User talk:Charles Matthews

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• /About me */Plaudits
• /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive 4, /Archive5
• /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10
• /Archive11, /Archive12, /Archive13, /Archive14, /Archive15
• /Archive16

Contents 1 Enion 2 Two RfAr's filed by User:Nathannoblet 3 Johann Hari page and sockpuppets 4 "Giano" arbitration and pending proposal 5 Shorter statement 6 Charles de Gaulle (R 91) 7 RfArb Cbuhl79 8 Question about what you said about CoI on the Gary Weiss page 9 Saw this and thought of you! 10 Category:Hopf algebras 11 About the Birch-Tate conjecture 12 By78 13 Thanks! 14 Barnstar! 15 Block 16 Monday Club 17 Fictional texts 18 Regarding the Iran-Iraq War Case 19 Quick question about discussion pages 20 Konstable Arbitration case

[edit] Enion

Re: your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enion Halili. The history of the Enion redirect[1] only indicates one edit. Once User:Fortune500 created the article, he removed some links which should not have pointed to "his" page. Making a disambiguation page would have been a better choice, but I see no reason to assume that he was motivated by anything other than good intentions. His misunderstanding of the purpose of Wikipedia may be vast, but I think he may be feeling bitten right now. (Just a guess based on the fact that he seems to have given up and gone away.) Xtifr _tälk 19:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Removing red links is a bad thing. He may think he is more important to WP than a minor character in William Blake; but I believe we should make utterly clear that, from the encyclopedic point of view, that is not so. Charles Matthews 20:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two RfAr's filed by User:Nathannoblet

Please note that this user filed two unexplained RfAr's simultaneously, not just one. You have voted to reject one by for consistency's sake ought to go back and do the same with the other. Newyorkbrad 20:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Johann Hari page and sockpuppets

I'm a little miffed by the appearance of about 3 new editors who are fairly obvious sockpuppets, not only by looking at their one issue (one page!) contribution histories but also by the text style. I won't bang on about it on the discussion page, but surely I don't have to be bound by false concensus?Felix-felix 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You are alleging that these are sockpuppets. My approach has been, firstly, to make it clear that we can check this (CheckUser). If I do this and you are wrong, you are worse off than before. You could be wrong, with some like-thinking friends being summoned as 'meatpuppets'. Since using sockpuppets is not in itself actionable, I'd advise you just to see how it goes. I have also laid the groundwork for further blocks under the personal attack policy. I'm quite prepared to act on any misbehaviour; my main aim is to get the talk page discussion back into normal channels, not to prove that I have the power to apply bans. Charles Matthews 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Giano" arbitration and pending proposal

The so-called Giano arbitration is about to close, but there is a pending motion by an arbitrator (to modify the proposed ban of User:John Reid) on which several of the arbitrators have not voted. My views and those of other editors can be found on the talk page. You may want to give this attention before the case is actually closed. Newyorkbrad 12:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Not the vote that I, or many other editors who have commented, would have supported, but thank you for the follow-up. Newyorkbrad 12:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the alert. For myself, fast-tracking the closure of this case was a preferred way. Possibly the most significant case of this year, in terms of its impact. Don't want to say more, but do believe me when I say that there has been discussion of its aspects. Charles Matthews 12:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am sure enough of that. My extensive comments on various aspects are on the Workshop and PD-talk pages so I won't repeat them here (though I don't know how many arbitrators read those pages). I was glad to give a heads-up, though I was fairly sure you'd be a vote against my position that this ban is a serious mistake and will undermine any other positive results the decision might have. Newyorkbrad 13:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

One can argue against fast-tracking cases on the grounds that decisions may be hasty, or just look hasty. Doesn't apply here. We could hardly not notice implications of this one. We can play how will this look? to a fair extent, but that is ultimately not the job. It seems inevitable that there will be Wikipedians who will misread it. There were about 50 sections to vote on, as I recall. I think it is important that people don't read the wrong things into how it has gone. There is precious little we can do about that: the whole tone of vehemence and exaggeration that accompanies certain styles of debate here militates against rational outcomes. Which is roughly where this case came in. For myself, I pay most attention to the internal AC debates, and least to lobbying and attempts to pressurise Arbitrators. I've been alert to what we are deciding, and I hope and believe we are making the most of an extremely unfortunate conjuncture of things.

