User talk:Collect/archive1/archive 11

Practice

The practice is to discount indef blocked users if they are block evading. Not if they made a legitimate sock free contribution before they were blocked. Polargeo (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting dichotomy you seek to claim. Alas, not what I found in the past on WP process pages. Collect (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Global warming

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Global warming and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Please do not change comments already replied to without making that change very clear. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I noted it as an emendation and italicized it - how else should I have made it clearer? Collect (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've usually found it useful to use strikeout and a clear note what was changed and when, so that readers can understand what others replied to. Or, to make it simpler, just restate the modified proposal completely below. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Which would be true of any comments I made - but scarcely applicable to the proposal - especially when I took your concerns in account in the emendation. Indeed, I would have thought you would give approbation to the changes. Collect (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why there is a difference between the proposal or any other discussion. Any reader who does not check the history will get the impression that my comment refers to the current version. That is why such changes are not acceptable. As for the substance, that addresses one of my concerns, and is a clear improvement there. But it does nothing to address the others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You feel that your position that it would be misinterpreted is not aided by the emendation? Which concern is now the chief problem for you? Tha purpose is to make it right, not to engage in debate. Thanks! Collect (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No. How is a reader supposed to know that your "claims that this is over-broad" refers to my comment that, according to what the page currently claims, happened 20 minutes after your text? My other concerns are listed on the BLP talk page, where we should discuss the content questions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

All one would likely realize is that material in italics is new. Especially since I left a parenthetical note saying exactly that <g>. Collect (talk) 23:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

climate change RFC

You wrote:

Thus nothing which affects that rule can be established here, most especially any requirement in a belief that a "scientific point of view" exists, or ought to exist, or should be given any special status whatsoever.

Are you saying that WP editors should treat the concept of scientific consensus as invalid or improper? Thanks. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am saying that WP:NPOV overrides anyone claiming that "scientists agree that thus and such is Truth." Scientific "consensus" is the same as consensus in any field - that is, it should be fairly and proportionately represented. It should not, however, be used as an argument to debar other points of view or opinions, nor should it be used as an excuse to place other views in a bad light, or to suggest any impropriety or venality on the part of those with differing views. Collect (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could give an example of an article that has had such a problem--thanks again. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

What counts is that several editors stated that the "SPOV" should be regarded as privileged. I found that to be a disturbing POV in esse. Collect (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any statements in the RFC that the SPOV should be regarded as privileged, though maybe they exist in other venues. Anyway, you seem to be saying some unclear or mutually conflicting things: 1) WP should act as if there is no such thing as an SPOV; 2) there is an SPOV but it shouldn't be treated specially. So I'm having trouble seeing what you're getting at. In particular I'd like to know how you propose to assess the weight of authority for scientific vs other viewpoints on clearly scientific issues (e.g. the effect of carbon emissions on climate change), as opposed to non-scientific topics (e.g. whether person X took action Y for an improper or venal reason).

FWIW, I notice that your arbcom quote appears to be from Russavia-Biophys[1]. It would be helpful if you mentioned that in your statement, for ease of location if someone wants to examine the context. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Reread the CC discussions. You will find cases where the favoring of some "SPOV" is mentioned as a goal. The ArbCom quote is material found in many ArbCom cases - not just the Russavia case. I cited it as being the most recent iteration of the statement, not as the only one. And my point is that no POV should ever be regarded as privileged. BTW, my background is in Physics, where no POV is ever regarded s privileged. Case in point - the long held belief that matter and anti-matter are in balance. They aren't - and the latest papers indicate that perhaps they never were, and that the "dark matter" theories may just be wrong. As for the claims of venality, read some of the histories of the BLPs of some of the "septics" as one editor calls them. Collect (talk) 11:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Since you are the one making claims, I think it falls on you to supply examples of what you are claiming. I do see a suggestion of SPOV by Count Iblis[2] but I wouldn't attach much significance to that. I've had interaction with Count Iblis in the past; IMO he is well-meaning but pretty naive about how WP works. I don't think he's been editing CC articles but I might be mistaken about this. You still haven't answered my question about how to determine weight of authority about a scientific question, when scientific sources have a clear consensus but differing viewpoints exist in other types of venues. Example: geologists say there was an ice age 20,000 years ago; young-earth creationists say that couldn't have happened since the Earth is only 6000 years old. Should WP report these two viewpoints as having equal credibility? 69.228.170.24 (talk) 19:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

