User:Kevin Gorman/arb1

Arbcom's existing issues

Arbcom currently has five open cases (with a sixth one recently closed,) and the oldest is from early August. When a case comes before arbcom, it is there because it is causing serious problems in the community, and the community itself has been unable to resolve it. Arbcom cases require close, careful consideration of the issues involved, but to be raised to that level in the first place are causing such severe and ongoing damage to the community as to require the fastest decision possible - lest the harm fester and damage our community even further. If elected, with the aid of my colleagues, I intend to speed up arbcom's processes wherever possible as long as doing so doesn't harm the integrity of the process. I think that most Arbcom decisions should have responsible drafting arbitrators and, although codrafters are still often going to be desirable or necessary, if deadlines are being missed, the RDA would be responsible for either drafting those portions himself, or replacing his codrafters. In a situation where the end-result a case is obvious before the case is accepted in the first place, a full case should never be accepted - the case should either handled by motion, or handled by an extremely expedited case. In all but the most complicated cases, it should be unusual for a case to exceed a month - and in the most complicated cases, temporary injunctions should be put in to place as soon as possible in order to mitigate ongoing harm to the community.

Significant portions of the actions of the previous arbcom disturb me - either allowing cases to fester for long enough that furthe harm comes to the project, not taking action where action was needed (and the evidence to support those actions was available for months in advance,) sometimes until after the press was involved. It also bewilders me that in a recent situation involving the mass creation of inappropriate redirect and several other issues by an administrator, the current arbcom chose to accept a full case (while already overloaded) instead of handling it by motion alone, or by private negotiations with those involved. Although a motion was proposed, it didn't pass - with many arbs who voted no suggesting that it was procedurally incorrect to desysop-by-motion outside of either the established Level 1 (compromised account) or Level 2 (emergency situation) procedures. It's not procedurally incorrect to desysop by motion - it's just generally a bad idea. Not all admin tools are trackable - for instance, we can't tell who is looking at deleted material (some of which is quite sensitive.) If someone exercises poor enough judgement to put their ability to appropriately use the non-traceable admin toolset in question, a desysop by motion outside of Level 1 or Level 2 procedures is absolutely appropriate, especially when the editor in question had already been in contact with both the community and arbcom. If the editor later expressed that he wanted a full case, I would absolutely support giving him one - but not restoring his admin toolset until the case was resolved (and only then if the case found it appropriate.) There’s actually procedurally nothing in place that prevents arbcom from desysopping me by motion for ‘’liking strawberries’’ (although it would obviously not be a rather questionable idea.)

Extremely prolonged arbcom cases aren't fair to the person or people who are the subjects of totally inappropriate behavior - it only prolongs the stress involved in the case for them, and brings a level of scrutiny to their actions that most editors would not be subject to. Being a main figure involved in an arbcom isn't too different from having a major ANI section about you - except ANI sections tend to go away after a few days, and some open arbcom cases keep up that level of stress and scrutiny for many months. It is also isn't fair to the person or people who are likely to be subjected to discipline by arbcom for the cases that involve them to be dragged out to the extreme - instead of fast and fair punishment being doled out when necessary, they're pilloried for extensive periods of time. Most people punished by arbcom will continue to be members of our community - and a prolonged public shaming of them far more often than not will both not result in their behavior being improved, and will not result in their motivation of contributing to Wikipedia increasing. In the relatively few instances where people before arbcom need to be permanently removed from our community, such removal should both be done quickly (in the interests of ensuring the health of the community, and humanely - even if they can't be members of our community, they're still people, and we still shouldn't unnecessarily cause them mental distress.)