Statement by Beyond My Ken

I am not named as a party here. I am not in any way involved in editing the various e-cig articles, but I have been strongly involved in the AN/I discussion about whether AlbinoFerret should be topic banned for e-cigs, which I favor. My feeling about this request is that, while ArbCom certainly has the right to open a case, it should give the community process a chance to play out. As of this moment, the topic ban for AlbinoFerret and a proposal for community-imposed discretionary sanctions are both outstanding, and these should be allowed to finish before ArbCom takes on a case, should any of the parties feel the need to file a request at that time. For these reasons I would ask the committee to reject the request at this time. BMK (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I re-opened the AN/I thread about the proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret, which was closed by QuackGuru. Although he started the thread, it does not in any way belong to him, and as a highly involved party he never should have closed it. The views of the community, in the form of the comments of editors both pro- and con-, deserve to be evaluated by an uninvolved admin, and the thread closed on the basis of that evaluation, not as a tactical move by one of the parties involved, especially one who stands to benefit (in the potential opening of the case requested here) if the thread is closed.

I have asked QuarkGuru on his talk page not to close the thread again, and I request that the arbitrators keep on eye on the thread. If QuackGuru closes it again, I believe it would be a disruptive edit, and a sanction should be considered. BMK (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Although I've been known to comment on case requests before, I'm not entirely certain of proper procedures. Should involved parties be added to the case unilaterally, as was done here, or does this require permission of some sort? BMK (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus - Thank you. BMK (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus - I'm a bit surprised at your change of vote, considering how things have progressed on the AN/I threads in the last day or so, which is that AlbinoFerret is talking a voluntary 6-month leave from the subject, and the communty-imposed discretionary sanctions thread keeps gathering support !votes from editors on both sides of the issue, leading me to believe that it will be closed quite soon with the imposition of community DS. If I've read the tea leaves correctly, would it not be better to give the community sanctions some time to see what effect they have? I don't dispute that there's still a reasonable likelihood that the issue may wind up back in the Committee's lap, but I'm not convinced that there's also not a reasonable possibility that normal admin actions under community-imposed sanctions can't go a considerable way to fixing things. BMK (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent's argument for the committee to take up the case, which amounts to "People abuse MEDRS therefore the committee needs to deal with this", seems rather silly. Pick a policy, guideline or essay, and it's going to be possible to find an editor who goes overboard with it (MOS strict constructionists, for instance, are particular prone to abusing that very useful collection of opinions), but it's outside the committee's purview to change policies or guidelines or to rewrite essays. HJ Mitchell is more accurate when he points out that the problem is not the use of MEDRS pe se, but the fact that the SPA/COI/POV editors on the other side of the equation are relentless in their opposition to a rigorous presentation.

In any case, no one doubts (I don't think) that if the committee were to take the case they would provide tools for the e-cig topic area to be policed better, and would deal with any behavioral problems. The question here, however, is should the community be given a first bite at the apple or not, to see if it can provide those tools which admins can use to deal with those problems. Given that no one's seen fit to close the community discretionary sanctions thread as of yet (although it's been open for only 6 days, the current tally is 13 supports and 4 opposes), perhaps I'm wrong, and the community is not able to deal with the problem, but until that thread is evaluated and closed by an uninvolved admin, we don't really know. BMK (talk) 22:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Involved editor SPACKlick

I used to edit the e-cigarette pages regularly. I am still quite involved in collating e-cig research for several bodies in meatspace. I have almost entirely stopped editing these articles because they are impossible to improve in the current atmosphere. Huge changes, adding walls of text repeating that things are unknown undo any improvements slowly made over time. Nobody looks for consensus on any edit, even edits they know will be controversial. I am really hoping to see a boomerang on QG here because he is the main reason I walked away from these articles. These articles need to be cautious and reflect the uncertainty in the medical literature about a (relatively) novel product. They also need to be cautious in reporting every unknown such that they don't inform at all by overloading. I would hope there is something the community can do to make the articles work for wikipedia rather than against. SPACKlick (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved JzG

I think the community is on top of the issue with AlbinoFerrett, who has taken a voluntary break from the contentious area, which is fine by me (I supported a brief topic ban but this has the same effect without the stigma so is a better result).

As tot he wider issue, I think discretionary sanctions are warranted. This is an unholy confluence of commercial vested interest, emotional commitment, immature medical knowledge and peripheral craziness.

That said, I think the community could fix that, too. Any arbitration response would be a cookie-cutter job, really.

The elephant in the room is the filing party. QuackGuru has achieved a remarkable feat in being every bit as unpopular with those who share his POV as he is with the quackery apologists he targets. Since I'm an involved party there I think I had better not stray into the area of pretending to give a neutral summary, but arbs might want to peruse this list of reports: my impression from this is unfavourable, to say the least, but as I say, I am not neutral in this. Guy (Help!) 13:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by involved EllenCT

I strongly disagree with the Committee members who have voted to decline so far because community discussions are still ongoing. Dozens of complaints have been clogging ANI since last September. Of course, it's a content dispute and all of the behavior issues stem from disagreements surrounding the content dispute, so given the answers of the successful candidates to my election candidate questions, I have no confidence that the Committee is willing to resolve this issue. Are you really going to relegate us to an encyclopedia authored according to the personal preferences of influential administrators instead of reliable sources? EllenCT (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

