Revision as of 16:55, 28 May 2009

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

Requests for arbitration

Moses of Chorene

Initiated by Grandmaster at 05:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• MarshallBagramyan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Gazifikator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eupator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Third opinion:
• Mediation proposed:

Statement by Grandmaster

This request results from the problems with the article Moses of Chorene, which is guarded by a group of users supporting certain POV, who prevent other users from including information they do not like. The dispute about the dating of ancient historian Moses of Chorene started in the article Sisak, with this edit by Marshall Bagramyan, which seemed to claim that the opinion of American historian Robert H. Hewsen about the dating of Moses of Chorene is not the mainstream view: . I looked into this issue and quoted at talk a number of prominent western experts, who shared the opinion of Hewsen, and made this edit: , which MarshallBagramyan revised like this: , claiming that the opinion of Hewsen was the opinion of minority. I rolled it back, asking for a source: , and made a clarification that there's a dispute about when Moses of Chorene lived: This last edit was reverted by MarshallBagramyan:

After this I did more research on the subject, and it became apparent to me that the majority of international experts date Moses of Chorene later than the 5th century. However the article about Moses of Chorene claimed 5th century dating as a fact, and the opinions of scholars who challenged this view were criticized. This is the version of the article that existed before I started editing it: It contained statements such as:

Up until the mid-twentieth century, many scholars doubted that Movses wrote the work in the fifth century due to historical inconsistencies, addressed him as "Pseudo-Movses", and moved him and the History to the seventh to ninth centuries. Stepan Malkhasyants, an Armenian philologist and expert of classical Armenian literature, likened this period to a "competition", whereby one scholar attempted to outperform the other in their criticism of Movses. Although these views have now been discredited and "much of this criticism has been rejected," there are still those who believe that Movses is not the true author of the work and criticize it heavily as a historical source.

1. Hacikyan et al. Heritage of Armenian Literature, pp. 305-306.
2. Malkhasyants. "Introduction" in History of Armenia, pp. 3-5.
3. Malkhasyants. "Introduction" in History of Armenia, p. 3.
4. Hacikyan et al. Heritage of Armenian Literature, p. 306.

As one could see, despite the dating being in dispute by the modern scholarly community, the article claimed that the later dating "has been discredited", etc. I made a few edits to fairly represent the alternative opinions: They were all reverted by MarshallBagramyan, removing the source that I cited: I restored my edits, and asked MarshallBagramyan at talk why he reverted my edits: MarshallBagramyan reverted again: , claiming that my edits were OR and weasel wording, and in his comment at talk rejected the scholars such as Hewsen, Cyril Toumanoff and Robert W. Thomson , who are all well known experts in Armenian studies. Quite interestingly that while accusing me of weasel wording, he himself included in the article quite questionable weasel statements, such as "there are still those who believe that Movses is not the true author of the work". I quoted a number of authoritative publications and authors (including Britannica ), and stated that the opinions of above scholars are notable and must be quoted in the article: Also, I noticed that users Folantin and dab were previously involved in editing of this article, so I notified them about the dispute, and asked them for help with dispute resolution: I was not familiar with these users before. Folantin commented: , and dab reverted MarshallBagramyan: and commented at talk: MarshallBagramyan commented, , and then Eupator made quite an incivil comment about dab: In the meantime time dab made a series of edits, trying to introduce the alternative position: , MarshallBagramyan reverted all of dab's edits: , Folantin restored them: , Eupator reverted: . dab made another rewrite in a few edits: , MarshallBagramyan reverted again: , dab rvd back:

According to the ruling of arbitration case Armenia - Azerbaijan 2, MarshallBagramyan was placed on 1rv per week parole because of edit warring: , which was logged here: After he made first 3 rvs I warned him about the violation: Despite that he kept reverting, so I filed an arbitration enforcement request here: , as result of which he was blocked for 2 days: Back from his block, MarshallBagramyan rewrites the article, essentially reverting it to his original version with minor variations, and deleting the info and sources that he did not like: I rolled back Marshall's edits: Gazifikator joins and reverts: , and is reverted by Paul Barlow: 91.103.31.214 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which appears to be Gazifikator who forgot to sign in, reverted back: This is when Nishkid64 protects the article. In the meantime there was a long discussion at talk of the article, where I provided numerous quotes from leading experts in Armenian studies, who said that the dating of Moses of Chorene was disputed, or that he lived later than the 5th century. Despite that, the discussion was stonewalled by MarshallBagramyan, Eupator and Gazifikator, and no progress was made. dab, Folantin and Paul B left the article.

I attempted dispute resolution, and asked for a third opinion. SimonP read the sources quoted at talk and provided a third opinion: After more than one month of discussions me and Marshall agreed on compromise version of the intro, and I agreed to drop the words "dating is disputed" to reach a compromise with MarshallBagramyan, despite other users insisting that the intro should say so: The only one objecting to this compromise was Gazifikator: After more than a month the article was unprotected, , and I included the intro that was agreed at talk: I waited another day, to see if MarshallBagramyan and Gazifikator would introduce the alternative opinions themselves. This did not happen, so I made a couple of changes to include the opinions of notable American experts who challenged the 5th century dating. In particular, I quoted Robert W. Thomson, a retired Harvard professor, who translated the work of Moses of Chorene into English. Considering that much space in the article is dedicated to criticism of this scholar by some obscure Armenian authors, it would be in line with WP:NPOV to fairly represent the position of the other side of the dispute and explain what Thomson actually says. My edits were immediately reverted by MarshallBagramyan, who accused me of edit warring and POV pushing. I don't understand how inclusion of sourced info from leading experts in Armenian studies could be considered POV pushing. I restored my edits, , however I was reverted by The Diamond Apex: , who was absent from discussion for about a month. Nishkid64 again protected the article at MarshallBagramyan 's preferred version. I made another attempt at dispute resolution, and proposed to request a mediation: Gazifikator refused: , and so did MarshallBagramyan:

As one could see, for about 2 months the article about Moses of Chorene has been in a deadlock. It is impossible to add any information to the article, if it does not conform with the opinion of MarshallBagramyan and Gazifikator. Third party editors are being driven out of the article by relentless edit warring, discussions are being stonewalled, and dispute resolution attempts are being sabotaged. It is a clear violation of WP:OWN and other policies. Thus, the arbitration is my last resort to resolve the problems with this article.

