice" is, and won't be easily swayed by argument. - Hephaestos|§ 04:18, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hang on a second, the argument you are making seems to be "Wik's behaviour was mixed, with good contributions but frequent conflicts with users. We banned him (temporarily) and he responded by running a vandal bot." It seems that the ban prompted a bout of vandalism. It seems likely that this question will be a matter of opinion, but, I see bans as prompting conflict and frustration and anger. Mark Richards 15:53, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What this illustrates to me is that bans are simply a tool for dealing with problem users. Bans are not our only tool, and I agree that they should be a last resort. But it's not the tool itself that inherently increases or decreases conflict. The whole situation determines that, including the personalities of those involved and the amount of judgment that goes into deciding when and where to use a particular tool. --Michael Snow 22:01, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree that there are many tools, but I have never seen any evidence that bans reduce conflict. Mark Richards 06:29, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

ideas

In a spirit of free and creative thinking ;-) I offer explanation of three radical and ill-thought-out ideas. All ideas require some – but not all – brave souls to surrender anonymity. Erich 04:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

alright, well i thought they were good ideas. :-) I guess these notions are aimed more at raising the bar on the quality of the content rather than improving the atmosphere. I'd dispute many of the grounds that these ideas have been criticised on. Most strongly I reject the assertion that these structures would prevent expression. The idea is these structure would create Islands rather than Walls. I believe Wikipedia is currently failing to retain many valuable contributors because they do not have the patience. Why would a professor bother to stay and argue with high school students? Wikipedia's good enough to benefit from more input from professors. FYI, There have been three medical wiki's started in the few months since I've been here. None have gained any significant support, I think mainly due to the great community building of User:Jfdwolff. Many other disciplines will lack the strength of numbers and commardre to support and welcome their colleagues like docs tend to. But I fear that without allowing recognition of external credentials many other wiki's will form that do. Maybe that won't be such a bad thing. dunno.

but I accept ideas below would not do a great deal to address problem of banning per se. Erich 06:42, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

accreditation, formation of cartels or guilds

I’m still hazy on how this could work, but I’m imagining something like a "copy editors guild", "NPOV writers guild", "the objectivity in the Middle-east guild" and the like as well as guilds around real world vocations and academic fields of study. The founding of such autonomous guilds is problematic, but in initial phases guild founders could mutually confirm each others true identity and credentials before allowing anonymous Wikipedians to enter the guild based on their edit history. I can’t think of any privileges it would be appropriate to award guild members apart from public recognition of their membership status. Perhaps, I guess, "this page is locked except to members of the XYZ guild" could become a valued administrator option.Erich 04:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I'm really worried about the idea of unrepresentative or accountable groups doing this kind of thing - how would we keep the encyclopedia open with this sort of thing going on? Mark Richards 15:58, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough too, but I think these concerns can be addresed.

• Re unrepresentative: who or us here is representative? 'representative' of who? a benefit of fomalised groups is to clarify this. Every article in Wikipedia is not written by 'represantives' it is written to the satisfaction of those that could be bothered to edit it. We all know this works fantasticly (except for the pages that are routinely 'locked' and the users that are 'blocked', and the pages that are a mess and experts walk away from because it's not worth the grief). Erich

The problem with this is that the notional 'community' is anyone in the world who has an interest in the GDFL corpus. These hypothetical 'groups' are making decisions about what goes in and who can contribute without any real legitimacy. Mark Richards 06:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

huh? sorry Mark, I'm confused. I am not talking about groups that exist yet, so I do not follow this bit:"hypothetical 'groups' are making decisions about what goes in and who can contribute without any real legitimacy." Sorry if I'm missing the obvious. The point about the idea is to make it more transparent who belongs to what group and under what rules... Erich 07:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Re accountability: There is nothing about formation of groups that decreases accountability. Quite the reverse. Groups tend to enforce greater accountability on members than society does on individuals. A group member also tends to fear sanction by their peers more than sanction by 'others.' As with individuals, groups also need to earn respect, and may also loose it any time. If a group hasn't earned respect, the community will withhold priviliges. simple!

