Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Proposed 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 &#124; talk 18:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC).
 * :) Thanks for the update.  J bh  Talk  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 &#124; 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)


 * I share some of the same concerns as MrX. You state, [Collect has] 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 Wikipedia 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  連絡見学/迷惑 11:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 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. J bh  Talk  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)
 * Those pages are covered in the remedies, I believe
 * 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  連絡見学/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)
 * 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  連絡見学/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)
 * 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)
 * "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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, there are several Cwobeels. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)   (talk)  (contribs) 12:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 Talk 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)


 * And still not a single word from Collect. Surprisingly, the findings also do not include Collect's complete lack of participation in the process...no t a single mention of his strange non-defense strategy. I find it so extremely unusual that an editor so vociferous and verbose (in most cases) as Collect has remained completely silent and there has been no mention of that silence. . Buster Seven   Talk  14:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Actually, check the Evidence page. It took a while, but Collect did present evidence there. BMK (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. I stand corrected and have changed my statement accordingly. Ty, Ken. . Buster Seven   Talk  14:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The ongoing complaint about Collect's absence, after his repeated insistence that he had better stay away for medical reasons, amounts to an ongoing accusation of bad faith. Kindly shut it.  Your point has been made. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)   (talk)  (contribs) 23:53, 30 April 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&mdash;5 violations and 2 blocks in the last year, several more violations which weren't reported, unrepentant attitude, total lack of self-awareness&mdash;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 Talk 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?
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,  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  連絡見学/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  連絡見学/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. J bh Talk  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)
 * Thank you for the reply. I understand the diffs in the FoF are summaries but comments like.
 * "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"
 * "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.  J bh  Talk  10:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 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  連絡見学/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 [the option of a site ban] 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 &#124; 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)
 * 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 . 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  連絡見学/迷惑 14:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "...drafters into super-arbs" ...and allow the other arbs not to do their jobs...plausible deniability, as it were, because it facilitates adoption of the disposition that"'It wasn't my job to draft the findings, I just voted on them...'"-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 11:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Considering the chance you all have expressed of the issues moving to other areas would a remedy of General Editor Probation as I mentioned [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others/Workshop#Collect_is_placed_indefinitely_under_general_editor_probation] 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. J bh  Talk  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)
 * "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.
 * 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)
 * Yes. Exactly. MastCell Talk 21:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but this section is about User:Collect, not User:Cwobeel. Are you posting in the right place? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)   (talk)  (contribs) 18:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you trying to make the point that Collect is not the only one guilty of that sort of thing round here? You may be right, I don't specifically know, but it's no excuse. Formerip (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * More like, Collect is less guilty of it than the people seeking to have him sanctioned. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)  (talk)  (contribs) 18:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, I don't specifically know. But what he ain't is innocent. Formerip (talk) 19:05, 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  連絡見学/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  連絡見学/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)

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

"Wikilawyering"
User:MONGO has been repeatedly accused of Wikilawyering on Collect's behalf. While it's not clear to me why he seems to be singled out for this accusation, I wanted to point people to the actual policy guidance described in the essay.

Here are the defining examples presented at the head of the policy essay page:


 * Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy
 * Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles
 * Asserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express
 * Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions

Yet editors here are using it as a synonym for "arguing a lot", as seen here. It's in keeping with the rest of this case, wherein numerous parties have name-dropped policies liberally without apparently having taken the time to read them, but can we stick a pin in it for now? Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * And you are insinuating that my statement is "name-dropping" a policy an essay to cast aspersions?
 * I would suggest that you consider the implications related to BLP, for example, before jumping to hasty conclusions assuming bad faith.
 * This is arbitration, not a content dispute.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am insinuating stating pretty directly that you have done zero to substantiate the accusation. Please explain how, for example, the accusation linked above points to behavior that meets the definition of WP:Wikilawyering. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * OK (assuming that this thread may be hatted at some point), if you insist.
 * Mongo has been appealing to BLP policy in a manner that is not in accord with either the letter or the spirit of the policy to make irrational demands on my editing of BLPs, including the dismissal of numerous peer-reviewed scholarly sources in the process.
 * Furthermore, in conjunction with the wikilawyering, he has resorted to personal attacks and attempts at psychological manipulation, questioning my "thinking", for example.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 16:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Was asking you to explain your accusation, not repeat it; but whatever. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)  (talk)  (contribs) 18:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment
With all the hours upon hours that editors here spent compiling diffs against Collect, half of which don't show anything, claiming to be motivated by pure non-partisan Wiki-Concern, yet not a single person posted a single diff against Cwobeel's virtually identical but much more extensive conduct in that regard, just shows what a politically motivated witch-hunt this is.

It's a joke, a huge joke.

Cwobeel behaves much worse, right in your face, and none of you says a word. In fact nobody even bats an eyelash when he stands up here at ArbCom, and says, completely without irony, that someone else has problems hearing that and gaming the system. Nope, it's all kosher so far as you're concerned. And why is that? Because he's on your team. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)  (talk)  (contribs) 18:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia article that she praised them for “help in raising her trajectory as a viable candidate” (emphasis added). Thus, the info in the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)


 * Thanks for your views. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You can thank me best by really taking these views seriously. Cheers, Euryalus.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your views are taken seriously. But taking something seriously is not the same as automatically agreeing with it. A healthy range of opinions are expressed in this page, from people who think the PD is too soft to people who think there should be no remedies at all. Thse arguments, and the evidence supporting them, are then duly considered before votes are cast. I'm not offering a line by line commentary on your post because a) some of it rehashes material already presented, and b) I've read the evidence in detail and formed an occasionally different view of it, and there's no point you and I having our own private argument over how it should be perceived. Other Committee members can consider your view alongside everyone else's - you'll note that despite your comment above it has not been hatted, and is freely available to everyone who wants to have a read. If as you say Collect has no case to answer, then, then that will no doubt be the Committee's decision on the PD. -- Euryalus (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Discussions regarding the removal of content on BLP talk pages are obviously related to the BLPs.
 * Regarding your analysis, take "Example 6", for instance. The defense presented above does not correspond to reality. The direct quote, which appears in the HP article, is from an audio recording corroborated by the NYT article, for starters.
 * Then, even after the reference to the Koch Bros. was removed (itself unnecessary), the well-sourced statements were reduced to a state practically beyond recognition, with an edit summary that refers to "fluff" and misrepresents the direct quote (as praise) as well as Cwobeel's edit, and claims that one source was enough, whereas Collect had initially deleted the entire text demanding more sources"removed 'trajectory' fluff, removed quote which is not exactly related to the thanks given, one source is enough for factual claim"clearly contradicting himself.
 * Note that Collect went so far as to remove a quote from a footnote, which included direct mention of the Koch Bros, whom, incidentally, where prominently mentioned in both articles (including the titles).-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 09:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, though there are numerous more diffs of other transgressions related to BLPs that are not listed in the FoF that could be cited, the FoF and remedies are supported by the evidence, of which there is a plenitude.
 * Here 's one are two more diff s from the section Stonewalling and misrepresentation of sources of evidence presented by MastCell:
 * #Refuses to acknowledge that a Democratic politician graduated at the top of her class, even though several reliable sources (and her actual college) support the claim
 * Claims that a New Yorker article subtitled "Public television's attempts to placate David Koch" does not make "any connection between the Kochs and the decision of PBS". -- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 10:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ubikwit. In passing the Wendy Davis example is already listed as "example 3" in Finding 3.


