User:Millelacs/Voluntary restrictions

A Wikipedia editor who travels the choppy waters of requests for comment, the administrators' noticeboard, and the pages of the Arbitration Committee will inevitably notice disputes between users—which often spiral out of control—and user-caused disruptions. These are detrimental to the success of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia; to maintain quality articles, Wikipedia must have a community focused on their upkeep, and not on internal squabbles. To resolve these, sanctions against disruptive editors are often emplaced, often taking a form of the ban.

It is possible to put a more positive spin on sanctions by replacing them in certain instances with self-imposed restrictions. These, created and adhered to by users who admit inappropriate or unhelpful actions, can be as binding as sanctions but are also free of the negative aura of the former. The sections below detail past, present, and potential usage of voluntary restrictions on Wikipedia.

Definition of a voluntary restriction

A voluntary restriction is, simply put, an editor's abstention from an area that his or her actions have caused controversy in. Normally, voluntary restrictions are self-imposed in the process of dispute resolution or as an alternative to community-imposed sanctions. For example, an editor facing a topic ban for disruptive editing at the Categories for Discussion page might determine it would be best to withdraw from participation in that forum.

Normally, such abstentions are temporary, though in more serious cases of disruption or abuse, longer-term withdrawals may be expected by the community. So, despite the self-explanatory voluntary nature of such a restriction, violations of it may be responded to with community sanctions. In the past, these have included temporary blocks.

Appropriate application

Given the gravity of some policy violations at Wikipedia, sanctions imposed by the community or by the Arbitration Committee are necessary to ensure an appropriate remedy. Blatant violations of Wikipedia policy, such as sockpuppetry, particularly egregious personal attacks, and illegal or unethical activities (such as copyright violations or actions contrary to child protection policies), often must be handled quickly and with strong sanctions.

Given the need for sanctions, it would be incredibly naïve and unhelpful to propose the implementation of voluntary restrictions as a one-size-fits-all replacement for them. This, however, does not disqualify them from the role of an effective means of dispute resolution. Editors who admit to disruptive editing or violations of a variety of policies (the three-revert rule, soapboxing, etc.) are often handed bans that restrict their involvement in certain areas or with certain users. This situation is not always ideal; instead, a voluntary restriction leaves open the possibility for future, better behaviors, and allows what is in part a "clean slate" for the editor. At the same time, it directs more attention toward the editor, providing an impetus for positive growth and development on Wikipedia.

Since the restrictions are self-imposed, they can be tailored to the specific issues regarding that user - for example, they can exclude dealing with vandalism, stub sorting, or other jobs which the user can handle even on the restricted topic without causing disruption.