Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election/Tanaric

Tanaric, I posted some questions for all candidates at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election. --Rezyk 23:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, Tanaric. Can you go a bit more in detail why you don't think the ArbComm should be left a last resort? Don't you think that leaving decisions up to three people goes against the spirit of a community-driven wiki? Shouldn't the community itself be taking those decisions and managing itself, as we've done till now?


 * Relatedly, I'd agree with "If I can solve a problem just by hearing it out and expressing my opinion on it, who am I to refuse?" if it were a normal user saying those words. It's a completely different story with the ArbComm saying that. The difference is that "final arbiter" qualifier, the fact that if I disagree with a normal user's opinion I can simply disregard it; the same can't be done with the ArbComm. A solution proposed by Tanaric The Editor is just an alternative to be considered, a solution proposed by The ArbComm is a binding one. Don't you see this as a reason in favour of encouraging other less-drastic methods first, leaving ArbComm decisions as a last resort? --Dirigible 12:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure. I think the arbitration committee has yet to be used for the purpose it's best at -- arbitrating differences between users and groups of users. So far, it's been used as a jury, where the guilt or innocence of a single user is the question at hand.


 * Often, we see situations like this:


 * User A: Hey, I think X.
 * User B: I think Y.
 * User A: I think X, and here's all my reasons.
 * User B: Those make sense, but look at all these reasons supporting Y!


 * Generally speaking, this is where the discussion ends -- since there isn't any good vector for reaching consensus or even compromise, the issue is left open and abandoned. I'd like to see an additional line or two added to the discussion:


 * User A: Well, we're at an impasse. Would you agree to an ArbComm resolution?
 * User B: Why, absolutely!


 * Such a situation doesn't take any power from the community -- on the contrary, it actually gives them power. Right now, a stalemated discussion doesn't go anywhere. If the ArbComm agrees to an arbitration request, it empowers the community to reach a solution that previously could not be reached.


 * In no cases previously has the ArbComm stepped in without the request of a user. I do not wish this to change. ArbComm should only issue injunctions when consensus favors ArbComm involvement.


 * Beyond this, much of my commentary was written from a non-ArbComm mindset. Bureaucrats are expected to respond to issues, as individuals, when requested. Many times have people visited your or Biro's user talk asking for perspective or advice. I consider this a part of the role of bureaucrat -- not defined in policy, but still expected by the community.


 * I certainly will not intercede in any official or binding manner, or advocate any intercession by the ArbComm in such a manner, without the community requesting it of me.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 01:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, since it sounds like User A and B are having a disagreement about a content issue. In your opinion, should arbcom be strictly confined to user disputes or also be used to settle content disputes? --Xeeron 10:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think ArbComm can settle content disputes only if requested by all parties involved in the dispute. Ideally, both parties would request ArbComm intervention in other disputes as well, but the barrier to entry is a little lower in those situations. &mdash;Tanaric 16:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * content disputes? then, what about policies disputes? -- Coran Ironclaw 17:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Ideally, both parties would request ArbComm intervention in other disputes as well, but the barrier to entry is a little lower in those situations." I don't know what else I can say to clarify, but please ask a more specific question if I can. :) &mdash;Tanaric 07:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you accept for ArbComm a case involving a policy dispute if both parties agree for the intervention?
 * Would you if two parties agree but a third do not?
 * Would you if one agree but the other does not fully agree?
 * Would you if one agree but the other is apathic or does not recognize the ArbComm authority in such a situation?
 * Would you if one agree and there is no other party only apathy on the topic?
 * If the case is accepted and then resolved, How would you consider that result?, official?
 * What if a third party appears after the case has been resolved? -- Coran Ironclaw 20:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for being more specific.


 * Yes.
 * No, unless the wiki's fundamental operation were at stake -- if the third party were vandals, trolls, or otherwise disruptive, for example, or if the issue at hand was one that required immediate resolution.
 * See #2.
 * Apathetic: Yes, for any nontrivial issue. Not recognize ArbComm authority: See #2.
 * Yes, for any nontrivial issue.
 * ArbComm resolutions are binding in all cases.
 * Treat it as a new issue. Everything is always up for re-discussion on the wiki, including policy that ArbComm has been involved with.


 * &mdash;Tanaric 01:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Clarify answer 6 please. -- Coran Ironclaw 02:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * So far, everybody has treated ArbComm resolutions as law. I have no issue with this and will not contest it. ArbComm resolutions are always official and binding, as far as I can tell. &mdash;Tanaric 02:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)