Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Charles Matthews

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk

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

A: 51, writer

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: 15 or more; yes, I'll make that commitment

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 think I've kept Mark Steyn, an obvious target for POV edits, in reasonable shape since Ed Poor created it. I don't seek out contentious matters, but neither do I run away from them if they get on my watchlist. (One exception was getting involved with Opus Dei in a face-off situation.) A recent example that came my way was at David Hilbert. I have done plenty with Anglosphere to keep it informative. I run a major clean-up from User:Charles Matthews/Imperial Japan.

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

A: I only use my real name

Commitment level

You stated "I haven't been quite as active in 2005 as in 2004, for a couple of reasons I won't go into." Fair enough, but could you tell us whether these reasons involve disputes with Wikipedians, or person things unrelated to Wikipedia? Also, in what circumstances would you, if elected, step down before your term is up? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

These things get intrusive. The reasons were (a) a book to write (b) an intermittent fault with my Internet connection, only sorted out two weeks ago (rain in a cable box). I could imagine numerous life-changes that would make me step down from the ArbCom. Nothing that I anticipate. Charles Matthews 16:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Form question by Snowspinner

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I could mention small group teaching in a university, and attendance at meetings in academia and a voluntary organisation. Also UseNet in an area or two of my expertise. Charles Matthews 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Form Question from karmafist

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 18:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I would try to do something sensible and compatible with the overall mission. WP's policies are not drafted professionally, so let's not pretend they're engraved on stone tablets. Charles Matthews 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from User:-Ril-

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?

Yes, I have opinions. I think they are not such as to make me recuse, and in any case personal connections with people are much more likely to affect that. Charles Matthews 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you give us a rough idea of what subject area these opinions fall under. (You needn't tell us exactly which side of the fence you fall on)? --Victim of signature fascism 16:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Not a reasonable question - I have plenty of opinions but to answer you I'd have to figure what others might judge to be significant. I'm against torture, by the way, judicial or otherwise. Charles Matthews 16:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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

I'm a naturally obstinate person, in general, but I have had much less friction with Wikipedians than in other contexts. Charles Matthews 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

No, but the Internet throws up plenty of the 'vexatious litigant' type. Charles Matthews 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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 have no comment, other than the ArbCom should do its job and not get tangled in precedents. By the way I added argument from precedent, a long time ago it seems. Charles Matthews 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Would it be right therefore to conclude that you do not feel the committee always has a duty to consider whether the actions of parties other than the individual in question are to blame for their action? (this is a question about fair trial)

It would be fair to conclude that I'm not going to come down one way or the other on questions posed in general terms. (The ArbCom is not a legal body, and I think it is unhelpful to phrase things as if it is.) Charles Matthews 00:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism 16:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Marsden

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 15:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've only been here two-and-a-bit years, but it never worked perfectly. No Golden Age - and Jimbo agrees. I'm not for centralising because it's absurd to think anyone could manage the English Wikipedia, for sheer reasons of scale. Charles Matthews 19:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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 18:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I doubt a code would add to community confidence. Charles Matthews 00:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know:

What is, in your opinion, the proper use of WP:IAR? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action? Xoloz 17:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

What it really says is - we are given discretion round here. We are very much judged by how we use that discretion; that's how the wiki idea works. I don't think it's an admin thing. It says the rules are not more important than taking some personal responsibility within the project. You don't therefore 'invoke' it. You appeal to wiki-experience in sticking your neck out, on occasion. Charles Matthews 18:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

• 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?

A lack of civility narrows the range of likely editors (rudeness is accepted mostly by the young and male) and I would therefore say it is detrimental on the systemic bias side. Charles Matthews 09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• 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?

I have a doctorate in mathematics, and around 15 years of rubbing shoulders in that field. I'm pretty much aware of the kind of language used by experts - I could name some of the top guys who I have seen close up. [Last part not relevant to me]. Charles Matthews 09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• 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.)

