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.

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.

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

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

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

Sound "collegial to you? [4] shows his ideal BLP edit.

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)

[5] was, frankly, a totally improper edit. [6] 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)

[7] 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"[8]
• "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."[9]

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: [10] 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. [11] 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.[12] 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? [13] 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: [14] 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! [15] 1 Oct 2014 for Joni Ernst (who I believe is alive) for this edit [16] (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 [17]. 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

[18] 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 [19] "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. [20] 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" [21] 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). [22] iterated his support thr the SYNTH table. [23] has him asserting that my opposition was "WP:CRYBLP" [24] iterates his support for the table. [25] 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 [26], [27], [28], [29] 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" [30] edits made by Ubikwit stressed the "Jewish" [31]. ("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[32] 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 [33] Charles Pooter (that editor's talk page is heavily invested in attacking me, by the way - see [34], [35], and [36] 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 ... [37] has Buster7 suggesting Palin got "Wiener's emails", [38] says she was "at most a deck hand at sea", [39] 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 [40] 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[41]. 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 [42]. 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. [43] 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: [44] and [45] noting that the complainant has used the term ""psychopathic schizophrnic " (his spelling) [46]. 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:

[47] shows an editor ignoring the clear finding that the "list" was SYNTH and uses [48] 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.

[49] 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?

[50] 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)