It is concurrently true that "the community can handle this" and there is a case ( File:Canofworms1.png ) to be made. "Misplaced Pages community" is, of course, a fiction: the scale of en wikipedia -- ({{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} 120,097 {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} 6,929,366 {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} 847) -- is such that there are multiple overlapping sub-communities, not "a community." The WP:MEDRS sub community is problematic and difficult to address, because they are well-meaning, dedicated folks who think they are doing the right thing. Indicators:

• WP:MEDRS claims "Misplaced Pages's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information." (emphasis mine) But if you follow the you find it says no such thing: it says "the English Misplaced Pages is a prominent source of online health information compared to the other online health information providers studied." Nothing about "importance" nor "widely used."
• Doc James states: " Right now the majority of the scientific community states the risk and benefits are unknown" meta:Vision states "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. " (emphasis mine)
• This sub-community uses WP:MEDRS, not as -- as it says on top -- a content guideline "that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply," but rather as a hammer to exclude almost all information which is not in "peer-reviewed" science journals. What they don't tell you is Why Most Published Research Findings Are False that Can't be replicated As Eva Emerson, editor-in-chief of Science News recently wrote, "self-criticism and self-skepticism have always been part of good science." . There are qualities (e.g. humility) I have rarely observed in MEDRS participants. For an example see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Hans_Adler_and_Circumcision. NE Ent 09:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Tgeorgescu, the practical remedy for the encyclopedia is to support statements with inline citations, so the reader has access to, and can evaluate, sources of information: the sum of all knowledge. For a decent example see Crystal healing, which reports the claim of a source that One method is where the practitioner places crystals on different parts of the body, often corresponding to so-called "chakras"; or else the practitioner places crystals around the body in an attempt to construct an "energy grid", which is purported to surround the client with healing energy. Do I believe that? No. Do I believe that a decent number of people believe it, and therefore it should be in the encyclopedia? Absolutely. NE Ent 09:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by involved A1candidate

This Committee needs to understand that the heart of the dispute revolves around several complicated issues including:

• QuackGuru's ownership of medical articles
• QuackGuru's accusations against other editors
• Disagreement among administrators on how to deal with QuackGuru

Some administrators are convinced that QuackGuru fights quackery and is a net asset to the encyclopedia, while others are aware of the amount of disruption he causes but are unwilling to take action because they view Misplaced Pages as a battleground between COI-vested advocates and a group of well-established and trusted editors to which they (and QuackGuru) belong. At this point in time, I do find it appropriate to highlight the indisputable battleground nature of this conflict that is well-documented in previous ArbCom filings and exemplified by a specific comment posted by this particular administrator:

"Second, it is a battleground. A battle against quackery in the real world, with prosecutions and a litany of exploitation of cancer victims by unscrupulous quacks, a battle on Misplaced Pages to hold back the lunatic charlatans whose motivation and determination to use Misplaced Pages to promote their beliefs is generally far stronger than the determination of any individual Misplaced Pages to ensure that we remain dependable ont hese subjects"

- Administrator JzG, 09:39, 27 February 2015

Whether Misplaced Pages is a battleground or not isn't the main issue here, I'm simply pointing out the fact that some administrators do in fact view this place as a real-world battleground. Some have even openly acknowledged their sympathetic views towards QuackGuru's cause . This partly explains why previous attempt at dispute resolution have failed and it also indicates that future attempts at dispute resolution are likely to fail, unless these administrators change their behavior.

According to administrator John, one of the few editors who stood up against QuackGuru's disruptive editing and repugnant behavior:

"If the community lacks the cojones to sanction QG, who is the main culprit, and is content to let him off with a weak "warning" (how many warnings is that now?) it is against natural justice to sanction AF. I tend to agree with the view that arbitration will be the way forward here."

- Administrator John, 07:10, 10 March 2015

The wisdom of John's statement is evidenced by the fact that QuackGuru continued to escalate the situation right after receiving his warning, first by making baseless accusations against other editors and then by bringing the entire issue to the Committee's attention after his attempt to ban KimDabelsteinPetersen was quickly opposed by the community. I would advise the Committee to either decline this case or to accept John's argument for arbitration against QuackGuru. Either way, the Committee will have to deal with this sooner or later.

John recently blocked QuackGuru for disruptive editing (see block log), so did QuackGuru accept his fault and improve his behavior? Did he take notice of John's advice to be a little more patient, and work on building consensus in talk before making any more bold edits? The answer is no, because if QuackGuru had heeded John's advice, the issue would have been resolved to the satisfaction of both parties. Instead, he continued to fight against multiple editors and eventually ended up on the administrator's noticeboard. I was not initially involved in the ANI thread, but I eventually made the following remark that is still highly relevant to these discussions:

"He has been previously banned by Arbcom for similar behavioral issues and POV-pushing patterns. The Committee concluded that there was no apparent progress in QG's approach to editing. That was back in 2011. We are now in 2015, but has anything improved after four years of leniency and good faith assumptions? "

- A1candidate, 18:13, 8 March 2015

I also opposed a proposal to bring this issue to ArbCom initially, because I believed (and trusted) in the community's ability to resolve it. I probably should say that I was completely wrong. Those defending QuackGuru (both here and elsewhere) must first answer the following question before this dispute has any chance of being resolved: Has QuackGuru's editing improved after a decade of repeated blocks and warnings? -A1candidate 14:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved user Tgeorgescu

This is a response to NE Ent: WP:MEDRS does not claim to be the word of God or that it would channel the Absolute Truth. MEDRS is a practical and reasonable way of drawing the line somewhere in separating the wheat from the chaff. It does not claim psychic abilities in separating them. The idea that most peer-reviewed articles turn out to be wrong is a red herring. What matters is that Misplaced Pages editors cannot know in advance which peer-reviewed articles will turn out to be wrong in the end. A practical remedy to this problem is using review articles, since they are already committed to examining the articles which at least have not been yet rejected as flawed by the scientific community. Another choice would be trusting only reputable medical textbooks, but these are often many years behind cutting-edge research, so they usually don't illuminate their readers on such issues, or they are even outdated in such respect.

