Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charles Matthews

I haven't been quite as active in 2005 as in 2004, for a couple of reasons I won't go into explained on the questions page. Wikipedia is working so well in general it is possible to talk about the ArbCom as a necessary evil, rather than use the language of crisis and panic about it. I stood in 2004, doing well enough for it to be a positive experience though I fell just short of election. Banning and other sanctions are there firstly to protect the project from people who really cannot match the basic social demands of working with other editors.

I judge that the ArbCom are much better at tackling cases reasonably, than admins acting on their own have been. I'm not sure that every single decision has been 100% on the button; but I don't see much need for big changes in how things are handled. Some matters are always going to be inflammatory, but overall I don't see that it is getting any worse; and the upping of the ArbCom's workrate in 2005 I think made for a perceptible improvement of the atmosphere.

I have a concise writing style, a plus for ArbCom work (and have kept this to 250 words, unlike others). On general matters, my credo hasn't really changed. For me, it's mainly about the content. I'm concerned about systemic bias issues - the need for good peripheral vision, I'd say, in the whole approach. For a Brit I have good languages; I have lived in France and the USA, and have good knowledge of East Asia and some insight into Uganda. Charles Matthews 11:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Questions


Support

  1. Support. Tosha 15:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Support. -- Ancheta Wis 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Michael Snow 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Fredrik | t c 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Support. Impressive answers to questions. Batmanand 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Support. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Gdr 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Support -- Carl Hewitt 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Support absolutely. +sj + 22:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Support. Madame Sosostris 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Support Outside the great contributions to the mathematics projects, I have seen Charles Matthews keep great cool in dealing with difficult users, a feature most necessary for an arbitrator. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Support — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Support, with few reservations. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. Cryptic (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Support. — Ruud 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Support.-- ragesoss 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Support — Omegatron 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Support -- Angelo 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Tony Sidaway| Talk 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Support. Ambi 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. TacoDeposit 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Support -- Duk 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. Support: impressive experience and well-thought answers to the questions. Jonathunder 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Support. - EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. Support. -- Viriditas 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  31. Support' -- Arwel ( talk) 02:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support - This guy is good - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 03:09, Jan. 9, 2006
  32. Guettarda 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  33. Support → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  34. Support. He hit it on the nose with his answers to his questions. -- Vortex 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  35. King of All the Franks 03:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  36. Support. I think he will make an excellent ArbCom member. Paul August ☎ 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  37. Support - Banyan Tree 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  38. Support - Bobet 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  39. Support Crunch 03:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  40. Support Cool and thorough. Knowledgeable in the edits. Listens to others. -- BACbKA 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  41. Support Very, very, very experienced, looks willing to work. Great answers to questions. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  42. older≠ wiser 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  43. Support Good experience. Dave 03:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Zordrac does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC). Cryptic (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  44. Support A knowledgeable and scholarly content editor. 172 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  45. Support - Thoughtful answers indicate ability to analyze based on encyclopedic goals rather than wikilawyering on policy. FCYTravis 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  46. Support. Rhobite 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  47. Support. Bishonen | talk 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC). reply
  48. — Charles P.  (Mirv) 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  49. Support - good answers. ← Hob 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Strongly support - a very experienced contributor with a mature outlook. - Stevecov 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Stevecov does not have suffrage; he had only 148 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  50. Support Wile E. Heresiarch 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  51. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  52. Support linas 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  53. Support ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 05:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  54. Support Tony the Marine 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  55. Support Intelligent and level-headed. — Catherine\ talk 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  56. Support: impresses as an editor of intelligence and integrity. -- Muchness 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  57. Support-- cj | talk 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  58. Support Good candidate statement. I hope we can hold you to it. Hamster Sandwich 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  59. Support – I've known and respected this editor for a long time. He'll do well. – Clockwork Soul 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  60. Support Chick Bowen 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  61. Support Fred Bauder 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  62. Support. -- Scott eiπ 06:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  63. Support. android 79 06:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  64. Support don't know this user, but it seems that ppl trust him.  Grue  06:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  65. Support -- EMS | Talk 06:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  66. Support. siafu 06:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  67. Support - really superb editor, ArbCom couldn't do better. My only reservation: does ArbCom deserve him well enough to waste his time like this? --- Charles Stewart 06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  68. Support. jni 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  69. Support Sam Vimes 07:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  70. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  71. Support. Isomorphic 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  72. Support just going with the flow, seriously, a level-headed user, good answers, dedication. feydey 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  73. Support. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-09 07:37 Z
