Dear ODear ODear

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Sockpuppet investigation

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collect, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC) You might have saved time by discussing your fears concerns with Collect or me. Collect's response is another example of courtesy. Dear ODear ODear (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC) @Dear ODear ODear: Posting with my sincere and unreserved apologies! I humbly retract any/all accusations made against you and am duly sorry for jumping to what was obviously a hasty and incorrect conclusion. Mea Culpa. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your kind response. I understand your curiosity. Dear ODear ODear 16:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

PNAC reverts

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please slow down with the reverts and deletions. Some of these are not so controversial, but there are discussions to be had. 23:08, 11 March 2015 22:57, 11 March 2015 20:06, 11 March 2015　 20:02, 11 March 2015 00:44, 11 March 2015 --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)　 Let's see. Please use high quality reliable sources rather than books about posmodernity and media when writing about an allegedly important letterhead organization. I left the 4+ other sources when removing a redundant and extremely low quality source.23:08, 11 March 2015 The second removal concerns a source which gives a history that is inconsistent with all the other sources and the primary sources still listed. Wolfowitz & Perle as the founders of PNAC? 22:57, 11 March 2015 The third removed, besides its stylistic woes, was not even about PNAC. You already acknowledged that my removal also noted that you (finally!, I'll addnow) used an apparently serious source about Kagan and Powell, which would be a useful addition to Kagan or Powell's BLP(s).22:57, 11 March 2015 Are you listing it here to facilitate another of your reports for edit warring, despite your already having acknowledged the justice of removing your first synthetic section? FFS this material was already included elsewhere in the section,[1] as I indicated in the edit summary, so it is bizarre that you list it here. FFS This again was a fabrication where somebody had changed the meaning of a quoted person's quotation, which is strictly prohibited at Wikipedia.[2] Fiddlestyx and JBH disagree with me on most edits, but at least their edits are recognizable as having something to do with writing an encyclopedia based on NPOV and RS, and they are not twisting sources or grabbing the weakest sources available to support a hostile POV. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 16:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Not to butt in, but: Hammond's book is a RS: peer reviewed, published by Routledge, reviewed in major journals. Nothing to indicate a "low quality" or unreliable source there. Did you make that leap just because it has the word "postmodern" in the title? Fyddlestix (talk) 16:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC) DOD, I try to go with academic sources wherever possible. All of the sources on Wohlstetter sources, for example, were all academic sources, I believe. The article is on a complicated topic that has multiple dimensions, some of which aren't adequately addressed, so the article could probably use a little more fine tuning organization wise even after Fyddlestix impressive work over. Cards on the table. Most social-studies books and articles are junk, and the peer review is a joke, as anybody who is familiar with publishing in sciences can tell you. Go ask somebody at Hopkins at SAIS and at biology to share their experiences, if you doubt me. Also, there is just so much published that one should only focus on the best stuff. Therefore, if one wishes to write a good article on a social studies topic, one should select only the best sources and then follow them. Regarding "postmodernity". Berman on modernity was informative and fun---Girls just wanna have fun, etc. Harvey et al on postmodernity---Heaven knows I'm miserable now. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 16:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC) That's your personal opinion, not wikipedia policy, and not a valid reason for removing a source. I'm not a big fan of the Boot source you added, but you don't see me removing it, because I recognize that it's a valid RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC) First, Fyddlestix, you asked me "postmodernity", so there is no need to lecture me about policy. The Boot source is in a leading social-studies/journalism journal, it has been cited a lot (by relevant rses), and it intelligently discusses PNAC and related persons. Those features matter when selecting sources for a responsible article. Some other sources lack those merits. Well, I was not at SAIS but I was educated at Hopkins in IR and no no one there thought peer review was crap. Oh, and please... it's Social Sciences, Social Studies is what you learn in high school. :) Jbh (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC) What in IR could be plausibly called "science" rather than highbrow and data-analytic journalism for those with attention-surplus disorder? LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 17:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 19:40, 11 March 2015 (UTC) In many cases I would have to say "not much" :) Proper application of the various theoretical frameworks is as much art as science. Mechanistic application of theory, as if it were a hard science, leads to massive errors in judgement like "democratization of the Middle East" or the shattering of regional stability by removing "strong men" for what are essentially "moral reasons". Reasonable application, or even knowledge of, basic social anthropology, psychology and history - all disciplines a competent IR practitioner should be familiar with - would prevent such ideological missteps. In my opinion, the reason IR is closer to a science than " highbrow and data-analytic journalism for those with attention-surplus disorder" I do love that phrase. is that, like the hard sciences, the beliefs of the practitioner are irrelevant to the subject of study ie Ukraine cares less about democracy than that their country is a big flat highway for tanks all the way to the Dnieper. What makes it an art is the people, either individual actors or the social groups which make up states. Properly done IR is the disciplined application of nuance not the ham-fisted application of ideology we tend to see from the political class in general. Without approaching IR as a science you loose the discipline and objectivity needed to analyze the subject's point of view rather than your own. Jbh (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2015 (UTC) I don't intend to report you for edit warring here, because I don't see it quite in that light, and there were even other reverts that could have been added otherwise. I would just like to see a little more discussion in response to some of the high-quality material.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Okay. We can disagree about quality. Why not try Boot (who is rather sympathetic to PNAC) and High (rather unsympathetic) as sources, and try to follow them. They are at least cited. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 16:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)As far as the source characterizing "Wolfowitz & Perle as the founders of PNAC", that's probably being unfair to the source, as they were signatories to the principles, right? And the sources says "would create a lobby group" "along with other former proteges", etc in depicting a common intellectual background among the original members. That could be paraphrased, but the connection being drawn is clear. OK, I don't have time to look at all sources, but will try to get around to them. I've been more focused on filling in gaps.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Concur with request that ODear make use of the article talk page rather than the revert button blanking, replacing or re-replacing large portions of text with out discussion or as with the 'five employee' claim re-introducing material withour consensus. Jbh (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Please note any edits that were made by using "the revert button", as you allege, or strike the unsupported accusation. Can you name any concerns to which I failed to respond in a timely fashion on the talk page? LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 17:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC) The issue is that you are making so many changes, additions, reversions, deletions etc rather than discussing the material and finding consensus. Examples include the 'five employees', renaming repeatedly the section now titled "Excessive focus on military strategies, neglect of diplomatic strategies" to "Lack of military service". Your earlier attempts to over rely on the Boot source to change material thereby skewing that article to the POV in Boot. I could be more detailed but I am simply trying to communicate to you a problem I see you contributing to at the article not write an indictment. I am asking you to slow down and work with the other editors. You have many good observations and valid concerns to address but the way you are currently going about it is not conducive to a healthy editing environment. Jbh (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC) You did not strike your allegation, from which you seem to have back pedaled. Please do so, forThanks for contributing to a healthy editing environment.19:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Writing that PNAC had 5 employees, citing both Boot and the Brit historian, hardly skewed the article. When it was removed, I responded on the talk page and said that I could expand the discussion of the size and nature of PNAC using those sources. This concerns you about the balance of the article---not using Pilger or sources calling the PNAC's publication "Mein Kampf", etc. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear Trigger warnings 18:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Ummm.... the little line through "the revert button" is what I understand as a struck comment. Do you have some other understanding? No, I am not backing off from my request that you slow down and use the talk page to get consensus for your edits, something everyone needs to be doing. You asked for specificity so I gave you some examples. My initial request was phrased to avoid specificity to avoid starting a discussion like you did below above. If you want to talk about your edits do it on the talk page Thank you. Jbh (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Thank you very much for taking your recent changes to the talk page. Jbh (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC) ? A look at the talk page shows that I have in the last weeks been as talkative as any. I look forward to your and Fiddlestyx trying to reign in all speedsters. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear trigger warnings 14:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of BLPN discussion

