User talk:Collect/Archive 32

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 &#124; 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
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. , 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", another pointed out that it encompassed several of the problematic behaviours identified in the ArbCom case, including insinuations without basis in fact and wikilawyering. 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. 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 &#124; 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 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. 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 &#124; 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."  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 . 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)

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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=672765172 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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)
 * asp?privcapid=7621129 Company Overview of Chick-fil-A, Inc.] Bloomberg Business, Nar 25, 2015

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 - 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=675620515 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

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

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
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 . 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)

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)

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)

ANI notification
There is an ANI notice which related to edits you have been involved with. [] — 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 .  "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)

Please comment on Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cyrano de Bergerac. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am sure some US politician has a big nose and an anonymous IP will go to AE with it. Sorry. Collect (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

AE report
I've filed at AE in relation to your obvious violation of 1RR. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Section headers implying that a person has been accused of a felony where the sources do not back the claim seem to be under the nature of required to be deleted by WP:BLP   - but your mileage apparently varies a great deal from mine. Collect (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Law of holes
You made your point. Take the content issue to Talk and - if you value your sanity - leave it at that. Guy (Help!) 11:18, 25 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)
 * 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: . 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. J bh 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)
 * Not: Eagleash (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened
You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 8, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

ARCA notification
You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks,

Anonymous complainant, I am not allowed to even mention your name. Be damn glad. Collect (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

One-way interaction ban lifted
Hi, Collect. Your one-way IBAN from interacting with MrX is hereby lifted. I have so noted in the log, too. Bishonen &#124; talk 21:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC).


 * I would prefer a two way ban - having a myriad of "anonymous" and other complaints makes me feel a tad less than charitable while on Wikibreak.  Collect (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rachel Berry (Miss Oregon). Legobot (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

the "finding of fact"
Collect has edit-warred in US politics articles. ,
 * Passed 13 to 0 at 01:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

4 examples from one person who has stalked every single edit I have made for some years now :(.


 * 1. "Oh please -- no edit summary here tries to claim that there was a BLP violation that needed dealing with (thus reverts exempt from 3RR) -- and it's a good thing that no such claim was made, because there were no BLP violations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)"
 * But several editors agreed with me that stating only one half of a claim is a BLP violation .. and those seeking my neck included:
 * "As someone that has continually had to deal with Collect's wikilawyered BLP claims, at the very least he needs to be warned against that, because this kind of thing is an unnecessary time sink. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC) "
 * "The somewhat backhanded attempt to assert priority of Jr. High grammar over the statements of a notable adult is, at best, a content dispute. The statement of the subject should not be subjected to a reductionistic application of grammar, which is probably a form of WP:OR. There is a substantial difference between "actively" supporting something or "passively" not opposing it. And trying to half-way apply BLP (for exemption) to that would be twisted logic, especially if it were seen to serve as the rationale for engaging in an edit war.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)"
 * In short persistence by two "devout followers of my edits" as the OP never had edited that BLP in his life before. Whatsoever - the only way to find it was by tracking my edits.
 * 2. The famed PNAC case - and the fact is that an AfD on an "article" derived from that page was deleted as clear POVFORK SYNTH.   Treating this as a violation on my part - much less calling my edits a violation of WP:BLP implies the readers never even looked at the evidence - but simply looked and said "Collect got blocked" -
 * Ubikwit stated "The only text I added to the article today was a copy edit to the lead after adding sources for the table and discovering in the processes that the lead only covered PNAC members that had served in an official capacity in the Bush administration, whereas there were also many that served in an advisory capacity. Second, a content dispute related to the table that I restored had been through the processes of a BLP/N thread with consensus giong against Collect and him refusing to defend his position at the end of the thread. I linked that thread on the Talk page today when I posted the sources for the table[221]."
 * The issue was that posting SYNTH claims about living persons is expressly a BLP violation - as the AfD proved. Swarm blocked us both as having interpersonal problems - but did not examine the BLP issue which was, IMHO, settled by the AfD: The result was delete. The clear consensus here is to delete the article, as it has been found to be a synthesized WP:POVFORK.  Note earlier PNAC issues included making a claim that the living persons listed supported use of genocide  through bacteriological warfare.
 * 3. Joni Ernst reported by MastCell.    Issue was whether " stating that “The United Nations has imposed this upon us, and as a U.S. senator, I would say, ‘No more. No more Agenda 21.’ Community planning — to the effect that it is implementing eminent domain and taking away property rights away from individuals" with the concomitant statement "Agenda 21 is the subject of numerous far-right conspiracy theories  is a contentious partisan claim.   I suggest the statement about Agenda 21 was a clear attempt by an editor who damn well should know better to add "far right conspiracy theories" as a claim which implies the living person backs far right conspiracy theories which is a BLP issue.  Did any Arbitrator actually read those edit?  Yes?  Really?
 * 4.   Yes -- accusations that living persons are "homophobic"  -  Panti (Rory O'Neill) alleged that some individuals involved in Irish journalism, Waters and Breda O'Brien, as well as the conservative lobby group  The Iona Institute were homophobic because they opposed same-sex marriage   a contentious claim noting that RTE paid monies as a result of a proposes lawsuit.   If a claim is deemed so contentious that the broadcaster pays monies as a result, I consider that it is also contentious under Wikipedia;s fundamental policies, including WP:NPOV and WP:BLP.  Note the material I deemed to be violative pf WP:BLP has been removed from every single one  of the articles involved.     If I were wrong on the material in the FoF failing BLP, would not one of them still be around as of today?    I would like any arbitrator who thinks the claim is not contentious given that RTE retracted the material and paid substantial money and that Wikipedia no longer makes the claims I objected to, to write below,stating what the errors I made were, and how frequent the errors were in thousands of articles I have edited..

This deals with the extensive proof(?) that Collect violates WP:BLP. I also note the amusing fact that the list of diffs here is called "US politics articles."

In short - the FoF has nil to do with US politics, and damn near nil to do with BLPs at all -- other than the fact the biggest one ("PNAC list) ended with an Afd strongly affirming my position that articles using SYNTH and POVFORKS, or "guilt by association" claims are an evil which Wikipedia should damn well stop.   Collect (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I realize I might be sanctioned for actually demolishing the "finding of fact" - as I am disallowed from ever presenting any evidence as a result of me asking for enough time to actually deal with all the "evidence" at length - but that I can so thoroughly demolish this sham evidence seems to think "fear" was there. For those who seem to like the fact my wife and I may actually never take another voyage in our lives (or said or implied it was fictitious)  - I wish you all the fiction you merit. For the "IPs" who so mysteriously appeared to track my edits - show your damn faces. Collect (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

what ACTUAL BLP violations look like
Added here, , , back to. I think one can gather which editors seem not to "get" WP:BLP, alas. , etc. show repeated desires to clearly violate policy as noted by Drmies at  with "(→‎Sheriff's report:  no no no this is a BLP violation ")  Collect (talk) 18:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

is blatant. repeated. The material had been discussed at, and. As well as, ,    and so on. I would like to find out from others which of those edits were not BLP-compliant. [

is clear (edit summary: ‎Rebuilding America's Defenses: re-add Der Spiegel tranlstion, with citations, ce."   Minor problems though -  - the claim was not congruent with the source at all.  Does the editor relent?  Try  to see how regretful he was about inserting a false claim into an article subject to WP:BLP.  Is "Writing in Der Spiegel in 2003, for example, Jochen Bölsche specifically referred to PNAC when he claimed that "ultra-rightwing US think-tanks" had been "drawing up plans for an era of American global domination, for the emasculation of the UN, and an aggressive war against Iraq" in "broad daylight" since 1998."  really much better -- but at least it no longer says Jimmy Carter said that. If the concept of POV-pushing is too difficult to grasp, the concept of actually lying about what is in a source is not a great indicator of an editor who follows WP:BLP at all. Votre pensées? Collect (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Collect, do you really think that now is a good time to be re-hashing the PNAC and the Pamela Geller stuff? You're topic banned, remember? Now is the time to lay low and lay off, not to go dredging all of that up again. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is evidence regarding the Arb Case - and I made no comments about politics etc. here.  I am pissed at an editor from whom I am interaction banned continuing to take me to dramaboards, and I would ask your forbearance on this. Collect (talk) 21:55, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, are you also following my edits perchance? You legally can do so, but it would be nice to get a reply. Collect (talk) 21:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No Collect, I'm not following you. I have had your talk page on my watchlist since the original PNAC debacle, and we both seem to watch BLPN and a couple other noticeboards pretty frequently, that's all. Any time we've crossed paths (that I'm aware of), that's why. I do think it's a pretty bad idea for you to be going the route you've gone above, and picking a fight with nomo & others just now, but far be it from me to tell you what to do. Sorry if I bothered you, I'll butt out now... Fyddlestix (talk) 22:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you do not feel SYNTH and POV FORKS making an implication of guilt by association are, in fact, violative of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV and WP:OR, simply say so. I suspect other's mileage might vary.    I would kindly ask you to remove my talk page from your watchlist - if you feel you are gaining something by your posts here, you likely are not.   This is also true for others who might unfortunately seem to be following me. Collect (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I really have zero interest in re-treading any part of the PNAC-related debate with you Collect, in my mind it is already ancient history. I must admit, I am hesitant to take this page off my watchlist given your history of quoting other editors, linking their diffs, and criticizing them behind their backs (as you've done with several editors just above). I'd be happy to do so if you agree to do me the courtesy of pinging me anytime you feel like linking, quoting, or discussing my edits - just so that I'm aware of it and can react if I see the need. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * At this point, it looks far more like you can not let go rather than me not letting go. I shall ping you wherever it appears remotely pertinent, as you ask.  The material above is hopefully going to be read by Arbitrators who did not give me the courtesy of posting it before,  and who appear to vote without actually reading the diffs in context which were cited as the reason for their votes.    Collect (talk) 22:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK Collect, works for me. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Requesting your review of the Wiki Education handbook on writing biography articles
Hello! I work with the non-profit Wiki Education Foundation. We're creating a handbook for student editors in higher ed who are assigned to write biographies on Wikipedia. Would you be willing to spare some time to review the text of that brochure and offer comments on the Talk page? You can find it here. Thanks in advance! Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Denali edit / McKinley genealogy
I have a question about this edit. Did you remove the line because you questioned the source, which I believe is RS because it comes from the aggregated website of multiple official Ohio-sponsored McKinley memorials, or because it was a parenthetical? Or because it is "genealogy"? It seems to me the Congressman's statement, expressing outrage on behalf of descendants that, in fact, can't have any feelings about the issue, should be factually challenged. It's well-known that McKinley has no direct descendants; it's surprising that an Ohioan supposedly concerned with defending his legacy would be unaware of that. How can we improve the Denali article so that a casual reader won't take the Congressman's outrage at face value? Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 15:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The parenthetical claim was seemingly made to indicate the person quoted was in error. To add it as a claim to make that implication is a violation of WP:OR - one should use a reliable secondary source making that connection rather than using a parenthetical claim.  In addition, "genealogical claims" tend to be of nugatory value in biographies.  There is no doubt that President McKinley has many living relatives, albeit not descendants, around, so it is unclear what the value is of that claim.   By the way, it is not up to any Wikipedia editors to take umbrage at a claim, but only for us to use what people in reliable secondary sources state.    Collect (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I get that, it borders on WP:SYNTH. If the press picks up on and challenges the Congressman's claim on behalf of McKinley's "descendants", however, we might have a better secondary source to draw on. I've never heard of any of McKinley's collateral relatives weighing in on this issue before, and they are not closely engaged to McKinley historical issues. I appreciate your reasoned reply. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the relatives might indeed have concerns - the use of "parallel and legal names" for the mountain is likely what should have been done - but that is not our concern. Collect (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I for one am looking forward to the press conference of angry McKinley relatives. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 23:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Some paper in Ohio will find a few - controversy sells papers. Collect (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, a president tried to rename "Cape Canaveral" as "Cape Kennedy" - but had not the power to do so. Collect (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Continued topic ban violations
You were banned by ArbCom from "making any edit about US politics or US political figures, in any namespace". You've made two edits about a US political figure at WP:BLP/N, a page which I watchlist and where I regularly participate. The sanction against you doesn't say anything about "political pages" or "political comments"&mdash;instead, it proscribes you from any edit about US political figures&mdash;so I'm not sure why you've emphasized the former terms in excusing this topic ban violation. I'm not familiar with the case at hand and don't feel like digging into it, so I have no idea whether you're "right" or "wrong" on this particular BLP question and I'm not going to "turn you in" for this edit. But you're doing a piss-poor job of respecting your topic ban, having already been blocked once for violating it, let off with a slap on the wrist for violating the associated 1RR restriction, and now this. It's not complicated - this guy is a US political figure, so don't make edits about him. MastCell Talk 20:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * My edit had naught to do with any political aspects whatsoever, and your interpretation would debar me from even commenting at WP:BLP/N.. and thus I find your nice stalking of my edits to be as abysmal an example for any admin as possible. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Editor Interaction Tool belies your claim that you repeatedly just happen across every single one of my edits, even ones where you have never edited on a topic and the topic is not at a noticeboard otherwise. . You are not only an "involved admin" you are so deeply involved as to become ludicrous.   Collect (talk) 12:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

AE
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B025:1B16:3EF:73E8:77D7:9C35 (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You again? And "anonymous" stalking again?  And you expect me to have an iota of respect for you? Collect (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't want your respect. I want you and your obnoxious pettifoggery gone from Wikipedia. Though I admit there's some entertainment value in watching your displays of narcissistic rage every time someone calls you out on your bullshit.  I heartily encourage you to continue violating your (well-deserved) topic ban.  Cheers, 2600:1000:B024:9B2A:807A:3C96:88A9:2F29 (talk) 12:36, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I suggest that this shows exactly and precisely the nature of the stalking and hounding I have long endured - even if no one admits that this is the case.   The above is a wondrous exposition of the type of editor who should be chased away, instead of chasing off an editor who damn well has tried his damndest to follow the "non-negotiable" policies of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV which are so often violated.  Will someone with the courage to do what is right please chase this sort of person away from me and away from Wikipedia entirely?   "Hiding" the evidence of this hounding and poisonous editor  is not what should be done = that editor should be exposed just as much as the UK blackmailing ring has been exposed.  Collect (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

re AN
MrX has lost no chance to jump in once more - but he is the definition of "involved" on this. I respect and only wish he would read the posts here and then judge. I admit that having people effective cheer for a painful death of my relative tends to make me less civil than I would normally be, but the fact is a great deal of my travails are linked to harassment, stalking and hounding, some evidence of which had been sent to ArbCom without any response at all - assuming the members I sent it to actually take their function seriously. I do ask how you would feel at this point with such posts as I have faced - and "walk a mile in my moccasins." Collect (talk) 15:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)