Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

The Workshop phase for this case is closed. Any further edits made to this page may be reverted by an arbitrator or arbitration clerk without discussion. If you need to edit or modify this page, please go here and create an edit request.

Arbitrators may ask questions of the parties in this section.

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Respect and cooperation

1) Editors should treat each other with respect and civility, even when they disagree. Edit warring, disrupting the project to illustrate a point, and failure to act in good faith are detrimental to fostering a collaborative environment where everyone wins by fulfilling our goal of building a free, online encyclopedia of all knowledge.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Especially Pokemon and obscure internet bands. But yes, standard. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Concur - These are the minimum standards of basic socialization. The goal of building the encyclopedia is paramount, if it is not why is an editor here? The only way for the project to be successful is to maintain a healthy working environment. Poor conflict management can only harm that environment and voluntary conflict resolution will fail without a baseline of respect. Jbh (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - . Buster Seven Talk 05:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Almost everything is negotiable

2) Collaboration and consensus seeking are the soil in which Wikipedia thrives. There are no few firm rules and no single users are appointed to enforce them. The policies and guidelines of the project are not carved in stone, and their content and interpretation can evolve.

Comment by Arbitrators:

There are some fairly firm rules. What findings do you see flowing from this proposed principle? -- Euryalus (talk) 14:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"rules" is an ambiguous term. There are some policies whose fundamental content is so securely upheld by the community (and in some cases mandated by the WMF) that the essence of the policies is for all practical purposes unchangeable. The possibility of exemption that would violate the fundamentals of some policies is in practice impossible; the variation from some of the specific interpretations or details can in some cases be another matter. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Euryalus: Yes, there are some fairly firm rules. The principle here is the red pillar, which I find to be instructive. It relates directly to this single editor's novel interpretation of the WP:BLP policy which far exceeds community standards in my estimation. - MrX 15:48, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: I understand the sentiment here and the 'red pillar' but I worry about two phrases Everything is negotiable and no firm rules. Both of these seem to open up potential for a huge amount of wikilawyering and stonewalling by those who want to not only argue about how a "rule" is applied but about the rule itself. This concept and IAR gives Wikipedia's "rules" elasticity and an ability to handle things no one thought of while still providing a common framework to work in. Elasticity is good but malleability is bad. I think those two phrases are a bit too close to the malleable end of the continuum for my comfort. Jbh (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Everything is negotiable" is the converse to Collect's oft-repeated "WP:BLP is not negotiable" and "less-often-repeated "WP:NPOV is not negotiable". I believe that Jimbo once stated that NPOV is non-negotiable (I can't find it now), but I assume that was meant in the abstract and not as a dictum. It's antithetical to the project's design to rigidly proclaim its policies unalterable. Reasonable people can agree on what it means to not to have firm rules (bold, not reckless), but the important nugget in this proposed principle, is that a single editor should not be able to appoint themself as arbiter of how everyone else should interprets and follows a policy. - MrX 01:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Rules in this context refer to policies and guidelines of the project, and specifically exclude WMF Terms, conditions and policies since those are outside of the control of the community and Arbcom. I agree that not every detail of every policy is negotiable, for example, we would not allow substantial copyrighted material to be kept in articles unless it met the legal requirements of fair use. However, each policy as a whole is not formulaic. They have to be interpreted and discussed among editors. Application of policy should flow from collaboration and consensus. I have made some tweaks to the wording of this proposed principle to try to capture that intent.- MrX 12:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

that we have a BLP and copyright policy is mandated by the foundation, and our policies must incorporate what they prescribe within the variation they authorize.See m:Terms_of_Use the site terms of use section 11 "the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees releases official policies from time to time. Some of these policies may be mandatory for a particular Project or Project edition, and, when they are, you agree to abide by them as applicable." This specifically links to the m:Resolution:Biographies of living people BLP policy, among others. But I do not think any doubt about this particular point will be relevant in the case at hand, where we will be applying the BLP policies as we have them on enWP. It would only be relevant if someone were to assert that our policies did not fulfill the vey general requirements of the TOU, and I can so no reason that this would be asserted in this case. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

As I recall, the bulk of WP:BLP actually is non-negotiable. And in particular, groups of like-minded partisans are not supposed to team up to flout BLP to make a living person look bad. Especially not a politician during election season. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is true with respect to the principles. Their application Involves judgement and discretion, and is subject to guidelines and exceptions under IAR, and the details of the application of this policy are discussed extensively at various pages and frequently disputed. DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Five pillars" are not negotiable. In particular, WP:NPOV is more important than WP:Consensus. My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The "five pillars" is a graphic representation of Wikipedia for complete newcomers. They are not policy or guidelines of the project. Carrite (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP must not be abused to win disputes is not a weapon of first resort

3) WP:BLP is a policy that guides us to carefully edit where real people's lives are concerned. It is not a license to automatically reject content unfavorable to the certain subjects, nor an excuse to edit war or advance non-consensus interpretation of the policy. BLP articles must cite reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the subject matter is controversial. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions are not appropriate for inclusion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur - Although I also do not like the title. Maybe something like Don't cry BLP or really anything that does not allude to battle. This principle is useful at stages of conflict well before a subject turns into a BATTLEGROUND. Implicitly accusing someone of BATTLEGROUND when citing the principle may well escalate tension rather than encourage productive debate. Jbh (talk) 21:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Newyorkbrad. Suggest: "BLP is not a license to override NPOV". - Cwobeel (talk) 21:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to changing the heading, but I want to capture the idea that the policy has been used abusively. I don't think it's always about NPOV; sometimes is just seems to be about WP:WINNING.- MrX 21:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: I definitely agree with what you are trying for here. Jbh (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to tone down the heading.- MrX 13:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: Perhaps the last sentence could be more concisely worded along the lines of:

"BLP articles must cite reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the subject matter is controversial. Editors' personal opinions and the like are not appropriate for inclusion".

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubikwit: I met you part way.- MrX 20:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP should be defended in as exhaustive a means as necessary to eliminate advocacy for overly supportive or overly negative information.--MONGO 16:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I like the text a lot more than the heading. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others is for comment on draft proposals, not for threaded exchanges of incivility. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is there at least one diff of Collect abusing BLP in the way described? Could somebody point it out to me? Or are we talking about "HuffPo said something nasty about a republican, it wasn't found in any other sources, and Collect wouldn't let me put it in the article" ? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Of course there are diffs. Collect has repeatedly claimed a BLP exemption to justify his edit-warring (and his claims have generally been rejected as an improper invocation of BLP); several such incidents are detailed, with diffs, in my evidence. He has also misused BLP to try to exclude well-sourced but unflattering material about the Koch brothers; see bullet point #4 under stonewalling and misrepresentation of sources. Even more bizarrely, he has argued that it is a WP:BLP violation to state that the Koch brothers' last name is pronounced "coke" (which it is); see [1]. I could not make that last one up if I tried. These are clearly abuses of BLP and show questionable judgement. MastCell Talk 16:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Mastcell: A few months ago you exaggerated an already questionable opinion source to make a candidate for national office look bad via innuendo, per your personal left-leaning political sensibilities. That's a BLP violation — multiple violations, actually — and a big freaking deal. And by contrast, all you've demonstrated here is that five years ago Collect mentioned BLP in a properly sited noticeboard discussion, in which much more serious alleged BLP violations were being discussed. Coming here now and presenting that as an abuse of BLP is just plain dishonest and an abuse of administrative procedure. Based on this alone, you shouldn't be an admin. Oh also, sorry to break it to you, but pronouncing someone's name like a street drug has plenty of negative potential, especially if the editor makes sure to spell it out as "coke" instead of using a phonetic pronunciation guide. So even if this tidbit had ironclad sourcing (where is it, please?) there is still a very real question whether it belonged in that article. It certainly does have the appearance of a smear, though I wouldn't quite say that the derogatory intent was "clear", as Collect said it was. But in any event, the main line item of that complaint at BLP/N was the claim that lefty editorials were being presented as fact. Whether or not that was true, I haven't seen, but if true it would be a BLP violation and thus it's not an abuse of BLP to call it one. I'll ask again, and this time I'll specifically request as a courtesy that you point me to a single diff that clearly bears out your accusation that Collect has improperly invoked BLP to win a content dispute. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] I've done that already, and based on your response I'm violating several of my own laws by continuing this conversation. MastCell Talk 22:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] I wonder which use of the word "Coke" is the more common manner of speaking; coke as a street drug or Coke as a refreshing beverage.. Buster Seven Talk 05:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Mastcell: you simply haven't. I can't force you to produce a diff, but I do now demand that you redact that puerile personal attack. Seriously, what is the point? If you have no defense to my accusation, just apologize and moderate your tone. Don't double down on the hostility simply because I have shown evidence of horrible behavior on your part. (Do you dispute that?) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 10:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trust and civility

4) Editors are expected to be open and forthcoming in content disputes. Insufficient explanations for edits or refusal to engage productively in discussion can be perceived as uncivil. Dishonesty, in word and deed, is corrosive to the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur - Mendacity is the death of collaboration. Jbh (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, and note that certain forms of "refusal to engage productively in discussion" violate WP:TALK.

The talk page is also the place to ask about another editor's changes. If someone queries one of your edits, make sure you reply with a full, helpful rationale.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, I may be missing your point but I do not see significant evidence that anyone in the case has a history of being untrustworthy. Also, not everyone is expected to discuss every edit they make, even in controversial areas. Collect seems to have engaged more significantly in discussions than most any other editor does. Civility in discussions when an editor is pushing a point does not remove the fact that they may be POV pushing.--MONGO 16:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: With respect, I think you do understand my point, but obviously the evidence leads us to very different conclusions. - MrX 18:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Again: is this something that Collect is supposed to have done, specifically whilst other editors were in the process of not doing it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Mr.X, could you state the way in which you think User:MONGO has misunderstood your point? And is there any clear evidence of Collect being dishonest? (please don't respond to this if you're merely going to say "yes, it's there" and not point it out). 2604:2000:E1A3:7D00:AD11:502:A1B3:E102 (talk) 11:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Edit warring

1) Collect has a history unabated edit warring. has edit warred at several articles in the past 13 months. His block log includes evidence of edit warring in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, and 2015.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This proposal is not supported by the evidence. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX:Thanks, that was what I was referring to. There's certainly some edit-warring at issue here, but there are differing opinions as to why. Which is, essentially, the key to the case. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Euryalus: I don't know if you mean that Collect hasn't edit warred, but I assume that you dispute that it is "unabated" so I've revised my statement.- MrX 15:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - Profiling may be prejudicial in RL, but a Users editorial history is a valid barometer of who he is and how he chooses to behave. . Buster Seven Talk 05:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Factchecker atyourservice:Please be careful asserting that "the accusers" in this case have done this or that. We're far from a unified/organized group - some of us have never been involved in "serious edit warring," and have no particular interest in liberal-vs-conservative political disputes. You also haven't presented any actual evidence to back up your suggestion that any of the accusers have been involved in "base partisan stonewalling," etc. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence is closed. I've already gone out on a limb by posting a previously undiscussed diff here on the Workshop page. That was a really important diff to put forth IMO, but I don't plan on testing Arb patience any further. And please understand that my accusations were not meant to apply to every single party other than Collect. I certainly didn't have you in mind when I said those things; we've never met AFAIK. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This doesn't seem to be relevant, and has certainly strayed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Collect has 13 blocks over a 9-year period. User:Cwobeel, one of the accusers here, managed to rack up 8 blocks and he hasn't even finished his first year of editing. Collect has only amassed 8 blocks in 9 years of editing. Cwobeel has racked up 5 blocks in less than 11 months. Is Collect the only person on trial for edit-warring here? And what about the many-to-one ratio of liberals to conservatives here on WP? If numerous people all step up to improperly revert Collect, is he the only one that gets in trouble? The alternative to edit-warring is supposed to be discussion. But if the "discussion" is characterized by base partisan stonewalling, refusal to get the point, not hearing that, refusing to acknowledge source text that exists, refusing to provide source text to support article edits made, isn't that a non-solution? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] See my block log: [2]: 3 blocks for edit warring, and 2 blocks per NEWBLPBAN. I have been editing since July 2012. I am not proud of these blocks, but when you make accusations please at least be accurate. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sure, in my haste I misread the block log. Collect has only amassed 8 blocks in 9 years of editing. You are indeed a Wiki-veteran with nearly 3 years under your belt, but you've racked up 5 blocks in less than 11 months. So yeah, I don't think the fact that Collect has been blocked shows anything here, except perhaps that he is much more restrained in his disputed-related editing practices than you are. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if the goal of this proceeding is to understand the origin of these edit wars, why is evidence of serious edit-warring problems by the accusers not relevant? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very obtuse FoF for evidence presented. Using the block log as evidence yields 1 block over the last 13 months and Collect made the 3RR report that led to both editors being blocked in that time frame. --DHeyward (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system

