User talk:Charles Matthews

• /About me */Plaudits
• /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive 4, /Archive5
• /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10
• /Archive11, /Archive12, /Archive13, /Archive14, /Archive15
• /Archive16, /Archive17, /Archive18, /Archive19, /Archive20
• /Archive21

Notification of proposal: Guideline/policy governing lists

Dear editor:

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

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

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

Regards,

Sidatio 15:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Wheel note

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

Oh, but I agree that one should be collegiate and ask first, as said there: give the other admin a chance to have second thoughts. Some Arbs have argued in the past that we should ban wheel wars by an 0RR rule, but I have always spoken out against that. There is an issue then of how to formulate what is the definition of a wheel war. I haven't wanted to go down that road, for the usual reason that precise definitions get abused. I work to the idea that admin powers used for the good of the project are fine; the important factor is not 'what is a wheel war?' but who is in the right. In other words, with 'edit wars' the AC does not look at content, but does look at editor behaviour. But, I think, in admin-on-admin clashes, the AC should do it the other way: look beyond formal descriptions of reverting, to the intention and the underlying facts-on-the-ground. Charles Matthews 08:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that definition is slightly impractical in that in wheel wars, both sides believe (generally strongly) that they're right. The concept of "do what you wish as long as you think it's right" is generally a good idea wrt editing, but I believe there are a certain few things one should never do without discussing first (in particular deleting high-profile pages or blocking high-profile users), regardless of whether one is ultimately right. Even when such bold actions eventually give the desired result for the encyclopedia, they damage the community by causing heated tempers and drama and so forth. >Radiant< 09:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a nice guy, really, but I get bloodthirsty. The corollary of giving admins large discretion is that a few are going to get de-sysopped, for being on the wrong side of one of these disputes (and thinking they are right). We want admins to get it right, in high-profile situations, and in particular in unfamiliar circumstances. Admins are supposed to be able to control their tempers, particularly in a context that a change is reversible, later. We don't need a cast of drama queens as admins; we need sensible, independent thinkers who can figure out the implications of actions. Charles Matthews 09:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fully agreed, but regardless of what we "should" have, we have a significant number of admins that have trouble controlling their tempers. Also, "getting it right" ideally involves minimizing the amount of resultant drama. >Radiant< 11:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone gets a veto just because they lack a sense of proportion, though. Charles Matthews 13:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chain Barnstar of Recognition

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

The Chain Barnstar of Merit

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

The Chain Barnstar of Diligence

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

The Wikipedian's Chain Barnstar of Honour

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

Hurwitz surface

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

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

AfD nomination of Investment bankers

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

AfD nomination of Investment bankers

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

AfD issues

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

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

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

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

Yes, I saw that. Where did I violate that? Giggy\^Talk 07:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(re. COI) I didn't ask them to act as an agent. I suggested a close. I'm sure the closer (in this case, a well respected admin) was capable of independent thought. As for the stalking issues, it would be OK if you were fixing errors/violations of policy. But you're not. You're just complaining about every AfD I close that hasn't taken a snowball course for seven days. Giggy\^Talk 00:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually that is not the case at all. I don't know why you think it is helpful to split a discussion like this between talk pages; that was your request. On your user talk, I have further pointed out that your self-appointed close at investment bankers was an error, even in its own terms: people were all saying 'merge', while you simply made a redirect and warred over enforcing that. That was the behaviour that brought you to my attention. It was wrong, and you have been saying quite misleading things about 'consensus' (consensus is three votes in a few hours?) to a third party.

To me, your various comments and references to policies suggest you don't get it at all. If one compares what you say the policy says, with what it says, there seems to be a big gap.

If you want to avoid criticism, you have to stop making comments like 'not notable, speedy, snowball' as your vote; when someone is perfectly notable, a speedy deletion is not appropriate, and the snowball clause is not either. What it seems to imply is once you have made up your mind, that settles it. It doesn't. You badly misread what consensus means here. The fact that you think some sort of closure is properly applied at AfD when a debate has only been open for a few hours, and only people in a time zone close to yours will even have seen it, is the most worrying single thing here. How can that be seeking consensus? A handful of votes in the first hours of a debate supposed to run for five days is not consensus; it's not even a reliable straw poll.

Charles Matthews 05:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

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

Cyrusc 15:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

more missing pages

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

ASAP

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

Material has not been verified for 9 months

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

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

ArbCom activity

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

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

Notification of indefinite block of an IP

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

Indefinite IP blocks are not the best. This is low-intensity school vandalism; a month's block would be enough really. I hope you assured the Supervisor that reading is not affected ... you could quietly unblock it some time. Charles Matthews 14:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I did assure him that viewing would not be affected. Okay, I will set a reminder for myself to unblock it after a month or so. Thanks for the advice. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, what you did is OK. Probably it simplifies the Supervisor's life. It doesn't show a huge faith in the kids. Charles Matthews 15:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I imagine it's embarrassing to have any childish vandalism coming from an IP that you are responsible for. You can bet I would want my IP soft-blocked if there were mischievous little kids in my house!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

René Taupin

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

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

THF-DavidShankBone RfAr

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

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

Need your opinion

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

• Update -- the user in question has admitted everything, said he didn't mean the threats, promised to stop, and asked us not to call the police. See here. I would still appreciate your guidance. NawlinWiki 00:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think great care is needed, particularly in the matter of this user's real name. It is well outside our policies for you or anyone else to make such investigations, and then call attention to them. On the face of it, the page you created should be deleted quickly. Charles Matthews 16:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the information about the user's real name from the page, and deleted/restored the page to eliminate that information from the page history. Are you really saying we shouldn't have a long-term-abuse page at all? I think this user's pattern of edits clearly fits our given definitions of long-term abuse. And is it your opinion that we should not report this to law enforcement? I'm leaning that way myself, but I want to make sure that this is what you think as well. Thanks for your guidance, NawlinWiki 01:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Intervention

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

I see half-a-dozen edits to American School (economics) today, but not a huge traffic there in September. I have offered once to talk directly to User:Will Beback. Should I go ahead with that? Charles Matthews 16:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this might help. I'm getting to the point where either mediation or arbitration over my concerns are heard. But, I'd like to avoid that if a workable agreement can be reached to stay away from me, American School, and any other edits I'm presently involved with - kind of like a court order that keeps people away from those they stalk or harass. --Northmeister 18:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Before Arbitration, which I would not recommend, should come either some kind of mediation, or recourse to an RfC. I will undertake informal mediation, if you want. Charles Matthews 20:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Please. This stuff has to end. I've sent you a private email addressing my concerns as well including possible solutions to this mess. You may address the solutions in the mediation if you want. --Northmeister 20:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Oversight

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

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

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

EoM

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

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

Johann Hari page

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