  74. Support JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support, low involvement in project namespace, but highly involved w/community via enwiki-l mailing list and obviously dedicated w/53K+ edits. -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  76. Support. why? ++ Lar: t/ c 08:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  77. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  78. Support. Lupo 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  79. Support No-nonsense, good answers. -- kingboyk 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  80. Support I agree with descriptions like "intelligence", "integrity", "respectable" and "level-headed." Fg2 10:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  81. Support definitely gets my vote! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  82. Support Sarah Ewart 10:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  83. Support -- Nick Boalch ?!? 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  84. Support, my top choice. Dan100 ( Talk) 11:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  85. Support — MikeX (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  86. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 11:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  87. support: Ombudsman 11:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  88. Support: -- Stephan Schulz 11:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  89. Being aware of systemic bias and interested in countering it is a big plus, and he seems well-rounded and professional. — Nightstallion (?) 11:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  90. Support Good editor, we're lucky to have standing. Morwen - Talk 11:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  91. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  92. Strong support. The best candidate statement and answers to questions I've yet read. Thryduulf 12:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  93. Support very levelheaded, I would trust this candidate to work for the community as a whole.   ALKIVAR ™ 12:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  94. Support: He seems always to make fair and reasoned, and non-confrontational assessments of a situation whenever I have run across him Giano | talk 12:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  95. Strongest Support This guy is probably one of the best candidates for the ArbCom --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  96. Support -- Michael Slone ( talk) 12:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  97. Support, good no-nonsense approach. R adiant _>|< 13:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  98. Support. All his contributions that I've seen show he clearly knows what he's doing. -- Last Malthusian 13:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  99. Kafziel 14:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  100. Support. I like the answers. -- Frelke 14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  101. Support. Good candidate. — BrianSmithson 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  102. Support: Level headed and careful. Geogre 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  103. Support. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 14:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  104. Support - Good answers. Awolf002 14:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  105. Support. Good statement, good answers.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  106. Support. -- Angr ( tɔk) 15:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  107. Support - Feels strongly about systematic bias. Good candidate. Gflores Talk 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  108. Support, one of the strongest candidates here. Proto  t  c 15:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  109. Support The Literate Engineer 15:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  110. Support, for your evident ability to recognise trolls -- Doc ask? 17:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  111. Support Masonpatriot 17:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  112. Support NatusRoma 18:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  113. Support Rhion 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  114. Support -- Wikimol 18:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  115. Support -- Petros471 19:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  116. Support Jkelly 19:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  117. Support TestPilot 19:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  118. Support based on candidate statement and answers to questions. Terra Green 20:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  119. Support - Xed 20:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  120. Support - Leibniz 20:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  121. Support. Well knowledgeable and determined to further enhance Wikipedia. -- KHill-LTown 20:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  122. Support -- Polaris999 21:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  123. Support (This is obiter dicta, but I'm astonished that someone casting an "oppose" vote suggested that this candidate may not be one of the best-known Wikipedians.) Michael Hardy 21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  124. Support Experienced, level-headed. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  125. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  126. Support -- Pjacobi 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  127. Splash talk 22:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  128. Support -- Daniel11 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  129. Support Will make a wonderful ArbCom member. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  130. Support. <K F> 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  131. Sopport Candidate will put in the time and he's well known to many. I only wish he hadn't come down so hard on the questioner who didn't spell so well. Smmurphy( Talk) 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  132. Support - at least in part *because* of the answer about spelling. The arbcomm gets a lot of cr*p: it needs to be able to answer robustly when appropriate. William M. Connolley 23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC). reply
