User talk:Matt Lewis

London Riot AfD

The AfD for the 2011 London riots article is an obvious infringement of WP:POINT. The article is blatantly worthy of including. Apologies for being so blunt. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are a major contributer but have given it a (very) speedy keep?? I'm not accepting that, and I'm going to undo your decision: you are too involved. This must be debated properly and the article is not going anywhere until a decision is made - please take a step back. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, this is a blatant WP:POINT infringement - please don't undo this. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You are abusing your position as an admin. And blatantly blocking debate. Why? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss the idea of Wikipedia not covering breaking news stories (and you wouldn't be the first) there are other areas to go. Perhaps review WP:NOTNEWS and go to the talk page there. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I wish to place a delete template and you have stopped me from doing it to make sure the article is kept alive. In your excitement you have abused you position, and I'll be placing a RFC/u. What did you expect? This is totally unacceptable. You are deliberately stopping debate, even when you will probably get what you want anyway. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

There had already been an AFD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2011_Tottenham_riots.©Geni 00:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That's fine but please take this from someone who has been here a while and seen it all - it's not worth it. I ask you to take my advice and discuss this at the appropriate place. In fact, join in this discussion which is very much related to what you are saying. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:43, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've been here since 2006 - don't tell me what is appropriate or not. An Afd is clearly appropriate - it's made for the job. This is spreading to Liverpool - Wikipedia has no right to do this imo. I'll try the undo again - it didn't work first time. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to be causing any grief here but please realise that this will not work. I won't revert anything you do but others will. I understand your point but the majority of people see Wikipedia as a highly dynamic encyclopaedia that contains the very latest information. violet/riga _^[talk] 00:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Little I do here does work, but this has still got to be done. Obviously I won't do the RFCc/u as you've allowed me to replace the Afd page. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

wikipedia has a long standing practice of covering significant events close to the time they happen and AFD cannot and should not change that. Given the previous AFD on the article opening an second one without some pretty good arguments is going to have a fairly predictable result.©Geni 01:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Why are people so keen on negative predictions in this place? Let's do things properly. This is reminding me of when people get warned for what they might possibly do (or get warned based simply on having a block or two in the 'log' perhaps). Matt Lewis (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

AfD is not the proper place to try and change or establish policy. AfD is a place that exists to implement existing policy. So far you've completely failed to give any policies that backup your proposed deletion. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 01:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I've just done it - but it's been speedy deleted again. I've been put under outrageous pressure here. For what? You are simply stifling debate. Absolutely outrageous. I'm undoing it again. Go and block me for it - it's what you people are good for. For heaven's sake - what going to happen? It's only bloody debate - I'm not censoring the riots. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding the point here that I did very specifically want to see an Article for Deletion - not just to encourage general debate on 'meta' issues. The original AfD was just 1 hour long - which gave no chance for non-contributing (ie 'keep' voters) to see it and have a say. Clearly it should have lasted the proper amount of time (ie a few days) - in which case I would have simply seen it and added my point of view. At this juncture I will build a case somewhere else.

I think a lesson in quick-closing AfD's needs to be learnt here. It's basically hitting serious people who want to have their say with a bat, and creates a forged "there is consensus, so shut up" scenario. AfD's are quite-simply made for the job: the debate on whether to keep the article is kept away from the main discussion pages, and the article continues while the AfD debate takes place. Hurrying an AfD like this to a quick close was needless, and was guaranteed to cause problems. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Can we please put this to bed? The article has received over 54000 views so I think that establishes a demand for it. I really don't think that you will get anywhere while you focus on this article specifically rather than the issues of WP:NOTNEWS. violet/riga _^[talk] 01:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

No - the argument that "people expect it" is a terrible one in my view, and it is shocking and frightening to me how many people have gone to WP for breaking news. Figures are no barometer of quality or correctness. How about putting up porn and seeing how many people come and see that? And I've said many times that the "you won't get anywhere" arguments are miserable too. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The extreme irony of you shouting about the "Absolutely outrageous" way that people are "stifling debate" by shutting-down your attempt to CENSOR Wikipedia's content about the riots in England is not lost on anyone. I have no idea why you're so obsessed with deleting Wikipedia's content about the riots in England - an issue that has received headline coverage from every major media organisation in the world - but you've managed to bring your own reputation into disrepute among the editorial community. Deterence ^Talk 02:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if you say so (or 'shout' so) then it must be true: that's how Wikipedia networking works isn't it? Be sure to tell others won't you. I don't know who you are but if you are a 'UK Riots' contributor you are simply proving how far from 'journalistic quality' Wikipedian's are, despite no-doubt many of their aspirations. This is breaking news, and the amateurism here is a simple fact. The high-pitched NO CENSORSHIP ON WIKIPEDIA argument divides Wikipedians (you must know that), and the actual truth here is that all of my comments criticising the article (apart from here on my talk page) have at some point been 'moved along' in some way. Every single one of them. So who is (so needlessly) censoring? If you understand "irony" you must see your own foolishness in calling me the "censor". The original AfD lasted just 1 hour - how on earth do you find any non-contributing (ie non 'keep') input in that? If it was left for a reasonable time none of this would have happened. The excitement has just overtaken people's senses I think.

