User talk:Matt Lewis

My position on the two Irelands, using Arbcom and admin abuse

I give my views on the two Irelands in the paragraphs below, but I will begin with what I feel is most serious.

I've had a look back, and IMO, there is one thing in particular I that is pressing for Wikipedia's future here:

The admin User:Deacon of Pndapetzim must have his adminship fully questioned in the correct place. No one has a chance on Wikipedia when an admin acts (and wheel wars) like he has done – and I believe he has overstepped the line, and made a difficult but legal situation into a nightmare situation for everyone. I warned him of the mayhem that would be caused if Ireland was simply reverted into being a cultural all-island article, but he ignored me. This edit note (and selective deletion) is an example of the kind of intellectual demeaning by admin that lead to me losing my own temper. You cannot treat adults like children. It shows feelings of superiority in being an admin - which must not be condoned. Aside from his attitude, the way he reversed admin Tariqabjotu's Ireland Move, citing a very small hand-picked selection of admin who share his personal position on this - to his own personal wishes, was totally unacceptable. Where were all the other admin I saw who spoke up? For reasons I give after after I get the following paragraph off my chest, he completely shattered Wikipedia for me when he did that, and his reasoning for doing it showed it to be nothing other than an act of hypocrisy, as well as self interest. Arbitration are not there to be interested themselves (by their own admission) - they are only there to be there, and there is nowhere else now to to go. It has all been completely messed up now – so Arbcom has to be pulled in.

I regret that I am leaving Wikipedia with the worse kind of people in my mind, in a place that is actually full of fantastic unacknowledged philanthropy. I won't go the way of saying what I (100%, in all good faith, IMHO, genuinely, without doubt etc, etc) honestly think this is comparable to - people call it a 'Godwin', a commonly-used term which belittles the technical purity of the very example - an early internet 'battle' won by some clever person, for sure. But you have to think beyond the cliche. The talk-page admin 'cop out' over any car crash, is normally to pretend this place is just a pastime, but WIkipedia is a little more important than that - no? And conspiracy theorising - don't point that one at me – it us such an ugly slur. Who needs those, when you give ‘’individuals’’ so much power? People group - they always do. The only 'conspiracy' could be within wondering why Wikipedia has to be structured in this way. It's a Sunday drive, and includes the world - but anything difficult like this? The structure simply breaks down. So do some people want a loose ship? A negative answer would have little to do with the Irelands anyway.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and equally bad is a wrong made after a right. Now how was Deacon right? The first move to Ireland disam/(state)/(island) was rational and sound 'policy-over-polling', the reversal (in the horrendous way it was done) was wrong in every possible way. Those who were interested in doing so, simply needed to re-debate it from where it was (perhaps prove it in a global poll?). But why should I do even more work towards facilitating that? I have given hundreds of hours of my life to this already. And where now were those originally opposing? A number of them were addressing new content. The carefully avoided truth is that a global poll (so hard to bring about – I know, as I’ve tried) would simply bring in changes. I gave my time editing the changes I saw before me, and my work has been cynically thrown down the drain. And look at the edit frenzy now! Too few admin actually give a shit when people's time is wasted. The reversal of tariqabjotus's move has vindicated every troll, SPA, contentious editor, sock-maker and IP-abuser watching, who in this Ireland problem, are the worker-minions of the wholly-debilitating 'dual Irish country' "solution".

Ireland isn't Palestine, it isn't the People's Republic of China, it's just a country commonly called 'Ireland' on an island which has two states on it (one with a sea divide) - called Ireland - and Wikipedia, despite the efforts of so many, hasn't been allowed to properly address and present that undeniable fact. The Irish country now has two time-sharing homes again - two mixed-up modern-day country articles, one of them subsuming part of a separate country altogether - simply because it shares the island. Silly non-policy arguments about where to put historical 'Ireland's aside, there has always been an Irish nation (covering all or most of Ireland), and Wikipedia should have one article to deal with that. Irish history has at times been dramatic, but is NOT MORE complicated than other European countries, most who have had changed borders and reversed control. There should be no room for this kind of bias on Wikipedia, whether romantic, nationalistic, or simply idly seen as “the best”. I spend a long time proving (even using tables) what the abuse to logic has done to Wikipedia - and my work was been sometimes met with ignorant contempt. I'm not having that from biased admin - I've had enough of it from biased editors.

It can be proved that the term 'Ireland' is used more to mean the contemporary or older-era nation, than it is to mean the geographical island. In the incidences where meaning is ambiguous, we naturally must assume first that the single-state 'state/country' option is meant - not the two-state (IE and UK) 'island' one. Ideal was Tariqabjat's Ireland disam page (per America, a 'catch all' for all those many complicated links. And also good is having the Irish nation as the Ireland article, and have Ireland (island) a standard landmass article, like Europe or Great Britain. The latter can be done without any Moves at all: ROI can become a Redirect, and the Redirect Ireland (island) furnished with the the island stuff. Britannica has Ireland as the Irish nation, with some detail on the island, and has a separate NI - but Wikipedia might be too inclusive for that.

I told Deacon I would re-present the proof of Ireland most often meaning contemporary or older-era nation on Wikipedia especially for him, but he isn't interested in being shown anything. Fighting admin is fighting a whip. The arrogance of Deacon and those like him is simply threatening. Nothing should have been down to any admin decisions at the stage things were in. The problem here is too endemic – the pushiest admins rule. The whole admin system needs an overhaul, really – they should be much more defined. Arbcom needs to prove its value here, as this has certainly gone beyond standard mediation now – Ireland has become a trolling paradise. It is possible that not every 'official' mediation route has been taken in the past - it could be said that the WP:IDTF Task Force was ultimately made instead - but every single request made for 'unofficial' neutral-admin help to mediate even particular stages, has been met with absolute stone silence. Too many crimes have been committed now not to get Arbcom involved.

I've patiently (I am in fact a patient man) repeated the same things so many many times now, and I won't be doing it again at Arbcom myself. Feel free to point to the above, if anyone wants to hear my view. I think I've covered most of my position, other than to add that the two Irish country articles problem has been a progressive one over time (the content shifting/forking and the muddled links) - so saying this is a 4 year fight against 'consensus' is simply not right - the mess itself has, IMO, got to breaking point.

Personally, Wikipedia has truly done my head in! Like for a good number involved, the Ireland articles were never originally my battle. My own take on the convoluted politics involved is this: I see the status quo of Ireland (the island) being made to cover the historical Ireland with modern stuff too, and the obviously modern country of Northern Ireland mostly invisibly assimilated is more Irish nationalist than NI British "Unionist" (for those who don’t know - NI is not ‘6 borrowed Irish counties’, it is a constituent country of the UK - see UKCOUNTRYREFS). In sections like Science (now sadly moved back to Ireland island) - every person mentioned in it is an implicit 'citizen of Ireland' the island, no matter which country he or she came from. The NI scientist it mentioned wasn't even covered in the main NI article - until I addressed it in that little window of sanity tariqabjotu gave us. How on earth can this version of Ireland be a NI British Unionist position? Do they really lay claim to the whole island (a myth based on anger over history, surely) – or is it really Irish nationalists laying claim to NI? Why aren't the supposedly ‘history minded’ focusing on history sub-articles, like everyone else on Wikipedia? The politics involved has been a minefield to break down, and many deceitful people clearly abound - hiding their positions, and using socks and IPs to make other views look bad I'm sure: some of more extreme WP:SPA's seem to me self-defeating caricatures. Wikipedia needs to avoid all the politics here, and simply insist on a Wikipedia's standard ‘one country each’ guideline, like tariqabjotu tried to make it do.

I can't see me being civil for long if I came back, and despite all the current 'processes' over Wikiepdia I was part of, I'm more than happy moving on. I expect I've given Wikipedia too much of my life anyway (a personal thing for each of us), and the rewards in terms of progress really are miniscule.

All the best to those who are genuinely into a fair encyclopedia (and thanks for the support),

Matt --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. Look at this. Why do admin always say some variant of "I don't give a fucking shit!" (often those very words) afer they've done something self-interested and stupid. Well I'm saying to you admin on Wikipedia (especially Deacon of Pndapetzim): the feeling is mutual. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A sound new policy?

An island cannot be a nation/culture/state in itself, nor inherently owned by anyone. I'm afraid it is simply fascistic to claim land in this way - let alone abuse powers to enforce it. When another nation covers part of the island (in this case the United Kingdom), it makes it doubly wrong. Wikipedia needs a clear policy to stop nations from claiming a land article, especially when they already have an official article. One each, you greedy scoundrels - one each. If you are really into 'history', organise it like everyone else: Historical 'era' articles simply must be subsets of the official nation article.

I cannot stress this enough: Wikipedia should NEVER assert that any nation is a land, however long a nation has been associated with it. Read the papers - read about Europe. Read about the blood shed - read about the world. We simply cannot let this be done. But has anyone got the guts to address 'policy', I wonder?

Wikipedia uber alles? I don't think so. Wikimedia ironically owns nothing but its ventures, and this inherently right-wing 'anarchy Wikipedia' is destined to ultimately fall. If it has sense (and value), it will adapt and change instead.

I'd be obliged if people leave my talk page in peace now. I'm switching off my email too - it was only open for another issue. --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

PS (last one). Of course the word 'country' can mean 'countryside' in an emotive sense - but that cannot be a definition regarding groups of people on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia 'top list' should be List of countries: Sovereign states/Nations/Tribes. Country should always be used as the disambiguator. No-one gets pushed out of the whole structure then (as they do now), and they are all admitted to be 'country'-connected in some way - but is doesn't include any land masses! Footnotes can be made for cases if needed - it simply won't be messier than it is now, far from it.

People need to take up the mantle on all of this. There are many people on Wikipedia trying to engineer the 'identity mess' on Wikipedia to support their nationalistic views. At its most negative, this is often a 'comparative' matter for them - so they often go after other cases/causes more than directly push their own. The two Irelands and the very specific 'constituent countries' of the United Kingdom are always on their radar, and this crazy disruption over the Irelands now has made them stronger, without doubt. A quick glance at my 700 page watchlist confims that. Logical consistency leads to stability, anarchy like we have now leads to disruption --Matt Lewis (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm really sorry you are retiring Matt; you were the major catalyst for movement on the Ireland naming issue. I sincerely hope you return sometime. Very best wishes Sarah777 (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It's got to be said Matt - Wikipedia's better with you than without you. Still, if you decide to stay retired I wish you all the best. Just don't. Daicaregos (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You've made a 'brief' appearance in July 2009. Hopefully you'll return soon. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

As a result of this case, the community is asked to open a new discussion for the purpose of obtaining agreement on a mechanism for assessing the consensus or majority view on the appropriate names for Ireland and related articles. If the discussion does not result in a reasonable degree of agreement on a procedure within 14 days, then the Arbitration Committee shall designate a panel of three uninvolved administrators to develop and supervise an appropriate procedure. Until such procedures are implemented Ireland and related articles shall remain at their current locations. Once the procedures are implemented, no further page moves discussions related to these articles shall be initiated for a period of 2 years.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Tiptoety ^talk 04:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to Ireland article names case

Hello, Matt Lewis. For your information, an amendment has been proposed to the Ireland article names arbitration case. As you were a named party in that dispute, you may wish to voice your opinions on this request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Ireland article names. If you have any questions, please contact myself, another clerk, or an arbitrator. Thank you. For the Committee, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Poll on Ireland (xxx)

A poll is up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland_Collaboration/Poll on Ireland (xxx). This is a vote on what option or options could be added in the poll regarding the naming of the Ireland and Republic of Ireland and possibly the Ireland (disambiguation) pages. The order that the choices appear in the list has been generated randomly. Sanctions for canvassing, forum shopping, ballot stuffing, sock puppetry, meat puppetry will consist of a one-month ban, which will preclude the sanctioned from participating in the main poll which will take place after this one. Voting will end at 21:00 (UTC) of the evening of 1 July 2009 (that is 22:00 IST and BST). -- Evertype·✆ 18:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nick Griffin

This article has gone through a Good Article nomination, a Good Article review, and a Peer review - and then, you flounce in, with this comment:

"Was this written by Griffen's mum? Why is an unabashed white suprematist getting the easiest time of all? Welcome to Wikipedia, the perfect home for any expert self-promoter. References needed."

I have reverted your edits, which were obviously based on a non-neutral point of view. I'm not going to bore you by quoting Wikipedia policy on such matters, but you'd do well to examine the above reviews before making any further changes, and especially you should think very carefully before making unfounded comments like the one I've quoted above. Parrot of Doom 22:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfounded comments? Griffin is by common consent a white supremacist and an expert self promoter. I admit his mum probably didn't write his article though. I'm reverting you, of course - I have no choice after you have said what you have just said - your obvious bias must be fought. And peer reviews do NOT mean an article cannot be improved. They don't rubber stamp anything, far from it.

You now have replaced the totally un-referenced line "Since he became the leader of the BNP several educational institutions have invited him to speak on political radicalism, multiculturalism, and BNP policy." I am sure that line did not pass the peer review, so don't be so select. --Matt Lewis (talk) 22:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you watch your mouth. Suggesting that I have 'an obvious bias' is a blatant violation of WP:NPA. The line you mention requires no citation, since everything in the lead is already referenced in the article body. Parrot of Doom 23:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Follow the logic of my comment: you calling my edit note 'unfounded' shows an obvious bias towards the subject - as my comments are CLEARLY well founded - Griffin is a notorious white supremetist and skilled self-promoter, despite little mention of it on the Wikipedia article. I simply used logic. That is hardly a personal attack by me towards you, unless you see it as an inherent 'attack' to be described as being biased towards Nick Griffin in particular. Do you? --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:LEAD, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:NPOV before you embarrass yourself further. Your logic is flawed, as is your understanding of policy. Parrot of Doom 23:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back Matt BritishWatcher (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Read WP:OWN - have you been whitewashing the Nick Griffin article of anything too critical or incriminating? You just called me a 'vandal' in your reverting edit note - for calling the British National Front 'far-right'! The Wikipdia article itself calls them 'far-right' (as does everyone else) - so how is my insertion of the term 'vandalism'? To call it vandalism is a breach of policy, and I've warned you about it on your Talk page - it is an abuse of Wikipedia to use the TW tool in that way, and you need to be told.

The line introduction's last line "Since he became the leader of the BNP several educational institutions have invited him to speak on political radicalism, multiculturalism, and BNP policy." is unweighted and does not at all represent the controversy, outcries, and actual uncommonness of the particular 'invites'. The line makes it appear that he is a sort-after speaker! The article has clearly been 'looked after', in my view.--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You removed a line in a lead that mentions text that is fully referenced. I consider that vandalism. It has nothing to do with ownership of an article. Ownership is not implied when one removes edits that are very obviously biased. And again with the slights against my name - comment on the article, not its editor. I'm not going to explain myself to someone who is clearly so inept that they think changing part of the lead in this fashion could ever make the article more balanced.