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An issue you may be involved in is being discussed at BLPN. Jbh (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Failing to do so is considered harassment, which is also disruptive behavior against editors. Please don't post comments like this again. - MrX 15:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC) You misread my comment. Labeling more BLPs as PNAC "members" would increase the vandalism to those editors, particularly labeling them as Jews---which happens a lot to Robert Kagan already. I said nothing about editors who have been proposing such a list, only about the effects of the list. Try practicing the AGF policy, yourself, as you read with more care. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear trigger warnings 15:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Also, stop removing talk page comments. This is not your first day editing. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear trigger warnings 15:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC) False. What you said (linked above) was: "It would suggest targets for more Jew-tagging and accusations of dual loyalty, which would boost the traffic for the WMF quarterly reports." That's trolling. Please stop.- MrX 15:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC) It's not trolling. In particular the final aside expresses frustration about quality versus Wikipedia practice, particularly about the lack of concern about BLP violations, while WMF scams money off of our labor. Also WP:MOS prohibits emboldening as you did, particularly for a quotation. I downgraded it to italics. LLAP, Dear ODear ODear trigger warnings 15:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC) However you choose to label comments like the one in question, please don't make any more of them. Random, unsubstantiated accusations of that sort are unconstructive. MastCell Talk 17:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC) You are misusing "random", "unsubstantiated", and "accusation". My concern is that the table facilitate the BLP-violations that have plagued the Kagan and Nuland articles since 2008 (or before)---articles that I linked. DearODear 18:24, 13 March 2015 (UTC) You are obviously capable of making that point in a constructive and non-inflammatory way. In fact, you just did. Can you do more of that, and less of the other stuff, please? MastCell Talk 18:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Rhetorical questions rarely arouse my enthusiasm, particularly when they follow a sentence containing the answer. :) The failure to read carefully what I wrote and the cascading expressions of outrage are striking, in contrast to the community's inaction to 7 years of abuse to the BlPs of Kagan and Nuland, and particularly the community's failure to stop harassment the last week, during which I and TheRedPenofDoom (talk · contribs) have had our hands full. DearODear 18:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC) @MastCell:, at WP:BLPN your questions about antisemitism and PNAC on the talk page seem a little naive, and I suggest you look at a Google search to see the popular paranoid right/left websites the Wikipedia article, which recently has had quotes from a member of parliament blaming rightwing think-tanks for pushing the world to oust Hussein from Iraq, when they could finally use 9/11 to spring their blueprint for American world domination. I also suggest that you treat Collect with the respect he deserves. He is burnt out after I, Rjensen (talk · contribs), and others have essentially given up trying to contain damage. I asked upon removing the UK-Labourite quote whether our medical articles had to contain quotes from Patrick Leahy and Dennis Kucinich about the wonders of non-traditional health care---no doubt reliable sources had quoted them, and they are notable as congressmen.... DearODear 19:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC) MastCell, I now understand you specialize in medical science, so I apologize for misreading your "inflammatory" as merely derogatory! ;) I just saw a quote attributed to you about a personality unburdening himself of pages of prose on a regular basis. :D Dear0Dear 23:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Horse punching

