User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Postpone closing of ArbCom case?

Dear Charles Matthews/Archive 25,

I saw that now 4 arbitrators have already moved to close. If I understand correctly, the case will be closed at 15:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)?

I love Wikipedia's concept: The sum of human knowledge is just that: the sum, not the subtraction. I believe we wikipedians of all colours are going to be able to differ violently in opinion and at the same time work together in an atmosphere of camaraderie nevertheless and respect one another. These conflicts are burning editors out, myself not the least. We need help to find the way back to the core policies of wikipedia, which are there to prevent these conflicts and to warrent the creation of high-quality, neutral articles by due process.

It was not I who invited the ArbCom to this matter, but now that we're there, I would welcome a solution to the ongoing conflicts. I believe my proposed principles are in line with Wikipedia Purpose and Policy: Would you be inclined to continue on the case and see whether you can rule on some of the Proposals I and other editors have made? Perhaps the ArbCom would be willing to consider my Proposed principals 3-11? The most simple one, and quite important, would be nr. 3:

(POV tags are not there to point to dissensus amongst reliable sources, but dissensus among wikipedia editors.)

Would the ArbCom be able to rule on this? Reminding the other editors (4 of which are valued admins) that this is how wikipedia works might be of help in resolving the conflicts and informing our readers about the status of the article.

PS See also this, at the bottom.

 — Xiutwel ♫☺♥♪ (speech has the power to bind the absolute) 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Reversion

OK, thanks for let me know, i will check probably next time. --Aleenf1 09:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

PHG motion

Hi Charles, here you said you'd support extending the restriction on PHG, a position shared by at least three of your colleagues. However, there hasn't been a single comment on that clarification request in over a week now; would you be able to consider proposing a motion in the relevant section to keep the ball rolling?

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, wrong person... sorry, I got you confused with Matthew for a second :) Sorry, Daniel (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mystical Theology

Hi, I added a sentence on your article on papal letters and came this way to mystical theology. I made a suggestion on the talk page, please see wheher you like it. My view is that the high quality article certaily meets Wikipedia standards, but it could be more transparent, if categories such as history, purification etc, and more specific authors would be added. Cheers --Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I've added something to Talk:Mystical theology. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Attendee

Thanks for your thanks on my edits on Max Plowman - one of my special interests.

I note your own special interest in mathematics, closely related to logic, which leads me to speculate on your use of the neologism "attendee". Formed, obviously, on the analogy of "employee", i.e. someone employed (as distinct from "employer", meaning someone employing), "attendee" must logically mean someone attended. Since "attend" itself has two meanings, I am curious to know in which sense you were an "attendee" at the Birmingham Wikipedian meeting: someone made to attend, or someone waited upon. Doubtless, with his own precision of language, Max Plowman would relish enlightenment. In clarity. Mountdrayton. Mountdrayton (talk • contribs) 21:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just one of seven who went along there - I hadn't realised I was neologising. I had been meaning to write up Max Plowman for some time, dating back to early efforts to find out who had been writing the poems in those 1920s anthologies. I'm more of a medievalist here, now, but I go where the work is, these days. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It appears that you were not an attendee at all, but an attender - I thought Wikipedia encouraged the use of plain English. On Max Plowman, you will see that I have amplified the info on his army career and conscientious objection, and on The Adelphi. Although you cite a source for the purported editorship of the latter by Jack Common, this claim is not borne out by other sources, and I am satisfied that Common was never more than assistant editor. (Your source is in any case suspect in suggesting that the magazine folded in 1939, whereas it continued until 1955, as I know from my own physical observation.) I am not familiar with Jeffrey Meyers' book Orwell, which you cite as authority for the claim that "Orwell was still in agreement with Plowman's pacifism in early 1938", but I can only comment that the statement is nonsense as it stands. (Does Meyers cite any authority?) I am not aware of evidence that Orwell was a pacifist at any time, but certainly by 1938, when he had volunteered for POUM in the Spanish Civil War, he was clearly no pacifist, and by the Second World War he overtly and intemperately attacked pacifism. I may add that, because of a continuing myth that Orwell had a pacifist period, I have discussed the point with a number of academics much better versed in Orwell than I, and all are in agreement that Orwell never was a pacifist. The relevant sentence is therefore urgently in need of serious modification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountdrayton (talk • contribs) 00:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. (Could you do the ~~~~ thing to sign?) I'll check back on the phrasing for the 1938 Orwell matter - it was more like Orwell assenting to some proposition in conversation. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Jack Common was co-editor of The Adelphi in 1935-6 (George Orwell - A Kind of Compulsion 1903-1936, p. 182.). I think it is right he mostly helped out. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Oath of royal supremacy

You have created an entire article without using a single inline citation. Please use some inline citation so that readers can understand from where the information came. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are being a little unreasonable. That is an adaptation of an old and long Catholic Encyclopedia article. So (a) the adaptation takes some time; (b) there is a very substantial and detailed reference section; and (c) you don't seem to have noticed that there are inline references given, anyway. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The article should be given time, especially as it was from an old PD source. Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed Oath of Allegiance (1559) redirected there, but there is no 1559 bit mentioned. Is that a typo or was there one in 1559? Carcharoth (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's in the subsection on the 1534 oath. What is said there is that the 1559 act just reinstated the earlier oath, so it wasn't a priority to make a subsection of its own. There are bigger issues for the 1606, where I'll add a modern reference. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, but there is a section on the 1534 oath and the 1643 oath, so now you've confused me even more! (Since corrected) And still, when I search for "1559" I find nothing. Do you mean "This was passed 19 August, 1643, and afterwards, in 1656, reissued in an even more objectionable form."? That would suggest 1656, not 1559. And I can't find anything in the "Oath of Royal Supremacy (1534)" about old oaths. <head starts to spin> :-) Apologies if you were planning to edit this to be clearer, but thought this might help. Carcharoth (talk) 13:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

1 Eliz. c. 1 means 1559 - I've made that explicit now. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I also found Act of Supremacy 1559, Acts of Supremacy (to which Act of Supremacy 1534 redirects]]), Act of Uniformity 1559, and Elizabethan Religious Settlement. I haven't looked closely, but there might be a lot of material being duplicated here, or maybe not - maybe you can just link to those from your 'oaths' article. Oh, and if "1 Eliz. c. 1" is 1559, when was the earlier repeal by Mary (1 Ph. and M. c. 8)? Currently there is March 1534 (26 Henry VIII, c. 1), Queen Mary (1 Ph. and M. c. 8), Elizabeth in 1559 (1 Eliz. c. 1), Elizabeth [...] (1592-3) [...] (35 Eliz. c. 2), June 1606 (3 James I, c. 4), The first Parliament summoned after the triumph of William of Orange added a clause to the Bill of Rights, which was then passed, by which the Sovereign was himself to take the Declaration (1 W. & M., sess. 1, c. 8) - presumably 1688?

There is also a missing sentence "(see )" with nothing after the "see" (it's in the 'The Irish Oath of 1774 to Catholic Emancipation, 1829' bit). Obviously a lot more than that, but that's what I noticed this time round. Please feel free to copy this to the article talk page if that is a better location for this. Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I might do that. The whole thing is certainly a can of oaths. My reference (Patterson) has a chapter of 50 pages on the 1606 Oath; so it may gravitate to separate articles and summary style. Of course the CE source is parti pris on the whole business; but there is nothing wrong with making a timeline 1534 to 1829 out of it. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

regarding the arbitration over at the wikilobby page...