You know what? I really can't be arsed dealing with people who resort to personal attacks to defend their position. If you have a problem, take it to an admin or some other bollocks. I've spent too long and worked too hard trying to improve this article to allow people such as yourself to impose your point of view on it. Read the GAN, the GAR, the PR, and the talk page, and perhaps then you'll understand just how much care and attention has been taken by several users to get this article into some kind of shape that Wikipedia can be proud of. I've had it wasting my time arguing with you. I have better things to do. Parrot of Doom 00:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The line in the Inro is not cited - it is an unweighted appraisal of some facts further down the article which are only cited to prove their existence. The line simply doesn't represent them. It is the old "a handful of x means y is z" scenario. Z always being the short but fiercely protected 'matter of fact' statement that misses the mark completely. It makes Wikipedia, frankly, full of crap, and I agree - many 'reviewers' etc will pass these little equations by unnoticed (or even pass them checked). But articles can still change, and pretty much all the talent that exists in Wikipedia is amongst the editors, who unfortunately have the least power of anyone. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back

Hi Matt,

I just noticed your back editing after a long break. Just thought I'd welcome you back

- Wikipéire ( 83.43.210.83 (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Another IP evading a ban, to be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 22:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

As your fellow Canadian GoodDay, I'm telling you that you need to lighten up! Relax a little....83.43.210.83 (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back again Matt! The British Isles Taskforce got kicked off again - if you feel inclined, please pop over and help us out. --HighKing (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, welcome back to Wikipedia, Matt!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just back in time for the latest challenge to 'country"! --Snowded ^TALK 15:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

With at least two notorious editors running multiple socks? It's not what I came back for. In fact, I'm not entirely sure why I'm here. Wikpeire, though he cynically wasted probably scores of hours (if all tallied up) that I was forced to put it in, in order clear the way for progress (or to try for it at least - you remember what a mess it was all in?) - is small fry compared to Gold Heart, who has already voted in an Irish-related poll using two different accounts, and I haven't even had a particularly deep look. Last year he was mainly editing as the ISPs he's so defensive about (though not exclusively) - but this time round he's off Wikipedia Review entirely, and is totally committed to editing here. The dates even coincide - he's not half as bright as he thinks he is, and he assumes WP is completely dumb. If all the recent 'country' nonsense is coming from him, I suggest you collectively peruse his edits and try and get a checkuser going. These things almost always flare up when someone in particular makes a nuisance of himself after all. Stop GH (at least in terms of him running accounts that have become accepted) and I'm sure it will all die down again for a while. Basically, nip it in the bud. --Matt Lewis (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

You are better at spotting socks than I am, but I'm happy to look into it. Can you give me some pointers on Gold Heart? I am suspicious of one brand new editor who has only edited the NI article--Snowded ^TALK 05:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This was an interesting poll. I'm trying not to look at NI, but I'll give it a glance.Matt Lewis (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Countries of the UK

Would you mind replying to the post I made to that page WRT to "Wales". I understand its easy to blurt one thing or another out that might be literally true doesn't capture the actual fact, so I'd appreciate better understanding the issue you had. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I re-reverted you revert of my edit. Just edit in place the things you don't agree with. Reverting everything just because it's "too much" (one paragraph?) ain't on. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You completely remove an always-existing line that explains the term "British Isles" in an article called "Countries of the United Kingdom" - and you hide the snip behind another edit! I don't think its an edit you've attempted before, despite your tinkerings and all the time you've had to do it. The section above wouldn't have anything to do with this strange burst of behaviour would it? Matt Lewis (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think it ("British Isles") was necessary. Re-add it if you think it is. The section above relates to a question I left on the talk page a few days ago but has just gone unanswered. Relax and have faith. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

• I find your insinuations regarding my political and social views disgusting, almost as disgusting as the parties and individuals you claim to despise. On this project I should not have to defend myself against people who exhibit such a mentality as that you hold. No matter what the subject, I am committed to neutrality—a concept which, one would assume by reading your comments, is quite alien to you. You are a member of a very small minority of editors who feel that the article should be a mouthpiece for anyone at all. I suggest you take a long, hard look at yourself, and have a good think about why you feel it necessary to make such sly, underhand, and upsetting comments about a person whom you know nothing about. I am about as far from a supporter of Griffin and the BNP (and any other parties or individuals who hold similar views) as one could possibly be. If you cannot take a fellow editor at his word, and judge the article he helps to edit, then you have no place on this project. Comments such as those you made help drive people away from Wikipedia.
• I have little hope that you'll accept what I have to say at face value, and for that I pity you. I really do. Parrot of Doom 21:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Are these current problems just a case of your (shall I say) 'strong' personality? I mean - do you really think my comments regarding yourself are almost as disgusting as Griffin's views about Hitler having gone a bit too far (for example)? That again made me wonder if you really know what Griffin is about - which is the key matter here, not just how you feel about yourself. You simply have to start watching your own language. In your page-protecting and Talk page comments, you have simply not, in my view, showed the balance of judgement that was needed for 'preparing' Nick Griffin, and yet you seemed to have been personally entrusted with it. I might seem somewhat heavy-handed myself, but it is not 'an eye for an eye' after your condemning reaction to my initial contributions (and others since - isn't that what puts people off Wikipedia??), it is primarily because I fully understand what is involved with the BNP, and I won't take any chances with them, or give then anything they are not in some simple way due. Surely you understand that? And understand why the non-vandalistic 'middle ground' will want to edit this article in pure good faith? You've just not shown that you do, and have not apologised for anything, including calling the mention of Griffin's 'far right' afiliations and 'bigotry'; "POV nonsense", "vandalism" and "biased garbage".

I have to say that instantly archiving Nfitz's discussion (whoever is responsible for it, and is Nfitz even online?) looks pretty bad. I've said my piece now, and don't care to say much more - I'll research some edits for the article when I have time (and I expect some basic human respect when I do so) - but the irony here is that although instantly archiving an open discussion might seem a good move to put an unpleasant episode to bed, but it looks pretty bad when compared the subject matter's censorious history in the real world. And it is also ironic given my points about the tendency to sanitise, demote, reduce and avoid the problematic things appearing in the article - a fault of the Griffin article at the time of the Question Time broadcast. Nfitz should have been formally asked to close the discussion from within it - after perhaps exercising his right to comment in his own dialogue, I expect he would have done so. Much of this nonsense is just a question of doing things correctly. Mr Griffin is now as he was 'then', a bona fide Neo Nazi. A sobering fact like that should mean the whole subject is handled with delicacy and care. As I said, hopefully now I've said my piece. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You have neatly summarised the most significant difference between us—you have an agenda; I do not. You assume that people need to be 'taught' your version of the truth; I assume that people have the intelligence to arrive at their own conclusions based on the facts.

I have no interest in people whose primary method of argument is to sling personal insults around, and thus I find you beneath contempt. Since any further interaction would be a waste of my time, I'll refrain from further comment. Parrot of Doom 22:24, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes - and in the end you kept the important facts from being overtly clear to the reader so they can 'read between the lines' and look for themselves. Shall we re-write Hitler to 'properly balance' it with the views of the millions of neo nazi's like Nick Griffen around the world? In cancelling out so much in his article, you helped give Griffin a perfect makeover into a mainstream politician. He could scarely have dreamt of better, given the CONSTANT criticism he is under in the REAL WORLD, and what he's done in his life. The most vulnerable people in society join the BNP, and many of them are ill educated - the argument I made clearly in that soon-to-be-fully-archived archived discusion. You made him look a regular legitimate politician with an untidy past. Basic facts that visitors will have looked for a mention of in the Intro were simply not there (eg his notoriety at very least), and some not even in the article. Mention of the 'far right' simply wasn't there, but it was before you joined the article. In the end, you asked too much of the readers, and in doing so failed them. Article writing is not all about finding the best rules, and in giving the 'flavour' of Nick Griffin it scored zero out of 10.

Wikipedia is at its least capable with contentious BLPS's (some might say contention anything), which is normally down to how it deals with ISP's, AGF, polling and WP:3RR - but this time it went wildly down the wrong path in sanitising the article. When you have extreme people like Griffin, the whole AGF structure can collapse, especially when he is seived though the style manual (used like a law manual), simply to make the article 'safe'. The residue of that has been apparent during the 'article protection' (ie post Queston Time) process. You have been aggressive, and have consistently failed to WP:AGF. As for Article review processes - I've been in them, and have heard people say "actaul content is not an issue here - that is for the editors to deal with". Also, people join in (such as Americans perhaps) who have no real idea about the subject, its context or implications. They are more about honing what you have, not helping to deal with problematic issues.

What you call on your user page "pages and pages and pages and pages of work" is bascially 3 pages of a GA process and half a typical Talk page for a contentious subject. With only a relatively-few consistent editors involved, the Talk presumably covers mid-June when you joined it (when 'far right' was in the intro) - to the Question Time night in late Oct! It really isn't much discussion in my eyes, and it's certainly not comparable to any amount of singular weeks (or two) of work I've given to Wikipedia in the past, just to achieve something positive on a contentious subject - to get absolutely nowhere - with the knowledge that I probably will get absolutely nowhere running through my head, working with others who have given countless hours of their time too. You simply have to accept that it can be hard to get it right, and you can't just stop an article at some point of reduced form, and then simply police it from then on. It seems to me you had a pretty easy time at Griffin compared to other contentious subjects too. Fans of the man have little to stand on, after all.

When the Griffin article was semi-protected in September due to vandalistic editing flurries, perhaps they all happened for a reason? Sometimes even the most trivial-seeming edits are a barometer of what people want - in this case more criticism of the man - which translates into making the definitive citicism constantly surrounding the man explicit again. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Independant Northern Ireland

I don't blame the young generation, for going that route. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Who could. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

NI identity was only "discovered" in the '80s. It dropped a bit in the '90s and has since recovered ground. It doesn't equate into much desire for an independent Northern Ireland though. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How can you be so conclusive about dates? You are clearly no expert, yet you do talk as if you are one. George Best used to be credited with giving the Northern Irish a sense of national identity that transcended sectarian boundries - he was pre-80's (and is the footballer Pele said was the greatest he ever saw). I don't know to what degree people in NI would like to live in an independent country - but not so long ago you claimed the desire didn't exist at all. That denial by you and others was why I felt I had to say all this - to tell the truth (to put it simply). I just hate seeing the lack of balance on Wikipedia, especially when I find it entirely politicised. Wikipedia is effectively the result of a Google search - its not just an internal debate. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(Moved from Talk:Northern Ireland to here where it is probably more appropriate.)

Matt, it is not a "controversy". If there is anybody in Northern Ireland tonight glued to their TV sets waiting to hear the next episode unfold in a scandal, it is not to hear the next episode of this "controversy" unfold. This is a Wikipedia "controversy" - a disagreement among editors over how to describe a topic. It is "real" in the sense that in the real world there is no agreement over how the topic should be described and the choice of these terms can have the potential to aggravate (indeed we even have a references that says that any choice is likely to be "controversial"). We're not making it up. But you're right, in the there is no genuine "controversy".

But you are writing as if you are removed from this. You say that you might edit this page "as an act of pure kindness". Well thank you, but I am informed that Talk:Countries of the United Kingdom was one of the places where the formulation "X is a country that is a part of the UK" was agreed upon? On that page you acknowledge the problems with relation to Northern Ireland but promise "no millage for anyone in claiming that Northern Ireland isn't a 'country'" (apparently "when the Northern Ireland Assembly continually refers to itself as one" though I think you are gravely mistaken on that one). That formulation is the genesis of this "controversy". You are not so removed from it as you may think. All Wikipedia "controversies" begin like this: well meaning editors with a reference and the will to see a word used or not used. (You might say that I am that well-meaning editor in this case, I would say I am an editor responding to the word and the reference.)

We are writing an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias are made up of articles. Articles are made up of discrete choices of words. For X in the statement, "Northern Ireland is a X", saying that X is "country" is not as gross a categorical error as saying that X is "boat" or "fruit" but the correct answer is "it's complicated" or "many things to many people". I might be wrong but you hand in the choice to describe Northern Ireland as a "country", no? If so, have graced this page with "an act of pure kindness" before. That act was the genesis of this "controversy". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, don't take the above as being "aggressive" - I'm reading it again for tone and I'm afraid it my come across as "preachey". That's not how I mean it. British and Irish editors of all perspectives cross swords too often. We need to get along a lot more and act more as colleagues rather than as advocates in an adversarial system. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I had a hand in creating the 'country' first-line for Wales (where it was first created, after Wikipeire in particular and a couple of others claimed Wales isn't a country) - but I had nothing to do with its inclusion at Northern Ireland. I said at the time that NI, England and Scotland are not my editing realm, and I that I don't feel that we all have to be identical in wording, (although there are possibly benefits when they are). I actually originally favoured wording closer to the version NI has now, as I said when I showed my preference in NI Talk.

Regarding my line on "feeling sorry" for the Northern Irish on Wikipedia - I honestly genuinely do. I think Wikipedia is full of scoundrels in the old nationality sense. When I started the Irish naming taskforce (whatever it was called - and I did it simply to advance on a British Isles taskforce I felt I had to create to unblock certain articles...), I created a number of tables showing how poor Northern Irish articles are, and how there was no uniformity within them. Some were just token sections in 'Ireland' articles (often 'country' even when pretending to be all-'island', or both - sometimes with NI slotted in), and some had mixed meanings of 'Ireland' within the same article. The titles where all over the place, and many of the articles were very poor. No-one gave a flying fuck about them. Really – it’s a sad thing to say, but not one person addressed them, or (more pertinently) seemed to have any interest in doing so at all. Politics was - and is - infinitely more important than creating decent non-political articles. Even the unionists were so obsessed with their embittered and inherently paranoid politics that they made it next to impossible to get the taskforce started in the first place, and the ultra Irish are as equally 'mad' in my eyes - much more so in some respects, as many are fighting old wars from foreign climes (hence the unionist paranoia). I find so much of it pathetic in the modern power-sharing and hope-filled climate, but Wikipedia is just so vulnerable to the 'crazy few'. I was genuinely sickened by the bleak human nature of it all when I finally gave up and took the opportunity to get out. But enough of all that.

The obvious question to you is do you live in Northern Ireland? And while I'm on the subject - would you care to detail your IPs and accounts since (and before?) Sony Youth? I'm entitled to ask that as your history here is unusual to say the very least – I’m surprised you weren’t at least asked to document them when you said you were Sony Youth. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, welcome back Matt. It's good to see some rationality on thorny subjects. Those are good thoughts above. --HighKing (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Aye, some good thinking. Sorry for assuming that you had a 'hand' in that. There was a lot of talk about a 'consensus' for the four article intros to be the same and your sig seemed to crop up in many places that I was pointed to and (to my eyes) appeared to be an advocate.

Yes, I am sony-youth returned. The intervening period as an IP was scanty and I over a DHCP connection so there's no history to look at. I generally stayed clear of Ireland-related articles during the time. I abandoned the SY account because I was disillusioned by the kind of thing you describe above ("embittered and inherently paranoid politics" vs. "the ultra Irish"). I did contribute to the article naming issues discussions though - and that is what sucked me back in.

RE: the state of some articles on IRE/IRL/NI, those are some good points. I am very disappointed at the way in which the WP:IECOLL discussion just fell of the edge of the earth after the vote on the Ireland/Republic of Ireland article locations. There are much more substantive issues to be dealt with, around article content, titles and categorisation in general. Those issues are no so headline catching or glamorous or pose as great an opportunity to shout and name call but they are the more substantial things from the points of view of writing an encyclopedia. There is no easy answer because Ireland is in many circumstances still the appropriate reference point whereas on other occasions the Republic of Ireland is. It is also sometimes appropriate IMHO to have a specific Northern Ireland article in some cases even where there is no specific Republic of Ireland article.

I also think that seeing the Ireland problems as being between only unionist/natioalist, you're missing another (or three) and very important actor(s) - other British editors. In the discussion just had on the Northern Ireland page, the handful of Irish nationalists and unionists that participated were signing from a fairly common hymn sheet. It was Britain-based editors that were pushing for "country" and "consistency" (for particular reasons, I assume, to do with maintaining a hard won status quo on ENG/SCO/WAL articles). The hair stood up on the back of my kneck when I saw your sig because I recall you being quite a strong proponent of particular views. No doubt you recalled the same thing about me when you saw "sony-youth". You might even class me among the "ultra Irish". I'm pleased to say you've toned down a lot from what I remember. Maybe I'm the same - may I'm not.

In the era of powersharing etc. we need to start thinking a bit more East-West as well as North-South. British articles are not without problems too (didn't the formula for the intro to the NI article come about from in-fighting on British articles of the sort we see on Irish articles?). The debate just past on Talk:Northern Ireland shows how we can step on each others toes even when we don't mean to. The British Isles debacle - is it still on going, I don't even want to look at that page? - is an obvious case but there are less headline catching ones that can get just as heated e.g. Oliver Cromwell. The "Irish question" is equally a "British question", since it is British history/politics (and/or Irish history/politics depending on one's perspective) that is at its heart. It would be a mistake to think that it is only Irish editors that carry their POVs around with them. British editors, naturally, have also very strong views on these matters.

