Ca-Ca-Ca-Carcharoth, Cracking the Case

[Triptych]

As everyone knows, this site is a watchdog on Wikipedia, and this certainly means in part examining the specimens of its administrative leadership. Arbcom's Carcharoth is one who has been there forever, but seems (to me anyway) to float under the radar. In equal parts inactivity and low-profiledness, as far as I can tell. The Carcharoth account first edited in 2005, evidently prompted by the 7/7 London mass transit bombings. It did a bunch of edits there, with what seems to me a practiced hand, however I'm not ready to jump to the conclusion that it is not the owner's original account. It could possibly be someone who edited by IP for some experience, and was just a quick study. An early edit on a 1981 radio show production based on Lord of the Rings indicates a more-than-casual J.R.R Tolkien fan, as his username also implies, "Carcharoth" being a wolf in that mythology.

His 2012 arbitrator candidacy does contain his statement that Carcharoth is the only account he's had. He's created a good range of articles, at first glance worthwhile and non-controversial, on an entomologist here, on a paleontologist there, on a list of Arctic expeditions over there. Has authored quite a few biographical entries, they are BDPs (vice BLPs) as far as I'm clicking. He was earlier elected arbitrator in 2009 (through 2011). Newyorkbrad nudged him to run again in 2012.

What is everyone else's take on Carcharoth? Is he generally an admirable administrator, or does his non-controversiality stem from never taking a stand? Are there dark secrets here? His edits and manner to me seem to indicate an older and more mature person. Is anyone familiar with him enough to gauge his tendencies among the rest of Arbcom? From what I've read of the arbitration cases, he may have voted here and there, but I can remember little or none of his commentary.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

I have trouble understanding the purpose of this thread. There are enough bad administrators and arbitrators (and editors ...), reflecting structural problems in Wikipedia that need addressing, that it does not make sense to nit pick on arbitrators about whom you have no serious complaint.

You do remember that Beeblebrox (T-C-L)is now an arbitrator, I trust! We shall soon be longing for the Golden Age of Jclemens and Risker.

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

At Wikipedia Review (T-H-L), Ottava Rima discussed Carcharoth's ... use of sources. Ottava Rima (T-C-L) mentions many arbitrators whose scholarships seemed faultless e.g., mathematician Charles Matthews, Cas liber, etc.

Rima judged that Ironholds (T-C-L)apparently acted with some courage and integrity in criticizing Carcharoth (T-C-L), according to the linked thread. (It is odd that Ironholds would vandalize Rima's user page, of course ....)

[Zoloft]

I think it's legitimate to discuss any arbitrator. Scrutiny of anyone who wields power on Wikipedia is part of our mission.

[Poetlister]

Ottava Rima (T-C-L)

He's the exception that proves the rule.

[enwikibadscience]

Ottava Rima (T-C-L)

He's the exception that proves the rule.

Ottava Rima edits the same obscure article areas as ColonelHenry, by the way.

I have read some of Cacho...'s DYK contributions and have not come across any problems. Any pecificroblms in science areas?

[tarantino]

Carcharoth posted a mini bio to arbcom-l, which wasn't news to me. In 2006, he listed the IPs he edited from at User:Carcharoth/Contributions/IPs, but had them all oversighted in 2008.

"User:Carcharoth/IPs","37218574","Carcharoth","165613","","20060129151616","","0","0"
"User:Carcharoth/IPs","37219081","Carcharoth","165613","","20060129152207","","0","0"
"User:Carcharoth/IPs","37219185","Carcharoth","165613","","20060129152303","","0","0"
"User:Carcharoth/IPs","37219250","Carcharoth","165613","","20060129152332","","0","0"
"User:Carcharoth/IPs","37219368","Carcharoth","165613","","20060129152453","","0","0"
"User:Carcharoth/IPs","37219463","Carcharoth","165613","","20060129152552","","0","0"
"User:Carcharoth/IPs","37221490","Carcharoth","165613","","20060129154641","","0","0"
"User:Carcharoth/IPs","37221911","Carcharoth","165613","","20060129155038","","0","0"
"User:Carcharoth/IPs","37221981","Carcharoth","165613","","20060129155122","","0","0"
"User:Carcharoth/IPs","37816799","Carcharoth","165613","","20060202081105","","0","0"
"User:Carcharoth/IPs","37816836","Carcharoth","165613","","20060202081129","","0","0"

[Triptych]

Carcharoth posted a mini bio to arbcom-l, which wasn't news to me. In 2006, he listed the IPs he edited from at User:Carcharoth/Contributions/IPs, but had them all oversighted in 2008.