Am I to understand that the situation has been arbitrated and my year-long or forever whatever topic ban is upheld? Surely I get 24 hours or something to make my case ? Juanita (talk) 03:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is yet decided. Please make a concise case in your section on WP:RFAR, and only there. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:43, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to usurp ArbCom's role in appointing checkusers

A discussion is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:RFA#BAG_requests_process to have checkusers elected to their positions rather than have them appointed. Apparently, none of the proponents of doing this have notified ArbCom of this effort. I am therefore informing you. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. We're discussing it. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Saint Dungal

Dear Mr. Matthews, I made an attempt to improve the Saint_Dungal voice. Please, are you so kind to review what I did? Have I well understand what you suggested me in the past? Thank you! Have a good day. Bepimela (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made a couple of small changes. Dungal isn't on the Chronological list of saints and blesseds: 9? Charles Matthews (talk) 08:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. If the category people see Chronological list of saints and blesseds, they will go apocalyptic! :-) A pure list (even in chronological order) can be done in a category. Annotating the list can go either in the direction of a timeline, or series of timelines, or even towards a "History of..." article. The trouble being that such overview articles take time, and they look awful when only half done, and someone will try and delete or merge them... I wonder if we have Wikipedia:Timeline yet? Hmm. Wikipedia:Timeline standards wasn't quite what I was after. I was thinking more of the four pages linked at Timeline of entomology. That approach has been taken instead of a History of entomology approach. See Entomology#History of entomology. I'm also looking at Saint and trying to see how people can get from there to a timeline or history article such as Chronological list of saints and blesseds. Anyway, just some thoughts. Carcharoth (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, categories can't have redlinks, and entries can't have annotation. If the "category people" haven't spotted this lack of functionality in four years, I'm not sure what can be done for them. Those lists happen to be useful tools in developing the site, in what is a difficult area. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point about the redlinks. Forgot that. I think they prefer to have redlinks in userspace or projectspace lists. There are many incomplete categories that don't have lists of redlinks. But this is a bit pointless, as I don't object to the lists per se. The numbers at the end or the article titles will annoy some people though (it's a bit WP:SELF). Also, some will object to the lack of "Christian" in the titles. Anyway, after a year of nuturing a list of redlinks at Talk:Royal Medal, I'm now systematically creating stubs instead of watching others create them. I found a similar set of redlinks at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Top 1000 Scientists: From the Beginning of Time to 2000 AD (second nomination), and there are tons of similar redlink lists all over Wikipedia. See User:Magnus Manske/Dictionary of National Biography. Many people (including you) have loads in their userspaces as well. I don't think a project would help as such (people doing this work seem to know what they are doing), but a centralising page might still help. Ah, I think Wikipedia:Most wanted articles and the other similar pages linked at the bottom of that page, is what I am looking for. Trouble is, it all gets out of hand quite fast. I wonder if anyone has looked at the relative efficiency of, say, Wikipedia:Most wanted articles, Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year and Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles? It would be interesting to see which results in more articles being created, though they probably all do to a certain extent. Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Link Recovery is also interesting. Anyway, sorry for rambling on here. I'll stop now and get on with other stuff! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

See Category:Red list. There is no percentage, really, in moving good lists into project space. I only create articles that are not article-space orphans. So I'd create fewer such articles. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Hadn't seen that category before. Carcharoth (talk) 10:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration?

How would one go about formally requesting the focus of one were expanded or whatever? Does there need to be a formal process before it is accepted, or can it happen afterwards? Only I think if the William C one were accepted it should be on all the disruptive editors on the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States page. The argument over what he's been doing only really came up after William started working on it. John Smith's (talk) 18:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's up to Arbitrators to define the scope of the case: in voting to accept, or at a later point. Others can produce in evidence what they think is relevant. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was wondering if there was a process or not - but looks like one arbitrator has already decide to expand the scope. John Smith's (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Catholic martyrs of the English Reformation

I inverted the names as you suggested when leaving the Wikify tag. Can the tag be removed or do you suggest anything else? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, the idea is to make the names into wikilinks. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I could do that, but an awful lot of them would be red. Some articles might then be created, but others would not be sufficiently notable to deserve their own article. In the case of this list, should the editing process end with those names being deleted or merely unlinked? - Fayenatic (talk) 19:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about that. I expect all the articles will be created in the end. No, the names shouldn't be deleted, because the list has value as a reference. In practical terms, all these people are documented, so the existence of the redlinks is nothing bad. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, that stage was easier than the earlier one. It's more blue than I expected, but a lot of the links are either invalid (same name, different person) or ambiguous. Anyway, I'm done on that page. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Aji Keshi

Hello Charles. Can you keep an eye on Go for a few days. As it moves towards Featured Article status everyone seems to have decided it is open season on the page. Hugs--ZincBelief (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. Maybe you mean honte (aji keshi is the pejorative)? Charles Matthews (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Redlinks again

I was thinking about redlinks in that thread, and then saw this from you! "List of redlinks: anyone who doesn't realise that should get back to writing articles." made me laugh out loud. I agree that people need to rediscover the power of the redlink! :-) Carcharoth (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There seem really to be two issues. There is the design issue: which namespaces are intended to be picked up by search engines? There we have defaulted to "all", when there are presumably other options. And then there is material on the site that should be blanked or even oversighted anyway. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

q maths and wolfram

Charles, Could you have a quick glance at User_talk:Pleasantville#Wolfram_links and tell me if you think it looks ok to you? I don't know the maths pages here well enough. Can see a lot of Wolfram links going in and appears to be a Wolfram consultant (inter alias) promoting them ("helping people to find content at...") but its a bit grey as they have a pretty worthwhile site etc and I don't know whether to just accept it and move on or fight the conflict of interest. --BozMo talk 17:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining it, I will leave it to you. As I say there does seem to be someone paid by Wolfram adding links to Wolfram which we wouldn't normally tolerate but you are in the best position to judge. --BozMo talk 07:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would want to see examples of uncontestable "spam" before concluding that there is a problem here. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Then there is, I think, no problem. Many edits like [1] which add links to the Wolfram site and to the Wolfram page on Wikipedia are being added by someone who looks like they are paid by Wolfram... which does contravene WP:COI. Also the extra internal link to a wikipedia page from references most people would not include. But there may be a real gain to the project and I am more than happy to leave it to you on the Maths pages. --BozMo talk 11:06, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Given that we use no-follow, and that COI only really bites when outside interests diverge from Wikipedia's interests, the link you show is not the kind of addition that would concern me. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Douglas Cleverdon

Great minds clearly think alike - he was on my "to do" list, and I was delighted to see that the redlink had turned blue without me having to do anything! I've added DOB/DOD with the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography reference, and some categories, incidentally. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 22:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK - I tend not to link to the ODNB or other pay sites, but we can agree to differ on this. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's not a pay site for all those (like me) who have free web access through their local library membership, for example, or those who can get hold of the printed version, so I don't see a problem. Bencherlite^Talk 06:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

New Project

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Karol Antoniewicz

I've corrected a series of redlinks on this page you created. Could you check that the pages are there in future, and that you've got the right name; for example, you linked "Cardinal Franzelin" which was a redlink; however, the person himself (Johann Baptist Franzelin) already had a page you could've linked to instead. Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Slow down - that page was created minutes ago. I think if you look at my contributions, you will see that I contribute many redirects. You are going too far to say "corrected": what you did for Franzelin was to pipe the link. Now, I'd prefer to create the redirect there, once and for all. So that Cardinal Franzelin in future leads to the correct page. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies. I didnt mean to sound patronising. Ironholds (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Tango

Just wondering if you'll be voting on this case, as one of the arbitrators who accepted it? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

You might want to check your talk page on meta. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Liturgical book

I noticed you created the page Liturgical book. Did you intend for this to serve as a disambiguation page or as an article? Could you let me know either on my talk page or at Talk:Liturgical_book. Thanks! Dgf32 (talk) 16:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Paul Zumthor

A tag has been placed on Paul Zumthor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Patent nonsense applies to the nomination, not the page. Get a grip. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU has a new format

Due to popular demand, HAU has a new look. Since the changes are so dramatic, I may have made some mistakes when translating the data. Please take a look at WP:HAU/EU and make sure your checkmarks are in the right place and feel free to add or remove some. There is a new feature, SoxBot V, a recently approved bot, automatically updates your online/offline status based on the length of time since your last edit. To allow SoxBot V to do this, you'll need to copy [[Category:Wikipedians who use StatusBot]] to your userpage. Obviously you are not required to add this to your userpage, however, without this, your status will always be "offline" at HAU. Thanks. Useight (talk) 17:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and punctuations

Would just like to bring up one minor thing: please kindly watch out for grammar/punctuation usage when composing articles. You have made quite a few grammatical/punctuation mistakes in your Shusai article, and it was difficult to read. For a list of corrected errors, please simply compare my edit against yours. Thanks. By78 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan

Hi Charles Mathews

I refer to an earlier instance when I have have been the recipient of help from you see [[2]] item 34 0n the content section.

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

There is a user Misaq Rabab who has completely and determinedly obliterated various categories from over 200 articles . Two of the categories he has completely decimated are

• Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan
• Hindu and Buddhist heritage of Afghanistan

This users contributions are also invariably almost entirely in the nature of deletions ,or alterations of existing content without any cited verifiable additions .