Do I live in Northern Ireland? No. I just (by accident in fact) clicked into the NI article and saw the first line read, "Northern Ireland is a country". That got this ball rolling. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I too am ultra disappointed at the failure of WP:IECOLL, and I note with interest that as soon as the proponents to change the article from it's current farce at "Republic of Ireland" resigned from the project, everyone else smiled behind their hands and took it as "job done". You make some interesting points regarding the participation of British editors also, as you shared the same analysis that showed that British voting on the WP:IECOLL was out of kilter with the rest of the world and was effectively swung the vote to keep the article where it was. Where are these editors now I wonder? Not clearing up the articles they've left behind I note. It also puzzles me how nearly everyone *now* agrees, in principal at least, on the rules of using the different terms within articles, but still insists on an article name that no matter how you look at it, is wrong. But let's not clutter up Matt's talk page - if you want to responsd, come on over to mine :-)

The "British Isles" debacle is ongoing, but at least one of Matt's legacies, the taskforce, has now created a "Special Examples" page where individual articles and usage of the term is discussed with the intention of developing general rules and guidelines. It's also useful because it highlights the "ultras" and throws a spotlight on their tactics. Some patient editors and an admin are managing to keep everyone in order too, so it's slow, but it's no longer disruptive to articles, and I believe progress is being made. I'd love to see Matt and you take a peep now and then, and perhaps make an odd comment or two. --HighKing (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here, but RA, the Oxford Dictionary does define country as a region or state, hence NI can qualify as a country. Another thing, don't you remember the extremist Vanguard Unionist Progressive Party in the 1970s led by William Craig? The Vanguard movement violently opposed Direct Rule, and adopted a very pro-Ulster, almost anti-British stance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That party sounds interesting. I'm going to try and give this issue some research, as its really fascinating when you think about - as (I would guess) the idea of an independent NI has been a progressively developing matter over there for years. To what extent though I don't know. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Nelson talks about the Vanguard Movement at length in her book Ulster's Uncertain Defenders, which I bought in 1986.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the BI 'working examples' page, which is a real step forward along the road, as were/are all the Ireland developments I'm sure, although I've hardly even scanned them to be honest (blinked at them more like!), as I don't really want to get as involved again. I can only edit sporadically at the moment but I'll try and comment properly later Rann (I thought RA was some WP when I first kept seeing peole refer to it - you used to be more user friendly as Sony Youth as I rememeber!). I'm sure I'll look at BI again at some point, HK, not sure when though. What is certain is that if I stay here (and it looks like I probably will now) this time around I'll have much less time and much less inclination to get too bogged down or wound-up by nationalism-related issues (I might discount the Middle East from that). There are also articles I wanted to create/improve when I first joined that I never got around to even starting. I have reasonable time for WP at the moment, and am in about 8 minds on what to use it on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs) 14:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:RA ... hmmm ... I likes the sounds of that :-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

...ack! damn! there's one already! --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Celtic Nation

The Cornwall article is well referenced as one of the Celtic Nations. Why not use one of those? Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I don't follow? Matt Lewis (talk) 23:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

e/c Oops, I wasn't very specific, was I? Sorry. One of your edit summaries tonight on Wales included " ... am still not happy with the poorly-cited Celtic nation term (or article) in this Intro)". References on the Cornwall article could take care of that (1st sentence, 3rd paragraph lead) - one in particular from the Welsh Assembly Government website is very strong. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 23:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, your wording that Wales was "historically Celtic" is much more debatable than the statement that it is now a "Celtic nation". Wales was certainly linguistically Celtic, but the extent to which it can be described as "Celtic" in any other sense is highly disputed and debatable. But it certainly is now a "Celtic nation", in so far as that concept is a modern cultural construct, one which is central to Welsh identity. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I put 'historically' in to placate someone else. I've nothing against the word 'Celtic' being used in a historical or modern context, but I don;t like the Celtic nation article I must admit. I accept its (the article) use as a compromise (I know what it means to people) - but we need to see the old and the modern sense of the word in the introduciton of a major article like Wales. It's not easy to phrase - but at least my new line is logical - the one sitting there wasn't at all!

Regarding Cornwall - wouldn't this be a befuddling of the word nation for some people? Wikipedia is weak here - too much needs sorting out for its use in a major intro. I really never happy with the term being linked to this article, and it makes me wince whenever I think of the WAles article.23:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not is irrelevant, I'm afraid. "Celtic nation" is a widely used term, and it is widely referenced from reliable sources - the WAG reference is one example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the notion that Wales is (or was) a 'Celtic' nation is largely attributable to the 18th century writings of romanticists such as Edward Lhuyd and Iolo Morgannwg. Celtic Associations continue to this day. The term can be controversial when used as a descriptor for disparate prehistoric European populations. --Pondle (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Amgueddfa Cymru – National Museum Wales begin their article "Who were the Celts?" here with "Today, Wales is considered a Celtic nation, one of a family of nations and regions along the Atlantic fringes of western Europe. This Celtic identity is widely accepted, contributing powerfully towards a modern national identity." They seem to have stated their case, and I believe them. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the controversy surrounding the identity and cohesion of the Celts has been stirred by archaeologist Simon James. He gives a brief overview here and here. --Pondle (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, guys - the reason I pipe-linked it into "'Celtic' nations" is because the Celtic nations article it links to simply disallows the sense of "Celtic nations" being two words - and forces it into being a poorly-sourced phrase that includes Cornwall etc. Surely you can see that isn't weighted? I'm not saying that nobody ever says Wales is Celtic (along with Scotland etc) - of course they do!! But we cannot so easily define what they mean. It's most often historical pride IMO - not an active definition of territory. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. I don't make edits simply based on what I like/don't like - you ought to know that, Ghmyrtle. I want to see a serious Wales article, sans iffy links. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't suggest you did. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Back??

Hi Matt! Sarah777 (talk) 23:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. You know how I feel about nationality. If Wales does my head in I may have nowhere to run!Matt Lewis (talk) 00:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Scotland

Hello, Matt. Good to see you back. Just saw your post at the Scotland talk page. I don't think the change was suggested due to a perception of a pro-unionist intro. Rather (in my opinion) the change was suggested from the standpoint that it looks and perhaps reads better. The current suggestion was made by an editor with no nationalist axe to grind. I don't feel strongly enough about it (though I have voted) to get involved in an extended discussion on it, but will certainly watch and see how it develops. Jack forbes (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I only scanned through the latest debate I admit, but I wanted to make a comment on sovereignty coming before geography, along with my usual comment on any nationalism I perceive. I suppose the comment on the existing first line not being 'pro-unionist' was me just dotting every 'i' - I didn't see it being made as an argument there. I don't plan to get too involved myself either, but I will be voting on any well attended poll, as I'd don't want to regret not doing it in the future. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

1st Wikiproject UK Politics Newsletter

The first UK Politics newsletter is currently available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom/Newsletter. All participants of the project have been subscribed to receive copies of the newsletter. You can unsubscribe simply by removing your name from the Subscription list. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 00:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Channel Islands

Hi, Matt. I think you are making a good argument over at the Wikipedia:British Isles Terminology task force/Channel Islands page. I do though get the impression that editors are staying away from the discussion thinking they can't be bothered with the hassle, as the debate seems to be getting rather heated and short tempered. Look at my talk page to see what I mean. Anyway, just thought I'd mention it. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I've only got short windows of time at the moment, but I feel I've got to keep the arguments in there, to stop it running away. I remember how Rann can push things from last year. The comment to Jeanne I just made on the RFC is pretty much where I stand (I'm adding a bit):

British Islands, Britain and Ireland etc - plenty of terms can be used for political meanings. We only need to use 'British Isles' in incidences that are politically neutral, like mountain sizes etc. The best sources that it is possible to find (the latest full-size OED and the major encyclopedias) back up an archipelago-only definition. All we have to do is recommend sticking to it. It's as simple as that, and Wikipedia recommends this approach all the time in cases like this. You ought to know that the purpose of further-muddying the term with enforced CI-inclusion, is either to enforce British politics on a term that includes the republic of Ireland, or ultimately to stop the term from being used at all, ie to make the term untenable (a, for want of a better word, 'pro-Irish' view). Ireland vs Britain (or vice versa) is a very difficult area on Wikipedia, as at the extremes often fight on the same ground. When you are in the middle (like me) you can be shouted down by both sides of course!

I would add that that the term 'British Isles' perhaps should only be used on Wikipedia when really needed (and fully sourced perhaps?). But that is an arguemnt for guideline dicsussion - we can do that at WP:BITASK. At the moment the guideline is being bogged down by this elementary issue. And 'bogged down' is the key, I think.

The main British Isles article of course should explain all uses. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Afro-Eurasia‎

Matt could I ask you to read the Source and ask you if you edit fairly reflects the point the author is making.Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read the source no - are you saying the term 'World Island' actually includes the British Isles? If it does, then "exludes" sould be changed to "includes"! I've only just joined the SE page, so I started with the latest example. I don't have a great deal of time though, and did just follow the revert pattern, so maybe got it wrong here. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In the paradigm of the World Island the smaller islands are Britain, Japan, North America, South America and Australia [Sic]. It really is a different view point to the "IoM" Argument. It should be Britain - not even Ireland! Þjóðólfr (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"Britain" clearly meant the British Isles here - what else could he have meant? We can't be inacurate just because of the language he used. This is partly why a guideline is so needed. Being this pedantic though will surely be trying for people. Do you really think the BI term is unsuitable here? Also, are you sure that Ireland wasn't British as the time he wrote it? Matt Lewis (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

- He calls North America an Island! He is thinking Macro not Micro - Ireland is not even notable in this context let alone Écréhous BI completely misses the point. Þjóðólfr (talk) 22:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK - to be honest I don't have the time. If you have a case for it being political only (despite the name 'World-Island'), why not fully present it at the Specific Examples page first? You know how touchy everyone is regarding reverting British Isles in articles. I do kind of regret going there now, as I personally feel it would help considerably if the guideline was finished first. It looked straight forward to me, apologies if I did get it wrong (ie Mackinder did not mean the BI's). There is no harm in explaining your edits first though, and (believe me) it's just daft to use words like "sockmaster" without having a back-up case. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Celtic nation - revisited

Hi Matt, I don't understand the issue you raise in your edit summary (here). That Wales is a Celtic nation is cited here. The citation is not for "modern Celtic nation". Also, it was you who amended the sentence (as part of your minor edit war on 24 November). You mention that it is temporary - please share your plans? Daicaregos (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk of Celtic nations. Minor 'edit war' - come on, don't provoke me Dai. It was a decent, clever and much-needed edit, that was a compromise made out of pure sentimentality for the minority of people like yourself. To make me repeat my arguments is not particularly clever. There is no similar link is on Scotland or Republic of Ireland and it is only still there on Wales out of sentiment. Aren't you bothered that Scotland and (even) Republic of Ireland are clearly better and more-professional articles?

All WP:COMMONNAME refs would be useless, and effectively 'synthesis', as they refer to 'Celtic' and 'nation' (small 'n') as two words! They do not refer to the 'League of Celtic Nations' idea of 'Celtic Nations' (ie including Cornwall and Brittany etc). I don't even see Celtic Nations as worthy of its own article - it should be under a section in Celts. I pipe-linked to Modern Celts as yet another soppy compromise, if you must know. That should be part of the same section in Celts too. I'm going all the way on this now with AfD's. I see nationalism rearing its ugly head. Out there? Good luck. On Wikipedia? No way. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The edit (to which I provided the diff) was on the article Wales. Before I reply fully I will wait to see if it makes any difference to your response. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Come on, your diff is my removal of the link to Celtic Nations from the Wales Intro, which you know perfectly well I've never liked, and why. It time for it to come to an end. The Wales article is basically compromised from the start of the second paragraph onwards, and for what? Don't answer. I called my change to Modern Celts "temporary", as I planned to link a proper section in Celts. A link to Celts has actually been made by now by Cuchullain. Modern Celts, like Celtic Nations, should be merged into Celts.

The reason I am so annoyed is because of the removal of the dispute tag in Celtic Nations, after I explained that I wanted it. There was no respect there, and it was pushing to 3RR too. I am an experienced editor, and simply ignoring me was asking for trouble (and would be from anyone). It was hardly wise, given where I'm now taking it. But I guess that nobody has a persuasive argument to keep the niche term as its own article, let alone to link to it from the intro of Wales. It is just a bit of information suitable only for Celts, and then (when it is in proper context) a link from somewhere in the Wales article will be fine. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've struck the above, as 'Cuchullain' (of all names) simply moved the offending line so its two refs are now combined with a separate one on general Celtic history. He says in his edit note that I seem to be the only one with a problem - but that is not true at all. I notice you've taken "The six territories recognised by the [[Celtic League (political organisation)|Celtic League]] and [[Celtic Congress]] as Celtic Nations.." out of Celtic nations (funny how the Welsh ref says "eight Celtic nations") - but its not enough. The major article is Celts. Currently, neither that, Scoltand, or the ROI contain the information that is currently linked to from the Welsh intro. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

I have made a proposal to establish a WikiProject for British-Irish Collaboration. A number of proposals are currently being made around initiates to improve collaboration between British and Irish editors on topics of mutual interest. A number of initiates have been adapted in the past, with varying degrees of success, but all positive in their intent to resolve these issues. A centralised WikiProject for British-Irish collaboration could act as a focus for initiatives to improve collaboration on these topics.

As an editor that has recently taken part in discussions around initiates like these, please comment on the proposal to establish a WikiProject for this purpose. Please also circulate this notice to other editors you feel may be interested. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I've created a basic page at Wikipedia:WikiProject British-Irish Collaboration with some starting ideas and marked the page with a brainstorming template. As someone who replied to the proposal, please contribute some ideas or comments on the page. I did not reply to your post about the name of the project, but the name might be a good place to start discussion now. Thanks, --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:16, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

HighKing

You call me a troll? I don't think so! What do you call HighKing, then? I have numerous words that could be used to describe an editor who causes the disruption he does, and who never gives up on a cause, but I won't use them here for fear of offence. I've never heard of DDstretch, and as for Jza84, yes, a most obnoxious character if ever there was one, as I recall. Used his admin tools abusively to block me, including email for an extended period, simply because I disagreed with his point-of-view. I daresay if I examined your edit history I'd come up with some unsavoury events too, but I've not got the inclination. Know what, I've almost had enough of this place, it's full of nutcases pushing their own political agenda, and when I come to look for those references demanded by HighKing all I ever find is Wikipedia-related stuff that's polluted the Net. But no, that would play into the hands of HighKing. Tell you what, if he agrees to leave off British Isles I'll do the same. Can't say fairer than that. Why don't you broker it. Mister Flash (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Tell you what again; if HK won't agree to leave off (and he won't), go for a three month moratorium. I never put BI in (Hebrides was a replacement after he'd taken it out), and I don't know of anyone who does on a systematic basis, unlike a few who try to take it out. I'll go for the three months. Bet you a fiver though that he won't. Mister Flash (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Two comments and neither of them even address my question on the guideline. Is it the water in this place? Matt Lewis (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I don't see a need for guidelines. See my response at User talk:Snowded. I'm away from BI for a while. Mister Flash (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Differences of opinion

Hi, Matt. You and I have an obvious difference in opinion on certain things. Nevertheless, I still think you are an asset to this encyclopedia and hope you will continue as you are. I will though disagree with you on certain matters, as I'm sure you would probably expect. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Comments (like off-wiki life) I'm perfectly fine with. In the articles things are different of course. I'm a bit prickly right now over Wales I'll admit - but it is due to Wikipedia reality, not the real world reality. I know for absolute certain a swing vote won't happen (I know my country very very well), but if it did - and Britain was split (or even lost) it would completely divide a previously peaceful nation. Wales is a practical and very clever country, and if full independence was forced upon us, the pragmatic amongst us would basically march by the million (literally), to get Britain back. Fortunately I know will never come to that, but I do worry for your country though. It will divide your country if a vote for independence was won - and nobody disagrees that it would likely be a close victory too. How can you manage a country on around 60/40 of those who've actually voted? I sympathise with your passions, but socially I can't see it work, and economically I can't imagine improvements either, not with the SNP anyway, and the other parties will always be British. How will your democracy work? And as for my feelings on losing Britain, well you know those already. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if Scotland attained independence it would be by a small margin (at this stage anyway). Once the country started working, then you may see a change in the opinion polls. All through this downturn in the economy we have been told that Scotland couldn't have gone it alone, look at Ireland they would say (who's workforce are still paid better than us) they are on their knees. they don't like to say that it is not Ireland we should compare to an independent Scotland, but rather it's Norway we should be looking at. believe me Matt, once Scotland are up and running as an independent nation the Scots will be happy enough. As for your own country, I don't have enough knowledge of the Welsh economy to say whether or not it could go on it's own. Jack forbes (talk) 00:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

