My beliefs about Wikipedia are simple: we are here to create a free encyclopedia, and policy, procedure and process are simply tools to enable us to do that most easily. I believe in a light touch; we should have the minimum quantity of rules necessary to function, and the enforcement of them should bear in mind the intended outcome—creating that encyclopedia—rather than in their mechanical application.

On the banning question, I believe it should be applied with my overriding principles above in mind—only if it is necessary for the functioning of the project. The purpose is not to punish, but to remove people who have proven they are not interested in helping the project, people whose intent is to disrupt and who will not reform.

I have a strong and abiding passion for the ideals of the Wikipedia project, and I've put in more time on it than I probably want to admit. I intend, if chosen, to apply myself to this task with equal passion. I am used to thankless jobs—I am a systems administrator, and know the rewards for good work are simply more work and nobody noticing.

I would love to hear your questions, comments or indeed criticisms. Thank you.

Please ask your questions here.

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Long life experience, participating in Usenet at its prime, working as a systems administrator, and especially - doing phone tech support! More seriously, I count myself cynical but not paranoid. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 17:19, 29 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I consider (a) the good of the project; (b) the behavior of the people involved; as well as probably other factors. With the exception of a few founding principles (NPOV, verifiability, etc) I do not believe policy to rule over common sense. In the words of C.J. Cherryh (favorite SF author of mine): "Rules should not be followed off a cliff". — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 20:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?

I am politically non-radical and have non-mainstream but non-radical religious beliefs. I do not believe any of these are likely to affect my judgment on cases before the arbitration committee, & thus I do not anticipate the need for recusal on them.

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

I am willing to contest the decisions of other arbitrators when I feel it necessary. I tend neither to passive acquiecence nor knee-jerk opposition; I intend to consider proposed decisions on their own merits.

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

Not automatically. However, a request to re-open anything must be made with compelling persuasion. It is expected that some editors may not be happy with AC decisions; a re-opening requires much more than that.

In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?

I do support this decision. No editor edits in a vacuum. It would be unjust for the AC, having reviewed evidence and found that multiple editors had behaved badly and against policy, to attempt to correct the behavior of only one of those editors. It would be inefficient in the extreme to insist that a seperate AC case had to be opened for each user behaving badly.

However, I do not believe in the necessity to impose equal (or indeed any) penalties on all involved users. We should not create an atmosphere where users would be loath to seek arbitration. We should not allow those who are abusing the system to further game the system by turning arbitration into an inquisition picking apart the complainer's every action looking for small wrongdoings. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 00:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

--Victim of signature fascism 16:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 16:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I might note that much of Mussolini's making the trains run on time was actually managed by making 'on time' less ambitious, and by telling Il Duce what he wanted to hear. That, and heavy doses of state expenditure.

Irrelevant historical aside over. Wikipedia is not an experiment in Internet democracy, but rather an attempt to generate a free encyclopedia. Thus it is correct to say that the ArbCom's job is not justice but order. However, a long-termist view of order is that it requires decisions that the community is happy with, otherwise the project won't progress.

I believe Wikipedia should operate with as little control as is feasible. Rules and policies make it easier for troublemakers and the bureaucratically-minded to get their way, and harder for the regular contributor interested in content ahead of policy. I believe Wikipedia's current structure works better than many seem to think it does, because we notice the few noisy failures and not the quiet success. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 20:12, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: I am 32 years old and I work as a UNIX systems administrator.

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: While I can't answer that with a definitive number, I am willing to put in the time the task requires.

Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.

A: I'm not the typical Wikipedia 'policy wonk'. I primarily work in the article space and have created and edited a vast number of articles. Last I checked, my edit count is in excess of 10,000, for those with editcountitis. I created one article that went on to become featured ( Canon T90) and have worked on many more. I created WikiProject Trains and have worked extensively with other editors in that and several other projects. I feel that I have a very good knowledge of what it's like to work on content, rather than just policy and administration, and believe that I understand the mindset of contributors to Wikipedia.

