Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Robert McClenon (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: DGG (Talk) & Euryalus (Talk)

Evidence presented by MrX

Edit warring

Dispite six edit warring blocks and two reversion restriction blocks, Collect routinely edit wars:

PAOT Koch brothers	July 1, 2012	[1]
John Waters	February 6, 2014	[2] report:[3]
Michael Grimm	April 28, 2014	[4]
	November 22, 2014	[5]
	December 1, 2014	[6] warning:[7] response:[8]
Joni Ernst	August 27, 2014	[9]
	October 1, 2014	[10]
Marco Rubio	June 11, 2014	[11] warning:[12]
Breitbart	December 21, 2014	[13]
	December 23, 2014	[14]
	December 27, 2014	[15] warning:[16]

False claims

February 26, 2014	Deletes proposed (sourced) content from a talk page falsely claiming "Your posting below of that material is now redacted as required by WP:BLP ... if it is a violation on one page, it is a violation on every page."[17]
October 30, 2014	False claim that "headlines are not part of any reliable source"[18] discussion[19] Similar claim on March 20, 2015 to game the system.[20]
December 27, 2014	Removes sourced content as a BLP violation, falsely claiming that "that Huston deliberately wrote an untruth",[21] although there was no such claim made. Took it to BLP/N.[22] Continued to filibuster even after all six other editors in the discussion[23] confirmed that the content was not a BLP violation in any sense.
December 31, 2014	Pointedly posted a false edit warring warning[24] which I fully disproved[25] (discussion:[26]). When asked to retract the warning, provide valid evidence, or report me, he deleted my post, suggesting that I needed a rest.[27]
March 14, 2015	Knowingly misled an editor to believe that it was partly my idea to create an article that the editor called "marvelously stupid".[28] Failed to notify me.
March 14, 2015	Falsely claimed that he was blocked for "standing on this" and alluding to McCarthyism.[29] He was in fact blocked for edit warring on a related, but different article.[30]
April 2, 2015	Falsely claims that I follow him more than 80% of the time.[31]. The Editor Interaction Analyzer actually shows that of the 133 pages that we both edited, he edited 82 of them first and I edited 51 of them first. 82÷133=61.7%.[32] For articles, the percentage are roughly equal (53.4 % to 46.6%)[33] He has been actively editing at least three years longer than me.

Forum shopping and canvassing

October 1, 2014	Vote-stacking:[34]
December 12, 2014	Edit war.[35] Discussion ongoing on the article talk page. Posts at RS/N.[36] The discussion[37] doesn't go his way so he posts at BLP/N.[38] An editor points out the forum shopping.[39] Collect says "Nope. This is about a specific cavil just raised in an edit summary, for which this is the proper and only noticeboard. Cheers."[40]
January 24, 2015	Makes two reverts at Marco Rubio[41] and minutes later opens a BLP/N discussion, [42] bypassing the talk page altogether. I open a talk page discussion.[[43] Another editor makes a concrete compromise proposal,[44] resolving the dispute.
October 20, 2014	Campaigning:[45]
March 2, 2015	Campaigning:[46]
March 20, 2015	Inappropriate notification (spamming and campaigning)[47]: "The case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate".
March 21, 2015	38 minutes after I create an article, Collect attempts to rally support on Jimbo's talk page to delete it.[[48]

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

February 6, 2014	Posts this:[49] to his talk page after an admin told him that Collect's edit warring did not satisfy the criteria for a 3RR BLP exception.[50]
May 12, 2014	Posts a lengthy, rambling screed to an Arbcom case evidence talk page[51] I made a critical comment[52] and retracted it about an hour later.[53] Collect then copied my retracted comment to his talk page.[54]
October 2014	Creates multiple non-neutrally-worded RfCs, for one article, in a short span of time.[55] [56] [57]
March 15, 2015	Links to old version of an article [58] in which he is involved in a content dispute at AfD, BLP/N, Ubikwit's talk page, Jimbo's talk page and the article talk page[59] (also forum shopping).
March 14, 2015	Posted huge amounts of article content at BLP/N.[60]

Gaming the system

January 7, 2014	Removes content and 22 sources, claiming WP:BLP.[61] Again[62].
April 16, 2014	Wikilawyering and a false claim that " it is not usual for "place of birth" to be in BLPs".[63]
April 29, 2014	Posts non-neutrally-worded RfCs: [64] [65]
October 16, 2014	Edit wars.[66]. Starts a talk page discussion.[67] Ten minutes later starts an RfC.[68] Makes a strawman argument invoking the communist party.[69]
December 31, 2014	Undermines verifiability by removing a source based on false analogy (no crime was asserted in the source or the article). [70]
January 29, 2015	Removes content and eleven sources.[71] At a RS/N discussion, several editors point out that a source is reliable for the claims made (discussion: [72]). Two editors besides the OP support the reliability of the source. Collect seems to assert that because the BLP subject refutes that his novel links homosexuality to pedophilia, that it falls under "an ArbCom area decision regarding charges about homosexuality." [73] When another source is presented that corroborates the first source[74], Collect responds, "Did you note The Guardian used the PW as its source for that claim? LOL!... Clue: Sources which quote the same source do not become multiple sources. Really."[75] I present six additional corroborating sources and a suggestion that Collect may be gaming the system.[76] Falsely claims to have edited "several thousand BLPs"[77], when in fact he has edited fewer than one thousand. List with methodology used to extract the list, here:[78] (Made the same false claim here:[79]) A few hours later, makes a pointy edit at Tea Party movement using the same source being discussed (Publishers Weekly) at RS/N.[80]
February 2, 2015	Replaced six occurrences of Heather Bresch's name from an article, replacing her name with "the person".[81] Minutes later scrubs all mention of the MBA controversy [82] from Heather Bresch. Upon being reverted in both cases, opens a BLP/N discussion [83]. Even a Bresch-affiliated paid editor objects to Collect's interpretation of BLP policy.[84] (discussion:[85])
February 7, 2015	Insists on strong sourcing and non-negotiable BLP adherence; makes edits like this.[86]
February 10, 2015	Reinserts material, which I had reverted in the previous edit.[87] I added a neutrality disputed tag to the section,[88] and an edit summary with "See my comments on the talk page". Collect starts a discussion at BLP/N.[89] I suggest that it's not an issue for BLP/N and that we should try to resolve it on the talk page. [90] Rather than join the talk page discussion, starts a pointy discussion at NPOV/N.[91]
March 20, 2015	Reverts an edit with six sources.[92] I open a talk page discussion, [93] which Collect bypasses and instead posts to BLP/N.[94] After Collect's argument is refuted by MastCell, with a list of sources, [95] Collect falsely claims "Your sources support that employees claim there was an unwritten policy in the DEP, and only in the DEP." [96] which I refute with specific evidence found in MastCell's previous post.[97] (discussion [98]).
March 2, 2015 February 5, 2015	Removes wikilinks for notable people claiming "we do not generally add in extraneous names into any BLP". [99] Violates his own rule.[100]

Filibustering with strawman, red herring and tu quoque arguments

January 2, 2014	Starts a BLP/N discussion questioning the reliability of a source that states a living person's age (16) when she was married.[101] An editor identifies a corroborating source.[102] Collect questions the new source claiming "it appears to be "celebrity filler".[103] Another editor points out another corroborating source—a source which Collect previously endorsed as reliable.[104] Collect argues "it is reliable for lots of stuff -- but is not "best source" for any celebrity gossip material"[105] When asked by another editor "What does "a good source for celebrity gossip" mean?" Collect doesn't respond.[106]. Near the end of the discussion, six of nine involved editors opine that the sources are reliable. Collect then "moves the goalposts", focusing on a different edit.[107]
September 8, 2014	[108]
March 23, 2015	Refutes that he misused BLP policy, claiming that I also removed offending material.[109] When I post evidence that the material I removed had nothing to do with his BLP violation claim and ask him to identify the specific BLP violation,[110] he evades the question instead responding with a complaint about an edit I made in an unrelated article.[111]

Ascerbic, dismissive and passive-aggressive comments

January 19, 2014	"I made the mistake of assuming that people were able to look at the articles so edited without too much trouble. Clearly I was wrong and I apologise for making that assumption."[112]
February 14, 2014	"Alas -- what you "believe" is not how Wikipedia articles are edited. It has this horrid rule that articles use WP:RS reliable sources, and that is where your problem appears to lie. Cheers."[113]
September 8, 2014	"I am also "amused" that you gave a lengthy reinsertion of the Labour Party connection when you then had to DELETE what was basically the same material! PLEASE abide by WP:BLP and WP:NPOV no matter how much you hate someone."[114]
February 24, 2015	"And I find your comment to be of de minimis value here. Cheers."[115]

Refusal to cooperate and battleground attitude

August 27, 2014	[116]
February 22, 2015	Editor tries to resolve a content dispute.[117] Collect lectures about BLP policy.[118] The editor protests and requests specifics.[119] Collect continues to lecture, generalizing and evading the request for specifics.[120]

Evidence presented by Ubikwit

Amalgamated tendentious editing and gaming the system

Collect has cultivated a sophisticated, integrated, comprehensive approach to tendentious editing, and is adept at marshaling the full gamut of Wikipedia resources in support or defense. Collect will attempt to dismiss sources he doesn't like (diffs later), failing that he'll pretend not to hear other editors talking about them(diffs later), or to engage the sources, basically refusing to collaborate. He will appeal to policy and make excessive use of notice boards in an attempt to obstruct the creation of content that he finds objectionable for personal reasons, no matter how high quality the sourcing. Here, he opens a second thread on the same topic at NPOV/N[121] as one that was already concurrently active[122]. Another editor queried the necessity at the time,[123] and pointed out that there was a thread on the same topic open at BLP/N.