What a cool mailing list leak that was, provided by "MaliceAforethought" at Wikipediareview.com. It's funny, before starting this thread I came across some blog titled "Wiki-Hell" in which the author attempts to ferret out Carcharoth by keyword-searching Usenet of all things (via Google Groups). He searches for Carcharoth's interests as demonstrated at Wikipedia, and finds the name. I was unconvinced. Why Usenet? "A very nerdy fellow. Since he has probably participated in discussions on Tolkein forums and Usenet groups..." (http://wikihell.blogspot.com/2009/07/wh ... aroth.html). I still wasn't buying it. But bigger than hell, it was a direct hit.

I guess he had posted those IP edits of his for disclosure as he sought to become an administrator. I didn't run that down but why else would he do so? He edited from Internet cafes. And then later he wants it oversighted? Who cares? He doesn't want those IPs leading back to his town? Is this a valid use of oversight privilege? Oh well. Thank you for the information, Tarantino.

[Triptych]

I have trouble understanding the purpose of this thread. There are enough bad administrators and arbitrators (and editors ...), reflecting structural problems in Wikipedia that need addressing, that it does not make sense to nit pick on arbitrators about whom you have no serious complaint.

You do remember that Beeblebrox (T-C-L)is now an arbitrator, I trust! We shall soon be longing for the Golden Age of Jclemens and Risker.

I have a serious complaint about the group. He's a member of the group. They can hide their deliberations and operations on a furtive mailing list, paint over their corruption with Oversight, trample nine of ten blockees that appeal to them for help, boss people around, run Checkuser on their enemies and for amusement without even typing anything in the "reason" field, and strut regally about the project like senators. I don't feel I'm nitpicking by having a look at them individually, and critically, and holding each arbitrator individually accountable for the behavior of his or her fellows, and Arbcom generally. Like Zoloft said, expect scrutiny. Nuclearwarfare, Coren, and Hersfold illustrated the way out of the predicament for them that don't like it.

Yes, I know the Beebs is now an arbitrator. Maybe we'll get some laughs out of that, or maybe just more tragedies. I like that AGK and Beebs get each other. AGK called Beebs a proper idiot "that is the dumbest thing anyone has done on this project in ages" when Beebs sought to make Wikipediocracy the subject of an arbitration. Beebs is very authority-oriented and had to suck up to AGK because he was an arb. So getting elected is Beebs' revenge really. I hope they spend the next year sticking daggers in each other. It's rat versus snake. Which will win?

[Randy from Boise]

It's rat versus snake. Which will win?

Mongoose beats cobra.

RfB

[Lukeno94]

It's rat versus snake. Which will win?

Mongoose beats cobra.

RfB

Honey badger beats all.

[Zoloft]

I have a serious complaint about the group. He's a member of the group. They can hide their deliberations and operations on a furtive mailing list, paint over their corruption with Oversight, trample nine of ten blockees that appeal to them for help, boss people around, run Checkuser on their enemies and for amusement without even typing anything in the "reason" field, and strut regally about the project like senators. I don't feel I'm nitpicking by having a look at them individually, and critically, and holding each arbitrator individually accountable for the behavior of his or her fellows, and Arbcom generally. Like Zoloft said, expect scrutiny. Nuclearwarfare, Coren, and Hersfold illustrated the way out of the predicament for them that don't like it.

Yes, I know the Beebs is now an arbitrator. Maybe we'll get some laughs out of that, or maybe just more tragedies. I like that AGK and Beebs get each other. AGK called Beebs a proper idiot "that is the dumbest thing anyone has done on this project in ages" when Beebs sought to make Wikipediocracy the subject of an arbitration. Beebs is very authority-oriented and had to suck up to AGK because he was an arb. So getting elected is Beebs' revenge really. I hope they spend the next year sticking daggers in each other. It's rat versus snake. Which will win?

You're getting much better at this.

[EricBarbour]

I have a serious complaint about the group. He's a member of the group. They can hide their deliberations and operations on a furtive mailing list, paint over their corruption with Oversight, trample nine of ten blockees that appeal to them for help, boss people around, run Checkuser on their enemies and for amusement without even typing anything in the "reason" field, and strut regally about the project like senators.

