Jump to content

User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists

Dear editor:

Given your extensive experience here on Wikipedia, I would greatly appreciate your input on the following topic:

Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)#Proposal to make a policy or guideline for lists

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic.

Regards,

Sidatio 15:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


FYI, this conversation has moved to User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines. I look forward to your continued input in order to reach a consensus on the issue! Sidatio 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wheel note

You said "I oppose the idea that there is 0RR for admin actions". I wholeheartedly agree with this; but I feel the need to point out that the main reason why some people consider "undoing an admin action, even once" to be wheel warring, is because the ArbCom defined it that way, here. Perhaps a principle should be written in the case to clarify this? >Radiant< 07:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, but I agree that one should be collegiate and ask first, as said there: give the other admin a chance to have second thoughts. Some Arbs have argued in the past that we should ban wheel wars by an 0RR rule, but I have always spoken out against that. There is an issue then of how to formulate what is the definition of a wheel war. I haven't wanted to go down that road, for the usual reason that precise definitions get abused. I work to the idea that admin powers used for the good of the project are fine; the important factor is not 'what is a wheel war?' but who is in the right. In other words, with 'edit wars' the AC does not look at content, but does look at editor behaviour. But, I think, in admin-on-admin clashes, the AC should do it the other way: look beyond formal descriptions of reverting, to the intention and the underlying facts-on-the-ground. Charles Matthews 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but that definition is slightly impractical in that in wheel wars, both sides believe (generally strongly) that they're right. The concept of "do what you wish as long as you think it's right" is generally a good idea wrt editing, but I believe there are a certain few things one should never do without discussing first (in particular deleting high-profile pages or blocking high-profile users), regardless of whether one is ultimately right. Even when such bold actions eventually give the desired result for the encyclopedia, they damage the community by causing heated tempers and drama and so forth. >Radiant< 09:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a nice guy, really, but I get bloodthirsty. The corollary of giving admins large discretion is that a few are going to get de-sysopped, for being on the wrong side of one of these disputes (and thinking they are right). We want admins to get it right, in high-profile situations, and in particular in unfamiliar circumstances. Admins are supposed to be able to control their tempers, particularly in a context that a change is reversible, later. We don't need a cast of drama queens as admins; we need sensible, independent thinkers who can figure out the implications of actions. Charles Matthews 09:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Fully agreed, but regardless of what we "should" have, we have a significant number of admins that have trouble controlling their tempers. Also, "getting it right" ideally involves minimizing the amount of resultant drama. >Radiant< 11:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think anyone gets a veto just because they lack a sense of proportion, though. Charles Matthews 13:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chain Barnstar of Recognition

The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chain Barnstar of Merit

The Chain Barnstar of Merit
For your hard work! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 4 others with 1500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chain Barnstar of Diligence

The Chain Barnstar of Diligence
For shaping Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3 others with 2500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour

The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour
For building Wikipedia! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 2 others with 5000+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Hpfan9374 01:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hurwitz surface

Hello and thanks for adding the link to Hurwitz's theorem. However, the final destination seems to be Hurwitz's automorphisms theorem. Shouldn't the link be redirected? Katzmik 07:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really understand the comment. I created a redirect of Hurwitz's theorem on automorphisms to Hurwitz's automorphisms theorem. By the way, thanks for the work you are doing here. Charles Matthews 14:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Investment bankers

Investment bankers, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Investment bankers satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investment bankers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Investment bankers during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Blueboy96 20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Investment bankers

Investment bankers, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Investment bankers satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investment bankers and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Investment bankers during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Blueboy96 20:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD issues

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investment bankers - Three comments so far constitute the snowball clause - considering that it's unlikely anything other then a redirect comment will follow them. As for your comment at the AfD (which I had an edit conflict with, and did read), I really have no idea what you're talking about. What relation does it have to redirecting to Investment banking?

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindley Street (song) - A speedy redirect is a common outcome in these situations - I merely listed at AfD to confirm in this case. We don't need 20 people telling us to rd over the course of a week.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaim Dov Keller - Consensus is fully with me. That AfD portrays a CLEAR case where the snowball clause could be applied (especially before your comment, which has been shut down by responses, was added).

Finally, I would appreciate it if you were more civil in your comments. I wonder, who are you, exactly, to close an AfD debate, saying that three comments make a snowball? - WP:DELPRO - I'm allowed to do so. Change the rules if you dislike them, don't attack me for following them. If you have further comments, please reply on my talk page. Thank you, Giggy\Talk 01:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Where did I violate that? Giggy\Talk 07:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
(re. COI) I didn't ask them to act as an agent. I suggested a close. I'm sure the closer (in this case, a well respected admin) was capable of independent thought. As for the stalking issues, it would be OK if you were fixing errors/violations of policy. But you're not. You're just complaining about every AfD I close that hasn't taken a snowball course for seven days. Giggy\Talk 00:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually that is not the case at all. I don't know why you think it is helpful to split a discussion like this between talk pages; that was your request. On your user talk, I have further pointed out that your self-appointed close at investment bankers was an error, even in its own terms: people were all saying 'merge', while you simply made a redirect and warred over enforcing that. That was the behaviour that brought you to my attention. It was wrong, and you have been saying quite misleading things about 'consensus' (consensus is three votes in a few hours?) to a third party.
To me, your various comments and references to policies suggest you don't get it at all. If one compares what you say the policy says, with what it says, there seems to be a big gap.
If you want to avoid criticism, you have to stop making comments like 'not notable, speedy, snowball' as your vote; when someone is perfectly notable, a speedy deletion is not appropriate, and the snowball clause is not either. What it seems to imply is once you have made up your mind, that settles it. It doesn't. You badly misread what consensus means here. The fact that you think some sort of closure is properly applied at AfD when a debate has only been open for a few hours, and only people in a time zone close to yours will even have seen it, is the most worrying single thing here. How can that be seeking consensus? A handful of votes in the first hours of a debate supposed to run for five days is not consensus; it's not even a reliable straw poll.
Charles Matthews 05:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

You are being recruited by the Money and Politics Task Force, a collaborative project committed to ensuring that links between government officials and private-sector resources are accurately displayed in relevant entries. Join us!