There is more to his making recourse to multiple boards than forum shopping; he uses such tactics to divert the discussion off into turbulent tangentials, diffusing the focus in relation to a given issue, with the aim of gaining a strategic advantage in content disputes, demonstrating that he treats Wikipedia as a battlefield. As shown below, he won't abide by consensus if he can contrive recourse to a wikilawyered interpretation of policy he can assert to override the consensus (e.g., "self-identification" in the following illustrative example).

Aside from the excessive recourse to notice boards, he starts RfCs in the midst of an article talk discussion that has yet to reach a point where one might be called for, effectively forestalling resolution of the issues actually at hand. He has also started RfCs at policy pages, in relation to content disputes, in an attempt to make a point and forestall the discussion or gain an advantage. Taken together this conduct represents a systematic abuse of Wikipedia resources for POV pushing (or obstruction); i.e, gaming the system with a battle of attrition modus operandi.

Illustrative case Joe Klein (and to a lesser extent, the related Neoconservatism)

1. Talk thread
2. BLP/N thread
   
3. dual loyalties

Collect's initial strategy was to remove the infobox religious affiliation category as well as “Jewish” from the phrase “Jewish neoconservatives”, removing the aspect that makes the religious affiliation per blpcat notable and rendering the entire topic of dual loyalties based on religious affiliation unintelligible.[124] In light of the subsequent RfC and the like, it appears that the assault on categories (Collect adopted a similar approach in the Sam Harris article, which succeeded because of different circumstances) was aimed at precluding content in the main body that referred to the subject as Jewish (the content of the category).

1. MrX agrees that sources meet blpcat and notability in terms of relevance.[125]
2. Nomoskedasticity agrees that sources meet blpcat.[126]
3. Nomoskedasticity indirectly warns Collect against reverting against consensus[127]
4. Collect claims that blpcat policy overrides consensus between the three editors commenting on the thread.[128]
5. MrX adds sources and queries Collect about collaborative editing.[129]
6. MrX asks Collect if he intends to restore categories, etc. removed in this edit, which Collect had initially reverted and after which further sourcing was provided and the above-mentioned consensus reached.
7. I repeat blpcat notability and ask him to abide by consensus.[130]

Starts pointy RfCs as diversionary tactic preventing resolution of content disputes, further evincing a battlefield mentality

This RfC at BLP talk regarding Joe Klein article was not worded neutrally, and even the closer noted that it was pointy. I commented twice, first touching on rationale for bringing the matter to AE[131], then replying as to the necessity of accepting the "ethnicity" category, not being able to devote further effort to the dispute.[132]

• Note In this Talk thread at the Neoconservativism article I began to wonder whether Collect had a COI based on his religious affiliation.[133]

Re: Sam Harris article
Rfc 1

1. First he started this BLP/N thread targeting BLPCAT, which wasn’t at issue.
2. Next he deletes several categories from the article pertaining to whether Harris is Jewish.[134]
3. Then he started this RfC on Sayeed’s tribalism quote, which was not a statement that needed an RfC.
4. I responded to the Sayeed related accusations during AN/I-2 here.
   

• Note: This text, Christopher Hitchens once referred to Harris as a "Jewish warrior against theocracy and bigotry of all stripes" remains in the article,in the lead of this section. That seems to indicate inconsistency in Collect's approach of including material characterizing an article subject as "Jewish" when there is no "self identification" as such.
  

Rfc 2
Subsequently, he started another non-neutrally worded RfC[135], crying BLP, etc. After Xenophrenic had deleted the Political subsection on false pretenses here, Collect referred to my restoration of the material, instead of my original edit here, apparently attempting to draw attention to my edit summary, which included an accusation of "gaming" regarding Xenophrenic's revert.

Canvassing/Campaigning on his user talk page

Several examples of campaigning/canvassing and not notifying editors he's quoting have been presented, and I'll add one more.
This shows Collect canvassing (I'm not sure how else to characterize it, maybe "rallying the troops") on his Talk page[136] for input regarding a comment I’d made a last ce to here. Capitalismojo responds here and again, referring to “ancient libels”.

Evidence presented by Fyddlestix

My interactions with Collect have been limited to a single article: Project for the New American Century. On this article and related pages, over the past month, I have observed Collect:

Editing to Make a Point

Instead of making a case for removing a source he objected to, Collect repeatedly added lengthy blockquotes (from the source he wanted removed) to an article: [137][138] [139] [140] [141]. He also added categories that had no relationship to the article's actual subject: [142][143][144] [145].

In fairness, note one self-revert here (awareness of edit warring) [146].

When I intervened to remove the off-topic, POINTy blockquote, Collect responded by filing a new, misleading RFC. At that point, he had made exactly one reply [147] to the several posts I'd made on the talk page explaining why I felt the quote should be removed [148][149], which did not seem to acknowledge or respond to the arguments I'd made. His RFC also used a diff of my edit, but completely misrepresented my position. I informed Collect of his mistake and asked him to re-word the RFC here, but he refused here, in a comment where he all but admits bringing baggage from the previous, ongoing disputes between Collect & Ubikwit into the debate.

Deliberately Misrepresenting Other Editors

In these edits [150][151], Collect made a number of assertions about 4 different editors which he knew to be false:

• Asserting that MR X and I favored creation of an article that neither of us did.
• Charged all four of us with "preferring" this this old version of the article, repeating that charge here, when in reality 3/4 of us had not seen/touched the article at that point, and Collect has thanked me for edits I made improving the article since then.
• Refused to retract or apologize for these mischaracterizations, responding combatively when asked to do so: [152][153].

Continued Misrepresentation

Collect has continued to misrepresent me and my actions since this case opened. Here,for example, Collect quoted from this diff as evidence that I had "supported" content he disapproved of. As I explained to him here and as the edit summary clearly noted, this was a restore (those were not my words), and I actually re-wrote the text to alter the meaning six minutes later.

I explained to Collect that his use of this (and other) diffs was misleading here. He responded by accusing me of lying and harassment [154][155], and by repeating the exact same (already refuted) accusation a few days later [156] (at bottom).

The broader context/problem here is that Collect seems to think that evidence of my "support for SYNTH" would make what he said here and here OK. But this misses the point entirely - he accused us of doing a lot more that "supporting SYNTH" in those diffs, and finding evidence of me questioning whether or not the table in question was SYNTH does not make any of his statements there true. More generally, it shows a lack of awareness that the issue in this case is conduct rather than content. Collect appears to feel that the ends justify the means, and that misrepresenting other editors is OK as long as he's recognized as being "right" by the end of the content dispute.

Campaigning/Support Seeking to an Excessive Degree

Collect has made an excessive number of posts on noticeboard, article talk, and user talk pages to try to drum up support in the dispute: [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169] often while discussions were still ongoing elsewhere, and without notifying others who were involved in the dispute.

Refusing to Listen or Explain his Position

Collect frequently cries SYNTH and BLP when the violation is unclear, but refuses to explain or detail his thought process when cornered for specifics. These two diffs: [170][171] for example are exactly a month apart, and the exact same issue is being debated in both of them. In both cases, Collect went silent only to reopen the debate elsewhere, the second time within hours: [172]. Other examples:

• [173] - Collect never replied
• [174] - no reply
• [175] - no reply
• [176] - no reply
• [177] - no reply
• [178][179][180] - Collect's replies were (imo) unintelligible:[181][182]
• [183][184][185][186] - no reply to last.

When he does respond to requests for specifics, Collect's responses are far from helpful: [187] (claiming BBC news is not a RS), [188] ("SYNTH is SYNTH").

Making Personal Attacks

Unwilling or unable to see the difference between discussing and promoting a single individual's opinions, Collect has unjustly accused other editors of promoting conspiracy theories:

• Baselessly comparing another editor to (conspiracy theorist) Alex Jones on PNAC talk: [189] (see edit summary).
• Alleging that an article was "promoting" an alleged conspiracy theorist and treating his views "as fact" by discussing them, implying that editors who were defending use of the source were guilty of same: [190], [191], [192].
• When called on this [193][194][195] Collect either had no response, or doubled down on the assertion that any mention of the source was equal to "promoting" it [196], and accused other editors of "failing to notice" that the source was problematic [197].

Casting Aspersions

Collect has kept up a steady drumbeat of comments and edit summaries which backhandedly imply that his opponents are promoting anti-semitism, conspiracy theories, or McCarthy-style "guilt by association." Some examples: [198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211]. Myself and others have asked him to stop doing this repeatedly [212][213]. He has refused to acknowledge that his insinuations are an issue and has continued to make them.