Trigger warning: Viewing a scene from Blazing Saddles may disturb you.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
In a world already weird, apparently a comedy clip of MONGO, one of the loathsome antagonists from the movie Blazing Saddles, is now to be construed as a physical threat to a human...weird becomes weirder...imagine that.--MONGO 18:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC) I should be glad that I was not blocked like Ceoil (talk · contribs) after somebody reported a fear that he would jump out of the ipad and yank the ear. Dear0Dear 19:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC) @MONGO: Unbeliebervable odds Dear0Dear 19:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, - MrX 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

My reply at Arbcom's RfAR [3] follows:

Regarding the RfAR about User:Collect ("George W. Bush's Iraq War and the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), 'neoconservatives', 'Israel Lobby, 'Zionists', 'Jews'"

BLP violations and anti-semitism

Regarding MrX (talk · contribs)'s Rfar [4]. My use of "Jew tagging" refers especially to the anti-semitic harassment of the family of Project for a New American Century (PNAC)'s co-founder Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland, via Wikipedia, since 2008 (at least).

In recent days, administrator Coffee (talk · contribs) revdeleted the worst antisemitism from the talkpages of both Nuland [5] and Kagan [6] (although my requests for possible revdeletes reached only 2009 [7]). I have requested page-protections on both BLPs [8], following an increase in such vandalism, which have been granted by Ymblanter (talk · contribs) for Kagan [9] and Nuland [10]. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) has helped by constructive edits and reverting BLP violations for months[11]. A recurring harassment technique is the posting of the names of their (apparently minor) children (now revdeleted [12],[13] as stated above).

It would be useful for this committee to issue, on behalf of Wikipedia, an apology to Kagan and Nuland for allowing the harassment to continue so egregiously for so many years. A finding that Wikipedia has been negligent in reducing harassment and an action that therefore the BLPs be deleted should be considered. Something must be done to pressure the WMF to spend a penny of its 45 million USD in assets [14] on protecting BLP subjects from harassment, particularly after years of complaints.

User Ubikwit's behavior

As I wrote, the Kagan/Nuland family has been harassed by Wikipedia since 2008 (at least). Recent Jew-tagging involves Ubikwit (talk · contribs), despite his Arbitration topic-ban on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I revise remarks from [15].