About QG: he is fighting for a good, reasonable cause, but any good and reasonable cause may have its extreme adepts. QG can be trusted with advancing the purpose of having good quality medical information, however his means of implementing it lack tactfulness, which leads to behavioral issues when heated debates occur. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment from Harry Mitchell

For the third time in as many days, NE Ent and I agree with each other! This is becoming a habit. ;) It looks like this is heading for a decline, but I suspect if it is declined, it will be back here before long. I know arbs don't want to handle things that the community is capable of dealing with, for lots of good reasons as well as self-interest in terms of their own workload, but I can't see the community handling this properly. It has all the hallmarks of the psuedoscience/alternative medicine battles in that you have a group of long-term, respected Wikipedians on one side who are committed to upholding policy but who see their opponents as "quacks" and seek to downplay any possible benefit of these practices, and a group of largely single-purposes accounts on the other who are deeply invested in telling the world about the wonderful (but in many cases unproven, and sometimes dubious to say the least) benefits of sticking needles in people, fake fags, or whatever the latest controversy is.

ArbCom should take this before it escalates to the point that the only option is to remove all the warring parties (a la gamergate, but that one was always going to be a mess). Lots of people's conduct probably bears examination, but at this point the dispute could be calmed down with some less extreme measures and discretionary sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:52, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

Battleground on e-cig articles: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/8/0/0>

• Okay, if QuackGuru, an editor in good standing, is willing to stand as filing party, then awaiting statements. Courcelles (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Decline Let's see if the community can handle this first. Courcelles (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• There certainly is a problem here. That being the case, it looks like community discussions to resolve the matter are still ongoing. Statements as to why arbitration is needed over and above that (or why it is not) would be very helpful. Seraphimblade 22:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline as not yet ripe for arbitration, without prejudice to hearing this in the future if the community discussions fail to curb the issues. Seraphimblade 16:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. The e-cigs topic area is a mess at the moment, but it is a mess that the community is working on fixing and I see no reason for us to step in while the AN/I is still ongoing. If after the community resolutions (whatever they turn out to be) have had time to take effect there is still a problem then I'd likely be willing to take a case, but for now this is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Decline per DGG and Thryduulf. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

  I remain of the view that this is the kind of issue that can be resolved elsewhere. The e-cigs articles suffer from editors with strong POV, some COI and some apparent OWN. These can be addressed through a combination of more uninvolved editors taking part in the article and talkpage discussions, and swifter janitorial work at ANI. Procedurally, this is the correct course to recommend.

  So what's the problem? First, few uninvolved editors want to wade into the morass that is the e-cigs discusson and content, especially given the technical subject matter (and noting Doc James expert view above that existing research may not completely cover the field). Second, the ANI threads have been unwieldy and key points have sometimes sat too long, or forever, without outcomes. No one is "to blame" for any of this, but the consequence is an issue which should have been addressed by the community, hasn't been.

  As hope springs eternal, I was happy for it to go around another time. But further reading through the dead ANI threads has convinced me this is unlikely to happen. So, accept with an appropriate sense of trepidation, at least to look at a couple of conduct issues, and whether there is merit in (yet another) application of Discretionary Sanctions to bring some calm to the field. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: - anyone can propose that another editor is an involved party, though nonsense proposals will be removed. Proposing that someone is an invovled party obligates the proposer to notify them of that fact. Whether they actually are involved is determined by the Committee if the case is accepted. Of course simply being named as "involved" doesn't imply any particular outcome, it just lets people know they should probably pay attention to the proceedings. Equally, being "uninvolved" doesn't stop editor contributing to the case as it goes along. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: - Sure, but I'd argue that ANI should be tried first. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: - perhaps, we are looking at the same set of material and seeing a glass half full/empty. I'm of the view there are wider user conduct issues than AlbinoFerret and the banned sock, and reckon this will continue over time. ANI sometimes struggles as a forum for dealing with patterns of behaviour that suggest COI or OWN, and an Arbcom case might save the time otherwise spent on a long series of individual sanctions debates. But I recognise the recent progress, and note that my quixotic accept vote is unlikely to win the day. The proposed community sanctions (if passed) are also a worthwhile step. -- Euryalus2 (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Decline for now. With the removal of a persistent sockpuppet, it is very possible that the situation can now be resolved at AN/I. If it proves otherwise, then we can accept it DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Decline AlbinoFerret has agreed to a voluntary 6 month topic ban, the community is discussing possible discretionary sanctions and may be able to handle this, and the filer seems happy about it being sent back to the community. Dougweller (talk) 15:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Decline. I would like to give the community more opportunity to address this before accepting it as an arbitration case. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Decline but without prejudice to come back here again if the community fails to resolve it,  Roger Davies 16:13, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• I would actually vote to accept this request had a majority of my colleagues not already voted to decline. I do not think the community will be able to resolve this dispute; it has all the hallmarks of a dispute best resolved through arbitration. That said: procedural decline. AGK 21:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Just a comment, I broadly agree with Anthony. This is one of those matters which we'll probably see down the road despite ANI efforts. NativeForeigner 23:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
• Probably, but let's give the community one last go. We might pleasantly surprised. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect

Initiated by - MrX at 20:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• MrX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Collect (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dear ODear ODear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fyddlestix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jbhunley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MastCell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Viriditas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Binksternet
• diff of notification Collect
• diff of notification Dear ODear ODear
• diff of notification Fyddlestix
• diff of notification Jbhunley
• diff of notification MastCell
• diff of notification MONGO
• diff of notification Ubikwit
• Diff of notice to Viriditas

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• March 17, 2015: Collect's talk page
• March 17, 2015: ANI
• March 16, 2015: ANI
• March 15, 2015: MrX's talk page
• February 15, 2015: Collect's talk page
• December 31, 2014: MrX's talk page
• May 18, 2009: Declined Arcom case
• April 15, 2009: RFC/U

Statement by MrX

Collect's contribution history consists of constructive editing overshadowed by a long-term pattern of BATTLEGROUND behavior and Gaming the system. His user page, user talk page, subpages (User:Collect/BLP), and essays such as WP:Mutual admiration society, WP:Sledgehammer, Collect/Pissing on essays one does not like loudly testify to his combative approach. He has an extensive block log for edit warring, and has edit warred other times without consequence ( ). His comments during content disputes are typically acerbic, dismissive, misleading and unyielding. He has misrepresented facts ( ), made WP:POINTY edits ( ), forum shopped ( ), made carefully worded personal attacks (), and compared editors' contributions with McCarthyism ( ).

Collect persistently claims BLP violations at various fora, but when asked to substantiate his claims, he frequently evades providing straightforward answers (), instead weaving convoluted semi-explanations and inapt analogies. Other times he simply doesn't answer legitimate questions. He insists on an unusually high, non-negotiable standards for BLP to including insisting on sources that verify other reliable sources (). Many times the concerns are not BLP policy concerns at all ( ). In many BLP/N discussion, consensus found that his assertions of BLP violations were unfounded, yet he often persists in filibustering, forum shopping, and "moving the goal posts"( ). Many of his BLP/N reports involve Ubikwit and apparently arise out a long-term conflict between the two.

There is a theory afloat that editors who have been critical of Collect are trying to eliminate a political opponent. While I acknowledge my own (US) liberal bias, I reject the thought-terminating notion that I, or any other editor, is trying to eliminate political opponents. A small percentage of my edits have been to political articles, but I have worked collaboratively with several conservative-leaning editors on political content (evidence available on request). I have also taken Collect's side on a number of occasions ( ).

Both Fyddlestix and Jbhunley made good faith efforts to request that the community examine Collect's conduct (not content) at ANI, with abundant evidence. Unfortunately they were attacked as POV pushers and radicals (), and the complaint was closed after eleven hours by an administrator.

We no longer have RFC/U. The extensive history, lack of receptiveness to discussion by Collect, and the dysfunctional environment at ANI, suggests that Arbcom is the last and only resort for a fair examination of Collect's conduct.

Dear ODear ODear/Is not a's conduct should also be scrutinized for unnecessarily inflaming disputes with comments like this.

(Note: I have included editors involved in the recent content dispute related to Project for the New American Century, however several of these users are not parties to the longer term conduct issues involving Collect.)

• @Writegeist:I'm hesitant to provide detailed clarifications for each diff because of the 500 word limit, and perhaps it should occur in the evidence phase anyway. It is almost impossible to understand the WP:GAME issues without reading the entire threads.- MrX 22:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Capitalismojo: (and others): This case has nothing to do with merits of the list article that was brought to AfD. Had I cared enough to research the subject more thoroughly, I'm almost certain that I would have voted to delete it as an undesirable POV fork. The issue at hand is a pattern of user conduct over a long period of time. That some of the above diffs relate to the AfD discussion is merely because they are the most recent and coincide with my perception that Collect's conduct has reached a tipping point.- MrX 23:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Courcelles: The case proposed is about Collect's long-term conduct, not politics, and not every editor under the sun. The other parties listed should be removed from the case if it is accepted.- MrX 02:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

OK -- see Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_PNAC_Members_associated_with_the_Administration_of_George_W._Bush

Which is the actual sum total of the actual complaint here. See whether my position appears to be supported by consensus or whether the position of the complainants on that issue have been supported by community consensus. Note the amount of support for SYNTH and/or BLP issues being clear.

Note that I have been subjected to multiple AN/I threads - all having the same basic complaints and all having the same basic population.

Note that I had an SPI complaint - involving some of the same basic population.

Note that I have been Harassed repeatedly - including a "new section" on my user talk page:

Is Florida a "fringe" state filled with fringe politicians who believe in fringe ideas?

I am getting rather tired of all this stuff, the overt repeated attacks on me, and the absurd SPI complaint, etc. I provide no evidence - the evidence is around you - look at the remarks pasted concerning me by the same small group of editors. I make no complaint here about them - such statements as they make will likely duplicate statements made over and over in the belief of "proof by iteration" alas. But when a single editor posts over 40K of "complaints" about me personally in under three weeks, I think I should be terse indeed.

See with the close: Querulous complaint remitted to AfD and WP:DR if the OP refuses to drop the stick after that. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC) JzG

Followed by a demand for a ban -- and this response: Oppose this sanction, support application of the WP:TROUT to the filing party. You want measured in-depth conversation? ANI is the last place you should go. And actually I think you know that perfectly well and are banking on the WP:BOOMERANG not coming back your way. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC) and multiple agreements on that.