For me, it is less about the economy - although the Scottish National Party would have given plenty of autonomy to the banks, and like Iceland, it would have been in trouble, and very possibly back inside the UK by now. It doesn't have to be that way for Scotland for sure - but who actually are the politicians you can rely on the build a tight ship, and one that can grow and prosper? In a way it's similar to how I feel about Europe. I believe in it in a number of ways (it's actually been around in some form since the war), but when it comes to allowing it too much autonomy, I look at the quality of the politicians that I do know, and think, "how can I trust people who I simply don't"? I certainly don't automatically trust politicians, business men, lawyers and bankers (so often all on the same 'career' path these days) simply because the are not British! The whole world is in recession because the whole world has been corrupt. The pro-independent parties in the UK are very pro-Europe (for the subsidy, the trade, the alliances and the basic acknowledgement) - but they show far far too much dependence on Europe. It's another thing the more pragmatic voters in Wales will not like, because attaining independence while being so supportive of 'Europe' is for many people a contradiction in terms. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Matt, you have compared Scotland to another country (Iceland) that has no parallel to an independent Scotland. I would ask you again to look at Norway.I don't know if you are able to receive the broadcast of the Scottish parliament but, I can assure you, the debates are a million miles away from the childish barracking you hear from the Westminster back benches. There is one aspect of your post that has me in two minds, and that is membership of the EU. Ireland joined at the perfect time for them which helped create their economy, whereas I'm not sure that an independent Scotland would need to as we have far more recourses than them or Iceland. Scotland are also at the forefront of alternative energy, such as wind and wave power. Going back to Iceland, a country as I said we shouldn't compare to Scotland. They are undoubtably going through a bad time at the moment but do you think the population would rush to lose their independence and become a part of Denmark again? If Irelands economy worsened would they rush to become part of the UK again? If Scotland gained their independence and ran back into their nannies arms every time their was a little trouble I would pack up and leave because it would mean they were too soft and unintelligent to cope on their own, and I don't believe that for a second. Jack forbes (talk) 14:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

But the global recession is hardly "a little trouble" - it is costing trillions, brought down multinationals, and in poorer countries countless lives will have been lost as a direct result of vanishing trade. In town, there is currently a huge Borders bookhop liquidation sale, which will effect all the other shops in town, as it was a super-size store. Like Woolworths (and the financial institutions if we allowed them to), the company has gone down. Ireland and Norway were in a position to weather through the crash, but Scotland simply wouldn't have been if was founded on the SNPs economic policies - it would have been too fragile, too invested, and too much in debt. It would have been in serious trouble anyway, but OK, that is the present/past. Norway may well be a good example to follow in the future, but you will need the full support of the Scottish (inc the other parties), because little will be achieved overnight. And will you do with all those British in Scotland? Like at Northern Ireland and Wales, nationalists seem to think they will just melt away. If Britain actually disolves where will all the British go? Matt Lewis (talk) 18:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Scotland could have weathered the economic crash, if they were independent. There has been scaremongering in this country as far as the North sea oil is concerned. The news has been put out every so often that the oil will dry up within 15 to 20 years (or less) which is a nonsense. I may have to find a source for my next comment just to convince you of the realities of it. The fact is, not even half of it will be extracted in 30 years time and if you are talking of at least 70 years of continuous oil flow that the Scottish government can invest and save for the country, a country of only 5 million people, then I can only see prosperity in the future. This is what Norway have done over the years and there is no more prosperous nation than them in Europe. I do though have one serious worry, not one coming from Scotland. My worry is this, if Scotland are on the verge of certain independence what will westminster do. Will they sit back and say, fair enough, it's your choice. I doubt it. There will likely be 101 underhand and some not so underhand tricks to prevent this happening, whether that will be in a legal way (they would change their own laws to suit) or illegally, who knows. I can also see them trying to claim much of the Scottish waters as their own, something Scotland will have to strongly stand up to. One thing that really got my goat some time back was hearing the American ambassador say that Scotland should not be allowed to gain their independence. I wonder who he was listening to? He should actually have got his knuckles rapped for interfering in another sovereign states internal politics.

One thing you say puzzles me, Matt. You say, though unlikely, that if Wales became independent within the EU many Welsh people would demand re-entry into the UK. But surely if wales won a democratic vote to leave the UK then all those disagree would just have to accept it. They may argue their case but demanding it is another thing. You also ask what of those in Scotland who still consider themselves British when Scotland go it alone. They would have a number of choices 1)continue living in Scotland and respect the democratic vote. They can call themselves martians if they want, I wouldn't much care. 2)If they feel British that much they couldn't stand to live here any longer they can always move to England, Wales or N.Ireland where they can say they are Brits living in Britain. 3)This would be a bad scenario which I don't think would happen here. A paramilitary group is formed to fight for the United Kingdom to be reunited again. The real point is, the people will decide for themselves if they want independence. If they do then great (for me), if not, then that's democracy for you and I'll continue to argue that we would be better going it alone. ps, I had a look for the reference to North se oil. I couldn't find the exact one I was looking for but here is one from the Mail [1] They give a figure off 44 years but go on to add that there are oil fields that have not yet been tapped into which would obviously push that up a fair number of years. Jack forbes (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

(From the 'British' talk) Just wanted to let ya'll know. I'm twisted, but I'm not evil. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Matt Lewis

Hello Matt Lewis.

Thank you for the kind post at my User-TalkPage. It was very nice to get a friendly-word from someone. Yes, I am thoroughly frustrated with Wikipedia. Several people are word-smiths and due-process dictators. They bug me. Anyways, thank you very much for dropping me a line, I appreciate it very much.

Take care, Don. ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

CDA

I'm not entirley sure of what CDA means. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Basically, Community de-Adminship - the community being allowed to put forward the de-sysoping (removal of system operator status) of an admin - in a kind of reverse of the way the admin was accepted (ie by community votes). The admin status and tools are removed. It's much needed symmetry that will automatically make all areas of Wikipedia more accountable in my opinion. Admins will no longer have emeritus status. It had the most support here, so people created Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC. Previously, to remove a 'bad apple' a complaint had to be made at WP:RFC to get arbcoms attention. The CDA proposal is likely to be put through RFC to get attention too. It's more about removing bad apples though - it is something that will make admin think twice about the arrogant way they act. People will think twice about whether they want to be one. Bureaucrats will think twice about the judiciousness of their final decision to check for fairness/consensus (if it goes that way, and I think it it may have to). These are all good things - don't trust any administrator who says they aren't! A mop is tool of work - admins must be into the work, not the power. When people are accountable, they behave so much better, and the pipsqueaks are less attracted to the job. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I've no probs with administrators who go to the whip. However, I like the idea of the community having the abilitiy to 'fire' an administrator. Afterall, since we've hired them (administrators), we should be allowed to fire them. GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

On the flip side you may have admins getting on the wrong side of a group of editors. We have all come across debates were an admin is trying to do the right thing and inevitably getting on the wrong side of someone. Jack forbes (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Administratorship, not something I'd wanna be bestowed with. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The CDA discussions are partly about how to safeguard people gaming the system by block voting etc. A lot still needs ironing out. Just having a de-election process which the community can start up using votes is a huge step forward for Wikipedia. It will be one of its key developmental stages, and is nothing less than essential for its future. Just watch how certain admin will squeal as it gets closer to inception (one or two already have imo). No even half-decent admin should have anything to fear, and any who go as far as to threaten their resignation simply don't like the look of their newly defined roll - accountable adminship, in the sense of at some point actually having your job on the line, which (bullshit aside) is not currently - in honest terms - the case. The 'community' knowing they that someone can actually be de-elected will inject a huge amount of desperately-needed faith into the whole process of being a Wikipedian. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Two core principles need addressing:

1) Consensus. To what degree does Wikiepdia really believe in consensus - esp over head-counting and/or admin power-moves. And can bureaucrats spot it in difficult situations?

2) Democracy. Wikipedia really has to come to terms with that one. Why pretend that it isn't a democracy? It's a ludicrous thing to say, as there is no one type of democracy to compare it to. "America (etc) is not a democracy" could be just as easily said. So much of key policy really creaks - it's full of badly-worded caveats and weasel words that make Wikipedia a labyrinthine minefield, more I expect than it ever helps bold editors fight for the benefit of the encyclopedia. I suspect when I delve that the policy pages are surrounded by the kind of conservative do-gooders that probably hover Jimmy Wales' talk page, but maybe I'm being mean there. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You would have a lot of delving to do Matt, there are 49 policy pages. Yep, I just looked it up. And when people quote policy at you during a discussion you should know that its possible that same policy could be changed within the week/month, whatever, and it all depends on those who can be bothered working on that type of thing. Jack forbes (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus tends to be confused with majority. Consensus is meant to be general agreement amongst everybody - this tends to lead to compromises, which isn't always a good result. Democracy a part of this project, particularly at AfDs, RMs, & the famous straw polls. In those situations, I'd prefer a 3/4 majority to pass things. Recalling administrators, should require a 2/3 majority (or whatever's required for granting administratorships). Note: It would be very rare for me to vote for an administrators recall, the accused would have to have done blatant vandalism or simply gone off his/her noodle to get my attention. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As Manuel would say, ¿Qué --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As Basil would say after smacking him over the head with a tray. You silly Spanish waiter ;) Jack forbes (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

What's so confusing about my response to Matt, gents? GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Basil was smacking Manuel over the head with a tray. Haven't you ever watched Fawlty Towers GoodDay? Jack forbes (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I only know of Rowan Atkinson & Benny Hill. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation on British Isles Block - 24 hours

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Canterbury Tail talk 22:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR on British Isles. I didn't even know that was in place, though maybe I should have. Why don't you advertise these things? I don't agree with them anyway, and I was following someone who I thought would have known the score. I won't appeal - blocks now are worthless. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt there is a special restriction on that page thes days (see my own talk page, User talk:Þjóðólfr#blocked BI. If you were unaware, say so and I think you will get unblocked. Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point - I did read about it somewhere, but I've just not been involved in this way and forgot. I'm reading somehting anyway, which is far more interesting than dealing with a Wikipedia admin, which I find weirdly humiliating in these kind of matters. Boy has Wikipedia lost the plot on the UK and Ireland though! Matt Lewis (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If it ever truly grasped the plot. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I didn't know that article was covered by 1RR, either. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think its the arbcom 'Troubles' ruling though isn't it - 1RR I mean. I did mention politics in an edit note, and I do see nationalist pride in many places, as you know. The question though is how far does the 'Troubles' translate into more petty cultural squabbling? I'm not sure that spreading it so widely is helping anyone, least of all Northern Ireland. Whether BI can be resolved through discussion alone (and without being welcoming to new people) remains to be seen, though I'm prepared (as usual) to give it a go. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

No it is a distinct restriction. Look there are problems but one of them is lazy admins (that is not aimed at Admin involved here I might add) who dont look at the issue but instead look at the block log. I doubt they will pick up on the nuance of transgressing what is, even for wiki, an arcane restriction. Ironically I think even CT himself has transgressed the rule. Þjóðólfr (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It was a necessary ruling (the 1RR), required to control edit-wars on Troubles related articles. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a distinct restriction specific to that Wiki page only. It is unrelated to The Troubles. Þjóðólfr (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Opps, my mistake. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case I had no idea. I was retired for most of last year, and initially tried to keep away from the whole topic when I was drawn back. I'll say this though - Rannparti looks to me like he knew about the 1RR, and what he was leading me into - the whole thing makes sense now, as messing around with the diagram (at Terminology of BI and BI itself) seemed a premature thing for him to do with his RFC up (which he told me was a reason not to make my own edits). He only reverted the once, and with a reason that I immediately wanted to address via a revert - that there are two main difinitions of BI (with and without the Channel Islands - as the better diagram shows) is denied by nobody, including Rannparti now I have the OED and Britannica and others. I did put the planned two-definition diagram into British Isles for sure, but only because he took it out of Teminology all of a sudden. That big green admin-style tick by him at BI Talk didn't help, as he used it to 'consolodate' a very old diagram that was just about to be changed to the better one when he rushed in his RFC. I feel like a bit of a sucker now I think about it! Oh well. I'll take the 1RR block on the chin, but how easy is it to game though? I bet that all the expansion of the Troubles (which must be what it is, lets be honest) has done is spread out blocks about to people who normally don't get them. Productive? I'm not so sure.

Unfortunately though, I seriously lost WP:AGF with Rannparti during this. I need him to better show his past ragarding his edit history - it shouldn't be so easy for someone to say, "hey I was this editor once, then I was an IP for a year (but never editing on the Ireland-related subjects I always have done), now I am this new editor - trust me". He always has a very moderate tone, but he actually edits pretty 'aggresively' (in the pushy sense, though he is not alone there on these subjects of course). I know people are waiting for me to give more evidence at the RFC on the BI/Channel Islands, but I might be advised to focus solely elsewhere for a while, like at WP:CDA, to the 15th Jan at least. The time I do have is suffering from trying to do to much at the moment. CDA is far more important that the flipping British Isles anyway. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt, please do assume good faith. I didn't "lure" you into anything. I removed the diagram from the UK countries page for the same reason that I removed "my preferred" diagram from that page before: that article is about UK constituent countries, a diagram of the British Isles is out of place and potentially misleading in that articles (Channel Island or no Channel Islands).

When I did so I noticed that a Guilford based IP had inserted it into the terminology and controversy pages on December 6th (presumably they would have inserted into the main BI page also if it had not been semi-protected). I reverted those changes to the diagram that had been there for two-and-a-half years previous.

I'm all for discussion about a new diagram, but please do discuss it before reverting any more.

(Also WRT my edit history between my current account and former account - there's really nothing to it, if it amounted to a hundred edits over the intervening year, I be surprised.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 02:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Matt Lewis. You have new messages at Rannpháirtí anaithnid's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I made this edit, which was to move the 'notes' into a {{notice}} template. The purpose was to for clarity, but I think we will need to do some negotiation around the 'restrictions' note - edit it in place and we'll arrive at something. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've lost the undo on the lists now, so I have to get my previous work back in manually. From one human being to another - I can't tell you how much I resent the needless work you are forcing me to do right now. Do you find it funny? You have no idea what my life entails. I find it disgraceful to be perfecly honest with you. Sit down and think man. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Then write down here what you want undone and I'll undo it for you. I don't know what your life entails. I don't know you. But I'm not out to get you and I'm a perfectly reasonable human being. Stop assuming I'm not. Are you going to revert me again? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I want my harmless notes back (they hardly hurt your cause), and the detail on the latest editions of dictionaries being the ones to use. I also want my OED information replaced - which explains the Online OED and SOED etc. The 1989 defintion on its own has to go. I was happy with the previous list structure - and will no-doubt find examples to fill them up. So I don't want you to glue two of them together due to lack of examples - this isn't finished by a long shot. There was nothing wrong with what we had - it is just beyond me that you went messing around with it when you did. Esp after I said that I want to meet an actual deadline elsewhere right now!! Matt Lewis (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• "I want my harmless notes back (they hardly hurt your cause)..." It was not the notes but their approach. They were not neutral. Let's keep commentary to the discussion section. (Also, I no more have a "cause" than you do.)

I'm putting them back in and I'll look at their neutrality (I am normally very vary careful). It is is only an RFC, not a policy page - you can get blocked for repeatedly removing my content after I object to you doing it. So don't do it again. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly, Matt. The section is a "shared space", not part of the discussion. Remember - you edited my first draft of it. Now I'm editing your revision. Edit my revision of your revision if you think I've trimmed too much but don't revert - that only puts us back to square two again. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• "...and the detail on the latest editions of dictionaries being the ones to use." I didn't touch it. It's still there.

Ahem. You removed it twice (as you wanted the 1989 definition, and called my reasons for using the later Oxford Online/SOED instead WP:Original Research), I forgot that I managed to put it back in myself a couple of hours ago. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It was after you put it back in (the bit that you 'forgot') that I was referring to. Please stop being suspicious about my motives. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• "The 1989 defintion on its own has to go." It's already gone. I took it out earlier this evening per the discussion.
• "I was happy with the previous list structure..." You put that back didn't you. I didn't revert it.

This is how confusing it has been! The undo I've lost is the notes and the OED explanation ref. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• "... and will no-doubt find examples to fill them up. So I don't want you to glue two of them together due to lack of examples - this isn't finished by a long shot." Okey dokey. I wish you well.

