This utility is for asking a question of a candidate. Editors who are eligible to vote may also ask a question, via one of the following methods:

1. Ask a general question: post a question on that link. All candidates will then be able to copy the question over to their Question page and will respond as they see fit.
2. Ask an individual question: pick the statement of the candidate you wish to pose the question to from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements, click the "Questions for the candidate" link, go to #Individual questions, and post the question there. Only this candidate will respond to that question.

Please keep questions succinct and relevant, and do make an effort to ensure you aren't overlapping a general question that has already been asked (even if the candidate hasn't yet copied it over to his or her individual question page), or indeed an individual question that has already been asked of this candidate.

Guidance for candidates: Candidates are requested to answer all questions that are put to them, including all general questions, to ensure the Community is as fully informed as it wishes to be before voting commences. You are, of course, welcome to refuse to answer a question if you feel uncomfortable doing so, but do remember that that may well result in a voter choosing to oppose you. If a question is a near-duplication of another, you are—of course—welcome to as an answer to that question simply refer the editor to your response to the similar question.

As a sitting arbitrator it's much easier for us to see what you'd do. It's all there in the archives, unless you've changed your mind since. Let me start with the really obvious question. The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman case: threat or menace? Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The very recent request in this matter makes it easier to answer here. (As a party to the case, I was recused, and so will continue, not answering there.) The very frank way in which User:Shoemaker's Holiday is now able to address his dreadful personal situation at the end of 2007 means I shall be able drop a self-imposed reticence about things I knew then.

Someone may be in love with Wikipedia or the idea of it, but everyone should (for heaven's sake) give priority to their mental health, college education, financial situation. Someone with bad problems on all three fronts should not (good grief) be seeking the arduous and stressful post of arbitrator here. Someone with serious depression needs to get treatment and whatever counselling they can; taking on the role of admin here dealing with controversial blocks is not what they need; and we should desysop admins not in a fit mental state, unless they volunteer another way. These matters are better discussed in private emails than on the Adminstrators' Noticeboard, by a factor of a hundred.

I see no need to tweak the status of the Matthew Hoffman case legalistically, here on the site. The right decision was taken, by the wrong route no doubt (that often happens in Arbitration cases). What interest of Wikipedia does this serve? If anyone thinks I'm unsympathetic to Shoemaker's Holiday's psychotherapeutic needs, that would be because they don't know me well in real life. (I have two kids at college myself and taught students at Cambridge in the 1980s. I know about depression, and well enough not to take a sufferer's analysis at face value. Mental illness kills - my officemate in 1979, Takuro Shintani, a brilliant mathematician, committed suicide in 1980.) I have no difficulty in reckoning all this in human terms, and I have been entirely miserable about being constrained by recusal and other factors to keep quiet about it. That doesn't mean I accept some other opinions I have heard about the business.

I'll add a note about User:Jehochman. His involvement didn't help matters, and I used harsh language about that. He and I have resolved our differences, it seems, and he is a candidate in these elections. I will endorse him if he wants that.

Charles Matthews (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite accurate as regards my health, which comes at least in part from both of us wanting to move on, and not really having discussed that aspect much. We've now gotten together and written a joint statement, which appears below above, and that probably says all that really needs said on the matter. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Matthew Hoffman; in retrospect, is there anything you would have done differently? How did your role as an Arbitrator influence that case?

The first point to address is this: was there justification for the ArbCom taking this case directly? Here is a recent opinion from an Arbitrator not elected at the time. That addresses the procedural point and whether there was enough evidence (the block at the centre of the case was the tip of an iceberg). At Wikipedia:Arbitration guide#prior steps it notes that unusually divisive admin-on-admin disputes may be accepted. The fact that I was an Arbitrator may have drawn the ArbCom's attention and speeded the process of acceptance, but I don't believe it decided the issue. (The ideal outcome would have been an emergency desysop and block to allow the admin in question to concentrate on exams; that is with hindsight, and was hardly possible in terms of what the community would wear. An omniscient and omnipotent ArbCom could have done that. See the first question for the "pastoral" view.)

Before the case was accepted, my role as Arbitrator was to get to the bottom of a block appeal. The admin didn't think to ask my locus standi for asking before it went public at AN. That discussion was the crux. The other admin involved in the block didn't stay long enough for us to argue through the position properly. That mattered greatly: if the whole thing was not to happen again, there had to be an adequate review. As it was, the blocking admin completely failed to see the point, saying that he wanted to retain some control and keep Matthew Hoffman on a short leash. It became clear in public that something was badly wrong, a verdict I'd given the ArbCom list in October. Therefore it was inevitable that a case would be brought to sort out the business by reviewing it.

After that I was recused and being an Arbitrator was nothing to do with it. What would I have done differently? I'd have stayed out of the Workshop.

I think some people are looking for "penance" (scare quotes: I'm not a Catholic, whatever people may think). You can read about what I did in December after leaving the site, as I did for a month. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was the "iceberg" referenced above the blocking admin's other administrator actions? If so, why didn't you bring those up in either your initial statement, evidence or the workshop? (Others did so.) This case went to a full proposed decision twelve hours after opening [1]. Do you know any other cases besides Durova that went from opening to proposed decision so fast?--chaser - t 22:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "iceberg" was the result of a patient review by other Arbitrators of all the admin's blocks. I addressed the problem(s) I saw: the admin wasn't showing adequate understanding of policy, and also (in private mails sent to me that have never been made public) was showing intense distress. There was no need to put all the evidence in my RFAR; just to get a case opened. Then, for example, there could be an injunction, or a postponement (possible, but remember that there was an election actually on, and two of the parties were standing). Whatever. Once a case was accepted, the ArbCom could do the best thing in the circumstances, possibly via Jimbo.

So once the case was accepted, UninvitedCompany took the view that it should be expedited, in a cut-down form. (From where I sit, that was right. The other parties would be neglected or admonished, but, fine, good enough.) He posted a proposed decision. The admin centrally involved (who always thought the case was about him) was not in a fit state to give clear evidence. A proposed decision is often edited in place, and UC's draft should be seen in that light, a draft. Other counsels prevailed: despite the clear indication I referenced above, that admin-admin quarrels may go to ArbCom directly if divisive enough (no question, here), the view was taken that an RfC had been "skipped". To me that sounds like caving in to pressure from people who don't know the policy, and don't know the personal situation well enough. (The former is a problem, and obviously the latter isn't, except that AGF means you do not automatically infer to the worst explanation.)

Many people submitted evidence, and I concentrated on the original scenario on AN. Because that was where the problem slipped from something easy to fix, to something very hard to address. Calling two admins acting as a double act, with poor SH the straight man assenting to some nonsense, a "consensus", is way off my map. I was incensed that this was supposed to be justice, and the election position, with SH saying he was a "tough but fair" blocker, didn't help. The "iceberg" settles that, I believe.

Cases that are quick, or slow. Look, you may be correct in implying that hasty is worse than tardy, since in judicial terms that makes sense. UC's view was mine, but I couldn't comment at that point. I was very concerned about SH, and would have advocated for his way if it had been proper to do so. I sat tight on the saddest mails I had from SH, that had ceased at the point where he asked not to hear back from me. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, you have asked me to drop discussion of you, and I have made every effort to do so. Please return the same courtesy, since I have agreed not to defend myself. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two people in the world who most want closure on this, I believe, you and I. We understand each other better than we did a short while ago. But the community sets the agenda on the hustings, not you and not me. I must continue to deal with these matters as honestly as I can. I think you will give me credit for not starting discussions about you, when many people felt I should be addressing them in detail. Now, as I stand on my record, I must account for myself. Win or lose, I shall wish to feel that the questions have been dealt with. This I think you must allow me. My reputation suffered a sort of premature credit crunch because many people assumed I had acted without good reason. It has never seemed so to me. But I kept quiet, as much as I could. Such is public life here: people pay lipservice to "assume good faith", but in practice people also prefer their own versions ahead of the facts. Scroll the questions here and I hope you will see honest attempts to pull the facts together. Your involvement makes it harder for me, in personal terms. But what other option do I have? Charles Matthews (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll e-mail you. Maybe we can arrange a short statement on it, and just use that if and when it ever comes up. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statement now at the top of the page. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only asking this of User:Jdforrester and User:Charles Matthews, as I think you're the only two returning candidates. (Not sure what to make of bishzilla's candidacy).

(Note that any candidate is welcome to copy this question to their questions page, and answer it.)

What's your feeling about reducing term length to 2 year terms? - jc37 11:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mildly negative. The bigger issue is having enough good people in place at any one time. From the point of view of that and continuity, you wouldn't reduce 3 to 2 for those who had the option in many cases where someone wanted it. If your definition of "good" is pleasing to the community, then you'd be for the change. I can't point to anything specific to justify changing.

I suppose it would be honest to comment that those who aim to do 3 have to pace themselves. But all arbitrators have to learn that, in a sense: burn-out is perhaps most common and quickest in those who mean very well but don't get to a good way of coping with the workload. And that's a personal discovery, typically. If elected with the community's trust, one has a duty to try to be useful for the elected term. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be obtuse in response, but your answer seems to contradict itself. If I am understanding you right, you suggest that 3 is preferrable in order to have "good people in place at any one time", and "continuity". But you also identify that burn-out is fairly common.

Could you clarify? And further, would you illustrate why you may feel that reduction is problematic for the former, and also not considered worthwhile for the latter? - jc37 15:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first point is quite easy. If Arbitrator A is well-suited to the work, and could manage 2 years or 3 years, the proposal puts A up for election after 2 years. A may not feel like standing again, or it might be a bad time for some transient real world reason. We could lose some good people's work that way.

Everyone knows that Arbitrators burn out, and Arbitrators know why, in general terms. But the point here is that if Arbitrator B is elected for 3, serves 2 and says "enough, enough", nothing is lost compared to the parallel universe in which B is elected for 2. In other words, assuming three-year Arbitrators retire after 1, 2 or 3 years, they get to choose which, while a two-year system reduces their options to retirement after 1 or 2. It's not as simple as that, but that was the answer to the point you were asking. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's not that simple. (For one thing, your argument would seem to equally apply if we were currently using 10 year terms, and someone was suggesting reducing it to 9.)

That said, you offer a valid enough personal perspective.

Thank you for clarifying your position. - jc37 16:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you name the hardest Arb case in which you had been involved? M.K. (talk) 11:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar is the all-time arbkiller case; I went on leave in that mid-August, not long after Newyorkbrad returned, because (as I indicated in my statement) I had real life issues (from end July), of the type no one finds easy to deal with, and they had to have priority. Of things that have been actual cases, I think this generated the highest levels of stress for arbitrators (because of the nature of the case) that I have known, close to the tolerance levels of normal folk. NYB wrote up a good account, which I largely agree with.

Every Giano case is very tough, because the committee is always divided and we get into loops arguing. Very hard to come to a decision is different from stressful as in "harrowing". There are other criteria, such as can come into play with drama that the community sends us with expectations that are tough to meet. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as you have mentioned me, please do not use me as an excuse for your and the Arbcom's ineptitude and a reason for continually making bad decisions. Yes, I remember Brad's return well - I fixed it; I'm glad that allowed you some time out. At least if a case concerns me, you don't all have to go into a protective huddle and keep things secret, which is not always the case is it? If you want to discuss the Slim Virgin and Lar case in full then do so, that would be a novel first, but don't make references if not. Finally, please don't mention me in future and you will not have me here. Show some common decency, for once, and I will return the complement. OK? A one word answer will do. Giano (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People here are holding me accountable for three years as Arbitrator. I wish to answer properly and fully. On my talk page you have posted something related, and I've answered there on matters concerning you. So I think we can agree to hold further discussions there. But I will not accept a gag.

I wrote the first draft of Slim Virgin-Lar (see my election statement). I was dealing with SlimVirgin, as she has made public elsewhere. I took leave shortly (days) after we had a working draft, so did not vote. There was more than one draft. I can say that much, I think. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not forgotten your comment of monumental stupidity, naivity and ignorance during the Eternal Equimox case. On that occasion you proved yourself to be in exactlty the same mould as Fred Bauder? Bauder I can accept was an aging old fool. You I hold completely responsible for turning a dedicated editor into someone determined t see Wikipedia reformed. You should not be allowed anywhere near an Arbitration committee. Are you still in that mould or have you respun yourself?