Ignoring Facts

In this diff, Collect removed the statement that John Bolton was affiliated with PNAC as unsourced. In reality, Bolton was a director of the organization, and Collect had earlier participated in a discussion where specific evidence of this association was produced: [214]. I drew his attention to this fact here, but to date Collect seems uninterested in rectifying this error.

Evidence presented by Jbhunley

Misrepresentation

• Editing quote and removing context[215]. No diff. No notice to editor they were being quoted. This is the whole quote Context was removed to make it not look like it was a response to Collect's Am I obstinate about "guilt by association" post which he had quoted earlier on the page. (see from line 101)
• What was said on page answer editor responds off page claim
• See 4.7 below.

Canvassing/Campaigning

• Canvassing Arbcom case
• Canvassing RfArb
• Maybe these. [216] [217] [218].
• See 4.3 points 2 and 3 below.

A worked example of Collect's canvassing technique from thread at UT Jimbo Wales

Collect - Asserts through SYNTH that anyone who signs a single letter supported by a group is automatically "strongly associated" with the group. 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... [219]

JoeSperrazza - "Submit it at WP:AFD. I would support deletion." [220]

Collect - "I dare not -- the group pushing this has brought me to a bunch of drama-boards for being "obstinate". I got a block for standing on this..." [221] Collect was actually blocked for edit warring in a complaint he opened [222]. Collect opened five "drama-board" discussions [223][224] [225][226][227] while Fyddlestix opened one [228].

GabrielF - "I have created an AFD nomination..." [229]

Collect "Thank you. Let's see how the editors apparently desirous of the old status of the PNAC article react." [230]

As noted elsewhere, this thread was opened within minutes of a BLP/N thread on the same topic also opened by Collect. None of the other involved editors were notified of either thread. Collect was thereby able to present only his, at the very best biased and at worst untrue, version of what was going on. The absence of notice, lack of use of diffs and use of plain text to name users to avoid automatic pings leads me to believe that this was a deliberate, deceptive editing tactic used to advance his position in a content dispute. I can think of no behavior that is more destructive to the community fabric of a collaborative project such as Wikipedia.

Failing to notify other editors

• Used Plain text to avoid sending pings [231] when naming editors under discussion.
• Created BLPN thread 0731 13 Mar [232] about PNAC list. No notice given.
• Created UT Jimbo 0743 13 Mar[233] about PNAC list. No notice given.

Presents a view of reality not fully congruent with facts

• The whole exchange from Line 298
• See 'Canvassing RfArb' above. Total misrepresentation of issue. [234]
• Says about his references to McCarthyism the only salient quote he could find was [235] which is manifestly incorrect. cf. [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], and [241]
• This is the discussion about his 'anecdote', referenced above, and how it was not appropriate. Brings up McCarthyism [242] [243] [244] . All other references he made to McCarthyism were not just to 'show where his opinion came from'.
• "Florida FRINGE" - What is claimed vs Actual context
• Collect states: "Note: This user has been successfully harassed from any BLPs or "political articles" which seems to encompass Moby-Dick as Melville held appointive political office."[245] Yet looking at the article I see no conflict there much less harassment. Nor is there any discussion of politics.
• Doubles down on "Moby Dick" - "I have been threatened even where zero reverts per se occurred (the change was to language which had been in a BLP for a while!). Thus as long as the harassers are out in "full force and vigour" - I can not touch even Moby-Dick" [[246]]

• "... But I can not come within a mile of that BLP - even for such an egregious violation... [247]
• "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" [ibid]
• See 4.7 below.
• See 4.2.1 above.

The "Florida FRINGE", "Moby Dick" and general claims of harassment seem to me to be an attempts to create counter-narratives to frame and shape the debate rather than addressing the issues being raised. This, in my firm opinion, does not indicate an editor who is willing to accept critical input and adjust their behavior. I read the 2009 Abrcom Request on Collect and it could just as easily have been written today.

Makes unacceptable accusations about other editors

• See McCarthyism above
• Accuses me of ad hominem for simply pointing out the source he was complaining about was 1. Not being used 2. Not representative of the other sources. Comment Reply ad hom accusation
• Conspiricy accusation replaces struck text calls my objection a 'personal attack' says comment not about me but PNAC article. Does not seem to understand he is not in a discussion about PNAC article I accepted this until I found where he stated on Jimbo's talk page "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." [248]Bold in original and in the same thread "Ubikwit, Jbhunley, Fyddlestix, MrX mainly. A few others join in from point to point. Check out [249] to see their apparent "preferred content" which I suggested violated a few policies." [250]

Will not participate in finding compromise/Does not recognize other viewpoints

• Tendentiously forum shops. Starts a BLPN thread but when asked to explain in detail to a new party (me) what his issue is[251] he disengages. Only to bring the exact same issue up again, and again and again all in a month. That BLPN thread is of particular interest because I had no edits in any politics area and little or no interaction with either Ubikwit or Collect. When asked to support his claims with policies or evidence he never answered.
• Huge diff but it illustrates Collect's style of debate with someone (me) with whom had little prior interaction. It was fun as a discussion but bad if consensus was actually needed. Note his response to this question. Note this discussion was about FRINGE not BLP.
• Complains of "harassment" rather than participating in this dispute resolution. [252] [253] [254] [255] [256] [257][258][259][260].
• In his own words.

Cwobeel - "A 1RR on political BLPs will allow you to revert, explain your reversion and engage in talk." [261]

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." [262]

Unable to recognize discussion has progressed

• Still arguing about "Jewish double-loyalty" when that has nothing to do with the current debate. Evidently it did some months ago but not in this iteration of the dispute.
• Still does not understand what people are complaining about in this case and/or tries to re-frame dispute.
• Says that this is the "preferred content" of "Ubikwit, Jbhunley, Fyddlestix, MrX" when none of us support that version of the article. A straw man and a calumny all in one. [263] This ia also evidence for 4.1, 4.4, 4.5 above.

Trying to use normal dispute resolution procedures to address Collect's behavior is pointless

This ANI thread was opened by Fyddlestix about Collect's behavior. Dear ODear ODear says to close the ANI because of "no specific request for administrative action" [264]. I note that Fyddlestix likely did not know to ask for specific action and that I had issues and a specific admin request which I would post shortly. [265] The ANI was closed just 6 hours later with this - "Querulous complaint remitted to AfD and WP:DR if the OP refuses to drop the stick after that." [266] by JzG.

Based on the non-responsive closing comment I drew the not unreasonable inference that only Collect's comment [267] was read and the issues in the original ANI request were not examined. I submitted the complaint and sanction request I said I was going to [268] which was followed by this comment by JzG "You want measured in-depth conversation? ANI is the last place you should go. And actually I think you know that perfectly well and are banking on the WP:BOOMERANG not coming back your way" [269]. To my understanding this is not how an ANI thread should go. After this experience I stopped wondering how the situation got so bad with Collect that it spun so quickly into an Arbcom case. Most editors would not bring Collect to ANI again after such a reception.

Notes and Misc

• This is just petty [270] considering Collect is the one calling for better sourcing [271] [272] [273] [274] [275] and that those citations were from the original table before they were integrated into the list-article, as they evidently already were as he added "(not emended)". Why such little things instead of working honestly and collaboratively to find compromise?

Reply to Collect

• Re: 13.5 Calling anyone "Anti-Semitic"

Collect - "I believe WP:BLPCAT applies with full force for any use of material asserting that "part Jews" or "Mischlings" are "Jewish" for categorization or description, and shall not waver on that firm belief. Those who demur are certainly not "anti-Semitic" in any way whatsoever, but they do not seem to understand the reasoning behind BLPCAT and the necessity for BLPCAT. But that does not mean I accept the premise that we should promote any belief that Jews have "dual loyalty" issues in the United States and that anyone who has even one Jewish grandparent is automatically "Jewish." This is a direct reference to the Mischling Test. It is very hard to "not call someone anti-semetic" when you compare their behavior to the Nazi's.

Jbh - "In all seriousness though you need to reword and strike a lot of the above text because you have effectively called Ubikwit an anti-Semite and compared him to a Nazi" [276]

Collect "The bit about declaring anyone who has any Jewish blood was, in fact, the argument made by the person adding that category to multiple persons. Ubikwit is not an "anti-Semite" at all, and I have never called him one. What I do note is that he apparently found the arguments about "neocons" and "dual loyalty" to be a tad more convincing than I found them." [277]

Collect seems to think it is OK to accuse people of abhorrent beliefs as long as he turns around and denies the characterization clearly implied by those beliefs. See accusations of McCarthyism as well.

• Re: 13.6 Crying BLP

Your contention here is the blog GotNews as reported by the blog jezebel.com [278] is RS for BLP?

