Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anythingyouwant (talk | contribs) at 07:29, 4 May 2015 (→Arbcom could do a whole lot better: adjust tone but not content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Misplaced Pages Arbitration
About arbitrationTalk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appealsReport
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss+ Contact Members Procedures ElectionsTalk History Clerks+ Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk StatisticsTalk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

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

Proposed decision delayed?

Is there a new time frame for the proposed decision? Thank you. Jbh (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The drafters have indicated on the clerks' mailing list that the proposed decision may be one or two days late. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 16:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 16:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

• Hey, quick update, the proposed decision may be delayed again, to be posted absolutely no later than Monday. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 12:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks for the update.- MrX 13:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Do the arbs have any particular Monday in mind? Writegeist (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Curses! You've spotted the flaw in our excuses! It's written, just doing last minute tweaks. Delayed by me being in a different time zone to the rest of the committee. Apologies for missing the deadline, won't be long now. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries - always tricky being on mythological time. Good luck with the wrestling. Writegeist (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Third Monday of next week? . Buster Seven Talk 19:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• I assume we have entered limbo due to the other case that has popped up which is properly taking up the Arbs time. Is this correct? Thank you. Jbh (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

No. I'm not a drafter, but I know it's coming soon. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Your check is in the mail! Bishonen | talk 18:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC).

:) Thanks for the update. Jbh 18:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

For "The check is in the mail", I really like definition 6 here: "I pay you when I get some free money". Bishonen | talk 09:03, 29 April 2015 (UTC).

Are more proposed remedies yet to be added?

Is this the entirety of arbcom's remedies for this case?--MONGO 14:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. Please see this general comment re the brevity of this PD. -- Euryalus (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you.--MONGO 19:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Are the remedies proposed in the alternative, i.e. he could conceivably be subjected to 1RR but not topic-banned? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 01:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, if thats what the majority prefer. Alternatively all of them could be rejected and/or some entirely new remedy proposed. If I had to predict, I'd say remedies 1 and 3 are a more likely set, and remedy 2 is standalone. But that's up to the Committee in the voting stage. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Findings and Remedies are significant for what they do not include

While it is obvious that the drafting arbs put considerable thought into the PD, it seems to fall short in addressing conduct that routinely spills over into areas outside of article content. Some of the most disruptive participation has occurred on various noticeboards and user talk pages. I wonder if there is any real likelihood that a topic ban and 1RR will curtail this conduct, or if instead it will result in disruption appearing in other areas of the encyclopedia. When Collect was topic banned from Tea Party pages, did he quietly go about improving the encyclopedia or did he spend time sowing seeds of discontent: ?

I hope other arbs will consider adding findings of fact, and possibly alternative remedies, to fill in some gaps.- MrX 01:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal view: Diffs noted but I'd hesitate to impose an Arbcom remedy stopping someone criticising Arbcom or appealing its decisions. I do see either topic ban as covering noticeboards and userspace as well as articles. That would mean no contributions to RfC's, RSN, BLPN, usertalk threads etc where the relevant discussion is about or closely relates to US politics, US political issues and/or US political figures.

But all other opinions welcome. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: I share some of the same concerns as MrX. You state, often been involved in disputes involving two-way accusations of battleground conduct, misuse of sources, personal attacks and hounding, but provide no diffs from any of the plethora available in the presented evidence pertaining to the last three points on the list, at least. I did note the diffs regarding sourcing on BLPs, but they represent a narrow scope of the misuse of sources by Collect, and include no examples of misrepresentation of sources.

Meanwhile, the examples I've provided of Collects editing on the Joe Klein article, in particular, demonstrate that Collect has pursued conflict, engaged in hounding coupled with forum shopping, misrepresented sources and refused to listen to other editors, misused the Misplaced Pages categorization system as well as the RfC process (with the closing admin specifically telling him it was a pointy RfC. In other words, Collect has gamed the system in manifold ways, but there is not a single mention of WP:GAMING, either.

