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

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

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

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors

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

---

As per instructions by the Arbitration Committee, all editors who offered statements were added to the list of parties. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Statement by mostly uninvolved RightCowLeftCoast

While there is WP:STRAIGHT, I have to mostly agree with the above statement. What I have seen is an effort to, through consensus of those opposed to the "more right-" side of the political spectrum, achieve negative actions being taken to those editors who aren't in favor of the "left-wing" side of issues. Whether it be banning, topic banning, or other things (Example, why has there been an effort (or was an effort) to delete WikiProject Conservatism while there hasn't been an effort to delete other wikiprojects with political scopes). This is just another attempt. If WP:BATTLEGROUND is being argued, that can be argued for many listed here, and myself, and many more not listed here (including a few now on this committee and commenting here). Not that it is true, not that all editors aren't attempting to improve Wikipedia (I am of the view that most editors who are involved with editing political articles, who might come up in this discussion, believe that they are doing the best thing for the article, even if those with opposing political views believe that they are not). But slowly working to remove editors who do not share one's political spectrum, will not lead to a better project, and likely lead to the old issues of non-neutrality, which have since been improved upon (a work in progress IMHO).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC) What I disagree with is that this has affected bringing in new editors. I believe it hasn't, and is due to other things.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Found my way here due to an AfD--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Dear ODear ODear as a listed party

I acknowledge I am really far from certain regarding procedures here, but I question the inclusion of this indefinitely blocked party as a party to the arbitration, considering that individuals obvious inability to say anything. Maybe the name should still reasonably be included on a procedural basis, I honestly don't know, and there may well be a precedent in some other case, but it does strike me as being somewhat odd under the circumstances. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep. There's a rough consensus to remove them as a party, and this should occur shortly. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case, it should be relevant that my name was added unilaterally by this indeffed person.[1][2] I don't really have a horse in this race. No description has been made of my supposed bad behavior. Binksternet (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Question on scope

Is this case limited only to users' interactions with Collect specifically? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Case 1 might be defined as "Collect: what are the reasons for user conduct issues surrounding their editing?" This definition acknowledges the reality of ongoing user conduct concerns associated with Collect's editing, but doesn't prejudge the cause or the responsible parties. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Everyone who commented on the case filing is an involved party now? That's kind of unusual, I thought there was normally an effort to separate out the non-parties and move their statements to the talk page. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes (to both parts). It was done this way for expediency, but a winnowing of parties is now happening (slowly). Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please remove me from the list of parties

I'm not involved here. Please remove my name from the list of parties. All I did was make a short comment about the filing. I'll know better next time and never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever comment on an ArbCom case, lest I get dragged into some stupid mess. (More seriously, who in hell thought it was good idea to add every commentator to the list of parties? Are you guys trying to create a chilling effect?)

Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't be casting aspersions and leveling unsupportable allegations against other editors in the first place. That in itself probably merits a warning.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:, your case request statement makes allegations of editor misconduct against two parties to this case. Your request to be removed as a party suggests you don't intend to post anything supporting those allegations? If that's the case I am happy to remove you from the current list. But it would have been preferable not to have posted unsupported allegations in the first place. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Just freakin' remove me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Please remove me from the list of parties too

What Marek said. Seriously, this is a bizarre way to proceed. Begoon ^talk 02:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Removed. -Euryalus (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Also removed Gaijin42, Guy Macon and A1candidate, as nothing presently associates them with thus case. If they really want to be here, or if anyone raises evidence relating to them, they can be re-added later. A1candidate, your concerns are noted but as you correctly point out they're not really part of this case. I'll come back to you on your talk page. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Also removed Casliber and John Carter --Euryalus (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

And Capitalismojo.-- Euryalus (talk) 09:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