  133. Support-- Confuzion 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  134. Support. Answers demonstrate impressive grasp of what is required.-- cjllw | TALK 23:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  135. JYolkowski // talk 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  136. Support Marskell 00:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  137. Support Warofdreams talk 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  138. Support. Very impressed by his summary and answers to questions. — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 00:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  139. Support. The first Wikipedian I met here, and a fine example of why I want to stay. Dmharvey 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  140. Support. Vsmith 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  141. Support. Strong answers on questions and great statement. Velvetsmog 02:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  142. Support -- JohnDBuell 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  143. Support -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 03:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  144. Support. Neutrality talk 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  145. Support abakharev 04:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  146. Support – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 05:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  147. Support Joaquin Murietta 05:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  148. Support -- Carnildo 08:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  149. Support Willmcw/ user:Will Beback/09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  150. Support Delirium 10:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  151. Support Adrian Buehlmann 10:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  152. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  153. Support. Charles answered the questions well, I have also always been impressed by his interactions with others (at least those I have seen). Rje 12:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  154. Support Kosebamse 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  155. Support, good statement, experienced -- Gurch 14:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  156. Support-- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  157. Support. HGB 18:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  158. Support. howch e ng { chat} 18:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  159. Support. Ral315 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  160. Support. Jacoplane 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  161. Support. I'm sure will do a good job. -- G Rutter 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  162. JoaoRicardo talk 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  163. Support - Solipsist 21:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  164. Support Fad (ix) 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  165. Support David 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  166. Support Prodego talk 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  167. Support -- Loopy e 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  168. support dab (ᛏ) 00:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  169. Support. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contibutions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  170. Support David Hoag 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  171. Support Dr. Cash 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  172. Support Timrollpickering 01:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  173. Support KTC 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  174. Support -- Jaranda wat's sup 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  175. Support. JSIN 06:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  176. Support-- AndriyK 07:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  177. Yes - -- Bhadani 09:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  178. Support - Sietse 10:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  179. Support. Palmiro | Talk 11:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  180. Support -- Terence Ong Talk 13:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  181. Support. Andre ( talk) 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  182. Support — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  183. Support -- Hurricane111 16:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  184. Support -- Denis Diderot 17:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  185. Support One of Wikipedia's most eloquent members Cormaggio @ 18:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  186. Support Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 19:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  187. Support Elle vécu heureuse à jamais ( Be eudaimonic!) 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  188. Support mikka (t) 21:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support Thesocialistesq 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  189. Support -- Ragib 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  190. Support -- Guus 02:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  191. Support Alex43223 05:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  192. Support I like the experience and the international perspective -- Ignignot 16:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  193. Support. Kusma (討論) 17:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  194. Support – AB C D e ✉ 17:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  195. Support. Carbonite | Talk 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  196. Support - Very experienced, long-time user, has a good style, good views. -- NorkNork 19:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  197. Support. ntennis 04:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  198. Support. Smerdis of Tlön 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  199. Support. Well-qualified, and has earned my trust. Jwrosenzweig 06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  200. Support Nothing makes me think that putting this user on the committee would be a poor decision -- Nick Catalano ( Talk) 07:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  201. Support. From his track record and answers to the questions, I believe Charles would be an excellent ArbCom member. Sunray 08:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  202. Support. Alphax  τ ε χ 12:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  203. Support. Seems level-headed and very familiar with the Wikipedia process. -- Elkman 20:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  204. Strong support - very trustworthy user -- Francs 2000 01:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  205. Strong support - outstanding user. Deckiller 01:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  206. Support. Knows why we are here. -- JWSchmidt 02:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  207. Support Recognises whats needed, knows what to expect Gnangarra 15:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  208. support absolutely Derex 17:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  209. Support. RadicalSubversiv E 00:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  210. Support. Although I don't agree with many of the answers, I like his reasons for them. ( SEWilco 05:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
  211. Support. Preaky 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  212. Support -- good answers on the wikilawyering topics. -- SarekOfVulcan 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  213. Support Liked your answers to questions – Comics ( Talk) 08:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  214. support Kingturtle 20:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  215. support -- angusj 01:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  216. Support -- nixie 01:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  217. Support per answers. Youngamerican 14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  218. Support - David Gerard 16:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  219. Support - Vulturell 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  220. Support. — Lowellian ( reply) 18:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  221. Support -- Fastfission 22:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support. Me likey. Detriment 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    User did not have 150 edits at the start of the election, so most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 00:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  222. Support - Good stances, and I hate verbosity :) DrIdiot 01:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  223. Support -- Mcpusc 01:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support — John 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  224. Support -- in the strongest possible terms.