Additional comment. Responding to Newyorkbrad's question, if there was any possibility to resolve the problem by other means, I would not take it here. However I don't think that the problems with the article could be resolved unless the community takes it under the strict control. So far the other involved parties did not show any willingness to cooperate with any dispute resolution. I mean, if they wanted to resolve the dispute, why did they refuse from mediation? In particular, Gazifikator, who says that the dispute would be working itself out, did nothing but edit war on almost every article that he edited. For instance, on Radical Islamism in Azerbaijan, the article with unclear purpose that he created, he made already 10 rvs to remove the information about the number of ardent believers. On Moses of Chorene he was the only one objecting to the compromise wording of the intro. How can one reasonably expect this user to work any problems out in cooperation with other editors? From what I see, this group of editors wants to keep the things the way they are. They will be stonewalling the discussions, so that no progress would be made, refuse from any dispute resolution, and keep the article protected as long as they can. If the article becomes unprotected, they will not let anyone edit it, and eventually an admin will protect it for them. It seems that they expect that the editors wishing to add info on alternative dating will get tired of pointless arguments, and give up. Btw, this already happened, when a group of editors left after the article got protected the first time. Since this tactic is working, I expect that they will be employing it in the future. I believe that if nothing is done to resolve the stonewalling issue now, the problem will be reemerging on other articles. You saw that it started in the article about Sisak, which is an article of a very minor importance, and then spread over to other articles. The content dispute itself is a very quick one to resolve, like in many other cases, there are 2 different views on the subject. As usual, both views should be presented alongside each other, so that the reader could form an opinion about both positions. It takes just ten minutes to do that. But the article has been in a deadlock for 2 months now.

Also, I find it quite strange that dab is being accused of bad manners. He may have made statements about the nationalistic historians in Armenia, but never made any personal comments about other editors. As I showed above, dab's very first edit was met with an incivil comment, and personal attacks continued until he left the page. Just check this one:

And it turns out that The Diamond Apex was MarshallBagramyan's sock, judging by the block logs: Surprise. Grandmaster 06:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MarshallBagramyan

I'm going to make my thoughts brief and concise considering GM's gross need to grossly exaggerate the situation: I never opposed inserting alternative opinions and my opinion has been noted numerous times on Movses Khorenatsi's talk page. What I did oppose was the problematic wording that was being POV-pushed by Grandmaster and Dbachmann himself, who turned a fine article into a heap of rubble. I asked both users to not get carried away with their edits and to resolve all disputes diplomatically. What I got was a hurl of insults from an intolerant admin (dab) and edit-warring by GM. Less than a few hours after the article was unlocked, GM inserted controversial edits and has as of yet ignored each and every request to discuss his edits and it's extremely dishonest for him to portray himself as an innocent editor given his heavily-POV-laden edits. Movses Khorenatsi is perhaps the best known Armenian history and while I have refrained from saying so in the past few months, is also a visible target. It's all to clear that GM is over-emphasizing the dating issue to create a counterfeit controversy and has showed absolutely no interest on Movses' other details.

Thus, there's absolutely no need to waste everybody's time with another arbitration case. I invite GM to the talk to propose his wordings and we can insert Thomson's and Toumanoff's and anyone else's opinions to his heart's content, in a npov manner and with counter arguments, of course. Calling Armenian scholars "obscure", as if they are unqualified, is a rather amateurish attack by GM, for he would never make such an unprofessional remark if he saw how much Western scholars have benefited and profited from their sweat and labor over the past 40 years. The French article on Movses looks fine and I wouldn't mind seeing the English one resemble something like that. It's that simple. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved Folantin

I'm commenting here because I've edited this article in the past. I removed it from my watchlist shortly after the dispute broke out because I was too busy dealing with problems elsewhere and it looked like it was going nowhere fast. Consequently, I'm unaware of the details of the talk page arguments (though I may look into them if this case goes ahead). What I can say is that my understanding of the content issue is that every modern English-language source I've come across puts the date of the history attributed to Moses of Chorene later than the traditional one of the 5th century.

If John Vandenberg's supposition about the cause of this dispute (the Sisak (eponym) article) is correct, then that's yet more depressing evidence that all too many editors are seeing every article about Armenia and Azerbaijan on Misplaced Pages through the lens of the territorial dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh. I don't see how this benefits the general reader. --Folantin (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: queries from Arbs. I'm not entirely sure ArbCom is the best way of solving this dispute. --Folantin (talk) 22:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by John Vandenberg

My involvement started back when Sisak and Hayk were mentioned back in October 2008 at User_talk:Rlevse/Archive_12#Request_for_review. (I am a WP:TPW of Rlevse) We had an article for Hayk but we didnt have one for Sisak, so thought it would be helpful if I assisted him in the requested review by creating Sisak (eponym). my version was neutral, I think. The dating issue took over, and I stayed out of that until an anon started removing a very appropriate quotation. At this time, even Marshal Bagramyan was of the opinion that "we should, nevertheless, not suppress it" I performed a single revert of the anon, and I left the battle with a note on the talk page asking the parties to put more emphasis on expanding the article, including a question about Armenian art that mentions Sisak (still unanswered).

It is worth pointing out to this committee that my creation of that article was viewed suspiciously, and was part of the general ruckus during the election. I ask the arbitrator to read this in full: User_talk:Nishkid64/Archive_52#AA, but I will quote just two sentences:

The same dating dispute moved to Moses of Chorene, which has been locked in dispute due to Nishkid64 protecting it twice.

The first protection occurred after a revert by an IP registered to the Armenian Ministry of Economy, and resulted in a complaint at User_talk:Nishkid64/Archive_57#Moses_of_Chorene. Nishkid64 rightly recommended WP:3O, which was obtained. While both sides tried to integrate the changes recommended by the third opinion, another edit-war erupted with MarshallBagramyan saying in an edit summary (emphasis mine):

Nishkid protected it again an hour later. Since Nishkid64 isn't involved in this specific article, and there was an edit war going on, it is within reason that Nishkid64 protected the article. However each time he protected it at an "Armenian" preferred version and, coincidences aside, he is clearly not impartial when it comes to A-A disputes, especially when Grandmaster is involved.

Nishkid64's role in the Ehud Lesar case was of a similar nature, where user:Khoikhoi and user:Nishkid64 blocked user:Ehud Lesar, however the committee at the time extended good faith to them.

I urge the committee to accept this case limited to this one issue, as this dispute is a meaty bite sized example of the broader dispute. If you guys and gals can resolve this one, the principle will hold for the large majority of the others in the A-A topical area. John Vandenberg 19:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

@The Diamond Apex, it is a bit rich to call yourself a "non-involved editor"; you have been active on the talk page where your comments are well informed but not impartial, and it was your revert that occurred 10 minutes before Nishkid64 decided that protection of the article was necessary.. Due to the low level of your involvement I am not surprised that Grandmaster omitted you from the list of parties, but perhaps you could do the honour. John Vandenberg 23:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved The Diamond Apex

In my humble opinion, and provided that it will not be discounted, the primary offender on the Khorenatsi article is neither of the two parties but Mr. Dbachmann, whose disparaging remarks toward MarshallBagramyan and Eupator Grandmaster did not bother to include in his summary above. It is paramount to read this section,so that the administrators have a clearer picture of what I am speaking: . To the best of my understanding, you cannot impose something which is disagreed upon and then report someone for reverting you. Also, to Mr. Folantin, please see this and the tables provided in talk here,. There was indeed a compromise in the lead, which unfortunately you did not acknowledge. Both parties should discuss, bit by bit, however painful and micromanagable it wlll seem, every addition that they wish to make; and that was the justification behind my revert. This will force both parties to work from a certain version. They have already compromised on the lead section of the article and there is no reason for us to assume that they cannot do so for the rest (alas, Rome obviously was not build in one day).

