Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Charles Matthews

Add links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles Matthews

You can think of me as a continuity candidate. On leave at the start of 2008, I took more leave in mid-August, returning recently. The reasons were very different. In between we were shorthanded, and I did first drafts in a couple of major cases, because that was needed work. (Then Newyorkbrad returned and I could take some personal time to deal with real life.)

Time away from the Arbitration intray did give me chance to think over the (bruising) job. Basically I’m a backroom boy: I do committee work and drafting in collective discussions, deal with block appeals and people with a beef, and quiet diplomacy. This matters, but why?

First metaphor: Wikipedia is a fantastic vehicle, but the suspension isn’t so great. The “backroom” absorbs some of the shocks so that others can get on with article work. (Which is what I also do, mostly.) Second explanation: the Internet, folks, is a place where the “average case” people and the “worst case” people are very, very different. People should be treated as normal and decent unless there’s a reason otherwise. But the worst case can be pretty bad. Hence there is the toxic stuff, and a need for a group who really can collectively face up to what actually happens (it is going to).

A non-vintage year, 2008, for Arbitration, but there have been reasons. Moving on, here’s my take: Arbitration always has been run much like “WikiProject Arbitration”. The reforms people suggest usually look like conversions to something more like an onwiki process, and that may yet happen. Ask a candidate, not what are the advantages of something more process-like (obviously quicker and more predictable, in routine matters), but what are the potential drawbacks? Things we know from onsite: Would it become the preserve of a smaller group who care most? Full of arcane rules and wonkish? Fine for standard situations but giving odd results when matters required anything unorthodox? Generally, wouldn’t it suffer from restricted insight, when you need the full range of perceptions?

Of two kinds of good Arbitrators: “legal naturals” and “people of good sense” (non-exclusive), I can’t claim to be the first, rarer sort, so I’ll run as the second. My old credo will do. Single tough case to remember: “Attack sites”. I was active in horsetrading it to a conclusion. Not everyone was pleased, but the underlying issue stopped being so divisive.

Support

  1. Support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Heart of wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per sound argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (second nomination). Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Prodego talk 03:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rebecca (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Martinp (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC). I don't agree with everything he says, but the Arbcom needs both continuity and fresh blood. Martinp (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC
  10. Support See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 12:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support The steady hand of Matthews is needed here. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, the account checker on the ArbCom Elections page says I AM eligible to vote in this election. What is going on here? I protest this seemingly arbitrary decision. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You did not have 150 edits by November 1, so per the rules, your vote had to be struck. Sorry, but please understand that we put these measures in place to prevent any unfair voting through sockpuppets or other means. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since Mervyn Emrys's eligibility was incorrectly rated by a bug in the software, a discussion about whether his votes should be counted or not is ongoing at WT:ACE2008#Eligibility. --Elonka 02:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I think I have been one of the louder voices finding fault with how the 2008 ArbCom has executed against the tasks before it. And I have a great deal of sympathy for those who want to throw all the bums out and start afresh. Further, I think the recent RfC was perhaps a sign that we are none of us perfect. I also respect voices like SandyGeorgia who did such a good analysis of contributions. All that said, I still am supporting Charles here. I think he's one of the sanest arbitrators, and much of the interminable delay in some cases occured while he (and NYB) were unavoidably called away. He DOES edit in articlespace, although it may not all be pushed to the rarefied FA levels, it's good workmanlike stuff. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he seems to be one of the few arbitrators willing to stand up against certain Meatball:VestedContributors and their shenanigans. I will be supporting more than 7 candidates, I'm not in the "oppose everyone except the exact 7 I want", but Charles is one of the folk I support. Will he win? Perhaps not... if so I hope every candidate who does is as good or better than Charles. It's rather a high bar, really. why my vote? ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. While I can't say I'm strongly supportive, I do believe Charles is a net positive to the committee, and reelecting him won't make things worse. I'm really not seeing a slate of electable candidates that I'm certain would be better. GRBerry 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Like Lar, I'm inclined to see CM as a steady hand and a sane voice. Bucketsofg 20:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Mostly sane. Catchpole (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Good judgment during his work in ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. At the risk of endorsing "more of the same," continuity is important to a system as complicated and fraught as arbitration. Mackensen (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Alexfusco5 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. I have read the oppose votes and they are very weak (change, heh, even Obama is backtracking on that apparently). Charles has good judgment and I admire his willingness to deal with the worst of what the Wikipedia community has to offer. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Quality candidate, would be a powerful and competent Arbcom member. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support I am, frankly, dumbfounded by the prevalence of the oppose votes. Charles has done uniformly excellent work, and though I have often disagreed with him, I respect what he has done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support UC said it well William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --Sultec (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Scott Mac (Doc) 09:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support--BozMo talk 09:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support-- Volunteer Sibelius Salesman (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support for the valuable experience already gained in ArbCom, and the keen desire to continue the work. The answers to the questions show a person who learns from mistakes, and who considers matters. There are some tough questions about past activities and I am impressed by the willingness to admit where things went wrong, and reveal honestly why they went wrong, and to learn from these matters. Such reflection and learning is valuable and commendable. I see someone willing and able to negotiate and be flexible. And through all the tough questioning I see a person who is able to handle themselves well. The explanations satisfy me, and the firm, polite and lucid manner in which those explanations are given are also notable. SilkTork *YES! 20:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Michael Snow (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - jc37 10:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I am voting for a team of candidates that will bring a mix of voices to the committee. This is my chosen "stay the course" candidate. Grika Ⓣ 16:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I think the user is sincere in wanting to work hard and has done a fairly satisfactory job answering questions from the wiki community.Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. The RfC others complain about seems typically sane and well reasoned to me. TS 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support—outstanding contributor, done more for Wiki than most could ever dream of doing, thanks for everything, keep it coming. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - He was been a valuable member of Wikipedia for quite some time. selfwormTalk) 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Weak Support I'm a bit muddled as to why you think you should be elected, but I see the general direction, which is great. Leujohn (talk)
  42. Support - a good track record in a thankless post. HeartofaDog (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. support   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support A useful and sane voice on the Committee. —CComMack (t–c) 17:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Demonstrated incompetence in prior service has proven his suitability for the ArbCom. Kelly Martin 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Weak Support. On balance has done more good than harm. Though perhaps SandyGeorgia's suggestion to take a year off is not a bad idea. Jd2718 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Experience seems good. I'm not sure why so many opposed. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Alohasoy (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, experience is important. Fangfufu (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Like it or not, any candidate with a reputable background in academia has earned the ability to fairly adjudicate disputes. The non sequitur continuity vs change bullshit below is all the more proof of that we need an arbitrator able to apply an established and rigorous analytic method. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Good track record. Knows what is involved. Fred Talk 02:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support -ClemRutter (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support - BusterD (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Dave Golland (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Charles is a sound candidate who has, for the most part, exercised good judgement in the role. I don't always agree with him, but I think he has been a very good presence on the committee. This is a tough and often thankless job - and I like the devil we've got. Rje (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Amalthea 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Rivertorch (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support the better of the two incumbents in this election Wkdewey (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. —Ruud 15:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support While I agree with many opposers that a new direction and change is needed for ArbCom, a complete disregard of previous arbitrators is not the way to achieve that. Charles has done great work and still brings lots to the committee. Lost Kiwi(talk) 17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are ineligible to vote. — neuro(talk) 17:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - sometimes change is necessary but I'm far from convinced we need complete change as with others, or that all the change offered is necessarily for the better Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Yes Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support, based on the argument that it's good to have some experience and continuity on ArbCom as well as change. Charles has made some controversial decisions in his time as an arbitrator, but overall his judgement's been more good than bad - and his answers to questions were honest and sensible. It would be a shame if we lost a good arbitrator due to a misguided desire to 'throw the bastards out'. Terraxos (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Gregg (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strong support He edits many important articles in mathematics and is a fine contributer to Wikipedia. Topology Expert (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. SQLQuery me! 20:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Throwawayhack (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Moral support. Gimmetrow 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nufy8 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim(talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. HiDrNick! 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Caspian blue 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Black Kite 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DurovaCharge! 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Dlabtot (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Ѕandahl ♥ 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Voyaging(talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Time for a well-deserved break. Mathsci (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. iridescent 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. new blood is needed on the Committee Steven Walling (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. krimpet✽ 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. We need to improve arbcom. Crum375 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Majorly talk 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Mr.Z-man 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oren0 (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose --Banime (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. No. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Too punitive. Also, per Friday.[1] ElinorD (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. There are a lot of suitable candidates, and fresh perspectives are desirable; thanks for being willing to serve another term. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Heimstern Läufer (talk) User:Heimstern/ACE2008 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. See reasoning. east718 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Graham87 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. iMatthew 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. We need new blood. Nothing personal. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Continuity? The way things are going now? Obama was all about change, and so am I. This vote reflects it. Mike H. Fierce! 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Yes we can. --Mixwell!Talk 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. SandyGeorgia's Arbvote page sums up my views perfectly. AgneCheese/Wine 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Atmoz (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Please forgive me if I accidentally double voted (though I don't think it will matter) - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work
