User talk:CalvinTy

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians

Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People/Future supercentenarians during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. David in DC (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look through my edits...

you'll see that I've rescued some longevity pages (Ferris-Muse comes to mind). I'm most interested in making sure Biographies of Living People comply strictly with WP:BLP. Check out the history of Peter Yarrow. Or the composer David C. Itkin, whose article I created.

Dead people attract my interest too: See Shlomo Carlebach.

I've got the most edits on The Awareness Center page, mostly because of the Center's impact on living people.

I also correct speeling, punkchewashun, yousage and grammer, fairly randomly.

I'm an advocate of continuing and expanding the Pending Changes feature. Especially for BLP's.

I'm answering here because the MfD page is a particularly inapt place for the answer (or the question, for that matter).

I'm involved in longevity because the WOP project, as it stands now, flouts multiple policies, guidelines, and rules. It's also featured a lot of bullying and troll-like behavior. The longevity ArbCom case is the only one I've ever been involved in. It sanctioned one bad bully on each side heavily, and seems to have chastened some others.

Your question seems to suggest I've got ulterior motives. I have none. I'm a longtime editor and contributor and I want to improve wikipedia.

I'm very wary of editors who know, and seek to advance, ultimate truth.

Have I satisfied your curiousity?

If not, the E-mail function on my user page works. Or just post questions to my user page.

Happy editing. David in DC (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, it is most appreciated. As you can see, I'm still learning the innards of Wikipedia even if I have made an edit here and there since I established my CalvinTy account in 2006 (and the only one, if you and anyone else wonders). As you may see via my contributions, most of my edits are longevity-based as I always have been fascinated by gerontology -- though genealogy remains my favorite numero uno hobby. I don't often look at history of page edits or history of an user's edits because I am mostly here at Wikipedia to improve articles, not to get into potential wiki-politics. In fact, I'm not sure how I can look at specific edits of a person's history -- which I'll learn in good time, I suppose. I became aware of the longevity ArbCom as it took place, but I myself am a busy person with a family of 4 young girls (3 of them under the age of 2; twin girls and newborn girl) as well as being a network administrator at work. Online, I also am a forum administrator related to the subject of longevity. Usually, I only get on Wikipedia at work during a down time like yesterday, 25 February 2011.

(My biggest pet peeve in life is liars; it looks like my biggest pet peeve on Wikipedia is people arguing/commenting just for the sake of arguing/commenting). I just wanted to ensure that was not going on. That seems to make more and more editors expend their energies on talk pages, discussions, policies and guidelines. I'm sure some of my frustrations are reflected in my comments even though I never intended to get into middle of stuff like RSN, deletions, and so forth.

By the way, you made an assumption where none exists.  :-) My question did not suggest that you had ulterior motives (that's putting words in my mouth, heh); rather, that's why I prefaced my sentence with "to better understand your position". Like I said earlier, I'm glad you answered that here. I just had not noticed your name much in edits of the WikiProject's "World's Oldest People", that's all. Cheers, CalvinTy 05:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Tech advice only - To see a contributor's edits, go to the "View history" tab of any page he or she has edited. Next to their name are links to their talk page and their edit history. Usually they are called (talk) and (contribs). Click on "contribs". Happy editing. David in DC (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

...for the notification about Itsmejudith's accusation. I have no idea what she is on about. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll have you know..

That I read a bunch of the threads there before their disappearance, complete with Robert and/or Brendan rallying the troops, and/or making comments about other editors, such as User:David in DC. I would stand by my characterization there. I invite you to read WP:CANVASS and WP:MEATPUPPET.. for example, I remember seeing someone (I think Brendan) mentioning that an article was going to be deleted, and how "we can't have that". SirFozzie (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the WP:CANVASS guideline, that was a much better read than the WP:MEATPUPPET guideline that I had already read when itsmejudith provided that one before your first comment at AE. I have made a long reply (my apologizes, that's just who I am, LOL) back over there at AE here. To quickly answer you here as well, with someone saying on a forum "we can't have that", Brendan or whoever it was, appeared to be providing his own opinion, right? He was not saying, "please go over there on Wikipedia and stop that action from taking place". If that was said, then yes, that is canvassing, I would agree. Thoughts? Thanks again for your feedback, CalvinTy 18:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As stated over there, unfortunately, yes, that is canvassing: There are four criteria that need to be passed for it to not be canvassing:

Limited Posting= Ok, the 110 Club forum is rather small (the same four or five editors were regulars in the threads I scanned before they disappeared).

