Talk:Matrix scheme/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Validity of MW as external link

Following are the primary points which Cybertrax feels MW is not a valid link per wiki rules.

1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

2) Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources.

3) Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

4) Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority.

5) You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.

Arguements.

1)

Cybertrax feels that MW is not unique in its description of a matrix site.

Arzel claims MW is unique, particularly with its matrix calculator and being the only site with a comprehensive list of matrix sites that have or currently exist on the internet. Arzel agrees that there are some sites which describe the matrix model, but has not been able to find a comparable site.

2)

Cybertrax claims that MW contains inaccurate material.

Arzel refutes that claim.

3)

Cybertrax claims that since MW is a forum it is not usable as an external website.

Arzel agrees that there are forums on MW, however the site also includes a great deal of Matrix information outside the forums.

4)

Cybertrax claims that since MW is owned by one person it is not usable as an external website.

Arzel agrees that technically it is owned by one person, but its use is not that of one person, but a community of individuals. Furthermore, there are other external links on other articles that would fail this issue if taken literally from a legal standpoint. The context of MW is clearly not that of one person.

5)

Cybertrax claims that since Arzel is a moderator of MW that he is unable to link the site, and that his admission as a moderator is additional proof that MW is only a forum.

Arzel contends that neither he, nor did any MW moderator originally link nor write the initial article. Also if you follow the logic that MW is owned by one person then Arzel has no legal claim to MW and is therefore related to MW in only the capacity of a volunteer with no personnal stake in MW.

Final Notes

Cybertrax states that MW should prove that it does not fail the external rule link for wikipedia.

Arzel contends that MW has been viewed as a valid reference by outside sites for a long time (included in previous section above are a sample of outside sources linking MW for information on the Matrix Scam). Arzel further contends that Cybertrax had no major objection to the MW link until his own link was removed by a third party.

Arzel 05:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The above comments actually give a negative spin on what I have been trying to say. The issue here is not what I think so much as what the Wikipedia Administrators have stated. The points to make are below:-

But it is what you think. Most of what is here is open to interpretation, and it is your personal grudge against MW which drives your interpretation Arzel 20:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

1) "Wikipedia:Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." It has already been agreed that matrixwatch.org (MW), although perceived as a community site, is actually technically owned by just one person. As such, it is classed as a personal website and fails this criteria. Source:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Again we have the issue of context. MW is not a personal website. MW is not a blog. Even the rule is not so much of a rule as it is a guideline. Arzel 20:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

2) "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable published sources. This page is a guideline, not a policy, but it represents a consensus interpretation of policy and should be followed. If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion. This is not to say that the material is not worthy of inclusion, but please take a look at our policy on Neutral point of view. Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or comments on blogs, should not be used as sources. This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." As you can see, there are 2 points here. Firstly, as matrixwatch.org is a mainly-biased group dedicating to getting rid of matrix schemes, they are obviously biased against them. Therefore they fail on this point. The second point is that as the main part of matrixwatch.org is the forum - otherwise known as a bulletin board - then they fail on this point too. Bear in midn that although these are guidelines rather than actual rules, but guidelines were created after feedback from the majority of Wikipedia users, and should be followed. Source:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources

Again we have the issue of context. MW has been accepted by outside third-party recognized groups as a source of information on the matrix scam. This as well is simply a guideline. Arzel 20:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

3) "A Wikipedia conflict of interest is an incompatibility between the purpose of Wikipedia, to produce a neutral encyclopedia, and the aims of individual editors. These include editing for the sake of promoting oneself, other individuals, causes, organizations, companies, or products, as well as suppressing negative information, and criticizing competitors. Adding material that appears to promote the interests or visibility of an article's author, family members, or associates may place the author in a conflict of interest." This point is not strong as the others, but I have included it to see what others say. As Arzel is the main person here advocating matrixwatch.org as an external link, I believe they have a conflict of interest. They are a moderator on this internet forum, and as such promoting this website as an external link will benefit both themselves and their associates. Source:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest

This violates your first tenent. Since you claim MW to be a private website then my support of MW as a link would have to fall under the nature of associates or family members. Since there is no personal gain for me, and I have no personal benefit for supporting MW this fail. Again this all falls under the issue of context, as well as this being a guideline. Arzel 20:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

4) "Links to be avoided; Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, links mainly intended to promote a website, links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." This has many points, and all of them are highly relevant die to being the External Links policy. Matrixwatch.org contains unverifiable material due to being an internet forum where ANYONE can post comments, it is an internet forum so shouldn't be included anyhow and as mentioned above it should not be linked as Arzel helps to maintain the site and Jokach actually owns it. Source:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

By this arguement you are stating that we have obviously inaccurate material regarding matrix sites. However, this is simply your opinion, and it is impossible to argue this issue. However, it is a fact that you used to own a matrix site and blame MW for numerous issues which I won't go into here. Again these are guidelines. Arzel 20:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to highlight several other points that seems to have been ignored, some other Wikipedia rules.

I have been accused by Arzel of vandalism - that is untrue and is an unfounded accusation. If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dealing_with_vandalism you will see the technical definaition of what constitutes vandalism. I hope that Arzel and any others will stop from accusing me of this now.

We should all try to remember what the proper etiquette is when editing on Wikipedia. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette the article goes into detail explaining on the correct manner. Included in this are the relevant points: don't ignore questions. If another disagrees with your edit, provide good reasons why you think it's appropriate. Concede a point, when you have no response to it; or admit when you disagree based on intuition or taste. I point out that many of my points I have made have been ignored in the past by Arzel - I ask that Arzel consider the ways of etiquette in future.

I would also like to bring to peoples attention the article on Personal Attacks at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia. Arzel has - like many other times in the past both here at Wikipedia and on matrixwatch.org - made several comments about my own personal character and my business interests. These comments constitute a personal attack, and I am not happy with this.

Lastly, it may be important to remember the following from Wikipedia:- Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.

Cybertrax 12:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Points of issue. The MW link was removed in response to the removal of Cybertrax link by a third party. It is easily assumable that this is a tit-for-tat response. No concensus had been reached prior to its removal, thus it falls under vandilism.

I have not ignored points made by Cybertrax, however I feel his points on this issue are not valid. I have responded to all issues that he has made, and pointed out exactly why I do not think they are valid. Cybertrax's response has been simply restating his original opinion without further points to back up his POV, he then goes on to claim personal attacks when there are none.

Since the article has currently one external link, it does appear to be at a minimum.

If you read the GUIDELINE for link inclusion, you will note that it is a GUIDELINE not a rule which must be followed to the letter. If this was the case then numerous articles would be in violation of one of more of the rules put forth. What is obvious is that the guideline is in place to limit or eliminate link spamming and advertising. MW is already highly rated "higher in most cases then wikipedia" when performing google searches are key phrases involving the term Matrix, Matrix Scam, Matrix Scheme, ect. MW has no advertising itself and is not a money making site. MW has been used as a reference numerous times by other sites and articles discussing the matrix scam (many listed above).