  39. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. This ArbCom has not been able to resolve long-standing problems. Many thanks for CM for his hard work. Time for fresh blood. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Additionally, your abuse of power as an Arb is outstanding for it's abuse. I am glad we are voting you out with a boot in your bottom. Bstone (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. SBHarris 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. Thank you for your service, but it's time for new ideas and ways to do things. The sitting arbs to this point and their unwillingness to brush aside personalities and politics in favor of the collective, greater good are part of the problem which has become ingrained on the present AC. rootology (C)(T) 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Sorry Charlie™ — CharlotteWebb 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Poor judgement, and apparent case of overgrown vanity. The recent RFC was not the action of a reasonable editor. Friday (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose--Toffile (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. Continuity is not what we're looking for. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose BJTalk 04:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose, your conduct in the Matthew Hoffman case is inexcusable. --B (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Nothing at all personal against Charles Matthews, who is a great guy, but he's been on the ArbCom for too long, plus I don't have the thorough faith in his judgement that I would hope for in supporting somebody for ArbCom. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. MER-C 04:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose Eusebeus (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. It's painful to see such a pile-on, but IMO the ArbCom has too much rather than too little continuity, and I would be doubtful about supporting any "continuity candidate". Also some specific concerns with Charles, most recently his failure to recuse in the motion to desysop SlimVirgin. Bishonen | talk 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  54. Oppose - thanks for your service and offering to serve another term, but new blood not continuity is what the community is looking for. -MBK004 04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. Everyking (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose. I think a lot of what's above is too harsh but we desperately need new blood on this committee--not sure how likely I'd be to support the re-election of any non-Brad arb. --JayHenry (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose. JayHenry immediately above says what I would have said.-gadfium 05:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. Sitting arbitrators have no one but themselves to blame. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose, but only on the basis of ArbCom needing new blood. I think Charles is doing a fine job on the site, but I think it's time to allow some others to work on ArbCom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Been on ArbCom long enough now, and some recent decisions (e.g. the Giano and SlimVirgin desysop) have been poor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose Brilliantine (talk) 08:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose per SandyGeorgia. لennavecia 08:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose: Too much contoversy, not least his dealings in the recent Slim Virgin de-sysoping fiasco. Giano (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose, voted for WP:BLPSE, an entirely unacceptable attempt for ArbCom to create and mandate policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose - time for a change, nothing personal Fritzpoll (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. - Echoing above; change > continuity. //roux   editor review09:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose - more of the same is not what we need. Nancy talk 09:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose - my perception is that your activity in ArbCom cases has been very low; ArbCom cases are lasting too long and inactive Arbs contributes to that. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. — neuro(talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose, not happy with his behaviour in some past cases, most notably the infamous Arbcom case against VanishedUser, also the more recent issue with Slrubenstein. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Mailer Diablo 10:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose due to conduct unbecoming an admin and arbitrator. Skinwalker (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. No arbiter sitting on the C68-FM-SV case would ever get my support. ViridaeTalk 11:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Based on recent experiance with this Arbiter and his behaviour, although I have no doubt that he is well intentioned. I also agree that ArbCom has lost its way and that it is time for a change. Verbal chat 12:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. strongest oppose we don't need the current arbcom again, and CM is one of its more controversial members, per the SlRubenstein RfC etc. Sticky Parkin 13:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose new blood needed, too much drama lately. --CrohnieGalTalk 13:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose --Cube lurker (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Absolutely not. To say your work on the Arbcom was subpar and unacceptable would be lenient. SashaNein (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Per the recent Slr RFC. Which was very odd. Moreschi (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Pour encourager les autres --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. As usual, I agree with User:Friday. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. No thanks. Tex (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Part of the problem, not the solution. RMHED (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Time for a change. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 17:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Term limits exist for good reason, and to avoid stagnation this (and any other) committee needs to replace old members when their terms expire. >Radiant< 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Strong oppose The slrubenstein RfC was enough for me. Time to go.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Marginally Davewild (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Weak oppose; I felt pretty strongly about this, but his thoughtful responses to the ArbCom questions and equanimity in the face of outright hostility there were impressive. Still, I have to oppose, weakly, for a variety of reasons including a need for new blood. MastCell Talk 18:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. oppose - judgement seems skewed from community norms. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose Xavexgoem (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 19:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose NVO (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Synergy 19:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. S.D.D.J.Jameson 21:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose ...Modernist (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose - your lack of involvement even when you were an arbitrator ...--Cometstyles 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose per concerns of above opposers and the fact that we seriously need some new faces. GlassCobra 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. I appreciate your frankness but three years is enough really. New ideas are needed I feel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose' BrianY (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose. I see you as the continuity candidate. Skomorokh 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose The current ArbCom is a disaster. We don't need more of the same. AniMate 01:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose sitting arbcom member --Random832 (contribs | signing statement) 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose. Let's have some fresh faces. --Wetman (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose. It's a change election. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose per Friday. SlimVirgin talk|edits 04:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose Change is coming. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Tiptoety talk 04:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose - CHANGE!!! (Thank God Its Friday!)--Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. No. No. Just no way... Guettarda (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Absolutely not. Grace Note (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Oppose Cardamon (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Oppose Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 08:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Mike R (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. We should thank Charles for his good work and participation, but we need fresh blood in the ArbCom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Per Jossi. --Kbdank71 19:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Oppose. Sorry, we need less back room and more out in the open. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Oppose. Time for change. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Eóin (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Pass. Badger Drink (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose -- Nothing personal against somebody who's far from being the worst of the old bunch, but we need some new blood here. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. IronDuke 00:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Oppose. Three years, especially in Internet terms, is FOREVER. Burnout is inevitable. Another three? That's just too much. Dr. eXtreme 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Oppose  Marlith (Talk)  03:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. - auburnpilot talk 06:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Kusma (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Out with the old, in with the new. --DeLarge (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Gentgeen (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Kauffner (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Oppose. — Satori Son 15:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Oppose. I have the greatest respect for the work that Charles has done on the ArbCom to date, but I agree with the general sentiment that fresh blood is required. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Oppose. Splash - tk 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Achromatic (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Mww113 (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. R. Baley (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. I read the RfC everyone is referring to, and... Yipes. We need some Change We Can (try to) Believe In. Grandmasterka 05:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. New blood. Nothing personal. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Oppose per Friday and the pointless RFC. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Oppose dougweller (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Oppose Ramdrake (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose --gdaly7 (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Oppose, shewed a lack of imagination and an inability to engage with the community in some of the recent arbcom failures. DuncanHill (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Oppose. Arbcom needs new views. Kosebamse (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Oppose. Arbcom has gone from being a last-resort means of solving disputes, to an activist mess that is dragging the project down and attempting to take away the community's ability to decide what is and is not policy. Since he is one of the current arbcom members I can't help but hold the candidate partially responsible for that. That aside, anyone who wholeheartedly endorses the existing Arbcom's practice of secret trials is not suitable for this position of responsibility. Cynical (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Per the rest. Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      What you should have disclosed, Peter, is that you're sitebanned. Whether you and I agree or not, you have no standing to post here. Please stop socking and begone. DurovaCharge! 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