If it would not hurt to include my second point, an observation if you will, I would like to note that I have seen that many editors are restricted to one revert per week. This has created obvious problems (particularly the case of Mr. Meowy). It would be more logical to enforce such a limit on the articles and with a requirement that those who revert were actually engaged in the conversation beforehand (say, at least for two days prior to the revert and that their discussion includes the element which is disputed). Just changing this policy, or guideline or whathaveyou, I believe, will correct a lot of problems.

MarshallBagarmian's followup is slightly upsetting, but unfortunately I doubt anyone can do anything about that. Misplaced Pages is a popular site; it iss naive of us to think that no one would think of taking advantage of that. We should just be sure that every user uses one account, with whatever tools Misplaced Pages has, and only then impose the policy I mentioned above, requiring the article revert restriction to at least two, and not one, days, to prevent others from taking advantage of it.

Therefore, I, too, disapprove of the need for making a case out of nothing here (unless of course we are speaking about rectifying Mr. Dbachmann's etiquette). Regards to all,--The Diamond Apex (talk) 20:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Addendum

Also, it is important to note that Jayvdb brought on the locking of the article and was the person who locked it. I personally have not noticed anything suspicious about the locking. His first lock was over 7 hours after the revert. Three editors from one side and two on the other made the reverts for the last day before the fist lock. It should not at all be surprising that there is a probability that this would favor the side who had more editors involved, and again, the article was locked several hours after the last revert. On the second series of reverts, I was the last involved in the revert (and I admitted I may have been a little too quick, my mistake), and besides me only MarshallBagramyan and Grandmasters were involved. That makes Grandmaster being outnumbered 2 to 1, on that paricular case and I understand his frustration as I realised it afterward. It's true the article was locked 10 minutes afterward, but it’s also true that I reverted Grandmaster less than half an hour after his revert, its not as if someone was waiting my revert out there to lock (that's what I am under the impression John suppose). If we're going to check the heart of each administrator (how is this even possible), we may just as well check Sandstein’s here , whose behavior and castigation toward Meowy has been, to say the least, ridiculous. We can probably deduct a lot of things behind the locks, but I see Jayvdb is an arbitrator and it is very unbecoming of him to indirectly imply misconduct. If I am mistaken in saying this, I do apologise.

I also do thank Jayvdb for his feedback and, true to my word, I will take it to heart. If he feel I was not impartial, he should have perhaps told me on the talk page (which he was not a part of; I'm glad he has taken the time to read my comments which are pretty long, but a reply would have been very nice). I don't remember having communicated with him asides from my comments here, . I’m afraid that I must admit that my comment has bordered rudeness there. I truly apologise for my temper but for the sake of an argument, I wonder what he was expecting. He left a link which was unrelated to the article, a revisionist booklet of the Tukish government whose only purpose is to deny the Armenian genocide and I believe he certainly did not do himself a service by adding this unreliable link, in an article where several editors out of the blue found interest in. The site added by Jayvdb is aimed to purports that the Armenian genocide never took place (see the links provided in the 'Link' section of the site on what's more about it). In the two most heated incidents Khorenatsi and Armenian terrorism his actions have poured oil onto the fire, which would have probably caused Armenian editors to be disruptive in their replies, which results could have been more blocks and grief. He should know this; as an administrator he should work toward cooling nationalists down not to feed a fight. Anyway, it's not as if things can't be repaired, they can, bringing this further with a trial is needless and unconstructive. We should all be ready to forgive and forget.

Statement by Nishkid64

My participation in the Ehud Lesar case was strictly on the grounds that I believed the user was a sock of the banned editor AdilBaguirov (who happens to be Azeri). Ban and block enforcement is something I quite frequently deal with, c.f. my sock blocks of banned nationalists from Europe, Eurasia and Asia.

I first came across Moses of Chorene on April 18 most likely after following a series of wikilinks. I noticed an edit war was in progress and that a resolution was unlikely to be reached on the article talk page in a timely manner. I decided to protect the article, as I figured it was just another in the long list of disputed Armenia-Azerbaijan topics. I was then left a stern note by Dbachmann, who was upset with the version I chose to protect. My protections are never an endorsement of the current version of the page. I always protect articles in their current state, regardless of the nationalist slant that might be present, unless it contains vandalism, BLP issues, etc. I revisited Moses of Chorene on May 22 after I saw the page listed on the contributions of The Diamond Apex, who I encountered at a discussion on Talk:Genocides in history (on an aside, I actually argued there that the Khojaly Massacre (a 1992 Armenian massacre of Azeris) should be listed in Genocides in history). On the article history of Moses of Chorene, I noticed that an edit war had once again flared up, just hours after it had been unprotected by MSGJ. I protected the article to the current version – with no biases to the Azeri or Armenian sides of the dispute or the Armenian and Azeri editors involved. I'm sorry if the Azeris (and John) feel that I had been colluding against them. This clearly was not my attention. My policy has always been the same: I don't look kindly to editors who put their nationalist agendas ahead of building a neutral encyclopedia. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Gazifikator

I am lost as to why this case was filled, we actually found a compromise for the lead, and whatever version Nishkid locked the article to (why bring old woonds as John is doing), the results were clearly beneficial, a compromise before this day has never been achieved since my pariticipation on Misplaced Pages. Grandmaster's submition for third opinion was constructive which helped to find an acceptable wording for the lead. As The Diamond Apex has said, it's working, slowly but we're there. Pushing us in an arbitration case will have all our energy in that case rather than working on the article.

The Diamond Apex proposition on imposition restriction on articles rather than editors is great and Im willing to try his approach on two days involvement before having the right to make a revert. Everyone could be warned, then any new editors could be warned of that. This will fix a lot of problem and part of it seems to be currently voted on the Macedonia case. We just need a motion about that, no need for a new case. Gazifikator (talk) 05:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved PMAnderson

I have no intention of involving myself in this case; enough is enough. But the following (from the current English edition of Pauly-Wissowa, now in the process of publication) may be helpful on the underlying content dispute:

Moses of Chorene Influential Armenian historian. His three-volume ‘History of Armenia (Patmutiwn Hayoc ) describes the country's past from prehistoric times until the death of Mesrop Maštoc (439), the creator of the Armenian alphabet (Armenian). Attached is an epilogue lamenting the state of the country and its church at that time (bk. 3, ch. 68). Since M. refers to himself as a pupil of Mesrop (bk. 3, ch. 61), his book, which deals with the most varied sources (Armenian authors, Josephus Flavius, Eusebius of Caesarea, among others; overview in ), is frequently dated to the 5th cent. AD. Stylistic and thematic characteristics (support for the Armenian-Georgian dynasty of the Bagratids, first citation at the beginning of the 10th century etc.), however, argue for the 8th century....