Thanks, but you'll have to wait a bit. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. No rush. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• "There was nothing wrong with what we had - it is just beyond me that you went messing around with it when you did." I didn't feel it was neutral. Too much commentary.

I'm always careful to be neutral. There might be an issue of counter-weight (though I can't see it), but the overall balance is fine. Any issues would be due to the way you set the RFC up anyway, which missed neutrality by a country mile ("no brainer" indeed!). Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It kind of 'rambles' a bit. And moans a little. Less said the better. Keep it simple. The "no brainer" was a part of my statement. Have as much commentry as you like in your own statments, but let's keep commentary out of the "sources" section. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• "Esp after I said that I want to meet an actual deadline elsewhere right now!!" I don't know about your off-wiki life but we all have one. I'm not out to rush you in any way. I jumped" back in December 1 when you drained by patience but I'm not out to put pressure on you.

Glad that is settled. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I don't want any of my sources 'refactored' down the page, or whatever the term is. The couple that include caveats can remain in place until I can get back to the central library. It's just a Request For comment. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope. Per your own note. Keep them as a secret weapon and whip them out, fully quotable, when I least expect them ;-) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Per what note? The point I'm making is that you cannot tell people how and where to put their content. You aint no boss. And did you advertise the RFC in the end? - you never answered that. The completeness of the lists would obviously be more important if you have. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Which note? "The above sources are restricted to those that provide a definition of the term 'British Isles'..."

That's a fair point, but we do have to work together. What's there now is essentially what you had save that the note about restriction on the lists has been shortened to:

• "The list below is restricted to sources that provide a definition of the term British Isles. It does not include examples of usage or definitions that have been 'logically extracted' where the the definition is seen as being implicit."

Do edit it until you feel it is right.

I will. Thanks for the pedantry on Chrinicles. Was it really necessary? You also moved down World Book, which stated that the British Isles are the islands.. "bordered by the English Channel" - it is simply their definition for excluding the Channel Islands (which, unlike the other small islands, they do not detail at all). Moving that was beyond pedantry - you just did it to piss me off, admit it. Do you really wonder why I don't trust you? Not every bloody example is going to conveniently mention what they do not include - you are basically gaming Wikipedia up the hilt in constantly demanding that they should. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not advertised very widely. There's a general RFC notice on the top of the page. I also linked to it on the terminology page after your comments on the BI page this weekend. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - that isn't clear. Where have you advertised it? Does the template auto-advertise itself? I need to be kept informed. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, meant to link here. Yes, the template auto advertised, but I've never seen much reply to an RFC template - on any topic. Explicit invites usually draw more people. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Typically you did not inform anyone, after saying you were holding back from making it a real RFC - until you decided you were ready, obviously. Can you see how you are trying to be in control of everthing, Wikipedia just isn;t supposed work like that. Telling me at very least would have been civil, as you know I was compiling sources. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You didn't put the all important OED source information back in I notice. I strongly object to putting important detail in 'info boxes' by the way - nobody reads the blue ones, and I initially thought you'd been kidding me when I first looked at the page. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked

Unblocked due to lack of knowledge of the rule. It's been in place on the British Isles article for about six months, and is shown when you click edit on the article at the top of the page. It isn't liked by most, and I spoke against it myself, but it does seem to have kept the peace on the article. Canterbury Tail talk 02:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

GD

I'll keep this off your talk, GD, so we can just talk together. Seeing as you put my name up, I'll offer if you do really want it. I've no idea what it is, who normally does it (ie do editors do this?), if I'm the best person etc (many will no-doubt think I'm not!) If you are serious - tell me what you'd like me to do, and I'll see if I can do it. I know your getting a lot of mixed advice at the moment, but you've got to do what you really feel yourself that you need to do - if you do feel that you do need anything, that is. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I need you (and others) to keep me on even keel & in check, should I venture around volatile discussions. Basically, do as you have been doing: Pointing out to me where I'm being more a bother then a solution, that my attempts at helping things are only hurting things. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that the kind of commitment to heed advice, that people would need to commit themselves though? (ie the helpful interaction would be more than just a whim of the helper - they would be doing something they might not normally want to, or want to do at that time). In terms of 'mentors' I think it is best not to be too loose regarding who they are (ie "and others"), remeber that you will always be getting conflicting voices from surrounding editors too. To a degree, I think the general 'helping hand' already happens (perhaps increasingly of late) - but I don't think its been that successful, and that you've not always seen it as such. People can't always keep a moderate tone, and maybe that's where it is starting change a bit. I remember myself saying things in 2008 (and seeing Snowded saying similar), but perhaps less intently then than now. Sometimes you tend to sway easily on some matters: given that you can be incredibly firm on issues that you feel really strongly about, maybe it is possible to make this one of them?

I doubt anyone could have foreseen your comment at Owain Glyndwr, so obviously you'll need to monitor yourself to the largest degree anyway - only you know where you are going to edit. I think this has all been a compounding thing with editors, which may feel very unjust to you, as previously people may have just commented benignly on these kind of matters, and not complained - but things are clearly changing a little in people's perception of you (which, luckily for you, has always been really positive!). Having seen you edit for years now, I thought you actually had a lot of sound advice on your talk page today, as clearly others have noticed patterns in your comments too. I'd find it completely excruciating if people analysed me like that, but you've taken it in good spirits - though I do suspect there is still some incredulity on your behalf too!

Anyway, if you are serious about this, perhaps you'd think about some way of committing to a more 'solid' form of 'mentoring' (from whoever – it will certainly take more than one person to keep up with your editing life!), so (as much as anything) people can feel happy about taking the time.

Finally I'd say this: Wikipedia can be quite an addiction – if you ever feel compelled to make a comment you half suspect may not go down well - the best advise simply has to be, open a book! I know you like reading too, as do I.

Also - and this is a must: get your Watchlist going on user talk pages, as following people's editing patterns to see if they have responded to you will eventually drive you nuts! There is a way of displaying the last 500 changes on your watchlist time-listed per topic, and having the topic-edits neatly 'collapsed', so you can expand the various edits within them, by clicking on a tiny arrowhead by each particlar topic/talk (etc) that has the new edits (so is thus at, or near the top of the time-list). Do you use/have that facility? The topics arrange themselves by the time of the last edit - its a brilliant tool. I watch around 1,000 pages, but still broadly manage to keep up. Some of them are not really active admittedly, but I do de-list pages from time to time to keep sane. You have to do whatever you got to do to keep your marbles in this off-life and unworldly place, yes? Matt Lewis (talk) 01:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Glendower incident, was me leaping before I looked. Thanks to the amount of input I've received today (Atlantic Standard Time), I shall incorporate them into my future conduct. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Its not just that - it's something to do with the 'brief' way you pose the questions (or statements), and sometimes the timing of them too. The Glyndwr edit may be a relatively minor example, but you surely could have guessed that Wikipedia inforcing an Anglocised spelling of a Welsh-language name would at very least inflame passions. Your own wiki 'transgressions' are actually quite hard to define, which I suspect (in part at least) is why you've never been templated for them. I know you'd take a template from an admin seriously, but your quite a saint in that regard (esp given 44k edits!), which does support your confusion over some of the reactions to you I think. I suspect that people genuinely prefer to address you personally too.

I'm not sure how implement the Watchlist improvements btw (if you don't have them) - they might be part of the standard Wikipedia interface now thinking about it (I had an idea I got them from one of the 'tools'). I've just noticed looking at my Preferences, that I can now list 1000 changes in the Watchlist rather than just 500, and make the 'Recent Changes' pages for articles more or less as long as I want. Perhaps you'd rather limit your talk page activity, rather than make the discussion-following process easier to do. Good luck anyway, whatever you decide to do. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Rock & Jeanne, have given me a 4 pt guide to follow. Thanks for the help & continue to keep me on my toes. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Progress .. finally

Finally, there appears to be real progress at the British Isles task force - editors have finally seen that guidelines are required as opposed to an article-by-article shoot-out. Since you started the task force, I thought I'd let you know. Although we don't always agree, I believe your input would be of enormous benefit. --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of racism

Hi Matt, you seem to have forgotten to explain where you saw anti-English sentiment on the thread User talk:Daicaregos#BritishWatcher as noted in your diatribe here. Accusations of racism are rather unpleasant. The least you can do is to explain what prompted it. Daicaregos (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nobody used the term 'racism'.

Like most people we know, I wonder what editors like BritishWatcher are doing, and I happen to remember the first few edits he actually made. It is not untypical (given the nature of Wikipedia and these subjects within it) that when I looked at a new section on him in your Talk, I came across a very partisan conversation on topics British. I didn't expect to be singled out for contributing, but you have reminded me of how thankless those kind of talk page chats can be.

Given the nature of Wikipedia and these subjects within it, the comment I made could perhaps be construed as a moment of reckless 'wiki drama', but it was not part a diatribe, which is just using the wrong word. You should really have diff'ed my follow-up 'tidy' edit, where I inserted the original change of paragraph - it makes it a little more the standalone (and considered) comment that it was intended to be. I really only apologised for the "anti-English sentiment" I sometimes see expressed on Wikipedia, after making a comment on the British monarchy to Jeanne, and then developed it a bit. That is a lot less than using the heavy term 'racism'. The statement was spurred by a preceding comment about the English I had noticed, which you can hardly fail to spot too Dai, and I do hope these words from me now are not a cue for any continuation of the matter! If you accept that kind of comment on the English, I think you have to be prepared to accept as simple response to it from someone - and that is all it was. It's 'par for the course' with UK national identities, and I only actually defended the Welsh and supported the English, and made a comment on what I've witnessed on and off since I first starting editing here. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt,can I point out (you may not know) that the editor who stated that England does not have a real identity was English himself. Jack forbes (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean this comment (the one that spurred me on) - I think he is being sarcastic and saying that most people assume he is English! (probably due to misunderstanding of the UK and attitudes over the nature of the annexing - although he could have gone to Eton and sound like minor royalty for all I know). Matt Lewis (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I was not being sarcastic. My views are as I stated. Apologies for not being clear - I've explained my family history elsewhere on this site many times, but obviously I shouldn't have expected others to know or remember at the moment I made that comment. My comment that "I'm "English" (under many people's definitions, anyway)" simply refers to the fact that I was born in England and lived there for most of my life - but most of my ancestors were Welsh and the rest were "Ulster Scots", and I now live in Wales. So, some English editors probably think of me Welsh, and (at least in the past) some Welsh editors have thought of me as being English. Personally I'm happy to be a global citizen. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There was also this comment by an English editor. And I think that Gymrytle is part English, though if I'm wrong I'm sure he'll tell me. Jack forbes (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor who currently uses "-大輔 泉" as his piped signature? I thought he was some kind of international mix, and proud of the fact. I do hope this doesn't go on and on! I've got so little time these days. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there we go - I assumed Ghmyrtle was 'Welsh' (understandable given where he edits, or I've seen him edit often), and other editors thought I was referring to them, rather than someone born in England criticising the English. I'd be obliged if we forget this now (which, btw, is not an admital of guilt!). Matt Lewis (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your tone

Your comments are condescending, and you're needlessly personalizing criticism of a policy proposal. If you don't want to respond to my comments, you don't have to — but it's insulting for you to suggest that I made them out of irrational anger and then lecture me on my talk page. Once you've levelled yourself, I'm sure that you will appreciate the irony of your remarks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think this is a bit of a childish retaliation to the "Your tone" Talk page comment I gave to you? You know, at the CDA draft page I almost began my response to you "I can see immediately that you are not an admin yourself". I was actually flabberghasted to find on you user page that you are one. You must be better than this, or you surely wouldn't have become one. I cannot believe you have the gall to call me patronising after all that you wrote too! What gives you the right to think you can address a perfect stranger the way you have? I didn't 'start' anything with you (I've never spoken to you before), I simply replied to a host of your sins - sarcasm, cynicism, laziness, ignoring my directions, lack of AGF, and a totally OTT diatribe on CDA that focused too much on me. Have you been out for Friday night or something? I've been here, trying to help Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly admin look at my Talk page, and some will immediately think I've done something wrong. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK

lol I note you have changed your user page. DYK that some Admins actually are children? Þjóðólfr (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I read about a really young admin a while back - an actual Wikipedia admin too (not wiki commons or whatever). I've removed the comment though - I'll never stop if I fill my user page with stuff like that, and it only risks people seeing you as somewhat embittered (ie therefore your judgement is 'off'). Matt Lewis (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you're doing

Good work trying to keep CDA working. Successful or not, it's a dang good effort. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I actually came to it late, so have got less weary of it than a lot of people. I don't know if it will work, but some good data is coming in, and it will be a lot harder to 'oppose - per lack of consensus' after a good turnout in these votes . This is late on a Sunday night in the UK (early morning i should say), but it seems like the Americans are online, so I'm trying to make up for lost time. I started polling late on the 15th I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Wider exposure for CDA

Have you considered applying for a watchlist message about the CDA at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details? I have found that it's the single best way to get participation in a community discussion. Good luck. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I did suggest this at one point - but it was partly tongue in cheek. Can we actually apply? I'll look into it. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would very strongly suggest doing that. CDA would be quite a large step (in one direction or another) for the community. It would require wide participation to ensure it was locked in consensus (whatever the outcome). Watchlist notices is the best way to guarantee that. I think the proposal for CDA is a big enough deal to merit that.

BTW, I haven't been following it but is there one current proposal? If so, you will need to make it clear from the off-set that it will be a vote and what terms there would be to the vote (e.g. 50%/66%/75% approval) before the proposal was adapted. From past experience, where one of many proposals are put forward it becomes a binary decision with people either say yay or nay. It then, in effect, becomes a vote and agreement by consensus becomes quite impossible. But when it then gets sprung on people in the end they nay sayers (or the yay sayers) can become quite indignant. It will need to be clear what the terms of the community adopting CDA will be. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:53, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hard to answer that as it's been a complicated process I myself joined in the later stages, and I'm not sure what point you are looking at it from. The finalised CDA poposal will be put to the 'community' at RfC - and a (possibly) small but tight group of people want it happen asap (not sure if it's for the best reasons though - which is party why I started this last poll). Perhaps it is best for people to start at WP:CDA and read through (quite a lot, including a still incomplete 'FAQ'). Things get naturally bloated on Wikipedia, so I tried to make the main discussion page as readable as possible. With this poll, time was of the essence (as something too ambiguous consensus-wise was on the verge of being run at RfC), so there wasn;t the time to fully prepare the presentation side of things (you have to read the discussion for arguments etc, though some are in the FAQ).

Anyone can vote, people, btw! Matt Lewis (talk) 12:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

"The finalised CDA poposal will be put to the 'community' at RfC..." Watch out. RFC is a Request For Comment. Unless the proposal is presented as a stright yay or nay decision (with it said in advance how the decision will be taken), people will assume that it is still up for discussion and you may well find yourself in a place where no decision gets agreed upon and all the old groud you've just covered is opened up again by a thousand Johnny-come-latelys all with something different to say.::::

Also, for practical reasons you need to restrict IPs from voting. (If it is a vote, you could also do it by Special:SecurePoll.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

RfC seems to be where everything is piped through, which I don't agree with at all, but thats the way it is at the moment. I'm make sure it whatever gets there is presented clearly. As for restricting IPs, was that in your essay on them, eh? Matt Lewis (talk) 13:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, yes. You've read it :-P

By the way, was looking through the archives of the BI task force. Saw the IP you have have been referring to ("You remind me more and more of an IP from ..." etc.) Spanish IP address. Not I. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to worry about IPs voting, or using securepoll, these things are decided by consensus not voting. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Matt, not sure why you left that notification on my talk page, as my only edits to that draft RFC were to the early closure poll. If I were interested in the drafting I would be watching that page, as I assume anyone else you notified would be, so I'm not entirely clear on the point of the notifications (just to keep the issue in people's minds?). -kotra (talk) 16:37, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I went through the history of the draft page, and informed everyone who commented in it. I also used used Jusdafax's list (on the Montion to Close poll) too. I think its an important poll, and didn't want to miss anyone out. Things were very quiet before this poll, but its impossible to say why of course. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there are many (like me) who will support or oppose the proposal no matter the details. I, for example, will likely support it no matter how it is written because processes can always be adjusted later as needed. Similarly, others are probably opposed to the whole idea of community desysopping, and will oppose no matter how it is written. That is why many people who have commented earlier do not care about finalizing details. But I'm the only one to complain so far, so I wouldn't worry about it. -kotra (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt, you have done a good job of engaging people in the recent poll, although like Tryptofish I'd encourage you to take the bait less often. I don't think replying to apparently unduly harsh criticism in the same vein helps at all. I have a question about outcomes. Q4 presumably doesn't have one, its SNOWing at Q3, Q2 is presumably an either/or, but what about Q1? The modal answer may not be similar to the mean, and the latter will presumably be a fraction of some kind. Does it get rounded up/down, and to the nearest whole number, five, ten? The answers are interesting and certainly indicative, but I am not sure how the practical outcome can be assessed. Ben MacDui 09:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping not to go too much into this, as the hardest thing with non-straightforward votes is to avoid the votes getting prejudiced, wether by each other, or the counting system. Things like vote changing, and the tolling up, I left open. Basically, the poll is something to help find consensus with - its not binding in any way, but more of a set of questions to gather data by.

