User talk:Collect

This editor won the Quarter Million Award for bringing Christian Science to Good Article status.

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

I have now reached the 244 "Thanks" level from "notifications" - getting an average of over 115 per year it appears. Thank you to all who have thought highly of my edits. Collect (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

From 2013 (and various unnamed editors): I have started to work on a composite of my history dealing with Collect at my talk page. It starts in late 2008 so it might take a while. I'll accept fellow editors deciding when they have more of the facts.

Had I known Collect was behind your request I may have declined. He has been sniffing my excrement for 4 years or more. I don't bother myself with him unless he shows up where I am working. Then I have to consider what is more important: dealing with Collect's dribble or continuing to talk and work with other editors. I detest him so much I usually just leave and go do something else in WikiLand

Sorry, But I'd rather have all of my fingernails pulled out than to get involved with those editors. Especially Collect, perhaps the most dangerous and dirtiest Wikipedia editor I've come across--only my opinion of course, which I feel I am free to offer on my own talk page? It is true that there are plenty of articles here that are more about numbers than about the truth, IOW, who ever has the most editors on their side can write the article.

Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense

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. This specifically includes use of opinions or claims that a person or persons bears "guilt by association" with any other person or group.

Quote of the day from an editor who seems to regard his own screeds as the epitome of "wit":

Twain is the perennial favorite of intellectual pygmies who believe a trite quote has the power to increase their stature.

I rather think his "wit" speaks for itself pretty clearly.

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

WP:Source pH

WP:Sledgehammer

WP:Variable RS

WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights

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)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collect, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the worst fishing expeditions I have ever seen - whoever thought of this is a good candidate for the Baker Act. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing personal Collect, I just though it was too much of a coincidence that an account would come out of such a long retirement and jump right into the PNAC article, making many of the same edits and voicing many of the same concerns that you had. I'll happily apologize and retract the allegation if the SPI folk find the accusation unworthy of investigation, or if it turns up nothing.

I see what you said about being unable to post on the SPI page - I linked your response here for you. Cheers.Fyddlestix (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

As I have a very long online history dating back over thirty years, I find your accusation to be reprehensible. I also note that usually someone posts the response on the SPI page - as a common courtesy. I also suggest you read Joe job as being themost likely cause of the "DearMe" editor (I have no reason to doubt the veracity of Vertrag, but the DearMe one seems intent on making bad edits. I would also state here that assuming bad faith of editors is a sure way to have others assume bad faith for you. :( . Collect (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Who is this DearMe and which are the bad edits? Dear ODear ODear (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[3] was, frankly, a totally improper edit. [4] appeared properly sourced - and I would not properly sourced criticism removed from any article as it goes against WP:NPOV, [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Project_for_the_New_American_Century&diff=prev&oldid=649875584] is silly as the opic of "neoconservatism" is a part of this article, and so on. I find some of your edits to be a tad violative of Wikipedia policy as a result. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

[5] was a righteous edit, which removed a link from a quote, since WP doesn't do that. Perhaps you "totally" object to it also having moved the "neocon" section lower (because the term was not explained)? The second edit removed an advocacy source, which is unreliable, since there are no shortages of academic rses on the topic; the removal was partly because of the or topic sentence. The third on the neocon cat was because the term is not glossed or used. We don't add cats for every topic in every sentence in the article. Dear ODear ODear (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, just to confirm - you want me to copy-paste your response below onto the SPI page for you? Happy to do so just not 100% sure that's what you're asking. This is only the third SPI report I've ever filed so sorry for not knowing what is/is not commonly done in this situation.Fyddlestix (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it, next time I'll know, thanks.Fyddlestix (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Response to Sock accusation:

As I am unable to post on the SPI page, will someone post this? I find the accusation risible, inane, and a wondrous example of WP:ABF.

My actual name and address are known to Jimbo, and about a dozen or more admins. I have used this handle now for over thirty years, and have never "socked" at all -- this accusation is apparently about as ill-faith as I can conceive of, and timed so that I cannot respond. I would have no rational reason to sock, but accusations of this type are so routinely made now sans any actual evidence that I suggest SPI enforce the rule requiring some actual evidence of some sort, beyond "someone came into the article, and even though their edits are, in fact, contrary to the edits of the editor I wish to accuse, this is a good way to annoy the hell out of them." 22:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Done (and I fixed your sig in the copied version. Let me know if that's not what you wanted). Did you want to first line copied as well? Guettarda (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: Cowsills "evidence" - the edits were absolutely and totally unrelated to each other -- anyone saying I would use a sock for such edits is NCM.

Re: An accusation that I used a sock in order to force Ubikwit to edit war - that is a remarkably obtuse and ill-founded charge - noting that I suggested that Ubikwit self-revert.

Re: We both used BLP/N -- I have about four hundred edits on that noticeboard. Odds are pretty high that anyone posting there will show some sort of overlap. And the overlap? I saw Vertrag's post about a Cowsill! That is the one and only BLP/N thread we have an overlap on at all. Period.

Please someone - put the horrid SPI complaint out of its misery? Collect (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Florida a "fringe" state filled with fringe politicians who believe in fringe ideas?

Should we update all of our Florida articles and political biographies to reflect that the state no longer subscribes to science but to its own version of reality funded by the Koch brothers?

• "Florida officials "ban" the term "climate change"[6]
• "Billionaires Charles and David Koch have helped to fuel conservative activism in Florida, by spending millions over the years to establish elaborate political operations in the state. As a result, Florida has become something of a testing ground for anti-government campaigning from the Kochs’ primary group, Americans for Prosperity."[7]

What do you think? Do we need a new Florida fringe guideline? Viriditas (talk) 05:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that some politicians in every state, territory and nation-state either believe in or campaign on fringe ideas. I don't think that there is any need to single out Florida (my personally least favorite state among the 50) when kookiness is universal. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen, but I'm not entirely serious (but I am raising points for discussion). Mostly, I'm trying to keep Collect occupied during his "vacation". Idle hands and all that.... :-) Viriditas (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

And WP:HARASS is in full force again -- not to mention that "Florida" is neither mentioned as my home on my user page nor user-talk page, this is beyond harassment and verges on attacking using personal information. See WP:OUTING as well Viriditas -- your campaign to drive me off of Wikipedia is not something for you to be proud of, ever. Thryduulf, Sandstein Newyorkbrad, MONGO, NE Ent, Callanecc, Robert McClenon, AGK kindly take note. Collect (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope, I'm not taking note of random disputes on random user talk pages. if you think admin action is required as a result of anything that happens here, you can request it at WP:AE or in a forum described in WP:DR, as the case may be.  Sandstein  15:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Sandstein as I am currently blocked, that suggestion is not all that useful when the acts of harassment are present. Perhaps blocked users should be allowed to post at DR, but so far that is not the case. I am about to frankly call it quits if this Catch-22 is so damned important when a person is actively being subjected to harassment. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Was it SYNTH? Yea or Nay?

Is answered at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_PNAC_Members_associated_with_the_Administration_of_George_W._Bush with what appears to be a clear affirmative at this point (every one of the past 15 is a "delete" !vote). Cheers to all - and there is still time for your own personal opinions thereat. Collect (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: Closer specifically found the result to be that the list was clear SYNTH. So much for anyone decrying my statements about that list, I trust. ArbCom please note. Collect (talk) 12:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

My "blocks"

Listing all blocks and circumstances thereof. One admin has been desysopped for improper blocks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Were for: [8] including: The uncertainty over Joe's plumbing bona fides led to some political commentators to question McCain's vetting process following Sarah Palin. While Joe was simply asking a question, it was McCain who promoted an image of "Joe the Plumber" that did not match reality. Under the title of "Joe not a plumber" Andrew Sullivan of the The Atlantic wrote "Why am I not surprised? No license and a lien for unpaid taxes. Like Sarah Palin, a great concept. But the McCain campaign needs to be able to vet its hood ornaments." Which looked and looks now like a BLP violation. And is not in the BLP now, wonder of wonders. [9] The onlineEncyclopedia Britannica, in its article on the Huffington Post, and the Financial Times say the site reflects Drudge's conservative political stance. (bolding is mine here) as opposed to making it an absolute statement from the Encyclopedia Britannica proper (which was at that time not strictly connected t the online version!) and implying it was from the article on Drudge. I considered this a misuse and blatant misuse of a source in a BLP, implying it made a claim which the actual EB did not make. I cnisder misleading and inapt sourcing and claims based thereon to be a violation of WP:BLP and still do so. One ought not ascribe to one source something not even operated by that source. On 24 July 2009, Gwen Gale blocked me for "violating 0RR" on political topics.[10] For an edit on the page of a very dead person. Very, very dead. I removed: In 2004, The Guardian UK ran a story which again found evidence of a link between Prescott Bush and the Nazis. The debate over Prescott Bush's behaviour has been bubbling under the surface for some time. There has been a steady internet chatter about the "Bush/Nazi" connection, much of it inaccurate and unfair. But the new documents, many of which were only declassified last year, show that even after America had entered the war and when there was already significant information about the Nazis' plans and policies, he worked for and profited from companies closely involved with the very German businesses that financed Hitler's rise to power. It has also been suggested that the money he made from these dealings helped to establish the Bush family fortune and set up its political dynasty. Calling this Prescott Bush a "political article" is a stretch -- it means I could not even edit on Otto von Bismarck! On 30 January 2010 I was blocked for violating "clearly marked restrictions" on an article - where the "marking" was actually done after my edit <g> (the big red header was added after my edit - so "clearly marked" was actually "clearly wrong." On 3 October 2010 I was blocked for "edit warring" - the AN/I discussion did not back the block, so I made the usual comments at that point. Oh -- the edit involved was not noted whatsoever, and the admin had not posted it on any notice board at all. His reasoning? [11] First of all, you have a history of edit warring, so any reverts you perform will be viewed with additional scrutiny. Moreover, a "warning" IMO is anything that makes you realize there is a chance you could be blocked if you continue with your actions; OhioStandard's posts on both of our talk pages constitutes a warning, so it's not like you didn't know this could happen. On Carl Paladino, you first reinserted the "allegedly" on September 20, and proceed to do so again on September 30; more recently, you removed the "undue" incident once on October 1, and again on October 2. On Linda McMahon, you have a long history of editing and edit warring on the page, and probably would have been blocked if Malinaccier hadn't protected the page on September 17; your October 1 October 2 are inadvisable due to your history on that page, but the things you reverted are borderline vandalism. Therefore the main motivation for the current block was your final edit to Carl Paladino. When an admin does not even have a basis for a block for "edit war" then there is a problem somewhere. So let's look at the Paladino "edit war" edit (which was not at 3RR whatsoever) where I trimmed: [12] In a statement to The Politico on September 29, 2010, Paladino indicated frustration with the media's coverage of his previous affair with an employee, and not doing the same with his opponent's personal life, stating: "Has anybody asked Andrew Cuomo about his paramours? Or asked him why his wife left him or threw him out of the house? Has anybody ever done that? What are they doing intruding on my life?" Caputo also interjected the phrase "while he was married," indicating that at least he knew of actual affairs and not just hypothetical ones. That night, after Paladino made an appearance with the New York State Business Council, New York Post columnist Fredric U. Dicker aggressively pushed a microphone into Paladino's face and prodded Paladino to produce evidence to support what Dicker (and many others) interpreted to be an allegation of infidelity against Cuomo. Paladino responded with an accusation that Fred Dicker was following and photographing Paladino's youngest daughter several days prior, and demanded that he not do it again or else he would "take [Dicker] out." Paladino eventually stated that, for his part, he did not know of any actual affairs, and that the allegation was an implication he did not intend to make. In a statement to The Politico on September 29, 2010, Paladino asked why the media was concernied with any of his affairs, and not asking similar questions of Andrew Cuoomo. After Paladino made an appearance with the New York State Business Council, New York Post columnist Fredric U. Dicker pushed a microphone into Paladino's face and asked Paladino to produce evidence about any acusations. Paladino said the New York Post following and photographing Paladino's youngest daughter several days prior, and demanded that he not do it again." Paladino later said he did not know of any actual affairs, and that the implication was not intended. Guess what? Now the stuff I had removed has been removed -- as blatant BLP violation. 8 Jan 2011 - read the AN/I stuff on that one! [13] 1 Oct 2014 for Joni Ernst (who I believe is alive) for this edit [14] (noting that edit violated an RfC result all of one week old) removing Agenda 21 is the subject of numerous far-right conspiracy theories. During the general-election campaign, Ernst moderated her tone, saying: "I don’t think that the U.N. Agenda 21 is a threat to Iowa farmers... I think there are a lot of people that follow that issue in Iowa. It may be something that is very important to them, but I think Iowans are very smart and that we have a great legislature here, we have a very intelligent governor, and I think that we will protect Iowans." Note the current article Joni Ernst does not contain that material which I believed and still believe was violative of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV as connecting a living person specifically and by implication to "far right conspiracy theories." Judge me on that one as you will. Leading to the last one - where I pointed out that I was at 2RR and Ubikwit was at 5RR, that I told him I did not want to report anyone, and he could simply self-revert his last RR and I would be happy. The "edit war" was about the SYNTH and BLP violating list now reconstituted and discussed at the AfD [15]. Amazingly enough,my view that the lists and connections and tables were SYNTH and violative of BLP are not unusual. Cheers to all. Assign this as "evidence" but all it is, is a statement of where I have erred, how others viewed it at the time, and how Wikipedia subsequently has viewed my edits. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

References

A barnstar for you

		The BLP Barnstar
		Odds that I may disagree with you in the future? Very high. Odds that you are a staunch and worthy defender of BLP policy? 100%. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The result was delete. The clear consensus here is to delete the article, as it has been found to be a synthesized WP:POVFORK.

As I stated. List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush was SYNTH. Cheers to those who argued that I was absolutely wrong on this. Collect (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

User talk page stats

[16] shows that of just over 5K total edits to this talk page over a period of nine years, the one who is at issue has posted 68 times. Of which 25 were in the last 479 total edits. In fact this amounts to 5% of all his last 500 edits entirely. This is a rather unusual amount of attention in user space, as a rule. Collect (talk) 16:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

In some respects - the core issue for Wikipedia

On Jimbo's talk page an editor opined that my belief that we should not seek to harm to anyone in a BLP was wrong - he noted that Wikipedia decided years ago that "do no harm" was not in any way to be followed - that we could do (presumably) as much harm as we desire to living persons, and that this obstinacy on my part about doing harm is key to my troubles with others. We have the ability to do great harm to living persons - the policy states specifically Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

ArbCom please note: I stand by my belief that BLPs are not to be used in order to inflict harm on anyone. This is part of my stance on User:Collect/BLP. Please produce a "finding of fact" on that as well as one each essay of mine, and on each of my "many blocks" as stated by a complainant. Again - I am not going to provide "evidence" as the harassment worked exceedingly well indeed. Collect (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon kindly note that I shall not provide any statement nor evidence not present on this user talk page. I note that I did email some time ago material to ArbCom members which may be pertinent to the discussion. I request in all due courtesy that my essays be individually examined and the other points raised on this user talk page be examined. Kindest regards. Collect (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Collect, above statement duly noted. You're welcome to contribute evidence to the case, and you are equally entitled not to if that's what you prefer. However, important to let you know the committee will decide on the basis of evidence received. On behalf of Arbcom -- Euryalus (talk) 10:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have told ArbCom my position, and expect them to act in courtesy with my statements. If they decide to ignore my request, there is nothing I can do other than note my disbelief that reasonable people would act in such a manner. Collect (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

From the guide to arbitration: "Submissions must be posted on the case /Evidence pages; submission of evidence via sub-pages in userspace is prohibited." Of course, the committee looks at a range of materials on-wiki - for example the citing of one diff in an article will usually require reading the surrounding ones. But beyond standing on your record, if there is anything 'you want to add either to explain any conduct issues or respond to others' claims during the case, you need to do that on the /Evidence page and not here.

And having delivered this piece of bureaucracy, and again noting your comments above, I'll leave you in peace. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

And I would note this was not how ArbCom acted in the TPm case when a member of ArbCom generated "evidence" not posted by anyone at all as material used in the decision, and thus I am going to insist that my courteous request made some time ago was not objected to in a timely fashion whatsoever by ArbCom. If you wish to live by "absolute process" when you (ArbCom) did not do so before, then I cheerfully view the process as not being worth a bucket of "warm spit" per John Nance Garner. If you do not examine the material I already mentioned on the request page, then you are not doing a rational job of examining evidence at all. If you (ArbCom) wish to copy the entire pertinent material from this page and consider it "evidence" kindly do so, but do not expect me to suddenly change course and do so for you. See Equity. I believe, moreover, that any fair reading will find my behaviour and beliefs concerning WP:BLP are reasonable and not based on any biases on my part whatsoever, and that where complainants finding eight posts they dislike out of 40,000 edits made by me are not of sufficient weight to deem me as anything other than a sincere editor doing his damndest to "sail straight and true". With exceedingly warm regards, I remain Collect (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Note - this also means I "provide evidence against" no one at all, other than such as is implicit in the material on this page. Just to make that clear. Collect (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Note also that MrX and Fyddlestix insist they did not support the SYNTH list (connecting assorted people as being connected as being both members of an administration and members of PNAC) being used. I removed MrX as supporting the SYNTH, but Fyddlestix specifically made this edit which conveys the SYNTH itself [17] "With its members in numerous key administrative positions, the PNAC exerted influence on high-level U.S. government officials in the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush and affected the Bush Administration's development of military and foreign policies, especially involving national security and the Iraq War." making the SYNTH claim in Wikipedia's voice rather than saying it was an opinion of specific persons. [18] has Fyddlestix stating "I really don't see what can be gained by discussing this further here. Since the result of this AFD is pretty clear, isn't this all moot unless/until someone tries to re-incorporate the content back into the PNAC article? I for one have no plans to do that, at least not as a table like this one. I do hope that some of the sources we found/used for the table can be used/added to the main article though" [19] He states that he did not feel the table was SYNTH (which I interpreted for some reason as supporting that table, later overwhelmingly found to be SYNTH). [20] iterated his support thr the SYNTH table. [21] has him asserting that my opposition was "WP:CRYBLP" [22] iterates his support for the table. [23] shows Fyddlestix's clear continued support for using what was the basis for the notorious table -- which was found to be SYNTH by an overwhelming consensus at AfD. Sorry Fyddlestix - you supported the material, and saying I lied when I said you supported it is not precisely accurate. Collect (talk) 07:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC) (please also copy as this is a particularly horrid accusation against me which I suggest my diffs completely demolish. I had long ago corrected my listing of MrX as inapt.)

Collect, I don't want to start a debate with you here (I really think you should just come say your piece on the case page instead of making arguments here) but I'd like to point out that the diffs you linked above might not show what you think they do:

• You linked this diff as an example that "conveys the SYNTH itself," - but I did not write the text in that diff. As the edit summary shows, I was simply restoring the text as it had read before the edit war between you and Ubikwit (with Vertrag playing a role as well), which had resulted in a considerable amount of text and citations being deleted from the lede. Note that I changed the text six minutes later, and subsequently added a large number of references to back up the revised text. I also added a qualifying statement to make it clear that this was only some people's point of view, and citing 3 academic sources which take the opposite view for balance. So the diff you linked, as you can see, is not really the full story here - I didn't write the text I was restoring there, and I altered it myself (adding multiple RS to back up the revision) within minutes of restoring it.
• I'm not sure what you think this diff shows, all I see is me indicating my acceptance of a consensus decision on the AFD, and suggesting that further debate was off-topic on that particular page (and kind of a waste of time) since the results of the AFD were already clear and a close was imminent.
• These diffs [24], [25], [26], [27] are evidence of me asking you to clarify your position and asking you to detail your specific argument. I'm not sure why you think this would reflect badly on me or that it's an indication of my own personal stance/argument, as I was very clearly trying to understand your position rather than advance one of my own in each of these diffs.
• This diff was me suggesting that some of the sources that were used in the table might prove useful in the PNAC article. I specifically indicate there that have no plans to and would not support putting the table back into the article, and I've made no edits to the article to that effect. Hell, the few edits I have made to the article since then have been in the opposite direction (citing Ryan re: "members" being inaccurate when discussing PNAC). In that talk page post, I noted that some sources had been used in the table that weren't in the article, and thought they might be usefully used in the article at some point, that's all. I'm not sure what's wrong with that or what you think that shows.

A reminder, by the way, that the table had been in the article long before I had even created a wikipedia account, let alone edited the PNAC article. JBH spun it out into a list article, not me, and I've repeatedly indicated that I did not support that decision. So neither the list article nor the list itself could possibly have been "my idea," which is what you alleged here. Asking you to be specific and clear about why you think content violated policy is not the same thing as creating that content. Just wanted to clear that up. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

You deliberately lied in your "evidence" when you said you had not supported the table. Period. I suggest you remove that charge that I "lied" when I listed you as a supporter of the clearly SYNTH table. Perhaps you have a very labile definition of the truth - I removed MrX from the quick list , but telling people I lied about you supporting the SYNTH list when the evidence is so clear is an interesting tactic. Meanwhile you have won -- the harassment which included multiple AN/I sections, an SPI report and absolute allegation, the edits on each other's talk pages and/or emails and the like - such harassment has had its desired effect. No edits by me on anything remotely resembling a BLP or political page - not even any more edits on Moby-Dick lest someone assert that Melville was an office-holder. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not here for a debate, I just wanted to make sure that the context of the diffs you posted was clear. If you're going to accuse me of having "deliberately lied," though, I'd really rather you did it on the arbcom evidence page than here. I'm sure the committee would be interested in your perspective, and I'd much rather you presented your evidence of these "lies" in a setting where it will be properly scrutinized, and where I have the right to respond without being accused of harassing you. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Is your position that when you restore material which I had called SYNTH, that you personally did not support the restored material? I find your iterated presence here, your argumentation that when you specifically restore material that you do not actually mean to restore that material, your SPI charges, your AN/I posts etc. to, indeed, be intended to drive me off of Wikipedia, and you damn well have succeeded. Have a beer to celebrate. Be glad the ArbCom folks have decided to practice blindness. Collect (talk) 16:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Who I am

I am intrinsically a centrist - and find the concept of "left and right" in a "political spectrum" to be useless as having no absolute meaning over time and place, nor do I find any ideology "correct" over time and place. Nor do I think it proper to add contentious negative claims of fact to any BLP -- those who revel in "masturbating", "naked", "fucking" etc. and any "contentious claim" find I tend to oppose such material in BLPs - just as I did on David Copperfield (illusionist), Alex Sink, Kim Jong-un, Charlie Crist, Barack Obama, et al and a myriad of other BLPs in the past. Read my "partial list" on my main page, though it be long.

The only truly hurtful charge is from Fyddlestix who says I lied when I named that editor as supporting the SYNTH table. I provide the diffs above showing, indeed, that the support was, indeed, given by that editor, and trust that charge will be retracted. I note that I specifically removed MrX from any such charge after checking the edits.

I also find the use of a claim that it is a political edit to follow the template instructions on Infobox:Officeholder to be ludicrous indeed - Kraxler and others came to a full agreement on that some time back now.

I note that anyone who says they deliberately "put negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like" is a far worse behavioural case than I could ever be.

I know I annoy some for using literary allusions - last one for awhile is "I shall rest at Avalon" - inactive because of the very successful harassment, but healing for time of need. Editor quondam, editorque futurus Collect (talk) 10:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Quibble: isn't the term "centrist" always used in relation to something else, i.e. the right and the left? (Or the upper and the lower, etc.) "Center" is similar to "vertical," in that they are what they are in relation to something else. If that something else is "useless as having no absolute meaning over time and place," then so, perforce, are they, as well. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of the quibble? Collect (talk) 11:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Answering the inner need to be pedantic, obviously. :-) -The Gnome (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way - you seem to have missed almost the entirety of my posts at TFD's user talk page - I fear your elision missed the entire section about what compromise I suggested, and why I suggested that compromise, as well as my suggestion that we heed Franklin's plea. I did not only post about "national jurisdiction" etc. being the normal term of art, although it certainly is. Collect (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. Please point out what you meant exactly and I'll be happy to make the appropriate correction. This is all part of the effort to move on with that specific arbitration process. Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Copy my entire posts about why compromise is the only course. Collect (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather not, since I may again prove inadequate for this task. I'll simply direct again all interested parties to the relevant Talk Page. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Masefield

I caught sea fever from Masefield's ship and ended up bound for Ireland...

Sorry, couldn't resist it. One of my favourite examples of English song, and one I sing at every opportunity. Guy (Help!) 15:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem! I fear I feel sorry for some who appear not cognizant of literature, though. And be quite glad you do not hear me sing <g>. Collect (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi

I have no super strong interest in American politics, and I dont think I've ever interacted with you, but I like reading through Arbcom cases when I'm bored, and noticed the bizarre bureaucratic kerfuffle over evidence having to be in the right place or else arbcom refuse to read it. With that in mind would you take issue with me posting diffs to the rebuttals posted on your talk page to the evidence page? Wikipedia is (supposedly) not a bureaucracy so the refusal to read certain evidence by arbs seems kinda silly. But I dont know what the principle behind the refusal to post evidence is, so I didnt want to go ahead and do it and somehow accidentally subvert a point that is trying to be made or something. Bosstopher (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You have an absolute right to do so. Absolute right. The issues are my essays (LOL!) (feel free to state why they are so disruptive), and my positions on the PNAC and related pages - where a lot of the diffs are where I call the table "linking" people, their jobs and their association(signing a letter) SYNTH - and (lo and behold) the AfD showed well over twenty other editors agreeing with me (count them) to an organization whose page had earlier linked the organization to seeking biological weapons, genocide, and to having Jews with "Dual Loyalties" [28] edits made by Ubikwit stressed the "Jewish" [29]. ("Of these, many were from the Jewish ..." seems intended to stress the number of Jews involved.) Collect (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I made a few comments because I know you as a good contributor. I am not sure what would be your best strategy. Perhaps point-by-point rebuttal of every accusation? I quickly checked first diffs in the "edit warring" and "false claims" sections by MrX. The first one was about this. Even though your first revert of the edit by User:Tbrambo was OK per WP:BRD cycle, the rest was not. Nevertheless, you did not revert anything on this page after ANI discussion, and therefore bringing this now by MrX to Arbcom was not a good idea. The second diff I discussed with MrX, and his claim seem to be bogus. He probably does not know the rule that prohibits use of inappropriate BLP materials at all pages. But I am still unsure. Perhaps simply leaving the project would save you a lot of trouble. My very best wishes (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Too many editors seem to be (blissfully?) unaware that WP:BLP applies to every page in the entire project. I suspect that having my essays exposed for what they are - legitimate views of an editor who wants Wikipedia to actually work - will show the problem lies not with my views but with those who oppose them or deliberately seek to misapprehend them. The harassment has been too successful at this point - but that does not negate the views I hold, nor make harassment the proper course for ArbCom to abet. Collect (talk) 21:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I quickly looked at the evidence, and a lot of it seems doubtful to me. Nevertheless, I suspect you are looking at a topic ban on editing BLPs of US politicians, unless you can provide some convincing evidence in your favor. My very best wishes (talk) 02:10, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

MastCell and company are providing more than five times the amount of "evidence" than I am given any space to rebut[30] etc. -- if you get enough people assembling piles of mud to throw, and the person having mud thrown at them is given one fifth the opportunity needed, then it is clear that the possibility of a rational "trial" is nil. If you look at the Editor Interaction tool, you will find MastCell has been gunning for me for a very long time - as have Buster7 (a few of his quotes top this page - and he railed against "Palinistas" "Saint Sarah" etc. who opposed filling her BLP with stuff like she believes dinosaurs were Jesus ponies, etc. Check out MastCell's "non-attack" on me on Writegeist's UT page where he calls me [31] Charles Pooter (that editor's talk page is heavily invested in attacking me, by the way - see [32], [33], and [34] etc. where he devoted many many kb to his animus to me, while MastCell calls my silence "disruptive". Frankly, I face people who would write 5000 word attacks on me at this point (one posted actually about 8000 words in just three weeks!) - and frankly I have cancer and heart disease and I do not give a damn if the inmates (as Writegeist termed them) run the asylum or not. To rebut 5000 words or more in 1000 words is silly. Any Arbitrator who gives a real look at the "weight" of evidence garnered from 40,000 edits should recognize the mudslinging and ** for what it is. I am hurt that MC can assert with a straight face that I called an editor here Anti-Semitic, as that is just a "lie by iteration" at this point which should rebound on him, as is his failure to note that he is an extremely "involved admin" with regard to me (note huge number of interactions between us - sometimes in the space of well under an hour). Is there any sanction for repeatedly making such a false claim about an editor by an administrator - even after they were told the claim is less than valid?

For "silly season" the forces arrayed against me have a horrid record of POV-pushing ... [35] has Buster7 suggesting Palin got "Wiener's emails", [36] says she was "at most a deck hand at sea", [37] where he says " You have been an obstructionist from the moment you took Kelly's place as a spokesperson for Gov. Palin. At least Kelly brought a sense of leadership. All you bring is a sense of dread. Also, Kelly took the time to preview her entries. And, she wasn't pompous in her use of manners. Unless you have had your head stuck in the sand, you would know that the word on the street (Pennslyvania Avenue)is that Palin has hurt McCains chances. But, the reader probably already knows that at this stage. So.......nevermind. Obstruct to your hearts content. Twist things around all you want. Change history till the cows come. It won't really matter in the long run."

Writegeist wrote to KillerChihuahua [38] Pithy stuff like

There's a host of people involved at SP and I thought they should know what action I had taken re. your record on an important issue relating to the article. Since abusing Raban's critique as "POV pushing essay crap" is indefensible, as is making a groundless personal attack on me as a "vandal", as is also threatening to block any editor for making a fully "legal" attempt to get Raban's highly relevant and RS piece discussed, I would doubtless have taken it to ANI anyway. As for the outcome there — brusquely decided, and without the courtesy of an explanation, by a 17 year-old who, on his own admission, apparently spends just about his entire life on WP — I have already said enough. (Too much.) — Writegeist (talk) 18:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Taking the trouble to address a sysop’s numerous flat-out lies, half-truths and smears is not "nitpicking", as you term it. A sysop who peddles fictions as facts to discredit another contributor is a threat to all contributors and, I should think, to numerous WP policies. Such an individual is hardly best qualified to police the behaviour of other bad-faith editors. And the behaviour of a sysop who, when exposed, shrugs off his/her lies, half-truths and smears as piddling trivia is contemptible.Further, your aggressive and deceitful assertions are not confined to my talk page: here is an example of your attempt, at another user's talk page, to suppress discussion of notable, relevant and V material from an RS source, in this instance the London Review of Books, by misrepresenting it as a blog: Consider this a warning. Cease warring over the inclusion of that nonsense. Blog essays are not useful to us here on Wikipedia, (except sometimes on articles about notable blogs such as Daily Kos) and discussion of them here is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Which drew the following reply (abbreviated here) from the user: I note your warning, but I am pretty sure it was inappropriate. First, I wasn't even "warring for inclusion of that nonsense". Just undeleting the comments discussing it in the first place. If it is truly not a fit subject or source, it should be a simple matter to dispose of that in Talk. Deleting the comments, instead, was not appropriate at all. I have encountered situations where it was appropriate to delete comments rather than rebut them, and this was not one of them. [...] And by the way... the London Review of Books is not a blog. [...] I also think it's worth noting that at least one other admin did not find your block warning to be appropriate. "Anger and frustration"? You flatter yourself. The abusive behaviour I've touched on here earns contempt—an altogether cooler customer whose home is the intellect, not the heart. As for your closing remark, the course I’ve chosen is probably more realistic and certainly less tedious, as it's the only 100 percent effective prophylactic against direct contact with you: avoidance of articles you're involved in.

On a lighter note, as a parting gift, some Hilaire Belloc:Matilda told such Dreadful Lies, / It made one Gasp and Stretch one’s Eyes; /Her Aunt, who, from her Earliest Youth, /Had kept a Strict Regard for Truth, /Attempted to Believe Matilda:/ The effort very nearly killed her./ Every time she shouted 'Fire!' /They only answered 'Little Liar!'/ And therefore when her Aunt returned /Matilda, and the House, were burned.Goodbye Madam! And the best of luck. — / Writegeist (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

See the caliber of my steadfast opposition?

I keep no enemies list, nor would I ever keep one - he does, Writegeist does, MastCell does.

But looking at the AFD for the SYNTH list - the following apparently do not keep any such "list": Coffee, GabrielF, Anonymous209.6, Dear ODear ODear, Tom harrison, DHeyward, The Four Deuces, Alex Bakharev, Davewild, Anythingyouwant, MONGO, Ken Arromdee, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, JoeSperrazza, Two kinds of pork, B, Tarc, Gaijin42, Rlendog, AndyTheGrump, LM2000, RightCowLeftCoast, Capitalismojo, Resolute, Carrite, Horologium, Ealdgyth, JzG, Thargor Orlando, Cullen328 and so on. I wuld prefer that ArbCom listen to their opinions on this drama and the SYNTH at the very heart of it than a dozen who have opined on my essential evilness for years now -- in some cases making far more than a hundred edits critical of me in one way or another, or simply gainsaying anything I say. For the record, I plead guilty to using quotes from famous people and events, and words needed to read Wikipedia articles with a Readability Index of 35. I am guilty of actually following WP:BLP and WP:NPOV as being non-negotiable entirely. I also try to understand that no one is perfect, and finding "bad edits" out f 40,000 edits is an extremely easy task for those who wish to waste their time in such a manner.

But Fyddlestix stated however (which I counted as support for the SYNTH list)

" It has not been established that there is any SYNTH/OR in this article. In fact the current discussion over at BLP/N seems to be leaning the other way, since you have refused or been unable to point out an actual/recognizable piece of SYNTH/OR in this article. You've also failed to make a convincing/intelligible case for this table being SYNTH or OR here, here, here and here. "

Problem being that a couple of dozen others saw the clear SYNTH which is also a WP:BLP violation. Fyddlestix called me a liar for pointing out that he/she specifically re-added the material connecting Bush admin members to PNAC and Iraq to the PNAC article[39]. Cheers to all who enter this humble abode. Collect (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, after looking at the current version of Evidence page, many people would think you were a serious troublemaker and should be site banned forever. This is one of the reasons I would recommend you to provide your version of events on the official arbitration Evidence page. If there is not enough space, you can ask arbitrators for extension, and they might grant it for you. Nothing on your talk page will be taken into account. However, if you are going to provide some evidence, I would recommend you not to bring ridiculous mutual accusations (such as your exchange with Fyddlestix), but simply explain what had happened in general with all supporting links and diffs. My very best wishes (talk) 16:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I have "presented evidence" in several cases - and in none of them did it appear any arbitrator actually read the diffs provided. I present what I consider salient material here - feel free to use any of it as evidence on the case page. When an arb (unnamed) proudly announced to me that he did not read much of the evidence at all in a case, and apparently mine not at all - period, my confidence is, alas, diminished. What counts far more is independent editors simply saying that enough is enough - that ArbCom should not reward harassers for being quite successful, and that viewed from the outside, as ArbCom is supposed to do, that the evidence against me proves very little at all. Else the Ikips of this world win by default. WRT the trivial Fyddlestix charge - he/she apparently regarded it as a linchpin in the complaint, whilst I only addressed it as a result - clearly it is of minor weight. As I have iterated - the basis of the issue at hand is whether or not the PNAC "table" was SYNTH - and a drove of independent editors have ruled clearly that it was and remains SYNTH and violative of WP:BLP. And that posting on Jimbo's talk page is not a violation of WP:CANVASS. My email is open. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a huge pile of evidence by your "opponents", and it is very difficult to read (I really could not). But there are much higher chances that people will read your evidence because this will be the only evidence in your favor. Not commenting on the official page will mean that you agree by default with every argument by your "opponents". If that is what you want, then fine. And perhaps you are right that everything is already determined. You angered too many people and will be banned just to make them happy ("reduce disruption for the project"). That happens all the time, and perhaps you will be happier by doing something more productive instead of contributing here. Good bye! My very best wishes (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

You miss the "proposed decision" stage - any arb is allowed to read this page (precedent in the past cases is rife) and all I need do is state that the "evidence" is per se insufficient for any findings to be made about me. If I start addressing every diff presented, ArbCom would have to allow me at least three weeks and 10,000 words to adequately state what did or did not happen. In my last case (TPm), where I did participate, I was warned not to demur with the proposed "kill them all, God will know his own" - I managed to get three other editors out of that "Gordian Knot solution" proposed by one arb, but it was the fact I fought which ended up with a "finding of fact" that using the quote "bosh and twaddle" (by Teddy Roosevelt) about a "reduction ad Hitlerum" hypothetical case was found by a bare majority to be intrinsically evil. Since it is clear that Arbs can decide "bosh and twaddle" in such a case is punishable, they can pretty much decide any word of more than one letter is punishable - depending on whom they judge. Lord knows that my language is rather temperate compared with AndyTheGrump's! Collect (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The case is not about PNAC, but about behavior of users in the project. After looking at the current Evidence I think all these content disputes are really about nothing. Should someone, who obviously is a conspiracy theorist, be described as such in the first phrase on in the 2nd paragraph? Should something be called "a scandal" or "an affair"? Should views by a politician on the climate change be described in length in his biography? That does not really matter. What matters is your conflict with several other users. The conflict is serious enough - the case was taken by Arbcom. Why conflict? Perhaps you are just a stubborn guy who makes an issue of every minor disagreement. Right now it looks this way from the Evidence. If so, you should be topic banned or banned. Or maybe these users simply do not like you personally and therefore revert your edits, even ones of no significance (as you apparently imply). Yes, they do not like you judging from their comments, but I do not see any evidence of their wikistalking. Perhaps it was you who stalked them? My very best wishes (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

With me following well over 4000 pages, the odds of me "stalking" anyone are nil. In point of fact, I had zero interaction with some other than where they leapt into discussions. Most of my entries into articles are from WP:BLP/N discussions and the like - If I were stalking Ubikwit would I have such minimal overlap out of well over 4000 pages? Fyddlestix? Any of them? Check the number of edits I have made at BLP/N <g> (try over 1750 edits by me on that noticeboard alone) and you will see how it works. And again -- WP:BLP is not a "negotiable policy" - it is at the very core of what Wikipedia seeks to be.

And how could I "follow" Ubikwit for Neoconservatism? PNAC? Oligarchy, Sam Harris (author)? (since I posted earlier than he on all of them) I did arrive at Robert Kagan and Joe Klein from noticeboard posts - not from "following" anyone.

Fyddlestix posted after me at PNAC and after me at Skull and Bones. Following? Not possible for me on any article at all there.

MrX? After me at Talk:War on Women. After me at Steve Scalise. After me at Rick Perry. Before me at S. Truett Cathy which was at BLPN. Before me at Jeb Bush which also made BLPN. In fact after me at more than 80% more than 3/5 of the articles of any possible interactions per the Editor Interaction tool. And you could think I was stalking folks by having them follow me more than 80%60% of the time? Interesting indeed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not me. They tell it was you who stalked them [40]. So, unless you can provide something on Evidence page to support your words here (you peacefully edited page A, someone X, who never edited it before, came to revert your legitimate edit for no obvious reason, and he did the same on five other pages [diffs]),most people including arbitrators will think these guys are telling the truth. My very best wishes (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

In which case - I ask you to convey the actual truth. If they can make sufficiently outrageous lies so good that you believe them, then Wikipedia is truly doomed. Collect (talk) 14:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but conveying your position is your responsibility. No one will do this for you. My very best wishes (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

WRT falsely accusing anyone of sockpuppetry at SPI posts - I have an 80% accuracy rate there. [41] shows absolutely minimal overlap between Buster7 and I from Jan 2013 onwards - period. In fact I ignore him entirely except for when he had an RfA and I pointed out that he had in fact made threats about finding out about me personally: [42] and [43] noting that the complainant has used the term ""psychopathic schizophrnic " (his spelling) [44]. Did this dismiss Buster7's stuff enough? But I forget -- you are mute when faced with facts and actual diffs, but more than willing to convey an opinion that Buster7's "evidence" convinced you I was a stalker, right? Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Talking here with me is not the way to convince anyone. People will only look at your diffs and links on Evidence page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Shaygan Kheradpir

Can't seem to draw sustained attention to the page from non-SPAs for the life of me. Do you have time to take a look here? I don't feel the sources directly support the material they are being used for. I have a COI of sorts. It would probably be accurate to say I just have a COI with the Juniper section. CorporateM (Talk) 21:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry -- it is a BLP and the harassment which would assuredly ensue is not worth the effort to actually make sure WP:BLP is followed - the edit could say "George Gnarph is a 'mass murderer' " using a blog as a source - and I still am unable to intervene. Hell, my essays are asserted to contain proof of some sort of heinous behaviour on my part - and here I thought they simply expressed reasonable views about Wikipedia. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I don't think there are any BLP concerns specifically, so much as a general sourcing and lead discussion. Best of luck with the ArbCom thing. CorporateM (Talk) 16:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your comments on the Infoboxes II case request

Hi Collect, after a discussion on mail:clerks-l, I have partially redacted your statement in the Infoboxes II arbitration case request. On all of Wikipedia and specifically on arbitration pages, please refrain from adding personal attacks, and make sure to adhere to the civility policy strictly. (This is a clerk warning, for the record.) --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I made no "personal attacks" whatsoever in my comments, nor did I deem the remarks uncivil. Cheers as always. Collect (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: This user has been successfully harassed from any BLPs or "political articles" which seems to encompass Moby-Dick as Melville held appointive political office.

Collect (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a big pedia so not working on BLPs could be a blessing. A read through the Obama article gives insight into Wikipedia...its a featured article and has been for a long time, but it's a pretty positive review for a sitting President with less than a 50% approval rating and I think he's a horrible president and possibly one of our worst....but because I disapprove of his presidency so vehemently is exactly why I don't edit the article. I know if I try to add the facts and perspectives of more than half the polled voters, I will have little success. Therefore, where we can make a difference is at keeping the quackery at bay in those areas where virtually everyone is United against the introduction of such nonsense. At arbcom they have you tied to the stake and have been given the opportunity to add more wood at your feet so you can either submit your defense and even explain in plain English what's at stake or wait until they toss in the flaming torch.--MONGO 00:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I too hope this will be only a topic ban. However, after looking at the Evidence right now, I would not exclude a possibility of site ban.My very best wishes (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

While a site ban may not be the goal, I doubt those that oppose Collect's efforts will miss him should that be the end result.--MONGO 03:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I site ban will be totally stupid, as there is only one area in which his behavior has been questioned. He does good work in other areas. A 1RR in political BLPs will be more than enough, and will give him the opportunity to learn that WP:WPDNNY. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Any such topic ban would basically keep me from doing what is most useful for Wikipedia in my opinion. Look, for example, at the edits made by the harassers:

[45] shows an editor ignoring the clear finding that the "list" was SYNTH and uses [46] which is an editorial column to make claims of fact.

"The report's primary author was Thomas Donnelly, and Donald Kagan and Gary Schmitt are credited as project chairmen. It also lists the names of 27 other participants that contributed papers or attended meetings related to the production of the report, six of whom subsequently assumed key defense and foreign policy positions in the Bush administration. As I have iterated, opinions can only be cited as opinions - and this source is clearly an opinion source (the source also includes such "facts" as

The official story on Iraq has never made sense. The connection that the Bush administration has tried to draw between Iraq and al-Qaida has always seemed contrived and artificial. In fact, it was hard to believe that smart people in the Bush administration would start a major war based on such flimsy evidence.

The pieces just didn't fit. Something else had to be going on; something was missing. In recent days, those missing pieces have finally begun to fall into place. As it turns out, this is not really about Iraq. It is not about weapons of mass destruction, or terrorism, or Saddam, or U.N. resolutions. This war, should it come, is intended to mark the official emergence of the United States as a full-fledged global empire, seizing sole responsibility and authority as planetary policeman. It would be the culmination of a plan 10 years or more in the making, carried out by those who believe the United States must seize the opportunity for global domination, even if it means becoming the "American imperialists" that our enemies always claimed we were. Once that is understood, other mysteries solve themselves. For example, why does the administration seem unconcerned about an exit strategy from Iraq once Saddam is toppled?

Sound like opinion or like fact? In fact it is specifically part of the "9/11 conspiracy theory" category AFAICT.

[47] introduces a "second letter" not even associated with PNAC and then adds the SYNTH that it shared seven signers with the PNAC letter. If claims about the first letter's signers was SYNTH, how can one not note that connecting seven of them to a second letter not even connected with PNAC is relevant?

[48] makes the edit:

Cruz has stated that satellite data shows no global warming in the past 17 years, based on a cherry-picked range of data that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change views as indicative of a short term trend. (bolded is the edit)

That appears to make a claim in Wikipedia's voice directly that he cherry-picked data deliberately to make a false claim. The source used here states " Researchers largely have agreed that the rate of global warming has slowed in recent years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has acknowledged that the rate of warming since the 1998 El Niño has been smaller than the rate calculated since 1951." and "Cruz’s most recent statement, that “no significant” warming has taken place in the past 17 years, is more accurate". The WaPo article does not use the term "cherry-picked" at all. Nor does the CSM article use that term. NEITHER of those sources given as a reference for the "cherry picked data" supports the claim at all, and so it is likely a BLP violation for any editor to use them as a source for a claim of fact in Wikipedia's voice.

But I can not come within a mile of that BLP - even for such an egregious violation. The FactCheck Levitan editorial source could be used for a claim ascribed to the person holding it, but not in Wikipedia's voice. ("FactCheck.org's SciCheck feature focuses on false and misleading scientific claims that are made by partisans to influence public policy. SciCheck is made possible by a grant from the Stanton Foundation" indicating that the purpose of such editorials is specifically to attack "partisans" and to be editorials in nature) Lastly (before iterating the same Levitan source as though using it twice makes the opinion "more valid") we have a CNN source. Amazingly enough, it makes no such claim about "cherry-picked data" at all. Sorry -- when a single editorial source (noting the comment at the bottom of the Levitan source that the sourcing is intended to take aim at "partisans") makes a claim, we can not use it as "fact" in a BLP.

Care to defend those edits as being absolutely proper under policy?

If I can not make a difference on BLPs where my harassers and complainants are still actively making edits which are questionable under Wikipedia non-negotiable policies - what the hell can I do? Really? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Your comment about that edit is correct. Under 1RR you could revert, and explain in talk. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

And the other editor is edit warring on you -- he reverted your edit ("quote to citation for "cherry picked". Was attributed in a previous version but another editor demurred" which fails to note the problem is in the source being specifically editorial in nature and per note at its bottom - specifically funded to handle "partisans") -- and apparently thinking opinion is the same as "fact" to be made in Wikipedia's voice. See the problem? Collect (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it always first revert or there are any exceptions such as partial revert? That's where the conflict begins. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I have been threatened even where zero reverts per se occurred (the change was to language which had been in a BLP for a while!). Thus as long as the harassers are out in "full force and vigour" - I can not touch even Moby-Dick. Collect (talk) 16:47, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It is pretty hard to debate these days whether the matter concerns BLP or not. Though it is clearest when the matter concerns COPYVIO. Can you point me to the thread or section where this regrettable proposal of 0rr might have taken place? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Long ago - 2/0 blocked me at 1RR for "edit war" - which was quickly overturned. Gwen Gale blocked me for violating 0RR on political articles - for removing charges that a very long dead politician was actually a Nazi, etc. Look above for some of the accusations from the past. For fun, look at the edits from 2008 on Dino Rossi and note that it later emerged that the main editor there (acting as owner AFAICT) was a campaign worker for another politician. Who issued 3RR "warnings " many times on my talk page as a result. Collect (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Collect: WP:WPDNNY. If there are egregious BLP violations, there are other editors around, you know? - Cwobeel (talk) 17:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

And any such ban would include not mentioning any such violations to anyone at all -- did you not understand that minor cavil?

If I saw a claim that George Gnarph was a murdering thief - sourced to the Daily Mail (which is RS except for contentious claims about living persons, IMHO), I could not mention that fact to anyone at all - as it would qualify as meatpuppetry or the like.

Or I could wait as you suggest until someone notices it -- which can take more than 10 years for even absurd hoaxes, in case you missed that news <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A 1RR on political BLPs will allow you to revert, explain your reversion and engage in talk. But if you don't defend yourself, and acknowledge some of the concerns (I know it will be hard; we are proud beings), you may end up facing more severe sanctions. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Where there is a BLP violation - letting it remain is actually contrary to any common sense. I think you just learned exactly how some others work to promote what they "know" to be the "truth" on BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The problem with your statement is that you think that if it wasn't for you, BLPs with violations will remain in WP. But nothing could be further from the truth. If you stop editing WP today, nothing will happen, really. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. I am not essential to Wikipedia whatsoever. If Wikipedia wants me (or anyone, in fact) to edit, and has me feel harassed while I am editing, then it is likely that I would not edit Wikipedia much at all.

Try an analogy: You like to mow the golf-course fairway - but some kids keep shooting pellet guns at you. You get discouraged and no longer enjoy mowing the grass. (See WP:HOUND). You stop because if they keep making sure you can not enjoy mowing the grass, there is precious little joy to be had in mowing when the kids are shooting at you.

You are not essential to the golf course, - in fact you are entirely worthless perhaps, but when enough kids are there to drive off enough volunteers (See Gamergate inter alia) the golf course will lose a lot of other volunteers.

No individual volunteer is worth a sou, but the collective and escalating danger is that too many of the mowers will be driven off by those pesky kids. If one wishes to retain any editors, then one must prevent those shooting the pellets from affecting the volunteers. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I hear you. But I think that if you acknowledge some of the concerns expressed in the evidence, you will be able to continue editing, and the pesky kids will have a reason to stop shooting pellets. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Read my statements and rebuttals. Note where I state my positions - right or wrong. And my actual political background - which I suspect will not shock anyone who actually reads my opinions about WP:BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't give up yet. I looked at some of the "charges" against you (admittedly not all of them) and what I saw amounted to little more than "Collect often disagrees with me over content" or "Collect made 3 mildly snarky remarks" or "Collect prefers to take contentious BLP disputes about political figures to BLP/N where it will get more neutral eyes on it than on the article talk page which will have more partisan editors (on either side) watching it." The 3RR allegations are the only ones I saw that seemed serious, but even there 3RR has exceptions for BLPs, in particular to eliminate "bias." There is a lot, and maybe I missed some egregious ones in my sample, but I have faith that ArbCom will take the time to look through all the evidence and see how flimsy much of it is (assuming of course that I didn't miss anything really bad). Rlendog (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Extension

Looks like this case is probably going to proceed irrespective of your convenience. I can only suggest that if they decide to grant you any kind of extension, try to make the most of it, even if it's not nearly enough and even if it means you'll present a half-assed defense of yourself due to lack of time. I don't think it really seems fair but at this point I actually think they are more concerned with fully adhering to established protocol than making sure the process is fair. Anyway, I was going to make a large submission on your behalf, but I didn't get around to it before evidence closed. I requested an 11th-hour extension but it was denied. Sorry bud. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence closed

The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phrase

Hello Collect, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

See topic ban. Bleah. Collect (talk) 11:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Meghan Trainor

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Meghan Trainor. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phase closed

The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Brian Sylvestre

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Brian Sylvestre. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Decision in Collect and Others

Hi Collect, in the open Collect and others arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you.  Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Collect, I decided to waste some of my time, and have just taken a look at this frightful case. My comment (about a little piece of it) is here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

He also engaged in some unwitting violations of ArbCom protocol in your defense, and got a gentle tongue-lashing for it. You owe people now, dude. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 02:26, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As I said I was physically AWAY - and actually unable to participate. Blaming me for being in that status is absurd. I made clear that June 10 was the earliest I could do much -- but I find the committee is prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner, and th3 fact that it allows arbs who had repeatedly called for my being sanctioned to act without recusing themselves to be a horrid example of sophomoric puerility. To your health. Collect (talk) 11:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Final in person request

Assuming that, in spite of your medical condition and any Real Life situations, you still drop in here to see what's going on, I would forgivingly make a request. As a gesture of good faith, I wonder if you would consider re-working your talk page introduction so that it in no way mentions me or even hints to my existence. I would consider it a personal favor and perceive it as a handshake of forgiveness and an act of possible friendship. Any transgressions we have committed against each other should, by now, have faded into the long forgotten and distant past. . Buster Seven Talk 15:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you assume he isn't watching this page, and have the patience to wait for him, else ask an admin to do it for you. That would really be a sign of good faith, especially after all the accusations you've made about the supposedly deceptive nature of his absence. Don't purport to claim equivalence between Collect's RL health problems and your hurt Wiki-feelings. BTW, I don't think I've said anything to deserve the treatment you gave me at the ArbCom case. Thanks for nothing, old pal. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 02:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Collect has not edited Wikipedia since April 6, and all indications are that he won't for weeks more. In view of Buster 7's May 4 request for forgiveness and friendship, I feel confident that Collect would not hesitate to grant Buster 7's request. Accordingly, since I have not been disinvited from editing this talk page, I intend to remove from view the unattributed material in question, within the hour.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:22, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Anything. . Buster Seven Talk 21:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I was AWAY. Physically away - and just got back from overseas. I have cancer, wife has melanoma. Wish similar health on others? Collect (talk) 11:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Tough luck, bud. I am sorry to hear this. WP would suffer with your absence, but I don't know that that's a good reason to stay. And in any event WP appears content to serve as an online attack platform, so maybe the grapes really are sour. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 00:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - what I find galling is that I have been around for over nine years - and when I said I was away on a trip, I found it galling that anyone would snidely suggest (on and off-Wiki) that the trip (planned for two years) was "convenient". Where those who were stalking/hounding continue to stalk/hound even when I am away, I find their position to be less than collegial at best. Cheers. Collect (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Although I stumbled onto that case by accident after it was already underway, I subsequently watched the process very closely. There were multiple things that were considerably more than 0% galling. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please remove the quoted matter at the top of this page, or I will

Collect, when I happened on this section on the workshop for "your" case, with its striking header, I felt myself getting angry. A little research showed you had added a quote from 15 October 2008[49] to the top of your talkpage four years later on 7 September 2012, [50]. It has been distressing the editor in question ever since. I know you know that. Unless distress is actually your purpose, please remove the quote, including all other reference to Buster7, such as this sneer (added on 17 Aug 2014), which actually identifies Buster, within the next 24 hours, or I will. I realize you may not be watching, and then I'll simply be the one to remove it. BTW, I don't think the identification is the big problem. Buster obviously hates having something he said as a newbie,[51] which he wouldn't say today, quoted against him, whether or not it names him. Bishonen | talk 18:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC).

For someone who purports to be paying attention, this post you made sure seems like a bunch of unnecessary bluster, directed at an editor whom you know is not watching, solely to make some kind of point. Just go ahead and remove it, without the posturing. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:49, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

As I had made clear that I was basically not going to be around (just returned from overseas) I find your post objectionable but shall gracefully leave it in place. Count my edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Collect, I hope you and your wife are fully recovered. I have counted your edits as requested. Not sure why — did you want me to note how few they are, to emphasise that confrontation and personalising are so important to you that you're willing to spend three out of seven edits on the miserable matter of the quotes at the top of your page? And to ask Buster if he wishes cancer and melanoma on others, for god's sake. In response to an olive branch from him, yet. I'm very unlikely to post on your page again — I only did originally because I was angry and it seemed necessary. But as long as I'm here, is Christian terrorism really a page about US politics or US political figures?[52] The mediation doesn't seem to focus on American issues — even though I see you mention the KKK a couple of times, so no doubt you'd have to avoid certain details going forward — and Christian terrorism in the United States is a separate article. I'd ask arbcom if I were you. Bishonen | talk 11:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC).

The hostility of your message is as flagrant as can be. Are you really thinking Buster is extending an olive branch? That's ludicrus. Let me know when you and yours finish running Collect off the website.--MONGO 13:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I shall be sure to tell everyone in the world when anyone is fully cured of cancers such as malignant melanomas. If you wish to see the "olive branches" I trust you have read the site-which-must-not-be-named and such genteel olive branches from his friends as "For many years BLP has been Collect’s battleground of choice for deploying his well-stocked arsenal of assholery. It's no surprise to see him run for cover from the altogether tougher action at arbcom, or to hear him squeal "harassment!" from the sidelines now that he’s called to account—in WP as in RL narcissistic assholes commonly play the victim card when there’s pushback. Collect’s endgame strategy is one that’s well-tried. And didn’t that game work out well for, say, DangerousPanda/Bwilkins.", and a WP edit [53]. I also suggest you read the history of "broadly construed" as a Wiki term of art indeed - as the only exception granted for reverts is absolute unambiguous vandalism as you surely have noted. I am not even allowed to mention groups related to any topic covered in "any namespace" including any essays or posts to UT Jimbo. And yes - the topic of CT does contain material and discussions specifically related to the topic ban. Hell, even Mark Twain is absolutely covered by the ban! And my two good articles are covered by the topic ban. With all the same wishes you bestow on me, Collect (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above.

1. Collect is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

2. Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles about US politics and US political figures will be less neutral as a result of this decision, and I do not regard that as coincidence.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Bad luck, I hope this won't put you off editing altogether. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It has - along with a cancer (melanoma) problem, and the fact that arbs who had repeatedly called for my ban in the past should have recused. I would note this case was argued in my absence (I was overseas, in fact), and that I find it so utterly irrational as to beggar belief. This means that my stating that I am, in fact, a liberal is a direct and instant violation of the "decision" and O ask that anyone who finds this to be sufficient to ask for my permanent removal should do so. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Because although your edits were not appreciated, they were valuable. Keep your head up and enjoy this adorable kitten.

RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ariana Grande

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ariana Grande. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Stalking again

[54] is evidence thereof. User:Viriditas/Conservative alternate reality in the United States shows an unusual proposal for an article. Said editor is intent on preventing anyone keeping track of "problems" however [55] even editing the sandboxes of other users whilst they are not present on Wikipedia, and where the discussion at AN/I was ongoing. Collect (talk) 12:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

These diffs posted by Viriditas display a ridiculous, arrogant hall-monitor attitude. The essay belies a sort of blissful self-made ignorance. Both are commonplace on Wikipedia. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

일반 문서

...is apparently the Korean word for "Articles". Not sure why the X! edit-counter tool shows the Korean word there (or in one other place: 过错 for Errors). Just FYI. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I wot not why the system used Korean for an English Wikipedia though ... Collect (talk) 01:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Collect, I have moved the extended discussion (basically, everything after the candidate's response) followining your oppose at Neil's RFA to the RFA's talk page. If you or any other participant in the discussion (or, any of the bureaucrats) disagree with this, feel free to undo my move. Also you can change the title I chose for the talkpage section if you feel it is singling you out (I named it "Oppose by Collect" in anticipation that there may be need for similar sections in the coming week). Pinging @Alakzi, PhantomTech, Cwobeel, and Liz:. Abecedare (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration proposed decision posted

Hello. The proposed decision for the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed to as a party, has been posted. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dennis Hastert

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dennis Hastert. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Edward Snowden

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Edward Snowden. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bill Cosby

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bill Cosby. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Some people seem intent on defaming me by innuendo it seems

I was not absent "conveniently" from the arbitration case. I was on an extended trip planned for two years. I am, in fact, willing to send Jimbo photos from St. Petersburg, Helsinki etc. as absolute proof - and if you wish me to do so, please post here instead of making snide and unwarranted claims about me. I find such innuendos as being spread to be further examples of basic and explicit harassment. I also note that one arbitrator should absolutely have recused per prior discussions, and his direct personal attacks on me in the past. The community expects arbitrators to approach all cases with open minds and not with absolute and blatant prejudice. Collect (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
2. Ubikwit (talk · contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
3. MONGO (talk · contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

Thank you

Collect, I'm back at Wikipedia, and I want to say thank you for the comment that you left at the Christian terrorism mediation talk page, expressing your willingness to wait for me to return. I think that it was very kind and generous of you to show that kind of consideration for my feelings. I especially appreciate that, even though we have disagreed about content, we can still treat one another with respect as human beings. I also see from something you said above that you are dealing with a health issue, and I sincerely wish you the best with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Same sincere wishes from me too, FWIW. You have more time for healthy habits now, instead of the unhealthy Internet, so enjoy if possible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The health issue is with my wife who now faces substantial surgery (at least not the immediate loss of her arm) and other possible medical treatments. My own medical issues are not life-threatening - prostate and related cancers are chronic in nature. Note that I was not given reasonable ability to address the claims made about me at arbitration and, in fact, I was accused of deliberately avoiding the issues - while I was rather engaged in dealing with major real issues and an extended trip to Europe which had been planned for two years. I wish there were some way to show those who made the snide and iterated comments how wrong they are and were, but that would clearly violate the (papal) infallibility of ArbCom. Collect (talk) 11:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to use the best redirect I ever created.🎃Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Carlos Latuff. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Geography only?

Are you permitted to comment on geography strictly omitting constitutional status? The intent is to launch an RfC on the “United States:Talk” page this week. I am not trying to cause a controversy, I just wanted you to know the six-months progress in your absence. Please use discretion, TFD is constantly trying to make this a discussion about constitutional status, and older≠wiser (Bkonrad) will not agree to the statement if any political assertion is made in the introductory lede sentence at "United States".

A group of twelve editors at an RfM this year have been hammering along on the same issue of including “native-born” Americans from the Insular Territories in the “United States” lede sentence. You may remember the Dispute Resolution of 9 to 3 participants two years ago, well the margin this time is 9 to 1. Of the three editors who opposed two years ago, Bkonrad has agreed to a statement as geographical extent only, without inference as to constitutional status. Golbez dropped out saying he does not want to be bothered on the subject again. The Four Deuces (TFD) has agreed but continues to snipe at various elements of the following charts.

I thought you might enjoy perusing them, as the intent is to launch an RfC on the “United States:Talk” page this week. Sunray (RfM mediator)(an additional mediator will administer the RfC), AlanScottWalker, Robert McClenon, The Gnome, RightCowLeftCoast, Bkonrad (older≠ wiser), Wzrd1, 66.193.25.66, TheVirginiaHistorian, (and in at least one iteration, TFD) have endorsed the proposed language.

"The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America, is a federal republic composed of 50 states, a federal district, five major territories and various possessions. [n]

"Note: The federal district is Washington DC. The five major territories are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin Islands. The nine smaller island areas without permanent populations are Baker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island, and Navassa Island. U.S. sovereignty over Serranilla Bank and Bajo Nuevo (Petrel Island) is disputed. See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. Both viewed April 6, 2016.”

Mediation US territory discussion

United States District/Territory	Geographically, US national jurisdiction	US Citizens/Nationals	Estimated population	In Congress (Member of Congress)	Local self governance	US Constitution supreme law	US District Court	Presidential vote
District of Columbia	Done	Done 1801 US citizenship	658,000	Done 1971: Norton	Done 1975	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - DC	Done 1961 Constitutional Amendment
American Samoa	Done	Done 1904 US nationals	57,000 (≈ 1% territorial population)	Done 1981; Amata	Done 1978	Done Territorial Constitution	Fed'l appointed High Ct; DC or Hi	citizenship under litigation at Supreme Court
Guam	Done	Done 1950 US citizenship	159,000	Done 1973; Bordallo	Done 1972	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Terr'l Dist Crt - GU	while resident in a state
Northern Mariana Islands	Done	Done 1986 US citizenship	77,000	Done 2009; Sablan	Done 1978	Done Territorial Constitution	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - MP	while resident in a state
Puerto Rico	Done	Done 1952 US citizenship mutually agreed (1917 citizenship by Congressional fiat)	3,667,000 (≈ 90% insular territory population)	Done 1901; Pierluisi	Done 1948	Done Territorial Constitution	Done Fed'l Dist Crt - PR	while resident in a state
US Virgin Islands	Done	Done 1927 US citizenship	106,000	Done 1973; Plaskett	Done 1970	Done Congressional Organic Act	Done Terr'l Dist Crt - VI	while resident in a state
uninhabited possessions	Done	Citizenship by blood, otherwise not decided in the courts for Palmyra Atoll	n/a	n/a	n/a	Done fundamental provisions	various	n/a

Sources

See U.S. State Department, Common Core Document to U.N. Committee on Human Rights, December 30, 2011, Item 22, 27, 80.— and U.S. General Accounting Office Report, U.S. Insular Areas: application of the U.S. Constitution, November 1997, p. 1, 6, 39n. viewed April 6, 2016. Six scholars in law journals, university press monographs and Congressional Quarterly attest to the 21st century US geographic sense, national jurisdiction and constitutional framework including territories: G. Alan Tarr (2005) "encompasses” (p. 382 [56]). Ellis Katz (2006), "composed of (p.296 [57]). Jon M. Van Dyke (1992), “a part of ” (p. 1 [58]). Bartholomew Sparrow (2005), “the US includes” (p. 231-232, [59]). Donald P. Haider-Markel (2008), "officially a part of” (p. 649 [60]). Earl H. Fry (2009), “U.S. federal system” (p. 297 [61]).

The following chart is of my own making. It has not been discussed as being included in the RfC. It may be that active participants to the mediation will not be permitted to make any posting beyond their opening statement of under 300? words. So, just FYI:

Mediation sources summary

Scope	USG sources	Scholars	USG sources	Scholars	Almanac	Encyclopedia
US federal republic geographic extent	Pres. Proclamation [62], Pres. Exec Order [63], GAO (1997) [64], State Dept. Common Core [65], Homeland Act [66]	Tarr [67], Katz [68], Van Dyke [69]	FEMA [70], US Customs [71], Immigration serv. [72], Education [73], Soc. Sec. [74]	Sparrow [75], Haider-Markel [76], Fry [77]	Fact Book [78]	Britannica [79]
50 states (18 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (1)	Done (1)
50 states & DC (17 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (5)	Done (3)	Done (1)	1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, & 5 terr. (16 sources)	Done (5) "contiguous territory", "geographical sense", "within framework", US "definition" includes territories & possessions to define the US homeland	Done (3) "encompasses", "composed", "a part of" the US	Done (5) two define “United States” with, two enumerate 5 major territories, one included 5 major territories equally as a “state” for purposes of the law	Done (3) “includes”, “officially a part of”, "US fed'l system”	1 omits insular terr & poss	1 omits DC & terr & poss
50 states, DC, terr. & poss. (8 sources)	Done (5)	Done (3)	5 USG sources omit possessions	3 omit possessions	1 omits insular terr & poss	1 omits DC & terr & poss

Mediation deliberation

The mediation consensus was arrived at not only by a numerical count of sources, but also taking into consideration geographical extent as national jurisdiction, territory formally claimed in international forums, homeland security and definitions of the "United States" found in law. The “United States" defined in a geographic sense is, "any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any possession…” Homeland Security Public Law 107-296 Sec.2.(16)(A). Sources describing the constitutional status of Insular Case “alien races” a century ago were not found applicable to modern territories today with “native-born” Americans obtaining their citizenship, self-governance, civilian courts and territorial Members of Congress by today's law.

Good health to you and yours. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks - but I am barred from anything remotely connected to any US politics whatsoever from the dawn of time. Of course, I was not given a shot at refuting the evidence (I was, in fact, overseas, on a trip planned two years ago, told the committee that, and was told "tough shit" or the like, and had some claim that my absence was "convenient"), and the persons who gave the "evidence" leave such edit summaries as "Fuck You!" when they edit, or edit was aver images of a politician in a BLP. One might even fear that at least one arb, who has repeatedly called for me being banned entirely from Wikipedia in the past, but did not think that a reason to recuse, might have prejudged the case such that finding that I used a "foreign word" would be sufficient for my summary execution (LOL?) Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Regrets. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Prince Aimone, Duke of Aosta. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much...

...for your support over at my RfA. I shall do my best to be worthy of it, for however long I shall remain in the position. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 08:44, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement arbitration case opened

By motion, the committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The [Arbitration enforcement] case [request] is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 13, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Apologies for the potential duplicate message. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

My comments did not in any way reflect any judgment on my part, and it is possible that any comments on the actual matters at hand would be interpreted by those harassing me in the past as being violative of my topic ban referred to supra. Collect (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quint Studer

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quint Studer. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

Votes at an RfA

In an unspecified RfA, the first five hours saw a total of 8 !votes -- every single one an "oppose" for 0% support.

End of day 1: 21 to 23 (21 supports, 15 added opposes - 58% support )

Day 2: 40 to 33 (19 supports, 10 opposes - 66% support)

Day 3: 48 to 38 (8 supports, 5 opposes - 62% support) (At end of Day 3 - 56% support)

Day 4: 56 to 41 (8 supports, 3 oppose - 73% support)

Day 5: 70 to 43 (14 support, 2 oppose - 88% support)

Day 6: 77 to 47 (7 support, 4 oppose - 64% support)

At end: 95 to 49 (18 support, 2 oppose - 90% support) (from end of day 3 to end - 81% support)

Yet we have folks (presumably) skilled in maths who did not see any change n the percentages indicating a swing of any sort. I consider a shift from 56% to 81% to be, in fact, a massive swing. Collect (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Anthony Watts (blogger). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

Collect, your recent talk page posts appear to me to be a violation of your topic ban. Please be advised that I have filed a request for enforcement. Cheers. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for showing your colours here - - Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I was totes prepared to ignore the Koch thing because obviously that was a BLP violation, which I note has quite rightly been removed. But this?. Not cool man... Fyddlestix (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Look -- I do not know who you are -- but you filed a totally spurious SPI complaint against me, and I do not doubt your intent here. I suggest quite sincerely that you stop hounding me for once and for all damn it! Collect (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Nobel laureates in Literature

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of Nobel laureates in Literature. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Welcome back!!

	A Wiki Tribble Dee Do
	I sent this Wiki Tribble Dee Do just for you! The encyclopedia needs more Tribble Dee Dos but they don't flourish in harsh environments. Hopefully we can turn that around someday. Atsme📞📧 17:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to add this link: [80]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

Hi, Collect. You have been blocked for one week and you are also indefinitely prohibited from interacting with User:MrX (this is a one-way interaction ban). See rationale at this discussion at WP:AE. This sanction has been recorded here and can be appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC).

Neat - I was n a cruise the entire time of the block which was IMHO unwarranted and alas UNAPPEALALE which any idjut reading this page would have known. Blocking a person in this manner is a trifle less than utile - blocks are preventative and not punitive - remember? Collect (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with User:MrX, see WP:IBAN (please note that this is a one-way interaction ban).

You have been sanctioned for this edit. Please compare the discussion here, where I and other admins found your response unconvincing.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBAPDS and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer a two-way IBAN - as one-way bans frequently cause far more problems than they are worth - and it isclear that almost all the "interaction" has, in fact, been by the other party. Cheers. Bishonen, Collect (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

And the punitive block is clearly absurd - although I did get back for a few minutes, the block basically is due to an absurd misreading of any policy at all.

I would note that almost all the "interactions" are by the other party. Collect (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• I blocked you on my own discretion, for violating this topic ban with this comment, but I'll point out that all the uninvolved admins in this discussion thought poorly of your behaviour, including your defense of it; one called it an "almost comical".."misinterpretation of the situation, and a clear illustration of the battleground mentality ArbCom tried to curb"[81], another pointed out that it encompassed several of the problematic behaviours identified in the ArbCom case, including insinuations without basis in fact and wikilawyering.[82] And so forth. As for the IBAN, I can understand that you'd prefer it to be mutual, but I didn't and still don't see any justification for imposing a sanction on MrX in this context. I have reminded him that the community takes a dim view of anything remotely like gaming of a one-way ban by the other party.[83] I don't want to change the terms of the ban, but you can of course appeal it, or the terms of it, at AN or AE. Bishonen | talk 07:13, 19 July 2015 (UTC).
  • "Uninvolved"?? I suggest you note my many editorial involvements with StS and Gamaliel, and with you if I recall correctly on several noticeboards[84][85] among many articles, and innumerable WP pages. I note Writegeist has been noted as a major stalker of me (see the EIR results), Fyddlestix was the person about whom I gave confidential email evidence of harassment to ArbCom, and so on. NYB spoke against a block, and Floq said a block is almost never given on a first offense, and Laufer took no position at all. GWH only noted that emending a post within 11 minutes was not fast enough (though three months was too fast for a person saying the Koch's were related to a notorious war criminal to be removed as the blatant BLP violation it was, of course). As for your "consensus" of "uninvolved" folks - it ain't there. Period. BTW, I shall be willing to email you any violations I find where any editor continues to stalk me, if you would so allow, with your assurance you shall firmly deal with anything remotely suggesting continued stalking by my lovely set of stalkers. And your kind suggestion that I post at AN of AE while I am actually blocked from doing so' is wondrously Kafkaesque. When you assert"consensus" it would be lovely if uninvolved people made up the "consensus" you assert is there. Collect (talk) 12:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

There's the imperious "period" again. I used to think it meant "full stop", in the sense of "I'm done", but I guess it can be just a verbal tic, an attempt to project dominance.[86][87] I'm nonplussed that you should complain about my assertion of "consensus", quote marks and all, four times if I count your "alas" edit summary. Where did I mention consensus? I told you I had blocked you per my own discretion. Try reading my actual words. As for complaining that I mention AN and AE while you're blocked, when you know, and I know, the block will expire in less than a day, while the sanction I suggested you appeal is an indefinite one — Collect, you seem to be turning into a complaint machine, I shall not feel obliged to respond to you further. Bishonen | talk 16:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC).

Collect, I would suggest minimizing your interactions with Bishonen. That means making the briefest possible replies to her, only emailing her in the most dire circumstances, et cetera. Otherwise, you run a very considerable risk of being misconstrued, either deliberately or not, and facing further charges as a result. Bishonen, I hope you will not respond to Collect further, as you have indicated. Incidentally, the word "period" is a well-known interjection, and has nothing to do with being imperious, or having a verbal tic, establishing dominance, et cetera. Per dictionary.com, it is "used by a speaker or writer to indicate that a decision is irrevocable or that a point is no longer discussable."[88] Who's the "complaint machine"?😛Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen asserted far more than a consensus - Bishonen wrote all the uninvolved admins in this discussion thought poorly of your behaviour, including your defense of it; one called it an "almost comical".."misinterpretation of the situation, and a clear illustration of the battleground mentality ArbCom tried to curb" which I demonstrated is a bit of a truth-stretch.

With regard to a case where an interjection was used as such (as you noted), I fail to see the validity of the grammatical cavil made by Bishonen. And it is absolutely true no one in hell is "obliged" to respond to anyone at all. Such an attitude, however, is unlikely to attract the good wishes of the person thus being ignored. As, to my knowledge, I have never emailed Bishonen at any point in time at all, as Alice noted is it quite difficult to email Bishonen any less I do not see how I can not email anyone less than zero <g>. Bien amicalement. Collect (talk) 17:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

In this instance, "less than zero" is an excellent status to maintain (you mentioned above "BTW, I shall be willing to email you").Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

An unknown admin at AE just noted De minimis non curat lex. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

My RfA

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Please comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Eliot Higgins. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion, restoration and archival of BLP-violating content about Smith, Koch brothers

Hope there's soon consensus at NPOVN on what you just said, BLP violations do not change into "non-violations" by being "archived". Then unless it's established that it's not a BLP violation, all content, whether about Koch brothers or Shepard Smith said to violate BLP should be removed from the archives, and so I'll remove the challenged Koch brothers content from the archives myself. Prefer standard DR (in this case at NPOVN) to edit warring or user talk page notices. I agree, that's what the policy says, but if anyone edits what MrX and I archived right now, edit warring is likely to ensue, so I prefer to continue with DR for a bit, as it makes sense to give DR a chance to work. The DR at NPOVN is the best place to resolve all this. --Elvey^(t•c) 20:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

BTW, do you concur that discussion of the sexual orientation of a living person who has been outed, but is nevertheless not out is gossip, as that term is used in the BLP policy, and therefore violates it and should be removed from wikipedia? --Elvey^(t•c) 01:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

PS haven't read the arguments of the other side, but based on what's on this page, sure sounds like you got a bad rap from ArbCom and have done lots of good work enforcing BLP.--Elvey^(t•c) 01:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Merci. You likely should note the dramatis personae involved as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chick-fil-A may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• asp?privcapid=7621129 Company Overview of Chick-fil-A, Inc.] Bloomberg Business, Nar 25, 2015]</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nikola Tesla. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rubin Carter

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rubin Carter. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

WW II

See [89] - a non-negligible number of American civilians were killed by the Axis in WW II. (>16,000) Collect (talk) 12:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

For my lurker who now asserts no US cities were bombed by Axis planes ... that does not mean there were no civilian casualties -- take, for example, the Philippines which were US territory ... "The combined death toll of civilians for the battle of Manila was approximately 100,000 to 500,000, most of which was attributed to massacres by Japanese forces." Which I rather think was "Axis" at the time ... one specific incident, not counting anything else - like Nanking Collect (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• s fiance, was recently received into the Church of England by the Archbishop of Canterbury."] [[The New York Tiimes]] October 4, 1947</ref>
• uk/ThecurrentRoyalFamily/TheDukeofEdinburgh/Militaryinvolvement.aspx|title=The Duke of Edinburgh > Military involvement|publisher=Official website of the British Monarchy|accessdate=7 May 2010}}</

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rod Steiger

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rod Steiger. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Marietta Voge

Marietta Voge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

On what do you base your assertion that Augustina Stridsberg was "undoubted"ly a Soviet spy? If you're going to change the text in this article to make this claim, it will need to be separately sourced, since the claims (being discussed here at WP:RS/N) against both mother and daughter should have equal weight, if any at all. General Ization ^Talk 15:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are dozens of good sources regarding WW II - including ones in Russian.Collect (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I accept that may be true, but ask you then to cite at least one at the subject article so that the distinction you have introduced in the text is supported. Right now, it is not. General Ization ^Talk 15:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Not just from YUP in 2000, but from the NSA "Discussion of important KGB agent and Swedish Communist, covername KLARA, “who is completely devoted to us." Vassiliev notebooks ”"DAUGHTER [DOCH'] (cover name in Venona): Marietta Voge. Venona San Francisco KGB, 24, 29, 39, 46, 57, 84; Venona Special Studies, 99." , "DOCH and DOCH' [DAUGHTER] (cover name in Venona): Marietta Voge. Venona San Francisco KGB, 23–24, 29, 38–39, 46, 57, 83–84; Venona Special Studies, 99.", "Voge, Mariette: Soviet intelligence source/agent. Wife of Noel Voge, née Jirku, daugher of Augustina Striksberg/KLARA. Cover name in Venona: DAUGHTER [DOCH'] and KLARA’s daughter. As Voge: As DAUGHTER [DOCH']; Venona San Francisco KGB, 23–24, 29, 38–39, 46, 57, 83–84; Venona Special Studies, 99. As KLARA’s daughter, 45–46.", " CLARA [KLARA] (cover name in Venona): Augustina Stridsberg or a reference to the town of Santa Clara. Venona San Francisco KGB, 83–84." "KLARA [CLARA] (cover name in Venona): Augustina Stridsberg. Venona New York KGB 1944, 141; Venona San Francisco KGB, 23–24, 38–39, 45–46, 57, 83–84 (unclear if a reference to KLARA or to the town of Santa Clara); Venona Special Studies, 36, 103." These notebooks were only available well after 2001, by the way, and make massive PDF files if you really want to make sure the indices are accurate. The Wilson Center is part of the Smithsonian. How many of these do you really need? Collect (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

One would be great, but cited by you at the article, since you are the editor who made the change that (in my view, anyway) makes it necessary. General Ization ^Talk 16:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Pretty Images

I'm fairly sure you are referencing the medals section. I am don't know how to make those smaller (didn't add them) and I'm not sure they are completely nec. You don't become a general without lots of fixins in that salad. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

They are quite unnecessary IMO, and the poor folks with mobile phones, etc. really would prefer the list be made ... a simple list. For fun, see how the page looks if you use a small window, or even use your phone to read it. Many thanks for the work on this - he is notable, but that does not mean we use the scandal as a sledgehammer, which is what I tried to remedy <g>. Collect (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I truly believe this is a person that added the detail to be thorough. What is left here is "my" last good version there ws loads more details. The new user I have high hopes for. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"Thorough" is not going to work where the vast majority of future views will be on quite small screens - which is one big reason why Google now makes a "mini-article" from Wikipedia for each search now. Thanks again. Collect (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Marathon course-cutting

Why would you only remove the well sourced and proven Mike Rossi cheating from Marathon course-cutting but none of the others? There is also the removal of Mike Rossi's entire article, which I have no beef with, but you might as well remove the BLP of Dane Rauschenberg too. He himself actually started his own entry, Fiddy2 is Dane's username. I suggest you either remove all course cutters or none. Mike Rossi is as much of a cheater as all the others on that list. GregTakacs (talk) 05:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

One is expected to do what one can ("Sufficient unto the day") - which is not the same as doing everything that anyone else mentions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely familiar with the edit waring resolution process but I would like to suggest that the removed part to be reinstated. Where should/would this discussion take place? GregTakacs (talk) 15:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you ask at User talk:Tokyogirl79 as Rossi was found not to be notable enough to even have an article on Wikipedia at all. If he is not notable, then adding him to any lists is likely to be unsupportable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

While I don't dispute that Rossi is not notable enough to have his own article, his incident was more than notable and publicized enough to be part of Publicized incidents of disputed marathon results. Most of the incidents in the current list were half as notable as Rossi's and most of those have no Wikipedia articles either. He was offered $100,000 by two very notable and legitimate athletes running a major on-line running board and website to repeat the feat. Mike Rossi's LVM Marathon cheating is notable and big enough to be worthy of the entry. Thanks. GregTakacs (talk) 19:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shooting of Samuel DuBose. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits to Henry Makow

Hello Collect, I too looked at the recently added ref for his degree. (here) basically with the idea of filling in the bare URL. The webpage does contain the line 'theses ENGLI 1982 Ph.D. 1109' & I wondered myself whether it was in fact usable? If you feel that it's not, that's fine by me. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The idea of WP:RS is that a person following the link finds a statement which says the same specific thing as the claim - which that link did not appear to do. Collect (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

OK fine; it would require some knowledge of what the 'shorthand' on the page means or a process of deduction on the part of the reader. So no problem. Eagleash (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

AE

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B001:1FC2:9E5E:5DCF:BF25:8FF8 (talk) 17:34, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What a wonderful example of harassment if you really think that a reality show person's biography is a major US political article. Next time, register with an actual editing name please - I find it hard to accept this sort of "bash Collect at every single opportunity, whether real or imagined." The material was about as blatant an example of violation of WP:BLP as one could wish for, and if we do not keep such horrid tabloidism of rumour and allegation away from Wikipedia, it will prove the downfall of Wikipedia's principles. Collect (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Note the sole and only purpose of that editor was to file a complaint against me. When any editor is so low as to use an anonymous account to WP:HARASS another editor one would think the admins would jump on it, and try to determine what vermin made the complaint. No -- instead I am told my own use of "cheers" is "snarky"! Collect (talk) 11:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

UKIP

Just wanted to let you know your efforts on the UKIP page are appreciated. For too long a small clique has dominated the content in a biased and unbalanced manner, cherrypicking to support their views and generally working to smear UKIP. Thank you for your refreshingly unbiased and balanced approach and your efforts to call into question the edits of the clique. It has improved the article significantly. Cheers. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Snarky?

An admin has opined that my use of "Cheers" after posts is "snarky." I note that apparently hundreds of editors then are also "snarky" as "cheers" is found over 174,000 times on user talk pages. I therefore ask impartial outside observers (that is, excluding the UGOI who routinely harass me) whether using "cheers" is, indeed, "snarky" as one esteemed and beloved administrator opined. Collect (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I hope that it's OK for me to reply to you here. I think it depends on context. There have been times when you and I have taken opposing positions in some discussions, in which you made comments that very strongly disagreed with me and then ended with "Cheers". I think it's entirely possible that you meant it helpfully, in the sense of indicating collegiality in spite of disagreement. However, I found myself wondering whether you might have meant it as snark, and there were times when it consequently annoyed me. It comes across as potentially sarcastic when the comment that leads up to the "Cheers" is not cheerful. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I have never used it as "snarky" and would note that since I used it consistently to everyone that it is hard to view it as snarky (especially since no one had complained in the past about it). Collect (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Since I consistently see you using it, I know you never mean it to be snarky, but I personally found it prudent to know when it's best to not use it, for risk of starting a misconception. A hypothetical scenario would be an editor criticises another user's edit, and then ends the comment with "cheers" and a signature. That could be seen as snarky. Ex: "The edit you made is completely POVish, as well as unsourced. I don't see how any of the material reflects the current sources. I believe you should undo your poorly sourced work. Cheers. ~~~~"—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you show me an example where it is clear that I am not using it as my normal "closing"? Collect (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I can show you this example, with you addressing another editor (not me), where you likely intended it as you normally do: [90]. You tell that editor that what he is saying is "harmful to Wikipedia", and then you say "Cheers". I don't want to get into the merits of what the two of you were discussing, but I think it reasonable for some editors to wonder why you would say "Cheers" to someone after criticizing them so strongly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You successfully point out that I use it as my normal closing! It would have been odd for me to deliberately not use it, as far as I can tell. Thanks! Collect (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I can readily believe that you never used it with "snarky" intent. But online communication (text only, no ability to read the other person's body language or intonation) is fraught, and people may well misinterpret your intentions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

People are going to just assign whatever tone they feel like to what you say. It is a problem inherent in the medium. I gave someone a barnstar and an uninvolved individual read it as some sort of baiting. Just explain that you were sincere and if that is not explanation then you are not the one who is wrong. Chillum 21:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem is an admin who saw the sock above using "cheers" in a very snarky manner (I trust they are a sock as they have zero other edits!) The admin then said my use of "cheers" was "snarky" which no one had said before until they were justifying the complaint above (and I consider a complaint from a person who uses a sock to be harassment, by the way - he seems to not view it as anything out of the ordinary). Collect (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Despite our disagreements I have never seen your use of 'Cheers' as snarky. You are quite capable of getting your tone - snark, contempt, cheer, puzzlement, whatever - across in your text. There are times it might be better to omit a closing entirely but then you might run the risk of being accused of being brusk. The SOCK's use of 'Cheers' was unquestionably snarky and dismissing your complaint with a false equivalency was, in my opinion, a bit rude.

Putting the whole thing to a vote on your talk page seems a but melodramatic to me but eh... I guess after a while just letting things slide becomes too frustrating and we encourage your venting by responding. Oh well... enjoy your editing and have a good weekend. Cheers. Jbh^Talk 22:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Collect (talk) 08:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Not Snarky

• FWIW I find that it is not "snarky" at all. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is an ANI notice which related to edits you have been involved with. [[91]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talk • contribs) 18:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

To the extent that most of this is related to US politics, I am mute. The point which is interesting is that in the Moncton BLP he seems to think that a "point of view article" presents facts and not opinions <g>. [92] "The source is not "an opinion piece," " followed by "The added content is a noteworthy, significant point of view " Collect (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. Because you participated in the deletion discussion or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GregJackP Boomer! 00:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

AE

[93]