I could add to that, but perhaps it will suffice to point to some of the egregious violations encompassed by the massive amount of evidence presented against Collect but not represented whatsoever in the proposed decision.
--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 11:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: I too am concerned about lack of findings about GAMING. Collect's combined BATTLEGROUND, GAMING, CAMPAIGNING tactics are the core of his disruptive behavior. I am afraid that if they are not addressed Collect will see it as a vindication of his behavior and continue or increase the use of those tactics elsewhere. I am less concerned about remedies in relations to these matters but I respectfully request a reconsideration of inclusions of findings related to GAMING and CAMPAIGNING. Thank you. Jbh 11:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I also join in sharing this concern. The remedies need to include a ban on talk pages and noticeboards in the area of conflict. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel: Those pages are covered in the remedies, I believe

@Euryalus: Just to clarify, it is only the findings with which I have concerns, not the remedies. The findings have more longevity than the remedies (e.g., the scenario where a ban is subsequently lifted). Accordingly, aside from the vindication in Collect's mind mentioned by JBH, there are real effects in terms of exonerating the conduct violations for which clear evidence has been presented and no findings of fact made. If that behavior is not acknowledged as misconduct here and now, it will be liable to repetition at will after the ban is lifted (assuming a ban is imposed), etc.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 20:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• On the opposite spectrum from the esteemed editors above that yet call for further punishments against Collect, I find the remedies to be excessive, especially considering that now it is likely that BLPs on conservative American politicians will be overrun by those whose primary focus here is to ensue that every time an aforesaid politician is caught on camera picking his nose, that they will argue for inclusion of such an event in article space.--MONGO 13:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• (ec) I note that while MrX, Ubikwit and Jbhunley refer to Collect's behavior and the evidence they feel supports further remedies, which is as it should be, MONGO's statement is a political WP:BATTLEGROUND WP:POV one, and essentially an admission that he views Collect's editing as political in purpose, a necessary counter to what he sees as POV edits by non-conservative editors. BMK (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• @BMK: I didn't mean to negate your comment (no need to strike me from your list), with which I agree, in spirit, at any rate. What I meant is that while the proposed topic ban seems to be a remedy of sufficient scope, there is a need for more findings so that the misconduct is not exonerated and not repeated should Collect return after a topic ban, assuming one is imposed. Granted, I'm not very knowledgeable on the scope of available remedies for such a case, so you may know more about that.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 22:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• No problem, I was just striving for accuracy. BTW, your ping to me didn't work because my user name is "Beyond My Ken" not "BMK". BMK (talk) 22:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

In these situations there are the necessary processes in place to address such content disputes. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@MONGO: I'm not calling for punishment; I'm calling for the policy-violating conduct to stop. You had every opportunity to supply evidence to support your claims of problematic editing, but you either couldn't be bothered or you didn't actually have evidence. The idea that Collect has heroically protected BLPs is contradicted by much of the evidence, and is largely the result of him repeating such self-congratulatory claims.- MrX 14:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@MONGO: Do you really think that Collect is single-handedly holding back a huge tide of POV editing? I don't have much comment on the proposed findings/remedies, but it does bother me to see the "Collect is indispensable" argument still getting thrown around (I still think that line of thinking caused a lot of the issues that led to this case). If the problem is as bad as you describe, surely the solution is to deal with the issue (the companion case was the perfect opportunity to do that), not give a single editor a free pass on bad behavior. Relying on a single editor to "fight the good fight" is not a real/effective solution. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. WP:WPDNNY applies here. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: "Do you really think that Collect is single-handedly holding back a huge tide of POV editing?" This question was not directed at me, but yep, I absolutely believe this is the case. Further, if editors here insist on pressing for a finding and sanction related to allegations that Collect has "gamed" the system, I will return to an admin board with a similar set of claims against a non-zero number of editors participating in this case, quite irrespective of whether you are successful; and my claim(s) will actually be well-substantiated. The conduct is no less objectionable or destructive to Misplaced Pages simply because you're on the cool kids' team and have lots of allies. Toodles. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 23:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• I do not think that Collect was alone in his efforts to stem BLP violations against conservative American politicians but do believe that the sanctions applied here to him present a chilling effect for others that might wish to ensure NPOV in BLPs on conservative American politicians. MrX....the sanctions suggested do what you wish, yet you claim you don't want punishments yet are here still expecting more. What more could you ask for in this matter except a site ban?--MONGO 00:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't saying Collect is out there alone, just that his efforts did counteract a large volume of improper edits, many of which were performed by the accusers some of the accusers here. And for every Collect on Misplaced Pages, there are several Cwobeels. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 12:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

@Factchecker atyourservice: I wasn't going to reply to your post above at all, but I must again object (as I have before) to your lumping all of "the accusers" in this case together, and to the insinuation that any/all of the accusers have made "improper" edits. You've been asked - and had multiple opportunities - to back those accusations up but never did so, please stop making these kinds of battleground-y generalizations. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Edited to clarify intended scope of my comment. But, please understand that since I haven't already done the research and compiled the diffs — a many-hours chore I certainly don't relish the thought of — I'm thus not in a position to name any names, else I'd risk being accused of a personal attack. Nonetheless I could not in good conscience remain completely silent; it was necessary to issue a reminder about glass houses and encourage other editors to consider their own edit history before engaging in vigorous stone-throwing. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Since the defendant(s) did not provide evidence that the committee could review no sanctions against anyone other than Collect have been posted as remedies. I therefore think the and others portion of this case should be dropped from the case name. In the past, other committees have taken it upon themselves to examine the block logs and other behavioral issues of all named parties to determine the veracity of the complaints, but that did not happen here....or at least if it did this committee seems to have not felt that the others needed to be sanctioned. I know that two named parties here have had an antagonistic relationship with Collect, and both of them have long block logs and a history of POV pushing and BLP violations that needed better scrutiny. This case may be he first where excessive zeal in defending BLP goes punished and I think that is a bad precedent.--MONGO 15:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I think the problem is not excessive zeal, but rather an inconsistent and often hypocritical approach to BLP on Collect's part. In general, ArbCom (and many editors/admins, including myself) has cut people a lot of slack for overzealous BLP enforcement, so long as they appear to be motivated truly by concern for the precepts of the policy. The issue in this case is the disconnect between the way Collect presents himself (as a heroic lone defender of the dignity of living people) and his actual actions with regard to living people (which alternate between ridiculous over-use of BLP-as-a-weapon and casual disregard for the policy, depending on the politics of the article subject and sources). It's a words-vs.-deeds thing. MastCell  18:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  Its likely you're correct overall, only I'm a rather staunch BLP advocate so my more strict application of that policy may be in line with Collect's...in essence what I'm trying to say is that I'd prefer to err on the side of caution even if they lack some consistency... so long as the over all effort is cautionary. Noted above is the comment by Beyond my Ken where they indicate I might feel Collect acts as a roadblock to various parties in opposition to his POV, and in response to that I must confess that might be partly why I defend him now. For the record, I have not always agreed with Collect and even bad disagreements with him, but feel that his overall contributions history, even in the arena in question, has been beneficial.--MONGO 19:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

  We did consider a block from BLPs generally. This was opposed during committee discussions as amount to a total ban, and so we did not include it in drafting. I might add it, but the voting so far seems to indicate it would not pass. DGG ( talk ) 08:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

1RR

I'm mildly confused at the opposition to the 1RR remedy. There's plenty of evidence that Collect is a habitual edit-warrior, and his history—5 violations and 2 blocks in the last year, several more violations which weren't reported, unrepentant attitude, total lack of self-awareness—would generally be well above the threshold to trigger a 1RR at WP:AE or other such venues. And it's not like 1RR is a particularly onerous imposition in the first place; in fact, 1RR is a best practice to which many experienced editors voluntarily hold themselves. Out of the universe of possible remedies in this case, 1RR seems like the most obvious, the least intrusive, and the best-supported by evidence. That said, I understand that all of Collect's documented edit-warring has occurred in the realm of American politics, and thus a topic-ban (if it passes) might obviate the need for 1RR. (For the record, I also think that the politics topic-ban is well-warranted, but that's probably no surprise given my contributions to the Evidence and Workshop pages). MastCell  18:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