Since 8 months ago, Ubikwit (talk · contribs)'s edits on Robert Kagan seem to violate WP:BLP and other guidelines:

• Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan [16] [17] despite RayAYang (talk · contribs)'s warnings [18] [19] and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling [20].
• On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to "The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" [21] and linking to this website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) [22]; c.f.,[23],[24]. A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by RayAYang (talk · contribs) [25], who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."[26]
• Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site, calling Kagan a "rightwing" "militarist" [27].

Ubikwit's behavior on other articles related to Jews, Judaism, Israel, The Israel Lobby, neoconservatism, Leo Strauss and Straussians, Robert Kagan and family broadly considered as well as biographies of living persons deserves attention.

Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban. Bluntly, blaming a cabal of American Jews for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the words mean anything.

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) has similarly complained about Ubikwit's citing weak sources on neoconservatism that allege that "a conspiracy of Jews took control of U.S. foreign policy so that its sole focus became the security and welfare of Israel".

Previous Arbitration rulings regarding WP:Bias and prejudice (Noleander) and the 9/11 terrorism against the USA may be relevant.

Rjensen (talk · contribs) may also be able to comment.

During the week that Ubikwit was blocked from editing by Swarm (talk · contribs)[28], normal editing occured at PNAC. Disagreements occurred as usual during editing on contentious topics, but they were resolved as usual.[29]

User Binksternet's behavior

I have added Binksternet (talk · contribs) as a party because of his consistently negative POV-pushing, which has misrepresented sources [30] and (most egregiously) [31] and deleted exposure of the misrepresentation [32],[33]---following Binksternet's confessing I consider myself guilty of putting negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like [34] (not about Kagan, obviously). Negatively editing BLP-enemies harms the reputation of Wikipedia [35].

Responses to other editors

Targetting only User:Collect would provide a manageable scope for this RfAR or reduce Arbcom workload (or both), according to temptations proffered by arbitrator DGG (talk · contribs) [36] and arbitrator triumphant Floquenbeam (talk · contribs) (marred by an unwarranted right/left projection) [37].

Rather, and as requested especially by arbitrators Courcelles (talk · contribs) and Yunshui (talk · contribs), an appropriate scope is available:

The Bush Presidency and "neoconservatives"

The dispute involves primarily the George W. Bush Presidency and "neoconservatism", particularly allegations that "neoconservatives" at the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) caused Bush's Iraq War— often as an alleged (perhaps unconscious) pretext for protecting Israel—whilst endangering US security, perhaps under a (Zionist) ideological delusion of establishing United States hegemony.

Pursuing the primary project of blaming PNAC/neoconservatives for this Iraq war has entailed secondary projects of

1. creating lists of neoconservatives and labeling PNAC associates as neoconservatives (or explicitly as Jews or both) in violation of WP policies WP:BLP, RS, NPOV, DUE and
2. introducing unreliable sources into BLP articles (including the BLPo article PNAC), particularly by unwarranted in-line links and as external links, most egregiously where the unreliable sources promote conspiracy theories.

When the primary and secondary projects were resisted by the Wikipedia community,

3. severe violations of behavioral policies have occurred.

While the Jew-tagging has been limited to a very small number of editors (when not being blocked), a larger number of editors

(A) promote the extraordinary claim of PNAC's guilt for the Iraq war (violating WP:EXTRAORDINARY, NPOV, RS, and BLP) and

(B) protect claim (A) with battleground behavior,

as evinced by e.g., their treatment of the size of the letterhead organization PNAC with its 5 employees (by e.g. Fyddlestix (talk · contribs)'s [38],[39]), etc.

Dispute resolution versus targeting Collect

Allowing the case to target only Collect would send another message that Arbcom cases are childish games won by the first to file (violating WP:Boomerang) and so encourage further vexatious and premature filings.

Such a scope would declare Arbcom's abnegation of its responsibilities to

1. engage in dispute resolution and
2. be concerned with the content of this social-media website, which some of us wish to be an encyclopedia.