'The community' has no effective way to withhold anything, while this group has the power to exclude anyone they want, often for (admitedly zealous) criticism of admins. Mark Richards 06:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Groups also allow, as much as inhibit, the operation of an open society. There is not a 'free country' anywhere in the world that isn't underpinned by a dizzying array of inter-related groups. On Wikipedia, this could mean restrictions (locks and blocks) that exist already could be applied in a more focussed way when needed.Erich 03:21, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is no evidence that these technical methods even work, and suspect that they would agrevate conflict, work to concentrate power in the hands of a few, and narrow the range of views expressed both in content and direction. Mark Richards 06:37, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

* Well, more than a decade later, we now some insight into how these cartels actually operate in practice. Over at Wikipedia External Links Project (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard), there is a gang of editors who have decided that ALL external links are evil and must be eradicated entirely from the face of Wikipedia. The official party line, as published on the WP ELP page, is that its mission is to improve the quality of links. But in practice, this translates as every link (except for ONE official link on an article about a company or organisation) are of such poor quality that they must be deleted. There is a self-appointed razor gang of about 5-6 members who spend their days going around selecting articles at random and deleting the entire section of links with little or no regard to the link's purpose. If an editor has the audacity to query their reversions, or even worse to produce evidence-based counter arguments in favour of retaining a link, then the members of this litte outfit who dominate the EL Noticeboard gang up on the poor hapless contributor. Instead of responding to their evidence or argument, they shout "you don't have consensus for these links" or "you didn't propose these links on the talk page, you just added them without any consensus." Editors who challenge their reversions soon learn that the razor gang is a very vindictive outfit - since any challenge immediately leads to them going around, locating every article where their victim may have contributed, and they then proceed to delete more external links, along with further reading items and anything else they can find. They also question the validity of 'See also' links and add a variety of tags to articles. This type of stalking and tagging behaviour could readily be construed as bullying or harrassment. These deletionists are so dedicated to their deletion activities that they are unable to find the time to make substantive contributions to any articles. The only time that they add actual words to Wikipedia is when they challenge and harrass editors on the EL Noticeboard or when they issue very official-looking cautions to individual editors whose activities they find particularly offensive. The cautions are very ambiguous and say things like "We don't normally accept these types of links" - which doesn't help the editor find out what was so wrong, while at the same time giving the impression that they represent some official Wikipedia viewpoint. (The use of the first person plural, 'We', 'Our" etc is very common in their writing). Each of these members of the WP EL group receives numerous complaints/ queries daily on their user page. Sadly, explanations or responses are very thin on the ground. Their edit summaries typically say things like Linkfarm" or "Linkspam" while their response to a challenge simply says "Doesn't belong here." None of this helps editors to learn about the specific problem or issue. They just quote policy, but rarely say how it applies in the specific instance. Unfortunately this lack of information means that there is little learning going on. Many of their victims just give up in disgust. A few hang in there and try to reach a conclusion with argument, but it is impossible because of the gang mindset that guides their actions. The quality of their arguments is exceedingly poor, so they just rely on weight of numbers and vindictive conduct to impose their will. I do not know whether this experience is typical of other cartels - but it appears to the dominant modus operandi at WP EL. It is a shame that this razor gang is alienating many editors. I tried raising this issue WP Help Desk, but as often happens, the administrator turned on me (for an unrelated error of judgement), instead of addressing the issue. Wikipedia really should mount an investigation into this outfit, but I guess that it's unlikely to happen in the current climate. In any case, at least you have some idea of what is going on, can learn about who's involved and can read some of the the discussions, many of which amount to haranguing matches at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard) BronHiggs (talk) 06:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

confirmation of true identity (CTI)

Anonymous editing is fine and keeps the "barriers to entry" low… but what if contributors who were prepared to indentify themselves were given recognition? Erich 04:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Aren't they already? Mark Richards 15:58, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've never felt any less valued or recognized just because my ID isn't the same as my real name. I don't know that revealing an actual name would stop the type of problem we're having (i.e. Irismeister) anyway. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:12, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree this is no magic bullet, just a simple step which would make an occasional difference.Erich 01:16, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that it wouldn't solve any of our current problems; plenty of problem users would have no issue with giving out a real name. It's about as effective as checking drivers' licences at the airport when anyone can get a fake ID. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Meelar that this doesn't solve any problem that we actually have. Contributors have various reasons for their willingness or refusal to identify themselves. I can think of several examples of people who are problem users despite their willingness to share their true name. Also, there are several exemplary contributors who prefer to be known only by a pseudonym. There is extensive discussion of this in the Meatball community, where MeatBall:UseRealNames is supposedly required. This policy is divisive there, and, IMO, has weakened the community overall.

The big problem with a "real names" policy is that it creates far more trouble for some users than others. If your name is John Anderson, you can share your name and it doesn't matter a bit because that name is so common that it is impossible to do useful google searches on it, and you can maintain plausible denial if someone ever wonders about something you wrote here. Quite a few people have unique names, or ones that are so rare that the name alone is fully identifying. Consider author-turned-conductor Somtow Sucharitkul, for example, or WSW host Louis Rukeyeser. As others have pointed out, people who have a reputation to watch (like university professors, published authors, and minor celebreties and politicians) also would be deterred by such a policy, to our detriment.

