User:Collect/archive2015c

Unreserved Apology for SPI Report

Hi Collect, since the SPI folk apparently have evidence that the people I though were sock(s) are not you, and as promised, I am posting an unreserved apology for the SPI report - mea culpa. I humbly retract any and all accusations I made against you. Feel free to post a stern lecture or shame me on my talk page, whatever you put there I'll leave up to remind me not to jump conclusions in the future.

I know it must look like I was just throwing out a wild accusation because of personal bias. I hope that some part of you can understand that a reasonable person might find it suspicious when two different accounts that have gone through very long dormant periods start to edit an article that has recently been involved in an edit war, and that they might look to the people who had been involved in that conflict as possible culprits. I confess I've fancied myself a bit of a sockhunter in my time on wikipedia so far (In the ~2 months that I've actually been active here, I've reported two, both of which were actually cases of sockpuppetry). I was a tiny bit please with myself about those, and have been keeping my eye open for possible puppetry. Perhaps too open. I was over-zealous, and I apologize for besmirching your rep.

One last thing I'll say in my defense: you seem to have quite the reputation and quite a lot of friends here. But as someone who has only been active on wikipedia for a short time, I regret that I haven't had the privilege of interacting with you much, and that my introduction to you was the conflict on the PNAC page. I hope that if/when our paths cross again, you won't hold this (too much) against me - I will certainly try to be respectful and obviously avoid making any other undue accusations! Fyddlestix (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

TY -- and I note that several folks were involved in making inferences of socking on several pages on the project as well (sigh). I trust you will avoid making such a splash in the future, to be sure. At least the PNAC article has been rid of the worst SYNTH last I looked. By the way, I have no "enemies list" and shall not have one. Collect (talk) 07:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I note an editor asserted: Where there are a range of different views on a topic, all of them are supposed to be reflected in the article in accordance with their respective prominence in the sources . The problem is that conspiracy theories are considered WP:FRINGE per se. Giving any undue weight to them is contrary to Wikipedia policy. It is not "prominence" which counts - it is whether a theory is considered fringe by the mainstream scholars on the topic. U.S._military_response_during_the_September_11_attacks does not include Meacher at all. Nor does United_States_government_operations_and_exercises_on_September_11,_2001. September_11_attacks_advance-knowledge_conspiracy_theories#Intelligence_warnings does explicitly cite Meacher's theories. Note Meacher is a leader in the 9/11 Truth movement "Fringe" without any doubt. In short - no reason under Wikipedia policy to give "equal time" in any way to the vocal conspiracy mongers. In short Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). And Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. When we legitimize conspiracy theories by using SYNTH lists of "they all were Masons", "they all were Jewish ethnicity", "they all were Russians", "they all were (fill in the blank)" or anything of that sort, we violate Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

One of the problems I have with this is the use of "fringe" becomes more and more a thought-terminating cliché used by totalitarian societies to prevent questioning official government narratives that may not be true. And if you are familiar with the 9/11 literature, then you know that many mainstream sources question the official narrative without resorting to conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, or any other errors in thinking. Our article on the criticism of the 9/11 Commission touches upon some of these ideas. Viriditas (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I assure you that I am far from a supporter of totalitarianism. The Meacher case, alas, fulfills the essence of "fringe". Are you, moreover, suggesting that the US is specifically such a "totalitarian society?" If so, I demur on such a counterfactual view of the US sphere. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the apparent call for revolution in the US a WP:FRINGE position as stated by Wolin on the Truthdig site?

Again from the truthdig cite:

“You need a professional or elite class devoted to profound change,” Saul said. “If you want to get power you have to be able to hold it. And you have to be able to hold it long enough to change the direction. The neoconservatives understood this. They have always been Bolsheviks. They are the Bolsheviks of the right. Their methodology is the methodology of the Bolsheviks. They took over political parties by internal coups d’état. They worked out, scientifically, what things they needed to do and in what order to change the structures of power. They have done it stage by stage. And we are living the result of that. The liberals sat around writing incomprehensible laws and boring policy papers. They were unwilling to engage in the real fight that was won by a minute group of extremists.” “You have to understand power to reform things,” Saul said. “If you don’t understand power you get blown away by the guy who does. We are missing people who believe in justice and at the same time understand how tough power and politics are, how to make real choices. And these choices are often quite ugly.”