It goes on to cite Thomson's Bibliography of Classic Armenian Literature for the later date; and to explain that the Geography traditionally ascribed to Moses is probably 7th century. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Update: A proposal for mediation has been rejected here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Fedayee

Like the other editors I'm a bit lost here. What's the rationale with this request? Grandmaster fills it, then immediately afterward John replies with a recuse and strongly suggesting the case be accepted. I fail to understand how the article about Sisak is related with this particular recent conflict on Khorenatsi's datation, besides Khorenatsi having referred to Sisak in his work. Grandmaster replied here about something which is related with territorial disputes. Someone somewhere, either John or Grandmaster, has to explain to other editors about that. John wasn't even involved with the article, other than loading Carrière's (who supports Grandmaster position) book out of the blue on wikisource and created his article while the dispute sparked in Khorenatsi's page. If there is anything related with territorial disputes behind the datation dispute as it seem obvious à priori for both Grandmaster and John, I have not seen it. I agree with Folantin when she writes: If John Vandenberg's supposition about the cause of this dispute (the Sisak (eponym) article) is correct, then that's yet more depressing evidence that all too many editors are seeing every article about Armenia and Azerbaijan on Misplaced Pages through the lens of the territorial dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh. I don't see how this benefits the general reader. Having chatted with both Eupator and MarshallBagramyan on the issue, not once have both shown any clue on the relation of that datation conflict and current territorial disputes. Just a side note, The Diamond Apex's proposal, of restricting articles to 1RR is great, it's been voted on the Macedonia case. This, plus a requirement of having engaged in the discussion, could benefit us all. Perhaps a motion? Because frankly, Grandmaster's request of opening a case and John's strong support of it is mind boggling.

Reply to NYB: There are articles with are in worse shape out there, where consensus was never achieved. Now Grandmaster is dragging us in another case for the rare one which compromise was achieved (parties should receive barnstars for the compromise in the lead and advised to continue on that direction... not Arbcommed). For once something is working... requesting arbitration is like sabotaging it. All we need now is placing those articles on 1RR and requiring editors to be engaged in the discussion at least for two days before they be given the right of that one revert. Their engagement should include clear elements of what has been reverted with evidence that they've read and know the opposing argument. This will prevent SPA accounts to disrupt, as it was recently the case in other articles. All it takes is a motion.

PS: It should not be surprising that The Diamond Apex is calling himself uninvolved, he's been there for only three months and only recently started learning about how Misplaced Pages works. He must have assumed that since his name was not in the list of involved parties that this made him uninvolved. I think John is jumping the gun a little too quick, he should give a chance to a new user. - Fedayee (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Paul B

Fedayee writes "I fail to understand how the article about Sisak is related with this particular recent conflict on Khorenatsi's datation." Please read the talk page of the Sisak (eponym) article. You will see that the Moses' dates are being used there in an argument about a quotation, the presence of which on the page was disputed. The author of the quotation, Robert H. Hewsen, asserted quite strongly that "Sisak" is a purely mythical person, on the grounds that the name "Sisak" is a late invention "unknown to Armenian historiography before the seventh century A.D". Since Moses mentions Sisak, if his writings date from the 5th century, this would imply that references to "Sisak" exist before the seventh century, and - I assume - imply that Moses may have used historical documents that identified a real Sisak, thus supporting the essential accuracy of Armenian national foundation stories. In contrast, if the later date is correct, his stories become...problematic. How this is related to the modern Nagorno-Karabagh dispute is only too obvious if one reads the current version of our Nagorno-Karabagh#Early_history. Paul B (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Brandmeister

Though an involved part in AA matter, I edited Moses only one or two times in total. Having read the associated talk page some time ago I believe the dating criticism did not come out of nowhere. Some parts of Armenian historiography are criticised even by scholars of Armenian heritage such as the aforementioned Hewsen. At the same time the staunch group advocacy of Armenian issues is common not only in Misplaced Pages and sometimes this advocacy hits the ground. Even when the third-parties like Dbachmann come to assist they could be discarded by several Armenian users. I'm against the enforcement over disputed articles, proposed by The Diamond Apex and supported by Gazifikator since this is a quite plausible indicator that both editors failed to advocate further. I don't want the Moses issue to serve as a scarecrow for all other AA topics, especially when there are few knowledgeable users to help. Lastly, I would like just to point out that the article's protection is not the endorsement of the current version. brandспойт 06:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by marginally involved Paul B

I became involved in this briefly after the issue was raised on the Fringe theories board, which I frequent (see Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive_12#Moses_of_Chorene). This followed several earlier problems raised at the board which concerned "Armenian nationalist" versions of history. Though I have encountered these is some of the articles on my watchlist, I was at the time wholly ignorant of Moses of Chorene. I also had no idea why the question of his living in the 5th or 8th century would matter to either Armenians or Azeris. At the time the article asserted as undisputed fact that Moses was a fifth century writer. Considerable effort had to be made to even allow the acknowledgement that there is a widespread view that he dates from later. The "pro 5th century" editors repeatedly attempted to assert that the view that he was from a later date depended on outdated or idiosyncratic scholarship, despite the fact that this seems to be the standard view. My own intervention comprised a few reverts away from the version of the article that asserted baldly that he was a 5th century writer. I also made some talk page comments and read a short book in English by an Armenian historian which intervened in the dispute. However, as I do not speak Armenian nor could I comment in detail on the scholarship in question, I then left the article. My impression was that a group of editors were attempting to assert that mainstream western scholarship had been supplanted by recent, mainly Armenian, authors, whose view of this writer's date should be given preference. Paul B (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/1/2)

• Recuse per User:Jayvdb/recusal#AA and because it seems like I instigated this mess by creating the article "Sisak (eponym)". As far as I can recall, my version was neutral, and I have stayed out of this dispute (I am more interested in poetry), but I wont object to being named as a party if someone can demonstrate I contributed to this dispute. Either way, I will submit a statement urging the committee to accept this case. John Vandenberg 06:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd appreciate brief comments from other parties on Gazifikator's suggestion that the dispute might be working itself out without the need for arbitration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm of the same mind as NYB. Right now I'm not sure if it needs acceptance. Wizardman 18:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline; this appears to be strictly a content dispute, and I very much doubt there is anything the committee could do. I would strongly recommend that mediation be attempted given that the entire dispute seems to revolve around one or two points of disputed fact. — Coren  12:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect

Initiated by Brendan19 (talk) at 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Brendan19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Phoenix of9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mike Doughney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mattnad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Anarchangel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Soxwon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Firestorm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jim62sch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ferrylodge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Teledildonix314 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Writegeist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GreekParadise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ikip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Buster7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• The Four Deuces (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ironholds (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ratel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• i am sure there are many more, but i just cant list everyone

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• , . ,
• and most in depth and most recent, this RfC on him...
• this sums up my experience and my attempts to get help...