And AndyTheGrump and Konveyor Belt. If you do want to contribute, please feel free. But there is nothing in the case request statements that requires or signifies "involved" status. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: I don't know why I am listed as a party. Can you remove me as well? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: AmPol party removals are down the stairs, fifth door on your left. Ask for Thryduulf. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Writegeist, let me know if you want to stay listed, otherwise will drop your name off as well. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, please remove me—I note Collect affects not to participate in the case (reminiscent of the Dangerous Panda strategy, if memory serves), yet is trying to participate by a kind of remote control, campaigning elsewhere for his extensive rebuttals to be posted by proxies participating on his behalf. I want nothing to do with what already looks like a clusterfuck in the making. Writegeist (talk) 01:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Two more:

• Rich Farmbrough, your statement doesn't immediately lend itself to being an "involved" party - would you like to stay in or should I remove you (without prejudice to being re-added later if you wish or anyone else comments about you directly).

Done per your comment on the AmPol page. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC).

• Atsme, you headed your statement as "uninvolved" but its content is relevant to the case subject. I'm inclined to leave you on the list in case you wish to expand on your statement in the /Evidence section. But up to you at this stage. -- Euryalus (talk) 04:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Euryalus, uninvolved referred to the particular article mentioned in this case. My participation here is to provide testimony based on my recent collaborative experiences with Collect. If the latter is appropriate, then I wish to remain. I am new at this procedure, and want to thank you in advance for your patience and understanding. Atsme☯^Consult 11:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, no problems, will leave you on. For info, benefits of being listed as an "involved" party are a doubling of the word and diff limit for evidence (to 1000 words and 100 diffs), formal notification of any major case milestones, and a guarantee the Committee (or at least the drafters) will see and take your evidence seriously. Anyone can seek to include themselves as "involved," and the Committee will also add anyone who is obviously central to the case, seems likely to have useful evidence to provide, or who is facing any credible accusation.

Negatives of being "involved" are a) that it draws attention to you and encourages people to scrutinize your editing history, b) that editors you give evidence against might hold a resentment for some time afterward, and c) a fear that random "involved" parties will get caught up in case remedies and be sanctioned just for being too close to the action. I don't personally believe this fear has much basis but I recognize it can be sincerely held. Some people mentioned in cases also simply have no real connection with the issue and are happy to let the case proceed without their input - the people I've removed from this case so far are mostly in this group.

Hopefully this helps explain what being an "involved" party is, and why some people prefer to do or not do it. And with all that said, welcome to the case. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Request removal from list of parties

I respectfully request to be removed as a party to this case. I was not an involved party in the collect case request,[3] making one brief comment on the advisability of opening the case. I have no ongoing disputes with Collect or any editors of any political persuasion and little advice to add to those who do. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to strike comment

I seem to have confused Capitalismojo (with Arzel, if I'm not mistaken), regarding the Tea Party case.
He pointed out the error and asked me to strike that comment, which I proceeded to do without reading the header, and have been reverted.
If it's not too much trouble, I'd like to reinstate the striking. Thanks.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush

I have temporarily restored the edit history of the above page, to facilitate possible discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Request that Collect either participate or not

If Collect does not wish to participate in this that is his right however constantly complaining, in other venues and in edit summaries, of being "harassed" is completely inappropriate. This seems to me to be Campaigning/Canvassing. He has succeeded in having someone else present his evidence for him. Participate or not but do not go around the project complaining of being a victim. That behavior does not seem to me to be the "professional level conduct" case participants were admonished to adhere to by the Committee. Here are a few examples of many. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] Thank you for your attention to this matter. Jbh (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what can be done about it (can't force someone to participate) but it does kind of seem like Collect is trying to have his cake and eat it too - he's declined to participate here, yet continues to make allegations [10] concerning parties in the case on his talk page (ie, in an environment where he does not have a limited wordcount and can spin any attempt to respond to his allegations as "harassment"), and have other people link those allegations as evidence here. Since Bosstopher has linked Collect's entire talk page as evidence (see "Pages Collect wishes to be examined by Arbcom," on the evidence page), I felt obligated to point out [11] that the "evidence" he presented was misleading and didn't show what he was claiming it did. He's responded by accusing me of lying and harassment [12][13] despite my best efforts [14] to respond politely and in a way that encourages him to bring evidence forward where it can be properly scrutinized and discussed. Not sure what/if anything can be done about this but I do feel like he's put me in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't position that makes it difficult to respond to his allegations. Fyddlestix (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

