User talk:Collect

Well-meaning editors: Please do not edit comments from others on this page. Thank you.

Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained.

I find it interesting that an editor who says he is "collegial" would ever have posted anything remotely like:

I have some derogatory and self-created (by him) information that I would like to reveal regarding ***. But, I would like to create a situation where most of the editors that have worked to formulate a quality article are present. Unless *** pushes too much, I will probably wait till closer to the election. (I feel like Sam Spade/Private Detective).

And then, lets just go back to being fellow editors with an extreme dislike for an editor whose name begins with a C and ends in a T.

Sound "collegial to you?

Some of my essays:

WP:False consensus

WP:KNOW

WP:Advocacy articles

WP:PIECE

WP:Defend to the Death

WP:Midden

WP:Baby and Bathwater

WP:Wikifurniture

WP:Contentious

WP:Sex, Religion and Politics

WP:Editorially involved

WP:Mutual admiration society

User:Collect/Collect's Law

Happy Collect's Day!

User:Collect has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Collect's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Collect! Peace, Rlevse 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

And sincere best regards and thanks to you! Collect (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"A reproach to the law"

Every unjust decision is a reproach to the law or to the judge who administers it. If the law should be in danger of doing injustice, then equity should be called in to remedy it. Equity was introduced to mitigate the rigour of the law. But in the present case it has been prayed in aid to do injustice on a large scale - Lord Denning.

About Arbcom.

I noticed that we appear to be starting a lively and so-far civil debate on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-08-07/Arbitration report. I would like to inquire as to whether you think that there might be a better place for us to debate this. Thanks!

On a personal note, I would like to say that your basic argument does have merit, even though I disagree, and I think that debating its merits is quite worthwhile. You might even convince me that I am wrong! :) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I presented substantially the same position on the case decision talk page - a clerk, however, warned me in no uncertain terms about "bickering" and stated that any further such "bickering" would be actionable. When I saw the ArbCom position presented in the Signpost, I rather felt that my position should also be stated there, as otherwise the Signpost article did not meet the NPOV system posited on Wikipedia, as containing only the one position. If you read the essay at WP:Tiptibism, you will note this is not a new position for me - I have long felt that asserting that one has the power to make a decision does not actually make it right to make such a decision, and I noted Denning's famed opinion which appears quite to coincide with mine. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

All I can say about your disagreement with the Arbcom position being suppressed and then the Arbcom position being featured in the Signpost (even though I kind of agree with Arbcom this time) is this: AAAAAARRRRGGHHH!!!!

That being said, the editors who run the signpost will be glad to post a well-written editorial, no matter who agrees with it. I would like to see one from you; this is an important policy topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

So you just don't agree with Wikipedia's rules and refuse to do anything until they change? Well good that you've effectively quit Wiki if you don't agree with the rules. And I wouldn't expect them to ever care that you quit either.

81.178.161.191 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In this case, Arbcom seems to be making up the rules as it goes along, so... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:51, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

@IP: The rules seem to be undergoing a strange metamorphosis not allowed by the Wikipedia community policy. For some odd reason, I expect ArbCom to abide by the community remit. If they do not, I expect a number of them to no longer be ArbCom members after the coming election. BTW, I do not give a damn what an anonymous IP opines on this page - if you wish anyone to care what your opinion is, I suggest you register as a user. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP

Hi, could you go back to [1] and clarify how you feel about other options? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I am on a Wikistrike due to a rather strange precedent which might be set by ArbCom. If they actually perform this march against sanity, you will find me far more absent than anything else - there are, indeed, times where one must stand on principle or else fail to be true to oneself. Collect (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I think I knew that, but forgot when handing out these requests. Best of luck to you. Hobit (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Tenterhooks

It looks like ArbCom thinks they have the right to make the improper motion, but is not passing it yet, but allowing for eventual passage of the "motion". Rather like ArbCom being "partly pregnant", I suppose. So the "Wikistrike" continues - except for making my voice heard on exceedingly important matters. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

proposal for a Request for Comment

I suggest someone file this proposal or a similar proposal for an RfC on the proper community noticeboards:

Under what cirumstances are "topic bans" on specific registered editors not a "sanction" on those named editors? Ought such bans be made on named editors where neither evidence nor findings of any impropriety are presented? Ought ArbCom be able to add editors to a case after all evidence and workshop phases in a case have been closed, and without any evidence nor findings about any such named registered editors being educed at any point? Does ArbCom have the power to create a "non-sanction sanction" in order to comport with community policy establishing that committee? Collect (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC) (still on Wikistrike thus not going to post this himself on any noticeboards)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy

At any time between the request for a case being made and the closure of the case, the Committee may issue temporary injunctions, restricting the conduct of the parties, or users generally, for the duration of the case.

seems to be restrictive of the power of the committee to make such "temporary injuctions" for any duration greater than the "duration of the case."

This part of the policy establishing ArbCom appears to be absolute in nature, and suggests that such "temporary injunctions" made without evidence nor findings are limited by the community to "the duration of the case" only.

One additional query remains: Is the "moderated discussion" covered by the mediation policy? That is, is a "moderated discussion" under the aegis of an admin who happens to be an arbitrator covered by that policy? Collect (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

We need something to determine the powers held by ARBCOM. I wrote an appeal in anticipation of AGK's motion succeeding at User:The Four Deuces/ARBCOM. TFD (talk) 20:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

A community RfC concerning the policy under which ArbCom exists would be sufficient AFAICT. I am pretty sure that the idea that a "temporary injunction" which is what the proposed motion really is, is improper here. And they did not even think of calling it one <g>. Collect (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Japanese and Koreans... (re: your CfD comment)

OT to the discussion, but I wanted to point out that your statement was erroneous. During the occupation, and even today, Koreans were not "considered Japanese." There are third-generation ethnic Koreans in Japan who were born in Japan, educated there, speak Japanese (and don't speak Korean), very likely have never been to Korea, and are still required to hold a foreigner identification card because they are not recognized as Japanese citizens. They may have been Japanese subjects, but they were certainly no more than that. MSJapan (talk) 18:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Read up on the Olympics - Japan assigned the Koreans officially "Japanese" names. Sohn_Kee-chung for example/ Collect (talk) 21:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom seems to have a minor problem with something called "Reality"

I am accused of being "dismissive" of a person who used a source to make a claim directly antithetical to what the source said.

If that is being "dismissive" than the Wiki-world is about as far off reality as is possible. There is no way in hell that anyone can provide "proof" that they are not "dismissive" when such edits are made, and I suspect the arbitrator who proposed that claim is errant, off-base, and is not dealing with reality on this case.

I would point out that I have made exceedingly few edits on the topic other than in the moderated discussion which ought to follow the policy about "mediated discussions" which is that they, in general, not used in ArbCom cases in the first place. If a person who participates in such a mediation, doing his damndest to reach a consensus through seeking compromise, is then going to be called on the carpet by ArbCom, then the whole concept of "mediation" on Wikipedia is in the toilet well and truly.

Note the very first mediator on the list at Wikipedia:Mediation_Committee. Note also that no one has suggested that I even belong in this case -- though AGK did not issue comparable "findings" about TFD who is in pretty much the same boat as I. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (still on Wikistrike - and not willing to try "disproving" vague claims made on non-evidence in the first place -- will someone show an ounce of sense here please? ) BTW, not a single one of the diffs cited as a reason for a six month topic ban is remotely near the level of evidence normally required by ArbCom to do a damn thing in any other case in the history of that committee. . If pointing this is "dismissive" of ArbCom, so be it.

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I've reported Ubikwit for his personal attacks on the PD talk. I posted one of the comments he made to you. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

/interesting quote of the day:

As a general rule, I don't think it's helpful to take a literalist reading of site policy. Wikipedia has no law, so policy merely reflects current practice – it doesn't regulate it.

From an arbitration committee member, of all people. Apparently if he does not like a policy, the policy does not exist. Sehr interessant. Collect (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The person who made that "very interesting" claim about policy also thinks that the following are sanctionable edits on my part (He mined my every edit and came up with these as examples of my horrid character!):

Show me any edit where I removed the allegations. You can't. And since we already had the allegations in the article, sourced to the Ombudsman cite, and the Ombudsman addressed it in detail, it is silly and wrong to keep his specific comments about it our of the article. More specifically, the assertion about "spitting" - the Ombudsman specifically found the incident to have been improperly handled by the Washington Post. Yet you seem to wish to keep that trivial point out as well. NPOV requires a neutral point of view in articles -- and keeping out the "neutral" and balancing part from a source used for the primary claim is contrary to absolutely non-negotiable policy.

On matters of current events, generally newspaper articles represent how the public perceives those events -- there are no scholarly sources on such which are superior to the newspapers for public perception. This silliness about using "peer-reviewed sources" is not worthwhile when the events and groups are still current. Maybe in ten years or so we will have real scholarship on such, but we ain't there yet. "Instant scholarship" tends to be "instantly worthless."

Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wowzers -- will wonders never cease? On a website which shall not be linked to, the same arbitrator who found my remarks "dismissive" says this to another party:

Did you learn to argue by reading the Daily Mail?

I take it that his own words are not "dismissive" of anyone at all, right? Collect (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

If you continue to deliberately assume bad faith about XX, me, or any other user, I will report you to a clerk so that appropriate administrative action (up to and including blocking) can be taken

is the precise sort of comment a person secure in there own position would make. Collect (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Erroneous citation of BLP on Gary North

North's support for theocracy is documented in numerous independent RS and is proudly and forthrightly asserted by North himself in articles such as this. It isn't a "BLP" or "NPOV" violation to accurately represent the views of an intellectual just because those views are controversial. The "theocratic" adjective helps readers understand the nature of North's proposed political and social order. Steeletrap (talk) 06:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Nope. Unless you count Italy or Ireland as a "theocracy." I find no source for him having church leadership rule the country -- see what "theocracy" means. Collect (talk) 13:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Excellent use of chronophagus. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

did a specific editor call the "Tea Party" racist, or not?

What's wrong is what is always wrong when someone mentions the 'R'-word. People balk, without rational reason or explanation. The source was titled, "Analysis: Was The Notorious Racist Tea Party Sign Forged? We Believe Not." Xenophrenic (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC) [2]

Some of those might not be sourced to reliable sources, but some are. It is not accurate to flatly state, "the Tea Partiers are racist", but there may be significant enough reliably sourced information to explore the frequently heard allegations of a racist component. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[3] (used his reply to the earlier quote from an IP)

You can't catch slurs with video, by the way - you would need audio; and I note there has been absolutely ZERO audio evidence produced to prove the slurs didn't happen. The congressmen were surrounded by all those tea partiers with media recording devices, yet not a single one has stepped forward with video to disprove the racial slurs. I think we all know why. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[4]

Are they, as one commenter said, "just a few isolated incidents?" Or, as another commenter said, "these incidents seem isolated to just Tea Parties." I've seen and heard the reports of racism and bigotry; seen comedy shows parody it (Can you spot the black man in this sea of protestors?); noted the racist pictures and words on some signs; heard the justification that "everyone has a voice" as white supremacist and anti-immigrant protestors walked in unison with other Tea Party protestors. There appears to be a disconnect between what Tea Party protestors say and what they do. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC) [5] This section isn't about people who don't like Obama's policies. This section is about racism. Put the straw man away. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:30, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Just scratching the surface on an editor who asserts that he has not tried to insert "racist" as a Tea Party attribute. Here as a substitute for being allowed to present any evidence at the ArbCom case page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

[6] So a TP organizer posts some racist stuff, and some other TPers scold him for it; and many local politicians immediately disassociate themselves from him. Sounds like a replay of Dale Robertson: racist crap followed by denunciation and disassociation. Which sounds like a replay of Mark Williams: racist crap followed by denunciation and disassociation. Which sounds like a replay of the Health Care protests: homophobic and racial crap followed by denunciation and disassociation (except for one loon denialist that tries to make a conspiracy out of it). These incidents are merely examples in a section of the article headed by polling results showing elevated racial animosity among TPers, and you ask what place they have in the article? Before we continue this conversation, please reassure me that you do not jest. Xenophrenic (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

[7] The source from which that quote is taken explains it quite well in the immediately following sentences:

He and other black conservatives are divided over the grass-roots movement of tea party groups that has caught fire with adherents of small government and fiscal responsibility. The tension stems from reports of racial and homophobic slurs directed against black and gay members of Congress who voted to overhaul health care, from photos circulating on the Internet of signs raised at tea party protests with slogans such as "Obama Promotes White Slavery," and the exhortation of a speaker at the group's convention that voters should be subject to literacy tests. The debate ratcheted up this week as two prominent black conservatives, Thomas Sowell and Ward Connerly, decried accusations of tea party racism.

And from later in that same source:

Yet Lenny McAllister, a Republican commentator and author, said he has seen racism within the tea party and has confronted it -- approaching people with racially derogatory signs of President Obama and asking them to take the signs down. Like Brice, he said leaders of the movement must not ignore the issue.

It is clear from the source article that Brice was referring to wide-spread hate of Barney the Dinosaur, and the Wikipedia article should be amended accordingly. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

[8] an edit where he restores language saying the TPm has "neo-Klansmen" after it was removed. His edit summary is (no vandalism indicated, and the "unnecessary accusation" was never removed: "demonizing tea party activists tends to energize the Democrats' left-of-center base")

I did kind of leave that up in the air, didn't I? The title of this section came about as I was reading Homo Logica's comments above where s/he contemplates naming a sub-article Perceptions of the Tea Party, and I was reminded of past discussions on what the related section of this article should be named. It morphed between variations of 'Racist behavior', 'Racist and Homophobic behavior', 'Bad behavior', 'Racism, Anti-gay, Anti-semetic, Islamophobic and violent behavior', 'Inappropriate behavior', 'Controversial and bigoted behavior', etc., and I remember thinking "it all sounds antisocial to me". So my guess would be: both. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2011 (UTC) [9]

We can fill the article with all kinds of content suggesting the racial slurs never happened, the homophobic slurs never happened, the anti-semite slurs never happened ([24]), but I think that does a disservice to the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC) [10]

I trust these diffs also provide salient facts for those reviewing posts by editors. Collect (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Wiki thanks

Hello Collect. I'd like to thank you, as nominator, for appending your concerns regarding The Interior's RfA in the neutral section. I think it speaks well of your own admirable qualities, in that you are clearly willing to hear, and consider matters of mitigation. I look forward to seeing The Interior's reply, anticipating a thoughtful response; unhindered by pride and motivated by a desire to find better ways, when better ways may exist. I respect your !voting history, and support whatever conclusion you ultimately reach. Without any doubt, the matter of BLP interpretation is a current matter of contention, making yous a timely concern, and one well worthy of clarification. Best regards.—John Cline (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I thank you very much for your considerate post. Collect (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed

An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

The current community sanctions are lifted.

Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I trust you know my opinion thereon. Collect (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hail and Farewell

The Arbitration Committee has made one of the singular worst decisions in its entire history, finding that a person may be given a broad topic ban for simply having what an arb calls his "general attitude" and without a scintilla of evidence of wrongdoing. And while being told that "bickering" was a blockable offence (where the bickering was opposing this decision!) Thus I say Ave atque vale, which someone is sure to say is offensive.

For my Jewish friends: Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor.

The committee members will, of course, be the topic of an ACE2013 essay here, and I welcome suggestions as to what I ought say about them.

Adios, Adieu, Farvel, Auf Wiedersehen, Dosvedanya, and no real time to say Good-Bye in every language around ... Collect (talk) 12:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)