Wikipedia talk: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)

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.

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

Would an admin clerk or Arb kindly restore Talk:Signatories of PNAC's policy documents who served in the administration of George W Bush? Comments on that page are needed for evidence. I propose moving it to a subpage of this case, if possible. Thank you.- MrX 00:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconding this, I had multiple diffs saved from that talk page to use as evidence, didn't even occur to me that they'd be inaccessible once the AFD wound down. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Callanecc and DGG in case they didn't see this request.- MrX 16:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The request has been forwarded to the arbitrators. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.- MrX 16:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Page restored for the purposes of the case. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Euryalus.- MrX 01:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect's non-participation

Collect has stated in his initial statement and on his talk page that he will refuse to participate further here, however he is posting "rebuttals" to evidence given here (by me, Mr X, and Ubikwit, so far) on his user talk. Do I need to bother to respond to/refute what he's saying about me there? Will the committee be reading arguments made on his user talk? Fyddlestix (talk) 12:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't post the link from this device, but the guide to arbitration makes clear evidence needs to be posted at the /Evidence page, and not on Usertalk pages. Collect is entitled not to contribute to the /Evidence page, but the committee will decide the case in what is before it. Obviously, if in reviewing your own conduct you wish to proactively explain or rebut anything that needs explaining or rebutting, go for it. But like any other case, you do not need to formally respond to pieces of third-party talkpage commentary. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Further: Bosstopher has posted on behalf of Collect. Of course, Collect remains welcome to post directly as well. Collect (or Bosstopher) - thanks for the reference to the essays, which I've now read through. I encourage other people to do this too - some of them offer good advice on resolving editing disputes. But I'd welcome clarification on why you'd like these included in the evidence. Is it to illustrate your editing philosophy, in response to claims made by others on the /Evidence page? -- Euryalus (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to clarify the essays are meant to be their own rebuttal to claims made about combative essays. I'll update my evidence section to clarify this. Bosstopher (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

One blaring problem is that possibly the most combative of Collect's essays, User:Collect/z, is not included in the list provided by Bosstopher. The original unsanitized version is especially Battleground. I would hope the arbiters peruse all of Collects essays rather than only the cherry-picked few. This subversion (demanding the consideration of off-site discussions as evidence) of the ARBCOM case/evidence/workshop/decision process is beyond the pale. Without "fair witnesses" at Collect's talk page, better known as clerks, there is no-one trained in the art of maintaining proper decorum and impartial evidence presentation. Which leaves only Collect to question and grill editors at his discretion and determination. While I have, as of yet, not provided evidence, I am an interested party and observer.. Buster Seven Talk 12:18, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor Bosstopher has added Collect/z to the list. Thank you, Bosstopher. . Buster Seven Talk 12:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect's talkpage is not part of /Evidence. Go there and discuss whatever you like, but it isn't necessarily going to be relevant to this case. Thanks for highlighting an additional essay, but it's clearly meant to be ... what, cynical? Ironic? Evidence has just opened, but so far I can't see the existence of this particular essay either advancing or detracting from Collect's case. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I'm not presently seeing any utility in the "essays are combative" argument. Essays are a statement of opinion, there's no obligation on others to agree with their content. The heart of this case is claims of combative article editing. Again, I note evidence is still coming in so perhaps the essay theme will be expanded upon shortly. But at present, while I enjoyed reading the essays and reckon some of them are quite good, I'm not yet seeing them as relevant. Just a personal opinion, other Committee members likely have other views. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I note that MrX has not referred to the essays in the evidence stage at all, and appears to have only pointed to them in the request as providing a glimpse into Collect's editing mindset as corroborating his "combative approach" vis-a-vis the evidence. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Blaming someone for writing essays? Come on. Here is one I really like, but no one ever objected. My very best wishes (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

All very true and accurate. The point that Collect no longer includes it in any list of accomplishments is pertinent. The fact that he doesn't want committee members to see it is pertinent. Granted it is 7/8 years old but it reads like a textbook description of Collects editing style. Misdirecting the case to focus on "essays" is requested by Collect on his talk page;

• "I request in all due courtesy...that my essays be individually examined"
  
• "I ask each "essay" be examined and discussed individually"
  
• "...and ask that the arbitrators examine all of my essays de novo, and not based on iterated opinions but on the original evidence". . Buster Seven Talk 16:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect's essays (which range from the thoughtful to the incoherent to the unintentionally ironic) are a distraction here. They were mentioned in passing in one of the case statements, and in none of the evidence. Collect has now repeated over a dozen times the canard that this case revolves around his essays (e.g. [1]). Let's move on? MastCell ^Talk 19:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Correct. I mentioned the essays in my case request statement to provide a speculative glimpse into Collect's approach to editing on Wikipedia. They are immaterial to the case and I have no intention that they be considered as evidence. Collect is not helping himself by continuing to use them as red herrings in his absentee arguments.- MrX 23:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be reasonable for Collect to post something in his defense just before April 6. I do not know anything about these disputes, but I think your evidence against him is weak. Consider this typical edit brought as an evidence against him. Honestly, his edit looks very much reasonable to me. I do not see any reason why an opinion about climate change must be at all included in biography of this person. He is not a climatologist, and he does not make any serious decisions related to the climate change. On the other hand, someone who reverted edit by Collect to place this presumably negative and completely irrelevant information about a living person looks to me as a violator our BLP rules. Moreover, it appears that a number of people followed edits by Collect to revert. Following and fixing his edits would be fine if he was doing something obviously inappropriate. However, following Collect to revert legitimate edits (such as his edit in this example) may indeed constitute harassment. My very best wishes (talk) 02:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect has not been prohibited from posting in defense, but the recourse to claims about essays is simply a "diversionary tactic" of the sort I've mentioned on the evidence page.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The issue of essays were brought by MrX when she/he requested the case. But speaking about your evidence, I did not get this part. Yes, I can see that Collect started a couple of RfC on minor issues that probably did not require serious discussion. But that happens all the times in contentious subject areas. Sometimes people ignore such requests, sometimes they respond, however, everyone normally assumes good faith on the part of the proposer. I do not see how staring a content RfC can "prevent resolution of content disputes" according to your statement. My very best wishes (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Fact:MrX made the briefest mention of essays and then moved on. It is Collect that has turned it into a litany on his talk page. . Buster Seven Talk 21:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I haven't examined the diffs, so I can't say whether they represent Collect doing anything wrong. But it definitely can be disruptive to start unnecessary RfCs and noticeboard discussions during the course of a content dispute, particularly where the crux of the dispute is being ignored (classic case: posting to RSN when you know very well the issue is WEIGHT) or where the digression appears to serve no other purpose than to wear other editors out. AGF doesn't mean we are obliged to put up with whatever nonsense an editor chooses to waste our valuable time with. Formerip (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Was anyone ever sanctioned for starting an RFC or RSNB discussion? No one has any obligation to respond in such discussions. Nothing happens if no one responds to a content RfC. This is very different from disruptive AfD nominations (where not responding may result is a page being deleted) or unjustified filing of AE, ANI or arbitration requests against other users, where not responding may result in unreasonable sanctions. My very best wishes (talk) 02:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The pretense of "non-participation"

At this point, Collect has posted dozens of kb of argumentation, aspersions, and rebuttals regarding this case pretty much everywhere except on the case pages. He's busily arguing his case and accusing other editors of lying and so on ([2], [3], etc). Let's drop the pretense that he is not participating. He is the single most active case participant to date, but has refused to use the appropriate venues (i.e. these pages). Collect is free to choose not to participate, but he's not free to run around casting aspersions and attacking people while avoiding the proper venue to resolve the dispute. This is disruptive gamesmanship; it shows contempt for the dispute resolution process; and it shows zero integrity. See also these threads, where other case parties raise similar concerns. In my personal view, someone (Arb, clerk, uninvolved admin) should probably step up here and tell him to knock it off, as another 3-6 months of this (while the case drags on) will quickly get even more tiresome. MastCell ^Talk 19:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbs/Clerks - Please see my post at Request that Collect either participate or not which I posted on the Case talk page. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If Collect is "accusing other editors of lying and so on" then he is subject to the usual community sanctions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC).

