[WikiEN-l] Oversight log

Sun Jun 25 12:18:45 UTC 2006

G'day Mark R,

> But that is beside the point. It still hasn't been explained why the
> Arbitrators were selected as the main repositories of these powers.
> Does the removal of revisions crop up frequently in arbitrations
> undertaken by the ArbCom? Or has the ArbCom somehow morphed into
> something more than an Arbitration Committee, to be some sort of
> Content Management Committee?
> 
> The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines 'arbitrator' as "an
> independent person or body officially appointed to settle a dispute".

I suspect it was at least partly because of the precedent of checkuser 
being given to the more technically-minded arbitres.  As such, it would 
be a classic case of always-logical steps which nonetheless lead us away 
from our original intent.

I think we should keep limits on the power of ArbCom, not least for the 
peace of mind of the arbitres themselves.  They --- I assume --- don't 
want to end up being the go-to guys any time someone is required to 
exercise power on Wikipedia.  If this goes on, it could lead to arbitres 
being required to accept an awesome amount of responsibility --- more 
than they currently hold, and more than they signed up for.

But one could ask "if not them, then who?"  Well, in the specific case 
of Oversight, why not bureaucrats?  After all, it's harder to become a 
bureaucrat than it is to serve on ArbCom, which should give some 
indication of the level of community trust held there.  It's also often 
been pointed out that, given the difficulty in becoming a bureaucrat, 
the actual difference between a B and an admin is very little.

Cheers,

-- 
Mark Gallagher
"I was neat, clean, shaved and sober, and I didn't care who knew it."
(Raymond Chandler, /The Big Sleep/)