Anyway Deterence - it is you are shouting here in your attempt to make it look like I've been 'SHOUTING' when I haven't. That's how basic Wikipedia is sometimes, alas. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

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

—David Levy 02:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matt, I've responded to your comment on my talkpage. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you want "closure" stop playing the victim. You're the one who started all this. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:25, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a little unnecessary at this point, I think, Hot Stop. Let the guy gather his thoughts, and maybe he'll understand the frustration that's been expressed against him. He certainly seems to be doing so, based on his last comment to me anyway. Lay off him for a bit, yeah? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry if that came off as confrontational, but the only reason we're still having these conversations is because he's continuing them. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

It's more than "a little unnecessary" at any point Passerby - it's another childish slur from someone. As you can see from this (and I cannot believe you people can't see it by now) 'we' are still having these 'conversations' because of the provocative kicks I've had from people like Hot Stop every time I've been obliged to open my mouth - which has nearly all of it now been to simply defend myself from unfair personal comments. It's ridiculous. It's effectively all been variations of "you are 'disruptive' so shut up now - no son, no reply - I said totally shut up right now" the whole time. It may just be the case that some people wan't this article so badly that they are pushing AGF, civility, consensus, and all kinds of the lower-band guidelines really - just to make absolutely sure the article carries on absolutely unheeded even when it naturally is anyway - and I've simply not hindered anything or tried to (obviously, outside of my ultimate feeling that this isn't right for the enyclopedia). Like the smarter people have said, there is little to worry about in terms of article deletion whatever anyone says. But that is no reason people can't follow a procedure they have not seen acted out in the way they would have expected (ie the first 1 hour Afd, which nearly everyone who wasn't writing it would have missed like me), or have a simple 'say' that isn't abused then hidden away. What Wikipedia does these days is simply "give people what they expect to read", as a 'keep' voter said at the Afd - which sounded just a little Murdochian to me.

I wonder if I will still be wound-up over this, even though I've had my say about 90% of meaningful conversation ago? What will my eventual Village Pump 'meta' experience be like I wonder? Will I constantly hear the word "disruption" like Wikipedia is some kind of news agency negotiating a delicate inside scoop? It has just not been comparable to any other article I've editing in, including the United Kingdom aticle itself, and is honestly making me wonder where Wikipedia is going with live news. Isn't there a Wikinews for stuff like this? None of the newspapers enjoy the way Wikipedia recycle their stories at these breaking-news times, believe me. I feel this minute like looking through the article to collect diffs for things that could have dangerously mis-lead people, or even-worse could have provoked more rioting - though of course it can be argued that the whole 'article' does that by making these stories a major 2011 'event', while most decent papers were still being careful about what to call things. But that's Anywhere Sourcing combined with Amateur Reporting for you, isn't it fellow 'encyclopedia builders' (encyclopedic? This developing story? hmmm.) Given the whole internet-lead nature of the rioting, the press could be very happy to fold Wikipedia in with Twitter et al if the underlying quality has been as poor as I fear it has been (and given the quality of the contributing editors I've had the real misfortune to be addressed by, I think I have a right to be fearful on that count). Wikipedia would natuarally deserve whatever it might get if a professional actually shed a light on it.

OK - I'm clearly just getting annoyed again now. May I remind people that this is my talk page? I've noticed that when people follow your edits around trying to build a silly case against you, they tend to imagine that every diff they click on was outrageously clogging-up the same imagined major discussion page as the last diff that they imagined did exactly the same. I've not hindered anything, and anyone sensible can see that I've done precious little that is wrong - even with the worse possible realistic reading of 'disruption' - and this nonsense has also already been Closured (by me). Now please leave me alone people, I'm text-walling in annoyance when what I want to do, as I said earlier today, is take a break. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi matt. I also nominated that article for deletion but this was during the initial early days. The riots have by now escalated to a point where it is very reasonable to keep the 2011 England riots in place in my opinion. But with your persistence against consensus i will actually agree with David Levy's anaysis that it is disruptive. Pass a Method talk 14:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

As I've said a number of times now I didn't even see the original Afd - it was closed in 1 hour, so nobody who wasn't actually writing the article (and thus 'keep' voting) got to see it or contribute. You commented on David's page about my "irresponsibility" on the starting another Afd without even back-reading anything - a typical story here. Just jump in and slag me off.