My guess is that it's intended as a sort of "speed bump" remedy intended to kickstart dispute resolution processes more quickly than would happen otherwise. If that's the idea, I suppose it would be effective in this regard. But in my irrelevant personal opinion, I don't think this would be a very fair remedy except perhaps if it were the only remedy imposed. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 00:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not think it really matters. Almost all his editing was somehow related to US politics (although not necessarily to biographies of US politicians). Having such topic ban, he probably will not appear again. Good for him! I hope he can do something better in real life. My very best wishes (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I think 1RR is the best way to stop anyone that has a tendency to edit war. Not that my opinion has any weight, that sanction alone for now would be more than sufficient.--MONGO 00:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That was the idea behind that proposal. The purpose of remedies is to remedy the situation, not to punish an editor. Except for banning an editor, there really is no other method available. Site bans obviously lose us an editor; topic bans have an obviously limited effect on anyone with broader interests than the topic ban; they are only effective with a SPA, or an editor who acts like one in a specific area. In this case a broad topic ban is being proposed, even though it may cost us an editor, because the behavior in that area seems far worse than the behavior elsewhere. But the habitual unproductive editing will probably still be there is whatever editing is done further.

I am never going to propose or vote for a remedy because someone "deserves" it, just as I hope I have never blocked with that motivation; I am going to try to find something within our limited repertoire to deal with the situation. The word "punishment" was used above. This is not our purpose, and is not the purpose of any WP process. All we can do is to guess on the probability that a pattern or situation will recur. We're not at all perfect at that, as arb cases over the years have shown, and I am not under the delusion that I have particularly perceptive powers in that. Further, a 1RR restriction does no harm. Anyone can edit effectively in any area with that restriction. I've always tried to not exceed it myself, and almost never do. As I've seen first-hand it works at keeping things in proportion, I would not be averse to making it a rule for everybody. Perhaps as a first step we could change 3RR to 2RR as site policy , while eliminating any use of a block for the first offense. DGG ( talk ) 08:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There is wisdom in your thoughts regarding 3rr which, due to various factors, is not always evenly applied. Its hard to say if more preventative medicine early on would have prevented a de facto ban later on, but I'm inclined to agree that 3rr may be excessive latitude. It's hard to know for sure.--MONGO 08:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Making 1RR for everyone would harm this project. To realize what it does, one should try to edit himself under 1RR restriction. Yes, having 1RR restriction might be fine for someone who does technical edits, works with non-controversial subjects or an administrator (so that people would be afraid of reverting their edits). However, this is not so for many others. Any two non-sequential edits in the same article during one day may be interpreted and reported as a violation by other parties. 1RR restriction effectively prevents a user with "minority views" from editing any pages that are edited or watched by contributors with other views. These are practically all pages of interest for a user like Collect. Yes, such user can continue productive editing even under 1RR, but only if she/he would be interested in editing low-importance subjects. Please note that a "minority view" per WP:Consensus can be actually a "majority view" per WP:RS/WP:NPOV, although probably not in the area of US politics. My very best wishes (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Why aren't FoF being expanded?

@Euryalus:@DGG: I hate to harp on this, but there are now queries from a couple of other arbitrators about the paucity of evidence cited in one FoF that you haven't addressed. Meanwhile, there are a number of diffs in the presented evidence that could be used to bolster that FoF, which you seem to be reluctant to include in the finding as drafted.
I'm particularly interested in hearing why the evidence I presented appears to have largely been ignored in drafting the proposed decision.