 * , Re: " this link does not indicate removal of anything from a BLP, but rather is noticeboard discussion" - did you actually read the noticeboard discussion that's linked there? Cause there's a diff of the removal linked in the first sentence. Just because you have to click twice instead of once doesn't mean the evidence isn't there. Fyddlestix (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like three clicks are necessary - since you have to go back one revision to see Collect's edit (NeilN's undo was linked instead for some reason). This is the removal itself. So it could have linked better I suppose, but the point stands that there's more than enough evidence to document the charge being made. It's not a "smear," and the evidence is clearly there for anyone willing to read it & take it seriously. Fyddlestix (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. I promised myself that I wouldn't get involved with this ArbCom case because I generally find such cases nightmarish and very often unfair. But I did make this long comment above, and will let it go at that. As said above, I think ArbCom can do a lot better.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Where you was before? Telling your disagreement right now and not participating in the Evidence and Workshop because you do not like it (sure, who likes it?) is not a constructive approach. My very best wishes (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Giving legitimate criticism of ArbCom should be considered constructive at any time. In any event, this is my last comment here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, I tend to partly agree with your criticism. For example, this incriminating diff by arbs indeed involves incorporation by Collect of a reference to a blog, however he did not insert any incorrect or misleading information in this edit, to my knowledge. He did not replace a better source by a blog in this edit. Hence I do not see this as a convincing reason for serious sanctions. Saying that, the conflict was obviously significant, and we must trust arbitrators who spent a lot of time looking at this. My very best wishes (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding Evidence representation
Not having spent alot of time around this part of Wikipedia, I'm curious as to why, with the extensive amount of material presented here (Evidence) so little of that material was used here (Proposed decision page) -- Is there any type of protocol/framework accessible by regular editors to assist in understanding this aspect of the process? Thanks -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I had exactly the same question/concern and cross-posted with you (see one section below). I think it's immensely problematic to boil the evidence down into 3 or 4 diffs and then reject a Finding on the basis of those diffs alone. MastCell Talk 18:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Is there anything publicly available that would explain why they would choose such a small sample? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My thoughts exactly. Why does the PD even need sample diffs? The evidence page is for evidence, and any concerns about the quality of evidence can be raised on the workshop page. Some Arbs seem to have voted as if the diffs on the PD page are the only evidence.- MrX 18:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Arbcom routinely posts diffs in support of proposed decisions. They usually select a number of the more egregious diffs when they do this, but their opinion on what may be the most egregious ones may differ from those who provided evidence.--MONGO 18:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, they've routinely offered diffs for the past few years (someone with long experience on the Committee, like User:Newyorkbrad, User:Risker, or User:Roger Davies could probably remember when the practice started). Before that, the Committee would simply present findings synthesizing the evidence presented by others, which I think was a better way of doing things. MastCell Talk 21:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi The transition to general findings to findings supported by diffs seems to have taken place in 2008. Certainly by the time I drafted my first case (Scientology in 2009), it was well established. Both methods have pros and cons but certainly diff-less FOFs are much easier to write though not easier to get passed,   Roger Davies  talk 14:56, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Roger. MastCell Talk 17:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Handful of diffs vs. pattern of behavior
Like a few other commentators above, I'm sort of disappointed in the focus by both Arbs and commentators on the handful of diffs presented in the Proposed Decision. We're talking about a long-term pattern of subtle behavior which is difficult to demonstrate even with 50-100 diffs; it simply can't be adequately conveyed in 4 or 5. So when I read the "Oppose" votes here (for example), or all of the close reading and arguing here on the talkpage, I'm left shaking my head. There was a time when ArbCom didn't supply any diffs in their decision, because ArbCom's role isn't to supply diffs; it's to look at diffs that others have submitted and synthesize them into broad findings and remedies. Instead, now we've opened up a huge avenue for wikilawyers to avoid dealing with the Findings and instead argue the individual diffs. In fact, this happened the last time Collect was sanctioned, in the Tea Party case: the Arbs (correctly) identified a problematic pattern of behavior on his part, but then cited a handful of diffs in the Finding against Collect. Rather than internalize and engage with the Finding, Collect spent the next few eons focusing on one specific diff and pretending that he was sanctioned solely for using the phrase "bosh and twaddle". We're headed down that road again here. Basically, the parties submitted extensive evidence in this case; the drafting Arbs boiled it down to a couple of diffs; and now the finding is being rejected because those few diffs aren't substantive enough. If the problem here could be encapsulated in 3 or 4 diffs, then we wouldn't need ArbCom in the first place, right? Obviously, I'm not in a position to insist on anything, but I'd implore the Arbs to consider the findings in light of the entirety of the evidence, rather than just the handful of diffs included by the drafters. If you think that Collect's editing is fine, then that's your call, but please at least do me/us the courtesy of basing that exoneration on the evidence as a whole. At the very least, if the findings are only considered on the basis of a handful of diffs, I'd prioritize the edit-warring, followed by misrepresentation of sources, followed by making up policies out of whole cloth to win content disputes (e.g. the transcript requirement). MastCell Talk 18:29, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well said, except that I would put gaming the system in all forms (including missrepresentation of sources) as the number one issue. Edit warring is disruptive, but it's not a huge time sink for other editors. The relentless Wikilawyering, forum shopping, and refusal to collaborate are far more harmful to editor morale and the integrity of the project, in my opinion.


