Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for UninvitedCompany: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
add ? |
|||
Line 63:
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)
==Additional Questions==
# As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of [[Wikipedia:Oversight|Oversight]] and [[meta:Checkuser|Checkuser]] permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. <small>(Question from — [[User:Xaosflux|<b><font color="#FF9933" face="monotype"><big>xaosflux</big></font></b>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Xaosflux|<font color="#00FF00">Talk</font>]]</sup> 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC))</small>
| |||