A much better analogy is of a school headmaster sorting out who did
what
after a playground fight. We want to know who hit first, who hit
most,
and who chucked in a sly boot from the side-lines.
That's quite an insulting example actually and elevates the ArbComm
to
headmaster while denigrating the rest of us to the status of
children.
School is the closest most of us get to being in a dictatorship - I
don't
think that's really a great model to emulate. The difference between
the
quasi-judicial model and the "headmaster" model is that the former
puts
limits on the ArbComm. While I can see why the ArbComm would prefer
to have
no limits and be able to do what they wish, including initiate investigations, I don't think that would be healthy for Wikipedia.
It also denigrates children, who rarely behave as badly as adults. (e.g. sports parents shouting obscenities from the stands) A
comparison
to a bar fight might have been closer to reality.
There's nothing wrong with providing elevated status to a headmaster. One of the purposes of a school is to teach children the right way to behave. Respecting school property and the rights of other pupils are non-negotiable. That is, the headmaster is not going to stoop to the kid's level and debate the rules each time a teacher brings a violator to his attention. He's the "head" because he controls the student "body".
Sure, a well-run school will consider changes to the rules, and there's always the liberality (or magnanimity) of making exceptions, but the headmaster's *job* is to enforce the rules, in a decidedly asymmetric way. He's nobody's equal.
At Wikipedia, we all defer to others who have gained our respect. I always listen to mav and snott rake and Saint Anthere (to name just a few: the rest know who they are!) because (a) they've shown that they care and (b) they are right when I'm wrong so often that it's not even worth double-checking any more.
And kids do not "rarely" behave as badly as adults. The school one block away from my workplace has countless incidents of kids threatening or mugging each other, even assaulting teachers (two years ago, a student was murdered). That sort of thing is exceedingly rare *my* workplace. (It does not denigrate children, rather it reassures them, to know that grown-ups are in charge and will protect them.
Okay, maybe a few people feel I lord it over them here. But I make quite a bit of effort to set a good example myself. Shouldn't those of us who follow the rules be entitled to take the moral high road occasionally?
We must reform our system so that a cadre of well-trusted SENIOR members may exercise a bit of authority over those who cannot or will not contribute to this project. We are not all equal here, and there's no need to pretend otherwise. Those of us with a proven track record of solid contributions and good social skills SHOULD have a greater say on how this project is managed.
Uncle Ed