I suggested something similar (requiring identity verification for suspected socks; once verified, the identity would not be made public but merely used to verify whether a user was a sock or not) on the ml as part of a procedure for dealing with problematic socks, and the idea was widely panned.

UninvitedCompany 15:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this would be problematic. People have many legitimate reasons for not wanting to disclose personal information on public websites, and may well not trust a website to keep that kind of information, even if it had the best intentions. We would drive off a lot of valuable contributors, not least, those who would not want it to be known that they spend time at work on WP! Mark Richards 17:05, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

credentialling

Even more radical, what if there was a mechanism whereby contributors could submit their qualifications (or keep points of CV) for confirmation? This is a ‘next step’ to confirmation of true identity. Some months a go I proposed this idea - to mainly stunned silence ;-) – to my medical colleagues. But the same idea would work in any academic or technical field (accounting, history, landscape gardening, law, plumbing, sociology, teaching etc). Erich 04:06, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Don't we run the risk of getting an article written only by industry insiders? Mark Richards 15:58, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Only if the community wanted to let them, which I doubt it would. It is better that the industry insiders identify themselves and their interests to enable others to watch for bias. Where this idea would help would be when conflict occurs in very specialist areas. Are you an expert on 1930's China? I'm not either, but if a disagreement breaks out, are you going to trust the cartel of 20th century Asian historians with University appointments (AHUAs) or a small group of anonymous zealots? The zealots may have a point and will protest if the AHUAs ride over the top of them. The community will will need to resolve this conflict as it usually does (or doesn't ?). However, the groups are identified and everybody know's who's who at the zoo. If credentialled, the AHUAs are also more likely to stand their ground and articulate their points because they won't feel the are completely wasting their time. Surely this would ultimately allow the community to help guide the creation of a superior article. Erich 01:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Strongly disagree. The level of knowledge that a person has on a specialized topic can and does come through in the discussion. For example, in the China articles, it usually becomes pretty obvious

who knows his stuff and who doesn't. The other point is this. There are many subjects in academia which are controversial, and we don't want a situation in which one side is able to steamroller another simply because the person representing one side of the debate on wikipedia has a Ph.D. and the other is an educated amateur. Furthermore, it's perfectly possible for an educated amateur to have more knowledge on a specialized topic than a university professor. For example, I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics and happen to teach astronomy at a university. While I do have have more knowledge than the average person on say neutrino-electron scattering, it's possible without much effort for an interested amateur to know more about Mars than I do by spending a month or so in the library.

One thing to keep in mind. Forcing people to reveal their identities will get you *less* cooperation from specialists. Take me. It's tremendously liberating to be able to write something on wikipedia off the top of my head, and not worry too much about having what I write follow me forever.

Roadrunner 13:54, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Roadrunner 13:50, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it will also discourage people in public life, prominent positions in companies, people who do not want their boss to know that they contribute to Wikipedia from work etc etc. It would be a huge loss. Mark Richards 17:01, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Other ideas

OK, I think that the credentialling idea is kind of foundering. What are some other suggestions? I've moved my idea here from the parent page, just to throw it out there. It seems that "problem users"--people who aren't interested in WP goals, but not simple vandals--are the problem. Here's my proposed solution:

• make a committee that's empowered to determine "problem users" and what to do about them. Perhaps this could be all sysops.
• If at least three users from that committee decide to, they may ban any user for 24 hours
• After the 24 hours are up, the banned user may appeal to the arbitration committee
• Unless and until the AC finds the ban wrongly done, the banned user is not protected--he may be banned, for any reason, by any sysop, without penalty
• The AC should be enlarged and should receive an injunction to work faster
• If the AC finds that an initial ban was issued in poor judgment, then the offending users would be immediately removed from the "banning committee"

These are just my suggestions. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:12, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is interesting, one point that I find strange is that sysops would be empowered to decide what 'problem users' are. I think this is a task for the community at large. Sysops should administer community made policy. I worry that the projection of the issue onto 'problem users' is kind of similar to 'problem children' in psychotherapy. It's a well know phenomena that any group will try to project their difficulties onto certain members. I see the problem as our collective failure to manage conflict effectively, not determining who the 'problem user' is.