Evidence presented by My very best wishes

Content editing of BLP pages by Collect was justifiable

The focus of this dispute are BLP pages about US politicians. This subject area is already covered by discretionary sanctions. There was a recent WP:AE case brought by the same parties against Collect [279]. The complainers failed to convince admins on WP:AE, and I can easily understand why. After quickly looking at diffs in Evidence, it appears that Collect indeed removes some sourced negative information from BLPs of US politicians, as noted by Cwobell below, however, his removals seem to be usually justifiable. For example:

1. Some information was arguably "undue". For example, in this "incriminating" diff [280], I do not see any reason why an opinion about climate change must be included in biography of this person. He is not a climatologist, and he does not make any serious decisions related to the climate change.
2. Some information was sourced, but presented in a non-neutral way to disparage the person. For example, should someone be described primarily as "a conspiracy theorist" [281] (this removal: [282])? In any case, things like that are merely a "content dispute". More important, in the edit summary (diff above) Collect mentioned an RfC about it. If there was indeed an RfC with an outcome supporting this edit by Collect, he was probably doing right thing.
3. Some of the editing by Collect was apparently done to enforce WP:Consensus (e.g. he mentioned an RfC here [283]). Brief discussion with submitter of this evidence shows that he is either unfamiliar with WP:BLP rules or does not care [284].

It follows that Collect has been engaged in numerous content disputes. However, he was switching to editing other pages after being in minority in discussions or having his edits reverted by a group of editors who followed him. Therefore, I do not see this as WP:TE on his part.

Some evidence shows bias of submitters

A lot of evidence on this page (like here) is just a squabble. OK, these editors wanted a particular version of the page to stay not because they liked it, but for another reason. Why that matters? Many accusations are so petty. Inappropriate assertion of expertise? Who cares? An argument that Collect starts dispute resolution procedures (RfC and RSNB) in a bad faith [285] does not look convincing. Other claims are not supported by evidence. "His constant accusations against dozens if not hundreds of editors"? Sorry, but I did not see such problems while interacting with Collect in subject areas other than US politics.

• And it does appear that several editors followed Collect to revert his edits and submitted several ANI/AE complaints that were closed by uninvolved admins as unconvincing. My very best wishes (talk) 01:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Bosstopher

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Pages Collect wishes to be examined by Arbcom

Due to Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy all evidence must be placed on the specific page for Arbcom to read, even if arbcom are aware of the evidence in question and have been told specifically to read it. As such I will link all the things Collect wants read by Arbcom onto this page. Will probably rework this a bit later.

• Collect's talk page on the 26th March 2015 Claims made include:

• Explanation of blocks Collect has received so far
• List of PNAC members was SYNTH
• Accusations of Socking were made in bad faith
• User:Viriditas's comments on Florida and climate change were meant as harassment, and intimidation through outing, so as to drive Collect off of Wikipedia. 5% of Viriditas's last 500 edits have been made to Collect's talk page, and he initially refused to leave when asked. More context can be found here
• Something about User:Fyddlestix and SYNTH which I dont really get.
• User:Ubikwit has a worrying fixation on making sure everyone knows who's Jewish and who isnt.[286]

Collect has asked that all his essays be examined as rebuttal to claims by Mr. X that his essays are combative. [287]

• WP:False consensus
• WP:KNOW
• WP:Advocacy articles
• WP:PIECE
• WP:Defend to the Death
• WP:Midden
• WP:Baby and Bathwater
• WP:Wikifurniture
• WP:Contentious
• WP:Sex, Religion and Politics
• WP:Editorially involved
• WP:Mutual admiration society
• WP:Source pH
• WP:Sledgehammer
• WP:Variable RS
• WP:Wikipedia and shipwrights
• User:Collect/Collect's Law
• User:Collect/z

Evidence presented by Cwobeel

Misuse of WP:BLP to suppress content

When Collect edits politicians and political figures' biographies, he often times raises BLP concerns that are at best tenuous, with a possible intent to suppress content that may reflect poorly on them, disregarding the availability of good quality sources, and in some cases even when the sources describe statements made by the figures themselves in public forums or to the press. He may think that he is doing this in good faith to uphold WP:BLP, but nonetheless it is a misapplication of policy that needs to be dealt with so that WP:NPOV, which is nonnegotiable, can be maintained in BLPs.

Below are some examples about which it could argued are content disputes. They could have been so if they were isolated cases, but in aggregate, it demonstrates a pattern of behavior that needs addressing.

Note that as a fellow BLP/N patroller, I have observed Collect making solid contributions and help uphold WP:BLP, but when it comes to articles of political figures, particularly from the right, the evidence shows that he misuses WP:BLP and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, to suppress what he believes is unflattering content in violation of WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Alex Jones (radio host) (October 2014)

• [288]- Collect removes viewpoints about Alex Jones as a conspiracy theorist, sourced to a book published by Palgrave Macmillan and to the Southern Poverty Law Center
• [289] - And again.
• [290] - And again, this time removing content from lede sourced to the New York Magazine, where Jones himself states that he is proud of the "conspiracy theorist" label.

Joni Ernst (September, October 2014)

• [291] - Collect removes content sourced to The Washington Post, The Guardian, and UPI, in which a direct quote by Ernst is described
• [292] - (i) Collect removes content sourced to Politico, and the Sioux City Journal; (ii) Removes content sourced to Yahoo News, again describing a direct quote from Ernst; (iii) Removes content sourced to the Des Moines Register, again describing a direct quote from Ernst
• [293] - Removes content sourced to the Sioux City Journal.
• [294] - (i) Collect removes context sourced to The Hill; (ii) Removes content providing a direct quote from Ernst.

Chris Christie (March, November, and December 2014)

• [295] - Collect removes content sourced to Politico, which described a quote from Christie
• [296] - Collect changes the wording from "scandal" to "affair", when all sources describe Bridgegate as a scandal. Also removes context.
• [297] - Collect removes content about a bill vetoed by Christie

Marco Rubio (January 2015)

• [298] - Collect removes content sourced to established polling organizations
• [299] - And again

Rush Limbaugh (May 2012)

• [300] - Collect removes content sourced to PolitiFact, despite being supported any additional sources.

Matt Drudge (May 2013 )

• [301] - Collect removes content sourced to The New Republic, NBC News (Miami), and The Miami Herald

Evidence presented by Atsme

Several of the diffs provided do not support the claims against Collect

After reviewing quite a few of the diffs provided as evidence against Collect, what I've seen indicates the edits were made in compliance with policy. His edit summaries clearly explain the issues.

The following examples will demonstrate Collect's consistency regarding strict adherence to BLP policy, an effort that should be commended not criticized.

John Waters February 6, 2014

(→‎Homophobia accusations: rm named of living persons - accusations of homophobia are a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP and per discussions at WP:BLP/N)

Breitbart (website) December 21, 2014

(we cannot make claims NOT SUPOPORTED by the sources - the sources support that there was confusion about two people with the same name, not that Breitbart deliberately made false accusations about anyone)

I simply do not see any justification for editors to be lax on BLP requirements. Laxity should fall back to behavior that is violative of BLP policy, not to the editor who is being compliant. The question then becomes why is it so important for those who oppose Collect's actions to insist on the inclusion of material challenged as noncompliant? Based on the diffs, the issue appears to be whether or not WP should include tabloid style rhetoric and/or contentious material in a BLP which makes it a policy issue not a behavioral issue. Collect provided justification for why the material should not be included, and did so in compliance with NPOV, V and BLP. When in doubt, leave it out. Based on WP:BURDEN, I cannot see how Collect's edits would warrant any action against him.

Collect's essays are evidence in his favor

His essays demonstrate consistency as a prolific writer and generous volunteer, and make it rather apparent that he fully understands and strictly adheres to BLP policy and the 3 core content policies that govern it.

Collect's edit summaries are self-explanatory, and are further qualified by the actual edits

Talk:Robert Kagan March 20, 2015 Talk:Robert_Kagan

"BLP is one of the two most important policies on Wikipedia."

ANI March 20, 2015 ANI

"I would expect a redaction of offensive material about any editor or BLP subject, as such is contrary to my strict reading of WP:BLP."

Michael Grimm (politician) April 28, 2014 Michael Grimm (politician)

(→‎Federal Bureau of Investigation (1991–2006): WEIGHT applies to your favorite "FUCKING" quote per WP:BLP , and "refused" is an argumentative view)

Alex Jones (radio host) October 27, 2014

(Undid revision 631318900 by Gaba p (talk)per RfC - the ONLY part which has clear consensus is the NY Magazine cite)

Matt Drudge May 7, 2013

(Undid revision 553919359 by Iful (talk)undue weight on price of real estate - not biographical value)

I can't possibly provide an analysis for every single diff provided, but based on the ones I've reviewed, Collect's actions are supported by policy. It appears some of his statements may have been misconstrued.

Hope it's ok for me to add a few more comments, but this procedure has actually been a learning experience for me. I have with great interest studied more of the allegations to see if they were actually supported by the diffs, both above and below my post. What I discovered holds true to what I've already said above; e.g., they do not. Could the allegations be the result of misapprehension as it appears to be? For example, in the very well formatted presentation by MastCell below, I thoroughly investigated the two diffs provided under Outright BLP violations.

