This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article or a Wikipedia policy, as it has not been reviewed by the community.

The Arbitration Committee is concurrently very important and not important at all.

There are 275,264 active users on Wikipedia. Many or most probably do not even know or care that the committee exists. Published research indicates "in the everyday practice of content creation, the informal mechanisms appear to be significantly more important than the formal mechanisms."^[1] Given that arbitration is the last step in a sequence of dispute resolution steps, and the fact that the committee actually hears very few cases per year, its actual impact on Wikipedia is limited. Regular ol' non-admin users are like the massive cables which provide the strength for Wikipedia.

The weakness of rope is at the ends

The committee holds it together

The weakness of rope and cable is the ends; without some way to hold the ends together the individual strands fray apart and become weak. Without some way to terminate Wikipedia disputes, the editor community would fray apart.

That is why the committee is important, not because it's always right or fair, but because it brings disputes to an end, however imperfect. The committee is simply the whipping knot at the end of the rope.

It is important that the committee attempt to be as fair as possible, as primates have an innate sense of fairness.^[2][3] However, a breakdown in fairness, or a sequence of bad decisions, is not a reason to despair. The simple fact of the matter is that if there was an obvious "right" answer to a dispute, it would not have gone to arbitration in the first place. Editors who stubbornly pursue a dispute all the way to arbitration should be aware that remedies are often a crapshoot. Like the computer said at the end of WarGames, the only winning move is not to play.