BTW Jbhunley your last two diffs above are repeats. There are lots of other examples though: [15][16][17] Fyddlestix (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I've raised a similar concern at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence, where it is more likely to be seen; this page tends to be unwatched once the case is accepted. MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Still watching here too. My immediate response was "meh," but I'll read through the diffs again and give it a bit more thought. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Request by Ihardlythinkso

MrX, WP:Sledgehammer essay seems nothing more or less than good writing advice for articles (i.e. to not overkill w/ excessive & non-optimal citation examples when supporting any contention). So unless am missing something could you plz strike it as example of Collect "loudly testify[ing] to his combative approach"? Thx for consider. IHTS (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved by clerk from main case page, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your perspective and I hope you will appreciate mine. My view is that many essays on Wikipedia not only don't represent widely-held views, but actually contribute to a battleground environment. To the extent that Collect's essays represent his approach to editing, the fact that they say relatively little about positive aspects like cooperation, collaboration, listening, humility, compromise, fairness, and mutual respect, may provide some insight into his conduct. Because an Arbcom case should focus mainly on examining conduct, and less on motivation, I did not introduce his essays into evidence, nor do I intend to. To answer your specific request, I decline to strike that essay from my statement, as I believe doing so serves no practical purpose.- MrX 23:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't mean to talk about essays in general, or all of Collect's essays, just WP:Sledgehammer. (You seem to find some fault with that essay as a writing guide re "less is more", because it doesn't reference "cooperation, collaboration, listening, humility, compromise, fairness, and mutual respect"? Are you suggesting all essays reference all those things else you will declare them "combative"?!) IHTS (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I never said that I find fault with the essay; I said that they "may provide some insight". I am not suggesting "all essays reference all those things else [I] will declare them "combative"?" That's about all I have to say on the subject of essays for now.- MrX 12:27, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ask for your comments on "the subject of essays". (If you could please stick to what I wrote. And what I reiterated.) For the third time, how do you justify specifically naming WP:Sledgehammer as example of "combative approach", when that essay is simply a helpful writing guide re over-assertion re a point needing support in an article, and nothing more or less? (I didn't think that you could. Thus my request that you strike it. But you already said striking has "no practical purpose". Fine. But your seem to be continuing to defend your use of that essay as exemplifying "combative", and that is perplexing to say the least. IHTS (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A Reminder

The rules mandating civility and against personal attacks apply everywhere in Wikipedia, both with respect to pending arbitration cases and elsewhere. Conduct with respect to arbitration cases, both on arbitration pages and elsewhere, may be taken into account by the arbitration committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Removal

When I get swept up in this? Can I please be removed. I am not Collect.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This case is about "Collect and others", so not being Collect is not relevant to whether someone is a party here - for the reason why see the note at #Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors. That said, I've removed you as a party as your statement is relevant to the American Politics 2 case not this one. Thryduulf (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Clarification request: Collect and others (September 2015)

Original discussion

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

---

Initiated by MrX at 11:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Collect and others arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Collect notified
• Nomoskedasticity notified

Statement by MrX

Does this remedy: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others#One Revert restriction include an exception for reverting content that is asserted to violate WP:BLP?

