Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Everyking: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 107:
:When would I apply sanctions? I look at it in terms of an editor's good and bad contributions. To what extent does the good outweigh the bad, or vice versa? When a contributor is doing more bad than good, then it's definitely time to consider some penalties. There are certainly cases where there's no choice but to apply sanctions—a per article ban, a per topic ban, a personal attack parole, a revert limitation, and in extreme cases total bans from the project for a given period. When a contributor is doing more good, I think it's a better idea to force people into the process—to mandate solutions and apply penalties only when those solutions are rejected. For example, if you've got a revert warrior, require that every revert is accompanied by an explanation of adequate length on the talk page. That way you're forcing people to talk to each other: if you want to revert, fine, but you're going to have to talk in proportion to the reverting you're doing. If the discussion is uncivil and not bearing fruit? Have things watched by a neutral party to apply short-term blocks for incivility, which can be interpreted variously depending on the degree of the incivility—a severe problem with incivility will mean that no hint of personal hostility will be tolerated. I also like the idea of making liberal use of mentors and mentor teams—empower volunteers, and I think there are plenty out there, who are neutral and can be trusted, to monitor conduct and apply penalties if needed. It's better not to close the gate to someone who is, in general, doing us good; what we need is to force them to work more constructively, to narrow the path available to them while leaving ways for them to help out. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 15:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks so much for such a thoughtful reply! My concerns now have been totally addressed. You're quite right that the Arbcom runs the risk of being too putative with good editors who have made an honest mistake (e.g., IMO such was the case with Stevertigo) or who naturally attract controversy given the nature of the topics in which they are interested (e.g., IMO such was the case with IZAK and RK). You do an especially good job describing the need to work on a case-by-case basis: ''When would I apply sanctions? I look at it in terms of an editor's good and bad contributions. To what extent does the good outweigh the bad, or vice versa? When a contributor is doing more bad than good, then it's definitely time to consider some penalties.'' Given the great quantity and quality, along with the regularity, of your contributions on Wikipedia, you probably are particularly well-positioned to make such judgments. I look forward to voting for you again, as I did last time. [[User:172|172]] 01:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
| |||