Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates/Banedon/Statement

Banedon
I've been troubled by Arbcom for a while. This recent thread illustrates the issue (also ). Since I've not been able to change the committee from the outside, the only alternative is to change it from within. If elected, I intend to make several major changes detailed below. If changes are not possible then I will still absolutely vote according to my ideals.


 * Unlike Worm That Turned, I am idealistic. Justice comes first, and the just solution is the one Arbcom should most focus on finding.
 * Because justice comes first, Arbcom should be structured more like a legal process and less like a community dispute resolution process. This means:
 * Cases should only be filed by someone with Standing (law) (or someone authorized by a person with standing). The filing party needs to be ready to argue the case, and the case request should identify who is allegedly causing disruption. Cases filed by those without standing, e.g. "here's a dispute which I am not involved in, but needs arbitration" should be automatically declined, while cases seeking general protections on a topic, e.g., should be handled by motion.
 * Because of the above, case names can be changed to Filing party(ies) vs. Defendant(s). This solves the anchoring issue with case names where the case is named after one party, which has historically almost guaranteed sanctions against that party.
 * I will accept more cases, especially those filed by experienced editors who presumably know what they are doing, because of the right to petition. Aggrieved parties who feel they cannot get fair treatment elsewhere should feel comfortable coming to Arbcom for redress. However, people are innocent until proven guilty - once we get to the evidence stage, the filing party must present its evidence first. If the evidence turns out to be weak, the case can be dismissed without requiring the defendant to defend themselves.
 * In the same way, Arbcom is not a glorified way for the community to reach a consensus. If it comes to it, Arbcom should be ready to ignore public opinion (as given in the workshop phase) on what should be done. Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason.

I'm not a lawyer, but if necessary I will approach WP:LAW for help in crafting a fair process. Justice comes first.

I am willing to comply with the criteria for access to non-public data, and I have no alternate accounts.