They have done so repeatedly in the past, and they will continue to do so.

Yes, I know the Beebs is now an arbitrator. Maybe we'll get some laughs out of that, or maybe just more tragedies. I like that AGK and Beebs get each other. AGK called Beebs a proper idiot "that is the dumbest thing anyone has done on this project in ages" when Beebs sought to make Wikipediocracy the subject of an arbitration. Beebs is very authority-oriented and had to suck up to AGK because he was an arb. So getting elected is Beebs' revenge really. I hope they spend the next year sticking daggers in each other. It's rat versus snake. Which will win?

It does not matter. Neither one of them has any damned business running a major website, or having any control over it. They are unqualified, arrogant, pushy manchildren with poor impulse control, ADHD and paranoid streaks. And yet they do have power over Wikipedia, and they have abused their authority repeatedly. And will continue to do so.

[Triptych]

It's rat versus snake. Which will win?

Mongoose beats cobra.

A mongoose is not a rodent, Rikki Tikki Tavi.

[Randy from Boise]

It's rat versus snake. Which will win?

Mongoose beats cobra.

A mongoose is not a rodent, Rikki Tikki Tavi.

But it is a mammal, Nag.

RfB

[Poetlister]

A mongoose is not a rodent, Rikki Tikki Tavi.

But it is a mammal, Nag.[/quote]
You're both correct of course; Mongooses are family Herpestidae and most mammals aren't rodents. So what?

[Triptych]

You're both correct of course; Mongooses are family Herpestidae and most mammals aren't rodents. So what?

It was just silly referencing of an old animated movie aimed at children. I wasn't annoyed at all that the others ran off with my rat vs. snake metaphor.

[Randy from Boise]

A mongoose is not a rodent, Rikki Tikki Tavi.

But it is a mammal, Nag.

You're both correct of course; Mongooses are family Herpestidae and most mammals aren't rodents. So what?

Everybody wins!! YAAAAAAY!!!!!


RfB

[Captain Occam]

It's rat versus snake. Which will win?

(Skip to 2:46 if you don't want to watch the whole thing.)

I wonder if there are any other good analogies between CBS's Survivor and Wikipedia? There probably are.

[Zoloft]

It's rat versus snake. Which will win?

(Skip to 2:46 if you don't want to watch the whole thing.)

I wonder if there are any other good analogies between CBS's Survivor and Wikipedia? There probably are.

Lots of invective, back-stabbing, pompous speeches about principle, and many folks voted off the island.

(Note: I have never watched the show, but have had a beer with one of the early participants.)

[Captain Occam]

(Note: I have never watched the show, but have had a beer with one of the early participants.)

I'm really curious now; which of them was it? Even though the show isn't all that interesting anymore, I found the first two seasons pretty engrossing when I first watched them as a teenager.

[neved]

I have a serious complaint about the group. He's a member of the group. They can hide their deliberations and operations on a furtive mailing list, paint over their corruption with Oversight, trample nine of ten blockees that appeal to them for help, boss people around, run Checkuser on their enemies and for amusement without even typing anything in the "reason" field, and strut regally about the project like senators.

They have done so repeatedly in the past, and they will continue to do so.

Yes, I know the Beebs is now an arbitrator. Maybe we'll get some laughs out of that, or maybe just more tragedies. I like that AGK and Beebs get each other. AGK called Beebs a proper idiot "that is the dumbest thing anyone has done on this project in ages" when Beebs sought to make Wikipediocracy the subject of an arbitration. Beebs is very authority-oriented and had to suck up to AGK because he was an arb. So getting elected is Beebs' revenge really. I hope they spend the next year sticking daggers in each other. It's rat versus snake. Which will win?

It does not matter. Neither one of them has any damned business running a major website, or having any control over it. They are unqualified, arrogant, pushy manchildren with poor impulse control, ADHD and paranoid streaks. And yet they do have power over Wikipedia, and they have abused their authority repeatedly. And will continue to do so.

I wonder how more or less sane arbitrators such as Newyorkbrad for example, could go down to the level of AGKs and Beeblebroxes and reach consensus with them.

[Kelly Martin]

I wonder how more or less sane arbitrators such as Newyorkbrad for example, could go down to the level of AGKs and Beeblebroxes and reach consensus with them.