The facts are quite clear. Cybertrax does not want MW listed. Not because of any specific inaccuracies of MW, or that it is misleading (since he has not provided any). Not because of any specific unique site which could be a better resourse (because there are none). The primary reasons he has included revolve around the nature of MW's ownership. Arzel 20:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The main arguement here appears to be whether the points I have been making (regarding why I believe matrixwatch.org should not be used as an external link) are based on my own personal feelings and thoughts, or whether it is based on official policies of Wikipedia. The truth is a mixture of both. I have had many dealings with Arzel both on Wikipedia and on matrixwatch.org. I have in the past attempted to take legal action against matrixwatch.org without success (lawsuit for libel, no mailing address available to serve papers) and so in a way I have a bias. However, my own feelings have not dictated what policies I have quoted above. It may have had a bearing on how HARD I looked on Wikipedia for these policies, but at the end of the day, it was not me that created these policies, but Wikipedia Administrators. Whether there are other articles out there that also breach the rules is immaterial; just because another article "gets away with it" does not mean that we should allow it on this article. There is a saying I was taught as a young lad, "Two wrongs don't make a right". In other words, don't do something wrong just because someone else is doing it too!

Arzel has stated that all of my points above are simply guidelines and are open to intepretation. In some of them, he is right (I assume Arzel is male, although I do not actually know). I have checked, and post the following:

1) Verifibility - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow.

2) Reliable Sources - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense.

3) Conflict of Interest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest.

This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense.

4) External Links - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links.

This page is part of the Manual of Style, and is considered a guideline for Wikipedia. The consensus of many editors formed the conventions described here, and Wikipedia articles should heed these guidelines.

As you can see, out of the 4 Wikipedia pages shown above, only one is an official policy on Wikipedia, with the other 3 being just guidelines. Bear in mind, however, that ALL of the above state that Wikipedia articles should heed them. I personally feel that irrespective of mine or Arzel's personal feelings on the matter, ALL external links should follow these rules. We all have a duty as joint editors on Wikipedia to follow the rules and guidelines as decided by the majority; it is not our job to create "exceptions" just because it suits us. I was happy previously to have both my link at cyberama.info and Arzel's link at matrixwatch.org used as external links, but this was due to ignorance on my part of the Wikipedia policies. I have learnt recently about these, and feel compelled to uphold the rules that have been put in place for the benefit of the entire Wikipedia community. Don't let personal feelings get in the way of what is "right".

Lastly, it may be important to remember the following from Wikipedia:- Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.

Cybertrax 22:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

With the inclusion of the links to the policies wikipedia in question I can further address some of the issues.

1) Verifibility - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability.

This issue deals with the inclusion of SOURCES. During the previous discussion some time ago the source links to MW were removed. Thus this point does not apply to the issue at hand.

2) Reliable Sources - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources.

This issue also deals with the inclusion of SOURCES and does not apply.

3) Conflict of Interest - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest.

I am not sure where cybertrax is going with this issue. I suspect it is because I am a moderator of MW. However, as has been stated numerous times the inclusion of MW was not originally made by anyone from MW, and it has been an accepted external link by previous wiki admin.

4) External Links - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links.

This is the only area that fully pertains to this issue. I have fully pointed out the points regarding external links ad nauseum and state once more that cybertrax's primary objections revolve around the ownership issue of MW. However, it is quite clear that the information contained on MW is not that of one person but represents 3 plus years of information collected and organized by a number of people with varried disiplines, furthermore the current "owner" was not even part of MW during the compilation of some of this information. The guideline pertaining to external links is clearly intended to exclude the opinions of one individual, specifically blogs.

Cybertrax has already confirmed that he has a personal issue with MW. It is logical to assume that his interest in the deletion of the MW external link is biased due to his history with MW.

Finally, MW is a noted source of information on the internet. In the Alexa category of Investment Fraud http://www.alexa.com/browse?&CategoryID=73108 MW ranks 4th. In the category of Ponzi (what a matrix scheme is mathmatically) and Pryamid Schemes http://www.alexa.com/browse/general/?&CategoryID=1294855&mode=general&Start=1&SortBy=Popularity MW is listed 1st. There is no category for Matrix Schemes because they are too specific. To not include the only well known site actively collecting information on Matrix Schemes simply does not make sense. Arzel 03:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again Arzel appears to be ignoring the pertinent facts at hand, and is instead trying to make people focus on our PERSONAL feelings. I have already explained above why I am making the arguement to delete matrixwatch.org as an external link; namely that it breaches Wikipedia rules, policies and guidelines. I have also already explained that whilst I was happy in the past for this link to be available, this was only through my own ignorance of the rules - I am now better educated and wish to follow the Wikipedia rules as created by the majority of users as well as Administrators.

To make life here simpler, instead of re-quoting my points as stated many times above, I shall simply focus on what I feel is the most pertinent point. Links to be avoided; links mainly intended to promote a website, links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. As can be seen simply by visiting www.matrixwatch.org, this is a discussion forum that focusses mainly on matrix schemes. This is proven by the statement on the Frontpage of the site, "Our forums contain three years of knowledge and experiences with different variations of internet schemes and fraud." As even matrixwatch.org themselves state that they are a forum, they therefore automatically are disqualified from being used as an external link.

Matrixwatch.org has many members, with thousands of posts made over several years. It IS a good source of information, but it is impossible to verify this information due to many of the posts being made by members of their own "feelings" and "emotions". As one example shows, "Can anyone else find any SCUMBAG matrix owners? Both past and present please." This was a comment made by Concerned, one of the moderators on matrixwatch.org (source = http://www.matrixwatch.org/forums/showthread.php?t=475). As you can see, this is not an informative request, but full of emotion and bias. There are many other comments in a similar vein.

Arzel and I seem to be going around in circles - for every point I make Arzel seems to try and avoid answering the point in a logical format. Perhaps it is time for some others to make their own comments??

Cybertrax 13:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Cybertrax, the pertinent point here is personal feelings. He continues to look for specific issues as to why MW should not be an external link, while ignoring the reasons why MW is a good external link. HE continues to ignore the fact that the pertinent information regarding matrix sites contained within MW is not within the context of forum discussion.

Cybertrax continues to show his personal bias regarding this issue. The very post he included has be taken out of context.

The entire post must now be included to show the context.

Here a previous matrix site owner was trying to buy his way into the first spot of a matrix.

 Posted by deals2good.com at the ww.top-matrix.com forum
 I'm willing to pay twice as much to be the first on your new lists. I'm mostly interested
 in new lists that cost below $70 to join. I can pay you through Stormpay or Paypal, you 
 choose. Please email me at email@happyjoin.com to contact me about this.  

Concerned then commented in response.

 He USED to run a matrix site, but changed it to a non matrix site and returned only about
  10% back to the customers.

And then the quote Cybertrax made.

 Can anyone else find any SCUMBAG matrix owners? Both past and present please.

Is the post biased? I guess that depends on your POV. What that owner did is certainly not moral, and is also indicitive of the typical matrix scam site owner. What point is cybertrax trying to make with this post.....Does he disaprove of Concerned? Is he trying to defend the matrix site owner?

I do agree with him on one issue though. It would be nice to hear some additional comments. Arzel 15:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

As per usual, Arzel is "forgetting" the main point...even though it has been mentioned MANY times.

Arzel, a few questions. Do you agree that matrixwatch.org is a discussion forum? A yes or no answer is all that is required. If it is yes, then according to the External Links policy, it should not be used as a link. If it is no, then please explain EXACTLY what matrixwatch.org is, what it does - also please explain why the site itself states that it is a forum.