2) Collect has a history of gaming the system in order to prevail in disputes. He has engaged repeatedly in making false claims, wikilawyering, filibustering, forum shopping, fallacious arguments, canvassing, using Wikipedia to make a point, and abuse of process. This is most evident in his attempt to force an untoward interpretation of the WP:BLP policy and impose his own novel interpretation of that policy which far exceeds community standards. He wrongly elevates himself as the stalwart of WP:BLP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Buster7: This (the newbie fear claim) is not well supported in the evidence. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Much could be said about those that fail to grasp the concept of do no harm. When an editor spends their time only concerned with adding negative information to a BLP page then they should be called on it. While balance is crucial and we should not whitewash any BLP subject, extraordinary claims demand exemplary evidence.--MONGO 20:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not helpful. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Do no harm failed as a policy, for good reasons. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] The hope is that your five blocks in the past year for edit warring and BLP violations means you might have learned something by now. I reiterate even more strongly now that any editor who has such a flippant attitude regarding BLP policies needs to be BLP banned.--MONGO 21:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There is no requirement to do no harm in BLP. Accurately documenting what multiple high quality RS say about a person may indeed cause them distress or harm. As you say, it is not Wikipedia's place to whitewash the subject nor is it our place to protect people from their significant public actions. WP:BLP strikes a balance between documenting a person's public actions and protecting their private life and do no harm is not the balancing test used. Exemplary evidence - yes. Pedantic sophistry - a most emphatic no. Jbh (talk) 21:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would split this into several parts, to make it easier to decide what applies and what does not. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - that Collect games the system in many ways. Inexperienced editors are wrongly influenced by his air of being the last word on BLP rule interpretation and the manner in which he enforces that interpretation. They fear being a combatant against him. Buster Seven Talk 05:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly concur--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus:Perhaps it's not specifically named but it is inferred. And it is human nature to not want to go up against someone that knows ALL the rules and regulations and seems to be the Site Expert on everything BLP, or at least that is the projection. Plus, I'm not really thinking of Newbies. Its more semi-established editors that have a sense about the place and that sense tells them not to mess with senior editors that project power and knowledge, even if its a smokescreen. But I'll edit my concur accordingly. The effect that an editor such as Collect has on the actions (or non-actions) of other editors can not be measured but it also should not be minimized as non-existent. . Buster Seven Talk 10:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The policy is, in substance, to do no unfair harm, no unnecessary harm, no unencyclopedic harm. And above all, no harm for the very sake of harming. This includes the policies against untoward invasions of the privacy of borderline-notable people, and of unduly weighting minor aspects of their lives. It doesn't, of course, and to take an admittedly exaggerated example, mean that an article on a convicted mass murderer must omit the murders and focus on his or her kindness to puppies. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the accusers here has been warned by an admin at least once for attempting to use admin sanction processes to "win" a content dispute. It's hard to avoid the impression that this is simply an attempt to exclude Collect from the editing process so he can no longer make valid edits which the accusers find disagreeable. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of policy is the encyclopedia shouldn't be the source of harm or the megaphone of harm. We have other policies that get amplified by the "do no harm" in BLP's. This includes synthesis of material that casts persons into an unfavorable light or an unfavorable association. SYNTH should cover those cases but when it's a BLP, "do no harm" should tip the scale toward an abundance of caution. Too often, the SYNTHesizing editor tries to raise the burden of removal to be "harm" and minimizes the problem of retaining synthesized material. "Do no harm" should not raise the bar to removing synthesized claims regarding BLP subjects. Quite the opposite and it justifies invoking BLP to remove it quickly. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subverting NPOV

3) Collect has subverted the core content policy WP:NPOV at multiple articles, by tactically exhausting the patience of other editors by removing sources, gratuitously adding UNDUE material, filibustering, forum shopping, and stonewalling.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur, and would add "gratuitously adding UNDUE material" to the list of tactics.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect has been a stalwart defender of the undue weight clause of NPOV so I do not agree with this finding.--MONGO 16:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - Editors working together does not require complete agreement but it does require respectful behavior. . Buster Seven Talk 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - This describes my experience with his tactics. He does not seem to understand that there are other valid points of view and people can disagree in good faith. Contentious subjects can not be made to conform to NPOV in this environment without editors who are willing to recognize their own biases and understand that their view might not be the best way to express NPOV. Jbh (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Reasonableness

4) Collect has engaged in unreasonable conduct typified by a pattern of failing to substantiate claims of policy violations, refusing to answer reasonable questions, changing forums in mid-discussion, making pointy edits, and abusing process to obstruct good faith edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur - The evidence supports this finding. This behavior stifles consensus building and increases frustration to the point that drama is bound to ensue. There is no way to quantify the effect this and his other problematic behavior has on 'silent' editors who may otherwise have joined in the discussion but avoid doing so. Jbh (talk) 17:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - How can we measure what level of participation would exist if Collect was prevented from out-maneuvering everyone else? . Buster Seven Talk 21:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Demagoguery

5) Collect has used demagoguery as a tactic to win content disputes by attrition. His use of inapt analogies, Latin, allusions, archaic diction, sophistry, condescension, exaggeration, and passive-aggressive comments has the effect of wearing down opponents in content disputes to the point that they simply give up.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur - Victory through attrition and exhaustion is a valid military tactic. It is completely inappropriate in a consensus building situation where there should not even be a concept of 'victory'. Jbh (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect has stated he has been hounded off BLPs, while no other named parties in this case seem to make a similar statement. So this finding is both not supported by the evidence nor applicable. Posting warnings to his talkpage, filing AN/I complaints, complaining to the closing admins on such complaints and filing this case is also a form of wearing down an opponent.--MONGO 18:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Collect (site-ban)

1) Collect is site-banned from the English Language Wikipedia for a period of one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

After witnessing Collect's wanton refusal to acknowledge any culpability and the his attempts to inappropriately rally supporters, I considered an indefinite site ban. However, in the spirit of not throwing the baby out with the bath water, I think a limited break might be best. Hopefully Collect would return with a fresh perspective and engage in collaboration to improve the encyclopedia.- MrX 14:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose as too draconian.--MONGO 14:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a second choice for me. After reading through the evidence and the Arbcom request from 2009 I see that this behavior has been long term. Collect has had years to mature as an editor and to modify his behavior based upon community input. That this behavior has continued after he was topic banned in the Tea Party case says a lot to me. The quotes I posted under the topic ban proposal and the one I posted in the 1RR proposal lead me to the belief a site ban is needed rather than a BLP topic ban or 1RR. Because his behavior has continued unabated (And possibly worsened recently, but people more familiar with him are in a better position to judge that than I.) I do not believe he should be allowed back without convincing Arbcom that he is capable of contributing to Wikipedia without behaving in ways found problematic in this case. Jbh (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Nothing supports this action. --DHeyward (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect (topic-ban)

2) Collect is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, biographies of living persons, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This addresses the selective application of BLP, BLP violations, subverting NPOV on BLP articles (especially with respect to WP:PUBLICFIGURE), and attempting to force an untoward interpretation of the WP:BLP which far exceeds community standards.- MrX 14:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose any efforts to impose an indefinite remedy against Collect. Definitely view Collects hardline stance on biographies to be a necessity for determining a pragmatic balance.--MONGO 14:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this will work see my reasoning in the site-ban proposal. Below is a quote from my evidence from Collect on this.

• "If I can not make a difference on BLPs where my harassers and complainants are still actively making edits which are questionable under Wikipedia non-negotiable policies - what the hell can I do? Really? Cheers" [3]

Overall I think the problem will just pop up in another topic area. This huge diff [4] from my evidence illustrates Collect exhibiting the same problematic behaviors dealing with WP:FRINGE. Jbh (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that American politics should be included in the scope of the topic ban proposal.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If the examples provided are evidence, then Collect is the only one that should be editing them. --DHeyward (talk) 04:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect (1RR)

3) Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert in any article per 24 hour period, excepting unambiguous vandalism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This addresses the history of edit warring and apparent inability to realize that it is disruptive to the project.- MrX 14:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any article or just BLPs? I don't think there is evidence to support a 1RR in all articles. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this if altered to a one-year remedy.--MONGO 14:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cwobeel: All articles. Political activities of the Koch brothers, Breitbart, Mass killings under Communist regimes and Drudge Report are not biographies.- MrX 16:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from my evidence section.

Cwobeel - "A 1RR on political BLPs will allow you to revert, explain your reversion and engage in talk." [5]

Collect - "Where there is a BLP violation - letting it remain is actually contrary to any common sense. I think you just learned exactly how some others work to promote what they "know" to be the "truth" on BLPs." [6]

I see this remedy leading to nothing but more problems. Jbh (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, given his reply. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

BLP's are always exempted so not quite sure what can be accomplished with this remedy except more drama over what revert is BLP related. --DHeyward (talk) 04:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect (warned)

4) Collect is warned that continuing to game the system may lead to further sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The idea here would be that a one year ban would be deterrent, and that recidivism of the previous conduct would result in escalating sanctions.- MrX 14:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This will do nothing but punt the issue down the road. Collect has had, from what I have read, years to adjust his behavior based on community feedback. Jbh (talk) 19:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with this remedy.--MONGO 23:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC

Comment by others:

I think I know what you're getting at, but "gaming the system" vague enough that it is likely to result in more controversy, not less (WP:GAME notwithstanding). The Traveling Boris (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect (prohibited)

5) Collect is indefinitely prohibited from using his user page, user talk page, or user sub-pages post cryptic comments to cast aspersions, criticisms of people to directly or obliquely criticize users or groups of people, or any content that does not clearly benefit the goal of collaborative editing users, or to host material not directly related to content improvement.- MrX 18:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

I understand the intent here, but I think that the phrases "crytpic comments" and "any content that does not clearly benefit the goal of collaborative editing" would be better substituted for ones that are less likely to be wiki-lawyered over. Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I would change this to strongly advised and add caveat that further issues may lead to sanctions.--MONGO 14:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, and would suggest re-wording to focus on the casting of aspersions by alluding to other editors or their comments in a derisive manner, in a manner such as to suggest that they are violating policy, etc.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: Strongly advised is too weak; Collect doesn't really take advice all that well. @Thryduulf: I see your point. I will try to adjust the wording. @Ubikwit: Good advice.- MrX 18:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on who is giving the advice... I doubt he would listen to either of us, but an admonishment from arbcom would be a different matter.--MONGO 18:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic Concur - My personal requests have gone unanswered. Perhaps ArbCom can advocate for the removal of disharmonious quotes and diffs about other editors.. Buster Seven Talk 18:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

May I mambo dogface to the banana patch? (obscure reference) Who determines this? Unwatch his talk page for those that are worried. --DHeyward (talk) 04:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Factchecker atyourservice (warned)

6) Factchecker atyourservice is reminded that incivility and unnecessary antagonism do not improve the editing environment, and further instances of either will likely result in serious sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Whether or not this remedy is adopted, FCAYS' conduct during this case will be considered by the drafting arbitrators. Thryduulf (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

This addresses the inappropriate conduct on the workshop page, the evidence talk page, and elsewhere on the project for which they have been previously warned and sanctioned.- MrX 14:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not supported by the evidence that this remedy is necessary.--MONGO 14:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Factchecker atyourservice: Comments in which you "express grave doubts about that party's judgment" are personal attacks, especially when that editor's judgement has otherwise held up to scrutiny. Allow me to clarify with diffs:

• Asking to be spoon fed evidence that has already been presented, often in multiple forms: [7][8][9]
• Irrational statements lacking evidence:[10]
• (Ironic) appeals to hypocrisy:[11][12][13][14][15]
• Posting evidence after the evidence phase has closed and then complaining because it was hatted:[16]
• Personal attacks lacking evidence:[17][18][19]
• Attempting to politicize the case:[20]
• Removing other editor's talk page comments:[21][22]
• (Apparently) assuming the role of Collect's lawyer and demanding special treatment:[23][24][25][26]
• Inflammatory remarks.[27][28]
• Pettifoggery:[29]

If you were the subject of this case, perhaps some latitude should be afforded for your conduct, but since you're not and this is the same type of behavior that I observed at Shooting of Michael Brown[30][31] and warned you about[32], I thought it reasonable to propose this remedy.- MrX 17:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unproductive back-and-forth. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
None of this was admitted by you previously in the evidence stage so why is it posted here now?--MONGO 01:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] @MONGO: All of those diffs except the last three are from the evidence page or its talk page and seem to be in response to your claim that the remedy is unsupported. Jbh (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Talk page etiquette

1) While collaboration is the expected norm for editors, there are admittedly times when editors will not agree. Disagreements do not permit the on-going display of out-of-context dialogue and unexplainable diffs on their talk pages or in their user space.

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Factchecker atyourservice: Agree that it would have been better for the comment never to have been made. Suggest it would also have been better for it not to have been hosted in user space for years afterward as a personal criticism of another editor. Bluntly, keeping this posted in Collect's talkpage serves no useful purpose, and it should now be removed. This is even more the case given how old it is.

As a more general comment, subject to other views I don't see this as needing its own principle. Something more general on collegial editing or harassment would cover this. Alternatively the comment could simply be removed from the talkpage and we could stop discussing it at all. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Factchecker atyourservice: Not sure where essays have come into this, I'm talking about the header in Collect's usertalk. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Concur. Talking to oneself about the perceived shortcomings of others is best done in private, if at all. Legitimate concerns should be handled through good faith discussion or dispute resolution.- MrX 16:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - Cwobeel (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - I suggest generalizing it a bit as '...diffs on their talk pages or their user space.' or words to that effect. "talk page lead is too specific in my opinion. Jbh (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC) Jbh (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Factchecker atyourservice:. I was a brand new novice editor in 2008 that thought Wikipedia was a safe and wonderful place. I was dumb-founded when I read the essay Collect/z at its very beginning first page when it was raw and attacking. I didn't know what to do. I felt the other editors at the Sarah Palin article should know that one among us was advocating underhanded and devious tactics. I went to Less Heard van U and another editor whose name I forgot( but I can find if necessary) and I came to you...for advice. I didn't even know about sanctions and removing an editor and all that stuff. I was a newbie with innocent and clean motives. I never suspected that an editor would be so bold as to lay out a plan to subvert other editors. The Sam Spade comment was kind of a joke...to get you to like me and to check out what I had found about a fellow editor. Here was this big wide World Of Wikipedia...and I had uncovered a secret essay. Bottom line...I didn't know what to do or who to tell. Collect shouldn't have been suspicious. He had been caught writing an essay about deception and actions with bad intent. And he didn't like it so he turned the tables and made me out to be the bad guy. And he has continued his make believe story for all these many years. In todays parlance, Collect is dead to me. I don't care about Collect. I care about Wikipedia and, to a lesser degree, how I am portrayed in the Wikipedia Community. . Buster Seven Talk 04:31, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively the comment could simply be removed from the talkpage and we could stop discussing it at all. Yes. I could accept that solution and rescind my proposal. . Buster Seven Talk 07:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern with this issue is that it indicates to me an attitude of feeling untouchable on the part of Collect. Any other editor would have been required to remove that material as a violation of WP:POLEMIC, at ANI if need be, years ago. Moved - placed in wrong section.Jbh (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

In Collect's defense I think it is worth noting that at least some of the offending talk/userpage material — I believe Buster7 would agree it's the most crucial bit from his perspective, at least — is simply a copy of a comment previously made by Buster in which he appeared to state he was biding his time and laying groundwork for a future effort to have Collect sanctioned or removed from Wikipedia. I think we can all agree that if we discovered a similar comment about ourselves, we'd be alarmed and would likely feel suspicious towards that other editor, especially if related content disputes showed no sign of abating. In other words, Collect had reason to be suspicious about that comment, and so long as any bitter disagreements remained between the two of them, it's not entirely clear that Buster7 had any right to demand that Collect stop displaying the quote on his userpage, although obviously the two of them would be better friends if the comment had never been made & reposted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion has been prohibited in these subsections. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry, but I am an outsider here. Are you guys talking about this essay by Collect? Yes, it was apparently intended as humor, but it is not funny. This is all. There is nothing to talk about. Deacon did it better. My very best wishes (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] My very best wishes I suggest you go to at its very beginning first page when it was really raw and attacking. The very beginning of the essay in only Collects words, not the later version that had been sanitized. . Buster Seven Talk 06:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Euryalus, concur that it seems reasonable to have Collect take the essay content down from his talk page, but given the content and the fact it gave Collect reason to be suspicious of the possibility that people were working against him behind the scenes, possibly on an ongoing basis, personally I don't think the fact he continued to display the page should be taken as a mark against him. That's just my feeling, not directly rooted in any policy I'm aware of. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Euryalus: I misspoke. We're both referring to the same thing (the talk page note). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Seriously, I do not see how essays by Collect are any different from something like Wikipedia:Assume bad faith. If you do not like his "humor" and advice, then do not read it and do not follow it. There are no accusations about specific editors and even about specific subject areas in his essay. My very best wishes (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Casting aspersions

2) Insulting other editors and name calling is possible on Wikipedia talk pages. Some editors consider one editor claiming another editor is a Sockpuppet to be serious. Since Collect has falsely accused numerous editors of being sockpuppets over the years, he should now be required to apologize to those he slandered admit his mistaken claims.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Not a fan. Mildly, the Committee cannot require people to admit things. Also, as with other stages of dispute resolution, remedies need to address the conduct identified in the Findings and work to prevent that conduct recurring. An unwilling or forced admission of wrongdoing is unlikely to achieve these ends. Further, sockpuppet allegations are actually quite common, and the majority are either unfounded or impossible to prove. If the intent of the proposal is to highlight battleground conduct or personal attacks, the remedy (or Finding) should reflect that more directly than this one does.- Euryalus (talk) 08:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is usually unwise to insist upon apologies. It favors hypocrisy and does not solve fundamental differences. DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

The 'worst' insult probably varies from editor to editor. An accusation of being a SOCK that is not backed up can already be pursued as harassment. Having more admins who are prepared to step in and nip the early stages of harassment in the bud is, I believe, critical to the ongoing health of Wikipedia since we seem to fail miserably at that, particularly with "established editors" and "good content creators".

