User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 27

John Preston (clergyman)

The problem with drive-by linking such as you did here is that 2 out of 3 of the links are to disambiguation pages. I've fixed them. That said, the end result is that 2 out of 3 now point to an appropriate article, and t'other is a redlink. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you say "problem". I do linking, and I do "avoid dab" - look at my edit just before coming here. On balance I can't see that that's a problem. It's a division of labour, and that is fairly characteristic of the way the site works. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions

I've left a question or two for you here. Jehochman ^Talk 21:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Some deletions now have gone on, on that page. You did write there: Sorry, FT2, this block was not at all transparent. I did ask Charles to comment, but he is apparently off wiki for a time. I am not accepting your pro forma answer as to how he found this. I'd like him to say how he found out about this incident, because that may shed light on why this block happened. There simply isn't good evidence here to show outing, or a pattern of harassment. The evidence should be placed before the block, so as not to leave people guessing. Please don't wheel war over this, folks. Take it to WP:AN and discuss the matter to achieve consensus.

I was offwiki at 1 am UK time, yes. Where is the issue of "transparency" in WP:HARASS, by the way? The wording on "attempted outing" is quite clear and unequivocal. There is no required process at all, and I don't know why you think WP:AN has jurisdiction over the matter, over and above individual admin discretion. I'm aware of two previous incidents where User:Mathsci has used off-wiki identity information "casually" in debates. We were already discussing Mathsci's disruptive conduct relative to other incidents, on the ArbCom list, when I became aware of this event. While we didn't want to act disproportionately before, it seems clear that Mathsci is clueless when it comes to exactly those matters the harassment policy addresses. The block was not disproportionate to the history, and the idea that it must be lifted within hours without giving me any chance to put a fuller case is a ludicrous example of wheel-warring. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

You are aware that I had the technical ability to unblock Mathsci, but I chose not to do so, and instead asked you for explanations. I have been trying to help Mathsci be a better editor. If you have evidence of a pattern of abuse, that would be of great interest to me, because I am not keen to spend my time helping those who are not being forthright with me. Please email me an explanation if you wish to share any information. Also, your ArbCom discussions are interesting but your block message did not state, "block per ArbCom discussion, please talk to us before unblocking." Was this block sanctioned by ArbCom, or was it your personal action? I still don't know what evidence you have, but I am open minded about whether this block was needed or not. If you post or email an explanation, I will read it with great interest.

WP:WHEEL and WP:UNBLOCK make clear that SIrubenstein's action was not wheel warring. Policy accurately states that if an admin is not available to discuss a block, then the matter can be discussed on WP:AN. That was the point of my comment. We also know that controversial use of sysop tools are to be avoided. If a block is controversial, we are instructed to discuss first, obtain consensus, and then block. WP:AN is a good place for such discussions. You know all this, of course, but I am setting it out for the benefit of your talk page watchers who may not be so experienced.

Did ArbCom notify this user that they were being discussed? Did ArbCom give the user a chance to present their side of the story? It would be very unfair to pass judgment via a secret trial where the user didn't even have a chance to explain their side of the story. Jehochman ^Talk 17:25, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

For your information, User:Slrubenstein did not mail me before acting, and you can see he left no message here. Therefore to say I was "unavailable" is a gigantic stretch. As for the rest of your comments, it is not "controversial" to apply a sentence as specific as the one in WP:HARASS applying to "attempted outing". Behaviour such as Mathsci's is extremely disruptive. I am still wondering which part of "immediate" you don't understand. Since you appear to be fishing for information about confidential discussions, which have involved mediation through other parties, I am going to disappoint you. It is complete misdirection to talk about "secret trials" here, and I suggest you make some better attempt to contact me, offline, rather than posting in emotive terms. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm puzzled by your reference to WP:UNBLOCK. The relevant passage appears to be this:

Editors with administrator access will strongly avoid wheel warring, that is, overriding each other's decisions, in almost all cases, since this is in itself a serious breach of administrator policy. For this reason, blocks will not usually be allowed to become a source of conflict; rather, consensus will be sought, by means of a fair and objective examination of the matter and of any policies alleged to have been breached.

The routes to resolve a block are agreement by the blocking admin, a (very rare) override by other admins in the case that the block was clearly unjustifiable, or appeal to the Arbitration committee to make a formal ruling on the matter.

This appears, instead, to argue directly opposite to the line you are taking, and the language is very strong.

Charles Matthews (talk) 06:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I did leave a message here, when I did the unblock. It was clear to me that the block was not justified based on the evidence and reasoning you provided. Now you say that the block was justified by off-line conversations and oversight evidence. This implies that the evidence you provided for the unblock was indeed inqdequate. Since you have written that you based the decision to block on off-line conversations and oversight decisions, you clearly see nothing wrong with making this fact public. I am not asking you to go into details that you feel should not be made public, but I wonder why you did not include this fact in your explanation for the block. If you are willing to go public with it now, why didn't you include it in your justification for the block? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Where was there any need at all, given that the block log already contained a block for harassment? You don't count that as evidence? You are supposed to contact me before unblocking, and you didn't, the point you have ducked repeatedly. I have not said anything to you about the other matters informing my discussion. I gave a fuller case to Jehochman, and I'm not going to comment on your inferences about that. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mathsci

Hi Charles, I am unblocking Matchsci. The Harrassment policy requires a pattern that demonstrates the intent to intimidate or threaten. I do not see any pattern - we would need a few different examples to indicate a pattern - and I definitely do not see the evidence you provided as indicating an intent to intimidate or threaten. My interprtation of the evidence is that matsci is trying to figure out how to help an editor contribute without violating copywrite (or academic standards of plagiarism). Based on th other editor's user page it wouldn't surprise me if he were the author, or a colleague or friend of the author, or just someone familiar with the book - who knows? In the worse case scenario, i.e. that the user is the author, boy would I HATE to think that anyone suggesting I had my research published in a book is a form of intimidation or a threat, I would be pretty proud. In fact, our NOR policy says that if you have original research and want to put it in Wikipedia you have to get it published by a reliable publisher first. It seems to me that many academics could be mislead by our NOR policy to think they can just copy and paste from their book to Wikipedia, clearly we cannot do this. And if the user in question is not the actual author, then the problem of violating copywrite is actually a bigger problem. This is an important concern, it gets to one of the five pillars. I think mathSci's concerns were reasonable and he was trying to be helpful. if you think he should have handled it differently I invite you to suggest to him other ways he could have acted. But I certainly see no evident of malice let alone a pattern of malice. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, since I know there has been too much heat around this already, I just want to underscore that while i don't agree with your specific judgement in this specific case, I did look into the facts to reach my own considered conclusions. i did not overturn your block lightly. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, since you didn't give me a chance to reply, you did overturn the block lightly. I would gladly apprise you of facts of the case, and further instances of his "attempted outing". You obviously acted hastily, and outside WP:WHEEL. Look at the poor English and spelling above. Read the relevant policies, don't expect replies in the middle of the night, and realise that, as I have made plain both here (up the page at "Help Request") and at AN/I, I have background that you do not. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure what background you have that I do not. I do agree that MS acted inappropriately concerning Arc. I suggest in the future that in such cases you make an explicit warning that similar behavior will lead to a block. be that as it may, in the case of Mervyn, the behavior and the case are not similar. You provided one piece of evidence to justify your block, and that evidence does not rise to a reasonable standard. Unlike the other case you refered to, MS was not introducing any personal knowledge, was not violating any confidence, and most important was not calling attention to any information not directly releant to Wikipedia. What MS did (which you do not link to) is this: after Yannismarrou entered into a conflict over including a citation in an article, at 11:08 Oct 16 MS said that Mervyn has mjostly been editing an article on coal mining, adding information from a book by book by a professor of political science at a large US university. I see nothing at all inappropriate with this edit. It was Hans Adler at 11:57 who suggested a conflict of interest - i.e. that the editor is the author of the book. If anyone did any outing, it was Adler. Then Jehochman says the edit summary said the information came from a government source. Now, the publisher given is not the US government so one of two things are possible: Mervyn's edit summary was inaccurate, or the citation was inaccurate. MS suggested - in the edit you consider evidence of outing - at 14:17 that he thought the edit summary was wrong. He writes, "The edit summary is probably inaccurate, but the intent is clearly to add very useful scholarly information to the encyclopedia. The material is from the introduction (Chapter I) of the book by MS Hamilton; the book is cited at the bottom of the diff you provided. It is original writing and not marked as material that has appeared elsewhere in the book; nor is it indicated that it is in the public domain" and then in effect says that people have to reach their own conclusions about Hans's charge of conflict of interest but if this is the problem, there are ways to work around it. It is very clear that MathSci was looking for a way out of the conflict, one that would enable Mervyn to add content. And it is also clear that matchSci did nothing to suggest outing, unless you meant to accuse Hans. It seems like it is Hans that you should have blocked, based on your evidence. Now, I would have opposed Hans's block too, or at least the severity, because outing is bad. But All Hans did was to suggst a congruence between information wikipedians need to know - the credentials of the source provided (which is public), and information Mervyn chose to disclose about himself on his talk page. If you have any other evidence, provide it. The only evidence that you cannot provide is evidence that would further out someone, and if that is the case, just say so, but it is hard for me to imagine what further evidence you could have against MathSci in this case. If he has posted something off-Wikipedia you should have said that there is additional evidence that the policy does not allow me to post, but I have seen no evidence of mathSci outing Mervyn on another website. Are you suggesting MS's 11:08 edit violated any Wikipedia policy? If so you should have used that as your evidence, although I think you would be just as wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

So, you simply don't get it.

Why would I be privy to information you don't have? Because I read the ArbCom and Oversight lists, for one thing. Because I have been in offline communication with several relevant people, for another.

You simply don't get the policy position here. You are entirely out of order in unblocking without consulting me.

You simply are wrong that there is no pattern of behaviour, here. There is.

It seems to me that you are not asking, you are telling. The screed above is self-justifying, and self-serving, and misdirecting.

Your "failure to imagine" (what further evidence you could have against MathSci in this case - it is not a case, it is a block under policy) is a fairly good indication to me that you are unfitted to be an admin.

You prefer your own, ill-informed version, and you make no attempt to contact me, at all, before acting. You have wheel-warred and you then come up with this load of evasion. Inviting people to "draw their own conclusions" about real world identities is "attempted outing". Charles Matthews (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Please respond also to the matters referred to in the previous thread, since I should like to know if you feel you complied with WP:UNBLOCK here. It seems to me that you did no such thing. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

You ask me to respond to the thread above, I am opposed to the creeping institutionalization of power at Wikipedia. There has been much discussion at Wikipedia as to whether policies are descriptive or prescriptive. Most seem to favor the former. If other admins strongly disagreed with my unblock, they could have reblocked. On the one hand, I personally wouldn't unblock a second time. But in principle I think one of the greatest things about Wikipedia, and something worth fighting for, is the decentralization of authority and the fact that different editors have different interpretations of the rules, and apply them differently. I think this openness must be preserved and encouraged among administrators as well. You ask me about my compliance with our blocking policy. When you blocked, you provided your reasons and evidence. I considered your reasons and evidence and found them utterly inadequate to justify the block. And you now agree with me, that the evidence you posted was not sufficient to justify the block. You now admit that the necesary evience was discussed offline. Well, okay, that is a different story. So, as to your original block, you never stated that you were blocking in your official role as oversighter, or that you had evidence that ic not and cannot be available on Wikipedia. Had you acted in a transparent way I am pretty sure I would have acted differently. Is this self-serving? Nor more so than your comments have been. The greatest threat to Wikipedia is a lack of transparency, and from what others have told me in this case it could easily have been avoided. Please consider this an important lesson for the future. The next time you block someone based on a secret ArbCom or Oversight ruling, just say so. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, opposed to the creeping institutionalization of power at Wikipedia seems to translate to "I can do as I damn well choose", and chatting on about transparency in an issue to do with outing suggests to me that you completely miss the tact needed to deal with personal information. The rest, frankly - you must be joking. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:35, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I hope when you have calmed down a bit you reread what I wrote (and perhaps reconsider the tone of your prior comments to me). I am sorry if I did not express myself clearly. Opposed to creeping institutionalization means this: that any admin should look at the reasons and evidence given for a block, consider the request for an unblock, and act based on the admin's good judgement. I hope you will reconsider your word choice about "chatting" on about transparency because it may give others the surely misleading impression that you think transparency is a trivial matter. As to what I meant, no I did not mean that some information must be kept personal. And you know that, because I have said as much several times. What I did mean is just what I said: you should have explained in your block that you were acting on information that has to be kept personal. That is a transparent exercise of power that betrays no confidences or privacy. I am deeply concerned that you seem to think you have no obligation to the community to say even this small thing. It is no joking matter. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Look, I'm posting a conduct RfC about the matter. And there is absolutely no justification for numerous things you have said. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how some people become admins. They seem to have no sense of responsibility, no sense of relativity, no sense of purpose. All that drives them is a mist of personal interest. This is a clear case of an admin deciding that outing wasn't a bad thing really and since Charles was asleep he'd let the guy off after pretending to follow procedure. I'm glad wikipedia has such people as admins, it reminds me why I can't be bothered conforming material to official policies anymore. --ZincBelief (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm just archiving the page, and I came across this comment of mine: "wikis are permissive for writers, not an excuse for dirigisme". So I have sympathy for the latter view. With emphasis on writers. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment

I see that you are planning to go after SIrubenstein, User:Charles Matthews/Drafting, as you went after me and some other editors at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman. I really hope you stop and think about that for a moment. In the earlier case, you were exceptionally uncivil to me, and you never properly apologized. I think for the good of all people involved, it would be best to chalk this up to a misunderstanding and let everyone get back to work, rather than creating another useless and destructive drama. The treatment of the desysopped admin at Hoffman was appalling. It was the worst of ArbCom. Please, please, please don't do that again. Jehochman ^Talk 12:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Now, I understand that you are advising me not to use dispute resolution. And you are expressing a lack of confidence in the ArbCom. But an RfC is not directed to the ArbCom. (Since you are looking at my edits, please note the summary "RfC draft".) And you are bringing up two further matters. On the Hoffman case, I was recused, so please direct the complaint to someone else. On the other business, we exchanged private emails, as you will recall. If you regarded that exchange as not closed, your natural course was to continue it, rather than bringing it up well over nine months later. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not interested in forcing an apology. I already struck the one statement above when I saw you were heading to RFC instead of RFAR. Feel free to use normal dispute resolution. My concern was about jumping straight to arbitration. I will reiterate that I do not support unblocks without discussion, except in case of clear error. SIrubenstein has at least an argument that this block looked like clear error, a misreading of what Mathsci said. I've always suspected that you had good reason for the block. As a very simple protocol for preventing this sort of dispute, could you possibly just say so when you block on private evidence? A note with the block "this block is based on private evidence, contact me to discuss before unblocking" would have removed any chance of miscommunication.

I am now going to tell SIrubenstein what I think of his behavior. It makes me very sad when good people are set against each other. Jehochman ^Talk 12:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I note your comment. In return, please note that "contact me to discuss before unblocking" is the default with any block whatsoever. In fact this whole business turns on an admin who apparently has no such understanding. The reason that this is the default could hardly be more apparent. Exactly how likely would it be that I would not respond properly to a request for explanation, from another admin? You might then well say, "you, of all people". Let me make just one more point: I'm an admin with email enabled, but that doesn't apply to Slrubenstein. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully you and he can come to some sort of common understanding. SIrubenstein seems to process about 33% of our unblock requests. If as you assert, he does not understand how to perform unblock reviews correctly, that is worrisome. Would you please send me an email explaining in brief the harassment by Mathsci. I've been trying to help Mathsci, as I try to help many editors. I'd like to know whether my assumption of good faith might have been taken advantage of. Jehochman ^Talk 12:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I note that you had already sent me an email. Thank you for the explanation. It seems quite reasonable. Jehochman ^Talk 13:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

To spare you trouble, I shall also note here that this was a confidential response to your expressed concerns. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

If Jehochman is satisfied by the explanation, so am I (my e-mail is not auto-enabled because when it was, another editor used it to harass me off-wiki and no other administrator considered it a Wikipedia concern, so I deactivated the e-mail link - but I always provide my e-mail address upon request). Given Jehochman's assessment of the reasoning, I regret my rapid unblock and am sorry to have hurt Charles's feelings. I believed it was a clear error and I did so in good faith (I still do not see how the specific edit Charles provided is evidence of outing; I assume his correspondence with Jehochman speaks to the issue of a pattern, or provides adequate evidence). I think Jehochman's suggestion "As a very simple protocol for preventing this sort of dispute, could you possibly just say so when you block on private evidence?" is a very constructive one for all administrators. I would even support adding it to the policies involved. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Eleventh hour, but in the interests of a pacific approach I give you a view of the draft RfC: User:Charles Matthews/Drafting. I shall hold off posting it for a short while. If (as unfortunately appears) there is a gulf between us, then this will indeed go forward. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Charles, I think Jehochman was right when he said this is escalating into pointless drama (or words to that effect), and I apologize for my role in contributing to it. All I can say again is that I felt your block was unjustified, given the (as I see it) ambiguous nature of the

comment under dispute. As I said above, it would be helpful in future if you could say in the block summary when a block is based on non-public information, and for my part, I will e-mail the blocking admin, as appropriate, when unblocking in future; if the block states that it is based on private evidence, I will not act until discussing it with the blocking admin, and act only if after a thorough discussion it is clear that additional action is warranted. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

One more step forward. SI, please admit that you were too hasty and that next time you'll contact the blocking admin first when there is any hint or implication of private evidence. We can tweak policy afterwards to help others avoid this pitfall. Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Where is the point of talking further to Slrubenstein, when s/he simply denies the basic policies regulating the use of admin powers? He or she is angling for a qualification to one of the basics: don't reverse the actions of another admin before you have gone through the fundamental courtesy of consultation. I think we've come down to it: nearly three years of ArbCom efforts to drive the wheel-warriors out of business have simply passed Slrubenstein by. Not to admit that admin policy binds you is to be an unfit admin.

And, Jehochman, I'd be more impressed if you didn't undermine WP:WHEEL in this way. You should be asking here for unqualified acceptance of WP:BLOCK, WP:UNBLOCK, and WP:WHEEL. You are out of line here: offering to "tweak" is nonsense. Please strike those words thusly: when there is any hint or implication of private evidence, because otherwise you are not showing me you understand the problem here. I mean, that Slrubenstein admits no fault, when the fault is utterly apparent. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

See below. Is that better? Jehochman ^Talk 20:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposed statement

Could both of you possibly agree to the following:

1. Blocks are not to be undone without consulting the blocking admin, except for obvious errors.
2. It is not possible to determine if there has been an obvious error without consultation when there is any sort of statement or implicit circumstance that the block may rely on private evidence. Examples: the blocking admin has access to non-public information via ArbCom mailing list, Checkuser, Oversight or OTRS; or if the block is for harassment or outing. (added)
3. Blocking admins should respond promptly, within 24 hours typically, be responsive to information requests.
4. For the sake of avoiding any doubts, b For the sake of transparency, blocking admins are encouraged to state in the block notice on the user talk page if they have relied on private evidence, . A "belt and suspenders" approach can help prevent misunderstandings. but this may not always be possible.
5. SIrubenstein made a good faith mistake by unblocking Mathsci hastily, and may have been too involved with Mathsci to provide a completely objective review. (added)
6. Administrators are allowed an occasional mistake, especially when they recognize and learn from them. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect. However, sustained poor judgment or multiple violations of policy may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are also expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.
7. SIrubenstein has averaged just 10 block/unblock actions per year since 2005. There is a strong appearance that their unblock of Mathsci was a political move to benefit a perceived ally, rather than an independent review. As such, it was improper. (added 12:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC))

Feel free to suggest alternatives. In any dispute, it is best if the parties can come to a voluntary agreement. Jehochman ^Talk 17:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

See above (I do think your point 4 should be made policy) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:03, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, much as it is of general interest to make policy on the fly like this, or pretend to, why would this be the place? I agree with #1, obviously. I agree with #3 in a general sense, but not with the way it is drawn up. There is a simple and general test for admins, which is that they should be reasonably responsive in relation to any use of the tools.

I absolutely disagree with #4. I live in a more complex world, it seems, than my opposite number, but the fact is that even hinting at certain kinds of evidence could easily lead to inferences that would not dissipate after any block was lifted. The block log is for stating reasons, not "evidence", and to the extent that most blocks are judgement calls, it must be accepted that there is an element of discretion involved. That is why it is essential that admins should respond: when others question their judgement, they must able to provide a coherent reasoning. Private discussion may be essential, in fact. So-called private evidence is certainly admissible. It should not be placed in the block log as a factor unless there is a compelling reason (the block log is effectively permanent).

I dispute #5. While AGF is a good principle, I don't honestly think Slrubenstein is "uninvolved" with Mathsci in the way that would mean that Slrubenstein would be an acceptable neutral reviewer of evidence. Adulation and telling someone to go get them trolls is insufficient distance, in my book.

Then, #6 is interesting. Fallibility is accepted. Arguing that absence of due diligence is down to fallibility is not accepted. If admin A is in the habit of intervening in situations without ascertaining basic facts and following certain standard steps, then resulting mistakes are systematic errors of approach, and can be avoided. Specious arguments are not acceptable.

So, that leaves #2. But it is really an annotation to #1, and follows I think from what I've just said about #4 (the world of Wikipedia as I know it in 2008 cannot be treated in a simple-minded way) and #6 (take obvious steps before acting in situations). Of course there is a danger, because no one wants the situation where decisions are unquestioned. So the point is that #3 should be explained in a way that amplifies "responsive" by intention, rather than imposes time limits. Any admin should expect a degree of frankness in private exchanges with another, even when there are delicate points involved. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response That does clarify a number of points. The block notice I mentioned is the thing you put on a user's page after you block them not the blog log. We obviously have to tell users why they are blocked, at least in general terms. We aren't making policy here. I am checking to see whether we can achieve a consensus about what happened to save the community from spending many, many hours discussing the incident, at the expense of article editing. Since both of you are reasonable people, I hope you'll see how this will end and agree the final position without all the motions. Charles, would you agree that SIrubenstein's neutrality was questionable and he should have left this unblock review to somebody else? Jehochman ^Talk 19:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking of the block log, not quite taking your point, but that really only removes the element of permanence. And, honestly, the so-called transparency of putting evidence in a block notice - who does it do favours to? The blockee, no - why encourage admins to throw the book at people, adding in everything including dark hints? The blocking admin? No. This seems to be about a "consumer", an admin who would like to make unblock decisions without raising the point with the blocking admin. We are back to the same impasse. Wikipedia:UNBLOCK#What happens next gives not the slightest encouragement to such an admin, in such an ambition. And nor should it.

Obviously I believe that Slrubenstein should have passed on this one. Eager unblocking of someone you ask favours of, at other times? Doesn't look good, even if any other admin would do the same. And what was left here after the event was advocacy for the unblock (as well as all its other obvious flaws). Charles Matthews (talk) 20:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just strike #4 completely because it needs much more thought, and if the other points are followed, it is superfluous. We'll just leave the content of the block notice to admin discretion. If those statements are acceptable to you, I can ask SIrubenstein if he would confirm them. Perhaps this would save a lot of time versus doing a full blown RFC. Jehochman ^Talk 20:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's my version though: Slrubenstein is a maverick admin, who for theoretical reasons believes it is acceptable to lift a block without any attempt to contact the blocking admin. This approach contradicts the basics of WP:UNBLOCK, a policy that takes into account the complex practicalities of Wikipedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

On J's new point #7, then, too many scenarios.

• M mails S, a known admin, for assistance with a block, using site mail.

This would be the normal story, I feel. It is though ruled out by S having disabled site mail.

• M mails S, a known admin, for assistance with a block, using a previously-obtained email address.

OK, maybe. But then I'd like to know more about the supposed arms-length relationship.

• M contacts someone else, who mails S.

OK, fine, can happen. Who, why?

• S has M's user-talk watchlisted.

Yes, why not? It is kind of quick, but could happen. Most likely, though, a curious admin would wonder why the subpage deletions (next on that page) were going on, and think to ask. S may have known that the subpages were an issue. S had some background on the business. (Comments above.) Maybe this is how it went, but I'd have further questions.

• Someone left S a talk page message

Not this, anyway. Just nothing.

And, well, this can go on for a while. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:03, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have asked SI to check the points and leave comments. That might help clarify matters further. Whichever questions can be answered now will help focus any subsequent discussions. Jehochman ^Talk 14:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Reality: S publicly posted this message [1] on M's talk page which explicitly gives S' s email address. This information (perhaps not quite so precise) and more has been communicated privately to FT2. Hope this helps. Mathsci (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Needle, meet haystack. Jehochman ^Talk 11:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Durova

Okay, this needs to be said. Charles, it could be a healthy exercise to do a search on this page for the terms "dog", "moral pygmies", "meddling hypocrite", and "busybody". Then pause, reflect a few moments, and recall who it is you are attempting to lecture about "fundamental courtesy". One of the effects most Wikipedians would surely wish to avoid is a site culture in which fundamental courtesy is an unequal obligation in which those who have fewer ops are obliged to be unerringly courteous in the face of rudeness from those who have greater ops, power, and access--or else face retribution. There is a very real chance that, intentional or not, such an impression may be created. You are uniquely poised to correct that impression with a few edits, and the merit of the argument you assert would be considerably clearer as a result. Durova^Charge! 03:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

While I am well aware of your concerns related to the Hoffman case, I'm not aware that you have given me any private chance to go over the matter with you. As you can see at the top of the thread (i.e. "Request for comment"), Jehochman and I have had our private interchanges on this. Your tone is accusatory. My custom, in fact, is not to self-justify by issuing general statements. I will say this, but it is no news to anyone who has paid attention. What went on in the Hoffman case made me very angry indeed, and the fault lay, in my view, indeed in a cultural matter (attitudes at the Administrators' Noticeboard). I withdrew completely from Wikipedia editing for a month. By our customs, this is appropriate, and there was a book to write at the time.

Now, please, this is a lengthy discussion of an admin action involving me and someone else. The reference to "fundamental courtesy" was not related to civility, but to collegiality. The entire business is about whether Slrubenstein should have unblocked without attempting to contact me first.

Since Jehochman has explained why in haste he brought up, irrelevantly, the Hoffman case, this is all off-topic for the thread. (Here's something for you, even so - you are though quoting selectively, and polemically, and I think from more than one page. As I explained to Jehochman "two men and a dog" is proverbial for a poorly attended event, or any small outfit. The reference was precisely to the poor attendance - two admins and one bystander - at AN/I where the permanent blocking of Hoffman was "decided". This reference would I think be clear to a reader in my country; if not so in the USA, I think we should all bear in mind the international nature of the project. It was not intended as a personal attack on Jehochman. I told him that by email, and that, in line with policy on personal attacks, if he felt it was a personal attack he could of course have it removed under our basic policy. That is why I was surprised that he was taking up the matter once more.) Charles Matthews (talk) 06:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You have had the same opportunity everyone has had. It's right here.[2] Yet I don't see any reason to take this offsite, since your original posts were onsite to begin with. Now Jehochman may be a forgiving person, or at least a very patient and polite one, but in my book it's quite simple: insult someone privately, make it up privately; insult them publicly, make it up publicly. He hasn't asked me to post any of this, btw, but I happen to think it bears pointing out that for ten months now he's been contributing despite the fact that any of the sockpuppeteers, trolls, and edit warriors he confronts could throw it in his face that a member of the arbitration committee had called him a 'dog' in formal proceedings, and the arbitrator neither saw fit to retract nor did the Committee even propose a motion to express a reservation that perhaps that epithet wasn't quite deserved. You could remove that hindrance in one minute, Charles, and and it would be particularly fitting to do so at a moment when 'fundamental courtesy' is at issue. Leadership by example can be powerful. Durova^Charge! 08:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You are persistent. You are still off-topic. What, exactly, is your locus standi in matters between me and Jehochman? And you apparently ignore the detail of the reply to you, above. I ask you to abide by our conventions. This is my User talk page, and if I request some thread discipline, I think you should do as I ask. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:00, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate you fail to see the relevance of these comments. I'll connect the dots: in the previous case it raised observers' eyebrows that a proposed decision got posted a mere twelve hours after the case opened--before the principal party had even posted evidence. Now it raises eyebrows that several arbitrators posted opinions before formal dispute resolution was even undertaken. The conventional expectation in most organizations would be that someone in a position such as yours recuse himself not merely from formal participation as arbitrator of a case, but also from actions that would appear to take advantage of his access and position of authority--such as privileged discussions that may prejudice the outcome.

Case in point: although you claim I failed to give you sufficient opportunity to respond in the previous case, I did in fact leave a polite note to you at this very user talk page. It was only after you failed to respond that I reluctantly became among the last observers to sign a workshop resolution reminding you to be more measured. And during that time, at the proposal which supposed you assumed insufficient good faith, you responded to the quotes (which I merely repeated here) not by explaining you had a different intention for the epithet 'dog', but by proposing a metric to determine hypocrisy on a prima facie basis--an argument which rather compounded the doubts about how much good faith you assume. Now to see the summary you assert directly to me, when I know full well what the actual history is, hardly inspires confidence in the accuracy of your private summaries.

The net result--which no arbitrator has done more to create than yourself--is the significant risk of a chilling effect in which editors and administrators become fearful of doing anything other than submitting to the wills of individual arbitrators. I will not go so far as to suppose that effect is intentional, but it is my hope that as a reasonable and educated man you would see--and endeavor to undo--the unintentional impression that this reasonably creates. Durova^Charge! 22:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Starting with "Okay, this needs to be said", it appears that this is some sort of dense manifesto. My reference to private conversation: I was in fact in contact with you about an entirely different matter, and via the Wikback, earlier in the year. An ideal opportunity for you to give me frank views, on a "while we're talking" basis?

I'm having difficulty parsing things, really. By the way, I deplore "chilling effect" used as a bludgeon. We should all respect the right of others to hold different views, and resist the temptation to blacken the reputations of others who simply disagree with us, when they express that disagreement. We can talk about "hypocrisy" any time you choose. We can talk about why I used a prosecutorial tone on the Evidence page of the case in question.

It is not my view alone, as an individual arbitrator, that my own admin actions should not be reversed by another admin without at least a serious attempt to communicate on the issue. This is what you are implying? (It is ironic, is it not, that my approach in the Hoffman case was to insist that the blocking admin discuss the matter privately with me, before I could take any step relative to the block? Went on for months. And I was right, 100% correct, that the matter should have been dealt with that way. The reason I didn't act unilaterally, and did insist that a private discussion should go on, is that experience shows it to be the safest way.) It is the settled view of the ArbCom, has been since the boxen wars (i.e. from my arrival on the Committee in 2006), is written into policy, and reaffirmed in the recent Connolley-Geogre case. Those who simply don't try the communicative route and take it on their own shoulders to back their own judgement against another admin's are potentially in trouble. That is then real, self-inflicted trouble. In a case related in any way to outing and personal information, and harassment, there is no defending such an action by saying there is no real and apparent threat. There is no rollback for harassment. (But IAR still applies, naturally. Note that my issue with Slrubenstein comes down to this, that the reason given isn't IAR, but a rigmarole about how the wheel-warring line of "0RR until you consult" just shouldn't apply at all.) None of this has any relation to my status as an arbitrator (currently on leave, in fact).

I still am having trouble connecting anybody else's "eyebrows" with matters related to J. This is my point about locus standi: does J want me to go on, here? (See his edit summary, BTW.)

I've addressed the "writing issue" on the Workshop page: it was a technique called "subverted cliché" where you take a stock phrase and give it a twist. Having now spent a year working with two American co-authors, an American editor and an American copyeditor on a 500-page book, I have an improved understanding of certain aspects of writing for the American audience. To put it briefly, "don't assume they get P. G. Wodehouse" is a good rule. I'm a Wodehouse man, the "subverted cliché" is his riff, so let's put this down to cultural differences and move on.

I actually don't appreciate what it seems to me that you are doing in equating the Evidence and Workshop in Mathew Hoffman. It is a conflation. I was a party to the case, not an arbitrator. I actually don't appreciate the apparent confusions of who is responsible for what, in relation to outcomes.

And if this is about fence-mending, yes, let's mend fences. Rather than issuing communiqués, though, actions speak louder, I think. I can't speak for him, but my impression is that J and I have been able to work together, on this page and in a couple of emails, on the matter that brought J here. From some rocky beginnings, even.

Charles Matthews (talk) 06:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

By the way, we could be talking past each other, here. I'm just not too clear, and this is in public, and started, unfortunately, in the middle of a complex discussion that might reasonably be described as "mediation-like": some attempt to clarify positions, as a way of avoiding more formal dispute resolution. See my reference to a "gulf". I, frankly, feel that invitations to open cans of worms can be declined, on that basis. There is probably a perfectly good discussion of "unintended consequences" to be had, relative to Hoffman: as they say, why wouldn't there be? ArbCom does indeed do motions, and clarifications, and suchlike. And there is an appeal from ArbCom decisions. And so on. "Unintended consequences" discussion obviously goes on in the context of "intended consequences": if the decision in Hoffman has such consequences, procedurally the ArbCom would revisit if the ArbCom saw a reason to. I, presumably, would recuse once more from that business? For my "intended consequences" look at what I wrote in saying the case should be accepted, not the evidence I provided - there is a distinction. I'm getting this blurred vision of what I should be addressing, that is properly mine to address. I have, of course, a great deal more data on the case than most people, and, sorry, I'm not going to broach areas that are offlimits. Opinions I can give: obviously they are informed, and equally obviously I can't debate the information supporting them. It's not the greatest position to be in, but (as the other business shows) some of us are asked, elected or chosen to live in a sphere where some things are simply kept private. I don't complain about that (the heat and the kitchen). If you are campaigning for something, and are setting out to do so in a public place, and are pointing to unresponsiveness as an issue, then (I have to say) it would be fairer to lay at correct doors the matching points. Neither the handling nor the outcome of Hoffman was what I wanted. That is typical of Arbitration (as I would know), but I was a party. That "Chinese wall" is not bogus, it is quite real. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Moved to new thread here

So, restarting this in a new thread:

• I was on leave from the ArbCom for two months covering the whole of the Hoffman case, in which I was of course recused. By our convention I contributed not at all to the private discussion after the case was opened. The absence of such a motion as you mention is not my affair: formally speaking, I had nothing to do with the outcome of that case.
• I will address the concerns of any Wikipedian who writes to me on a serious matter. It is conventional and sensible to work on the principle that you address expressed concerns as people word them, and not as you infer them to be.

Charles Matthews (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My reason for mentioning Hoffman here is that I see the potential for a repeat of the harm to Wikipedia that happened in that case. The way to "win" an argument is to convince the other person that you are right, not to bludgeon them into submission with sharp words and application of power. Charles, I am especially keen to hear more about what we can do to resolve the noticeboard culture. In recent days I have seen at least two situations where a crowd has gathered, and without thoroughly considering the evidence, they have formed a consensus to take action against established contributors. This sort of thing needs to be stopped, and I am not sure about the best strategy. Have you seen User:Geogre/Comic? It explains the dynamic. For my part, I am sorry that I made the comment I did about Matthew Hoffman at ANI. I have become more careful since then. Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So, define "noticeboard" in WP terms and it is something like "a page that has become a process without a charter". It's fairly easy to see the advantages: our processes get things done, and noticeboards are flexible because they aren't rule-bound and sclerotic. Disadvantages: no warranty that the right things get done (any more than in more formal processes). So the usual stuff: notions of quorum, time allowed, and closure/consensus are all relevant. So, of course, is the notion that those who act do so on their own responsibility - it's their neck. There isn't a general answer, surely. If there isn't good sense and there isn't a charter, there should be migration in one of those directions. My two cents. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Noticeboards are a good way to get uninvolved opinions, which can be helpful. However, it often happens that the most gung-ho, least cautious admins are the first ones to act. I personally have avoided placing things on ANI. The specialist noticeboards, like WP:COIN and WP:SSP tend to produce better quality results--more light, less heat. For quite a while I have thought Wikipedia would be better without ANI. With so many eyes in one place, every incident invites ochlocracy. How would you feel about transcluding the current unblock requests into AN with a bold disclaimer, "Do not unblock without first contacting the blocking admin, or if they are not available, have a discussion here to gain consensus before acting"? Jehochman ^Talk 16:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You could try transcluding and adding a policy summary, and inviting people to maintain a queue of some sort. I'm not sure quite which issue this addresses ... we tend not to think in terms of centralization for its own sake, but go the other way. (Reminds me of discussions of management fads as basically a pendulum oscillation.) Charles Matthews (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Rede Lecture (and link maintenance)

(Trying hard to ignore the threads above - I am aware of the Hoffman history there, though, so if you or Durova or Jehochman think it may help, I'd be happy to comment or even mediate if needed. Hopefully it will all work out, though.)

I was doing more work on awards recently (see Lister Medal for a prestigious award that we didn't have an article about, and which it is surprisingly hard to find information about on the internet), and I came across Rede Lecture. One thing I have noticed is the difficulty of what I call "link maintenance". When an article is created, it often contains redlinks. One of the problems is that creation of new articles can turn those redlinks blue, and unless someone checks the links regularly, this can end up being very misleading.

Rede Lecture is a case in point. The initial version was created by you in December 2006. It is actually rather complicated to try and work out, nearly two years later, what the page looked like in terms of links back then. Take the five people in the "initial series" bit:

• James Naylor was created in December 2003, and it is the wrong person. That is something that should have been checked at the time when linking from Rede Lecture, but I see from the talk page that you probably got distracted by the speedy deletion.
• William Neville was created in January 2006, and is also the wrong person. Um. I was kind of assuming these were all redlinks that turned blue later, not blue-links--present-when-article-was-created-but-not-checked, if you get my drift? Let's try the next one.
• John Neville appears to have been created in June 2005, and then moved in April 2007 to John Neville (actor).
• The other two were and are redlinks, both then and now.

Ah. Found one!

• Daniel Hall (1935). That is a fictional character. There is a vague suggestion in the deleted history that someone (the IP editor) tried to make it a redirect to the poet (Daniel Hall (poet), but that's a modern poet, and in any case I've no idea who this Daniel Hall is who gave the 1935 Rede Lecture (most of these are online now, see Talk:Lister Medal for examples of places to find such lectures). Anyway, I had thought this was an example of a redlink turning blue, but I see that the page was created in June 2003, so presumably that was blue when the page was created.
• Robert Hall (1962) is another one. Can't see any obvious candidates at Robert Hall (disambiguation).

Anyway, I've failed to find examples I wanted to find of redlinks turning blue later, but I hope you can see how that can be a problem. There is a more general problem of the destination of a link changing (if it is a redirect, the redirect can be edited without people watching a page using that link being aware of it - unless they know how to use 'related changes', and even then there is a problem of 'editing noise' for some pages with hundreds of links). If a link destination is changed into a disambiguation page, for instance, the links all over the encyclopedia stay blue, but the destination has changed. An example is this edit where I created a redirect from one of the redlinks. This turned it blue, but without editing Rede Lecture itself. It would be nice if that sort of change was flagged up for pages where the redlinks had turned blue. If you could double-check things there, that would be great as well - I'm confident it is the same person, but the umlaut over the 'u' in 'Rucker' is a discrepancy that might need clearing up.

If you are interested, I've done a set of 'type' cases at the Village Pump. See here (version as earlier today is here). Carcharoth (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the problem - one of those questionnaires one gets sent was from a librarian and in the comments place I added something about "why do you equate mistakes on the wiki with factual errors", trying to make the point that in hypertext the "wrong" hyperlinks are also "mistaken". You get some newbies who just delink in such cases, but conventionally these are just annoyances. Hmmm - there must surely be a template? Charles Matthews (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, vaguely, since Hubert Douglas Henderson the economist is one of those articles I never quite get round to creating. Where were we - templates. Yes, I'm sure there's a template saying that this bluelink is to a dab page and needs fixed; but is there one saying this bluelink currently runs to the wrong person of that name (say)? Charles Matthews (talk) 16:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

(I've mended the Halls, anyway!) Dsp13 (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The inline ^{(disambiguation needed)} template is {{ambiguous link}} a.k.a. {{dn}}.

The rest are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Inline Templates#List of inline templates, but I don't believe there is one covering the circumstance you describe.