Folks commenting at WP:AE have different opinions about whether Arbcom intended that "vandalism" includes alleged BLP policy violations, or whether a one revert restriction falls under the authority of WP:EW, thus excluding alleged BLP policy violations. See third heading "Collect" here

• Relevant case finding: WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others#BLPs

• @Brustopher: Don't even go there. Collect was banned from interacting with me because of his bad deeds, not the other way around. Now kindly let Arbcom clarify the restriction. - MrX 20:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf: Would you kindly explain why I, the user who initiated the original Arbcom case, should be advised not to seek clarification about that case at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment? I didn't comment on the AE because I had nothing novel to add, but I have an interest in the outcome, because it's clear that Collect doesn't intend to comply with the remedies from the Arbcom case. To suggest that I can't pursue clarification because the subject of that request was banned from interacting with me strikes me as rather Kafkaesque, even by Wikipedia standards. - MrX 22:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Note that I am on a Wikibreak (seeking to regain my patience), and had clearly announced such. Note also the endless and multiple complaints at AE etc. - including from two miraculous virgin IPs whose only posts ever were to complain about me. If this is done for amusement, I am not amused. I do suggest, moreover, that BLPs totally unrelated in any way whatsoever to US politics is a poor choice of remedy - I find those who push allegations of felonies in any page to be far more reprehensible than any of my many sins. Collect (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I am unable to comment on allegations made about me from another unnamed editor. Any outside observer if free to use the Editor Interaction tool to note whether I have followed any editor, or whether another editor appears to follow me. The results are sure to astound anyone willing to actually look at "who comments on whom".

For jbh - I stated the June 15th date quite early on, and ask you make your apology clear for claiming that I did not ask for extra time. Collect (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC) I had asked multiple times to address the last minute evidence which had given by others in a coordinated manner (the "complainants" were so bold as to write to each other on user talk pages etc.). When last minut material which was not related to the immediate complaint was given, I wanted actual time to reply. As it is, I was quite preoccupied and unable to actually address the "charges" even though I asked to be allowed to do so. In most places, the "accused" is afforded every opportunity to address charges. Prevention of a "right of reply" is unusual, indeed. I

@Thry: I have made many thousands of edits on BLPs - yet you appear to claim that I regularly violated the policy? I find your claim incomprehensible - noting that the immediate anteceding contretemps was whether am article was. or was not, SYNTH and violative of Wikipedia policy. I hate to say this, but it damn well looks like you made no actual effort to look at my work, but had "verdict first" as a m.o. A few of the articles I have edited are on my talk page. I stand by them. Collect (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC) - note I have made no statements about anyone I am interaction banned form, and object to the snarky implication that I would do so.

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Collect is on a 1RR restriction in part because (as per Arbcomm findings of fact) his editing of BLPs was not in keeping with policy requirements. It is useful to have editors revert BLP violations, but we don't need someone who has a poor record in this respect making judgments about what constitutes a BLP violation; carving out an exception along these lines is a recipe for disruption. Guy's suggestion is the right way forward: one revert and a noticeboard post so that others can take care of any further problems. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jbhunley

The whole reason we have restrictions and bans is that some editors have shown that their views of certain policies are not in line with the community's frequently enough that they cause disruption and therefore should be restricted from doing what "everyone can do". In this case Collect has shown he can assess "obvious vandalism" but, in enough cases to be disruptive, not "obvious BLP violations". I do not know why people are discussing the EW policy 1RR(3RR) at ArbE, that is not what the case sanction is. The sanction reads "3) Collect is indefinitely limited to one revert per article in any 24 hour period. This restriction excepts the reversal of unambiguous vandalism.". That seems pretty clear. Jbh^Talk 13:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Collect: Since you want to bring this up again I will reply here although I do not think this is a proper venue. The edits you used at ArbE [18] to support your claim you 'brought up the date early on' were made on 10:31, 6 April 2015 and [ 13:31, 6 April 2015 ]. The evidence phase for the the ArbCom case ended 23:04, 6 April 2015. Since the Evidence phase started on 23 March 2015 my math says you brought up the issue ~13 hours before the close of a 14 day process. So no apology.

  I do not know why this timing thing is such a sore point for you. When I brought it up you replied with

  "I noted from the get-go that I was going to be away for a substantial period and asked I be given until July to prepare full responses. (reasons include the extended trip and a minor problem called melanoma for which my wife lost about 800 cc of her arm) ... Now I would be impolite left to my own here - but I shall avoid that temptation -- and wish your wife the same health my wife will hopefully have." [19]

  and then asked for an IBAN and then said I had "called (you) an outright liar". While I have not, to the best of my recollection, called you 'an outright liar' I have on several occasions said your statements do not comport with objective reality and then shown, as I have here, with diffs how that is so. (Your post here is a good further example you say I should "make your apology clear for claiming that I did not ask for extra time" whereas what I said was something else entirely) To the best of my understanding that is not harassment nor even uncivil. If you have further complaints about me you can A) bring them up with me on my talk page, or B) bring them up, with diffs, at ANI rather than further derail the ARCA discussion. Jbh^Talk 21:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• @Arbs: These two sections of Collect's talk page do not give me warm fuzzy feelings that he is willing to abide by his prior sanctions: UT:Collect:The Finding of Fact and UT:Collect:What ACTUAL BLP violations look like. These both discuss material related to US politics cf Pamela Geller and discussion of PNAC. I am, as I guess others are, hesitant to open an AE request while this ARCA request is ongoing but I believe it to be a blatant violation of his topic ban that needs attention. Jbh^Talk 15:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Should Collect's continuing picking at the boundries of his topic ban be addressed to AE or can/should it be handled here? He is engaging in more 'boundry testing' with comments on Sylvester Turner, who is a serving member of the Texas House and a US politician by any measure, at BLPN [20] while trying to duck his topic ban -'(Asserting that these comments are not "political" for those following my edits and that this noticeboard is not a "political page")'-[21]. At this point is has become obvious that Collect is not dealing with his ban in good faith. If this is not the proper place to bring these concerns please advise and I will open an AE request but I do not want to do so while a linked matter is in front of the Committee without a clear OK to do so. Jbh^Talk 21:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

It is clear that Collect has misinterpreted the restriction. There are some who consider this to be wilful, others who are inclined to assume good faith, but there is little dissent from the view that he has violated the restriction, whether in good faith or not. I believe there is merit in a reaffirmation that there are no exceptions to the 1RR restriction other than obvious vandalism, and that this explicitly includes WP:BLP articles. My advice to Collect would be to post BLP violations to the relevant noticeboards rather than risk being accused of violating the restriction. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Brustopher

@MrX: Opening an ARCA request against an editor who is 1 way interaction banned from you, in relation to an AE request you are not involved in, is in incredibly poor taste. Surely this should be against some kind of rule? Brustopher (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: The badness of previous actions (which tbh looking at the AE request are pretty bad) does not change the inappropriateness of this one. From what I can see you haven't even touched the British politics topic area with a 10 inch flagpole in the past. Suddenly Collect is involved and you're filing at ARCA. You're escalating a bad situation. When someone opens an ARCA request against a person they are 1 way banned with, and the request is completely unrelated to that ban, they are baiting (hopefully inadvertently in this case) the editor into breaking that ban. Brustopher (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I'm very sympathetic to Collect with respect to the two previous AE filings made by an IP who was obviously concealing identity. However, this is a separate issue. ArbCom made an exception for obvious vandalism. BLP violation is a serious problem, but it was not, in this case, obvious vandalism – and ArbCom found problems with Collect using BLP claims inappropriately. I agree with Guy that posting at a notice board is the proper alternative to a second revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: Just before you made the comment about the interaction ban, that ban was lifted. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DHeyward

That nature of the clarification discussion is completely unworkable. If it is a BLP violation, and he is reverting it, which admin would be so obtuse as to not see WP:IAR as reverting a BLP violation as being beneficial to the project (it is policy WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE WP:BLPREMOVE, afterall) ? Which admin would not Boomerang a complaint that User:Collect corrected a BLP violation? If it is not a BLP violation than it is not excused unless it's vandalism. Thus, Collect would have to be reverting non-BLP and non-vandalism edits in order to be justly sanctioned. We're not a bureaucracy and it's extremely poor form to take action against an editor that actually improved the encyclopedia through policy.

What will his block log say: "Collect removed BLP violations but it violated his 1RR restriction?" Seriously, is that the clarification ArbCom is stating?

Collect will have to be careful that they are BLP violations, but if they are, he should not be punished. He decides BLP violations at his own peril. But why would ArbCom seek 1RR punishment for removing BLP violations except in vainglory for a finding? The spirit of the rules are not to allow BLP violations or vandalism and editors that correct such things are improving the encyclopedia which is why we are here. Anyone who says, "Yes, they are BLP violations but Collect can't fix them." misses the entire point of WP:BLP. The only legitimate finding for a sanction would be "No, they were not BLP violations or vandalism." Anyone that brings a complaint that the "wrong person" fixed a BLP violation should receive their justly earned boomerang for wasting time.

We are not here to seek retribution and there is a site wide policy that editors shall remove BLP violations. --DHeyward (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Note from Harry Mitchell

I have blocked Collect for a fortnight for a topic-ban violation. If Collect's participation in arbitration venues is necessary, I'm happy for the block to be lifted or modified as necessary by a clerk or arbitrator. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Statement by The Big Bad Wolfowitz

When did "All editors are equal, but some editors are less equal than others" become the sixth pillar of Wikipedia?

The one-revert limit is governed by the community-established policy on edit warring. The relevant section. WP:1RR, refers specifically to the standard remedy imposed by the Arbitration Committee. It states, quite plainly, that the difference between 1RR and 3RR is simply the number of reverts. It quite clearly does not state that the standard 3RR exceptions are not available under 1RR. Instead, the policy sets out seven exceptions to 1RR/3RR limits: self-reverts, reverts in one's own userspace, reverting edits by banned users and their socks, reverting obvious vandalism, reverting clear copyvios and NFCC violations, removal of illegal content, and reverting of BLP violations. Unless ArbCom imposes a specific, more restrictive limit in its decision, the policy governs. And the policy says that Collect's contested edits were allowed as 1RR exceptions.

Now some editors here, including several arbitrators, insist that because ArbCom mentioned only the vandalism exception in its decision, it made the other six exceptions unavailable to Collect. To put things politely -- no, let's not, that argument is a complete crock. Obviously none of the editors involved, particularly the arbitrators, have bothered to actually check the policy. @Doug Weller:, do you really believe that the Committee meant to deny Collect the option to self-revert if he decides that his initial revert on a page was incorrect? @Guerillero:, did you vote to deny Collect standard revert privileges in his own userspace? @AGK:, are you saying that Collect shouldn't remove an obvious copyvio/NFCC vio more than once? @DGG:, @Thryduulf:, are you ready to say, User:Collect, you removed those sexually explicit pictures of the underage Traci Lords twice from our wonderful article on Gang bang pornography, but we said you could only remove it once, so you get a nice long block?

And, not just so you don't feel left out, @Euryalus:, @Seraphimblade:, note that Collect just got a two-week block for discussing BLP violations at BLPN, supposedly as a contravention of his topic ban, even though under BANEX BLP violations would be exempt from that topic ban.

The problem that underlies all this nonsense is pretty clear. A few weeks, curing the Lightbreather debacle, after a majority of ArbCom had signed onto a finding instructing female editors not to fight back against sexual harassment, one arb commnented that the finding should be changed because it could be misunderstood. The real problem is is that ArbCom too often doesn't understand what it says. The real problem is that Arbcom too often doesn't say what it actually means . . . if it even knows what it meant. And it's very, very clear that, in cases like this, ArbCom has no principled approach to solving the problems it creates.

As I write, the oldest unclosed entry on this board, on Christianity and Sexuality, deals with an enforcement request I filed against Roscelese. There was no real dispute that Roscelese had violated the express terms of the restrictions ArbCom placed on her. Taking exactly the opposite posture that they're taking with Collect, admins and arbs became virtual contortionists, bending themselves over backwards and in all directions to insist that reciting specific exemptions didn't exclude others.