By the way, you raised another matter with me, at around the time this was breaking news. I'd like to assure you that I did see that this got discussed, even if you may not have seen any outcome. Charles Matthews 14:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Fast-tracking of ArbCom decisions is hardly a concern. In fact, as an outside observer who has now participated in the process (though not as a principal party) a couple of times, in my mind the biggest issue affecting ArbCom's functioning is the (understandable) delays in the proceedings. I still think the ban on John Reid is a bad mistake, and may raise it before Jimbo, but I understand if you feel constrained against commenting further. I've never sought to "pressurize arbitrators" with anything other than the force of my observations and arguments, for whatever they may be worth. As for the other matter, I was going to follow up on that as well, as it seemed to have dropped off the page out of sight, so it is good to know that was discussed as well, albeit in a less than fully transparent process. Newyorkbrad 16:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an appeal lies to Jimbo, as a last resort. It ought to come from the person in question, really.

As a separate general comment, enWP seems to grow monolithic and entrenched structures that are then hard to reform. It is not really clear to me how to cope with this. We (roughly speaking) find a structure that at least does what it claims to do, and then put up with the bumpiness of the out-turn (I'm thinking about AfD, RfA as well as the AC). The reason is not hard to see: it's run by volunteers, and getting the management consultants in is not an option.

Charles Matthews 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an appeal lies to Jimbo, as a last resort. It ought to come from the person in question, really. Charles Matthews 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

John Reid doesn't plan to do anything, per the discussion on the proposed decision talk and on his usertalk page. He's being philosophical about things and says he can use a week off anyway and will "scrupulously respect" his ban. I think others including myself are a good deal more unhappy about the ban than he is. There will be a feeling that an excellent contributor was punished "for speaking out" during a contentious time. Please note, which I have tried to emphasize throughout, that my strong opposition to a ban does not mean I appreciated the stridency of his comments or that I agreed with any or all of them.

As for your meta-comment, if you were to put together a list of suggested changes I'd be glad to comment on them. The lawyer (hopefully not wikilawyer) in me suggests that not banning the good-faith volunteers would be a place to start, but that wouldn't be a helpful observation at this point so I'll won't say it. Newyorkbrad 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the smart reaction to being treated unjustly here (as the victim perceives it) is to do exactly as you describe. What you say rather suggests he needs no advice in the matter. Charles Matthews 16:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The concern, of course, is that others could be deterred from contributing to policy discussion, and there arises a disquietude that a fellow contributor was treated unjustly. (Plus, of course, we lose a week of good edits.) Presumably your response and that of the other arbitrators who support the ban would be that the type of discussion he was engaged in should be deterred. I accept that's a judgment call. Newyorkbrad 16:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment, but I think it is clear enough that the 'job description' for an Arb includes things that are not purely judicial. Charles Matthews 16:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shorter statement

Just for your information. I have now written a shorter statement concerning Lochdale's request for arbitration. See [2]. Onefortyone 19:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Charles Matthews 21:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles de Gaulle (R 91)