 * Relatedly, I would like to see some words from and  justifying their dissenting votes. As it is now, I'm left wondering if they even reviewed the evidence page at all.- MrX 19:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My cynicism is starting to kick in and I am beginning to think that all of those behaviors I found so reprehensible are just not considered so here. Reading the Evidence Page and the Proposed Decision I feel like I am reading two different cases. There is good evidence of all of these.
 * Misrepresentation of BLP policy
 * Misuse of policy in content disputes
 * Personal Attacks - In particular the whole McCarthyism thing.
 * Disruptive IDHT behavior.
 * Disruptive BATTLEGROUND behavior.
 * Canvassing/Campaigning
 * Misuse of process/Forum shopping
 * Gaming the system.
 * Independent findings are possible for all of these. The only way Collect will ever adjust his behavior is if it is singled out as being wrong . I would be very interested in knowing why none of these are proposed FoF. So I join the other editors here in asking WTF? J bh  Talk  19:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, the FoF is confusing. Is ARBCOM saying those things are fine and it's OK if we do them too (and just reference this case), or are they saying he didn't do those things? Mojoworker (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One should never do those things out of courtesy if for no other reason. I do question how those/similar behaviors can be addressed at other dispute resolution venues should they ever come up in the future since Arbcom did not address it when there was the chance here. My first and only encounter with dispute resolution and disruptive editing is making me think it is just best to let those who are abusive editors simply have their way. Maybe we will see some willingness among the Arbs to address these concerns by modifying the PD or at least giving a detailed explanation of their reasoning. I and the others involved took a lot of time to put together the evidence and come up with thoughtful FoF and potential remedies because there was a problem we saw and we volunteered our time to try to make it better. I am very disappointed that, based on comments by some Arbs, it looks like some did not even spend the time to read through the evidence page with care. Not go through each diff but at lease read the whole thing and then read the whole Workshop. I know it takes time but this is what the position is about and simply reading everything is the minimum acceptable thing to do . Anything less is disrespectful of those who put their time and effort into doing something to help the environment of Wikipedia. By now, however, the talk page is beginning to take on an Us vs Them character, which I do not think is anyone's intention, which decreases the chance of resolution considerably. J bh  Talk  21:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * none of the things listed above are fine if proved; but the totality of case evidence for some of them doesn't support them being listed in this FoF.
 * is correct in that the evidence needs to be considered in its totality, and the diffs presented on the PD are posted merely a representative sample of a wider body of evidence. Where an allegation does not appear in the FoF (for example allegedly calling other people anti-Semitic) it does not suggest that it either did or didn't occur or that it was unimportant if it did. It remains silent on that issue because the totality of evidence on that allegation in this specific case is too thin, or too ambiguous, to be carried through.
 * The remedies, then, follow from the patterns of conduct that do carry through into the FoF. If the only substantive allegation was (say) edit-warring then there would probably be no need for any remedy. If every allegation had been sufficiently clear cut and supported to carry through, there would likely be a proposed site ban. As it stands, a) some allegations were backed by the totality of Evidence as a pattern of conduct, b) these are detailed in the FoF with a representative sample of diffs, and c) the proposed remedies aim to deliver a effective response to these specific Findings.
 * That all reads like a lot of bureaucracy, but hopefully it explains the thinking. Of course other Committee members are entitled to see the body of evidence differently, and agree or disagree with the proposals set out here. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * All of that makes perfect sense. The problem from my perspective is that the "representative sample of diffs" is being treated not as a representative sample, but rather as if it were the only evidence submitted. MastCell Talk 21:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, looking at the comments in the FoF sections, is does look like committee members are just looking at the diffs presented and making a judgement as to how serious they look. Formerip (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply and for all of the hard work you have done on this case. I think where some editors are having an issue, and where I know I am having one, is all of Collect's behavior has been lumped into one kind of amorphous FoF. There are two issues I see with this 1) it is being voted on all or nothing 2) it does not call out the specific behaviors which were problematic. This is most important as it is what will guide not only Collect but future dispute resolution by documenting specific types of bad behavior he has been shown to use. To use your example - Collect calling others anti-Semitic might not have been well supported but he beat the McCarthy drum pretty hard and threw in a bit of conspiracy - The totality of that behavior I think is well proved and supports an independent FoF, you may disagree but it is not really clear from your comments. Another example is the abuse of process/canvassing/forum shopping which should support its own FoF. And so on for at least those points I listed above. A final FoF like the one already presented, which sums up the totality of the behavioral problem ie the whole is greater than the sum. By breaking the FoFs up it gives the other Arbs a chance to vote on each and at the end there is no doubt that the remedy applied is the right one. It also gives Collect the feedback he needs to understand what about his behavior is a problem rather than being able to brush it off as the cost of doing his righteous business. This is, of course, just my freely given opinion and worth precisely what you paid for it. J bh  Talk  22:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The inference I take from reading the PD and votes is that only the drafting arbs read the Evidence. The non-drafting arbs then rely solely on the summary given in the PD. Does anyone else find that troubling? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


