Wikipedia Sucks!

''to be improved''

----

Most Wikipedians are good contributors, and we encourage people to show good [[wikipedia:wikipetiquette]] when dealing with them. In other words:

• Good edits - kept (or improved!)
• Bad edits - generally fixed - some may be reverted
• Talk edits - kept or replied to

However, some contributors are troublesome, and we wish to encourage them to leave Wikipedia and find another community more suited to their style or else adapt to the community expectations of Wikipedia. Hence:

Soft ban

Users who consistently break community norms or make bad edits to articles may be placed under a "soft ban". This means:

• Good edits - mostly reverted, but some may be kept at our discretion
• Bad edits - reverted
• Talk edits - at user's discretion

The decision to soft ban someone is, like most decisions on Wikipedia, a consensus one made by the community as a whole. If the community decides to soft ban a user, the following text should be placed on the user page of a soft banned user, to inform them of their soft ban:

:''<nowiki>This user is under a [[wikipedia:bans and blocks|soft ban]] - see [[user talk:USER NAME/ban]] for details. All edits by this user may be reverted, though they do not have to be.</nowiki>''

Reasons for the ban should be placed on the /ban page - discussion elsewhere is strongly discouraged. If you wish to act as a character witness for a soft banned user, you should do so there. However, the best way to get a soft ban lifted is for the banned user to take on board the feedback they've been given, and make only good edits.

If you see a good edit by a soft banned user, you are free to reinstate it. However, please do not reinstate bad edits - only reinstate edits that you believe are accurate and unbiased. Please do not flame users who are soft banned - the policy of [[wikipedia:no personal attacks|no personal attacks]] still applies.

Hard ban

Users who do not improve in conduct after being placed under a soft ban may be placed under a hard ban. Hard bans are very much a last resort, and the ultimate decision is made by Jimbo Wales, the owner of this website, after reviewing evidence on the /ban page.

All edits by a hard banned user, regardless of their merits, will be reverted. In addition, hard banned users may face technical measures to prevent them editing Wikipedia. If you are hard banned, please leave Wikipedia and find a place more suitable to your unique talents and style. The following text should be placed on the user's page:

:''<nowiki>This user is under a [[wikipedia:bans and blocks|hard ban]] - see [[user talk:USER NAME/ban]] for details. All edits by this user will be reverted. Please do not reinstate any edits made by this user.</nowiki>''

Reincarnations

Wikipedians should refrain from witch hunts of users who may be older users coming back under a new name. However, if the community consensus is that a new user is probably the reincarnation of an old user, the community may soft ban that user, as described above. Evidence that the user is a reincarnation should be placed at [[user talk:USER NAME/ban]].

As a last resort, Jimbo Wales may decide to hard ban reincarnations, after reviewing evidence on the /ban page.

If you are the victim of a mistaken identity, please provide some evidence of who you are. This evidence might include a photograph of yourself, or a non-disposable email address, or a work address or telephone number, or a link to your home page. Your evidence needs only be sufficient to convince the community that there is some reasonable doubt - it need not be conclusive.

I think it's stupid to revert a useful edit, merely because the contributor was "banned". It can only lead to a tit-for-tat or cat-and-mouse game. Please leave me out of the "we ask" part of this. --user:Ed Poor, sysop and developer

Good edits - mostly reverted, but some may be kept at our discretion

Apparently, MediaWiki did not support blocking user accounts in its earliest days.