Regarding Charles de Gaulle (R 91) : Can you please have a look at this and advise what to do about what is happening on the discussion page ? Thanks a great deal. Natobxl 04:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You may be relying too closely on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. While that page retains guideline status, it also carries a 'dispute' warning, and it has gained a reputation in some quarters as basically unhelpful. If you have a serious dispute over unreferenced material, there are ways to approach it; and here it is important to assume the good faith of others involved. Charles Matthews 07:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the other avenues that we can explore if we have an unresolved dispute ? My objective is not to have this article lockedup. I'd really like some independant third-party observers to view the situation and provide some comments to resolve this appropriately.Natobxl 14:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Strange to say, in all these years we haven't come up with better ways to deal with disputes on content than the parties trying to hammer out a compromise version. That actually works. If it's not working, I would ask first whether there is some behavioural issue that is an obstruction to talk-talk as a way ahead. If there is, and you get an admin involved in looking over the page and how editors are acting, that usually calms things down. Charles Matthews 14:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the coordinator on these topic areas (as far I understand) is Kirill Lokshin. However, he already got involved in the article's discussions-page and also on his talk-page User talk:Kirill Lokshin. Therefore, to have as much objectivity as possible, I'd like an unbiased 'third-party' opinion.Natobxl 14:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For Charles & Natobxl:I've had a look over the dispute given a third (and hopefully unbiased) opinion at Talk:Charles de Gaulle (R 91). Mark83 14:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Kirill Lokshin is an admin, so it is smart to take a lead from this person. I don't know what coordinator on these topic areas; that's not a formally recognised status. A relevant WikiProject is a good place to look: talk pages for WikiProjects serve as topic forums. Charles Matthews 14:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I hoped that we could find more third-party observers to comment ... without getting friends and family onboard ofcourse :-) Actually, User:Kirill Lokshin did already volunteer an opinion. Like the rest of us, he too is involved in the discussion. We are all 'in the ring'. That is why I'm trying to get some outside observation as suggested by Wikipedia guidelines on consensus finding.Natobxl 17:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

For a further administrator opinion, post a request on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Charles Matthews 08:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfArb Cbuhl79

Hi Charles,

I have no idea if out of band contact is apporpriate, and I sincerely apologize if it is not. However, I feel this issue is important enough to warrant a little follow up by me. You are the first ArbCom member to vote, and your reasoning "let this dispute die" seems to be influenced by the user's constant rambling about content. I'm calling his behaviour into question. Without some sort of censure, this guy is going to (1) damage the credibility of wikipedia; and (2) frustrate other editors to the point that they probably will not wish to continue working on whatever articles he's hawking. It seems absolutely inconceivable to me that he can get away with all this -- he is consistantly dishonest, acts in bad faith, and uses good faith issued to him to slander the reputations of the other editors involved (about half a dozen). How should this be appropriately handled, if not by RfArb? Thanks for any advice! /Blaxthos 11:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

He actually contacted me offline, and I said getting another admin involved is the right way: take advice from an outside admin. He seems to have gone about this the wrong way, though. So I'm not surprised that there has been some blowback. I'm prepared to put this down to ignorance of the system, and my hope is that with further community involvement, he will figure out that nothing much comes from unpopularity. Charles Matthews 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

My main concern is that after your counsel (and admonishments from other users) he misreported facts to administrative notice boards against me, and even put warning templates on my spaces. I've been on Wikipedia since 2004, and have never once been involved in any kind of administrative action or process. I tried a week ago to let this die as ignorance of the system, but the user seems particularly unwilling to listen to anyone else regarding what is proper content, action, or behavior. We're not talking about one or two people, either -- we're talking about his defiance of probably 8 to 10 editors' patient and good-faith efforts to handle it as you have suggested (references available). I am seeking this remediation as a last resort -- I am convinced that the only thing that will prevent him from causing more problems (by disinterpreting more policies and crying foul at every turn) is going to be disciplinary action. The fact that he further exacerbated the situation after you told him to talk to an admin and I told him I was dropping it in good faith that he was misunderstanding the system seems to be a perfect example of my point. In any case, I appreciate the time you've taken.  :-) /Blaxthos 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

If it's as bad as you say, and is affecting many people rather than just being a localised dispute, then a community ban becomes possible. That is, admins collectively decide on this. A community ban can be appealed to the ArbCom, who will review what was done at that point. Charles Matthews 16:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about what you said about CoI on the Gary Weiss page

You said [[3]] "WP:COI doesn't say that, it says the exact opposite. It has been heavily refactored in recent days, but the whole trend is that deletions are under standard policies, and there is no guideline about leveraging conflicts of interest into deletions.". Now, I get the feeling I'm probably being pretty dumb, but were you responding to me or Cla68? Thanks for your time. Edward Wakelin 21:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

To Cla68. Charles Matthews 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Don't know why I didn't figure that out. Edward Wakelin 23:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saw this and thought of you!