You know, what is this "it" that is disruptive? What is the "persistence against consensus"? I've defended consensus constantly as a Wikipedian - and I serious detest the idea that I haven't. Are you saying that responding to people being personal and rude is "ignoring a consensus" not do it? Well that is just gaming a serious rule in my opinion. Is disagreeing with David Levy's totally-unneeded 'final analysis' to me on his talk page really "ignoring consensus"? Is answering back when people who only need to read and leave a couple of comments but instead are being personal and rude "ignoring consensus"? I've got a human right to defend myself and just leave it there - but why the hell can't I without taking further crap from people? The fact is that certain people with a certain ideal for Wikipedia initially slammed me along with my argument - and that is not good for Wikipedia. Despite the wanton silliness of calling the 1-hour clearly-partisan AfD "overwhelming consensus" I have STILL constantly tried to “leave it there”. 'Wikipedia news' clearly means so much to some people that they've felt a irrepressible need to seriously slam not just my original argument, but to portray me as a disruptive person who is totally out on a limb. It's is totally-unnecessary, and a smackdown I do not wish to take. Of course I'm going to answer back when someone does that. But how dare I respond to that, with this "overwhelming consensus" for me to "leave it" - whatever discussion page I happen to be responding on (and people are clearly following me to).

I've asked for closure and peace over this a number of times now (inc just above your comment) but I still can't get it. Can't you see that side-kickers like you are being disruptive to me? You had your reason for your Afd, but my own reasons were not down to 'notability' at all - so the escalation makes no difference - escalation is in fact one of the very serious issues here. You are just another person totally-uncecessarily joining-in as far as I'm concerned. Why don't you leave me alone? You people must realise that you have been exacerbating things yourselves.

You know, if any of this is actually intended to discourage me from moving onto starting a 'meta discussion' (which I'm seriously thinking now that a lot of this "leave it" nonsense is really about - though no one is saying it outright) then know that I'm simply a different brand of Wikipedian to you people. I don't want breaking news here, and I've a right to simply say that without my integrity as a Wikipedian being compromised (collapsed, insulted, misrepresented etc) in any way. And as a individual I'm simply going to respond if that happens. In responding to people I have NOT hindered or 'disrupted' any article discussion/flow, and this has 99% now been outside of the article discussion. Apart from to put the Afd template up, I've not edited or touched the article itself. Matt Lewis (talk) 16:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Why didn't you see the original AFD? If you followed outlined at WP:BEFORE you'd have seen it. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:32, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The article was only a day or two old - like everyone else I had no idea an AfD had come and gone in 1 hour. It didn't occur to me to search for one. If the original AfD was given reasonable time I simply would have seen it, posted my position on it, and left it there. As it happens, if new non-biased input is not found at an Afd noone can credibly go on about an "overwhelming consensus", whether 'keep' was a likely eventual outcome or not. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matt. I locked the AFD as it was closed and I wanted to avoid a continued dispute over that (and to avoid you getting blocked for edit warring over the close). I don't want to suppress debate, but consensus was quite clear over two AfDs and the DRV agreed too. Sure, I'd posted a link on the talk page but I can't imagine any admins disagreeing with my action though you can consult WP:AN for a review of my action if you like. Another factor is that pages linked to from the main page are not eligible for AfD - they need removing from the main page first.

On the wider issue of WP:NOTNEWS these riots surely satisfy WP:EVENT, which I helped to draft and interprets NOTNEWS in the context of events. If you want to discuss the use of Wikipedia to document breaking news (which is certainly done and is not generally seen as a breach of WP:NOTNEWS), then an RfC would be better than attempting more AfDs on this article, either at WT:NOT, Wikipedia talk:Notability (events) or WP:VPP.

As for the title, it has been progressively widened as the events themselves widened - cf to 2011 Libyan uprising changing to 2011 Libyan Civil War. 2011 London riots isn't OR, they were at the time called the "London riots"(see [1]) and "2011" is for disambiguation from all the other riots in London over the years. Fences&Windows 18:46, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have actually said that I want to do a meta RFC for ages now. I've been roundly criticised here, but not properly followed or understood. I wasn't actually criticising your action Fences - I think I just asked you to add a required template to it when I started the Afd 'review' process. It was all procedural stuff - or so I thought. The 'review' was actually pointed to me by an admin, as I've said. Obviously, I wish now I'd thought about starting to build an RFC instead of doing the Afd review, but it just seemed procedural (ie not 'disruptive, and certainly not 'consensus avoiding' from a 1-hour Afd and second that was speedy-closed). But RFC is the thing for sure.

You must see how I feel under the cosh. Everyone has their own sense of integrity, and a lot of this has been a case of failing to "respect the established editor" (or whatever the non-demonizing guideline is, along with failing to respond to the comment and not the editor). At the end of the day, I've done nothing that is really bad - at least for normal Wikipedia articles. From my point of view this has become really farcical, as since soon-after the AfD review, as I've said, I've just wanted to forget about all this and get a meta discussion going at RFC (or VPump as someone suggested) - you will find that I said that 90% of all this 'discussion' ago. I'm trying to resist the temptation right now of responding to David Levy's literal green ink on me. I hope you understand that it's not easy just to 'shut up' when you know that you've not done much wrong, and you disagree with someone else's totally unnecessary character-compromising analysis of it. Other people are clearly not going to stop commenting unless I do though, so I'm clearly going to have to rise above it and just stop reading the 'final' or 'passing' comments that people are making.

