Guild Wars Wiki talk:Arbitration committee/Requests

K, Readem because he is so dang annoying and mean, and disruptive and nobody likes him. Dick 09:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

use of Arbitration committee

Why the arbitration committe should be used "only as a very last measure" ? I am sure they can afford to do a lot more than those few requests. Coran Ironclaw 05:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of whether the ArbComm can handle the load or not (nothing stopping us from getting 2 more bcrats and rotating shifts in dealing with arbcomm cases). The problem is that the ArbComm are after all just three guys (or gals) that are being given final say in whatever issue is brought before them. And like all of us, they're not perfect, you can't be sure they'll give the fairest judgement. They can even make a decision that is not fair at all, to either of the parties involved, as the purpose of the ArbComm is to solve problems for the wiki, not to be judge and jury punishing wrong deeds and finding the truth and such. And since the ArbComm gets final say, there's nowhere else to go if you're not happy with their decision; in a decision-taking hierarchy, they're the Supreme Court.

In other words, the ArbComm is like an easily frustrated uncle who you can never tell how is going to react if you complain to him that your little brother took all your toys. He may snap at you for not sharing the toys, rage at your brother for not asking for permission, or take the toys away from both of you and melt them into little cubes, so you learn how to behave and be nice to each other. I think leaving this guy as a last resort would be sensible; try to talk to your brother a few times at first, then try to find a mutual friend to help with the situation, and if that doesn't work either think about whether it really matters if he's playing with your toys for a bit. If after all that you still want to risk the crazy uncle, go ahead and wake him up, one way or the other you're going to get resolution. --Dirigible 12:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

lol, nice comparison. And actually very accurate for what i have been reading. tyvm. I think I agree giving the methodical way to use the Arb Com. Now, I do have a question about the bureaucrat role, apart from the Arb Com they seem to do nothing for example if for any reason there is only one bureaucrat at a time, and therefore no ArbCom. What is his role? What decisions do he take? Because according to the policy I think he will only be able to give sysophood to users consensed (is this word right?) by the community and nothing more. I ask this because I thought a "wikiboss" idea was to have only 1 bureaucrat, but if he actually don't do anything, well something don't make sense. Coran Ironclaw 16:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The Arbitration committee is like court. It's like the final measure for a final punishment. — ク Eloc 貢 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole "wikiboss" idea relies on an admin policy that will allow that single bureaucrat to be the only, and the final, arbiter and decision maker. Our current policy doesn't allow that, so having a "wikiboss" under that policy would not work. Under a policy that did let that wikiboss be the final person "in charge", that person would maybe be in charge of finalising policy, calm user disputes, or make the decisions on bans, for example. -- br12 • (talk) • 20:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

So with the current policies bureaucrats do nothing but resolve Arb Com requests? Coran Ironclaw 06:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

They also enforce the results of resolved RFAs, requests for reconfirmation and elections. -- Gordon Ecker 08:07, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

To what extent do they actually make the decision? It strikes me that "enforcing resolved RfAs" consists of either clicking your mouse about 3 times and promoting the user or clicking your mouse about 3 times and archiving it... either of which a computer (or a trained chimp) could do. *Defiant Elements* +talk 08:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the discussions for resolved RFAs and look at the comments made by the BCs. They state their reasonings for the decisions. Also note in some RFAs some BCs have also voted however not in all of them. 58.110.142.135 08:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree this is not the place to discuss the matter, it was just a question. Thank you all for your answers. Coran Ironclaw 08:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Restricted user rights are restricted for one reason: because they are vulnerable to abuse. Admins are entrusted with restricted user rights because someone needs to able to use them in order to ensure the smooth functioning of the wiki. The "wikiboss model", "janitorial sysops model" and other adminship and policy models are not inherently better or worse than eachother, the exact amount of discretion and power given to admins is a matter of community preference. -- Gordon Ecker 09:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)