I, nor any other candidate standing this year, can state that we can single-handedly make sweeping changes to the way the Arbitration Committee runs. We should try though.
History Rundown: For those that are interested in what experience I have on the project, I've been around since November 2007 and have contributed 5500+ edits, written a FA, a GA, contributed four featured pictures and two featured sounds. I have mediated several cases at MedCab and am on the Mediation Committee and have been an arbitration clerk since July 2009. Off wiki I am on the board of directors for Wikimedia UK and am part of the volunteer response team.
Arbitration Oversight: There have been many times when the Arbitration Committee has overstepped its remit, or have been slow to react to a serious issue, have acted without sufficient due care and attention or just have been so caught up in the huge reams of evidence that even looking at an article result in an editor at risk of a topicban. As the project matures and Jimmy's role becomes more diminished and ceremonial, the oversight role he was supposed to hold needs to be filled. This needs to be through the creation of an arbitration oversight body; small in size that it is efficient; large enough to be effective; and most importantly made up of non-arbitrator community members.
Communication: Too often the committee remains unresponsive, silent to emails and leaves problems and issues fade away into the deep, dark and dreary depths of thier archives. Simply put, the committee needs to be less of an inapproachable mass and more of an interactive group of real people.
Many people will probably raise the issue of the somewhat low level of activity I have show ever since I joined the project. All I can say is that when I commit myself to a task, I ensure it gets done. Whether it be mediation, clerking or even my chapter work, I see the job through to the end.