Would you care to please take a look at Category talk:Pre-Islamic heritage of Pakistan item 5 on the content section

Cheers
Intothefire (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what User:Soman says there. An application at WP:CFD should clarify whether the category in question is useful, or should be under some different name. If the CfD comes up with a positive verdict on the category, then it would be clearer that removing articles from it could be negative. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou

that was fast !

Cheers

Intothefire (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Appeal - PLEASE HELP

It is high time that the abuses against the unjustly banned user "Gibraltarian" were dealt with rationally and fairly. My ban was brought about by a troll user's malicious complaint, and he continually vandalised any words I tried to post in my defence. I appeal to you as Arbcom member to please contact me on a_gibraltarian@hotmail.com to discuss the matter.

This is a massive injustice, and only allows others to continue to assert factually incorrect, malicious, offensive and POV items about my country.

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.120.246.83 (talk) 15:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

San Domingo

In Raymond Breton, you bracketed the words "Island of San Domingo", creating a link to a non-existent page. Based on the names Dominican Republic, Santo Domingo (its capital), and Saint-Domingue (the former name of Haiti), I'm pretty sure that this island and Hispaniola are one and the same. What do you think? DO56 (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't certain. The Garifuna article says he spent time on Saint Vincent (island). There could easily have been more than one island in the area called after St. Dominic, at some point. You may be right, but really some further research is needed. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's actually more likely to be Dominica, which he certainly visited[3]. It makes sense if he moved around in the area St. Vincent-Dominica-Guadaloupe, where he ended up. The article should really be expanded on the basis of some further sources. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and he was French: our Dominica article says the French took it over in 1635 and sent missionaries. So both the geography and the politics suggest it wasn't Hispaniola. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it, what you say makes sense. As to further sources, information on the Internet will likely be scarce, but jiggering with Google has located http://www.centrelink.org/davidcampos.html and http://www.sup-infor.com/ultimes/garifuna_a/garifuna_a-ina.htm. More likely, histories of, say, proselytism in the Caribbean strike me as the best place to check. DO56 (talk) 21:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternate account notification

Hi there, I've posted a question here and Rlevse suggested I contact an arbitrator about this directly. Could you check to see if this editor has notified ArbCom about User:TheNautilus being an alternate account of User:I'clast? Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been answered. Thanks! Tim Vickers (talk) 15:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Question raised at Talk:Monad (category theory)

See Talk:Monad (category theory)#Confusing sentence?.  --Lambiam 23:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Irish College

Thanks for cleaning up the paragraph I added to your article. It looks more concise now. I didn't mean to make a mess out of it, I just felt it needed to be updated and the fact that people such as Tony Blair had stayed there. I would have liked to have mentioned that Blair consumed vast quantities of tea whilst a guest but decided that had no place in an encyclopedia. Cheers. jeanne (talk) 11:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It was fine - all I did was to order the sentences. Thanks for the update. Charles Matthews (talk)

Proposed decision - Footnoted Quotes

Please note a finding 2.1 has been proposed and may need your vote in terms of choice - it's here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes/Proposed_decision#Use_of_quotes_in_footnotes_2. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)  Done

Excepting deciding on finding 2/2.1 (or whether it should be a principle/remedy), perhaps the case is ready for close votes? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Getting there. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

All pass now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - CAMERA LOBBYING

Ready to close - 2 votes made already. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

SevenOfDiamonds case

Hi, I saw your recent edit to that. Your comment seems to suggest that you would like to see a case opened publically and then consider all the evidence and make a determination. Do you want me to adjust its format/location with the intent for the arbitrators' votes being "open a case to examine whether to unblock or not", or leave it as a request for amendment, which is where no case is opened and then the arbitrators simply vote on the motion "SevenOfDiamonds is unbanned, with conditions X Y Z"? Daniel (talk) 13:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm - there has been some offline discussion, and perhaps there should be some more, before I answer that. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for the reply. Daniel (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Charles, re your comment here ("assuming a request is posted"), I assume that you were assuming that SevenofDiamonds did not post a request. In fact they did (that's what started things going). William M. Connolley deleted the request, along with several comments by others, because it was "posted by banned user." The comments from others were later re-added by Kendrick7 but SevenofDiamonds' comment was left out. I don't know what the protocol is here, but if it's okay for a user blocked by ArbCom to post a request on the ArbCom page from an IP address then perhaps their comment should be re-instated. In any case it's a bit confusing now considering that it looks like Kendrick7 initiated the request which is not really the case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Banned users should respect the ban, and go through the ArbCom list. That has been happening, here. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I thought that might be the case but your comment on the ArbCom case made me unsure if you were aware that SoD had posted a request there. Thanks for clearing things up.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion policy

Hi,

Since you expressed an interest in Systolic geometry at some point, I thought you might be interested in the situation with Systolic geometry for a beginner. Katzmik (talk) 14:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Historical Christian hairstyles

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Historical Christian hairstyles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? ninety:one 11:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Thomas Sampson

A tag has been placed on Thomas Sampson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.  Channel ®   23:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Goodness me! The page history of Thomas Sampson is a fascinating tussle between modern and old. I wonder if they are related in any way? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

Undeleted to the correct version. Lesson heeded! Bencherlite^Talk 08:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Real projective line help with dispute

Hi. I notice that you are the major contributor to the real projective line article. Hoping you might be willing to help arbitrate an edit dispute. See the talk page. -- Cheers, Steelpillow 06:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're going off on an odd discussion here. The concept of "infinity" in projective geometry is valid as soon as one lays down a coordinate system: it's part of the standard language. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Yes, what you say is true - as far as it goes. However, projective geometry (PG) as such does not require a coordinate system - that is one of its most important properties. Coxeter's book on PG does no more than introduce coordinates at the end, while Edwards' graphical tutorial does not use them at all. Other classics, such as Hilbert & Cohn-Vossen's Geometry and the imagination, also do very well without them. Of course, once one introduces say a real coordinate system then one obtains real projective geometry and, as Coxeter points out in the most wonderful one-liner one could wish to end a book with, the rest of the story is to be found in any standard textbook. All I have tried to do is to make minor changes to the page in line with Hilbert and Coxeter's treatment, without sacrificing the standard analytical understanding. -- Cheers, Steelpillow 12:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hilbert and Coxeter are great men; it doesn't mean that their views represent the current mainstream views, though. The typical approach to projective geometry these days assumes linear algebra. The hyperplane at infinity is a conventional form of words, explaining in these terms the relationship between projective space and affine space. What you say about the relationship between metric structure and the language of "infinity" is basically misleading, therefore. It would be better to explain what is going on here in some detail, in an appropriate place, rather than trying to impose it on top. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are saying here in that at first sight it might seem to contradict what you said before, that The concept of "infinity" in projective geometry is valid as soon as one lays down a coordinate system. I guess you are pointing out that affine geometry has no metric, yet it does involve "infinity". I qualified "finite" by "(metrically) finite" because a finite geometry is something different. Do you think that it would be OK to simply delete the metric qualifier to read "A finite visualisation is obtained...", or do we need some other form of words?

(I am trying hard not to impose anything "on top", merely to obtain compatibility with a long established and mathematically valid foundation (however unfashionable it might be today). This foundation is already covered pretty well in the article on projective geometry, and the present article should not contradict it.) -- Cheers, Steelpillow 14:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are multiple points of view, which is not so common in mathematics, perhaps, but is common enough in other areas. What would a "neutral point of view" be? Well, certainly it doesn't exclude what Coxeter said, for example. But Coxeter's view should come labelled as such. All I mean by not putting anything "on top" is that Coxeter's point of view shouldn't be represented as the point of view. It is safest, I think, to explain the "hyperplane at infinity" starting from linear algebra, since (with the possible exception of work on projective planes) that is the mainstream definition. From there, saying that homogeneous coordinates with last entry zero gives the points at infinity is a good explanation. Other views of what is going on have their place - a proportionate place, according to our basic concepts on NPOV. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. My small change no longer seems to attract criticism. Sorry I do not have the knowledge to make the larger change you suggest. -- Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Is there any way for a normal user to see some (scrubbed?) version of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence? This seems like the sort of case that many editors would want to follow. Thanks, Gnixon (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a quick answer to that. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks anyway for the quick response. Gnixon (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sirletus footnotes