Finally, on your User page we see you in best politician style helping the infirm, very commendable, but did these people have any say in the using of their images to promote yourself and your goodly works? Giano (talk) 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Wikipedia is constantly changing, and so constantly may be reformed (steered into a better place). I wonder why you think I'd disagree with that? Of course, even accepting your view there, it would make me fallible, rather than a pariah, I think. And, considering the trust placed in me, I think that not voicing my concerns because there might be some snarling about it ... would be ducking the job. You do realise that your approach seems intimidatory? You have a sharp tongue. For that matter, so do I. I'm not allowed to forget the one occasion on which I showed that side of my personality. In that case I was holding admins to account. I wonder why, all considered, you believe that we are so different or necessarily at odds. I said what I thought without regard to consequences, both in that case and in the one at the head of this page. What would you have done in my situation? Charles Matthews (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for the Headway photos, I asked for and obtained all necessary permissions from the brain-injury survivors. The photos were by a staff member. Who do you think I am? Charles Matthews (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how brain damaged these unfortunate people are, or what they are capable of agreeing to. I can only know how I would feel if I were related to one of them and saw them plastered all over the internet, in an attempt to show one of Wikipedi's politicians, or inded any politician, in a good light. Now back to business. The first time I was even even mentioned in an Arbcase involving one of the biggest trolls who was vandalising Wikipedia's best content [2], you and Bauder wanted me blocked for a month, even your own colleagues were shocked at your stupidity and venom . Following the very satisfactory outcome of that case, (despite your best efforts) my first ever experience, as an observer of the machinations of a Matthews' involved Arbcom I vowed than I would change Wikipedia for the better, and that means ridding the Arbcom of you. I remember your supercilious faux French as though it were yesterday. How many other content editors, with lesser stamina than me has your arrogant stupidity driven off? I bet you don't even know the answer - do you? I am astounded you can even consider standing again. That was the moment I decided never again to allow people like you to have a say in the runing of this project! Now just answer the questions or withdraw. How many others have you treated like that? "I don't see Giano as a problem user..."
"...But I'll damn well turn him into one!" You must never be alowed near an Arbcom again - ever! Giano (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I were not here being held accountable, you wouldn't be able to say these things to and about me.

What you have to say amounts to animus and nasty sneers (you seemingly can't imagine how hurtful your comments on the people for whom I am a cognitive tutor are). The French translates, and I have done it for you now: I would feel the same about any others - les autres - who feel they can divide Wikipedians into "friends" and "foes". I think you are making my point for me. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am genuinely sorry if your pupils are hurt, perhaps introducing them into Wikipedia complete with their photographs was not a good idea. Now, for the second, if not third time: That was my first ever experience of any Arbcase (I had never even bothered to look at one before in 2 years of eediting) I was barely even involved, yet spurious "evidence" was given a spin by Bauder and leapt on hungrily by you. Not even by the lowly standards of the Arbcom could any of your "friends" bring themselves to support such a trolling, ridiculous, pointless and astounding proposal - just you! Now, it's a simple question, just answer it please ""I don't see Giano as a problem user."" so by inference "But I'll damn well turn him into one!" How many others have you treated like that? Did you imagine you were being witty and clever? Not so funny now is it? There that's three questions for you. We are here to determine if you are suitable to be elected to the Arbcom, perhaps you could be kind enough to assist us in this. Giano (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the Headway issue: it's a charity, and the local director seemed keen for me to post photos here, since they have to raise funds.

On your three ?s.

1. You are unique. (You knew that, of course.) There are other divisive people but they don't go about it with such gratuitous vitriol.
2. I'm quite witty at times, to some people . I try not to be in a way that is detrimental to ArbCom work. Voltaire is good at the speaking truth to power thing, of course, and as an ironist.
3. It never was. But I think your attack is visibly anaemic, and lacks irony. Just bludgeon work. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Matthews, may I interject here: I suggest you speak to that nice Bradly from New York, pronto, pronto, pronto; as fast as your little legs will carry you in fact. I have only just put down the telephone from him. Such an intelligent man, so full of advice and wisdom. I am delighted you do charity work, I do so much of it myself. However, of course, I already have a title so have no need of a knighthood, or in my case a Dameship, so like a pantomime I always think. Is poor Giano anaemic, I always think him rather hot blooded - I suppose the moral of a story is - never pick a fight unless you are sure of winning - and he does have a disconcerting habit of winning or fighting to the death, and he does seem to be very much alive. Perhaps I should stand myself, you men do seem rather too emotional. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 19:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Must I explain, lacking iron(-y) is anaemia? No, but I see stage one of the revolution, beat up verbally your list of foes, preferably saying things that are poorly founded but irrelevant. Stage 2? Go to a mail order catalogue for flat-pack tumbrils? Knitting needles? The fact is that this is an election, and Giano is certainly allowed to introduce single-issue politics into it. I'm quite entitled to point out that this is what he is doing, and the unique issue that interests him here is apparent. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency is good. You can have the last word scrollwise. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we will certainly look at your track record. Poorly founded, you jumped like a vulture from a great hight onto me, you didn't think you just jumped, now you sit here bleating poor little me, I am nice to sick people, don't be mean to me, vote for me. We could have done with some of your common charity a while ago - two years ago in fact. Now I shall not return to your page here - so post what feeble excuses and applolagies you like. You are transparent. Giano (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are questions I am putting to all candidates - apologies if they have already been asked you before.

1. Vested contributor. I'm not sure I understand this term, but the way one defines it seems also to define one's position on Wikipedia itself. On one definition, it is a contributor who feels that because of their contributions, they stand above the ordinary rule of law on the wiki. On the other definition, it is a user who makes strong and positive and lasting contributions to the project, but whose behaviour can be pointed and forthright, leading him or her to come into conflict with the - same might say - narrow-minded and absurd conception of civility that seems to rule on the project these days. Which definition do you prefer?
2. Reasonable behaviour Some have suggested that the criterion for civility should reflect the legal concept of what is 'reasonable' rather than anything else. What is your take on this?
3. Content contributors A closely connected question: it is often argued by those who defend the 'narrow concept' of civility above, that there is no harm in blocking or banning an expert contributor because the gap will soon be filled - there is a practically infinite supply of potential contributors to Medieval semantics, say, who will make good the missing expertise of the existing contributors on that subject who have been banned. Do you agree with that argument?
4. Banned users still editing. This question has been put by other users, but I ask it again, if that is all right. It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly. But that suggests there has been some sort of consensus in the community to allow them back. Which suggests in turn that either there was a clear fault in the policy that caused them to be banned, or that the policy had not been correctly implemented. In either case, should not these cases, however divisive they may be to the community, be taken to Arbcom?
5. Criterion for RFAR A connected question: given the limited time available to Arbcom, what criteria should there be for taking a case to RFAR. All the available evidence suggests the committee is slow to react or reply to requests. Would clear criteria for a case being submitted be of use? If so, what should those be?

I wish you the very best with your candidacy, I hope it goes the way you would like, but also that it goes the way that is ultimately of benefit to the community and the project. The Land Surveyor (talk) 10:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. No comment but The underlying problem is with any editor who cannot or will not treat other Wikipedians in good standing as colleagues from my talk page.
2. Legal concepts can clarify social concepts on Wikipedia; but they are good servants, bad masters.
3. I will go a long way to work with experts who have social problems on Wikipedia that can be resolved. See recent dispute in resolution for what this may take.
4. It is clearly absurd that a banned user should be secretly allowed back to edit quietly. Not absurd to me. Forgive, and forget in public.
5. A serious dispute with serious prior attempts at resolution can be taken to WP:RFAR. It will be worth the wait if it was really serious.

Charles Matthews (talk) 11:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. Note your numbering does not match the questions, and may be confusing to others. To a similar question about banned users, Rlseve replied "WP:BANNED does not allow editing by banned users. Period. By circumventing that, socking to get around that makes a mockery of our process and is a slap in the face to those who the banned user harmed, which is the whole community and the encyclopedia itself. Allowing this behavior is just asking for controversy. By applying this policy as it was meant to be avoids certain wiki drama and prevents the banned user from having only his good side seen in the spotlight. If an editor in good standing wants to reinstate those edits, that's okay, but allowing editing by banned users, all of whom have been given multiple chances before being banned, makes a mockery of our policy on banning. " Actually I tend to agree with him. That such a thing should happen suggests either the user should stay banned (policy is policy after all, and is our only protection against anarchy and the law of the frontier) or that we should be questioning the policy, or our implementation of it. I'm a little concerned about your candidacy for a role requires not just judgement, but judgment about policy. Could you address this concern? Thanks. The Land Surveyor (talk) 12:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BANNED says bans apply to the person and not the account, but that is not a policy page. It lies in a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia administration. So let's take that as the administrative position. From the point of view of sockpuppets, that tells you what you need to know. Alternate accounts are permitted under some circumstances. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for taking the time to answer these questions. The Land Surveyor (talk) 14:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, you were inactive/away from late August. Is this a clerk's mistake? Or is it my misunderstanding - I am assuming that this page records if arbitrators are active or not. In that case, how can you justify running for the next term, if you are unable to find time to serve in your present capacity? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 23:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned the reasons above: a big event in my life happened in late July, but I continued on with ArbCom work (since I was in fact in the middle of dealing with one side of SlimVirgin-Lar). By mid-August things had changed in several ways: we had formed a first view of the case, Newyorkbrad had returned, and I had seen that continuing was not a good idea for me or anyone. So I took leave, but worked on the site. My priorities had to be elsewhere for a couple of months. That is all. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Have you any criminal convictions?
2. If you were a vandal, how would you go about it?

No comment. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Hewitt

Hi Charles,

I have a question concerning Carl Hewitt, the American academic.

You were one of three editors who initiated an ArbCom case against Hewitt in November 2005 for alleged self-promotion; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt. The ArbCom placed him on probation in January 2006.

In 2007, as an unnamed source, you passed Hewitt's name and some of the allegations to a freelance reporter who wrote up a critical story about Hewitt for The Observer, published in December 2007. [3]

I find it worrying that a member of the ArbCom and the Foundation's communications committee would do something to cause an editor real-life problems just because he may have acted inappropriately on Wikipedia. I can see that going to the press might be justified in truly egregious cases, but the Carl Hewitt situation seemed pretty run-of-the-mill, even trivial. Yet it has left him with this very public stain on his character.

Could you explain your point of view on this, please? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 07:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hewitt case is particularly interesting, for reasons that are discussed more fully in "How Wikipedia Works", Chapter 2. But I was not a "source", strictly.

My history with Jenny Kleeman is largely but of course not completely public. We first met at a London meetup, and an article in the London Times resulted. It featured Jenny's three interviews with me, User:Angela and another British Wikipedian. This was good, positive publicity for the actual work of the site, early in 2007, and appeared around the time of the Essjay scandal. In other words good PR when it was needed: it was time consuming for me but worthwhile.

Jenny and I stayed in touch, unusually (as hackettes go she has charm ...) We wondered together what other stories could be found. She was interested in vandalism as an issue, so I suggested she interviewed User:Theresa Knott. This went very well, and Jenny wrote a very good article on Theresa as vandal-fighter, that appeared in the London Observer.

Still in the search for stories about aspects of Wikipedia that had not been properly reported in the mainstream media, I suggested one on sockpuppets. Jenny went somewhat investigative for this; she has done this before, having investigated New Labour from the inside for TV. In comparison there was not much to this one. The Observer said it wanted the story, but it ended on the spike, so no one outside the ArbCom list and possibly the CommCom was much wiser.

So now we are further on, and Jenny has written three stories, two of which were published and were very good press. Obviously we go over topics together: the progression is Wikipedians, vandals, socks. What next? So we get talking about problem users who are out of the ordinary. This is how we ended up with academics whose editing has had to be restricted. So, now we are at Carl Hewitt, who was restricted basically under WP:AUTO.

The situation from an academic point of view, and in just one of the areas of concern, was this. In the area of logic programming, known as the technology of fifth generation computing, the pioneer was Robert Kowalski, who coined the name. Kowalski is now emeritus at the University of London. Hewitt has a strong POV on the area (e.g. [4]). Kowalski had problems with Hewitt's Wikipedia editing of related articles in line with Hewitt's POV. (This would be under AUTO or COI for us; the ArbCom case was centred on a different area but the same issue, in particular Hewitt's pushing of his own actor model in quantum mechanics.) Kowalski was fed up enough to circulate criticism of Hewitt in a Logic Programming Newsletter, and ultimately to post a web page about it. The "public stain", as you put it, was out there already.

So, now, my involvement. We were discussing, Jenny and I, and I mentioned that there was Kowalski's side of the story, a webpage up about it, and Kowalski was in London. (Kowalski and I had corresponded before this, about Hewitt's POV pushing.) Therefore I used nothing that was not already out there to be researched on the Web, to point to the existence of a story. Certainly nothing in any way privileged. The rest goes like this: Jenny interviewed Kowalski, got a story, the Observer ran it but it was subbed in an excruciating way. Hewitt has complained.

Charles Matthews (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response.

The Observer story said that "senior academics" (plural) had concerns that Hewitt's editing had "rendered some entries in effect useless," [5] not just that one academic, Robert Kowalski, had complained, which probably wouldn't have been a story. I believe you were the source for the "senior academics" claim. Can you say who these senior academics were?

The important question is this: do you feel that it's appropriate for a member of the ArbCom to be tipping off reporters about an editor that same ArbCom member has helped to bring before the committee? Or appropriate that a member of the Wikimedia communications committee should be holding Wikipedians up for opprobrium in a mainstream newspaper? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responses:

(i) You may believe the "senior academics" thing came from me, but is that because you have seen the unsubbed story? (I haven't - it was not sent to me to check. Given that Jenny is a pro, that suggests to me that she was not citing me there.) I don't know, frankly, and "senior academics" sounds like something added in crude subediting. (Not the way academics talk, certainly.) As I say, the story wasn't run past me at all.