Newyorkbrad is not sane. He's a true believer just like all the rest of them, and he enjoys bullying people just as much as any of the others. He's just much more careful to be subtle about it so that any blowback can be misdirected elsewhere. Furthermore, it's obvious that while he may not be as "personally challenged" as the rest of them, he doesn't have the ethical cojones to stand in the way when they engage in unquestionably immoral acts. He votes against them, sure, but when his vote doesn't carry the day he acts as if that was enough to wash his hands of any culpability.

[neved]

I wonder how more or less sane arbitrators such as Newyorkbrad for example, could go down to the level of AGKs and Beeblebroxes and reach consensus with them.

Newyorkbrad is not sane. He's a true believer just like all the rest of them, and he enjoys bullying people just as much as any of the others. He's just much more careful to be subtle about it so that any blowback can be misdirected elsewhere. Furthermore, it's obvious that while he may not be as "personally challenged" as the rest of them, he doesn't have the ethical cojones to stand in the way when they engage in unquestionably immoral acts. He votes against them, sure, but when his vote doesn't carry the day he acts as if that was enough to wash his hands of any culpability.

So is there any honest, sane user in the Arbcom?

[Kelly Martin]

I wonder how more or less sane arbitrators such as Newyorkbrad for example, could go down to the level of AGKs and Beeblebroxes and reach consensus with them.

Newyorkbrad is not sane. He's a true believer just like all the rest of them, and he enjoys bullying people just as much as any of the others. He's just much more careful to be subtle about it so that any blowback can be misdirected elsewhere. Furthermore, it's obvious that while he may not be as "personally challenged" as the rest of them, he doesn't have the ethical cojones to stand in the way when they engage in unquestionably immoral acts. He votes against them, sure, but when his vote doesn't carry the day he acts as if that was enough to wash his hands of any culpability.

So is there any honest, sane user in the Arbcom?

Never for very long.

[neved]

I wonder how more or less sane arbitrators such as Newyorkbrad for example, could go down to the level of AGKs and Beeblebroxes and reach consensus with them.

Newyorkbrad is not sane. He's a true believer just like all the rest of them, and he enjoys bullying people just as much as any of the others. He's just much more careful to be subtle about it so that any blowback can be misdirected elsewhere. Furthermore, it's obvious that while he may not be as "personally challenged" as the rest of them, he doesn't have the ethical cojones to stand in the way when they engage in unquestionably immoral acts. He votes against them, sure, but when his vote doesn't carry the day he acts as if that was enough to wash his hands of any culpability.

So is there any honest, sane user in the Arbcom?

Never for very long.

It is my impression too, but what about Casliber. He was an arbitrator for a long time. He is a psychiatrist. He ought to be sane, is he not?

[enwikibadscience]

I wonder how more or less sane arbitrators such as Newyorkbrad for example, could go down to the level of AGKs and Beeblebroxes and reach consensus with them.

Newyorkbrad is not sane. He's a true believer just like all the rest of them, and he enjoys bullying people just as much as any of the others. He's just much more careful to be subtle about it so that any blowback can be misdirected elsewhere. Furthermore, it's obvious that while he may not be as "personally challenged" as the rest of them, he doesn't have the ethical cojones to stand in the way when they engage in unquestionably immoral acts. He votes against them, sure, but when his vote doesn't carry the day he acts as if that was enough to wash his hands of any culpability.

So is there any honest, sane user in the Arbcom?

Never for very long.

It is my impression too, but what about Casliber. He was an arbitrator for a long time. He is a psychiatrist. He ought to be sane, is he not?

Psychiatry as a profession is among the highest for insanity, suicide, etc., etc.

[EricBarbour]

Newyorkbrad is not sane. He's a true believer just like all the rest of them, and he enjoys bullying people just as much as any of the others. He's just much more careful to be subtle about it so that any blowback can be misdirected elsewhere. Furthermore, it's obvious that while he may not be as "personally challenged" as the rest of them, he doesn't have the ethical cojones to stand in the way when they engage in unquestionably immoral acts. He votes against them, sure, but when his vote doesn't carry the day he acts as if that was enough to wash his hands of any culpability.

Correct. He's merely a little smoother about performing dirty tricks.

It is my impression too, but what about Casliber. He was an arbitrator for a long time. He is a psychiatrist. He ought to be sane, is he not?