Many thanks for your kind note on this. Confusing that the guy is known as both Sirleto and Sirleti in the literature. I do appreciate the formatting corrections -- I don't do enough in Wikipedia to get conversant with the finer details. The toolbar with the ref tag was handy, tho -- otherwise I wouldn't have remembered that either! It's wet in Ipswich today, so it's probably wet in Cambridge and Southwold too. Roger Pearse 12:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm in Cambridge - drizzle for Strawberry Fayre. I kind of specialise in people with name variants - redirects mean that we can solve that issue for the whole Web, really, with a few seconds adding redirects here.Charles Matthews (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Prince Hassan bin Al Talal

hi, i was wondering if you could help me, i tried moving the above titled page to Prince Hassan bin Talal but i wont let me and says i need to contact an admin as it has been at that name before, i dont know exactly what to do, but if possible could you change it to Prince Hassan bin Talal as the Al in the current page title isn't in his name at all. If you cant do that could you please tell me exactly what to do and how to do it. Thank you AliaBuhler (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, done now. I could explain the issue, but essentially there was a redirect to which some minor changes had been made, needing a deletion. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Amazing Diligence

Hi, thanks for visiting my talk page and for your message. I am very amazed by your great diligence in this encyclopedia. First, let me say that when I edited Vincentian Family / Lazarists last year, I just accidentally popped the link. Second, I was a Vincentian Seminarian, and had been co-seminarian of / lived with these - Opus Prize awardee, Fr. Norberto Carcellar, CM, Fr. Dizu, Provincial, and Fr. Banaga, President of Adamson University, from 1966-1971 here in Valenzuela, and Angono, Philippines. Memories, yes. So, I took great time to research on this, as you suggested to fill in the stub:

[4] with a) the incumbent superiour general, b) the actual Nov. 8, 2007 awarding at CU, [5] and c) I also included these 2 plus the 150 years in Philippines of the Vincentians in the Congregation of the Mission article here[6] and [7] Regards. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Homeopathy

With the exception of the two remedies relating to SAB, all other proposals pass. It has taken a while to get there. Perhaps this case is ready for close votes now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Not quite there on Discretionary sanctions. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I've asked one of the two voting arbitrators (who have not voted on the remedy at all) to make a preferential vote. Other than that, I'm not sure any further thinking on the new definition is essential for the time-being (if this is the issue) - I can't imagine any major admin problems arising unless an admin had very poor judgement in 'interpreting' the uninvolved part. What do you think? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was chasing votes on the case yesterday, anyway. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I think we haven't caught any still. I wonder if it will ever be closed at this rate. :(

While I'm here, seeing you're one of the arbs who accepted it, perhaps I could nudge you to look/vote at the Giovanni case as - it'll close a bit sooner than the above case, with some luck. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to remind you that 2 arb-clarifications have been waiting on the discretionary sanctions wording - they can be closed once voted on, sometime soon hopefully. Kirill has already posted the 3.1 version for voting on the requests page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Inhambane

HI I recently expanded the article on Inhambane. According to the source the town was listed on the first Jesuit mission to Africa. I wondered if you had any other sources which mentioned it and could be used to expand it. I've proposed it for a DYK just thought you might have something on it ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 15:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

There's a brief mention in the Catholic Encyclopedia[8]. Where I came across an early mention of Jesuits around there was in Gonçalo da Silveira; but I'll have to admit I didn't get the geography of where he went figured out. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting old public domain material

I know you do a fair amount of work with public domain editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Would you be able to add some thoughts at Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism? That proposed policy or guideline is in its early stages and still very rough, but it needs as much input as possible to avoid getting things wrong. I'd like to see a notice posted on the mailing list as well, if possible, but I don't subscribe to that. Would you consider posting a note there? If not, don't worry, I'll ask someone else. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:32, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yah, there seems to be some problem: what is fair use, fair paraphrase and so on. It will be quite hard to get a neat guideline there. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about the article incident. From now on, I'll only use templates if I know for a fact that the article breaks the rules. Most of the articles that I marked got deleted, so I'm guess I'm not entirely stupid when it comes to the rules.Schuym1 (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1

OK, I saw you were editing new here, and wanted to talk about the way templates are used. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction to systolic geometry

Hi,

User:Loom91 is unhappy with the page. Could you please comment? Katzmik (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have written the introduction in a way more typical of a survey article. This should be helpful ... Charles Matthews (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much, that helps a lot. Katzmik (talk) 08:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

"defamation timebomb"

I have to take issue with your claim here, and apparently I can't express an opinion on the page you made this claim. My first question to you would be just why are WP:RS, WP:NOTABLE, and WP:NPOV insufficient such that WP:BLP is required? If an article is unfavourable to a subject, why not just apply WP:NPOV to correct the problem? Can you give me an example of an edit that would satisfy all Wiki policies except WP:BLP? I believe it would be less than obvious that this hypothetical edit, which complies with all other policies, would be in need of deletion (thereby demonstrating a need for an additional policy that would support such deletion).

My second question to you would be how is that you see defusing of this supposed "defamation timebomb" as your responsiblity when WP:OFFICE already seems to have taken on that responsibility? May I refer you to the WP:OFFICE language which indicates that not only does the OFFICE reserve the right to intervene with respect to the "threat of legal action", but "in other cases it may be simply as a courtesy". See also the language which says the OFFICE will intervene in "questionable or illegal" situations, as opposed to just illegal. Similarly, see "prevent legal trouble or personal harm".

Yet it is your position that the OFFICE has nonetheless so limited the orbit of its responsibility that YOU have to step in? To protect the interests of Jimbo Wales?

My final question would be to ask how is your position not an example of a Chilling effect (term). Bdell555 (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So Biographical material must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality and avoiding original research, particularly if it is contentious is part of the nutshell description over at WP:BLP. This is also the operative effect of the policy: the "care and attention". An example, since you insist: there are rumours that a major religious leader can change gender at will. Let us try to imagine what it takes in terms of the basic content policies, to have this in an article. One can split hairs: verify that there is such a rumour is the bar set very low, verify the rumour is the bar set very high. But the effect of WP:BLP is having "reliable sources" as a tough criterion. Turning it round, "source criticism" can and should be very serious in a biography of a living person. I don't think anyone really believes WP:RS says everything about the reliability of sources. WP:BLP certainly requires that it should be implemented with a good understanding of the fallibility of many sources.

OFFICE actions are numerous, but effectively are only a complaint mechanism that comes into action when someone is already very annoyed with us. You think that's satisfactory? Wikipedia is a big organisation dependent on donations. You view seems to be limited to reactive rather than pro-active measures.

I don't know what you mean by my protecting Jimbo's interests. Don't I have interests to protect here? I have a personal stake in the success of the site.

Finally, I see that "chilling effect" is a term of art from US and Canadian law (which has nothing much to do with me). There is actually a difference between self-censorship, and trying to write in a way that's scrupulously fair. We ask for the latter (NPOV), and as our concept of "writing for the enemy" shows, NPOV is rather more than schematic omission. The whole chilling effect thing really assumes that people write here in conformity with the letter of the law, or else worse consequences will flow for them. There is a good alternative view, saying that the project has been built up largely by editors who accept the idea that the policies do define "quality", at the level of the spirit of the law. Not everyone behaves like a tabloid journalist only constrained by fear of the libel laws. Most people do understand these issues. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You seriously think that gender changing claim would be in but for WP:BLP? That the claim would appear in a refereed journal, the New York Times, etc? Please! You could not get that past an enforced WP:RS. By your logic, should the subject die, tomorrow it would appear in the article. Why? Because WP:BLP wouldn't apply and WP:BLP was the only block. I find that an exceedingly dubious prediction, albeit one necessitated by your reasoning.

The example was a real one. It is a classic BLP issue, in fact. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If the issue is instead whether the claim that a rumour exists should be in or not, this could and should be taken care of by WP:NOTABLE. I don't see how you can justify keeping it out if it is truly notable, reliably sourced, and consistent with NPOV.

If you believe WP:RS lets in too many "fallible" sources, that's an argument for changing WP:RS as opposed to the creation of WP:BLP.

There isn't a way to fix WP:RS against "extreme" readings. If there was, we would have found it by now, I think. Your argument is that we can rely on the "reliable source" concept; and in fact we cannot. Our policy on sources cannot alone be drafted to have the require effect. I don't think we'll ever be able to deal with people who really won't see that RS is just a working concept. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you due credit for attacking WP:RS's adjucative authority, however, since it is a tacit recognition that WP:BLP comes at the necessary expense of policies like WP:RS. Your claim that WP:RS does not "say everything" is exactly the sort of undermining of that policy's authority that the partisans are jumping on in order to revert reliably sourced material. I've made extremely well sourced edits to BLPs in the past and had them attacked by parties citing BLP. These people want to slant articles from NPOV to favourable to the subject and you cheer them on by championing BLP instead of NPOV.

