Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/Charles Matthews

Support

 * &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 21:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Endorse - after reading a lot from his edit history I believe he would be good arbitor. IMO also the fact he is spending more time on contributing excelent articles than on wikipolitics is an advantage. Arbitrators should have touch with the work and problems of Main namespace. --Wikimol 09:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 17:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - could do more to support WP:Bias though. And to reduce the bloated template - Xed 19:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Extremely sensible. JFW | T@lk  17:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems to contribute at superhuman rate with little or no negative feedback. Amazing! --Rebroad 13:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. So much good (often unnoticed) work in the main namespace and seeks the input of other users.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   10:30, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Sensitive and sensible and seems to have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Paul August 22:43, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I was originally disinclined to vote for him, but he gave a very good answer on his talk page to my question.  Thanks! - Scooter 04:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I wasn't going to write here; but you may be thinking of the tall blond with the ponytail? Charles Matthews


 * Support with one caveat, see discussion below. He's done a lot to uphold and improve the quality of the mathematics pages. Terry 23:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose. Very Verily 04:02, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * May we know why please? Paul August 22:50, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, my only interaction with him was on Talk:Local ring in May. Yet with only that as our background he opposed my adminship (without comment) in September.  Read the talk page yourself to see how each of us handled a minor issue and whether his later action was proportionate. Very Verily  01:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * That kind of assumes I take no other notice of events on the site, mailing list, anything beyoud the personal. Have it your own way, but I'm not actually so blinkered. I wasn't the only one to think you would not be a good choice as admin. Charles Matthews
 * If you had another reason, you did not say so. And there were many on both sides of the aisle, some on yours notably undistinguished. Very Verily  06:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I am certainly quite happy to have anyone know I opposed you on RfA; treating that as a grudge matter rather makes my point. Charles Matthews
 * Disappointingly disconnected from what I've actually said. Very Verily 08:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, you're making less sense than the occasion warrants. You seem to be saying that you want people not to vote for me for the ArbCom, on the grounds that I figured out that you are a provocative idiot (at times) other than by exchanges between the two of us. Well, I rest my case. Though I imagine you'll want a last word. Charles Matthews 22:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well it sounds like you're asking for an answer - provoking one, I might say. If you believe I am a "provocative idiot", you could have said so in September, and I could have cited No personal attacks then instead of now.  And, the characterization more starkly clarifies the quality (poverty) of your judgement skills, quite relevant for the AC.  But to answer your concealed query, I'm dubious of condemnations from users who have never interacted with a candidate, and feel they at least warrant some manner of justification (which now you have been so kind as to belatedly provide, to your discredit). Very Verily  00:00, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Staunchly Oppose For someone who claims ArbCom shouldn't be more prosecutorial, he certainly has become the equivalent of Torquemada by accusing me without evidence (and despite my denials) of planting a hoax (that existed before I came to Wikipedia), overreacting to a little issue, making baseless insinuations, and continuing to subject me to his harassment.  His continued haranguing of me has provoked anger and hatred for him, something I try to avoid. He is a self-righteous jackass on a power trip. His treatment of VeryVerily above (who while I haven't had too much contact with, but what I have had has been good so far) is just an example of why he shouldn't be endorsed. &mdash;ExplorerCDT 22:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The reason for the investigation is a number of statements by ExplorerCDT in the VFD discussion Votes for deletion/Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix where he implied that he was the perpetrator of the hoax. --Carnildo 00:07, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Still, he won't take "no, I'm not responsible" as an answer, no matter how many times I've said it. Hardly the impartial arbitrator.  He's two steps above a stalker who ignores when his victim says "Go Away." &mdash;ExplorerCDT 00:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * One can see some further discussion of these allegations at User_talk:ExplorerCDT and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics. The matter appears to be nearing resolution; there were statements made by ExplorerCDT of a suspicious nature, which did merit an investigation by Chrarles and others, but these statements have mostly been retracted, and ExplorerCDT has sort of promised to provide a page reference that proves (as he has since repeatedly claimed) that his initial support of the hoax was based on a misreading rather than a deliberate attempt at disinformation.  If that occurs and Charles does not acknowledge that his investigation was overzealous, then I would say that there is some grounds to this objection.  In all other cases however I would support the candidacy. Terry 23:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)