There's no "if" about it. For example (aimed at another editor): "You deliberately lied in your 'evidence' when you said you had not supported the table. Period... Perhaps you have a very labile definition of the truth." As to whether he is subject to the usual community sanctions, well... MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this what is known as WP:Gaming the system, and isn't that what Collect is essentially accused of in this case, in regard to his use of the BLP policy?

Given Collect's non-participation participation, ArbCom could consider issuing a preliminary injunction which restrains Collect from discussing this case anywhere but here. BMK (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Prior dispute resolution missing

The Prior dispute resolution section is missing from the main case page for this case, but has been copied to the American politics 2 case page. Could a helpful clerk please fix this? Many thanks.- MrX 19:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done by clerk. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Factchecker_atyourservice

The paragraph presented by this editor is almost totally opinion, with one lone diff. Is this what is meant by "evidence"? Many editors hold strong opinions about Collect or Ubikwit or other parties to this case, are they to be allowed to vent their opinions without actual proof (i.e. evidence in the form of multiple diffs supporting their statements)? If not, then Factchecker_atyourservice's paragraph should either be populated with real evidence supporting his contentions or deleted by one of the clerks as being of no evidentiary value. BMK (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Factchecker_atyourservice, please provide diffs to back up your evidence. I've hatted the current post as not being useful to the Committee's consideration of the case, but will undo this if you provide sufficient supporting material in the next few days. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

This is pretty ironic, given the user's username William M. Connolley (talk) 13:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary snark, WMC. Anyway, I definitely talked about some specific WP misbehavior which was contrary to policy and which casts doubt on the claims raised here. Also, that "lone diff" was in fact to a long talk page conversation that encapsulated the behavior by the submitter that I was talking about. It would not be hard for a reader to click through and see exactly what I was talking about. In any event, I can put together more detail, but I'm very busy this week & don't think I'll be able to do it before the weekend. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Signature of User:Factchecker_atyourservice

Not relevant at all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
@Factchecker_atyourservice - Why are you signing your comments "Centrify"? I sign my comments "BMK" because it's an abbreviation for "Beyond My Ken" and I figure that after almost 11 years on the project I might be well enough known to use an abbreviation, but what does "Centrify" have to do with "Factchecker_atyourservice"? Signatures are supposed to help other editors identify who posted a comment, how does this signature help them to identify you? BMK (talk) 01:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC) @Clerks: Factchecker_atyourservice -- who fro some unexplained reason signs himself "Centrify" and refuses to bring his signature in line with his user name -- has twice deleted the comment above this as a "distraction", in clear violation of WP:TPO. I have absolutely no problem if the clerks or Arbs feel it is a distraction and remove it, but someone needs to remind Factchecker_atyourservice that removing other editors' comments from talk pages other than their own is disruptive behavior, and that he shouldn't remove this again. I have told him so on his talk page, along with some other violations of policies and guidelines, but he has paid no attention. BMK (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC) A discussion about usernames is best had here: WP:RFC/NAME.- MrX 14:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Why are we talking about this here? Also, "paid no attention" is not exactly an honest recounting of our discussion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:00, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence Limits

A reminder: The language at the top of the evidence page states: The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Editors who exceed those limits will be requested to trim their submissions, and clerks may trim submissions that exceed those limits. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming this was triggered by my wordy evidence submission. I will go back in the next 24 hours and try to trim it substantially (there is probably a fair bit of editorial commentary which could be axed). Just to get ahead of things, would it be possible (dear Arbs and clerks) to have an extension to 1,500 words? If not, I'll do my best to cut it down to 1,000. I've had generous offers from other editors (on my talkpage) to host some of the evidence, insofar as those editors endorse its validity, but I'm not sure how I feel about that yet. I do appreciate the kind offers, though. MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

@MastCell: I'll let the arbitrators know. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:08, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, will discuss with DGG as co-drafter and come back to you. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I've trimmed my evidence submission to <1,500 words (at least by my count). Please let me know if you'd like me to trim it further. Thanks for considering my request for an extension. MastCell ^Talk 17:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks MastCell, fine with extension to 1500 words. -- Euryalus2 (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

1491 words, per http://www.wordcounter.net/ - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment: with respect, given the prevalence of left-leaning editors on WP, I'm a little concerned at this. Collect is already facing the grim popularity contest of having each user here given 1000 words to make hay. That means a mountain of submissions by the left-leaning editors who are here lining up to condemn him. The sheer WP demographics alone virtually guarantee that there will be many more accusers than defenders even if Collect did nothing really wrong (and even if he was right in all those content disputes!). On top of that, the accusers are offering to share their "evidence space" with each other, as if it were a group-condemnation project. Is it really necessary to grant additional concessions to the left-leaning accusers here? If there really is a sound case against Collect, how many thousands of words are needed to make it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, even after being granted an extension to the normal word limit, MastCell went ahead and linked to the complete, unabridged original that is even longer. That's almost as bad as ignoring the word limits completely. Please remove that link. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have strayed from the point a little. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Meh. I think that was a pretty silly decision on a number of levels, but I don't care to have the link restored—I think the shorter version of the evidence is more coherent anyway. MastCell Talk 01:38, 4 April 2015 (UTC) Given the prevalence of left-leaning editors on WP. ???? This is not a popularity contest, neither is this a political issue. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC) But, see, I am arguing that it is, or at least that it bears troubling similarities to one. In any event you all have many thousands of words to play with — is anybody arguing that it's not enough? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 10:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

A struck claim, some debate on how pings work, some conversational asides. Not relevant to the case, so time to move along.