I do no such thing. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's time to take the thumb off the scale, not press it down harder with this "authorized to use any and all means" business. I, for one, say that WP:RS is 100% exhaustive such material that passes its muster should not be deleted and if its standards are too weak then tighten them, don't undermine the policy by introducing and supporting a conflicting policy.

Disagree, see above. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance of whether or not someone is "annoyed" or the donations issue. It is this thinking, that we should slant Wiki so that people are not "annoyed", or twist its accuracy if that raises money, that is at the root of what I disagree with, in fact. We shouldn't react to satisfy every complaint, and being pro-active, i.e. trying to anticipate complaints, is even worse! Name any print encyclopedia out there for which complaint minimization is part of their mandate.

I didn't say we should react to every complaint. I didn't say we should try to minimize complaints. What I said amounts to this: from a management point of view, understanding the cause of complaints, when they are legitimate, is something basic to do. I stepped in on one article that had had 10 OTRS complaints. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

How is your personal stake affected by a defamation suit? Isn't the success of the project judged by whether Wiki exists in front of you as a NPOV, well-sourced, etc encyclopedia as opposed to whether it is being challenged in some other forum? Would you at least acknowledge that not all defamation suits are well-founded?

Of course they are almost all frivolous. My "personal stake" has little to do with BLP, and I simply would like to think that scholarly standards apply to biographies. It is about being scrupulous, dammit. I don't want to be associated with a project that is careless on that point. Am I alone? Charles Matthews (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP is not about being "scholarly". If it was, people like me would have no disagreement with you. Rather, BLP and its defenders talk about minimizing "harm" to the subject. You are mischaracterizing the origin and rationale for the policy to say it is about "scholarly standards". If the BLP policy is truly concerned with being scholarly and "scrupulous", please explain why such worthy considerations do not equally apply to the rest of Wikipedia. The rationale has to do with not offending the subjects of articles, and that objective can and does conflict with "scholarly". Some of us don't want to be associated with a project that sacrifices its scholarly standards, and most central of these is NPOV.Bdell555 (talk) 02:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems our difference in opinion can be boiled down to this: you say "scholarly standards apply to biographies". I say, "scholarly standards apply to WIKIPEDIA". You may not be alone but at the same time not everyone is as willing as you "to be associated with a project" that does not apply "scholarly standards" to ALL articles.Bdell555 (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems simple enough to me: greatest care and attention explains the high priority, and scholarship is shorthard for quality control of information. It is pointless to pretend that the same standards are uniformly applied over the whole of Wikipedia, even if ideally they should be. We should be particularly scrupulous in the area of BLP: that's the size of it. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's truly just "the size of it", why do references continue to exist, not to "quality control", but to the real or imagined impact on the subject? If it were truly about fidelity to abstract principles instead of fidelity to particular, concrete people there wouldn't be an issue. Your response seems to be that people DON'T universalize, therefore they SHOULDN'T. People concerned about NPOV would have their concerns put to rest if people like yourself said that no Wiki policy or administrative action should in any way discriminate against an article unfavourable to a subject over an article favourable to a subject, both being in EQUAL need of correction. Are you prepared to state that?Bdell555 (talk) 11:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have said recently on the wikien list that neutrality is not negotiable. I also said that it is in most cases perfectly possible to write a neutral biography of someone without bringing up that they once kicked a dog in the street. Why does WP:BLP exist? The principle it states is a necessary part of policy because many people are "unscrupulous": they would put the business about the dog in as a simple negative. NPOV is about representing fairly (not comprehensively) controversies, when they are above a certain threshold. The inclusion of excessive detail, the inclusion of some matters that are not controverted but may be damaging, the inclusion of matters below a natural threshold: these cannot be justified by appeal to NPOV alone. We don't want a parade of rehab details. Our articles aim to be good, fair surveys. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is "not negotiable" I challenge you to stand up and declare your support for this. Suggest alternate wording if your concern is with the wording as opposed to the substance.

Is the fact of Alger Hiss' reliably sourced espionage a "matter" that would be "damaging" such that it should not be included even if it is "not controverted"? This is not a hypothetical question; it goes directly to your actions or non-actions with respect to Redspruce's (the principle editor behind the current article's claim that evidence of Hiss' guilt is merely "contoversial" while Britannica, amongst many others, unequivocally says it is "strong") recent arbitration. See my observations here. Perhaps you can point out the instances where you addressed the issue of the actual "Footnoted quotes" that decision was titled as.Bdell555 (talk) 14:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think I'm going to discuss Alger Hiss under the heading of BLP, you are quite wrong. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet you have no reservations about such a discussion about "Footnoted quotes" to an article about the equally deceased G. David Schine? Or was that ArbCom work not "under the heading of BLP"?Bdell555 (talk) 15:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think I'm going to discuss Alger Hiss with you under the heading of BLP, you are quite wrong. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I believe we've both said our piece, and you have expressed your views quite graciously, more graciously than I in fact. You have some Wiki powers I do not, hence my challenging tone. I appreciate your engagement on this topic.Bdell555 (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I should think that if a court has called on Wikipedia to create a policy, THAT would be the time to do so, as opposed to unfounded speculation about when and where that might happen.

No, too late, we've probably spent in legal costs three years' server upgrades by then. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re "conformity to the law", I can only infer that if you lived in Nazi Germany you would be aiding and abetting the Nazi propoganda machine at every turn. If not, will you acknowlege then that the legal environment is entirely contingent and therefore irrelevant? If it is solely a "quality" issue, how are the presence of absence of defamation suits at all relevant to Wikipedia's internal quality concerns?

I refer you to Mike Godwin for answers to this point and the previous one. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In any case, I appreciated the opportunity to express my opinion on this matter and understand you may not wish to continue an unsolicited debate.Bdell555 (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing this exchange, it seems we were talking past each other, since you mentioned how WP:RS "alone" and WP:NPOV "alone" can't ensure good articles. I'd fully agree. WP:NPOV won't stop a line about kicking a dog in the street from getting in. However, my view is that you'd apply WP:NOTABLE to that (and/or WP:WEIGHT. At issue was whether after application of ALL non-BLP policies there is still a problem.Bdell555 (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTABLE doesn't apply. See where it says it doesn't directly affect content. And WP:WEIGHT is only a subsection of NPOV. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

OM/FT2/KL

[9] leaves us all confused. Please help to clarify. Is FT2 correct or is KL correct or is there some as-yet-unexdplained magic which allows them both to be correct? William M. Connolley (talk) 08:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

NB Kirill says Not on behalf of anyone but myself. The comment turns on the interpretation of "formal" in "formal proceeding", a semantic point that is not vacuous. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A masterpiece of obscurity, Charles. The magic is clearly deep, either that or people are frantically struggling to retro-fit magic. Don't leave us all in suspense too long. That you are not prepared to say that either is correct is rather worring. FT2 claims to speak for the arbcomm. I would have imagined that either he does, or doesn't. I look forward to the resolution of this tantalising puzzle William M. Connolley (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for being obscure. Kirill, certainly, was alluding to what had gone on about this on our ArbCom list. Which is confidential. Since I'm not prepared to follow him in doing that, I was hoping to draw attention to the fact that he was objecting to a lack of "formality" (whatever that means for an email discussion). So he was querying the procedural side. Clarifications will no doubt follow, and a statement with greater official standing is more likely to be helpful to you. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