Wikipediocracy thread

See a thread entitled "ArbCom case" at Wikipediocracy: [40] Dear0Dear 08:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If the foo shits: If the shoe fits

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
March 2015 Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page If the shoe fits. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should: Be familiar with the guidelines and style Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry Only add a "red link" if used in an article, and include the "blue link" to that article Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible Do not insert external links or references Thank you. TJRC (talk) 20:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC) I was surprised to learn that If the foo shits has a sizable literature, some of which seem to be reliable sources [41], as well as immortality via Count Basie [42]. Dear0Dear 09:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Arguably, that would state a good case for creating an article on the joke if you can show its notability (I'm somewhat skeptical on that point, though), but, in the absence of that article, it still wouldn't go on a disambiguation page, whose role is to disambiguate among topics already present on Wikipedia, not external links. TJRC (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC) You are right. Maybe it belongs in the sum of all POV-warring? ;) Dear0Dear 19:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Category:Organizations with five employees

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Category:Organizations with five employees, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Don't mean anything by this DOD, just noticed that the closer deleted larger category but not the sub, thought it should be cleaned up. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC) No problem. As I explained, the parent category was created by analogy to organizations by membership, which I mistakenly thought was by the number of members. It would be fine to be deleted right away, I'd think. Dear0Dear 20:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom statement word limit

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Dear ODear ODear Thanks for commenting in the Collect Arbcom case. I just wanted to let you know that without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words (Word Count Tool). (See the large pink box at the top of the WP:RFAR page). Your statement is nearly three times the limit. - MrX 14:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Not a word about quality? ;) Thanks for telling me about the word limit. The rule that I cannot change things to which others have replied, and my having already exceeded the limit, puts me in a tough spot. I tried to hide things and otherwise trim things, and the combination may suffice. It's not clear that Arbcom is interested in my brilliant advice anyhow. Dear0Dear 15:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks. I have requested that the two cases be split already so that comments can be placed in each of the respective cases (essentially giving you a 1000 word limit). Anyway, collapsing content is a step in the right direction.- MrX 15:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Arbcom doesn't like to handle content disputes, and the WMF is happy skimming and squandering millions off the volunteers. Lila seems to be dealing with the WMF's biggest problems, at a reasonable pace, so one hopes that the character of Wikipedia's content will get attention from the WMF, not just the character counts. If I were the WMF, I would give a 40-60K USD annual stipend to Andy and Collect for their BLP work. Your filing was premature and will waste our time. That you, like MastCell (my "enabler"!) and others, regard Collect as the main problem suggests that we have different visions of Wikipedia. Even more BLPs will go to Hell without Collect. Will Andy the Grump (talk · contribs) be next...? Have you looked at the years of abuse Kagan has had? Why hasn't anybody but me and a few others tried to get rid of the antisemitism? Will you go through the article and talk from 2009 to the present and ask for revdeletes? My view has already been expressed at the case, that is, editing PNAC would be tolerable if one editor withdrew. I have no interest in gathering diffs on JBH and Fyddlstix for an idiotic case on PNAC. Dear0Dear 16:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Arbcom doesn't like to handle content disputes". You're correct, and they don't. Fortunately for them, the case involving Collect is about his conduct. I strongly disagree that Collect protects BLP's more than most other editors, otherwise I would imagine that he would be on the front lines of NPP helping to address the flood of BLP violations that cross the threshold every day. You see, out of the thousands of active editors, there are many hundreds that actively uphold our policies without alienating other editors, and without resorting to dishonest tactics. Just because someone constantly self-promotes themselves as a defender of anything, it doesn't make it so. I have not really looked at the Kagan article, nor have I looked closely at the PNAC articles, as they don't interest me. I'm not sure what you mean by "years of abuse", but I would be interested in knowing more. I'm curious about your comment that my filling the RFAR was premature and will waste our time. How does a user that has been active on the site for less than three months know so much about what constitutes a meaningful Arbcom case? - MrX 16:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Would it surprise you that some people have passed the bar exam after a few weeks of study? Some would take longer [43]. Before you resume questioning by good faith or again question another's, you might ask yourself whether your question is pertinent and ask yourself why you keep asking such questions. Listen to Bach. Dear0Dear 17:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Oh, so you're a quick study. That's all you had to say. I love (J.S.) Bach .- MrX 17:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC) If you do some work asking for revdeletes of poison, I might be inclined to think I want to continue this conversation in a free wheeling manner, despite being tired of the constant accusations of sockpuppetry. Now, I think that indulging you not only wastes my time but dishonors us both. I suppose I should add yours to the list on my user page. Dear0Dear 17:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC) I didn't mean to offend you or imply that you are a sockpuppet; only that it seems unusual to get involved in Arbcom so early in one's wikicareer. I was active for more than a year before I even knew that ANI, Arbcom, or SPI existed. Then again, I'm a little naive even though I have participated in online communities for roughly 25 years.- MrX 17:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Have you forgotten that you added me as a participant to your case against Collect? I certainly did not volunteer! Dear0Dear 17:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC) A little advice: playing the victim on Wikipedia usually does not accomplish much. I added you to the case because of the your participation with recent BLP/N and ANI discussions involving Collect, and your comments about "Jew tagging" and WMF, which seemed unnecessarily inflammatory and unhelpful.- MrX 18:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Please help with the clean up at Kagan, as I asked. Dear0Dear 18:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC) MrX, you keep busy-bodying about, especially here [44], but you have not done anything about the antisemitic diffs in the talk-page history of Kagan. Please spare me from further opinionating about what is unnecessary or unhelpful in terms of the use of Wikipedia to harass a family since 2008. Dear0Dear 23:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