my view in the election

My view is similar to yours. The difference is that when there is a shortage, one has to be less wasteful. Some of the SPI requests do not need CUers. The behavior is clearly bad and CU searching is just wasting the limited manpower available that could be adjudicated based on bad behavior alone. It is like gasoline. When there is a shortage, you stop wasteful use and conserve it for emergency uses. I'm not saying not to elect people but to manage a limited resource well. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And agree on what needs a full Checkuser and what only needs confirmation that two accounts are basically from the same area and show other traits in common. Meanwhile, I think most editors do not see the need for additional titles for anyone at all ... Collect (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Another observation is that the CU workload is high because WP culture is way too tolerant of socking. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See User:Collect/personas Collect (talk) 22:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Who?

ATren (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ratel. Hipocrite (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know how I missed that. ATren (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

While the New York Times is a relible source, it does not mean that every article they publish may be cited in every article. Surely you would agree that today's story about the U.S. oil spill his no place in this article. The text I removed said nothing about mass killings under Communist regimes but was about a trial. The findings of the tribunal are not a reliable source about mass killings either. TFD (talk) 21:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

It is RS. It covers the specific claim made. It therefore ought not be deleted. You are insserting what you "know" when that is specifically against WP policy. Collect (talk) 00:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please reverse your recent edits on this article, which is subject to a IRR restriction. While the material may be new, it is clear from the discussion page that there is opposition to continued reference to trials when no reliable sources have been presented to substantiate the underlying charges. (Also, I have replied to your concerns on the article's talk page.) TFD (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I added new material. This is not in any way a revert of any material in the article, and, as such, is perfectly proper. Thank you. Collect (talk) 15:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Funnily enough i added new material [3] which was promptly reverted out and like the stuff you just added is reliably sourced any ideas Collect as to why these three editors seem intent on removing the deaths of all those people form the article? mark nutley (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, check out the past AfDs on the article, and on related topics. Also check out any AfDs nominated by any of the editors on the page. This is general advice for any area - including Scientology, Climate Change, Prem Rawat, Eastern Europe or any other areas on WP. In the case at hand, you might note [4]. Collect (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone would think these guys are commies :) There reasons for removing material are spurious at best i think, and when asked for these new scholarly works which show C did not kill all those people i am told by paul siebert, I do not have to provide any sources is it not against policy to remove material which is reliably sourced saying there is new evidence which discounts the old, and then actually refuse to show it? mark nutley (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

WP has procedures in place to solicit additional editors to view the article. Alas, there are many areas where a group can prevent reliably sourced material from being added to articles. Collect (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Reported != blocked

To avoid over-complicating the ArbCom page: You missed the first part of my question. How many of those 20 have actually been blocked? Have, indeed, any of those been blocked? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Several appear to have been blocked for some period of time. Meanwhile "the usual" is not "evidence." How many would you regard as acceptable if you had been one of them, by the way? Collect (talk) 18:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Several << 20. I've looked over the cases again - as far as I can see, only two accounts not confirmed as socks have been blocked based on this suspicion. One of them after mistaken positive CU, for 4 hours (the account was infdef'ed a week later for disruptive editing), and one with an unclear CU result - the block still stands. Of course, several have been blocked for other reasons (disruptive editing and 3RR), but that has nothing to do with the integrity of the SPI process. And "the usual", combined with a link to the contribution history, is evidence. If I had been reported to SPI (I may have been once, but I'm not sure), I would be unconcerned. If I had been blocked, I would have used an unblock template like user:WavePart and been unblocked. No big deal. Few things on Wikipedia are irreversible. Your current contribution at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Sock_Puppet_Standards_of_Evidence gives the impression that "one out of seven" reported accounts are "forced off Wikipedia" as a result of a faulty SPI report. That is clearly wrong. Will you restate this or should I add a note explaining this to my statement? BTW, you quote "only one out of seven" as if that's something I had said. Maybe you interpret quotes differently, but I find that a problematic use. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

