I haven't been quite as active in 2005 as in 2004, for a couple of reasons I won't go into explained on the questions page. Wikipedia is working so well in general it is possible to talk about the ArbCom as a necessary evil, rather than use the language of crisis and panic about it. I stood in 2004, doing well enough for it to be a positive experience though I fell just short of election. Banning and other sanctions are there firstly to protect the project from people who really cannot match the basic social demands of working with other editors.
I judge that the ArbCom are much better at tackling cases reasonably, than admins acting on their own have been. I'm not sure that every single decision has been 100% on the button; but I don't see much need for big changes in how things are handled. Some matters are always going to be inflammatory, but overall I don't see that it is getting any worse; and the upping of the ArbCom's workrate in 2005 I think made for a perceptible improvement of the atmosphere.
I have a concise writing style, a plus for ArbCom work (and have kept this to 250 words, unlike others). On general matters, my credo hasn't really changed. For me, it's mainly about the content. I'm concerned about systemic bias issues - the need for good peripheral vision, I'd say, in the whole approach. For a Brit I have good languages; I have lived in France and the USA, and have good knowledge of East Asia and some insight into Uganda.
Charles Matthews11:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support Outside the great contributions to the mathematics projects, I have seen Charles Matthews keep great cool in dealing with difficult users, a feature most necessary for an arbitrator.
Oleg Alexandrov (
talk)
00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - really superb editor, ArbCom couldn't do better. My only reservation: does ArbCom deserve him well enough to waste his time like this? ---
Charles Stewart06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, low involvement in project namespace, but highly involved w/community via enwiki-l mailing list and obviously dedicated w/53K+ edits. --
MPerel (
talk |
contrib)08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support: He seems always to make fair and reasoned, and non-confrontational assessments of a situation whenever I have run across him
Giano |
talk12:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support (This is obiter dicta, but I'm astonished that someone casting an "oppose" vote suggested that this candidate may not be one of the best-known Wikipedians.)
Michael Hardy21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Sopport Candidate will put in the time and he's well known to many. I only wish he hadn't come down so hard on the questioner who didn't spell so well.
Smmurphy(
Talk)22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - at least in part *because* of the answer about spelling. The arbcomm gets a lot of cr*p: it needs to be able to answer robustly when appropriate.
William M. Connolley23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC).reply
Support. Charles answered the questions well, I have also always been impressed by his interactions with others (at least those I have seen).
Rje12:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Reluctant support. Shows a strong and pragmatic understanding of Wikipedia's policy and functionality. He is, however, admonished to refrain from personal attacks, as he made against -Ril-, and to keep his alleged temper under control.
Ingoolemotalk18:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose on policy grounds, due to support for unilateralism, disdain for a code of wikipedian rights, and the deflection of tough, but fair, questions as 'trolling'. --
It's-is-not-a-genitive10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - although he is a very dedicated contributor, he lacks arbitration skills. This became obvious on
Sensei's Library where he showed the same qualities described by others above. This was some time ago, but it doesn't look like he changed. (He gets a point for being so honest as to use the same nick, though.) —
Sebastian(talk)05:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose Bad tempered, and can't distinguish between logic and his opinion. Engages in personal attacks, and defends them by calling them objective.
Kevin baas00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose; in his statement, he babbles on and doesn't actually say a danged thing about his beliefs about ArbCom. How are we supposed to support you if we don't know who you are?
Matt Yeager20:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose — despite thoughtful and intelligent responses to questions (and answers whose content I largely agree with), brusque and occasionally rude manner does not bode well for arbitration skills. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
17:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Has great experience (both in Wikipedia and in the real world), is intelligent and has a clear writing style but this is outweighed by his sometimes evasive or spiky answers to questions. --
Spondoolicks20:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I haven't been quite as active in 2005 as in 2004, for a couple of reasons I won't go into explained on the questions page. Wikipedia is working so well in general it is possible to talk about the ArbCom as a necessary evil, rather than use the language of crisis and panic about it. I stood in 2004, doing well enough for it to be a positive experience though I fell just short of election. Banning and other sanctions are there firstly to protect the project from people who really cannot match the basic social demands of working with other editors.
I judge that the ArbCom are much better at tackling cases reasonably, than admins acting on their own have been. I'm not sure that every single decision has been 100% on the button; but I don't see much need for big changes in how things are handled. Some matters are always going to be inflammatory, but overall I don't see that it is getting any worse; and the upping of the ArbCom's workrate in 2005 I think made for a perceptible improvement of the atmosphere.
I have a concise writing style, a plus for ArbCom work (and have kept this to 250 words, unlike others). On general matters, my credo hasn't really changed. For me, it's mainly about the content. I'm concerned about systemic bias issues - the need for good peripheral vision, I'd say, in the whole approach. For a Brit I have good languages; I have lived in France and the USA, and have good knowledge of East Asia and some insight into Uganda.
Charles Matthews11:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support Outside the great contributions to the mathematics projects, I have seen Charles Matthews keep great cool in dealing with difficult users, a feature most necessary for an arbitrator.
Oleg Alexandrov (
talk)
00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - really superb editor, ArbCom couldn't do better. My only reservation: does ArbCom deserve him well enough to waste his time like this? ---
Charles Stewart06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, low involvement in project namespace, but highly involved w/community via enwiki-l mailing list and obviously dedicated w/53K+ edits. --
MPerel (
talk |
contrib)08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support: He seems always to make fair and reasoned, and non-confrontational assessments of a situation whenever I have run across him
Giano |
talk12:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support (This is obiter dicta, but I'm astonished that someone casting an "oppose" vote suggested that this candidate may not be one of the best-known Wikipedians.)
Michael Hardy21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Sopport Candidate will put in the time and he's well known to many. I only wish he hadn't come down so hard on the questioner who didn't spell so well.
Smmurphy(
Talk)22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - at least in part *because* of the answer about spelling. The arbcomm gets a lot of cr*p: it needs to be able to answer robustly when appropriate.
William M. Connolley23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC).reply
Support. Charles answered the questions well, I have also always been impressed by his interactions with others (at least those I have seen).
Rje12:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Reluctant support. Shows a strong and pragmatic understanding of Wikipedia's policy and functionality. He is, however, admonished to refrain from personal attacks, as he made against -Ril-, and to keep his alleged temper under control.
Ingoolemotalk18:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose on policy grounds, due to support for unilateralism, disdain for a code of wikipedian rights, and the deflection of tough, but fair, questions as 'trolling'. --
It's-is-not-a-genitive10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - although he is a very dedicated contributor, he lacks arbitration skills. This became obvious on
Sensei's Library where he showed the same qualities described by others above. This was some time ago, but it doesn't look like he changed. (He gets a point for being so honest as to use the same nick, though.) —
Sebastian(talk)05:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strongly oppose Bad tempered, and can't distinguish between logic and his opinion. Engages in personal attacks, and defends them by calling them objective.
Kevin baas00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose; in his statement, he babbles on and doesn't actually say a danged thing about his beliefs about ArbCom. How are we supposed to support you if we don't know who you are?
Matt Yeager20:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose — despite thoughtful and intelligent responses to questions (and answers whose content I largely agree with), brusque and occasionally rude manner does not bode well for arbitration skills. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
17:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Has great experience (both in Wikipedia and in the real world), is intelligent and has a clear writing style but this is outweighed by his sometimes evasive or spiky answers to questions. --
Spondoolicks20:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply