Misplaced Pages

User talk:Charles Matthews: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:55, 16 December 2008 editCharles Matthews (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators360,312 edits →Giano← Previous edit Revision as of 23:03, 16 December 2008 edit undoGoneAwayNowAndRetired (talk | contribs)14,896 edits →FYI, RFAR: new sectionNext edit →
Line 867: Line 867:


:Funny that someone was talking about personal attacks. Yes, not much more editing tonight. ] (]) 22:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC) :Funny that someone was talking about personal attacks. Yes, not much more editing tonight. ] (]) 22:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

== FYI, RFAR ==

FYI, you're a named party in this RFAR.. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">]</font> (<font color="#156917">]</font>)(<font color="#156917">]</font>) 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:03, 16 December 2008

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48


This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Template:ACE2008Candidate

Disambiguation

Hi. Just a reminder of the thread at Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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/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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. 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 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 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/search/?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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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:

Frankly, I find it incredible that such as you and James Forrester feel you have something further to offer Misplaced Pages, 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? Jehochman 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 . The edits to the article on Lynton K. Caldwell seem to be a copyvio from an obituary reproduced here 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 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 ~ Evidence 14:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom election

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)

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 Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages: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 09:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom questions

Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 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

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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: .--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 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)

Please comment

Hi, I see you are making your votes and comments. Would you mind also please make at least a comment on the way the evidence was presented against me? See my comments at the talk page.--Stor stark7 22:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my provisional vote on you is to abstain. I shall return to this, and the presentation of diffs is not what I look at. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, but if no-one at least comments on the way the diffs were presented that will look as an endorsement of the inuendo the presentation conveys. And please also look at my workshop evidence analysis--Stor stark7 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Nothing is endorsed by me unless I sign it. I will return to my decision: there are 23 parties, and it will take me a little more time. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus/Greg park avenue

A more detailed chronology of the Piotrus/Greg incident can be found here. Boodlesthecat 22:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Your welcome. Also note that the characterization of greg as a model editor prior to encountering articles on Polish Jewry (and me) is not quite accurate. And the of course there is Greg's block log on Polish Misplaced Pages. Boodlesthecat 00:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. The Polish Misplaced Pages situation would not normally be taken into account here. I have anyway formed a view. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Irpen and Holodomor template

Hi, Charles. You are writing in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Proposed_decision#Irpen: The claim of "ownership" at Holodomor hardly stands up; but I'm unimpressed with the editing I've seen. The edit summaries, at very least, game our standards. If a template is a "coatrack", you are supposed to discuss that template, not simply exclude it from the page it centrally involves. I am not sure you have looked, but there was an intensive discussion at Template_talk:Holodomor and Irpen was one of the most active and constructive participants. The earlier versions of the template (like e.g. this one were very biased toward a single point of view and completely unacceptable. Eventually, a stable consensus for of the template was developed and it was introduced into the relevant articles. No administrative intervention was required to reach the consensus. I think it is a good editorial practice to keep navigational templates out of the articles (especially as high profile as Holodomor) until there is a consensus over the content of the template. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, "Seek consensus for inclusion" as Irpen says can mean "I have a veto", or it can mean something better. I myself don't much like many such templates, but I don't agree with judgements like "completely unacceptable" when that also means some people assert a veto. There were repeated deletions. Good editors would delete only once, and then accept a "wrong" version while the matter was debated. Also the repeated use of the term "coatrack" assumes bad faith: it means that the template is only there to introduce some extra material, not that the template has in some way too many links. So I have these three issues:
  • some assertions that are too strong, suggesting "ownership" in the way "any consensus version must include me";
  • too many reverts, where 1RR is ideal, accepting the "wrong version" template for some time;
  • failure to assume good faith, repeated.
Further, I had problems with edit summaries with slight deceptions: "peacock terms" as plural where it seems "enormous" only was removed. That is not a "peacock term" anyway, it is just the wrong tone (maybe requisitions were excessive or disproportionate, but that shouldn't be editorial comment, but supported). These factors all together seemed to me to give a poor impression of the editing there by Irpen. The approach was too strongly for his POV. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, eventually the consensus was achieved without using administrative tools that on my books vindicate whatever methods were used to achieve the consensus. Irpen was certainly not alone requesting template to be edited before its insertion to the article. Me, Relato_Refero and JoeDoe also requested modification of the template. That makes four reasonably prolific editors with reasonably different points of view. Unless there was a firm indication that the template in the current form is unacceptable for many editors I doubt that any compromise could be reached. I am not sure I agree that all wrong versions are equal. I think some of them are more wrong than the other. In particular versions that remove valid dispute tags, insert dubious unreferenced info, move articles from stable titles, insert navigational templates with the content that is not agreed upon, etc. are IMHO more wrong than the opposite version. At any rate if we are after punishing people for the edit war at the Holodomor article then would it be fair to address behaviour of both sides. I have seen no criticism or remedies of users removing disputed templates, reintroduced unfinished template to the high profile articles, repeatedly inserted BLP violations, etc. On the other hand we are to put Irpen who is hardly a revert warrior on 1RR per week (that is basically equivalent to ban from any remotely controversial articles there almost any edit can be seen as a partial revert). I do not think it is fair. I would trust you as a native English speaker that Irpen's edit summaries some time overused wiki jargon or was not the most precise words. I just want to point out that English is a third language for Irpen (after Russian and Ukrainian), I think he deserves some assumption of good faith that some abuse of the language are caused by the insufficient command of it rather than the evil intentions. Maybe I am biased but IMHO remedies on Irpen are much harsher than desrved according to the facts found. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Relata_Refero was also a problem in the template matter. "Punishment" is not the issue, ever. The edit summaries were inaccurate use of Misplaced Pages jargon, so I hope to see am improvement there. Irpen is an experienced editor, so should only be citing policies/essays when they apply precisely. The imprecision may impress others, but my comments were exactly because we have to keep the summaries on difficult pages very accurate and fair. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have noticed that Relato is also on the remedies of this workshop while the opposite side of the edit war is completely vindicated. I just not 100% sure that it is fair. I am also not sure why punishment should be in quotation marks and why it is not the issue. It is certainly an issue for me. I also cannot help but notice that the argumentation is somehow changing from Irpen should be put on the most severest of the restrictions because he did not discuss the Holodomor template to Irpen should be put on the most severest of the restrictions because Peacock is not correct description for the word enormous, instead he should use the word tone. I am not quite sure how the restrictions would help for this new problem. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It would have been enormously more productive to edit and discuss the template directly rather than edit war over its insertion. In my view the whole template insertion edit war was pointlessly disruptive. Martintg (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Do you want to say that the template was not discussed on its talk? I do not think it is true Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
It (the template) obviously was discussed. My problem is the attitude shown by I and RR that the template must be perfect before it can be used on its central page. That is not our way. Everyone should accept some imperfect situations on the site, from their point of view. Don't push for 100% of your own POV, but always work with others to improve matters as they are. This is the correct way of informal dispute resolution: define your actual problem with the current version, not use general terminology like "coatrack" which will not be helpful. Try a flexible, resourceful approach to resolving matters. (Yes, editing the template is one way - even if reverted, the change will clarify the precise changes that are asked for, and some negotiation will happen.) This is just one aspect of my problems with Irpen. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Piotrus 2

FT2 and David Gerard

Now that the Arbcom has finished de-sysoping Slim Virgin (albeit very unpopularly ), it will doubtless want to show the same speedy diligence in other worrying matters. Could you outline the time scale and agenda for the investigation of David Gerard's suspected misuse of oversight rights in regard to the election of FT2 to the Arbitration committee. Obviously FT2 will need to be suspended from the Arbcom and its list during this investigation, can you give the community an approximated date for the conclusion of the investigation and the names of those carrying it out. Thank you. Giano (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

There is (as far as I know) no case open against David Gerard right now. Is someone bringing one? What is obvious to you is not necessarily obvious to me. The general approach (or at least my general approach) to ArbCom enforcement is this: those who go too far are not treated as "vigilantes". In the hypothetical situation of an admin A who is too enthusiastic about enforcing ArbCom ruling R against editor E, in my view the ArbCom should proceed by making its views on the enforcement of R clearer to A and others.
That, though, is not exactly what has gone on so far in the matter you raise. The motion contained a finding that for the ruling in question, previously-given written permission from the ArbCom will in future be required. I think this kind of ratification will lead to delay but probably will be clarifying in the end. Any admin who flouts that finding will be in trouble; any admin who complies with it will have full backing. Myself, I prefer generally to give admins plenty of discretion, and to give them a hard time if they use it badly. Here we have moved some way in the other direction. It is certainly worth explaining this much to you. I doubt, in fact, if David Gerard will be required to answer further for his action. He is after all on the ArbCom list, and so is much more in the loop and within reach for comment from arbs. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Giano, in my experience it is not useful to complain to the ArbCom about one of their own. You must go directly to the community. While our RFC process is not enforceable, it could be used to show whether 30%, 50% or 70% of the community feel that a particular arbitrator or ex-arbitrator has abused their power or exercised poor judgment. Those who have honor will resign upon a vote of "no confidence". Meanwhile, by using established dispute resolution processes, I believe you would have a strong position against those who might like to silence criticism. Jehochman 17:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, OK, that route exists. David is very much accountable within the ArbCom list, which as Kirill once said is _very_ frank. David has been asked whether he made a mistake. I.e. he has been asked to explain, and then that is done with. "One of our own" is of course a non-neutral way to look at it. My general view, if people want to know, is that our "trusted user" concept means we have a cadre system, not really a pyramid with ArbCom at the top. People are recruited as "trusted" by different routes, but this works pretty well (now - like all things WP, go back a ways and you can dig up stuff that wouldn't pass muster today). Charles Matthews (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I've always imagined that you Arbs beat each other senseless on the mailing list from time to time. My concern is that if the committee clears one of their own, it does not mean much. For that reason, I think accusations against AC members should be reviewed by the community, or by Jimbo, depending on whether confidential matters are involved. Jehochman 17:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
If 20% of the ArbCom list wanted someone removed (from the list, from rights, from the Committee) it would happen quickly and probably quietly (I'm not thinking of anything particular here). Public opinion needs much more, is largely ill-informed (sorry, I do know this territory), and cannot be surgical. Guess which I think is the better way. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Really? That's impressive. Jehochman 17:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, this is just my gut feeling of the dynamics, on a charge of lacks clue/lacks integrity/too accident-prone, that sort of thing, people simply nervous about a colleague. Four or five of the "cadre" thinking and articulating that properly is a strong hand. As I say, not based on real history. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
And were I to launch an RFC in regards to Gerard and FT2 you would say that was drama mongering. Your comments above do nothing more than confirm the views of this present Arbcom held by so many. It seems it matters not a jot by what means Arbs scramble onto the committee so long as they get there. Giano (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
No, actually, I wouldn't. I welcome people putting their disputes into dispute resolution, which is a system often badmouthed by people who misunderstand its intention and operstion. If you have really gone through the preliminary step of discussing directly your beefs with these admins, in a serious-minded way, and have then got the required outside support to certify these efforts, then you are entitled to launch an RfC. I'm for reduction of drama. An RfC properly directed at an issue has its virtues in that. Of course I don't want to see a pile-on. I want thoughtful participation not distracted by side-issues. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions Pages

It's fuzzy, because follow-up questions are OK and encouraged by some candidates. I'd submit that you could have the question (from the questioner), your response, and then a link to the discussion page, where the rest of the discussion would be moved. The process for moving discussions tied to votes would work well. You are correct, though - it's a question and answer page, not a discussion page. I'll have a look later this afternoon, when I get some time, and I'll sort things out if you haven't already by that point - but you are indeed justified in moving discussion to the discussion page, as needed. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I feel differently about different cases. I have now posted a message at the top, suggesting that people may post follow-up questions but not butt into existing threads. That I would much prefer. It would be a great help to have a neutral voice, perhaps dealing with specifics on the talk page of the questions page. It is already long at around 150K, and I think long threaded discussions are really wrong for the format. If you could intervene as a neutral, I'd be very grateful, just to keep it all on track and reasonable. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 Done. I've moved the discussion, cross-linked the two pages, and notified SV. If she wishes to post a question to you directly, she is free to do so - but discussion on point should continue on the discussion page itself. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
My thanks ... if you could just keep an eye on it all, from now on. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Abstentions in Piotrus 2

Charles, do you realize abstaining only lowers the threshold of the number of votes required to pass? Even though 6 votes are required to pass a motion, some motions will pass with 5 or even 4 votes, because of the high number of abstentions. If that was your intent, fair enough. Martintg (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, I was writing a document about this recently. I'm not going to oppose certain things ... anyway I have answered you. Mathematically, two people abstaining always reduces the required votes by 1? Charles Matthews (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Biography of a living person

I'm having trouble finding sources to support a biography for something that just came up at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. As you are the person who wrote the content, I thought that I might ask directly, in case you happen to remember. What was your source for this? Uncle G (talk) 21:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood, of course: see "How to Merge Articles", pp. 261-2 of "How Misplaced Pages Works"! Also "Edit Summaries", pp. 196-7 of the same book, bullet point 6 (about splitting, mentions GFDL, but it could afford to say "merge" also). In early 2006 I was still relying on people searching the redirects, but naturally this is not my current way. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Paolo Sarpi

I only meant that it should be flagged, and if possible, replaced. Thank you for responding. Ceoil (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Carl Hewitt

Charles, you're continuing to comment on (and in my view misrepresent) our e-mail correspondence about your involvement in the Carl Hewitt Observer story. Your latest claim is that I became "shouty." When I try to correct your comments, you have them removed on the grounds that threaded discussion isn't "allowed" on the election questions pages.

Please represent me accurately. You and then Tom Harrison posted inappropriately to that page. You seem not to accept that the page is not for threaded discussion. Well, threaded discussion can be on the talk page. Or you can ask any follow-up questions under the section already started for your questions. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

It isn't acceptable that you make false comments about me, then don't allow me to respond. Please either remove all those references, or allow me to post a response.

Well, "shouty" in an email was a metaphor, naturally. It conveys the tone as I read it. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, I ask that you allow me to post our Hewitt correspondence on a subpage, so that others can judge it for themselves. You've copied it to a journalist without my permission, so the presumption in favour of confidentiality has already been violated. I'm therefore requesting your permission to post the e-mails on a subpage. I e-mailed you the following request today (reproducing it here in case you describe it it as more "nuisance mail," or "shouty"). SlimVirgin

edits 19:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You may do the following. You may post in sequence all of your mails, with timings, but only your side. I mean the entire, repetitive mailing. Including the one I didn't open because I had twice asked you to stop, and your comments in the mail via Jimmy Wales. Once you have posted the entirety of what you wrote, I will interpolate what I think is a fair selection of what I wrote. We can then consider where we are on this. I'm not promising to post every word from my side, but I am promising to be fair.
So please start from "Thank you for sending that", your acknowledgement for my mail with subject line "Hewitt and the PCC", and post your replies in that thread, plus what you sent via Jimbo. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 12:54 PM, SlimVirgin <slimvirgin@gmail.com> wrote:
Charles, I've asked you several times whether I may post our Hewitt correspondence on a subpage, and you're not saying one way or the other.
You copied some or all of it without my consent to a journalist, so I'm assuming you *don't* regard it as private, but I hesitate to make that assumption without your explicit consent. (I'm proceeding, by the way, on the assumption that our e-mails from now on will not be subject to the presumption of confidentiality.)
The reason I would like to be released from any prior confidentiality is that you're significantly misrepresenting the correspondence (in my view), and insisting that my comments correcting you be removed from the election page, so I would prefer that people judge it for themselves.
Sarah

I note, by the way, that you still are sending me mail despite explicit requests not to. I don't know whether you have yet had my long mail sent via Jimbo. In case not, I note that it has sections A to E, and that section E is called "Responsiveness and communication". Point E4 reads "You have no permission of any kind to release my mails". Point E6 reads "I wish to have no communication from you until this matter is resolved - third time of saying this". You have been operating well outside netiquette by mailing me when I'd made it clear this was unacceptable. Hence "nuisance mail", an example of which you have just copied above so that the world can see. You are pestering me by not allowing me a few hours off on Saturday afternoon and evening to have a life. And being awkward on my candidate questions by cross-threading is just the icing on the cake. Why don't you account in terms for ElinorD's impression of that exchange? Who said "hostile" to her, by the way? Who thought up this device of briefing her and then jumping into the thread? I have every right to stop people fooling around with the page, as you and Tom Harrison did. And I think you know that very well.

I think a neutral observer might conclude that you try to wear people down by sheer persistence, whatever the merit of your points, and at whatever the cost in broken etiquette. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

And since you are being dense about the point, I copied a few lines of yours to Jenny Kleeman so that she might talk some sense into you about Hewitt's beefs. You are well on the way to making a public spectacle of yourself in supporting completely worthless allegations of his, and Jenny, I thought, could stop you in your tracks as I obviously could not, despite my good faith efforts to get you to pull back given that the PCC ruling had just been made known to me.

You were given a full clarification by Jenny, including the following para she won't mind me quoting:


“ It looks like SlimVirgin is inferring a lot about the PCC decision. Why not wait until it has been published online so that you can read it in full? If you can't wait, feel free to ask me anything directly. And do bear in mind that this was a seven-month long inquiry, conducted by a very experienced panel, who ruled that Hewitt had no grounds for complaint at all. The bulk of his complaint against the article was that Bob Kowalski had never said the words I attributed to him. Not only did I have audio recordings of our discussions to prove that I had quoted him correctly, I also had email correspondence where I showed Bob the paragraphs in which he was quoted, to which he replied, "Many thanks, Jenny - you couldn't have been more fair." ”

This apparently had no effect at all. Well, I tried. You'll have to learn the hard way about Hewitt.

Charles Matthews (talk) 22:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then I will post only my own e-mails. I won't reproduce yours. That way people will be able to judge how accurate your descriptions of my writing are. By the way, I won't be starting from any particular line or e-mail as you asked. I'm going to post all my e-mails to you about Hewitt.
And note again, please — my complaint is about your actions as an arbitrator. That is not something anyone outside Misplaced Pages can put me straight on, so there is no point in you trying to involve others. Even if you were 100 percent right about Carl Hewitt, he's the subject of a BLP, and we're not supposed to harass BLP subjects or report them to newspapers just because they get into bother on WP over a bit of self-promotion — which, as you know, is very common. For an arbitrator to take a BLP subject to the ArbCom, and then report him to a newspaper, is unethical, in my view. Period. Nothing to do with the journalist, who was only doing her job. It wasn't your job, that's the point.
Also, with respect, it's somewhat childish to try to get others to send your e-mails for you. I have not received it. Send it yourself if you want me to see it. SlimVirgin 22:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be glad to get back to me as Arbitrator. You said "public stain". The PCC says "no grounds for complaint at all". That seems to deal with the matter, if you take Jenny's word for it. If not, the ruling will be posted as the PCC webmaster sees fit, and the whole world will be able to judge. As for using a third party as cut-out, I think some people would say that slamming the door in the face of all communication would be "childish", while getting a third party involved would be a way forward. Let others judge that, also. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The long mail sent by your request c/o gmail. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You are of course still missing the point about Hewitt. It is not the self-promotion alone; it is the professor who self-promotes by pushing his OR into WP in the teeth of explicit public criticism by the founder of the field. Otherwise there is no story at all, and rightly. That is why Hewitt had to attack Kleeman's professionalism, and claim a taped interview with Kowalski that Kowalski had checked over was in fact a fabrication. The story is so far unique as far as academics is concerned. It is a million miles away from pathetic attempts by small hi-tech companies and individuals to drum up work by getting a toehold of a page here. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect again, you keep missing my point by mentioning other issues. (1) If this was a story the academic community was interested in, or felt was important, they could have tipped off the Observer. It didn't have to be a Misplaced Pages arbitrator doing it. The fact that no one else did suggests that it wasn't a major issue. (2) If the PCC says the newspaper and the reporters did a good job, that's great! I have no doubt they did. But that has nothing to do with you.
My point is solely why you felt it was up to you as an arbitrator to contact a newspaper about a case that had been brought before the arbitration committee, involving the subject of a BLP who was self-promoting. Do you not see why someone might find it objectionable that you did this? Even if you disagree with them, do you understand why someone might be concerned?
If you do understand it, would you please address those concerns? Two questions, specifically:
1. Can people who are brought before the arbitration committee with interesting cases in future expect you to contact the press about them? In other words, would you do this again? If so, please explain why, and if not, please say why not.
2. Are you careful, when you do contact the press, to make sure you don't use any material that has been e-mailed to the arbitration committee, or do you feel that it's all fair game? SlimVirgin 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

With equal respect, you write:

If the PCC says the newspaper and the reporters did a good job, that's great! I have no doubt they did. But that has nothing to do with you.

It has a great deal to do with me, and having cultivated Jenny Kleeman as a press contact with a genuine interest in, and track record on, covering WP stories. I knew how professionally and fairly she had interviewed me. Your "nothing to do with you" is outrageous in the context I have given you. And you know my previous press experience working for a voluntary organisation, which I volunteered to you in 2007.

Your comment on academia reveals a lack of insight:

If this was a story the academic community was interested in, or felt was important, they could have tipped off the Observer.

Well, yes, anyone who felt strongly enough to become a pariah over the issue. Remember my time in academia.

I was not acting as an arbitrator. In my previous experience I just mentioned, I observed that for one person cultivating press contacts and looking with an intelligent eye for what a reporter wants, there are always ten people giving opinions, setting criteria, criticising efforts, asking questions that are about image management not the concerns of the mainstream media, and so on. In other words talk is cheap: I had done press work before, and just got on with it. Ask Theresa Knott whether my approach was valid.

Q1a: Can people who are brought before the arbitration committee with interesting cases in future expect you to contact the press about them?

This is a one-off. The ArbCom pages are of course public. Another "leading case" might crop up, while I was an Arbitrator (assuming I continue). I was of course not arbitrating on Carl Hewitt, since I was a party. In similar circumstances where there was a quarrel in academia spilling over into WP, I would be unlikely to comment to the press at all until it was old history, and then in a guarded way. If you think there should be a CommCom or ArbCom guideline about this all, go ahead and lobby. I'm not aware of any guidance. So the answer to your framing is "no, don't expect this at all".

Q1b: In other words, would you do this again? If so, please explain why, and if not, please say why not.

I don't see the circumstances in which I would. I defend my actions, but simply as a discussion that was valid in its own terms, and apart from my role as arbitrator, me wearing a different hat if you like but acting in Misplaced Pages's interests by having a serious issue on the WP-academia front covered.

Q2: Are you careful, when you do contact the press, to make sure you don't use any material that has been e-mailed to the arbitration committee, or do you feel that it's all fair game?

I can be more absolute here. I of course would regard all privileged information as absolutely offlimits in dealings with the media. (Note, please, that Jenny and I had been in contact, largely by phone as far as discussions of stories is concerned, for months before Hewitt is mentioned. I have recurrent problems with less-than-neutral phrasings in the questions you pose to me, even if, as here, the substance is an entirely legitimate point.)

Charles Matthews (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, you are killfiled

Since you sent me further mail dated 29/11/2008, after the above, and are clearly now in receipt of my long mail with a third explicit request not to mail me, I have arranged a killfile for you. Until you apologise below and undertake to stop the spam, I shall not admit messages here from you, either. As you now know, I consider these multiple unwelcome mails from you a harassment matter. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Milton

Milton's birthday is the 9th, and we are putting a lot of pages together for DYK. However, DYK can only be done within 5 days before the date of being displayed on the mainpage, and your additions are making it impossible to make certain pages DYK. Could you please not expand any page under 15k dealing with Milton until we start our large editing campaign this weekend? Otherwise, it will mean that there will be fewer Milton pages to be displayed on the main page. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand at all. DYK is, in my view, little enough to do with compiling the encyclopedia. My "additions" are making what impossible? You mean my editing of John Milton? Surely you are not saying there is anything wrong with those edits, which are much needed. I'm not available to edit this weekend, anyway, but surely you are putting the cart before the horse here. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Your edits haven't yet expanded any pages in a way that could cause problems, however, I wanted to make sure if you could hold off on additions. The DYK is an important facet to getting people interested in a topic. Milton's 400th birthday will be on the 9th, and we are trying to produce most of the new Milton pages posted on that date in the DYK section. Such a page has to be new or a 5 times expansion. I have a lot of information that I am holding off until adding during this weekend so we can put together a large Milton DYK bash on that date. There will be about 20 some new pages and quite a few more expanded during this time. After Friday, the editing will go full force and hope to create a large chunk of the body of Milton studies. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
What "cause problems"? For whom? Why? If you are saying there are some relevant guidelines limiting DYKs, just tell whoever makes or enforces such guidelines that you will be "ignoring all rules" about this. That is why we have IAR, because rules that normally give a sensible result sometimes cause nonsense, as here. Just discuss the issue and say this is a special case, and it makes no sense not to give a week run-up, for a special anniversary. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Its not that. I just wanted to make you aware that there is a lot of information being collected and compiled for the pages, and that they will be added starting this Friday for a big Milton push. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, unfortunately I won't be editing then to see it. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It will start Friday, and it will be a major push until monday for the initial creation, but then there will be a lot of editing and finishing during the rest of the week, so if you want to drop by, fix things, etc, then, it would be much appreciated! Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
One thing that should be looked into is the content of pages such as 1643 in literature. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Charles, thanks for the heads up. I have commented on the talk page. BTW, I take your posting on my page that you disagreed with OttavaÄs interpretation of the policy. Or am I mistaken in that? Str1977 22:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There can be problems with neutrality with articles that are apparently OK with some formal criteria, is what I meant. I don't think NPOV is "just" anything. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • As a byline, which you might find interesting (I saw your amendment to Des Wilson) I once remarked to a colleague, "You know, Jeremy, there are people out there who don't know what the Areopagitica is"; after a shortish pause, he replied, "Phil, there are also people in here who don't know what it is". --Rodhullandemu 22:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Check my talk page for a list of articles created for the push. There is a section of those that need copy editing, lead work, and other things. They can be further expanded also with cited information if you have any. I'm trying to get as much put together right now, then I will double back tomorrow and early Tuesday to fill in any gaps. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the massive Wikilinking. I've been trying to do everything over the past 72 days myself and only so much has come through. Its a little disappointing that people got sick and the rest. Otherwise, I'm sure most of the pages would have turned out better. Thanks for getting what you can. :) I'm taking a break to work on my own such until this evening when I will make the last push on Paradise Regained and creae a page talking about Miltonic blank verse and Miltonic inversions. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, take a break. You have achieved a great deal, and I'm just back myself from a short break. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
After I get about 15 hours of sleep or so, I will add an expansion to Milton's poetic style and reception history to talk about some of the later influence. However, I will spend my time building a page about his literary influence in my user section. I hope to tie in a DYK hook with Blake, Keats, and Wordsworth. I think that when such a page is built, we will have a stronger sense of how to update the main Milton page. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

