Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Charles Matthews
You can think of me as a continuity candidate. On leave at the start of 2008, I took more leave in mid-August, returning recently. The reasons were very different. In between we were shorthanded, and I did first drafts in a couple of major cases, because that was needed work. (Then Newyorkbrad returned and I could take some personal time to deal with real life.)
Time away from the Arbitration intray did give me chance to think over the (bruising) job. Basically I’m a backroom boy: I do committee work and drafting in collective discussions, deal with block appeals and people with a beef, and quiet diplomacy. This matters, but why?
First metaphor: Wikipedia is a fantastic vehicle, but the suspension isn’t so great. The “backroom” absorbs some of the shocks so that others can get on with article work. (Which is what I also do, mostly.) Second explanation: the Internet, folks, is a place where the “average case” people and the “worst case” people are very, very different. People should be treated as normal and decent unless there’s a reason otherwise. But the worst case can be pretty bad. Hence there is the toxic stuff, and a need for a group who really can collectively face up to what actually happens (it is going to).
A non-vintage year, 2008, for Arbitration, but there have been reasons. Moving on, here’s my take: Arbitration always has been run much like “WikiProject Arbitration”. The reforms people suggest usually look like conversions to something more like an onwiki process, and that may yet happen. Ask a candidate, not what are the advantages of something more process-like (obviously quicker and more predictable, in routine matters), but what are the potential drawbacks? Things we know from onsite: Would it become the preserve of a smaller group who care most? Full of arcane rules and wonkish? Fine for standard situations but giving odd results when matters required anything unorthodox? Generally, wouldn’t it suffer from restricted insight, when you need the full range of perceptions?
Of two kinds of good Arbitrators: “legal naturals” and “people of good sense” (non-exclusive), I can’t claim to be the first, rarer sort, so I’ll run as the second. My old credo will do. Single tough case to remember: “Attack sites”. I was active in horsetrading it to a conclusion. Not everyone was pleased, but the underlying issue stopped being so divisive.