This current action is "vexatious litigation" and possibly harassment to boot. Kindly deal as needed. Collect (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh -- for the claim I accused others of McCarthyism - the only salient quote of mine I could find was

To the extent that it intrinsically and deliberately violates multiple policies, it should not be "merged" but should be salted thoroughly. A neighbor of my aunt was caught up in McCarthyism, I see no reason to endorse that same logic today. It is noted that personal anecdotes have no relationship to policy, and at least one editor interprets this as attacking him personally, even though it was given only to show my personal state of mind about such SYNTH usage Collect (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (emended to make clear the personal issue I have was historical, and not a personal accusation in any way, shape or form, about any editor on Misplaced Pages using such WP:SYNTH as such) Collect (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC) MrX seems to think my reasonable animus to what happened to a friend of a relative is in any way an attack on current editors. It is not, and was not, such. Collect (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, I shall limit my entire participation to my comments above in the belief that any further engagement on the PNAC BLP/SYNTH is not salubrious for Misplaced Pages. Let the AfD be settled, and let everyone abide by that result in peace. Collect (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Um -- Viriditas is the precise person who proposed calling Florida a "fringe state" and otherwise harassed me - and had been instructed to not do so in future. For him or her to assert he or she is "uninvolved" is a long stretch indeed. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#Harassment.2C_hounding_and_baiting_by_Viriditas_at_User_talk:Collect closed all of 9 days ago - which I suspect is telling about the harassment problem. Collect (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Dear ODear ODear

BLP violations and anti-semitism

Regarding MrX (talk · contribs)'s Rfar . My use of "Jew tagging" refers especially to the anti-semitic harassment of the family of Project for a New American Century (PNAC)'s co-founder Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland, via Misplaced Pages, since 2008 (at least).

In recent days, administrator Coffee (talk · contribs) revdeleted the worst antisemitism from the talkpages of both Nuland and Kagan (although my requests for possible revdeletes reached only 2009 ). I have requested page-protections on both BLPs , following an increase in such vandalism, which have been granted by Ymblanter (talk · contribs) for Kagan and Nuland . TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) has helped by constructive edits and reverting BLP violations for months. A recurring harassment technique is the posting of the names of their (apparently minor) children.

It would be useful for this committee to issue, on behalf of Misplaced Pages, an apology to Kagan and Nuland for allowing the harassment to continue so egregiously for so many years. A finding that Misplaced Pages has been negligent in reducing harassment and an action that therefore the BLPs be deleted should be considered. Something must be done to pressure the WMF to spend money on protecting BLP subjects from harassment.

User Ubikwit's behavior

As I wrote, the Kagan/Nuland family has been harassed by Misplaced Pages since 2008 (at least). Recent Jew-tagging involves Ubikwit (talk · contribs), despite his Arbitration topic-ban on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I revise remarks from .

Since 8 months ago, Ubikwit (talk · contribs)'s edits on Robert Kagan seem to violate WP:BLP and other guidelines:

• Ubikwit reinserted the "Jewish" categorisation of Kagan despite RayAYang (talk · contribs)'s warnings and Kagan's pleas since 2008 to stop this Jewish-labeling .
• On talk:Robert Kagan, Ubikwit accused Kagan of being close to "The Israel Lobby" adding a summary that explictly stated he was aware of blpcat" and linking to this website discussing Zionists, Jews, donors, The Israel Lobby two edits after a talk-page warning (to all) by Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) ; c.f.,,. A thorough BLP:Cat warning was given by RayAYang (talk · contribs) , who also explained the anti-semitism associated with "The Israel Lobby" and accusations of "divided loyalty" between the US and Israel. Then Ubikwit wrote "there are plenty of politicians Jews among them that present themselves as being loyal to the USA and pro-Israel without worrying about that presenting a possible COI, emphasizing that Israel is "the only democracy in the Middle East", etc."
• Ubikwit restored a citation of an attack site, calling Kagan a "rightwing" "militarist" .

Ubikwit's behavior on other articles related to Jews, Judaism, Israel, The Israel Lobby, neoconservatism, Leo Strauss and Straussians, Robert Kagan and family broadly considered as well as biographies of living persons deserves attention.

Ubikwit's three 2014 summertime edits about "double loyalties" to Israel and the USA and "The Israel Lobby" violated his topic ban. Bluntly, blaming a cabal of American Jews for unduly influencing American foreign policy for the benefit of Israel---for example by opposing arms for Egypt and supporting military aid to Israel, which is a central thesis of The Israel Lobby---is related to "the Israel-Arab conflict, broadly considered", if the words mean anything.

The Four Deuces (talk · contribs) has similarly complained about Ubikwit's citing weak sources on neoconservatism that allege that "a conspiracy of Jews took control of U.S. foreign policy so that its sole focus became the security and welfare of Israel".

Previous Arbitration rulings regarding WP:Bias and prejudice (Noleander) and the 9/11 terrorism against the USA may be relevant. Rjensen (talk · contribs) may also be able to comment.

During the week that Ubikwit was blocked from editing by Swarm (talk · contribs), normal editing occured at PNAC. Disagreements occurred as usual during editing on contentious topics, but they were resolved as usual.

User Binksternet's behavior

I have added Binksternet as a party because of disputes on e.g. Robert Kagan, particularly about use of sources and BLP.

Dear0Dear 21:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)00:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek

Broadly speaking I'm uninvolved here, although of course being active on Misplaced Pages I've ran across a few of the people listed above.