Wikipedia is all about editor's reputations and how people choose to respect (or disrespect) them, so it is never surprising when people get upset when they feel trampled on. Trying to address it in spiralling circumstances like this one becomes a catch22 situation unfortunately. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Matt, i also recommend you stop posting such long responses. Most of us don't feel like reading 20 lines. Sometimes admins will even avoid a discussion if it is excessively long. You could have summarized all the things you said in half or even a third in size. Peace Pass a Method talk 20:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Who else has recommended I don't post long responses? This is my talk page, and you have just completely made that up as far as I can see. I mainly repeat things because so many people just jump in and have a dig without reading back. Just give it a rest. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:05, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Having read all of the TL;DR, Matt, have you considered, just for a second, that you submitted the AfD just a few days after a previous AfD. Almost always such close AfDs are closed as speedy keep, or as SNOWy keep. Perhaps the reasons to close were not the best, but it was a procedural keep in any way you look at it. You should have taken it to WP:DRV if you felt the first AfD was mistaken, or waited a month or so before opening a new AfD. That's how things work, and you will not change them by being hostile. In fact, I have found the inverse to be true.--Cerejota (talk) 00:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

You clearly haven't read a single thing. When was I "hostile" for heaven's sake? And how can you criticise me after being so rude yourself here? As I've said about 20 times now, I didn't see the 1st Afd (few people did as it was 1h long - sigh), but I did start a WP:DRV on that 2nd AfD (which was also speedy-deleted, as was the WP:DRV procedure that a clearly-evil admin pointed me towards). I would rather be raped than go through that WP:DRV again. Can you people go now thanks. Thanks admin for all this - it's really appreciated, as always. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• You've indicated you will disengage from David's talk page now, and I hope you stick to that. Regardless, I will formally leave a note here reminding you that personal attacks, such as those you have made against him on his talk page, are not acceptable on Wikipedia and if you make further attacks, you are liable to be blocked by an administrator. It's not worth your time to drag this out further. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

It's over. David can have the last word, and I'm forgetting myself that it's his talk page anyway. On a genuinely passing note, per the article's current name he finishing with referring to it as the 'English Riots', and (as it goes) I don't actually agree with any part of that name. It's a complicated UK issue, with a number of reasons behind people's behaviour. As it happens I live in Cardiff (in Wales) and people were twittering to start trouble here - and some was actually caused in the city centre too, though obviously not enough in the scale of things (and the police dealt with it). IMO eventually the word "riots" will go eventually too - at about the time the aticle should have been started in the first place (ie when it wasn't breaking news, but when it has been treated by the wider world as a certain event in time, even it's still rumbling on to a degree). Wikipedia is supposed to fairly reflect the wider world's response to the wider world, not just the wider world itself. Too much has been selective and wiki-lead for my comfort. I think we need to either link the Wikipedia main page to a Wikinews report (which I would have contributed to as it wouldn't be a issue of principle so much), or either we need serious guidelines on how breaking news is dealt with - ie if we have to report on it (and that is essentially what we are doing) then it must follow deliberately-limiting guidelines. This article is just too big, to changeable, and too bad - whatever radio buttons people are hitting at the bottom. Wikipedia must grow up and acknowledge its ability to lead as well as simply 'inform'. Obviously people are supposed to follow the links, but in reality many people just absorb the article as fact. This will be yesterday's news to the wider world in no time at all, however we eventually deal with it on Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

RA RFA

Matt - You say on RA's RFA that "...and he doesn't like me talking like this...". Have you got a diff for that? Thks Fmph (talk) 14:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Why do you ask? You could try his Oppose [here|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_Kingdom/Archive_24#Attempting_to_integrate_the_proposals]. He entered that debate straight from the Northern Ireland pages on his anti-"country" crusade. That "no brainer" Channel Islands in the British Isles RfC he dodgily started to. Somewhere else he said (there is so much debate involved in these areas) that he leaves the project for periods due to civility issues. I find his pro-active positions on Northern Ireland naming and British Isles infuriating, and the single time I've looked into it all all since, I read him exclaim in his exasperated way, something like "why is this small matter of naming NI so important to people!" I nearly fell off my chair when I read it, and was straight out again without a single edit - no joke. I find it tiresome beyond belief. This area has been his chosen wiki life from the start, and his recent comment in his RfA that he may never even need the tools was a chair-wobbler too. He typically seen a loophole in the silly WP:NONEED, and my reading is that he envisions the tools primarily as a stick, and adminship in general as badge of esteem. I wonder how many pages he has actually tagged for deletion - not quite 850 (ho ho ho) I think. Once upon a time the tools were a mop and a bucket for users who clearly need one. I would personally never award adminship status to someone who covets it the way he has - only to editors who would clearly benefit in their particular contributions from having it. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Matt - the reason I'm asking is that it's clear to me now, I don't understand what you are talking about.

