Wikipedia talk:Probation

message: From the page:
:A user placed on probation by the Arbitration Committee is entitled to continue to edit in the subject areas in which they are on probation.
I disapprove of the idea that anyone is "entitled" to edit Wikipedia. It is an attitude of entitlement that has led to some of our worse social problems:  people believing that they are entitled to use Wikipedia to be heard; that their points of view (no matter how obscure) are entitled to be aired prominently; that they have a right to edit, and therefore that restrictions on their editing are some kind of infringement of their rights; ... or for that matter the conduct of some administrators reflecting an apparent belief that their status entitles them to overrule other editors on content matters. "Entitlement" is a huge, huge problem.
Might I suggest the use of the term "permitted" instead? Even this, though, would suggest to some people that they had some sort of special sanction -- "I'm Officially Permitted to edit this, so don't mess with me." --FOo 04:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobody is "entitled" 

message: The list of people on probation is not complete.  User:William M. Connolley is not mentioned.  I don't know how many others on probation are not listed.  (SEWilco 22:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He was not on probation but on revert parole. Fred Bauder 00:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  My mistake.  So what is the difference between probation and Wikipedia:Parole?  (SEWilco 04:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Thank you for the explanation.  Can you expand the definition at Wikipedia:Parole?  (SEWilco 16:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probation list incomplete 

message: "1) In view of the dissatisfaction expressed by XXX with the decisions reached in this case and the apparent lack of insight into any role his own behavior played in the creation and aggravation of the problems which gave rise to this case he is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year. Each restriction imposed shall be documented and explained in a section at the bottom of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/(Name of case). Should any period of one year pass without any such restriction being imposed XXX's probation shall automatically end." - Created December 16th by Fred Bauder, the same day this extreme and indefinate penalty was proposed against me and another user by Fred Bauder in two arbcom cases after we voiced rational disagreement with his general lack of transparency and unfairness in the handling of those cases.
Hey Fred. You supposedly went to law school, right? Ever heard of an ex post facto rule? They were apparently quite common for Star Chamber proceedings. Rangerdude 17:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ex post facto penalties

message: Is it true that each page can be resticted to allow only a few users or block a few users? -- Eddie 11:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page bans 

message: Could someone update my and PHenry's entry to note the expiration of probation (WP:RFAR/HWY? Thanks. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New motion

message: The lists of users who are or were on the various types of Probation, and the notes on everyone's status, are now seriously out of date. This may suggest that this part of the page, while well-intentioned, is not very useful as a practical matter. Is it worth our collectively taking the time to update everything (as an ArbCom clerk I'll pitch in), or should we just delete the lists? Newyorkbrad 16:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of users on probation - update or delete? 

message: Is there any mechanism by which a tendentious editor can be placed on probation, without requiring a full ArbCom case to do it?  For example, uninvolved admins agreeing with the probation?  Or, if a user steers clear of 3RR and incivility, is ArbCom really the only allowable way to currently deal with tendentious editing? --Elonka 18:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Non ArbCom probation