Carcharoth Arb Candidacy, Some Lulz in Jehochman's Questions Options

[LessHorrid vanU]

He is good as de-escalating disputes and opening up lines of communication, but because of the way the Committee works it is difficult to see if (let alone how) those skills are needed within that organisation, and the manner in which ArbComs are handled also seems not to need those abilities.

Are you kidding? The ArbCom doesn't need dispute resolution skills and communication skills?!

Within the ArbCom function - they are not going to let the new boy (should he get it) start dealing with cases using those skills by himself. nyb is/was smart enough to draft proposals around his preferred choices and allow sloth to drag the rest of the arbs into more or less the position he prefers (might be wrong there, and anyway I generally support his take on cases), but still adheres to the principle of general ArbCom solidarity. Carcharoth would therefore not be permitted to utilise his particular skills in an ArbCom because he has to run it through the groupthink process. I also don't think he will get very far within the ArbCom decision process by using those skills, because the seemingly disjointed way the system works - a couple of arbs make the early running, sticking up suggested wordings and responding (a bit) in the workshop, a couple then take up the reigns and make further suggestions to the first arbs (perhaps ignoring anything non arb from the workshop) and then the other players arrive to agree with what has been thrashed out by the first two sets of arbs.

[everyking]

He is good as de-escalating disputes and opening up lines of communication, but because of the way the Committee works it is difficult to see if (let alone how) those skills are needed within that organisation, and the manner in which ArbComs are handled also seems not to need those abilities.

Are you kidding? The ArbCom doesn't need dispute resolution skills and communication skills?!

Within the ArbCom function - they are not going to let the new boy (should he get it) start dealing with cases using those skills by himself. nyb is/was smart enough to draft proposals around his preferred choices and allow sloth to drag the rest of the arbs into more or less the position he prefers (might be wrong there, and anyway I generally support his take on cases), but still adheres to the principle of general ArbCom solidarity. Carcharoth would therefore not be permitted to utilise his particular skills in an ArbCom because he has to run it through the groupthink process. I also don't think he will get very far within the ArbCom decision process by using those skills, because the seemingly disjointed way the system works - a couple of arbs make the early running, sticking up suggested wordings and responding (a bit) in the workshop, a couple then take up the reigns and make further suggestions to the first arbs (perhaps ignoring anything non arb from the workshop) and then the other players arrive to agree with what has been thrashed out by the first two sets of arbs.

Not that I have any expectation of it, but really an arbitrator should reject the whole process of secret deliberation and consensus and engage directly with the community, presenting all their views publicly, discussing possible solutions with the community, and frequently submitting proposals for voting. There is no reason why an arbitrator should work within the existing ArbCom culture except peer pressure, and I hope we can at some point elect someone independent enough to break the mold.

[Milton Roe]

Carcharoth is one of the good guys, and I shall be voting for him. Arbcom needs people who are unwilling to block until all other avenues of resolution are exhausted.

While Carcharoth has on occasion agreed or suggested a block is the appropriate course of action, he has never pushed the button himself, instead asking others to do so. I wonder why this is - I'm going to ask him.

So basically, because he has blocked no one and has taken no sides he has no enemy and should be an arbitrator. How convinient.

For some years he has consistantly taken the side of the bitten newbie against the abusive editor. Perhaps that doesn't matter to you, Mr. Fartman, but why are you here?

How many Arbcom case you know which involve the poor bitten newbie?

Not as many as there should be. These guys are down to 2 or 3 cases a month, and they really resist looking at bitten-newbies. But the MathewHoffman case was essentiall a WP:BITE case, and it cost Unrepentant Vandal the tools. Carcharoth was in there seeking justice. If Arb decided to take more of such cases (and there are a zillion out there), we'd see this happen more. Right now, outside of ArbCom, there's not much to do about administrative abuse.

Can you imagine if nothing could be done about police brutality, except to hope your case is accepted by the Supreme Court? Or that the video of it hits the evening news, like Rodney King's?

[wikiwhistle]

Not that I have any expectation of it, but really an arbitrator should reject the whole process of secret deliberation and consensus and engage directly with the community, presenting all their views publicly, discussing possible solutions with the community, and frequently submitting proposals for voting. There is no reason why an arbitrator should work within the existing ArbCom culture except peer pressure, and I hope we can at some point elect someone independent enough to break the mold.

It's an arbitration committee. It's not like giving an admin admin tools and letting them use them as they will, unfortunately. It has all the inertia of any committee you might know of in the real world which isn't just a front for one person's decisions (assuming arbcom aren't that.) The only dynamism allowed in some form of committee is that of the leader or chair to which the others assent. Arbcom doesn't necessarily have that- so it's just a talking shop of a few individuals who then issue statements within acceptable degrees of obnoxiousness, varying depending on the degree of popularity of the 'victim'.

[Sarcasticidealist]

But the MathewHoffman case was essentiall a WP:BITE case, and it cost Unrepentant Vandal the tools.

Unless this is an exceptionally juicy outing, I think you mistyped there.

[wikiwhistle]

Not as many as there should be. These guys are down to 2 or 3 cases a month, and they really resist looking at bitten-newbies. But the MathewHoffman case was essentiall a WP:BITE case, and it cost Unrepentant Vandal the tools.

I assume that's a typo and you meant Vanished User (or are they really the same person?)

Can you imagine if nothing could be done about police brutality, except to hope your case is accepted by the Supreme Court? Or that the video of it hits the evening news, like Rodney King's?

Maybe I'm a cynic, but do you really imagine any institution or interconnected establishments deals with possible cases of abuse they perpetrate very readily? Certainly not many cases where police brutality is admitted to are heard of in the UK, regardless of whether there's an ombudsman or whatever.

This post has been edited by wikiwhistle: Mon 17th November 2008, 11:54pm

[everyking]

Not that I have any expectation of it, but really an arbitrator should reject the whole process of secret deliberation and consensus and engage directly with the community, presenting all their views publicly, discussing possible solutions with the community, and frequently submitting proposals for voting. There is no reason why an arbitrator should work within the existing ArbCom culture except peer pressure, and I hope we can at some point elect someone independent enough to break the mold.

It's an arbitration committee. It's not like giving an admin admin tools and letting them use them as they will, unfortunately. It has all the inertia of any committee you might know of in the real world which isn't just a front for one person's decisions (assuming arbcom aren't that.) The only dynamism allowed in some form of committee is that of the leader or chair to which the others assent. Arbcom doesn't necessarily have that- so it's just a talking shop of a few individuals who then issue statements within acceptable degrees of obnoxiousness, varying depending on the degree of popularity of the 'victim'.

I didn't say they shouldn't be a committee. I just said they should conduct deliberations publicly, engage readily with the community, and hold votes without pulling together a private consensus beforehand. Each member of the ArbCom is elected with an individual mandate and each of them has the power to break with the others and behave in the way I've described--they have a responsibility to the community, not to the other members of the committee.