(ii) You are running ahead of the facts, a little, aren't you? I was of course a party to the Carl Hewitt case, which was brought before the ArbCom before I was elected. I was recused until it closed. At that point, I had an email from Carl Hewitt asking for his User page and User talk page to be deleted. This was unusual, but the ArbCom said fine, and I had made the point that we are not in the business of doing damage to the reputation of academics, site rules or not. There was an aftermath, and I'm not prepared to discuss it here. You can read Carl Hewitt's Google knol about it all, but basically, he (despite asking to vanish and being granted that) has a history subsequent to early 2006. He has posted quite inaccurate information there. If you believe that Carl Hewitt wishes to let the matter rest, you have the wrong man. He complains about the deletion of an article that was (in effect) an abstract of a recent paper of his. He is wrong on details. The fact is that he is a legitimate media story, as is William Connolley, an old friend of mine, whose ArbCom case appears in an Andrew Keen book (inaccurately).

Bottom line, I would have recommended Jenny look at it in any circumstances. It is the stand-out story of an academic in trouble on the site for POV pushing in his own interests. Citizendium is in denial about such a thing. Very interesting indeed. The "public interest" defence for tabloid journalism is weak, but here it's clear. That's why HWW sets Connolley and Hewitt side by side. WMC is an old friend, Hewitt I have had contact with only the once.

There is more, of course, but I reject your point. I can tell you much more in private. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not really answering the key question, which is why you feel it's appropriate for a member of the ArbCom and communications committee to be tipping off reporters in order to have negative material published about a Wikipedian. I'd have thought it was the job of the communications committee to head off these stories, not to be behind them. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have certainly rejected what you said. I have never been on the CommCom, so please fact-check first. Carl Hewitt is only in the loosest sense a Wikipedian, being a vanished problem editor. I did "tip off" Jenny Kleeman that there was a story. If the story was unfair it is the Observer that is liable, and can be sued in the UK, notorious for its libel system. The ArbCom pages are on the Web. The Kowalski material was first circulated to other academics in the field, and then when Hewitt persisted in being a royal pain by pushing his OR into Wikipedia, Kowalski put it on the Web. If you know academia - and I did for 15 years and more inhabit it - you will be able to deduce the status of Hewitt from that summary. The paper butchered the story, but it was a story about an edit war having repercussions in academia. Now we get to the point: if Hewitt is correct - if his OR is actually a better way of thinking about logic programming - then of course he is hailed as an innovator. His pushing it on WP was premature. A better story would have cast the matter in those terms: WP's policies resist innovation if it is too avant garde. We don't know if Hewitt is right or wrong, yet. If he is right, we see some limitations of the encyclopedia.

Anyway, the story is about an edit war and its interface with academia. You are framing it as "negative" when history doesn't yet reveal its verdict. WP sided with Kowalski and others: that was under content policies. On Hewitt's version we are just plain wrong. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you're not answering the question, so I won't keep pushing. Thank you for the responses you've given.

As for your relationship with the communications committee, you discussed this story with the committee prior to publication, and they either encouraged you or didn't stop you. The point is that it's an odd thing, in my view, for an ArbCom member to do. When editors come before the ArbCom, they have to feel assured that they're not going to end up in The Observer — at least not at the instigation of one of the arbitrators. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm unrepentant. Early 2006 the Hewitt case closed. Well over a year later I mention it as one of our "leading cases" to a reporter, point out the off-wiki source (of part of it) and someone authoritative to talk to. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poetlister

The other story you mentioned involvement in was the sockpuppet story, which I believe was a fairly positive story about Poetlister. You were a strong supporter of Poetlister and the other accounts, and even unblocked him in January 2006. Given that he was a middle-aged, male, British civil servant, and not six young women as he claimed — and that therefore you can't have met him or even spoken to him — can you say what contact you had with him, and what reason you had for believing that he was several young women and not one person sockpuppeting? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 18:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Will answer after dinner. I have never put my story on P in the public eye, so far] Charles Matthews (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you, Charles; enjoy your dinner. Perhaps now would be a good time to make your version of events public? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this may be long. It's about my rookie month on ArbCom, and a sockmaster running socks on WP, which I shall divide into two clusters, the P-cluster and the R-cluster (P for Poetlister, R for Runcorn - if there were more, which seems quite possible, they don't enter the story). There was the P-block taking out the P-cluster late 2005; the P-unblocks of early 2006 where I unblocked Poetlister (only - others did the rest), and the PR-block of 2007 where both clusters were blocked permanently. The R-cluster was started about 24 hours after the P-block and was therefore not noticed for around 18 months. That is for context: the sockmaster was continuously active on enWP from a day after the P-block to the PR-block.

I believe the story from January 2006 may be known only to three people in the world, in detail. In outline, it goes like this. I knew P on the site (I'll comment on the name later). I had unblock emails from P and another of the P-cluster (say something about that later too). I went to the blocking admin, David Gerard. David was a checkuser, I wasn't, so I asked about the evidence. He said it was equivocal (I shall comment on that in parenthesis later). On the basis of having checked a real name provided in the mail as a real person working in London, in a real job (British Rail, I recall), plausible for a recent maths graduate, I thought this wasn't so clearly socking. I decided to unblock and see what happened. (Of course the mail could have been spoofed, because we know now it was. After the PR-block I thought "identity theft", which isn't quite accurate I now believe.)

Now comes the difficult part. I was challenged on the unblock, and there was a triangular exchange. Because of the tone, and because I was a rookie, I said I would only continue if the discussion was moved to the ArbCom list. This didn't happen. I don't know why. It obviously should have happened that way. If CheckUser evidence is disputed or unclear, as it was here, the natural thing would be more eyeballs. I think I was right in my assessment: I couldn't interpret the evidence. This is the crux, anyway. I think these days we are more organised and the list discussion would have happened.

So instead - nothing. At the time of the PR-block it became clear that collectively the ArbCom list knew enough and could have assessed the position better, as a group. As I say, never happened that way. Just put it down to inexperience all round (certainly me, but I had no technical knowledge whatsoever). Here deal with Kelly Martin as an aside: after the PR-block she unhelpfully commented that the P-block checkuser evidence was in her view equivocal (which was by then massively irrelevant, though she had been involved in the P-block). If SlimVirgin thinks Kelly's comments were motivated by personal animus directed at her, my guess is that this is 100% correct.

So at this point there is some counterfactual history: a group of checkusers look at it all, and (with me on the sidelines) see that this was well-masked socking. The P-block is back. There will be an R-block at some point in the future of this timeline, because Runcorn was an abusive admin. The connection may never be made of the two clusters. Poetlister will be over at WR wreaking havoc. Runcorn likewise on WP. But in a parallel universe. I would have made a mistake that was corrected by better checkuser. As I say, this is more plausible than what happened.

Now, I must address points in the question. Did I advocate for the P-cluster to be unblocked? No, I have been misrepresented on that, I know. I never mentioned the others in the P-cluster, just Poetlister. The Poetlister account I knew and its edits were (apart from the episode triggering the P-block) not disruptive. Was I manipulated? Clearly - after all "assume good faith" means we all could be. Did Poetlister list poets? No, dammit, but I did. After maths on WP, I enjoyed contributing on poetry, learning as I went. I listed poets from anthologies. There were two possibilities here:

1. I was manipulated by a cunning and ingenious sockmaster who had named the clean, survivable account of a cluster of socks after what I did on the site, as a way of hitting a blind spot of some kind;
2. this is all self-flattering nonsense.

So 1 was true after all. I came round to this at the time of the PR-block, when there was evidence stacking up on the list.

So, to fill in the rest, there certainly were occasions when the P-unblocks were discussed on the ArbCom list, but absent fresh evidence (more accurately, fresh assessments of checkusers) it was all circular and about Occam's Razor. Which is roughly the argument for 2 above, isn't it? Now we know the answers, it is with hindsight that we can say that an email-spoofer and technically adept and ... well, the guy loves flattery so let's cut it short. As they say "you couldn't make it up". There is the glitch above which is like real history (learned this hanging out with D. T. Whiteside).

Filling in the rest - offwiki contacts were just emails, and not many of those (no, not even a Christmas card).

The Jenny Kleeman story. Yes, she contacted Poetlister and Runcorn, by email. "They" were interested, but stopped short of the offered chance to chat on the phone. She ended convinced from internal evidence (mails from P and from R had shown a leakage of information across) that this was the same person. I don't know what was in the story but it never saw the light of day.

What more can I add? I am as sorry as anyone else for the impact on your life of the person behind it all. I have given my "counterfactual" version. We don't get these things back again, and the moment passed to get a checkuser team on the case.

Charles Matthews (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should just add a footnote about when FloNight unblocked Poetlister. I abstained then explicitly - too much history with the topic. But I said I was against unblocking the whole P-cluster. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further footnote about User:Cato. When I say not many emails, I believe that I had essentially none (it is well over two years ago) from Poetlister after the unblock. So this takes us forward now to April 2008. At that point Cato, who was the same person as we now know, had gained status on WikiQuote. Cato became a checkuser there. Big story about that, but my part in it was this. Cato sent me a private mail asking about the evidence against Poetlister. This was obviously a fishing expedition, and I didn't know Cato, so I sent the ArbCom list a "who he?" message. I played along with Cato for a bit: not being a checkuser I wasn't discussing that evidence at all. It was the correlating things. After about four mails back and forward, Cato was angry with me. Good. Good because the angry Cato sounded precisely like Poetlister. I sent the ArbCom my suspicion. It seemed right or at least very plausible to others. So basically at this point ArbCom was sitting on the Cato situation and wondering what next. I had nothing further to do with that. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, could mislead about order of events. The "playing along" preceded the "who he?" Charles Matthews (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all these details, Charles. What I was wondering is why you unblocked Poetlister in January 2006. What made him write to you in the first place (why you, in particular?) and what made you believe that he was several young women, and not just one guy with sockpuppets? SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To see what Poetlister was up to, look at early contributions (now you need to go to User:Quillercouch to see them). The first article edit was to an anthology page I had started. The next day, it was the Palgrave page started by User:Deb, but which I had developed by "listing poets". So I don't think I'm making this up: Poetlister knew from the start that I was a "person of interest" to socking. I was written to as an admin known to P and to some extent cultivated. As I said, the content of the mails included a female name verifiable (by Google) as working in the right sort of place, right sort of job. I won't repeat it here, but we now know that it was a real person, and had been "borrowed" by the sockmaster. I never took any interest in the other P-cluster accounts. You made claims before that I did, but I'm at a loss to know where those came from, and how you could substantiate them. As I said at the outset, I have said little in public about P, and (I may be forgetting something from the intervening nearly three years but) I think I only ever discussed the matter in private emails (as said), or on the ArbCom list. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming the references to arbcom email for the record. The statements that Charles Matthews emailed Arbcom's mailing list a "who is he?" email in April, and added to the discussion a second email stating "[He] sounds a bit like Poetlister... I don't have a very good feeling about that", is accurate. Both emails form part of a thread on April 25 2008. At that early point it was unclear what if anything this might mean. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the present Arbcom supports checkusering on a whim with no justification? Why else has Gerard and Co not been fired? So my question: Why was the Arbcom's check user policy not enforced more quickly for Poetlister? Obviously me (a man - last time I looked) pretending to be a 98 year old nutty woman, clearly a spoof [6], was more of a threat than Poetlister (a man - of sorts) pretending to be several young girls. Or did the Arbcom fear Lady Catherine was a corrupting object of sexual desire? Whatever the answer, it's strange logic, perhaps you would care to elaborate. Giano (talk) 08:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the Poetlister business not better handled early 2006? It is actually a good question, thank you. The short answer would be because we were early on the learning curve with the CheckUser tool. There are quite a few points about this. Block appeals should anyway receive more attention.

• What is the relationship of CheckUser to other evidence? Other evidence can be circumstantial. In arguing that Poetlister and Runcorn are the same person, if you notice (as many didn't) that the Runcorn account was created very shortly after Poetlister was blocked, that is only circumstantial. But once the matter is on an evidenced-based footing (and Arbitration should be led by the evidence), it certainly counts. On the other hand, a large ISP like British Telecom in the UK, with dynamic IPs, provides on first sight rather weak evidence from a checkuser. Now we don't spend too much time on this, to cut out dickering. But there are other ways to get at it.
• Example: The Sussexman RFCU. I worked on this, and (taking out the lurid factors) this seems to be the closest case in my experience to the Poetlister case. Much less attention on it, of course. Here there was little problem with the general standard of editing. Poetlister, other things aside, was a good editor, but this cluster (S-cluster) were better, individually. Further common factor: a bee in the bonnet. For Poetlister it was Jews and prestige, for the S-cluster it was broadly Irish politics (to be more specific, a strong Unionist POV). You actually had experience of this, I recall.

So the way it went: some of the S-cluster was already blocked. The CheckUser evidence was already in and an analysis posted. BT was involved as ISP, as will often be the case in the UK. I had a block email asking me to look; I already knew the editor (from Hugh de Morville). Certainly one point is that with a high-quality editor, you do always look hard at two things: was CheckUser backed up by other factors? And what serves the interests of Wikipedia?