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: None, except for occasional IP edits when I didn't realise I wasn't logged in. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 19:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Edit: since making that statement, I have registered User:Matthew Brown to test things as a non-admin user and as a pre-emptive anti-vandal measure, since I sign my real name in my signature now. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 19:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I do not support the establishment of that particular document as a code of conduct. I have no disagreement in principle with the notion. My issues with the current document are that it contains two things: (1) restatement of existing policies which every user, arbitrator or not, is expected to follow; why restate? and (2) New rules that I haven't yet been sufficiently convinced are necessary. I plan to examine the proposal in more detail and provide suggestions. I am also concerned that it will encourage users whose content is before the arbitration committee to spend more time investigating the AC's behavior than reflecting on their own. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 00:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input there as well? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ( SEWilco 05:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)) reply

Not completely in the proposal's current form. However, much of it is sound. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 16:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

How about the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct?

-- HK 00:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
2. Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
3. What are your views on the proposed policy Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)

PurplePlatypus 07:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

As regards WP:Civility, I believe it an important policy but it is not at the same level as NPOV, verifiability, NOR etc. Ability to work with others is essential to building a collaborative work such as this and civility is part of the ability to work with others. However, brusqueness, shortness or impatience do not rise to the level of sanctionable incivility in my opinion, and a degree of incivility when provoked and harassed can be forgiven in the right circumstances. WP:Civility, like all policy, should not be a stick with which to beat one's opponents. I see a lot of complaints of incivility that I do not believe to be in the best of faith.

With regards to academia, I have a B.Eng. in Computing from Imperial College, London, from which I graduated in 1994. I have not taken an academic path since.

I am not in favor of the current proposal at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct, and feel that it will only encourage the querulous to continue their disruptive behavior rather than correct it, although the current version is much better than the original. Wikipedia is not a democracy and the ArbCom is not the supreme court.

In particular, I think the rules it seeks to impose on recusal will be used as a weapon by those under the arbcom's scrutiny. I would most certainly recuse myself if I believed I would not be able to be fair in a particular case, or if there was a serious conflict of interest (i.e. the perception that I would not be able to be fair).

I would generally act in accordance with the document as it currently stands. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
2. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?
3. To what extent would those projects be affected?

Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 06:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. About half.
2. I'm not sure - that would depend on what my current obsession is. I've put in a lot of work on automobiles, railways and photography. All of these would probably be affected to some degree. However, I feel it unlikely that I would cease to work on articles.
3. Hard to tell. Automobiles and railways now have a good number of active editors. Not so many on photography right now, but I'm sure that'll change. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 21:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
2. Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?
3. Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
4. How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
5. Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed?

Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. ArbCom decisions should be fairly transparent. Evidence presented should be public. Decisions should show the reasoning behind them and the evidence used to make that determination. In some cases, however, it is possible that edits showing a user's behavior may have been deleted to protect against defamation, invasion of privacy, or otherwise in compliance with the law. In those cases, these edits should be described as much as possible and users should have to attest to the accuracy of that description. In most cases, admins should be able to see the deleted edits in any case. However, I do not believe that all communications between arbitrators should have to be made in public forums. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 21:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply
2. No. Adminship is widely granted, and all it means is that about 80% of the editors who bothered to vote didn't have a problem with the user.
3. No.
4. If I felt I would be unable to be objective, or felt that a conflict of interest would be perceived even if I felt myself capable of objectivity, then I would recuse.
5. Definitely. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 21:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

No, except that arbitrators are subject to re-election and may be removed by Jimbo should their suitability for the position fall into severe question. I believe that is sufficient. Arbitrators should be very hard to remove.

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

No. 200 Wikipedians is very far from a majority of the site's many thousands of active users. By the nature of things, and the fact that a RFC has no actual consequences, RFC participants are self-selected. Only those who feel passionately about an issue participate. I suspect many users believe, like me, that it's not worth participating in.

wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?