I have given some answer above already. The ArbCom are 'arbitrators', rather than a judiciary or executive, whatever people may think. If the community wants the best out of them, they should lay off the hypothetical questions, and elect members with a clear stake in the success of Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

PurplePlatypus 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

No, it's too legalistic, expects too much from precedents, and resembles a charter for wikilawyering. Charles Matthews 10:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

   What I have answered above: at least half an hour per day. Charles Matthews 07:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

2. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom deliberations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

   Well, there should be time to spare. My main areas have been mathematics, poetry, adding bibliographies. Charles Matthews 07:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

3. To what extent would those projects be affected?

   I might do 20%-25% less. My basic belief remains that those who provide content are good guardians of the Wikipedia mission. Charles Matthews 07:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from Zordrac

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 16:32, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

1. The decisions should be transparent; you may mean the process, in which case I think 'public hearings' would not be appropriate.
2. Admins should not be held to different standards as far as everyday editing is concerned. The sanction of deprivation of admin powers is usefully something the ArbCom can use. I feel currently that it is most appropriate when admin powers have been abused. Clearly admin powers and their abuse is something the ArbCom has to look at, but there is no like-for-like there.
3. Quite likely that they are not assuming good faith. Why use a word like 'violation'?
4. If closely and personally involved, I would recuse. I can't define closely in an abstract way. It's always going to be case-by-case. I've edited thousands of articles, and come across hundreds of Wikipedians. I'm not going to tie my hands on this.
5. Jimbo can review them, no? You want an appeal court? If the trend to legalism prevails, it will do WP no good, even if it looks like a tidy constitution on paper. Wiki does not work on the basis of rights; wiki is a system of permissions, from which a co-operative community can arise. Charles Matthews 19:11, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-

(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?

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?

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?

--Victim of signature fascism 01:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll answer when you learn to spell and not to troll. Charles Matthews 09:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

So you are unwilling to answer

• Whether you believe the community should be able to remove arbitrators
• Whether you edit according to NPOV.

Thank-you. I'm sure the readers will be able to draw their own conclusions from your lack of response, and your apparant violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. --Victim of signature fascism 15:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If I didn't have confidence in people's ability to draw their own conclusions, and their good sense, I wouldn't stand in elections here. Try a spell-checker, if you are going to paste something all around the site; it shows some basic respect. And don't use policy as a cudgel. Of course the community should have a mechanism for removing any powers, at a pinch, but petitions are not a sound way. What you suggest is wide open to obvious abuse and demagogy, and could do huge damage to WP. And people should leave their political or religious viewpoint at the door here; not be probed about it once they are in. I think those who use these polarizing tactics on Wikipedians are destructive. I reject the whole business of putting Wikipedians on a left-right or any other spectrum. Judge people only on their work in improving articles. Charles Matthews 15:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion

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?

The part about any significant conflict of interest is pretty bad and an invitation to the wikilawyers to dicker on about 'bias'. Charles Matthews 09:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

I have given an example. Don't ask me to draft someone else's manifesto. Charles Matthews 09:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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?

The ArbCom can be expanded within reason, to meet demand. I'm not going to make pledges in ignorance of the facts, which I think would be apparent to an ArbCom member but not outside. Charles Matthews 09:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

I have not voted there. I like to edit articles and improve the encyclopedia. That's what I come here for. Charles Matthews 09:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism page

How would you resolve the situation on the anarchism page?Harrypotter 18:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Page is protected, 30 Talk archives, talk coming in at 20K daily. A magic wand would be good. I wouldn't want this sort of page protected for more than a week. My general feeling is that edit wars distract from the creation of specialised articles. People should engage. Arguments over prominence and ordering should be secondary to improving content and coverage as a whole. Hive things off, get the smarter folk working on detailed parts of the bigger picture. Charles Matthews 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

You get my vote. Harrypotter 19:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Punishment (a question from AndriyK)

James F. have written in his statement the following:

"I strongly believe that the Committee's real purpose is to prevent further damage to the project by taking measures as we see fit, not to mete out some form of 'justice' as punishment of those deemed to have done wrong. Where I have considered banning people, it is not because I think that they "deserve" it in some way, but more that I regretfully doubt that their continued presence is not damaging to the project."