All I am doing is following the Wikipedial rules, policies and guidelines - Arzel seems to be forgetting this. Perhaps Arzel could try to explain why we should IGNORE the official Wikipedia rules and allow matrixwatch.org to continue as an external link??!

Cybertrax 16:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already stated a response to that question. MW is a compilation of information on matrix/ponzi scams (and other similar scams including pryamid schemes). Some of this information is in the form of discussions. Some of this information is in the form of articles and other tools not open to discussion.

MW mission statement. To provide the most useful and informative web portal for knowledge about the latest internet-based schemes, and work to build, unite, and empower a community dedicated to making the internet a safer place for consumers.

Cybertrax, I know what you are trying to do. It has been your modus operandi since your first post at MW, and I will not play your game. However, due to your inclusion of the remark by Concerned I must include a short section showing why it is impossible to discuss anything with you in a reasonable manner as you constantly shift you line of logic.

One of your first posts at MW included this little gem.

http://www.matrixwatch.org/forums/showpost.php?p=12555&postcount=14

If the matrix system is found to be illegal then I will retract all of my statements and bow gracefully out of the arena. I must admit however, that although I have a few doubts on the matter I am still dubious as to the statement that Matrix sites are illegal lotteries. I dispute this wholeheartedly.

Sometime later a matrix site in the UK was determined to be running an illegal lottery.

http://www.oft.gov.uk/News/Press+releases/2005/118-05.htm

Rather than admit your original logic was incorrect you instituted your own brand of logic to make this statement, which is currently in the Matrix Scheme article, as well as on your external link.

In the UK some matrix sites may claim they are a private lottery, and thus operate legally.

Why won't you give up this charade of trying to prove the validity of the Matrix Scam, and subsequently trying to prove that MW is wrong? Arzel 17:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, will you PLEASE stop going on about things that are actually irrelevant! The crucial matter here is that matrixwatch.org cannot be used as an external link as it fails the policy - it is a discussion forum. Anything else is simply rhetoric to try and avoid this one salient point!! I note that rather than refute this comment, Arzel is continuing on his crusade to try and assassinate my own pewrsonal character - this despite my quoting Wikipedia rules that state this is not allowed!!

The frontpage of matrixwatch.org states the following:-

Welcome to MatrixWatch.org

Matrix Watch is your #1 source for information on the matrix sites, and other internet scams! Our Advice -- Don't throw your money away on them.

Our Mission Statement: To provide the most useful and informative web portal for knowledge about the latest internet-based schemes, and work to build, unite, and empower a community dedicated to making the internet a safer place for consumers. Read more about us ...

Our forums contain three years of knowledge and experiences with different variations of internet schemes and fraud. All the information you need on internet matrix sites, pyramid schemes, YMMSS, PIPS, IT4US and other internet schemes and companies can be found in the MatrixWatch forums!

For victims of IT4US.net, please visit the IT4US-SCAM website and Register Your Losses!

Through a united and informed community, we CAN make a positive impact!

As can be seen by the above, found at www.matrixwatch.org, the site is clearly a discussion forum - it says so above. The discussions/articles that Arzel claims to NOT be part of the forum - closed to comment - are simply forum posts that have been locked, that's all. As discussion forums are not allowed to be used as external links, perhaps Arzel could explain what the problem is?!

Cybertrax 20:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the point of this discussion has reached its end point. As I have stated many times this is an issue of CONTEXT. Cybertrax does not accept this context because he has a personal grudge (well documented through his own comments) against MW as is evidenced by his first comments in the talk page (Archives).

By the by, I also used to be a member of Matrix Watch - I was banned because I proved in the forums that matrix sites were LEGAL in England!! I would also like to point out that as MatrixWatch.org is not a neutral site (anti-matrix), any of their members (such as Arzel) cannot be relied upon to provide reliable information.

It should also be noted that MW as an external link has been approved by wiki admin Carnildo. Perhaps Cybertrax should take it up with Carnildo. Arzel 22:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, once again I am amazed at how you try and turn a simple discussion into a personal vendetta against me! Instead of trying to answer the points I make, you insist on making attacks on my personal character and accusing me of having personal grudges. You even use the fact that I have been open and honest against me!

I answered your points adequately, you do not accept my response. I am not making personal attacks. I am simply stating facts as to why I believe you are pressing this issue. Arzel 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made my case over and over - yet you seem unwilling to even comprehend WHAT is being said! Let me state thecase once more time, in order so that anyone is able to understand...

I understand what you are saying. I feel your judgement is biased based on your history regarding this page and your previous experience at MW (of which I was not part.) Arzel 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia policy on External Links that all users/editors must follow. It states, "Links to be avoided; links mainly intended to promote a website, links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET." As can be seen simply by visiting www.matrixwatch.org, this is a discussion forum that focusses mainly on matrix schemes. This is proven by the statement on the Frontpage of the site, "Our forums contain three years of knowledge and experiences with different variations of internet schemes and fraud." As even matrixwatch.org themselves state that they are a forum, they therefore automatically are disqualified from being used as an external link.

As I said before this is an issue of context. Not EVERYTHING is black and white, yet you feel you must deal in absolutes. You simply do not accept my explanation, fair enough. Arzel 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not open to context as Arzel alleges - it is a simple policy that many users/editors have endorsed, is enforced by Administrators, and is a basic policy that we must all follow. As is also mentioned on the official policy, a website may be an excellent source of information, but may not be suitable for use as an external link. I believe that matrixwatch.org may be viewed as one such case.

As I stated earlier if you have a problem with the link bring it up with Carnildo. Carnildo is a wiki admin and first approved of MW as an external link. By your logic administrators are not following their own policy. By this one would have to assume that they either do not know the policy or they have discretion in how the policy is applied. Since in the archives of this article Carnildo specifically points out the External link guideline Carnildo is obviously aware of the guideline, ergo they have discretion in how the policy is enforced. In otherwords they take into consideration the context of the link when in question. Arzel 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Arzel - if you believe it is a matter of context, can you please quote the part of the External Links policy that states this? We all have to follow this policy, so I would appreciate if you can help us out by copying and pasting the part in the policy that mentions "context". I would also like to point out that even Administrators can sometimes make mistakes - perhaps Carnildo was unaware of the External Links policy too, same as I was ignorant of it until recently. After all, we are all human! The policy itself can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links.

As I stated previously Carnildo is not unaware of the policy, and since MW has been linked almost from the origin of this article almost two years ago it apparently has not raised the ire of anyone else...at least not on this point of contention. As to what end others have felt it was appropriate I can only hazzard a guess.

From the aforementioned external link guideline.

There are several things which should be considered when adding an external link.

Is it accessible to the reader?

Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?

Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?

Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter.

My guess is that it falls under the aspect of Proper Context in that it is an informative site. Additionally the MW link does not fall into the area of a link which must be avoided. MW does fall into the area of links normally avoided, but it does not state in that policy they must be avoided. Furthermore if you consider the context of MW relating to the article it is an appropriate additional source of information relating to the Matrix Scheme. Arzel 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing I do agree on, this matter seems to be going around in circles with no attempt at trying to resolve things. I point out a policy - providing the link to it as well so that it can be examined - and yet this is ignored. As a response, I get character assasinations and verbal "put-downs". In fact, it makes me feel just as though I was back at matrixwatch.org - that was exactly the attitude I was faced with everyday!! If anyone else would like to make their feelings on this matter I would be grateful. Otherwise I feel that the next best option would be to delete the matrixwatch.org external link. I am already confused as the article itself still has the "protected" banner up, yet the protected status should have been lifted around 18 hours ago - according to the text alongside it!