Cyrusc 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

more missing pages

Greetings. A while ago you checked my page about missing topics related to religion. I wonder if you could find time to have a brief look at the pages about business and economics, social customs and politics. And yes, they are a mess... - Skysmith 13:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

ASAP

A tag has been placed on Alexander Ross (writer), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Material has not been verified for 9 months

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

ArbCom activity

I see that you are back and that you edited a couple of arbitration-related pages today. Could you advise whether you would like the clerks to move you back to active status (i) on the "Attack sites" case, (ii) on cases opened after today, (iii) on all cases currently pending, or (iv) some combination of the above. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 19:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

All, please. Though it is hardly a pleasure ... Charles Matthews 20:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Notification of indefinite block of an IP

I posted this to WP:AN and someone recommended I inform ArbCom. (I chose you at random). I have indefinitely hard-blocked 75.139.45.247 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) per request of the Technical Services Supervisor - Shelby County Schools. A request was made at my talk page and I followed with an e-mail to verify (the request as well as the sender's identity) and to ask about soft-block vs. hard-block. The response confirmed the request and further requested a hard-block. Please advise if I should forward the confirmation e-mail somewhere for future reference. Also advise if I should take any further action or modify the block in any way. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite IP blocks are not the best. This is low-intensity school vandalism; a month's block would be enough really. I hope you assured the Supervisor that reading is not affected ... you could quietly unblock it some time. Charles Matthews 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I did assure him that viewing would not be affected. Okay, I will set a reminder for myself to unblock it after a month or so. Thanks for the advice. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, what you did is OK. Probably it simplifies the Supervisor's life. It doesn't show a huge faith in the kids. Charles Matthews 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I imagine it's embarrassing to have any childish vandalism coming from an IP that you are responsible for. You can bet I would want my IP soft-blocked if there were mischievous little kids in my house!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

René Taupin

Hi ... I've just created a stub page for René Taupin and see it is linked from your pages User:Charles Matthews/Kermode and User:Charles Matthews/Spears. (PS ... I haven't forgotten the Blake mythology ... it just hasn't got back to the top of my pile). Stumps 04:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The Blake goes forward slowly. I think there still isn't a page for Vala, or the Four Zoas, which is therefore still a big gap. I've accumulated academic books on Blake, so it would be interesting to do some of the characters in a proper way. Charles Matthews 08:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

THF-DavidShankBone RfAr

There was a small formatting issue with your votes on /Proposed decision in this case. I believe I've fixed it, but please look in when you have a moment and make sure I got it right. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 11:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it looks fine. Charles Matthews 11:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Need your opinion

Hi. After spending several days gathering information, I put together Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Madman C. I am concerned about the number and specificity of the threats this user has made, as well as his mental state. Further, I am pretty sure I have tracked down the person's real-world identity. Do you think I have enough here that we should report this to law enforcement? If so, is there some formal process that we or the Foundation can use to report this? Thanks, NawlinWiki 22:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Update -- the user in question has admitted everything, said he didn't mean the threats, promised to stop, and asked us not to call the police. See here. I would still appreciate your guidance. NawlinWiki 00:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I think great care is needed, particularly in the matter of this user's real name. It is well outside our policies for you or anyone else to make such investigations, and then call attention to them. On the face of it, the page you created should be deleted quickly. Charles Matthews 16:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted the information about the user's real name from the page, and deleted/restored the page to eliminate that information from the page history. Are you really saying we shouldn't have a long-term-abuse page at all? I think this user's pattern of edits clearly fits our given definitions of long-term abuse. And is it your opinion that we should not report this to law enforcement? I'm leaning that way myself, but I want to make sure that this is what you think as well. Thanks for your guidance, NawlinWiki 01:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
You haven't removed all edits involving his real name. I found it just by reading the above. Remember, a lot of different people read Wikipedia pages, and not all of them leave messages like I have. Carcharoth 15:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Intervention

I'm asking you to publicly and officially intervene in the American School page and the actions of admin Will Beback for violations of WP:Point. This behavior must stop. He's shown me no sense of 'good faith' and continues to 'harass' particular edits of myself to no end. This is not the conduct of a good admin and its got to stop. He is particulary good at 'wikilawering' his way with policy to disrupt that page and some others. I'm tired of it. I'm not a wikilawyer type - I don't like being involved in these disputes with this admin; and would rather work out reasonable compromise - but its getting to be to much to stand and verging on harassment. The only thing I could reccomend is that an investigation be conducted on his behavior and for a temporary stripping of his adminship until a fact finding endeavor looks this over. If I am wrong about his behavior (although I am not wrong about how it makes me feel here) - then I accept that and will simply admit my error. It's not only his recent actions but the net effect of all of them from the beginning when he insisted on calling me names and isinuating my material was somehow related to LaRouche and thus established a pattern with no end; the recent parable case being the breaking point in all this. I admit my mistakes in dealing with him and even apologized for my responses in light that I was a new editor and learning WP:AGF never was shown to me by Will Beback - ever. Thanks for hearing me out. If you don't want to address this concern, I understand. Could you help me out with the process of filing an official complaint if that is necessary or what other steps might need addressing. If he would simply stay away from me and the edits I make - I could live with that. --Northmeister 15:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I see half-a-dozen edits to American School (economics) today, but not a huge traffic there in September. I have offered once to talk directly to User:Will Beback. Should I go ahead with that? Charles Matthews 16:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, this might help. I'm getting to the point where either mediation or arbitration over my concerns are heard. But, I'd like to avoid that if a workable agreement can be reached to stay away from me, American School, and any other edits I'm presently involved with - kind of like a court order that keeps people away from those they stalk or harass. --Northmeister 18:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Before Arbitration, which I would not recommend, should come either some kind of mediation, or recourse to an RfC. I will undertake informal mediation, if you want. Charles Matthews 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Please. This stuff has to end. I've sent you a private email addressing my concerns as well including possible solutions to this mess. You may address the solutions in the mediation if you want. --Northmeister 20:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oversight