Collect is blatantly canvassing for support. 21:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Also, he has slandered and lied about me (not the first time) without the courtesy of a notification. I only been watching his page for a few days because he has changed the Rules of Evidence and created a "satellite ArbCom page" which allows him to do whatever he pleases. These are clear examples of how underhanded and devious this editor is. Shouldn't a clerk put a stop to this? . Buster Seven Talk 21:42, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Actually, he isn't. He didn't ping anyone, and the name-drop (at least for me; can't speak for the others) did not light up my Notifications alert. If I hadn't clicked on the diff you linked, I would not have been aware that I was mentioned. Horologium (talk) 21:48, 1 April 2015 (UTC) Well...it sure looks like he is "calling out to all his supporters to rally 'round the flag". I'll be glad when thus is over so I can go back to ignoring him. . Buster Seven Talk 21:58, 1 April 2015 (UTC) It looks like he listed the people who supported deleting the POV PNAC article. It's certainly not sorted by stated political preferences--it's likely that you wouldn't find Carrite and RightCowLeftCoast together in such a list. <small smile> There is a broad diversity of opinions in his list, but all of them agreed that the article which was deleted didn't belong and supported nuking it. Horologium (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2015 (UTC) The /Evidence page is not a vote, and the "winner" is not the side of the argument which posts the most words. Nor is it an RfA - cheersquads posting the equivalent of "Support per PersonA" will have their contributions removed. There is a place for people posting evidence that sets negative material in context (for example, "sure EditorX was uncivil in that one instance, but its worth rememebring their sterling record in this other corner of Wikipedia.") But there is no need for multiple people to present exactly the same evidence - its not twice as convincing if you say it twice. The short version - if anyone (anyone) has relevant and detailed evidence to present they should present it, for or against any relevant proposition. But canvassing and repetition offer no benefits in case outcomes. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:31, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I was not canvassed, but I do watch delsort.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC) I was not canvassed and I do not watch delsort, whatever that is. Mr. Cow's and my politics are opposite, as is noted above. I respect him as a Wikipedian. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC) MY mistake. I guess I don't understand how the echo notification system works. It looked like canvassing and I called him on it. My Bad, as the saying goes. I should have sat on my hands rather than over-react. I have struck my opening statement. Buster Seven Talk 03:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC) Without comment on whether Collect was canvassing in this instance, template:U should have triggered notifications if the mentioned users have "Mention" checked under the web column in their notification preferences. See WP:MENTION. I just verified this by testing it on my alternate account here. Perhaps Horologium could clarify whether this option is enabled in his notification preferences. Likewise, perhaps RightCowLeftCoast could clarify whether he received a notification around 13:01 UTC yesterday, since his comment doesn't address notification at all.- MrX 12:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC) The notification gadget is still a little wonky, so there are any number of possible innocuous explanations. More to the point, as Euryalus mentioned, I don't think it's worth spending a lot of time unpacking this since it's of minimal relevance to the case. MastCell Talk 15:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC) I do have mention ticked in my notification preferences, but did not receive any notification despite being one of the users mentioned. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC) I also have mention ticked, but did not receive a notice. I *did*, however, receive a notification from MrX's message above. Weird. Horologium (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC) I am going to test something. MrX, did you receive a notification for this? Buster7, did you? If MrX did not, and Buster7 did, it is because the first template is lowercase, and the second one is uppercase. "u" is automatically converted to "U" because it's the first letter in the template name, and "U" redirects to Template:User link, but I'm not sure how the whole notification thing works internally. Maybe a bug? Horologium (talk) 23:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC) I did NOT receive a ping. . Buster Seven Talk 23:24, 2 April 2015 (UTC) OK, so much for that idea. Maybe we'll just have to chalk it up to template wonkery (wankery?) and let it go. Horologium (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC) I didn't get a red notification either. Wankery it is!- MrX 00:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC) I think you mean "wonkery". "Wankery" is something else entirely. BMK (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, we are both aware of that. I was attempting to inject a little bit of levity into what is likely to be a protracted and ugly exercise. Perhaps it was a bad idea. Horologium (talk) 03:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC) @Horologium: "Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the edit does not add a new signature to the page, no notification will be sent. It must also be in the page text—-links in the edit summary do not create notifications." You didn't sign it. Going back to sign doesn't work. See the rest of WP:Notifications as there are other reasons why they don't always work. Dougweller (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Yes, I see that now, as I carefully read the entire page. That might also explain what happened with Collect's post; it was a very large and complex post, with a couple of embedded quotes from other users. both before and after the list of editors. The parser didn't have a chance of picking out the sig at the end of that post. Horologium (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2015 (UTC) what counts is the intention. In any case, as explained elsewhere, canvassing does not apply here. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:41, 3 April 2015 (UTC) Because there's no such thing as too much bureaucracy, a very minor clarification that WP:CANVASS does apply to this page, but there's no practical effect from doing it here for the reasons stated above. Either way, subject to any other arbitrator view, am not planning on doing anything about anything in this thread, especially as the OP concern has been struck. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

User: Buster7

Buster7's comments really amount to little more than a statement of a grudge, or of personal dislike of Collect, and the diffs provided are utterly irrelevant. One links to an edit to an essay that merely shows Collect is troubled by the idea of sockpuppets and canvassing. The other diff simply shows a snippy reply from Collect on a talk page comment! Yet in Buster7's words, this constitutes "proof" — or at least "clear signs" — that Collect "has an enemies list". Barring something that Buster perhaps forgot to include in his comment, this looks like silly sensationalism and should be deleted entirely, not merely hatted.

P.S. I've known Collect just as long as Buster. We met him in the same place. Further, BLP violations are very common and are often of a very serious character. There is no virtue in avoiding disputes on serious content matters just for the sake of nurturing some odd notion of Wiki-tranquility. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you're upset. I'm the one whose face is on the billboard on Collect's front lawn. Why me? He has had many more negative dealings with many more editors over the last 7 years since I made that comment. I challenge you to show me some other editor that holds a grudge for 7 years.. Buster Seven Talk 13:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I did forget something. Thanks for the reminder. I will be adding two more diffs to my evidence:remove anything that might be remotely attacking anyone at all (Check out the paragraph he is changing. He calls me a sockpuppet) and absolutely no one can find the identity now (where he admits he needs to cover his trail) Buster Seven Talk 20:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not upset. You're clearly the one who is upset. But being upset with another editor, or having had arguments with one, is not grounds for an ArbCom case. Further, you really shouldn't make sensational claims that you can't even remotely substantiate (and right now I am thinking of the alleged "enemies list" in particular). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 10:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

7 years ago I was a brand-new novice editor having discovered Wikipedia when Sarah Palin was announced as the VP candidate and I (like millions of others) needed to know who she was. And I was hooked. You, I, and collect were among dozens of editors, working on her article and spending months together during the 2008 campaign. Even then I was a 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 came to you[4] and the Administrator Less Heard van U. He never replied and you advised me to ignore it... which I did. And now, here you are...7 years later, defending the very editor that uses my correspondence TO YOU as a billboard on his talk page and you take ME to task for being his victim. I can provide have provided DIFFS if you don't remember all the circumstances. 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. . Buster Seven Talk 05:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was annoyed by Collect while editing the Sarah Palin article. In hindsight, I believe that's because I was annoyed that WP policy sometimes prevented me from dishing all the juicy juice on Sarah Palin. (He was also a brand new editor at that time, FWIW.) I haven't forgotten my interactions with Collect, I just think it turned out that he was right about the things we argued about. Remember also that being made to feel unwelcome by other editors is an equal-opportunity sport on WP. (I'm currently getting a refresher course in that, courtesy of another user filing comments at this page.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 10:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I interacted with Collect on a few occasions outside the US politics. We had a couple of disagreements, but his comments and edits in general were very much reasonable. Unfortunately, it seems that people who submitted this Evidence were very seriously annoyed by Collect (to say this politely) and assume he should be topic banned or banned. Some of them (in particular Buster7 [5]) accuse him even of writing essays or redacting to the better his own comments. The banning seem to be a likely outcome, given that complainers are established contributors (even if I do not like some their evidence) and Collect did not provide any evidence in his favor on this (appropriate) noticeboard... My very best wishes (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I had seen a lot Collect's work while I was reading BLP/N and although I thought he was often pedantic and stubborn he usually had a good point and I respected him and his view point at the beginning of what turned into this drama. I started working on an article, briefly, with Collect while the PNAC list AfD was going on and he was fine to work with even with all of the conflict we were having with the issues surrounding the AfD. I then found the UT Jimbo Wales thread he had started days prior. The behavior there, as noted in my evidence, was so far beyond the pale of proper behavior in a collegial editing project I was shocked, my good faith shattered right then and there.