Would you please stop with the accusations of character attack. I am simply providing statements (which you have made in the past) to which I believe you are biased in your opinion on this matter. Yet you continually accuse me and MW of character assasination, even so much as to take comments made by Concerned out of context to put forth your own agenda.

As at the start of this "debate", I am advocating the deletion of matrixwatch.org as an external link due to it failing the Wikipedia External Links policy as created by Wikipedia Administrators.

Cybertrax 00:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

We all know what you are advocating, and you are free to do so. The real question to ask is does the MW external link add to the article or take away from the article. I propose that it does. Cybertrax has yet to respond to earlier points I have made documenting that MW is a respected source of information on the Matrix Scheme by numerous outside groups and agencies. Arzel 01:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Cybertrax, I see you have not abided by your own rules for discussion. You have two open requests regarding the issue, yet you felt it neccesary to remove the external link before those requests had been answered. The evidence you have provided does not show the link must be removed. Arzel 01:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, it was YOU that said, "I think the point of this discussion has reached its end point." In my mind this signifies that you do not wish to continue a discussion - a discussion I might add that we have both agreed is going nowhere as we both have 2 different fixed viewpoints and there appears to be no way either of us can convince the other to compromise. I have notified administrators of this, and one of my requests was to have the protection on this page lifted so that adjustments can be made in order to comply with Wikipedia rules. This has in fact happened - the page is no longer protected.

I would like to point out - as I have done so before - that vandalism is a strong word to use, and is in fact incorrect. Please check the Wikipedia definition of vandalism, and perhaps you would care to apologise afterwards?? I have also corrected the spelling of the word in the new section, in order to help.

Your refusal to accept and comply with Wikipedia rules despite many discussions is duly noted.

Cybertrax 12:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You mind obviously is giving your bad information.

So if I am to understand you correctly, and I think I do. Since we have come to no concensus, your logic is that you must be right? I really think you need to think things through better. Additionally, the protection you were referring was only a one day protection. I didn't say anything, but anyone could have edited the page after the protection time expired. The tag remained, but wasn't doing anything. Recently a bot came along and removed the tag.

If you don't want to be called a vandil, then don't vandilism. May I remind you that during the previous dispute there was content on the page I didn't agree with but left while the dispute was in place. I think it is you that should be appologizing. Arzel 14:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

After 2 reverts back to the protected version I would like to kindly request that Cybertrax leaves the page alone until a final decision is made on whether the external link to Matrixwatch is to remain.

Without reiterating to much that has already been said already its important to realise that there is a benefit in having Matrixwatch as an external link because it provides a highly relevant resource for anyone wishing to continue researching the Matrix Scheme topic. To remove such a resource would not only hinder the natural progression of that research but also do an injustice to an organisation that not only provides a large amount of information but also plays a major part in stamping out Matrix Schemes.

Even though the inclusion of Matrixwatch as an external link must have already been considered and approved when the original article was written I understand Cybertrax's argument against having the link present and the final decision will be up to the Wikipedia administration. Webwatch 16:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Webwatch for your comments.

This article is no longer protected, and this is the reason why I have seen fit to uphold the Wikipedia rules by deleting the external link to matrixwatch.org. It fails on several points, not least of which is that as an internet discussion forum it is not allowed to be used as an external link. It has been mentioned more than once by myself that, "Matrixwatch.org has many members, with thousands of posts made over several years. It IS a good source of information, but it is impossible to verify this information due to many of the posts being made by members of their own "feelings" and "emotions"." It was pointed out by a volunteer with the WikiProject Spam back on the 11th December last year who looked at matrixwatch.org that, "I looked at the site -- it's got useful stuff, it just doesn't meet Wikipedia's rules.

Again you take something out of context. That quote was related to MW being used as a REFERENCE (specifically regarding "What is a Matrix" and a couple other items. This has already been discussed and accepted that MW could not be used as a reference in this instance. It was not in reference to the external link. Get your facts straight! Arzel 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, the guideline flows from the three key editing policies: no original research, verifiability, and neutral point of view. A forum is a great meeting place of different points of view, but the posts there don't meet those 3 policies." And earlier, on the 8th December last year, they stated, ''"Just the same, I don't think either link meets the linking guideline. They may be good sites, but they just don't meet the guideline as I see it. Most sites don't. See the "Links normally to be avoided" section of the guideline: "10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET." It's not that these sites are bad or that they're not useful -- it's that there's no real quality control over the content, even if they're closely moderated. "11. Links to personal websites, including blogs and anonymous websites or webpages, except those allowed by policy (see WP:V)" If you then go to WP:V (the Verifiability policy), it has a section entitled "Self-published sources (online and paper)" that basically says that unless Cybertrax is a widely published (by "reliable sources" as narrowly defined by Wikipedia) and "notable" authority, his work should not be quoted. Finally, the "Important points to remember" at the very front of the article makes a key point: "1.Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." So I suggest that you delete both links, not because they're to "bad" places on the web, but because they don't meet the very specific linking guideline and verifiability policy that have been hammered out by the Wikipedia community's consensus."'

I have placed requests on several different pages on Wikipedia for administrators to intervene in this dispute, and if reverts keep on happening to place the article under a protected status. To date I am still waiting - but I am aware that admin have plenty of other things to do and recently there has been a backlog.

I shall repost what I said 7 days ago - the same applies now:-

I shall agree that both external links are unsuitable for this article. This is based mainly on the Wikipedia rules that we all have to follow - no exceptions. In this respect, I shall now delete all external links. If the links are placed back, I shall follow Wikipedia rules, and delete them again. Anybody who continues to alter this will be reported to Wikipedia admin for breach of rules. In this case, I would ask that the article be locked to stop any further vandalism attacks. I say this, as I believe that others may feel strongly at the links being deleted.

Please be aware of the Wikipedia rules that we must all follow, and remember - this is only an article on the internet, not life or death!

By that logic it doesn't matter what is on the internet or wikipedia, since it is only an article, not life or death. Come on, used better reasoning than that. Arzel 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Cybertrax, I have read what you wrote earlier in the discussion already but thank you for the reminder. Having made 2 reverts already Today I do not feel the need to make another, although the 3 Revert Rule is there for a reason, it is a limit not a target. I also feel that by continually reverting the article is not adding to the discussion only diverting attention from the main point as to whether the Matrixwatch link is included in the final version or not-I feel it should be but its not my final decision to make.

On a side note I would like to request that Cybertrax is not reported for breaching the 3 revert rule as a final resolution to this issue is much more important and my arrival in this discussion would have instigated the rule breach.

I do agree that this is just an internet article and not life or death however sometimes the true measure of man/woman is how he/she defends or fights for what he/she believes in.

I have a feeling we have all been through a similar discussion last year but in this instance there is little room for compromise, either the link is removed or left intact as per the original and the previously protected version.

Cybertrax I would like to ask one question similar to what you asked earlier. Do you believe that Matrixwatch is just a discussion forum and nothing else. Yes or No (or something in between if you prefer).Webwatch 18:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I shall answer this in two separate bits, for two separate people.

Arzel:

You have just made an error - perhaps you could recheck the comments and quotes made. You stated that the quote I had reposted from a member of the WikiProject Spam was to do with using matrixwatch.org as a REFERENCE, not as an External Link. In fact, you stated, "Get your facts straight!" I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I was correct originally, and you statement is simply a bald-faced lie. A._B. made the statement SPECIFICALLY about links - it was a discussion we all had in December regarding whether any of the external links were suitable. Please check your facts before making a post, thank you.

WebWatch:

First of all, it's good to hear from someone else apart from just having me and Arzel here - even if it is another matrixwatch.org moderator. Secondly, just like to point out that although there IS a 3-revert rule, I have not actually reverted anything. I have taken action, and it is OTHER people who have reverted back to the original article. Having said that, I appreciate your sentiments about not reporting me for this potential breach of rules. I also agree with you in some regards about making a stand for something you believe in - but there comes a time when one has to consider whether one is making a stand or just being stubborn!

You asked me a question, and the simple answer is no, I do NOT believe matrixwatch.org is JUST a discussion forum and nothing else (surprised anyone yet?!). I do in fact believe that matrixwatch.org is a good INFORMATIVE discussion forum, and has lots of content. However, this content (which runs into thousands of posts over the years by hundreds of members) is not factually accurate 100%, and has an approximate 50/50 split on true/false information. I say false, as alot of the content is actually not verifiable facts, but instead contains emotional rhetoric. It is for this reason that Wikipedia Administrators in conjunction with many of the users decided to create the External Links policy, which specifically does NOT allow discussion forums to be used as external links.

It is not just me that says this - in fact I hadn't considered it myself - it is other people who have made suggestions regarding this article, pointing out the breach of rules. This is why I keep on deleting the link - as the link does not fall under rules, policies and guidelines as set out by the people who have our best interests at heart.

Cybertrax 19:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Cybertrax for your answer to my earlier question. I too believe that Matrixwatch is not just a discussion forum and have to agree that at times not every individual's post will be factual, thats the beauty of organisations that provide discussion areas because what takes place in thoses areas/threads can sometimes be factual and sometimes not. As Matrixwatch promotes freedom of speech in its discussion area and as long as forum rules arn't breached the restrictions on what members say in those areas are limited.

Surely Matrixwatch as a whole can't be held responsible for every individual poster's line of thought at a particular time. If I make a mistake in a post I only have myself to blame and not Matrixwatch.

Its also worth mentioning that in order to post on The Matrixwatch discussion forum you have to join via the usual e-mail sign up process. For the average internet surfer who maybe researching the Matrix topic there is no restriction on viewing Matrix site information and usage of Matrixwatch resources i.e. Matrix Calculator.

I suspect the discussion forum section of Acceptable External links is designed to avoid linking to forums that require immediate sign up before viewing any content or websites that are only discussion forums and have little else to offer neither of thse characteristics apply to Matrixwatch.

Maybe there is a possible compromise here. I doubt it would be acceptable but I will try never the less. How about the external link instead of pointing to the Matrixwatch home page instead directs to: http://www.matrixwatch.org/modules.php?name=FAQ&op=viewcategory&cid=6 This points directly to page with additional information that is not a discussion forum.

If we continue down the line of thought that every External Link should not point to a website that contains a forum as part of its whole this would prove too restrictive and only hinder further research.

I have a feeling the Wikipedia admin are drawing straws on who deals with this dispute.Webwatch 22:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Wikipedia admin - you could be right!

Whilst I can understand the need for compromise, and I do understand that the link you have particularly chosen is not editable by anyone other than matrixwatch.org admin, there are several problems with your suggestion.

Firstly, whilst the article cannot be edited, it IS still an item held on a discussion forum - it is simply a static section in amongst the forum portal - the forum can easily be accessed from this article and as such can not be used (I know this as I used to run a similar discussion forum using vBulletin and vPortal at matrixwatch.NET - which fizzled out.)

Secondly, I actually have issues with the article in question as it is rather misleading. As an example, one of the title headings reads "Why are matrix sites illegal?" As I believe that in certain countries they are NOT illegal - and this is not made clear anywhere in the article - then I feel this misleads others. As a 2nd example, there is a comment on there "We highly recommend that you DO NOT contact the matrix owner with refund requests or complaints." This does not make sense! Would you advise someone who had a problem with a purchase from a shop NOT to go visit that shop but to go straight to the credit card company to make a complaint??! I don't think so!! It should be the same here. Matrixwatch.org is directly advising a course of action to these people - through this article link - to take action that is not consistent with an informative neutral article. There are several other problems with this article that I believe make it unsuitable as an external link. Of course, if the article itself were to be amended I would be happy to consider this again.

Thirdly, matrixwatch.org is not currently a stable website. When I clicked on the link provided, I found a "Account Suspended" notice provided by the web host. I also note that a message pointing this out has also been posted by someone else on the matrixwatch.org forum. This is not the first time this has happened, in fact it seems to happen regularly. There are two possible considerations here; either the forum is getting so popular that the servers are crashing, or that the servers used are unreliable. Links that go to unreliable sites are also discouraged according to the External Links policy.

In order to try and answer your points:

Yes, in actual fact, as a point of law matrixwatch.org IS held responsible for every post made and held on the forum - this was the crux of my attempted lawsuit (which by the way I destroyed all paperwork for this last year as I decided it was time to let things go). I base this on the two legal battles that Yahoo and MSN faced and lost in the US courts, where it was decided that they were held accountable for posts made on their forums by their users. They were critiscised by the judge for not policing their forums to a greater degree. Now, I do have to say that I think the matrixwatch.org forums ARE policed well, but there are still many posts that I know personally about that are both inflamatory and full of emotion rather than based on factual statement. This is to be expected on a discussion forum, but is the precise reason why discussion forums are not allowed to be used as external links. Whether you have to sign-up to the forum or not before posting is irrelevant, the forum is still resonsible for all postings made, and this is the reason why moderators are used - to moderate posts.

As a sideline, I am NOT impressed by the vandalism being done to my own personal Talk page. This is directly related to the debate here, as shown by the personal comments left. Whoever it is, please stop or I will trace the IP address and take further action .

Back to you...or anyone else.....

Cybertrax 00:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I merely wanted to show that an area of Matrixwatch could be accessed that wasn't a discussion forum, I'm aware that you may not agree with some of the content of the page. The fact that the discussion forum can be accessed from the page shows how the page itself is not a discussion forum. As far as rewriting goes thats not my decision but encouraging to see we have a possible compromise none the less. Maybe you could supply a list of each part of the article you take issue with and how you would like it changed, I will make sure it is passed on.

As far as Matrixwatch being responsible for every post I believe there is some protection under US Interenet defamation law, an article discussing this can be found at: [1] although I haven't been able to find the actual court ruling yet. Is the Yahoo case your referring to the Nude Photos one which I assure you would not be tolerated at Matrixwatch.