The second part of this principle is more a remedy but I would not support it as that. Forced apologies are never sincere and, in my opinion, are more a social shaming ritual. There are times/places where such things are appropriate and necessary but I do not think formal dispute resolution on Wikipedia is one of those. Jbh (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the spirit of this, but I don't think a principle can include a requirement for a confession. Accusations of sockpuppetry should be accompanied by some sort of evidence, or at least a willingness to present evidence if requested. Such accusations should not be made lightly.- MrX 21:01, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "...be required to apologize to those he slandered." to now read "admit his mistake".

Collect was the subject of a frivolous SPI report just recently, and that's worse than suggesting someone might/could be a sockpuppet.--MONGO 06:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What we need to be concerned with here are editors who make accusations but never follow them up in the proper forum. If it is a frivolous complaint the filer can be subject to sanction and at least there is an administrative record of the report. Simply making accusations and not following them up, to me, means the accusation was bogus from the start. Jbh (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Long term degradation of a contemporary

2) Collect is required to remove the following from his talk page;
I find it interesting that an editor who avers he is "collegial" would ever have posted anything remotely like:

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

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

Sound "collegial to you? [33] shows his ideal BLP edit.
since it is a form of constant harassment and degradation of another editor. . Buster Seven Talk 05:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

@Buster7: To save me searching page histories, have you directly asked him to remove it from his talkpage? -- Euryalus (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Euryalus: Yes, twice as I remember. Ive been searching for the diffs. I will find them before the workshop closes. Its been there a few years. . Buster Seven Talk 04:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Euryalus I ask him to remove it here. After that, I try to clarify where it came from and when by referring to User:Factcheckers page thread titled Strangers in a Strange Land which hints at my shock. He banned me from his page. . Buster Seven Talk 05:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC) I know there is a time after that but I cannot find it at this late hour, I will continue to search. . Buster Seven Talk 06:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern with this issue is that it indicates to me an attitude of feeling untouchable on the part of Collect. Any other editor would have been required to remove that material as a violation of WP:POLEMIC, at ANI if need be, years ago. Jbh (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts, is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Slightly shortened from the standard (sans WP:OR) -- Euryalus (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@various people - removed "outside." -- Euryalus (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Concur, except that I prefer "furtherance of conflicts" over "furtherance of outside conflicts". - MrX 16:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MrX. No need to put an unintentional loophole in there someone is bound to seize on it at some point. Jbh (talk) 20:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - "..an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect.." is hard to maintain when observing the same editor do the same detrimental things over and over again. . Buster Seven Talk 05:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Standards of conduct

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users and to approach disputes in a constructive fashion, with the aim of reaching a good-faith solution. Personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, edit-warring and gaming the system, are prohibited, as is the use of the site to pursue feuds and quarrels. Editors should also avoid accusing others of misconduct when this is done repeatedly or without simultaneously providing evidence or for the purpose of gaining an advantage in a content dispute. Editors who repeatedly violate these standards of conduct may be sanctioned.

Comment by Arbitrators:

A bit long, but covers most of the field of conduct alleged here. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Concur - Seems pretty much the base line for socialized interaction to me. Jbh (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - Expected conduct in a nutshell. . Buster Seven Talk 05:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, with a minor concern that the limits to AGF could use further elaboration. For example, inconsistent editing (with respect to one's own contributions) and repeated refusal to collegially discuss/respond to queries (i.e., violating WP:TALK) are signs that an editor is not acting in good faith, and the attempt to appeal to AGF is sometimes made by such editors as a defensive tactic to deflect criticism of such conduct.

That is not to say that editors' don't change their minds upon learning through the course of normal editing with respect to the sources, of course, but that citing AGF as policy can also be wielded in defense of non-collaborative editing conduct. On this page we still see editors defending Collect's BLP editing conduct, which is the same excuse he uses in order to make a pretense that he is editing in good faith according to BLP policy (as nonnegotiable, inviolable, etc.).--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:09, 17:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Recidivism

3) Editors will sometimes make mistakes, suffer occasional lapses of judgement, and ignore all rules from time to time in well-meaning furtherance of the project's goals. However, strong or even exceptional contributions to the encyclopedia do not excuse repeated violations of basic policy. Editors who have already been sanctioned for disruptive behavior may be sanctioned more harshly for repeated instances of similar behaviors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I might perhaps prefer to word it that inappropriate participation in WP can involve either inappropriate contributions and inappropriate discussion Disruptive behavior in one aspect does not excuse positive contributions in the other. A person who can contribute good articles, but not work cooperatively in our environment, should not be working in our environment. The actual application of this principle is involves consideration of the levels and frequency of the problems and contributions. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DHeyward: This is the flip side of the proposed principle below. If someone is often sanctioned, it may be that they are to blame. Alternatively, per "Harassment" below it may be they are goaded into it by others, especially in contentious fields like politics articles. My contention is both of these are key principles upon which this case needs to be determined. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Concur - Mistakes are an important part of the learning process and experience can be measured by mistakes made and recovered from. Making the same mistake over and over, not learning and growing, indicates a severe problem that must be addressed for the good of the project. Repeatedly failing to learn from mistakes can become a WP:CIR issue. Jbh (talk) 20:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - The constant harangue about fellow editors, constantly changing editors at that, year after year, is contrary to the stated goals of collaborators working together. An editors history lives in his talk page. Buster Seven Talk 05:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Care must be taken in order not to conflate "recidivism" with what would be within normal behavior of an editor. It's impossible to have a recidivism principle when editors that are known as abrasive are not burdened with escalating sanctions. Then it simply becomes ideological with "Animal Farm" like equality. If that's the case, stop using "recidivism" as the action that is sanctioned. --DHeyward (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with harassed editors

4) An editor who is harassed and attacked by others, whether on Wikipedia or off, should not see that harassment as an excuse for fighting back and attacking those who are criticising them. Editors should report on-wiki harassment to administrators and off-wiki harassment privately to the Arbitration Committee. Administrators should be sensitive in dealing with harassed editors who have themselves breached acceptable standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Possibly pointed in more than one direction. But also arguably covered by #2 above. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: agreed. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: The second one more than the first, but as you say they are both good points. It's the argument often put forward in post-Gamergate AE, that good-faith people get pushed into incivility by a sense of harassment from others, and that this needs to be borne in mind when using administrative tools to resolve disputes. It's not an absolute excuse, but it might be some mitigation. This sentence is the flipside of the proposal above re Recidivism, which broadly states if you keep getting sanctioned then you might be the problem. This one says if you keep getting sanctioned, you might be the victim. In most cases its a bit of both. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Concur. There are appropriate avenues for addressing alleged harassment. Constant whining about it is just disruptive. - MrX 15:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see something either here or in another principle that addresses claims of harassment where the claiming party does not or will not address the harassment in the proper venue. Unsubstantiated claims of anything be it harassment, SOCKing, COI etc. that are not addressed in their proper forum are corrosive to the social environment and the project. Jbh (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: On further reading I am a bit confused about the last sentence. Are you saying harassed editors may be harassing the harassers so be sensitive to who the victim is or that when dealing with harassed editors admins should be understanding that they might not be on their best behavior and cut them a bit of slack? I think both are good points. Jbh (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: Thanks... I can support that Concur Jbh (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators who are unfamiliar with a set of circumstances may not be able to properly referee a dispute and it is not always possible to provide such details short of in this forum or at arbitration enforcement. Harassment definitely should include repeated frivolous warnings by editors that are not administrators, the filing of unwarranted SPIs and mischaracterizations of an editor at public noticeboards.--MONGO 21:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonable principle, but its placement is a bit odd since there is no substantive evidence on the case pages that any user has been harassed. Of course, such evidence may have been provided off-wiki, in which case I'm obviously not in a position to comment on it one way or the other. MastCell ^Talk 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am not sure what exactly form of Wikipedia:Harassment we are talking about. Wikihounding? If so, some relevant findings of fact would be required. Yes, there are people who perceive any reasonable criticism of their editing as harassment, but I do not think that counting and addressing such "harassment" would be practical in WP environment. My very best wishes (talk) 20:57, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace

5) The Committee reaffirms that:

1. User space is communally owned. It is generally left to the eponymous user to manage, for the benefit of the project, but within agreed communal guidelines. (The guideline Wikipedia:User page applies.)
2. While users have wide discretion to use that space as they see fit, it is the Committee's understanding of present communal "best practice" and consensus, that lists of fault-finding diffs, users described as "problem users", negative postings, and other matters of a generally uncollegial kind, should be written only if needed, kept only for a limited period, and only for imminent use in dispute resolution or other reasonable and short term dispute handling. They should not be allowed - deliberately, through passage of time, good faith, wilful allusion, or neglect - to create some kind of perennial "hall of shame" or list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users".
3. Users are encouraged to avoid keeping such content on the wiki when there is no good cause. Uninvolved users and administrators are encouraged to be willing to check whether such pages may be removed, if they appear to be dormant, redundant, or not presently "live".
4. The Arbitration Committee affirms that it will not usually consider users who blank or (if necessary) delete such matters in user space, to have abused their editing or administrative access, provided:- the content was broadly of the types above, the deletion or blanking was in good faith, discussed (if possibly "live"), not excessive, and the matter handled courteously and reasonably, with administrative deletion avoided unless either egregious, agreed by usual processes, or historic revisions are being persistently linked (on or off wiki).

Nothing written above is intended to discourage recording support and evidence concerning enforcement of an existing sanction, where there is a real and foreseeable project benefit to sharing information. However such matters should ideally be on a case page rather than userspace, where one exists.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Modification of an adopted principle in an earlier case. Essentially, editors have latitude in their userspace and can host material that is useful for an imminent dispute resolution matter, but should not keep it posted indefinitely as a means of embarassing or criticising their peers. Am mildly surprised any of this is necessary to say, but here we are. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary rule of thumb - if someone is genuinely collecting diffs for dispute resolution, but in any four week period they neither credibly add to them nor actually lodge the dispute, they may have reached the definition of "dormant." Subject to other views. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Concur It seems that this occasion calls for some sort of revisiting of the above-described principles. I'd be interested in hearing if there are any precedents that have addressed campaigning/canvassing on UT pages. I presented one diff where he quoted a comment without naming me in order to rally support to his interpretation of that, which has possible implications in future discussions as well as interactions between myself and other editors should they be prejudiced by such UT postings.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - Although, personally, I would like to see some guidance on the terms 'imminent' and 'dormant' (At least the the general magnitude of time contemplated). The pace of wiki-time makes the RL meaning of those words fuzzy to say the least. For instance 'dormant' in reference to CSD G13 is 6 months and I was starting to feel sketchy about keeping material for this case on-wiki as the time approached a week.