O RLY? He's obsessed with Banksia plants, and frantically promotes Wikipedia editing to other mental-health professionals (even wrote a paper about it); not to mention his blindly automatic pro-WP position in every scandal -- does that sound like a "reasonable" person to you??

[Zoloft]

I'm clarifying that the use of 'sane' here is not in the sense of someone labeled as not 'sane' being actually 'insane' in the medical sense, but rather being bathed in the lambent glow and juices of Wikipedia and being influenced away from the path of common sense, no?

*waves at the posters above and mouths voicelessly "Ix-nay on the insane-way uff-stay..."*

[EricBarbour]

That should be "ix-nay on the cray-cray". Rolls off the tongue better.

[Kelly Martin]

I'm clarifying that the use of 'sane' here is not in the sense of someone labeled as not 'sane' being actually 'insane' in the medical sense, but rather being bathed in the lambent glow and juices of Wikipedia and being influenced away from the path of common sense, no?

Yes, in the "the reality I'm operating in isn't fully attached to the real world" way that many well-known politicians are. Not clinical insanity.

My past conversations with Casliber suggest that he was aware of the cognitive dissonances on at least some levels, but he was clearly in denial of at least the extent, if not the existence, of many of Wikipedia's graver problems. It's really hard to spend years working on something like that, step back, and realize that you've spent all that time helping to create something of such stunningly mediocrity. Most people just aren't willing to accept that, and rationalize it away. Is that crazy? No, because almost everyone does it, and if almost everyone does it by definition it's normal behavior.

[neved]

It is my impression too, but what about Casliber. He was an arbitrator for a long time. He is a psychiatrist. He ought to be sane, is he not?

O RLY? He's obsessed with Banksia plants, and frantically promotes Wikipedia editing to other mental-health professionals (even wrote a paper about it); not to mention his blindly automatic pro-WP position in every scandal -- does that sound like a "reasonable" person to you??

But I meant his work as an arbitrator. Was Casliber an honest and sane arbitrator?

[EricBarbour]

But I meant his work as an arbitrator. Was Casliber an honest and sane arbitrator?

After looking at several arbitrations he participated in, I honestly can't say. Serious Arbcom discussion are held in secret, and we miserable nobodies and scum are not entitled to know how they arrived at their usually-insipid "decisions". Most of his comments were extremely bland and short, as in this RFC.

[HRIP7]

I wonder how more or less sane arbitrators such as Newyorkbrad for example, could go down to the level of AGKs and Beeblebroxes and reach consensus with them.

Newyorkbrad is not sane. He's a true believer just like all the rest of them, and he enjoys bullying people just as much as any of the others. He's just much more careful to be subtle about it so that any blowback can be misdirected elsewhere. Furthermore, it's obvious that while he may not be as "personally challenged" as the rest of them, he doesn't have the ethical cojones to stand in the way when they engage in unquestionably immoral acts. He votes against them, sure, but when his vote doesn't carry the day he acts as if that was enough to wash his hands of any culpability.

A bit harsh, perhaps. As one of a motley crew he can't do more than vote according to his conscience. You might argue that if he had integrity, he would resign, but that can be argued both ways.

[Abd]

Ah, this is too long. I need to stop looking at Wikipedia and meta. And here, probably.

So is there any honest, sane user in the Arbcom?

Never for very long.

Fritzpoll was quite sane, my opinion. Of course, I might be biased; he told me that he decided to run, inspired by me. He resigned when he was threatened with harm to his family, face-to-face, and they knew where he lived. I think that he had already concluded that it was useless to continue. He is a scientist, with a career and family, and the job of Arbitrator is utterly unrewarding, as constituted.

Carcharoth was quite good, and Newyorkbrad was tolerable, usually, but ... neither was willing to actually stand up to the abusive actions and decisions of other arbitrators, to stand for the rights of ordinary users when trampled on by the "community" and ArbComm.

It was Casliber, as I recall, who recompiled my evidence in the JzG case. The cabal was screaming that I'd cherry-picked the data, so an arbitrator recompiled it, running a script to collect the same data. Without that action -- which was beyond what arbitrators are normally willing to do -- I might have been banned right there and then.

My own conclusion is that the ArbComm process is abusive, to the arbitrators, who don't have the support they need.