Statement by brendan19

1st, my apologies if the format/style/etc is incorrect here in any way. never done one of these before. many editors have had many similar problems with User:collect- namely edit warring , improper use of policies to suit his needs at the time, gaming the system, ididnthearthat, making proveably false claims about other editors -where he accuses me of being a sock, pov editing to give a right wing view (-shows he wants an older less appropriate source because it says what he wants it to say.), and just generally causing problems (getting articles and himself blocked from editing for a while and getting into arguments/disagreements with many editors). all of this is easily seen in the RfC . what you will note is that the RfC was completely unsuccessful because collect refused to take suggestions, examine his own behavior, take responsibility for said behavior/explain it, and instead collect systematically tried to discredit and attack every one of the editors he perceived as being against him. he then posted this which seemed to suggest he was Alice being tried before a crazy group of people from wonderland. he also said he would be going on a wikibreak (so he wouldnt participate in the RfC any longer) and proceeded to continue editing every day since then (save 2) with over 500 edits since then. i feel like we tried to get him to change his behavior and got nowhere with him. he is an experienced editor and in the past has only responded to things like getting blocked (see his block log). please take a look at the RfC and see what i am saying or feel free to listen to some of the other editors. thanks Brendan19 (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Statement by Vassyana

appears to be a 2nd revert. is possibly more than 1rr, its hard to tell because he keeps making edits like this again and again which are consistently changing the same info, but im not sure it counts as a revert. this is a second revert on the same day on jtp . here is another 2nd revert w/in 24 hours on another republican which came after this 1st revert . and i am going by the definition, "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances." these two are w/in a 26 hour period, but i believe that shows gaming the system and not truly trying to abide by his promise not to edit war- . after trying to remove the section- he then 2nd reverts here by only removing parts of the section- and this was after this revert- . the following definitely show that he violated his promise... and , along with and . thats as far as i looked, i dont know if there are more. i would also like to say that i have seen collect apologize twice before this, on the 11th of december and the 3rd of march ( and ). like now, he was then apologizing because he was in trouble and seeking to get out of it. a look at the most recent RfC will show that there were no apologies until we reached the point where we are now (again he apologizes when in trouble). this makes me believe these apologies and promises to change are only brought about by actual binding restrictions on his editing. thats sad, but i think it shows that if we further ignore his behavior we will find ourselves in this situation again. if i hadnt started this request for arbitration the last words we would have heard from collect on the most recent RfC would be these accusations, conspiracy theories and other mudslinging- quite a difference from what weve seen here. basically, my point is that there is a pattern of problems with collect that seem to keep slipping through the cracks because each one on its own may not be such a big deal to various admins. taken as a whole, i hope the pattern is visible here and i hope we can correct it. Brendan19 (talk) 18:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Statement by newyorkbrad

as i have shown above, collect has in the past demonstrated that he may not always follow through with his promises. he violated his 1rr on more than one occasion. you suggest holding off on a request for arbitration to see if he will follow through this time. my problem with that is what happens when he breaks his promise days, weeks, or months down the road. to reach this stage of dispute resolution takes a long time and a lot of work on all our parts. i have been editing on wikipedia for years now and i have never pushed for something like this on a single other editor until now. i have seen too many slaps on the wrist (warnings, edit blocks, and many articles shut down for edit wars) followed with broken promises by collect. i believe if we followed your suggestion that collect would be on his best behavior until this process is finished and perhaps for some time after that. then i believe the zebra's stripes would reappear. the only way i can imagine for your suggestion to work is if we set some date in the distant future to reevaluate collect's editing- im talking about a year or so. if he can remain civil and keep from edit-warring and doing the other behaviors mentioned in the RfC for more than a year then i believe the problem will have been solved. if within that year he goes back to his old behavior then i suggest we make some way to come back here and do something about it. i know that sounds complicated and thats why i think we ought to just go through with the arbitration now. --Brendan19 (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Soxwon

I was involved with an edit-war with Collect on Drudge Report. Afterwards we worked out our differences and resolved the situation. I found working with Collect that although he can be a bit frustrating, overall he is trying to improve the encyclopedia. I also feel that the RfC was flawed as it was conducted in an inappropriate manner (Collect's history was searched for possible violations, which were then used as "evidence"): , , erroneous charge made based on "evidence". They also used the Drudge Report as evidence without talking to any of the parties involved (Fascism only one person, Introman). It was only after I brought it up and started contacting other users that Ratel and The Four Deuces were brought in (I myself found out through Collect's talkpage and had I not seen it, they may have never even talked to anyone involved w/Drudge). This behavior might explain Collect's Alice response. Soxwon (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Cube lurker

Collect has edited a number of articles on political subjects. He has strong opinions and at times he has butted heads with other users that also have strong opinions. Certainly edit warring is not the way to solve problems, but IMHO there's nothing here that's so unusual that it needs arbitration. If future conflicts appear uninvolved admins have the tools to deal with one or both sides of the conflict. No need to replay that sub-optimal RFC/U on the workshop pages here.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to NYB

I didn't believe an arbitration case was needed in the first place, but that belief is only strengthened by Collects statement. I believe all that a case would accomplish is sound and fury about past content disputes that are best left in the past. (See RFC). What would be the goal of arbitration that hasn't already been accomplished by Collect promising to use non-warring ways to deal with future content disputes?--Cube lurker (talk) 16:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Statement by GreekParadise

If the arbitrators are wondering why the RFC was less then productive I believe you'll find the full version if GreekParadise's statement informative. This sort of invective was commonplace as opposed to the RFC being a rational discussion of how to solve the situation.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ironholds

I don't consider myself an involved party, and I would advise the clerks/an uninvolved editor to trim the list of involved parties. I've not been involved in any of the articles Collect has been accused of edit-warring in, my only involvement was to comment on the RfC, which I don't think really makes me a party to the dispute itself. Ironholds (talk) 21:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ferrylodge

My experience has been that Collect is a skilled and reasonable editor. I haven't seen any behavior on his part that would rise to the level of an ArbCom matter.

The present Arbitration Request seems premature, and the present Arbitration Request does not cite any edits by Collect that followed the RfC.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dicklyon

As a party to the edit war with Collect at William Timmons I have to share some of the blame, but my impression is that Collect is one of the few very worst editors that I've had to deal with on wikipedia, in terms of persistent POV pushing contrary to all sources, reason, and other editors' advice and opinions. Fortunately, he went away from that one. Anything that can be done to moderate his behaviors would be worthwhile. Dicklyon (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Phoenix_of9

I had never interacted with most of the people in RFC but I saw that what many people experienced with Collect were same or similar to what I experienced. Edit warring, gaming the system, disruptive editing and Ididnthearthat. The way Collect responded to RfC was also typical. Instead of acknowledging anything, he engaged in wikilawyering and tried to have the RfC invalidated with lots of misinformation.