Aside from the evidence I provided regarding categories, as per the diffs below including comments by MrX and Nomoskedasticity, Fyddlestix also provided diffs regarding abuse of categories, for example. This related thread linked in my evidence clearly shows Collect misrepresenting one of the statements, which is quoted in full in the thread, by the subject of the BLP

The problem is he does not say "I am a mainstream Jew" but he says "mainstream Jews" should do something. F'rinstance, if I said "Mainstream Russians should reject Grnarphism" that is not the same as saying "I am a mainstream Russian." Zat clear? Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's not harping. I'm not near a PC for the next about four hours, but following various requests I'll add a little more to the Proposed Finding. As a general principle they are supposed to be read in conjunction with the /Evidence and not instead of it, but it is necessary that the PD gives a good summary. So subject to DGG's views, will expand it slightly when I'm back home. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I see, thank you, and for the prompt and courteous reply as well.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 08:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I am shocked that 40% or so of the arbs are opposed to FoF that Collect's behavior was un-acceptable yet most are willing to vote for a topic ban. While I do think a topic ban is the minimum necessary remedy I would hope there would be some FoF which show what behavior necessitates the ban. Minimalism is one thing but I fear when this is all done Collect is, at least in his own mind, going to feel his behavior is vindicated. That will be sad and disappointing and will ultimately cost the project in terms of further disruption and loss of editors. This was a chance to do something about poor behavior here and it seems to have been squandered.

It also seems that some arbs are voting based on the evidence presented in the FoF rather than the totality of the evidence presented. That is more than disappointing... Oh well, thank you for your time and effort working on this case although I am starting to question the need for the effort the disputants put into it. Reading to proposed decision it is not possible to tell why Collect is such a disruptive editor. Jbh 09:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That's because the Findings can only be a summary, or a set of examples, drawn from the /Evidence. As a personal view, some of the accusations (eg accusing others of anti-Semitism) had too little basis in /Evidence to be mentioned in the Findings at all. I believe others, like edit-warring and NPOV, are made out and are at a level where an Arbcom finding is required as they either can't or won't be addressed at any other DR stage. But the diffs here in the Finding must be read as examples, not the totality. The Committee need to (and will) also consider the /Evidence page. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Thank you for the reply. I understand the diffs in the FoF are summaries but comments like.

• Courcelles "Not convinced this is enough hard evidence to support a finding of this breadth. There's some misconduct here, but if this is the best the evidence can produce, I'm not convinced"
• Guerillero "Two of the three forum shopping links go to the same discussion. The third link shows Collect linking to the BLP/N discussion 6 days after the RS/N discussion. As for the IDHT examples, they don't rise to the level of an arb finding; worse things appear on ANI each day."

Give me the very strong impression that, at least these Arbs, have not bothered to read the evidence and are voting on the examples. Jbh 10:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Euryalus: I appreciate that you may be operating on the basis of a different understanding of the drafting procedure than that which other arbs seem to have. I also see that you have added some to the FoF, which is a start, but the comment by Guerillo

Support parts 1 and 2; oppose parts 3 and 4. Two of the three forum shopping links go to the same discussion. The third link shows Collect linking to the BLP/N discussion 6 days after the RS/N discussion. As for the IDHT examples, they don't rise to the level of an arb finding...

is worth examining, because the points he raises regarding missing/weak evidence are well-covered in the evidence. I will just present more examples from my evidence, which I limited because there was so much evidence presented that I didn't think this would be difficult.

With regard to forum shopping, for example, this is from the first paragraph of my evidence

Here, he opens a second thread on the same topic at NPOV/N as one that was already concurrently active. Another editor queried the necessity at the time, and pointed out that there was a thread on the same topic open at BLP/N.

From another section and related to the above-posted BLP material

This RfC at BLP talk regarding Joe Klein article was not worded neutrally, and even the closer noted that it was pointy. I commented twice, first touching on rationale for bringing the matter to AE, then replying as to the necessity of accepting the "ethnicity" category, not being able to devote further effort to the dispute.

With regard to the IDHT comment, most of the diffs I posted in relation to the Joe Klein article apply, where there were three experienced editors expressing consensus, followed by the forum shopping RfC, where he continued to refuse to hear. One could have added a number of simple WP:IDLI to the mix as well, incorporating the same diffs plus his comments from the Talk pages of the Joe Klein and neoconservativism articles.

If the other Arbs are going to demand stronger evidence in the form of diffs, there are a plethora from which to choose.

If they are supposed to add the diffs themselves (or additional FoF)--per Bishonen's post below--then I wish they would do that instead of simply dissenting, as if that were the end of the process.

Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you would add the necessary diffs.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 10:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Who gets to propose decisions?

It's surprising and even worrying to see AGK merely "asking the drafter to consider bringing to the proposed decision", instead of bringing it himself. I thought arbs were free to post proposals ad libitum, and as recently as the Wifione case, plenty of them did. (A couple of examples: .) Is it supposed to be irregular or discourteous to do that now? That would turn the drafters turn into super-arbs. Bishonen | talk 09:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC).

Thanks for asking, and for the potential title bump. However, reality is less interesting - any Committee member can propose or amend any part of the decision, as usual. I saw the comment on the PD page as more rhetorical than actual. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: With all due respect, while I see you were responding to Bishonen regarding the comment by AGK, there is nothing rhetorical in the above-quoted comment by Guerillero. It is very specific and concrete.

You have posted an extra diffs for edit warring and a couple more BLP related RS removals, but still nothing whatsoever related to the manifold violations by Collect on the Joe Klein BLP, including gross forum shopping and IDHT that would readily remedy the demonstratively defective FoF referred to by Guerillero as "parts 3 and 4".

I'd been hoping for a more proactive response regarding the addition of diffs bolstering the FoF. Basically, it is beginning to appear that much of the evidence presented is being given a short shrift, and since I'm a party to the companion case, it behooves me to be proactive in pushing you for a response declaring something of substance; in particular, regarding the evidence I've presented and the insufficiency of the specific FoF I raised first above and which has subsequently been questioned by two arbitrators as well.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 14:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Bishonen and Euryalus: The explanation offers little intrigue, unfortunately. I was soliciting the drafter's thoughts (not begging his leave, which as others have pointed out isn't required). Simply put, the drafter is invariably more familiar with the evidence, and I personally just find it prudent to consult them before proposing a diversion from their initial proposals. AGK 22:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@AGK: Yes, that's how I understood it. The short answer is there is an argument for it, considering a) indications of a pattern of conduct going back to before the 2013 topic ban, and b) the risk that a topic ban simply shifts the issue to other articles. However in this instance I'd argue the indefinite topic ban does suffice, and most accurately reflects the seriousness of the issues raised in Evidence and the Workshop. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus, AGK, and DGG: Considering the chance you all have expressed of the issues moving to other areas would a remedy of General Editor Probation as I mentioned not be a reasonable thing? It would not restrict him from editing properly but would move any issues to AE rather than ANI so they could be addressed quickly before they can grow into something like this again. It has been used at least once before in the case I link in the proposal. Jbh 13:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

FoF on BLPs

I would remind arbcom that in the diffs provided, my take is the argument by Collect was to protect against undue weight. We are not a newspaper...we are an encyclopedia, so WEIGHT is crucial since we are not striving for sensationalism to sell copies, but proper distribution of information so the reader can have an informed encyclopedic rendition. Just because something appears in a newspaper (oftentimes the worst place to source from) does not mean we have to cover it, especially since newspapers are in the now mostly and much information fails the test of time.--MONGO 20:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Permission to speak freely sir? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If Arbcom should be reminded of anything, it's that there are hundreds of diffs in evidence that show a pattern of transparently abusing the BLP policy to keep unfavorable content out of certain articles, or in violation of WP:POV. Collect has been reminded before that weight is determined by the proportion of coverage in reliable sources. We don't determine weight by a single editor's opinion that unfavorable content is sensationalistic, especially when such objections seem to mainly cluster around conservative biographies. Collect was much more flexible with his interpretation of policy on article such as Neil deGrasse Tyson. If anyone thinks that newspapers should not be used as sources for BLP's, they are free to propose such a policy change at the village pump.- MrX 20:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hum...I did not propose that newspapers from reliable parties should not be used...only that they are not the best sources overall. In a BLP I would be hard pressed to believe that any newspaper would be better than a more scholarly source.--MONGO 20:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone here would dispute that scholarly sources are preferred over newspapers. Of course, we have to work with whatever reliable sources are actually available.- MrX 20:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If Colllect was more flexible on articles about subjects such as Neil deGrasse Tyson, it was likely due to an inability to prevent other editors from using inadequate sourcing on conservative BLPs. He may have done this as a sort of what comes around goes around thing. I do know that in your case MrX, I really don't think you're here to do anything but defend policy, for the record. Its just that even giving that, it is unlikely we might always agree as to what the appropriate WEIGHT might be in a given article.--MONGO 20:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a fair statement.- MrX 21:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is an accurate analysis of Collect's behaviour, Mongo, but think for a second about what you are saying. If Collect is unable to prevent what he sees as BLP violations (often quite implausibly IMO, but that's just BTW) in articles about people on the right, does that really justify him committing what he sees as BLP violations in articles about people on the left? It may be in some way understandable, but I don't see how it is defensible.