Your name is listed as one having powers of oversight on the wikipedia. I wonder if you can help me sort a problem. I am a secondary school teacher and over the weekend I was speculating that a site like wikipedia operated, at best, in a similar way to some strategies for peer to peer formative assessment where collaborative learning is encouraged. I was interested to see if I could possibly edit my school page in a way which could be used to introduce this concept to one of my classes, however in doing so I have inadvertently identified the class in question. I would very much be indebted to you if you could remove the page which makes this unfortunate reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bannerman_High_School&oldid=159270207

I have already had correspondence with user "triwbe" who has been helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.210.120 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is simplest just to edit this out of the page. It is not clear whether this needs oversighting, i.e. removal from the page history entirely. No individual is directly identified. Charles Matthews 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

EoM

You might find the springer template useful. R.e.b. 21:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Charles Matthews 21:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Johann Hari page

Hi Charles. You said, quite rightly, that we shoudl leave Private Eye out of this entry. Felix-Felix is inserting it into the entry regardless. Could you come over to the page? - DavidR86.157.118.58 10:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Charles. I gleefully added reference to Hari's mistake (and apology) for accepting the Kenneth Joseph story and Saddam's shredder into his article. But when I look again, it seems to me we're giving him an unnecessarily and intrusive hard time. Is it necessary to tell everyone he's gay and attempt to "detail" his politics? (Agree with you over the Eye!) PRtalk 17:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
He's self-identified as gay, and makes this central to some of his journalism. His politics matter to the extent that they are 'notable', or in other words involved in why he has an article at all here. Political columnists can have their stated political positions analysed; but that's as far as it goes. Charles Matthews 21:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Attack sites RfAr

I believe you inadvertently forgot to sign supporting your new proposal. Regards, Newyorkbrad 16:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mmm - do I support it? Charles Matthews 16:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't say. :) Newyorkbrad 16:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hari ORTS

Charles, on the talk page you said that "Hari is very active at OTRS", and earlier user:Vassyana said that Hari's ORTS had mentioned me by name. Do you know if this is true, and if so what the specific complaints made about me were? Much obliged.FelixFelix talk 16:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't. The one ticket I have examined was about someone else. I was told that there were ten completed OTRS tickets about the page. I think you will understand my concern here. Charles Matthews 16:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
10! I do.FelixFelix talk 19:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Charles, I've given the page a rest for a week now, is this an appropriate cooling off period? is it appropriate to return to editing duties there?FelixFelix talk 16:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Sigh. Too much attention given to hacks all round, if you ask me. Wikipedia as 'media talking about media' - well, I'd give it all a rest, if I could. Charles Matthews 21:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Yep, with faux controversies and all, but you know my views about all that..Have the OTRS complaints stopped? Was there any threat of legal action against either WP or me? Was it that serious? I've never been involved in this kind of thing before? And did you mean that"maximum of derogatory material" remark, btw-it seemed a little harsh...FelixFelix talk 21:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why you're taking this line. I'm not in a position to answer those questions - why are you interrogating me, like a hostile witness? The 'serious' matter is the standard of content in the encyclopedia; if you try to push negative material in from Private Eye, you will get a dusty answer every time. That is independent of OTRS complaints, legal position, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. Charles Matthews 06:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Whoa! I'm not interogating you like a hostile witness, or anything else, Charles. And what line am I supposed to be taking? Both queries above were made in good faith-this whole OTRS thing is new to me-and the response on the article seemed/seems disproportionate. Expectation of an assumption of good faith is reasonable-whether making 'negative' or 'positive' edits-I wasn't aware that WP:BLP required elimination of criticism, or critical viewpoints.FelixFelix talk 15:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Whether you have taken a break or not, NPOV is required of any editor. I have made my view plain: what you were doing with the Private Eye reference was POV pushing, because no one in possession of the facts can possibly regard Private Eye as an authority on how good anyone is as a journalist. As you know, I have supported you in the past, for example on the matter of the notability of the Orwell Prize nomination. What the BLP policy requires, basically, is very reliable sources, but not only that, for criticism: it requires that criticism be salient, central stuff (not 'once caught kicking a dog', even if that is entirely verifiable). Charles Matthews 16:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

"Attack sites" RfAr remedy

With regard to the "policy remanded to the community" remedy in the "attack sites" RfAr, which is going to pass but as to which you have opposed the wording, I've made a suggestion for a revised wording here that might address your concerns and be more broadly acceptable. Newyorkbrad 15:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And I see that Paul August has now proposed this alternative. Newyorkbrad 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

EVP

Charles, do you know of any editors who might be good at looking an article over to wikify and improving the text for readability? A good reference person to help with that format might be useful as well. I think the EVP article could use this. --Northmeister 16:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought of Wikipedia:Peer review? Charles Matthews 16:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes. I'll proceed there and see if it helps. Thanks. --Northmeister 16:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Cyde

Ehm, you support desysopping Cyde? For what exactly? Has he abused any admin tools at all (aside from blocking a two-year-old sockpuppet account)? Melsaran (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of a block log is a serious abuse of admin powers. There is no mechanism for getting a block log summary back, you know. It is not an action reversible by conventional means. Charles Matthews 18:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
A desysopping (or a suspension of adminship Melsaran (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)) would be purely punitive, and not preventative, because it is impossible for him to repeat the action. Melsaran (talk) 22:14, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
What kind of argument is that? Be serious. Any admin who abuses any power can have them all taken away, anyway. Charles Matthews 22:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Charles supported a 30-day suspension of Cyde's adminship, and voted against desysopping. Newyorkbrad 22:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

WFF n Proof

Do you have that Layman Allen paper - the one you just added as a cite to WFF? The online version only shows the first page; Google finds a reference to the "Whiffenpoof" name in the paper, but not on the first page. It would be nice to quite what Allen says about the name, to clear up the "trivia" issue. - DavidWBrooks 13:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I was relying on the snippet of the paper displayed in the Google search ... which does "acknowledge" that the pun is there. I thought that was sufficient, for the seriousness of all this. Charles Matthews 13:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