What it truly amazing is that all the evidence I have presented stemmed from interaction on one article over a period of less than four weeks. I had no prior interaction with him. I just had the effrontery to disagree with his idea of policy. At first I thought that behavior might be due to him having a particular attachment to the topic or maybe that our editing styles did not mesh and that would have been OK. After the first ANI was opened and I started looking into his behavior and other editors commented at ANI I saw that it was a persistent, long term problem. I would not be wasting my time here on, what from my perspective, are a group of issues that should have been solved at the noticeboards, if I had not formed a very firm opinion about the current net value of Collect's participation here or if I thought that his behavior would be addressed and modified with recourse to another forum. Jbh (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately for myself, I did not even know about PNAC, but after reading intro to the page, I do not see any problems with it, and speaking privately, these wars and economic policies by WB were an enormous disaster. But the point is very simple: Collect had to drop this issue (whatever it might be) immediately at the first signs of the serious opposition from other contributors, rather than be engaged in these disputes, even if he felt to be on the right side of wikipolicies. My very best wishes (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Requesting permission to exceed the standard limits for all evidence

I am requesting permission to exceed the evidence limits slightly. There are a couple more pieces of evidence that I would like to add and may need to add some additional context in a couple areas. Thank you.- MrX 16:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Ballpark figure, how many words do you think you will need? -- Euryalus (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Probably no more than 250 more words and a handful of diffs.- MrX 19:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Approved to 2000 words/200 diffs total. MastCell (and any other involved party), this is available to you also. -- Euryalus (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Euryalus. Much appreciated!- MrX 20:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, thank you. Although more evidence is available in the vast world of archives, I've spent enough time sifting through old crap related to this editor. I most likely will not avail myself of your generous offer. . Buster Seven Talk 22:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging @JzG:

I mentioned you in my evidence. Since there are no signatures on the evidence page I am letting you know here. Jbh (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Commentary from Collect

At his point, I have, indeed, been quite successfully harassed from making any edits even remotely involving living persons or politics, even including Moby-Dick. The only remaining issue is that of the pound of flesh to be exacted. In any quasi-judicial process, the process is only fair if it is seen to be fair by others. In the case at hand, evidence regarding the harassment was sent to a committee member on 8 March. So far, not a whit of acknolwedgement for that evidence.

This case was started a few weeks ago with clear rules about the length of evidence to be allowed - that limit has now been waived for my accusers - but not for me. I was told that the limits were part of the process, and so I felt I could not be possibly able to address multiple accusers with my arms fully tied behind my back. I felt that it was reasonable to expect committee members to be able to read my positions on my talk page and see how I address accusations.

Late in the process, I was informed that committee members would not even deign to read any such material. Fine - were it not for the fact that past committees had, in fact, considered material not "formally presented" in the evidence phase. [6] has a finding based on evidence only provided by a committee member, provided on 19 August, where the deadline for "evidence" had been far earlier - thus no rebuttal could be made to the brand-new "evdence". [7] shows a committee member after the deadline stating " I have added the party because I am preparing to present a finding relating to his edits, so I am not sure how his presence will hinder the presenting of other findings. AGK [•] 17:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)" Again note that the first "proposed decision" was made on 29 July 2013 - at a time when the evidence phase was already officially closed.

[8] shows me objecting to any committee member adding people to a proposed decision after all the evidence phase was completed: "Adding names where zero evidence is given and no one has asked for the person to be topic banned is simply and frankly wrong."

[9] rebutted me with a stern warning: "Time for the "bickering" to end. Discussion in this section is closed. Editors ignoring this closure may be restricted from participating on case pages without further warning. " [10] then establised an absolute limit on any further posts of 500 words as a maximum. So not only was evidence created by a committee member well after the entire evidence phase was closed, those contesting a very poor proposed decision were told that were to stop all "bickering" under penalty of being yanked from all participation on their own behalf.

What we have in the case present is that evidence here had a maximum of 1000 words, no matter how many accusations have to be addressed in rebuttal. I suppose that might be fair - but the maximum has been waived for those making accusations - in fact, several editors agreed to split up posts to make sure many thousands of words of accusations would be allowed. [11]

As I said, to be fair, the process must be perceived to be absolutely fair. If I must abide by the stated 1000 word limit, and those accusing me can aggregate far more than 5000 words, the process is not then reasonably perceived to be fair.

If a committee member can "find his own evidence" weeks after any opportunity for any rebuttal exists, the process can not be perceived to be fair.

If a committee member proposes sanctioning people in a case who were not even mentioned prior to the vote on any sanction, the process can not be reasonably conceived to be fair.

If a committee member in other cases can examine evidence not presented on the evidence page - but then states that he can not be bothered to examine material profferred in rebuttal not found on the evidence page, the process can not be perceived to be fair.

If the committee has used material in evidence as a rule in many prior cases which is disavowed by this current "we must be blind to anything outside the evidence page" rule, the process itself becomes flawed.

As I have stated several times now - the harassers have won. I am not about to make any mainspace edits at all about any person dead, alive, or fictional, or any political article, or Pokemon characters in any article.

Happy Easter!

Χριστός Ανέστη! Αληθώς Ανέστη!

Collect (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Some initial responses:

• As outlined two sections above, the word limit extension of 2000 words/200 diffs is available to you as well as all other involved parties. Also as outlined above, more words doesn't necessarily mean more evidentiary value.
• As I'm sure you know, the Committee can examine any relevant material in reaching its decisions. Parties can expect that material posted on the case pages will be considered. There is no guarantee that the same applies to material posted elsewhere. The case pages also give parties the opportunity to put evidence in context, which may not otherwise be evident from simply reading through diffs or someone's edit history. But its really up to you if you wish to take up the opportunity.
• You will have to pursue your concerns about past case handling with the people involved in those cases. Please be assured that here, at least, no one will be individually sanctioned who has not been previously mentioned in the case and given the opportunity to respond. However as previously advised, refusal to take part in a case does not make someone immune from case sanctions. The refusal after fair notification is their choice, but the case proceeds either way.
• Your editing choices while the case proceeds are a matter for you. If you feel you are being harassed in particular articles, please raise that that via the usual dispute resolution methods.
• This is not supposed to sound unfriendly, so apologies for the bureaucratic tone.
• Happy Easter to you too. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: As I said as long ago as the case request, this case is not "Collect: guilty or no?" It is "Collect: what are the causes of the frequent disputes surrounding their editing?" It could be that your editing style plays a role, it could be that you are indeed the subject to organised harassment by others, it could be there is nothing to see here either way. That's what the case aims to determine. You don't need to accuse others in contributing to the case - it may be enough for you (or anyone else) simply to give context to the disputes in which you have been involved. Or you can let the record speak for itself by declining to be involved. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