I haven't actually really looked at the evidence in the case, but it ought to show that Collect actually couldn't care less about BLP policy form the point-of-view of its intended purpose. He only really cares about it as a tool. Formerip (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: "We don't determine weight by a single editor's opinion that unfavorable content is sensationalistic, especially when such objections seem to mainly cluster around conservative biographies." Sounds an awful lot like you don't like Collect's politics and, for that reason, go out searching for opportunities to oppose him.

@FormerIP: I'm struggling to understand why, if improper editing of political articles is generally tolerated, we should single out conservatives and attempt to drive them from WP. Shouldn't it be an equal opportunity sport? Also, "committing what he sees as BLP violations" is a rather loaded reading of what was said. For example, if Collect views something as a BLP violation and is overruled (rightly or wrongly) by a mass of other editors, then he would appear completely entitled to go around and ensure that this overruled-BLP-stance is similarly not-applied on articles about liberals. Goose/gander, y'know boyos? Insisting that the lone candle-holding BLP defender is required to go apply rules in defense of lefty politicians that would never be considered at the article of a righty politician is just silly.

Note also, as observed above, that WP:CONSENSUS often has no correspondence to WP:WEIGHT whatsoever, i.e. a bunch of partisan editors will decide that they just don't like something, and they'll call that WP:CONSENSUS. Happens all the time. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 13:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

If we were talking about a situation where Collect had found his interpretation of BLP to be out of step with consensus and so modified his approach accordingly, then there would be nothing wrong with that and we would not be here. But Collect has actually ever conceded that anything was good for the goose, he's just has a variable approach to BLP, stretching it as far as he can on some occasions and disregarding it on others. That's not acceptable under any lens, particularly where there's such an obvious pattern of bias and when it's so often accompanied by lies, selective hearing, twisting of sources and a generally bad-faith, tactically-guided debating style. Formerip (talk) 16:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your basic point. Contrast this with Collect's repeated defense of the Daily Mail (yes, really, the Daily Mail) as a source for BLPs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

(comment inserted out of turn) Sorry, but this almost sounds like an expectation that Collect hold himself to higher standards than others. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Daily Mail...I have heard its not a very dependable source. Degrees of dependability indicate that especially in BLPs all editors, including Collect, should strive to use best sourcing, especially for anything controversial. For the record, I find many things from the MSNBC website to be questionable, so I suppose it's a matter of opinion about who is worse for reliability.--MONGO 21:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to describe the Daily Mail because the U.S. has nothing quite like it. The closest I can think of is a lowbrow version of People crossed with the New York Post and published by Alex Jones. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Ahem. Point yourself to the New York Daily News and you've got yourself an American counterpart. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah) (talk) (contribs) 14:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Mongo's proxy "argument" about Collect's editing does not correspond to the reality of Collect's activism as presented in the evidence.

Collect's attempts to rely on sensationalist sources like the tabloids on BLP's is an apt (and evidenced) demonstration of his disruptive editing in the American politics topic area.