I also agree with Ubikwit that user space should not be used to soapbox or campaign no matter where in user space it is done. Jbh (talk) 10:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - I hope this proposed principle will deal with what I consider to be Collects perennial "hall of shame" (of which I seem to be the only member) since I am "chastised" in a public manner in the early section of his talk page and have been for years. Other than (1) assuming bad faith toward me and (2) making an effort to convince others to assume the same bad faith, there is no appropriate reason to include me on a list of "disapproved, shunned or negatively viewed users". He basically has erected a billboard at the entrance to his talk page that reads "Watch out for this guy". Since Collect has a habit of selective reading, it is my hope that the Committee will be specific in its instructions to remove the billboard. Buster Seven Talk 12:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Harassment needs to be dealt with early

1) Harassment is corrosive to the editing environment of Wikipedia. Administrators should be encouraged to step in with short blocks or other enforceable remedies as soon as they become aware of a possible pattern of harassment. The community should support them is these actions regardless of the whether the editors involved are "well established" or not. Administrators who become aware of a pattern of harassment should take some care to keep abreast of the situation and take action to ensure it does not continue of escalate. The community should support them in this.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@Newyorkbrad: Good point. Struck. Jbh (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

A merely "possible pattern" of misconduct is not a sufficient basis for blocking an editor (although it may be a basis for keeping an eye on something, or a word of caution). Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes punitive is preventative

2) The idea that blocks are preventative not punitive sometimes leads to situations where editors get multiple warnings but no other action is taken against them. This can lead to some editors feeling they are 'untouchable'. The concept of "preventative not punitive" should not be used as a shield to forestall consequences in these situations. The community should support these actions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not sure on the wording here. What I am trying to get at is if a pattern of bad acts can be addressed concretely early in the cycle it is unlikely to become a major disruption. Jbh (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that when blocks are placed in a punitive manner they are routinely overturned because they are punitive.--MONGO 04:49, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the principle here is that the community should support administrators if they can explain why a punitive block is good for the project and justified. Too many 'we will let you off with a warning because blocks are not punitive' and some editors stat to feel/act 'untouchable' this is bad for the project because people loose respect for the process and feel that if they bring an issue up nothing will happen. Drama increases, frustration increases, disruption increases. None of that is good and it only gets worse the longer it goes on. Jbh (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Misrepresentation of others

3) Misrepresentation of other editors words or views by selective quoting, removal of context or in any other way can harm the collaborative editing environment necessary to build the encyclopedia by destroying trust and respect among editors. While anyone can make an honest error through misunderstanding or forgetfulness repeatedly or purposely misrepresenting other editors indicates an editor who is not a benefit to the project. See WP:CIR and WP:TPNO

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

An editor who misrepresents his colleagues does not have the competence required to participate in a collaborative editing environment. Jbh (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC) - Also see my reply to DGG in the sources section below for why I see a competence issue. Jbh (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - Editors must be able to trust that what is quoted is what was said. Anything less is deception and damages the editorial fabric. . Buster Seven Talk 04:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC) -[reply]

Comment by others:

This is essentially a restatement of settled policy. See WP:CIV at "Identifying incivility," part 2, subsection (e). (Hmm, how's that for WP:BURO?) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresentation of sources

4) Accurately reflecting what reliable sources say about a subject is the essence of what we do at Wikipedia. Any editor who regularly or systematically misrepresents sources, or regularly willfully 'misunderstands' sources it not a benefit to the project. The reason for the misrepresentation is immaterial. See WP:CIR. The contents of source materials must be presented accurately and fairly. By quoting from or citing to a source, an editor represents that the quoted or cited material fairly and accurately reflects or summarizes the contents and meaning of the original source, and that it is not being misleadingly or unfairly excerpted out of context. Changed text per Newyorkbrad's suggestion.Jbh (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Although the principle is correct, and there might be some very problematic edits, I do not think they would indicate competence problems, as the editor has made a great many highly competent edits. Whatever the reason may be, it's not lack of competence. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NYB's suggested wording is preferable. Agree with DGG that this is not a competence issue. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

An editor who willfully and regularly misrepresents or 'misunderstands' sources for any reason, but in particular to further a dispute or POV, does not have the competence required to participate in a collaborative editing environment. Jbh (talk) 00:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur to some extent (competence would seem to relate to a capacity, based on learning/knowledge, etc., to contribute collaboratively to a given topic based on the sources (and a comprehension of the statements therein), rather than deliberately being disruptive in order to push a POV).

Deliberate misrepresentation of sources is a form of gaming the system when an argument is being presented based on such misrepresentations vis-a-vis policy, and such conduct corresponds to tendentious editing.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I agree that Collect is technically very competent. What this principle intends is in a social and collaborative editing environment mendacity is a competence issue because it shows an inability to work in such an environment without damaging it. I have, however, changed the text to what Newyorkbrad suggested in his comment. Jbh (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I would like to address when an editor simply refuses to acknowledge the plain meaning of a source or to discuss what they think it 'actually' means ie stonewalling by 'misunderstanding'. Do you have any ideas on wording which would address that? Jbh (talk) 22:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

If this is relevant, there is alternative wording at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG#Accuracy of sourcing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern of tactical editing

5) While editors may at sometime be guilty of violation of some or all of the principles here the violation of multiple principles of collaborative editing over time to 'win' content disputes is a problem greater than the sum of its parts. Sanctions should reflect not only the instant violation under consideration but address whether it is part of a pattern of tactical editing over time. This principle should be applied in all conflict resolution processes where sanctions are possible.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Wording could be better but what I am trying to get at is examining each breach on its own often can miss an editor who use multiple 'bad' techniques in their BATTLEGROUND behavior. Incivility, stonewalling, misrepresentation of sources, misrepresentation of other editors, casting aspersions, edit warring etc. are all issues which an editor may be sanctioned for and it seems that sanctions, when placed at all only escalate for multiple violations of the same type. An editor who 'spreads out' their disruption can cause quite a bit of harm. If these problems can be addressed at lower tiers of conflict resolution with incremental sanctions the problem need not get so out of hand Arbcom is the only way to address it. If the problem still gets to Arbcom there is a trail of prior 'cases' already documented. Jbh (talk) 22:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Misuse of process

6) Content dispute resolution such as RfC and the various noticeboards are valuable tools for resolving different editors interpretation of rules, applicability of guidelines, reliability of sources or any of the many things editors can disagree on in good faith. Starting discussions in these venues and then refusing to participate or not accepting the outcome is an abuse of these processes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur - Processes for resolving differences are a critical part of any successful social endeavor. People don't always get along no matter how many rules of conduct are implemented to force then to get along. Weakening the paths to dispute resolution weakens the concept of collaborators working together in goodwill.. Buster Seven Talk

Comment by others:

Personal attacks are personal attacks no matter how veiled

7) Attacks on a defined group of editors or on easily identified but un-named parties are still personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Concur - As Ayn Rand would say; A is A. An attack is still an attack even though a tag or a defining label is not used. . Buster Seven Talk 15:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. It's a type of gaming the system in which one can make personal attacks while plausibly denying that they were referring the person attacked. Another editor was banned a couple of years ago, in part for doing the same thing. - MrX 15:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Collect has misrepresented others

1) Collect has misrepresented other editors through selective quotation, removal of context and misrepresentation of their position in disputes.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur

Comment by others:

I think the case could be made that the exact opposite has occurred and other editors are misrepresenting Collect. --DHeyward (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect has abused dispute resolution processes

2a) Collect has abused dispute resolution processes by repeatedly opening noticeboard discussions and RfCs to prolong or derail resolution of content disputes.
2b) Collect has failed to participate in dispute resolution processes in good faith by failing to respond to good faith requests to clarify the issues he is concerned with or by ignoring the results and forum shopping.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

@My very best wishes: Yes, the evidence points to that. The evidence shows non-response to repeated topical questions, opening multiple DR processes on the some topic in a short time, non-notification of parties, non-neutral presentation and even opening a noticeboard thread and a campaigning thread within minutes of each other. I would call that bad faith if not disruptive intent. Jbh (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur Collect has routinely filed pointy RFCs, for example.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Do you mean that he opened content RfC and participated in dispute resolution process in a bad faith? My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that supports this and in fact it could be argued that his opponents have engaged in tis behavior. --DHeyward (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect has Canvassed/Campaigned in violation of policy

3) Collect has improperly CANVASSED (Campaigned) during dispute resolution by regularly posting non-neutral descriptions of disputed and failing to notify other parties in the dispute that he has opened a noticeboard/discussion thread.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Collect has repeatedly cast aspersions on other editors

4) Collect repeatedly compared other editors actions or positions to McCarthyism and/or anti-Semitic views.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur Innuendo is a rhetorical device he frequently wields.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Yes, through a constant drum beat of innuendo and direct comparison Collect framed support for the other position as being morally equivalent to McCarthyism and Antisemitism. Repeatedly saying he 'didn't mean it like that' holds no water since he continued to do so even after being told it was inappropriate and has done so at multiple times in multiple places. This behavior, in my opinion, is completely unacceptable in an editor and is way beyond simply 'going Godwin'' in a discusion. Jbh (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: Here are a few diffs from my opening statement. Others have presented lists of diffs as well and there are others that I believe no one presented because there were so many.

• Collect - "First - one needs strong sourcing for "members" which at this point appears to be on the same level as McCarthy's "proof" of CPUSA membership - signing an ad is sufficient to call one a Communist then" [34]
• Collect - "...And I note that you only assert "associated with" and not "membership" here -- and in the 50s anyone "'associated' with the CPUSA" was therefore a "communist" which is precisely where I find this sort of SYNTH leads without a doubt."[35]
• Collect - " People had their lives utterly destroyed by McCarthyism - but you seem to view that seeking to stop the "guilt by association" argument that I am "cheapening" their memories! Is your argument actually serious- or just meant to demean those who actually seek to avoid the errors of the past?" [36]

Here are some extracts from UT Jimbo Wales.

• Collect - "This is all too reminiscent of a practice where people who signed letters for "Communist fronts" were then labelled as "Communists" which I regard as not in keeping with Wikipedia policies and principles." [37]
• Collect - "making claims that anyone who signs a letter is now a "member" of such a group -- so anyone who signed a CPUSA ad in the 30s is now, by Wikipedia definition, a member of the CPUSA!"

There are even claims of supporting conspiracy theory.

• Collect - "The purpose of this article is not to simply list people which is already done in the parent article, it is to connect them to the Bush administration per se, and to link them to a purported conspiracy to cause the Iraq War.Bold in original[38]

I guess I could be found to be aligned with Collect in his thoughts on this matter though I may not have used the exact same analogy. I agree with Collect that wrongful associations of people or drawing conclusions as he was arguing against in the above diffs was his manner in combating SYNTH and that the analogy was used to put it in perspective as to being similar to the guilt by association tactics used by Joseph McCarthy during the red scare.--MONGO 16:26, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was deleted on the basis of a strong consensus at AfD. Collect's contribution to the discussion was notably unhelpful, and consisted largely of repetitive inflammatory analogies. In Collect's absence, this discussion would have reached the same conclusion (the correct one, in my view) with a significantly lower amount of stridency and heat. This is my point: these sorts of discussions would reach the same conclusions, and would be far healthier, without Collect's participation in them. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Do you mean he blamed others of McCarthyism and anti-Semitism? Any diffs? My very best wishes (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a good idea to support every statement (a "finding of fact") by a few diffs, just as arbitrators usually do in "Proposed decision". I asked because I saw the Evidence (such as here), but did not see any diffs where Collect was making direct accusations of this nature. OK, let's consider your examples above. All these comments were made in relation to a content/AfD discussion. But I do not see how he blamed other contributors of McCarthyism and anti-Semitism in these examples. Yes, he mentioned Communists and McCarthy, like here - as an argument why a list of people should not be kept, in his opinion. Just for the sake of comparison, let's consider this very recent example, where two contributors blame others of something like that. I think this is different. My very best wishes (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded replies are discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
See the Evidence page for examples. My understanding of the process is that the Workshop page interprets and builds upon the evidence page, but that it is not necessary to reproduce the Evidence page on the Workshop page. Of course, my understanding may be incorrect. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect has harassed other editors

5) By making repeated claims of harassment without addressing those claims in the proper venue or substantiating them Collect has himself committed harassment.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Concur Another rhetorical device in his arsenal of diversionary ploys. Collect's scope of harassment encompasses subtler forms than these, though. Repeatedly using incongruent analogies to cast aspersions, for example, is one such form, in my opinion. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 10 April; 05:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur I was one of the 14 editors he accused of being socks of User:Ikip of the Article Rescue Squad. Diffs to follow. . Buster Seven Talk 06:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that Collect has deployed the accusation of "harassment" inappropriately and opportunistically, at least based on available on-wiki evidence. That said, I don't think this is a useful finding; I'd rather have us reserve the term for instances of actual harassment, in order to avoid diluting its meaning. MastCell ^Talk 17:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Collect has misrepresented BLP policy

6)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Collect has engaged in a long term pattern of BATTLEGROUND behavior to the detriment of the project

7) By misrepresenting others, abusing dispute resolution processes, misrepresenting BLP policy, casting aspersions and harassing other editors Collect has engaged in a long term pattern of BATTLEGROUND behavior to the detriment of the project.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Collect has worked in difficult areas in an effort to prevent oftentimes excessive trivial negative newsspeak from violating the undue weight clause of NPOV. In that endeavour, one is bound to encounter obstructionists that will fight tooth and nail to promote negatives to support their POV.--MONGO 05:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly concur--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much on point. As I said in my case request statement, "Collect's contribution history consists of constructive editing overshadowed by a long-term pattern of BATTLEGROUND behavior". This FoF omits edit warring and pointy edits, but otherwise accurately describes the roughly six and half years of conduct that this case is about.- MrX 18:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Collect (site ban)

1) Collect should be indefinitely, but not permanently, site banned. He should be allowed back when he can convince the appeals committee that he has addressed the problematic behavior cited in this case will not repeat it. He may appeal this ban after one year.Per my reasoning in 4.1.3.1-3 above.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Except under rare circumstances, indefinite is permanent.--MONGO 04:52, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he should have the chance to come back to Wikipedia if he can demonstrate he has changed but I feel even more strongly that he should not simply allowed back in a year to start up this whole process again. Collect does a lot of good work. While good work seems to give some latitude to an editor's behavior Collect's bad behavior is too far over the line and too entwined with his good work to be separated. Collect has had years to modify his behavior. The bad behavior of others does not justify his persistent bad behavior nor does the damage he prevents excuse the damage he does. Jbh (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This remedy is a second choice for me, mostly because I think a minimum ban is necessary. Collect has brazenly rejected virtually all good faith attempts to motivate him to adjust his conduct, including his defiant conduct during this very case. He simply doesn't acknowledge any wrongdoing on his part. As an option to my proposed remedy of a one year site ban, I would favor an indefinite site ban with the option for Collect to request an appeal to the ban no earlier than twelve months from the date the case closed.- MrX 18:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Modified text per {{u|MrX))'s comment. Jbh (talk) 18:01, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This goes too far. The issues could be resolved with carefully crafted restrictions in selected topics (e.g., BLP or politics). Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the proposal, but @MONGO - it's "black letter law" on Wikipedia that "indefinite" =/= "permanent". You've been around a long time, and I'm quite certain that you've seen banned editors given 2nd and 3rd chances - sometimes ridiculously so, in my opinion. Any banned editor who waits the prescribed time period before appealing and racks up a productive and non-contentious editing history on another WMF project during that time is more then likely to be given another chance; at least that's my perception of the normal pattern of events. BMK (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect restricted at noticeboards/RfC

2) Collect is restricted to opening only one noticeboard discussion or starting one RfC on a given subject/issue per 90 day period

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Collect must present matters in a neutral and notify other editors

3) When Collect opens a noticeboard discussion he must present the matter in a neutral manner and notify the other editors involved in the dispute/discussion. Failing to do so will lead to escalating blocks via AE

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While this does address one component of Collect's conduct, I don't see how this restriction is workable in a practical sense. MastCell ^Talk 17:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: Possibly this could be shortened to 'Collect required other editors when he discusses them or their edits, either directly or indirectly' {{u}} and {{ping}} are very easy to use and enforcement would be simple if he mentions someone or their edits either by name or in such a way that they are identifiable block him. It would be a bit burdensome for Collect but he makes enough use of indirect attacks that it might be worthwhile.