Well, in this case, it went very slowly, and I was at one point close to unblocking. Much emailing, discussions of borrowing of accounts in particular. Basically I had to do everything: analyse edits, chart activity, get another admin involved to try to get a full confession, and simple patience. In the end I asked for a real address for the supposed business email of one of the cluster. You are going to like this. I was given an exact London address for the business. It was shared with so many others that it must be an "address of convenience". And the only business correlating with the address and description was importing male virility products from Italy.

End of story. I replied that Citizendium was a good idea.

Something has been learned, certainly by me. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the commentary in others' "questions" to you pertains to situations where established, generally productive users had also engaged in clearly inappropriate conduct. This conduct came to your attention incidentally and you advocated meaningful Arbcom sanctions (deadminning, blocking) to make the point that the behaviour in question was not acceptable. Those disagreeing with you point to the fact that in those situations the users in question may not have received adequate feedback or warning as a preliminary step prior to formal sanctions. Is this an accurate assessment? If yes, how do you balance the principle "we need to make clear that X is just unacceptable" with the principle "Arbcom sanctions should be a last resort, when other attempts at community corrective guidance to this user have failed". I'm not trying to give you a hard time - just it strikes me this is the source of disconnect in some of the discussions, and your take on what Arbcom should do when these principles clash is an important element of the arbitration philosophy you will follow if re-elected. Martinp (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In 2006 and 2007 the ArbCom was taking about two cases a week - around 100 a year. In 2008 for various reasons there were many fewer (but some of the cases were very difficult). Anyway my three years saw well over 200 cases go by. Obviously the interest of the questions in some of the cases is to have a discussion of certain particularly high-profile cases. But these would represent 2% or 3% of all those cases. So, not a good sample if you want to generalise. The cases under discussion are case studies, not illustrations of a philosophy. Charles Matthews (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you feel about the way Jpgordon treated John Vandenburg [7] during the recent ArbCom case I was a party to? Did JP do or say the right thing? How would you have handled it? Cla68 (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen said it? Josh, an outgoing arb, is forthright. I have often disagreed with him as a colleague. This has not affected our relationship, I believe; and I could give an excellent example to back that up. I wouldn't have said what Josh said, and certainly not in the way he said it. Given the timing I also have plenty of background and would know where tension was arising around the case in question. It is all regrettable. Cases can be costly in human terms. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not getting this in the general questions.

In your view, how does the notion of scientific consensus relate to the Wikipedia notion of NPOV? Is science a point of view, or is it a way of finding the neutral point of view? Does it differ based on the topic of the article? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Imagine a situation where there are competing scientific theories at a moment in time, say A, B, C. Maybe A says light is particles, B says light is a wave, and C says light is a wavicle. At a given moment of time you might be able to describe scientific consensus as some sort of pie chart: say 80% A, 15% B, and 5% C, circa 1920, for purposes of argument. We have a problem: in the textbooks B is still dominant, but for researchers you'd say A is the plausible theory since the photoelectric effect. How do we report this in Wikipedia? Points to notice:

• C, now accepted, is still some sort of fringe theory (no pun intended), absent later work;
• B is what you'd read about in great detail (interference fringes etc.) in your college texts;
• A (I believe) is what Bohr would have said must be right, as a model at small scales.

So, we are supposed to represent this all fairly. NB and importantly:

• The pie chart for a neutral article on light at that date, representing how much coverage of A, B, and C respectively, would not be the same as 80-15-5 at all.

In other words the coverage of B, classical wave theory of light, would be represented in a much larger way in the article than the proportion of experts saying it was the complete, correct theory would suggest at that date. To represent the controversy fairly, we should try to do this: note that the well-established theory has solid support, but that experts still feel it has theoretical weaknesses, and detail those.

I hope that helps. I think the point here I'm trying to make is that the "pie chart" is only a vague guide anyway: if 95% of scientists in one field believe X, that doesn't constrain our article to be 95% about X, the consensus view. In some cases that will be right; it depends on the dissenting view or views, and its support, as calibrated by the need to give an exposition in line with NPOV. If dissent is simply something like "dissenters believe experiment E does not show what it is more widely agreed to show", this can be quickly treated as long as the dissenting view is about something clearcut.

Science for us is much more a well-understood methodology than a point of view. We are supposed to give snapshots of it, in action, at the time an article is written or revised. It obviously does depend at least on the topic area: some areas have billions of dollars spent on them, and have huge numbers of peer-reviewed publications as reliable, but not infallible, sources. Other areas are neglected in comparison. You always have to go back to the available high-class information and vet it, in the end.

Charles Matthews (talk) 10:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlimVirgin has asked you questions above about your passing information about Carl Hewitt to a British reporter, who published it in The Observer. I have not yet followed it closely enough to know how justified her concerns are. But in addition to the public exchange above, I understand that you and she have been recently engaged in a hostile email correspondence over the same issue. To me, that is an indication that you should have recused from the very recent case where you have just voted to desysop her. Can you state the conditions under which you would feel obliged to recuse, and why you did not feel that way in this case? And do you feel that off-wiki disputes (such as private email squabbles) are less a reason for recusal than public unpleasantness on talk pages, seen by everyone? ElinorD (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair question in its way. I terminated the email exchange formally before participating in the case. I asked for further mails only through Jimmy Wales. Since SlimVirgin ignored two requests to terminate and then sent a further mail through Jimmy Wales which added nothing she hadn't said before, I sent her yesterday a comprehensive mail covering 29 points, but asking that she stop mailing me the same stuff. "Hostile" is fair enough for such a proceeding, I suppose; but on her side. You can see further up that she believes she can do the Jeremy Paxman thing. It's called "nuisance mail", actually, when the recipient asks you to stop and you don't.

As she herself concedes, I started the exchange. I was informing her of something that had just come up, namely the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) judgement on Carl Hewitt's complaint to them. On three major points the PCC has found against Hewitt. This is not a libel proceeding, I should add, but the complaint of Hewitt against The Observer has now been properly heard. The PCC hasn't yet updated its website. I was doing a few things, namely passing to SlimVirgin the highly relevant news, putting her in touch with Jenny Kleeman who is in a position to clarify all this, and passing on the code number of the case. All in a spirit of co-operation with a colleague. The PCC is in a much better position to answer on all this, having spent some months before concluding there is nothing to the complaint that stands up. My position is that when we have fuller details SlimVirgin and I can go over the same ground. At present I have nothing more to add. That's it.

There is nothing to recuse about here. The email exchange was taking on a sour tone so I said "here we stop". By the way, it sounds as if you have some version of this, but I don't know where from. I'm certainly glad to be able to deal with rumours as they crop up. I can comment more on Hewitt, but essentially if you go over to Reliability of Wikipedia you can see someone is citing his knol, and you can see why it is nonsense. He moves from saying I was one of the "senior academics" (see Slim's question) to pointing out that I didn't get tenure at Cambridge and therefore failed to become one. Self-refuting. I wish someone else could reason with SlimVirgin on this point - I've had enough to pointing out the fallacy.

Generally, I repeat this point: "recuse" is a reflexive verb not a transitive verb. Arbitrators have to get used to the idea that others are going to try to "recuse" them. Nothing to hide, in my case. I voted for the compromise that the bulk of the Committee lined up with. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional discussion regarding this question and its response may be found on the candidate's discussion page, here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add more about Hewitt, since I think I can clarify the issue. Here is what Jenny Kleeman mailed me on 21 November about the PCC:

So taking these in reverse order, and trying to get at Hewitt's side: he seems not only to have claimed that the Kowalski quote was fabricated, but that the Kleeman interview of Kowalski never happened. Jenny to me on 29 September, after I'd asked her about Hewitt's knol:

My reply, same day:

That related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logical necessity of inconsistency.

Jenny to me, same day:

NB that the knol, Hewitt's public account, seems to get refactored, so that the article deletion claim may no longer be there. That is why the complaint, a fixed point, matters. Back to 18 November, Jenny in Turkey at the time, to me:

My understanding, therefore, is like this. Hewitt was claiming that the Kowalski quote was fabricated, but until the PCC hearing was closed, it would have been improper for me to discuss the details with Jenny or anyone. We'll see when more is posted by the PCC, how much Hewitt was actually claiming to them (the knol is like an article on WP, you have to talk about a given version from the history). They have dealt with the fabrication claim by saying there is nothing in the idea that Jenny simply made up what Kowalski said.

Point two: am I or am I not an "academic"? I'm not paid to work in academia, any more. The PCC says I'm an academic in the sense that a footballer retired at 35, my age when denied tenure, can be described as a "footballer". OK, their working opinion.

The key point is what SlimVirgin was putting centrally: "senior academics", two words that appeared in a badly-edited 2007 Observer article about Hewitt, who has not openly edited WP since in early 2006 being made subject to an editing restriction, and asking to vanish. The PCC ruled that Hewitt's editing, was, in the view of senior academics, detrimental to WP articles in relevant topics. Hewitt claims that "senior academics" must refer to me. He discounts Kowalski, since he says Kleeman made up the quote. He discounts all others who might have had a similar opinion. In Hewitt's view, Charles Matthews must be the "senior academics". Well, the PCC hasn't accepted that the "senior academics" were this sort of figment. (Case number given above.) Charles Matthews (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granted all that, I can deal quickly with the rest. Hewitt's knol is a rant, but one should note that it has two apparent aims. The first is a general poisoning of the wells about Wikipedia and academia. The second is deflection: an editing restriction on autobiographical material is not in any sense a "ban". Hewitt doesn't really admit his issues with POV pushing. Other academics have complained. He uses all means at his disposal to attract attention away from the reason Arbitration happened in the first place.

I wrote to SlimVirgin pointing out the (new to me and recent) info now out on the PCC complaint. I was appalled to find her reiterating things Hewitt himself might have written: here is somebody who needs no help from us, and wishes us ill. When she became shouty about it, I called off the emailing. That's it. Hardly an example of hostility on my part, to her. I am of course deeply worried any admin who swallows Hewitt's tripe as truth, but that is nothing personal, just a wish to get the true story understood. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to nationalist edit warring and edit warriors, you replied: We tried outsourcing. All successful POV-pushing is a problem. The ArbCom could start taking more notice of SPA as a factor. I think I get it (outsourcing = asking uninvolved admins to enforce?). 1. Is this in fact what you meant by outsourcing? 2. Is your overall assessment that we have been mostly unsuccessful controlling this problem? completely unsuccessful? something else? and need to treat it differently than we have? or the same way modified? and 3. Can you flesh out, at least a bit, what "start taking more notice of SPA" might mean?

Thank you, and good luck. Jd2718 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By outsourcing I meant WP:WGR, the working group that was set up earlier in the year to get a fresh approach in this area. I didn't just mean more enforcement, though to judge by the Piotrus2 case that would be desirable. Enforcement is typically patchy, it seems. OK, the ArbCom are magistrates, not police, and enforcement in some sense is a function of where admins collectively are looking.

SPA = single purpose account. This currently is simply a notion we use. It isn't part of policy in any way that accounts should spread themselves widely over the encyclopedia. It is a concept of dispute resolution, used to judge whether someone is really interested in building a reference work, or is just concerned to engage on a few topics with perceived opponents. There is no "qualification" for getting involved in the most controversial topics. And it would be controversial to require any number or spread of edits. But some more subtle policy idea could perhaps help. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking all candidates the following additional questions:

1. How many arbitrators do you think Wikipedia should have?

   15 as now is fine, meaning a maximum of 8 votes are needed to pass. More votes than that wouldn't help.

2. How long do you think an arbitrator's term should be?

   A simple two years would be fine, but see above for counters to changing 3-2-1.

3. What's your opinion about editors lobbying on arbitrators' user talk pages in order to influence their case decisions?

   It's OK, but obviously should be polite, mostly about pointing out anything the arb might have missed, and should not go on too long.

4. Do you think it is a good idea to let anyone edit Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?

   It is our way. It's OK.

5. Do you think it is appropriate for ArbCom members to make substantial edits to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?

   Certainly. They are well-informed community members.

6. Do you think only ArbCom members should be allowed to edit Wikipedia:Arbitration policy?

   Makes sense that only those with an inside view should make substantial changes to operations. The remit? The community as a whole could narrow or expand that, given consensus.

7. Do you think it is a requirement that subjects must be "notable" in order for there to be a Wikipedia article about them? If so, how does one determine if a subject is "notable"?

   "Notability" in general is a broken concept - always has been. It is the best one-word notion we have. Real notability should be sufficient for an article, but making it necessary is problematic.

8. Do you think the statement "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge" (which appears on the WMF's donation page) conflicts with the policy "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" or with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Why or why not?

   With sum = summation or summary it is OK. Obviously you can't replace "information" by "data".

9. Imagine a situation where an editor consistently nominates 50 articles from the same category for deletion every day with a nearly identical reason for deletion. Other editors object to this, and several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, but no user RFC is filed. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?

   Why no RfC? This might be good cleaning-up of content, just a little too harsh. An RfC for feedback is a good idea.