-- CSTAR 05:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  225. Support — Phil | Talk 09:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  226. Support - clearly the sort of person we need on ArbCom - RachelBrown 12:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  227. Support -- LifeStar 14:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  228. Support - kaal 16:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  229. Reluctant support. Shows a strong and pragmatic understanding of Wikipedia's policy and functionality. He is, however, admonished to refrain from personal attacks, as he made against -Ril-, and to keep his alleged temper under control. Ingoolemo  talk 18:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  230. Support absolutely. Well reasoned editor. Could use a bit of extra effort to come accross as more friendly at times. - Taxman Talk 14:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  231. Support Sjc 07:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  232. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  233. Support Tuohirulla 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  234. Support Dannycas 00:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support Zachjones4 206.196.142.192 01:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Anons don't have suffrage. Even if Zachjones4 was just logged out when he made this edit, he does not have suffrage either; he had only 15 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  235. Strong Support A cool and froody guy, I must say. - JustinWick 03:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  236. Bratsche talk | Esperanza 04:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  237. Support Jared 11:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  238. Support Secretlondon 15:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  239. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support Nortonew 02:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  240. Support. Pschemp | Talk 07:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  241. Support. Deb 10:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  242. Support Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  243. Support. ( Bjorn Tipling 06:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
  244. NSL E ( T+ C) 10:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  245. Support – Smyth\ talk 11:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  246. Extremely Strong Support Good Luck! Pacific Coast Highway| Leave a message ($.25) 23:35, 15 June 2024 UTC [ refresh
  247. Probably OK GangofOne 16:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  248. Support FreplySpang (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  249. Support WLD 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  250. Support FeloniousMonk 18:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  251. Support -- DS1953 talk 18:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  252. Support, tolerant of "outsiders" Kappa 22:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  253. Support. Alai 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. – ugen64 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Oppose. -- GraemeL (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. Oppose -- Dlyons493 Talk 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Oppose. Sorry, support for unilateralism not inspiring. Otherwise, would have endorsed him. Grace Note 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. — Guan aco 02:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. (If you haven't contributed much in 2005, that's probably why I haven't encountered you, as I've only been here since May.) Best regards, Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    You don't know Charles Matthews? Maybe I've been on the site too long! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Oppose on policy grounds, due to support for unilateralism, disdain for a code of wikipedian rights, and the deflection of tough, but fair, questions as 'trolling'. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Oppose Per Grace Note and genitive Davidpdx 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Oppose. -- HK 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Oppose. the hostility in the self description serves as warning. Avriette 22:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose - although he is a very dedicated contributor, he lacks arbitration skills. This became obvious on Sensei's Library where he showed the same qualities described by others above. This was some time ago, but it doesn't look like he changed. (He gets a point for being so honest as to use the same nick, though.) — Sebastian (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Oppose, short fuse. Gazpacho 06:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Oppose. First para, a little too eager to ban users. enochlau ( talk) 13:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose-- Masssiveego 07:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Oppose. Hostile towards questions. I believe such hostility will harm his ability to settle other's disputes. Cedars 10:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. Oppose: Don't like his appeal. Dr. B 17:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Oppose. Seems much better editor than ArbCom member. Superm401 | Talk 02:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Oppose Lapinmies 11:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Strongly oppose Bad tempered, and can't distinguish between logic and his opinion. Engages in personal attacks, and defends them by calling them objective. Kevin baas 00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Strong oppose; in his statement, he babbles on and doesn't actually say a danged thing about his beliefs about ArbCom. How are we supposed to support you if we don't know who you are? Matt Yeager 20:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose. Responses to questioning (see the questions link in the statement section above) suggest that he is extremely biased, won't respond to legitimate concerns about fairness, self admittedly obstinate, completely ignores Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and likes throwing red herrings around to deflect attention from criticism. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Oppose Unsettling approach to resolving disputes. -- Omniwolf 18:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose Itake 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose — despite thoughtful and intelligent responses to questions (and answers whose content I largely agree with), brusque and occasionally rude manner does not bode well for arbitration skills. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Oppose User:Ejrrjs says What? 01:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose, tone in some answers -- AySz88^ - ^ 00:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose - Has great experience (both in Wikipedia and in the real world), is intelligent and has a clear writing style but this is outweighed by his sometimes evasive or spiky answers to questions. -- Spondoolicks 20:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

  1. Neutral evrik 16:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Wasn't impressed with the candidate's statement. reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Charles_Matthews&oldid=1223288394"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE