Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian/Evidence

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.

It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by Collectonian

Abtract engages in wikistalking and harassment

Since May of 2008, Abtract has repeatedly engaged in wikistalking and harassment of myself (and at least one other editor) in violation of Wikipedia:Harassment. He regularly reviews my contribs and reading my user pages, then edits or comments behind me (usually within minutes of my doing an edit, and always outside of his usual editing realm).[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] He has even filled false 3RR reports against me in issues he has absolutely no involvement in and could only know about because of wikistalking[15].

He also makes edits to articles he knows I work on purely for the purposes of harassment, particularly around the Meerkat Manor topic, such as fact tagging the lead of the article (an FA article)[16] then after he continued edit warring when they were removed, he claiming removing the tags was vandalism[17] (an AN/I report supported it was purely harassment). He also deliberately create the Oxford Scientific Films article purely because it was on my user page as a list of articles to create for inclusion in the MM featured topic. Despite having been told in May when things began that he was not to post to my talk page again, he continues doing so, usually with a snarky and/or sarcastic remark:[18] [19]

He has fully admitted to engaging in this behavior multiple times, claiming other editors "taught" him that it was acceptable to harass people this way and repeatedly notes that he will continue to do so until he feels that I have properly apologized to him for some slight he feels over a minor disagreement over an edit summary and that he has to get it out of his system.[20][21][22] He claims this is over the "bitch" incident (as he calls it), which occurred until early May[23], however our initial interactions began at the end of April when I gave him a 3RR warning for edit warring[24] and he was uncivil to myself any many other editors during that time.

Abtract has been blocked for this behavior 5 times: on May 27, 2008 (31 hours), June 4, 2008 (1 week), and July 16, 2008 (initially indef, then 2 weeks, then reduced to 3 days after he "agreed" to an editing restriction that didn't last long). After the enactment of the most recent editing restriction, he continued making little edits purely because he knew it annoyed me and that I found it harassing.[25][26] For those he received two more blocks: September 13, 2008 (6 hours) and September 19, 2008 (24 hours). He was also blocked for 24 hours on May 21st after he deliberately attempted to edit war over an inappropriate change to a content guideline page (WP:RS so he could file a retalitory 3RR against me after I had filed one against him for edit warring on YuYu Hakusho.[27][28]

Under the current agreement and previous agreements, he finds ways to "game" the system and get around the restrictions. Such as the aforementioned creation of an article on my watchlist (which he then abandoned and only edited it I edited it first). Both myself and Sesshomaru are heavy contributers to the anime and manga project, which Abtract well knows. After someone posted a request to the project talk page asking for help on anime[29], he made a minor edit to it[30], effectively keeping us from editing it. This also seems like a pointy edit after his proposed editing restrictions were ignored/rejected User talk:LessHeard vanU/archive 101#not quite arbitrary section break/Natalya's comments. He welcomed a blocked vandal on the user's user page after I was the one who reverted the guy's edits and reported him to AI/V (and, incidentally, after the editor had already been blocked).[31] He also earlier asked permission to welcome a editor whose forum-comments I had removed from a talk page and warned about[32] When I edited the List of The Jungle Book characters lead[33], he edited the lead of The Jungle Book itself[34].

Even after this process began and it was noted the restrictions were still in affect, he continued doing this kind of thing, editing Lassie (disambiguation) after I became involved in an issue with another editor over various Lassie articles.[35] Reviewing his own edit history, its fairly easy to see that all of his edits along this line are outside his normal realm, and done purely out of his need to harass me. After he refused to participate in this RfA, he also changed his user page to state "My pet hates are editors who make bitchy attacks and those who refuse to admit they are wrong when they clearly are." which is clearly another reference to the initial, petty issue he had with the "bitch" episode as he calls it and his continued demand that I apologize and declare I was wrong in that incident.[36]

Related/additional: RfC/U and the various AN/I reports: March 26th, June 2nd, June 2nd (2nd in one day), June 5th, July 21st

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by {your user name}

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Evidence presented by LessHeard vanU

note: owing to the age and fluid nature of the various discussions referred to, I am often linking to talkpage discussion headers to give appropriate context. I trust this is appropriate.

Abtract has an individual response when warned of policy violations

A review of Abtract's talkpage archives indicates that he has a particular habit of contesting the validity of others warnings and comments, and the manner in which they are made, as evidenced by this example, and this and this. This was still the case when I warned Abtract of an NPA violation as part of a long running dispute with User:Sesshomaru - although this was the start of my involvement in attempting to resolve the various issues regarding Abtract's interaction with some editors. In May 2008 Abtract is still responding to warnings by questioning the warners actions, and even when blocked continues to argue that he is being treated differently from those he is in dispute with. The same thing occurs when blocked in June 2008 on two occasions.

Abtract entered into a long running dispute with User:Collectonian over a trivial matter

In early May 2008 Collectonian warned Abtract over the use of the word "bitch", which Abtract contends (and appears correct) was misunderstood. Collectonian explained the circumstances of the warning, without acknowledging specifically the out of context reading of the word, and Abtract appears to have understood the situation. However, a RfC was filed by Collectonian immediately after the "bitch warning" which resulted in the incident being noted several times after the date when Abtract acknowledged the explanation. While contesting one of the blocks linked in the section above, in late May 2008, Abtract again referred to that incident, an indication that was an unresolved matter as far as he was concerned. Further references to the "bitch warning" can be found here, here, here (note Abtract evidencing why it is important),here and here (note edit summary), here, and finally (8th August) here.