10. Considering the following scenario: An editor nominates all 17,000+ articles in Category:Asteroids for deletion at once and bundles them in a single AFD, with the reason for deletion "Asteroidcruft." The AFD is closed early by an admin, and the admin tells the editor not to bundle so many articles together in a single AFD. The next day, the editor nominates 200 asteroid articles for deletion using an automated tool, with the reason for deletion for each being "Asteroidcruft." A second editor, who is a member of WikiProject Astronomical objects, is checking their watchlist and sees many asteroid articles being nominated for deletion. The WikiProject member asks the first editor on the first editor's talk page to please stop nominating asteroid articles for deletion. The first editor tells the WikiProject member that he will not stop until every asteroid article is deleted from Wikipedia. The WikiProject member starts a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents about the situation, and later starts a thread at WT:ASTRO about the ANI thread. WikiProject members show up to the AFDs and argue to keep in all of them. At the ANI thread, several WikiProject members and several editors feel that the first editor is being disruptive. A second admin blocks the first editor for disruption, but asks for a review of the block at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. At AN, several admins think the first editor is being disruptive, but several admins agree with what the first editor is doing, and several editors express their disdain for the WikiProject in general. A third admin unblocks the first editor, and the first editor continues to nominate 200 asteroid articles for deletion every day. Several threads at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents follow, some initiated by members of WikiProject Astronomical objects, some initiated by editors, but no user RFC is filed on the first editor. The first editor never comments at AN/I, but replies again and again on their user talk page that they feel that Wikipedia should not have any articles on individual asteroids. Is this is a content dispute or a behavioral dispute? If someone made a request for arbitration about the situation, would you likely accept or reject the case?

    Comes under "Wikipedia is not a battleground"? I'd probably feel Arbitration could help out here.

11. Wikipedia is a non-profit wiki and Wikia is a for-profit wiki and both were founded in part by Jimbo Wales. Do you think Wikipedia editors should be required to publicly disclose if they are employees/shareholders/editors of Wikia? Do you think Jimbo Wales has the power to make them do so? Do you think the arbitration committee has the power to make them do so?

    No, thrice. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time, and good luck with your candidacy. --Pixelface (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ultraexactzz

Good luck with your candidacy. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. If you had to describe the ideal role of an Arbitrator in one word, what would that word be?

   Lowcentreofgravity. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Giggy

1. a/s/l?

2. What is your opinion on the apparent divide in editors who focus primarily in mainspace, and those who focus primarily in project space? What would you do to help ease conflicts that come as a result of clashes between these editors? This is a deliberately open ended question.

3. What is your opinion on the mass reversion of useful mainspace edits made by banned users?

4. Pick one arbitration case opened in the last year that contains a final decision with which you disagree. How do you think the case should have been handled, what different proposals would you have made, etc.? Again, somewhat open ended.

5. Please select and describe what you consider to be your five "best" contributions to Wikipedia.

6. Will you be voting in this year's arbcom elections? Why/why not?

Thank you and good luck. Giggy (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) Questions added via the global question list.[reply]

1. 54, male, in UK.
2. It's a division of labour. Wikipedia has always accepted the division of labour on the site (and software development, etc.) You can check my edits are very largely in mainspace. I don't believe I come into conflict with anyone on the basis of where they edit, rather than how. It seems an invalid reason for a fight. Conflicts need to be moved into conflict resolution: what other answer do you expect?
3. It certainly might not be appropriate or practical, depending on the case.
4. Pass.
5. Five areas follow.
   1. In mathematics, I started 500 articles early in my life here: background and genesis of topos theory and Italian school of algebraic geometry are a couple I still like.
   2. Finishing off the list of current Italian dioceses, after work on ancient and current French dioceses. There is payoff when you get to adding succession boxes, e.g. to Pope Julius II. Also individual bishops can be fascinating general history: the reason Wikipedia is great is that I can research and add interesting articles like Philip of Dreux, as I find the topic.
   3. Writing John Dury and many related articles on seventeenth century history. Dury was a sidekick of Samuel Hartlib, and I upgraded Hartlib's article not long ago. A recent article on Ramism (related topic) was an intense job of getting a vague area into encyclopedic form.
   4. Another period I like is 1918 to 1939 - so many loose ends, forlorn hopes, odd corners to sort out. For example I upgraded John Middleton Murry and started Rolf Gardiner.
   5. I drafted WP:COI with User:SlimVirgin, at a point where it was very timely. This is my one excursion into policy.
6. No, a convention that sitting arbitrators don't having grown up. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Sarcasticidealist

I'm repeating a couple of questions I asked on User:MBisanz's excellent voter guides; those of you who answered there can feel free to copy and paste your answers from there.

1. To what extent do you believe that Wikipedia policy is or should be binding and prescriptive?

2. What is your view of the presence of former Arbitrators on the main Arb Comm mailing list?

3. At least one candidate has committed to being "open to recall" in much the same way as administrators in Category:Administrators open to recall. What is your view of the wisdom of this, and do you see yourself making a comparable commitment?

I echo both the thanks and the best wishes of the above questioners.

1. There is a lot more to reading and applying policy than that. You can assume that "normally" is tacit in a great deal of it. The hidden assumption that policies are drafted like legal documents is wrong. There is the tacit "policies are not drafted like legal documents" therefore, which we express as "no wikilawyering". And then there is no need to enforce all aspects of policy.
2. Net plus. Remember that when, for example, checkuser appointments are made, the more people vetting the safer the process will be.
3. Good decisions may be unpopular at the time, and look better when the dust has settled. No, I don't think this is a useful pledge. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Celarnor

1. What limits, if any, do you perceive in the ability of the Committee to write remedies with effects beyond those involved in a given case (.e,g, types other than those outlined in Arbitration policy, having an effect beyond "User X is subject to penalty/restriction Y")?
3. What, if any, non-written obligations do you believe a member of the Committee has outside of their immediate duties on the committee?

1. If a remedy is also in effect passed as a Principle, it is an indication of how a future case on the same general topic would go. So by that mechanism ("no one should do A" as well as "X shouldn't do A") it can be done.
2. "Duties": in the style of Noël Coward's "learn your lines and don't bump into the other actors", it is "go and vote, and have something to contribute in discussions". Apart from that, there is the other stuff I mentioned in my statement. I'm not sure about "obligations". There isn't a set way to do the job. Since the ArbCom mailing list is a clearing house, one should drop information that comes one's way into it. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from LessHeard vanU

This follows from the various attempts this year at addressing the means by which Administrators can be desysopped, none of which has gained sufficient traction.

1. Given that the ArbCom already has the powers to investigate the conduct of Administrators, and to decide to withdraw access to the sysop flags, will you be willing to more readily accept Requests for Arbitration in respect of concerns raised generally on an administrators use of their tools than that has apparently been the case previously. Would you indeed promote the more frequent acceptance of such cases. If not, why not? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for considering the above, and all the best in your endeavour.

All such cases are considered on their merits. The problem can be that diffs are provided going back many months, not evidencing a current concern. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carnildo

1. How many hours a week do you expect to spend on arbitration-related activities?

I asked early 2006 and was told "spend 30 minutes a day". There was a lot less email to read, then. But you can be a good Arbitrator on 3 to 4 hours a week, I think, if you know where to place that effort. An even pace is good, but I haven't worked at an even pace, rather given certain things priority. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WilyD

1. During the Sarah Palin protection wheel war, a very contentious point was whether it was appropriate for admins to take actions against other admins for misuse of their admin tools (or possibly just generally). While the block I issued in that case became moot when MBisanz filed for arbitration, similar situations are bound to crop up. So I ask two related points:

1. Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over a regular editing issue? Are there any special considerations? If it is not appropriate, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?
2. Is it appropriate for an admin to block another admin over misuse of their administrative tools? If so, when? If not, what kind of sanctions would you issue as an arbitrator?

Admins disagreeing with other admins always have a primary duty to resolve it by direct negotiation. I'm a hawk on this point. With 1000+ admins, it is very egoistical to assume your particular beef with another admin is an exception. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from PhilKnight

1. In what situations would you recuse yourself? Obviously, I'm not asking for a generic answer, but instead I'm genuinely interested in what subject areas, or conflicts involving which users, you would recuse yourself. PhilKnight (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Imagine there is a case involving an editor who had been pushing a scientific racist viewpoint, and then another editor describes them as racist. Then an uninvolved admin blocks the second editor for a personal attack. How should this be handled?

1. Apart from as a party, I recused on the case of Jossi where I'd given an interview on the matter. That was to do with propriety. Recusal is a personal matter, and others are too quick to demand it.
2. Clarification of intention can remove the imputation of a personal attack. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Thatcher

1. The Arbitration Committee handles a wide variety of complex situations on the private mailing list, some presenting moral and ethical dilemmas that never come to the full attention of the wider community. How would you handle some of these situations?

A. A checkuser forwards to the Arbcom mailing list evidence that a large number of vandal accounts share a single IP address and a single user agent with an administrator. After internal discussion, the IP address is blocked Anon only, ACB, under the theory that since the IP is a workplace, it might be shared, but that if the admin is the vandal, he will "get the hint." The admin takes a short unannounced hiatus, then returns as if nothing had happened. Right call or wrong call and why? Does the kind of vandalism make a difference?

Too hard for me. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B. A checkuser who is an active editor of a particular article or topic sees a new user acting suspiciously like a previously banned user. What should the checkuser do?

(a) Run the check himself. After all, he is the most familiar with the banned user's editing patterns, and if the account turns out to be an unrelated editor, there is no privacy violation as long as the checkuser does not discuss the findings with anyone.

(b) Ask an uninvolved checkuser to evaluate the need for a check, and then run the check if needed. Avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is worth the delay and inconvenience.

(c) Write your own answer.

I'm not a checkuser. If ever I was, I would try to find out the standard approach and follow it. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. User:Smith is banned after a long series of behavioral problems including harassment of User:Jones, which Smith continues on his personal blog. A checkuser presents evidence that Smith has returned as User:Smythe. His editing is without incident and he is avoiding Jones. The Committee decides to ignore the Smythe account. Some time later, Smith emails the Committee, disclosing the Smythe account and pointing out Smythe's good edits, and asking to be unbanned. However, he has continued to post negative comments about Jones on his blog, and Jones objects to allowing Smith to edit under any account name. What should be done?

You go back to Smith and ask what gives? Are you a Wikipedian? Charles Matthews (talk) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. In private discussions about a pending arbitration case, there is a split between a group of Arbitrators who want strong sanctions and a group that want mild or no sanctions. Is it better to propose a middle of the road decision that everyone can sort of support, or to write a proposed decision with both the mild and severe remedies and have an open vote? What should happen if neither the mild nor severe remedy gets a majority? Does public disagreement improve or impair the Committee's credibility?

The 1, 1a, 1b approach is the easy way out. If writing up a case, you leave one out that should be there, someone else can add it. If you put in too much, there can be the situation where nothing actually passes. So it better to add alternates only when it is clear that there are at least two views. Forget about public disgreement either way: work to do. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Just as there are consequences for taking action as an Arbitrator, there are consequences for inaction. The mailing list receives 70-100 messages per week. I do not believe it is humanly possible for an editor to remain fully engaged in whatever aspects of Wikipedia they currently enjoy, and also be fully engaged in the business of the Arbitration Committee. If you do not fully engage in the mailing list, you might miss a legitimate ban appeal, or the chance to comment on an important private matter, or an important policy discussion. If you skip an Arbitration case or two in order to spend time writing articles, you might later discover that the decision had provisions you find incorrect or objectionable. How will you balance your regular wiki-work with participation on Arbcom? If you opt out of some matters to avoid having all your time consumed by Arbcom, what will you do if those matters are resolved in an unsatisfactory matter?

Your obligation is to do as much as you can of really helpful Arbitration work, not to beat yourself up. You are going to do that by getting a life-balance right, not any other way. You could start by trying to figure what is getting ignored, and see if there is a niche. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4. Have you disclosed your real name and employer? If not, are you prepared to have that information involuntarily disclosed? Would such involuntary disclosure impact your service on the Arbitration Committee?

Editing under my real name. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newyorkbrad

1. Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:

(A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;

(B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;

(C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on WP:RfAR) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;

(D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users on the arbitrators' mailing list;

(E) Drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;

(F) Running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;

(G) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).

I have done A (only recently), the rest bar F, and under G talking and mediating with some awkward folk, some publicity work. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Please review the current arbitration policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, as well as the proposed updating and revision of the policy that I posted a few weeks ago (based in part on some input from the ArbCom RfC over the summer) at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating and the later draft posted by arbitrator FT2 at Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating/FT2. Do you have any comments on the proposed changes? Are there any changes you would support to the policy, or to ArbCom's current procedures, beyond those proposed there?

Don't make recusal a lawyer-like thing. It is not jury selection. We don't know people's actual interests, just perhaps what they edit on, or choose to disclose. I'm a Deadhead but don't edit related articles. Don't get us into a system that would defeat its own purpose. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Although the committee was quite busy when I joined it in January, and there have been a few high-profile "mega" cases in the past few months, in general the Arbitration Committee's caseload has been lower during the past three months or so than at any time since the committee was created in 2004. Please share any thoughts you have on this situation, including its causes and whether it is a good or bad thing.

It is surely because admins deal with much disruption now (possibly in too authoritarian a way, sometimes, but mostly because vandals and trolls today haven't learned anything new to do). So that much is being settled lower down in the system. People may despair (wrongly) of getting justice, but most requests fail because of lack of previous efforts (i.e. weren't serious attempts). The major cases are like freak events. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Mailer Diablo

1. Say you are given the power to implement or abolish one policy on Wikipedia by fiat, with immediate effect, no questions asked. What would that be?

2. Hence or otherwise (of Q1), should ArbCom be in the business of creating new policy, amend an existing policy, or abolish any policy as a result of any outcome of a case? If so, should the community be consulted on such matters beforehand?

3. Should IRC fall under the jurisdiction of ArbCom? If so, how do you think it should be governed?^(AC/IRC)

4. "Change We Need" and "The same old Washington that's broken" is a favourite mantra for candidates running for office, and that includes this election. Would you, and how would you reform ArbCom? And how can editors be sure that you will stay true to your promise?

1. No current ideas. (Well, tidy userspace guidelines as in a motion I suggested recently.)
2. Some say that this is a black-and-white thing (ArbCom cannot). Others say that this is a grey area. The answer probably lies somewhere in between. (With apologies to Lord Melbourne.) Look, my country doesn't have a written constitution. Constitutional issues come up and matter, but that is different to saying there is a written constitution here, separation of powers and all, or should be.
3. No, ArbCom shouldn't be in charge of off-wiki forums. The remit is editor behaviour on the site.
4. I've posed issues in my statement. I've suggested an elected Secretary above. I think we should have an email form for routine mails to ArbCom, making the inbox handling more standard (developer time needed). I think we should stay with self-assigning work, just manage it a little better. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Rschen7754

Arbcom questions 2008 - these will be asked at the December 2008 elections and scored on a hidden rubric, which will determine my level of support.

Note that some of the questions were recycled from 2007, but have been trimmed down. I will evaluate these and a few other characteristics based on a (private) rubric to determine my level of support.

1. What is your view on the length of time that it took for the case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2?
2. a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
3. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
4. Does canvassing include a) project newsletters or other forms of communication or b) IRC?
5. a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
6. An editor has made few to no productive edits to articles on Wikipedia. This user has not broken policies per se, but is hard to deal with, giving "smart aleck" remarks, ignoring consensus, ignoring what administrators tell them, etc. What are your views on this situation?
7. An editor does not have the intelligence required to edit Wikipedia. (does not understand English, doesn't get how to edit, etc.) What should be done in this situation?
8. a) What justifies a community ban? b) Do the circumstances described in questions #5-7 justify a community ban?
9. (This question will be scored only on the basis of your honestly completing it, regardless of the answer) What are the current problems with the Wikipedia community?

Thank you. Rschen7754 (T C) 06:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Long, but it mattered only to a few people, really.
2. No set purpose. WikiProjects can provide models, but have no direct enforcement powers.
3. No one has any rights here. There are only permissions, and these should be used to forward the mission.
4. Mostly not, I guess. This would be about meatpuppetry? There would only be a duck test for that, and other things.
5. Vandalism is by definition malicious rather than clueless. All tools and powers can be used to help the project.
6. Mostly "ignore".
7. Knowledge of English defines intelligence? WP:BITE followed by warning notes to user talk.
8. No universal criterion. We have a vague definition of "disruption" but don't expect anything precise.
9. The current problems are different in detail, but the same in kind, as always have been there. It is hard to change things, and there are more and more rules and specific guidelines. You should ask what the impact is on the mission, not whether this is utopia. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Maxim

1. What is your stance on wheel-warring? What do you define as wheel-warring? As an arbitrator, how would you respond to a case surrounding a wheel war?
2. What is your opinion on letting the community desysop admins?
3. What is your opinion on adminbots? The bot policy was updated to allow adminbots to bypass RfA, going only through BRfA, and fully-automated unapproved adminbots were required to be approved via BRfA. What is your opinion on handling unapproved adminbots? What is your general opinion on high-speed admin tools, which are not fully automated (like Twinkle)?

1. My views on wheel-warring have hardened over time. Now I would start with 0RR for all admin actions and work outwards on a schematic: required pre-discussion and post-notifications, availability and responsiveness, alternates to direct discussion. I'd get into errors and urgency, and IAR. And a third dimension is what we are talking about. Reversing a speedy of a non-attack new article with post-notification isn't much of a wheel war. That third dimension is a whole gamut.
2. Based on analysis of the evidence? No, I think you mean a poll, and voting is still evil.
3. I don't have an informed opinion on bots. I've known Twinkle users be a nuisance. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from rootology

Hello, thank you for running for the AC election! Good luck, or our sympathies are with you, depending on certain points of view! I'll be asking everyone these same questions.

Questions:

1. In regards to the massive "omnibus" case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision, do you think bundling it all together was helpful to Wikipedia? Why, or why not?

2. On the same aforementioned Omnibus case, the question came up here of impartiality in voting by the seated Arbiters. It was shown there that a seated, voting arbiter in the case was unwilling to support "subjective" findings that all the users were valuable contributors to Wikipedia, even ones who have created multiple Featured Articles (to the point of being leaders on the all-time list for most Featured Articles, ever). Should someone be seated as an Arbiter, unless they are always capable of being impartial in cases they choose to not recuse from? Why, or why not?

3. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia community controlling Arbitration Committee policy, and the AC following the framework of policy that the community sets out for them in how to conduct business?

4. What are your thoughts on the idea of the English Wikipedia Arbcom elections being totally owned by and controlled by the community of editors? As in, as how it is on other language Wikipedias--elections are done as straight votes/consensus, with the leaders being seated based on that alone, subject solely to the will of their peers.

5. Do you think an Arbiter should be placed on the Committee without a clear endorsement/supporting majority vote of the community they will be serving during the election? If yes, why? If no, why?

6. You get to set a mandate, one sentence in length, for policy on how the Arbitration Committee will work--it could be AC policy, AC elections, AC responsibilities, mandates--anything and everything. No one can overrule this change, not Jimbo, not the other AC members, not the WMF board (so long as it's legal, of course); no IAR exemptions, and it is the Law of the Land forever in AC matters. What is it, in one sentence of 15 words or less?

7. Please rank these in order of whom the Arbcom serves and answers to, in order from first to last (the party who should have the most power over the AC goes first, the one who should have the least power over the AC goes last:

a) The Community

b) Jimbo Wales

c) Arbiters/The Arbitration Committee

d) The Wikimedia Foundation

Feel free to explain your ordering choices and your rationale behind them, if so inclined.

Thank you, and again--good luck. rootology (C)(T) 00:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Not to me! I did the first draft - printed down 75 pages of Evidence in 8 point, sat on a garden bench in the sun with a clipboard. I ended with a short (one page) draft, not much like the final version (my Principles mostly morphed into remedies). So on that basis, yes, merging the cases made sense because my draft Principles were common ground.
2. Not going to answer this on a colleague.
3. See my statement: the big divide is WikiProject style (people self-assign tasks) versus process-style. The community would almost certainly decide on process-style, so there are the queries I raised.
4. As in no Jimbo-filter. We are still many times the size of other projects, and basically much more diverse. So the ArbCom should reflect that diversity. I would say Jimbo should be able to appoint a woman if none were on the ArbCom - a male-only ArbCom would be much weakened. There are a few such places where you can make remarks.
5. Ideally people should have 2-to-1 support - 67% - to be elected. But the bar will have to be lowered if there is more and more partisan opposition. Being parachuted onto ArbCom with clear disapproval would be bad.
6. Annual June election of a voting Secretary to the ArbCom for a year.
7. To unseat an Arbitrator, it would be b, c, a, d. On general accountability it would be c, a. On certain matters of ethics and real-life factors d first. On enforcement, if the community refused to enforce a sanction you'd see that in terms of effective power it is a first. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Davewild

1. Do you support reducing the length of Arbitrators terms to under 3 years, and if you do and are elected, how will you go about trying to get this implemented?

Thanks. Davewild (talk) 09:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Question from jc37. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from roux

This question is to gauge your general thoughts on how civility applies as a general principle across WP. Please read the proposals here first.

1) Which conceptual statement(s), if any, in section A would you support or oppose, and why?

2) Which proposed restriction(s), if any, in section B would you support or oppose, and why?

2) a) If you oppose all proposed restrictions, but view low-level civility as a concern: what restrictions, if any, would you propose as alternatives to those outlined in section B?

Thank you for answering, and best of luck with the election. [roux » x] 22:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specific policy points. I don't see much connection with being an Arbitrator. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Iridescent (sort of – see remarks below)

This is actually a question suggested originally on Wikipedia Review; however, I think it's an intelligent – and in the current climate, significant – enough question to warrant asking. – iridescent 01:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?

Relevant to me, certainly. I would as a substitute in some circumstances. Otherwise it depends. So many questions here about having a more rigid system. Would that help ultimately? Charles Matthews (talk) 21:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Lar

Note to respondents: in some cases I am asking about things that are outside ArbCom's remit to do anything about. I am interested in your thoughts even so. Note also that in many cases I ask a multi part question with a certain phrasing, and with a certain ordering/structure for a reason, and if you answer a 6 part question with a single generalized essay that doesn't actually cover all the points, I (and others) may not consider that you actually answered the question very well at all.

1. Is the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing? In particular, how do you feel about the following suggestions:

   a) "Opt Out" - Marginally notable individuals can opt out, or opt in, at their request. If it's a tossup, the individual's wishes prevail, either way. George W. Bush clearly does not get to opt out, too notable. I (Lar) clearly do not get to opt in, not notable enough.

   b) "Default to Delete" - If a BLP AfD or DRv discussion ends up as "no consensus" the default is to delete. A clear consensus to KEEP is required, else the article is removed.

   Against any opt outs. Default to Delete would I think work out.

2. Given that it is said that the English Wikipedia ArbCom does not set policy, only enforce the community's will, and that ArbCom does not decide content questions:

   a) Is question 1 a question of content or of policy?

   b) ArbCom in the past has taken some actions with respect to BLP that some viewed as mandating policy. Do you agree or disagree? Did they go far enough? Too far? Just right?

   c) If you answered question 1 to the effect that you did not agree in every respect with the BLP approach, how would you go about changing the approach? Take your answers to 2a and 2b into account.

   (a) Policy. (b) The BLP enforcement thing was worth trying as an experiment. If ArbCom suggests enforcement and the idea proves unpopular, the page will be retired. (c) Don't treat AfD as a monolith. Just means splitting a policy page, but that would require consensus.

3. It has been said that the English Wikipedia has outgrown itself, that the consensus based approach doesn't scale this big. Do you agree or disagree, and why? If you agree, what should be done about it? Can the project be moved to a different model (other wikis, for example, use much more explicit voting mechanisms)? Should it be?

   Disagree. I have said "middle-aged", hitting its own limitations and not so easy to change. We just have to think harder about policies and where they should be changed.

4. Please discuss your personal views on Sighted/Flagged revisions. Should we implement some form of this? What form? Do you think the community has irretrievably failed to come to a decision about this? Why? What is the role, if any, of ArbCom in this matter?

   One day we'll introduce flagged revisions to get BLP under control, I feel. That's the killer app. Nothing to do with the ArbCom.

5. Wikipedia was founded on the principle that anonymity, or at least pseudonymity, is OK. You do not need to disclose your real identity, if you do not wish to, to edit here. You are not forbidden from doing so if you wish.

   a) Do you support this principle? Why or why not?

   Support. One of the great early design decisions.

   b) If you do not support it, is there a way to change it at this late date? How? Should it be (even if you do not support it, you may think it should not be changed)?

   N/a.

   c) With anonymity comes outing. Lately there has been some controversy about what is outing and what is not... if someone has previously disclosed their real identity and now wishes to change that decision, how far should the project go to honor that? Should oversight be used? Deletion? Editing away data? Nothing?

   Oversight can be used to remove personal information for real names just as much as for pseudonyms. We should co-operate to change real names to a pseudonym as requested. This limits search engine hits.

   d) If someone has their real identity disclosed elsewhere in a way that clearly correlates to their Wikipedia identity, is it outing to report or reveal that link? Why or why not?

   It falls under "attempted outing" at WP:HARASS. People shouldn't dabble with the personal information of others on our site.

   e) Do you openly acknowledge your real identity? Should all Arbitrators openly acknowledge their real identity? Why or why not? If you are currently pseudonymous, do you plan to disclose it if elected? (this is somewhat different than Thatcher's 1C in that it's more extensive)

   I use my real name. "Should" is too strong - it is helpful to have arbs as real names who can speak to outsiders.

   f) Does the WMF make it clear enough that pseudonymity is a goal but not a guarantee? What should the WMF be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity? What should ArbCom be doing, in your opinion, if anything, about loss of pseudonymity?

   We need very strict onsite policies to control editors using personal info on others. That is an editor behaviour issue and within the ArbCom's remit. We should protect pseudonyms. We are not a Swiss bank, and reasonable expectations on our privacy efforts should apply. People who would suffer greatly if outed should not, for prudential reasons, be editing Wikipedia. The system was certainly not designed for them.

   g) If an editor clearly and deliberately outs someone who does not wish to be outed, what is the appropriate sanction, if any? Does the question differ if the outing occurs on wiki vs off-wiki? (this is somewhat similar but different from Thatcher's 1D)

   Really I think it should be a banning matter, if intentional and malicious. But there are many shades here.