2 subjects are in jeopardy of being deleted through systematic bias

I see in your user page that u take great interest in articles about systematic bias, i would like to alert you to a group which has declared systematic deletion of others articles, i am not accusing nobody here and i am further assuming good faith, but perhaps you can enlighten us in these 2 issues Jericho massacre and Cherem (genocide). Please note that this is in no way a request for a vote one way or the other please refrain from the discussion page, or do indeed vote the other way from me. Thanks--יודל 00:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Systemic bias, something different. And I can hardly understand what you mean. Charles Matthews 08:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


history of Vijayanagara Empire Literature

Sir, I was one of the major contributors to this article. I have corrected your mistake on the article. The Jain, Shaiva and Vaishnava poets all wrote in Kannada language.Dineshkannambadi 14:14, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I see, this is a matter of heading level. I have given those headings level 3 now. Charles Matthews 14:33, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr why did you protected the article god Khandoba  ??? -- Vishal1976

Your act is Vandalism. Do you know anything about god Khandoba ?? Have you ever been their ?? You hate Maratha's, don't you ?? God Khandoba will punish you very soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.247.141.68 (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The page was semi-protected, but not by me. You can address comments to User:MastCell. I suggest you moderate your tone. Charles Matthews 09:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Frederick Vanderbilt Field (and other stuff)

I noticed this article while dropping by over at User talk:CBDunkerson, and noticed that the TIME external link was to an article published in 1950, not an obituary. I corrected that and added a link to a New York Times obituary from 2000. I also spotted something further up the page here, and I agree with you that Wikipedia shouldn't take its investigations too far. There should be a better way of handling that sort of thing rather than detailing the real-world history like that. On a related topic I've ocassionally seen the (I think mainly Conflict of Interest) investigations that User:Durova undertakes (some have been mentioned in newspaper interviews), and while they are different to the case above (that is a rather disturbing case), they are similarly long-term and complex. Do you think anything can be done to discourage over-enthusiatic amateur sleuthing? How does Arb Com handle this? I think the limit of 3 (or is it 6?) months on evidence is a good check on this sort of thing. Any ideas? Carcharoth 15:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've invited User:NawlinWiki and User:Durova to comment. Alternative venues for such a discussion might also be a good idea. Carcharoth 15:31, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
On the investigation matter: we discuss investigative matters on the ArbCom mailing list, when we need to. A few points do get brought into cases, as evidence of things, in comments about off-site matters. I'm not always really happy about that, but in a sense it goes with the idea that ArbCom can deal with COI matters better than individuals. I suspect that over time we shall have to become more organized about all this (better channels, making it clearer what should be sent to the ArbCom list and kept off the site, collective memory). Charles Matthews 16:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've been asked to come and comment here. Yes I agree that it's often a delicate matter just how far an editor may take things when conducting an investigation. I've followed a personal set of standards that are pretty conservative and - I hope - appropriate, and I've asked the Committee in a couple of cases to make some statement on where the boundaries are. For instance, I don't even worry about an editor's real name if there's a simpler way to solve a case and I don't investigate an editor's real name unless I can find a diff where the editor disclosed it himself or herself. If I do find that diff I'll search offsite for other relevant evidence, and that method has been important to resolving some of the really intractable cases, but I'll only repeat that real name as it's necessary to build the case. Otherwise I'll refer to the individual by their username or some other nickname. I've called the police in response to a suicide threat, but not for any other purpose. Are those the sorts of investigations you mean? DurovaCharge! 00:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
On suicide threats, it does seem clear that we do need to act, and that (because this will recur) we need to work out a procedure for finding someone able to notify the police, and assuring others that action has been taken. On the other stuff, the first pointn is exactly that, about real names: we should not be in the business of establishing the real names of editors. If we do have a real name, we should not post it where search engines will find it. I would except the ArbCom from this, but even it should apply rules to its findings of fact, not including real names there unless the connection between editor behaviour and real identity actually matters to proposed remedies. In other words we should be minimalist about using any real name not disclosed by an editor. Charles Matthews 08:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Right. If the editor doesn't self-disclose their real name onsite then I keep mum onsite, even if I do happen to know it. DurovaCharge! 02:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
This thread has been cited over at WP:WQA, on the question of how far an editor should go in investigating someone's real-life identity. This problem may come up whenever COI editing is alleged. If I summarized either CM or Durova wrongly, please add a comment. EdJohnston 22:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects stat

I really must read the mailing list more. It was a nice surprise to find that post. :-) I also noticed a post you made asking about redirects. This reminds me once of the question I asked about how many deleted pages we have (kind of a "do the dead outnumber the living" sort of thing). I've never got an answer to that one. But getting back to redirects, I agree that the ratio should be a fair number of redirects for each page. Redirects due to page moves and merges are probably a fairly low proportion (though non-notable pages being merged might account for a fair number). I'd guess most of the redirects are due to alternative names. For biographies alone you have the initials+surname, forename+surname, forname+initial+surname, redirects to a standard name. Of course, many of those redirects are missing, but they should be there. This also applies to a mature Wikipedia. In a growing Wikipedia, people create articles and the redirects are only filled in later. This might explain why the number of redirects is lower than expected - there are still a lot missing - probably the biographical ones I mentioned earlier. It might also help to think about which articles will have no redirects pointing to them (my answer would be "the stubs that no-one has bothered to look at yet"). Finally, not directly related, but have you see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects? Carcharoth 01:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Both the redirect stat and the categories on redirects will appear in the book I'm writing with User:brassratgirl. We'll be making a formal announcement about this, quite soon. Charles Matthews 08:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Thank you Charles Matthews

Thank you for the edit repairs on so many of my posts . This is a pleasent surprise for me on Wikipedia owing to the fact that my posts and articles have been repeatedly and viciously vandalized , deleted or muddled by a few users ...apart also from anonymous users ... who appear on articles only to delete cited content .

