User talk:Matthewrb

Please leave any messages at en:User talk:Matthewrbowker.

OTRS admin

I've been busy lately due to the holidays, but I see you've been promoted as an OTRS admin. Congrats! Trijnstel_talk 12:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Trijnstel: Thank you very much! ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Poke me} 07:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 31 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that OTRS volunteers sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as an OTRS volunteer and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access. OTRS volunteers have a specific agreement available, if you have recently signed the general confidentiality agreement for another role (such as CheckUser or Oversight), you do not need to sign the general agreement again, but you will still need to sign the OTRS agreement.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your OTRS access. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get help

OTRS Volunteering

Hi,i was wondering how long does it take for OTRS admins to review an application on OTRS/Volunteering ?thanks.--Arian ^Talk 17:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello! The process will take roughly a week. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 18:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing an edit summary

Hello, thanks for being honest and providing an edit summary as instructed by our consensus on Wikipedia. I wont restore it. So, how else can I improve an encyclopedia and helping other editors at the same time? PS: I do archiving of dead refs, filling them in (if they are bare) and greetings of good faith editors now.--Biografer (talk) 22:31, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

It's going on 2 weeks

Matthew, I don't understand why it's taking so long for OTRS admins to make a decision in my case. As I've explained, I was not an inactive agent, and the notice was sent to a defunct email address that I had changed years ago. I don't know why OTRS had the old address while all my other accounts have the correct one - I made the proper updates. Interestingly, a few days after I pointed out that I never received those notices, I received a notice to the correct email address notifying me that my rights had been removed after I had already raised questions. I could understand it if I had been abusing my right, or purposely not watching my dashboard and not participating in OTRS discussions, or being aware of what was going on - I was aware, and I was staying updated, and I was checking and helping when I could. In fact, I was responding to the removal of my rights well before I received the email that they had been removed. Unlike me, an inactive agent would not have known. Would it help if I brought you some endorsements from several admins at en.WP? Please, tell me what I'm supposed to do. Atsme^📞📧 02:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Atsme: OTRS administrator discussions, much like everything on Wikipedia, require consensus among the OTRS administrators. We are currently having a discussion about your email. Much like a WP:CRATCHAT on enwiki, this process will take time. I have confirmed that the discussion is still ongoing, please wait for a reply to your email as I said in my previous communication. ~ Matthewrbowker ^{Drop me a note} 17:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Please forgive my impatience, Matthew. It just feels weird not having access to the OTRS listmail, plus not being able to check OTRS tags at Commons. But I will do as you suggest. Thank you in advance. Atsme^📞📧 18:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

File verification

Dear Matthewrb, I'm writing to address a recent issue involving a photo that was mistakenly removed from Wikimedia Commons out of concern for its license: File:Virginio Simonelli shot by Marco Melfi.jpg. It is a photo of Italian singer-songwriter Virginio Simonelli shot by the Italian photographer Marco Melfi, and also uploaded on Wikimedia by Marco himself.

I've been updating Virginio's Wikipedia for many years, as a fan. One day, I complimented Marco Melfi on a photoshoot he did of Virginio and I mentioned that his Wikipedia page has a very old picture, the one that appears now on the page. Marco saw that very low quality photo, and disliked it so much that he offered to upload one of his photos as replacement. He considered it a homage, and he did so immediately. Indeed, he used his personal mail to create the account "Marco Duck", and you can easily check that if you contact him on that mail. After that, I happily used his beautiful photo on Virginio's Wiki page. Despite Marco flagging the file as 'his own work', it still got tagged as missing permission by Gbawden, back on September 25th. I hadn't noticed that, but Marco immediately contacted me for help, because when user Gbawden did that, Marco received an automatic mail from Wikimedia that asked him to confirm his identity by sending a mail to the OTRS/VRT-volunteers. I told him he should send an email in which he stated that it's him and then wait for your reply. Now it's almost a week later and yet the file still doesn't appear to be verified. I am wondering, did you guys receive the correct e-mail from Marco? Or Marco didn't give you enough information to confirm his identity? Should I tell him to send another mail, and in that case, what does he have to write for it to be okay? Or the email Marco sent was okay and we just have to wait? Please let me know! Marco only speaks job-related intermediate English and does not understand the full Wikipedia system, so I'm trying to help him figure it all out. It's a shame to lose such a beautiful photo for a mistake.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation! Ravenlions (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenlions: Hello! The email is in the system. Please note that a file can be undeleted once permission is confirmed. A Permissions volunteer will reach back if the permission is insufficient or more details are needed. ~ Matthewrb ^{Drop me a note} 23:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I understand, thanks a lot! Ravenlions (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Kaaba: Demand for Deletion of Blasphemous Imaged of the Last Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him)