As the "one in seven" was from the "85%" figure, you might try yelling at that editor <g>. What figure is closer to the 85% figure? Do you know who cited the 85% figure by any chance? Collect (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If you paraphrase you do not quote. I don't quite understand what you mean about the figures - do you want to point out that 1/7 is roughly 15%? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, it is closer to 14 1/2 %. Did you find the person who gave the 85% figure by ny chance? Collect (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is going anywhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All I did was point out where the "one in seven" came from. I wonder just where you thought it would lead? Collect (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

All you did was showing either bad research or an inability to express the results cogently, and an appalling misuse of quote marks. I was hoping that you would correct your obvious misrepresentations. It seems as if I was wrong. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I added material to show that 6/7 is not' the same as 85% as you seem to wish me to do. Collect (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. I want you to avoid the use of quote marks unless you are actually quoting, and I want you to retract what appears to be the wrong claim that 20 innocent new editors were "forced of" Wikipedia. I thought I was clear that I'm not concerned about 3rd significant digit rounding effects in your arithmetic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I used the quotation marks as is proper journalistic practice to indicate that a phrase is being used which might not otherwise be clear. If you read the general manuals of style, you will note that this is normal practice. As I never said that the 20 were forced off of WP, that part is a teensy bit irrelevant. Retracting what I did not say is a neat idea, I suppose. Collect (talk) 12:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

RFAR Race and intelligence

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The Gore Effect AfD

You previously commented on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Marknutley/The Gore Effect (2nd nomination). A new version of the article has been created in article space at The Gore Effect and has been nominated for deletion. If you have any views on this, please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:JClemens

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jclemens (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jclemens. SnottyWong talk 23:56, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit to Union busting

Hi--with this edit [5] to the union busting article you added some CN tags and deleted about half the lede. I've tried to follow up with some of the CN issues. However, the lede was the result of an extremely long discussion last year between a number of editors (myself included). I returned the lede to what was the consensus last year; of course there's no reason it should be set in stone, but would appreciate some discussion on the talk page if you think it should be edited further as your edit note only mentioned RS issues (did that apply to the lede, too?). Thanks. --Goldsztajn (talk) 16:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The consensus was never really a consensus...but it was the result of a long debate between 2 people and myself. I would appreciate a pair of eyes on this that are less interested than theirs.LedRush (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason for much of the "Article" as written. Consensus can not allow use of any non RS sources. Collect (talk) 19:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Plumber ref

Hi

I noticed you added a ref for the text claiming that plumber comes from Roman roofers rather than people that merely worked with lead - although the book is obviously a good one from 1897 I think that the ref does not really back up the claim. All the ref does is link to the book and without quoting page number it is not really a valid ref is it ?

If you have a copy can you paste the quote into the Quote box for the ref so it will be displayed for all to see?

At present I cannot find a single sentence in that book which ties roof with lead or plumbum

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I found many refs -- the fact is that Romans had a lot more roofs than indoor toilets <g>. 16th century England had a large number of roofs with lead - and no toilets. See page 321 of this work to see the cite about using lead for drain-pipes from roofs, noting the use of lead in Pompeii as an example. Consider further [6] which makes the specific statement "Lead sheet was used for roofing ..." All of the older English churches (pre-7th century) had lead roofs, as apparently did the Pantheon. Collect (talk) 23:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

add also [7] showing clearly an English of "plumber" to refer to working on roofs. Collect (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved to Plumber talk page to free up your user page Chaosdruid (talk) 01:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies as I have not been on the ball enough to see your additions to the Talk:Plumber page. I have added a reply - I am also interested in the claim by Nriagu and Harn but cannot find anything else about the matter anywhere. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Climate change moving to Workshop

This Arbitration case is now moving into the Workshop phase. Please read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Workshop to understand the process. Editors should avoid adding to their evidence sections outside of slight tweaks to aid in understanding; large-scale additions should not be made. Many proposals have already been made and there has already been extensive discussion on them, so please keep the Arbitrators' procedures in mind, namely to keep "workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible." Workshop proposals should be relevant and based on already provided evidence; evidence masquerading as proposals will likely be ignored. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: GoRight

Have you considered that all of the coincidences between the two editors, from the obsession with Al Gore, to the CamelCase user name, to the shared grammar and vocabulary and style of argumentation, are best explained as the singular usage of one editor avoiding a community ban, rather than the remarkable and unusual identical and matching contributions from two different users? What makes you think that it is more likely a new user than a returning user? I'm not following you. There is no good evidence pointing to the existence of anything more than one user editing from multiple accounts. As I have said before, it is possible that someone is deliberately pretending to be GoRight, but unlikely. Viriditas (talk) 00:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I examined the edit summaries - which are of zilch value as they are basically all common words. I did not examine talk page edits. Nor did I make any comment at all about "new" v. "returning" user, so I think you may be confusing my post with others. You might also look at my essay on alternate personas at User:Collect/personas. Collect (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tell me then, what significant differences did you find when you compared edit summaries?Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

As there were no really noteworthy wording usages, I would say a few thousand editors would fall into the same word usage category. Sort of like finding two people in a supermarket who buy some ground beef - enough other people also buy ground beef that one does not need to say that the two people bought distinct ground beef, but more that so many buy it, that it is a meaningless distinction. When looking for socks over the decades, I found such clues as specific alliterative phrases, and misspellings, were genuine clues. Use of common words was never a good clue. Look, for example, for people who write "comprimize" on WP - and the odds are greater that they are related than finding two people using common words being related<g>. Collect (talk) 00:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you are forgetting many important aspects of sock puppetry, such as the psychology of socking. Some users want to be caught, and others may just give themselves away with certain "tells", providing sock hunters with needed clues. Viriditas (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I have dealt with users with "alternate personas" online for about two decades. I daresay I am experienced enough to spot solid evidence (such as statistically improbably coincidences etc.). Common words, alas, do not fit that level, even if users are alternate personas. Perhaps you have been around as long, or not. I had to handle forums with cumulative userbases of several hundred thousand <g>. And manage the relative handful of genuine problem users. Collect (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Another proposed revision to Koch Industries

Hello Collect, I'm sure you'll remember giving input on my work involving the Koch Industries article earlier this year, with which I need to be careful for COI reasons. I've recently proposed another not-insignificant update to the article, cleaning up a particularly messy section about its environmental and safety record, although the article has been very quiet and I haven't received any comment on my suggestions. The section in question is this one, my proposed replacement is right here, and my explanation is on the talk page. Please let me know what you think, and meantime I've also sought input from one other previously-involved editor. Thanks, NMS Bill (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Reduced it a bit, and used. Collect (talk)

Re

Thank you, but I can not comment on the AfD because of my topic ban.Biophys (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

NP. Notified only to avoid any claims that I did not do the canvassing in a non-neutral manner at all. Collect (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. But please do not do it again. I left a disclaimer at my talk page [8] to clarify this.Biophys (talk) 17:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I am highly unlikely to seek any discomfort for you! Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As about "canvasing", one of proofs of my misconduct was this diff: [9] (taken from FoF about me).Biophys (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A little defence

A little defence of me at arbcom along these lines would help for consistancy. Polargeo (talk) 12:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. Polargeo (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Collect (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing

All those user talk page posts you made as to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings_under Communist regimes (3rd nomination)#Mass killings under Communist regimes were outside the bounds of Wikipedia:Canvassing. First, it was not a limited posting (it was a spamming with dozens of posts). Second, you posted to user talk pages and third, saying something is "neutral" doesn't make it neutral, many editors may still think you're in some way not being neutral, whatever you may have in mind yourself. There would also be worries as to how you selected the users to whose talk pages you posted, but that's the least of them. The only mass posts I know of that are put up with on en.WP are fluffy "feel-good" things like season's greetings and RfA thank-you notes (which are called "RfA spam"): Dozens of posts to user talk pages (or anywhere else) about editorial or policy discussions aren't ever allowed and these are always seen as spam.

