Topic on ProleWiki talk:Principles

Following the patsoc bans after attempted infiltration and further talks of infiltration by wisconcom's "Hoxhaist friends" (which we have yet to see), I think it is clear that prolewiki needs to defend itself from infiltration.

To that end, I would like to add a simple principle: on the basis that every editor must complete an application and answer a few questions before joining, I would like to add that any editor who lied or failed to truthfully answer questions during application may be subject to an instant ban.

This is over all pretty standard for most projects (and indeed is standard for any governmental form you might have to fill in your lifetime), but of course our principles must be discussed by the community before being changed.

This principle would be all-encompassing and not just target specific infiltrators. This means, for example, people that answered that they love Joseph Stalin and hold him in high regard in their application but then edited the Stalin article to criticize him liberally could be banned for this. (It hasn't come up yet, I'm just giving an example).

This way we can protect prolewiki from infiltrators and wreckers down the line if they should happen. My main concern is that if many users join and get approved at once, they could start doing a lot of damage faster than we can revert it. And then, on which grounds would we penalise them if we never found out they were part of a targetted effort against the wiki?

I support this change, it is a simple yet effective measure.

I think it is clear that prolewiki needs to defend itself from infiltration.

This is absolutely true, and that goes for any political organization. We will be infiltrated eventually, hell, even the Bolsheviks suffered infiltration up to their Central Committee (Malinovsky). We shouldn't be too paranoid about that, but of course we should pay attention to that issue as best as we could.

To that end, I would like to add a simple principle: on the basis that every editor must complete an application and answer a few questions before joining, I would like to add that any editor who lied or failed to truthfully answer questions during application may be subject to an instant ban.

If that happens, we don't need a formal justification to ban a wrecker. Any change that would bring the editors' attention would be immediately discussed inside our channels, and we would collectively decide what to do with that user once it happens. I can only see this issue as a case-by-case situation, and I personally trust our internal democracy in dealing with that, even at its current early stages. As administrators, we have to answer to our editors, most of all, and if the majority is in agreement with a decision, all is good, no written rules are needed (not bashing on rules, they are useful too)

This principle would be all-encompassing and not just target specific infiltrators. This means, for example, people that answered that they love Joseph Stalin and hold him in high regard in their application but then edited the Stalin article to criticize him liberally could be banned for this. (It hasn't come up yet, I'm just giving an example).

Then we would ban them for making liberal edits about Stalin, their lies are irrelevant in such a case.

This way we can protect prolewiki from infiltrators and wreckers down the line if they should happen. My main concern is that if many users join and get approved at once, they could start doing a lot of damage faster than we can revert it. And then, on which grounds would we penalise them if we never found out they were part of a targetted effort against the wiki?

We penalize them on the grounds of the damage they made, backed by the majority of editors. It's as simple as that, at least for me.

In short, I am against this because it's a formalism that currently makes no difference based on how we are organized and how we take action against wreckers, but if other editors agree on this decision, I suggest we put it some place else that's not our principles, more like a Code of Conduct or something similar. Our principles page read more like an ideological-organizative principle than a set of rules regarding behavior, which would fit better in a Code of Conduct document