PNAC's influence: A parable

Two old Jewish men are sitting on a park bench in Berlin in the early 1930s. Things are not yet so bad, but that doesn’t mean they won’t get worse.

One of the two is solemnly reading a Jewish newspaper. The other is scanning a Nazi paper, and laughing out loud. Finally, the first man stops reading and says, “It’s bad enough that you read that pro-Hitler rag. But to laugh at it!”

The second responds with a shrug. “What if I read your paper? It tells me about Jewish windows being broken, Jewish shops boycotted, Jewish children beaten up in school. So ... if I read the Hitler paper it tells me that we Jews control the whole world.”

— Christopher Hitchens, "Jewish Power, Jewish Peril", Vanity Fair, September 2002 [45]

"There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact, it's all dark."

So long, it's been good to know you

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Block File:Yes You have been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee. Appeal of this block may be made in writing, by emailing arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. (Administrators: This block may not be modified or lifted without the express, prior, written consent of ArbCom. Questions about this block should be directed to the committee's mailing list.) GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened

Please note that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect has been opened. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 21:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon:

Thank you for your notice, but as Gorilla Warfare indefinitely blocked my account and as Roger Davis removed my evidence, my options for participating seem to be limited. Because both administrative actions were taken without explanation (even private), I am unsure even how I should appeal.

Per the blocking policy, others are welcome to enter the following evidence, as long as an editor takes responsibility for that action, rather than acting as an agent for this blocked, principal editor.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Evidence

Ubikwit

Battleground behavior

Ubikwit has been nearly indefinitely blocked several times, for example, here [46], with a ban mentioned by administrators Deskana (talk · contribs), and EdJohnston (talk · contribs), and Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)

Ubikwit has accusing editors of being sock puppets with no evidence. [47] (closed by administrator Black Kite (talk · contribs))

Ubikwit has made personal attacks.[48], [49], etc.

Ubikwit has been uncivil.

• Ubikwit addressed Rjensen (talk · contribs), "Mr. Jensen, I see that you are a former professor at Yale! Wow!!!. I'm not impressed.".[50]

WP:Bias and prejudice

Ubikwit's noncompliance with WP:Bias and prejudice is demonstrated through his edits, for example

• ... "Jews" [emboldening of quotation-marks added] ..., so you are again engaged in an act of duplicitous disimulation; the Mossad would be proud, maybe you should apply, seeing as you need a job. Hey, if you are going to act as a proxy for the Israeli government, you might as well get paid for it [51](quoted)

• questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question. [....] It would appear that the Israeli participants were trying to hijack the forum in order to bolster their assertion of a claim to "indigenousness". [52] (noted by AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs) [53])

Since 8 months ago, Ubikwit (talk · contribs)'s edits on Robert Kagan seem to willfully violate WP:BLP and other policies:

• Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan [54] [55] despite RayAYang (talk · contribs)'s warnings [56] [57] and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling [58].
• On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to "The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" [59] and linking to this website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) [60]; c.f.,[61],[62]. A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by RayAYang (talk · contribs) [63], who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."[64],[65]
• Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site (Right Watch at IPS), calling Kagan a "rightwing" "militarist" [66].

Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban. Blaming pro-Israel Americans, Jews, and Israelis for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the topic-ban means anything.

User Binksternet

User Binksternet has engaged in consistently negative POV-pushing, which has misrepresented sources [67] and (most egregiously) [68] and deleted exposure of the misrepresentation [69],[70]---following Binksternet's confessing I consider myself guilty of putting negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like [71] (not about Kagan, obviously). Negatively editing BLPs harms the reputation of Wikipedia [72].