Is this a fringe view? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Again nice straw man - I like how you double down with "violent revolution. Frame the question without the hyperbole and it would be interesting to engage on. As to what you quote, think metaphor. Jbh (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

And the truth is it sure does sound like violent revolution being called for - did you read Saul's position? And Wolin's? And the ideal that 'special wonderful people will be the one's to hold power after all the meaningless democratic bits are gone, and these folks will have the need to make "ugly choices"? and it does not read like a "harmless metaphor" at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like to you, not said by him. As to the "special wonderful people" sounds a lot like Leo Strauss from what I recall. Jbh (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Instead of your hyberbole from Truthdig let us look at what Wolin actually has to say on the subject and how a scholar makes use of it.

"As soon as the Asia-Pacific war ended, the debate ensued as to whether Japan's political formation of the 1930s could rightly be called fascist. For the last half century, we have repeatedly returned to the futile dispute over whether that which contemporary local intellectuals analyzed and condemned under the name fascism in Japan during the 1930s was really a form of fascism, and whether Japanese fascism could qualify as such since some of its features clearly contradicted the definition of fascism in general, whose [End Page 161] authenticity is seen as derived from the history of the West. How frequently has the absence of a grassroots fascist movement in interwar Japan been mentioned as a condition that disqualifies any social or political movement from being fascist? Today, however, this is exactly the feature of the current U.S. reign that such liberal political scientists as Sheldon Wolin describe as "inverted totalitarianism." Wolin provides an illuminating analysis of present-day American society: "The crucial element that sets off inverted totalitarianism from Nazism is that while the latter imposed a regime of mobilization upon its citizenry, inverted totalitarianism works to depoliticize its citizenry, thus paying a left-handed compliment to the prior experience of democratization. Where the Nazis strove to give the masses a sense of collective power and confidence, Kraft durch Freude (or 'strength through joy'), the inverted regime promotes a sense of weakness, collective futility that culminates in the erosion of the democratic faith, in political apathy and the privatization of the self."[3] The use of the term inverted signifies that "while the current system and its operatives share with Nazism the aspiration toward unlimited power and aggressive expansionism, their methods and actions seem upside down. For example, in Weimar Germany, before the Nazis took power, the 'streets' were dominated by totalitarian-oriented gangs of toughs, and whatever there was of democracy was confined to the government. In the United States, however, it is the streets where democracy is most alive — while the real danger lies with an increasingly unbridled government."[4] According to this definition, then, was Japanese fascism of the 1930s already inverted?" Bolding and emphisis mine. -Jbh [3Sheldon S. Wolin, Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought, expanded edition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 592. [4]Sheldon S. Wolin, "Inverted Totalitarianism," Nation, May 19, 2003, www.thenation.com/doc/20030519/wolin.

Jbh (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Or possibly this from that bastion of revolution The Johns Hopkins University Press.

In order to conclude these reflections, it might be helpful to briefly dwell on Wolin’s recent treatment of the transformation of political form in the United States; namely, on Wolin’s Democracy Incorporated, where an impassioned critique of the transformation of US political form under the reign of Bush Jr. is traced and where lines of enmity are drawn. In it, Wolin magisterially traces the role of elites in truncating democracy in the United States, and though he overstates the nature of the changes between Bush and its predecessors – something that Wolin’s own writings of the nineties attest to – he offers a nomenclature of political forms that provides an important clue to understand the present predicament of power.30 With more than dim echoes of Horkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment, in Democracy Incorporated Wolin argues that forms of total power, or totalitarianism as he calls it, can take different forms, even if the animating principle remains the same. Equipped with this caveat, Wolin thus challenges prevalent, self-satisfied accounts that will reduce the experience of total power to the historical instantiations of the past century and dismiss the idea that a deeply anti-democratic form of total power has crystallized in the United States, especially after 11 September 2001. Previous to this juncture, Wolin has argued that the nineties were distinguished by what he called an heir to the Economic Polity, the idea of Superpower which embodied a benign form of total power in its capitalist, neoliberal guise. Once more reverting to Aristotelian taxonomies, in Democracy Incorporated he identifies Superpower as the good political form that characterized the US of the Clinton years, with its booms and other neoliberal avatars, and Inverted Totalitarianism with its perverted form. Namely, if during the nineties democracy in the United States has been housed, and thus continued to be rendered domestic, by what Wolin calls Superpower, in the first decade of the millennium it became further subjugated by Inverted Totalitarianism, Superpower’s perverted form. Bold mine - Jbh