Standard practice is to either unlink (better to have no link, than an incorrect&confusing link), or add a qualifier to turn the link red. How to choose the qualifier is covered at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Qualifier between bracketing parentheses. :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, unlinking is simply no good. Someone else will link it, and then what has been achieved? So, I propose that a template would be a good idea (flags the issue both to the reader and to editors), placing the page in a hidden category. (Yes, cue the lightbulb joke.) Charles Matthews (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Also relevant, in fact, to issues at Wikipedia:Merging encyclopedias (the "Blue list of Dabs"). Charles Matthews (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

My practice, in cases where a link is wrong, is to: (1) Try and find the right link; (2) Find at least three people of the same name and create a disambiguation page and then go back to the original pages and either link to the disambiguation page or (as Quiddity says above) to create a redlink; (3) Delink and add an HTML comment warning people to take care when linking this name, and to make sure it is the correct person they are linking (actually never tried the HTML comment thing, so I don't know if that would stop incorrect linking); (4) Create a stub article on the person without an article and link to it (disadvantage is a pathetic little stub when someone else, later, might have created a much better start for the article). I agree with others that leaving the link there is misleading and wrong, despite the librarian story (which I don't fully understand). I expect links to be correct on Wikipedia, or at least corrected when it is pointed out that they are wrong - sometimes it is not obvious they are wrong - what if you have two people of the same name from the same century? This is why creation and maintenance of people disambiguation pages is important. Though when such disambiguation pages are incomplete, that can be misleading as well. Searches should also be undertaken to see if we have the right page, but just not listed on the disambiguation page yet. Carcharoth (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. To summarise, though, this is a cleanup issue. A very helpful discussion has identified that this is a cleanup issue that is (a) important as a matter of plain accuracy, of the hypertext, and (b) still in a raw state, i.e. that the expectation is only that people fix as they find. (The reason I personally don't always "fix as find" would be that things ramify: engaged in task A, I go to subtask B and am looking at page P which needs some obvious wikification which would lead to "avoid dab" at pages D1 and D2 ... and I make the best of it all, in the knowledge that I'm putting in a couple of hours on A which is certainly beneficial. See the message now at the top of the page: division of labour works here.) So my point is that (c) to get beyond this task in its "state of nature" a template helps with just this point. And it also would help with the big-scale merge idea, for listing maintenance "in place"; which is a specific reason to use it in project space. E.g. go down the Dictionary of National Biography lists. So the Rede Lecture example has certainly been a very constructive one to raise. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And I did something about it: Template talk:MisleadingNameLink.Charles Matthews (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Just popping back to note that this is a perfect example of how to correct such links. Often a little bit of time spent tracking down the full name really helps (as with Alfred Daniel Hall. The crucial step after that, though, is to add him to Daniel Hall or Daniel Hall (disambiguation) (as well as Alfred Hall). Also, a redlink for Robert Lowe Hall should be added to Robert Hall (disambiguation) (as done here), as this will help those disambiguation future links made to Robert Hall. Carcharoth (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Did a couple more fixes to Rede Lecture (some indirect by the creation of redirects): [3], [4], [5]. Added the rest as notes to Talk:Rede Lecture, and hopefully someone will pick things up from there. Norman Moore was wrong, but haven't created a stub for that yet, though I booted the Australian politician off to Norman Frederick Moore, and will create a stub based on this. I started using that template you created: [6] and [7] are examples. And then I struck gold. The external link at the bottom of Rede Lecture was broken, but I found this website, which includes (among other things), a more comprehensive listing of the early Rede Lecturers. See here. Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Good work! I'd like to be everywhere at once, but I really need to write an article once in a while, to stay sane. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure. If you don't have time for this (final?) question, please say so and I'll ask elsewhere. Have a look at Rede Lecture#Initial series. That list of bluelinks was generated by linking a much longer list (see the talk page) and then checking them to find people who studied at Cambridge. A few who studied at Oxford were on early versions of the list, but as they were fairly common names, I removed them as presumably being people of the same name studying and then lecturing at Cambridge. What I need is someone to click on all the links and check they are reasonably OK identifications. Of course, what I need is a cast-iron source that will say that each person was a Rede lecturer. Even the source I pointed out earlier is uncertain as to some of these identifications, which seem to have been compiled from archival lists somewhere. Might try and contact whoever set up that website. Carcharoth (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Titchy bit more done as well. Not sure where to go from here. Split into two or keep the initial and new series together? Oh, one side comment: I found Joshua King hilarious! Carcharoth (talk) 05:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Hilarity is very welcome, right now. I'm going to be spending some time offline in the next few days, though. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hi. Just a reminder of the thread at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages)#Consistency issue. I think all the editors there are willing-to-be-convinced; we just need some specific and representative examples to keep the discussion focused. I suggested the long blue (disambiguation), but anything long should be suitable.

Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I'm thinking "a second blue link must serve an important interpretative function for the sentence fragment itself, and one that is not served by the first", as my version. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you respond at the thread itself? Just replying to me on your own talkpage won't further the discussion!

If you could edit a long disambiguation page (such as Mercury (the example currently used in the guideline), or Blue (disambiguation)) into the style that you would recommend (with a diff link showing the changes), that would probably be the most clear&efficient way to communicate your thoughts to everyone. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Intending to, but suddenly there has been a lot else to discuss. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I noticed that :) We're not disappearing anywhere, and as you said, a full debate over the matter could be very useful. I'll just bump the thread, if it gets close to being archived. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC) (datebump -- Quiddity (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Apart from 140 election questions, a mediation, another offline conversation, and an ArbCom FAQ I've been drafting ... not much to do, really. But fixing the archive is one off the list ... Charles Matthews (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Archiving assistance

Hi Charles, one of my hobbies is archiving talkpages and setting up archivebots... May I set up a bot for your page, and an automated archive box? Or would you rather handle it manually? I could set up a bot that would automatically archive any threads that had gone inactive for a period of time (14 days?), and then you wouldn't have to worry about it anymore. You could still archive threads more quickly on a manual basis at any time of course. Let me know? :) --Elonka 14:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hah, right now, that seems a thoughtful suggestion. I graciously accept. But longer than 14 days would be better. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Righto! I've set it for a 30-day cutoff, and this can be easily changed depending on your needs. BTW, don't worry about it blanking your page or anything, as the bot is set by default to never completely harvest everything, and it'll always leave at least five threads on your page. This is also configurable, if you would like the minimum to be less or more. And sorry for the clutter to your watchlist... I had to move some of the existing archives around in order to get the archivebox to work on "automatic" mode. But it should all be good now, and I added some headers so you can easily step through the archives if you ever need to go hunting for something. From now on, you should never have to worry about archiving again!  :) Hope you like it, and if you'd like any tweaks, let me know, --Elonka 16:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. Sounds as if it would be difficult to break, at least. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

You should move /Archive27 to /Archive 27 in order to follow the previous/standard naming convention, and so that the {archivebox|auto=yes} can find and list it. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Charles, I also tweaked the bot down to a 14-day cutoff, since your page has been fairly busy lately. --Elonka 17:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll get the hang of it all. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Flowcharts

I'm happy to help with the flow charts. Do you have a idea of what you want or a rough sketch? --Kevin Murray (talk) 00:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been away for a few days. Before I went I was working on an idea for maintenance of redlink lists in project space, specifically related to the needs of merging in old encyclopedias. We were having a thread earlier, here on this page, about the situation where a bluelink goes to a wrong page, for the intended meaning. Trying to place this all in context, I came up with a list of (I think) 15 states of such a link on a list; and the link might be red or blue (and change, either way). In other words under this scheme there is quite a large diagram to show, to make clear the process. It might need breaking down into several, though. I'll try to put up a subpage with details, so you can have a look at it. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Najidah article query

Hello Charles. I'm wondering about the Najidah (Australia) article, which you had edited a while ago tidying it up a bit. It ever so feels like a bit of an advert, and if one analyses what links to it, it seems thin. There are so many organisations like this, maybe in Australia, does it make sense to have this one stand out so ? I applaud its work, but I think it was inserted with clever visibility desires and motives, or not, as the case may be. If you had an impression, I would be grateful. Oh --- also --- nice work on your co-authored new book on "How Wikipedia Works" via No Starch Press. Well done to you and your co-authors. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it needs work. I saved it from speedy deletion, basically because the notability issue wasn't then addressed. My question would be about what independent coverage of the organisation there is. Copyediting for tone is also required, but that's a secondary issue. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:23, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Charles. Well, I take your points, and will look into it when time permits. Bests. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 16:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

personal attacks

Hi, I would like to appeal to your help to forstall further unpleasant edit warring. Gandalf and I had a bit of a spat at the talk page of graph. He found it to be good wiki etiquette immediately to go on an offensive against my new page Ghosts of departed quantities as well as my edits at uniform continuity. Please comment. Katzmik (talk) 09:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, a few points.

• • As far as I'm concerned, graph now means symmetric non-reflexive relation. Older books do say otherwise. So the whole debate at graph (mathematics) seems unfortunate.
  • Your approach of nominating an "expert" is usually unhelpful. Wikipedia is compiled by looking at expert writings, not by adopting one expert as an authority. So, I think Gandalf is at least 60% right here.
  • I have been wanting to discuss with you the choice of topics. It is clear to me that you have much to contribute to our articles. A title like Ghosts of departed quantities is not the best kind of topic, though. It is more like a headline in a science magazine, if you understand me. I know something about the whole area: philosophical criticism of the methods of calculus, I would call it. Therefore I would prefer an easier title: easier in the sense that the scope of the article is clearer. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

He and I seem to be mending fences, and even working together at uniform continuity, I hope this continues (what I objected to at the graph talk page was what I felt was a wanton accusation of disregard of a wikipedia regulation, but I can certainly have expressed myself without appealing to motherhood and apple pie, for which I have apologized). As far as Berkeley is concerned, we are not responsible for his choice of words. The words he chose are the ones to have entered our collective scientific consciousness, who cares whether it sounds like a BBC soundbite? I think that instant recognisability of the title is a far better indication of the scope of the article than the best penned prose. Katzmik (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I can't agree. It's not one of the usual problems, but you seem to have a - what? - blind spot about the scope of a topic, and the expectations of the type of content. This can make your contributions look a little "displaced". Which is a shame, since we are sure you have interesting things to write here. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you feel you have a valid criticism please make it on the talk page of the article in question. We are talking about a name change for an article? Katzmik (talk) 11:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I can do that, but I wanted to make some overall comment, too. Titles here are a little different from on a general wiki - that's the real point. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hobby Editing

Can I interest you in taking a break from your religious editing? Go strategy needs some well written and concise paragraphs on yose and middlegame for the FA push. Love, --ZincBelief (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added a section under "Strategy" - hope that was what you had in mind. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Charles, I shall endeavour to pepper it with references.--ZincBelief (talk) 11:53, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

Re: { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overdetermined_system : Inhomogeneous case }

Dear Charles

I would like to ask for a clarification regarding the inhomogeneous case entry in the overdetermined system wiki I preemptively apologize for your time in case the issue is trivial - however is not that clear to me, maybe due to lack of linear algebra expertize :)

In the page under consideration, there is the following statement:

"M equations* and N unknowns*, such that M>N and all M are linearly independent. This case yields no solution."

My question: The number of the linearly independent rows of an MxN matrix (M equations, N unknowns) equals the rank of the matrix. However, from page 105 in Strang the row rank = column rank. How it is possible to have M linearly independent rows leading to a rank = M, but then M > N? Shouldn't the rank be always ≤ min(M,N) ?

Thank you very much

chris

Cpanagio (talk) 01:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a mistake, introduced by this edit. The previous version should be OK. Thank you for pointing it out. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Rules of Go#Territory

Hello. I'd appreciate comment at Talk:Rules of Go#"Original research" template. 128.32.238.145 (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Titles

Hi, Concerning your remark on Ghosts of departed quantities, I think it would be great if material could be added on other philosophical challenges to infinitesimal calculus. Does the current title describe the current content of the page accurately? Katzmik (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic diocese of X

I understand your concern for the long version, but the long version is more precise. I don't mind creating redirects for such pages, but the vast majority have been created by either myself or npeters22 as the long version first, without redirects to the short version. Apologies for making more work for you, but that was not the intent, the intent was simply to fill out the pages on all the Catholic dioceses worldwide. Thank you.

Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Please understand a couple of things, since they matter. The title convention, generally, is not to use a "precise" name, but the common name. Therefore that is not really an acceptable argument. Secondly, since Wikipedia is a piece of hypertext, not a set of isolated articles, there is always an obligation to look at the ways a created article should be linked in. Creating a redirect from diocese of X is just common sense. You seem to think your long version is "standard", to judge by some of your comments. I have explained why it is not "standard" (doesn't match general practice on titles), and is not helpful either. We, none of us, work in a vacuum. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Outing by an Editor who is suspected of being a sockpuppet of the article's subject, William Rodriguez

Hi Charles,

I'm an editor (Contrivance) of the William Rodriguez page. William witnessed 9/11 in the twin towers and has made a career of traveling around lecturing about his heroism. He's gotten a lot more press coverage in the UK than in the USA. The most serious article, in the Herald of Glasgow, points out weaknesses in his story.

I considered identity speculations about me a dumb joke for some time, but recently two 9/11 witnesses (Barry Jennings and Kenny Johanneman) have turned up dead and Willie seems to be hanging around with the allegedly ex-MI5 agent Annie Machon, and I no longer consider it appropriate to tolerate attempted outing and intimidation. I don't want any responsibility for any associated mischief that might follow.

Contrivance (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you work fast! Thanks! Contrivance (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a templated message on User talk:Celeronel. Fair warning. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Charles, can you kindly check the other side allegations? H has been an obvious stalker, harraser and editing in bad faith. Check this time his postings and NPOV, his constant lack of judgemnt when he is shown to be mistaken by other Admins here, like Aude, Arthur Rubin and others. PLease also look at his insistence on vandalising the page constantly when evidence is shown to be contrary to his agenda. Also please look at the talk page, my talk page, Jazz2006 talk page and basically every other poster talk page to realise that hi has done the same actions to others. His complains of being called XX, after his initial name calling to every other editor, based on race jokes (check his talk page), insulting others for not being able to "comprehend" english, implying that everybody else is dumb(this is one of the recurring insults), his insistence of placing non wiki material after being constantly told not to by other admins. Etc Etc. In all fairness, I accept that I do not have the patience to deal with ppeople like him, but an effort should be made on your side to be also fair and see the other side. See the evidence posted and finally if fairness is the call, the same sactions should be performed on him as well. Calling the dead of Kenny Johanneman into this is really sad, Kenny was WIlliam's friend and left a suicide note calling for him to be nnotified among others. Do listen to the radio show were he talks about it.If he does not want to be responsible for any mischief, he should start to act correctly within Wikipedia rules. He has not. About Richard's Gage issue, it was Contrivance who insisted in placing a non-wiki item, from the powerhour radio, hosted illegaly on another site, he tried to change the matter of the content and it's significance, please do listen to the show and see his intial insistence on posting his point of view and changed facts. I only corrected it and learned that (with verifiable links by wiki-please check) that the organisation indeed was named to be a sponsor of homegrown terrorism in Legislative Hearings and televised on C-Span. Also it is false that he received more press in the UK than in the USA, just google "William Rodriguez 9/11" and see for your self. The Herald that he quotes is one of the many out there and counterarguments has been placed accordingly to show the differing views, wiki style. Thanks.Celeronel (talk) 02:34, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

for the record, you said "And please start fresh threads at the bottom, which is the convention here"

I did not start at the top of the page, it was user Contrivance constant misusing of my page who did that. You are welcome to check that out on the history of the page as well. Thanks again.Celeronel (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

The comments were of course directed to all users of the page. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, asking Celeronel to explain the rationale for his edits (he just says "this belongs here") is stalking. I don't insult people (or invoke racism) for their problems in comprehending English--I recognize that it is the most difficult language in the world. I simply point out that poor reading comprehension results in some problems in research, interpretation, and communication. I didn't bring Kenny Johanneman in--Celeronel did, trying to obfuscate the reasons for WR's resignation from the Truth movement. Contrivance (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I have blocked Celeronel indef as a sock of Wtcsurvivor. For details see WP:Suspected sock puppets/Wtcsurvivor. This account, Celeronel, was reviewed for blocking at the time this SSP was closed in mid-September but was not blocked then because it seemed to be no longer active. As I noticed after I happened to see the conversation here, this account has evidently returned to vigorous activity on the favorite article of Wtcsurvivor. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Archbishops of Lille

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Archbishops of Lille, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Archbishops of Lille has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Archbishops of Lille, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Kuban Kazak-Hillock arbcom case

Hi, you recently signalled your intent to accept a case on Kuban kazak. It is not my position to direct you to change your intent, however, I would like to ensure that you have read all the statements which were submitted to the case in question after you signalled your intent to take this case on board. In the event that you haven't kept up with developments on the case, could you please review the case again, and consider if it does in fact require arbcom intervention. Thanks. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Re your motion

I'm curious where you stand on the permissibility of user subpages that are designed to track articles with a problematic history, for the purposes of maintaining high quality articles. I'm not saying any particular current situation matches that description, but it is certainly possible. In this type of case, a page might have a list of articles and users, and some descriptions of editing style for users which may be interpreted as negative or detrimental to article quality. Would this be considered prohibited because it is not related to active dispute resolution? Avruch ^T 20:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my personal view is that this is not what we want on the wiki. We have watchlists and Related Changes. We permit shared watchlists, therefore. In the interests of harmony, issues with particular editors should be raised first directly with them. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Defender Of Justice

He just did this to your message - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Defender_Of_Justice&diff=prev&oldid=250684070

- I think some action - probably blocking - is in order. Paul Austin (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleting the message isn't anything serious. But I was unimpressed with some of the editing I saw - at tarantula, for example, switching many links around, apparently frivolously. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, do something to him - asking him politely hasn't worked. Paul Austin (talk) 08:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Asking politely is what we do, though. I'll post a message with stronger wording. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Now blocked for 24 hours. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Good. Keep an eye on him though - he'll soon be back to his old tricks, i fear. Paul Austin (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Candidate Podcasts

Wikivoices (formally NotTheWikipediaWeekly) would be interested in making several podcasts with candidates running in the 2008 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election. Given the high number of candidates likely to be signing up during the nomination stage (likely to be around 45) it will be a very busy 2 weeks. These shows typically last about one and a half hours to record, taking into account setup time, and are recorded using the free, downloadable programme, Skype. The programme can be used on Windows, Mac OS and Linux operating systems and is also available on some mobile platforms. If any candidates have problems with installing or running the program please contact me at my talk page or by email

There will be 2 formats being run over the next 2 weeks. The first will be general discussion with a small number candidates at a time with several experienced hosts from Wikivoices. Each candidate will be given 2-3 minutes to introduce themselves then the main body of the cast will begin. The topics discussed will vary in each recording to ensure fairness however the atmosphere will be generally free flowing. These will be running throughout the two weeks starting tomorrow. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page. PLease sign up for all the times you are available for. You will be notified which one we would like to attend.

The second format will be based on a similar style to election debates. Questions will be suggested here by the community. A selection of these will then be put to a panel of larger panel candidates with short and concise 1-2 minute responses. Other than an introduction and hello from each candidate, there will be no opportunity for a lengthier introductions. Specific signup times can be found here at our meta page.

It is recommended that candidates attend both formats of casts and we will try to be as flexible as possible. We are looking for the greatest participation but also for shows with enough members to keep it interesting but not too many that it causes bandwidth and general running issues. I look forward to working with all candidates in the coming weeks. Seddσn ^{talk Editor Review} 12:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. I don't have Skype, but this could be a reason ... Charles Matthews (talk) 13:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom Candidate Template

Hello, fellow candidate! Just so you know, in an effort to announce our candidacies and raise further awareness of the election, I have created the template {{ACE2008Candidate}}, which I would invite you to place on your user and user talk pages. The template is designed to direct users to your Questions and Discussion pages, as well as to further information about the election. Best of luck in the election! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. Good luck yourself. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Bishzilla

Your query - she is User:Bishonen, so your assumption is correct. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Bish noted that in their questions (though I knew previously).

What I'm not sure what to make of is the seriousness of the candidacy, or if perhaps there is a "point" to the candidacy ("no big deal" or some such), or if it's just a case of wanting to use a different username for arbcomm, or whatever. So I dunno, and am not sure that it's worth the time pursuing to find out : )

That said, thank you for the clarification. You had no way to know whether I knew or not. Thanks again : ) - jc37 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dead serious. We must elect women, you know. (Trying to be non-threatening, maybe.) Charles Matthews (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol@ non-threatening.

See my comments at User:Bishonen/Bishzilla RFA : ) - jc37 17:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Full and frank ...

Thanks for your (very) full and frank answer to my question at the election page. I do appreciate it and I hope that others will too. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be writing more in regard to Chaser's question. Obviously people want to hold me to account, and that is quite proper, and one reason I'm standing again (I suppose - when I decided to run, there were a number of factors to consider). Charles Matthews (talk) 07:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a sharp stick...

Though James F. hasn't responded yet, I just thought I'd mention that (at least at the moment), your comments, coupled with some other things I've been reading lately, may have caused me to change my perspective on 2 year term lengths. (More ironic, since, I believe I was the first to suggest 2 year lengths quite awhile back.)

So at the moment, I'm looking for a rather sharp stick. When I find one I'll be back (smiles). - jc37 03:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It all depends what we're trying to address. The two-year terms are supposed (I think) to reconfigure slightly the relationship of ArbCom and community. I was talking about maximising the useful arbitration work done. The main problem right now is long open cases. And that is several issues: drafting delay and voting delay have separate causes.

By the way, James will probably answer in a bit. Maybe you should just mail him. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

My main concern was/is burnout. Because that simply leads to less activity, or even possibly less-than-at-one's-best activity. And honestly because I like to think of myself as a nice person and don't like the idea of societical pressures on someone to continue on despite them feeling (emotionally, and perhaps even physically) that they don't wish to. And noticing how many resign early (which can be a minor trial itself).

(And reading above, I'm wondering if perhaps I made James' task of responding easier... I dunno : ) - jc37 10:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a checkuser: arbs who are may find it takes up most of the time they have. Regarded as a management issue, people burning out is quite complex. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it can be complex (which I think we both noted at your questions page : ) - jc37 12:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for

this Slrubenstein | Talk 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Your comments

As you have chosen to mention me in your vulgar scramble to be re-elected please be aware I have posted a question in reply here: [8]

Frankly, I find it incredible that such as you and James Forrester feel you have something further to offer Wikipedia, but we shall not go there. That you choose to mention Arbcom's secret (very wise) deliberations demeans you. That I cause you to become "into loops arguing" is probably because I am of more value to the project than you and your present colleagues. Please do not mention me, or involve me in you campaign for power again. Thank you. Giano (talk) 22:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A chance to put across my point of view. It is an open secret that the ArbCom has been divided. The "loops" is a qualitative reason, in explanation: we debate the matter, without resolving it (it's the same as computers looping, I was using a metaphor). I have a couple of times voted against you. Two points. Firstly, when the ArbCom divides, you deserve to know how many voices each way. It is fair warning. Secondly, if I'm to speak to why I voted that way. The underlying problem is with any editor who cannot or will not treat other Wikipedians in good standing as colleagues. That's it: that is what has swayed my vote in the past. I value your work. You might find something to value in mine: we don't edit in the same areas. If you never had any signal from Arbitrators as to the problems they find, I think you might have more reason to be aggrieved.

In any case, I'm glad of a chance to explain. According to my lights, I'm acting honestly and openly.

My re-election is up to the whole community. I'm sorry not to have your vote. If I'm "kicked upstairs" as emeritus I imagine 2009 will be a pleasant year of article writing. I'm currently covering the 17th century (see Ramism, a new article). How about you? Charles Matthews (talk) 10:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy close RFC?

Is it possible to speedy close the RFC if issues are now resolved?[9] Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. The victim here of the "alleged outing" has not had a full hearing, but that is not the focus. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

RFArb page - Motion: Tobias Case

Would like to request that you change your vote so this may be archived sooner, before the RFArb page gets too much longer. I make this request given that the active current case (Kuban) has similar proposals - I expect they can be tweaked in such a way that it will eliminate the need for amending the Tobias case, while providing any necessary clarification. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

If the way to go is to treat these points as part of the Workshop for that case, then, yes, the motion can be archived. I'm being guided by what others think here. We don't yet seem clear what is cosmetic and what constitutional in the differences, but perhaps that's a sign that some constitutional clarification will be seen in future. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC Closure

You are welcome. Yes, I understand. Tried a couple times to steer discussion back to original Statement of Dispute. No problema. Onward. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Dr. Perfessor

This seems to be a sockpuppet account of User:Mervyn Emrys. Look at this diff [10]. The edits to the article on Lynton K. Caldwell seem to be a copyvio from an obituary reproduced here [11] from the Bloomington Herald Times. Much of the obituary was copied-and-pasted into the article. Isn't there a rule about sockpuppet accounts? This diff [12] seems to be unknowingly admitting the sockpuppetry, since the biographical material was added by User:Mervyn Emrys. Could someone possibly be playing the system? Mathsci (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask directly if there is any connection. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

BTW, just in case you were interested, I very much like opera, but not melodrama. After BWV 651-668, I'll probably get to work on a Handel Opera, using my 2 volume Winton Dean (that I already added as a reference for all his operas). Ariodante looks as if it needs some TLC. Mathsci (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

More of a Wagner man myself. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wagner is not excluded :) Mathsci (talk) 07:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was chatting to User:Mindspillage at the Wikimania party about my actual tastes, and as I mentioned Purcell as well I don't think they made much sense to her (an actual musician). I have had this experience before: I say a few names and they don't seem to add up. (Alkan, Gubaidulina, ... just eclectic stuff). Charles Matthews (talk) 08:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a fan of Purcell, too, as is our common friend in CA. The Mathematics Orchestra there played dance music from Abdelazar and the Fairy Queen arranged by me during graduation last year, so it's catching. Do you know the 4 pavans of Purcell for two strings and bass? Mathsci (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably not - he's a recent discovery for me, though I've had Dido and Aeneas for a while. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom Elections - Question Page list thing

Good morning. You already had most of the General Questions answered, so I did not transclude the master list. However, we had three late entries, so I posted them to your General Questions section, and moved two questions posted to you specifically. Those two questions went to the top section, right above the General Questions. I think I matched the formatting you already had, but please feel free to undo and redo as you see fit. Again, good luck with your candidacy. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom election

• User:Jc37/Userboxes/Deskana4Arbcom
• User:Jc37/Userboxes/NYB4Arbcom
• User:Jc37/Userboxes/Raul6544Arbcom

Per the above three (which were created last year through discussion with those under discussion), I'd like to select a few candidates to do the same with this year, and you're one of the those.

So if you don't strongly oppose the idea, would you help by suggesting/selecting a few appropriate images? - jc37 15:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Image:CRMatHeadway1.jpg, i.e. the second on my User page, might crop down to a good head shot of me. It is recent and at a good resolution. This one: Image:Honinbo Shusaku.jpg; of a famous go player, might be more what you are looking for.

Charles Matthews (talk) 16:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• User:Jc37/Userboxes/Charles Matthews4Arbcom

And of course, you and others are welcome to use it. The phrase is customisable (as is the "float"). Enjpy. - jc37 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answer to my question

Not sure I love the answer, but fyi you have my vote (as do several others...). While I don't personally agree with some positions you've taken or explanations you have given, I value your experience and dedication, and think Arbcom will be better for having a variety of thoughtful viewpoints on it, even where I'm not sure I agree with them. Martinp (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Children of Albion: Poetry of the Underground in Britain

I have nominated Children of Albion: Poetry of the Underground in Britain, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Children of Albion: Poetry of the Underground in Britain. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. β^_command 09:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article this week, and your response is requested.

1. What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?

2. Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

3. Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

4. How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?

5. What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?

6. Why do you think users should vote for you?

Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press on Tuesday, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 (talk) 10:25, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Admin, arbitrator, oversight (ex officio: I hardly use the tool) on enWP.
2. Three (I think) as party, a large number in three years on the Arbcom.
3. Standing again. I think it is good to deal with my record in a public way, considering the accumulation of issues; and on a couple of the biggest of those issues this has been my first real chance to speak out (for different reasons, re Matthew Hoffman and re Poetlister). I still have time to deal with arbitration work - the reasons I was on leave in 2008 will not recur in the same form. We expect and hope for new blood on the ArbCom; but the committee works best with a broad mixture of people. So I'm offering my services once more.
4. 2008 (including late 2007) was a classic curate's egg. Big mistakes were made, and some exceptionally tough cases brought to conclusions that will probably last the test of time. Things were too fast or too slow, at least for public opinion; things were sometimes too prolix, and probably other things left out points that should have been included. I can quite see why people think this wasn't inspired stuff. Some initiatives seem to have run away into the sand. But since no one really has a better model for dispute resolution when all else fails, we have to move on. (External factors had a big impact, as everyone should understand.)
5. Confidentiality should be absolute, except by agreement. If emails come to the ArbCom, they are treated as confidential until such time as we have figured what is the appropriate way to pass on anything and checked back with the sender. In a private hearing it is in some cases to the right way to solicit evidence as private under explicit conditions (to be passed to other parties, or not). We had such a case this summer. In cases involving "conflict of interest" (WP:COI) it may really only be the ArbCom who can handle the delicate matter of whether an apparent conflict of interest of a pseudonymous editor is real, and the ArbCom who can fairly deal with the situation. Often we might know a real-life identity of an editor because the editor disclosed it to us. In that, case, clearly, we do the right thing in the case about COI but do not "out" the editor, and do not comment on the identity and speculation about it. What else?
6. "The devil you know"? I'm still a prolific editor committed to the project, as I was in 2005. The difference would be that I know more about Wikipedia and the dispute resolution process. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Catholic encyclopedia

Hi Charles. I was wondering if you knew what percentage of the public domain Catholic encyclopedia we have on wikipedia. Wasn't there a list of missing articles somewhere? Count Blofeld 19:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Catholic Encyclopedia topics. But I think the percentages there per letter aren't updated. My impression is that it is 90% done. The thing is, as explained at Wikipedia:Merging encyclopedias, the "headline" percentage tends to conceal what the actual status is. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Psst! There nothing to vote on yet

There is no motion posted yet regarding SV. The natives are getting restless because they don't know what you are supporting, though I think it is both implicit and obvious. Maybe you want to make it explicit too. Jehochman ^Talk 22:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up: too near my bedtime. I have amplified. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Amenable group

Dumb question -- when the article says the left action L_g is defined by L_g(f)(h) = f(g^-1*h), should this be f(g*h)? As defined, this is actually a right action, correct? Kier07 (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, there may be a convention. The "correct" convention would be compatible with category theory? Functors are covariant (default) or contravariant. So is G or its "opposite" group acting? We do have a conventions page, for mathematics. Somebody didn't like it, and perhaps it has been neglected. This could be one for there. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:34, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is the definition of the left regular representation. There is no ambiguity. Mathsci (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment

You said something about a "swollen head", which I didn't entirely understand, but I'd just like to say that I think there are probably more diplomatic ways to express what you wanted to say. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are probably correct. Diplomacy has its place.

In commenting on cases and related matters, however, it is somewhat traditional for arbitrators to speak frankly about how they feel on matters, not to come across as guarded lawyer-like individuals. This can be helpful, in getting past the layers of abstract policy discussions, and conveying the essence of an onsite situation. Here, since the unblocking admin spoke her mind freely, and continues to do so, I was replying in kind. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for considering what I had to say and putting thought into your response. You do need to be free to be able to get ideas across. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 23:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

SV Motions

• Just to note that I left you and/or other arbitrators a couple of questions here. Given your vote on Nyb's motion (which did address one of them), I'm not sure you've seen them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Things are moving on, and you can be sure we're busy with this matter. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:40, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Proxying for banned users

I am too afraid to make this question from my main account for fear of retaliation from harrasment sites. Since I am not using my main account, I will write this question on your talk page instead of your nomination questions page. On WikBack, why did you proxy edit for the banned user and longtime admin harraser armedblowfish? Solidarity for us (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ArmedBlowfish left WP under a cloud, because her RfA was impossible after it was revealed by a checkuser that she edited through Tor. AB guards her privacy, and I have been told why. Subsequently I became involved in private discussion with AB, after she posted vociferously to wikien-l. I have taken the line that she is better heard through someone like me. You can call that advocacy if you want; I just think I'm better at formulating the points, for what they are worth. We're talking about privacy issues, and we should all be thoughtful about that. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Armedblowfish is banned. You not only helped a banned user and harasser of Wikipedia admins. You also conspired with Somey, the leader of a harassment site, to do it. Why are you on their side? Solidarity for us (talk) 17:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is about the "Anonymous Wikipedian" affair, perhaps you had better tell us exactly what you know about that business, why you are raising this matter now, and why you think I conspired with anyone to do anything. I certainly have not been in direct touch with Somey of Wikipedia Review, and your tone is somewhat familiar. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Greg in Piotrus arbcom

Wouldn't some form of restriction/parole be enough? Greg did not have any history of blocks, bans or warnings before his interactions with Boodlesthecat, and even now his block record is clean. I'd think that a stern warning should be at least tried before a permban, and I also don't think he has been doing anything wrong in the past weeks - further, this post indicates he is now taking BLP into consideration and he has recently posted a pledge in the workshop (see discussion here). Perhaps an alternative, more merciful remedy could be proposed? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And why are you pleading for this guy? He wrote some horrible things on this site. Why are you advocating for such a person? You are neutral, uninvolved, a friend, think he is a great scholar? Tell me why we are wrong to think this person is unsuitable for wiki editing. In fact editing where you are too involved to be pleasant is not a sign of great intelligence. No one who understands encyclopedias would add such things.Charles Matthews (talk) 20:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

He made a few mistakes, and has now promised not to do them again. His input in other areas (deletions, content creation) was and is helpful. We are in the business of reforming people if possible, punishing only if not, aren't we? Greg made mistakes and Fof about them are appropriate, but he also promised not to repeat them - isn't this enough, particularly if his promise is reinforced by a remedy that would punish him if he breaks it? And yes, my interactions with greg have been rather positive, and hence I am advocating for him. And umm, your comment about me not showing "signs of great intelligence" is a bit puzzling...? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:43, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, you there is not second person singular directed at you personally. It is colloquial for "In fact anyone editing where he or she is too involved to be pleasant is not showing great intelligence." This is the problem here. We don't want ranting editors on the site, claiming that X is a deceiver only claiming to be something. This causes big problems for everybody. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. And if greg had not changed his behavior recently, I would have abstained from this. But he has recognized his errors and pledged not to repeat them. Several other editors here have agreed that this is en encouraging sign. I support FoF about his past bad behavior and remedies restricting him from repeating it, but I do think that if he keeps to his pledge (hopefully reinforced with strict restrictions from this arbcom to remind him that he is on probation) he will return to being a constructive member of the community (note he has been one for many months before the problems on Polish-Jewish topics - interaction with Boodlesthecat - started them; he has started editing in 2006 and all of the problematic BLP comments date only to the last half year - and note, not to the last 2 months or so...). Thus I think that he is a good editor who made a mistake, recognized it and gave reasonable indication that he will not do it again (and if he does, I fully support a restriction that would ban him). Simply put, I think that he deserves a second chance (and as I've noted, he has not been blocked by anybody or warned by an uninvolved party before those proceedings, so it's really a "second chance" for him, not third, fourth or such). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:59, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but you are not arguing that greg is actually neutral, are you? You say "constructive", but can you honestly say this is a neutral editor? And this editor is not here saying "I shall now edit about sport and poetry and astronomy". You are here saying that somehow the clear evidence isn't a reason to clean up some of the most problematic topics on the wiki, by excluding some of the most problematic editors. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

When I first met greg, we disagreed over some deletion debates, and we still occasionally do. Yet his input there was always well-reasoned. He has also created content, much if it unrelated to the issues that later turned out to be controversial. Is he neutral? Nobody is. But yes, as I've indicated on the workshop page, I would also support a topic ban on him, and he himself agreed to abstain from articles on Polish-Jewish topic scholars (and commenting on them, and so on). Are the few BLP-violating remarks on ungoogle'able talk pages, remarks he was never blocked for before or criticized by an uninvolved party, remarks he now recognized as wrong and promised not to do again, really sufficient to warrant a permban?

Perhaps I am too lenient in general (as you can see from some other comments of mine, I am also opposing bans on some editors I myeself proposed evidence against), but with my 4+ years of experience on this project, I believe greg can be reformed (and has actually done much towards that, recognizing he made errors and pledging not to repeat them).

And along those lines of "clean[ing] up some of the most problematic topics on the wiki, by excluding some of the most problematic editors", I would support a few more content bans (but not blocks) to clean up the atmosphere, as I suggested in my evidence. I am afraid current remedies, although certainly a step in the right directions, are not sufficient, and I am afraid we will see one more "EE" arbcom in a year or so... but that's another issue (and one I sincerely hope I am wrong about). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the worst people in the case, I think. And I have just seen a bad diff where you restored one of his edits, threatening someone. So he gets you into trouble, also. Probably greg should just come back in 2010 and edit in a different area. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I made a bad call there, but I have this knee-jerk reaction when I see anything smacking of censorship of others... I will now make sure it doesn't activate when there is a BLP issue :) But why shouldn't greg be allowed to edit different areas now? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:25, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you want to defend people with all and any reasons, get a job as a lawyer, and maybe someone will pay you also. Perhaps we'll lose a year of good edits this way, I don't know. I'm asked to take such decisions. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I am asking you to consider if a topic/civility "one-strike and you are out" restriction on greg wouldn't be more beneficial than an outright ban, particularly in light of his recognition of errors and pledge not to repeat them and when weighted against the possibility of "a year of good edits" (after all, we are here to build an encyclopedia...). As you say, you are the ones asked by the community to make a final call; please think carefully about available alternatives here - that's all I am asking. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:38, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess I suppose to be one the opposite side of the conflict but I would be against banning of Greg or Boodles or indeed anybody involved in the case (maybe except Alan Jones). In the Eastern European topics we have very few content producers and a lot of topics. Many content producers are encouraged by the idea to glorify their nations and demonize their enemies. It might be a bad motive but if we ban all such editors we would not have resources to do anything. Thus, any chance to remove the disruption but keep the editors should be IMHO used. Combination of the topic bans and 1RR paroles should be sufficient, IMHO. Obviously, there should be some balance in the punishment. It would be wrong e.g. to ban Boody and vindicate Greg Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Such bans can be reconsidered at any time that those involved seem to have changed their minds about how to edit here. As I have indicated, a good course is to indicate an interest in working on topics that are not controversial. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I am unaware of any methods to gauge interests of banned editors. If they return under different accounts they usually get banned even if their edits are non-controversial. On the other hand it is reasonably easy to ban editors who repeatedly violated arbcom topic bans or other restrictions Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If an editor (a) wishes to return to edit another area, (b) discusses this convincingly with the Arbcom, and (c) gives the ArbCom only the name of the new account, then they will have protection from bans on the new account if they behave well. Usually such a deal with the ArbCom should be well timed (not too obvious, in other words). This is possible even for accounts that have an indefinite ban, not just one year. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerning "greg changing his mind", proof: [13].--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:29, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• I got to agree with Charles that Greg said some rather appalling things, but given that Greg has a clean block log, has had a change of heart, taken on board the criticisms and undertaken to reform as Piotrus has shown, I don't think the ArbCom should take a punitive approach here. Perhaps a suspended ban dependent upon good behaviour may be a good solution? Martintg (talk) 23:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Just because you say "punitive" doesn't mean the thinking is punitive. The ban would be to protect the project against someone who (a) posts nasty stuff, and (b) gets others into trouble since they stupidly "defend" the nasty stuff, and (c) potentially gets WP into trouble in the BLP area. Piotrus types a lot but he hasn't "shown" anything at all, except the Laurel and Hardy thing: "This is another fine mess you have got me into". Charles Matthews (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But that someone has not posted any nasty stuff in months, has promised not to do so, has promised to accept restrictions that will ban him if he goes back on his promise even once, and thus will not get anyone into an ytrouble except himself if he breaks it, and then his block will be quick and painless. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No "nasty stuff in months?" Piotrus, werent you admonishing Greg about his continued incivility, like, two weeks ago? Interesting that he refers to you as "boss," too. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 00:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I am referring to edits outside those (Arbcom) proceedings.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• I made mistakes, I recognize them, pledge not to so again and I am ready to work with arbcoms regarding appopriate restrictions/mentorship that would allow me to continue to productively contribute to non-controversial aspects of this project. greg park avenue (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)