I can see how this is a bit punitive but it would be a simple 'bright line' solution that would address some of Collect's tactics. Although I admit to not seeing this through the perspective of having experience enforcing such a measure. Jbh (talk) 12:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Collect is restricted from using Jimbo's talk page for campaigning

4) Collect is restricted from using Jimbo's talk page for campaigning or bringing up content disputes being discussed elsewhere. This is to include 'hypotheticals' and 'general principles' relating to these issues while under discussion. He also not bring up issues already settled by RfC or noticeboard discussion within 90 days of those discussions closing.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Other views welcome but I'm not seeing enough in evidence to support this, especially given the traditional "free fire zone" nature of Jimbo's talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Euryalus: The reason I put this in is because, per my evidence, Collect opened a parallel, simultaneous (nine minutes apart.) thread on Jimbo's page to the a BLP/N request. This seems to me to be an abuse of the open nature of Jimbo's talk page. In particular it was the discussion there which resulted in an AfD being opened and not the article talk page or ongoing noticeboard discussion. (See the 'Worked example' in my evidence.)

Being allowed to subvert a noticeboard discussion, particularly since other participants are unlikely to know about the discussion unless they watch Jimbo's page or are notified by another editor, is a perversion of proper dispute resolution. By posting there, in addition to a noticeboard, Collect has a platform to frame a debate in any way he desires on not only the most watched page on Wikipedia but also a very public forum in real life - possibly without rebuttal since there is no requirement to notify editors and he has shown a willingness to avoid pinging editors when they are mentioned there. As of today there are 3,233 watchers of that page plus an unknown number of people who just drop by to check out the discussion. That is a huge pulpit when one is trying to shape debate on Wikipedia and I feel I have shown he has misused the general openness there in a content dispute by misrepresenting the both the dispute and the views/positions of the other involved editors.

I consider this a big issue because the number of people who read the page and the very public nature of the page magnify the misrepresentations he makes of other editors far beyond what they would be in any other part of Wikipedia. Personally I consider Collect's acts on Jimbo's page to be his worst because, in my view, there is no explanation for them other than conscious deceit and bad faith. Jbh (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Factchecker atyourservice: In my firm opinion yes. Because he was not 'frankly and sincerely expressing his concerns about the project' (I hope I did not munge your meaning by rephrasing.). He was using Jimbo's 'open door policy' to subvert the dispute resolution process. His initial post would have been a violation of WP:CANVASS anywhere else on the project. That he opened both that discussion and the BLP/N discussion within nine minutes of each other - before there were any replies to either - both with a highly biases description of the matter while giving no notice to the other involved editors, whose edits and views he misrepresented on the page,(Misrepresentation itself being a bannable violation WP:TPG) does not lead me to the conclusion he was 'expressing his concerns about the project'.

Jimbo's 'open door policy' is an important pressure release valve for the community. That very nature makes it highly watched and liable to improper campaigning. I would not be pursuing this remedy if Collect had only posted on Jimbo's page. The abuse that I feel requires this remedy is simultaneous opening of these threads. Many of Collect's actions can have alternate explanations but this is clear evidence of a specific intention to pervert the conflict resolution process via a calculated circumvention of the rules by using the open nature of Jimbo's page and its high visibility to avoid the rules against campaigning which, evidence has shown, Collect has little if any respect for. Jbh (talk) 13:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice - I have requested comment from Jimbo via email since it is application of his 'open door policy' being discussed. I have forwarded a copy of the email to arbcom-l and the text I used is below.

• Text of email:"The use of your talk page to circumvent or bias dispute resolution is taking place at ArbCom at this link [39] your input and opinion on this would be valued.

I will forward a copy of the email to any party who requests it. Jbh (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I've always thought posting on Jimbo's page was a tad presumptuous, or rather I've never felt I had something sufficiently serious to bring there. But of all places, I would think that Jimbo's page would be the one place that an editor could freely speak his concerns about the project, commenting frankly and sincerely without fear of retaliation by other editors or punishment by the powers that be. Has Collect really abused that forum to the point that the privilege must be yanked? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect is placed indefinitely under general editor probation

5) Collect is placed under a general probation indefinitely. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Collect repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum. These sanctions may include blocks, page or topic bans, instructions to refrain from a particular behavior, or any other sanction that the administrator deems appropriate. Sanctions imposed under this remedy may be appealed as if they were discretionary sanctions.
Collect may not appeal this restriction for one year and is limited to an appeal once every six months thereafter.

• From Doncram - General editor probation

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The words "repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum." need to be changed to reflect the findings of fact in this case. Jbh (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view

1) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of coverage should be reflected in article content.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard. Needed in the context of Collect's removal of significant viewpoints from BLPs, per evidence. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Barring trivia, it's is very real problem when content appearing in multiple reliable sources is blocked from inclusion. Readers rely on Wikipedia for a concise, but full coverage of a subject, presented in an impartial tone. - MrX 21:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is dependent on the issue. Take an article like Ted Cruz for instance. Entire sections discussing his views on climate change should be, in my opinion, very limited and concise, especially since while he may be in a position of decision making at some point beyond where he is now, he is not certified by others or himself as a climate change expert, so this is a trivial matter and we are not bound as an encyclopedia to expand greatly on it just because some news organizations have done so.--MONGO 18:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV is non-negotiable, and the opinions of a Presidential candidate on climate change are very relevant to say the least, so I don't see how your comment is applicable. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be DUE in the Al Gore article, but since Cruz has had limited involvement in the matter, more than a sentence is UNDUE.--MONGO 07:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Biographical content

All biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate and neutral tone. Edits should be backed by reliable sources. Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard. Needed in the context of Collect's removal of reliably sourced material from BLPs, per evidence. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the proposal but this is not congruent with what Collect's accusers are themselves doing. Disinterested does not mean working on any article with the sole mission being to either overly celebrate or overly humiliate a subject. The efforts to prevent either is a noble cause.--MONGO 18:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Edit-warring and recividism

1) Edit-warring is harmful to the project on multiple levels. Users who have been sanctioned for edit-warring or for other improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating that behavior in their continued participation in the project. A pattern of ongoing or escalating edit-warring is particularly concerning.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard; edit-warring is a major issue in this case, in my view. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Effective communication

2) Imbalances in methods, quality and volume of communications can both overwhelm and underwhelm attempts at communication on Wikipedia. If an editor refuses to communicate, or is not communicating with sufficient clarity, conciseness and succinctness, or with insufficient attention to detail, or fails to focus on the topic being discussed, then this can impede both collaborative editing and dispute resolution. Editors should recognize when this is the case and take steps to address the problems.

Comment by Arbitrators:

As a principle, it makes good points.. -- Euryalus (talk) 08:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG. I think a central difficulty here has to do with Collect's communication style. This isn't an easy thing to demonstrate in isolated diffs, but ArbCom picked up on it in the Tea Party case, where they noted that Collect was dismissive of other users' views and needlessly inflamed tensions with the other disputants. Those behaviors aren't confined to the Tea Party articles, and Collect's communication style frequently inflames disputes and impedes productive discussion. See my evidence, in particular the non-stop insinuations of McCarthyism, stonewalling of obviously reliable sources, filibustering (e.g. refusing to allow other editors to convert the adverb "abruptly" into the adjective "abrupt"), and so on. MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. We should all get to the point.- MrX 13:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - Clarity, conciseness and succinctness are lacking. Archaic language usage is excessive to the point of abrasiveness. . Buster Seven Talk 18:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - Poor communication skills is of course an issue but when an editor uses poor communication to further or delay resolution of a dispute it moves beyond simple CIR into the area of civil BATTLEGROUND. While the difference between the two may be difficult to identify without a large sample of an editors communications it should be easy to do so with such a sample. Jbh (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Consensus

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of dispute resolution and polite discussion, with a shared receptiveness to compromise—and involving the wider community, if necessary. Individual editors have a responsibility to help debate succeed and move forward by discussing their differences rationally. Behaviors such as filibustering, stonewalling, misrepresentation of sources or policies, inflammatory or overheated rhetoric, and failing to listen to or engage other editors' points are disruptive, and undermine Wikipedia's fundamental content-building process.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Again, this is the core issue from my perspective: Collect's style of communication and argumentation is extremely counterproductive and can rapidly sidetrack serious discussion. This is the behavior that ArbCom called out in the finding against Collect in the Tea Party case, as well. Examples in evidence here include Inflammatory and battleground behavior, Stonewalling and misrepresentation of sources, Misrepresentation of policies, and Inappropriate assertion of personal expertise to "win" disputes. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well said.- MrX 18:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - Editors working together does not require complete agreement but it does require respectful behavior. All editors should focus on "debate succeeding" for the benefit to the Reader. . Buster Seven Talk 19:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - Without good methods of consensus building Wikipedia is not possible. Editors must understand that there are no 'super-votes' in consensus building and that compromise is required. Any editor who is unable to compromise or willfully subverts Wikipedia's consensus building processes in not a benefit to the project whatever their other contributions may be. Jbh (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Responding to mistakes

4) All editors make mistakes from time to time. Occasional mistakes or lapses in judgement are part of being human. Editors should strive to acknowledge and correct their mistakes. Responding aggressively, combatively, or defensively when one is in error is counterproductive and harmful.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is a key issue, from my perspective. On the one hand, Collect makes errors rather frequently, sometimes apparently as a result of superficial or careless reading of sources or policies (see evidence here, here, and here). But when these errors are pointed out, Collect's response is suboptimal, to say the least (also in evidence in the prior links). It really poisons the atmosphere to have someone who is misreading a source or policy but attacks anyone who points out their error. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - Yes, everyone makes mistakes, it is how well and graciously we recover from them which is our measure. An inability to properly address mistakes is a weakness as an editor. An editor who is unable to admit mistakes is a detriment in a collaborative environment particularly if they choose to edit in a complex or contentious areas. Jbh (talk) 20:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur The more complex and contentious a given topic area, the easier it is to make errant comments, etc., so it is necessary to maintain an open mind with respect to the sources. When editors prioritize content in RS over their personal POVs, collaboration can be facilitated even in contentious topic areas.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very true. Always having to be right is a personality trait not entirely compatible with collaborative editing.- MrX 15:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Biographies of living people

5) Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Yep. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Policy excerpt. Much of this case turns on BLP, as Collect has defended his behavior primarily by appealing to this policy. Nonetheless, there are repeated examples of serious BLP violations by Collect, either misrepresenting sources or using grossly improper sourcing to insert negative material into in articles and noticeboards; see also FormerIP's evidence regarding Collect's attempt to falsely accuse the economist Thomas Piketty of "fudging" his data in the relevant biographical article. Finally, with regard to protection of privacy, Collect claims as part of his evidence in this case that we should amplify an attempt by a blogger to blackmail a woman into recanting her allegations of sexual assault.

These sorts of violations would be concerning from a brand-new editor. Coming from an experienced editor who presents himself as a pillar of BLP enforcement, they suggest a fundamental lack of understanding and judgement regarding BLP. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this statement.--MONGO 13:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect assumed the same mantle with the aim of keeping a religious affiliation out of the Joe Klein article, despite consensus as to a non ambiguous self-identification on the part of the subject. The problem on BLPs is usually the addition of unwarranted negative material, but not always.

Collect presents himself as a faithful upholder of the BLP policy and crusading defender of public figures and the like whom he claims would be harmed by additions of well-sourced content (critical or otherwise) by ill-informed and reckless (or simply malevolent) editors, but he not infrequently appears to have an ulterior motive associated with a political view.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:02, 15:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I posted a diff of User:MastCell using grossly inappropriate sourcing to insert negative material into a BLP, and also misrepresenting that source a fair bit, and it was hatted. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct during Arbitration

6) The pages associated with arbitration cases are primarily intended to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed, and expeditious resolution of each case. Participation by editors who present good-faith statements, evidence, and workshop proposals is appreciated. While allowance is made for the fact that parties and other interested editors may have strong feelings about the subject-matters of their dispute, appropriate decorum should be maintained on these pages. Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in arbitration as in all other areas of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Standard; this version from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cold fusion 2. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant comments on contributors rather than content. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I understand that everyone is fair game, but in this case, at least one editor is attacking his perceived opponents everywhere but the actual Evidence pages, and that seems grossly inappropriate. MastCell Talk 23:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yes, the ad homs and outright personal attacks are not helpful. Also, obtusely cross examining editors who have already spent substantial time researching and presenting detailed evidence with diffs is an affront.- MrX 13:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply] Concur--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a comment should be made regarding participants calling for parties to be sanctioned without reference to evidence, or without having even presented any evidence.

Such conduct evinces a combative partisan disposition, which may be indicative of an activist disposition.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

These above comments are bit odd, seeing how MastCell is the one lobbing irrelevant and unnecessary personal attacks.