I also do think Collect may be using the attrition technique. Discussing something at great lengths and eventually trying to wear down the opponents patience. This is something that is very hard to back up with diffs so I'm sorry if that wasnt Collect's intention but that was my impression and thats what happened to User:Mike Doughney who has retired. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Vassyana

Answering Vassyana's question:

After getting blocked, Collect promised on March 3 to not edit Drudge Report for a week or more as well as 1RR or less for at least a month. But he was back to editing it just three days later: . So as far as I know, he didnt break 1rr but he did break the other voluntary condition. Phoenix of9 (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

My observations concerning the edit-warring at William Timmons: Collect was sorely tried by Dicklyon, who seemed to be editing with an agenda, persistently re-adding negative material with only a very tenuous link to the BLP subject. Collect seemed to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. Jayen466 10:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

Yes. I edit warred. I now try to reach compromises whereever possible (vide ongoing mediation re: Rick Warren), using noticeboards, and earnestly seeking not to editwar. I was wrong. Collect (talk) 13:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(way too much info removed)

At this point, I am taking guidance, and will continue to take guidance, substantially from Gwen Gale, whom I trust is an acceptable administrator for me to approach with questions. I earnestly seek to avoid anything approaching an edit war, and shall continue to do so. Collect (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I have also sent apologies to each person posting here with concerns about my past edit warring, in the hope that they will accept it as heartfelt. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Kindly note Ratel has just come off a block for edit warring for which I think he blames me. Interesting timing. Collect (talk) 00:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Collect

I will make my statement tomorrow, but for now I have a couple of questions for Collect:

1) Could you please elaborate on your comments about Ratel, just above? You seem to be saying or implying that any complaints against you by Ratel are meritless and are motivated by his alleged desire to get revenge for a block which you say he blames you for. Is this what you are saying? If so, might it possibly be more productive to simply deny the substance of the complaints, without attributing a malicious motive to the person making them? And if this is not what you are saying, what is the relevance of your comment in the first place?

2) Regarding the somewhat parsimoniously worded apology which you posted, at the last possible minute, on the RFC and several user pages: given that your comments at the RFC largely consisted of attacks against those making the complaints, and given that you didn't even offer the apology, or even see fit to comment further at the RFC, until someone initiated arbitration proceedings, do you recognize that those of us whose complaints you were summarily dismissing might find it difficult to accept your apology as sincere? Please understand that I am not saying that your apology was insincere, but for many of us it may have the appearance of being insincere. Given that the RFC has been live since mid-April, why is it that an apology became appropriate on May 20th, but not before? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

3) Collect, would you mind responding to my previous two questions? Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by the Four Deuces

I support this arbitration. In the mediation, I gave examples of where Collect had been argumentative or deceptive, and he provided no response to my comments. Furthermore, I found it disturbing that his response to the mediation was to go on a "wiki-break", and post mocking comments on his talk page. Since the mediation died down he has resumed bad faith behavior and even reported one of the parties to the mediation for edit-warring, even though he was not involved in editing the page himself. I notice that some editors support Collect but they should ask themselves why Collect left them to argue his case for him in the mediation.

Response to arbitrators

In my view, nothing has changed since the mediation. I am currently in dispute with Collect on the Fascism article (since May 16). I see a continuing pattern. I complained that a lead sentence was ambiguous and not supported by the references. He ignores what I have stated, claims we have reached a compromise and then comes up with masses of references he obviously has not read, and does not back up the sentence. He did set up an RfC but threatened an editor who joined it with edit-warring (User_talk:Lapsed_Pacifist#Editwar warning).

Here is the discussion:

Talk:Fascism#Political spectrum

Talk:Fascism#How many cites do you want?

Talk:Fascism#Political Spectrum New Lead Sentence

Talk:Fascism#First sentence of "Fascism in the political spectrum"

Talk:Fascism#OED

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Oxford English Dictionary is a RS, right?

Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Fascism

Statement by GreekParadise

I support this arbitration. The RFC gives all the detail anyone would ever need to read on Collect's general manner of editing. I've seen everything Brendan mentions. Collect is one of the main reasons I rarely edit on wikipedia anymore. In fact, Collect has convinced me that it is a waste of my time to try to edit an article in wikipedia against a persistent editwarrer who is determined to skew an article. It is simply easier to allow a wikipedia article to be completely skewed, false, and inaccurate than to attempt to post a verified fact when Collect doesn't want that fact in an article. Because in my experienced the determined falsifier and wikilawyer (Collect) seems to always prevail over consensus and truth. If Collect doesn't get his way in the daylight, he sneaks his edits weeks or months later without mention on the talk page and then fights with you for thousands of hours when you try to restore the prior consensus. He always wins. Even when he's provably certifiably wrong. And if Collect remains unpunished and unreformed, I and many other editors will just give up on wikipedia. (I kind of already have.)GreekParadise (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by SB_Johnny

I'm not named as a party, but I have been in touch with Collect via email in the hopes of encouraging/supporting him in efforts to "stay out of trouble". My hopes for a mellow outcome clearly did not come to pass :-). I think an investigation and decision from ArbCom would provide both legitimization and closure for a good number of involved parties (including Collect), so I urge the committee to take up the case. --SB_Johnny | 02:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Buster7

I support this arbitration. The recent RfC displayed Collect's persistent, widespread and ongoing history of editing problems with other editors. Now...had Collect acted in Good Faith in response to an outpouring of examples of his miss-steps, the RfC may have accomplished something. That was its intent...to move beyond all the fussing and fighting. Progress and moving beyond contention could have been the positive result. But, sadly, Collect missed the opportunity. Even now, his timid and meek statement barely scratches the surface. The community has been unable to resolve the disruptive and time-consumming actions of this editor. Arbitration is the next step available. --Buster7 (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

response to Administrator brainer

I hope you will give the RfC a look. The issue to be considered is that the actions of Collect are creating an environment where good faith editors are confronting retirement from WP rather than deal with Collect.

Collect recently apologized, on my talk page, for an edit war we never had. I would suggest that Collect consider the following clear statement of intent. If this Request for Arbitration is not granted, at least the community will have Collect's word that he will change.

"I plan on addressing the concerns raised at the recent RfC and work to improve in the next several months"--Buster7 (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrators views and discussion

I noticed that this thread was available at previous Requests and, yet, it is not available here. My edit is in Good Faith and in the hope that admins can assist editors that would prefer to stay and to edit.