Wikipedia:Esperanza/Coffee_Lounge/Go. :-) Carcharoth 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Hopf algebras

Hi Charles. There has been a bit of discussion going on about this category in various sections of my talk page, and I thought that as the creator of the category, I would let you know in case you have anything to add. Thanks, JPD (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately, I wasn't clear enough - the most recent discussion is further down the page, where aonther user has suggested a different name for the category. JPD (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the Birch-Tate conjecture

Thank you for your speedy expansion of my newly made article. When you refer to the "main theorem of Iwasawa theory", do you mean the "main conjecture of Iwasawa theory," mentioned in the end of the Iwasawa article? Sr13 09:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I wrote that thoughtlessly (late at night); but obviously it is only really relevant where it is a theorem rather conjecture. Charles Matthews 12:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By78

I don't think anything you'll say will change this guys mind. He likes his edit, example at the Go Seigen edit war I had with him. CanbekEsen 22:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, User:By78 is cutting good references out of the Shusai article. That's a serious matter. Also, no reason at all to put 'p' for dan. We should agree that dan means pro, as the default. But the edit-warring, particularly removing sources, is something that can be taken to an RfC immediately. Charles Matthews 23:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hello there, and thank you for doing the redirects to the Collectively Exhaustive Events and Mutually Exclusive Events articles. I'm the one that moved them, but I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia's structure to know when I haven't left everything as "tidy" as it should be. capitalist 04:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Two things: upper case in titles has to be there for some good reason; you left the double redirects, as in the prompt after a page move. Charles Matthews 08:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar!

		The Original Barnstar
		Where can I even begin? Your massive article contributions are simply astounding, and it is a travesty that this is only your second barnstar. Je via sano, Dar-Ape 04:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I do actually have a couple more, but thanks anyway. Charles Matthews 08:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

Please block 194.144.111.210. This user to wage edit war, all users reverted this edition [4]. This user have all caution in discussion [5]. PS. WP:3RR. LUCPOL 17:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

95% edits from this user is editwars or 3RR, 0% god edits. See: [6] - all 16 editions --> 12 editions = edit war or/and 3RR, 4 editions = ~ edits. LUCPOL 17:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you mention this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Charles Matthews 17:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Monday Club

I have replied on the Talk Page to your unfair comment. Why is the left-wing stance always preferable on Wikipedia? Maybe you should put something to this effect on the Wikipedia Home Page. Chelsea Tory 20:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional texts

I'd love any input or organization you might be able to put to User:Phil Sandifer/Fiction essay. I'm trying to work out on broad principle some of the popular culture issues, at least as they relate to fictional texts, so that debates over them are somewhat less sterile, and so that everyone is on the same page about things like sourcing. Phil Sandifer 18:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Iran-Iraq War Case

Hello there. I try to go out of my way not to get involved in ArbCom cases usually, unless I'm already involved, however I have seen that you have refused to rule on the Iran-Iraq war case. I would like you, should you have the time, to read over Essjay's statement on the behalf of the Mediation Committee's behalf and see if that may change your decision. Thanks for your time. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 21:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quick question about discussion pages

Hi. One the Monday Club talk page you pointed out to me there were talk page guidelines, and that you'd be removing talk that didn't comply with them - which is totally fair enough by me. Can I ask though, are the guidelines at the top of the page generally applicable across WP talk pages? So for example, if on a page users have gone off on a tangent and filled the page with discussion which isn't actually about the content of the article (though presumably related to the topic!), is it acceptable to move or delete it? --SandyDancer 21:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a guideline page, no? Yes, it's a standard header. Editing material out of talk pages goes against transparency, and so in a sense it's a last resort. Before that, I would usually try to archive rambling threads, which isn't particularly controversial unless it removes things that are recent and relevant. Charles Matthews 22:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. You have been most helpful. --SandyDancer 22:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Konstable Arbitration case

As it may or may not affect this arbitration case, Konstable has given up his admiship rights by asking Angela for it's removal and it has been carried out. Just thought I would let you know this. semper fi — Moe 02:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)