As far as stability goes I haven't experienced any problems recently, but as with all websites a small percentage of downtime is to be expected. Matrixwatch is experiencing a large amount of traffic at the moment as a recent well documented Ponzi scheme is shutting down-but that is another topic.Webwatch 10:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have spent a few days deliberately not making comment, as in the Wikipedia rules it advises you do that in order to gain some kind of perspective - and you do not make comments which you may later regret. Unfortunately, I have had no cause to change my mind on my feelings regarding the external links, and matrixwatch.org in particular. In acual fact, recent events have actually proven my point!

1st point. Matrixwatch.org is operated via a CMS (Content Management System) as provided by vBulletin. The front-end look is provided by vPortal. These two are designed primarily for internet discussion forums to operate. The frontpage of matrixwatch.org states they are an internet discussion forum. The article that is shown by the link provided by Webwatch is merely a static HTML page that is interlinked from within the forum. This article is surrounded on its page by links to many other aspects of the forum. Last year when a different external llink was being discussed, it was decided that this was unsuitable BECAUSE it had links to unsuitable sites - even though it was suitable itself.

2nd point. Matrixwatch.org may in fact NOT be reposnsible for the posts of its users, as per the article that Webwtach linked to - I had not seen this, and if it is true then this replaces the earlier court rulings that I had referred to. However, in the past 12 hours there have been a number of posts that are emotional and possibly deflamational to others - "No I think she was just sick of the fat *** scammer. Sorry I just have no use for Kim Inman

Hey! HEY! That's not fair! Everybody has value! We could melt him down and we'd have several hundred gallons of mediocre quality lamp oil we could sell... Or, use it to light our homes since, thanks to Inman, we can't afford electricty anymore."

I believe this shows the EXACT reason why I feel matrixwatch.org is unsuitable as an external link. Discussing the fact that someone could be melted down is not exactly the type of discussion that should be linked from Wikipedia! It goes against the policy of reporting in a factual manner.

Really need to show more tact in your attacks of MW, you are taking this completely out of context. Kim Inman was runing one of the largest matrix schemes in the world, and with the recent collapse and his departure there are many people understandably upset. Some people wish to vent, MW will allow this within reason, but we will also quickly lock down a thread. And as you know we do not delete anything from MW, uless it is shill. Please refrain from attacking MW in general. Arzel 16:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

3rd point. There have been SEVERAL mentions on matrixwatch.org of instability of their site, including several by various admin. This is not entirely their fault as it appears to be a problem with their own webhost - nonetheless, I think it shows that there could be a problem in linking to them.

This is also an unfounded accusation. Isolated incidents of internet problems are not the focus of instability. MW is up close to 100% of the time, please do not make basless accusations. Arzel 16:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

My basic and main point stands - as matrixwatch.org is an internet discussion forum it fail to meet the criteria set out in the External Links policy of Wikipedia. I therefore hold that it should not be used as an external link in this article.

Cybertrax 09:57, 03 March 2007 (UTC)

The external link notwithstanding, some changes are due for the article. Arzel 16:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Arzel, you seem to misunderstand me. I agree with you - it is completely understandable that people who have lost money to YMMSS/STA may be alittle upset and vent their frustrations. However, this is precisely WHY discussion forums are not allowed as external links!! It is because of this very reason that the External Links policy states this, as these are comments by people which are full of emotion and therefore the comments are not based in fact or neutral in viewpoint. I can well understand this happening, but feel we should uphold the policies of Wikipedia.

The "unfounded" accusation is actually founded in statements made by several of the matrixwatch.org administrators; found here at http://www.matrixwatch.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=5121. In actual fact, the owner of the site said, "This has been happening more and more (couple times a week) and in checking in with our host, we're not the only ones experiencing it. The site will be unavailable for only around 2 minutes or so, so it won't ever go away, it'll just look like its gone away. Its generally caused by a long or resource intensive query on the forums ... its weird that the site hasn't grown that astronomically that it should be causing CPU problems ...."

I am intrigued by your comments about some changes needed for the article. Perhaps you could explain what you mean by this??! After all, it has only bee a few months since it was last updated via mediators!!

Cybertrax 17:47, 03 March 2007 (UTC)

Recent Changes

Ok, so why did you remove the argument that MW strongly disagrees? MW is not linked, not used an external reference, and it is a fact the MW does disagree. Please explain yourself. Furthermore, why do you continue to state that some matrix sites view themselves to be a lottery under UK laws? The only one to make that claim has been you, even as such it is not cited anywhere. Arzel 18:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, where do I start?!

I have replaced the word SOME for 2 reasons... there was more than one matrix site that stated this, and the word SOME was agreed upon between myself, yourself and the mediator when the article was under mediation a few months ago. If you recall, I wanted the word "many", but we compromised on the word "some" in order to have the article finished under mediation. You seem to want to go against the mediators wishes - why I do not know!

It seems strange that you have replaced the original statement and instead made mention of matrixwatch.org - one could think that you were determined to get matrixwatch mentioned in the article anyway you could! The original statement as determined by the mediator is quite adequate for the purpose. In your statement, in order for matrixwatch to be used in the context you have made, it would need a linked source. It was already decided at mediation that this should not happen, hence the problem with mentioning matrixwatch in the context you have done. Merely pointing out that nameless others disagree with the statement should be good enough - the matrix sites that contend the for arguement are not mentioned, so neither should the other parties - this was decided at mediation several months ago.

On the plus though - I like the other alterations you have done to the article, both with the extra definition and the new external link. In actual fact, I have been waiting for weeks for you to add that particular link - it was suggested months ago in this Talk page - but didn't think it was my place to point out what should have been obvious to you. I am happy with the external link that is currently used.

Cybertrax 19:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Why should nameless others be good enough, when it is common knowledge that MW is the primary group objecting to your claim of legality. Matrixwatch deserves some historical mention in the article, exactly where is open to debate, but it cannot be questioned that some of what is already in the article is in direct reference to Matrixwatch in some manner. It is through matrixwatch that your argument of legality relating to lotteries was made, and further denounced. It is Matrixwatch which is the primary source of information on the lawsuit regarding EzExpo and their payment processors. Matrixwatch has been an intergral part of the discussion regarding the Matrix scheme for well over 4 years. I think it is quite clear that you want no inclusion, regardless of how obscure, of MW in the article.

As it was I made no actual hyperlink to MW, and therefore does not fall under the auspice of being either a reference nor a link. Since this does not violate the rules for reference sites it should not be debatable.

On the other issue. Part of the concession on this issue was the inclusion of MW as an external reference, since that no longer exists, that concession is no longer valid. So either we can state the fact, or simply remove it completely. Arzel 20:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

In order to settle this, I have amended the text slightly. If the anti-matrix side are to be named, it is only fair that the pro-matrix side is also named - in the interests of fairness after all. I am happy for the article to stay as it is, with both sides named. If we continue to have problems with this I may be forced to ask for a 2nd set of mediation - this would not be good for anyone and I do not wish to do this - it is a waste of many peoples time.

Cybertrax 22:08, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope, that is not the issue. I have changed it again to name your specific site from which you were basing your argument. Your personal opinion page is purely independent research in this context and applies only to your one site. Arzel 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Funnily enough I THOUGHT you might disagree! It seems taht you are determined to get the name of matrixwatch.org in this article, and just as determined to keep the name of the pro-matrix arguement OUT!!