With respect to MrX's statement about Collect, frankly, I think it is ridiculous to single out some essays someone has written (and AFAICT, misrepresent them) as a basis for an ArbCom case request. Even without reading further into MrX's statement that right there raises red flags about MrX's good faith. THAT kind of manipulative behavior is an example of battleground mentality, not the mere fact that someone wrote some essay that someone else doesn't like. I also think that the accusation that Collect "insists on an unusually high, non-negotiable standards for BLP" is... an unintentional compliment. We probably need more of that not less. The rest of the initial statement by MrX appears to be fairly standard Misplaced Pages style mud slinging where some fairly innocuous diffs and somewhat irate statements are presented as if they were "teh worst thing ever!!!!". It's hyperbole meant to appeal to emotion and prejudice, rather than a well substantiated request.

With respect to Dear ODear ODear's statement above, I roughly agree. My interactions with Ubikwit have been unpleasant to say the least, and I do think that user has a serious problem when it comes to, at least, Kagan and Nuland (as I'm not really active in Israel-Palestine topics, I can't comment more broadly), and yes, they do dance right on, if not over the BLP line. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Fyddlestix

I will submit a statement but need some time. Only saying that because I was shocked at how quickly my recent ANI post was closed, and did not have a chance to respond to what I consider some pretty major mischaracterizations of me and my position. I'd appreciate it if you could wait until I've said my piece before dismissing this (I'm sure I can get it done within 12-24 hours). Thanks. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jbhunley

I entered in to this at the 1st BLPN thread on Feb 10. My first edit to PNAC talk page March 2 2015. My first edit to PNAC article March 04 2015. My only other extended interaction with Collect was a collegial discussion on his talk page starting Mar 3 Jbh (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)So I have no history of conflict with Collect or in this topic. Jbh (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reply to A1candidate - Not offended by the WP:TROUT. Tastes a bit like crow though. Jbh (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Some particularly bad comments by Collect

• The purpose of this article is not to simply list people which is already done in the parent article, it is to connect them to the Bush administration per se, and to link them to a purported conspiracy to cause the Iraq War. - Imputing I had a bad motive for creating article .
• After telling Collect that personal anecdotes (about McCarthyism) are not a useful argument in AfD - Is your argument actually serious- or just meant to demean those who actually seek to avoid the errors of the past? Some other references to McCarthyism , , , , , and This is no longer analogy it is an attempt to frame the debate and conflate other editors with McCarthyism.
• Collect's claim "Apparently some feel compelled to point out its evility... when paired with this, in reply to a question of Whose idea was it, anyway?, Ubikwit, Jbhunley, Fyddlestix, MrX mainly. A few others join in from point to point. - All of the editors mentioned were mentioned in Plain text not code that would generate notifications and they had not been notified the thread was open. Jbh (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

A good example of some of the issues - from a post at AfD -

While this is ongoing, and an AN/I thread is ongoing, this has been filed Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect. "May we live in interesting times" - but the primary bone of contention appears to be whether the material in this list violates WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, or any of the other reasons presented above which, at this point, I daresay agrees with my basic stance. As it is thus intimately connected to this precise AfD, it seems proper to tell folks here about it. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 5:45 pm, Today (UTC−4)

I see no congruence between the above statement and the request made here by MrX. Jbh (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Reply to Floquenbeam Courcelles Jbh (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC) - My opinion is that we need to focus on the behavior issues of Collect. In my short interaction with him I have found that the behavior which is frustrating but OK in a user talk conversation with no import is extremely disruptive when trying to improve the encyclopedia. I have found that once he takes a position there is no compromise and no consensus is accepted unless it is his consensus. I have found no way to break through this. Sources are discounted or not addressed. Nothing will change his position, he keeps repeating hypotheticals and will not detail his actual complaint. When asked "What, precisely, do you consider to be SYNTH in this situation? What information do you want the sources to include so it will not, in your opinion be SYNTH? He simply disengages from the dispute resolution forum he started. " Only to bring the exact same issue up again, and again and again. This last one caused me to create, out of shear frustration at his unwillingness to engage in collaboritive editing, the article which ended up at AfD and precipitated the ANI complaint which led to this Arbcom request.

  To fail to address the behavioral issues would, in my opinion, simply push the problem into the future and result in ongoing damage to the creation of the encyclopedia. If American Politics needs to be addressed I request it be considered a seperate issue. This is a behavior issue not a content issue. Thank you for your consideration. Jbh (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

I think that there is a long-term, ongoing behavioral issue with Collect which warrants review by ArbCom. Briefly, by way of background:

• Collect has racked up 8 blocks for edit-warring, each time on a politically charged and ideologically divisive topic. (One of these was overturned by consensus, and on many other occasions he was unblocked early with a promise to behave).
• His block log understates the degree of edit-warring, as he has been let off with warnings for additional 3RR violations and instances of unrepentant edit-warring (e.g. here).
• In the Tea Party case, Collect was identified as being excessively dismissive and inflammatory in his interactions with other editors, and was topic-banned for 6 months as a result.
• Since the expiration of his topic ban, Collect's edit-warring has ramped up, most recently leading to a week-long block this month.
• Swarm (talk · contribs), the admin who placed the most recent edit-warring block on Collect, wrote:

... you seem to have a habit where you throw out arguments and excuses and blame left and right but act as if you can do no wrong, that you're right no matter what and that your opponent is hellbent on destroying the encyclopedia and you're only trying to prevent that. But your actions simply don't reflect that. I actually always had a positive impression of you and certainly didn't expect to be blocking you for a week, but after a couple hours reviewing your AN3 report I was pretty surprised by the behavior I found and came to the conclusion that this is what was necessary. And you've completely victimized yourself in reponse, admitting exactly no wrongdoing except "letting him have plenty of rope". You should know better, although maybe you do and this is just your strategy to get out of yet another block for edit warring. ()

... which I view as a good summary of Collect's pattern of problematic behavior and which, I think, will be detailed if or when a case is opened.