The first set of diffs re: Mike Nifong do not support the allegation rather they confirm a content issue. Collect's edit summary stated: (partial revert/rewrite -- maybe, maybe not -- but the media coverage has been deemed important on the article talk page and this bold change thus needs consensus) The allegation against Collect is that inclusion was a blatant BLP violation which he denied. One of the sources cited is Media Research Center News Busters by professional columnist/blogger, Clay Waters. Is the source unreliable for its purpose because MRC's mission is to expose liberal bias? I ask because I recently argued that Media Matters was not a RS for contentious material in a different BLP as their mission is to expose conservative bias, but it's still in dispute. The other source was the NY Times article by Roberts wherein it states Whatever the root, there is a common thread: a desire for teammates to exploit the vulnerable without heeding a conscience. [302]. Perhaps an inline text attribution should have been included in the article but either way, the source is reliable and supports the added paragraph, as do multiple other sources that could also be used.

The other evidence refers to a BLPN thread MastCell included but I will only refer to that evidence in case the statements and diffs are determined to be sanctionable as vios. The allegation refers to a thread Collect opened re: Jameis Winston. I confirmed the two blogs which may be unacceptable, (one may qualify as a 3rd party RS) but the other two cited sources are RS, including USA Today and Miami New Times. If what Collect did at the BLPN is considered to be a BLP vio, then would the same apply to its inclusion here? I hope not for both their sakes.

I also noticed some rather obvious partisanship in the compiled evidence of others against Collect who, as far as I'm concerned, has not revealed his political leanings, the latter of which indicates NPOV. Either way, I think we should all make it a point to shed ourselves of such tendencies at login. Atsme☯^Consult 17:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by User:Factchecker_atyourservice

Not useful in its current form. Awaiting diffs.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This case looks like political payback Collect has a bumptious manner about him, but from my view, most of the hay made in his name involves left-leaning editors who are dissatisfied with the outcome of a content dispute that somehow relates to politics. The party who filed this case has a history of questionable, politically motivated, left-leaning editing of BLPs. In at least one case, this involved both obvious source misrepresentation and deliberate use of questionable sourcing, and when these problems were challenged, Mr. X became hostile & sarcastic and started making vague though baseless threats of invoking administrative process against me. I note also that another major participant here, User:Cwobeel, has an extremely well-established track record of trying to use administrative process to short-circuit a content dispute. Likewise, I doubt there is much merit to these charges & strongly suspect they are more a form of political Wiki-payback against an unpopular editor. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Evidence presented by MastCell

Collect's pattern of behavior

Edit-warring

Background: Collect blocked 8 times for edit-warring. One overturned by consensus, several others lifted early on promise of good behavior.

February 2014:	Violates 3RR, claim of BLP exemption dismissed. No action taken, agreed to stop edit-warring.
June 2014:	Violates 3RR, claim of BLP exemption dismissed ([303], [304]), admonished by admin for misrepresenting his block log ("you do yourself no favors when you invite readers here to incorrectly infer that many of your previous blocks were not appropriately placed"). Let off with warning.
October 2014:	Violates 3RR, reprimanded by closing admin for misrepresenting her comments ("The way you misuse a quote... is more than unexpected, it takes my breath away, I'm awed. You take cherry-picking to a whole new level.") Blocked for 48 hours.
Feburary 2015:	Edit-warring. Let off with a warning.
March 2015:	Edit-warring, closing admin notes "long-term problem" between Collect and Ubikwit. Collect's defense: "I did not edit war". Closing admin further notes regarding Collect: "... you seem to have a habit where you throw out arguments and excuses and blame left and right but act as if you can do no wrong, that you're right no matter what and that your opponent is hellbent on destroying the encyclopedia and you're only trying to prevent that. But your actions simply don't reflect that... You should know better, although maybe you do and this is just your strategy to get out of yet another block for edit warring." Blocked for 1 week.

Inflammatory and battleground behavior

• Background: Collect topic-banned for 6 months in the Tea Party case for being dismissive of other users' views and needlessly inflam[ing] tensions with the other disputants.
• Repeatedly compares other editors' position in a content dispute to that of Joseph McCarthy: here, here, here, here, here, and here (with additional implication of anti-Semitism). Then professes surprise that other editors should "take umbrage".
• Files vexatious 3RR report, dismissed as meritless and "battleground-y".
• Edits others' talkpage posts ([305]). When asked to stop (by me), responds: "Bullshit... and stay the hell off this page."
• Indefinitely maintains lists of other editors' perceived flaws, laundry lists of wrongs, etc. in his userspace, in violation of userpage guidelines; see User:Collect/BLP, quote at top of talkpage.
• Repeatedly creates RfCs with woefully biased and non-neutral formulations: [306], [307], [308], [309], [310]. Responds to concerns combatively: [311].
• ... But then complains about "ill-formed and intrinsically argumentative" RfCs.

Outright BLP violations

Page	Sequence of events	Collect's response
Mike Nifong	Article contained unsourced accusation, in Wikipedia's voice, of unethical and unprofessional conduct by Selena Roberts. IP editor removed the violation. Collect restores the BLP violation (last sentence). I remove it again.	Collect disclaims all responsibility for BLP violation: Defends material because it's been in the article for a long time ("um -- the part you call a violation has been in since 2008"). Then claims that the contentious material is not "unsourced", but rather "not strongly enough sourced": ("I note your use of 'unsourced.' 'Unsourced' means zero sources. You appear to conflate 'unsourced' with 'not strongly enough sourced' which is an interesting use of language.") Accusations: "Dunno how MC arrived at the article -- he does not appear to have been an active editor within a mile of it in the past." (This is both factually false, as I had edited the page previously, and also irrelevant to the BLP violation). Complete discussion threads here and here. (Collect erased the former).
Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard	Collect opens a thread on Jameis Winston. Uses completely unacceptable sources to claim that a living private citizen is a fraudster and an unethical businessperson. I respond: [312] Full archived discussion here.	Collect disclaims responsibility: "Thank you for your comment ad hominem here... And please stop the incessant personal attacks here - it makes me wonder just why you appear in so many discussions where I edit." Refuses to acknowledge violation: "I would point out that using comments from some of the most notable autograph dealers is not, IMO, a BLP violation on this board where discussions about BLP issues precisely belong" Other editors and admins express incredulity at Collect's approach: Alanscottwalker: "I don't know if this is the OP's (Collect's) usual approach but, yes it's not the right way to enforce BLP, as it breaches BLP" Bbb23: "I agree the material should stay out, and I also agree with MastCell that Collect's comments about Spence are themselves BLP violations, in addition to being unnecessary to the issue at hand."

Poor practical understanding of WP:BLP; e.g. RfC closure.

Stonewalling and misrepresentation of sources

• Removes material: "'abruptly' is not in the source". The cited source describes an "abrupt closure", but Collect argues that we cannot use the phrase "closed abruptly": "Last I checked "abruptly" is an adverb. YMMV, but the use of that word as an adverb where a reason is given for the closure is potentially misleading to readers, the close was 'all at once' ('abrupt' in that single sense) but not necessarily unplanned at all". Full thread here.
• Refuses to acknowledge that a Democratic politician graduated at the top of her class, even though several reliable sources (and her actual college) support the claim: [313]
• Repeats false description of a peer-reviewed medical article as "not a medical article, and is not peer-reviewed". When called out, responds irrelevantly and combatively.
• Claims that a New Yorker article subtitled "Public television's attempts to placate David Koch" does not make "any connection between the Kochs and the decision of PBS". Full thread here (look for the shouting).
• Removes material claiming it is unsupported by sources, when it appears verbatim in the cited source.

Misrepresentation of policies

• WP:RS explicitly allows ... audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party.
• In direct contradiction, Collect claims that a radio program cannot be used as a source unless a printed transcript is available: "you appear to think a source which is a radio program sans transcript is a valid source for a contentious claim. I demur, and saying my position is 'bogus' ill suits you here."
• Edit-wars based on this misrepresentation of policy: "WP:RS which suggests a transcript is required for such quote snippets in any event", "second (source) lacks a transcript so is not much use at all"
• But in a separate case where actual transcripts are available, Collect rejects them because he believes audio is "inaudible": ([314], [315]; full thread).

Inappropriate assertion of personal expertise

Repeatedly appeals to (his own) authority in disputes:

• "My degree is in Physics. Read the latest papers..." (Speaking to an actual physicist)
• "As I learned many years ago at MIT..."
• "I have had sufficient math courses to find the numbers compelling indeed"
• "...I only had 12 college level maths courses"
• "Kindly leave. BTW, take a course in statistics of small numbers."
• "I took a slew of probablity and statistics courses many years ago... and I think the objections fail to hold water."
• Asserts others are "ill-schooled in statistics and probability theory, and my MIT degree is still safe (along with all my more than a dozen courses in math)"
• "My "professional flaw" is a degree in science, with way too many math courses"

But dismisses others' degrees and expertise:

• "No editor has a superior position to any other editors in Wikipedia due to any assertion of expertise in a topic." (!!)
• "As for a 'degree in journalism' - that and $4 will buy you a latte at Starbucks. Maybe."

Flexible criteria for reliability

• Categorically declares Breitbart.com "RS" in edit summary, adds: "Where Breitbart is the originator, it is RS for facts in factual articles... It has 'editorial oversight' which is the primary requiremnet."
• Advocates for Breitbart.com as RS for contentious BLP material.
• Advocates for Newsmax, a dubious hyperpartisan right-wing website, here.
• Uses Newsbusters, a dubious right-wing website, as a reliable source for contentious material about living people.

