Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Dmcdevit: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→"Problem users" and "productive editors": this may allay some fears |
→Punishment (a question from AndriyK): response |
||
Line 137:
::''"I strongly believe that the Committee's real purpose is to prevent further damage to the project by taking measures as we see fit, not to mete out some form of 'justice' as punishment of those deemed to have done wrong. Where I have considered banning people, it is not because I think that they "deserve" it in some way, but more that I regretfully doubt that their continued presence is not damaging to the project."''
Are you agree with your colleague? If not, please explain you view on the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the role of punishment.--[[User:AndriyK|AndriyK]] 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
:I think it is correct. Banning should only be considered when there is no hope for a behavior change. Retribution for past wrongs has no place in arbitration, since the goal is to find the best solution for the encyclopedia that's possible. In that spirit, it is imperative that we explore other options short of banning to achieve that goal. If no solution short of banning will bring a benefit to our encyclopedia, then it is appropriate. That's not punishment at all (in the sense of a penalty for wrongdoing) but rather ''repairing'' a pattern of wrongdoing by the most beneficial means possible. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||