 | This is an
essay on the
conduct policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
 | This page in a nutshell: ArbCom should sometimes hear cases of editors with long block logs |
A few Wikipedia editors have long block logs, sometimes including some relatively long blocks, of more than a week, sometimes escalating. The reasons for these block logs are sometimes varied, but typically include incivility. These editors sometimes divide the community, with both supporters and opponents. The supporters often say that the editors are excellent content creators. Their opponents often say that they are net negatives to Wikipedia, and that the harm that they do outweighs the benefit that they provide. Sometimes these editors are eventually banned (or de facto banned by being indefinitely blocked). Sometimes they eventually go away, either because they exit in a huff and are not asked to come back, or because they tire of the conflict that they were involved in.
It is my opinion that ArbCom should consider cases involving editors with long block logs. If they continue to accumulate blocks, the community is not dealing effectively with them, at least not without instructions from ArbCom. Editors with long block logs may be net negatives to the community, but if such an editor has a group of friends, the community as a whole will not be able to remove the troublesome editor, and the deliberative process of arbitration is needed. Alternatively, an editor may have a long block log because they are being taunted or bothered by a few other editors. In such cases, the deliberative process of arbitration may impose interaction bans, or may even punish the tormentors. Another possibility is that the editor needs to be restricted by a topic-ban.
If an editor has a long block log and divides the community, the quasi-judicial process of ArbCom may be the least undesirable approach.
| This is an
essay on the
conduct policy. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of
Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been
thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
| This page in a nutshell: ArbCom should sometimes hear cases of editors with long block logs |
A few Wikipedia editors have long block logs, sometimes including some relatively long blocks, of more than a week, sometimes escalating. The reasons for these block logs are sometimes varied, but typically include incivility. These editors sometimes divide the community, with both supporters and opponents. The supporters often say that the editors are excellent content creators. Their opponents often say that they are net negatives to Wikipedia, and that the harm that they do outweighs the benefit that they provide. Sometimes these editors are eventually banned (or de facto banned by being indefinitely blocked). Sometimes they eventually go away, either because they exit in a huff and are not asked to come back, or because they tire of the conflict that they were involved in.
It is my opinion that ArbCom should consider cases involving editors with long block logs. If they continue to accumulate blocks, the community is not dealing effectively with them, at least not without instructions from ArbCom. Editors with long block logs may be net negatives to the community, but if such an editor has a group of friends, the community as a whole will not be able to remove the troublesome editor, and the deliberative process of arbitration is needed. Alternatively, an editor may have a long block log because they are being taunted or bothered by a few other editors. In such cases, the deliberative process of arbitration may impose interaction bans, or may even punish the tormentors. Another possibility is that the editor needs to be restricted by a topic-ban.
If an editor has a long block log and divides the community, the quasi-judicial process of ArbCom may be the least undesirable approach.