Any arbitrator could, in theory, create that support, they have the tools and clout, but ... they would also need the ego strength to stand up to the screams of protest, and the election process filters heavily against that kind of strength. If you have displayed it, if you, for example, stand up against the all-too-common lynchings, you will have created enough enemies that you can't get elected.

Under the best of conditions, from what I've seen, only about one-third of the community would stand up against abuse. The rest are playing a very different game, or are distracted, too busy, whatever, to do anything more than toss in a !vote to get rid of the annoyance.

Fritzpoll was able to bypass that because he was basically nice, but also willing to recognize that he'd made mistakes. My first block was for allegedly attacking him. He later wrote that it was all a misunderstanding, that he'd been under stress in real life, and hadn't understood what I was telling him.

It was Fritzpoll who offered to mentor me, which would have allowed me to continue the kind of protective intervention I'd been banned from. (Allegedly, I was a tendentious POV-pushing editor, so what did they do? Prohibit me from intervening when I was not involved. Wait a minute? Prevent neutral intervention? Were there any examples where I'd done so improperly? None were alleged.)

Fritzpoll was told that he couldn't do that, that arbitrators can't mentor (even though he was already recusing from every situation involving me). Essentially, the majority makes up rules, whatever suits them, and Fritzpoll wasn't willing to confront that. So ... he was too nice.

Newyorkbrad was quite willing to move into legal threats when he was adequately annoyed. When I bailed from "WP due process," having exhausted it, being indef blocked without any further recourse, ArbComm having declined to hear the case, and began simply editing anyway, testing self-reversion, NYB warned me in email, and tried to figure out how to get the WMF to go after me legally, as if I'd been vandalizing the project (which I never did, though, believe me, it's been tempting). He was just another, more cautious version of "Obey My Authority."

Sorry. I never violated the TOS. They've never had the cojones to put what they think are the Rules into the TOS. Without that -- and maybe even with it -- they would lose in court, as to any complaint about what I'd been doing.

They might have been able to obtain an injunction, but the whole sordid history would then be exposed, a matter of public record. Utterly toothless, then, the threat, and NYB, as a lawyer, was demonstrating incompetence. A sane lawyer would never encourage the client to threaten "enemies" He'd encourage the client to find compromises, etc. Here, though, he was his own client, the classic fool.

The self-reversion experiments (they started with a topic banned editor on Wikipedia, a topic expert, where they worked, they continued with Thekohser on Wikiversity, where the process worked, and then I tested it myself on Wikipedia, demonstrated something I considered necessary to demonstrate.

Self-reversion worked there, in fact, i.e., some of the edits were reverted back in by other users. But even though I was enforcing my own ban, it was treated as violation, with increasingly draconian measures being employed: expanding range blocks, the edit filter, and revision deletion, thus demonstrating, clearly, what I thought might be demonstrated, that improvement and protection of the project are not the actual goals of administrative behavior. The revision deletion got troutslapped, but that won't make any difference, because the community was not willing to close the loophole, to set up specific requirements, terrified that it would inhibit administrators from doing what they needed to do to protect the community.

So administrators will continue to ignore policy, because there is no cost to it. They don't even have to explain themselves, most of the time. Just push those buttons, and if anyone complains, well, we'll see that they pay for that.

My sense: the Foundation is afraid that the volunteers who maintain the project and protect it from vandalism, etc., will go away if criticized. They don't realize, my guess, that these volunteers are, too often, creating the hazards. Case in point: Scibaby.

[neved]

Carcharoth was quite good, and Newyorkbrad was tolerable, usually, but ... neither was willing to actually stand up to the abusive actions and decisions of other arbitrators, to stand for the rights of ordinary users when trampled on by the "community" and ArbComm.

Quite. Newyorkbrad tries to walk a thin line: to be popular within the community, to be trusted within the arbcom, and to act as he's a sane and honest person. It is all but impossible to do. The community, at least that part of the community that calls itself "the community" is sick, the arbcom is full of dishonest, power-hungry cowards, and Newyorkbrad is simply betraying himself. I honestly don't know how he is able to live with himself, except maybe he believes that by betraying the principals of the decency and humanity in some situations, and staying in the arbcom, he'd be able to help in other situations.

[Poetlister]

So is there any honest, sane user in the Arbcom?

Never for very long.

Yes, they get voted off - see Charles Matthews.