Damn, that is some really FRINGEy stuff. Who would have thought that there is a mainstream liberal political philosopher who thought the 1990's US was a better place than post 2001. Of course what is said in Truthdig is much more accurate than the peer reviewed literature of the field. <g> Jbh (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Vazquez-Arroyo's summary/abstract means what here? It is not an official opinion of JHU to be sure. It is V-A's opinion.

all of it by the newly minted president, who a few months later became a Nobel laureate for peace, thus lending a new lease of credibility to the benign face of American imperium, even if the war on terror is now Obama’s war (the continuous reliance on the mercenary armies of Blackwater has also become his.

And yet, we live in democratic times. At least this is the strange message one not only hears in the corridors of power in the west and across the political spectrum, but also among intellectuals: at one pole of the political spectrum the Freedom House celebrates the twentieth century as “the democratic century”; on the other, we have figures of impeccable leftist credentials, like Tom Nairn who asserts the awesome spread of democracy and the possibility of recasting a democratic form of national identity even if the spread of democracy has implied diluting it of substance. Also on the left, one finds the wide-eyed miraculism of Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri’s now complete trilogy (Empire, Multitude, Commonwealth), who despite having European, mostly French and Italian theoretical signposts, is drenched with chronic American upbeatness and the pieties of the “can do” credo whose popularity is in inverse proportions with its political import

Does Wolin's revolution get into the summary? Nope. Not even a word. But you find a mention in the full paper - where the author finds it not worth placing in his summary's first 700 words (which has a readability of 19 -- which I managed to wade through reasonably quickly). The interesting, but totally unreadable snippet you give has a readability of 9. It is, in fact, less readable than the abstract I cited above. A readability index of 9 translates into a grade level of 20 (post-doctoral in the field) to comprehend. Indeed, V-A is not endorsing Wolin in that shard, he is saying "this is what Wolin argues" after avoiding mentioning him! Cheers -- but that sort of "mention" is exactly what one means by "fringe". And as an exercise, I invite you to rewrite the unreadable stuff into any normal language (French, German or English are fine by me, I never got past eight weeks of Greek, an introductory Russian dictionary, and four years of Latin, and I got into trouble using the wrong flavour of spoken Spanish in Mexico <g>). Collect (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

These are the sections of the papers that deals with Wolin, not abstracts. Earlier, I remember you complaining that Wolin was only discussed in the introduction not the main text - now you say the source is no good because he is in the body but not the abstract??!!?? Bah. Just what do you want some guy writing a paper saying "This paper is about Wolin.... I agree with Wolin...Wolin is god.... " Never going to happen.

