Wikipedia:Sanctions against editors should not be punitive: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
There is accountability for administrative actions. |
||
Line 6:
Some editors, even some [[WP:ADMIN|administrators]] on [[WP:ENC|Wikipedia]] forget [[WP:HERE|why we are here]] and begin to adopt a '''punitive model''' for Wikipedia politics. They support [[WP:BLOCK|blocks]], [[WP:BAN|bans]], and [[WP:AE|enforcement of Arbitration Committee sanctions]] in order to exact retribution on "bad users" rather than helping to create and improve encyclopedic content. This is regrettable and problematic, not to mention contrary to the reason for blocks, bans, and enforcements as stated in the Wikipedia guidelines and policies linked in the previous sentence. When proposing or supporting an action that could easily be interpreted to be punishment, ask yourself, "Will this action help make the content on Wikipedia better?" If the answer is not an unequivocal "yes" and you still end up supporting the action, you may be an adherent to the punitive model of Wikipedia. This may also mean you enjoy the perceived "power" that you get from enforcing your will through the various features (or bugs) of the Wikipedia community.
Administrators should follow a '''preventative model''' for their actions with a goal of curbing disruptive or harmful behavior from editors rather than trying to punish them. [[WP:Topic ban|Topic bans]], [[WP:Page protection|page protections]] and so on are in some cases more helpful to the project than [[WP:Indefinite block|indefinite blocks]] or [[WP:Community ban|community bans]]. Short blocks may easily be interpreted as [[WP:GAME|gamy]] slaps on the wrist that just serve to aggravate rather than enlighten. If you have a problem with the actions of a user, why not try to discuss the matter with her or him before blocking? There is [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability|accountability]] for administrative actions.
==See also==
| |||