Of course, Collect, like The Big Bad Wolfowitz, is one of those animals here who's less equal than others. Whatever can be construed against him, will be. Hounding and harassment are ignored. Ultimately, holding heretical attitudes about Wikipedia is a more influential factor than one's actual compliance with purportedly important policies and guidelines. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Collect and others: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Collect and others: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Collect's track record shows that their judgement of what is and is not a BLP violation correlates poorly with the general consensus, so in my view BLP violations (which are not also obvious vandalism) are not an exception to his restriction. Guy's suggestion is a good one, and it will have the useful side effect of providing easy evidence of improvement in your judgement that you can present at a future appeal of the restriction. Regarding MrX's opening this request, yes it would have been better to let someone else bring it here - the AE thread is not short of people familiar with ARCA - but I don't think anything more than a "please do not do so again" is required. @Collect: you may comment here about specific allegations or comments MrX makes, but you may not comment about MrX nor about the merits or otherwise of your interaction ban with them (if you wish to appeal that, please do so in a separate request for clarity). Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
• JzG is correct. There are no exceptions to the 1RR restriction other than unambiguous vandalism, and this includes WP:BLP articles. If Collect becomes aware of something they think should be reverted on BLP grounds, but they cannot do so because of 1RR, they may take it to the relevant noticeboard for community input. This is subject to the concurrent restriction on edits relating to US politics, which applies in every namespace. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• I thought we were pretty clear on this. We made no suggestion that Collect could treat what he saw as BLP violations as vandalism, and 11 of us supported the Finding of Fact that made it clear that his BLP editing was sub-optimal and incorporated a non-NPOV approach. Collect's response doesn't fill me with confidence nor does it approach the issue, but seems to challenge the decision. I'm a bit surprised that he wasn't blocked at AE. We can give him this one pass but only this once, and I would expect that any vandalism revert done by him in the future will be for indubitable vandalism. Doug Weller (talk) 16:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with Doug here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: lex specialis derogat legi generali. Our specific wording on Collect's 1RR overrides the more generous community definition of 1RR. However, this restriction is restricted to the mainspace (..one revert per article.. not ...one revert per page...). So to answer your specific question to me, no, he is free to revert away on his userpage. I might be willing to extend exemptions for self reverts and copyvios. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• As do I. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• I too: on this occasion Collect plainly breached the remedy. Future enforcement should not excuse reverts citing BLP, and it would in fact seem appropriate to enforce the current breach as well (given the long track record). AGK [•] 23:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
• Part of what was addressed in the case was Collect's use of BLP in cases where it was unclear at best if a BLP violation was indeed at issue. The only exemption in this case would be blatant and obvious vandalism. Collect is, of course, still welcome to bring suspected BLP violations to BLPN or another appropriate venue, they do not have to go unaddressed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
• Agree with above arbitrators. I'm increasingly concerned that blp isn't being used to actually enforce BLP, but is at times being used as a trump card or exemption to restrictions without much respect to the policy itself. NativeForeigner ^Talk 09:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I quite agree with you; in fact, I'm getting increasingly troubled by the fact BLP is more and more being invoked on flimsy (and sometimes outright absurd) grounds by editors trying to advance their own POV or cause (this is a general observation). However, I'm uncomfortable with taking a very strict approach in this case, when in others we've allowed editors to use BLP as a way to avoid sanctions after violating their restriction. Yes, we have WP:NOJUSTICE and all that, but I'm still uncomfortable. Then again, I opposed the imposition of this sanction from the beginning (and still think it was a bad idea), so make of that what you want. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• This was a clear breach of the remedy, but hopefully the clarifications that have resulted from this will ensure that Collect doesn't make the same mistake in the future. I don't support any sanctions beyond a firm slap on the wrist for this specific infraction. Yunshui ^雲_水 09:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Though I normally support exemptions for BLP, I don't think we intended to include one here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• My thoughts are in line with NativeForeigner and Salvio's subcomment. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

---

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