User talk:Charles Matthews

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

Mereotopology

I may not have understood your recent edit to this article about Point-free geometry, which I just figured was a reference to Whitehead's point-free geometry needing disambiguation. After the change I noticed that Point-free geometry was a newly-created redirect. You are welcome to undo my change to Mereotopology if I misunderstood... One of these days I should figure out what point-free geometry really is. EdJohnston 16:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you did was to pipe the link, rather than disambiguate. Are there any other kinds of point-free geometry? Charles Matthews 17:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wilfrid Gibson

Sent this to Debs by mistake

Sorry

"Thanks for the tweaks, but I'm not sure about one of them. I wrote that Gibson's work "may" have been eclipsed etc because I'm not certain that, in the long run, it was.

I've been reading some of Gibson's own critical pieces and although he had little time for Eliot & Pound,(As did Aldington) he was generous about other "modernists"

I would rather discuss this than be endlessly changing back & forth between us" DJ 21:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the link to the Literary Encyclopedia page, which says his reputation declined dramatically. So the qualification is unnecessary. If you find some other opinion to quote, we combine them by citing both. The minimum of editorial comment is the ideal. Charles Matthews 22:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair comment. I'll dig them out from my files asap.DJ 13:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To begin with, an important review is that by A Clutton-Brock; TLS, 24/2/1927 Five Modern Poets where Gibson is considered alongside Eliot; AE; Read; and James Stephens (pp 113-114). It is concluded there that; "Mr Gibson's poetry... has its own specific qualities and is, in its essentials unique"

And in 1942 Philip Tomlinson refers to Gibson as "this distinguished poet" TLS 31/1/1942 p.57.

On the other hand Hugh l'Anson Fausset does sustain a fairly critical barrage at Gibson until the late 1940's (TLS ff). But even this suggests to me that Gibson has a reputation to be attacked.

More later? DJ 14:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put some of that quickly into the article as footnotes. Charles Matthews 14:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done that. You probably get the idea. By the way, the TLS attributions are now easily verified (were anon)? Charles Matthews 14:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the anonymity pre 1950's but will check. I used the online Archive to get them. But I can't (reasonably) argue with what you've done....DJ 16:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Proposed decision

Your recent edit to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist/Proposed decision (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell? Charles Matthews 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it may be because you added so many links to a page at the same time, without adding unlinked text. David Mestel^(Talk)

It appears that because of the volume of the !votes, and the fact that all of them are the same, it appears that AVB thought that they were spam or nonsense. Best to bug the bot creator about it. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 19:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bots should keep away from those pages. We have clerks, who are more reliable ... Charles Matthews 19:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone nominated a bot for arbitrator this year, but I didn't think he was serious.... :) Newyorkbrad 20:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best bet is to ask Tawker to keep AVB out of the ArbCom spaces. I can do that if you like. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 20:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TB2 caught the repetition, which is one of the things that sets it off. --Rory096 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eeeeek, Rory096 has the filter, but why the whitelist wasn't working. Well, I'll take a look when the toolserver comes back, I can't exactly access the toolserver right now -- Tawker 00:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for Charles

Hello, Charles - I am hoping you will reread the evidence and reconsider your vote to this arbitration, particularly as pertains to my editing. I have been only trying to maintain a neutral POV in an article that was under attack. I have assertively strove to maintain NPOV, rather than aggressively pushed a POV. My edits show that if you will look at them (your feedback is welcomed). Kindly review the evidence and your decision in the matter.

AS far as I can see, you were edit-warring on the page up to the time it was protected. We have no concept of a page 'under attack', other than by vandals. I'm not happy with some of your cuts and edit summaries. Charles Matthews 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, I hadn't edited the article for a good ten hours before it was locked. That certainly does not qualify as "edit-warring". Whether or not you "like" my edits or cuts is not important. What is important is that they are well within guidelines and balanced. If there is a particular edit you think is in violation, please let's examine it. So far I have received a lot of criticism but no one has given me any specific feedback that might help me to be a better editor. Elaboration would be very much appreciated. --DrL 18:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten hours? I think you have no idea what the term means, then. The characterisation as low-level edit warring is sound. Charles Matthews 19:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. You had said that I was "edit-warring on the page up to the time it was protected". I pointed out that the page was protected 10 hours after my last edit.

As for your characterization of "low-level edit warring", my editing behavior was not any worse (and certainly more civil) than the majority of other editors in the article at that time. The analogy of driving on a highway seems appropriate. You want to stay both within the speed limit and at the pace of the other drivers. You try to keep up but not be the one who is pushing the limits so that if a cop is around, one of the other drivers will get the ticket (it didn't work that way this time). If you review my edits and the general editing going on, you can see that I was actually doing a good faith job of staying within the limits. I was certainly trying to and no one has given me any credit for my obvious good faith. --DrL 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is what we call 'wikilawyering', and it is deservedly unpopular. Your good faith is not 'obvious'. You were POV pushing; you were gaming the rules as you understood them. This is not the editing pattern of a newbie, as you claim to be, down the page from here. It is the editing pattern of the partisan editor, who reckons the 'code' is there to be gamed. I went through a large number of your edits yestersday, to satisfy myself of this. I do have better things to do, in improving the encyclopedia. Charles Matthews 16:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Asmodeus, it is proposed that he be banned from editing the CML bio, but he has not edited that article disruptively or inappropriately (in fact, hardly at all). Please review his edits to the article and reconsider your vote instead of endorsing an unjustified ban. --DrL 14:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can impose a topic area ban as remedy, without justifying it article by article. Charles Matthews 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can it at least be justified by topic, then? I don't believe that Asmodeus's article edits could be considered the type of POV pushing that deserves a topic ban. Please help me understand this. Also, perhaps you can explain which of my edits have led to my proposed topic ban. I am really not getting this. I want to impress upon you that I am a good faith editor and I have always sought balance in my edits. I have striven toward this more and more as I have learned how to edit and collaborate with other editors. My request to you here is sincere. --DrL 18:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block log shows that your were blocked four times, for editing in this area. You continued to edit war. Charles Matthews 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already commented elsewhere on the 2 bogus blocks proposed by Felonious Monk. They are absolutely not in the spirit of 3RR and in fact, I still don't see the 3 reverts. I do think I violated 3RR in the CTMU article, but that was a while back before I understood the rule. Where's the 4th? --DrL 16:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Another question:' You voted to ban an editor (Asmodeus) from editing an article that he has not edited since July. He has only edited it a couple of times and never violated policy. Can you elaborate on the reason for your vote or perhaps review your endorsement of this faulty proposal? --DrL 17:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As before, if we think this is an appropriate remedy, we can apply it. Topic bans are much less severe than full bans. They are suitable for editors who are too concerned with one corner of the site. Charles Matthews 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see that, but it should be reserved for editors that are so concerned with their corner of the site that they are violating policy. It should not be used as a tool to censor editors who are serving Wikipedia by doing good general editing and helping to maintain balance in controversial topics. So far no one has sought to help me to become an even better editor at Wikipedia, just to ban me. Wouldn't it make sense to give an editor feedback and try to work with him before seeking to ban him? --DrL 18:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Censorship' is a ridiculous argument, isn't it? There is no censorship here. Our experience is that editors pushing a POV to which they are too close self-destruct in the end, because they don't respect policy.

As for getting help, on Talk:Christopher Michael Langan you hardly come across as the neophyte. Look, there you are referring to WP:LIVING by a shortcut name; and here you are trying to overawe another editor: I've been teaching research methods for years to people just about your age. Most of my students are probably not as smart as you but they'd pick this one correctly. Please don't pretend you don't know exactly how weak this is as a "source".

Charles Matthews 20:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You had to go back a couple of months to find any kind of controversial edit. Here I exercise my editorial duty to call it as I see it when the situation warrants. It was fully justified and if you read the whole exchange, you will see that my stance was quite reasonable. I can also give you more information (that has been compiled and presented elsewhere) about the recipient of that comment, who started out life at Wikipedia as a single-purpose attack account. With so many editors that are gaming the system and using Wikipedia to attack people, it is remarkable that you are voting to ban a good faith editor like me. Again, I would urge you to please assume good faith on my part (I really have tried and honestly believe I stayed within bounds) review my editing behavior and your vote. TIA --DrL 16:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was easy to find those edits, and to refute the claim that you simply didn't know the system. You should understand that Arbitrators rule on what is brought to them: your claims about so many editors that are gaming the system and using Wikipedia to attack people cut no ice at all. It is not permissible to be a partisan editor who 'stays within bounds'. All editors here are bound to our policy on neutral point of view, rather than being allowed to be to a certain degree partisan. I stand by my votes on the case. Charles Matthews 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the ScienceApologist RfAr

Hello, Charles. Please read my most recent edits to the ScienceApologist RfAr Workshop page [1,2,3, 4], and particularly this one right here. I hate to seem impertinent, but may I ask who you people think you are, that you can define the class of articles relating to the work of Christopher Michael Langan to include Crank (person)? Do you really think that this is appropriate?

Obviously, yes, that is what we think is appropriate. Charles Matthews

If that's all you have to say about it - a blank admission that you're calling Mr. Langan a "crank" - then in all honesty, you're an extremely poor excuse for an arbitrator. Above, you made it quite clear that this is exactly what you intended to do: "We can impose a topic area ban as remedy, without justifying it article by article". I.e., same topic, no need to distinguish between the articles. It's a disgrace. There's simply no way around it, and there's no excuse for it. You've openly, proudly, and intransigently displayed your bias, and that's it.

You have to do better than putting words into my mouth. Charles Matthews

But I'm not doing that, Charles. That is what you said above, and in the context at hand, it has only one possible meaning: that all of the articles from which I've been banned are included in the same general topic, namely, "Christopher Michael Langan and all related articles including but not limited to: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe, Crank (person), and Academic elitism." This is the exact wording of the proposal into which you were effortlessly lured by one of the most open and unapologetic POV-pushers on this site (FeloniousMonk). As I say, there really isn't any way around it, and after trying so hard to reason with you and others here, it makes me almost sick to my stomach. Even if you deny that this is what you meant, and even if you're sincere in your denial, the psychological implications are clear: you're so innately biased against Langan and his work that you don't have an inkling of it. It's a sad, and perhaps prophetic, comment on the Wikipedia Project. Truly, this is a dark day in Wikipedia history. Asmodeus 20:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if not, then why are you voting on proposals without understanding exactly what they say? For that matter, why are you ignoring over five months of background on this case, including a long history of vicious personal attacks made against me and DrL?

I don't condone any personal attacks here. I have had a hand in drafting the WP:COI guideline, and in particular in clarifying that claims of conflict of interest should not be pressed in POV debates. Charles Matthews 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're dead mistaken about what the guideline says. It encourages people directly involved in articles not to edit them, but clearly makes exceptions for attacks and other violations of WP. That's in fact what happened to the CTMU and CML articles, as you'd know if you were actually familiar with the background duly provided for the case. Furthermore, I haven't edited the CML bio in almost five months, and very seldom before that.

Regardless of any opinion to the contrary, we've tried very hard to address our problems within the bounds of WP, at the expense of vast amounts of our own time, and I'm still trying very hard to avoid reaching some extremely unpleasant conclusions here. But in view of the above observations, it appears to me that your decisions may contain substantial elements of personal bias and antipathy. In light of the facts to which I'm now calling your attention, can you do or say something to lay my misgivings to rest? Thanks in advance for your considered response. Asmodeus 17:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal bias or antipathy involved on my part. Only the worst disputes come to Arbitration.I am used to accusations of bias, but I have to call cases as I see them. We deal with about 100 cases a year. Charles Matthews 17:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have my sympathies. But I'm afraid that doesn't justify the kind of openly biased arbitration I'm seeing here. As I say, you owe it to Wikipedia to reconsider. Asmodeus 19:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have absolutely no foundation for saying that. It amounts to abuse. And frankly telling me that I don't know the guideline is ridiculous. Charles Matthews 20:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you thought I was trying to abuse you, Charles. I see it quite the other way around: I think I have every reason to believe that you, and your fellow biased arbitrators, are abusing me (and of course, the bio subject to whom you accuse me of being identical). As far as the COI guideline is concerned...well, suffice it to say that if you mean to flatly forbid those connected to the topics of particular articles to edit them even under the most dire circumstances, then you'll need to substantially reword it...and you'll also need to do more than a little soul-searching about the ethical soundness of tying peoples' hands even while declaring open season on them, their reputations, and their work. For every notable person on this site, you have a dozen vandals and would-be detractors. It is hardly to Wikipedia's advantage to set precedents which hand these vandals and detractors a general and unconditional victory over their potential victims, as you and others on the ArbCom seem to want to do. Asmodeus 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Including the rest of the AC in this helps your cause? I don't think so. The guideline is sound. The deprecation of conflicted edits is also sound. Read what it says about Engels and Marx (which I added, by the way). Every effort is made there to balance matters, so that Wikipedia's interests are served and protected; and so that people who think they can edit through a conflict of interest and POV debate are duly warned. Mostly they cannot. Charles Matthews 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've returned to the guideline and read it and your Marx-Engels example with care. I agree with your points. In fact, I agree with the spirit of the entire guideline, which I see as a more or less specialized adjunct of WP:NPOV. But surely you can see the overall problem with it? The problem is that you have a site full of surreptitious POV-pushers (many of whom don't even understand the existence and limitations of their own POV's), and WP-savvy vandals who, given the chance, will eagerly stalk particular notable people whom they'd like to harass...people just like Christopher Michael Langan, who has for several years been unjustly badmouthed by self-styled skeptics and ID critics at various Internet sites specializing in the ID-evolution controversy. I've long suspected that this site might be subject to just that kind of problem. (In fact, I never quite saw how it wouldn't be.)

Don't get me wrong - there are some things about the project that I admire, and after I'd become satisfied that I could edit "safely" here, I'd gladly have contributed whatever new verifiable material I could have. Unfortunately, before that could happen, the CTMU and CML articles were attacked. I soon noticed several disquieting facts. (1) The attack was (verifiably) motivated by philosophical bias and personal animosity. (2) It was immediately joined by all kinds of people I'd have hoped would not get sucked into it. (3) Not a single administrator interceded on behalf of the articles, their authors, me, or DrL (indeed, exactly the opposite occurred; only those attempting to defend the articles were warned or blocked, on provocations far milder than many which preceded them). (4) It was followed by months of harassment, which no administrator (again) lifted a finger to stop until the occurrence of a very recent exception or two.

Instead, I witnessed a kind of feeding frenzy in which people simply let bias, deprecation, and bad argumentation fly freely. The CTMU is notable on the basis of mass media exposure alone, and trust me, there isn't an expert at Wikipedia with the ability to verifiably gainsay it. Yet, it was attacked as the worst sort of tripe by people using some of the worst argumentation I've ever seen anywhere. Many of these people let it be known that they had nothing but contempt for CML, indicating that CML could never get a fair shake from them if he ever tried to edit here under his real name. Sadly, this seemed to lay to rest any idea that he could ever reveal himself and expect to edit happily ever after in strict compliance with the standard idealized interpretation of WP:COI.

Believe me, Charles, I'd love it if things had turned out differently here. But the way this site is structured, the writing was always on the wall. Still, I'm open to some sort of rational compromise. If you or somebody else can truthfully assure me that the Langan bio will always be protected from its would-be attackers (whose existence and malicious intent has now been more than adequately established), and that I can edit freely anywhere else on the site, in literal compliance with WP of course, without being pursued and harassed just because some anonymous little thrillseeker wants to duke it out with an ex bar bouncer reputed to be the smartest guy around, then please do so. Some of our current problems will simply go away.

Until then, Wikipedia still has a lot to prove to people in Langan's position, and its administrators have no business pretending, even to themselves, that they can always take the moral high road. People like Langan don't ask to be here; they get put here by others who have heard about them because they're notable. Wikipedia has a clear responsibility never to put them in no-win situations, and always to allow them the means to defend themselves and their ideas when nobody else will bother. Asmodeus 22:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed remedy allows for you to edit any Talk page. Therefore there is no intention to prevent you bringing forward corrections of errors of fact. You should be able to find admins who will oversee such corrections, in the sense of getting them incorporated into articles, after due discussion. This is the approved method.

There is also a very firm policy against stalking and harassment. Charles Matthews 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. But as I've just told you, personal experience informs me that your administrators don't always enforce these policies at the right times or for the right reasons. In fact, I've brought this out in several pieces of evidence in this very RfAr. And if you think that anything I say on any talk page on this site will do anything whatsoever to change the editing behavior of those opposed to my presence here, you haven't looked with sufficient care at the evidence in this case. Please don't hesitate to do so if and when you can find the time (preferably before the case is closed). Asmodeus 22:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not canvas arbitrators to influence their descisions. It is generally considered "unwiki". Also, do not participate in personal attacks. Thank you. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality)} 22:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, OK WD. I can cope here. Charles Matthews 22:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do have confidence in our admin body. I also have confidence in our choice of remedies (plural). It is intended to defuse the situation. Matters only reach the AC because they have turned sour. That need not be a permanent state of affairs. Charles Matthews 22:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could share your confidence, Charles. But what I'm actually seeing looks something like this: "Asmodeus (and DrL) indefinitely banned; Asmodeus (and DrL) indefinitely placed on probation; FeloniousMonk and ScienceApologist counseled." It looks to me like you've "defused the situation" by opening season on the CML biography, given the credible threats of attack pending against it by FeloniousMonk and others at such a time as it is unlocked.

But perhaps I'm wrong about that. So am I? And what exactly does "indefinitely" mean? Does that mean that a year from now, after the bio is a defamatory shambles full of misinformation and tales of substantively irrelevant legal harassment provided by the litigious parties themselves, with all of the valid sources removed - after all, DrL was the only one preventing this from occurring all along - I'll ask an administrator to be unrestricted, only to be officiously reminded that "the ArbCom has already established that you and DrL were tendentious editors in bodacious violation of WP:COI! We don't want a recurrence! Therefore, no!"? Having seen what I've now seen, that's exactly what I'd expect to happen.

FeloniousMonk, who unblocked a known attack troll in the full expectation that I'd be savaged, and who then, along with four or five others, assured the community that he planned to tap certain litigious non-notables for a feed of malicious misinformation that is utterly irrelevant to Langan's life and work, is walking free and promises to sin again as soon as the CML biography is opened to him. He has shown a general willingness to (ab)use his administrative authority in opposition to any other administrator who might attempt to stop or revert him. Given that you're turning him and his friends loose on an article they've promised to attack, how can you possibly think that everything's going to be just fine anyway? Asmodeus 00:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[PS: Here's the latest single-purpose anti-CML troll account to make an appearance on the talk page of the CML bio. Needless to say, the only thing preventing this miscreant from vandalizing the biography itself was the temporary lock on it. What can Wikipedia do to stop these insects from crawling out of the woodwork at their customary frequent intervals? Not much, I suspect, and I've seen far too many of them to expect things to spontaneously improve. Because DrL can still access the talk page of the article, she was able to remove this particular defamatory edit...a good thing, since the administrators who have chosen to involve themselves in our affairs here have given us no reason whatsoever to expect their help. (In fact, here's trusted Wikipedia administrator Arthur Rubin reverting DrL and replacing the troll's edit. Arthur even employs the edit summary to wikilawyer in justification of his own defamatory revert! With fine, upstanding administrators like Arthur Rubin, who needs vandals?) Truthfully now, what do you think will happen when the lock is removed, and there's no DrL to fend off the insects and their administrative facilitators? Think about it. Asmodeus 03:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)][reply]