You now seem to be defending a position just for the sake of defending it. Why do you expect a Wolin in the summary? Who said it was an "official opinion of JHU" such a thing does not exist. It is however one of the pre-eminent university presses in the country and not known for printing crazy stuff. As to 'endorsing' Wolin, the very use of him is an 'endorsement'. One need not agree with another scholar to endorse the validity of their position. None of what you said above addresses the point. And what is this Wolin's revolution stuff? Why would someone address a mis-read metaphor that exists only in your view gleaned from a popular press piece from TruthDig. It might be WP:RS here but it is crap for describing what scholars think about another scholar's thesis. Also, try addressing the text, readability scores are not on point and have nothing to do with acceptance. Red herring - caught and released. <g> Jbh (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The "popular press piece" is an extensive series of interviews with Wolin. Are you saying that Hedges did not interview Wolin? That the quotes are wrong? (note - they are a verbatim transcript of the video interviews). Usually a person's own words are sufficient to state that they are the person's own words. Are you saying Chris Hedges is not a notable person to conduct such interviews, that he is merely "popular press" here? And the wording from Wolin did not sound "metaphorical" at all - and a metaphor which does not sound like a metaphor is a damn poor metaphor. By the way, an unreadable passage where my reading is substantially different from your reading, is a splendid exampled of why absurdly low readability scores frequently indicate a real problem with prose. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me back to your talk page. I think the debate has passed its 'sell by date' since the chance of either of us changing our position is zero without radical and highly improbable information coming to light. I have enjoyed our conversation though. I am sorry you thought I was being snarky about your block my intended emphasis was on help pass the time not your block no snark was intended. Enjoy your day! Cheers. Jbh (talk) 16:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The material you quoted and bolded I waded through. The source does not state support for those positions. You averred Or possibly this from that bastion of revolution The Johns Hopkins University Press where the JHU has naught to do with whether Wolin was properly cited above as supporting violent revolution. In fact this source that you give does not negate that cite and quotes. And the material you give from this cite (which I deciphered) does not support a claim that V-A supports Wolin's thesis. ::::Lastly you aver using Wolin in an article at all is an endorsement of Wolin's arguments. Do you really, truly, present that as a claim? Using a person in a short piece where they say "In order to conclude these reflections, it might be helpful to briefly dwell on Wolin’s recent treatment " (where I suggest "conclude" means this is the end of the topic, and that V-A will only treat Wolin's latest arguments "briefly") becomes a resounding agreement with Wolin? "Conclude" and "briefly" are reasonably clear words here.

V-A calls this an " an impassioned critique ", "he overstates the nature of the changes ", " challenges prevalent, self-satisfied accounts" etc. sound like not a very ringing endorsement, frankly. Collect (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

As an interlude, I would like to point out that one of the tried and true propaganda tactics is to deliberately associate peaceful people with allegations of violence. And when those claims fail, they often find themselves accused of sex or drug crimes. This has been a successful tactic for more than a century to destroy critics and popular movements. There are entire books written about this subject. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Vazquez-Arroyo is trying to destroy a popular movement? I did not see V-A accuse anyone of sex crimes, for sure, but the quotes he gives appear to stand for themselves. I would be amazed if V-A were doing anything of the sort at all. Or are you asserting the Truthdig quotes are faked? [1] seems to quote people as saying:

think the proper emphasis should be on discussing it carefully, that is to say, I mean by carefully not timidly, but carefully in the sense that we would really have to be breaking new ground. And I think it’s because of the nature of the forces we’ve been talking about that constitute a challenge, I think, the like of which hasn’t happened before, and that we’ve got to be very sure, because of the interlocked character of modern society, that we don’t act prematurely and don’t do more damage than are really justifiable, so that I think revolution is one of those words that I’m not so sure we shouldn’t find a synonym that would capture its idea of significant, even radical change, but which somehow manages, I think, to discard the physical notions of overthrow and violence that inevitably it evokes in the modern consciousness. And I don’t have a solution to that, but I think that that’s required.

A faked quote? If so, then I agree we should not use Truthdig for anything on Wikipedia.

So I think we do have to start striving for a new kind of vocabulary that would help us express what we mean by radical change without simply seeming to tie ourselves to the kind of previous notions of revolution.

Seems fairly clear there.

Well, I guess I'm not quite certain. I'm not quite certain in the sense that I think your formulation would rely more than I would on trying to persuade the powers that be and the structure to change course or modify their behavior and modify their beliefs, and I don't think that's possible. Or if it's possible, it's not possible on a large scale. There might be deviants and rebels who would. But I really think it's--I mean, to have the form that I think would really justify calling it revolution, I think it has to be generated and shaped outside the power structure, and I think because what you're trying to do is to enlist and educate groups and individuals who have not had a political education or experience of much of any kind, and so that your task is compounded. For those who think the basic problem is just seize power, you're still confronted by that in that formula with a population that's basically unchanged, and that you then face the kind of cruel choices of forcing them to change so that they can support your structure, so that the real, I think, really difficult challenge is to accompany the attempt to gain power with an equally strong emphasis on public education that makes it, so to speak, a potentially responsible repository of that power.