Dear0Dear 23:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Kafkaesque:

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm sorry. This is Kafkaesque. It is not disputed that I did not make the edit for which I was blocked. (The IP that actually made the edit has not been blocked, which I can not understand). I remain blocked now because I participated in an RfAr last month, and no one claims that anything I said was uncivil or inappropriate. In preparing my comments I looked at the contributions of the user targeted by the RfAr. In four of them that user deleted content shortly after an AFD called for the content to be kept but merged. I restored the deleted content with edit summaries asking for an editor familiar with the issue to merge the important content. No one had claimed that there was anything inappropriate about those edits. They conformed to policy. After I commented in the RfAr I have had nothing further to do with the target. Now I am accused without cause of being a "stalker" and blocked due to four legitimate edits a month ago. When I returned to active editing, I said on my user page that I had been following Wikipedia discussions and arguments for a few months. Because I had been doing that. Yet somehow doing research and checking out situations rather than jumping in without much information and shooting my mouth off is bad behavior now. Until the false accusations of me being a banned user began, no one had ever suggested any of my editing violated any Wikipedia policies. There were editors who complained about violating policies especially over fair use imagees though. I would think that the work I have been doing in cleaning up BLP violations should count for something but instead bad faith is assumed in this dispute. Even though I was careful to make sure my edits matched up to the rules made the Arbcom which I already quoted below. If any editor is to be judged only by a carefully chosen 5 out of one thousand edits it would be easy to find a way to make an invalid case against them. I would also like to point out that the BLP violation in the edit that started this office is confirmed by Jimmy Wales, who recently and graciously apologized for directing the same basic term against the individual in question (link below). I again request to be unblocked. That is the only fair thing to do. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 9:40 pm, 28 January 2009, Wednesday (6 years, 1 month, 26 days ago) (UTC+1) Jimmy Wales link You say you are Kafkaesque, if you are User:Kafkaesque you need to need to make this unblock request in this account name. —Sandahl (talk) 4:50 am, 29 January 2009, Thursday (6 years, 1 month, 26 days ago) (UTC+1) [73] (Now User:Theda)

Robert Kagan

The labeling of living persons as Jews with no evidence violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons.

I requested that an administrator remove the worst harassment (anti-semitism and intimidation of listing their children's names) on Robert Kagan.

I understand that trying to make Collect look like he was obsessed with BLP when there were no problems makes it inconvenient to list the harassment at Kagan on the Arbitration case page, and so Roger Davies had to remove it. I get that.

But could somebody please continue the work of removing the harassment from 2009 to the present, please, with the help of an administrator who can revdelete the harassment?

Thanks.

Dear0Dear 23:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for page protection

@Ymblanter and Coffee: Immediately after the gentle page-protection expired, the Jew-tagging BLP-vandalism has resumed at Robert Kagan,[74] although it was reverted by EvergreenFir (talk · contribs).[75]

Dear0Dear 08:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC) P.S. See the Parable of Snot-Boogie.[76]

Collect and others arbitration case opened

Step right up! Welcome to arbitration!

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

I changed your duplicate notification (repeated below) from "American politics 2" (???) to "Collect and other", presuming that the standards of intelligence and diligence for which Arbcom has been known have not plummeted further.

Dear0Dear 07:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Another editor is welcome to introduce my evidence into the case:

