to be improved

• need to add some stuff about banning "simple vandals". How to phrase this?
  • I linked to the dealing with vandalism page
• needs to be reviewed to ensure this is a workable consensus - and edited if not
  • probably only doable on wikipedia proper
• Are "soft ban" and "hard ban" good names?
  • Too late: the memes have escaped...
• needs general copy editing
  • done

bans is the justification/background for this - ip death squad is a random link I'm adding in case someone can figure it out...

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 or moved to Talk
• Talk edits - kept, 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, and there are various tools we use to try and achieve this. We do this not out of a goal of conformity, or a desire to punish "bad" behaviour, but to help build an encyclopedia.

Pure vandals are dealt with slightly differently: see en:Wikipedia:dealing with vandalism.

Everyone was new once, and most of us made mistakes when new - misunderstanding things, getting into edit conflicts, accidentally wiping pages, etc, etc. We try to gently point out mistakes to newcomers, point them to appropriate policy pages, and show them the correct way to do things. We ask that newcomers be patient while they learn the ropes.

The vast, vast majority of troublesome users rapidly understand what is going on, and either start helping us make an encyclopedia, or decide that wikipedia isn't their scene and depart. However, a few users, for whatever reason, continue to hinder us in our goal of building an encyclopedia. Hence:

General note: please do not flame users who are banned - the policy of no personal attacks still applies.

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, or moved to the user's talk page
• Bad edits - reverted, or moved to the user's talk page
• 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:

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. You may reinstate good edits by this user if you wish. NAME, DATE

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. Banned users should not delete the ban notice, but third parties are encouraged to delete a soft ban notice if they feel that it does not reflect the current consensus of the wikipedia community (as expressed on the /ban page). Soft bans are reviewed roughly once a month, and may be lifted depending on behaviour.

If you see a good edit by a soft banned user, you are free to reinstate it. However, please do not reinstate bad edits, and check before reinstating an edit. For example, if a user has been soft banned for continuing to misunderstand or misapply the en:wikipedia:neutral point of view policy, then do not reinstate edits unless either you can vouch for their neutrality, or you have edited them so that they are neutral.

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, our "benevolent dictator", 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. The following text should be placed on the user's page by Jimbo, or a representative:

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.NAME, DATE

If you are hard banned, please respect your ban and do not post to Wikipedia while it applies. Hard banned users may be unbanned following:

1. Three consecutive months of good behaviour
2. The banned user requesting unbanning by emailing Jimbo Wales

Good behaviour includes (but is not limited to) not posting to any part of the Wikipedia project (including under pseudonyms) and not threatening Wikipedia contributors. If users continue to post to Wikipedia, violating their hard ban, then they will be permanently hard banned.

Users who are unbanned will be on parole - if they start making the same mistakes that lead to their previous ban they are likely to be swiftly soft banned again, and this may lead to another hard ban. Unbanned users are encouraged (but not required) to apologise for any mistakes they feel they may have made, and/or to give assurances that they will behave differently this time round.

Note: hard bans can only be instated by Jimbo Wales. Equally, they can only be removed by him. Discussion on both decisions can take place on the /ban page, but the final decision is made by Jimbo. When a decision either way is made, Jimbo, or a representative, will update the /ban page.

Historical bans

Some users were banned by Jimbo before the formulation of this policy. The following text is suitable as an intermediate solution, pending clarification of each case:

This user has been [[wikipedia:bans and blocks|banned]] - see [[user talk:USER NAME/ban]] for details.

Wikipedians should refrain from witch hunts of users who may be older users coming back under a new name. It's probably reasonable to politely ask, though, so that in cases of mistaken identity the new user can quickly set us straight (see below for some of the many kinds of evidence one could use to do this). 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. In most cases this is a mere formality, but the decision should still be taken by Jimbo. Even if the reincarnation behaved well while soft banned, if there is conclusive evidence that they are the same person as the hard banned user, then a hard ban will be applied.

In any case, often we find that the reincarnations of banned users are equally troublesome

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.