Are you agree with your colleague? If not, please explain you view on the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the role of punishment.--AndriyK 19:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with James. The ArbCom has a primary duty, and that is to protect the good work that goes on daily, in every time zone it seems, of building an awesome encyclopedic resource for all online folk. Our community is actually quite robust, but in the end the ArbCom does have to ban people (which simply means they can no longer edit the English Wikipedia). It can be best for everybody, or just for the thousands of good editors. Anyway punitive considerations are a distraction. Charles Matthews 20:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll support you.--AndriyK 07:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates

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 20:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I might have been spared the interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern. Yes, there is an issue. But the ArbCom is not legislative, does not set policy, and only polices policy in the sense that when people bring cases the background is policy. I'm putting myself forward as an experienced Wikipedian who understands the editing process and the people issues. Not as someone who has a full policy platform for the English Wikipedia. I would never claim to have all the answers. Charles Matthews 21:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the phrase interpretating the interpretation was an unfortunate grammar error. Thanks for your prompt and frank response. So you don't think that the arbitrators' work involves providing guidance, in the form of statements of principle that guide the interpretation of the fact in a case, on the values and policies of the encyclopedia project? Suppose you were an arbitrator in a case in which one of the parties proposed the following principle in a workshop, what would be your comment on it?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

1) "Our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission." [2] The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to its readers. Although Wikipedia has a strong community of editors, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is primarily for its readers, and that the activities of the community must be dedicated to that purpose.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

1. As per unanimous decision (8-0) in the recent webcomics case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

---

I find CM's response to Tony's orginal question a little bit strange: I recall that ArbCom precedents are explicitly regarded as having force. I can understand many ArbCom members wanting to avoid general pronouncements, but to try to claim that ArbCom has nothing to do with making policy seems naive. --- Charles Stewart 22:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I have twice above given my comments on precedent. I certainly don't think what the ArbCom has done in the past should necessarily be done in the future.

Otherwise, I'm getting a little puzzled as to the exact question here. So you don't think that the arbitrators' work involves providing guidance, in the form of statements of principle that guide the interpretation of the fact in a case, on the values and policies of the encyclopedia project? This is about 'WP is an encyclopedia', with a link to Jimbo's talk page about an AfD closure. An ArbCom decision of today. OK, maybe what I think is that such things are mostly like obiter dicta as in a legal case. They may well come up in discussion, and be aired. Elect a new ArbCom and they can't be binding principles on the arbitrators. But I'm still not really comfortable with this. Of course if you want to say 'disruptive behaviour', which is the main remit of the ArbCom, you need to be able to answer 'disrupting what?'

Charles Matthews 22:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem to be giving you a hard time. I voted for you and I think you'll make a fine arbitrator, whatever your answers here. Nevertheless as a participant in this election I would like to know what the candidates think of what another prominent candidate in a conversation with me recently referred to as "the elephant in the room." Partly because such decisions aren't binding on the committee (the committee is supposed to learn through experience) I'd like to be sure I know where incoming members of the committee stand. Whether or not they continue to uphold the principle that the community is subsidiary to the encyclopedia, I'd like them to know what is expected of them, and in turn I'd like to be sure that they're prepared to hold the line and support the encyclopedia, in the pinch, against the community. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Like I say in my statement, I believe it's mainly about the content. We all probably have nuanced forms of 'mission statement' in mind, but people work together here anyway without signing up to an exact wording. I can assure you that I'm against divisive developments, and for getting the encyclopedia written. Charles Matthews 07:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)