--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 02:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

As evidenced in the American Politics 2 case, the very things you claim Collect is guilty of are ones you have committed yourself. Bios are not there for cherry picked nonneutral edits supported solely by biased news sources.--MONGO 03:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The evidence I and others submitted against you in the American Politics 2 case makes it clear that you are an activist cohort of Collect's, and that is apparently why you are here wikilawyering on behalf of him and continuing to wave the BLP false flag.
--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 04:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts and we will see how that turns out.--MONGO 14:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: You may be interested to know that the first two diffs (examples 1 & 2) are reversed in the BLPs FoF.--Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 06:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

"Wikilawyering"

Comment

Arbcom could do a whole lot better

I do not understand why this case is so flawed. Is it lack of time? Lack of oversight? No one should be expected to wade through all of this, so I will take a small example: the findings of fact regarding BLPs.

Arbcom says: "3) Collect's article edits are indicative of incorporating a non-neutral point of view, including: added poorly sourced negative materials to certain biographies of living persons - example 1 sourced to blog, example 2 sourced to blog;"

I say: example 1 neglects to mention that Collect was restoring a whole bunch of longstanding stuff of which newsbusters was a small piece, and when newsbusters was ultimately replaced with a better source to support the same exact statement, Collect did not object. Why don't you acknowledge any of this? You seem to present evidence in such a way as to look as bad as possible; it would have been better if Collect had immediately replaced newsbusters with a "cn" tag, but he was hardly alone; no one had done that in, what, six years? Newsbusters appears to have been cited merely for a quote from a book that was given attribution inline in the Misplaced Pages article. As for example 2, it obviously didn’t add a single word to any BLP, but rather was merely part of a noticeboard discussion. Why do you want to make it seem otherwise? I know you do stuff like this all the time, Arbcom, but for Pete's sake take a step back once in a while, and realize how it makes you look.

Arbcom says: "while removing reliably sourced material from other BLPs - Example 3, sourced to metro newspapers"

I say: this link does not indicate removal of anything from a BLP, but rather is noticeboard discussion. Why make it seem otherwise? Is Arbcom located in North Korea or something?

Arbcom says: "Example 4 - sourced to widespread metro media coverage "

I say: this link does not indicate removal of anything from a BLP, but rather is talk page discussion. Why smear a diligent volunteer as someone who improperly tampers with BLPs? You do know the difference between a BLP and a talk page, do you not?

You say: "Example 5, sourced to mainstream newspaper"

I say: Another editor was taking the same position as Collect, and there was talk page discussion about it, none of which you mention or acknowledge. Collect’s edit summary said, “the adjectives do not seem to appear in the cites I can verify”, so was Collect correct about that or not? You do not bother to say. What's the point of being so superficial? If Arbcom doesn't have time to do the job right, don't do it. I'm sure that a randomly selected committee of Wikipedians would be glad to volunteer and do diligent factfinding for you, if you ask.

You say: "Example 6 - sourced to Huffington Post and NY Times"

I say: the NYT article said Ernst praised the Koch brothers for “millions of dollars they have provided to help Republican candidates”, which did not support the statement in the Misplaced Pages article that she praised them for “help in raising her trajectory as a viable candidate” (emphasis added). Thus, the info in the Misplaced Pages article was not properly sourced to the Huffington Post “and" the NYT. Collect merely asked for a source in addition to HuffPo, and the NYT clearly did not qualify. The HuffPo by itself is a sketchy source for a BLP, judging by the Misplaced Pages article about it. So you're going to punish Collect for temporarily removing stuff from a BLP while asking for better sourcing? Ooh, let's give Collect the electric chair for that --- after all, that's what the mob asked for. Sheesh.

You say: "Example 7 - Sourced to New Yorker."

I say: Collect indicated that there was an undue weight issue. Indeed, as I read the article today, Collect’s view has prevailed on that point, and all the material he removed has stayed out. But you, the great Arbcom, can't be bothered with mentioning Collect's explanation, much less with figuring out if it was correct, or at least was made in good faith. If you people were the slightest bit interested in Collect's reputation, you would have conducted a survey at BLPN. But hey, that might diminish the power of the cliques that hang around Arbcom all the time.

Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)