My primarily factual basic subject matter expertise means I don't often get into such a situation. However, I have done so in the past and will do so again, no doubt. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 07:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

-- Victim of signature fascism 01:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal?

No. However, I can pledge to abide by the majority of it. I have an issue with the clause that says that having expressed a strong opinion about a case disqualifies an arbitrator. I have strong opinions about vandalism and disruption, and do not consider these to disqualify me from cases involving someone accused of either. I also disagree with the statement that arbitrators can only work from the evidence presented and cannot seek or solicit evidence from other sources. I do pledge to recuse if I have a significant conflict of interest (i.e. when it strongly appears I may not be fair) or if I believe myself incapable of being fair.

2. Are there any parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

Aside from the above, I disagree with the notion that an Arbitrator be prohibited from any communication with any party to an arbitration outside the arbitration itself. Both arbitrators and those party to a case remain Wikipedians and (barring injunctions or previous ArbCom remedies) may continue to work on the encyclopedia. It is frankly ridiculous to prevent communication on matters not associated with the ArbCom case. On matters associated with the case, in the interests of openness, I believe links or summaries to such outside discussion should of course be posted.

I also disagree with the statement that 'equal offenses should be punished equally'. For one thing, I do not believe the ArbCom should have to consider individual acts in isolation: the totality of the case should be what is used to judge what remedies are appropriate.

I also believe that ArbCom remedies should not be seen primarily as punishment. They are intended to prevent a problem from recurring. While I agree that no punishment should be decided in an ex post facto manner, I believe that the ArbCom should be able to impose restrictions on an editor's FUTURE conduct even if that past disruptive conduct was not expressly prohibited.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

IF the current arbitration backlog proves insoluble with a full complement of Arbitrators as currently structured, THEN I would definitely support an expansion. I am not wholly convinced yet that this is necessary, but I am open to the idea.

4. Have you voted over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

No. As a candidate, I did not consider it proper to participate in such a decision.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. — James S. 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 07:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?

There's a reason we don't hand out admin abilities with a new account: some of them can cause damage and need someone who can be trusted. If someone has shown that they cannot be trusted with those abilities, then they should not have them. 'Cannot be trusted' means more than having made a mistake or two; it means using them with bad faith, or repeated inability to understand when they should be used.

1. How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers?

Policy is a guide to doing the right thing. While there are some instances of 'the right thing' that are not laid down in policy, and instances where in fact following policy could be seen as doing the wrong thing for the circumstances, admins should depart from the spirit of established policy when using admin abilities only with trepidation. Minor technical violations of the wording, but not the spirit, of policy are less critical, I feel.

If an admin decides that the good of the project over-rides policy, then they should tread carefully. If the situation is not an emergency, attempting to change policy is the better tactic. If there is not time to change policy, preferably the admin should ask for advice from others before taking action.

If an admin does deliberatly not follow policy, they should explain their actions fully and publicly. If other admins disagree and change things back, things should be dealt with by either changing policy or through the dispute resolution process, rather than warring over the action.

— Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 02:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks, — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 04:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):

I am concerned about templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive. [1]

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 20:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It's a concern, that's for sure. As a project with a goal, rather than a social space, everything must be interpreted in terms of the good of the project. This includes keeping contributors happy, of course (although not above all else). Most userboxes are mostly harmless, and while creating them and using them does not directly contribute to the encyclopedia, fostering a sense of community is a worthy task in itself and an eventual gain for the project.

Users should never use explicit personal attacks on Wikipedia; WP:NPA is clear. Furthermore, WP:CIVIL asks us to treat others and their beliefs with respect, even if we disagree. Userboxes that attack others or their beliefs, or are divisive are contrary to WP:CIVIL and the core principles of this project.

I would urge all Wikipedians to avoid bumper-sticker statements of divisiveness on their userpages.

The role of the Arbitration Committee is not to create policy. If selected, I would uphold our existing policies of user conduct as appropriate, in a spirit of encouragement towards productive editing rather than factionalisation and strife. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 10:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply