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

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

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

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

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

Sound "collegial to you?

Some of my essays:

WP:False consensus

WP:KNOW

WP:Advocacy articles

WP:PIECE

WP:Defend to the Death

WP:Midden

WP:Baby and Bathwater

WP:Wikifurniture

WP:Contentious

WP:Sex, Religion and Politics

WP:Editorially involved

WP:Mutual admiration society

WP:Source pH

User:Collect/Collect's Law

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)[reply] 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)[reply]

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

Hi, regarding your changes to the article listing politicians at the federal level convicted of crime-- I looked at the talk page and there seems to be no consensus on what a politician is. So I deferred to the wikipedia definition of a politician. The politicians I put back into the list are all high ranking political appointments that meet the wikipedia definition of a politician. From your past edits to the article I get the general impression that you rather arbitrarily declare a political appointee as more administrative than political and then declare them not a politician. What exactly do you believe does and does not make a political appointee a politician?Lance Friedman (talk) 13:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A "politician" is a person who is normally described as a "politician" in reliable sources -- where the BLP of the person does not even use the term, it is highly unlikely that reliable sources call the person a "politician." That you personally know that all appointees are "politicians" is, unfortunately, not regarded as a "reliable source" for Wikipedia policies, especially the policy of WP:BLP. And next time - post at the BOTTOM of talk pages per normal Wikipedia custom. Collect (talk) 13:43, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK next time I start a new conversation I will post on the bottom of the page. Back on topic. Where are your reliable sources defining the word politician? I am going by the definition in the wiki article: politician That is my reliable source. What is your reliable source???Lance Friedman (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a reliable source )see WP:RS) specifically calling a person a "politician" the policy WP:BLP applies - placing a person on a list of "politicians convicted of crimes" is a "contentious claim" from the start. And it is what reliable sources say and not what we wish to claim that counts on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 17:02, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you learn to argue by reading the Daily Mail?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And from later in that same source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The current community sanctions are lifted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For my Jewish friends: Lo alecha hamlacha ligmor.

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

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

Collect, I do urge you to reconsider, irresepctive of what I might consider to be the merits (or lack thereof) of the ArbCom decision. Nelson Mandela was wrongly arrested and jailed, but did not give up, and look where he ended up. By running away, you allow them to win, and/or show that they were right. By sticking around, dilligently working on the outside of the prescribed limits, you prove them to be wrong. Perceived injustice is only turned into justice by running away ES&L 17:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not dead - but I endeavour that this shall be a Pyrhhic victory for those who back such results. When called to task for quoting TR, by a person who apparently disdains any "hard to understand words", then it is fairly clear that Wikipedia really has some choices to make, n'est-ce pas? Expect an interesting ACE2013 essay inn this userspace. Collect (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, for reasons completely unrelated to you, I have not been following a great many things on Wikipedia lately, including the tea party thing, so I didn't even know you were topic banned. That aside, I'd just like to say that if you leave, I'll miss you. Whatever you do, take care of yourself. Best.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a while, you will be the only person left really protecting BLPs. I dasn't (archaic) edit there because who knows what "broadly construed" means -- I know that some senior (poobahs) apparently do not regard them as a serious issue <g>. It looks from here that "chronophagous" is the single most apt term for a runaway ArbCom. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume this is au revoir instead. KillerChihuahua 03:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to turn NW's page into a general talk page, so I'll comment here.

I urge you not to make too much of your point:

It is of no minor interest that User:KillerChihuahua specifically stated that I ought not be in the list, and she was the original complainant here. Cheers.

Cases usually take on a life of their own, and while nominally about named participants, often grow. I don't think the original editor to file a case has any special privilege regarding its scope.

Which reminds me of one of my early concerns about Arbcom process, which still troubles me.

I think an early step in the case ought to be a proper determination of scope. I am fine with the notion that the scope might change as evidence is provided, but it ought to be explicit: lay out an initial scope, and modify it openly if it needs changing. I literally want a Scope section, which may need updating over time, but clearly identifies the scope. While some of the closely involved participants may scoff and argue that the scope is obvious, one of the points of the case documentation is to...well document the case. I've reviewed some old cases, sometimes because I explicitly wanted to know if some aspect was in scope, and I literally had to read the whole case and draw a conclusion. It shouldn't be that hard. I should be able to read a scope section and know.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to find the Verfahrenanschauung of Arbitration committee members. Where no concept of proper procedure is found, the concept of proper result is also then undefined. After seeing one comment on Jimbo's talk page about using foreign terms makes me perversely inclined to use them where they accurately fit <g>. Collect (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Collect.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 23:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick courtesy reply: My statement as made, stands. Collect (talk) 21:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you have commented my additions to the article Occupation of the Baltic states, stating that "this stuff not directly related to the Baltic states". Other users agreed on the talk page that such information could be added. Plus, the article already has the "Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces" section, which, for some reason is not deemed unrelated to the topic. My changes directly concern the topic, since the article's title is Occupation of the Baltic states, and they were occupied by Germany and served in their ranks. This article mentions occupation by the USSR and how those nations served in its rankes during WWII, but doesn't mention how they served in Nazi Germany's ranks. So please undo your changes, since two users didn't object the inclusion of such section (see the talk page). Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.200.135 (talk) 13:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the other section already mentions that there were Baltic nationals in the German forces. The stuff about what German forces did is, however, not properly in this article. I reduced it to the fist. Saying what non-Baltic nationals did is "right out." We have to stick to the precise topic as stated in the lead. There are other things in the article which can well be shortened (including the Soviet forces section) - but I left two strong refs for the claim as stated. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article mentions Holocaust and German occupation. Baltic nations participated in it. How can one mention Holocaust and German occupation and not mention Baltic nations? It looks biased. Or, as you say some things may be shortened, why not to shorten Holocaust and Soviet forces sections? To shorten one section and not to shorten the other look "strange" to say the least. You should have either removed or shorten all unnecessary things, or leaved my suggestions until you or someone else had the time to shorten everything redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.200.135 (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article already contains such references! Some Latvians and Lithuanian conscripts collaborated actively in the killing of Jews, Baltic nationals fought in both German and Soviet army ranks, Some Baltic nationals served in German forces during WW II, engaging in the killing of Jews and others now presents three statements ... how many are needed? Collect (talk) 14:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Than what's the point of having such big sections regarding "Holocaust" and "Baltic nationals within the Soviet forces"? If you don't want to do it than I can do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.200.135 (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recall being the one responsible for those sections - so please be angry at someone else. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But you basically killed my section. Now it turns out you are not responsible for them. The other two users approved my suggestions. And why do you think I'm angry at you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.200.135 (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No sound reason, I fear. When something is in an article three times, that is generally considered enough. That you feel others agree with you is neat, but not relevant to the colloquy here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using your logic, the whole article (and other articles in Wikipedia) should consist of ~10 sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.73.200.135 (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that a great many Wikipedia articles are, indeed, too long. See Joseph Widney now and [11] as it appeared before I edited it. Collect (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my edit to the Chip Rogers article, claming '"Searcy" is relant to Searcy. The ownership of a radio staton which he had previously owned and one of the new partners apparently returned his share is not generally considered criminal in nature, as it is presented here'. Searcy is relevant to the 'Agenda 21' presentation that Roger organised; it was the content, and it was the controversial nature of Searcy's remarks in a talk organised by a prominent state politician, which caused the media articles to take notice. I used the facts from the existing reference; without them, the article is mystifying. No-one would know why a talk on 'Agenda 21' would be worth noting in a Wikipedia article. You are the one saying the ownership looks 'criminal'; it appears to be against FCC regulations to not have reported this, and given there is already controversy about his appointment to Georgia Public Broadcasting, and this is being reported in several Georgia media outlets, and could be a conflict of interest in a government-created job, it is noteworthy. I ask you to undo your edit. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alas -- what a speaker says is not always directly relevant ("relant" was a typo) to anyone other than the person speaking -- thus Searcy's quotes are relevant to Searcy, but not to Rogers. WRT the ownership of a radio station - it looks from here that one of the new partners essentially returned his share of the station to Rogers - likely to not being able to pay the price of that share. This is far from unheard of when dealing with sales of businesses to partnerships, and, unless the FCC takes some specific action, is not all that important. Ownership of a radio station does not, per the source, seem the same as employment byt that radio station, so any speculation requires far stronger sourcing that you provided. And, in normal usage, "criminal" means "violating the law." Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of 'Agenda 21' without what was notable in the presentation would be meaningless. It was noted in the media because of the unusual content. The concurrent ownership of one radio station and the public employment of another is also notable, and was noted. It is not 'speculation'. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 15:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retained "Agenda 21" and the explanation that the meeting was called at constitutent request. The slideshow claims about Stalin and Mao are not directly claimed to have been made at the meeting, nor that Rogers had anything to do with those claims. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Scott Alexander (politician). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bot. Read the top of my page - I am on Wikistrike. Collect (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[12] See also [13] to see the spoor of my very own personal stalker. Collect (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you happen to have a source on it being used as an example of a bad movie by Disney?LM2000 (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I didn't see this before messaging you. Might be of some interest [14].LM2000 (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted on a number of pages as being "featured" at the Sci-Fi Diner at Hollywood Studios. [http%3A%2F%2Fwww.brianorndorf.com%2F2010%2F04%2Frestaurant-roam-the-scifi-dinein-theater-at-disneys-hollywood-studios.html&ei=q3E3UorhPITI9QSynIHIAg&usg=AFQjCNHbOlpFAq58Q7-QxxfXuODDogcdYw&sig2=NJcxNACY8TfJ6U-eUyps_w&bvm=bv.52164340,d.eWU], etc. [15], [16], etc. [17] Newspaper-blog " Connecticut had its own Ed Wood, an actor, director and entrepreneur named Del Tenney who made a series of truly awful pictures in the Stamford area during the 1960s, the most notorious of which is “Horror of Party Beach,” a 1964 drive-in quickie about an atomic mutation that terrorizes Stamford (“party beach” was actually Shippan Point). " Tell ya what -- watch it. Collect (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you used an edit summary to me of, "(cur | prev) 19:43, 17 September 2013‎ Collect (talk | contribs)‎ . . (47,883 bytes) (+417)‎ . . (→‎CCA found in contempt of court = WP:UNDUE?: hobgoblin of little minds?) (undo | thank),"[18] I am going to ask you to please not personally attack other editors in edit summaries or anywhere. It won't win consensus for your edits. Thank you. --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

It is a quote "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" [19] by Ralph Waldo Emerson which I had assumed was well-known. I trust this explains the use of the quotation - the edit summary field does not allow extensive quoting, alas. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit summary appears to indicate that I am familiar with the quote. Someone else being familiar with the quote or not, does not give you the right to suggest that editors with whom you disagree are "foolish" or "little minded." --(AfadsBad (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

As it is an extremely well known quotation, I did not think a gloss was needed, but shall consider your position the next time I make a literary reference. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, you have personal interests in the CCA article, and intend to attack anyone who disagrees with you. I will watch your edits for future issues. --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I have absolutely no connection with CCA, and prisons, or anyone associated with CCA or any prisons whatosever. All I do is try to improve articles -- vide Joseph Widney etc. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a bystander, I'd just like to say that I don't see any grounds for thinking that Collect was calling anyone a hobgoblin. In context, Collect seems to have been asserting that consistency would dictate mentioning lots more contempt-of-court incidents in other Wikipedia articles if such incidents are mentioned here in this article. So, to the extent Collect was questioning (note the question mark in his edit summary) whether anyone is mistakenly seeking consistency, that would most likely have referred to Collect himself. There was no accusation of being a hobgoblin as far as I can tell, nor an accusation of small-mindedness. I could be mistaken, of course. (I hope that the editor who had a fleeting comment here will scribble all of this in his notebook.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely and succinctly put. Collect (talk) 00:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Anythingyouwant. Taking this as a "personal attack" is ridiculous. It is quite clear that Collect was just saying something like "perhaps it is a mistake here to seek strict consistency", and AfadsBad is, I'm afraid, being hypersensitive in taking it personally. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits like this one risk making you look a fool. As I know you are not a fool, I counsel you to think long and hard before making any further edits of this type. Are you in need of a Wikibreak, perhaps? --John (talk) 12:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well -- I guess WP:NPA is beneath your dignity? Try cooling your own jets, and kindly note that People magazine also is "not a tabloid." When making a WP:POINT it helps to have a large cup of tea yourself. And what precisely upsets you about proper use of noticeboards? BTW, if you look at the top of this very talk page, you will see I am on Wikistrike - die to a strange and malformed ArbCom process which was not even followed by ArbCom. So what "edits" are you actually upset about? Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Er, ones like the one I posted? Off for a cup of tea now... --John (talk) 12:37, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which Arbcom decision you are upset by, but for what it's worth I sympathise; I've seen them at their worst more than once. I also noticed this: "Articles which make "allegations" make bad encyclopedia articles, especially when any sort of POV can be attached thereto. I suggest that articles subject to WP:BLP in any manner which make allegations be strongly constrained." I completely agree with this, and I wonder in light of this why you would want to fight to use tabloid sources on BLPs? It seems like quite a contradiction. --John (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am strange -- where a source has been the topic of noticeboard discussions and consensus, I tend, for some outré reason, to abide by that consensus and not be a "bull in a china shop" (literary allusion - I am not calling you an animal here, just using an old adage (for the benefit of my very own personal stalker [20])) Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon you must be talking about Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement where you were topic-banned for six months for what look like some pretty innocuous comments. You really do have my sympathy. --John (talk) 18:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep -- topic banned for six months for using Teddy Roosevelt's mild "bosh and twaddle" phrase about a hypothetical "example" given by an editor is a very civil discussion -- I am half-tempted to point out the language routinely used by some editors <g> The "allegation" issue is, indeed, a "content dispute" for which your proper course would have been to call it "contentious" and requiring at least one additional source. The concept that we can simply declare a major newspaper "media non grata" where such has not been done on the proper noticeboards is quite iffy. Collect (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if anyone notified you, but your !vote has been moved to an entirely different section and will apparently be discounted.[21] The same thing happened to my !vote, so I created an Abstain section where I repeated my concerns.[22] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Hello Collect, Lionelt has given you a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie, for your faithful service and commitment to Wikipedia! You see, these things promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a delicious Chick-Fil-A sammie! Enjoy!

I appreciate that you're unhappy about an ArbCom decision, and rightly so. But you say: "ArbCom has made the singular worst decision in its history." To know that, you would have had to have studied all of those decisions. Have you really done that?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I read all the major decisions in the past six years (not many more than a dozen are "major") (checking out, inter alia, the principles applicable to 'false consensus' etc.) -- I suppose they may have made some bad decisions prior to that - but I stick to what I know. The current Manning decision, however, makes for a great "daily double" indeed. Banning editors for their sincere opinions on any issue is not a wise course in the long run at all. In this world, people disagree on a great many issues, but it is beyond the bounds of common sense to assert that particular opinions are "correct" and the opposite opinions are "wrong." In history, a great many "wrong opinions" have ended up being a great deal less wrong that people averred. Folks who deliberately troll are quite another matter, of course, as are people whose statements contravene law. Cheers. Collect (talk) 02:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you'd like to talk about the abortion case sometime, just send up a smoke signal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'tis the season

Louisa Venable Kyle wrote a children's book on The Witch of Pungo - The wrong decision about the "witch" was corrected 300 years later ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to work done by a cousin some years back, I am related to at least one of the Salem witches <g>. Let us trust that the eligible voters for ArbCom show more common sense than some of the arbs seem to possess. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an easy voters' guide last year: just listed who of the arbs-to-be got Precious. Innocent me then. After barely surviving my first arbcom case, it will look a little less black&white this time, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In requesting an edit summary removal by an IP at ANI, I referred to the analysis of the sources that you had done. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#request_BLP_edit_summary_blanking -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that editor seems bent on ignoring policy :( Collect (talk) 13:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This [23] was so obviously a topic ban violation my first instinct was to rat you out to WP:AE, and then I recalled how lame the arbcom decision was ... my second instinct was to fix the article, but then I'd be encouraging you to continue make ban violating edits. So I decided to do nothing and let someone else deal with it. Reviewing the situation and seeing getting into stupid arguments with AC clerks and an AE admin .. not good. I've spent enough time in the dark wiki-places to know that, yea, Wikipedia "governance" often sucks, but it's a better place if there are editors; and you losing the rest of your editing privileges in some Don Quixote quest for justice that will probably never happen will not make the encyclopedia a better place. Let it go, edit elsewhere, and either like the sanction clock out or appeal after the election to the new committee. NE Ent 01:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was about the decision per se and not about the article -- thus I suggest that it is a protected category. Are you saying that I can not refer to the decision in my ACE2013 page, by the way? BTW, the "decision" is under appeal at this point, so I am not sure about "letting the clock run out" as being any sort of "solution" at all" and more than "Thank you - may I please have another" is a good "solution" for a student. Cheers. Collect (talk) 07:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

=

I have started User:Collect/ACE2013 presenting the questions I feel will be salient to my support or opposition to any candidate for the Arbitration Committee. Please feel free to link to it on your own pages, of course. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 15:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The lady doth protest too much" is quote from Hamlet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:58, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if it were properly used - no problem. The problem is that the quote was misused in a series of personal snide comments. The implication is that the person is actually lying. IIRC, one ought not accuse another editor of prevarication. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Resilient Barnstar
	You are the pride and joy of Wikipedia! Without people like you Wikipedia would not move forward! Banaster Giver Extra Polite (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, could you clarify what you asking in your second question? I've read through it a few times and it's not quite clear to me yet. Thanks in advance, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent case which I can not name (see Lord Voldemort), one or more arbs stated or implied that sanctions could be imposed on named editors sans any connotation of any finding of wrongdoing on the part of any such specifically named editors - the argument, in fact, was made that a decision which "cuts the Gordian knot" did not require anything more than the judgement of ArbCom that it was a "solution." Is it proper that a solution which says a sanction requires no findings at all is proposed? Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's much clearer. I've now answered all of your questions; feel free to take a look! Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're making life (or at least running for ArbCom) difficult for me.... I appreciate that you are interested in what I would do or think should have been done in that cartoonish (Tom & Jerry) Marvolously Riddled decision. I think it would be better if I declined comment, unless I can phrase my answers in a more hypothetical context than you or I would like. (I prefer "ban them all, Jimbo will know his own.") I'll have to think about that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted to AGK, simply assume these are questions posed by an instructor -- you may interpret them as you wish, but they are being asked equally of all candidates. The only really bad idea from my viewpoint is to not answer at all. If you wish, you could always look at the famed Scientology and New Religious Movement and other decisions and discuss them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At User:Collect/ACE2013. Do I wish more had made some sort of answer? Yep. But I did find 13 qualified candidates IMHO, and ask that readers consider the results of this exercise with an open mind. Can candidates still answer the questions? Yep. The only absolutely wrong answers are "none" and any which suggest that the questions are invalid because "a quote was not a quote", or the like. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

===ArbCom Election===\

My opinions as a result of a series of questions made of candidates and their responses are at User:Collect/ACE2013

Seen and liked! I also asked the candidates a series of questions. I am tempted to ask the sitting arbs the same ;) - The two of them who seek to be elected again looked at the evidence (!) and answered well, but then those were two open to changing their minds. I don't give my opinion on the answers, but by awarding "Precious". The link is on "vote" on my user page. Believe it or not, I added an infobox, and it was not reverted ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you are extremely active on the BLP noticeboards I am hoping you can help out with this problem as it has been discussed on the BLP noticeboard for over a week[24] without any independent editors weighing in and commenting. An editor reverted three edits I made to the article Franklin child prostitution ring allegations for "BLP violations." I went to the Talk page and requested clarification on how the edits violated BLP. The editor became abusive and three other editors came to Talk to support him, yet in four weeks of discussion none of the editors have quoted a single BLP policy that is being violated. The editors keep referring to personally "know[ing] that this incident is a hoax and a conspiracy theory,"[25] making straw man arguments[26] or making ambiguous claims of a BLP violation by citing the entire Wikipedia page WP:BLP. The discussion was taken to the BLP noticeboard where the four editors are still declining to justify the reversions and are instead relying on personal and Ad hominem attacks in reply to my posts. The following are the three edits in question:[27][28][29]
Also, in late November 2013, text that had been in the article since May 2012 was deleted for not being fully referenced, I replaced it with the missing reference[30] only to see it immediately deleted with the comment "revert per BLP [as] it is not specific, accusatory, insinuation and guilt by association". This time a specific reason for the violation was eventually given (WP:BLPCRIME) but I'm not sure it applies as a court of law, albeit civil, found the person in question guilty. I honestly can't see how the edits violate anything and would appreciate your input. Wayne (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I used to be active there -- I now stick only to the most egregious cases -- if you read this talk page, you will note that there is an ArbCom election going on which will likely determine whether I ever return to my former level of activity. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear you may not continue. Can you suggest another active editor who may be able to have a look at the BLP problem? Note that I accept I may be wrong (although I don't think so) but I require a reason, not rhetoric which is one reason why I chose you, you posted above that you believe BLPs should be "strongly constrained" so I figured you would be fair in my case ;-) BTW...I was named as a party in that ARBCOM with a request for me to be banned although I never edited the article at all and only made three or four posts in Talk!

You have made a statement in the clarification request relating to Argentine History. This message is to let you know that a motion amending the original decision has now been proposed. You are welcome to add comments on this motion underneath your original statement. Thanks, AGK [•] 11:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	Purrrr!
	I didn't want to disappoint you by not acknowledging your witty comments/edit summaries at SPI. You brought a <g> to my face. L'Chaim! - MrX 01:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sure -- but my cat is about five times the size of the kitten <g>. Collect (talk) 01:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

|}

This looks to me like a clear violation of WP:POINT: [31][32] What do you think? Roccodrift (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Pure BS" to use a mild term. I used to see socks converse at great length in forums <g> but since as a wizop I could see their node (exact phone line they dialed into), the play acting by them so many years ago was a matter of laughter in private sections! Collect (talk) 01:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, I really recommend (for your own good) you stop digging. This will not end well for you. Steeletrap (talk) 02:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh -- I hardly have any interactions with you -- and you choose to make a threat? Wow! Collect (talk) 11:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're seriously calling that a "threat"? This is WP; all I'm saying is that it's in your interest to close a remarkably poorly documented SPI, especially given that I'll do the IP scan if some goof actually buys into your goofy logic. (Seriously, that 2% stuff is embarrassing; do you understand that the percentage between two numbers is much more important than the fact that they're both a small proportion of our total postings? e.g. the difference between (for example) 0.4% and 0.1% is as great as the difference between 40% and 10%) I'm trying to help you here, big guy. Steeletrap (talk) 12:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your article overlap (65% of his mainspace edits are in articles in common with you) is known, your likely time zone is known (PST), your arrival within minutes of each other on multiple articles and on multiple noticeboards is known, your use of language ("conform" in edit summaries at about 10 times the rate for average editors) is known, his arrival as one of the "first responders" as AfDs you start is known, and the simple truth is that I have had negligible interactions with either of you -- until now when you seem intent on hounding my user talk page. Kindly leave. BTW, take a course in statistics of small numbers. The difference between 2% and .1% is huge over 300 or more edits (the .1% is measured over 1000 or more edits and is considered statistically significant to be between about .03 and .2, a measure of 2% over 300 or more edits with summaries shows a minimum of .6% and a maximum of about 3.5% with a fair degree of certainty. The lowest figure is well beyond any Wikipedia average -- the difference between 40% and 10% for any large number is astronomical.) Seriously. Collect (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Those seem to lean towards inappropriate edit summaries, discussed here and here. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:51, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think that MilesMoney was a sock of Steeletrap. However there could be a connection between Steeltrap and StillStanding-247, formerly 24.45.42.125, as both are from the tri-state area. MilesMoney reminds me of Dylan Flaherty, an editor you may remember. They are both from Toronto, edit articles about LGBT, Christianity and the American Right, get involved in BLP disputes and spend a lot of time at ANI, both as complainants and respondents. Dylan Flaherty was blocked 23 December 2010 and MilesMony appeared 16 July 2013. TFD (talk) 02:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. DF had a longer "off" period each day -- not editing from 8 to 17, with some edits from 12 to 14. MM skips 8 to 13 -- the odd thing is that if both are in Toronto as you think, that sort of schedule is not what I would expect -- usually off hours are "sleep time" for most editors. I recall Dylan being quite annoying for sure. One thing for sure -- MM is a reincarnation of somebody who ought not be an editor. Thanks. Collect (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collect, what you're doing here is deeply offensive to the basic principles that Wikipedia is built upon. Editors come here and freely contribute their time and effort, but ever since the peak in 2007, there've been fewer and fewer, mostly because of people like you who make it their job to get rid of editors who threaten to change Wikipedia for the better. Your little Conservative Cloud -- let's just call it a cabal -- has been trying so hard to find illegitimate reasons to get rid of me, Steele, Specifico and anyone else who follows policy but disagrees with you. This is the exact opposite of being collegial: you are trying to assassinate your colleagues. The way you conspire here with TFD makes it completely obvious that you are not trying to improve this encyclopedia, you just want to get your way by eliminating those who you see as the opposition.

Such efforts require the cover of night, the cloak of legitimacy, the semblance of honesty, but the light is shining bright upon you now and there is nowhere to hide. You tried to attack Steele by claiming she was me. Didn't work. You tried to attack me by claiming I was Stillstanding. Didn't work. How many more pathetic, obviously dishonest efforts do you need to try and fail with before you realize that you've made a joke of yourself? The moment you step into SPI, whether directly or through yet another spineless proxy, diffs such as this one will be posted to show that you're lying. The night has ended, the sun is up. Time to scuttle back under the rocks. MilesMoney (talk) 04:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Roccodrift (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If MilesMoney has only been editing since this summer, how would he know about the good ole days of 2007? Lucy, you have sum esplainin to do.--MONGO 04:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense:

1. Google for "Wikipedia editor decline" and click on the first link, http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/520446/the-decline-of-wikipedia/
2. Read the part where it says, " The number of active editors on the English-language Wikipedia peaked in 2007 at more than 51,000 and has been declining ever since"
3. Look around and see if anyone noticed your error. Slink away.

HTH. MilesMoney (talk) 05:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well gollie! You done musta looked that dare thingee up before you made yer comment above then. But I still don't get it Mr. Money...what in the name of green acres does 2007 mean to you...I mean, what the heck do you care about 2007 for? We also had more editors in 2008 I betcha. Maybe even 2009? Its all because of Collect anddat darn Conservative Cloud I reckon?

The other thing I wondered about is whether you know what a tell is? You see, in Poker, its that giveaway, that little tweak a person might show that allows the careful opposition to spot the bluff. When doing word structure and format analysis, I can spot certain things that might not stand out to the casual observer...sockmasters and those using multiple accounts at the same time make it even easier since they oftentimes talk to themselves...and award themselves barnstars...stuff like that...truly idiotic stuff, because, well, they're idiots.--MONGO 05:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clue above unless you're clueless.--MONGO2

Are you saying that you're the sockmaster and Collect is the sockpuppet? MilesMoney (talk) 05:38, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What account did you edit under before registering MilesMoney? TFD (talk) 05:48, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miles, You completely missed the clue didn't you...omg...I can't believe it!--MONGO 05:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MilesMoney is now fully disinvited from posting drivel on this talk page. TFD and I are "conspiring"? On what planet? Collect (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miles -- Stay away - really! You were already asked here

To all lurkers: User:MilesMoney is now community banned from all of Wikipedia. /He had indicated he would appeal the ban, but at this point two weeks later it does not appear he shall return. Collect (talk) 15:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ROG5728 (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a comment after yours on Jimbo's talk page on how FTC regulations may apply to certain cases of corporate editing on Wikipedia.

I was curious if you felt my commenting on such issues is appropriate, being that I myself often contribute with a COI. Some editors have given me barnstars for my contributions to the COI discussion, quoted me in other discussions and said I had great ideas, but there have been a couple cases where there was a "hey, don't you have a COI with COI!?"

I think I use to be inspired by the idea of being part of the solution, but I have since come to a more bleak forecast on whether it is a good use of my time. CorporateM (Talk) 01:01, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo has often stated that (other than people who he feels have abused his good nature and told not to post) any editor should feel free to post on his user talk page as an open forum. So - no problems with "COI on COI" there by a long shot! Happy New Year! Collect (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well... a while back and soon after a comment I made, he said the problem with COI discussions was that every time it came up, editors with a COI swamped the discussion. In another case he said that "something needed to be done" (or something along those lines) about my "exploiting" AfC, by disclosing my COI and submitting articles there. But Wikipedia is not a good place to be overly sensitive about such things or hang on every word. Even though I do the exhausting work of chasing down volunteers to participate in articles they are not necessarily interested in, I'm sure I would still draw his ire for not following the Bright Line strictly.

Anyways, I'll just keep commenting away, but avoid being too aggressive about it or anything. Thanks for letting me ramble about it on your Talk page ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 01:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Collect. I saw the article, which drew me to the Kenneth Fredette page. As I edited the talk page, you edited the comment controversy section in the article. I found another reference that seemed to place the matter in context and I edited the comment controversy section accordingly. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested clarification from ArbCom regarding Gun control and that article's possible inclusion in the Tea Party movement topic ban. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that I stay six degrees of separation from TPm at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that members of the Tea Party sometimes visit Wikipedia, which therefore means the whole project is within scope.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LOL -- I would hope that the arbs have an ounce of common sense. ...... Collect (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that is the exact amount. Who knows.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really just say that?--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comments are in -- they do, and they clearly do not regard all of Wikipedia as being TPm related. . Though I canna believe that anyone would try saying Paul Ryan is closer than six degrees of separation either, but a non-arb does. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Phil Robertson". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 00:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing at WP:RFC where there should be a new section separate from where the RfC template was placed. A new section indicates a discussion not related to the RfC. What if we just create a section specifically for the RfC (after my comment) and have the "Survey" and "Threaded discussion" subsections mentioned at WP:RFC? Unless you are looking at guidelines I haven't seen yet. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 16:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If one looks at many RfCs one will note that comments are listed as a section -- that you have not seen this and I have is interesting. Anyone closing should be able to discern this, I trust. Collect (talk) 16:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I've usually seen the Survey/Discussion subsection model at the RfCs I've encountered. You don't think that a new section heading below the template implies the start of a new discussion? After all, if navigating via TOC, the RfC template is skipped. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appended my comment to the non-comment -- since one editor thinks a source saying a film said something becomes a separate reliable source for an allegation -- that appears to be the problem. Do you think "the film acuses xxx of being gay" is a separate source per WP:RS from the film for stating the allegation? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is that these allegations are not exceptional nor unique to the film. It is easy to find reliable sources apart from the film covering these allegations and the responses. From what I can see, the film Outrage is just part of this coverage that these public figures were already dealing with. I do think that based on the WP:WELLKNOWN example that stating their general responses to the allegations would be warranted (as I just stated at the RfC). Erik (talk | contribs) 16:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that all the sources given (or nearly all) trace only to that film. The requirement is that extremely strong sourcing is needed for such claims about sexuality etc. Cheers -- please note the history of "sexual allegations" claims at WP:BLP/N Collect (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the film's article body, I agree. I think that these secondary sources were added per WP:BLPPRIMARY. However, there are also secondary sources that cover the allegations and responses, regardless of the film. Would it help at all to reference some of that coverage as preexisting and/or independent context? Erik (talk | contribs) 18:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the secondary source traces back to the film, it is not a secondary source for the allegation in the first place. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. What about pre-Outrage coverage? Post-Outrage coverage that does not mention the film is not going to make it clear if the allegations came from the film or before, but it would be a source acknowledging the ongoing of the allegations as well as responses. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where there exist reliable sources (WP:RS) making allegations, and they are "strong sources" then such meets the requirements of WP:BLP. Where the sole original source appears to not meet those requirements, including sources which simply quote the filmmaker and film, then they can not attain a higher degree of strength than the original source has. WP:WELLKNOWN applies only to actual WP:RS sources, which the film clearly does not meet for making claims about any living persons. Simple. Collect (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, I just making a general point on User talk:Jimbo and not opining on the content of this article. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NP -- just wanted to make sure my strong feelings about BLP were not misplaced <g>. Collect (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment here,[33] is there a policy or guideline that actually says this? I thought there was, but when I looked up WP:HEADINGS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP, I didn't see it. Perhaps I was thinking of WP:TALKNEW? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MOS states A title should be recognizable (as a name or description of the topic), natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with the titles of related articles

Main page is WP:Article titles

Which states the ideal article title resembles titles for similar articles, precisely identifies the subject, and is short, natural, and recognizable.

Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy

Which states:

In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity.

Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue (for example, an article titled "Criticisms of X" might be better renamed "Societal views on X"). Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing.

So yes -- multiple Wikipedia policies impact on this - and clarity and neutrality are key issues per policy. Collect (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about something. A few days ago, you basically accused me of following you around and hounding you, because I responded to a post of yours on User talk:Jimbo Wales (where I've been fairly active over the past year). That was sort of silly, but OK. Then yesterday, I posted to Wikipedia talk:Administrators—a page where you haven't set foot in several years—and you immediately jumped into the discussion to disagree with me.

I'm not suggesting that you should be disallowed from posting on Wikipedia talk:Administrators, regardless of how you arrived at that particular page and that particular discussion. I do think you should be a little more careful in throwing around implicit accusations of hounding, lest they seem unintentionally ironic or outright hypocritical. MastCell ^Talk 17:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- I have scrupulously avoided you. That I "had not set foot in several years" on a board is not evidence that I am doing anything out of the ordinary. Nor do I jump into any discussion to disagree with someone. You might ask "Andy the Grump" whether I have any such predilections at all. [34] shows that I had actually posted on that board more recently than you had, and with a gap of just over three years compared with your gap of over four years. If you check, you will find that I have in the past made posts about what "involved" means, and thus it is scarcely odd that I iterate my position. And I regard "demur" to be a very reasonable and civil tone to take, to be sure. I apologise if you feel that I ought not demur with ought you say.

In the past six months you have replied to my posts at [35] with an edit summary directed at me unrealistic expectation,

[36] asking people to take responsibility for the content of their edits seems like a bare-minimum standard for participation here, and it's disappointing to see an experienced editor evading responsibility like this,

[37] I'm surprised that it's necessary to remind you that this sort of thing is unacceptable. all on this user talk page,

[38] I don't see any "casual disregard" for WP:BLP here,

[39] Collect, you're accusing Brad of disregard for WP:BLP and grossly misrepresenting his point, both of which are indications that you've officially jumped the shark and should step back for awhile.,

[40] I don't think this is an ideal solution, but it's a reasonable choice among several unappealing alternatives all replies to me on Jimbo's user talk page,

[41] As you decline to participate in discussion on the subject, I will remove the material cited to Newsbusters from the article per WP:BLP. ,

[42] I'm simply asking whether you believe Newsbusters to be an appropriate source for contentious material in a biography. I shouldn't have to go to the noticeboards to get a response to that question,

[43] My concern was that you'd restored unsourced disparagement of a living person. As you know, there is no exemption for BLP violations based on how long they've been in the article., all from the Mike Nifong talk page and all being your replies to me,

[44] Riiiight. Do you want me to find more instances where you've insisted categorically that the Daily Mail is a reliable source? ,

[45] sourcing which meets collect's criteria for reliability, etc. all being your replies to my posts,

[46] where you tell an editor that a query was made As a courtesy note, Collect (talk · contribs) has opened a discussion at WP:NPOV/N of content which you and he have been disputing from the Daily Mail article. I didn't see that you'd been notified, hence this note., etc. whoch shows that you clearly sought this one out on your own.

Oh and over thirty other examples in the past six months. And you accuse me of following you on a topic I had previously posted on various noticeboards?? Really? Or as you say "Riiiiiight" Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what point your diff-bomb is meant to illustrate. Yes, those are all instances where I've commented in response to something you've said. Several are from Mike Nifong, an article where my participation predates yours and where I intervened to correct a very serious BLP violation on your part (you inserted an accusation of professional misconduct against Selena Roberts without any supporting source). The other diffs are largely from the BLP noticeboard and Jimbo's talk page—both venues where I've participated widely and where my participation is in no way focused specifically on you.

Also, let's be clear. I'm not accusing you of anything except being too quick to throw around silly accusations of hounding. MastCell ^Talk 19:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see -- your complaint is about a post not directed at you, not even mentioning you, and not a reply to any of your posts. And that upsets you. God knows how you would react if I replied to one of your posts, mentioned your name, and directed my post at you. LOL -- Please have a gallon or two of tea. BTW, when reverting a wholesale excision of longstanding material which you had amply prior opportunity to remove, and then acting as though I were somehow the one person in the entire world to blame for what you saw as a BLP infraction either means I have powers far beyond those of mortal men, or else you may have overreacted a teensy weensy bit. I shall let the lurkers here make up their own minds. Collect (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think that the message you left on my talk page about "bots do job better than people can" may have been intended for another editor as I don't understand how it applies to me. I assume you intended it for the editor who reverted your edits on the Rene Vilatte article. Cheers, Anglicanus (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Likely so. Cheers. Frze now told about the bot. Now we can chop down some of the excess vegetation. Collect (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to take a round stone / And try to bounce or flip it...

Proposed

That an independent administrator re-examine the finding at [26] that "option 2" has a clear consensus for adoption in the TRM/BB/M AN/I discussion.

was posted by me at WP:AN. Spillover may occur on this UT page, and I shall remove any intemperate comments. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you've reverted that troll again, do I need to have that list posted? If not, feel free to delete. It's a duplicate from my own talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the next time the troll acts on that page, that it will get blocked by a clueful admin somewhere in this world - if such there be <g>. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong feelings either way but the capitals look right to me. I am a White man. An albino is a white man. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We use MOS as a rule - meaning we should use lower case. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is kind of weird. I revert my edit to your version, you revert the reversion, changing it back to my version. You said, "When "white" is used as an adjective,..." Here Black is used as a noun, not an adjective. What are you thinking? Rick Norwood (talk) 23:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing what CMOS etc. use as standard style really. Did you read the link I gave? Collect (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just reminding participants that East Germany falls within the scope WP:Discretionary sanctions per Arbcom here. Please see recent comments at talk:East Germany. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NP -- I am pretty much sticking to pointing out that making claims without any sourcing other than what the editors "know" is problematic there. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nice word. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syn. "ArbCom." Collect (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inter alia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editors would require five hundred good edits before they could substantially alter any prominent politician's biography. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not just "prominent politicians" - I would require 200 edits other than minor edits for any BLPs at all. Collect (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Split proposal discussion on the Gun politics in the U.S. talk page that may be of interest to you. Lightbreather (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article was mentioned on BLPN. Please take a look at it when you get a chance. Thanks. Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]