DNB tool

Hi fellow Cambridgian! (can I say that?;-)

I saw you worked with the DNB list I "host". This list is a monster; to help, I have written a little tool that can speed up checking of existing biographies considerably. It will strike out all DNB entries in a section that you check as being the "correct" person. The tool will pre-check articles where birth and death year (as well as name, of course) match; it will follow redirects and insert the link target appropriately; and much more. This is an example of what one can do in a single step.

I hope this is helpful. I'd love some feedback! And feel free to point others to the tool :-) --Magnus Manske (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The word is in fact "Cantabrigian"! Magnus, it was good to see you at the meetup. Thanks for dropping by.
General views are at Misplaced Pages:Merging encyclopedias. I have been thinking of a general schematic for the associated list maintenance. It is quite a complex flow diagram, in fact. The fundamentals are the redlink/bluelink distinction, and then the labelling of bluelinks by {{dn}} and {{mnl}}. There should also be a template or templates for "correct" entries. These are going to be related to merges. Suppose then that {{cl}} is a template for "correct link": your striking can take place, but human judgement should then refine to either {{clex}} (expand the existing article from the DNB) or {{clne}} (not to expand from DNB). I prefer changing templates to removing list entries, but {{clne}} entries could be moved to a "done" list.
Updating {{mnl}} (misleading name link) entries should be a check: either a correct link can be found, so change the link and mark with {{cl}}; or a dab page is a better target (tag with {{mld}} for "misleading link, disambiguate" by creation of an entry on a dab page; or there is need to add a hatnote to the misleading target page ({{mlhat}}. Updating {{dn}} links is classic disambiguation, and there are two cases, {{dnav}} where the correct page is available through the dab page (update link and tag with {{cl}}), and {{dnna}} where the corrrect page is not available, and the bluelink on the list should become a redlink (tag with {{dncr}} for "disambiguation done, this article should created at this title).
Anyway, there is more to say about redlinks in this business, but I'm sure you see that there is a schematic to discuss. I'd be very interested to have your views. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
10 different templates sounds overly complex to me: can't we simplify this? But I like the idea of a table, not just a list, and the idea of keeping correctly linked entries rather than deleting them from the page.Dsp13 (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I know it sounds complex. I think it is complicated if done in a way that documents itself through the ordinary page history, can be done collaboratively, and allows for all cases (in the real wiki environment). In fact no one had even noticed the need for {{mnl}} until we discussed Rede Lectures, and it is a basic for any kind of list maintenance. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this the right door to knock on?

Someone has saw fit to ban a dynamic IP range... it's a futile thing to do and will mostly be just annoying innocent people: see here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rodhullandemu#You_are_blocking_a_dynamic_IP_range_FFS.21.21.21

88.111.37.94 (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this the right door to knock on?

Someone has saw fit to ban a dynamic IP range... it's a futile thing to do and will mostly be just annoying innocent people: see here http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Rodhullandemu#You_are_blocking_a_dynamic_IP_range_FFS.21.21.21

Are you complaining (this is a block not a ban, by the way) about specific collateral damage to logged-in users? Or just on principle? Charles Matthews (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm complaining about the fact that innocent people (me!)are being banned/blocked/impeded/inconvenienced because of ONE person, the blocker that is (since the offender is just the excuse for the pointless action).

The range is dynamic, so it also pointless as the offender can likely easily circumvent it. Coercing people into logging into accounts doesn't sit well with openness nor with putting the data before the ego either... some of don't like being a 'personality' 88.111.37.94 (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, we make it easy to create an account, and there are no obvious disadvantages (and numerous advantages) to bona fide editors, in having an account. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Charles, I have unblocked the ranges for this, one of our very worst sockpuppeteers and block evaders. I've had him almost every day since I've been an Admin- that's ten months worth of WP:RBI. I've tried negotiating a return to his old account for User:WJH1992 if he would just stay away for a while, not evade his blocks and edit within policy, but to no avail. Back the very next day. Well, someone else can have him and the quality of the articles he edits can go to hell in a handcart as far as I'm concerned. --Rodhullandemu 16:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not complaining about your actions, I'm trying to deal with this complainant. If you want to "hand over" to another admin, that would be a good idea, but I suppose you may need to canvass support to do that successfully. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Charles... Oh, I know what you are saying, but having been an IRC Op for over a decade I prefer not being personality and letting the 'position' speak for itself.

I think this place would lose an awful lot if it were to be 'logged in only'. It'll lose an awful lot more if people are encouraged to block access to swathes of people just isolate 1 offender. Where would it end banning whole host masks or countries??? That's defensible on a small IRC channel, but for an open encyclopaedia, it sucks pretty bad. 88.111.37.94 (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, you see the issue, but can you see a solution? Admins here routinely make decisions to put defending the content first, and thereby move away from the "purist" wiki notions. It has been a long time since Misplaced Pages was a pure-bred wiki. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI, less than an hour after unblocking those ranges, he is back here. D'oh! as they say. --Rodhullandemu 17:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there is NO solution. It's the nature of TCP/IP. Even if you banned my entire ISP, I could be back within seconds. Such blocks will only work in a minority of cases... the only way to make a block work is by making it BIGGER, and that'd punish even more people, and reduce even more interaction.

I guess evolution will decide how it turns out, but I think it'd be sad if the project just became an glorified Encarta. I think it has lost a lot since many 'personalities' seem to make a point of camping on articles and acting like they own them. Maybe an element of that is a good thing, but it's a heterogeneous world out there! Authority need anti-authority needs authority etc.