I have changed the wording - yet again - to make it a former context style, but have kept in the name of cyberama.info. This is because there were more than one matrix site that used this arguement, and both quoted from cyberama.info. I may not be able to prove this point because of only being a primary source, but for the same reason you are unable to disprove this point. Cyberama.info must stay as it is the name of a current pro-matrix source (although not linked); as turbo-matrix.com was not the only matrix site to use this arguement and also no longer exists thanks to the Danish guy I sold it to, it should not be mentioned. The arguement came originally from cyberama.info, and so it is THIS name that should be written.

I have tried to compromise in order to cease this discussion - I have agreed to having matrixwatch.org kept as a named source in return for having the pro-matrix arguement also named at cyberama.info. If you refuse to allow this, then I shall have no alternative but to have BOTH named sources deleted as the original article was.

The choice is yours....

Cybertrax 23:45, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with your inclusion as such is that it opens the door for any claim to be backed up by some website without any outside reference. Your logic of legality regarding matrix sites in the UK is purely your interpretation of the law. By the same logic I could set up a webpage and make some other outrageous statement on any webpage by my interpretation of some law and then link to my page.

As such the statement regarding the legality is something that is purely conjecture, and not encyclopedic fact. It completely unverifiable and that section needs to be removed as un-referencable. The only reason I originally agreed to some of the sections earlier was because people were able to reference MW for more accurate information. As such the legality section must be re-written with only the facts. You are not a lawyer, and even if you were wikipedia is not a place for legal opinion, which is what you have supplied.

I have tried to compromise in order to cease this discussion - I have agreed to having matrixwatch.org kept as a named source in return for having the pro-matrix arguement also named at cyberama.info. If you refuse to allow this, then I shall have no alternative but to have BOTH named sources deleted as the original article was.

However, I must thank you for finally admitting that your primary reason for arguing this whole issue in the beginning was because your link was deleted. What you fail to understand, and still fail to understand to this day, is that this was never about MW, or your link. It was and always has been about providing truthful information regarding these schemes. Arzel 02:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted the latest changes back to what it was, as this was a HUGE change that should not have happened without discussion. You have deleted major parts of the legal discussion that was agreed upon at mediation. You did agree to this at the time, Arzel, so please explain why you have changed your mind.

I explained in my previous comment, it was a conditional agreement. Arzel 16:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Previously, we were discussing whether matrixwatch,org should be mentioned in name, and also naming the opposite side of the argument, cyberama.info. My point is that as the article was before, the matrix sites that operated through English private lottery laws were unnamed, as were the groups that believed this was not true interpretations of the law. You then saw fit to name matrixwatch.org as the "sole" group who was against this - I am not sure why as matrixwatch.org themselves never actually discussed this with the matrix sites! It is, after all, hard to have an intelligent conversation on a forum such as matrixwatch.org, when one of the parties is banned!!

The point is that your interpretation of the UK laws have no relevance. Just as there is no laws specifically stating Matrix Sites to be illegal, there are none naming them to be legal. The only way your logic should be included is if it is noted that it is really just one site that was using that logic, and it had no legal standing. I never mentioned MW as the sole group against this. I said that some groups, including MW disagree with this interpretation. We welcome some other matrix site owner or previous owner to discuss this on MW, but that has not happened. You were banned from MW for hijacking other threads, and other moderators were sick and tired of dealing with you. Every reasonal response from someone at MW resulted in some other nonsensical response from you. It appeared that you were dead set on proving MW wrong, and cared little if are arguments were logical. Additionally, when you started your attempt to sue MW, you pretty much guarenteed that you will not ever post at MW again. Arzel 16:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As you saw fit to name one of the parties, it was merely a logical step to even out the equation and name the other party concerned. As the matrix sites (plural - more than one) used the arguement as set out on cyberama.info, it was logical to name that site rather than the actual matrix sites. Of course, in order to be totally accurate it would have been betetr to name both the matrix sites AND cyberama.info, but I felt that you would not agree to this, hence the naming of just cyberama.info alongside matrixwatch.org.

It appears to me that you are determined to get matrixwatch.org named in this article at any lengths, and equally determined to make sure cyberama.info is NOT named. Is this the case? If so, please explain the reasoning behind your logic.

Not sure where you are going here, there was no mention of MW whatsoever in my recent change. Arzel 16:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

As matrixwatch.org (through Arzel, one of the moderators on this internet forum) is one side of the arguement and cyberama.info is on the other, it is logical that if one is named then so should the other. Likewise, if one is NOT named, neither should the other - to keep things on an even keel.

I suggest that we both take some time away from this article in order to try and get a perspective on things. Perhaps others, such as WebWatch (another matrixwatch.org moderator), would care to comment?

Cybertrax 14:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

So exactly what do you not like about the rewritten legal section? It is purely factual information. There is no conjecture about what might be legal, there is no mention of Matrixwatch.org. One reading the article now would have no idea that MW is the leading group working against Matrix Scams. Please point out what changes were made that are not neutral. Arzel 16:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I shall try and make this brief. The article as it stands after your edit gives a distinct negative spin on it - it is conspicuous by the absence of ALL the facts. THIS was the reason why I asked for mediation last year, and is why the mediator at the time included certain facts.

It does not give a negative spin. Arzel 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Matrix sites have been sued in the CIVIL courts, but there has not been one case of it going through CRIMINIAL procedures - this is important.

Which is why I stated there is no legal precdednt Arzel 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

2) Matrix sites are considered illegal by some, but are considered to operate within the law by others - FACT. This is also important.

Unverifiable, plus it is already stated in the introduction. Some Matrix sites have been deemed illegal, this is verifiable fact Arzel 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

3) In some countries there are laws specifically against matrix sites, but in other countries the laws allow them - FACT.

Evidence? There is no evidence anywhere that any country specifically names Matrix Sites legal. Arzel 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to draw a parallel between matrix sites and online gambling. In the USA the government has specified that ALL online gambling is illegal. To this effect, there have been arrests of the heads of gambling organisations - even though they operate OUTSIDE of the USA...this is considered by many to be false arrests as US law cannot be placed upon other countries operations. To this end, England is actually about to issue guidelines on how exactly UK companies can register to become legitimate gambling entities under UK law. In a similar way, although matrix sites may be considered by many of the States of America to be illegal, they may operate legally within another country, such as England. As you are not from England, I fail to see how you would know the English law better than an English citizen.

By the same token how do you claim to know US law better than an American? Come, this is a pointless argument, and even if it did have some validity I have several acquaintances from the UK, none of them are under the opinion that Matrix Sites are legal. Stick to the facts, stop trying to make legal interpretation. Arzel 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that although you have mentioned that this is my "interpretation" of the law, this is the case on your side too. You intrepret that matrix sites are illegal - I interpret that they are legal. If you are able to prove your point, then please feel free to do so. Otherwise, I feel it is best to point out both sides of the arguement as was stated in the original mediated article - that way the readers can look at both sides of the arguement and decide for themselves.

The main difference here is that I am only using known references. Nowhere in the legal section are there any personal opinions made. Everything there is well documented from the appropriate legal entities. This is a much less biased version. Arzel 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, let me point out that not only is your NEW version totally against what the mediated article was like, but by removing a large chunk you are then placing a negative spin on it. Your statement that the mediated version was conditrional is rubbish - perhaps you could requote where you made this statement to the mediator at the time?!! As an external link should have no bearing on the rest of the article, I fail to see how you are able to make this statement with a straight face!!!

