We both received sysop tools during the same week, but seem to have radically different approaches to adminship. For instance I have performed many blocks, but you have never blocked anyone.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Carcharoth&page=&year=&month=-1] I have closed virtually no [[WP:AFD|article for deletion]] discussions, whereas other administrators close many of them. What sort of approach do you think is best for ArbCom, or do you think the Committee needs a variety of volunteers with different approaches? Thanks. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] ^{[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]} 17:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

:I agree with you that the Committee needs a variety of volunteers with different approaches. My approach, as you have pointed out, does not usually involve blocks. I have made a one-second block to annotate a block log, and I have made two unblocks - in all three cases these actions were carried out following discussion at the administrators' noticeboards, as noted in the block logs. For the discussions related to those actions, see [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive434#Unresolved_incident|here]] (right at end of thread), [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand blocked for sockpuppetry|here]] (whole thread on subpage), [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betacommand_blocked_for_sockpuppetry#Proposed_unblock|here]] (the first unblock) and [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Betacommand_blocked_for_sockpuppetry#Pledge_confirmed_and_Betacommand2_unblocked|here]] (the second unblock). In other words, I rarely use the block tools because my approach involves discussion and debate (usually at the administrators noticeboards), with warnings if needed, aiming to persuade people to change their behaviour or reconsider their actions, though I have also suggested blocks and other sanctions, where appropriate. When the discussion indicates that blocks are needed, someone else has usually stepped up and carried out the actions. There are places where specific requests are made for blocks, such as at AIV (vandalism notices), 3RR (three-revert rule noticeboard) and RFCU (requests for checkuser), but I haven't worked in those areas, and so haven't done much blocking. As far as this relates to work done on the Arbitration Committee, I think being able to research, discuss and judge a case is more important than having direct experience with using specific tools. If there were cases involving technical matters, I would ensure that I understood the technical details before reaching a verdict, and in discussions I would aim to draw on the experience that fellow arbitrators would have in areas that I might not be familiar with. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 03:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've consistently been impressed by this guy. He's very sensible and takes a responsible, collaborative approach to admin issues. He's the best candidate to step forward so far.

Am I mistaking him for someone else, or isn't Carcharoth a member of the singularly irritating club of blood-sniffing dramahounds who pass the time by indiscriminately inserting themselves into the latest AN/I fracas?

I would be very happy not to see any of those types on the committee.

Am I mistaking him for someone else, or isn't Carcharoth a member of the singularly irritating club of blood-sniffing dramahounds who pass the time by indiscriminately inserting themselves into the latest AN/I fracas?

Yes and no.

It's true he inserts himself into a lot of drama, but always with the goal of conflict resolution. He generally has a calming effect on the hoards and seems to be independent minded and good willed.

Am I mistaking him for someone else, or isn't Carcharoth a member of the singularly irritating club of blood-sniffing dramahounds who pass the time by indiscriminately inserting themselves into the latest AN/I fracas?

I would be very happy not to see any of those types on the committee.

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.

Am I mistaking him for someone else, or isn't Carcharoth a member of the singularly irritating club of blood-sniffing dramahounds who pass the time by indiscriminately inserting themselves into the latest AN/I fracas?

I would be very happy not to see any of those types on the committee.

From Wikichecker, Carcharoth's top 10 edited pages with the number of edits to each.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (1,347)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (1,118)
User talk:Carcharoth (1,101)
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content (716)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle-earth (601)
User:Carcharoth/Tolkien categories (295)
Talk:Main Page (283)
Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) (269)
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship (243)
Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion (236)

So, the answer is yes.

[...] Does Carcharoth write any articles, by the way?

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

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'.