It'll always be a trade off, but at any rate wide, range blocks won't add anything to the quality IMHO. It's like Real Life: crime will always be there; deal with it, or stay at home.

Thanks for the cool head. :-) 88.111.37.94 (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So, where do I complain about personally abusive language from editors? 88.111.37.94 (talk) 18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:WQA --Rodhullandemu 18:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My vote

Sorry! I removed my vote and I am ashamed of my mistake.Drjmarkov (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Request an opinion at an open arbitration request

I appreciate you are likely busy with other things right now, but if I could direct you to the procedural inquiry here for just a second, that would be great. All that is required is an arbitrators opinion, that is all. MickMacNee (talk) 15:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Milton 400th birthday on DYK

Hi Charles. There is an effort by Ottava Rima to post new articles to the DYK Main Page on 9 December 2008 to commemorate Milton's 400th birthday. Would you please add some input at Milton 400th birthday set 1 of 5. Thanks. -- Suntag ☼ 03:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I was offline for a few days. I'll look over the new Milton coverage. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom ignoring myself

On 17 September I sent an email to Arbcom, which can be viewed in its entireity here. I have repeatedly asked for a response from Arbcom, and I have yet to reply a single response in regards to the botched checkuser performed by an Arbcom member, which resulted in me having to out myself in order to show said Arbcom member that they had made a monumental mistake. All throughout the checkuser, I was treated in what I believe was an uncivil manner, particularly as an assumption of WP:AGF was never made. And I stated at the time that a simple apology would not cut it. As I stated above, I have repeatedly asked Arbcom for a response, with emails being sent to the Arbcom list on 21 September, 20 October and on 4 December. To date, I am yet to receive a response from Arbcom, except an email 5 days ago which stated that I would be gotten back to within a week. Given that Arbcom is absolutely aware of my case, as I brought it up at the Kuban_kazak Arbcom, here, and given that Arbcom does not have the common decency to even acknowledge it, one can't help but feel that I am being completely ignored. If I haven't received a response from the Arbcom by the end of the week, I will be opening a case in full view for all of the community to see, because as far as I am concerned, Arbcom members are not above the same standards that us mere mortals are held to. --Russavia 17:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel ignored. The ArbCom is not an institution geared up to carry out general correspondence. There is no assignment of tasks. If your email did not receive the attention of some individual member, it would not be acknowledged. In the case of privacy matters related to checkusers, the correct place to apply is the Ombudsman commission. I have checked and it looks like you were sent something on 20 September. You acknowledged this answer on 19 October. Therefore the situation is this: you had a mail acknowledged, you know that the matter has been discussed, and you are pressing for some further action. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I have been ignored, plain and simple. I have it on very good authority that Arbcom has been encouraged on several occasions to reply to me, but Arbcom instead chose to actively ignore me. The reply that I received on 21 September read: "Yes, emails received and a little discussion has happened. Our docket is full at the moment so I can not give a promise of a speedy resolution." Just what in your mind equals a "speedy resolution"? 3 months? Sorry, but that is not a speedy resolution, it is fobbing of a genuine and serious concern. Unlike others, I do not think anyone is above anyone else on this project, and we should all be held to the same high standards. Next time, instead of simply approaching Arbcom quietly and asking for a simple answer, I will make it an official complaint for ALL to see and to comment on, and instead of ignoring an issue you guys will be forced to address it and in a timely manner. As you very well know, this particular Arbcom does not have the respect of the general community, and given some recent cases there are some serious issues there. A severe attitude adjustment is required. That, and given your response above, is one of the reasons that I have opposed your re-election to the Arbcom. But that's all I have to say on that, and my case (only because it is now going to be sent to the Ombudsman for the checkuser being both a breach of privacy and a very possible breach of the checkuser policy). --Russavia 13:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
You misrepresent the position. This is not helping your cause. I believe that you have also received an apology. It is indeed a complaint you have registered. I'm not clear what an "official complaint" would be. You could put the matter into dispute resolution. This is not what you did. The position is not that the checkuser is directly accountable to you. The checkuser is directly accountable to the ArbCom, which grants checkuser rights. Your further hammering on the door is only likely to get you a message that the matter has been looked at and is now closed. This degree of formality is usually reserved for those who take informal descriptions of the position and twist them for rhetorical ends. If you are taking up the matter with the Ombudsman as related to privacy, that is an appropriate further step, and I wish you more satisfaction in that quarter. Opposing my re-election is of course your prerogative, but it seems a poor reward for giving you accurate advice in a responsive fashion. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not mispresent the position at all. I have the full facts which I am happy to disclose. If Arbcom's position was that I received an apology and the case is closed, then why didn't a single Arbcom member have the common decency to email me with such a fob off, instead of ignoring me completely. Also not answered is why was the checkuser done in the first place!! For "political" reasons is the only thing that I can think of, and that my friend is a breach of the CU policy. And to think all I wanted was an answer as to the procedures that were followed which came to the conclusion that I was sockpuppet. Whilst checkuser may be accountable to Arbcom, you are forgetting that the Arbcom is accountable directly to the community. You call it "hammering at the door", I call it asking three times in three months for the common decency of a reply, and being fobbed off. The Arbcom is so out of touch it isn't funny. No need to reply to anything else here, that's all I've got to say, and frankly, I don't much need to hear anything else. --Russavia 15:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
One last thing I will say, is thanks for at least having the balls to answer the question in the open, unlike the rest of the Arbcom (with the exception of FloNight) who have completely ignored the situation for the last 3 months. That at least shows a shred of decency on your part, and I will thank you for that. --Russavia 15:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact you mislead by omission. You had the name of an Arbitrator. The way the world works is also the way the ArbCom works: if you had prompted that Arbitrator, you would presumably have got a more direct reply, but instead you started saying you had been "fobbed off". I have looked at your mails, and your tone is not that reasonable. If you cannot accept an apology when offered, it sounds as if you are after something more major. If the Committee doesn't see it that way, you are creating a stand-off. You are not really entitled to interrogate checkusers as to procedures followed, and you seem to think that you are. The reason for that is that some details of the use of the CheckUser tool are kept out of public view, in order that the tool should remain effective. (I'm not a checkuser and there is no use holding me to account for such details: I'm not in a position to judge one way or another.) Charles Matthews (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My vote