Perhaps it might be best to place this article back into mediation.....

Cybertrax 16:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just because I didn't make a statement that said "I agree to this so long as MW is an external link", dosn't change the fact that this was a primary reason for why I agreed to a lot of the rubbish you inserted into the article. My compromise to not fighting the external link was making the legal section contain less conjecture.

Let me make this statement one more time. Your legal opinion has no basis in fact, and never has. This along with the fact that matrix sites in the UK were deemed illegal sets precedent that your opinion has no merit.

It seems to me we don't need mediation at this time. Arzel 17:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I took my own advice, and spent some time away from this article in order to gain perspective - and I'm glad I did! It made me realise that although I disagree with both your viewpoints and also the way you conduct yourself - its very sneaky, sly and underhand the way you go back on your word - it does not actually affect me. I no longer own a matrix site and I have no plans on doing so again. I also checked back on prior bandwidth settings, and noticed that when my external link at cyberama.info WAS there, I only had about TWO proper visitors a month! At the end of the day this is just one article of thousands in Wikipedia, and it also is rather un-important in the scheme of things. I also realised that in the past 24 hours, rather than debate on here I managed to get an extra two websites of mine updated - which make me money.

I therefore am going to leave this for everyone else. I do not feel it is a case of anyone winning as such, rather that I have taken on board one of my own comments from earlier, that there is more important things in life. Carry on doing what you will with this article, I hope it makes you as happy as letting go makes me. I had a similar feeling of happiness when I decided to discontinue with legal action against matrixwatch.org.

Cybertrax 23:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You just had to get one more swipe at me. Why don't you take your own advice on personal attacks? Arzel 04:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Deletion

Ugh, I thought you guys had finally come to an agreement on this stupid article!

I come back to check it out to make sure it's all the way it was when you guys settled up last time to see you Matrixwatch.org people have decided you no longer like the terms.

LEAVE IT THE WAY IT WAS. Neither external link (the matrixwatch site, which is NOT fact based, but rather has an awful lot of rhetoric disguised as mathematical fact nor the Cybertrax site which ran sort of opposite on all counts).

The way it reads now is back to a propaganda piece for the Matrixwatch.org people. "Some people consider them to be illegal?" This is merely opinion of "some people". There's not a case history that I know of that states them to be illegal, at least not in the United States. The matrix sites don't have to prove they aren't illegal. Innocence until guilt and all that jazz.

I don't know why both parties can't just leave this article alone. You both come off as spoiled little 10 year old brats who simply must have their way (sadly, the Matrixwatch people moreso). Even the talk page is loaded with rhetoric and half thought-out theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samoyed (talk • contribs) 00:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks aside, Samoyed is actually quite correct. Techncially, Arzel and Cybertrax should both not be editing this article and should actually be prohibited from editing it per WP:AUTO and WP:COI, so neither should anyone associated with the websites in question. In all honesty it's pretty clear this isn't a neutral article at all, and I'm beginning to think it may be better off deleted unless someone can take a neutral jab at it. (If anyone wants to propose an AFD, go right ahead. Cowman109^Talk 22:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you on the "deletion" train of thought. It's obvious this will be a never ending circle between Arzel (who, to his credit, actually made concessions and the like when it came to how this thing would be worded - though if his opinion wasn't skewed those concessions wouldn't have been issues) and the Matrixwatch.org people (who apparently don't like honoring agreements and are hellbent on turning this into a propaganda piece completely loaded with innuendoes and insinuations via loaded phrases like "scam", "non-sustainable", "Illegal" and the like).

Looking back at the history of the article and talk page, it appears as though there was a calm between Arzel and Cybertrax for a while right up until another Matrixwatch.org person came by and changed it, and all of a sudden Arzel awoke from a slumber so to speak to start raging on about the horror of it all. Any reverts back to the agreed upon version were met with reverts back to the "new" version using accusations of "vandalism".

Bottom line on all counts is this:

1) Both sides agree that the business model, for all intents and purposes, isn't even really in use anymore. There are some sites that have, contrary to Matrixwatch.org insistence, obviously sustained as they have been up for years (a quick search revealed at least 2--gotmatrix.com and movemeup.com), but by and large no new enterprises are forming up.

The math behind the matrix model is unstainable, the fact that a couple sites may or may not still be up does not change this. Arzel 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

2) A site is not factual in nature when it uses mathematical equations that do not equate all variables into it. That exempts Matrixwatch.org all by itself. The fact that you find YEARS of rhetoric and overt opinion on the site also contributes. A quick search reveals they were predicing the imminent death of this gotmatrix.com site...no less than 3 years ago. That's a really long death throe. Not factual, obviously.

What other variables are you talking about? Arzel 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

3) A site is not factual in nature when it's tied directly to a matrix site, ala Cybertrax's page. It's also hard to be factual when the owner of a site is openly attempting to sue the owner of the other site (though this is something I rather doubt--if Cybertrax couldn't find where to serve the Matrixwatch.org people, he could have simply served the Secretary of State in their stead and it would have amounted to serving the matrxiwatch.org site. That safeguard is put in place to prevent people from "ducking" suits)

4) A quick search on the Matrixwatch site showed that they were not only aware of, but actively encouraging and advocating taking steps to get their name across the Internet via both Google and Wikipedia. I found a post by someone named "Watchdog" (IIRC) boasting about how Matrixwatch had made a Wiki article about Matrix sites and encouraging people to see to it that the site stayed there. I also found numerous articles boasting about how typing in the phrase matrix site into google showed Matrixwatch.org above matrix sites and encouraging usage of keywords to keep the ranking going. TO that end, it is obvious the Matrixwatch.org site wants to use Wiki as a means of self-promotion, contrary to their statements otherwise.

Initially WD was happy to see us listed as a source for matrix sites. The original article had nothing to do with MW, as it is MW is not linked to the article, so I hardly see how MW is using Wiki to drive traffic. Arzel 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

5) As Cowman said, this article has swung to one end of the neutrality extreme once more. Every statement that could be construed as a positive towards matrix sites is either preceded by or followed up with a "but", or a "however" or some other form of detraction, but there are numerous instances where anti-matrix commentary is not rebutted or followed up at all.

I'd take a stab and making the article neutral again, but it's obvious someone from the matrixwatch.org site would just attempt to turn it into a propaganda piece again. Deletion probably is the best option given how all sides agree this phenomena is rather a non issue on the internet anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samoyed (talk • contribs) 03:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Samoyed, if you are going to make comments regarding this issue perhaps you should get your facts straight. The external cybertrax link was deleted by a third party. Cybertrax then deleted the Matrixwatch external link. There were no edits to the page by myself until after that point. As it stands it is more or less in the same state as previously stated, with the additional information regarding queueing theory.

Currently, the article is not linked to MW at all, and the article has all questionable statements backed up with citations and sources. Arzel 15:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to say that I have added the category for deletion in order to make this page a bit more orderly, and also voted on the deletion page - to keep. Whilst I disagree with what has happened over the past few months, I still think this article has some merits. I believe that the best course of action would be to revert back to the official mediated version from last year.

As I am about to start a 12 month backpacking trip round America and Australia, I am not going to be actively able to help with this article, so shall leave the decisions upto the relevant mediators and administrators.

Cybertrax 23:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)