 * As my colleague Euryalus said, the basic question is whether the overall behavior is sufficiently severe to justify remedies. This is to a very large extent a matter of judgment, and that's what arb com is here for.  As is evident, some of the arbs regard the behavior with differeing degrees of concern, which is exactly what would be expected in such cases, and the reason we have a committee. If the matter had been completely obvious, it would have been dealt with without involving arb com.  He and I listed what we thought were the most significant diffs  among the material presented, but the question of what to do about it must be judged in context of everything. That's what the other members of the committee are doing also.  That this case is taking so long to decide, is evidence of the care that is being taken to think about the matter.  When we all know just what to do, we can move more quickly.  DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm!
Pattern of behavior? As long as discontent is being shared, I may as well join the band. Mentions of "cliques", "the mob", "a bunch of partisan editors", and "Nose picking" includers are being made. But...if one were to research and find which three editors have been "together" the longest, one would find (editing under his former name of ferrylodge) and  and  all the way back in the earliest days of the Sara Palin article (mid-2008). Pot, kettle, black??? What this case shows is a mutual awareness of problematic editing by a specific editor over time, by a number of un-connected ediotrs. There is no cadre or co-ordinated effort to ban Collect. However, there may be a unified effort to save him. . Buster Seven   Talk  20:42, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * "Nose picking?" -- Euryalus (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course they're trying to spare him, that's what like-minded humans sometimes do; but don't lose faith, those involved in the actual decision making process didn't get to where they are by chance. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I think Buster Seven was referring to a comment I made on this page a few days back. For the record, I haven't always defended Collect, but I do now, especially seeing so many that not only want his blood but also apparently his guts. I don't know why there is so much complaining going on when it's obvious at this point he's not going to be participating in the articles his plaintiffs feel he has been most disruptive.--MONGO 03:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Collect's editing behaviour is problematic not only on specific articles, but on a large swath of articles that are connected with US politics. It's not his opinions and the content, its his methods - misrepresenting sources (maybe because he did not carefully read them), shifting the goal post when refuted, civil (and not so civil) POV pushing, attacks on other editors (often phrased just so that he can wikilawyer out of complaints about personal atacks), and so on. I get the impression of a man who knows the WP:TRUTH and is on a crusade to right great wrongs, or at least stem the tide of liberal onslaught. He is so convinced he is right that sources are not for education, but for confirmation.  And because he is so obviously right, those opposed him must be in it for ideological reasons, or form a cabal, or both. I'd be willing to grant some leeway if I'd ever seen him openly show that he has considered new facts and changed his opinion. But the most I've experienced is him sulkily slinking off the battlefield if consensus is obviously and overwhelmingly against him. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I find the accusation that I'm "together" with Collect puzzling, since I spent most of 2008 arguing with him at that article. Nor, despite me subsequently coming round to his way of viewing things, was there ever much of a thaw in the chill that had developed from our previous disagreements; despite me no longer disagreeing with him, I never really reached out until this case occurred. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)   (talk)  (contribs) 10:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not split the 'Collect' FoF?
By my count 4 Arbs have suggested splitting this FoF into its componants. Just having already voted does not seem a good reason to not adjust the PD based on input from the rest of the Committee. Splitting allows for more focused FoFs with more detailed diffs/justifications for each. J bh Talk  20:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We are working on it -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the update. J bh  Talk  01:15, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