Messaging: Obviously, he is trying to rally members to support him.

Audience: Clearly partisan... "preaching to the choir", so to speak.

Transparency: Not open at all, but secret (Secret in that those not involved in the on-wiki discussion would not easily know that they were asked to show up and make up the numbers.)

Also Ryoung is topic-banned as a result of the recent ArbCom case, so he should NOT be attempting to continue in the disputed topic area, even as much as recruiting other editors to present his arguments for him. I know he was not always successful, and in fact one of the larger threads I read when it came to my attention was people telling Ryoung that he was directing them like a general to the common troops, and they didn't really much like it, or his tone, but still, he is topic banned from Longevity and related topics and should not be attempting to influence those articles. SirFozzie (talk) 19:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

@SirFozzie, thank you for the great information about the four criteria of canvassing. It was such an interesting read that it should be incorporated into the WP:CANVASS article, perhaps you could add that, if you are allowed to? I have no idea if anyone can edit a guideline page. Regarding myself, I just wonder what happens next, particularly that I strongly feel that I was not a meatpuppet & did not canvass anyone on the forum to come to Wikipedia. Itsmejudith seemed so determined that "I was fully involved.... in breaking all our rules" that I am not sure what else I can say or do. Can you advise? Thanks, CalvinTy 01:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Calvin, if you look at CANVASS, I took the four criteria right from that table at the top (on what's good and what's not so good :) SirFozzie (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh sheesh, I saw that table, but haha, I guess I didn't translate it well into your great bullets of the four criteria. Thanks! CalvinTy 19:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Some articles that are of interest to you are covered by the Longevity Arbcom case

Hello CalvinTy. Since I notice you are already participating in the discussion at WP:AE#NickOrnstein there is no need to invite you there. I am leaving you a formal notice about the Longevity Arbcom case, which allows admins to issue discretionary sanctions.

---

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Longevity if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further <struck out by EdJ> inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Final decision. -- EdJohnston (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

@EdJohnston, hello there. As you can see with my discussion above with SirFozzie, I'm learning about the criteria of canvassing. I have read about the recent ArbCom Longevity case that was handed out on 17 Feb 2011. Although, I was generally inactive up to 25 Feb 2011 when I began to immerse myself in better understanding Wikipedia policies and guidelines so I enlisted feedback from several different current discussions going on. So if you would look at my contribs, you will see that I have been active only since 25 Feb 2011 (60 or so edits, I think). The formal notice said "if you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area", so can you kindly tell me what inappropriate behavior I have partaken in, EdJohnston? Since I have been neutral and civil, I don't believe I have done anything wrong to date so I am not sure why I should get a formal notice when there have been no consensus that I have done anything wrong? Perhaps it's better if you retract the formal notice because I was not even in the picture during that Longevity ArbCom case, does that make sense? Appreciate your time, though, EdJohnston. I applaud to any and all administrators who have to deal with this on a daily basis, and no, I'm not trying to kiss anyone's behind.  :-) Cheers, CalvinTy 02:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The notice is intended to cover your behavior from now on. I think that everyone who is part of the '110 Club Wikipedia' ought to receive this message. I struck out the word 'further' in the notice. It would help to clarify matters if you could explain why you happened to choose this moment to begin editing Wikipedia (right after the Longevity case closed). Your participation at RSN suggests that you intend to be active in promoting the value of the WOP Yahoo group and participating in noticeboard discussions where votes may be counted. EdJohnston (talk) 02:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, I'll be more than happy to clarify anything. Appreciate you striking out the word 'further' in that template notice. To clarify per your request, I was vaguely aware of the Longevity ArbCom case but I simply was too busy being a father to 4 girls (3 girls under the age of 2; twin girls and newborn girl) and being a network administrator at work as well (on top of that, oldest girl had bronchitis then twin girls had strep throat, then my wife had virus infection then I got pneumonia -- all between January and February 2011!). As you know, RYoung122 is a member of The 110 Club, as a matter of fact, he is also a forum administrator there along with me. That would explain why I'm unable to take any action against him on the forum. He did notify the forum about the ArbCom results, but I still did not really feel comfortable participating in any comments or discussions for a long time because I felt so lost when I heard words like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SPS, WP:OR... I was like, what the heck are those words? Keep in mind, I have been sporadically editing longevity articles since 2009 (my first edit although my account was established way back in 2006 -- and even back then, I believe I lurked around for months or years prior to that). I had no idea about what ArbCom meant, and obviously, on Friday, 25 Feb 2011, during a down time at work, I learned so much that day and that's how I became active trying to understand the issue about Yahoo Group WOP & how it should not be used for citations, and why some people felt that GRG was not a reliable source when I felt and know enough about GRG's vetting system as I'm a GRG volunteer myself. I have validated several living supercentenarians or future supercentenarians for GRG. I also agreed with several editors (like David in DC) that the WikiProject's Future supercentenarians sub-page had needed so much improvement; that was why I took the initiative to begin sourcing all entries on the Future supercentenarians list and began to improve the page as well. I understood why Yahoo Groups WOP shouldn't be used as a citation because, if nothing else, it is a closed membership so the public wouldn't be able to see the reference anyway. That didn't make sense. Rather, since I am a member of that WOP group, I knew that most of the messages there included the original web link and source so I tried to use that web link or source to the best of my ability. I see that you selected one of my diffs, probably randomly, but just to let you know, if you were to look at several other diffs, perfect, I have one particular diff for you to look at here. You can see that I am trying to see where everyone stood on the Yahoo Groups WOP issue as well as whether GRG is a reliable source. Ever since, you know how it is... when someone gets a new game or a new hobby, for the first few weeks, they play the new game or work on their new hobby quite a bit. I have no intention of continuing being that active in the long run because I firmly believe that Wikipedia is a place for people to edit articles, not to expend so much energy in all those discussions, AfD, MfD, ArbCom, and so forth.

Then I noticed that several editors, particularly itsmejudith, began to attack and accuse "everybody at 110 Club" for breaking all the rules so I was extremely puzzled and wanted to understand her position, but at first, she only told me about the meatpuppet guideline that did not seem to be relevant. Then that's where SirFozzie explained about canvassing guideline. All I know is that "just because I am a member (as well as an administrator) at The 110 Club forum, it does not mean that I personally did anything wrong". I was concerned that you sent me the notice just because I'm a member of that forum (and also why didn't SirFozzie sent me that notice?). I was just afraid a "generalization" was made, clumping up all members of the forum together, even if it is later determined that some of them may be guilty of canvassing or whatever else. As you can see, NickOrnstein is also a member of that forum but I admonished him for his lack of communication in undoing my efforts. So I think that shows that I can be neutral and shouldn't have to get that notice unless *I already violated a guideline*. Thanks once again for reading. Cheers, CalvinTy 05:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that the AE request might close with no specific action toward members of the 110 Club, though I believe that a warning is likely. The original subject of the complaint was NickOrnstein and it is possible he may be topic banned. Since you have looked at WP:EEML you are probably aware that Arbcom takes offsite coordination very seriously. At a minimum, the AE will end with all of the members notified of the discretionary sanctions. Since the Arbcom Longevity case closed only a few weeks ago, and the enforcement request gives evidence that there is still trouble in the Longevity area, I hope you are not surprised. If you are an admin at the 110 Club, you must be aware that the discussions in that group about editing Wikipedia raise concerns on Wikipedia. The fact that members of the 110 Club seem to argue strongly in favor of including Yahoo WOP data as a reliable source suggests that regular Wikipedia editors may want to exercise some skepticism in that regard. I could imagine a voluntary deal in which members of the Yahoo WOP group agree to identify themselves as such on Wikipedia, agree to abstain from counted votes on such matters as whether to include WOP links in articles, and agree not to add WOP links to articles themselves. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)