Since it has been my effort to post from standard texts with proper references it has been a pain and somewhat unfair ….well but that’s the nature of wikipedia .

What more the same people deleting my posts have also complained about me , grouped together and had my articles deleted altogether inspite of them being encyclopedic and with citations .
If your efforts are on to check a systemic bias on my side you may consider also checking the record of those who may have complained about me .

Well Thanks anyway.
Cheers

Intothefire 06:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have particular problems, please let me know. I work on many parts of Wikipedia, and I am only concerned to improve the articles. Charles Matthews 06:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)


Thanks Mate

Thank ya for (The overthrow of Siraj-Ud-Daulah - lks) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HumayunMirzajr (talk • contribs) 16:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Proper procedure for restoring edit history

Hello Charles, I noticed that the revision history of the Quantum logic article got obliterated by what seems to be an improper rename. Issues of credit aside, I think it is important to maintain these histories for the sanity (such as it is) of this project. I think I figured out the problem; to avoid repetition, please see the note I left John Baez on his talk page. It clearly is fixable, and I konw one way of doing this repair, but I don't know if there is a proper administrative procedure for doing this. Thanks. --CSTAR 16:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like a cut-and-paste move. If you nominate it at WP:SPLICE you get an expert surgeon. Charles Matthews 16:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The instructions on that page seem fairly straightforward. Hmm I'm tempted to do it myself.--CSTAR 17:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
OK I fixed it, although I had to improvise slightly at one point on the instructions given there. However, I warn you, never give me a wrench to fix a faucet in your house. Before you know it, your entire house will be in a shambles, as one mistake leads to another.--CSTAR 17:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
I can do it, mechanically. There is a point in the middle where the page history appears intuitively to be in superposition of two states ... anyway, the thing is never to ask more than to get the right result. Charles Matthews 18:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
"superposition of two states"? That sounds interesting! Quantum mechanics? Think hard about one and it collapses into the right one? :-) Carcharoth 23:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

RFAR/Attack sites move to close

With respect, none of the actionable resolutions will pass. Have you considered the Malicious sites 15.2 proposal ? That has the support of Paul August and Kirill and Fred Bauder, who are generally at loggerheads on the other issues. I don't know how much I am allowed to lobby for a proposal like this ... ? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

At present, 15.1 passes (as does remedy 3.2 rather than 3.3). I'm recused as clerk in the case, but I've posted implementation notes on WP:AC/CN listing what appears to pass, for another clerk to review my work and then post to /proposed decision. Newyorkbrad 19:55, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Bah. I prepared the ground by listing the passing proposals and circulating them on the AC list. If someone thinks we aren't done they'll say so. Constrained as we are to work within existing policy, we should be doing what sensibly falls under that, not trying to squeeze out the last drop. Charles Matthews 21:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sieving

I noticed this mailing list post, where you talk about sieving. I find it extremely satisfying to search a list of redlinks and create redirects to the correct articles (mostly in the case of names of people). I think I've been doing this sieving you talk about. About the "come back in a few months and repeat bit", see Talk:Royal Medal, a moderately prestigious award where there were a fair number of redlinks when I tidied the page up a few months ago (well, about 8 months now). There are 70 links there, and in the eight months around 11 were created (well, some did already exist but my initial sieve missed the articles for some reason). One annoying thing is that it is difficult to predict where people will create the article. It would be nice to create the redirects in advance, or have some notice telling people to remember to create the redirects when they create the article. The best way of doing this that I've thought of is to add notes to talk pages at yet uncreated articles. See Talk:W. Albert Noyes, Jr. and Talk:William Albert Noyes, Jr.. I guess the real solution is to drum it home to people that many and varied redirects to people articles are needed to avoid redlinks. See Talk:Thomas-François Dalibard for a rather extreme example. Carcharoth 23:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I thought a name was needed, since many people clearly do this in some or other form. My 'advance' technique is simply to list variant names on a page when I'm researching something (i.e. create the redlinks in user space) and zap a whole row of redirects at once when one has turned blue. Anyone who creates the article and then thinks to check the backlinks then has a chance of finding them. Charles Matthews 07:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I like that method. I also saw people do this on requested articles - an article about a person is requested, and three or four different title options are provided. Someone then turns one of the redlinks into an article and (hopefully) makes the others into redirects. Care does need to be taken sometimes to not confuse people with the same middle initial (checking 'what links here' to check all the incoming links are correct, helps). I think the "initial" variants are dealt with by redirecting them to the surname disambiguation page. Creating a separate disambiguation pages for 2 or 3 of those seems like overkill. On another topic, did you see the thread on the mailing list about 1 in 5 articles on Wikipedia being biographical ones? I'm contemplating getting a throwaway e-mail address to join the mailing list, but for now I posted some thoughts on the OP's talk page. See User talk:Gmaxwell. Carcharoth 10:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
On disambiguating something like J. K. Smith, I think we just cross bridges as we come to them. Names with initials only come from particular directions (academic papers and books, Indians, Russians, some authors ...). In those cases it really is helpful to create the redirects. But long dab pages seems like overkill. If you want to read wikien-l, I hope your mailer is better than mine. Deleting whole threads is a good idea ... Charles Matthews 10:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
We can disambiguate J. K. Smith for living people at the moment, if you presume that all the entries in Category:Living people are sorted correctly. You can jump in at the "Smith, J" point with this link. I checked all the J. Smiths were on that page, then search for capital K. I found Julie K. Smith, Jean Kennedy Smith, and James K.A. Smith. Of course, this doesn't account for other Smiths whose middle initials are not shown there. As you say, cross that bridge when we come to it. There is a bot request at WP:BOTREQ to try and generate some suggestions. See here. Carcharoth 11:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
There must be more important things right now. Charles Matthews 11:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably, yes. Thanks for the thoughts. Carcharoth 12:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Since RPP is going slow

Could you please semi protect Eddy Crow, it's getting vandalized as fast as I revert it. Thanks Kwsn(Ni!) 16:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like kids. I'll watch the page for a bit. A bot beat me to reverting. Charles Matthews 16:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's school time, and a lot of anon vandalism during mid-day for the US comes from schools. Kwsn(Ni!) 16:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Odd mixture of IPs. University of Charleston, Pfizer. The radio station is in Pittsburgh. It's all East Coast, but spread around, AFAICS. Charles Matthews 16:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Uh, what's AFAICS? And it would make to come from that area if you think about it. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see. 192.234.2.80 is actually registered to ESPN, the broadcaster ... so I don't think we have kids. Charles Matthews 17:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Probably "promotion" or just a ploy to draw attention. Kwsn(Ni!) 17:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
What I was thinking. Charles Matthews 17:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Where does one direct inquiries about blocks?

