Wikinews:Arbitration Committee/Elections July 2008/Chris Mann Questions

Question from GW_Simulations: There has recently been some controversy on the English Wikipedia about the extent of ArbCom's power and influence. Do you feel that it is ever ArbCom's place to dictate policies, even against community consensus, or just to make rulings on individual cases, on a case-by-case basis? I am asking this question to all candidates --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 11:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is ArbCom's duty, first and foremost, to resolve the worst of disputes that can't be handled any other way. In performing that duty, the Committee must follow and interpret policy, and at times make extremely strong suggestions about changes to policy. In some cases, this means that the effects of a single ArbCom case can impact the entire site and not just the involved parties. However, I think that in almost all cases ArbCom should not impose new policy, especially against consensus. If I were an arbitrator, the only occasion I think I'd even consider imposing new policy would be if:

It related to one of the few "non-negotiable" Foundation policies;
It was an issue where community consensus had failed to come to an agreement over the local interpretation of that policy;
A case had been specifically brought to ArbCom based on the actions of people in implementing their own interpretation of that policy; and
The situation was deemed to be serious enough that it would not be sufficient to deal only with those users involved in the case.

... and even then I'd probably feel uncomfortable about it. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 01:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- What situations would you see as "serious enough" to warrant such actions? What is your opinion of this ruling on the English Wikipedia, and the subsequent controversy? Thanks. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 12:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that while I haven't read through the particulars of the case to say whether it met all of my criteria, it did meet several. The policy itself adds only two things, that I can see, to the existing BLP policy: reinforcement of the necessity for admins to exercise their powers as necessary, and the requirement that actions be logged. However, I do think that perhaps the way it was implemented was an issue, and that if it had been put forward by ArbCom as something that they strongly recommended, and asked for community consensus on, I suspect it would have raised a little less ire, but probably taken longer to be implemented and with slightly different wording. I would point out, however, that a similar event is extremely unlikely (but not impossible) to happen on Wikinews, given the radically different community here. Chris Mann (Say hi!|Stalk me!) 00:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]