User:UninvitedCompany/Parole
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Why I dislike "civility parole" as an arbitration remedy
- It undermines the egalitarianism of the project by creating a group of less-privileged users.
- Experience has shown that the vast majority of users assigned a remedy of "parole" either a) leave the project or b) end up being banned by the Arbitration Committee or the community. Parole successes at Wikipedia are extremely rare.
- It undermines the nature of arbitration as the "last step in the dispute resolution process" by failing to impose meaningful sanctions until additional infractions take place after the arbitration is complete. This is unfair to users who have gone to the considerable trouble required to bring a case.
- It undermines the deterrent effect of arbitration.
- Ongoing administration of "parole" is time consuming for administrators in those cases where the disputant continues to edit. Blocks under the terms of the parole are frequently controversial, and the Arbitration Committee frequently gets requests to lift "parole" and related sanctions.
[edit] Why I prefer short-duration blocks and short-duration revocation of other privileges
- Even a relatively short 7-day block is a meaningful sanction when applied to someone who is heavily involved in editing.
- Short blocks provide a clear starting point for escalating remedies, if the problem behavior should return.
- Enforcement is simple and uncontroversial.