It could be argued that I shouldn't have used the terms 'poll' and 'vote', but we needed people's attention, and most of the pedantry on the matter has been sour grapes if feel, by people who don't favour CDA. Obviously restraint is needed with stonewallers, but if such critics are allowed free reign they tend to grow in confidence, the page scrolls on, people see them as more supported than they are, the page becomes messy and the tables swing.

Consensus is the key, and (with the people who stick around after the poll), we need to present the data in various ways and decide how to interpret them. I'm happy drawing a table showing different readings. I left the 'winning margin' open for this reason - ie 70% coming in front by a relatively small amount of votes would not represent consensus if there was a significantly large amount of 50, 60 and 66, compared to 75.

Taking all voting 'caveats' into account (people tend to add comments when they are serious enough), there might appear to be a compelling case for going for the percentage closest to the mean average, unless of course there is a clear winner (which 70% may be of course, and it is used as a second vote too of course, as are they all). It's a data finding exercise, basically. The point someone made about 85% being better than 80 and 90 in VOTE 2, was interesting too, though could be harder to justify I think, unless perhaps there was a direct split - with "None" being closer in value to 90 that 80, of course.

Some people will complain whatever happens of course (some people always do), but nobody in my mind can really claim this isn't consensus building.

The two principle aims of this poll were

• 1) to make sure of the 'consensus margin' (proposal 5.4 being too ambiguous

• 2) to allay easy criticism of the consensus-building process in the final stages.

• 2.1) to include the 'wants' of all critics (which is what vote 3 and 4 does, as I didn't originally poll them).

I do wish I started with a comment showing the 'benefits' of CDA (and having a lower baseline percentage), and a list of its rules (like it needing 50 support votes ot begin) - but perhaps it is best I didn't, as this isn't supposed to be my poll, but one for all of us. Despite a couple of bumps (and it does make me angry when people criticise non-smooth runnings - what on earth do people expect on Wikipedia?), I think its going pretty well. Shame its not in the watchlist - I'll try and work on that today. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry, I accidentally clicked on the rollback button. But where were you putting my comment? Perhaps I was a bit quick and you were moving it? If so... where were you moving my comment to? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

In the comments section, just above it. It took me longer than I'd hoped to answer it - it is confusing I agree. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: User:SpikeToronto

Hello, Matt Lewis. You have new messages at SpikeToronto's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CDA draft squabbles

Keep at the process Matt & don't let anybody get under your skin. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do, I'll try. Thanks for voting (albeit 75%!), the new poll needed some new blood (or new voices anyway), and fortunately it got some. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your primary choice is 60%, a little too low for me. Oh well. GoodDay (talk) 01:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting discussion going on there. You'll just have to hope that people have the patience to see it through as I see that a couple of them seem to lack that quality. Jack forbes (talk) 01:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the impatience, it's the figure reading - we are even disagreeing, alas, on how to read a fairly simple set of figures. The pain is when disagreements are from people broadly on the same side. Nothing difficult on Wikipedia is less than next-to-impossible it seems. At least the people who genuinely don't want CdA seem to have accepted now that a proposal will be taken to the public.

More has to be settled than people think: How do we define an "editor in good standing"? Can we legitimately call CdA a "reverse or mirror WP:RfA" with all the safeguards it has? In my view we never really could - RfA and CdA are two different matters, and it is simply misleading to suggest that an intrinsically damning CdA (with its quite difficult start-up) is comparable at all to an inherently optimistic RfA, which is relatively easy to get going. People can't vote admin 'out' on anything like the same terms as voting them 'in', and 70% at one would not be at all on the same level as 70% at the other.

All the safeguards have created questions we still need to answer, and this push for a deadline date (and one so soon too) is giving us no time at all to answer them. We haven't even agreed on the baseline percentage yet. It really is hard to see the sense in rushing. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Err, bear with me. Sometimes, I get a tad confused. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry - there is a lot to read. You're not the first who hasn't read it through first. Better to change your mind, than keep to a hard position. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Heya, I posted renewed concerns on the CDA draft talk page, and as you've been active in making WP:BOLD edits I wanted to ask that you hold off on making changes directly in relation to my concerns (at least for 12 hours or so) so as to allow those people in other parts of the world to wake up and offer their views. Thanks for the continued good work. Also, note that later I will be posting my proposed RFC comments here. Feel free to comment at its talk page, particuarly in relation to the edits you made on this which need discussed. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 09:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday I was just trying to keep hold of a couple things I did the day before - I don't think I added anything more, nor will now (that is, I have no immediate reason to). I'll certainly give what you have done today some space. The squabbling was mainly over formatting, but we've compromised by adding lots of "(needs discussion)" tags next to the disputed points and some duplicatated text. I was initially happy enough with a number of Tryptofish's minor edits, but I didn't see the point at all of reverting the various more substantial copy edits - they were all improvements. It has to be 'give and take' on Wikipedia to a degree – it's a collaborative project after all. The actual points of contention simply ironing out, and well done on advancing this today.

One of the underlying problems is there is an idea that 'Uncle G's proposal' (whas it even his original idea as the manifesto/FAQ says?) is some kind of 'uber text'. A lot of people didn't accept it, and certainly wouldn't have seen it as the finished product. It then went through a convoluted multi-poll revision stage (before I myself had heard about it) which should not have been seen as the end of the matter. There emerging 5.4 most-support 'consensus' was problematic to say the least, although at least we have 65% now. I think holding so tightly on to supposed past-consensuses is a bad thing (esp if its just simple copy), and it really pisses the people off who feel they are not being listened to. Consensus should never be set in stone, and CDA can (and must) still adapt imo.

My plan for later today (as I said on the talk pages somewhere last night, though I'll put this off for a bit) was to go around and simply ask the critics for 'good faith' statements on what they would like to see done at this stage. They can make them where they want. We need some of the critics to be a little more on our side, or if we can't do that, to get more new people involved. The sense out there of a conveniently-grasped but widely-unsupported 'mini consensus' being “railroaded” to the RfC stage is widely-held. I share it myself really, even though I'm broadly happy with CDA - providing it doesn't shoot itself in the foot with unwanted/unneeded and ambiguous clauses, or have so many safeguards it would give a sense democratic fairness when none is realistically there. I really don't believe that a lot of the CDA details (or the proposal seen as a singular 'text') had any definable consensus at all: lots of people have never really gone through the proposal, and its appearance was so generally 'sketchy', that I'm sure most people saw it as on work in progress. I'm not sure if you saw it before I made my various edits the night before you went through it, but didn't look anything like a final proposal. It was very hard to even find for a period too.

The visible 'consensus group' for the CDA as it stands is so small, that I've never been happy with rushing through anything, which has lead to a growing friction over the past weeks, mainly between myself and others, but also at times between others in the group too, who are generally a polite bunch. If we are starting to seriously squabble with each other, then the proposal could really be doomed: people out there are just waiting to pick holes in it. I've stuck at it partly because I just don't want to have wasted my time, but I won't stick with it to the end if it really does go to pot, as I've got too much off-wiki things to do (and on-wiki matters other people are waiting on me for too). Matt Lewis (talk) 13:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you think about staying with the 80% threshold by the way? I'm uncomfortable with it, as it was actually out-polled in the finalisation poll 2:1 (if you combine the 90% and 100% votes). Matt Lewis (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Heya, sorry, I didn't realise you had messages here for me. I will now watch the page. I agree it's been tedious to make edits on the page, however Wikipedia can be like that sometimes, even though it is meant to be a collaborative process. Consensus is wonderful, but it does change, and sometimes it's difficult to get that point across to those who are content with things. Generally though I've found the people working on the proposal genuinely interested and receptive once they see what you're trying to do. It can definitely be challenging, and possibly without any real need, but that's just how it appears to be at this point. It seems it's getting close to comment, and anything you truly think is wrong can of course be noted there. As it stands, with the removal of the editors in good standing bit, and most of the major contradictions fixed, I'm satisfied. The wording still could be clearer in some places, and the language made to reflect the fact that not everyone is American, but overall it's good and I can sneak in copyedits later. As for the percentages, it's roughly on par with what's acceptable at requests for adminship. What do you suppose it should be? Let's not forget it's the crat making the final decision of what consensus is, thus we shouldn't get too hung up over numbers. NJA (t/c) 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The numbers are just really important to people (on an emotional level perhaps), and 5.4 (the proposal version that was very nearly disasterously railroaded) did not have a clear consensus for the 70% sub figure within it - there were consistent caveats on it in the 5.4 votes. It was the main reason that I made the Finalisation Poll. I wish I didn't have to call it that, but it was a compromise title for those who were really eager to run. I can't imagine the reception the text would have had if it was left as it stood - people were queueing up to dismantle it! I take it you've seen the big names in the Motion to Close? Unfortunately I had to hurry the poll through, and it was a kind of no-win 'win' thing personally, but I think it did its job. The clear results were for 65 and 85, essentially just an adjustment by 5 each way. But can we use one figure and not the other? Surely if the poll stands it stands. The criticism around of there being "too many polls" is a real red herring (and is more out of sour grapes, and some genuine frustration in not having more time to debate other solutions) - the main thing about the percentage figures is that we can proudly say we polled them and actually have a decent consensus from a good amount of votes.

Yes, it is all down to the Crats, and I would personally rather there was a small baseline and leave it at that. If we don't trust them then what is the point of this particular version (5.4) of CDA? But the consensus margin is a real focus for people, and it can't be ignored. I could live with an 80% threshold, but my serious worry is that if we ignore the fact that 80 was outpolled 2:1 by 90 and 100 combined, it will come back and seriously haunt us. There was such a direct split that the only consensus to be found was a (imo pretty straightforward) 'compromise consensus' - but that is still a valid and acceptable consensus if people can live with it. Looking at the votes myself, I think that the two broad 'extremes' will accept it. And what else can you do with a split? I don't accept just defaulting with the original CDA proposal, as it really didn't have anything like the kind of consensus that those really eager to run it are saying it did. That is why some people are still bringing in their anger from early December, which can be really confusing if you are just looking at the proposal at hand. IMO, CDA was a delicate thing from the start, and it's fantastic that it's got so close to a stage where it can (without too much fear) be put to the community at large.

All the while I'm basically trying to negate any likely criticism we could receive at the RFC, to avoid the strings of "oppose per" votes you get when someone influential has raised a killer point. I think that even one really valid criticism could seriously endanger the poll. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

RE to do: On top of the 85%, we need to make sure that people like NYBrad are happy with the references to sanctions etc. I put in that flexible paragraph to offer something that could stand in place of giving too much detail. Crats are pretty powerful, and we needn't spell out everything they are likely to do - just perhaps suggest that they are entitled to do it. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Today's bold edit: Whilst I love a bold idea, I do think sometimes things require a bit of pondering before its done. I don't have time tonight to discuss, but I would ask you consider putting that proposal for discussion first (self-revert), and either post it in a new section or sub-section of the CDA proposal/talk page. I'll comment later when I can, but I have concerns about it. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 16:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually let's consider using this page here to hash out things. It contains the text prior to your bold edits, and the new text. We can use that as a live editing space. Cool? NJA (t/c) 17:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I often get the article edit down first, providing it is 'fully' written, as people actually get to see it - even if it's edit-history within 2 seconds. I am concerned that we are assuming Uncle G's CDA had enough consensus to be left places - I don't think that is true, and for me it all needs dealing with. Even those who voted for it would have expected to see a lot of change imo.

You are the only 'pro-CDA' person who has joined in willing getting his hands dirty. Swonk did to a degree, but unfortunately I couldn't agree with the ratio idea and I think that wore him down. I wish I could accept using 5:1, but using consensus properly is why I am here in the fist place - Wikipedia is pointless without it, and I need those kind of rules to keep me interested. The ratio would have to at least be 6:1 to approach consensus, if not up to 9:1 (90%). And would people really accept them? FT2 also prefers percentages of the two (on his talk).

My concerns are all related to 'risk' in some way - the more we risk, the less chance the proposal has at the RfC. In a way, it's as simple as that. I'm not willing to gamble on anything that doesn't have the largest consensus, esp something I might think the common editor would prefer (eg an 80% baseline), as I know the critics will go to town on it. What about the majority in the poll, who polled for 90% and 'none'? I don't like to gamble, and taking our eyes off real consensus for even a moment is a gamble with these critics dotted around.

Some of those critics (though they are wrong about not being listened to) do a have a point about being ignored sometimes - in the sense of CDA being a bit of an unstoppable machine. It should have slowed down earlier, when some people started to grumble, but instead it effectively picked up pace. I was part of that, although I tried to advance it in a more open way. I've never seen the hurry for starting the community vote, and rushing still worries me a great deal. People can't seem to stop saying we are "nearly there", and I find I'm saying it myself sometimes just to placate people (who are both pro and against cda, who want to run it for different reasons of course). In reality I want to spend as long as we need picking through it, and testing it in our heads in the same way Hammersoft wants to via various research methods. Are things like the Tips worth the risk? They just add ambiguity. We are still relying on Uncle G's original text, which seems more out of sentiment than anything overtly rational to me. I'm sure that most didn't see it as the final copy.

As for your new page, I'll accept it for a period, but I would need you to work with me on it. I did put the first draft of the new Consensus section in the Talk page, but only Tryptofish has so far responded.

I think if the proposal looks and reads the business it's half way there, and if it covers all angles then it can poll two-thirds, maybe even more if we comment well at the RfC. If you listen to the critics, sometimes they do slip out some sobering (if not always in the exact detail, accurate) points. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Here are my comments on the recent bold edit. NJA (t/c) 12:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt, control your temper (at Tryptofish's page). GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: your comment at WP:AN

Re [2]. You've previously accused me of being disruptive for asking questions. Now, you're claiming I'm dictating what people can say, violating WP:AGF, and more. Frankly, I'm fed up with it. You do not control CDA and you do not have a right to tell me not to ask questions.

Frankly, I don't know who developed the model (if there even is one) of how the CDA process is being developed. Honestly, I don't care. What I do care about is that it is wholly unprofessional and misdirected. Asking a question isn't a sin. Asking a question about how this process will affect administrator behavior, and doing so in such a way as not to bias the resulting answers is a positive thing. The answers have already been quite illuminating and useful. Maybe not to you, and that's fine, but it is to me. Whether or not you care to think so, my interests are for the betterment of this project and this sort of question and the answers that have been coming back are quite useful to that end.

Your continued efforts at demonizing my behavior is unacceptable. If you don't want me stating any more questions or assisting the process in the way I best see fit, then I strongly, in the most emphatic way, encourage you to seek out an administrator who is willing to block me for being disruptive and all the other accusations you have made of me. Enough is enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I speak for myself, and I address you when I see you. You just keep asking the same questions until you eventually get the answer you want. To then paste those answers together in a new section (without the responses people have taken the time to make) is a bit much! To suggest I am trying to control things is a bit rude in the light of you doing that. I've certainly been trying to keep your previous comment strategy under control though (basically by answering you). As you have openly being trying to bring down the CDA proposal, I see it as nothing short of my right.

I've been advised to not bother with you, but my concern is that your comments can mislead people who are new to CDA. (esp the damning and effectively-personal stuff, like all critics being routinely and rudely ignored). It isn't fair, and don't want people at the CDA Rfa poll to see any of your comments sitting there unanswered (which would only be because you keep repeating them).