Is that faked as well? I would not have thought Hedges would so mislead people. Ah well -- guess the folks at Truthdig are not to be trusted, right? Collect (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:HARASS

Collect, please stop attributing these ideas to Wolin when you are citing other people. If Wolin has not advocated violence in his published work, then you need to stop making these smears. The only person I follow on Truthdig is Robert Scheer, who is more centrist than you might think. In any case, I don't believe in violence, but I do believe in a revolution of conscience, a spiritual revolution that takes place in the mind of the individual when one finally realizes for the first time that the cultural values one is born into are not set in stone. Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I am attributing nothing at all -- I cited Truthdig which has a series of interviews with Wolin, and all I did is use exactly what that site says Wolin specifically said, and what Hedges specifically said. If you feel that are fraudulent, complain to Truthdig. Accusing me of fabricating the quotes is abhorrent and a gross personal attack, so I trust you would not try that maneuver. There is no national institution in the United States “that can be described as democratic,” he said. is from [2]. Is that a fake quote of some sort? If you persist in attacking me for what others say, I would consider such an accusation to be in bad faith. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You have misinterpreted analogies and metaphors, and cherry picked discussions to try and make it seem like Wolin is calling for jihad. That's absurd. Please review his published work (linked above) and find this alleged call for violence. It's not there. Please find the call to violence in the concept of inverted totalitarianism. It's not there. Please find the violence in his lectures and interviews. Again, it's not there. You're really reaching to try and smear him. Surely you can find a single reliable source that paints him as fringe? Just one? No? Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I used the exact words found in the Truthdig pages. That is how Wikipedia works - we use what the sources say, not what we know to be the "truth." I trust you will agree that I quoted the source precisely here. And I would note I never used the word "jihad" in this discussion whatsoever, and that makes it look like you are, indeed, reading words into my posts which are simply not present in the first place. Have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect, please stop with the original research and provide a single reliable secondary source that claims Wolin is fringe. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:HARASS and stop it now. Collect (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

ANI discussion

FYI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment.2C_hounding_and_baiting_by_Viriditas_at_User_talk:Collect NE Ent 11:42, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Bradspeak: Bias and prejudice

The Signpost's interview with user:Newyorkbrad piqued my curiosity, whereupon I found the following quotation on his current talk page [3] (permanent link).

Bias and prejudice

"An editor must not engage in a pattern of editing that focuses on a specific racial, religious, or ethnic group and can reasonably be perceived as gratuitously endorsing or promoting stereotypes, or as evincing invidious bias and prejudice against the members of the group."

— Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs), adopted by the WP:Arbitration committee, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander#Bias_and_prejudice

This (now traditional) principle and its rational/bureaucratic authority, beyond its luster from Brad's charismatic authority, may be useful in your ongoing saga.

LLAP, Dear ODear ODear (is a) 15:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I missed reading your comments....

...so I dropped by to see whassup. WTH? Couldn't believe my eyes. Things keep getting crazier by the minute. I brought you a little something for comfort. Atsme☯^Consult 04:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

hypothetical question for discussion on this user talk page

Buffalo Bob Smith, Howdy Doody and Clarabell starring in the Howdy Doody Show!!

Posit a totally hypothetical person writing in a blog something on the order of:

The vast majority of mass media corporations in the world have Jewish owners, and seek to cultivate a certain disposition among the viewing public, even though Nazism was simply a reactionary sociopathic movement.

The same is true of Orthodox Jewish settlers in Israel. At least some of those opposing the Jewish theocratic agenda in Israel are not subjected to being called "anti-Semitic" as many self-righteous Jews are apt to do.

