User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

REQUEST to Omura entry Arbitrators: THAT THE VERSION CURRENTLY PROTECTED NOT REMAIN DURING THIS PROCESS

I have spoken with Dr Omura today. He is deeply upset and troubled because of how he is being misrepresented on WP (by GenghizRat and Crum375). Dr Omura told me that many of the statements made by GenghizRat about him are gross misrepresentations that have no basis in reality. He wonders how someone who can remain without identity can be allowed to make such comments about him without him being able to address them via a lawyer as necessary.Richardmalter 07:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

• No, Charles, I am not editing in a "partisan" way. You've looked through my edits and can see that. My edits restore balance and improve general quality. I was not POV pushing and you have yet to show me an instance where I was. Thanks for making my point. --DrL 12:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

• 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)

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)

• 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)

'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)

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)

• 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)

'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.

• There is plenty of censorship here. I see it all over the place on Wikipedia. There is also a lot of tension and hostility, even in the talk pages of seemingly innnocuous subjects. It's a grim project and a time sink. --DrL 12:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

• I just started editing this encyclopedia a few months ago (I had put in a handful of edits before that). I would not classify myself as a neophyte, but I certainly was in the not-to-distant past. It might be a good idea for you to refresh your memory as to the content of WP:LIVING: Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons that is either unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Reliable sources, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source. In cases where the information is derogatory and poorly sourced or unsourced, this kind of edit is an exception to the three-revert rule. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. --DrL 12:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• Now this is really crossing the line. I am 'not' editing in a "partisan" way, unless you consider my dedication to maintaining neutral point of view a "partisan" position. My edits seek to restore balance, not skew. Editors should be encouraged to do this rather than being punished for doing it. You can't show me any place in the Langan article where I am pushing POV. Either show me those edits or stop accusing me of that, please. --DrL 12:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I could. I could show you warring over descriptions of intelligent design people. I could show you cutting out sourced material as 'trivia'. Simply persistently asserting your neutrality doesn't make it so. And you are out of order in asking to be answered here, rather than in the case. So, please note that low-level edit warring is considered vexatious, largely because it is a tactic aimed at wearing down other editors. And raising point after point here, such as quibbling above about That certainly does not qualify as "edit-warring", is also considered by me to be vexatious, and for exactly the same reasons. As has been pointed out below, putting pressure on Arbitrators is frowned on. You are not entitled to accost me outside the court, and put me through the whole case again.

Understannd this: I answer such questions here for one reason and one reason only. There is a point put about about Arbitrators being aloof. I aim to answer queries, to show that I am not. This does not entitle you, or User:Asmodeus, to badger me over and over again. Charles Matthews 14:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

You should stop this line of attack right now. No further warnings about claims of bias. Charles Matthews

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)

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.

That is threadbare, and I think you know it is. Charles Matthews

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

[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)]

One of our major principles is to assume good faith. I would advise you to try it. In fact if you do not show some appreciation of the need to assume good faith in other editors, rather than attacking it, your standing here is likely to suffer. The future of the articles at the centre of this dispute and case amounts to bridges to cross in the future. Doomy predictions indeed come after victimhood/lawyering/assertions of bias/vituperation in the usual litany, used by editors to try to pressurise for their own point of view. Why doesn't this trouble me? Because the system works much better than its critics allow; and for reasons most of the critics fail to grasp. Charles Matthews 09:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

(1) Clearly, if you want people to "assume good faith", then good faith is what you should assume regarding them.

The limitations of that are delineated in WP:COI, and elsewhere. Charles Matthews

I've tried to hold up my end of the bargain by seeking relief from harassment and defamation through the channels that exist here, just as Wikipedia advises.

You have perhaps cherry-picked the bits of the advice that you found palatable. Charles Matthews

Unfortunately, I do not feel that my good faith has been reciprocated through a careful review of the evidence and the issuance of a just decision.