I wasn't bothered with you going to Admin noticeboard, and I agree that the responses are useful. If it wasn't a out of the supposed remit of AN I'd have probably have done it myself. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't asked this question before to my knowledge, and certainly not to administrators as a whole. You agree it's a worthwhile question asking, so I fail to see why we're having a problem in regards to my asking it.
• To be clear, yes I am strongly opposed to CDA. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to it being implemented if the community wants it. I do not and have never acted against the community will. Believe it or not, even though I am opposed to it, I am far more opposed to a process trying to advance itself using an extremely poor base for doing so. The development process being used for CDA is haphazard and unprofessional. It's doomed to failure by that very fact alone. I keep on being told to wait for the RfC, wait for the RfC, wait for the RfC. But the thing is, this isn't ready for an RfC, nor even close. An RfC could evaluate whether or not CDA is a good idea, but the cart's being put in front of the horse. The process needs to be developed using a reasoned, disciplined approach and that is not happening here. Only once it has been honed and tempered through such an approach is the question of whether CDA a good idea one that can be asked. I spoke more of this earlier today on Jehochman's talk page.
• Let me give you an example. Some decades ago, the political leaders of Seattle decided after much deliberation that the city plan should direct itself to developing more highways, more roads, and better access for vehicles as a means to reduce the growing congestion problem of the time. They were very well intentioned. But, their process was flawed. The result? Seattle is one of America's top ten most congested cities (9th on that list, most congested on this list. They are now trying to retrofit light rail lines into the city to reduce congestion. Right now that have about 15 miles of rail, and are now adding another 3 miles at a cost of US$500 million per mile. But, they have no choice. They can not build more highways to accommodate increasing traffic. So now they are paying an enormous cost for doing something they could have done at a much cheaper price before...because they failed to properly develop their process.
• Asking the question of how a process, as currently envisaged, would impact a given thing is a step that must be taken before you attempt to implement that process. This is just one, small element of a professional approach to process development.
• I don't know if this will clear the air between us, but I do hope you will acquit me of attempting to be disruptive and/or violating WP:AGF. There is another way to look at what I've been doing, and I hope I've illuminated it enough to see that now. Regards, --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply to this tomorrow, but I agree we should clear the air. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt Lewis, I'm trusting that you would not like to be the subject of controversy/formal dispute resolution when it is avoidable, so I'll urge you once - please either add evidence to your comment at AN regarding Hammersoft (in the form of diffs), or refactor your comment entirely. It is not acceptable in its current form.

On a related point, participants in discussions can often be distracted from the purpose for which the discussion was started - requesting that this discussion have the specific input required so as to keep the discussion focussed is perfectly legitimate, especially if others appear to miss the point of the discussion after some time. In other words, Hammersoft was correct to open the subsection in the discussion in the way that he did, and the results speak for themselves as people directly address the question (note - the currently dominant answer, no, doesn't support Hammersoft's position regarding CDA, however, it does answer his question all the same, so your decision to make such allegations is so wrong on so many levels). Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see how doing such a thing can be perfectly legitimate. As much as anything, it is guaranteed to wind people up. The only problem was quite a serious one; he moved the answers downwards, sans the replies to those answers. I may well not have commented at AN all, had it been as smooth as he intended, as I was happy just to see pure responses to a useful question. But when the answers themselves raise questions, and people answer those questions, and people like Jehochman chip in (which is what happened), then I reserve the right to comment too. I doubt Hammersoft would have left all those "No" answers pass without a comment or two of his own (or Jehochman). As Jehochman himself pointed out, people cannot demand that comments must tightly limited to only one part of a matter. If you notice, some admin have taken the opportunity to comment on CDA itself in the new section too. And why shouldn't they, despite the stated intention of the section to limit their answers? Wikipedia is rarely so smooth or complient.

As I said in my comment, moving already answered-to comments to a new section and requesting limited answers is just going "a bit too far". I didn't revert anything, I just made a comment in context of the personal dialogue I've had with Hammersoft for a while, which I'm sure he would have expected. As for providing diffs, do I have to go that far? You suggest I'm exaggerating about him, but I'm actually not. Look on the talk page of the proposal, and the draft page too. Hammersoft has been using various comments and sections to attempt to stop the CDA process because he feels so strongly about it. He thinks there will be a "bloodbath". While I sympathise with quite a lot of what he says about the earlier (or 'mid') phases of the latest Admin Recall debate (though he has real WP:ABF to those who are pro CDA, and exaggerates far too much), I myself could see, when I got involved, that CDA could not be stopped - so I've tried to make it productive. In between I've spent too much time repeating things to Hammersoft, who keeps saying nobody to listens to anyone, when I could be doing better things. I don't think any of it is fair, especially when the CDA RfC simply cannot be stopped now. Not re-addressing him makes it look like he actually isn't being listened to, and I don't want people to get that impression. If CDA fails, he will have all the time in the world to start a new form of Admin Recall as slowly and methodically as he wants.

And so I find myself writing even more now. I don't think it's helpful talking in terms of despute resolution when we he and I are clearly talking at the moment to be honest. Why not let us sort it out? Matt Lewis (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going repeat myself in regards to the accusations you're still making of me. If I couldn't convey my intent before, I'm certainly no better qualified to do so today than I was yesterday. So, I give up. But, I do want to respond to a single point that you mention above; that I moved comments. I did no such thing. Please see this diff where I created the new sub-section. I didn't delete any prior comments. I copied a single answer by a single admin that had so far responded directly to the question. In closing, I will say this; since you maintain these accusations against me, then yes I do think it important that you provide diffs to backup your accusations or cease making them. Accusing me of something without being willing to do the homework to backup those accusations is an empty accusation. I've desperately tried to explain myself above to you, but you apparently think I'm lying about my intent. C'est la vie. I can't change your opinion, and you're free to have it. But, I don't have to continually suffer empty accusations. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Talking" is the first step in formal dispute resolution; I'm not sure what it is you are reading to think that this is being sorted out when nothing has changed, and neither of positions are likely to change. Yes, I would like you to provide diffs to substantiate the claims that you've made - even your expressed "doubts" regarding Hammersoft (in the comment I'm responding to now) appear to amount to bad faith.

It is not as much of an issue when people provide a direct answer to the original point, but also add their 2 cents (even if it is not ideal) - it is however an issue when people fail to remain focussed on the original point at all and disrupt the discussion completely (perhaps intentionally for that matter too) by turning it into something that it isn't, and often making that discussion pointless waste of time. Whatever Hammersoft's motivations were, this discussion has provided useful information that is not pointless; I don't think this will change. By the way, if you notice more closely, Jehochman appears to be the user who says that nobody is listening, not Hammersoft, and the only 2 people who appear truly "wound up" for that matter is both you and Jehochman. If you aren't ready to refactor/remove, diffs really are needed, especially for the first paragraph of your comment at AN. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)#

I will provide diffs, but you can wait till I have time later if you don't mind. I'm juggling with what I want to do at the moment, and am frustratingly on/off the pc all the time. You could have a look at his Hammersoft's comments on CDA, esp the talk page of the proposal, like Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship#Getting_page_ready in this section. Also on the draft page, although it is periodically archived or collapse archived. All 3 of us are wound up, and Hammersoft tends to say that his (and other) points are ignored and he's been treated like crap. The more it's gone on, the less respectfully he probably has been treated (though never that badly - this was prbably the worst). I agree that the AN question was a useful thing to do, and even agree with re-targeting as a subsection, but I don't think there was any need for the above comments copied. They should have been left above, so people could read above (if they chose too). Copy them in this manner was semi-moving them in a way, and people should really be informed as they may not like it. I'll look at it again later, and probably delete it I think it needs slotted-in diffs - diff dropping in angry observations isn't really my style, I tend to just go by my word. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• And to piggy back on Ncmvocalist's comments vis-a-vis the first paragraph here, starting with "Hammersoft"; At the time that I created the new, re-focus section I did not copy only those comments that I liked. I copied only the single answer that an administrator had made to the particular question in the earlier section above. Later, in the newly created section, administrator Jafeluv asked "Why do you ask?". I responded, "I think it is important to understand what impact CDA might have on the project were it implemented. One of the ways in which it might have an impact is administrator behavior. I'm not seeking answers condemning or supporting CDA, but answers that are self evaluative from administrators regarding how CDA may or may not impact their administrator actions." <emphasis mine> You are attributing intents against me that I do not have. Ncmvocalist is right; the answers are useful. I don't care if they support my position or not. That's not the point. Do you think research scientists get mad and throw out experiment results when the results don't coincide with their preconceptions? Of course not, or at least not scientists that have a job for long. That's intellectually dishonest. The point is to understand what impact CDA as currently proposed may or may not have if it were implemented. Nobody had asked that question yet to my knowledge, and it needed to be asked. Above, you accuse me with "I doubt Hammersoft would have left all those "No" answers pass without a comment or two of his own". You will note that I haven't made a single comment in that section in response to any "no" response. Your accusation is without basis. I specifically didn't want to influence people's answers, which is why I said I'm not seeking answers condemning or supporting CDA. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: "move" - I meant to say "copy", although copying in this manner is kind of like a "semi-move", and you should arguably have told the comments' authors. It hardly encouraged reading them again above, or you could have just diffed (or simply pointed) to them. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've already told you I think it was a good question to ask.

I tell you what - if CDA fails we can both work on slowly prototyping a new form of Admin recall from the ground up. Wikipedia isn't a German car manufacturer though, so I doubt we'd be allowed to be too methodical. Wikiepdia tends to be: discuss, edit, revert - and CDA, although it was rushed, is following that in a way. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Instead of doing diffs at ten paces (and yes, I've plenty of diffs to back up your behavior too), how about we put away the six guns and get back to WP:AGF moving forward? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me. I won't ask you to wait for the RFC again; we still have canvassing rules, the threshold percentage, and what constitutes an 'active admin' to work out. One thing is for sure, the proposal taken to the community will be as professional as possible (if I have anything to do with it anyway), so if it does fail, you will be in a much better place to propose something new. The main thing is that Admin Recall is not a muddied area. If things are kept clean, the whole thing can be seen as a long process. The fact that CDA has got this far is a good thing (and a natural smowball imo) because Wikipedia is an inherently floored environment for getting things done and working things out. If CDA is trialled and fails, again you can still move forward with another form of AR. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• That's just it. As I've noted before, the development process used for this isn't professional. I don't care who decided the development process; this is not a comment on any one person, but on the process. It's inherently horribly flawed. That no one had thought to ask the question I did at WP:AN is proof of that. There are other questions to ask in that vein too, and that is but one small area of the professional process that should be used to develop this, but isn't being used. I refer you again to the posting I made at Jehochman's talk page [3]. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I meant professional in the a material sense - it will, by the RfC, I hope, be a solid and watertight proposal, that looks like a vote-worthy prospect that will work. the run up to CDA is in the past now. Things will never run smoothly on Wikipedia - it will always be jumpy to a degree. It will always have trial and error aspects. As long as it's the encyclopedia anyone can edit, anyway. At the end of the day, trialling CDA will be one step closer (maybe the final step) to an AR solution. If it fails, we can either improve it, or strike it off the list. In the long run, all that is actually professional in a way (providing this CDA proposal isn't a total mess). It all depends how you look at it. If we keep things clean, eventually we will get a better Admin recall process. Matt Lewis (talk)

commas/brackets

Are you serious? You undid a minor edit to Morning Star to make the sentence more readable because 'it has not been agreed to'! It in no way changes the meaning or emphasis, merely improves the flow. What is the problem?Haldraper (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll answer this as if you are not playing games with me:

Why ask me this question now when we've been through it before? Why would you care about the 'flow' of the introduction of a newspaper you particularly (and openly) dislike? You don't want the brackets because they put the words "Communist Party" inside them. You want the comma instead because they focus on the words. You want to make the Communist Party the focus of the paragraph, if not the whole introduction (and hence the article), and you know my problem with that because I've probably told it several times: The article is about the Morning Star. It is NOT about the Communist Party. You succeeded in getting the "Communist Party" into the Intro because you never gave up and in a room full of week people - well done. Can't you let it go now? You still have no sources to back up your claims about the newspaper being 'Communist'. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

PS. you are on 3RR. I'm not going to go to that myself, so the only way to stop you putting your well-voiced POV into the article will to report you and insist it is returned to the consensus edit. 3RR is one thing that works like clockwork, so I suggest you do not try it. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt, you've got a serious paranoia problem. I will 'let it go' because I'm not that bothered, just amazed you saw commas as POV-pushing.Haldraper (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

p.s. per your edit summary, I wrote 'user talk page' not 'talk page'. I also think you meant 'weak people' when you insulted the other editors.Haldraper (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was indeed talking about the other people who passed by to comment. They were too willing to compromise, but I'm built for attrition, me. Your brackets to comma edit? Read a book on grammar - there can be a massive difference between the two. It was you who came back to the article, and you who just went to 2RR. To make a "better flow" edit on a newspaper you openly dislike? Hmm. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please just use my name

Matt, I've asked you before to use my Wikipedia nickname. It's "TenOfAllTrades", and it's right there in my signature. Please don't fiddle with it — I'm not TenOfUs, I'm not Mr Trades. (It's not Ten-of-all-Trades, either, which Tryptofish has used for some reason.) If you want to address me or refer to me, just use my name. Type it out or copy and paste it. If it's too long, you can use Ten. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - I'll use Ten. Tenovus is a cancer charity in the uk, and it keeps springing to mind. Mr Trades was just me trying to be lighthearted I'm afraid (and a bit lazy too probably). Every now and again I do seem to struggle with a user name. Matt Lewis (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U notice

Since you started it, I wanted to let you know that I have closed and deleted Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ben MacDui as it was never certified. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your rudeness has already been noted. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

As you actually fully deleted without contacting me first - when I have time I will make an rfc/u on you. I am UTTERLY fed up with this kind of admin behaviour. You will understand when rightly (and properly) embarasss you too - and this time I will put some oomph behind it. You are one admin pandering to another with no care for the 'piece of shit' editor who dared to put up the rfc/u. It is just disgusting. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Would you please explain what I have done that is wrong or in error? Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Closing says that an RfC/U has to be certified within 48 hours of being started, and in the "Closing uncertified disputes" section it says (a direct quotation) "RfCs which do not meet the minimum requirements should be marked for speedy deletion with the {{db-maintenance}} tag after 48 hours." You started the RfC on 14:07, February 7, 2010. I deleted it on 13:25, February 10, 2010, so it went the full 48 hours, plus over 23 more. The problem was that no one else signed on the RfC/U to certify it, and I gave it nearly a full day longer than required. Is there something I am missing here?

I do not see any place where a notiification is required. The RfC/U itself made this deadline very clear, again a direct quote (and I left the code in so it shows the current time, just as it did before):

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC).

By the way, if you feel that my actions are inappropriate, and need a copy of the RfC/U text for some reason, I will provide it to you - just make a page in your user space for me to paste it into. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What I didn't like? I offered to MacDui to close the rfc/u twice (and btw I had to make it after he reverted me over cda - it is a community matter, and he is not the boss) and he didn't take me up on it. You then ask MacDui (but not me!) if he wants you to "close it for him" - MacDui being an admin you are friendly with - having just been to his page to compliment him on something! The 'atmosphere' was one I found completely inappropriate and WP:ABF to me in the extreme. MacDui responded to you on your talk page in a derogatory-to-me way that I obviously did not appreciate either. Neither of you contacted me until the information I had personally created was deleted (I assumed for good). So what was professional about it then? Nothing.

What I don't like? Frankly (I am more than happy to admit) - I don't like admin. House of Lords, jobs for the boys, half open ears, aloof comments, tuts and bad smells. ABF every day and all day long. Angry stranger = disruptive idiot. The customer is always shite. I've striven for most of my working life not to be treated in a second-class way, but on Wikipedia I have no choice. This is the page you can post the deleted information in = [4].

Thank you. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have posted it to the page you pointed me to. You started an RfC/U and no one else agreed with you enough to sign onto it and certify it in 71 hours (much longer than the 48 hours required). The instructions clearly say that any RfC/U not certified within 48 hours is to be deleted, but they do not require any notification of the involved parties that I can see. Only admins can delete things, but Ben MacDui, as an involved party, should not delete an RfC/U he is named in. As an uninvolved party (albeit one who has worked with MacDui in the past), I saw the RfC/U notice when I left the thank spam on his talk page and offered to delete it, then did so.