I would not call such a person "anti-Semitic" but I might, alas, have some minor doubts as to her suitability to be an absolutely objective editor on any blog or the like. Would I be too judgmental with such a position? How would others feel seeing such a blog post? (the prior discussions on Wolin seemed fruitful, although the odd-mitten on Florida being a "fringe state" seemed (oranges notwithstanding) less fruitful). Collect (talk) 20:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm naive, but I believed such bias and bigotry had waned in the 60s forward, yet I am seeing more of it today than ever before. I so prefer the days of VW Bugs painted with flowers and peace signs, sheepskin vests, leather sandals, "hot skirts", and round spectacles - a time when we loved one another and didn't judge others - a time when we laid on the floor in the basement of a building downtown and listened to loud music (which I'm paying for today with minor hear loss). But even more enjoyable were the days of Howdy Doody and the clown that made us laugh, perhaps because I was much too young to know how much hate there was in the world. Do we really have to use contentious labels which in themselves are judgmental? Doesn't the inline text attribution say it all if preceded by the qualifier, "opposing view"? Atsme☯^Consult 16:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"For hate is strong and mocks the song/ of peace on earth, goodwill to men" Collect (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I have complained about your conduct at ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Collect...don't bother responding to this latest bunch of bullshit. I've seen about enough of Fyddlestix and he's going to find himself facing sanctions if this witch hunt persists. Let latest nonsense go unattended.--MONGO 09:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

  Ditto. [4]. Feeding frenzies attract attention.[5] Dear0Dear 09:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

And I wonder how AN/I ever got the nickname "drama board".<g>. Even a person who specifically and blatantly harassed me on this talk page (and is banned by an admin from doing so again) has leapt head-first into that fray! Happy Saint Patrick's Day!

And in an Irish toast:

Saint Patrick was a gentleman,
Who through strategy and stealth,
Drove all the snakes from Ireland,
Here’s a toasting to his health.
But not too many toastings
Lest you lose yourself and then
Forget the good Saint Patrick
And see all those snakes again.

Sláinte Collect (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Guy's closing of the ANI thread (after seemingly unanimous support for your work among uninvolved editors at ANI) and the overwhelming support for your position at the AFD discussion should assure you that your work is supported by the community of editors, even if it is unpopular on a few pages. Dear0Dear 15:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

per "Collect's Law" ("he who repeats the same arguments the most - is least likely to be correct")

Bytes posted by a single unnamed, and unidentified in any way, editor within under three weeks all basically making the same WoT assertions about me in project space main pages:

Over 42K bytes directed specifically to me or specifically about me (that is, referring to me by name).

This is on the order of writing 16 short novels a year for a writer. Put to writing new articles, such energy would yield a tonne of acceptable stubs (more than 30 every week it would appear - or 1500 in a single year) Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The section title raises the question, according to whose perspective? (imaginary smiley emoji) Lenin and Alinsky believed in repetition - tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it - which may prove your point, but perhaps not quite from the perspective you envisioned. Of course, the opposite would also apply to repeating the truth, aka verifiable facts. There's also the science of repetition in that it's not just a memory technique, repeating and reinforcing information for long-term memory is a necessity. Maybe not what you wanted to read. European psychologist Hermann Ebbinghaus was credited for introducing learning and memory retention to the laboratory where he clearly demonstrated the value of repetition and rehearsal to encode information into long term memory. Lasting recall of information "improves significantly with repetition." [6]. I don't see an issue stemming from he who repeats rather it stems from what is being repeated and to whom. Atsme☯^Consult 17:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Query

Hi Collect. I was wondering if you would be amenable to having a one-on-one discussion here about some concerns I have about your conduct that I propose may be at odds with Wikipedia's behavioural guidelines. I think you should be given an opportunity to respond to the concerns openly, and at a venue with a higher signal-to-noise ratio than Jimbo's talk page or ANI. Please let me know if I have your permission to start such a discussion. Thank you.- MrX 13:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I have found the number of venues where people act in an accusatory manner to be quite sufficient at this point. I would, moreover, suggest the AfD discussion makes clear that my position is not a solitary one, and that while I may be more careful with BLPs than some other editors like, they generally respect my position rather than accusing me of lies and of calling anyone "anti-Semitic" is the type of post which I find disconcerting and violative of talk page guidelines, and violative of common decency. ("You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" comes to mind here)