6. Stalking is a problem, both in real life and in the Wikipedia context.

   a) Should the WMF be highlighting (disclaiming) the possible hazards of editing a high visibility website such as Wikipedia? Should some other body do so?

   The WMF should simply give an honest opinion of our security. Cases of stalking do occur, as they do in other walks of life.

   b) What responsibility, if any, does WMF have to try to prevent real life stalking? What aid, if any, should the WMF give to someone victimised. Balance your answer against the provisions of the privacy policy.

   The WMF is a voluntary organisation with a small paid staff. It is not chartered as investigative or protective or whatever. The mission concerns the development of 700 websites. With some of the money raised, the WMF could set up a counselling service.

   c) If someone has previously been stalked in real life, what allowances or special provisions should be made, if any?

   Depends on the degree of threat in the stalking. It is not a single concept.

   d) What special provisions should be made, if any, to deal with stalkers who are using Wikipedia to harass victims? Consider the case where the stalkee is a real life person and the harassment is done by manipulating their article, as well as the case where the stalkee is an editor here.

   Don't confuse stalking with harassment. We have a clear definition of the latter, as spoiling the experience of participation. Genuine stalking is probably under criminal law (depending on country, culture and so on).

   e) Where is the line between stalking or harassing an editor and reviewing the contributions of a problematic editor to see if there are other problems not yet revealed?

   What we mean by wikistalking is unclear until it gets into dispute resolution. Whether actions were reasonable in the light of the mission is the sort of criterion used in Arbitration.

7. A certain editor has been characterised as "remarkably unwelcome" here, and the "revert all edits" principle has been invoked, to remove all their edits when discovered. In the case of very unwelcome and problematic editors, do you support that? What about for more run of the mill problem editors? What about in the case of someone making a large number of good edits merely to test this principle? Do you think blanket unreverting removed edits is appropriate or would you suggest that each edit be replaced with a specific summary standing behind it, or some other variant?

   Revert all edits is a possible remedy. Tell me more about the case before asking whether the remedy is good.

8. What is the appropriate role of outside criticism:

   a) Should all discussion of Wikipedia remain ON Wikipedia, or is it acceptable that some occur off Wikipedia?

   The former is absurd and impractical. We have to respect free speech off-wiki.

   b) Do you have a blog or other vehicle for making outside comments about Wikipedia? If so what is the link, or why do you choose not to disclose it? Why do you have (or not have) such an individual vehicle?

   None.

   c) Please state your opinion of Wikipedia Review and of the notion of participating there. Please state your opinion of Wikback, and of the notion of participating there. Why did Wikback fail? Describe your ideal outside criticism site, (if any)?

   Wikipedia Review has been very badly run for most of its existence, from an editorial point of view. In personal terms, naivety allowed a cuckoo in the nest. Forums aren't that great, anyway, for producing interesting content, rather than allowing self-expression. I participated in the Wikback because it obviously was going to be run better. The trouble with most critics is the sheer monotony of what they have to say, and of course the loserish quality of spending long hours on low-value typing is clear enough.

   d) Do you think it appropriate or inappropriate for an editor to participate in an outside criticism site? For an admin? For an Arbitrator? Why or why not?

   I would never participate in Wikipedia Review, because it is naff. That is a personal judgement, and others might think otherwise. Basically my view is that diplomacy with critics is good, but public participation is probably unrewarding except for the reasons a spin-doctor would recognise.

   e) Do you have an account at an outside criticism site? If it is not obvious already, will you be disclosing it if elected? Conversely, is it acceptable to have an anonymous or pseudonymous account at such a site? Why or why not? Assuming an arbitrator has one, some folk may try to discover and "out" it. Is that something that should be sanctioned on wiki? (that is, is it actually a form of outing as addressed in question 5? )

   Only an account on the (defunct) Wikback. We shouldn't try to run people's lives, we should just have high standards for all Wikipedia work.

9. Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with meatball:VestedContributors? Why or why not? What is to be done about it (if there is a problem)?

   EnWP has all the problems anyone can think up, and some others, eventually. It is just a very complicated place, and simplistic talk about it reveals ignorance of what goes on.

10. What is your favorite color? :) Why? :) :)

    Navy blue, as for all British men my age. Why do you ask? Charles Matthews (talk) 20:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Heimstern

1. Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: It's widely accepted that edit warring and POV-pushing along national and ethnic lines is one of the bigger problems at Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
2. Civility restrictions: Civility restrictions imposed by the Arbcom seem to frequently prove divisive among administrators enforcing them. Frequently, one administrator feels the user in question has been uncivil and should be blocked, while another disagrees and unblocks shortly thereafter. Should the committee seek to change this? If so, how? Different restrictions? Different wording? Using them less frequently or not at all? Is there anything you would change about the committee's approach to the civility policy?

1. We tried outsourcing. All successful POV-pushing is a problem. The ArbCom could start taking more notice of SPA as a factor.
2. That's covered by my general answer on wheel-warring, in a sense. We need civility on the gamut of issues. I'm all for civility paroles. The enforcement is up to admins, who can ask to have wording changed. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:NuclearWarfare

1. What percentage would your vote have to be before you would accept an appointment from Jimmy Wales?

2. Would you support any system of recall similar to the administrator's one (with possibly tougher restrictions for any Arbitrator?

1. I'd hope for 67%
2. No. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from UninvitedCompany

1. Can you summarize briefly the kind of editing you've done at Wikipedia?
2. Can you summarize your education and your professional background?
3. Can you summarize your involvement in other on-line projects and communities, including the identities under which you have participated at those communities?
4. Can you summarize any non-routine involvement you've had in disputes here or on other WMF projects, under this or any other username?
5. Do you have any significant allegiance to any political, national, advocacy, or faith-based organizations? If so, do you see any potential conflict of interest?
6. Can you describe any other leadership roles you now hold or have held in the real world?
7. Have you publicly revealed your actual name and address? Do you plan to do so if elected? If not, how do you plan to respond to any threats you may receive to publicize this information?
8. Do you have any friends, family members, or other people close to you IRL who edit Wikipedia? What are their user names and their relationships to you?
9. Other than the wiki itself, where do you discuss Wikipedia matters (e.g. IRC, mailing list, meetups)?
10. What constituencies do you imagine that you would serve as a member of the committee? Do they all carry equal weight?
11. What kinds of cases do you think the committee should accept? Refuse?
12. How do you believe the committee should address problematic behavior that takes place off-wiki but affects conflict here?
13. What kinds of arbitration remedies do you believe are most effective (e.g. Bans, editing restrictions, article restrictions, other "creative remedies")?
14. Do you have any specific plans for change to the arbitration system or the project as a whole that you would seek to carry out as a member of the committee?
15. Which past or current members of the committee do you admire the most? Why?
16. To what standard of proof do you believe the committee should work?
17. What are your feelings regarding the Wikimedia Foundation, its governance, officers, board, and employees?
18. To what extent do you support the work of the OTRS team?
19. Do you have any plans to publicize information that the committee has kept confidential in the past?

1. Five years at about 80 a day.
2. Doctorate in mathematics, now a writer.
3. Edited at Sensei's Library under my own name.
4. Nothing significant.
5. Object to the question under "leave it at the door". The answer is no, but this is like compulsory userboxes.
6. None other, currently. I have done plenty of organisation for go, in the past.
7. Already on ArbCom, using real name.
8. Intrusive. The answer is none, but what justification for this in public?
9. Never used IRC. Wikien-l, meetups.
10. Already on ArbCom. The mathematicians may think I serve them, but I mainly edit historical topics now.
11. Some types of cases are underestimated (science-related is the most obvious type).
12. The committee's remit doesn't include addressing that, I believe. It can help interpret diffs.
13. Onsite drama really requires "knocking heads together", but that's so meatspace and last century. If you want something effective, you ban and let the checkusers take the strain. If people lack clue, in many cases no sanctions work; but surprisingly editing restrictions can be effective.
14. The next big job is a mail handling system. We could do better triage on cases to get them drafted.
15. Sad to see Morven go (good sense and clarity). I'm not going to talk about colleagues otherwise.
16. We are trying to do the best for the project, not dispense abstract justice. We must attempt a fair reading of the evidence, and be led by it, not just take "executive decisions".
17. Not really relevant. Subsidiarity means Board members get out of touch with daily concerns, but their job is to take a longer view. I talked to Cary Bass at the party in Alexandria: better liaison with the sharp end people in the Office would be a plus.
18. I've not participated. I have applied bans to support OTRS.
19. No. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, your answers don't seem to match the questions: There's 20 answers to 19 questions. I think 12 and 13 are the dupicates. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from TomasBat

1. In general, which of these 2 concepts do you regard as higher priority? The concept of "user" as another human being or "what's best for the encyclopedia"? (would you be 200% fair and patient to a relatively new good faith user at the expense of commiting to something that you know will most probably, at an overall, not benefit the encyclopedia?)

I have been "rewarded" by saving a user who was apparently a vandal, so although I have no concrete instances, it can always pay off to be kind to someone apparently troublesome. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from MBisanz

1. In the past there have been issues with arbitrators who did not reveal their real life identity onwiki, being harassed offwiki with the threat of revealing it. If you have not revealed your identity publicly and were threatened with someone revealing it with the intent to harass you, how would you respond? If your identity is already public, feel free to ignore this question.

N/a

Questions from Pixelface

1. Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you were listed as an involved party. (I am speaking of closed cases as well as active cases). Do you think the remedies given in the case(s) were helpful in resolving any disputes?
2. Please list all the arbitration cases (accepted by the arbitration committee) where you, acting as a non-member of the committee, have provided a statement, or evidence, or /Workshop material. Do you feel it was worth your time in each case?
3. Please list all the requests for arbitration you've made. (If you can't remember them all, please describe some of the ones you *do* remember).

1. Main ones were Carl Hewitt and Matthew Hoffman. The 2006 case around Erich Heller is apparently blanked.
2. Not many others ...
3. Matthew Hoffman. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Badger Drink

1. It is important that members of an "small but powerful" group such as ArbCom be able to offer criticism, and to admit that no person - neither themselves nor their fellow members of the Committee - is perfect. Nor should it be assumed that one's fellow members are sensitive waifs, unable or unfit to handle criticism - even public, on-Wiki, criticism. Choosing to always err in favor of preserving harmony in the workplace will inevitably lead to a workplace less deserving of harmony in the first place. With this in mind, looking over the Closed Case Files, such as they are, it becomes more and more evident that the ArbCom is not always right. Can you give an example or two of recent (i.e., within the past two years) cases (opened, rejected, or even clarifications) where you feel the ArbCom, to put it bluntly, screwed the pooch? If you were a member of the ArbCom at the time of this pooch-screwing, what would you or could you have said or done to make matters better?
2. What are your thoughts regarding the OrangeMarlin case?
3. This final question may be frustratingly broad - and might be superceded by smaller, more focused questions on individual aspects of the incident. But let's just get a broad overview for the time being: What are your thoughts on the bombastic RFC/AC? Are there any issues raised within that RfC that you find particularly prudent?

1. Pass.
2. Ten days of my life lost trying to pick up the pieces.
3. Unselective suggestions aren't that helpful. ArbCom could do with some technical and secretarial support. And folks, please don't elect people who are already well known because busy. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BirgitteSB

Due to concerns over the way a non-public case was handled I once suggested some minimum standards for such cases [8]. Which follow slightly clarified:

• Have at least two arbitrators develop comprehensive presentations of evidence in isolation.
• Allow all parties concerned to review at least the portions of the evidence presentations regarding their owns actions before any decision is reached.