My statements are a small fraction of the total "evidence" specifically aimed at me (in fact - not even the greatest amount by a single poster), so I trust that no "special dispensation" already granted to those posters will not be automatically accorded to me. And I note several sources stated that committee members will specifically decline to read the material on my talk page, and possibly not even read the essays which were so vigourously denounced. Cheers. And thanks for fixing the tpyo <g>. Collect (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

First, see above re word limits, as this has already been addressed. Second, I don't know who your "several sources" are, but I've read your essays and even complimented some of them on a case talk page. There is presently no allegation relating to the essays, and unless one is raised in the next two days it is extremely unlikely they will form a relevant part of any proposed decision in this case. -- Euryalus2 (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

This is good to know! I must tell that current evidence by Collect is not very helpful, in my opinion. Perhaps it would help if arbitrators explained him what exactly aspects of his behavior they view as the most problematic, or instruct him what evidence would be most helpful? Then, he might be able to address these specific concerns much better in his Evidence? My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair question, but the arbitrators haven't yet offered a view on Collect's or anyone else's editing - accusations of problematic behaviour, such as they are, are being made in /Evidence by other editors. This evidence forms the basis (but not always the entirety) of the case.

The Workshop that follows analyses that evidence to sift wheat from chaff and debate what, if any, conclusions to draw. The subsequent Proposed Decision stage is where the arbitrators offer final opinions on editor conduct.

So, I suppose the answer to your question is to refer you to the /Evidence page, but to note that these are not the arbitrators' views. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 03:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

• "Harassment" is a word that has, or should have, actual meaning. If there is evidence that Collect has been harassed, then immediate action should be taken to protect him. On the other hand, if there is no evidence of harassment, then he should stop levying that charge so opportunistically. He wasn't "harassed" into edit-warring, or making up policies out of whole cloth to win content disputes, or violating BLP with casual hypocrisy when it suits him. And it is not "harassment" to hold him accountable for those behaviors. MastCell ^Talk 04:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

In fact, such evidence was emailed to committee members on 8 March 2015. Other evidence is implicit where a person states their intent to drive me off of Wikipedia, etc. Thank you most kindly. And I note that I now address the hypocrisy as some who accuse me of "crying BLP" with another diff. As I have noted, I would take at least 100 hours to provide a raft of material due to major time commitments on my part.

WRT the essays - it was clearly part of the initial statements, and as it was made there as an accusation, it is incumbent on me to address that accusation. Recall those who made it can still place the accusation in evidence.

Third - as I have repeatedly made known, the material bout the blocks is fully address onmy user talk page. Incessant harping "he was blocked so therefore he must always be guilty of 'something'" is not a strong argument in real life.

Fourth - [12] shows a pattern one editor might not like having addressed - acting both as editor and admin on a single article [13] and a large number of edits, and [14] adding protection template as an admin. And do on. Collect (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, I understand that you emailed evidence a month ago. I'm saying that if the evidence is convincing, then it should be acted on ASAP. The lack of response suggests, to me, that there was no actionable harassment, but that's just an inference on my part and it would probably be helpful for the Committee to respond to you formally, if only to put these tiresome accusations to rest.

As for your accusations of admin abuse, you should put them in evidence if you feel strongly. But it should be obvious that I'm an editor, not an admin, on the Joni Ernst article. Another admin (not I) protected the page but forgot to add the appropriate notification template, so I added it. That's a routine, uncontroversial housekeeping edit of the sort which is explicitly permitted by WP:INVOLVED. If you're presenting that as "admin abuse", then it reflects very poorly on you, and suggests that you're desperately casting about for mud to fling. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

MastCell: at Joni Ernst you engaged in left-biased editing at a political article, misrepresenting sources in the process, lobbed uncalled-for personal attacks against at least one non-admin who merely disagreed with you on a question of fact. You sat there while other left-leaning editors lobbed unnecessary personal attacks at Collect and didn't so much as peep a warning. You then proceeded to declare the "consensus" yourself and went ahead editing based on your view of how the article should look. Meanwhile you insulted Collect for talking about the underlying dispute on the talk page, and even nonsensically said that it constituted talk page abuse. In fact, one such accusation involved one of the infamous malicious RFCs that Collect is accused of opening for the alleged purpose of frustrating WP policy (i.e. arguing against the edits you wanted to make).

Of course, there was actually a reason for that RFC, because it challenged inappropriate editorializing that was, in fact, being suggested by another editor. At the time you claimed that the RFC was made in bad faith because Cwobeel hadn't actually made the edit yet. That is just plain silly, especially given Cwobeel's oft-demonstrated tendency to simply wait until others have stopped paying attention and then stealthily make sharp POV edits that he knows are opposed by others. It was clear he was going to go ahead and make the edit in absence of a discussion demonstrating a contrary consensus. And then, having made the edit, he would declare til Judgment Day that his version was the WP:RIGHT version, and he would also claim without support that the edit was somehow "based on consensus". Collect's RFC was actually just what the doctor ordered because it brought much-needed pairs of eyes into a discussion that was otherwise characterized by Collect being beat up by a couple of lefties who were keen on bending or even breaking the rules in service of the WP:TRUTH.

If you weren't an admin, all this would just be BOLD, but here it's at best a borderline abuse of your authority; you essentially teamed up with another partisan to nullify your opposition by "winning" a series of edit wars and drowning out legitimate talk-page discussion, and meanwhile your repeated loud warnings about supposed abuse, coupled with your apparent indifference to more serious infractions committed right in your face by a left-leaning editor, gave the disctinct impression that you were taking sides in the content dispute and would be open to taking punitive action if things didn't develop to your liking. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 19:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You're free to place evidence against me if you feel strongly, but please put it on the actual Evidence page where it belongs. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Question for the clerks

Rebuttal is best placed in /Evidence, or discussed at the workshop

In his evidence Collects takes a quote of mine :"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)" that I made during my RfA and infers something other than fact. Of course, being Collect, he twists it to his favor. Interestingly, Collect was the very first Oppose (was he waiting for the voting booth to open?) within moments of the RfA's opening. Back then, I really wanted to ignore Collects snarkiness (just like I had been doing) and his oppose but others didn't and Collects interpretation and comment got a little wind in a its sails. So....in order to countermand it and defend myself, I STARTED to compile a history.... I didn't have a list in place in some secret hiding place. Like I said, "I have started to work on a composite......" BTW--I never continued gathering the history. It seemed to petty and inconsequential to my request for RfA.