Repeatedly defends the Daily Mail as a reliable source:

• "Per WP:RS the Daily Mail is RS. There is an interesting history of IDONTLIKEIT regarding the paper, but it is just about as reliable as the Guardian and other British papers"
• "actually most medical reporting is actually reasonably good" (in reference to the Mail's medical coverage)
• "The Daily Mail is perfectly fine for factual matters"
• "the Daily Mail and all other newspapers remain WP:RS"
• "While they have certainly used 'tabloidified headlines' and have decidedly been viewed as 'right of centre' by Guardian partisans <g>, their facts in articles and quotes in interviews have generally been accurate, and been corrected rapidly where a dispute is found."

Dismisses concerns as motivated by partisan bias:

• "I fear some editors label a source as 'not RS' on the basis that they disagree with it socially or politically."
• "There is an interesting history of IDONTLIKEIT regarding the paper, but it is just about as reliable as the Guardian and other British papers."
• Sidetracks discussion with COI accusation: [316]

Other editors (Jayen466 and AndyTheGrump) point out that the Mail repeatedly prints made-up stories: [317], [318]. Andy pleads: "why are you defending this clearly unreliable source?" Collect dismisses the fabricated material as "an error in release... nothing much".

Evidence presented by Buster7

Collect creates and maintains stress

Confession; I have been at odds with Collect for 7 years. Or, better stated, Collect has been at odds with me. Unlike the impression one might get from his comments of 4/1/15 on his talk page, I have done my very best to stay away from anything and everything he is involved in for at least 4 YEARS. I have only gone to his page to try to make peace or to ask him to stop stalking following me. Collect displays temperament that is ill-suited for a collaborative workplace. His constant accusations against dozens if not hundreds of editors shows a battleground personality that has been evident throughout his long history as a Wikipedia editor. Diffs are too many to provide so I suggest any editor scan his past talk pages (pick any two month period within the last 4 years) to see the volume of discontented editors that are un-happy with Collect's tactics. Any 2 month section will show the constant ebb and flow of confrontation with many, many, many, editors. Too many to name. His “it’s always the other guy who was at fault” retort is tiresome and a roadblock to any balanced adult discussion.

Collect engages in histrionics

Many veteran editors have been scarred by his many un-substantiated claims of sock and meat puppetry. It is his weapon of choice. As far as Collect is concerned all editors that cross him are either sockpuppets , meatpuppets or members of various cabals. This diff---> remove anything that might be remotely attacking anyone at all is of Collect changing a paragraph where he directly refers to me as a "Sockpuppet". A few diffs later--> absolutely no one can find the identity now, he admits he needs to cover his trail of calling a fellow editor the most detrimental and attacking word possible.

Collect refuses to bury the hatchet, has an Enemies List, and is vindictive

Normally, evidence from the past is not considered pertinent since an editor often will re-consider his actions as a novice and will make changes in his temperament and social demeanor as he transforms into a veteran editor. Not so with Collect. In spite of his claims to the contrary, he has an enemies list. Proof? On 26 August 2012, I offered Collect [an olive branch]. It was not the first and it also wasn’t the last. He rejected it. A week later he (Collect) posted an old communication of mine (remarkably from a 2009 request for advice that I made to User:Factchecker atyourservice) with another editor (Factchecker.....) onto Collect's his talk page and it has been there ever since. That is almost 3 years of misrepesenting a statement and doing it in a blatant bad faith manner on his talk page. [319] I would dare say that this diff and his comments today are clear signs that Collect has an enemies list and, for some vindictive reason, I am high on it.

Evidence, diffs, etc. (on the talk page) are presented here

In mid 2008 I was a brand-new novice editor having discovered Wikipedia when Sarah Palin was announced as the VP candidate and I needed to know who she was. Even then I was a Wiki-wanderer and I discovered the earliest un-sanitized version of Collect/z. I was startled, dumbfounded and completely confused. The very actions by Collect that were driving editors crazy at the Palin article were amazingly being promoted, by Collect, as wise policy to be used while editing. Later on he tried to sell it as humor and as irony, but when I saw it in its raw first version, it was like a dagger into my trusting soul. I asked veteran editors for advice[320] and an Administrator ( Less Heard van U). They advised me to ignore it... which I did. I can remember how painful it was to realize what a rascal this editor called Collect was. And still is. A good faith editor would have taken the billboard down years ago. A good faith editor would have, by now, realized that I am a benefit to the encyclopedia. I am not a novice anymore. Collect treats me like he would an enemy. That is how I know he has an enemies list.

Request of ArbCom panel for minimum consideration

Having spent very little time at any Drama pages I'm not sure if this is permitted here but could the panel, at a minimum, require Collect to remove ANY mention of me, hidden or via diffs, from his talk page lead.

Evidence presented by NE Ent

Self-focused rather than project focused, as indicated by thinking it appropriate to name "law" after themself, put into Wikipedia: space: Wikipedia:Collect's Law, see MFD, followed by pointy renaming of userfied essay when they didn't get their way: [321] NE Ent (formerly "Nobody Ent") 12:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Statements from Collect

At this point, I have over forty thousand edits on Wikipedia - covering almost every area in it - from two "good articles", XfD discussions, templates, categories, policies, and many projects under WMF, including Meta, Commons, Wikiversity, Wikiquote etc. .

I can not in "1000 words or less" provide "evidence" rebutting every single diff given in evidence from anyone - it would take far more than 100 actual hours of my time.

If you wish to read a tome, I would need (due to specific personal commitments) until about July 1. At this point, I have had to stop working on a future "good article" or two, and to suspend working on two separate and important mediations. [322] shows my "combative attitude" with regard to dispute resolution. As well as a barnstar from Debresser and La comadreja (previously AFriedman) for acting as interlocutor at Judaism. And voluntarily stopping all actual mainspace editing on Wikipedia. The evidence that I have been successfully hounded is clear.

So let me deal with the easy stuff.

SYNTH controversy

I have been repeatedly charged with not providing "evidence" that the PNAC list was a violation of WP:SYNTH.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PNAC Members associated with the Administration of George W. Bush decided that issue clearly and forcefully, and attempts to relitigate that finding are beyond the ambit of ArbCom. That gets rid of a whole slew of stuff. Including any claims that me removing what was specifically found to be WP:SYNTH at the AfD discussion and thus also a WP:BLP violation was improper. All the assertions denying that the material was WP:SYNTH are "res judicata" at this point.

Stray accusations from MrX

MrX just added a claim when he said I only edited a total of 1000 BLP articles instead of the thousands I said in one post. In fact he even lists them all at User:MrX/bios. Trivial cavil: he used what I stated on my user page is a partial list of my current watchlist (the word partial is a clue). Even then he misses quite a few on that list - including Prem Rawat, Kevin Powell, Darcy LaPier and a significant number of others, as well as other articles falling under WP:BLP (the full current watchlist has about 1400 articles falling under WP:BLP and there are on the order of six hundred others which have been pruned from the full watchlist. So only 2000 BLP articles is correct. I doubt that many others have that record on dealing with mature BLP articles at this point.

He now avers that I did not edit such articles as those related to Lyndon LaRouche[323] who, I have been assured, is still a living person. Nor to articles concerning Prem Rawat. In removing anything he did not see directly as an edit by me on an article consisting only of a single living persons name, and carefully excluding all talk pages where BLP issues are raised, he managed to throw a lot of babies out with the bathwater utterly. [324] shows a direct edit by me on a BLP. Also see [325] as I also edited the talk page. Also see a number of other articles about Prem Rawat and Lyndon LaRouche. His latest figure of "only 819 articles" falling under WP:BLP has become risible - better for him to have stuck with his original figure of 1024. In fact the use of his absolutely original and incorrect (as demonstrated clearly just above) claim is something the committee should dismiss as trivia and inapt, and not remotely relevant to much of anything at all.

I also have 750 edits at WP:RS/N just from 2011 on, second in substantive edits only to Fifelfoo (now basically retired). MrX has made 45 edits in the same time span.

At WP:BLP/N I have over 1300 substantive edits since August 2011, second only to Youreallycan (now gone). MrX has made only 123 edits on that topic in the same span. (using [326] )

I stated my position was the same for every BLP article - I have edited, in fact, many articles falling under WP:BLP which are not "biographies". This parsing of saying that I asserted that I edited thousands of "biographies" as such is a strange misconstruction of my post. I have edited over 5,650 individual pages, of which 2000+ fall under the policy WP:BLP.

He argues that implicit and explicit allegations of homophobia placed into a BLP Orson Scott Card do not fall under a prior ArbCom case. I suggest the current ArbCom members are well-enough acquainted to toss that cavil out.

I note that the ascription of the motive is now properly sourced as opinion to Publisher's Weekly as I averred was proper - while others wished it to be made in Wikipedia's voice. I would note my diff at [327] to show how that BLP was being handled (I also suggest it is explicitly under the old ArbCom case). [328] shows other editors agreeing that the "homophobia" type claims were improper. Note that MrX had never edited that article, and did not ever edit its talk page.

