3 ms·

>The moderation policy of Wikipedia literally states it's better to just indiscriminately ban all people in an argument because new users will inevitably show u

>The moderation policy of Wikipedia literally states it's better to just indiscriminately ban all people in an argument because new users will inevitably show up to fix the issues in a more level-headed manner. I call... baloney? Which policy, may I ask?

noirscape 3y ago
Tldr; it's a combination of wikipedia policies and practical execution; WP:SEALION lays it out in practical terms. ArbComm and Administrators are by design incapable of blocking users based on disputes over page content. This is fine on paper, but it has resulted in the side effect that if an argument arises, the main thing that Wikipedia ends up policing is less the accuracy of what's being edited (because no authority on Wikipedia may comment on that) but rather the civility of the editors involved. In practical terms, it's basically impossible to edit or comment on the site without breaking a policy somewhere - Wikipedia's massive list of policies and essays are self-contradicting, meaning that if you complain about a policy violation, a different editor can complain about you breaking another policy. This means that should a discussion get to the point where administrators (let alone ArbComm) has to be involved, the default outcome is basically that both involved parties will get sanctioned; ArbComm and ANI closure notes have openly stated in the past that they've just given a page/topic ban (or worse) by community consensus to all editors involved because "it might put fresh editors on the page instead". It's an issue further amplified by the Randy in Boise problem (aka the "fuck experts" policy), where a "sock" user can just behave in extremely polite and civil ways, yet says things that hold absolutely zero ground to the frustration of all involved. All with the goal of eventually escalating it to AN/I or ArbComm so that when their sock gets banned, at least the article is down an expert editor. Wikipedia largely gets away with this policy on the basis that they'll accrue new editors with time anyway.

noirscape 3y ago

Tldr; it's a combination of wikipedia policies and practical execution; WP:SEALION lays it out in practical terms. ArbComm and Administrators are by design incapable of blocking users based on disputes over page content. This is fine on paper, but it has resulted in the side effect that if an argument arises, the main thing that Wikipedia ends up policing is less the accuracy of what's being edited (because no authority on Wikipedia may comment on that) but rather the civility of the editors involved. In practical terms, it's basically impossible to edit or comment on the site without breaking a policy somewhere - Wikipedia's massive list of policies and essays are self-contradicting, meaning that if you complain about a policy violation, a different editor can complain about you breaking another policy. This means that should a discussion get to the point where administrators (let alone ArbComm) has to be involved, the default outcome is basically that both involved parties will get sanctioned; ArbComm and ANI closure notes have openly stated in the past that they've just given a page/topic ban (or worse) by community consensus to all editors involved because "it might put fresh editors on the page instead". It's an issue further amplified by the Randy in Boise problem (aka the "fuck experts" policy), where a "sock" user can just behave in extremely polite and civil ways, yet says things that hold absolutely zero ground to the frustration of all involved. All with the goal of eventually escalating it to AN/I or ArbComm so that when their sock gets banned, at least the article is down an expert editor. Wikipedia largely gets away with this policy on the basis that they'll accrue new editors with time anyway.