My first question is this: When someone provides a Diff into Evidence, is it the practice of members of the ArbCom panel to go to the diffs and get a feel for where and how they exist 'within context'? My second question revolves around the fact that I would have made a good Administrator. I am not an angel. I am human. I rarely make "hurtful to other editor" type mistakes and if I do it's usually to try to be funny. But, in my eyes, Collect hurt the Encyclopedia by being so demanding that my RfA fail. Which, thank God, it did because I would not be happy cleaning up the messes that editors like Collect leave in their wake. My second question is this: Do the members of the ArbCom consider the long range, detrimental and debilitating effect an editor like Collect has on the general populace of editors? . Buster Seven Talk 05:48, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Buster7 - these are questions for the Committee rather than the clerks. Answers as one of the drafters:

• Diffs are considered in context.
• Without accepting the specific characterisation, longterm editor conduct is a fundamental consideration in most cases. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Request for Arbs/Clerks

Three-thousand two-hundred and five words (per Wordcounttools) and a request for extension to July 1 after two weeks of "not participating". I request that Collect be formally advised that the rules of this proceeding apply to him in the same way they apply to everyone else here. I guess my good faith is gone but this behavior to me seems to be a blatant attempt to game the system. Thank you for your consideration in this matter Jbh (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A tad more now than another accusation is addressed. Comes to all of 23,261 bytes including all headers.

MastCell has 22,188.

JBH has 9,475.

B7 has 5,404.

MrX 22,342.

Ubikwit 8,326 bytes.

Fyddlestix has 14,067.

81,802 bytes of evidence to be countered - and you find my 23K to be an unfair advantage for me? Anyone who says countering over 80K with all of 23K is "gaming the system" and says I am somehow in any way acting against good faith has problems. Collect (talk) 13:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Collect is expected to defend himself against tens of thousands of words of accusations, some padded extensively with diffs that are irrelevant or don't show anything, not to mention amorphous complaints about supposed personal slights and at least one highly sensational, completely unsupported claim — and in the process he must limit himself to one thousand words?

And 2 weeks is viewed as an unacceptable turn-around time on that? Is he supposed to drop everything else in his life and hire an assistant to help defend against this onslaught of effort, this massive undertaking by perhaps a dozen separate editors who are committed to pursuing disciplinary proceedings against him, possibly for political reasons or in retaliation for content disputes at politically charged articles? For my part I seem to have been marked for revenge for merely speaking in Collect's defense — by an editor who is not a party to this case but is clearly eager to influence the proceedings to Collect's detriment — which exchange the editor capped off with the delightful edit summary, "You're dead to me now". Is that the collegial, fair editing environment that users pursuing sanctions against Collect claim to want?

Responding to stuff like this is a lot of work. Identifying and parsing diffs is a slow, tedious, eyes-bleeding chore. I know WP has processes and the processes have associated rules, but this doesn't really seem like a fair scenario. If the only concession granted to Collect is the same blanket word-limit extension that was granted to everyone else without them even having to request it, I'd get the troubling sense that ailroad tracks are being laid. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

He has 2000 words and 200 diffs just like everyone else. This has been pointed out several times and the blanket extension was granted to any involved party. Keeping up with the case pages is a minimum requirement for an involved party. That Collect is trying to imply he has not done so by complaining he has only 1000 words now beggars belief.

He has said repeatedly that he was not going to participate here and has had 17 days since the RfArb was opened. To come along on the last day of evidence is indeed trying to game the system. If he had been working diligently in this time, or had some real life issue that would have kept him from contributing in that time, he could have asked for an extension. If he needed more space crafting a concise rebuttal after working on it he could have asked the Arbs for an exception. just like others here did. He did none of these things. He has made multiple edits per day, many of them complaining about this case and saying he refused to participate, with the exception of March 28-31. There is fair and there is acting like one is above the rules. I have my opinion on what this behavior is and you have yours - they are likely different and that is OK. Neither of us will be making the decision on this. Jbh (talk) 14:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a mite too much emotion and around the evidence for this arbitration request. Its not my decision and I've had my own run ins with Collect over the years but, given the range of and veracity of the accusations, I'd be inclined to call a halt to new ones, allow Collect a couple of weeks to get a response in order then hand over the arbitration. I'd also like to seem some reflection from Collect on what he has done (and might in future do differently) to prevent this level of criticism ----Snowded ^TALK 14:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

JBH: are you claiming that Collect has not been working on that giant submission these past 2 weeks? Or that he'd have had plenty of time to do a better job if he hadn't been making "multiple edits per day"? Or perhaps that it's an easy task to rebut 20000 words of accusations (some of them nonsense) with 2000 words of defense? Each of these seems pretty unlikely, so I question your working definition of "gaming the rules". I note that Collect now has requested an extension. What's the problem with that, and is there some deadline involved? Do you acknowledge that it would take a really really long time for one person to respond to all of the above claims? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

If he was working on the submission the whole time he was vehemently claiming he would not participate in the case "on principle" then he has been lying. If he has not then he made a choice not to and must live with it.

He is asking for eight weeks to put together his case and based on what he has done so far intends to use much more than 2000 words. After that do I then get some weeks to rebut his rebuttals? Then does he get more time to rebut my refutation of his rebuttals? Do I and others get extra space to rebut his claims or must we remove evidence thereby taking it out of consideration? I also tend to suspect that this is a considered tactic.

• Collect "If ArbCom does their proper job, I will be cleared in three or four months." [15] - From March 21 2015

I thought that quote odd when I read it since the time table in the guide is four weeks. Now... Jbh (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on whether Collect has been lying about his response or his ability to respond; it really seems like you are grasping at straws trying to get him in trouble. Let's be serious, do you honestly think it's reasonable to expect Collect to respond to these massive submissions solely on the timetable of the editors who brought them? He's only one person. You all had the benefit of preparing this case for as long as you wanted before actually filing it — it looks like one of the filers may have actually been compiling a list of alleged grievances for years — and now Collect has to respond to all of your submissions by himself. If you take this process at all seriously then you should want to give Collect every opportunity to defend himself — you should be requesting that the Arbs grant his extension, rather than campaigning against it.

Has it occurred to you that maybe Collect is an older guy and he actually does have health issues which limit his ability to take the time to respond? If so, is it really fair to demand strict adherence to this timetable? He's been editing WP for 8 years. If he needs a couple months to respond to this mountain of questionable claims, is Wikipedia going to break in the meantime? And on the flip side, if your case against Collect is as tight as you seem to think, sanctions will be a foregone conclusion and there's no need to get impatient waiting for them to drop. Where's the fire? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

At this point it does not matter. Collect spent two weeks saying he was not going to participate then at the last minute he decided he will after all and asks for more time and even more space. If he had been working all this time and engaging the process I would not object to some leeway. Instead he has spent all that time taking some principled stand and complaining of harassment when he could have been addressing the case. I have this funny character trait, I feel that people should all play by the same rules and I have no sympathy for anyone who does not do so then complains that they were not treated fairly. If he is "an older guy" then he likely learned about personal responsibility and consequences a long time ago. If he is not and has not then now is as good time as any for that point to be made. Maybe that makes me a bad person but I am here, I spent time writing my evidence and I am prepared for any sanction I may have coming.

You might consider putting together some evidence of your own. You have commented on this talk page about the quality and veracity of some of the evidence presented yet I see no diffs from you. I do not understand why you do not support Collect in the evidence section as strongly as you support him on the talk page. That might help him. Asking me these questions will not, I am a party not an Arb so this is a fruitless exchange. Dig up some diffs help Collect out. Maybe my experience with him is a one off. Jbh (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, your self-righteous & angry indignation, and bombastic personal comments, are really off the charts. You frankly have zero clue what is going on in Collect's life; if you can't refrain from callously indifferent remarks about the possibility he has serious health problems, at least kindly stow the completely unnecessary and frankly immature comments about personal responsibility. Also please spare me this laughable moral command about making everybody "play by the same rules". Exceptions exist and requests for them may be made, as should be clear. And you know damn well that the particular default procedural rules — the ones that Collect is asking the Arbs to be flexible about — place him at a strong practical disadvantage, as has already been clearly explained many times.