Repetition of request that was already denied. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Also, can I read User:MastCell's complaint about me not posting on the evidence page as a request that I be granted an extension and thereby allowed to actually post on the evidence page? Or no? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Collect: Edit-warring

1) Collect (talk · contribs) has a pattern of repeated and ongoing edit-warring on topics related to American politics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Per evidence. Numerous blocks, up to and including a 1-week block last month (hence "ongoing"). Collect's block log is the tip of the iceberg in terms of his edit-warring, since he is often not reported at all or let off with a warning in deference to his status as an established editor (also in evidence). MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Collect: Misuse of sources and policy

2) Collect (talk · contribs) has misrepresented sources and Wikipedia guidelines in a manner which has obstructed proper editing and article development.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Based on evidence here and here; note that these examples were chosen because they were the easiest to illustrate in the given space limitations, but they are not isolated incidents. In particular, Collect made up a requirement (found nowhere in actual policy) that radio shows required transcripts to be used as sources, and then proceeded to edit-war on the basis of this made-up policy requirement. Then, when expedient in a different situation, he turned around and insisted that we exclude a reliably-sourced transcript of an audio source. Likewise, per evidence, he has repeatedly insisted on erroneous or ridiculous interpretations of sources, as with the refusal to acknowledge peer review or the refusal to allow the substitution of "abrupt closure" for "closed abruptly". MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, sophistry is merely one of many tactics is Collect's repertoire. When the goal posts move it is impossible to reach consensus and the resulting frustration at a moving target is discouraging to say the least. Jbh (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Collect: Approach to BLP

2) Collect's approach to the policy on biographical material on living people has been inconsistent and inappropriate. In some cases, he has dismissed appropriately sourced, policy-compliant material on spurious WP:BLP grounds, while in other cases he has violated the policy himself without apology.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Inconsistent" is a euphemism for "hypocritical", which I think is the more correct, but harsher, term here. It is impossible to reconcile Collect the sanctimonious BLP extremist (who rejects appropriately sourced but negative material, and who views even a discussion of the pronunciation of the Koch brothers' name as a BLP violation) with the Collect who casually slanders living people when it suits him (see evidence here and here). MastCell ^Talk 18:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

@MastCell: as previously noted, you've been seen to insist on improperly sourced negative material in a BLP. Does that make you a "BLP extremist" or just a political extremist who ignores BLP? And again, there was clear negative potential for calling them the "Coke brothers", not to mention there was no clearly shown sourcing or even a need for the material in the first place. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any substance to your accusations, but I'm not willing to engage with you because I don't think it would be a good use of my time. That said, if anyone besides FCAYS has a concern about the diff in question then I'm happy to discuss it. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You took a source that would normally fail WP:RS and/or WEIGHT even if the article weren't a BLP; you then proceeded to distort that source to make the LP sound even worse than the source did. I rather suspect you're not responding b/c you know that edit was utterly indefensible. Also, the result was WP article prose containing negative innuendo about a candidate for office; that's the stuff of political attack ads, not encyclopedia articles. Anyway, I'm not seeking to have you sanctioned, just pointing that in a single edit you've given the lie to your claims of neutral-editing-efforts-maliciously-disrupted-by-Collect. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed explanation, since MastCell disputes this. (Self-hatted) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Ok. So leaving aside that this bit about associating the LP with "far right conspiracy theories" probably should have been done in its own edit summary and clearly noted, let's look at the variety of ways in which it also wasn't really appropriate for a biographical WP article about the woman. First off, WP:NOTNEWS, I virtually never cite this and usually see it as having limited utility because it's such a vague concept, but in this case it combines with WP:REDFLAG (otherwise known as "exceptional claims require exceptional sources") to strongly caution against if not outright prohibit edits like this when based on flimsy sourcing. Any inclusion of material on this topic, to say nothing of the egregious way it was actually presented, presents 3 of the 4 red flags stated under WP:REDFLAG, which ends with the following boldfaced command: "Exceptional claims should be supported by the best sources, and preferably multiple reliable sources". But those aren't to be found. Not just that you didn't put them in the article — they don't exist. If we look at this Agenda 21 and try to find sources connecting it to Joni Ernst, we'll see that discussion of these supposedly revealing and damning comments never made it much beyond marginal electronic sources, and most of those are left-wing blogs not even supported by a major newspaper, let alone printed in one. Arguably the most influential publication that seems to be represented on this topic, The Atlantic, turns in a blog piece by one named author that mentions Agenda 21 and definitely describes it as a conspiracy theory but mostly complains that this hasn't been picked up, and Ernst not depicted as sufficiently ultra-conservative, in actual newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post, attributing this vaguely either to a false "media narrative" that the story somehow fails to fit, or (perhaps, comrades!) to a spasm of pro-Republican bias in the mainstream media. Arguably the second most influential publication represented is there via a post on the WaPo-hosted lefty attack blog of Greg Sargent, who publishes 3-5 pieces a day — hardly weighty stuff — and the Atlantic piece, notably, complains that the WaPo never went further than that. Sargent turns in a single paragraph on this topic, written like a gossip column and gleefully referencing the Yahoo! post you cited this debacle to as well as a fellow vanguard over at MSNBC. The New York Times, the gold standard of U.S. journalism, a liberal bastion, and the publication that I'd really want to have backing up an extreme negative claim like the one attempted here, literally never touched this subject in any form. Anyway, this plea in The Atlantic for more coverage on this weighty issue went out through the series of connected tubes last November and it doesn't appear any of the real papers have since taken up the gauntlet. Actually, this is kind of a remarkable scenario because we've practically got reliable media sourcing that this coverage is not notable enough for Wikipedia, a stunning development to say the least and one I don't think I've encountered before. Oh, then there's the way this, ahem, material was presented, with the dry statement in Wikipedia's editorial voice that "Agenda 21 has been the subject of numerous far-right conspiracy theories" (which again, is not directly stated by the crappy named source and basically amounts to an exaggeration of it). And that, again, is the very definition of innuendo, i.e."an allusive or oblique remark or hint, typically a suggestive or disparaging one", and taken in context with the sourcing, this inclusion is almost like saying "Hey guys, the reputable media wouldn't draw this connection, but we don't necessarily have to either we can just sort of mention it without drawing any connections!" This sort of dross is simply is never fit for inclusion in any BLP ever, and not for nothing but that's a lesson that I regard myself as having learned from Collect. I think perhaps if you weren't so busy bitterly arguing with him about questionable political edits you're making, you could have absorbed some of this perspective. There are other ways of saying it with more generality. For a living politician or candidate for office, it's never appropriate to include attack material that can only be sourced to the opposing party's partisan blogosphere. Jennifer Rubin is also hosted by the Washington Post and I bet she's made all kinds of pointy comments about various leftist politicians in her five posts a day, but that doesn't mean I think they belong in Wikipedia articles about those politicians. This is all kind of basic isn't it? You're an admin, you're supposed to know better, not be conveniently ignorant of policy while making partisan edits. Grr, just grr! Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 21:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I quickly checked some related diffs and must admit: I am not qualified to make judgement about these particular BLPs. One should really know in depth these issues to make a qualified judgement if certain sourced information should or should not be included in a BLP, what would be an appropriate wording, and so on. These are typical "content disputes". I can only tell that in a few other cases (not reflected in Evidence) where I knew the subjects, the suggestions by Collect were reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Factchecker atyourservice

2) Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs) has misused the Arbitration process by neglecting to submit evidence but then using other case pages to attack case parties.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not sure I put my finger on the problem here, but basically this is an editor who's been attacking case parties pretty much everywhere except on the actual Evidence page. I don't think his/her participation was especially helpful here, although I recognize that perhaps my view is colored by being the target of many of his attacks. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed a lot of excuses being made for Collect's behavior by parties here with out providing supporting evidence. This arbitration is open to all editors and I did have a productive conversation with FCAYS as noted below. I think it would have been much better if they had engaged with the process rather than commenting from the sidelines and I can not say their participation was a net positive.

MONGO, a named party to the case, even did most of his participation from the sidelines and did not enter any evidence despite his stated intent to be a vigorous participant in the case.

• MONGO - "You radicals keep POV pushing your baloney and decide to file an arbcom case I'm going to add all your names to the case and show up with a laundry list of diffs...all named parties will be scrutinized and I won't shut up until you're all sanctioned. It might be best if the lot of you cease posting here with your sanctimonious attitudes. You can take that as a formal warning and I don't make idle threats." [40]

Even participation by named parties was less involved than their stated intentions so I do not know if FCAYS' behavior can properly characterized as misusing the arbitration process. Maybe a general finding of fact that making un-supported accusations or speculation without backing it up with evidence/diffs does not contribute to the process would be appropriate. Or maybe a remedy that talk page participation by those who are not participating on the formal pages may be restricted at the discretion of the Arbs or their Clerks. Jbh (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its not at all uncommon for participants or non participants to partake in little evidence work but post or argue against certain workshop suggestions. Arbcom has always had the ability to hat or strike unhelpful comments as they felt. Should they decide to adopt or ignore mine or anyone else's arguments is up to them.--MONGO 21:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jbhunley nailed it. Factchecker atyourservice is not the only workshop commenter who has made vague accusations lacking evidence, but he has been the most disruptive.- MrX 21:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I didn't neglect to post evidence. Submissions were closed before I got the chance. Give a little advance warning the next time you plan filing a case that will take dozens of hours to mount a defense against, especially if you plan on padding the submission with numerous diffs that don't show anything — those take time to sift through. Also, "attacking" is at best a loaded interpretation of my conduct here, which has mostly consisted of putting these allegations in context and comparing Collect's alleged behavior with that of others, posting diffs, discussing diffs already posted, etc. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to point out the obvious, Factchecker_atyourservce had exactly as much time as every other editor to assemble evidence for this case, but managed only to post a paragraph of personal opinion, supported by a single diff.[41] This was hatted by Euryalus on March 31, and labelled "Not useful in its current form. Awaiting diffs."[42] In the 6 days remaining before the evidence page closed, Factchecker_atyourservice posted 28 times to the case's talk page[43], but did not add a single diff to his "evidence". BMK (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to point out the actually obvious and not incorrect, I had less time to present evidence than numerous other editors here, because I only discovered the case by accident when it was already underway. Also, as should be obvious, it's not possible to assemble evidence in response to allegations until the allegations are actually made, or at least known. I didn't see this coming, so I had no opportunity to prepare in advance, unlike at least some of the parties filing charges against Collect. I also note that I spent a significant amount of time responding to pointless harassment by BMK, apparently motivated by little more than axe-grinding animosity towards me and perhaps a hope that if sufficiently hounded, I would reconsider my decision to participate in this case. I have already explained why I didn't present more diffs on the Evidence page. I was going to do it on a Sunday, the last day, but then I had other things to do that day. I requested an extension and it was denied. Oh, also, the submission was never deleted. Literally zero things you have said in this post were accurate, fair characterizations that were called for by the circumstances. Rather, you seem obsessed with lashing out at me. Judging by your edit history and talk page, this is a well-established habit of yours: first and foremost, attack the contributor. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 17:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Principles

Inappropriate participation

1) Inappropriate participation in WP can involve either inappropriate contributions or inappropriate discussion. Disruptive behavior in one aspect does not excuse positive contributions in the other. A person who can contribute good articles, but not work cooperatively in our environment, should not be working in our environment. The actual application of this principle involves consideration of the levels and frequency of the problems and the amount and quality of the contributions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Patterns are what we look at. If an editor is primarily interested in only being on the attack in BLP or other subject matters in which they have easily demonstrable animosity, then they need to find a new hobby. Asking them to provide impeccable sourcing for dubious or partisan claims is within our normal remit.--MONGO 19:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: "Disruptive behavior in one aspect does not excuse positive contributions in the other." I think you mean "positive contributions in one aspect does not excuse disruptive behavior in the other."- MrX 20:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, while experienced editors/content creators are very important and contribute a huge amount to the project we must understand that the bad behavior of one of these high profile people also has a disproportionate effect on the community. People have good days and bad days, they slip up, loose their temper and make mistakes. People will see more of this in prolific editors simply because they do more. While we should grant some latitude to offset this we should not allow repeated/frequent bad behavior to continue just because of an editors contributions. As editors gain experience their incidence of bad behavior should decrease rather than increase since they have had time to adjust to Wikipedia's editing environment and understand what is expected of them. Jbh (talk) 11:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Reliable sources

2) The quality of Wikipedia requires the use of Reliable Sources. Selecting reliable sources requires judgement, as sources normally have different degrees of reliability of different purposes, and their proper use squires determining how and where to use them in the article. Sources, however eligible, must be used fairly and appropriately in context (avoiding what is known as cherry-picking). Partisan sources, even when they can be appropriately used, require sufficient identification, so that readers can judge for themselves their reliability in a particular situation. The use of partisan sources for negative BLP normally requires especially great caution, and requires consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"Partisan sources" minimally needs to be defined, and preferable needs to be changed. I guarantee that one editor's neutral source, will be another editor's partisan source. This phasing would open a Pandora's box of drama in my opinion, with an endless stream of AE and ARCA requests. Neither Arbcom nor AE admins should be in a position to adjudicate which sources are partisan and which are not. I think it would best to keep as close as possible to the wording in WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.- MrX 18:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In an article about Hillary Clinton, while both might be reliable, Fox News is likely to word things in a negative tone and MSNBC would be more positive. Therefore, news sources should routinely be seen as less than excellent. Obvious partisan websites are obviously partisan and should be avoided altogether. Were not always here to be a totality of information, but must strive for the highest accuracy and quality in our "reporting".--MONGO 19:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the term partisan is somewhat problematic, as there are generally more than two views on any topic, and various interpretations of those views, which can result in a veritable labyrinth of views. Where there is a recognized split (e.g., "right-left" in politics) acknowledged by sources, NPOV is clear that both POVs should be described according to WP:WEIGHT. It is also necessary to preserve WP:BIASED intact.

Regarding BLPs, though content should be presented in a mature and professional manner, WP:PUBLICFIGURE is a policy that should not be belittled or degraded. That is even more true when the subject of a given BLP is not only a public figure, but a current or past (and maybe future) public official as well. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:06, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Defining partisan sources in a community as diverse as Wikipedia is somewhat problematic, sometimes even getting concurrence on what is RS can be an issue. I would be more confident in this principle if Wikipedia had a policy or even tutorial on source analysis and bias identification. As it is I feel despair at some sources considered 'reliable' on Wikipedia. Making determinations of 'partisan' in this environment seems a bridge too far. If it is in its remit maybe Arbcom can recommend/sponsor the creation of WikiProject:SourceAnalysis. Jbh (talk) 12:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Lists of supporters

3) The listing of supporters or opponents of a given position requires particular care, because it is usually difficult or impossible to indicate the degree and nature of support or opposition. The standards for inclusion need to be specifically given, and especially great care must be taken not to list people in support or opposition to something when they have only an indirect or occasional relationship.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I see some value in this as a principle and mostly agree with it, but it seems more like pioneering than reinforcing existing policy.- MrX 18:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Membership in a group isn't just a signed petition. It must be proven by reliable sources that a person or entity pays dues, attends meetings, formulates group events and policies or works in some cohesive fashion whereby membership is obvious. If an editor repeatedly tried to say a person is a member of a group but that person in their own words and deeds shows that they are not, then we don't add them as members. Filibustering for inclusion when the evidence supports otherwise is disruptive.--MONGO 19:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but I consider it merely an obvious restatement of existing BLP policy. It's the same principle by which we are specially careful about brief descriptions in infoboxes and summaries and titles, and placement in categories. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As in all things we, as Wikipedia editors, should not be characterizing people on our own. We should use the terms used by reliable sources,informed by our editorial judgement.

