Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:19, 13 November 2008

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 Misplaced Pages: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.

Questions from Angus McLellan

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 Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman case: threat or menace? Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:49, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I did not reveal my health problems of December/January in order for the arbcom to continue to use them to attack me, I revealed them because of a gross violation of confidentiality by Morven in July, where he used them to attack me. Furthermore, I don't see how you could have been aware of the situation with my health, as such things were first mentioned in deleted edits made a day after you went on a multi-week sabbatical and your involvement with the case ended. If you were, indeed, aware of the situation, your behaviour and language used to describe me would be all the more appalling. Please delete your above response. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, please take up that point with those organising the election. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from Chaser

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

Charles Matthews (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Question from jc37

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Question from M.K.

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

Misplaced Pages: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)