       Restoring vote. [2] Bishonen | talk 23:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Oppose Recent vote to desysop SlimVirgin was a travesty of justice.--MONGO 02:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Oppose [3] --Poeticbent talk 03:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Oppose per the slrubenstein RFC. Behavior described therein is an almost textbook case of a capricious and careless use of authority, and said description came from the user's own mouth. RayAYang (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Oppose --Stephen 20:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Oppose. Too inactive, uncommunicative and status quo...sorry, Charlie, but you gotz to go. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Oppose No way. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Wronkiew (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Oppose. In every way a candidate unworthy of the slot. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Oppose --VS talk 01:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Oppose Lar and GRBerry, with whom I do not often find myself at oods, are right to observe that one ought not to oppose a continuity candidate solely to express displeasure with the status quo where prospective replacements can be expected to be worse, and I resist here the temptation to cast a "throw the bums out" vote (I don't expect that I need say that I'm not calling Charles a "bum", but neither do I suppose that it can hurt to make that explicit) and undertake even to reexamine my reflexive opposition. On reconsideration, though, I am not persuaded that the candidate, even as he has, pace some supra, done a few really fine things as an arbitrator (I am, in fact, it happens, inclined, in consideration of CM's record on ArbCom, to think that some of the objections that led me, in spite of my sympathy with some of his views, to oppose his candidacy for the Board of Trustees two years ago were unfounded), is amongst those whom I should most like to see on the Committee going forward; BLPSE represents, as Seraphim says, a pernicious expansion of the role of the ArbCom, and a vote therefor cannot, in the end, be overlooked or overcome (in this my opposition to his BoT candidacy was right; I feared that qua trustee he'd advance at the Foundation level a BLP absolutism that did not enjoy the support of the communities [readers and editors] of the Foundation's projects or of the Foundation's donors and was inconsistent with the Foundation's mission, and Charles, I regret to say, went down that road as an arbitrator [in good part passively, I concede]). Joe 03:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Oppose - Shyam (T/C) 08:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Oppose - I'd like to see new editors on the Committee. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Oppose Awadewit (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  165. While thanking him for his work on ArbCom, it's best that ArbCom have new people and new ideas. —kurykh 02:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Oppose, with great thanks for his many years of service already. -- Samir 12:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Oppose - many concerns, fundamentally would be a liability rather than asset to ArbCom. WilyD 15:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Oppose I share many of the above concerns. Dougie WII (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Oppose Seems like a nice guy but evidently has a bit of a history. tgies (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Weak oppose I went back and forth on this one for days. I'm ultimately opposing because I feel he was too economical in his answers to many questions (in which he'd often make a comment that was relevant to the question without in any way actually answering it) and because I agree with SandyGeorgia that there's no need for him to hang on to Arb Comm when it would probably be best for him and the community to recharge with some more content work. I want to explicitly reject both the notion that we should keep him around for continuity (there are going to be eight continuing Arbs after this election without Charles Matthews) and that we should punt him for new blood (even if we kept Charles Matthews, there'd still be six spots for new blood). My thanks for doing a tough job for three years and for volunteering to do it again. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Oppose in the strongest possible way. After being forced to out myself due to incompetence of an arb using the checkuser function, and after waiting 3 months for a response, this candidate seems to think that receiving an answer from Arbcom on an important matter is not required. Arbcom members are not above the rest of us users, and his response on his talk page is indicative of everything that is wrong with the present Arbcom. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 13:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Oppose Gazimoff 13:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Alun (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Oppose Nothing personal, but I think we need a fresh Arbcom. Húsönd 21:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Oppose. Regrettably I was shocked and saddened by your actions in the Matthew Hoffman case and the Slrubenstein RfC and the committee generally in their handling of the SV-Lar and C68-SV-FM cases and their mismanagement of the whole Giano situation which allowed it to develop to the stage it has and so I am unable to support this candidacy. I also reject the notion of "continuity candidates" and I feel the community desperately needs new people on the committee (and preferably arbitrators who are open, transparent, communicative and in touch with the community). Thank you most sincerely for your time and effort over the years. Sarah 01:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Oppose. The candidate is even-tempered and presents many commendable qualities. Time committments have proven difficult for him in the past, though, and I fear these may recur. Xoloz (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Oppose Shenme (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Oppose for misunderstanding WP:NPOV and applying double standard in the cold fusion case. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Oppose Inclusionist (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Oppose JBsupreme (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  181. regretfully, fresh blood is required. E104421 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Oppose per SandyGeorgia. Kelly hi! 16:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Oppose. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Oppose Happy editing though! — xaosflux Talk 04:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Ev (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Oppose The Matthew Hoffman RfAr and the Slrubenstein RfC raise some major concerns about judgement which lead to this oppose. In many other cases, however, this candidate's input to discussions and decisions has been thoughtful and useful and I believe that deserves recognition. Orderinchaos 19:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Oppose. Time for a change. Willking1979 (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  189.   jj137 (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Oppose --Stux (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Oppose -- PseudoOne (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Charles_Matthews&oldid=1221636617"