If you're so confident about your case and your evidence, and if Collect is going to be too busy to edit in the meantime anyway, I don't see what your hurry is or why you're so eager to influence the Arbs' decision-making process, when the case is clearly going to go forward regardless of what happens. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Solution: Mutual IBans for Collect with Buster7, Fyddlestix, MastCell, Nomoskedasticity, Writegeist, MrX, Ubikwit and Jbhunley. Should save a lot of time and effort. Two weeks is pretty useless for me as I am honestly rather fully occupied with personal and medical stuff until mid-June when I could start on a "rebut each diff and claim by itself" exercise. Collect (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think an analysis of edits made across BLPs by some of the complainant parties would be more beneficial than defending against editorializing where they call sources used as "hyper partisan right wing". The facts are that if anyone is editing BLPs with the primary objective being to discredit, humiliate, add biased negativity or to violate "do no harm" principles, those editors should be BLP banned. I don't see why Collect should not be allowed great latitude to try and address complaints made against him but truly suggest all parties stick to diffs and minimize or at least streamline editorializing.--MONGO 16:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

About to Close

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.

---

The Evidence page for this case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence, will close in approximately eight hours. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

N.B. to other editors; I have requested a 6-day extension over at Robert's talk page. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

You first edited the evidence page nine days ago and have presented nothing in that time. [16]. Jbh (talk) 19:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Jbh is right. Nor did you present any evidence when you did edit the evidence page;[17] you merely offered your opinion, which was hatted by an arbitrator as unsupported. Factchecker_atyourservice, if you "believe you can put forward substantial evidence", per your post on Robert's page,[18] why haven't you done so, instead of frittering away the intervening time arguing on this talkpage?[19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] What exactly are the circumstances you would like to be considered in order to allow you six extra days, and why did these circumstances only strike you when less than six hours remained of the clearly advertised time limit? Nor of course is it for a clerk to extend the deadline. That's for the arbs. Bishonen | talk 20:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC).

The train is scheduled to leave in 3 hours and 18 minutes. All Aboard!!!! . Buster Seven Talk 20:42, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, I do things in the world other than edit Wikipedia. Lots of them, in fact. I had planned and set aside time to do it on Sunday — the whole late morning and all afternoon, in fact — but then life intervened. That's why I didn't ask until Sunday, because I didn't know I was going to need extra time until Sunday. This happens sometimes to people in the world and I don't really appreciate this nasty and nonsensically presumptuous argumentation about why I don't deserve the opportunity.

On top of that, I absolutely did present evidence when I made my original post. A few editors claimed I didn't, but that's simply not true. As a matter of fact, the single diff link I provided is actually relevant to the claims at issue here, whereas many of the editors filing charges against Collect are simply posting diffs of petty interactions and in some cases posting diffs that don't even remotely support the claims they're attached to.

I had not, regrettably, prepared a massive submission in advance, since I had no inkling that this case was taking place.

I do believe I can put forth substantial evidence. I have not done so yet as it's a laborious and time-consuming process, and as I mentioned, I have other things to do in life. I was going to do it Sunday but I didn't get the chance. Maybe if User:Beyond_My_Ken hadn't spent days angrily and pointlessly harassing me because I dared to speak in Collect's defense, I would have had additional time to devote to the expected paperwork. Who knows? Is this explanation satisfactory to you? Meanwhile, do you mind explaining why you're so eager to speed this process up? Is there a deadline? Do we need to hurry up and condemn Collect before he gets a chance to respond on a timeframe that he says is manageable for him?

You're grasping at straws as evidenced at the fact that you seem to be angry that I made the extension request to the wrong party. Sue me, I've never been to arbcom before and when an admin posts that the evidence is about to close I don't think it's crazy to assume that that is the person I should make a request to. Seriously, there's simply no call for these hostile posts from you two. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 20:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Committee was aware of the request for the extension and discussed it. The consensus of that discussion was not to grant the extension. For future reference though, requests for extensions should be made to the arbitrators (as the timetable of a case is the Committee's sole discretion), with sufficient time that it may be discussed before the well-publicised deadline, and with reasoning (and supporting evidence if appropriate) to back up the request. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not aware of the difference between an arbitrator and a non-arbitator who manages ArbCom proceedings, or how to tell the difference between one and the other. Is there a list somewhere that I might consult? Anyway, Robert posted that the deadline was near, so I figured he was the person to ask.

I'd take issue with your use of the adjective "well-publicized". The deadline was not publicized at all since the case itself was not publicized. Rather it seems to have been a dirty little secret among the editors intent on attacking Collect. If I hadn't accidentally stumbled on this case I never would have known it existed. A subtle error in word usage, but one with major implications for the subject we're discussing. Placing a clearly lettered sign in a secret location does not constitute "publicizing" the message on the sign.

Thus I think you mean to say the deadline was "clearly stated". You wouldn't be wrong about that. The deadline was clearly stated for those who knew to look for it. Of course, that places anyone who wasn't notified about the case at a real disadvantage, right? Are there others who would speak in Collect's defense who weren't notified of the case? Oh well. The rules already quite obviously put Collect at a huge practical disadvantage in a case like this; I suppose this doesn't make it much worse. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

There is a list of arbitrators at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee#Members. There is a list of Arbitration clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Clerks#Personell. The case is mentioned in the same places that every arbitration case is mentioned, including the talk page of all involved parties and the talk pages of everyone who commented on the request. Arbitration cases and requests are also frequently mentioned at WP:AN/WP:ANI and in Wikipedia:Signpost coverage (although I note this one has not yet been covered, I don't know why). If you have constructive suggestions as to how cases could be better publicised then please share them (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests is probably a good venue). It is not practical for arbitrators or clerks to individually notify every editor who might be interested in an arbitration case (we have no way of knowing for a start), but any editor is free to notify any other editor* about a an arbitration case they may not know about and may be interested in - arbitration cases are not secret nor are they intended to be obscure. *with limited exceptions, e.g. where this would breach an interaction or topic ban Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have a pretty obvious suggestion. When an ArbCom case is characterized by 10-20 users all ambushing a single user with a mass of claims and evidence they've obviously been curating for a long time, an affirmative effort should be made to find editors who would speak in defense of the lone user being accused. Yep, and some thought should even be given to allowing the defenders more time than the attackers to marshal a response, since the case comes to them from out of the blue and they must abide by a timeframe dictated by the attackers. Besides the ordinary attacker's advantage, the accusers here also gain a huge upper hand because it is all of them against one. Not only that, but accusers are allowed to present new evidence and claims right up until the minute where Collect is no longer allowed to present his own rebuttal evidence.

More generally, ArbCom should seek to hold fairness of process more highly than adherence to protocol. Yes, I know that uniform protocols are one way that fairness is achieved. But it's not the only way, and in this case it is working an unfair result. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

an affirmative effort should be made to find editors who would speak in defense of the lone user being accused How do you propose this be done, and by whom? The arbitrators and clerks are, in most cases, going to be familiar with who is friends with whom (for want of a better way of putting it). It also doesn't matter about the volume of evidence or accusations presented by each side, that is not how cases are decided. Additionally, an arbitration cases should almost never come out of the blue as prior attempts at dispute resolution are required before a case is accepted.

