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

message: * 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)
thread_title: Things that we all agree with

message: * 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)
thread_title: Things that we are working on

message: ===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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Banning and Ultimatums

message: 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)
thread_title: Technical stuff

message: 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 ,  and , .
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion of banning

message: 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:
# Bans of users where it was clear the user did not support the goals of the project
# Bans issued after a great deal of community contemplation and handwringing, where a decision was issued according to some process
# 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. Meelar (talk) 13:36, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: How do we move forward with propsing this? Mark Richards 17:36, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: 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. Meelar (talk) 20:33, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  back to bans