As a general comment (if that's allowed) I'd like to thank the arbs for their responsiveness and willingness to communicate. Even though we don't always agree it's noticed and appreciated. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Second that. J bh  Talk  01:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅. Votes welcome over there, and views welcome over here. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom ruling on content

 * I have problem with the BLP findings where Collect is reprimanded for removing reliable sources. There is nothing wrong with removing reliable sources if the content the sources are supporting are problematic, for instance per Undue or NotNews. And whether content is due or undue is a content issue that ArbCom should normally not rule on. No content is automatically relevant for Wikipedia just because there is one or more reliable sources attached to it. Regarding Joni Ernst, Collect is reprimanded for having twice removed the same paragraph, which was first sourced to HuffPost, and the second time to both HuffPo and New York Times. The reason given by Collect ("provide a second source", "silly season") is obviously of the Undue/NotNews/Recentism type. How have ArbCom come to the conclusion that it's POV to claim that the content is Undue? Isn't this a ruling on content?
 * In fact, an RfC put up on the talk page, found that most of the paragraph was indeed undue. The short paragraph inserted by Cwobeel has now been shortened to one, rewritten sentence sourced to NYT (but not HuffPo). Compared to the RfA consensus and how the article read after the RfA one could claim that Collect helped addressed a problematic edit which was both undue and non-neutrally worded. Of course, whether the RfA and current wording is "correct" can not be answered; this pretty much depends on the line-up of editors in the RfA and article editing. But the question remains: How can ArbCom state so unequivocally that Collect was wrong to remove the paragraph?
 * I am addressing this issue, because I think the misguided belief that everything that can be reliable sourced belongs in an article is a major problem for serious editing in news-related articles. Joni Ernst was running for office while this dispute happened; a period where the articles are incredibly vulnerable for overemphasis on details in the form of WP:RECENTISM. Iselilja (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In the instance you cite, as well as, in my opinion, the vast majority of similar instances, Collect was trying to eliminate excessive negativism from articles due to the UNDUE factor. Collect is not a saint and like most of us he likely has a POV, but even if you took four thousand diffs to show he was "problematic", that would still be only a tenth of his editing history, which means 90% of his work was not problematic. While I probably deserved it, I was desysopped based on a few questionable admin actions out of four thousand admin actions. Not that arbcom is a collection of ban happy or misguided people, but truth is I don't see very much meat to compliment all these potatoes.--MONGO 21:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I think there's been a boatload of evidence substantiating the fact that Collect regularly misapplies policy, particularly WP:BLP. He does this by removing appropriate material on spurious BLP grounds in some cases, and by posting poorly sourced BLP violations in other cases, both in apparent service of a POV. I don't know whether the diffs cited in the Proposed Decision are the best examples of his behavior, but the pattern is very real. (Again, this is my complaint about posting individual diffs in the PD; people focus in on one specific diff and don't acknowledge the underlying pattern that led to the finding). MastCell Talk 21:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as ArbCom posts individual findings, it's appropriate to address problems with those findings; also because they can set an unfortunate precedent. Furthermore, I object to the principle Arbcom bases the BLP "removed content" findings on, which pretty much says that removing reliable sourced content from articles per se are wrong or POV pushing; which it of course isn't. In the Joni Ernst case, it's particular easy to see the principle is wrong, since Collect's position to a large degree won consensus in the RfA and subsequent editing. Neither in the Ernst case or in the other findings can I see that Collect has invoked the specific BLP policy in the linked diffs; it appears to be mainly an issue about due weight. And undue weight to news-related articles, including politicians running for office, is a clear problem at Wikipedia. A lot of stuff should be removed from such articles to upheld a serious encyclopedic quality. Iselilja (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have to say it's not the most compelling set of diffs I've ever seen, but I agree with MastCell that the underlying pattern of behaviour is real at that that is what matters.
 * I also think you may be misunderstanding the FoF, Iselilja. I don't read it is chastising Collect for having ever dared to remove reliably-sourced material from an article. You are correct, that would be totally wrong in itself. Instead, I think the FoF is trying to highlight an inconsistency in Collect's approach to BLP and sourcing. He can be exacting of other editors (I can certainly think of cases where he has been over-exacting) and can sometimes be quite creative in coming up with reasons why a source is unsuitable. But at other times he appears less exacting of himself. If you imagine that the two sets of edits belong to different editors, then you might think that you have a rigorous, perhaps sometimes over-zealous, editor on the one hand, and an editor who could do with a talking to about BLP policy on the other hand. Neither of these editors would necessarily need sanctioning if they were two different people, but... Formerip (talk) 22:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I posted a bried analysis of Collect's assertions in edit summaries about the material, where he obviously contradicts himself, simply seeking for a wikilawyered policy rationale to render the material unintellligible. The whole object seems to be political aiming to keep mention of behind the scenes money from the Kock Bros. out of sight. Both of the articles headlines mention the Koch Bros, and the audio recording was made in secret, then lea. I just looked at the RfC and it is not impressive.
 * At any rate, the diffs relate to a pattern of activist editing that encompasses the inconsistent application of policy to gain an advantage in content disputes, it is not about the content per say, though in this case, it is readily evident, with respect to the "content", what the objectives were, and that was used to contrast editing evincing the opposite tact of wikilawyering policy to include content on the same wikilawyered policy rational.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 03:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"Nonsense" RfC's
Considering that the description "nonsense" has been cited by a couple of Arbs as somewhat lacking, maybe "pointy" would be better, coupled with a more direct coupling of the RfC's with the attempt to abuse process or game the system to win content disputes. While I agree that they were shown to be nonsensical, they weren't undertaken without purpose, and a more concrete description with respect to policy would more directly point to the related conduct issues.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 14:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're probably right, though "point" implies advocacy of a minority position out of bloody mindedness, and at least one of these RfCs did not even have minority support (it's proposer voting against it along with everyone else). Will consider whether this is worth changing, but I note we already have a consensus for the current wording and are one vote short of closing the case. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Clerks: Finding of Fact 2.3 (Collect Disruption 1)
If I understand correctly, 8 votes are necessary for a pass or a defeat. At this moment FoF 2.3 has 7 supports, 4 opposes and 2 abstains, and yet at the bottom of the page, it's listed as having passed. Shouldn't it actually show it as needing one vote to pass? BMK (talk) 04:16, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Abstention votes reduce the size of the voting pool. With 15 Arbs a pass vote requires 8. With two abstentions the number of available Arb votes drops to 13, and a pass vote is 7. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:18, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah! Thanks for the explanation. BMK (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Clear error(s) in findings of fact
Due to major family issues, I haven't been available to do much editing lately. So I'm late for this party. However, there are some very evident problems in the BLP-related FoFs, which if let stand cast doubt on the outcome of this case, and will make BLP enforcement much more difficult on the road ahead.