There you go, attacking people again. This will not end well. Charles Matthews

(2) The future of the articles at the center of this dispute is a bridge that has already been crossed, several times. As the evidence clearly shows, the first bridge (the CTMU article) was burned to ashes in a massive transgression of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Not so. We have ruled quite otherwise, and you are an interested party, no? Charles Matthews

Numerous attempts were made to trash the second bridge as well. DrL did her best to ameliorate them, but now that you've tied our hands, the only obstacle remaining is a temporary lock. Unfortunately, you have unwisely, if not perversely, exacerbated the problem by tacitly encouraging the attackers to repeat their transgressions.

Again, quite unwarranted accusations. We don't reward persistence in such positions, you know. Charles Matthews

(3) I showed you a blatant example of lawyering by one of your administrators, and you respond by advising me to refrain from lawyering? Are you serious, or do you really believe that this kind of turnaround makes sense?

You, in your current position, are most strongly advised not to 'lawyer', i.e. to pick amongst policies' parts and interpretations. You are strongly advised to keep on the fairway, i.e. to go nowhere near the boundaries of what is permitted here. Charles Matthews

(4) My honest attempts to communicate my problems to you are not a "litany". The only way that one could honestly think they're a "litany" is that one is too jaded, and too ignorant of the facts of this particular case, to properly take account of its distinctive features...the very real circumstances that make it different from other cases.

I'm not ignorant of the facts. If I vote against your wishes, it gives you no right to attack me in this way. Charles Matthews

(5) You report that the situation you've helped to create here "doesn't trouble you". However, it is in fact quite troubling when the members of an organization's highest administrative body believe that the level of decency and veracity that it owes to any given person is contingent on his "standing" in its artificial community, particularly when some of its members have already been guilty of waging and/or permitting attacks on him. That this is your unquestioned assumption seems to imply that those who run this site have divorced themselves from external reality, and that Wikipedia has become internally contemptuous of the basic standards of decency and veracity which prevail in the outside world...the world to which it nonetheless claims to show only the most neutral and accurate content that it can muster.

We are decent, honest, ethical and humane, and volunteers. We have to have some rules of operation that defend the project and allow us to keep editing open. You have at no point conceded that Wikipedia has rules and is entitled to ask that they be respected. We can withdraw editing rights: of course, who would imagine otherwise. Charles Matthews

Making well-verified information available to the world's on-line population is an admirable goal. With regard to this goal, I wish Wikipedia all the best. But harassment and defamation, which are what Wikipedia seems to have fallen into the unseemly habit of licensing on the parts of certain privileged community members, is another matter entirely. In fact, this is morally unacceptable, and for your sake, I hope that you come to realize it. Meanwhile, I sincerely thank you for this revealing glimpse of your very interesting mindset. Do have a nice day. Asmodeus 15:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have explained, we have policies on harassment. We take defamation very seriously indeed; we have substantial mechanisms to deal with it, as anyone would expect. When we say that we deprecate autobiographical editing, why do people assume we don't know what we are talking about, and that they (in great ignorance of the project) see much more clearly? Charles Matthews 15:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC

Thanks for the clarification, Charles. A couple of final points, if I may: I didn't intend to "attack" you here. On the contrary, I've been sincerely trying to reason with you. I've now reached what I feel is the limit of reasoning with respect to our current points of discussion, and feel no desire to argue further about them here. I would merely ask that instead of warning me that this "will not end well", you maintain a fair and open mind, as I'm sure you'd wish to do anyway. Secondly, regarding autobiographical editing - with respect to which I believe that explicit exceptions are sometimes made - both Jimmy Wales and Arthur Rubin (the lawyering administrator I pointed out to you above) have edited their own biographies. I'd merely ask that this guideline be symmetrically enforced, and that due allowance be made for the exceptional circumstances of particular cases. Best regards, Asmodeus 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me you are a slow learner. I have just warned you on your Talk page about a couple of points (implications of bias, dragging other editors in) that are salient in what you have just posted here. Charles Matthews 15:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Raimon de Miraval(h)

"Miravalh" is the Provençal spelling (i.e., it is how the author wrote his own name), "Miraval" is the French one, which is the most common, albeit not the only one, used in English; I don't know whether the main page of an author should be the original one, the English one or the most common. Do we have a policy about that? Complainer

Other things being equal, we take the common name in English. Charles Matthews 17:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Dear Charles, This note is in regards to your participation in the arbitration process. [1] I would like to point out some proof about user 195.82.106.244 sockpuppets accounts brahmakumaris.info, bkwatch and bkwsuwatch. here [2] under "proof of sockpuppet by .244, brahmakumaris.info and bkwsuwatch. I placed this in the arbitration page as well but it was deleted by user Thatcher131. as it can be seen here: [3] on dedc. 9th at 1:19. Your input on this would be greated appreciated. Best, avyakt7 11:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. I have looked. But I cant find Wiki user accounts for bkwatch, bkwsuwatch. 195.82.106.244 02:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I know you have looked, 244.. but here is the link that you didn't look at. [4], Best, 70.110.74.202 02:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC) AVYAKT7

User:Chelsea Tory

Hello. When you have a moment could you please take a look at this and let me know what you think? The user in question is one you yourself have encountered on the talk page for Monday Club. He seems to have taken objection to my edits on Wikipedia, which is fine, but I am not sure that the kind of threats he is making are acceptable and I don't wish to be harassed. --SandyDancer 15:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles, I am sorry to bother you. I appreciate admins are not here to spend their time acting as policemen for petty disputes, and that you'd rather get on with editing the encylopedia.

However, I have to say I beginning to feel harassed by User:Chelsea Tory, and he has made it clear he intends to continue. It seems I have a choice between dealing with this or discontinuing my activities on Wikipedia. Whilst I may not be a model editor, I have made useful contributions and I enjoy spending spare time working here.

I have been subject to incivility from this - and other users with a very similar writing style and point of view - ever since I first stumbled across the Monday Club article and started editing it. I have come to you with this because you have been personally involved in the past and have some prior knowledge.

If you see here and here and here you will see that accusations have been made that I am User:EdChilvers. To me, this just seems ridiculous. I wouldn't react so strongly if there was a shred of evidence to lead to this conclusion - but I am a user with thousands of edits, who has been involved in editing many articles, particularly before I stumbled upon the articles created / edited / owned by the set of users interested in Monday Club. It is quite depressing that it has come to this - all I did was try and improve some articles.

My concern is that User:Chelsea Tory has sought the intervention of an administrator who, I now recall, I have crossed with in the past. I do not think it is fair that this administrator should be looking at this. I am not saying he (SlimVirgin) has done anything wrong - it is clear he hasn't. But I would prefer it wasn't him who dealt with this.

If there was any evidence to support the assertion that I was a sockpuppet, as I say I would not react so strongly. I'd probably accept (reluctantly) that there may be a need for a checkuser. But in this instance there simply isn't. This seems to me to be a blatant case of fishing - and I value my privacy, as I have a right to do as a Wikipedian. Chelsea Tory was asked to provide diffs by SlimVirgin, and he hasn't, but continues to make accusations - and from the nature of these accusations, it increasingly obvious he is just trying to upset me - see his latest. Please could you take a look and if possible offer a view. I am at my wit's end with this - which is, unfortunately, precisely what the accuser probably wants. --SandyDancer 16:00, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh - SlimVirgin is a she, by the way. And she is someone you can have full confidence in, as far as holding the ring is concerned. So, I'll have a word with User:ChelseaTory. Charles Matthews 14:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Desysopped proposal

Just to be clear...these are the reasons I am to be desysopped?--MONGO 22:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

That's point 5); there is also 6). Charles Matthews 22:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Please examine evidence presented here, understand that several admins did nothing to assist me in trying to protect myself from trolling efforts, and prior arbcom ruling here where Tony Sidaway is placed only on administrative 1RR after wheel warring and arguing with admins.--MONGO 22:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Precedent never applies to ArbCom rulings, actually. Charles Matthews 22:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan motion to close

Before moving to close, I think it would be good for the project if you reviewed Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Proposed decision. There is considerable dissent that the decision to desysop MONGO and Seabhcan is the right direction to go. I'm not asking you to change your votes on that RfAr, but rather to consider that this matter is under ongoing, rapid fire discussion. There's been nearly a hundred edits to that talk page in the last 48 hours alone, and that is just one fora where this is being debated among many. Respectfully submitted, --Durin 20:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's much like the other cases where people think lobbying Arbs is the right thing to do, in my view. Basically people voting on the Proposed Decision page doesn't carry any weight, and shouldn't carry any weight. Charles Matthews 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• So Arbs act in isolation from the rest of the project? --Durin 15:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. We are supposed to look at the broad picture. Charles Matthews 16:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think the point isn't that people are lobbying the arbitrators, but that people are presenting evidence and arguments that are worthy of consideration. Newyorkbrad 15:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You know, I had a couple of guys up the page wanting the show run 'right here'; basically a second case. Now, as I see it, we have an Evidence stage, we have a Workshop stage, we are not often accused of rushing to a decision. I'd prefer some greater respect for procedures, really. I don't really understand the status of third parties presenting fresh arguments as a case is about to close. It rather looks like paratroop advocacy. We don't hold plebiscites on our cases, ansd you can be pretty sure that with enough noisy advocates around on one side, there will be some sensible people on the other side of the 'admins should be held to civility' argument who are keeping their heads below the parapet. Everyone does agree on civility, right? Motherhood and apple pie. Charles Matthews 16:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• As a general matter that is a valid view. In some cases, however, the trend of the Evidence and Workshop pages is unclear and then a remedy is proposed either at the tail-end of the Workshop process or directly onto Proposed Decision, so Proposed Decision-talk is the first chance editors have to comment on the remedy or the support for it. The Seabhcan/MONGO case is a high-profile example, but very something similar occurred in the Konstable case just a couple of weeks ago, and with respect to Geogre in the Giano case, and there are other examples as well. Newyorkbrad 16:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You can be sure that a fresh ArbCom after the elections will be taking a look at procedures. However, vague arguments of 'trend' across several very different and contentious cases doesn't amount to much. (Especially as you are lumping cases with Arbitrators having very different views in with a case where that is not really applicable in the same way.) I don't know why you think 'editor comment' should be such a big deal. I put exactly this point on wiki-en: do we look at the evidence or the buzz? Charles Matthews 16:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'd be all too happy to look at the evidence of MONGO's claimed abuse of admin tools. Unfortunately, there's nothing to review that has any substance. --Durin 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• I saw the Seabhcan RfAr go up with MONGO being a party. I didn't think much would result from it, perhaps some stern warnings and maybe a parole or two. When I came back sometime later, I saw with horror that de-adminship was the preferred remedy. I then undertook an investigation of my own, one whose conclusions were independently reached by three other editors. After reaching some investigation, and seeing that the case was about to close, I realized it was time to act to stop the train wreck from happening. If that is paratroop advocacy, then by all means hand me a parachute. An injustice is being done here, and it would seem there is broad agreement that ArbCom's remedies at this point are improper. I concur with a posting made on the mailing list [5]; maybe there is more evidence on the evidence page of abuse of admin tools. But, the findings of fact should present the strongest of that evidence. The case against MONGO is weak, at best. Citing him for an action from six months ago, much less an action that is not readily labeled as wrong? Can't you find more evidence of abuse of admin tools than that? Citing him for protecting an article in a version he disagreed with, an article he hadn't edited in two+ weeks? Citing him for unprotecting a page he'd been involved in? There's no basis in policy for that. This case is weak. If there is damning evidence, then bring it forward from the 272k long evidence page, and affirm that evidence as being accurate and worthy of condemnation. Don't just vaguely refer to the evidence page as some are wont to do. Prove the case. --Durin 16:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong about discussion here being a re-trial; I thought I'd already made that point. I'm satisfied that the remedy is the best available for the specific situation. I'm not going to argue the point about page protection policy. Everyone knows that this is to be treated most scrupulously by admins; and that you get someone else to do it for you if you are involved. Charles Matthews 16:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• The case being presented is cautionary to all admins; don't use admin tools on articles on which you have ever edited. That's the message you're sending. There's no support in policy for that. ArbCom shouldn't be in the business of writing policy. --Durin 16:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are really arguing that rigorous enforcement of page protection policy is writing policy, this has ceased to be much of a discussion. If you are simply out to minimize actual policy violations, are you not equally suggesting a charter for admins who think they have an opt-out? People often think that by (a) putting words into the ArbCom's mouth and (b) performing a quick reductio ad absurdum on that basis, they are doing something logically adequate. Of course admins should think before they act. Good admins are very sparing of their powers, and operate much more by being reasonable and persuasive, and cool under fire. Charles Matthews 16:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• No, I'm saying the case against MONGO for abusing the page protection policy is non-existent. He is being censured for unprotecting pages. There's no policy basis for that. He's also being censured for protecting a page he hadn't edited for two+ weeks, and one which he protected in a version he didn't agree with. The case seems to be lock-step review of policy and seeing MONGO protecting a page he had edited, without any understanding of the circumstances. I am arguing that ArbCom is writing policy if they insist on censuring MONGO for unprotecting when there's no basis for that. --Durin 16:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He's also being censured for protecting a page he hadn't edited for two+ weeks, and one which he protected in a version he didn't agree with. That's not against policy? Come on. The two weeks and the claim about his own wishes are neither here nor there. So I'll get back to editing now. Charles Matthews 16:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• You see protecting a page he hadn't edited in two weeks in a version he didn't agree with as a grave offense. How, I do not know. I don't see it that way. Obviously we're not going to agree. --Durin 16:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's serious, it's evidence, and it's the sort of thing Arbitration is rightly based on. Charles Matthews 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan

Please be aware that there is active, ongoing work on proposed decisions regarding this case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop. Closing may be premature. Please review that page. Thank you. --Durin 13:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You are out of order here. Charles Matthews 14:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• For requesting you look at the workshop page? How am I out of order? Please explain. To date, you've not made a single edit to that page. The beginning of all RfArs state "Arbitrators will be working on evidence and suggesting proposed decisions at /Workshop". All I'm asking you to do is what you are expected to do by that sentence. This is out of order? --Durin 16:22, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Closing may be premature. It may not, in fact. You have no particular standing in the matter of closing cases, and certainly none at all to tell me how to go about the job of arbitration. Charles Matthews 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• You will note, sir, that I did not say "Closing IS premature". I asked you to review the page. I asked you to do what you were appointed to ArbCom to do. The people of Wikipedia have a reasonable expectation that you be willing to do the job that you volunteered to do. Asking you to do it is not out of order in any respect. Since you have not edited the page at any time, and since you have not engaged in the discussion on the talk page of the proposed decision, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption to think you have not read the workshop page of late. Further, the fact that you have made a grand total of 5 edits to any workshop page since you have been a member of ArbCom gives a pretty strong indication that you do not use them. I made a perfectly reasonable and polite request for you to go to that page and review the ongoing work and discussion there. Despite this, you find it in your heart to accuse me of being out of order. If this is being "out of order", then I wear your accusation against me as a badge of honor, and kudos for a job well done. Thank you. --Durin 16:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your approach, really, is that only half of the Arbitrators from the start of 2006 are even voting at all. If I want to read bad arguments, it seems I hardly need to go further than my own Talk page. Charles Matthews 16:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• Further compliment noted. You will note that I have been addressing only those arbitrators involved in this case. --Durin 16:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Very Well Done

</sarcasm> - Well, the scum over at ED (Encyclopedia Dramatica) are certainly lapping up the ArbCom decision to desysop MONGO. Hope your very happy with the situation you've helped create over there, and which I do hope you and the other members of ArbCom will be happy to clean up on your own when it spills over to Wikipedia. If it wasn't impossible, I'd take the ArbCom to Arbitration since you may have made one of the most damaging decisions on Wikipedia and are in danger of causing more damage to the site than MONGO ever could. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are not saying that Arbitrators should waste a moment on considering outside reaction to their decisions, rather than concentrating on the English Wikipedia and its needs. Charles Matthews 10:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm saying, because, and this is the important bit, in this case, there is a real chance that the antagonists who lurk on ED and indeed Wikipedia could start indulging in sockpuppetry and troll there way merrily through the site, antagonising MONGO. We've already witnessed sockpuppetry from one user who was involved in the previous Arb case concerning ED when they (User:Rootology) turned up as User:XP in the middle of the Seabhcan case to try and influence the decision. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 12:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Troll activity is troll activity, and I don't see that you strengthen Wikipedia by attacking Wikipedians over it. Wait - I've just thought - that's what the trolls actually want, to have internal dissension here. Charles Matthews 12:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Helgio, I appreciate you concern, but as Charles said, the ED crew do NOT dictate our decisions. The wrongs of one user do not justify similar wrongs by another, and on that token the ED abuses does not justify the abuse of sysop powers that MONGO participated in - pure and simple. If there are sockpuppets that need squashing, you should know that there is always WP:RFCU - report them there. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 19:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

Hello I wanted to ask you for your help. I saw that you are a member of the Arbitration commitie. I wanted to ask you if you could help me I would like to make a request for an arbitration. I read the rules but didn't understand compleatly were do I go to make the request and where do I go to discuss on the matter. The thing is that me and user Sherurcij have made a compeling argument with reaserch that we did on the number of American Marines killed in the first battle in Fallujah. The reaserch was based on veryfied data from notable sources. We came up with a number of 27 killed. Now the thing is that user Marshalbannana is totaly disregarting the evidence and is stikin blindly to a Guardian report that 83 were killed and a statement by a State department spokesman that also said that 83 were killed but that is in total contrast to the fisical evidence. Also that State department spokesman said that 1,000 marines were wounded, That is totaly crazy because there were only 1,300 in the attacking force. What did the insurgents just totaly destroy a Marine division. Also 3 or 4 users agreed with me and Sheryrcij that our data is corect but now Marshalbannana has acused me that I a sockpuppeter who is controling Sherurcij and the others in an atempt to make his point. I tryed in every way to reason with him but he just doesn't want to listen and look at the evidence. I didn't even hear about this sockpuppets until he mentioned them. He accuses me on the bases when I made some edits without loging in and then my user nickname was not signed but my IP adress. I just don't log in sometimes but just do the edits it's not to cover my identity I just forget. So if you could please help me with this situation I will wait for your reply please help me if you can.^{([[(Top Gun)} 03:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration does not concern content issues: it centers on editor behaviour. If your comments on the numbers are not 'original research', you should be able to back them up with reliable sources. Charles Matthews 10:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

"Understanding has no second derivative"

Hi Charles! I think your recent minor edit to the Mathematics article (changing "understanding" to "research") certainly sounds better, but your reason for it caught my eye. Since I don't disagree with the edit itself, I thought I'd bring this up here instead of on the article's discussion page. My argument follows:

Right now I only understand about 3 concepts in the field of group theory, and it's been that way for about six months. Thus my understanding of group theory, "U" is at a constant level of 3 concepts. If I begin reading a book about it, I may find that I grasp 4 concepts on Monday, 5 on Tuesday, 6 on Wednesday and so forth, so now "U" is increasing at the constant rate of 1 concept/day. Finally, if I get really excited about my group theory book, I may devote more and more time to it each day. I may find that I understand 8 concepts on Thursday, 11 on Friday and 15 on Saturday. The number of new concepts per day is now rising in this manner: (2, 3, 4 ...). In this case, "U" is accelerating at the rate of 1 concept/day^2. Thus, understanding has a second derivative. qed. :o) capitalist 03:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Those would be finite differences, though. Charles Matthews 09:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but then I suppose the same point would apply to advances in research as well. The only infinitesimal advances in research of which I'm aware are in my own efforts (or so it usually seems to me), LOL. capitalist 03:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Email

Charles, in case you doubted its authenticity - the email I sent (subject:Story) is indeed from me. Thanks! — Gary Kirk // talk! 16:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you deal with this?

This sounds rather serious. Would you be able to take a look at it and decide what needs doing? I've posted to the talk pages of some of the arbitrators and one of the clerks as well, but not any further. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. I restored this section following this series of edits in which it was lost. Hope that helps. Carcharoth 11:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a plea for help? Charles Matthews 15:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been following the case and I really don't know what to make of it, which is why I posted to several arbitrators asking if they could weigh in. Thanks for showing some interest though. Would it be possible to ask if this is being discussed off-wiki among the arbitrators, as the responses at the case itself while not zero, don't seem to be reaching any conclusion yet. I realise I can't expect the arbitrators (or anyone) to respond immediately, or drop what they are doing to deal with one case among many, but I'm left wondering exactly what level of response I should expect to a question like this ("can you deal with this?")? Carcharoth 02:21, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Carcharoth's concern. I also think you are probably right, above, that some recent posts are a call for help. I think that "help" here would consist of getting this case done with as painlessly as possible and archived. Newyorkbrad 03:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Husnock account was de-sysopped on an emergency basis, as soon as it became clear that it was or might have been compromised. At that point we discussed the matter, and tried to get it into proportion. There was also an offer from The Epopt to correspond using a .mil email address with any officer who needed to know about it from our side. I see that this offer has now been made public. These were two things done to try to ring-fence the matter as an onsite dispute, and reduce the drama. To be frank, the posting pointed to above reminded me of things User:Mike Church used to post here, trying for sympathy. Charles Matthews 08:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Please IMPROVE your grammar!

I have seen quite a few of your edits pertaining to the game of Go, and I must respectfully request that you adhere to correct English grammar when editing. Your grammatical mistakes are numerous and careless, and I am certain that a person of your education should have no problem producing texts with few or no grammatical mistakes. Please take care to avoid run-on sentences and superfluous use of "therefore" and "so as to" when they add nothing substantive. If you intend to convey a certain feeling of sophistication through your idiosyncratic use of English grammar, I must assure you that it has not worked as intended. The most annoying thing about your edits and their lack of proper grammar is that they make subsequent edits difficult to accomplish. It is no easy task to add to or correct an exiting article while having to deal with the numerous grammatical mistakes without screwing up the flow and readability of the article. If you do not have enough time to ensure that your edits are readable, then please allow me to volunteer my service to you. Please email your draft edits to boyu@mac.com (my email), and I can take some time to correct the grammtical mistakes for you before you make final posts. Thank you very much for your time and attention. Please remember, quality beats quantity, every time! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Favabeans78 (talk • contribs) 10:55–11:01, 26 December 2006

Your changes didn't correct a single grammatical mistake, as far as I can see. Please sign posts with four tildes. Charles Matthews 15:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Exclusive disjunction -> Exclusive or

Since you expressed concerns about "Exclusive disjunction" being renamed "Exclusive or", I have changed the opening of Exclusive or to read "Exclusive or, more correctly called exclusive disjunction and symbolized by XOR or EOR, is a logical operation on two operands that results in a logical value of true if and only if one of the operands, but not both, has a value of true.". Is this a wording which you are happy with? Basically, I have never seen "Exclusive disjunction" except in the Wikipedia article, so I don't fully understand why it is more correct for people with the relevant mathematical background (my math stops just past calculus). I welcome your contributions to the Exclusive or article about why it may be better called "Exclusive disjunction"--especially if you can back up your contributions with references. Maybe you have a math book sitting around which explains why "Exclusive disjunction" is better, for example. Samboy 07:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Notification - speedy deletion tag added to J. R. Benson

A tag has been placed on J. R. Benson, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

Proposal tendered by SuzanneKn; notification left here by User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 05:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ramanujan Summation

Dear Charles, There is no article on Ramanujan Summation in wikipedia, I tried to create one but couldn't understand a thing I read from the net. There is a request for this article. After reading about it and failing to understand, I am desperate to learn it. Since you have done a lot of articles on Mathematics would you kindly consider writing this one. Thanks a lot ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 18:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is briefly mentioned at Riemann zeta function, which links to this PDF. There are problems with learning any mathematics properly from online sources ... Charles Matthews 19:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you sir ŇëŧΜǒńğëŗ 06:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)