Please provide methods that the community can use to assure that Collect understands the severity of this ArbReq. Four editors (myself included) have stated that he is the worst editor they have encountered. And yet, the majority of Administrators do not see a problem worth review. --Buster7 (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment in support of statement

aside from the four editors who say he is the worst editor they have encountered (fairly amazing, i think) i count 27 people between this arbcom request and the recent RfC on collect who either had a problem w/ collects behavior (endorsing parts of the RfC) or who wanted the arbitration committee to take this case. the fact that some arbitrators decline to take the case is somewhat baffling to me. 27 people is a lot. i am particularly confused by user:FayssalF and user:risker, who both cite vassyana's decision as contributing to their decisions. i answered user:vassyana's request (see & as well as the others i showed) and definitively showed that collect did not abide by his 1rr promise. i hope and assume that evidence may change things for vassyana. i am waiting for vassyana to return from a short vacation to respond. it would appear that the arbitration committee members either missed my response or ignored it. either option is disheartening. faysslf and risker, feel free to correct me if i am wrong. also, to bainer and those who cite bainer in declining (all except coren and vassyana) i would ask that you note the response of user:The Four Deuces who stated that collect has continued to cause problems since the RfC on the fascism article. also, i consider it to be an ongoing problem (ie since the RfC) that collect has not corrected his offensive accusations against others (such as, &). collect apologized for his edit-warring, but if you look at what has been said you will see that there are plenty of other issues besides just edit-warring. now, below is the impressive list of the 27 editors i mentioned above...

user:Phoenix_of9 (endorses arbitration)

user:Mattnad

user:Teledildonix314 (endorses arbitration)

user:Mike Doughney (who retired in lieu of more arguing w/ collect)

user:anarchangel

user:introman

user:dlabtot

user:factchecker atyourservice

user:bruno23

user:writegeist (endorses arbitration)

user:buster7 (endorses arbitration)

user:ikip

user:ratel (endorses arbitration)

user:Colonel_Warden

user:GreekParadise (endorses arbitration)

csloat

DGG

SluggoOne

A Nobody

user:dicklyon (endorses arbitration)

user:207.237.33.36

user talk:TheRedPenOfDoom

user:SB_Johnny (outsider who urged committee to take up the case)

user:aervanath

user:the Four Deuces (endorses arbitration)

user:jim62sch (endorsed initial cause for concern- not everything else)

and me, --Brendan19 (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

response to EditorWritegeist

I completely agree that, due to the most recent actions and edits of Collect, the administrators should reconsider their decline statements. Based on the evidence Editor:Brendon19 has provided (See:Response to vassyana and brainer, below) the administrators have what they asked for...continued negative behavior. Let's see what happens.--Buster7 (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Firestorm

My original involvement in this issue was as the MedCab mediator for the Rick Warren article. I eventually passed that one up to Medcom, where after a rough start significant progress is being made. I object to the inclusion of that RfM as a failed attempt at dispute resolution, as does Sunray, the current mediator. As for the RfC/U, I feel that it was a pointless dramafest. If I had my contributions examined for any possible hint of wrongdoing and had all of it shoved down my throat with a great heap of incivility, I would be pretty upset, too.

Regarding Collect's behaviour, I acknowledge that he is *very* rough around the edges, and often pushes himself too aggressively. Throughout our mediation I have consistently disagreed with his opinions. He also has (had?) several misunderstandings about the proper applications of policies and guidelines, specifically BLP, UNDUE and COAT. However, I feel that he has the wiki's best interests at heart, and is in need of guidance more than arbitration. I urge the Arbitrators to reject this case, so we can all go home and move on to more productive aspects of the wiki than this senseless drama mongering. Firestorm 17:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Writegeist

Support. In my experience Collect is a disruptive POV-pushing editor who habitually sucks other editors into edit-wars. He has blended tactics (bullying, deception, vindictiveness; falsification and misrepresentation of WP policies and also of other editors’ posts and positions; assumptions of bad faith; wikilawyering, gaming the system, railroading, Ididn’thearthat; false and therefore unsupported accusations of meat- and sockpuppetry; refusal to apologise or compromise; disregard for consensus; filibustering; wheedling attempts to influence admins etc.) and tone (sneering, disdainful – vide his response to his RfC/U; uncollegial; arrogant, superior, peevish, unreasonable – i.e. an all-round fuck-you attitude, apparently rooted in an unshakable faith in his own impunity, towards anyone who resists his POV-pushing etc.) to concoct the most consistently nasty editing experience I have had on WP. Posts here and at his RfC/U from other editors who have opposed his autocratic POV-pushing show that I am far from alone in this view. I believe one editor (perhaps someone will correct me if I’m wrong) has already been run off WP by Collect’s behaviour. I now avoid articles Collect is involved in. I believe others do too. This is not good for the project.

In light of Collect’s dismissive response to his RfC – pretending to be on “Wikibreak” while actually continuing to contribute to pages other than the RfC – today’s sudden rash of formulaic apologies20, posted to his exasperated critics' talk pages, for “any editwars” he “may” have had with them, and his promise to “endeavour to continue avoiding them”, looks hollow. And I think it's important to note that this “apology” refers not to his actions but to hypothetical events (“editwars I may have had with you”), as if he innocently found himself entangled in events of someone else’s making. Just like his pseudo-apology to me for his repeated, totally groundless and unsupported personal attacks (“I have earnestly sought to make no personal attacks on you, and apologize if you feel that the statements are personal attacks” – my emphasis), which continued during his RfC/U, his current mass-circulation “apology” studiously avoids apologizing for his actions. These weaselly-worded “apologies” – yet more examples of Collect’s use of deviousness and deception to the system – are expedients which demonstrate that, even in the face of all the evidence here and at the RfC, Collect still does not concede that he is at fault. Characteristically regarding us all as fools, he seems to think we’re easily duped. I trust the outcome here will prove to him that that’s a foolish assumption. Writegeist (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment in support of statement

I Support Editor:Writegeist's statement. Attempts to make light of Collects actions and to fail to proceed with this RfA would give Collect a stamp of approval. He will most assuredly use the failure to convene as not just proof of his innocence but proof of all of his ludicrous claims of ganging up and cabal creating and sockpuppetry. He will never acknowledge any wrongdoing unless confronted by impartial Administrators. Gwen Gale is not impartial.--Buster7 (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to Collect

Good news: Despite his warning to us, Collect has not lost power to his Internet connection afer all; is editing elsewhere; and therefore is obviously able to answer the questions in Factchecker's Response to Collect (above). Writegeist (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to vassyana and bainer

Someone who didn’t know better might be forgiven for thinking there are shenanigans going on here, whereas I suppose it’s just the usual WP clusterfuck:

user:vassyana and user:Stephen_Bain predicated their Declines on the absence from this procedure of any evidence of ongoing problems with Collect. Due, apparently, in large part to this absence of evidence, vassyana declared him/herself “open to the possibility that arbitration may be necessary and appropriate, but I do not see at the moment.”

Various other admins say they were persuaded by vassyana and bainer to add Declines.

Brendan19 answered vassyana and bainer by posting examples of ongoing problems with Collect and also mentioned ‘s contention that Collect has continued to cause problems at the Fascism article in the wake of the RfC.