If you wan't to draw lots of eyes to something, do so on a project noticeboard or other page, never spam user talk pages.

I think you must have made a mistake and didn't mean to breach the policy. Now you know. It was way beyond the pale. If you do something like this again, you could easily get yourself blocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The posts were in response to a specific biassed CANVASS by another poster, and were specifically mentioned on the AfD page - they were not a "spamming" and respresented a specific allowed use of CANVASSing using an extraordinarily neurtral post. The posts were s[ecofoca;y tp "interested [ep[;e", were neutral, and in no way violated the CANVASS guidelines. The posts were made to those who !voted in all ways - no selection of any sort was made on the basis of anyone's opinions. In short "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" was not violated. "Posting messages to groups of users selected on the basis of their known opinions " was not violated. "Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example" was not violated. " Posting messages to users or locations with no particular connection with the topic of discussion " was not violated. "Soliciting support other than by posting messages, such as custom signatures that automatically append some promotional message to every signed post" was not violated. The only cavil anyone could have is whether posting to those who had previously been involved is, ipso factp, ecessive. The problem is that posting to those who were involved in proor AfDs has been done on a fairly routine basis by others, and I saw no reason why prior practice would be regared by any admin as "excessive" in itself. Specifically "it is similarly inappropriate to send an undue number of notifications to those who expressed a particular viewpoint on the previous debate. For example, it would be votestacking to selectively notify a disproportionate number of "Keep" voters or a disproportionate number of "Delete" voters." where CANVASS anticipates that contacting people involved in prior AFDs is proper as long as no selection is done! Pray tell, if I notified a handful, how would no selection have been done? And also specifically Posting an appropriate notice on users' talk pages in order to inform editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be appropriate under certain circumstances on a case-by-case basis. is also specifically mentioned as allowable! Now your only possible rational objection is that the notice was in any way not "neutral." I would gladly have you bring this up to ANI isf you really think you can claim with a straight face that the notice was not neutral! The posts were made in absolute conformity with WP policy, and that is that. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Why you're responding to this in two threads, I don't know. As I said on my talk page, your posts were not within policy, you sent out way too many. Please don't do it again. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy requires "everyone" (that is the word used) - it is hard to limit "everyone" without selecting them - which is precisely against the specific policy <g>. You might note that where I asked about this, that a very experienced user said that I behaved fully properly here. Now will I do it again? Not likely. Was I wrong to do it here? Nope. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said on my talk page, the policy also says Do not send notices to too many users. There is a table in on the policy page which straightforwardly shows that postings which aren't "limited" are too many. Dozens of posts are not limited, dozens of posts wlinking to a content discussion are too many. As I also said earlier, I think you made a mistake and didn't mean to breach the policy, this has aught to do with "wrong."

As for the other account, having had some time to come back later and look into it, I agree that it's a sock up to something unhelpful and I've blocked it. I might have done sooner had you given me a diff instead of quoting them by copy pasting onto my talk page (I thought you were talking about yourself at first) and noted the odd contribution history.