I believe such standards will not only lessen the drama surrounding such cases, but are also necessary to have any confidence in the quality of the decision reached. In public cases the evidence presentations are usually left up the community and seldom is any one presentation comprehensive. However the scrutiny of the larger community is generally sufficient to tease out the weaknesses and strengths of the multiple presentations. Since private cases are necessarily denied this scrutiny it is imperative that evidence presentations are much stronger than in public cases. So I believe it is necessary for an arbitrator to collect the submissions of evidence into a comprehensive presentation even though such a thing is not done with public cases. Having two arbs put together presentations in isolation is an check on the subconscious bias of "finding what one is looking for." Allowing the parties to review the presentations concerning themselves is a final check on any misunderstandings, and a commonsense measure to build confidence in the whole process. How well do you agree with these suggested practices as I have outlined them?--BirgitteSB 19:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole business could certainly be clarified. Some people, though, assume that all ArbCom proceedings should be "adversarial" in character. ArbCom may have to develop its "inquisitorial" approach better: the hardest cases are getting harder, and sometimes the assumptions will not be the same as before. We need to respect "natural justice", certainly, but that involved defining summary actions as not "cases". As with other areas, it sounds like a lot more rules. I prefer a more pragmatic approach, but then I'm not a lawyer. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally can't imagine a more pragmatic approach, but I am open-minded to discussing anything that might work better. My two suggestions are not any sort borrowed legalistic rules based on "justice", but rather a pragmatic approach to ensure arbcom has the most complete understanding of the situation possible so that they may then have a rational claim to confidence in their decisions in non-public cases. Hopefully others will then have more confidence in arbcom in turn knowing the less transparent decisions are at least based on a more reliable process. I don't understand why you interpret what I wrote above as being based on anything legalistic or adversarial. I have always focused on things I believe will bring about the best results. I find adversarial approaches to be counter-productive and do not support them. I am not knowledgeable about legalistic methods, but I suspect they are rather inefficient and more trouble than they are worth for Wikipedia's purposes. Finally I would strengthen your statement above to say that arbcom has flat out failed to develop an inquisitorial approach.--BirgitteSB 23:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment on "adversarial" wasn't addressed to your question as such, but to the general issue of proceedings. Since anglophone countries tend to have an adversarial system in the technical sense, there has grown up an assumption that the ArbCom needs to adopt it (?) always. When you say arbcom has flat out failed to develop an inquisitorial approach, I think that neglects the work done outside cases, looking into matters in private and trying to address issues on the basis of obtaining the facts. This tends to happen on the email list. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Kristen Eriksen

1. In the course of ascertaining whether editors have violated our verifiability policy, arbitrators may be called upon to determine questions of source reliability. Should certain peer-reviewed journals be considered reliable sources when they are published by otherwise respectable organizations, but engage in a practice of lending credence to fields of endevour and subject matter widely held in disrepute by the scientific community? As an example, consider the journal "Homeopathy" [9], which is published by Elsevier, but which regularly carries positive experimental results for homeopathic preparations.

2. What is the intent of our policy that WP:NOT#CENSORED? How does the presence or absence of content covered by that policy affect Wikipedia's utility, reputation, and acceptance amongst the academic community and the general public?

3. Consistent with our neutral point of view policy, what relative weight should be given to popular views and scientific findings where the two strongly conflict? For example, consider the finding of this study, and the previous research cited therein, that, in the United States, children seeing their parents naked or having sex did not result in adverse effects on their physical or psychological health. Most residents of the United States would strongly disagree with such a conclusion -- it is quite likely that we could, with sufficient effort, locate appropriate surveys or other reliable sources as to this state of popular opinion.

1. Well, we may. More likely we draw conclusions from whatever consensus is there about it. We would be entitled to read the submission guide and assess the peer review standards of a journal, to see what weight can be given to papers in it. We would do better to get an outside opinion on these matters. Theoretically we may have to do these things. To some extent I find it hypothetical, that the ArbCom would have to do this, when there was no outside opinion to point to. To sum up, the ArbCom theoretically might have to research these matters on an a priori basis to reach a firm decision, but the reputations of leading learned journals are very well known in most fields.
2. It is a statement on inclusionism. It relates to, though is not the same as, the academic attitude that anything may be discussed if you discuss it in the right way. Academic "content policies" include fairness but not neutrality, referencing at least to make sources transparent, and the permission or obligation to do original research. But the "right way" in academia is largely tone and fairness. Ours is different but I think comprehensible to academics.
3. You didn't give the topic of the article, though. Popular attitudes to sexual frankness is a different topic to Child development and sex in the home. NPOV is relative to the topic. In your example, surveys would be the central matter in the first topic, and marginal in the second, I believe. Obviously popular beliefs about quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics are very different topics. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions From ϢereSpielChequers

For the following questions please don't count any cases that you were involved in, or if you'd been on Arbcom would have recused yourself for reasons such as friendship with a participant.

1. How many arbitration cases have you fully reviewed (or participated in as an Arbcomm member)?
2. In what proportion of the unanimous decisions in those cases did you agree with the decision?
3. In what proportion of the split decisions in those cases did you agree with the majority decision?
4. How well do you think Arbcom's procedures would handle the situation where new evidence comes to light after a decision has been made?

ϢereSpielChequers 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is 150 to 200, I think. Three years, mostly voting.
2. 100%.
3. I can't say exactly. It feels like 85% to 90%, when I wasn't voting myself. Obviously a case may have 50 parts, so I suppose you mean major remedies.
4. If it genuinely changes matters, the outcome can change. There is no real problem with that. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question(s) from LtPowers

• There seems to me to be a significant portion of the community that has lost, or is beginning to lose, trust in the ability of the Arbitration Committee to fairly and effectively adjudicate cases. Do you agree with that basic assessment? If so, what do you think might be the major factor contributing to this attitude, and how might you attempt to modify ArbCom procedures and policies to regain that trust? (Note: I recognize that many of the disaffected are simply apathetic or permanently cynical on the subject, and nothing ArbCom could do would restore a trust that was never there to begin with. My question relates to those members of the community who might be persuadable if their specific objections were addressed.) Powers ^T 13:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, people see that cases are slow, but that seems much more common as criticism than saying the outcomes are wrong.

There are plenty of beefs with the ArbCom, and plenty of people to bring them up. What are they arguing for, when they bring them up? Different people on the Committee? Well, here we are, elect some better people. Ask them to reform the Workshop? I don't see changes that are practical that will really make suspicious people suddenly trust the ArbCom. People should look at the track record, particularly in complex cases. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Will Beback

This is a standard set of question I'm asking everyone. Best of luck in the election. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Have you used other accounts this year? Are those accounts disclosed or transparent?

2. Is it appropriate for editors to create joke accounts, role accounts, "personality" accounts, etc., to have fun or to make a point? Should socks be allowed to edit policies, engage in RfCs and ArbCom cases, or seek positions of trust in the community? Or should undisclosed alternate accounts be used only with care in limited circumstances?

3. Aside from the easy-to-spot vandalism, a large percentage of disruption to the project comes from a relatively small number of harder-to-spot users engaged in POV pushing, trolling, etc. After their first incarnation they keep coming back as socks and causing problems. (We call them socks but they seem more like ghosts: still haunting the place after their departure and just as hard to eradicate.) How can we minimize the impact of banned users who won't go away? How can we improve the handling of sock checks and blocks?

1. None at all.
2. "Only with care in limited circumstances".
3. One of my diplomatic jobs involved dealing with such a person. There are different classes, in fact. Rational or not. If rational, what drives them to invest time on this? Different motivations. Different status: do we know who they are, or not? I don't mean we threaten them with exposure: that would just legitimise people outing our editors, and anyway is not our ethical take at all. I mean, is it possible to construct their point of view? Basically if they are rational it is possible to approximate to it. Not quite what you meant on enforcement, but it is complementary as effort. I secured a limited cessation of socking, in the case I mentioned. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from harej

Assess this statement: "The Wikipedia Arbitration Committee exists to promulgate the good times." To what extent is this statement valid, and to what extent should things change to reflect this statement? --harej 01:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. Wiktionary says

1. To make known or public.
2. To put into effect, as a regulation.

Sounds as if the second, less familiar meaning is the one you want. (For my publicity efforts, see above.) Yes, not too bad, ArbCom should put into effect (though not itself make) regulations trying to make Wikipedia more like an online Paradise. Not to be confused with Second Life, especially by arbs who'd be quite glad of a first one. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Milop Den

What do you think about Jayjg, his POV pushing and former work in Arbitration Committee. --Milop Den (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An asset to the ArbCom. You can't really expect me to go into greater detail about a colleague, who takes part in confidential discussions with me. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Al tally

1. Who in your opinion should decide who is granted CheckUser/Oversight rights? Community, or a group of 15 people in a super-secret discussion that no-one is allowed to see? Bear in mind, every other Wiki without an ArbCom conducts CU/OS elections publicly, without any issues. Your opinion please, not what so-and-so policy says.
2. See this oppose vote on SirFozzie's RFA, from 2007. I laughed when I read it, because he's opposing something that sounds just like ArbCom. '...the idea that that small, insular group of editors that frequent the page (including the nominator)' [Arbitrators] 'are the "community" and can achieve "consensus," adding substance-less votes to what should be consensus discussions on bans' [Motions, voting to reject, accept etc. Basically, a community version of ArbCom]. Quite amusing, coming from a former arbitrator. Anyway, my point is, Community vs. ArbCom Decisions. Can the community overrule an ArbCom decision? Can the community choose to ban someone without going to ArbCom? (From what I can determine from Dmc's message, he doesn't like the idea the community can ban people, but would rather a "small, insular group of editors that frequent the page" do it instead).
3. Former Arbitrators - should they lose CU/OS privs, and access to the Mailing list? After all, they resigned, so aren't interested in doing the work. Therefore, they have no need for such rights. If you resigned, would you surrender such privs?
4. Recall - if the community have an issue with your use of CU/OS, or actions as an Arbitrator, what effective way can they address this? (Taking it to ArbCom is the wrong answer, by the way).

Good luck with the election! Al Tally ^talk 19:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. In my experience, the privacy cuts both ways. Serious issues can be raised against candidates for rights, but they can also be dealt with and matters cleared up. This is a better way than relying on public mud-slinging, surely. And in fact, if you take RfA as typical, a public process can be gamed as soon as it is clear what candidates are "supposed" to say. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Interesting. I mentioned four points in my candidate statement, about process-like reform of the ArbCom. These seem to "tally" (sorry) with some of the criticisms raised in the diff. On the substantive point, in the end the ArbCom has only the enforcement powers that the community and/or admins have.
3. Certainly CUs are overworked as it is (I'm told - I'm not one), Oversights are busy and work against time. So ex-arbs with these rights are just fine. Mailing list access is another matter, but several of those in the "emeritus" class do fine work and bring input that is valued.
4. Well, tell me first. An obvious step, but it is our way. Then send mail to the ArbCom list. Then raise it privately with Jimmy Wales. On CU, go via the Ombudsman where this is the right route for the issue. Try, in general, to get particular issues straightened out. Most people in the positions you are talking about feel them as serious obligations, and would be glad to leave if they felt they weren't contributing. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Ling.Nut

• I'm asking this of everyone; it didn't occur to me to ask 'til after the "general questions" were closed. This also isn't a vanity question intended to pump my essay. I'm hoping for thoughtful responses.
• Would you please read the (very, very, very short) essay at User:Ling.Nut/3IAR and indicate how much you agree or disagree with its points? If it helps at all, the essay was originally written as a response to an admin who insisted that I was not permitted to make my talk page a redirect to my user page. He did so even though there is (or was at that time?) no rule or guideline to this effect, and far more importantly, even though my actions were harming neither the encyclopedia nor any of its editors.
• Thank you for your time. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 15:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These points will come in very handy when I get round to writing I, Admin. Currently I'm still busy with my WMF Trilogy. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Tony1

My good wishes for your candidature. I wonder whether you might respond to these questions. 1. What is your attitude to the notion of introducing commercial advertising on WP?

Entirely against.

2. Many users believe that the current "official" processes for ensuring that administrators adhere to the policy requirements of their behaviour—particularly the use of blocking—are inadequate. What is your attitude towards the reform of those processes so that they avoid the accusation that admins judge the behaviour of admins?

Processes? Do you mean noticeboards, or do you mean dispute resolution? Or do you mean various protocols we have? Only I think in the context of noticeboards does your questions fully make sense. In my view policies are clear enough (WP:BLOCK, WP:UNBLOCK). The fact is that admins disregard part of these policies, particularly unblocking "out of process" (not taking into account the protocols of prior consultation, I would say more accurately). What needs to happen, in my view, is that WP:WHEEL should be opened out. Some ideas are above, but we should have something like a three-tier view of the seriousness of blocking issues, putting harm to personal relations and personal information in the top tier. We also need to explain the different types of communication protocols and alternates much better, somewhere. And to discuss, at least, urgency, mistakes and IAR. These are policy matters and should be the community's way of laying down expectations.

3. Some of the policy tenets embedded in the policy page WP:Administrators are cast in terms that may require ArbCom's interpretion during your term. Can you give us an idea of how you'd approach the interpretation of this potential exception from the critical policy that admins avoid conflict of interest in their role? The text in question is green and includes a commented-out section. The hypothetical case you face as a member of ArbCom would involve a claim that an admin who has not followed the putative "best practice" has breached the WP:UNINVOLVED policy by themselves blocking a user with whom they've had a negative interaction on the talk page of the same article several months before.

However, one important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with a user or article in an administrative role (i.e., in order to address a dispute, problematic conduct, administrative assistance, outside advice/opinion, enforce a policy, and the like) or whose actions on an article are minor, obvious, and do not speak to bias, is usually not prevented from acting on the article, user, or dispute. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them. That said, an administrator may still wish to pass such a matter to another administrator as "best practice" in some cases (although not required to). Or, they may wish to be absolutely sure that no concerns will "stick", in certain exceptional cases<!--, a decision best left to their own judgement (COMMENTED OUT BUT LEFT IN CASE OTHERS THINK IT'S HELPFUL-->.

Well, I'm an arb right now, and we look first at whether admins were doing the right thing. This is my basic approach, and it depends on admins having plenty of discretion. You should judge an admin mainly on how discretionary decisions are made. This is better for the project than limiting the discetion of admins in general. Where admins cannot handle the tools properly, we should de-sysop them rather than think that fencing in their discretion will work a miracle. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]