I agree that you've been thoroughly misrepresented (at least insofar as I'm able to evaluate the various representations without delving more deeply into old Arb cases than I care to). And "recharge with some more content work" was probably a poor choice of words, as I am familiar with your extensive gnoming; maybe "recharge by removing yourself from the Misplaced Pages cesspool for a while" would have been better. Of course, it's very likely that even if you took that advice The Community still wouldn't let you back on to Arb Comm a year from now, which probably isn't fair, but I can't allow my expectation of a future unfair electorate to determine my vote this time around. This time around, I think it would be best if you left Arb Comm (and I realize that it might seem awfully arrogant of me to be making that assessment). But my thanks for your work are sincere, and not conciliatory. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have problems (beyond the obvious ones) with the democratic process at work, namely deciding that members of ArbCom can be replaced. There have been, in my view, an impressive number of smears that have been aimed particularly at James and me. Electoral guides are subject to caveat emptor, would be one way to put it. Another would be that people put about rumours at election time, and that the only way to nail those is if they are posed as questions to candidates (some are not).
In any case I have been responding to some specifics in the voter comments, to see if I have got the point. Thanks for responding. I have been editing content for five years on similar principles, and if exactly how I go about that is an electoral issue, then it is. I feel it is little enough to do with the requirements of Arbitration, but then my opinion on that isn't of great relevance. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
For greater clarity, my own vote—poor choice of words notwithstanding—has nothing to do with your content editing. I'm not suggesting more or different mainspace work, just less Wikipolitics work. In any event, best of luck (with the election and beyond). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Mathematics

Please explain yourself :)

DYK for John Milton's poetic style

Updated DYK query On 11 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Milton's poetic style, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Backslash Forwardslash 23:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Biophys at Piotrus arbcom

At the Piotrus ARBCOM, you have opposed or abstained on a finding that Biophys has engaged in unhelpful speculation and fear-mongering (I call it nuttery). It has also been mentioned that he has said he will not do it again. If you refer to User_talk:Tiptoety/Archive_19#Inappropriate_use_of_account.3F, it is plain to see that he has gone against this, and had openly accused myself of being a sockpuppet/meatpuppet. This accusation was raised after he and User:Grey_Fox-9589 gamed the system, and reported me for violating WP:3RR. Whilst I admitted that I breached 3RR, I also raised further information at the [3RR report, in particular that I would not sit by and allow BLP information to be introduced into the article; note it is Biophys who has accused me of doing so (it is a laughable claim); additionally he somehow managed to worm his way out of getting a block also for breaching 3RR, something that I quite clearly pointed out to the THREE admins. Due these repeated accusations on Tiptoey's talk page, whilst I was blocked (how convenient for Biophys that I couldn't respond), I demanded that a check user be done in order to stop these outrageous accusations. It was confirmed that I am not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet (for the second time mind you), and as you can see from that link, even afterwards Biophys continued to harrass and engage in speculative nuttery; it was even mentioned by 2 other editors. I have written to the Arbcom privately on 8 November with information pertaining to myself, and how such accusations can be possibly damaging, but I didn't get a response to that one either.

Also possibly not looked at on the Piotrus arbcom is Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Russavia. In particular the BLP violations committed by Biophys. I addressed this at the 3RR report, in which THREE admins saw what I posted, but refused to do anything about.

Is this Arbcom responsible for this particular case?

Why after pointing this out on several occasions has not a single word about BLP been said to Biophys?

Or is it acceptable to have:

In July 2006 Litvinenko accused Putin of being a paedophile. He compared Putin to rapist and serial killer Andrei Chikatilo. He wrote that among people who knew about Putin's paedophilia were Anatoly Trofimov, assassinated in 2005, and the editor of the Russian newspaper "Top Secret", Artyom Borovik, who died in what he called a "mysterious" aeroplane crash a week after trying to publish a paper about this subject,.

in articles, which are sourced to Chechen terrorist websites?

Would it be acceptable to have a similar sourced claim about Gandhi in an article? Or what if it were on the Jimbo Wales article?

Compare that to the NPOV version which I inserted into the article:

In an article written by Litvinenko in July 2006, and published online on Zakayev's Chechenpress website, he claimed that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile, and compared Putin to Andrei Chikatilo. Litvinenko also claimed that Anatoly Trofimov and Artyom Borovik knew of the alleged paedophilia. The claims have been called "wild", and "sensational and unsubstantiated" in the British media. Litvinenko made the allegation after Putin kissed a boy on his belly whilst stopping to chat with some tourists during a walk in the Kremlin grounds on 28 June 2006. The incident was recalled in a webcast organised by the BBC and Yandex, in which over 11,000 people asked Putin to explain the act, to which he responded, "He seemed very independent and serious... I wanted to cuddle him like a kitten and it came out in this gesture. He seemed so nice...There is nothing behind it." It has been suggested that the incident was a "clumsy attempt" to soften Putin's image in the lead-up the 32nd G8 Summit which was held in Saint Petersburg in July 2006.

Which was removed several times by Biophys and replaced with the statement of fact that Putin is a paedophile.

Why has this not been addressed by the Arbcom, after being presented into evidence? --Russavia 14:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bishop–Keisler controversy

An article that you have been involved in editing, Bishop–Keisler controversy, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bishop–Keisler controversy. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 05:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Kohs block design

You created an article about Kohs. Where did you learn about him and his block design test? You said he created this test at age 28. How do you know? Is this original test available anywhere? Did he publish norns for this test? I know this test is commonly used in various intelligence tests, but I'm interested in the original version by Kohs. Any information would be appreciated. Overshoes (talk) 01:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually "create" the material in Samuel Kohs. It was from the Kohs article, started by User:The Kohser. If you go back in the history of Kohs, you'll see that. Given the way we handle surnames, that was the appropriate way to go. Obviously the information at Samuel Kohs and Kohs block is very partial. I know this isn't very helpful. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a reference: The Block Design Tests (Journal of Experimental Psychology, Oct. 1920). Charles Matthews (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Mahalanobis distance

Dear User.

You contributed to the Mahalanobis distance article. Some of its content lacks citations for verification, has been challenged and may be removed. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references.Calimo (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have added an "expert" template. Simply removing intuitive and heuristic remarks from mathematical articles because they are not referenced is not likely to make the quality of the encyclopedia better: it is a retreat into a type of article only accessible to a few. The better way is to have experts remove anything that is actually misleading. User:Michael Hardy can probably help. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


Giano

Is someone intending to tell Giano his blocks been extended, or is it an early Christmas surprise. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

    • Well, it wasn't. I have left a message for Giano II, naturally. I offered to make the block on behalf of the ArbCom because the routine abuse might as well be directed to someone who has had his share of it recently. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles, you re-blocked the guy for a full 72hrs period for a single post to a friend's talk page? That's ridiculous. Please ask Bishonen for some background info. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Not ridiculous at all to reset a block that has been evaded. It's the usual thing. In fact Giano II implying he's a special case does not make him a special case. If blocked, you email your friends, simple as that. I'm happy to talk to Bishonen at any time. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
You are seriously out of touch with common-sense best practice of admins dealing with blocked users. I get users doing these harmless one-off talkpage-only block "evasions" out of ignorance or carelessness all the time. I would never even dream of re-blocking for those. This is not an issue of special treatment for Giano, it's just normal humane commonsense admin practice. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This was punitive and only designed to create further drama. January can't get here soon enough. SashaNein (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You do realise that I'm implementing a decision discussed properly by the whole ArbCom? Charles Matthews (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, we know Charles, you're the boss(es). At least for a few more weeks, that is. For the record, I cound 7-6 (or 5, maybe), so with such division (even on arbcom) perhaps the lot of you should have thought twice before taking such divisive and controversial action. Or maybe not. Who am I to say? I'm just a normal editor, without the big stick that you carry. SDJ 20:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

While I recognize that you aren't in a position to read the minds of the members of ArbCom, do you think that the Committee could be open to considering a reduction in the length of the (renewed) block?

