User talk:Matt Lewis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
- 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)
-
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
