User:Batmanand/Opinions/ArbCom

All communities argue, and no way of mediating between differing points of view can possibly satisfy everyone. Wikipedia is no exception, and as the volume of editors has increased, so has the number of disputes. Some of these, particularly over content and deletion, have fairly successfully been contained within the normal user-admin framework. Yes, occasionally there are POV issues of such difficulty that a "higher body" needs to be drafted in to sort them out, but these are mercifully rare. However, there was always going to be a class of problems - notably over user conduct, allegations of admin abuse and some of the above-mentioned seemingly-intractable POV and content disputes - that would require some form of quasi-judicial system. Initially, this was "the court of Jimbo", but eventually even he was both overwhelmed by the number of problems, and got a little too busy in real life.

And so, in January 2004, the Arbitration Committee, or ArbCom to its friends, was born. Initially, the Arbitrators were appointed by Jimbo, and in a sense they still are, but now elections are held, to give an element of accountability to the whole process.

As a Wikipedian who voted for or against every candidate in the most recent ArbCom elections, and as someone who is interested in judicial processes in general, I have the following views on ArbCom:


 * First and foremost, ArbCom should be a dispute resolution mechanism, and nothing else. Finding "the truth", creating precedents, making people "happy" and all manner of other issues are not, nor should they be, within the scope of a body such as ArbCom. We are writing an encycopaedia, not carrying out an experiment in democracy
 * ArbCom should not be bound to any forms of precedent; stare decisis should not be any part of the ArbCom quasi-legal framework. That does not mean that decisions should be based on nothing or that totally contradictory rulings should be issued; however, given the relatively fluid nature of Wikipedia policies and the lack of legal or judicial training of the Arbitrators, keeping our future options open seems eminently sensible
 * Some of the "Supreme Court"-style features of ArbCom (the "party x v. party y" notation, the clerks, the increasing user of Members' Advocates as semi-lawyers and so on) are welcome. ArbCom gets a huge volume of requests for its wisdom, and only by standardising procedures and delegating certain responsibilities can it continue to function efficiently
 * Elections for Arbitrators, even if they are only advisory, are essential, as they give three things:
 * 1) A degree of accountability to the community
 * 2) A procedure through which legitimate complaints can be made without fear of retribution
 * 3) A form of mandate and authority that does not only come from Jimbo
 * So far, ArbCom has made mostly the right decisions, and as such the current setup is probably close to the right one. ArbCom must only be judged on its outcomes; all attempts at some form of "constitutional law" critique of it are doomed to failure
 * In order to maintain the integrity of the process, recusal should be used in the most extensive way possible. If any Arbitrator is a named party, has edited, been involved in, expressed strong opinions on or in any way been connected to the dispute, they should recuse themselves. This is the only way to remove any hint of impropriety, and as such is a necessity