He makes an issue of me following Wikipedia policy - where an article is not specifically about a person, iterating the person's name in the article does not improve the article. West Virginia University M.B.A. controversy was at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heather_Bresch_M.B.A._controversy and moved as it was deemed to be about WVU far more than about Bresch. My last edit on that sub-article was [329] simply to add the names of WVU officials who were directly involved. I have not the foggiest idea in what way any of this is remotely relevant here, however, as I made no improper edits per WP:MOS which governs the excessive repetition of names instead of the normal use of pronouns etc. . [330] Oh - and the person nominating it for deletion was Guy.

He proudly asserts that of 131 "articles in common" from the Editor Interaction tool that he only followed me 62% of the time. The problem with is that the page he links to shows us overlapping on only 37 actual articles (two of which only have his AfD nomination as his "edit"), and only looks at "recent" edits - which means some of them I had edited first in any case! (My initial value of 80% was based on a stricter and fuller analysis of the EDA results - but since he admits to the 62% value which is far beyond random chance, I will let him live with it here.) Of those articles, he "posted first" at 14 total -- of which I had already edited some well before his recent edits. More accurate,though, is use of [331] showing us overlapping on actual article content a total of 59 times. And which clearly shows a quite remarkable random event if he did not follow my edits.

I find particularly astounding that the raft of evidence includes me adding the name of a son who was President of Rollins College, and Dean of Dartmouth College (itself a sufficiently notable position) as a "violation of (my) own position" by any stretch of the imagination! [332]. I note that no one has ever made the claim about that edit in mainspace nor in projectspace, and it looks here that adding totally worthless "evidence" for me to respond to would make my life hell. This one I answer for - and if anyone finds a problem with that information, delete it. And delete the names of all notable children from all articles if that is an actual position held by any editor here. Consider this my response to the mass of totally off-the-wall claims made.

Looking only at edits clearly made in extremely rapid response to edits by the other user:

[333] all of 28 seconds after my edit.

"I agree that "Wikipedia ought never be seen as promoting partisan positions", and fortunately, it's not. It's simply using the most common, precise, recognizable, concise, mainstream phrase "to describe certain Republican Party initiatives as a wide-scale effort to restrict women's rights". - MrX 14:29, 26 December 2013 (UTC)" (emphasis added to diffs to show the claims of "fact" which he expects to be made in Wikipedia's voice - no bolding is asserted to be in the original posts)

Among many such edits where MrX makes statements seeming to look at what he "knows" to be the political "truth" rather than what Wikipedia policy "requires" - that statements of opinion be clearly cited as opinion.

[334] shows him asserting that a single sentence with 19 numbered refs is not a valid example of "citation overkill" - I note that the article was at AfD and was the one found to be WP:SYNTH by an overwhelming majority of those opining. 19 or more refs for a single sentence is likely to be regarded as "citation overkill" by most editors.

[335] shows him appearing at a user talk page with the snark:

Actually, a great deal of behavioral evidence was presented. So much so that some of it was removed by a clerk. Perhaps you meant proof? Isn't it kind of tacky to repeatedly cite your own essay as if it has bearing on anything?- MrX 00:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

[336] has MrX wanting to make sure that we parenthetically identified a writer as being a friend of the Koch's.

I'm not proposing a style change. I merely think that, in this case, the fact that the criticism comes from a writer/blogger known for supporting the Koch's should be easily accessible to our readers. The matter is one of editor discretion at this article, and nothing more. A wikilink is better than nothing, but the text that I added (and you removed) was an improvement, in my opinion.- MrX 21:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The source used for the quote did not include that opinion, by the way.

With regard to MrX following WP:BLP policy see: [337] has him supporting use of a "mugshot" in a BLP - note that use of such is generally strongly deprecated. [338], [339], [340], [341], [342] etc. Note also WP:MUG, and [343] also at commons [344] where the image was deleted in September 2014. Disdain for policy is not a valid basis for claiming that others are the ones at fault.

[345] believe that's already been done by Alexbrn (and now jps). Counterarguments seem to be based mostly on original research and overly legalistic interpretations of policy.- MrX 15:56, 5 February 2015 (UTC) shows him being SNARKy to a different editor.

[346] has him arguing that we should call a person "right wing" in Wikipedia's voice. Amazingly enough Talk:Pamela_Geller#Request_for_comment BLP decisions over a very long period of time support my position that opinions must be ascribed and cited as opinions. MrX demurred here and on many other BLPs.

As long as I can have a few thousand more bytes: MrX cites [347] implying the material was unsourced. Wikipedia MoS does not say we need to separately source claims already made and sourced in the body of the BLP. [348] was fully sourced on its own, and for MrX to assert that I specifically violated WP:BLP by mentioning that section in the lead is absurd.

CANVASS

I have been repeatedly charged with violating WP:CANVASS for posting on Jimbo's talk page.

First - Jimbo himself states he does not consider posts on his talk page ever to be CANVASS violations.

Second, the AfD discussion thoroughly killed the accusation (see above).

Third, WP:CANVASS specifically refers to using deliberate notifications to alter a consensus seeking endeavour - such as an RfC, XfD or the like. I was, in fact, ordered by some here to ping anyone I mentioned in any post - so when I do so? Yep - accused yet again of violating WP:CANVASS

Fourth, notifying people mentioned in a post where there is not the slightest hint or possibility of affecting any consensus seeking process is not a violation of WP:CANVASS by definition. End of that "issue."

NPA

I have been charged with saying an editor lied.

[349] shows the edit by the editor whom I am accused of maligning. It was the actual post that raised the issue of "lies" - and it was not by me as you will note, and provdes no evidence for its claims. I responded with [350] specifically providing the diffs which absolutely backed my statement.

Another editor leapt in and asserted that my claim of a WP:SYNTH violation was a violation of AGF and a personal attack. [351] That is taken care of by the result of the AfD.(again - see above)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive878#Collect to see more of the posts in context).

Calling anyone "Anti-Semitic"

I have been repeatedly alleged to have called an editor "Anti-Semitic". See [352] as my response. I have at no time and in no way called any editor here "anti-Semitic" in any way, and I suggest that the unfounded and horrific accusation is a violation of WP:NPA as well.

Crying BLP

[353] shows an admin, of all people, making an edit which was absolutely improper - "A Rape on Campus" was already quite discredited by 12 December 2014 - and yet this editor removed any "see also" items which implied the article was discredited with an edit summary "these don't seem like honest efforts to provide navigational aid, but rather selected tangential items designed to make an agenda-driven point". The result was an absolute violation of WP:BLP in that he sought to retain an air of credence of charges of rape against living persons when contrary material was already widely known.

[354] has the same admin removing material which clearly was exonerative of the accused rapists where removal of the accuser's full name would have been fully effective - but removal of the entire section seeks to imply that the "rapists" were, in fact, guilty. edit summary "rm per WP:BLPGOSSIP and basic common sense; come on, now, people; we don't stoop to amplifying this sort of thing)"

In short - so anxious to have Wikipedia stand behind the allegations of rape and felonious behaviour of living persons, that he removed anything remotely indicating the article just might have had problems. By 12 December, the problems with the article were so widely known that removal of such material as made clear that the article was problematic can only be seen as an active BLP violation by an administrator on Wikipedia. Many more examples of such deliberate violations of WP:BLP and WP:NOV readily available - but give me until July 1 to undertake the work, please.

For Wikipedia to ever lend any credence at all to the story ("a complete crock" etc. well before 12 December) was absolutely improper when the admin did so - and to remove the see also to Duke lacrosse case, moral panic, False accusation of rape, Janet Cooke as being an effort "to make an agenda-driven point" by 12 December was a sign of desperation. The story has already fully fallen apart by then. Real living persons suffered real and actual harm as a result of the story - including disruption of their lives, and death threats. Yet I am the one to be overzealous on BLP issues - yep. Collect (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Snark and hound

I have been accused of "snark" many times. For examples of what must be "not snark" see [355], [356], [357]. One editor in three days - and I did not include all of the snark edits made in that short period. [358] shows another example of snark or attack - take your pick. [359] is just pure snark. [360] appears,however, to devolve into "personal attack mode". (3 examples from another apparent complainant) How many such examples of exceedingly recent snark/attack edits are needed?

Buster7 overtly accuses me of keeping an "enemies list" and cites an ancient vote-stacked (14 pre-Canvassed participants from the start) RfC/U from many years ago for his "evidence".

I note my only primary interaction with him since was at his failed RfA - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Buster7 where I pointed out his continued personal attacks, and where he proudly states:

"I have started to work on a composite of my history dealing with Collect at my talk page. It starts in late 2008 so it might take a while. I'll accept fellow editors deciding when they have more of the facts. ```Buster Seven Talk 03:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)"

which rather proves that he is the one who keeps an "enemies list". My posts are clear [361], [362], [363].

Also note his edit at [364]

"I do have an agenda...to reveal Collect for the provocatuer that he is. ```Buster Seven Talk 13:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)"

As for having any "enemies list" ask AndyTheGrump, Snowded, The Four Deuces, Tarc, Triptych, SBJohnny2 or a slew of others who would certainly agree that no such list exists or has ever existed.

For the WP:Hound accusations - let's look at the record here.