Here's how I saw it initially:

You said in your Oppose to his RFA that "...(and he doesn't like me talking like this)..." and I assumed the this referred to how you were currently talking in that oppose section. I couldn't see why RA would not like how your were currently talking. But from your explanation above, I think the this referred to something else. I'm still not clear what that is. I'm think now that it refers to his opinions of how BI/UK/I/NI problems should be sorted. If thats all you are talking about then there isn't an issue (fgor me at least). I think I understand (but don't agree with) what you are saying. Fmph (talk) 12:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I could have been clearer I suppose, and no-doubt would have if I had the time and inclination at that time. It's the general "ABF" 'tone' he tends to object to (though he knows what is coming given his positioning), and also (on a more personal level) that I occasionally bring up his nationalism too. If I didn't think he edited on UK/IRE in his inter-accounts IP phase (and - even more to the point - for some reason pretended he didn't) I probably wouldn't have put a "strong" in front of the oppose, and merely made the valid point that he has always edited in a particular area (UK-IRE) where he simply holds strong and contentious positions (whatever people wrongly assume due to own claims, and his close admirers) and is simply far too biased to be an admin in it. It's just the way it is. People who agree with his positions may see otherwise - and whatever Sarah says, apart from some dedicated old-timers and the endless ineffectual and ultimately unconvincing sock farms, these areas on Wikipedia are dominated by nationalists. Sadly it just doesn't reflect the real world ratio at all - but Wikipedia is a bit like that alas: it a cultish thing. I wonder - why do you think he's always wanted adminship Fmph? Using his own rhetoric - if WP:NONEED is so salient - what's the big deal?! Matt Lewis (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Island-of-Ireland3.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Island-of-Ireland3.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Island-of-Ireland7.PNG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Island-of-Ireland7.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

UKCOUNTRYREFS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect UKCOUNTRYREFS. Since you had some involvement with the UKCOUNTRYREFS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). RA (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Kudos

[2] Best posting I've read in a long time. The one thing I'd add is that policies like NOTCENSORED don't just not help in that they are being overused, misused and abused like fück crazy; it's also that these arbitrary and arbitrarily interpretable policies are squatting in place of more sensible editorial advice. The reason, as you're probably aware, this never changes is because changing those policies to more useful versions and getting rid of abuse-ridden policies would necessarily also open up avenues to fight some of the more insidious single-interest long-term abusers on Wikipedia. Consider that there is a ludicrous rule telling people to assume that others are acting in good faith. There is no policy advising people to act in good faith themselves. It's just this perverse zombie anarchy. I left, why don't you? --213.196.192.204 (talk) 20:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we are proof that people who have seen the dark heart of Wikipedia can ever completely ignore it. In fact - who can completely ignore it? It's everywhere. I even hear its semi-recycled and half-created truths fill-out the news now, and appear in some of the better papers too. It's like the purest form of madness. Various creeping conveniences will end up destroying us all I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

for your beautifully clear description of the core issue here. I believe this is a deeply important RfC for the project. I believe our present stance towards offensive content is gravely misguided; it is essentially an attitude shared by autistic and psychopathic people, that other people don't really feel offense or, if they do, it doesn't matter. I put this down to the probable preponderance of autistic people online. But I get the impression the majority of people here believe we should take account of the offense we cause our reader, our subject and each other. So, whichever way this RfC goes, I'll continue pushing for a more moral and mature project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right about this Rfc - it's a really important one, and relates to a number of Wikipedia's core issues (images, readership, censorship, guideline-building - even basic ones like understanding consensus, how sources relate to it, and the value in weight).

Did I actually write that at the RfC? It was a bit of a bellow I suppose (I'd forgotten it), but it does contain some core truths.

It's true, there are a lot of people with autism online, and if you look at autism as a spectrum (including asperger's and the probably-undiagnosable differences some people have) you may have a point there. I think politics (or POV in general) typically has more to do with many people's ignorant positions though. Many people who cite NOTCENSORED don't care about it at all - it's just a means to a specific end. Most people just read or edit Wikipedia - they don't get involved. Certainly I'd agree that the majority of people merely reading Wikipedia would feel just as we do - and readership should be key. It always concerns me when Wikipedia is more into itself than those who read it.