Seeing as you are on the ArbCom, I was hoping you could help me out with this. Could you possibly tell me where one can direct inquiries in regards to blocks? There are a couple of blocks made by admins that, in my opinion, seem to be badly justified. I would like to inquire into the nature of these blocks. Please respond at your convenience. Thank you in advance, ~ Homologeo 19:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You know about the block log? Charles Matthews 19:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but that has not yielded much input into the situation, since the blocks imposed by the admins in question seem to be poorly justified. In one instance, the Talk Page of the blocked user was even idef protected from editing, when questions were being asked about the reasoning behind the block. Another time, the admin that put the block in place refused to justify his or her actions more than he or she already did. When pressed for a clearer justification for the block, I was told to inquire of the ArbCom. I'm now trying to figure out what other means there are for inquiring into the nature of particular blocks, and whether or not they are indeed sufficiently justified. ~ Homologeo 19:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you tell me which users are involved, I'll try to explain. (If you want to keep this private, email me from the User page.) Charles Matthews 19:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
The first block into which I would like to inquire is that of Mike D78. This editor was idef blocked by WJBscribe, with the following reasoning provided in the block summary: "banned user editing from proxies to push a pro-pedophilia POV." Mike D78 was not asked about why open proxies were being used and no warning was given prior to the institution of the block. Once blocked, Mike D78 appealed this course of action by addressing all the issues that seemed to worry WJBscribe, even providing a reasonable explanation for the use of open proxies. From what I personally know of Mike D78 and his editing practices, this is a dedicated Wikipedian who strives for NPOV within the controversial set of pedophilia-related articles. To the best of my knowledge, he upholds and promotes Wikipedia policies, and has managed to remain civil despite a number of unfounded and uncivil accusations and attacks against him. Other than myself, at least two other established editors have criticized this block and have voiced support for its removal. However, despite this and Mike D78's own response to WJBscribe's concerns, the admin has not lifted the block. When asked for further elaboration on the justification of the block, WJBscribe erased all prior discussion of the subject from the blocked editor's Talk Page and stated that he will not comment further on the block. I would like for another admin to review this block and to possibly explain the justification behind it. At the moment, the course of action taken by WJBscribe seems to be rash and poorly reasoned. Your input on this situation would be very appreciated. ~ Homologeo 20:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
He was banned as already being a banned user (ie being a sock editing from open proxies)) and was also an SPA, IMO one of the more justifiable indef blocks I have seen on this site, SqueakBox 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
SPA is single-purpose account: see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Reviewing the edits, that is a single-purpose account. Blocks may be appealed,as perhaps you know. Charles Matthews 22:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge, editing a narrow set of articles is not necessarily a justification for an indef block, since some people are more knowledgeable in certain areas or are simply interested in a particular subject. I know blocks can be appealed, but I am unsure if editors other than the banned individual can appeal a block. ~ Homologeo 23:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
An SPA isn't in itself a problem. Combined with issues such as obsessive editing or advocacy, it is an aggravation of the position. It is unconventional for appeals to be made by anyone other than the blocked editor. Since the usual reason for unblocking is that the editor understands the problem well enough to undertake that it won't arise again, it is usually necessary that the appeal is from the person concerned. Charles Matthews 07:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense, and I have already recommended for Mike D78 to appeal the block if he wishes to clear his name and to edit Wikipedia again. Still, could someone possibly elaborate further on the reasoning behind his block? The evidence provided in support of his editing practices and against accusations directed towards him seems legitimate. I'm just trying to understand why such a block was instituted in the first place (with no prior warning given) and has not been removed despite everything that has been brought to light upto this point. ~ Homologeo 08:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The allegation that this is a returning banned user evading a ban is very serious. Charles Matthews 08:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to turn this into a flame fest, or heated discussion, but there is no indication the block if for being a returning banned user, he is banned for being a SPA. If he really is a returning banned user, the indefblock would be warrented without a doubt, yet no such mention is made in his block. I don't know if this is standard pratice, not feeding the troll and all that, and I don't have the experience to know what usualy goes on around the banning stick, and that you don't want to give away to much information about tricks possible socks could use, but from a users point of view without such background knowledge, it just all looks rather 'fishy', like there is some big coordinated coverup action. I'm not accusing you of anything, like I said, I don't know exactly what has been going on, but I always was under the impression that it is the 'wiki way' to leave a papertrail, and make it possible for users to see what's going on - and that the success of the project hinges on those checks that can be made by any user. It's taking it way to far to say that blocking for another reason then specified as to not feed the trolls is putting the project at risk, but it does seem to go against the spirit of the project. It goes to the point where I myself have thought about backing away from a discussion, because with all the indefbans flying around for reasons that I can't find, but that do all end up with people who defended similar points I defend, I myself may end up indefblocked too. Scaring editors away from discussions can't be what the ArbCom has in mind. Martijn Hoekstra 08:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The block log reads banned user editing from proxies to push a pro-pedophilia POV, so you are wrong on the point of fact. Charles Matthews 08:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I stand fully corrected. On this block. Martijn Hoekstra 09:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, I guess I might be the only one left here who doesn't quite follow the reasoning for this block. I know what the block log reads, but I fail to see the evidence for this claim. The evidence initially provided on the user's Talk Page was far from sufficient to establish that this was a previously banned editor. So, at this point, I have somewhat similar concerns as expressed by Martijn Hoekstra above. Martijn Hoekstra, could you possibly tell me why you now consider yourself "corrected" in regards to this block? ~ Homologeo 05:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Martijn was saying the block was described just as SPA. The log doesn't contain the evidence that the user has already been banned, but usually it wouldn't. A new account that starts immediately editing intensively on Talk pages would usually be regarded as a possible returning user, when there has been previous banning. If an open proxy is used, in other words an anonymizing device, suspicions are aroused. If a previous editing pattern of a user is continued, that constitutes internal evidence. Charles Matthews 08:07, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Can this internal evidence be made public or presented upon request of other users? ~ Homologeo 17:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand. If editor B continues a pattern of editing set up by editor A, that does two things. If editor A has been banned for that pattern, this is a good reason why B may be in trouble. Separately, there can be a strong suspicion that B is A. That much anyone can see. There may also be private considerations known to those who take a close interest over time. Apart from CheckUser evidence, which provides IP numbers that are kept private, the evidence is public. Charles Matthews 18:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I guess if so it should be made available to all users, I would be very uncomfortable with said information being available to Homologeo and not myself, for instance, SqueakBox 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The IP numbers are never going to be made public - that is under privacy policy. The way we look at the edits is not going to be discussed publicly either. Doing so would only help people abuse the site. Charles Matthews 18:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification, SqueakBox 19:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
So, there's nothing else that could be said of why Mike D78 was blocked? What about the name of the supposed puppeteer behind this alleged sock - can this be revealed to the public? I thought it was general practice to, at least, make known which blocked editor was operating the sock(s) in question. ~ Homologeo 23:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Have you put that specific question to the blocking admin? Charles Matthews 07:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry bout all this mess, but the blocking admin sent all the mess towards the ArbCom: Any appeal of this block should be directed to the Arbitration Committee. I have nothing to add. WjBscribe 23:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC) (That is, by the way, why I sent that email. Not because I wanted to send everything higher up, to the ArbCom, but because most of the involved blocks had tags on them that only the ArbCom could comment on them). Martijn Hoekstra 11:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, this seems to add up to (a) you feel you'd like to know the answer to the question 'sock of whom?', ex parte, and (b) this is not an appeal by the editor but a questionnaire. Charles Matthews 11:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand that the use of open proxies can ammount to the suspicion that this is infact a case of a returnning user. I see that the block is made in that light. However, I still think it to be in error. If you take a look at the last version before the page was truncated and it was indicated that all discussion should be directed to the ArbCom, here: [1], You can see that Mike D78 admits to using open proxies, but not purposefully, and that the majority of his edits were not on open proxie. I am not in a position where I can check such things, but the thing that concerns me in this situation, is that his claims are not opposed by the blocking admin, but that he just refered 'the whole thing' to the ArbCom. If this user is indeed a sock of a blocked editor, keep him indefblocked, for sure. My question is, however, why have their never been any replies to his claims of innocence, and are these claims, in fact, incorrect? Martijn Hoekstra 11:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You gave me the wrong diff: you meant the next one. There would remain the question: why is this editor not involved in appealing the block? There is a perfectly practical point here. Charles Matthews 11:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
