This is an essay, a page containing the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints, and they may be heeded or not based upon your judgement and discretion.

Shortcut: WP:COMPETENCE

Wikipedia is a big place, with many editors, all with their own opinions on how to do things. It seems surprising that we'd be able to work together functionally, but somehow this is what usually happens.

One of our core social policies that facilitates this is "assume good faith". This is good advice, because it reminds us that when we disagree, everyone involved is (usually) trying to do what they really think is best. Sure, we get people who intentionally damage the project also, but they're usually quite easy to deal with. They can be blocked from editing, as needed, with little fuss and generally no controversy.

Where we very often see big controversies, though, is with editors who are disruptive while trying to help. This is where we sometimes see a harmful side effect of our (generally quite useful) notion of assuming good faith. Many editors have focused so much on this, that they have come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well.

Good faith versus competence

Assuming that people are trying to help is trivial- we assume they breathe air, also. But if someone is unable to help, or, is sometimes helpful but sometimes causes major disruption, this is a bad thing that must not be allowed to continue. A bull in a china shop might have good intentions, but he's clearly bad for business. We must always value the project as a whole more than we value any individual contributor.

So, the next time someone posts on a noticeboard saying "Editor X is causing problems- here's the diffs to demonstrate this", think twice before just saying "Assume good faith." The person making the complaint is probably already assuming good faith, and they're talking about a lack of competence, not a lack of good faith. Both are required to edit usefully.

The next time someone says "Disruptive editor Y is asking for an unblock", again think twice before saying "Assume good faith- let's unblock." If an editor has already demonstrated incompetence which causes disruption, no amount of good faith fixes this problem.

Some types of incompetence we commonly see here

• Social incompetence — Some people just can't function well in this particular collaborative environment. We can't change Wikipedia to suit them, so if they're unable to change themselves, they'll need to be shown the door.
• Bias-based incompetence — Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively. If this continues to be disruptive, a topic ban is generally appropriate. Try this first before going for a site ban, because some people can make valuable contributions in places other than their pet topic.
• Language difficulty — If someone can't use English well, try to get them to edit a Wikipedia in their own language. Those other languages need help, too.
• Immaturity — Some folks just can't act like reasonable adults.
• Lack of intelligence — Some people aren't able to grasp the subtleties of how Wikipedia works. They may still be able to do some easy jobs like copyediting, but they'll probably run into trouble if they try biting off too much.
• Lack of technical expertise — Not usually a problem at all, as long as they don't delve into areas that require it. Not everyone needs the same skill set, and as long as people operate only where they're capable, it's not a problem.
• Grudges — Some people get so upset over a past dispute that they look at everything through a lens of "So-and-so is a bad editor and is out to get me." Taken to extremes, this easily becomes quite disruptive. An enforced parole of "don't interact with this other editor" may be something to try in these cases.
• Newbie incompetence — We were all pretty incompetent when we started. The great thing about this situation is that it's easily fixable. Help the newbies understand what we do here, and soon they'll be making themselves useful.

What "Competence is required" does not mean

• It does not mean "come down hard on someone as soon as they make a mistake". Wikipedia most certainly has a learning curve. We should cut editors (particularly newbies) some slack, and help them understand how to edit competently. Mistakes are an inevitable part of the wiki process.
• It does not mean perfection is required. Articles can be improved in small steps, rather than being made perfect in one go. Small improvements are our bread and butter.
• It does not mean we should not try to help people improve.
• Finally, it does not mean we will give any good faith editor an infinite number of opportunities to make themselves useful. If, after an appropriate amount of time and coaching, someone still isn't competent, don't make a heroic effect to defend them. Cut them loose, and turn your mentoring efforts to a better candidate.

The bottom line

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether someone's disruption is due to mischief or incompetence. Don't spend much time trying to figure this out, because many of our trolls do their trolling by feigning incompetence. There's no point trying to distinguish between fake or real incompetence - disruption is disruption, and needs to be prevented. Give editors a few chances, and some good advice, certainly, but if these things don't lead to reasonably competent editing within a reasonable timeframe, it's best to wash your hands of the situation. Not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not sufficiently competent.