Guild Wars Wiki:Arbitration committee/2007-12-30-User:Tanaric

Issue at hand
User:Tanaric. Stated intention to continue to violate policy. Earlier transgressions against GWW:POLICY, GWW:ADMIN and GWW:GUIDE. General confrontational behaviour.

Decision about accepting the case for arbitration
The case for or against acceptance is on the discussion page, and open for input.

If I thought that Tanaric was some rogue willing to ban someone whenever he felt like it then I would have accepted this arbitration request, but I do not believe that that is the case. As it is I agree with Xeeron that this is more a discussion about interpretation than outright violation of policy. LordBiro 00:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Decline - There has been no evidence forthcomming that Tanaric consistenly acts against policy. With regard to the case mentioned, as stated on the talk page, I feel this should be a policy (interpretation) discussion, not an arbitration case. --Xeeron 14:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Decline - I will try to keep this brief: Tanaric did not act as I would have hoped, but I don't think he acted in such a way that requires arbitration. I agree with many of the points raised that admins should not make decisions without consensus, and I don't want to set a precedent that acting without consensus is acceptable, but I don't believe that in declining this arbitration we are setting such a precedent; Sysops are given discretion because to formally gain consensus on every topic would be absolutely impossible (I have visions of the People's Front of Judea sitting around discussing that they must act now to save Brian).
 * Decline - With Tanaric's reconfirmation currently ongoing, I think this arbitration request is unneccessary. If the community believes that he's acted out of line in his actions as a sysop, that'll be reflected in the RFA. Aside from that issue, I'm not aware of anything else which merits this case being brought in front of the ArbComm. --Dirigible 05:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)