I'm happy to help out, but please don't be coy about telling me what you want me to do and why (no, I don't think you were "wrong" for posting about all this in ways I took to be "coy"). Gwen Gale (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Please amend your evidence

"Reverted in rapid succession by WMC, Verbal and Schulz -- who found that using such a clearly biassed word such as "stated" was sufficient to label a person a Scibaby sock whose edits can be reverted on sight without regard to any 3RR (or 1RR) limits at all. Evidence? Changing "found" to "stated" is clearly egregious POV pushing on the part of Wealths Wealth. A clear case of sufficient proof of being Scibaby?" I have never claimed that anyone was a SciBaby sock. I know nothing about SciBaby. Please clarify or remove this untrue statement which may mislead arbiters. Also, if you refer to someone in an ArbCom case it is the minimum you can do to inform them. Verbal chat 16:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I note that you find "found" to be POV as compared to "stated." And that you were one of the reverters of the basic edit. My statement (foundment?) was that the person was reverted by three specific editors - which is a matter of fact. Are you here "state"ing that you do not believe the person to be a Scibaby sock? I wopuld be delighted to emend the comment to state that you do not believe the person to be a sock of any ilk. No problem. Collect (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of Scibaby either way. The reason I reverted was because "found" or "concluded" was a correct statement, whereas "stated" weakened the text, reducing the sourced informational content of the article. I did not revert on sight because of any socking issues, but because it was a bad edit in my opinion - and I stated why on the talk page. Thanks, Verbal chat

And thank you for being reasonable about this. Verbal chat 19:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome. Collect (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

<g>

Superspeed!~

Are you still living in the BBS era? <g> –xeno^talk 20:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL = 300 baud - remember? And I had to manage up to ten simultaneous private chats on the old CompuServe CB software! This is now my 28th year or so online. Collect (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My first modem was a 2400 baud. I used to run a Renegade BBS (tricked out with the full screen logon and all the bells and whistles). =) Those were the days... –xeno^talk 21:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Speed demon! My dad was used to the old Friden FlexoWriter at 110 baud. I did have the very first "laptop" - a TRS-80 Model 100. I also wrote in TinyBasic (one neat one was a "Star Trek" game in under 4K total memory). Collect (talk) 21:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I remember when I got the US Robotics 14.4k... I felt like the king of the world. –xeno^talk 21:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah - but did you have a "flippy" drive for your computer? (Where you had to cut the extra notch?) Collect (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Eh??? Probably not. I did have a true "floppy" (5.25) ... Kings Quest IV - they don't make 'em like they used to. –xeno^talk 22:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

My first computer was a NEC 8201, which was a Model 100 imitator ca. 1984. It communicated at 300 baud. I hung out mainly on the Compuserve Law Forum. First office computer was a Morrow Microdecision with 64k RAM and two floppies, no hard drive (CP/M OS)...and it was way faster than this Dell I'm writing on right now. Miss those days. Jonathanwallace (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

We had to use "real names" on the Forums back then -- and every other week it seemed HRB changed its mind what we were supposed to be doing. IBM gave free copies of CP/M to the wizops - which did not help since they did not give us a second computer. I remember "GO LAW" for sure. Some of the other folks are still around -- I think you will find Ward Cunningham a lot on some noticeboards. Argh - I feel old now! I think I passed the Jeopardy online test again, but it seems to be faster than it did before. Collect (talk) 20:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Seeking suggestions for new title for WP:AMORAL

You have previously commented regarding the essay WP:Wikipedia is amoral; I am soliciting suggestions for a better title for the essay. If you have any, please list them at Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_amoral#Suggestions_for_new_title.3F. Thanks, --Cybercobra (talk) 06:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Please review

Hi, you cast a vote of oppose on a proposed content guideline; I and a few other editors have made significant changes to the proposed guideline to try and resolve the issues of the opposers. I initially opposed the guideline but now support it due to the changes made recently. Would you mind reviewing the changes and commenting on this section. Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(science-related_articles)#Towards_consensus_acceptance_of_the_guideline.2C_lets_discuss Thank you very much.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Skull and Bones comment

Hi, just wanted to thank you for that comment on the talk page at the S&B piece. That piece gets an awful lot of vandalism, and one grows weary of reverting it, especially with the inevitable backlash. I appreciate your comment. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Note on MFD discussion