Because I've wasted so much time on Wikipedia in the past, and often to such little effect (either at the time, or later when hard-won 'consensus' is eroded again), I think I need to see decent openings before I instigate things myself. My time is always a bit off and on too. The more people like us who push for things the better, but keeping cynicism at bay (stickability I suppose) is the key. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My feeling, at least in the current RfC, is that a principled attachment to NOTCENSORED combined with undervaluation of offensiveness drives more of the main players than bigotry does; though there are some long term players in the dispute that are undoubtedly motivated by Islamophobia. Anyway, thanks again for your clear presentation all through the RfC. I was heavily involved in the preceding ArbCom case and made a conscious decision to largely exempt myself from the RfC because ArbCom requested that the same old faces not dominate the RfC, and I couldn't have argued any better than you, Veritycheck and others did. I'm very pessimistic about the outcome, though. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

If there are as many of the principled and nonreactive types as you say (I know some here are like this - as indeed many people are in life), then maybe there is hope, as theoretically those people should be able to see compelling reason when properly confronted with it. It will take another turn though. My bullets of the more salient points (from the discussion area at least) may not be considered as Consensus - but for me they represent the kind of plain logic that principled people should find attractive. I suppose it depends how stubborn they are. I'm not pessimistic, partly because I'm not planning to give up if it goes badly (and not being around before I can't really say). I think that 'View Image?' toggling is nothing short of an obligation for Wikipedia. It's very simple - be moderate with the images, and when it's suitable to do so - click to see. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I like that idea very much. You might want to touch base with Jayen466 (talk · contribs) (aka JN466) who is across the current state of play wrt image filter ideas. He may be able to give you a synopsis of where that's at with the Wikimedia Foundation; but I don't know if he's been following your toggle proposal carefully and you might persuade him to incorporate it into his thinking. It may be time for the community to draft a proposed way forward for the foundation, who seem to be in a state of learned helplessness after a battering by German Wikipedia over previous filter proposals.

By the way, I noticed your use of "green-ink letter" elsewhere on this page. I'd heard the term a couple of years ago on Australian radio, and they explained its meaning there, but couldn't find an online quick definition, so I just created a Wiktionary entry. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Parts of the United Kingdom

It's only a matter of time before the very neutral "...a part of..." is added to the intros of England, Scotland & Wales aswell. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay, stop talking crap. Matt, I agree 100% with what you've had to say on this matter, both at Canterbury's talk page and at NI talk. The fact of the matter is, as you allude to, there's a determined bunch of editors, and let's not beat about the bush; Irish nationalist editors, who have largely taken control of the significant articles concerning Northern Ireland and related topics. They have pushed their point of view to such an extent that the world is now given to understand that Northern Ireland is not a country, the IRA are not terrorists, Derry is the correct name for Londonderry, the Ulster banner doesn't exist and there's much controversy over the use of the British Isles terminology. For a project that has as its core value not to push a particular point of view, these people have been massively successful in undermining it. There's nothing much we can do about it, other than give up, and take Wikipedia for what it is; namely an unreliable source, which is widely, and successfully, used as a propaganda tool by all and sundry with an axe to grind. Good luck. Van Speijk (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm barred from the British & Irish articles & I accept this as a badge of honour. However, neutrality 'will come' to the intros of all 4 of those articles. I argued (in the past) for the discriptive constituent country but the devolutionists wouldn't budge from country because they knew that the latter discriptive was mostly associated with 'sovereign states'. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

GD, you know how annoying that comment is to almost everyone but you. The Irish nationalists are only really concerned with Northern Ireland regarding the word "country" - they'd give up moaning about Wales and Scotland if they consolidated "part of the UK" at Northern Ireland. As they tend to want to break up the whole of UK, they are in reality fine with Wales being called a "country" - as long as Northern Ireland is not called one: Never, ever, Northern Ireland! It's why there is the awkward schism (so confusing to onlookers) between the Irish nationalists like RA (who want just the 'UK' to be called "country" and not it's "parts"), and the Welsh and Scottish nationalists like Snowded (who obviously are happy with Wales and Scotland being called "countries" - which of course in reality they are). People like Snowded need NI to be a country for uniformity, largely because the Irish nationalists keep arguing that Wales etc isn't (to stop NI from being one too!). Remember the Irish nationalist sock-farm Wikipeire? He didn't even want Wales to be called a 'nation' at one point, and created masses of accounts to back himself and his opinions up. It's all one big snake eating its own tail of course, and has gone on since Wikipedia started no doubt. Both nationalist 'parties' want Northern Ireland to be part of a united Ireland of course - though what they would do with hundreds of years worth of majority British in a single area is anyone guess - plant it with Irish I suppose and make sure the British are the minority this time.

GoodDay, what right do you think Wikipedia has to forge a "neutral position" (as you ask for above) between a simple reality (the existence of the United Kingdom) and a proposed reality (a reduced, or actually-disbanded United Kingdom)?

This whole area should only be about Wikipedia properly accepting Sovereignty (per WP:WEIGHT, as with everything), and accepting the widely and WP:COMMONUSE term by all parties - ie "country". Despite the language that the United Nations 'ISO' list of sovereign states uses, the UK - ie its people and its bloody government for God's sake - happily uses the term "countries" for all of its countries. They use it every day. It's an almost unique example of "contries within a country" (as the United Kingdom gov say). I know you don't like that GD, but who are you apart from a Canadian with his own complicated anti-monarchy agenda anyway? The whole area's been so clouded by the various tortured complexities. You've always looked for 'deals' to be made in these matters, but you must know they won't last longer than anything else that isn't based on a solid fact (ie the UK gov-usage and UK 'commonname' of "country") and a solid Wikipedia guideline for the general area (WP:Sovereignty).