A huge amount of text was spent trying to figure out how to characterize the PNAC letter/statement signers as a group. Many (maybe most) sources, both news and scholarly, used the term 'members' or described a person as 'member of'. Some used signatories and a few used associates. It is not our place to replace the characterization of RS with our own characterization because sources use terms which we feel does not apply based on a dictionary definition. We can use our editorial judgement to choose the best characterization reported but sometimes things do not fall into neat pigeonholes. TL;DR RS should determine characterization not pedantry. Jbh (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a fair point. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Drawing analogies to historical events

3) In characterizing the nature of contributions or discussion, analogies and allusion to historical events or personalities that are widely disapproved of, is normally unproductive , and very likely to arouse personal animosities.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes, and they are best avoided altogether.- MrX 18:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, such analogies are inevitably toxic to the editing environment. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 10:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - This gets worse the more times the characterization/analogy is repeated particularly once other editors object. Repeated use of the terms after objection can sometimes be a personal attack/attack on a group depending on context and the precise characterization/analogy used. Jbh (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - The repeated use becomes a new inflated incident of attack each time it is used since it implies that any defense against the allusion has been disregarded. It not only arouses animosity, it stimulates and empowers it, and decreases the opportunity for consensus. . Buster Seven Talk 15:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is true, and relevant to one aspect of Collect's conduct, but I'm not sure it requires a separate finding. I would probably just subsume Collect's inappropriate use of inflammatory analogies under a more general principle about productive participation and appropriate communication. MastCell ^Talk 20:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Misuse of sources

1) Collect has a history of repeated misuse of sources, consisting in some cases of insisting upon the reliability of strongly partisan sources that support a particular point of view, and in others of rejecting ordinarily reliable sources that support another particular point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Evidence presented does not indicate he is alone in this issue. In fact, he has fought for years to keep partisan sources from violating NPOV and BLP.--MONGO 19:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a number of people have indeed done similar on quite a number of articles. That does not mean it should be tolerated. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

This is a particularly pernicious issue. Collect will give what sounds like a perfectly reasonable, policy based, sourcing request and then spend a huge amount of time refusing to acknowledge that the requirement has been met. Sometimes through moving the goal post and sometimes by claiming there is some 'defect' in the source and sometimes through just plain stonewalling. Jbh (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly correct. Again, I object to the use of the phrase "partisan sources". WP:BIASED is very clear that biased sources are acceptable. This FoF should be a little more explicit in stating that Collect has routinely advocated for the use of sources of questionable reliability (Daily Mail, Brietbart, Newsmax, Newsbusters), while rejecting other high-quality sources (Washington Post, New York Times, The Guardian).- MrX 15:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with MrX/Jbhunley here and see this aspect as relating to the inconsistent application and/or misrepresentation of policy with the aim of dismissing sources. Collect generally seeks to prioritize inclusion of sourcing supporting his POV and exclude those with a POV he doesn't like, irrespective of the quality, context, etc.

Insofar as Talk discussion involves the assessing of bias of respective POVs in RS and negotiating how much weight each POV is to be assigned according to prevalence in RS, Collect undermines WP:BIAS in doing so, threatening to skew the POV of articles should he succeed, and creates a toxic editing environment often generating tension on Talk pages in the process. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this finding is well-worded and gets pretty close to the heart of the matter from my perspective. The underlying problem is that Collect is very inconsistent in his interpretation of sources and policies. This finding implies, but does not explicitly state, that Collect's interpretation of sources and policies is fixed around his political ideology. I think that is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence, although not one I would necessarily focus on. MastCell ^Talk 20:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I am not sure which diffs or comments by Collect support this finding. For example, I followed links provided in this part of Evidence, but remained unconvinced. Did Collect argue anywhere that Washington Post and New York Times are not reliable sources in general? If so, that was wrong. However, it well could be that certain individual publications (e.g. editorials) from these sources may not be the best to source certain claims. On the other hand, something like Daily Mail, although a significantly less reliable source, may be used in many cases. If Collect systematically removed good RS to replace them by less reliable and POVish sources which support his position, that indeed could be a reason for sanctions, but merely a use of non-neutral sources should not be the reason - per this policy. My very best wishes (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

1RR on articles

1) Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert in any article dealing with BLP or American politics, per 24 hour period, excepting unambiguous vandalism.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I would prefer to see a one-year restriction. One year would allow him to get used to the idea and would likely follow that pattern.--MONGO 20:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two other names parties in this case, both with extensive recent block logs, should also face this sanction to restore article harmony.--MONGO 20:22, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my comment to 4.1.3.3 above.

Quoted from my evidence section.

Cwobeel - "A 1RR on political BLPs will allow you to revert, explain your reversion and engage in talk." [44]

Collect - "Where there is a BLP violation - letting it remain is actually contrary to any common sense. I think you just learned exactly how some others work to promote what they "know" to be the "truth" on BLPs." [45]

I think that a 1RR restriction is a bare minimum here given Collect's pattern of edit-warring. MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I can foresee this creating problems at the boundaries. Would topics such as climate change "skepticism" fall under the heading of American politics? The Traveling Boris (talk) 09:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limited contribution in article talk space

2) Collect is indefinitely limited to 2 contributions on any one article's talk page, per 24 hour period I am not sure we have ever implemented such a remedy, but along with the next remedy, I cannot think of anything that would more specifically address the problematic behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I considered proposing something very similar. Combined with #3 below, it's a good remedy, but only partially addresses the totality of the problem.- MrX 18:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see several other of "Collect's opponents" also be limited in a similar manner.--MONGO 20:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see this leading to more problems and stonewalling. All Collect needs to do is 'use up' his allotted comments, claim he still has objections, and consensus will never form. Since, from what I have seen, Collect argues to prevent consensus rather than to form an alternate consensus all this does is give him another tool for disruption. Jbh (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly concur - This proposed remedy will give other editors the opportunity to voice their opinions without being "drowned out" by Collect's vociferous involvement. New and different pathways to consensus will be allowed to bloom rather than die on the vine. . Buster Seven Talk 15:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that this remedy aims to address one of the central issues: Collect's filibustering and stonewalling. That said, I think it is too easily gamed and too hard to operationalize, as Jbh points out. I foresee alot of wikilawyering on WP:AE should anyone try to enforce a remedy like this against Collect. MastCell ^Talk 20:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

The problems with Collect's editing lie almost exclusively at BLP, politics, and (especially) the intersection of the two. General remedies such as this do not recognize the nature of the problem. The Traveling Boris (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is something that could easily be counter-productive to the purpose of the talk page. By limiting someone to 2 posts per day, you force an editor on an active page with multiple discussions to post large posts covering multiple issues at once. And the standard response to that is "TLDR" and their comment is ignored. This can also easily extend issues because of the post limit. Productive discussions sometimes take more than 2 posts per day. It's an idea, but to my mind it will cause more problems than it would fix. Ravensfire (talk) 02:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Limited contribution in WP talk space and noticeboards

3) Collect is indefinitely limited on any one point in a discussion in WP talk space or on a noticeboard to 2 contributions per issue raised, per 24 hour period I am not sure we have ever implemented such a remedy, but along with the previous proposed remedy, I cannot think of anything that would more specifically address the problematic behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Without considering the merits, this wording would be way to easily gamed/argued/wikilawyered over (by both "sides"). The closest remedy that I can recall that has been passed was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Infoboxes#Gerda Arendt restricted - "Gerda Arendt is indefinitely restricted from: [...] making more than two comments in discussing the inclusion or exclusion of an infobox on a given article [...]". I'm recused from that topic area, but as a semi-involved observation (not an official Arbitrator observation) that restriction has been only moderately effective in achieving its aim, and that with the restricted party actively attempting to keep to the restriction despite on occasion the other side trying to game her into breaching it. Without very tight wording, I don't see it being even that successful here. Thryduulf (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Per my comments in #2 above, I think this is a good remedy, but only partially addresses the totality of the problem. My fear is that Collect might extend problematic discussions to user talk pages, AE, ARCA or other fora where the limitation doesn't apply. There's quite a bit of forum shopping evidence to support such a concern. - MrX 19:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Collect as doing anymore forum shopping than some of his adversaries. But limiting threaded discussions essentially means his adversaries could out shout Collect, who has already self proclaimed he's been harassed of BLPs anyway.--MONGO 20:15, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is he usually the only one supporting a position? DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this would be threaded, but on some articles, he does seem to be alone against numerous editors. I wouldn't say this is because he is on the wrong side or anything like that. Most find fighting against the inclusion of UNDUE negative items a thankless task so they avoid it due to the resultant drama and acrimony.--MONGO 03:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This might not be as big an issue as #2 above because more people would be involved. I would also recommend he be restricted to opening only one noticeboard discussion on a given topic in a 90 day period and be admonished to present the topic neutrally and notify other editors. Jbh (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed three related remedies in my section above. Jbh (talk) 12:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We all know that building consensus is not a numbers game. So, involving more people is not about numbers. Its about new ideas and new solutions and new insights that are not expressed because of some over-riding Drama that has everyone's attention. Many editors remain silent because they fear conflict with veteran editors . Buster Seven Talk 15:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Per my comment on the proposal immediately above. A targeted version of this remedy would be both more helpful and less restrictive on Collect. The Traveling Boris (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Evidence from Collect

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is clear from the diffs presented by Collect about my editing show they he and I sometimes disagree about content, but in no way demonstrate that I have violated BLP policy. For example:

• 333 is a comment in an RfC in which I support the consensus view that the title of the article is appropriate.
• 335 Yes, that was a snark on my part, voicing my annoyance with Collect's forum shopping, largely because he has repeatedly defended this particular sockmaster against mountains of evidence.
• 345 Not a snark; legitimate concern about wikilawyering.
• 337 not remotely a BLP violation and I think I made a sufficient argument. WP:MUG actually supports my argument.
• 346 Again, a comment in RfC is not remotely a BLP violation. The descriptor is very well-sourced, although my views on using such labels has evolved since then.
• I never claimed that Collect followed me to articles or hounded me. He claimed that I followed him to 80% of article—a claim which I proved to be false. Of the articles that we edit in common, I edited some months after Collect last edited them. (for example, Rick Perry:15 months; Steve Scalise:4 months)- MrX 20:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Though I didn't raise WP:HOUND or WP:HARASS during this case, I have mentioned the issue on my User Talk page and elsewhere, partly due to Collect posting this thread, which he subsequently followed with this thread on his User Talk page . Some of the evidence presented by Fyddlestix corroborates the fact that Collect was trying to carry over his grievances from previous content disputes onto new articles, and I'll add more later, such as diffs.

The point, I suppose, is that Collect's assertion that because he had a prior edit on a given article sometime in the past that his engagement there subsequently arriving in the manner described by him on his own UT page or in a manner indicated by the diffs provided by Fyddlestix precludes the possibility of hounding or harassment is incorrect.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:53, 8 April; 18:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubikwit: That whole thread is in my evidence. I addressed the initial comment he posted on that thread in my evidence. [46](Although the diff for the first comment seems to be missing. I can hunt it up again if the Arbs want me to.) The link to the whole thread in my evidence is here at the second bullet point. Jbh (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: OK, thanks. I didn't have time to follow all of the evidence postings/responses. Noting that Fyddlestix posted this diff as evidence,

and made a comment that Collect has basically been goading Ubikwit into making reverts with WP:POINTy edits... in which he's adding more of the material he opposes to the article

I'll just leave this as is, unless there is a request for clarification.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:26, 9 April; 05:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence from Atsme

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Breitbart (website) December 21, 2014 - Nowhere in the removed content is the word "deliberately" or any of its synonyms. That's not strict adherence to policy; that's using the policy as a lever in a content dispute. I partially agree with Atsme, in that Collect is consistent.- MrX 20:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Accusations by Collect

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

In his evidence, Collect accuses me of violating WP:BLP, harming people, showing disdain for real-life harassment and death threats, and so on. As supporting evidence, he offers two edits of mine to A Rape on Campus from December 2014: [47], [48]. Given the severity of this charge, I feel compelled to respond formally, although I think that perusal of the evidence alone is sufficient to show that it is unfounded.

In this edit, I remove several "See also" links from the article. Now, it is beyond me how the removal of "See also" links could ever constitute a BLP violation, although I suppose it is technically possible. In this case, the links were clearly intended to link a dubious sexual-assault accusation to "feminist theory", to Janet Cooke, and so on. "See also" links aren't intended to convey an ideological viewpoint about the article subject (in this case, using it to imply that it discredits feminism). If some notable person has linked the case in question to "feminist theory", then we report that in the article body, with appropriate sources, attribution, and context—not as a "See also" link. This is Wikipedia 101. I suppose it is arguable whether this was a "good" edit or not (I think it was), but it is absolutely laughable to misrepresent it as a BLP violation or as evidence of gross malfeasance and disregard for human dignity.

In the second diff, I remove a paragraph about a blogger who threatened to reveal personal details about the accuser unless she recanted her allegations. The blogger in question in question has a long history of publishing inflammatory (and often false and harmful) claims about living people (see New York Times profile). In this case he claimed that the female accuser was "rape-obsessed" and threatened to "reveal[] everything about her past" unless she recanted her accusation of sexual assault. Regardless of the ultimate disposition of the case, I think BLP compels us to avoid amplifying this sort of repellent blackmail, particularly in a case involving a sensitive topic like sexual assault. I removed the material as an obvious violation of WP:BLPGOSSIP, as I said in my edit summary, and frankly it seemed like a no-brainer.

For Collect to present my removal as a BLP violation is shocking but also telling. Every time he sanctimoniously repeats his absolute commitment to "do no harm", I want you to think about that edit, because this is another Emperor's-New-Clothes moment. Here, I am trying to "do no harm" to a living person by refusing to amplify a blogger's attempt to blackmail her. Collect is supporting the inclusion of threats against a living person by a blogger with a track record of false accusations and harm to living people; and in fact he is arguing that I violated BLP by removing them. I think that tells you everything you need to know about his level of consistency and integrity in applying WP:BLP. MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Evidence from My very best wishes

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I'm gobsmacked that in this link in the section Some evidence shows bias of submitters, My very best wishes characterizes Fyddlestix and my objection to being deliberately misrepresented as a "squabble". Diffs of the misrepresentation were presented:[49][50], yet no counterevidence has been presented. Notably, when I confronted Collect about his lie, instead of apologizing and retracting it, he stuck through part of it and said that I demur. He ended with a sigh. He then went on to claim that he "was asked who the proponents were, and [he] sought to answer as accurately as [he] could.", another misrepresentation. He was actually asked "Whose idea was it, anyway?". - MrX 13:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the table out into a list-article was entirely my, rather bad, idea. The table and material had existed in the article for sometime before being challenged by Collect. I felt that the length of the table in the article might be UNDUE and having consensus at the article (And my firm belief.) that the material was not a BLP or SYNTH violation I spun it out all on my own. In my frustration with Collect's obstinacy I did not consider the POVFORK issue which I later found compelling at AfD. MrX and Fydlestix had nothing to do with the creation of the article-list although Fyddlestix did an amazing job of applying cites to each entry and tightening up the sourcing after I spun it out. (At the end I believe 95% of the references were scholarly). I can not speak to who created the original table in the PNAC article as it already existed when I came to the dispute via BLP/N. Jbh (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misrepresenting other editors positions, as in this case, seems to me to be an attempt to marginalize their input in the discussion and pre-define 'sides'. When you group editors as 'supporters' or 'accusers' other editors will often be less likely to listen to nuanced differences in their arguments. This makes compromise harder and the chance of drama much greater because the discussion is no longer a group of editors seeking consensus but rather two 'sides' battling over one of two extreme outcomes.