Subject: Request for Immediate Removal of Blasphemous Images from the "Kaaba" Wikipedia Page

Dear Wikipedia Team,

I hope this message finds you well. My name is [Your Name], and I am writing as a member of the Muslim community deeply concerned about the presence of pictorial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his blessed companions on the Wikipedia page titled "Kaaba" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaaba).

These images, located under the 'History' tab, are '''highly offensive and blasphemous to Muslims around the world, as any visual representation of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is strictly prohibited in Islam'''. The specific images in question are:

'''1. "Muhammad at the Ka'ba" from the Siyer-i Nebi, showing Muhammad with a veiled face, c. 1595.'''

'''2. A miniature from 1307 CE depicting Muhammad fixing the black stone into the Kaaba.'''

These images not only disrespect our beliefs but also deeply hurt the sentiments of millions in the Muslim community, including myself. The existence of these images on a public platform like Wikipedia fosters misunderstanding and disrespects our faith, which is rooted in profound reverence for our beloved Last Prophet (Peace be Upon Him). We kindly request that these images be removed from the Wikipedia page immediately, without any delay or further explanation.

We understand that Wikipedia requires supporting evidence for high-profile articles. '''In this case, the prohibition of visual depictions of the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) is well-documented in Islamic teachings and widely recognized by scholars and religious authorities. Numerous fatwas based on Qur'anic scripture and hadith traditions from all schools of thought strictly prohibit drawing images of the last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his blessed companions, deeming such acts as blasphemy. This prohibition is rooted in Islamic teachings that emphasize the importance of avoiding idolatry and misrepresentation. Scholars unanimously agree that there is no permissibility whatsoever for visual representations of the Last Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) or his blessed companions, as such depictions are considered blasphemous and fundamentally incompatible with Islamic teachings.'''

Furthermore, surveys indicate that a significant portion of Muslims find such depictions offensive. The Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization highlights that Muslims believe visual depictions of all prophets should be prohibited, particularly those of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as they hurt their emotions and go against their faith (Journal of Islamic Thought and Civilization). We urge you to consider the sensitivity of this matter and its impact on millions of Muslims worldwide.

'''Addressing Wikipedia's FAQ:'''

'''1.Wikipedia is not censored:''' While Wikipedia aims to provide a neutral point of view, it is essential to consider how these images offend deeply held beliefs. The presence of such content does not foster an inclusive environment for all users.

'''2.Historical accuracy:''' The images in question are historically inaccurate, as acknowledged by Wikipedia. The artists who created these works lived centuries after Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and could not have seen him. Using inaccurate images perpetuates misconceptions rather than providing educational value.

'''3.Offense to Muslims:''' Wikipedia recognizes that depictions of Muhammad are offensive to many Muslims. This offense affects millions globally and cannot be dismissed as a minor issue. Suggesting that users change their settings to hide images is not a viable solution; such representations on a public platform like Wikipedia perpetuate disrespect and harm.

'''4.Preventing idolatry:''' The traditional prohibition against images of prophets serves to prevent idolatry—a principle that should be respected in any educational context. The presence of these images on Wikipedia violates this fundamental religious principle.

'''5.Comparison to other figures:''' While Wikipedia may use images of historical figures like Jesus, it is crucial to note that any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is universally forbidden in Islam. This distinction makes comparisons inadequate and unjustifiable.

'''6.Separate link for images: '''Creating a separate link for these images is also not an acceptable solution. The core issue remains that any depiction of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be Upon Him) is considered blasphemous in Islam, and there is no allowance for such visual representations under any circumstances. The existence of these images on a public platform like Wikipedia is inherently offensive and harmful.

We acknowledge the FAQ section on the Talk:Muhammad page but believe that this request warrants special consideration due to its unique nature. The presence of these images does not contribute to the educational value of the article but rather perpetuates significant cultural and religious offense.

'''Examples of Content Removal from Wikipedia '''

'''1.John Seigenthaler Wikipedia Hoax (2005):''' A false and defamatory article about journalist John Seigenthaler was posted on Wikipedia and removed after being identified. This instance illustrates Wikipedia's commitment to maintaining content integrity by removing material that is harmful or misleading.

'''2.Essjay Controversy (2007):''' Contributions from a prominent Wikipedia editor who falsified his credentials were scrutinized and subsequently removed, demonstrating that Wikipedia actively removes content undermining its reliability.

'''3.Wiki-PR Scandal (2012): '''Manipulated content created by a company using sockpuppet accounts was removed, showcasing Wikipedia's efforts to prevent abuse of its platform.

'''4.Orangemoody Investigation (2015):''' Fraudulent content posted by a group of blackmailers using sockpuppet accounts was removed, highlighting Wikipedia's proactive stance against harmful content.

Relevant Policies

'''Wikipedia's Policy on Images:'''

According to your guidelines, '''"images that would bring the project into disrepute... may be removed by any user."''' The continued presence of these offensive images directly contradicts this policy as they clearly offend a significant portion of users.

'''Wikipedia's Policy on Offensive Material:'''

'''1.According to Wikipedia:''' Offensive material, while Wikipedia aims to include material that may offend, it explicitly states that "offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." The inclusion of these blasphemous images does not meet this criterion as they serve no educational purpose but rather cause harm.

'''2.Neutral Point of View:''' As outlined in Wikipedia's Guide to Deletion, all content must adhere to a neutral point of view (NPOV). The presence of these offensive images violates this policy by failing to respect a significant portion of your readership who find such content unacceptable.

'''3.Speedy Deletion Policy: ''' This policy states that pages can be deleted without discussion if they meet criteria for speedy deletion due to being obviously inappropriate for Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Deletion policy). Given their blasphemous nature, these images qualify for immediate removal under this guideline.

'''4.Content Integrity Maintenance: ''' Content that undermines Wikipedia's reliability or trustworthiness can be removed proactively by editors or administrators (Wikipedia:Content Integrity). Allowing these offensive images undermines your credibility as an encyclopedia committed to accuracy and respect.

'''5.Adherence to Neutrality: ''' Wikipedia has a strong stance against Holocaust denial and antisemitism, clearly reflected in the Holocaust denial page, which debunks false claims and provides historical evidence. This commitment to neutrality and respect for deeply held beliefs should be extended to the depiction of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) as well.

'''Handling of Other Sensitive Topics:'''

'''1.Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: '''Wikipedia handles content related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with sensitivity and neutrality, ensuring a balanced representation of different perspectives.

'''2.Abortion: '''Wikipedia presents diverse viewpoints on abortion respectfully, acknowledging the sensitivity of the topic.

'''3.Censorship and Internet Freedom: '''Wikipedia respects local laws and cultural sensitivities, demonstrating its commitment to respecting different cultural and religious practices.

In light of these considerations and your own policies, I urge you to take immediate action to remove these offensive images from the "Kaaba" page and review your guidelines regarding sensitive religious content moving forward.

Thank you for your understanding and swift action on this matter.

Sincerely, Yasha Ullah Afghan Jeelanshah (talk) 07:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)