In the finding related to Collect and BLPs, one finding states that Collect "added poorly sourced negative materials to certain biographies of living persons". The two examples do not support this claim.

The first example involves a claim made in a book published by a legitimate American trade publisher, written by two reasonably reputable academics. That is a reliable source, and Collect accurately identified and made a textual citation to the source. He then gave a reference to a media blog which presented a lengthy, relevant quotation from the book. That was imperfect: He would have done better to make the book the main cite in his reference, followed by something like "quoted at [the blog name]". But it is not a substantive BLP violation, the claim is taken from an identified, reliable source.

The second example is plainly wrong. The edit was made to an article talk page, not an article. Collect was discussing the credibility of a third party who had made assertions that might reflect poorly on the article subject. This was a legitimate use of a talk page to evaluate whether an allegation against an article subject should be included in the article.

Also in the BLP section, a finding states that Collect has "remov[ed] reliably sourced material from other BLPs". Many of those removals addressed undue weight issues, where the reliability of the sourcing does not, by policy, prevent removal of sourced content. For the committee to cite example 5 as misbehavior is extremele disturbing. In that edit, Collect undid an edit by Sportfan5000 (and was the second editor to do so). Sportfan5000 was a Benjiboi sockpuppet with a history of bad editing, and this matter is no exception. As Collect noted in his edit summary, this edit was not actually supported by the sources cited -- instead, Benjiboi has effectively pulled just enough bits and pieces from sources to make his claims appear plausible, then stitched together claims that fall somewhere between WP:SYNTH violations and fabrications and inserted them into a BLP. Collect's edit should have been commended, not condemned.

With these matters in mind, I hope the committee will step back and re-examine all the evidence presented in the decision with greater care. The damage it may do to BLP enforcement and compliance with the decision as it now stands is substantial. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , re: (at least) the first two diffs, you should check the context of these diffs given by on the evidence page. As I understand it, the alleged BLP violation in the first diff, for example, was the last sentence of the text Collect was adding, not the part sourced (via a blog) to Johnson and Taylor. You're right that the diffs listed in the FOF may not be the best evidence to support the finding (this has been commented on extensively above), but that doesn't mean that there isn't evidence to support the conclusions drawn. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Your analysis is as flawed as it is late, and apparently doesn't consider the other evidence that clearly shows the Collect has repeatedly misused the BLP policy to sway content to his preferred POV. Remember, the examples in the FoF are not meant to stand on their own (Arbs, correct me if I'm wrong). In the second example that you cite in which Collect makes claims about a BLP subject, albeit on a talk page, the diff is an example of how he is inconsistent with how he treats the policy, not necessarily an egregious violation in itself. Also, do you realize how ridiculous it sounds to claim that an editor can remove sources because of "undue weight issues"? WP:WEIGHT is established by the amount of coverage in reliable sources. Removing the very sources that demonstrate weight because of WP:UNDUE weight plumbs the depths of absurdity, not to mention undermines the goal of writing neutral content.- MrX 21:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)