Again, I repeat my question: What did I do that did not follow the stated procedures for closing an RfC/U? While I understand the fact that you are upset with MacDui and now with me, this is not what I am looking for - I want specific policies / guidelines / procedures that I did not follow, please. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? My complaint was always the clear inequality of treatment towards me (an editor, who opened the rfc/u) and MacDui (another admin like yourself, the subject of the rfc/u) - I never once said you were obliged to contact me (whether you were or were not I don't know). Clearly you felt you could ask MacDui what he wanted - I am sure there is not rule to disqualify that either. This is what they call "wikilawyering" isn't it? There are 'policies / guidelines / procedures' simply on being an admin you know - though not half enough of them, and few admin give a damn about them anyway I would suggest - I mean why should they?.

You clearly did not see the rfc/u on MacDui as a serious matter - but was it for you to judge either way? As MacDui's open buddy, you should have left it to someone else anyway - but you clearly set out to relieve him of it (it's just too obvious I'm afraid). Is that the best manner for an RfC/u to close? If you were asking opinion on whether to close the rfc/u, you should have asked the opener of it (an editor, me), and not just the subject of it (an admin, who had not even contributed to it). That was just illogical, and a huge signal of WP:ABF towards the opener - the reason for my justifiable anger. If I took it up you would have to get your botty smacked - admit it. A few - dare I say it? Hard words? But who knows - maybe not.

At the CDA proposal, some people have been screaming for the past month the "RFC/u aint broke!". I was actually happy for the one I opened on MacDui to close (as I had intimated before hand), but as it was easily closed in the manner that it was, I would suggest that rfc/u very much is broke: respect for the opener is clearly not built into the procedure, and people like yourself do not even see it as something that is worthy of a professional approach. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I closed an RfC/U that I became aware of because I went to the talk page of the subject of the RfC/U. RfC/U has a set time limit and I closed it as it has failed to attract any comments in favor of it besides your own in well over the required 48 hours, not because of its seriousness or lack thereof. If one other user had agreed with you on the RfC/U it would still be open. I notified you that I had closed and deleted it, and provided you with all the text. I have not been involved in the CDA proposal. Sorry to have missed all the fun, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Take a peak

Perhaps this may be of interest to you. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - looks interesting. I've got something to on cda tonight, then I'll give it a look. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA (everyone who voted gets one)

Hi Matt Lewis,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 10:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

My vote

I vote for the 80 % threshold, but it's not clear where to vote. Please put my vote there. Bearian (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Similarly, I wasn't too sure where to post my clarification (that page is bloody huge!!). My "none" vote was in reference to the idea that there should not be an automatic threshold, though a general guideline makes sense. We choose our 'crats for thier abilities to gauge consensus, so we can let them do thier job without any automatic guidelines possibly making it harder for them. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both for replying. The idea was to post the reply at the bottom of my message - but it was a long message, as I felt I had no choice but to "dot every i" and try and make the query as unambiguous as possible. Unfortunately it didn't work as I've been immediately criticised for doing it badly! But that is CDA for you. Most of the CDA Draft page is debate over this matter - when we have settled it we will allowed to archive it properly. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the whole process has become victim of the usual community over-discussion. We as Wikipedians love to debate things to death. At this point, I wash my hands of it and bid you luck; I just can't spare the time to keep myself informed when there is too much to read, and I am loathe to meddle in a process uninformed. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The is an objection to the page being archived at the moment alas - this VOTE 2 issue is the hitch. I will inform you when it's been settled, in case you want a quick look again at a clean page. I do think it is a mistake is to think that Wikipedia can ever be any much less than it is now when it comes to discussion to be honest. It is inherently what it is: the encyclopedia everyone (or 'anyone' to be more pertinent) can edit. What do you do if a decision can't be made? Throw a die, or carry on working? CDA is no small matter, so it's no surprise to me it is taking a litte time. And so it should imo. It's not a long time imo. Compare it to 'real life', where these kind of major new developments are hardly any implemented any faster. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah ... cotrary to my actual vote, I don't think that there shouldn't be any automatic baseline after which the bureaucrat "has to" de-admin someone. In time one may develop but I think it is better to start with the basics and allow CDA to develop rather in practice than expecting it is possible to get everything right in one shot. CDA will be something that will develop and change through practice until it is "right" (just like everything else). -- RA (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't get the double negative there - do you think there should be an 'automatic baseline', after which.. sorry I'm lost! Do you mean automatic threshold? Your 90% vote was a clear and popular one - I'm fighting to get it represented using a compromise of 85%, as the default 80% had only about 38% support. Some people are determined it can't go higher though. Wikipedia is genuinely divided here (with valid reasons for both arguments), though people some won't even admit that, hence my querying messages to all the voters.

The CDA proposal by 'Uncle G' started fully-written (with obvious room for improvement), and then various revisions to it were polled - all before I got involved. The problem with suddenly proposing just the 'bare bones' idea of CDA (which many people would rather see) isn't that it's a bad one, it's that CDA just hasn't - for good or bad - developed that way. One thing for sure is that the CDA proposal has to be one or the other - either theoretically a workable process, or just the idea of one. People have threatened to 'rip apart' a proposal with holes (and there are plenty of people against CDA - which is why both consensus and compromise is so important), so a watertight proposal with the flexibility to change (which is written into Wikipedia anyway) is clearly the way to go. Another problem with proposing just the idea is that some people are damning CDA for theoretically being able to get through and destroy Wikiepdia by being to weak - ie they won't take the chance on 'bare bones' anything. Someone even Opposed in VOTE 2 simply because the all dates were not ironed out. There is a sizeable anti-CDA lobby - many of whom simply prefer other forms of admin recall - who will succeed in tearing CDA at the Rfc vote if it's not a resistant-enough proposal. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt - thanks for being the self-appointed secretary of this CDA proposal. You've kept me in the loop at critical junctures.--v/r - TP 18:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, it's no problem. I've no idea how well CDA will poll, but I'm determined it stays close to the community (and so have the best chance), or else what's the point? Matt Lewis (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops ... double negative was a mistake. Is that clearer now. I can understand the desire to go with to the community the "best" version of CDA but I fear that it may be over-cooked. Whatever get OK'ed at the RFA it should be bourne in mind that it will likely be tinkered with over time. -- RA (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

It's impossible to get something like CDA right first time. We just need something that looks like it can realistically work. Despite what you might read, the process of addressing the likely problems raised has actually been reasonably good the last few weeks. Polling it while people still have valid actually-technical issues would be suicide imo. People will say; if you've all failed to iron them out now, how can you do it after? I'm very mindful of that Motion to Close, and I think if the proposal looks professional (ie like a workable process), that would be half the story with many voters.Matt Lewis (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

VOTE 2: Continued semantics issue

Matt: It is appreciated that you are attempting to resolve the problem with the meaning of the word "none" in this CDA draft poll. However, I see a continued problem of semantics with the current revised wording, which is:

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Sadly, I think the original wording was interpreted to mean two different things, and this wording suffers the same fate. To whit: the concept of a threshold being used, yes or no, is still not explicitly allowed by this wording: if a voter wishes there to be no automatic desysop guidance, they can not use a vote of "None" to express this preference. The problem is the word "can": I believe it should be replaced with "should", as in:

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats should automatically desysop.

The way I read the entire proposal of CDA, giving percentages for a threshold of "CDA passes", and then a second, higher percentage for "CDA indicates automatic desysop" is what is being voted on in VOTE 2. If one votes "None", the meaning would be "no automatic desysop threshold should be set". Here, by using the phrase "a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop", confusion sets in yet again. "Can" and "automatically" are opposing terms, and someone who reads that to say "bureaucrats can automatically desysop at any level" ("they can(?) automatically desysop at 70%") will vote "None" just as often as someone who reads it to say "bureaucrats are not to be held to a threshold" ("there should never be an automatic CDA desysop"). "Automatically" means "without discussion, summarily" to me. Seriously, there is a problem with that sentence: if I, who have read and reread the questions and arguments about the poll, can't decide what it means, how can anyone casually involved in the process expect to know what it means? I would appreciate it if you would add a further comment in your messages to voters, notifying them that a vote of "None" means exactly: no automatic desysop threshold should be set. I am not trying to play a game over this, I sincerely see the word "can" as forming an ambiguous meaning to the sentence. Sswonk (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

So far (though I've not got them all yet), you are the only person who has said he actually felt actual ambiguity (rather than just noticed it): for Tryptofish it was a possibility, and MacDui (and FT2 I think) agreed that it could theoretically be ambiguous. But they still knew what it meant.

To be honest, I don't think that even I could append to the 71 messages I've already sent! As you can imagine, some people find it a bit tiresome (alas) - and ridicule is only a message away for some I think. I can take that, but I want to leave as few unanswered as possible. What I will do though is carefully go through the results with you (and Tryptofish), and then re-contact the editors you feel are still ambiguous. I can be personal then (instead of spammy), and add some urgency too.

Just to make my position clear again: A 71 voter poll is a serious poll by Wikipedia standards, and abandoning it would mean suicide at the RfC imo. The nearly-two thirds who did not vote 80% all have votes, feelings, and good reasons too! And we know that a number of anti-CDA people are looking for any ammunition they can find. I've seen decent-looking polls toppled by criticism and "per" votes. The voting community will naturally need to feel particularly secure about CDA. And that means proving we have 'solid' consensus behind all aspects of it. I'd rather see "6:1" than go with the broken "80%", but I fear that puts us in uncharted territory, and I can't face gambling on new uncertainties at this stage. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: above, "But they still knew what it meant.": I don't. Your sentence explaining the question, which I blockquoted above, is unclear, and as a result the poll continues to be flawed. "None" can mean either "desysop automatically at any level" or "never desysop automatically" when the word "can" is used as it is here. Simply because you know what you meant because you wrote it, and are sure MacDui and Tryptofish know what it means, doesn't mean anyone else at the RFC won't say that the votes are meaningless because the question is unclear. What I would suggest at a minimum is that you respond here, telling me exactly what it means. Please. I am almost certain based on your vote and comments that you mean "None" should be interpreted to mean the conservative, i.e. "never desysop automatically", rather than the liberal, i.e. "desysop automatically at any level above 65". However, at this point I would like you to indicate precisely what you meant so I won't have to say I "almost" knew what you meant in the future. It has taken too much effort to get here, and just as you say, new uncertainties represent gambling, well, please clear up the old uncertainty of what exactly "None" means. I really think some of the "None" voters thought, and may continue to believe with this new wording using "can", that "None" might be used to indicate a lower threshold than either 80 or 90 is preferred, while others who chose "None" feel auto-desysop should not attach to any number, and others obviously voted "None" in the first place because they oppose CDA altogether. I also think this is a root cause of the arguments pointing to "bimodal distribution" outlined out by Tryptofish. In my view, it was bimodal because the question was subject to two opposing interpretations. Again, I am being sincere: of the two possibilities I suggested earlier in this paragraph, which does your sentence mean? Sswonk (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Per "rule of thumb", there is never a "should" - it's always a "can". As explained elsewhere in the message, "none" means "leave it to the crats" or "there should be no point where the crats can decide to auto-desysop based on the community vote (and not spend time judging the debate etc)" or "there should be no community decision". In my view, "none" has to correspond to 100% (or 101% perhaps), it we are going to compare it with 80% and 90%. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Touched. Considering the massive arguments in the past, I appreciated that very much. --HighKing (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

compromise

When people get into repeating patterns like you're getting into with Tryptofish, it often really helps to just get both parties together at the bar with a nice tall glass of their beverage of preference and have them talk things over. Failing that, and seeing the price of airline tickets, real time skype or chat is the poor-man's substitute which has helped solve quite a number of disputes.

Right now, I don't know if that's going to happen though, it looks like Tryptofish pretty much doesn't want to do that (as is their right).

I'm a bit surprised that I've had to go and threaten sanctions against Tryptofish now.

Perhaps both of you have simply gotten a tad too heated and/or entrenched? It seems like you both do really mean well! <scratches head>

I hope we can all come to a decent compromise.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we all of us mean well. We all have different ideas of CDA perhaps (which may not bode well, I don't know - but then, if we stick to consensus..). I stick to policy always as it's the glue that keeps me here: i don't much like chaos. The only policy I struggle on are civil, AGF and verify (in its feeblest use when I think it should be srrong). Ok that's quite a lot if policy to struggle with! I do believe in consensus though.

In the past I've used hard work to get over hurdles like this one at CDA. Hopefully that will work this time too, and we can at least scroll up the percentage matter, and move on a stage. I just hope Tryptofish doesn't 'de-legitimise' my poll query findings, otherwise I'll have to decide whether to straw poll (aaahhggh), or just make a bold edit and change the CDA page to 85% and see what happens. I'm still sorting the answers, but right now it looks like there is not the 'result-ambiguity' needed to deligitimise the whole of VOTE 2 and keep the threshold on 80%. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

We can be a lot bolder yet, and move straight to the part where we gather consensus for an actual Community-deadminship (should one be required right now). The reason this works is because we'd already be at the stage of a consensus-gathering-process. Why gather consensus (proposal questions) about gathering consensus (RFC) about gathering consensus (CDA) ? Bit inefficient, that. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying we should find a dummy (or even real?) admin and start a CDA? Matt Lewis (talk) 23:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be very careful and only try to CDA a corrupt admin who needs to be desysopped, else folks would get in trouble. But yes, that's basically it. If you get consensus to desysop, you get consensus to desysop; if not, not. --Kim Bruning (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

My VOTE 2 vote at CDA

I didn't vote "none". I voted 80%. My second preference would be 67%. A lot of admins should be desysopped.

Wikipedians need to get serious about doing something about worthless or rogue admins, or nothing can be done about rogue rank-and-file editors. The mop and pail is meant to be used, and used responsibly, and a higher level of behavior should be expected of admins.

Currently, people won't go to admins about Wikipedians that are problems for the project, because so many admins are problems for the project. -- Rico 20:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with most of that. My reason for the query is that whatever we personally want, if the proposal is obviously ignoring a polled consensus it will easy to dismantle by the many critics at the community vote.

Just out of curiosity (if you don't mind me asking seeing as you are on my talk..) what do you think of 85% as a 'compromise consensus'? I can personally accept it to get the thing though, as it's a 'mean' average of the split vote, which I think most people can accept (though I know a few can't). Some people who are very much into CDA still voted 90% or "none". Would you be able to accept 85%, do you think? If post-CDA proven 'bad eggs' are passing CDAs with their adminship intact, it will probably be lowered in the future. Or if the Crats would rather save themselves time when clear-cut cases are polling '75%' perhaps. CDA is very reliant on the Crats doing their job after the basline has been met (ie 65%), but that's what it is - it's the nature of the proposal. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Calm down

Matt, your comments directed at me are completely false and incivil. You need to get your temper under control and actually read what I said. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is the way you are going to act, I am formally informing you that you are about to be in violation of WP:3RR. Please, calm down. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You are a sly old goat. And to use tone of friendship, then go on and do what you did, when Jusdafax hasn't even run his alternative CDA yet! WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE FOR MAKING DEALS!!! At what point do you and policy ever meet? I just feel slightly sick right now to be honest. I never get out, and I got back as soon as I could. All my work has been to address the concerns that various people (even if just disinterested oppose voters) have brought up over the past weeks: at no point have you ever given a shit about them as far as I can see. I've taken so much crap off people like TanofAll just for being part of CDA, and being critical of their negativity - but who has actually addressed their concerns? Me. You cannot just ignore what you don't like. That is not what Wikipedia is about at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Tomorrow I will start to put in some the edits that have accepted for a while (whatever your ego tells you) - two weeks, some of them. DONT YOU DARE RUN CDA JUST TO COMPETE WITH JUSDAFAX. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

And what you just said at GoodDay's talk is unacceptable. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

That's between him and me. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Not if this escalates further. Your conduct today is beyond the pale. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

But do you understand at all that your behaviour was beyond the pale? Forget yourself for two minutes and read this: WP:policy. Read it. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Fix the CDA proposal up, the way you wish. It's no longer my concern. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, speak tomorrow. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Ease up Matt, this outburst is not like you. Nor you either GD. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Matt, given your response here, I have reported your comment to GoodDay at AN/I. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)