To make you aware: I placed a notice on the OM decision page, since it appeared to me that the authority of the page was questionable. Others have disagreed [10]. Its currently in place William M. Connolley (talk) 16:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Never mind, it's been reverted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to get active, and not speak ambiguously. This is a time for clarity. I see no reason for any arbitrator to be engaged in anything at all other than getting this matter resolved. Routine sock blocks, discussions of names of users, and the like should be, in my view, left to others or deferred. Your highest priority, each and every one of you, ought to be talking through this and coming to a resolution. Please. I posted this first at FT2's page and FT2 indicated he is waiting on responses... the longer this festers the worse it is for everyone... ++Lar: t/c 15:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There's an official statement and I've just posted it on WP:RFAR. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure I am not the only one extremely grateful for this clarification. However Kirill also questioned the authority of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements. Is this page similarly rescinded, or does it have Arbcom backing, or is further discussion needed before a definitive statement can be made? the wub "?!" 17:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom works weekends, it turns out, but there is no further statement right now. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bit confused, according to the statement you posted 'The parties and other interested editors are invited submit their views within 48 hours regarding whether the case should be accepted, following which the arbitrators will then vote on-wiki on acceptance or rejection'. However you have already voted to accept the case, this seems to contradict the statement so could you clarify please? Davewild (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • This does need explanation - an arbitrator acting contrary to what he has said is not what either Arbcom or the community need right now. DuncanHill (talk) 18:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A statement is better than nothing; I can't say I like it though. Meanwhile, the status of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Skilled content warriors and so on remain unclarified William M. Connolley (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

:Any politician can give a statement. Sad thing is, I thought the arbiters were people, not politicians. I bought the hype. I'm sorry, didn't mean to imply that you weren't actual people. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, I've met at least one other current arbitrator, and he's definitely a person. There will be more statements, too. In fact, we are generally so much people that on a Sunday in summer, we might spend time outside rather than peering at a screen. It was even somewhat sunny here in Cambridge, as William can confirm. Really, if I accept that abuse comes with the territory, I confirm that I'm a politician? And if I react as a normal person would, pointing out that mistakes are made (see below) at least by me, we are all on the same side really, and I have to sleep and eat like the rest of you, it probably doesn't go down that well either. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Some sun, though a bit windy (all those words are to be interpreted literally as being about the weather) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I remind you that the status of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Activation of view-deleted-pages and others remains unclear. If you know, could you please let us know. If you don't know... then we can all start worrying... William M. Connolley (talk) 12:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements now carries a schedule-type message, which explains what we are thinking about what. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Time for some praise ...

Good statement, impressed, faith in Wiki restored. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom decision

In February 2006, I began a wikibreak that lasted 15 months. When I returned, I found this decision had been made in my absence, by you and others. While I have worked around this ban since then, I have recently been given two blocks by administrators who believe your reference to the "Northern Ireland conflict" (which I took to refer to the Troubles) also includes events as far back as the 1920s during the Irish War for Independence, to my mind a very liberal interpretation of the phrase you used. Can you clarify which conflict you were referring to?

Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 18:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why the rush?

"If four or more ... it will be opened and considered on an expedited basis with the parties advised to present all evidence and workshop proposals within one week." [empasis mine]. I realise that the US Constitution has no meaning on Wikipedia, but due process is one of the main issues of this debacle. Expecting a community of volunteers to present evidence and prepare a defense withing a specified time is simply ludicrous. Let's not compound one "mistake" by making another. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

So which Charles are we supposed to believe...

...this one, who says that after 48 hours the arbs will vote, or this one who is rushing to accept a case before the structural problems with the committee are deal with? Guettarda (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, having a life outside the wiki seems to have led me astray here. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank goodness.--Filll (talk | wpc) 20:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statement leaves important issues unanswered

Your statement that was posted on behalf of arbcom clarifies that the OM-arbitration case as posted by FT2 has no standing now but it does not answer whether it is so, because the ArbCom reconsidered or because it was never an Arbcom statement in the first place, despite it claimed to be such.

Could you please clarify whether what FT2 initially posted "on behalf of ArbCom" was a valid official arbcom decision and upon review arbcom decided to retract it or what FT2 posted was his own concoction presented as an arbcom decision while in fact there was none?

Did ArbCom indeed hear the secret case entirely off site, came up with this decision and later decided to retract it due to the events that unraveled or was that not a valid case to begin with and just FT2's musings?

Your new statement posted "on behalf of ArbCom" states that the decision is now "vacated." I take from it that if there was something to "vacate" then there indeed was a initially a valid decision on the secretly tried case where the arbcom acted as an activist agent rather than a judicial body, the arbcom member acted as a detective, prosecutor and a judge (did not recuse) all at once, the accused editor was not notified and the arbcom produced this decision (now vacated.) Am I correct to assume that this was the case? --Irpen 04:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, since the ArbCom list is a confidential list, there is very little here I can comment on directly.

I shall try to clarify, however, to the extent I can, and not accepting the way you are framing things. There is such a thing as the "summary track", a procedural path, and this is how many sockpuppet cases are treated. At the end of the path someone acts "on behalf of the ArbCom". Such an action is not a judicial decision, but reflects that the matter has been put to the ArbCom list. Rather than worrying about the meaning of "vacate" as legalese, the term "summary" is the important one here. It is also not the "final word" on any matter, but signifies a type of use of delegated powers. None of this is done without good reason, and the delegation has been typical of any committee work, rather than being a formal procedure. If you think of a "subcommittee of one" dealing with some matter and reporting back, you at least have the right picture. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, could you rephrase this in plain English? I don't get any meaning of what you are saying. My question was: Did we have an arbcom decision and a then new arbcom decision annulling the old one or there was never an arbcom decision in the first place?

This is a pretty straightforward question and answering it does not require getting into semantics and "legalese" such as "delegated powers", "summary track", etc. --Irpen 06:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read once again the bit about confidentiality. You can put your question in bold, but even if you marked it fff, it doesn't mean I can answer it. Or even accept that it is meaningful rather than scholastic (see how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?). Or (for that matter) accept that I have not answered what you asked: an explanation such as I have given is not a deflection from the business of clarifying the statement issued at all. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how simply clarifying whether the initial decision was ArbCom's or not breaches any confidentiality but I understand that you prefer to not clarify this matter and leave it ambiguous. If so, it would have been more honest to state true reason of your refusal or to state none. Your saying "this was a valid arbcom decision" or "it was not" would not have breached any confidentiality. No one is asking you to reveal the content of ArbCom-L. Anyway, "no answer" is an answer of sorts. I just wanted to make sure that this "no answer" is indeed the answer we are going to receive. --Irpen 06:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No - just no. As the statement makes plain, there was a breakdown in communications. This is regrettable - I regret it. Given that this happened, the good faith of all concerned might be established by releasing all the emails involved. I say might. But what is not going to be established by that or anything else is the formal status of abstractions about decisions - they go into some sort of limbo, or science-fiction state. They stay there until matters get sorted out (our life on the ArbCom for 48 hours), and there is an agreed way forward. So, my advice, think fantasy fiction here, not televised courtroom drama. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you agree for an audit of your lists by the m:Cross-wiki arbitration committee or another WMF project Arbcom or by a commission of members of Arbcoms of a few top WMF projects? Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Me personally, or the Committee? I'm all for dealing with this matter as well as it can be handled, but the decision is obviously the Committee's. The disadvantage is obviously that it then looks like every procedural glitch needs some sort of "official enquiry", and I think that's not a great attitude. The advantage: well, in my view FT2 would have nothing to fear. But it seems then that any audit should really be at his request. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have put my thoughts in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Orangemarlin_and_other_matters#A_Few_Questions_and_a_proposal Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Charles, did you support the purported decision posted by FT2? Where you one of the arbitrators who condoned FT2's posting who he refers to on his talk page? DuncanHill (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Have I stopped beating my wife yet? I don't particularly like the current situation, but I'm going to leave aggravating it to others. I'm going to leave all references to private discussions to others. I have a fair idea of what has been going on, and the intentions of those involved, and where matters went awry. Expressing my own views, confirming or denying my own involvement, and generally going along with the idea that comment will improve the situation, seem to be expensive luxuries right now. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Honesty would improve the situation. DuncanHill (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it wouldn't. The "situation" is the ArbCom's collective baby. Satisfying the curiosity of the world in general is not. I - we - take responsibility for the former rather than the latter. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ground Control to All Arb.s (a friendly request for comment)

I wanted to ask you to please consider posting some of your responses, or feedback to the current arbcom situation - I don't think it's massively hyperbolic to note that this really is in many ways a Wiki Summer of discontent (well actually winter for us southern hemisphere types...).

I believe it's the right thing for you, and all other committee members, to be doing right now - I don't think the community as a whole are getting the benefits of any private discussions, and I believe they, and the individuals named in the various debacles around the place, deserve much, much better.

I entreat you to consider signing up as available to offer thoughts, or answer some short, focused, questions. I would also ask you to consider contacting the Wikipedia Weekly team, or the 'Not The Wikipedia Weekly' team, if you might be available for a short voice conversation.