Wikipedia must never 'equally-weight' minority nationalism with popular government, let alone giving the nationalists unfair credence and a piggyback up. The irony is that I've just been fighting for acceptance by Wikipedia that many Muslims are offended by certain images, while RA has always so-very-unpleasantly insinuates there is "offence caused" when Wikipedia uses 'country' for Northern Ireland. I can't tell you how much I deeply dislike his singular attitude, which entirely equates to his over-all presence here. I've seen the wonderful peace process in Northern Ireland violently shake - yet never be allowed to break by the fantastic people on both sides - and all the while this hideous horseshit has rumbled away on Wikipedia, as if those fighting for this social disruption are actually doing the world a favour by 'completing the encyclopedia' (using NOTCENSORED!, YOUDONTLIKEIT!, VERIFIED!, etc, etc). The offence caused over the Mohammad images is all about religious taboo, but the supposed-offence taken over using the word 'country' for NI is surely nothing but a thinly-veiled attack on the UK, and the online arm of a land-grab for the 'lost counties' of Ulster. Every time NI is mentioned somewhere important on Wikipedia (like the United Kingdom article) there has to be some kind of link to a 'bold' footnote alluding to the Troubles - it all makes me so desperately sorry for them there. Especially the youth, who are so proud of their religiously unaligned future - to wit, their country. That isn't a fancy - it's just an addition to the linguistic truth.

All of the UK is vulnerable to nationalist Wikipedians - and it will get severely worse over the next couple of years if nothing is done about it, as most UK-area editors will know. The challenge is to make Wikipedia first-accept, then properly-handle Sovereignty, and the wishes of sovereign governments in matters of nationality. The problem I think is that deep-down, too many Wikipedian's place their perceived 'fortress of everything' somehow actually above the world it's supposed to fairly and properly outline. Why consider sovereign wishes at all, they argue? This bizarrely parochial attitude to what is supposed to be an encyclopedia makes life here challenge to say the least. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The new intro at Northern Ireland, should be adopted at Wales, England & Scotland. I understand that Welsh & Scottish nationalist will put up a mega fight against such a neutral intro - but it will be adopted. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't troll me GD - I don't have the tolerance I used to. I took the time to write all the above, and you've just simply repeated yourself. COMMONNAME and sovereign-state wishes should come first. Put that in a general guideline and it's the end of all the shit. Add that nationalism should not automatically be assumed to have equal Weight to sovereignty, and we can all move on and do better things. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not trolling, just pointing out that NPoV will eventually prevail on the other 3 articles-in-question, as it has finally done at NI. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain to you that "part of" is not an NPOV position (it's what avowed nationalists there have been fighting for for years for God's sake man). You can only really attain 'NPOV' here by taking direction from policy and sources. Can't you see that? You are providing sovereignty and nationalism equal Weight - and supporing a supposed (and actually anti-policy) 'middle ground' solution that the nationialists have been fighting for for years. I just see a bit of a numbskull when you are like this GD, esp when (like me) you would accept "constituent country" too! Matt Lewis (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

IMOS

In full agreement with you. Northern Ireland should not be covered by IMOS. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's pathetic isn't it. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure is. The article Londonderry being named Derry is pathetic, too. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Anti British POV in Ireland-related articles

Matt, I agree with just about everything you've asserted on various talk pages in recent days concerning the use of Irish articles, especially Northern Irish articles, to promote an anti-British POV. However, I don't think it's possible to influence the situation on the Talk pages. As you've noted, there's a cabal of editors, perhaps up to 10 in number, and with some relatively recent recruits, who push the nationalist agenda unremittingly. There is no such cabal of opposing unionist editors. Those editors, of which I am not one, tend to operate individually and are not as 'organised', if that's the correct word. Consequently we have the deplorable situation of an insidious, creeping anti-British POV that is difficult to control. I'm sure I don't need to highlight the many articles where this is a major problem. This situation is a great pity, because it devalues Wikipedia as a whole; the project can no longer be trusted to offer totally impartial information on matters British. What can be done? As noted, complaints on talk pages get nowhere, so perhaps the issue needs escalating to some higher body or other. After all, what's happening is completely at odds with one of the core Wikipedia principles. Do you have any thoughts on this? Van Speijk (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC).

The Irish nationalists (and many have been at this for years and years) are experts at making every issue 'unionist vs nationalist', then demanding equal weight. It avoids all the policy issues, and is totally anti-sovereign too, but they will post day and night calling it a "no brainer" etc. The really clever element to this attack is that the very term "Unionist editor" doesn't mean a lot to most British people. I am British - why should I call myself "unionist"? The UK is simply a reality, and I live in it. For most people it's just about policy - but Ireland is a special case regarding policy, and a notorious No Go area on Wikipedia.

