Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:58, 15 November 2004

Revision as of 02:00, 15 November 2004

Line 58:

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 tooto 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.

*'''Ban repeat offenders'''. There will always be users that cannot or will not reform. For those, I advocate temporary injunctions and swift banning.

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)