From my point of view this behavior is a part of the overall BATTLEGROUND pattern of behavior. Trying to emotionally frame a discussion by demonizing one side through tying it to many/various 'bad things'. cf. anti-Semitism, McCarthyism, conspiracy theories. This is an extension of non-neutral notification and Campaigning. Using an analogy once or twice is one thing but what Collect does is another. At the very least it brings more drama to a debate and at the worst it can suppress discussion.Jbh (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: The analogy was not at all congruent to the PNAC situation, which comprised a group(s) of notable public figures that had signed historical documents promoting foreign policy positions. Wnt made the following comment at the AfD

This AfD shouldn't and by policy can't settle what is suitable to include in articles, but I find some of the rationales expressed against inclusion to be invalid. To begin with "COATRACK" is an all-purpose deletion buzzword that really is out of place when describing the list of signers of one or more of an organization's most notable documents. It's not like someone just randomly hung the list somewhere; it's physically part of the document of interest, which is a defining aspect of the organization. BLP certainly can't be invoked - when someone is a signer of a major, well-publicized historical document, and there's no dispute about that, I don't even see where you'd start. I get the feeling - correct me if I'm wrong - that somebody thinks that the people who signed ought to feel embarrassed that they signed, so we should protect them from that embarrassment by hiding that... which would be absurd, since after all they were going on the record about something they cared about, and it was a notable achievement.

Collect basically accused editors supporting the list of committing a McCarthyist crime of assigning "guilt by association" (with respect to what was never even articulated) by supporting the list. It was a deplorable tactic that did indeed cast aspersions. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:52, 11 April; 11:14, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Factchecker atyourservice: No, though the list was a work in progress, secondary sources had been found for everyone on the list, I believe, and of course the primary source letter and one report were listed as well. I've posted this reference version of deleted PNAC list on my sandbox page temporarily, assuming that there isn't a problem with that, so you can have a look for yourself. @Euryalus:@DGG: Please let me know if I should delete that reference list.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Factchecker atyourservice: No, everyone in the list article was noted as being a 'member' or whatever the term by multiple scholarly sources. That they signed, that it was notable they signed and that it was notable that those signers were part of the Bush II administration were noted in single sources. (The sources said things like these X people who signed Y later became members of the Bush II administration. People say that because so many of these people were in policy positions PNAC may have had a major influence (or not) on US foreign policy.) It was not a case of a someone being mentioned as signing then another article saying they were in Bush II and another saying 'wow isn't is interesting all of these people signed a PNAC document and were part of Bush II'. I can dig up the reference list if you want and I think it has been posted on the PNAC page by Fyddlestix.

To this day I have never heard a good explanation how that list was SYNTH or BLP for that matter. I can say with certainty that if Collect had simply expressed his specific concerns with how these policies were being violated instead of making spurious claims, using offensive analogies and claiming some unspecified 'guilt' by association I would not be here. Rather than participating in civil discourse Collect stonewalled on unsupported BLP and SYNTH claims, claims of conspiracy, something about "Jewish double loyalty" that I did not get and likening the table to tactics used by House Committee on Un-American Activities against the CPUSA during the Red Scare. This was done even while the table was in the main article.

To an American implying support for McCarthyism is like telling a Russian that their position is the same as supporting Stalin's purges or invoking the Stasi to a German. While that time was not as bloody it is a very dark time in our history where Americans betrayed each other to their own government and those people were in turn destroyed socially, politically and economically by their own government to force them to turn on friends and associates.

I hope I have presented why this is not just a casual analogy and Collect, having claimed to have been affected by these purges knew that very well when he made hyperbolic use of it. Jbh (talk) 17:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

"Diffs of the misrepresentation were presented:[3][4], "

I'm glad that you linked some diffs, but could you please explain how you think they show misrepresentation? If they don't, both the claim and the diffs should be struck. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is my point. Collect was accused of making personal attacks and casting aspersions. But I do not think he actually did it. Casting aspersions is something like this (unsubstantiated accusations of contributors in a certain subject area; I am giving you a standing WP:AE example). I agree that some comments by Collect were not helpful, and the AfD and other discussions would came to the same conclusion without his participation (per MastCell). But that happens all the time in contentious subject areas. Such comments should be simply ignored. I do not see this as a reason for severe sanctions. P.S. Maybe this is because I came from a different culture, but I do not really understand what all this fuss was about. OK, let's assume that MrX and editors wanted a particular version of the page to stay not because they liked it, but for another reason. Why that matters? Why make a big issue out of this? my objection to being deliberately misrepresented as a "squabble"? Yes, It looks to me exactly as The Squabble. My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S. I do not know much about PNAC, and I did not even read this AfD. However, speaking in general, I agree with Collect that placing living people in a list where they should not be (or creating a list that should not exist at the first place) may imply a guilt by association and be against our BLP policy. May be that's why this list has been deleted? Arguing that a list should be deleted because it was an WP:Attack page, such as in this example (in the diff McCarthyism is merely an analogy or a figure of speech, rather than an accusation against other editors) does not look problematic to me. My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have a question for Fyddle and/or anyone else involved in that part of the dispute. I want to make sure I understand the scenario correctly and can't figure it out from looking at a number of diffs. Was there ever a case in which the mere fact of a person's signature having appeared on a statement of purpose or founding document issued by an organization was being used as the sole or primary sourcing for a Wikipedia-prose claim that the person was a supporter/associate/principal/etc. of that organization? ** @Jbhunley: Hmm, well, if I had to guess I would say it is the construction of a list of political affiliations out of number of disparate sources that raise Collect's SYNTH alarm, and some concerns do seem apparent to me. Making up a list in this way doesn't seem troubling when we're talking about aircraft parts or places to visit in the south of Spain, but a list of political affiliations implicates some rather more personal and ambiguous factors, not least of which is how strong or direct a given person's support or association of/with a particular group is supposed to be. The systematic noting of which person was a signatory to which document, etc., perhaps provides some indication. How meaningful or reliable an indication? It's hard to say; these are usually questions we leave to reliable secondary sources. But since there isn't a source for the list per se, we seem to have manufactured a situation in which those ordinary guideposts to writing an article do not exist for this part of the article. Is that SYNTH? I'm not sure, but inclined to say that it is. It's more than a little troubling, and while the analogy to McCarthyism may not be on all fours, and is perhaps a little hyperbolic in terms of the severity of potential, shall we say, "persecution" that would be contemplated, I don't think it's weak or inapt here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 16:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence from MrXComment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Diff-by-diff response from User:Factchecker_atyourservice to allegations made by User:MrX

"*Asking to be spoon fed evidence that has already been presented, often in multiple forms: [51][52][53]"

Look, diffs don't belong next to a statement unless they support it. If somebody links diffs that don't show misrepresentation, then those diffs don't support a claim of misrepresentation.

"*Irrational statements lacking evidence:[54]"

NONSENSE. Look at the diff — it is not even a statement, it's a QUESTION. I'm not even sure a question can be irrational, unless it's completely unintelligible in the first place. Anyway, the claim is that Collect misbehaved in X manner. If the filing parties also misbehaved in X manner, then why is a case being filed? Hence I ask whether the filing parties claim that they have not engage in this conduct.

"*(Ironic) appeals to hypocrisy:[55][56][57][58][59]"

I'm not calling anyone a hypocrite in any of those diffs. I'm simply arguing that if punishments are going to be administered, they should be meted out equitably. In other words, if one or more of the parties filing accusations here have attempted to abuse admin process to win content disputes, and have edit-warred excessively, and have a more serious record of blocks than Collect, then those behaviors should be noted and punished accordingly. Collect should not be singled out for certain behaviors while others are given a free pass. You're really grasping at straws by calling this an accusation of hypocrisy and I don't appreciate it.

"*Posting evidence after the evidence phase has closed and then complaining because it was hatted:[60]"

What does this even mean? You're posting numerous diffs after the close of evidence. And my diff wasn't hatted because of evidence being closed, so I don't see your point.

"*Personal attacks lacking evidence:[61][62][63]"

These are not even personal attacks! The first one is a complaint about Buster7's sensational, unsupported claims and is virtually indistinguishable from a complaint User:Beyond_My_Ken made about my submission. The second one is a recounting of relevant past misbehavior by User:MastCell and a qualitative claim about Cwobeel's editing habits. The third one is speculation about Collect's possible motives in a case of personal disagreement with Buster7. It referred to Collect's possible state of mind, not mine, and was made in response to a question by Buster. All these are squarely within the purview of the Arbs here and it's not improper to talk about it any of it.

"*Attempting to politicize the case:[64]"

This case is politically charged irrespective of what you or I say about it. The subject matter is politics and many of the dispute participants show partisan editing tendencies. Eleven arbs voted to accept this as a case about American politics. I think we can be honest and collegial without pretending that's not the case.

"*Removing other editor's talk page comments:[65][66]"

The comment had absolutely nothing to do with this case, and the removal had absolutely nothing to do with this case. The comment was hatted because it had absolutely nothing to do with this case. This criticism from you also has nothing to do with this case.

"*(Apparently) assuming the role of Collect's lawyer and demanding special treatment:[67][68][69][70]"

It's not inappropriate to stand up for another WP editor, and at no time have I made anything other than a strongly worded request coupled with clearly stated reasons why (IMO) it would be good to grant the request. You're presenting a simple request for an extension, which is allowed by the rules as evidence of a "demand for special treatment". This hardly seems like a serious, forthright claim. Also note that in some of those comments I'm not even asking for leeway for myself but rather for Collect. If you cannot state anything wrong with these comments please do not post complaints about them.

"*Inflammatory remarks.[71][72]"

That first comment was in response to JBH's inflammatory, completely uninformed and uncivil armchair psychology about Collect and his alleged lack of personal responsibility — based, of course, on zero knowledge about the man's life. The second one, I'm not even sure what you mean. Thrydulf asked for a suggestion. I made the suggestion. My suggestion involved making qualitative judgments about what I think is going on in thise case, and stating those judgments, and stating a possible way of dealing with cases like this one differently (a bit more fairly, in my opinion).

"*Pettifoggery:[73]"

I've never been accused of "pettifoggery" before. I note that WP:Pettifoggery is a redlink. Also, there is a clear difference between publicizing information and making it available to a narrow set of participants who are already looking for it. So what is pettifoggery in this case and how have I violated WP policy by committing it?

If you were the subject of this case, perhaps some latitude should be afforded for your conduct, but since you're not and this is the same type of behavior that I observed at Shooting of Michael Brown[74][75] and warned you about[76], I thought it reasonable to propose this remedy."

Yes, upon undoing some inappropriate edits by Cwobeel, I did state in personalized and sarcastic terms that I felt those sorts of edits were a habit for Cwobeel. I got blocked for it (and so did Cwobeel). And whaddya know, here we are at a forum whose express purpose is to analyze the editing habits of individual editors So I'm at a loss at your suggestion that it's somehow inappropriate for me to suggest that a particular editor displays a particular habit. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussionComment by Arbitrators:

In passing, no credible evidence was presented regarding either disruptive essay-writing (is that even a thing?), or canvassing. As a personal view and subject to other Committee opinions, am unlikely to support proposed findings on either of these topics. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: Exactly so. If (if) it occurred, it had no effect. And it's not important enough to pursue. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: ah, I was unclear. I meant findings relating to canvassing during this case, which were raised as an accusation on the /Evidence talkpage. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ubikwit: in passing the concept of free passes for experienced editors is covered briefly here. But unsurprisingly, an editor's contributions are seen in context. A ten-edit vandal account is vastly less valuable to Wikipedia than a 40,000 edit veteran with a history of good contributions. It's not a free pass for experienced editors, it's the conundrum of a curate's egg. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@MONGO: assurance that on my part at least, there is no reflection on Collect for not participating in the workshop. He posted evidence early on; he remains welcome to participate further or not as he chooses; and no one should attribute bad faith to his presently being away for personal reasons. Equally, the case needs to proceed according to the timetable, which so far it has. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

@Euryalus: I'm surprised that you don't see evidence of canvassing, but I suppose it's a misdemeanor offense anyway and probably doesn't really matter.- MrX 15:59, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I too am a bit shocked by this since Campaigning "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner" is an element of CANVASS not just improper notification. Jbh (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: Thank you for the clarification. For a bit there I thought I would need to re-consider my position if the things I thought were improper were not. That would have been a lot of crow to eat. :) Jbh (talk) 20:26, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the sanctions placed on Collect my strong opinion is that they should not automatically expire. Collect should demonstrate to ArbCom's satisfaction that he has indeed changed and once sanctions are lifted he will not 'return to his old ways' Jbh (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to apologize for not participating more actively in this phase of the case - I'm pretty new to this stuff and to be honest I just haven't felt confident or experienced enough to propose any findings or remedies of my own.

Before this phase closes, though, I would like to underline an idea which has been indirectly discussed above; that being a "senior" editor should not be used as an excuse for problematic behavior. In my view, Collect's own sense of being indispensable in his efforts to watch over BLP articles, and some other editors' uncritical acceptance of that view, are one of the primary causes of the issues that led to this case. Were Collect any other (less active, more junior) editor, I feel certain that he would have faced stronger sanctions much earlier, and a lot of the issues that led to this case could have been nipped in the bud. I hope that the committee sees it this way too and will include a discussion of the idea that no one editor is so prolific/valuable as to excuse chronic misbehavior in their decision.

Finally, I'd like to second the inclusion of FCAYS and JBH's discussion, which is linked below. A lot has happened since this debate first began, and it can sometimes be hard to put past discussions/debates in context - but I feel JBH did a really good job of that in his comments in the thread linked below. I agree with him that if Collect had just been willing to explain his position clearly and without animosity at an early stage, then a lot of the subsequent issues and debates could have been avoided. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in the past year or two, as I recall, I made reference to the essay WP:DIVA (at AN/I, I believe) to characterize Collect's relationship to BLPs. This case would seem to bear that out.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit...I fail to see how it benefits your argument to insult Collect in this forum. According to what he has posted, Collect is on break and this is partly due to medical issues. Now, that doesn't mean arbcom has to have a pity party, but it does mean that if we are supposed to AGF, then has hasn't quit in a huff, and may indeed have other things going on that preclude him from currently participating, perhaps even major things. Thanks.--MONGO 00:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Further reading: some general remarks transpired between myself and Jbh regarding the sourcing of the PNAC supporter list, lost opportunities for discussion in content disputes, observations by Jbh about Collect's behavior and speculation by me about his motives. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 02:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others/Workshop&oldid=1136116066"