I don't believe that bans and blocks are effective. They are troll feeding and baiting strategies that up the ante for a game that is being played at our ecpense. There needs to be a more sophisticated group response to obvious trolls that difuses, rather than agrevates, the game. If trolls don't get what they are looking for (usually a fight), they will go elsewhere. Stupid edits are easy to revert. Mark Richards 17:15, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I guess I should clarify. This new group, whatever structure it takes, would not ban anyone who could not be banned now. Take, for example, User:Energybone (see Talk:Nick Berg conspiracy theories). He eventually ended up getting blocked. That was the best outcome, given the circumstances; but there was nothing in policy that supported this. The only option would have been to go to the arbitration committee, where waiting a month or more would be the only option. This kind of failure of policy is why we need a new structure: NOT more reasons to block people, but simply the ability to enforce our rules quickly and fairly, with every chance for those wrongly banned to hash it out. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:29, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, this is where we came in. I agree entirely that EB was a pain. I think it is dreadfull that people are excluded without the community having expressed their acceptance of the terms. I agree that we need a new system for resolving conflicts, diffusing trolls, and, occasionally, excluding people (probably temporarily). Where do we go from here? ;) Mark Richards 17:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I personally think that all we need is a banning process that's not agonizingly slow. Any suggestions in this vein are welcome. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 18:38, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I doubt that is really what you mean, surely it has to have other features, including some standard of fairness, legitimacy, and effectiveness? Plus, cutting straight to the chase and assuming the answer is more, faster and better bans seems foolish to me. Mark Richards 18:57, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fairness, legitimacy and effectiveness--these are goals as well. Honestly, an increase in speed would probably fall under the "effectiveness" category. As for the bans, what would you suggest? I'm thinking of how we would have dealt with EB or other, similar users, should they choose to stick around, and bans are the only thing I'm coming up with. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

back to bans

Well, we're back around to the beginning.

I will weigh in with the assertion that no logged-in user has ever been inappropriately banned in the history of the project. There have been cases of inappropriate uses of IP blocks. I believe that the bans issued thus far can be divided into roughly three categories:

1. Bans of users where it was clear the user did not support the goals of the project
2. Bans issued after a great deal of community contemplation and handwringing, where a decision was issued according to some process
3. Bans of users that were reincarnations of users banned according to 1. & 2.

I believe that the right of a community to choose its members is fundamental, and that application of this right and the threat of same are required to keep the community from destroying itself (c.f. Shirky). The presenting problem is that we do not have an effective, fair process for issuing bans; the AC is too slow and the vigilantism we have seen lacks fairness and community support.

UninvitedCompany 22:54, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, who knows whether there have been inapropriate bans. It would be hard to know if inapropriatly banned users just left in disgust, but, for the sake of argument lets agree that that is true for the moment. The other issue is 'who comprises "the community" that has a right to choose its members'? Anyone who logs in? Some subset of those who are mandated by anyone who cares to log in? The people who pay the bills for the servers? An influential group who decides that it should be them? Mark Richards 23:32, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Here's another left-field idea (sorry). Maybe banning would be less harmful if it could be softened. Currently Wikipedia operates under a presumption that "editors and edits are valuable until proven otherwise." Fair enough. It mostly works. What if, the option existed to shift the onus onto the author to demonstrate that their edits were worthwile... a sort of probation rather than jail... or is that shackling rather than banishment... anyway... it would require some pleuralist (mmm Mark ?) ;-) to approve an edit before it was committed. Best of both worlds? Rather than singling out poor Mark, it would be possible to allow a group to have that role... and to head off Mark's concerns the group could operate under the rule that approval by one member was adequate to get the probationary editor's edit actioned. On the face of it, this is more work than a simple ban, but allows rehabilitation and encourages communication over sock puppets. I guess the current software would support this idea, but a few enhancements would go a long way to making it more efficent to implement. Erich 06:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea - I like the idea of moving towards redemption - can we flesh this out a little? Mark Richards 06:38, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As an aside has anybody written some sort of criminal code listing crime and punishment? ... as a way of reducing the perception/danger of arbitary "justice"? Erich 06:17, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I like this idea as well. It could even be combined with my idea--one committee or group decides who must go on probation, at which point another committee would decide which of their edits are acceptable, and if not, how to make them so. It would be great to have a step before banning. I would support this idea, and I'll even offer to help implement it. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:36, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How do we move forward with propsing this? Mark Richards 17:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, first, we'd need to get a specific draft proposal worked together (presumably at Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines/supervised editing proposal). Then, we'd need to announce it on the mailing list, village pump, and others. Once the community seems to come to a rough consensus, we can put it into "policies and guidelines" and start setting up the committees to enforce it. I'd be willing to write the specific proposal myself, or Erich or you could do it. That's the next step. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:33, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Meelar and/or Erich, I'd love to see a proposal we could kick around in the wiki way. Is one of you really willing? I say write it and then we can start refining. Jwrosenzweig 23:08, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

well have a look at Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines/supervised editing proposal. I've renamed it as theoretically supervised editing could be imposed as a condition of bail,probation or parole. I've also split it into three levels to give the AC and others greater flexibility. One of these days i must get a life! Erich 04:09, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)