Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Filiocht: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 08:33, 11 October 2005

Revision as of 08:56, 11 October 2005

Line 22:

So, a fair question; how would I see admin abuse being dealt with? This is not the place to work out a complete policy proposal, so the following notes are just an outline of principles and possible procedures.

By extension of the '''Talking is better than blocking''' principle, I would argue that de-admining is better than blocking, too. De-admining means that the user retains the most fundamental "right" on Wikipedia: the ability to edit articles. The community and project also benefit from the retention of the skills and knowledge of an experienced editor. I envisage a number of set-length periods that could be applied; say 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, indefinite. For the fixed termination periods, re-admining at the end would be accompanied by a period of mentoring equal in length to the sanction period. Any abuse identified by the mentors during this period would result in an automatic imposition of the next level up sanction.

The process might look something like this: