Wikipedia:Fearlessly block

As a practical matter, it is essential to the health of the Wikipedia editing environment to block users who ignore the Wikipedia rules of engagement and dispute resolution procedures. If an admin fails to block an uncivil user where there is clear consensus to do so, it is suggested that pointing to this essay is sufficient reason to impose the block (e.g., "Blocked per WP:NOFEAR").

Reasons

In a nutshell, no editor, no matter how prolific or productive they may seem to be, gets carte blanche to be uncivil with other editors. Productivity is not measured solely by character count. No editor, no matter how lengthy, unusual, and interesting their history, gets a pass. Specifically:

1. It does not matter how many editors hold the opinion that an editor is, say, an extraordinarily talented, productive, helpful, and useful editor.
2. If the editor cannot be patient and, as an adult, even "suffer fools gladly" and avoid being short-tempered, nasty, or obscene, they should be blocked just as any other editor would be, per WP:CIVIL.
3. It does not matter if the editor is charismatic and a compelling pleader for his case.
4. It does not matter if the editor is (in the opinion of some) "very famous" here and has a very large number of both admirers and detractors.
5. It does not matter if round after round of blocks are soon unblocked with very much time wasted in discussing the situation, or a very great number of bytes are expended, a very considerable pall of bad feeling is spread about, a lot of sterile drama, a venue and excuse given for much "us-versus-them" divisiveness, and many other bad things, to no good result. The drama is due to discussers ignoring the evidence and taking sides. Repeated incivility is no better than trolling for lulz, and should be blocked nearly automatically.
6. It doesn't matter how long an editor is away, Wikipedia will not fall apart. Work proceeds. Work resumes after the unblock.
7. Wikipedia is not a place for excuses, medical or mental problems, or any sort of school, treatment center, or an anger-management class. It is not a rubber room. It is not a jail. It is an anti-jail - an abusive editor is totally free to edit anywhere else in the world. If they cannot step back, calm down, and write civilly, they should not be here.

No one is exempt from being blocked. Ever.

No one is exempt from being warned about civility issues. If an editor cannot accept the way things are done, and consider modifying their behavior, taking the high road, taking a break or other non-escalating tactics, they should not be here.

If required, do not fear taking an abusive editor to ANI (the Administrator's incident board) or ArbCom either. These DR procedures should produce definitive action to either correct the user, interaction ban, block, topic ban, or ban them. If these procedures do not produce effects beneficial to the encyclopedia, elect new members.

We're supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here. No single editor is important enough to keep around if they are repeatedly disruptive. If someone opens an incident about the editor at ANI, consider it seriously, based solely on the complete evidence, and weigh in honestly, regardless of your personal feelings about the editor. Only the current incident matters. At ArbCom, same thing applies: supply your opinion based solely on the current incident and evidence. ArbCom: be bold. No seriously disruptive editor should stay. If you must, cut the cord.

Blocks are good

1. Blocks and bans are Wikipedia's only way to protect articles and editors from editors who have stepped over the line behaviorally. There are no cops. Blocking is arrived at by consensus, and stuck with, by consensus, based on discussion focused on the evidence, not feelings about the editor.
2. Blocks are not intended as punishment. They are best considered "time outs" for the encyclopedia and the abusive editor, to stop things from getting uglier.

   Any !voting editor who thinks of a block as punishment should seriously re-evaluate whether they should !vote or not. Closing administrators should as usual consider policy-based !votes or votes before those based on opinion camps.

   Any editor who is blocked who thinks they're being punished, shouldn't - but they should reconsider whether being abusive is productive. If they think being abusive is productive, then being blocked is just a tax and an inconvenience, and they'll be fine with blocks which grow gradually longer and longer. No problem!

3. At best, a block is a mini-vacation for one or both parties, and should be enjoyed as such: "Well, that's one fight I don't have to wage today." At worst, it can be lonely if someone is overly attached to editing; that's their problem to solve, not Wikipedia's. There's no guarantee that anyone can edit Wikipedia at any time - it has outages and slow responses; do we consider them being "blocked"? No. A block period can seem counterproductive while the blocked editor's projects pause, but they can simply resume when the block is lifted. If an editor is "on a roll" and is blocked, they can continue to work offline without restraint, and add their work when unblocked.

To reiterate, blocks should not be punitive. They should interpreted, at worst, as "leave the enyclopedia/person alone for this period", nothing more or less. No administrator should use abusive or demeaning language when closing a discussion pro-block, crow about it, or victory dance. There's no double-speak or sarcasm meant here: honestly, it's just "you can't edit here for a while."

To whom this applies

No change in policy is required to apply the above principle of equal treatment under policy. This applies to every editor, new or old, rare or frequent, "prolific" or not, "productive" or not.

Exceptions

There are no exceptions. Standard WP:DR applies. As stated elsewhere, racist, homophobic, misogynistic terminology, and so forth, is never allowed, and is grounds for an immediate block, uncontroversially.

Editors engaged with the abusing editor

An abusive editor merits no special protection: other editors addressing him frankly, while not violating WP:CIVIL, should not be blocked, without also blocking the abusive editor.

As a general rule, you should not hassle, warn, block, or apply other sanctions on grounds of WP:CIVIL to editors engaged with the prolifically productive user, unless the offense is escalating or retaliatory and both editors are blocked. Escalation and retaliation are uncivil, and guaranteed unproductive.

Editors other than the abusive editor and the involved editor, such as admirers or supporters coming to his defense in a fraught encounter, are also, as usual, fully and completely subject to all sanctions appropriate for enforcing WP:CIVIL and all other policies.

Is this fair?

Yes. No special treatment for any editor is as fair as possible. Blocking for raging incivility is normal, and should be expected by abusers and welcomed by the community. See Blocks are good above.

Philosophical note

If an editor believes themselves to be "above the fray" and somehow not required to engage civilly with the population of other editors, or by having a particular edit count or article count, that that gives them special privileges beyond other editors, they should reread policy, and decide if this is where they should be.

One editor cannot own an article, due to the licensing built into its structure. No single editor can own even their own words here, after they click Save. In (for example) Ayn Rand's worlds, the individual reigns supreme, for good or ill, triumph or failure. This might seem to be at odds with a communal encyclopedia. But at Wikipedia, an editor can reign supreme nonetheless, if they adjust the scope of their mission to align with the operating environment: a collegial, cooperative effort to build reliable, informative articles, within consensus-based policies/guidelines, resolving differences without resorting to verbal abuse.

Such a supreme editor remains patient and prolific, leaving (perhaps terse) helpful, non-rude edit summaries, responding civilly, (if briefly), in discussions. At the end of the day, such a supreme editor's ego will be intact and strong, because they built (and repaired, and commented) well, in articles, and with other editors. Excellence is expected, best effort is accepted; learning to work well with other editors is, obviously, expected.

Conclusion

If an editor cannot refrain from ad hominem attacks when requested, they are forgetting where they are. If they won't stop upon request, they should be blocked for the usual escalating periods, uncontroversially, and this should not be a problem for anyone involved, especially not the abusing editor.