• Collect's approach to content disputes is fundamentally maddening and uncollaborative. He habitually misrepresents sources, refuses to engage other editors' arguments, employs strawmen, and stonewalls rather than admit error.
• Collect presents himself as a stalwart defender of WP:BLP. I think he misuses this policy opportunistically to excuse his own edit-warring and applies it thoughtlessly and carelessly. I will also (if this case is accepted) present at least 2 egregious BLP violations committed by Collect, which I cleaned up, and for which he refused to take responsibility. In general, I think he lacks an understanding of the letter and the spirit of BLP and his focus on this policy, while not always misguided, has done more harm than good.

At a minimum, I think there is evidence here to suggest that this is an editor with a history of suboptimal behavior (as identified and sanctioned previously by ArbCom) and a long-standing and escalating habit of edit-warring on ideologically charged topics. I think a case should be opened, because there is no other venue to deal with disruptive behavior from long-term, established editors. As should be evident from the statements here, this dispute is quite heated and involves a number of established editors. If not addressed, it will continue to fester and harm the encyclopedia. I think the charge of "forum-shopping" is sort of ridiculous, since with the closure of WP:RFC/U, there is no other forum to address such issues. MastCell  00:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

Collect has been the object of attention by those that disagree with his politics for some time now and it is high time the witch hunt, baiting, harassment and personal attacks against him are put to an end. I have limited time to provide evidence for several days but will add at least one additional party to this case at that time.--MONGO 22:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Diff showing complaint about Viriditas harassing Collect--MONGO 00:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
• personal attack against me by Viriditas
• Viriditas warning to cease hounding me which happened in this thread
• MrX badgering JzG about closing a complaint about Collect in section "Your ANI close" MrX accuses Collect of forum shopping then proceeds to say he's taking further action (aka forum shopping) and finishes by insulting me after I advise him and others to disengage.
• Here, while successful, it should be noted that MrX has just recently asked for sanctions against another editor that is not liberal.

I expect this case to be accepted and will resume adding diffs of named parties during the evidence stage.--MONGO

Courcelles, my argument is that Collect has been hounded, baited and harassed by multiple editors, which are named. There are likely others, so while it may appear to be about politics, its about harassment by a clique that want to eliminate Collect because he makes it more difficult for them to violate BLP and misuse this website to POV push.--MONGO 02:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Ubikwit

Request for greater clarity, from non-party Writegeist

Mr X, without commenting on the merits of the requested case itself, I'm finding it a little difficult to match some of your comments precisely to the diffs provided in support. E.g. re. Collect misrepresenting facts: can you be more specific about the particular facts misrepresented according to diffs 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27? Similarly with the diffs 45, 46, and 47 re. filibustering, forum shopping, and "moving the goal posts"—would you be willing to give more clarity here? And also as you may deem necessary elsewhere? Thank you. Writegeist (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@MONGO: I don't quite see how anyone can disagree with the politics of a user who not only appears at articles on people, organizations, issues, and so on (there used to be list at his user page, which may or may not still be present there) that span just about the entire political spectrum, but who also periodically issues vehement denials of any particular bias. Reading the request for this case one can see that it was very clearly prompted, rightly or wrongly, by disagreement with behaviors, i.e. the perceived battleground mentality, system-gaming, edit-warring, dismissiveness, misrepresentations, insinuations, pointiness, personal attacks, evasions, straw men, and misuses of BLP policy, etc.; behaviors which, if long-term, ongoing, and corroborated by evidence, another user might reasonably view as sufficiently tendentious and disruptive to warrant Arbcom action. Writegeist (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by mostly uninvolved Gaijin42

Only involvement was commenting at the AFD. Somethign to criticize all around, but this does seem a bit like forum shopping in the face of a fairly strong consensus against the filing party's argument, especially in light of the multiple other venues that have been tried recently by various participants.

I suggest that this case should be declined and the PNAC and related articles be placed under DS per WP:ARBAPDS. The continued issues (if any) could then be dealt with swiftly by normal admin processes or WP:AE. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved A1candidate

I consider myself to be uninvolved in this particular dispute, but I note the following points:

1) Administrator JzG closed the ANI thread before the community had much of a chance to participate

2) Administrator JzG contributed to the inflammatory environment by demanding "application of the WP:TROUT to the filing party" "; this statement is likely to further offend the filing party.

3) When asked to clarify his actions, administrator JzG bluntly dismissed the filing party's case as "a rallying cry to attract supporters"

This administrator has shown similar patterns of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in many other disputes. He also uses abusive language and invokes his admin status to silence other editors . He bites the newcomers , attacks other editors by labelling them "apologist" in the edit summary and accuses them of being "quackery supporters" . I think it is time for the Committee to take action.