Since Collect doesn't know which accusations and "evidence" you find compelling, the volume of material absolutely does matter because Collect has no choice but to read, analyze, and try to respond to it all. He has to waste his time and energy covering all the bases because he's not a mind reader.

And yes, even though disputes pre-date an ArbCom case, and even though other avenues may have been "tried" by the accusers here (please note the scare quotes), there's really no way for an accused party to pre-emptively prepare a defense against charges that haven't been made yet in a proceeding not yet filed.

Finally, I really don't think finding people to speak up in a user's defense is quite the insurmountable practical obstacle you hint it might be. WP editors are champion researchers and a few rough passes through an editor's history would likely provide useful leads. Meanwhile, giving an additional allotment of time or word count to the lone target of a massive campaign like this would be extremely simple to implement, and wouldn't really raise significant fairness concerns IMO. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:08, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::I was not notified of this page and yet I found it...I believe it was mentioned on another editors talk page. You are right, there may be others that would speak to Collects defense but I can guarantee that there are hundreds of other editors, that, if they knew of this case, would be stepping forward to give evidence against Collect. Not everyone involved chooses to actively participate. . Buster Seven Talk 11:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I can make an equivalent guarantee that hundreds of people would step forward to defend Collect and reveal relevant misbehavior by the attackers here, if they were notified. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:35, 8 April 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.

Submissions to be hatted

I can see claims against Collect that are utterly unsupported by any evidence. In fairness, shouldn't these be hatted? Take, for example, this entire subsection from User:Buster7. Actually those claims are so very sensational and so very unsupported, I think they ought to be deleted, but at minimum they ought to be hatted for being wholly unsupported.

More generally, will the Arbs be proactive in this regard, or is it up to Collect to police the evidence page for bogus charges? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I find it so extremely ironic that the very editor I went to for advice 7/8 years ago has no regard or feeling for the inappropriateness of Collects continued act of aggression toward me as displayed by his talk page lead. Of all the hundreds of editors that Collect has had problems with over the intervening years why has he chosen me to be his Judas? . Buster Seven Talk 11:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. The above claim is wholly unsupported and should be removed. (Edit: Buster, let's be fair. In that quote you DID appear to be laying the foundation for an improper conspiracy against him; it even sounded like you were trying to contrive the perfect scenario to attack him. There are different ways of looking at it, I am sure your perspective is genuinely different from Collect's, but if you got the distinct impression that someone was working behind the scenes to have you removed from WP, wouldn't you find it rather disturbing? And wouldn't it make you suspicious that certain people were out to get you?) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree. . Buster Seven Talk 11:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you to hat your own submission. I'm asking whether the Arbs are going to hat bogus submissions themselves, or whether it is up to Collect and those supporting him to proactively request each redaction. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: I believe there is an 'Analysis of Evidence' section on the Workshop page. MastCell has used it to refute some of Collect's claims it is possible you can do what you want there. Be BOLD, give it a shot and see if anyone complains. I am sure if the Arbs object they will let you know. Jbh (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

But I'm not asking for an opportunity to refute it; I'm asking it to be hatted because it's an empty & unsupported charge. And there's nothing wrong with me making that request right here. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

The only part not supported by evidence is the first paragraph, which is an introduction, and the last paragraph which is a request to Arbcom (for a motion?). It should not be hatted.- MrX 12:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Am assuming you mean #11.3? It is relevant evidence, supported by diffs and responded to by another party, so subject to other Committee members' views I'm not going to hat it. But as a personal view Buster7's case in 11.3 is insufficiently made. On this point, Collect's rebuttal holds more water in addressing this claim and in presenting an opposing allegation.

In general, allegations supported by diffs or similar evidence won't be hatted unless they are entirely irrelevant. Please note however that material is often courtesy blanked at the end of a case. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Strange, I didn't see any evidence of an "enemies list" but that is the claim being made.

I guess I'm a little confused then; how is it that my submission is hatted? It isn't broken up into numerous diffs, but it points to the exact conversation I was talking about. And it's actually talking about content policy violations, not just hurt feelings. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I may have been too opaque before, so will try again: as a personal opinion, Section 11.3 offers insufficient evidence that Collect has an enemies list with Buster7 on it. Quite the opposite - Collects response to this section provides some (some) evidence that Buster7 has an enemies list with Collect on it. None of this rises to the level of sanctions. However the key question in this case is who is responsible for the disputes that so often involve Collect. The evidence generated by 11.3 counts in Collects favour by suggesting that others have approached disputes with a predisposition to oppose him, even before the dispute gets under way. As this is relevant material to the case, It should remain part of the main body of evidence. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:05, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. FWIW, I'm not trying to annoy anyone, and if I seem a tad dramatic here, it's at least out of sincere concern for how this process unfolds (although of course some of these concerns may be misapprehensions on my part, especially because I am not familiar with the process). And although I would prefer some time to assemble an evidence dossier of my own, I suppose ultimately that I do trust your judgment and doubt that the outcome would depend critically on whatever I say. Knock on wood, I guess I just hope I don't find the result disagreeable. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Youre certainly not annoying me, I enjoy the discussion. And it wouldn't be an Arbcom case without a bit of drama. So far I can't speak either way for what you will think of the result, let's see where we are by the 13th.. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Not relevant to the central discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Bottom Line. Why doesn't Collect just remove the offensive portion from his talk page. I have asked him too 4 or 5 times over the years, I'll tell you why. Because he is Collect. And this is exactly how he treats those HE views as HIS enemies. . Buster Seven Talk 13:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC) I don't know, maybe he suspected that you were still on the prowl for an opportunity to hound him off WP. If so, this proceeding wouldn't do much to dispel the suspicion. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC) I believe that this particular line of conversation has reached the end of its useful life. Neither of you are going to convince the other to change their view. An Arb has already said that the evidence will not be hatted. If there are problems with the evidence please address it using proper process. Factchecker_atyourservice, if evidence is wrong or misrepresented I believe that should be discussed on the project page, with appropriate diffs, to support or refute proposals or analysis. Simply complaining lends considerably more heat than light to the process. I for one would appreciate an analysis of presented evidence from another point of view. If you engage in the process perhaps you can lend Collect some substantive support that will moderate the outcome. Jbh (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC) It's not your decision to make, and I didn't see you complaining when BMK came here and requested my submission be hatted, so I'm not sure why you are so concerned about it now that I'm making a virtually identical request. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC) Before this conversation comes to an end, I want to make 2 points. 1) I have just as many edits (40K) with about the same in article space (33%) in just about the same amount of time (7/8 years) as Collect. Yet, I have never been banned in any way, never been blocked nor had my editing privileges restricted in any way, I have never had my talk page vandalized in any way. 2)I instituted my own Editor ban or whatever its called against Collect. When he shows up where-ever I am, I walk away. No, I Run away. Check out my history. See how often I edit ANY articles Collect has anything to do with. Not just recently but for at least the past 5 years. I don't have an enemies list. I have an IGNORE THIS EDITOR list and Collect is the only one on it. . Buster Seven Talk 16:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)