Hi,

I hope my tone reads appropriately regards the MFD debate, and I appreciate your comment - I always find it a relief when people disagree with me. Obviously it is a judgement call (hence UCS) with heavy reliance on souces - unusual for a MFD discussion. I think I'm right and it's a very cut-and-dried issue, but then again I'm not the boss of wikipedia so we'll see what the consensus is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The aim is to, if possible, make the relative weight of the arguments pro and con easily assessed - the worst XfD discussions are where folks simply line up in a queue without actually giving much for the closer to work with <g>. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've either conveyed an air-tight, compelling case, or I've hopelessly muddied the waters. Those poor closing admins, they'll get blamed no matter what. I just hope they use common sense and agree with me :) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Never underestimate the ability of another person to completely misunderstand everything entirely <g>. Collect (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please could I make use of your skills?

I wonder if you might be inclined to create a graph or other chart in respect of my "suggested exercise" here. I want to evidence, further, that at least the perception of factionalisation is convincing. I suggest that the 10 cases, the 8 edit wars noted at the PD plus the Bishop Hill (blog) and Fred Singer articles, would suffice. I would wish that no names were exampled in any graph, just X% editors edited Y% of articles to the same effect (top end), the same for the medium percentages, and the lowest meaningful percentages, plus any examples of an account edit to differing effects. I suggest using WMC and Marknutley as the data points of the perceived idealogical split, so that any editor aping their actions being placed within that grouping (for the sake of neutrality, please do not include WMC and Mn in the data), and capable of being checked as acting against the other editor. If you are willing to do this I will want to announce it on the PD talkpage. I should be grateful if you would let me know soonest if you can. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you will do this, are you able to do a top, medium and least ratio's for both "sides" - hopefully without indicating whose is whose - so it can be shown that such practices were not endemic to any one viewpoint? Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The very selction of your prefered article to do the examination on negates any objectivity of the exercise right from the start. you appear to be asking Collect to do an analysis on an article you have made controversial admin decisions on in order that it might back up your arguments. Whilst Collect may come up with some stats that back this up I would treat them with a very healthy pinch of salt. Polargeo (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it will only be a tool open to examination. However, until Collect agrees they will or will not do this I would be grateful if my request here is not used in the ongoing debate. If Collect is unable to do this, for any reason, then you are at liberty to point out my actions here for whatever purpose you feel appropriate (and if they are willing, then all aspects of this request are open to comment, of course). LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

But collect would be likely to simply do a wikistalk that any of us can do and you know this then maybe even add some statistical obscurity to the answer. What is the point? You think you have been wronged and you are trying to pin this on factionalism by your own selection of the article. The fact that this article was noted on the CC enforcement pages pretty much guarantees that all interested editors would turn up, the fact that someone then started an RfC goes even further. If you then want to use this stick to beat editors with that is simply poor. Polargeo (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Collect is more able than just present bare facts from a wikistalk, which is why I asked with the specific criteria. As for Bishop Hill (blog), if you can suggest an alternative CC related article where there was a recent (2010) edit war then please do so - it is just so much easier to review percentages from 10 and multiples datapoints. If no alternative, then I am willing to drop that article if Collect can do an analysis over 9 cases. I would note that the article was not brought up on the enforcement page, until by me when I sanctioned some of the editors and noted my request for review at AN (thus the edit war had already happened). Anyhoo, this is moot until Collect responds. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC) Oh, and the purpose is to provide the evidence that there is or was "factionalisation" within CC related space, or at the very least the appearence of same, that some commentators at the PD takpage say is lacking. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I just think that the whole issue of stats is worthless. We are not looking at random articles anymore but articles that have been the focus of CC enforcement. All any analysis will prove is that those editors who watch CC enforcement will turn up at similar articles. This is hardly surprising and is proof of nothing. Polargeo (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All these are articles where there has been edit warring, and my intent is to indicate there were two large groups of editors whose actions in supporting each other and deprecating other editors were a major factor in these issues. Turning up en masse and resolving issues is good, turning up en masse and sustaining an edit war is not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Suppose I simply look at a sample of n editwarred articles of my choosing (random from the set where more than 3 edit wars have occurred in less than, say, 6 months? and see if similar patterns occurred in any subset thereof? A bit of a project in any case. And Polar - you should trust me to make reasonable choices - you have a knack for trying to upset applecarts <g>. Unless, of course, you are stating that editors with similar CC interests specifically choose to act in concert? I think that would be substantially "against interest" for you. Collect (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a test on CC edit wars, and then a random set of edit wars to compare it against - but you are the expert here. Would there be a major time factor? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am almost done medical treatments for a minor cancer - which rather sap energy. Last group of WP work was about 100 hours - but I imagine I can get something done this week - sound ok? Collect (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are knocking shit out of some cancer, you take as much time as you like (I have two younger cousins both in remission, and a third who has just had an elective hysterectomy). This is only a fucking website. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP and companies