Yet vassyana, brainer and the assorted declining admins who cited them remain silent and those (deciding) “Declines” are left standing. Writegeist (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Ratel

I heartily endorse the view of Writegeist above. He very accurately describes Collect's modus operandi. I'm one of Collect's favorite targets. The extra wrinkle I can add to Collect's repertoire is stalking, as in following me to many pages I edit and starting the familiar pattern of obstructive editing in opposition to any data I am busy debating on the Talk page. Since his shocking RfC, he's become wily, like a fox, preferring to admin-shop and noticeboard-shop rather than to edit directly. He is a past-master at expanding content disputes (which he helps foment), as quickly as possible, to noticeboards, all the while protesting loudly how he himself has "only done one edit" to the article (IOW he styles himself as an innocent bystander, a Good Samaritan just trying to keep the peace). His basic strategy is to find an opposing editor he wants to target for his "game" — because make no mistake, he doesn't give a tinker's cuss about content — then gradually escalate confrontation on as many points as possible with his selected enemy, keeping off the article page but interjecting numerous inflammatory comments at key junctures on the associated Talk page, preventing consensus emerging (usually right when people are starting to agree on something), then finding a like-minded admin he can butter-up and schmooze (Collect, in brown-nose mode, can be a really revoltingly obsequious lickspittle), and once the admin has been fellated to the point of probable compliance, the coup-de-grace is delivered: he begins begging the admin for action against his current opponent by constantly whining about reverts or other transgressions (he's a weasely wikilawyer), often giving ordinary edits as examples of reverts in his eagerness (and knowing many admins are too busy or lazy to check it all out carefully). He "wins" when the enemy gets blocked. Score 1 to Collect. Go back and start game again. And so on, ad infinitum.

If wikipedia does not find an effective way to bring stalking, game-playing, content-oblivious editors like Collect to heel, I for one shall eventually abandon all non-scientific pages I edit (I'll dismember him on any medical page, so he leaves me alone there). I note that others feel the same way, and I join them in saying that Collect is the single worst editor I have come across on wikipedia in almost 4 years. In fact, I believe he has an anxiety spectrum disorder, in the OCD range, that underlies his constant edit warring, so wikipedia is really just a place for him to act out, a form of therapy. So shame on the editors above who endorsed Collect because he's rightwing like you are, even when you know he's bad for wikipedia, and shame on the admins below who are playing the "hear no evil, see no evil" card. Shame on you. Something MUST be done about deranged editors like Collect, for the good of the project, or eventually the project will be swamped with every obsessive, obstructive, quarrelsome, querulous, no-life nutcase living in his parents' basement. ► RATEL ◄ 00:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Teledildonix314

This arbitration needs to remedy Collect's consistent patterns of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, POV-pushing particularly via strawman arguments, appearance of egotistical presumption of infallibility, and baseless attacks on his critics rather than any heed of their concerted criticisms. However, all my interaction with Collect has amounted in a single prolonged Mediation Case; and that's privileged. I hope Arbitration will produce an amenable solution; but i must effectively excuse myself from this situation because i'm not supposed to bring up diffs from privileged Mediation. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~₄₁₁~ 07:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/6/0/2)

• Accept. The RfC's been open a month without edits for two weeks, so if there's still an issue then Arbcom does need to look into the conduct of all involved parties. Wizardman 01:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill  02:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Per his statement above, Collect has indicated that he recognizes there is a problem and states that he has changed his method of editing. Granted that this is very much a last-minute acknowledgement on the eve of arbitration, I wonder if we should defer this request for a bit to see whether Collect's editing does in fact substantially improve, before opening an arbitration case. I'd welcome input on this suggestion from the parties and others commenting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept. Looking through the comments, it's my view that ArbCom involvement is needed to sort out the situation since there is not a clear consensus about the nature of the problem. ArBCom case will let all involved offer evidence of their view of the problem. From there we can decide on the needed remedies. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept.  Roger Davies 04:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Accept - scenario suggests independent investigation rather than (or hopefully as well as) mediation will be next step. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline. I am not convinced that this is beyond the ability of the community to resolve, that all avenues of resolving conduct concerns have been exhausted, nor that any disruption taking place is such a pressing concern that the former two points need to be waived. Additionally, arbitration is a very blunt instrument and I believe this situation would be better served by a more personalized and nuanced approach. Also, Newyorkbrad's point is also persuasive to me. On a related note, can anyone provide information about whether or not Collect abided by his voluntary one-month submission to a 1RR restriction through the month of March? I am open to the possibility that arbitration may be necessary and appropriate, but I do not see at the moment. --Vassyana (talk) 05:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • In response to the comments mentioning my decline: I still do not see a reason to believe "that this is beyond the ability of the community to resolve, that all avenues of resolving conduct concerns have been exhausted, that any disruption taking place is such a pressing concern that the former two points need to be waived." --Vassyana (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Request: Collect, could you expand your statement a bit. It would be nice to know what steps you will take to avoid this happening again if this requested case is declined. John Vandenberg 07:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Decline at this time, per bainer. John Vandenberg 23:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Reject, unless some preliminary evidence can be demonstrated of continuing problematic editing following the request for comment (preliminary in the sense that all that is necessary is to demonstrate that there is a real issue to be considered). In the event that the request is accepted, the scope ought to extend to include all the parties listed here or at the request for comment who have been involved in these editing disputes. --bainer (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline; I think this is at the edge of needing arbitration, but that there is still reasonable hope that this will resolve satisfactorily without our intervention. — Coren  01:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Coren and bainer. If things don't improve, then a case will be needed. Please don't all hover waiting for any backsliding. Politely point out any lack of improvement, and encourage the improvements if they take place. Carcharoth (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline per Vassyana and Bainer. -- FayssalF - 17:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Hold. Brendan19, most of the users you are citing had made statements before Collect's short promises above. That doesn't necessarily mean that they have changed their opinions afterwards but it also doesn't necessarily mean that they are still believing that an ArbCom case may be the best way forward. The other point is that while it is true that Collect did not abide by his 1rr promise he still made an updated promise now. Usually, most questioned users who appear before ArbCom do not make such promises probably because they believe they are doing the right thing but Collect is saying that he'll stop edit warring; a thing you are asking ArbCom to achieve through a case --unless you are calling for a topic ban. He now knows that it will be the last accepted promise to be heard. I've read the entire RfC but while I agree that the problem is not limited to edit warring they remain secondary; let's not forget that in this particular case it is edit warring that generates the subsequent behavior. Anyway, let's try to add some formality to it and make sure Collect is aware that what he says should be taken for granted... could a clerk please inform user:Collect to elaborate on his promises at his section and try to answer user:Factchecker atyourservice's questions just below his statement? I'll be very interested to hear answers although I disagree with the tone of the questions. -- FayssalF - 04:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Decline for now, per Vassyana and Bainer. Risker (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)