You might also note that where one single editor manages to write about me at the rate of 16 short novels per annum <g>, that I consider my additional capacity for still more venues is a tad limited. In fact, it appears you have made a number of posts concerning me, and I wonder whether you would, in fact, be far better off in a status of disengagement about what you assert to be "behavioural issues" where I find the primary issues are at the core of Wikipedia policy - that WP:NPOV and WP:BLP are non-negotiable policies applying the case at hand, and that asserting these policies is not a "behavioural issue" on my part at all. Cheers, and enjoy the toast above. Collect (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Mr X,

What do you imagine you have to offer, particularly after MastCell has already been active in discussions?

Return to the talk page of Jimbo Wales and to ANI if you feel a need to offer unwarranted advice. Dear0Dear 15:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I think you are saying no, but please let me know if I erred in my interpretation. My concerns go well beyond the PNAC content issues that have surfaced at multiple venues. Nonetheless, it seems that we starkly disagree about whether there are conduct issues, so unless you advise otherwise, I will disengage from raising this again at your talk page. Kind regards.- MrX 16:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I had thought my comments were sufficiently clear. And I suggest that adding more drama boards to any mix will not accomplish what you might appear to wish. Happy SPD! Collect (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the ANI closer missed the post where I said I did have a sanctions request

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Jbh,

Please read Guy's closing remarks, which had the key words "vexatious" (always difficult for me to spell) and "original poster", and please consider striking your post. Dear0Dear 15:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Funny enough even little 'ole me can disagree with an admin. I have nothing more to say on the issue here. Feel free to comment at ANI. Jbh (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You radicals keep POV pushing your baloney and decide to file an arbcom case I'm going to add all your names to the case and show up with a laundry list of diffs...all named parties will be scrutinized and I won't shut up until you're all sanctioned. It might be best if the lot of you cease posting here with your sanctimonious attitudes. You can take that as a formal warning and I don't make idle threats.--MONGO 16:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Jup. [7] Dear0Dear 16:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dear ODear ODear: That is perilously close to a physical threat. I handle those in a very different way. How about you strike that so we do not need to start down that road. It is a funny video and all but I do not know you well enough to see only humor in it. Thank you for your understanding. Jbh (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Um - is your post serious? Suggest you view all of Blazing Saddles and have a jumbo watered-down Cherry Coke with it. Collect (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@MONGO: Wiki-threats? Bad MONGO bad... LMAO that you think I am a radical or a liberal or anything like that. Thanks for the diff though. I will keep it close to my heart with all the other cute things people have said to me. Ta. Jbh (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Collect...keep it short and sweet, don't respond to the baiting baloney...that goes for everywhere. Long winded suffocating pleas to have you banned should be put in their place.--MONGO 17:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that the success against me is being used as a model against you. Best of luck and make sure to dig up every single diff you can find. I personally had neither the time nor the energy to play that game. Arzel (talk) 05:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

The committee likely reflects the overwhelmingly left voting block of Wikipedia editors....and I dare say I would be shocked if they are able to leave their biases at the door and look at more than the diffs and actually examine the more intricate nuances. MrX coming after both of you but defending a lefty that has had five blocks in the last year makes me nauseous.--MONGO 09:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

At some point you have to ask yourself, why even bother? I saw the latest row. Given the current pace, it is probably better to just let everything devolve quickly. There will soon only be one perspective allowed, as the group is intent on removing anyone who disagrees, and not for breaking the WP pillars. Everyone already knows that these articles are full of crap and not to be trusted anyway. Better to let a critical mass of BLP's in real life bring the hammer down since WP seems to only care about perceived civil discourse and nothing about NPOV. As one of the few remaining that actually is trying to maintain the WP pillars, when the hammer comes down on you (and it will as he has provided a ton more of minor crap against you (Collect) than he did me, his defense of V shows this to be very clear) the inmates will truly be running the prison. Arzel (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Support solicited

Will someone provide a list of my BLP edits with which they agree to ArbCom as "evidence" of my earnestness in defending such without regard to any personal political positions (I am, in fact, what used to be called a "Rockefeller Republican" in case anyone really wants to know - and a devout follower of the precept "Always do right - this will gratify some people and astonish the rest.)"