Consequently, most of the editors and admin who have normally challenged the 10-or-so-strong cabal of nationalist editors that is always around, are a disparate group who don't always get on in other areas. Some (at Northern Ireland/country) are even nationalists themselves (just anti-UK before anti-NI). When a few go missing, like has happened recently, the nationalists get their way everywhere. The nationalist editor RA has been even more effective since becoming an admin sadly it seems - I hoped it would go the other way (ie he would have to ease off a little), but he's been as single-minded as ever in his clearly lifelong pursuit. It's all he's ever done on Wikipedia, so it was incredibly optimistic to hope that he wouldn't somehow benefit from having the 'bit'. How easily he got it will come back and haunt Wikipedia if they don't sort solid general guidelines out (not stupid compromises, like at Derry/Londonderry). Over the next couple of years every active nationalist in the UK is going to come to Wikipedia to push their river: there has to be solid guidelines or it will be mayhem.

It can't be underestimated that most people avoid the UK/Ireland area like the plague - it's a running joke on Wikipedia. I think admin get an email suggesting they avoid it the moment they become one.

Yes, the nationalists are instinctively organised - and consequently Wikipedia is a more beneficial place for them, as it is for all negative people it could be argued. Which makes focusing on adapting policy and guidelines the key. It's tempting to keep highlighting the fact that most if not all 'UK/Ireland' issues are totally anti-policy, but frankly a simple Sovereignty guideline would solve it all. Everything - even British Isles. It's just getting people interested that's all. If you lose this kind of thing, someone like RA will get a biased paragraph and a long moratorium into IMOS in two seconds flat. To a number of them it really will be like the war won.

Sock farms on both sides do not help, but all the socks in the world couldn't get round a decent guideline. There are one or two genuine old-style "Unionists" around who are generally anti-guideline too, which doesn't help. In fact, I rarely encounter other Wikipedians who are as much into guidelines as I am. Encyclopedias really don't make sense to me without them. Wikipedia is like ancient Rome - it's laws are big, broad and often dramatically torturous, but they rarely aim to touch the common man. It's why I always wonder if Wikipedia really wants to help people, or rather insidiously help others to control them. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Matt, I understand your concerns as described on various talk pages of late, but I do think you are wasting your time with the current approach. The majority of other editors attracted to those pages are intractable in the extreme, they are informally organised and as such have a large majority. We need to take a different tack, and I'm wondering if this suggestion of taking Northern Irleand out of the WP:IMOS is a starting point. The more I think about it, the more it irritates me to think that editing policy on part of the United Kingdom is being dictated by editors from a foreign country, or at least who have allegiance to a foreign country. How to proceeed? That 'majority' will erupt with howls of protest at the suggestion, but if we can take it to some impartial area of Wikipedia we might make progress. Do you know where this should be? Van Speijk (talk) 11:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Well there needs to be a UK MOS obviously. It's all a lot of work, because none of the various nationalists want it. Without a sovereignty guideline and a proper UK MOS structure Wikipedia will be battered over the next couple of years. It will be the biggest battleground for Scottish devolution, and it will be fought on each and every related page. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Someday NPoV will prevail over the Devolutionist PoV on those articles, but it's not going to be easy. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

A request for enforcement of the WP:TROUBLES arbitration has been filed against you. --RA (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you are informing me of this, and not the two people who began the action. Can I formally ask you if any emails of contact has been passed between you and Domer/Hackney on this matter? (I actually doubt there has - they are rude enough not to bother. But I'd like to ask). Matt Lewis (talk) 17:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hang on RA - you've started it! Why didn't you say so - And link to the beginning? You linked to Domer's Hackney's comments. I thought you said you would avoid pushing weight since you became an admin? If there is a case, why hasn't somebody uninvolved done this?

Btw, my question above still stands. (Dosn't really make sense - sorry) Matt Lewis (talk)

Your response is invited at WP:AE#Matt Lewis. Your recent edits have offered a lot of bait to any admin who was thinking of blocking you for WP:Tendentious editing. Please respond at AE so you can try to restore our confidence in your good faith. Your inquiry (above) into who instigated the report against you is probably the wrong idea. When you call another editor a slimeball or a troll you are probably announcing that you want a response. This is the response. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

OK. I've simmered down a huge deal and am busy looking at consensus-broadening directions, and how to go about creating a worthwhile UK MOS. In fact - to be exact - I'm busy preparing for floorboards to be removed tomorrow in the freezing cold(!) But I get the point, and taken all together I have been a little OTT in the language I've used. This isn't a table in a pub, it's a communal endeavour (ideally at least). I think I've just been settling back in - it's been a bit bumpy perhaps because it's a moving train. I was even a bit OTT on Mohammad page recently, looking back. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply at WP:AE. Since there has been a question about your recent edits relating to WP:TROUBLES I'm leaving you a notice of the discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to The Troubles. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

- EdJohnston (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)