True enough. Without him appealing to the ban (anymore), there is little use in lifting the ban, as he has likely moved away from the project. His reasons for that remain to be guessed, but if I would have to guess, it would be he was bullied away from the project. Another valid guess would be he was indeed a sock, what he claims was his 'home IP' was in fact a previously undiscovered open proxy, and has realised he is not going to win this one. I can't check that. I do think however, that if the same thing happened to me, and I was indefblocked, and the only reply I got was 'go take it up with the ArbCom, I'm not commenting on this anymore', to paraphrase Scribes words, I might come to the conclusion that the ArbCom has decided that his point of view is so unwelcome on Wikipedia, that giving his point of view has led to the ban, and any reason one could find to ban this user, in this case, the limited use of open proxies by error, are used to indefblock. The reason why one could infact lift the ban, is to admit an error has been made in blocking him, and that he should not have been blocked, even if only to prove the latter is not the case, and wikipedia is still the encyclopedia that everyone can edit, not the encyclopedia anyone can edit apart from users with a point of view that the ArbCom does not condone of. Martijn Hoekstra 12:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
And excuse my grammar jumble here. If it becomes too hard to figure out what I'm actualy saying, just ask, and I'll clarify. Martijn Hoekstra 12:14, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
So you jump, from the editor not appealing (a common feature of sockpuppets that are challenged), to bad faith in the ArbCom. I can't agree. Charles Matthews 12:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
No, I was afraid my word juble above might confuse a little. I jump from the editor resting his efforts to appeal, to possible perceived bad faith of the ArbCom. Martijn Hoekstra 13:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
In case my point is getting lost in the whole debate here, I'll try to explain why this block led me to inquire about it.
I do understand why he was blocked in the first case. The subject matter has a history of socks, and using open proxies on this subject, means alarmbells should indeed go off.
I don't understand:
  • Why his appeals on his talk page haven't been adressed on his talk page.
  • Why his appeals had to be removed from his talkpage.
  • Why Scribe, who is a very experienced admin (and I think Burocrat aswell?) had to refer all inquiries to the ArbCom.
Really, I'm not trying to be pedantic, and make some sort of WP:Point, I'm just trying to understand what is going on. Martijn Hoekstra 13:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
If he was a previously banned users' sock of course his appeals may be removed from his talk page as he has no right to return as a sockpuppet and as such any editor has the right to remove any and all his edits to the project. One can similarly argue that a sockpuppet has no right of appeal even though the sock master clearly would do. Not only Scribe but Fred Bauder has also stated that all enquiries should be directed to the arbcom [2], not sure why you don't stay with that as the way forward with your quiery rather than coming here, Martijn, SqueakBox 14:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, SqueakBox. To adress your points:
  • The whole point is that he denies being a sock, and seems to provide reasonable, and compelling aguments to back that statement. It is circular logic to say someone is a sock, and can't object to this conclusion because he is a sock.
  • Why am I using this talk page: I have adressed the issue on the ArbCom talkpage. There they suggested contacting the ArbCom mailinglist by email. My email seems to have gotten lost at the moderator. Another email, that FloNight forwarded for me has been sent to the ArbCom mailinglist. I haven't received any answer from that yet either. Seeing that Charles Matthews is a member of the ArbCom, I adressed my issues to his talk page, as at least there was some discussion going on there, and someone actualy seemed to be looking at it. Summorising: I am using this talkpage, possibly incorrectly or unjustified, as a proxy for the ArbCom. Martijn Hoekstra 14:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Your moderated mail did come through on the AC list, shortly after I asked for it to be sent on. Charles Matthews 16:42, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll be waiting for a reply then. Martijn Hoekstra 21:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Admitted, when it was said that I could send an email with my questions, nobody ever claimed that anyone would answer it. I hope I do still get a reply, as I am afraid that these bans (I can add user:A.Z. to those now) violate the principle that anyone should be able to edit Wikipedia. Martijn Hoekstra 21:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, there are ways of reducing that principle to nonsense, and one is to claim that no one should ever be banned, whatever they do. Charles Matthews 21:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Aye, that is the other side, indeed. Rest assured, that I agree that that is a Bad Thing. But rather than to get into a renewed discussion here, will the ArbCom still reply to my email? I can understand many reasons why a reply could take time (where other things to do is one of the reasons that I would certainly understand), but right now, it is hard for me to get any feedback on to if the ArbCom has had time to read it, if there has been any discussion about it, and if I should be expecting a reply still. Thanks for your swift reply here at any rate! Martijn Hoekstra 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your mail has been read. Charles Matthews 21:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that is at least good to know. Should I be expecting a reply to it, or should I better just see this chapter as one I shouldn't be nagging on about? (In case you're getting tired of it, really I am too, I am just trying to understand). Maybe I just can't take a hint, but if there is not going to be a reply, just say so. I consider myself a fairly civil guy, and The ArbCom will likely not respond. is fine by me. It's almost like you don't want to answer the question. Maybe I'm reading too much in it, but when you give an answer like "Your mail has been read.", that sounds to me like you don't want to answer any further, and don't want to give me any ammunition (by lack of a better word) either. I'm not gonna wikilawyer you around the ears or anything, if you say "too much". If you would for example say "We read your mail, but to be honost, most of us seem to think you are just throwing a fit, trying to see a problem where there is really none. We don't have the time or energy to reply to every email that believes that Wikipedia or the ArbCom is treating something/someone unfairly." I would appreciate an answer like that far more then that I have to keep posting and trying to get something loose (even if I would probably sputter something about not saying that I can send an inquiry to the ArbCom, in this specific case.) I hope you can give me a straight, and complete answer. Thanks. Martijn Hoekstra 22:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Your mail has gone to around 20 people. If no one in that group wants to answer it, you don't get an answer. It really is that simple, and it is the same for anyone who writes to the AC. Charles Matthews 22:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I must say I am a little disapointed, but at least I know not to expect any answer. Martijn Hoekstra 22:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I'm being informed here that there is a non-public arbcom case going on that is relevant to a mediation at a medcab case I'm participating in. It is suggested that although the arbcom case is not public, it will be very hard to work in the mediation without knowing anything about this case. if the arbcom case it needs to be kept behind closed doors, you can contact me on my username spelt together at Gmail.com Martijn Hoekstra 20:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think the distinction between an actual case and some email discussion may turn out to be important here. Charles Matthews 21:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I am only saying what I have been told a while back (re Jim Burton, BLueRibbon, Voice of Britain etc). I think users such as myself, Homologeo and Martijn should follow Fred's recent advice here and here, SqueakBox 21:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Anyway, is there any way I could get some more information on the issue at all? Martijn Hoekstra 22:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly advise that you write to Fred, using the "E-mail this user" feature, SqueakBox 22:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On the issue of the banned users, I already directed an email to the arbcom mailinglist a week ago, which is currently still held at the moderator. I don't know how long it's supposed to take, but I'm expecting it to go through any moment. That might hold the answers you are refering to. If not, I'll drop fred a mail. Martijn Hoekstra 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Charles, In this light, could you find the time to see if you can guide my email through the moderator? It's from aforementioned adress, my username together at gmail. Martijn Hoekstra —Preceding comment was added at 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
OK. Charles Matthews 07:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Stubs