Despite Giano's persistent unpleasant conduct, I am willing to grant the possibility that he was genuinely ignorant of the technical limitations of his block (though I'm less inclined to trust that he was unaware of the intended effect...). I would have thought that twenty-four hours to get the point across would be sufficient — for a first offense.

Note that I don't support a free pass here. His conduct while blocked was not exactly lily-white, and included some childish namecalling just a few hours ago: , . (Incidentally, if that conduct was already part of the reason supporting the extension of Giano's block, it may be worthwhile to highlight the point.) Best wishes, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

We are considering a reduction, on the grounds that the current reset block effectively includes the time we spent discussing the matter (rather than resetting immediately). On that basis the block may well be lifted early. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
While evading a block just before it expires just to spite sounds like something Giano might do, I believe this was an honest mistake. He has been here long, but is not that familiar with the technical details of Misplaced Pages. Many demanding an unblock are those that would say the same regardless of circumstances, but be sure that I am not one of those. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Very plausible, in fact. But, the behaviour even under that assumption was straight "boundary testing". This factor carries weight in deciding whether the letter of the law should, as here, be applied. Nothing in the past behaviour of Giano II really suggests that letting it all go past would be rewarded. The initial block was for blatant incivility to two female admins, and it certainly seems to me important that any waving away of the matter is in fact diminishing at the same time what was said to them. There is a track record here, and block evasion is simply wrong, if in some cases easy. And, what, the person in question complains about a range block affecting him, and then pays no mind to the concept that he can get round the imposed block precisely because a range block was not imposed on him? Come on now, that is much like wanting to have your cake and eat it. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not criticizing the first ArbCom block. Just, the evasion was probably unintentional and barely anyone noticed. His recent snide comments about Theresa are worse, but she seems determined to not take it as an insult. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • And BTW, how does this conform with the "preventative" nature of blocks. This seems straight punitive, even viewed in the best light. What are you "preventing" Giano from doing, other than working in the mainspace? SDJ 20:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Giano is not prevented from working at all. He can email someone wikitext to have it posted, he can draft, and I even made suggestions for drafting without edit conflicts, which may not have occurred to him. But, naturally, prevention of uncivil behaviour on the site is one thing that a block can achieve. It seems that Giano II is still seeking to be uncivil to Theresa Knott. I think your comment has little merit. On the other hand, it prevents me from working in mainspace. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Yeah, Giano's the problem here. <rolls eyes> So, do you think the august body of arbs would have taken this same action in, say, three weeks? Not remotely, and that says all that need be said about the outgoing arbs and the statement made at this election. SDJ 20:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
We'll see. Nothing would please the ArbCom better than to spend less time discussing Giano II's doings. That won't change come 2009. If he'd like less attention, how about his cutting out the attention-seeking stuff? The bellowing, the picking of fights, and the general motormouth approach of typing first and thinking afterwards? Most people get through life by knowing this stuff, not ignoring it. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
"Bellowing"? "Picking of fights"? That sounds like a certain esteemed body of arbitrators (at least 7 of them) that I currently serve as an editor. (I do serve you guys, right? We hold our positions only at your pleasure--or at least that's the way it seems from down here in normal wiki-land.) SDJ 20:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Considering that, but for his good editing, Giano II would have been thrown off the site ten times by now, you ought to be somewhat amazed by the tolerance shown. If he thinks that the patience of any committee is infinite, then that would be another aspect of his lack of general comprehension. Calling people "stupid" is just unacceptable? By the way, you shouldn't believe all you hear on Misplaced Pages. There aren't many reliable sources onsite in this kind of discussion. People of good sense just avoid those who continually talk nonsense about the ArbCom or anything else. Such people also don't confront types like Giano II who are obviously trouble. And when they express satisfaction at the blocks (oh yes, there are such people) they let us know privately. That is because of the general intimidation and pile-on, from the ignorant or over-trusting, that awaits those who tell the truth about the lamentable stuff that goes on, or even more do something about it. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is it that everyone else is the one who has a "lack of general comprehension"? Look above, where I raised the issue of being fobbed off for 3 months by Arbcom....look above where I have raised a WP:BLP issue (which to be fair to you has gone unanswered by all Arbcom and Jimbo himself)...the one thing that seems to be overlooked, and which I said to you above, is that the Arbcom committee does not control the site, the community does. We are not answerable to the Arbcom; the Arbcom is answerable to the community. And on this issue, I would say that the community at large does not agree with your sentiments as you have raised them here. --Russavia 21:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
As I said before, you misrepresent the position. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
"The lurkers support me in e-mail"? LOL, long time I haven't heard that meme. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Because of people like you? Charles Matthews (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
people like you? ...WHAT THE ...? --Van helsing (talk)
Charles Matthews is exactly right. The way some people try to get their way by attacking their "enemies" and repeating the same unfounded accusations over and over until it becomes the truth is deplorable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I was actually more surprised/thinking about the second sentence in Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks; the one that talks about comments, content and contributor. --Van helsing (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
People like people who call "ridiculous" enforcement of a standard policy after serious discussion by 12 Arbitrators, that sort of people. I'm glad for the support from Apoc2400. Nonsense is frequently talked, and it seemingly is often talked on the basis of support of and opposition to others. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, you'd better hurry up with that block review before somebody else sees the chance to become an hero. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm in the same time zone as Giano, and a night's sleep would do me good, at least. The pressure to "hurry up" is not conducive to good decisions. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny that someone was talking about personal attacks. Yes, not much more editing tonight. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI, RFAR

FYI, you're a named party in this RFAR.. rootology (C)(T) 23:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  1. G. Strang, Linear Algebra and Its Applications Brooks Cole, 1988