It's my view that communication really really matters, and I think there's an urgent need for arb.s to step up.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Weekly or the Signpost can of course ask me to speak to them. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fantastic! - Hopefully you're familiar with Skype - but it's not hugely difficult to have a conversation via a regular phone line if you'd prefer. Could we try and find a suitable time sometime next week perhaps? I'll suggest 10am British Summer time on Wednesday 9th as a starting point - but this is of course entirely flexible - and I'll get to work communicating with the WW team... Thanks heaps for making yourself available in this way, Charles - I really do think that it can help a great deal! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You're jumping to conclusions, here. You were saying I should be contacting them. I was saying that they, of course, can contact me (by email). Exactly whom do you speak for? I don't think I know. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

sorry about the confusion Charles - not speaking for anyone except myself! The Wikipedia Weekly podcasts are, at the moment, arranged through a 'Skype Public Chat' - Fuzzheado and Tawker seem to be the most active current hosts, and they've both been active today in that forum - I shared with them my impression from your post above that you might be prepared to engage in some sort of discussion, which went down well - so I've been trying to help by liaising a bit... I hope I haven't put you off at all - let me know your thoughts in general about an audio conversation of some sort, or if I can offer any technical help, or indeed if you'd prefer someone else tried to set this up? cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 09:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have Skype, but I was considering getting it set up for other reasons. I'll take this as it comes. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm compiling a list of ancient Christian writers whose books quote the New Testament and are cited as evidence of the history of its textual transmission. Many of these writers are relatively obscure. Thanks to your work I can link internally to several of them, providing some context and an appropriate sense of historicity. So thanks again. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's good. I have not the slightest expertise in the area, but when it comes to filling in Patrologia Latina links, or adding from the Catholic Encyclopedia, our system fortunately makes it fairly clear what to do. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Someone has to spend the time driving the semi-automated stuff. I noticed from discussion above that your donations of time to this project extend well beyond placing quality sources within the easy reach of an internal link. Also, you once dropped in on donkey pronoun to recommend a merger. I actually carried that out a while back, because my own expansion of the article stalled. I'll get back to it and get a redirect in place eventually.

I first noticed your name because I started an article (Steven Goldberg) that linked to a user subpage, with the telling entries East Pole and West Pole -- your page. I presume that what I added was deemed appropriate, and not the sort of BLP mess that could have ended up under that name.

LOL, I recognize a lot of names on that list. I wondered whether it came from your head, or from any number of other interesting places.

Anyway, given your comments at donkey pronoun, those on this talk page above, your patient driving of fruitful tech-facilitated sub-projects, and your inaction at Prof Goldberg's page, you strike me as one of the many interesting people I'll never know. But one that does deserve my thanks, in more ways than I know.

You have the rare quality of knowing your limitations so well, that you can contribute constructively beyond them. If you ask me, that is the soul of Wiki.

Best regards and best wishes Alastair Haines (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Charles Matthews/Pinker would have been created from a book by Steven Pinker - can't remember which right now, since I tend to index books I want to get rid of for space reasons. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Silly of me, I missed the name Pinker at the top of the page--that says it all. Bibliographic linking is what really excites me about Wikipedia. There's a lot of fun in the process of building the site as a resource, but it's the potential in the area of internal verification trails re Author and Publisher, that I've been working on, hence my first comment.

Anyway, thanks for solving that mystery for me. Pinker the Thinker. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 14:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PS You wouldn't happen to know Arthur T. Benjamin, Ian Grojnowski or James Franklin would you? Alastair Haines (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Not even one of them. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I had the privelege of losing a game of backgammon to Art Benjamin a few years ago, while he was visiting Australia as a professional mathematician. My backgammon play improved a lot aftwards. I could never conceptualise a strategy for Go. Alastair Haines (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But then computers find that even harder. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To quibble, one computer had an unusual strategy for 9x9 Go which it executed rather well. Building 5 in a row then trying to kill one half of the board. Unfortunately it's now turned to pety crime instead.--ZincBelief (talk) 10:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Unclarity remains

Can I remind you that the status of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements/Activation of view-deleted-pages and related pages remains unclarified. I appreciate that you're terribly busy but these appear to have ben forgotten in the rush William M. Connolley (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not unclarified, not forgotten. As per the history of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/June 2008 announcements, we divided the announcements into three, and this fell in the third class, "on hold". Charles Matthews (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin announcement

I hate to add to the huge volume of words that have been piled onto this incident, but I think it'll come back to haunt us all unless it's given some kind of clear summary. I've tried to understand this current version with the summary you posted, but it's as clear as mud.

Specifically, I understand that there are two kinds of extraordinary actions: summary actions and private cases, and that the Orangemarlin case was "handled directly [as a summary action]".

And then you say: "We shall make it a rule not to have such matters tracked this way in future."

You mean, I presume, that problems like that you discovered in investigating Orangemarlin's conduct won't in future be handled the same way as "serious sockpuppetry investigations", in other words, such cases will not be handled as a summary action. I say I presume, because it's rather vague and it has taken me quite a bit of brain-wracking to come up with that interpretation.

If that's a correct assumption, am I to take it that a "privately held case" would be in effect like a normal case, except that for whatever reason it would not be held in public on the wiki? I seem to recall some cases like that but of course of their nature they tend to pass from collective memory pretty quickly. This is what I take Jimbo to mean when he says "The ArbCom does often, and quite properly, discuss matters with discretion, as a courtesy to involved parties, and in general this has worked very well all around." [11].

I think it would be clearer if you could explicitly state what the Committee thinks, in retrospect, should have happened. I could guess that you feel that a private case should be opened, but really I'm still in the dark because either the wording of the report is rather vague or I am too dim. --Jenny 11:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have the right interpretation of the report, anyway. The wording isn't vague.

Look, what many people have been pressing for is really this: a "walkthrough" of the emails so they can make up their own minds, and make judgements. There are two things preventing this, the privacy of the list only being one. The other is that the wording "discussions" is exactly chosen. Not all the relevant discussion went on within the ArbCom list. We had to get into outside matters, to see how Orangemarlin got tracked the way it did. So, in an ideal world, we wouldn't be talking about this now because the conception of summary actions would have been described not only by procedural "rules", but by some "meta-rules". As the final point tries to explain, this particular issue is not going to come up again, but there is no absolute guarantee we'll ever get the "meta-rules" in final form.

The sort of "meta-rule" that applies generally is that parties are informed of actions against them, unless the integrity of the wiki is really at stake. So, for example, an emergency de-adminning is done right away if it looks like a password has been compromised. We are more likely now to come out and say that in this form, as a rule applying to all summary actions. Still, the ArbCom doesn't have a codified system: it has an evolving system. I joined it at the start of 2006, and we face different issues now. I think all sets of circumstances come up eventually. That is why overly prescriptive lists saying "this is always handled that way, not this way" make us nervous.

Thanks for your commentary. You can be assured that we have no wish to go through this again. I'm merely the messenger, and it's not quite as simplistic as many people appear to think. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I'm just dim. :) Seriously, thanks for confirming the interpretation. --Jenny 12:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

TonyAnticipatesJenny is not the only dim one, then, as I also found the wording, if not "vauge" at the very least less than clear. Thanks for the attempt to clarify and illuminate, which has been at least partially successful. I will add, although I never was one of those calling for absolute transparancy and/or release of the relevant emails, I am less than happy that no clear answer has been given to the fairly simple question: "What made anyone think that handling a civility issue as a summary case was in any way, shape or form a good idea?" also I would draw all of Arbcom's attention to the evidence talk page which indicates rather strongly that the case would have been better served by being open, inasmuch as a great deal of the "evidence" is questionable and in at least one instance, complete nonsense. One puppy's opinion, please feel free to share it with everyone. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that "What made anyone think that handling a civility issue as a summary case was in any way, shape or form a good idea?" is not addressed in the Report. That doesn't mean we haven't addressed it. As for the opinions of others on how the matter should have been handled, they are entitled to them. We have concentrated on systemic matters and intentions. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You wrote:

We want to clarify the nature of two types of ArbCom "paths" - ways of handling matters, that are not the usual cases held in the Wikipedia: namespace. These are (a) Summary actions (such as are often applied to serious sockpuppetry investigations); (b) Privately-held cases.

