Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
mNo edit summary |
Neutrality (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 53:
If I were to join the arbitration committee that would mean leaving the mediation committee. In some ways that would be a shame, because believe strongly that mediation is important and worthwhile, but I also feel that I have something to offer to the arbitration end of dispute resolution. -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] ([[user talk:Sannse/Arbitration election|election talk]]) 23:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
==[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]==
I joined Wikipedia in early May (if memory serves me correctly) and have been extremely active in the community since then both as an editor, policy-contributor, and admin. I watch every arbitration case that the ArbCom hears and have even brought a case before the Arbitrators, so I have that experience that allows me to relate to the people who request the Arbitrators' relief.
Reforming the procedures of the ArbCom is exceptionally important to me, and I want to make it more '''efficient''', '''fair''', and '''just''' for all concerned. In general, I think that the ArbCom has done an excellent job and has done well in being '''fair''' and '''just''' with many users, especially in the cases of RickK v. Guanaco, RK, Wik, Irismeister, and Rex. However, the main problem–the area desperately in need of change–is the '''efficiency''' of the committee. Specifically, this is what I'd like to do:
*''Establish specific prerequisites for bringing a case to the ArbCom''. The ArbCom should be a court of last resort, and should not be used for advisory opinions or rulings on certain articles.
*''Establish specific procedures with presenting a case to the ArbCom''. Subpages for requests and quick and speedy archiving will help in the regard. There should be a standardized format that will make requests be matter-of-fact and too the point, instead of long rambling rants. There should also be separte pages for evidence and counter-evidence.
*'''Develop creative ways of dealing with offenders'''. Blanket bans tend to be ineffective and only used when reforming the user is too late. Instead, we should look toward creative solutions like a revert parole or ban on certain types of articles. I think this helped particularly in the case of Michael.
To close, I say this: Like Mirv, I believe arbitration "should enforce community norms on those who will not abide by them willingly." [[User:Neutrality|[[User:Neutrality|<b>Neutrality</b>]] ([[User talk:Neutrality|hopefully!]])]] 01:58, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
| |||