Statement by Cla68

There has been ongoing battle between two loosely associated groups of editors in WP for years. One side appears to favor left-wing/liberal, environmental, anti-religion, dogmatic western science/medicine activism, and the other is more right-wing/conservative/libertarian, pro-free market capitalism, religion, and theistic science. Several of the names listed above are heavily involved in one side or the other, including several admins who really don't hide very well that they are trying to support one of group of editors using their admin privileges. If the ArbCom and all the editors involved are up to it, why not get this all out in the open now and get this area cleaned up? The constant conflicts and POV-pushing by these groups of editors, many of them long-time, heavily involved participants here, is one of the main reasons, IMO, that WP has had such a hard time recruiting new volunteers the last few years. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Viriditas

I wholeheartedly support Gaijin42's proposal above; please decline this case and place the relevant articles under DS per WP:ARBAPDS. I've actually been discussing this very proposal for several months. It seems that several of the editors named as involved are getting more and more disruptive in the American politics topic area. Collect's behavior on the PNAC articles as described above seems to be very similar to MONGO's on American Sniper (see his talk page contribs), and when MONGO was recently brought to ANI, the closing admin said, "If there is a long term pattern of abuse, as they seem to allege, it would probably be best dealt with at arbitration." I would like to suggest that what we need here is strict arbcom enforcement in the American politics topic area, particularly in regards to Collect and MONGO, who seem to be engaging in disruption in this topic area at this time. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: I am very confused about how a reference to a news story breaking that day about how Florida has "banned" any discussion of climate change by scientists in their state, amounts to "harassment" of your person. And when even mainstream Time magazine acknowledges that the GOP is "fringe", your claim of harassment becomes even more strained. If you're not a senator or the governor of Florida, how can I be "harassing" you? Facts may be funny things, but they are not "harassment" of any kind. I should point out that according to WP:AOHA, "making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory...It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment." Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@Collect: your notion of "involved" is unusual. I am not involved in any of the disputes listed above, nor have I touched any of these articles or their talk pages or the relevant content dispute noticeboards. You falsely claimed I "harassed" you during a discussion on your talk page that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Non-party Capitalismojo

Suggest a decline.

I have, I think, gotten along fairly well with Mr.X, but I find this an unhelpful request. The proximate cause is apparently Collect's "obstinate" BLP stance at the PNAC AfD debate. I along with apparently 26 or 27 other editors agree with the position taken by Collect there. Two editors wanted to keep, two suggest Keep/Merge. Collect did not start the AfD. Collect made only two edits to the AfD debate, neither problematic in my view. He is reliable and consistent in his BLP stance regarless of the politics of the subjects of BLPs.

This, therefore, seems to me as a poor use of ArbComm time and resources, and perhaps even as a misuse of ArbCom in a sense. It strikes me, perhaps unfairly, that this is using the process as punishment. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:23, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment by Alanscottwalker

Just to note that the AfD mentioned by Capitalismojo is quite odd, in my experience, with multiple !votes for delete but the same !votes saying the information belongs in another article. That seems to me to be a merge of sorts but as such a thing is odd, it does suggest there is something going on that has nothing to do with the AfD, and if the committee does wish to plumb the depths of what it's "really" all about - it won't find it in that AfD, and good luck to you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)(as an aside, Captalismojo's count is somewhat off, if that matters) Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Cwobeel

Politics aside, this is about behavior. We all have our biases, but when Collect edits conservative politicians' biographies, he often times raises BLP concerns that are at best strenuous, with the seemingly overall intent to suppress material that may reflect poorly on the politician. This, even if the material is the politician's own words! Here are some examples that illustrates Collect's editing behavior as described by Mr. X: unusually high, non-negotiable standards for BLPs (Joni Ernst article): ,, , , . Surely, we have BLP, BLPREQUESTRESTORE, and BLPNEWBAN to protect BLPs, but it should not be used as a blunt tool to suppress content that is properly sourced and relevant, or to misuse them in an attempt to game the system. I have no concerns in other areas to which Collect contributes quite productively, but behavior issues such as misuse of policies to advance a bias, are within ArbCom's remit. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cas Liber

I tend to agree that the politics and opinions of alot of editors will impede any debate that takes place on AN/I (or elsewhere) to the point that it will be impossible to gain consensus, especially for long-term tendentious behaviour. Hence a case examining the conduct will be by far the easiest way to determine if sanctions are warranted or not. AN/I will be buried in walls of text, indignance and vitriol. Hence I recommend accepting the case. Just try to make it a quick one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: Should add that an accusation of misusing sources trumps all edit-warring in seriousness and hence should be examined for truth or discarded. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

The original case request focused on Collect; the other parties included were based on their interactions with him. I see people adding parties left and right (ha!), based on the broader chronic "American politics broadly construed" battleground. This is a truly excellent way to bog down a case. If the case is accepted, I suggest it be refocused down to Collect and his interactions with others, and the list of parties trimmed accordingly. Unless you want to open a free-wheeling Left vs. Right Battle Royale case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by NE Ent

Case scope: Collect, narrowly. NE Ent 02:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

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

Collect: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/0/0/1>-Collect-2015-03-19T01:42:00.000Z">

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Accept. There are a heck of a lot of accusations and counter accusations flying backwards and forwards here, including of involved/biased admin actions on ANI threads. I think there is enough here that the claims warrant looking at to determine whether there is any substance to them, and, if there is, what remedies will restore order and prevent re-occurrence. I also think the formal structure of an arbitration case is probably the best way to go about doing that with the minimum drama. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)"> ">

Note Everyone choosing to comment on this request, or participate in a case if one is accepted, should be aware that standards of decorum will be strongly enforced, by blocks if necessary, and that misconduct by anyone is sanctionable. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam has a very good point. Do we need a "Collect" case, one that would essentially be "American Politics III", or nothing? (I'm counting "Tea Party" there.) The scope of the request has wildly drifted from one about an editor to one about a massive topic area. Can we get statements focusing on whether we need one, both, or neither of those two distinct cases? Because what will not work is conflating the two different issues into one case. Not decided that we need any case yet, but we absolutely don't need a rolled-together mess. Courcelles (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)