I've noticed you never seem to use stub categories when you create new articles which are still at a stub level. Is there some reason for this or do you believe that no more information can be obtained for it? Its jus tthere are many editors who concentrate on stub categories writing them into fuller articles and if you don't label them this way they may miss attention ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

E.g see Ernest Langlois now. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 13:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I've never thought of adding stub categories. Is it true that 70% of the site carries a stub message? That seems too indiscriminate to me. I tend just to ignore those templates. Charles Matthews 14:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

They may seem trivial but they are there for a reason to highlight the articles which have not yet reached a desired length which as you said unfortunately is around 70% of all articles. Now i don't spend too much time organizing stub categories either, but many editors including myself often work through stub categories with the intention of expanding them into start class and fuller more detailed articles. Now don't get me wrong; your new articles and consistent editing on this site is admirable and you are undoubtedly a major asset to wikipedia but you may want to consider that your new articles can be expanded upon by editors looking through the stub categories if there is enough given information at a later date. Regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 17:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Good work on Nimat Allah al-Harawi - no longer a stub. Tnanks ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ "Talk"? 16:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Tajik

Hello. You were part of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/E104421-Tajik which got Tajik banned. New evidence from checkuser suggests that the accusations against Tajik were wrong. This is supported by a few admins and other users in a recent comment. The case was already reported to User:Jimbo Wales. Please take a look at this and comment on it. I would also appreciate it if you could contact other clercs since I do not know how to do that. PS: I am not Tajik, but I know Tajik. I do not know how to prove that, but it does not matter anyway. Thank you for your help. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.142.88 (talk) 22:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Charles_Matthews/Archive_22&oldid=1136201132"