With kind regards as I, on strong principle, decline to participate in the ArbCom "case" currently being presented - with such evidence being given against me as my essays listed above! Beware of people tasting blood, by the way. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that there's an ArbCom case about you. I'm not sure if I can give you any helpful advice. My own philosophy toward ArbCom is that they can do whatever the hell they want to me, but I have decided to minimize contact with them. I view their activities as profoundly corrupted, not necessarily by the Arbitrators themselves (who may or may not have honorable intentions), but by those who abuse their system, and by the defects in the system that allow such abuse. I'm sorry this means I cannot provide any of the support you have solicited.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• MrX apparently wants you site banned. Please document the number of times he has come after you and other political foes and the number of times he has defended those that he aligns with.--MONGO 05:20, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

See [8] and work from there as I am not going to spend dozens of hours documenting what some editors have done to me and others. Ikip boasted of driving off about twenty editors if I recall correctly - and I wasted far to0 much time dealing with their faults when the ones who had minds already made up would just look at anything I said as trash. I have outlasted Ikip and some of his crew - some remain, and I think that is truly sad. I have never kept any "enemies list" on Wikipedia, and find those who do seem to keep one to be quite sad examples of humanity, at best. With regard to the recent harassment, I gave detailed evidence to several arbitrators whom I trust shall share such. Collect (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Trying to thread the needle

At U.S. request for mediation, trying to thread the needle in the poll returns between B1-2 “national jurisdiction", and C1-2 “federal republic consisting of”, —

D.2. The United States is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, as well as a federal district and other territories in its national jurisdiction.

This can be parsed in various ways which accommodates the major divisions among editors as I see them, with an eye to include ALL initial participants.

• a) The federal republic consists of 50 states, as well as a federal district and other territories. or,
• b) 50 states, a federal district and other territories are in its national jurisdiction. -- or —
• c) a federal district and other territories are in a non-state status. — or —
• d) a federal district and other territories in its national jurisdiction but outside the federal republic.

I do not believe d) is a correct inference from the ambiguous statement, so I would like a clarifying footnote citation from the State Department “Common Core Document” to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights, noting Item 22: "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions." and, item 27: “...outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands." [9].

Any thoughts in response to this redraft, --- or any main principles up front, in response to Sunray's invitation below for a priori Principles-for-objection before trying to reach an accommodation or redraft among the poll responses? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

See the ArbCom case - I am being quite successfully harassed from Wikipedia. If ArbCom does their proper job, I will be cleared in three or four months. That is a hell of a long time IMHO. If they do not do their proper job, they may ban me entirely, or topic ban me from anything remotely connected to politics. I shall not give them any excuse as my every edit has been examined by those who would find evil in my acts. Meanwhile - the harassers have quite won. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Regrets... thanks for your constructive contributions here, even though we sometimes disagreed. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

TY -- I find harassment from others to be tiresome indeed - the complainants seem upset at all of my essays even! And when some of them can post more than 14,000 bytes per week individually in their efforts - that is a level of effort I can not be remotely able to match. (To answer on that scale would require me to devote full time to answering each "allegation" no matter how trivial the claim might be). Collect (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I shall proffer no additional evidence on any arbitration case. This page, in itself, is all the evidence I shall provide. Collect (talk) 12:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

They won't consider it. All they will do is read what he has provided and make a judgement on that. And he has thrown a lot of crap at the wall, some of it will stick just by pure statistical chance. Arzel (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If they do that, they will be violating their stated position - on the TPm case, in fact, AGK searched out evidence that no one at all other than he had provided! Note that no one disputed my stated position at the outset that the statement contained my full evidence statement, by the way. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you, it just appears they only use what is on that page. I didn't have the time to fight him when he came after me, and just assumed that other evidence would be used. It was ignored, heck even some of my statements on that page were ignored. best. Arzel (talk) 15:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If that is how they view simple requests made from the word "go", then I have little else to say. The goal is a valid decision, not a procedural (fill in the blank). Collect (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)