Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for UninvitedCompany: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 23:53, 1 November 2006

Revision as of 23:56, 1 November 2006

Line 62:

Not sure what you're getting at about private discussions between the parties and members of the committee. Do you mean taking evidence in private? The arbcom trying to mediate disputes in private? Parties trying to lobby individual arbcom members? Parties trying to lobby the arbcom as a whole? Overall, there is a balance to maintain between transparency of process and maintaining an environment where people are willing to come forward and share their concerns freely without everything becoming a permanent part of the public record.

I generally dislike probation because I find that it rarely works. I have done some analysis of arbcom remedies, and in nearly all cases where probation is used, the party either quits editing, is banned, or ends up in front of the arbcom again. The table you yourself are maintaining at [[Wikipedia:Probation]] bears this out. The exceptions are mild cases where there is a good editor who has lost their [[WP:COOL|cool]]. I have been struck for some time with how the arbcom carefully metes out equitable remedies - 5 months probation for this user, 3 months for that user - when the usual outcome is that they all just quit the project. To the extent that probation helps at all, it does so because it is perhaps more palatable to those users who are concerned about the overuse of bans. As such, the mechanics of probation don't matter much. [[User:UninvitedCompany|The Uninvited]] Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)