Evidence for "Collect and others" case of arbitration
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Evidence Ubikwit Battleground behavior Ubikwit has been nearly indefinitely blocked several times, for example, here [77], with a ban mentioned by administrators Deskana (talk · contribs), and EdJohnston (talk · contribs), and Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) Ubikwit has accusing editors of being sock puppets with no evidence. [78] (closed by administrator Black Kite (talk · contribs)) Ubikwit has made personal attacks.[79], [80], etc. Ubikwit has been uncivil. Ubikwit addressed Rjensen (talk · contribs), "Mr. Jensen, I see that you are a former professor at Yale! Wow!!!. I'm not impressed.".[81] WP:Bias and prejudice Ubikwit's noncompliance with WP:Bias and prejudice is demonstrated through his edits, for example ... "Jews" [emboldening of quotation-marks added] ..., so you are again engaged in an act of duplicitous disimulation; the Mossad would be proud, maybe you should apply, seeing as you need a job. Hey, if you are going to act as a proxy for the Israeli government, you might as well get paid for it [82](quoted) questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question. [....] It would appear that the Israeli participants were trying to hijack the forum in order to bolster their assertion of a claim to "indigenousness". [83] (noted by AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs) [84]) Since 8 months ago, Ubikwit (talk · contribs)'s edits on Robert Kagan seem to willfully violate WP:BLP and other policies: Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan [85] [86] despite RayAYang (talk · contribs)'s warnings [87] [88] and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling [89]. On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to "The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" [90] and linking to this website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) [91]; c.f.,[92],[93]. A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by RayAYang (talk · contribs) [94], who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."[95],[96] Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site (Right Watch at IPS), calling Kagan a "rightwing" "militarist" [97]. Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban. Blaming pro-Israel Americans, Jews, and Israelis for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the topic-ban means anything. User Binksternet User Binksternet has engaged in consistently negative POV-pushing, which has misrepresented sources [98] and (most egregiously) [99] and deleted exposure of the misrepresentation [100],[101]---following Binksternet's confessing I consider myself guilty of putting negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like [102] (not about Kagan, obviously). Negatively editing BLPs harms the reputation of Wikipedia [103].

Dear0Dear 07:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

To serve humanity, with even greater efficiency, two simultaneous cases will process 30 editors.

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)

Running two cases with the same parties, and with everybody who commented on the request for arbitration, is an excellent way to discourage people from participating in arbitration. (I agree with Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs)'s "chilling effect" comment.[104]) Congratulations!

Have you thought of the increase on the workload for participants? For example, they may have to split the Collect thread at Wikipediocracy into two threads!

Dear0Dear 07:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Another editor is welcome to introduce my evidence into the case:

Evidence for "American politics 2" case of arbitration
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Evidence Ubikwit Battleground behavior Ubikwit has been nearly indefinitely blocked several times, for example, here [105], with a ban mentioned by administrators Deskana (talk · contribs), and EdJohnston (talk · contribs), and Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) Ubikwit has accusing editors of being sock puppets with no evidence. [106] (closed by administrator Black Kite (talk · contribs)) Ubikwit has made personal attacks.[107], [108], etc. Ubikwit has been uncivil. Ubikwit addressed Rjensen (talk · contribs), "Mr. Jensen, I see that you are a former professor at Yale! Wow!!!. I'm not impressed.".[109] WP:Bias and prejudice Ubikwit's noncompliance with WP:Bias and prejudice is demonstrated through his edits, for example ... "Jews" [emboldening of quotation-marks added] ..., so you are again engaged in an act of duplicitous disimulation; the Mossad would be proud, maybe you should apply, seeing as you need a job. Hey, if you are going to act as a proxy for the Israeli government, you might as well get paid for it [110](quoted) questions relating to Jews seem to be primarily about religion, and staking claims based on an anachronistic religious basis, encompassing the continued attempt to physically disposes through illegal occupation by "settlers" of the current and actual holders of the rights to lands in question. [....] It would appear that the Israeli participants were trying to hijack the forum in order to bolster their assertion of a claim to "indigenousness". [111] (noted by AnkhMorpork (talk · contribs) [112]) Since 8 months ago, Ubikwit (talk · contribs)'s edits on Robert Kagan seem to willfully violate WP:BLP and other policies: Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan [113] [114] despite RayAYang (talk · contribs)'s warnings [115] [116] and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling [117]. On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to "The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" [118] and linking to this website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) [119]; c.f.,[120],[121]. A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by RayAYang (talk · contribs) [122], who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."[123],[124] Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site (Right Watch at IPS), calling Kagan a "rightwing" "militarist" [125]. Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban. Blaming pro-Israel Americans, Jews, and Israelis for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the topic-ban means anything. User Binksternet User Binksternet has engaged in consistently negative POV-pushing, which has misrepresented sources [126] and (most egregiously) [127] and deleted exposure of the misrepresentation [128],[129]---following Binksternet's confessing I consider myself guilty of putting negative material into articles the topics of which I do not like [130] (not about Kagan, obviously). Negatively editing BLPs harms the reputation of Wikipedia [131].

Dear0Dear 07:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access removed

Banned editors are permitted to use their talk page only to appeal their block, not as a soapbox or to participate in on-wiki discussions as you have been doing, particularly as you may appeal your block only to the arbitration committee. Accordingly, I have removed your talk page access.

Administrators: This is an Arbitration action, do not undo without consent of the Committee. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)