Abtract following/stalking edits of another editor

Following an exchange between Abtract and User:Sesshomaru, Abtract has apparently understood that it is permissible to review another editors contribution history to facilitate finding errors - although the earlier discussion was relating to edits regarding an area in which both parties were already involved - and confirmed this to third party. In a complaint to ANI in July 2008, Collectonian provided examples of Abtract reverting her edits on a subject that he was not previously involved in, indicating he was reviewing contrib histories to find edits to undo. Collectonian alleges, with examples per her evidence in a section above on this Arbitration page, that this has happened on many other occasions.

Collectonian has alleged harassment regarding the stalking actions by Abtract

Collectonian has on several occasions commented that she feels harassed by the actions of Abtract in following her edits, from review of her contribution history, and the manner of subsequent edits to articles she has recently edited. Collectonian has referred to these actions as stalking on several occasions, including here and here. The number of times that Collectonian has sought comment and help in various fora indicates her level of concern regarding Abtract's actions.

Abtract is capable of adhering to an agreement

Following the placing and advertising of the restrictions between Abtract, as one pary, and Collectonian and Sesshomaru, as the other parties, Abtract sought to arrange an agreement between him and Sesshomaru. Following a discussion here there has been no (known) dispute between Abtract and Sesshomaru, so much so that Sesshomaru appears disinclined to participate in this ArbCom.

Abtract has withdrawn from processes before on a "technicality"

In the original Request for Arbitration Abtract gave a statement], detailing his consideration of the origin of the dispute with Collectonian. This was reduced by User:Daniel, in his capacity as a clerk on the page. When Newyorkbrad enquired of Abtract whether he would be presenting further evidence, Abtract advised he would not be and would not be participating further given the action taken on his statement - referring to a consequent dialogue (can a clerk make this a permanent link, and then remove this request? thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)) with Daniel - unless the action was reversed.

While acting as one of the supervising administrators to the restriction imposed upon Abtract, Collectonian and Sesshomaru, I created a separate page using the archive template to consolidate the discussion. When I invited Abtract to comment on a point made on the page by another party, he demurred. Although I explained the situation, Abtract refused to consider posting on the page, and I did not take up his suggestion of creating another subpage, so discussion continued on my talkpage proper.

Abtract has an IP "friend" in the 86.44.XX.XX range

There has been several instances of an ip located in the above range commenting on Abtracts various "difficulties", the most recent I can find being here (86.44.16.18). In Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract 86.44.28.52 posts a view. In July 2008 it is 86.44.20.40 that is commenting while Abtract's then current indefinite blocked is being discussed. Elsewhere Sesshomaru notes that the ip commenting (86.44.20.40 again) is the same individual as others in the 86.44.XX.XX range. The editor using the various ip addresses in that range has confirmed that they are the same individual, but denies they are Abtract; however a review of the different ip's contrib history shows a inordinate amount of posts relating to Abtract, and usually when that editor is in dispute (and sometimes when Abtract is unable to post owing to a block).

Reply by "friend"

Yes, an IP was amazed that Collectonion would try to get a user blocked while refusing to enter into an agreement that they two would stay away from each other, and an IP was slightly critical of you to your face. I would have thought anyone worth their salt would welcome such a comment.

Believe me, my posts regarding this are a tiny fragment of my contributions, though they are higher than they would otherwise be due to foolish insinuations you repeat above, which i take personally and also feel need rebuttal as they are intended to reflect on another user. Subtract this, and my posts on this matter stop at the two or three which merely briefly put forward the exact view (correct me if i am wrong) soon formed by the likes of JHunterJ and Nmcvocalist, and the one questioning your handling of Abtract (a user i have been critical of at nearly every turn).

The vast majority of my contribs are to (*gasp*) articles, though these are also less than they would be if clueless admins did not subject me to low-level but fairly regular hassle merely for not registering. On the one hand, I enjoy doing something with my reading that may be at the service of others. On the other, I know I'm adding to the playground of ego-trippers. Presently I am discouraged. 86.44.29.106 (talk)

BTW, some but not all articles i can presently be said to have principally authored: Winley Records, Charles Nègre, Kool Herc, New school hip hop, B-Boy Records. Which makes me not Awadewit, but these are each important subjects in their field, and plenty of editors seem to pass RfA with less. A fairly full contrib list stretching back to at least January can be gleaned from these article histories, though i contributed quite heavily for some time before that also. Knock yourself out if that's your bag. So long and thanks for all the "good faith". 86.44.29.106 (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Some more of my articles: List of hip hop albums, First Priority Music, Crazy Legs, Pumpkin. No one has ever asked about my contribs, preferring to smear Abtract using my editing, for instance my innocuous comment here, which is in essence also Nmcvocalist's view in that thread, was used by GwenGale to argue for an indef block/ban of Abtract, and when i sought to show her this was wrong i was insulted and blocked for "disruption and being a sockpuppet", and now LessHeard vanU is doing the exact same thing at Arbcom no less, and without ever having so much as addressed me. 86.44.29.106 (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

See my comment on the talkpage. No further comments should be made to this page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)