Precisely how could I "follow" Ubikwit for Neoconservatism? PNAC? Oligarchy, Sam Harris (author)? (since I posted earlier than he on every single one of them) I did arrive at Robert Kagan and Joe Klein from noticeboard posts - not from "following" anyone at all.

Fyddlestix posted after me at PNAC and after me at Skull and Bones (our apparent total article overlap) (in that case a year later, in fact). Where hounding is technologically impossible, it rarely occurs.

MrX? After me at Talk:War on Women. After me at Steve Scalise. After me at Rick Perry. Before me at S. Truett Cathy which was at BLP/N. Before me at Jeb Bush which also made BLP/N.

In fact he has posted after me at more than 62% of any possible interactions per the Editor Interaction tool. Where one person is "second one in 62% of the time", who is "following" whom?

And I suppose someone could think I was hounding folks by somehow having them follow me more than 62% of the time? Interesting indeed. No one" can "follow" anyone by being the first of the two to edit a topic! [365] is clear. Unless I can "prehound" anyone by finding articles they will later edit? On the other hand, where an editor follows another editor on 62% of the articles edited in common, I suggest that the person doing any "hounding" is not I at all.

I have not hounded anyone ever on Wikipedia, though I have absolutely been hounded a few times now. By the way, WP:HOUND states specifically: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." Trying to ascribe that to me at this point is quite beyond ludicrous.

Being literate

I use literary references and allusions, having been cursed with studying French, German, small Latin and less Greek over the years. I have known and met slews of interesting people from billionaires to paupers, Mafiosi to "intelligence officials", leaders of major religious groups to LSD gurus and Hare Krishnas. Even a bookstore owner who, as a child, had shaken Mark Twain's hand. (My advice - talk to bookstore owners). That should quite rebut all of that stuff.

BLP violations

It was asserted that [366] was a violation of WP:BLP. The issue was whether we should directly imply Winston being guilty of criminal activity.

I stand fully behind "As the source for the allegation is not named in the ESPN report, and the allegation is of a criminal nature, I suggest we need a far better source than one which is not directly linked to FSU or the like. I rather think that there is a reasonable shot that the autographs are faked, which is true of a huge percentage of sports memorabilia, then making allegations in Wikipedia's voice that he is actually being investigated might be improper."

See also [367], [368], [369], [370], [371] the claim that I was the one committing the BLP violation by pointing out what everyone in the industry is cited as saying is absurd. The violation was in spreading the inference that Winston violated laws by being paid for autographs. And for proof - just look at the Jameis Winston BLP now. [372] is my full rebuttal -- as is true of most of the "Collect violates WP:BLP!!! trash made on this page.

The Crux

I do oppose "guilt by association" arguments being used in any BLPs.

In fact it is time to show my "political colours" in a way ... my dad knew David Greenglass and others (and before his death told me the real spy was far higher up). I knew a professor who lost his job at NYU during the "Red Scares." This is a matter of my personal political and moral POV - if so, find me guilty of that. I have known famous atheists, Communists, Birchites, Democratic Vice Presidential candidates, and Democratic National Committeepersons (one earnestly sought to get me to run for office as a Democrat, by the way), and Republican Governors and Senators. And an Independent Governor as well.

The silly partisan sniping so prevalent on Wikipedia is not actually found at responsible levels (well -- maybe Harry Reid is the exception as he got the rare Four Pinocchio prize from WaPo<g>.)

So on that charge only - find me guilty - for here I stand, I can do no other. Collect (talk) 22:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC) [373]

Evidence presented by Binksternet

I've bumped into Collect a few times at various articles and at noticeboards. Here's an example interaction, with my analysis.

Collect wasted the community's time with a false BLP complaint

At the pro-life feminism article, Sonicyouth86 expanded it on March 31, 2012, calling socially conservative Irish activist Breda O'Brien a "leading Irish feminist".[374] Later the same day, Roscelese modified this presentation by calling O'Brien an "Irish abortion opponent" who founded Feminists for Life Ireland.[375] Without having any history of editing this article, apparently following Roscelese's editing history, Collect came by 14 hours later to change Roscelese's work and call O'Brien an Irish woman, implying thereby that all Irish women feel the same way as O'Brien.[376] From this point, a lot of time was wasted by other editors because of Collect's bullheaded opposition to the label "abortion opponent" being applied to O'Brien, a label which after all the hubbub continues to be seen in the article. Here's the sequence of disruption:

• After tangling unsuccessfully with Roscelese at BLPN regarding Nick Adams (theatre actor) on March 29–30 ("please do not waste everyone's time and patience any more, Collect"), Collect apparently hounded Roscelese, following her to pro-life feminism.
• 12:41 April 1: Collect changes "Irish abortion opponents" to "Irish women".[377] He is quickly reverted by Roscelese.
• 18:39 April 1: Collect reverts Roscelese, saying "READ THE SOURCE".[378] Collect admits later that he had no access to the source, so this edit summary was tendentious.
• 18:49 April 1: Collect posts a new discussion at the article talk page, about Breda O'Brien, but he points to a source that does not discuss the topic, inviting SYNTH problems.[379]
  • Roscelese notes that Collect is "wasting everyone's time" with this distraction.[380]
• 18:10 April 2: Collect reverts the article to his preferred version.[381]
  • 18:20 April 2: Roscelese reverts Collect's version at the article, noting that "Collect has not read" the cited source.[382]
• 19:07 April 2: Collect starts a new discussion about this issue at BLPN.[383]
• 23:53 April 2: Collect complains about not seeing the cited source (still no sign of the original source") despite the fact that Roscelese has posted quotes from the source.
• 12:27 April 3: Collect complains at BLPN that he still hasn't been supplied with the "original source wording" of the cited source. This despite the fact that he's been pointed to WP:SOURCEACCESS and advised of several methods he can follow for getting the source material, aside from paying $36. That and some relevant text had already been quoted by Roscelese.
• Collect was apparently stalking Roscelese to get to pro-life feminism, but when The Four Deuces began to analyze Collect's disruptive behavior, and present the results at the article talk page, Collect warned him against "stalking".[384]
• Mastcell observed that Collect's BLPN filing appeared to be "gamesmanship", with no real BLP concern.[385]
• Hipocrite noticed that Collect filed the BLPN discussion without having asked on the article talk page for the cited source's relevant text.[386][387]
• At the end of the BLPN discussion, Hipocrite said that Collect had "a history of pushing a far-right POV through selective BLP enforcement".[388]
• When the BLPN discussion did not go as Collect wished, Sonicyouth86 posted on the article talk page, "You tried to misrepresent the source, Collect, got corrected, and are now sore about it."[389] In response, Collect declared victory.[390] The Four Deuces chided Collect for wasting everybody's time.[391]

Evidence presented by Formerip

Example of the variability of Collect's attitude to BLP policy

Background: In May last year, the journalist Chris Giles published an article in the Financial Times which was strongly critical of the (left-of-centre) economist Thomas Piketty, saying his book Capital in the 21st Century was riddled with errors and suggesting that Piketty had committed academic fraud. Piketty flatly denied the allegations (they turned out to be unfounded, but hindsight is not the point here). Collect was first on the scene [392]. Note how the edit makes Piketty's denial seem like some sort of admission. There was much discussion of the edit, but the rights and wrongs of the content dispute are not what I want to present.

Collect repeatedly asserted that Piketty had admitted to having been caught out. This makes for a useful argument where BLP is an issue - if the subject has confessed, then there it is much less likely that there is a problem. Except what Collect was claiming was untrue, and could not have been believed by anyone who had read the sources. He first makes the claim here and I ask him to provide sourcing here. He responds with some bluster [393] and I point out that he hasn't provided any sourcing for the claim [394]. Collect's response [395] is to twist the sourcing. In his first response to the FT, Piketty says "if there was anything to hide, any “fat finger problem”, why would I put everything online?" [396]. But Collect interprets this as meaning that "he specifically allows that such transcription errors exist".

Collect next repeats the claim at the BLP noticeboard [397], to which I express my surprise, given that Collect has already been challenged to substantiate it and has not done so [398]. Collect's response is a little confusing, because he appears to deny having ever made such a claim (even though it is in black and white a few inches above), and then he goes on to repeat the claim. I again ask for evidence of Piketty's admission [399] and Collect responds again with bluster [400]. I respond noting that the comment doesn't substantiate what Collect had said above [401]. Another editor also asks Collect to substantiate the claim [402]. Collect repeats the claim [403]. I ask him once again to substantiate it [404]. He repeats it [405]. The thread ends with me quoting what Piketty had actually said, which ought to leave no question that he had made any admission of wrongdoing or error [406].

Collect then returns to the article talkpage to complain about being censored [407], to we I challenge him again about is claims regarding Piketty's confession (to be fair, I do lose my cool a bit at this point), and Collect makes another denial of having said what he said [408].

A bit of a shaggy dog story, admittedly, and I could probably have presented it better were I not typing right before the deadline. But I think it shows how different Collect's attitude to BLP can be when it doesn't suit his purpose. Here, he repeatedly makes a false and potentially damaging claim about a living person and seems to be trying to ride out challenges to substantiate the claim, with the objective of trying to persuade editors to include negative material about a living person in their bio. It also shows what hard work Collect is.