It's a noble desire to want to do so. Are you planning to clarify the nature of these paths? Guettarda (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I said something about both (a) and (b). I could say more, since it's not particularly secret. Type (b) is basically an Arbitration case held off the site. Type (a) is a quite different thing, procedurally, and will only get to detailed voting if there are different views (which is not the typical case). Charles Matthews (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Odd, but as a linguist I was never trained that gibberish was a real language, nor have I ever seen it used in such a gifted manner. As one editor noted earlier, the words are Emglish but bereft of meaning.

So, what goes on with FT2 now? Are we to pretend it's all resolved? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

False. The wording is carefully drafted to say what we actually mean. No more, and no less. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Charles, I'm sorry to impugn the committee's prose-writing ability, but the statement is (as prose) dreadful - the overall meaning is unclear and there is at least one verb (track) used in a way which makes no sense whatsoever. Please, rewrite it in clear, meaningful English. I strongly recommend the book Plain Words if you are finding it hard to express your ideas clearly. DuncanHill (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually 'track' as a verb does mean "to travel by being towed" (e.g. a boat from a river bank, per the Concise Oxford), which is a good metaphor for how anything gets through a committee. If you read it as "put on a path" (path was used before track) and sent through procedures, that is just as good: means just the same here. As Gowers revised by Fraser says, "there is nothing whatever in this book which forbids vivid and forceful expression". Charles Matthews (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

If the statement was vivid and forceful I doubt this thread would exist. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Orangemarlin announcement (section break)

Hate to pile on but I have also expressed by bemusement by the amazing length and skillfulness of the evasive statements produced by the arbitrators on this matter at this very page as well as at the whole bunch of other pages. Could be that at some point the arbitrators would lose their hope that this will just go away by itself and start giving some straightforward answers to these crucial questions asked by the community. --Irpen 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In other words, "We're still not satisfied because we haven't been given our sacrificial victims yet. We're not going away till we get our pound of flesh?" SirFozzie (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing of the sort. We are still not satisfied because no explanation was given on how this could happen in clear and non-evasive terms. Instead, we here the lawyer-type talk and generalities. --Irpen 07:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Charles has issued a statement, on behalf of the arbitration committee, in which they have said that a case of egregious abuse was mishandled as a summary action. Whilst I found the wording difficult to interpret, we've got over that hurdle now. So where is the evasion? We now know what happened. --Jenny 11:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I feel like have not found a single bit of new information in the announcement, only a vague feeling that I was cheated. Maybe this is just beacuse English is only my second language Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Alex, English is my first language, and reading good English is one of my greatest pleasures. I doubt that your feelings are the result of English being your second language. DuncanHill (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the arbitrators are now answering questions, and although they were unprepared to talk about this affair before the official announcement, some of them may be more forthcoming now. So perhaps you should try asking at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Arbitrators prepared to answer a few questions. --Jenny 12:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact I have tried . Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There you have asked 17 questions (by my count of question marks). I'll answer #4 (by your numbering). Arbitrators recused in a case still have list access (for everything); by convention they should not participate in any discussion of the case while it is still open. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Tony, you have this annoying habit of putting words in other people's mouthes and answer questions people asked of the Arbitrators perhaps for a reason. No matter how much I am interested in your opinions on any and all matters, it is not you who is asked here and please let the Arbs reply themselves on what happened. This persistent habit of yours is not just annoying but unhelpful. Annoying because it is useless as people have reasons why they asked arbitrators rather than yourself and unhelpful because it deflects the dialog sideways and prevents it from resolving the main issues.

Charles, many editors, including native speakers (I am not) expressed bewilderment by what it seems meticulously evasive language of all these announcements. Please help us correct the situation by addressing these concerns. There are no demands for heads. There are very justifiable demands for an honest and meaningful explanation instead of the lawyers' talk and meaninglessness carefully crafted such that it may look serious. --Irpen 19:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to do something for me, instead of typing so much here. Put what Kirill wrote for the Signpost next to what is said about FT2. Put what Jimmy Wales said about the ArbCom not holding secret hearings against the second point. I promise you, you will see that the so-called "meaninglessness" will be revealed as a careful, full support and confirmation for both of those statements, in calm language. And adding details. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I obviously missed the part in the statement that said it would only made sense when read in conjunction with two other, unlinked, statements. DuncanHill (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In any case, when do we get a real English version of the announcement? As noted by many, the announcement is some of the most egregious bastardizing and wholesale slaughtering of the English language ever seen. And in its few thousand words it seems that the only message is, "All of you, go away now". Bottom line: the type of piffle that slithers throughout the entire statement serves to further cast the Arbcomm as aloof and a law unto itself and brings discredit to Wikipedia.

BTW, per the real OED, the last cited example of "track" in the sense you have stated it was intended was in 1888, hence I'd have to state that the usage you defend has become, if not obsolete, at least extraorinarily uncommon and thus of liitle communicative value. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 19:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, that was a little dead-pan humour at the expense of someone who apparently thinks I don't know English. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, are you referring to the usage of "track"? So if I use commit to mean "To commend by prayer or imprecation" you're OK with that, even though few (if any) will get the meaning? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 21:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you do know English Charles, that's the problem. The statement is unclear to many, native and non-native speakers alike, and you have made it abundantly obvious that you have no interest in rewording it to help editors understand it. DuncanHill (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You do understand that the statement isn't mine to reword? "No interest" - rubbish. Kirill wrote:

(1) Please, let's not have any calls for people's heads here.

(2) As far as the Orangemarlin thing goes, I don't think FT2 is really to blame; he was acting under a reasonable interpretation of what the proper procedure was, and a number of us—myself included—failed to communicate our assumptions about what we thought the procedure would be to him.

(3) And a number of important matters were unfortunately overlooked in the confusion.

(4) Personally, I think that I'm as much to blame for that as anyone else.

Look at

(2) It was always an unlikely explanation that FT2, who is known for his careful and thorough work on and for Wikipedia, had wittingly gone outside and deliberately flouted our standard procedures.

(3) Part of the blame lies on email discussion as a way to get work done.

(4) The Committee takes collective responsibility for what occurred.

(1) Inferences that have been made, adverse to FT2's reputation for care, are simply not well founded.

This is not how it was drafted. But now tell me again that it is written to say nothing. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Same thing for a Jimbo statement:

(1) Figure out what went wrong, correct it, apologize where beneficial to do so, and build a better framework going forward. You don't get all that done in a weekend, and you don't further that kind of thoughtful and mature process with a hasty statement.

(2) I think the important statement has been made: no secret trials, and no convictions without giving the opportunity to present a defense. That's just basic justice, and I will overturn any ArbCom decision to the contrary. (Although, I should point out, there is ZERO chance of the ArbCom doing this in the first place.)

So our statement went:

We want to clarify the nature of two types of ArbCom "paths" - ways of handling matters, that are not the usual cases held in the Wikipedia: namespace. These are

(a) Summary actions (such as are often applied to serious sockpuppetry investigations); (b) Privately-held cases.

(2) We do not hold cases under (b) that are handled under the terms of (a). That would be the kind of "secret trial" that has been alleged. We do not hold such private cases without the participation of the parties. Orangemarlin was handled directly under (a).

(1) We shall make it a rule not to have such matters tracked this way in future, but the core of the problem can be said to lie in this point: trying to specify a completely rule-based system here failed us.

Charles Matthews (talk) 21:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

" We do not hold cases under (b) that are handled under the terms of (a). That would be the kind of "secret trial" that has been alleged. We do not hold such private cases without the participation of the parties. Orangemarlin was handled directly under (a)." So it was a secret trial. "We shall make it a rule not to have such matters tracked this way in future, but the core of the problem can be said to lie in this point: trying to specify a completely rule-based system here failed us" errr - I think the point here is that you didn't follow any kind of rule-based system, you made it up as you went along, and (interpolating from Kirrill's and Josh's statements) none of you knew what you were doing. I am going to assume good faith and ascribe the whole sorry affair to profound and pervading incompetence.DuncanHill (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Well said. As for trying to get Charles to realise why the prose was obfuscatory and utterly unhelpful, I gave up after his last response. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if people didn't have already the concept of an inference that isn't well-founded, they could get it from Duncan Hill's leaping to conclusions. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

If you actually bothered to explain what happened, then no-one would be leaping to anything. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a consistent set of summaries of what happened, which I bhelieve Charles has outlined further up the page (21:25 on 5th). In case Irpen wants to jump in here, I only make this statement to save Charles the bother of repeating what he said there. --Jenny 14:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. --Irpen 15:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)