User:Vassyana/Problem solving

We have failed
I believe part of the reason ArbCom gets cases like Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2, Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong, Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, Requests for arbitration/The Troubles, Requests for arbitration/Paranormal and Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy is because we as admins, and as a community, have failed to adequately resolve problems within our ability to solve.

This failure is even more troublesome when a number of tools and solutions are well-explored and relatively uncontroversial (in and of themselves). The community as a whole is almost afflicted with utter paralysis when it comes to dealing with these highly charged areas of the wiki.

Enough is enough
There comes a time when enough is enough, as they say. I don't believe we need ArbCom to tell us that it's OK to treat problematic areas like problematic areas, or that it's OK to impose sanctions when people are obviously out-of-line. If someone raises a situation with evidence, we should review the situation and address any problems present from any editor.

There are generally accepted principles and solutions that can be used to make this clear. Long-term problem editors only exist as such because we allow them to continue without real fear of serious sanctions. Why should they bother adjusting their behavior if the worst they can generally expect to receive, short of abusive sockpuppetry or some other rare "intolerable" offense, is a short block or relatively brief page/topic ban?

Principles
None of these principles are new or exciting. However, many of them are inadequately emphasized and enforced (when at all).

General

 * Wikipedia's mission is to create a free, high-quality encyclopedia using volunteers.
 * Disruption of the editing environment is directly harmful to this goal.
 * Administrators and community discussion are permitted to prevent disruption, and indeed intended to do so as part of their function.

Blocks

 * Blocks should generally be a last resort.
 * Previous blocks and sanctions should indicate that the user is not getting the hint. We call that "persistent disruption".

Warnings

 * Warnings and explanations should be provided in a direct, but polite, fashion.
 * Warnings are not necessary for those who have had the principles of Wikipedia explained to them multiple times and/or have been repeatedly warned (with explanation) for their actions.

Disruption

 * Acting in good faith is not an excuse or mitigating factor for on-going disruption.
 * Disruption is disruption. Treat it like disruption.

Right and wrong

 * Being "right" does not grant a free exception to normal Wikipedia policies.
 * The incorrect actions of others do not grant a free exception to normal Wikipedia policies, including acting in the same fashion as those in the wrong. (That's called "tu quoque".)

Solutions
These solutions are not novel or groundbreaking. We have simply failed to appropriately enforce the rules and follow through.


 * Warning and explanations. Warn people about problematic behaviors. Explain the principles involved. (When someone is new.)
 * Probation: A general but formal warning about disruptive behavior, specifically noting some of the problematic patterns at hand. It is expected that administrators and the community will treat someone under probation with greater scrutiny and less tolerance. (For relatively short-term but persistent behavior, or for areas likely to be disrupted by a long-term editor.)
 * Article bans: A prohibition on editing articles directly, but generally permitting reasonable talk page posting. (Generally, for those who edit and revert war, but are potentially able to raise good points and work cooperatively in discussions.)
 * Topic bans: A prohibition on editing pages related to a topic, broadly construed. (Generally, for those with long-term persistent problems and for those with a history of talk page disruption.)
 * Blocks: A technology-enforced prohibition on editing Wikipedia, except the editor's own userspace. (Generally, when it is believed that allowing the editor access to Wikipedia outside of their user pages is very likely to cause disruption, when a user has been unable to abide by probations and bans and when a user has been previously blocked for related issues and they persist.)