Hi, I just happened to notice your latest edit on Koch Industries, taking out a link to a Frank Rich piece and justifying the removal as violating BLP. The link may not need to be there for other reasons, but BLP doesn't apply here because it expressly does not apply to companies. Quoting: The policy does not normally apply to edits about corporations, companies, or other entities regarded as legal persons, though any such material must comply with the other content policies. I thought you should know. — e. ripley\^talk 01:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Rich ecditorial was about the Koch brpthers and thus is under BLP. WP:BLP applies to all articles referring to living people, and sources making claims about living people. Did you read the Rich screed? Collect (talk) 10:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No I didn't. I'm not following the articles at all, I just happened upon your edit summary and thought I'd point out that section of the policy to you. I'm glad you were already aware of it. — e. ripley\^talk 12:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP certainly applies to the articles about David and Charles Koch, and to references to those individuals as individuals in the company article, but not to the company per se. Your objection to Frank Rich, a highly respected journalist who has probably one of the world's most prime pieces of journalistic real estate in the world as op-ed columnist for the Sunday NY Times, is quite curious indeed. While some of the rhetorical language he uses may sometimes not be appropriate for an article, that he is a reliable source is nearly incontestable. Finally, please note that you are at 2RR for the David Koch article. Best, Arjuna (talk) 12:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The "flourishes" make up the bulk of his screed. and he has been found non-RS for such in the past. His article, as you phrase it, entirely aims at the Koch's as people. Collect (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

WRT "2RR" - where WP:BLP is clearly involved, reverts are not counted - the policy requires removal of such material. Collect (talk) 18:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Collect, you might want to post diffs or links to those previous discussions. You don't seem to be garnering a whole lot of sympathy here--probably time to regroup and reconsider the approach to the topic. Jclemens (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually BLP/N got response - and one who decidedly agrees with me from that area. Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You assert that you are enforcing BLP, but that is not yet clear if this is in fact the case or whether you are being tendentious. If the material is not in contradiction to BLP - and I have asked Admins to weigh in on the BLP page - please be aware that you could be in violation if you hit 3RR. You assert that Rich has been found non-RS in the past - can you please provide examples or a statement of policy on this? It can be argued that Rich refers to the Kochs as individuals, but you reverted whole sections of material with multiple citations, so this doesn't seem a reasonable way to go about fixing a possible BLP violation - if so you should have removed just the Rich citation. Finally, since you refer to the Rich op-ed as a "screed", this suggests to me that you may find the material objectionable from an ideological POV, in which case I urge you to exercise some caution. Best, Arjuna (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I also refer to Dr. Laura's stuff as "screed" I am an equal-opportunity opponent of using editorial comments in BLPs. Note also that I posted on BLP/N a while back - as soon as it appeared this was a problem. Did you miss my post? Thanks! Collect (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon

If you want to discuss the page, then join the discussion. I don't need someone to revert me and then contact me on my talk page to tell me that they reverted me.--Screwball23 talk 16:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI enforcement request notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Note: this involves Screwball23 and the ruckus over at Linda McMahon. Fell Gleaming^talk 16:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)