Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop

Committee members posting proposed principles
Eagle-eyed observers will notice I have posted some proposed principles in the workshop, despite also being a case drafter. This is an exciting new tradition going back to the Christianity and Sexuality case in February this year. It aims to ensure the full range of proposals is presented and discussed so the PD stage contains no surprises. It also aims to foster discussion.

Please note there is no difference in status between workshop proposals presented by Committee members and those presented by other parties. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification. To those not familiar with the dynamics, it is a relaxant. . Buster Seven   Talk  16:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure of something
Example: 1) A proposal is made 2) it gets a few concurs...lets say 3 3) someone suggests a pretty substantial change to the languaging of the proposal which actually shifts the focus just a bit 4) If the suggested change is made, does it not bring into question the previous concurs. Are they still valid? Do the editors have to restate their approval? . Buster Seven   Talk  10:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Unlike say ANI, the workshop is not here to establish a consensus - it's to make sense of the evidence and try to sharpen the focus of the case. There's no problem with people offering concurrence on workshop proposals, but it would be more useful if they offered more detailed points of view on why any specific proposal should make its way to the Proposed Decision stage.


 * So in direct answer to the question - unless proposal wording changes so much that you feel your earlier response entirely misrepresents your view, there is no need to "re-concur" or "de-concur." The concurrences are not especially relevant to the outcome. What is relevant is the argument for or against the ideas. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I now understand that consensus is not the goal. . Buster Seven   Talk  13:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Parties
As a piece of bureaucratic triviality, am now also removing and  as parties to the case. Should have happened at an earlier stage. -- Euryalus (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 16:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

'Comments by Others' subsections
The Comments by Parties and Comments by Others subsections below draft language in the Workshop are intended for comments by other editors on the draft language proposed by posters. Threaded discussion in these sections is strongly discouraged. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Question on remedies
Are all remedies adopted enforceable at AE or do sanctions need to be noted in the text of the remedy? Jbh (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Direct remedies that are imposed by the Arbitration Committee (e.g., "X is banned for one year", "X is topic-banned from ABC", "X may not do DEF") will be included in the decision of the Arbitration Committee and take effect on publication, or when specified. Remedies imposed by discretionary sanctions are imposed by uninvolved administrators, typically at arbitration enforcement.  Arbitration Enforcement can be used to report either violations of discretionary sanctions (and request new remedies) or to report violations of direct sanctions.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I understand that part. What I was wondering more like this:
 * X is warned not to whatever. / X is admonished for something. - Are repeated actions of whatever or something subject to sanction at AE or does the remedy need to read:
 * X is warned not to whatever, further whatever will lead to (some sanction)
 * Also, is it possible to put an individual editor under DS or is there something like DS for editors? I am pretty sure it has never been done but it might be a solution for pervasive misconduct in a good contributor. I am not sure whether it would lead to less drama or more though. Jbh (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hypotheticals:
 * "Z is admonished/warned .." has no particular enforcement, though it is a formal recognition of questionable conduct and that may affect how admins or Arbcom view repeat performances.
 * "Z is warned that any repeat will lead to (consequence)" is a specific sanction enforceable by any admin, the Committee or AE.
 * (if I understand the question correctly) - it would be theoretically possible to impose DS on a single editor, but it might lack a point as it would be likely be immediately applied. The "warned that unless" remedy is simpler. Applying DS to particular editors rather than particular articles would seem to disadvantage people who were currently disruptive pre-case, over people who turned up tomorrow to be equally disruptive post-case. So, theoretically possible but likely structurally flawed.However the Committee routinely directly applies the elements of DS, such as topic bans.
 * Essentially, remedies can be tailored quite specifically, and I reckon they used to be more varied than they are today. But in practice too much tailoring can lead to unfairness or unworkability, which is why there's a fairly standard toolset that gets applied. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That helps. The DS idea comes from recognizing that while Collect really rubbed me the wrong way there might be a way to keep him as an editor if his behavior can be modified or restricted. I found a remedy used in anther case, [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram#General_editor_probation General editor probation], which I mentioned in my proposals. Identifying the triggers for it is a bit tricky though but it allows the flexibility to address new tactics and most importantly it takes further sanctions out of ANI where a good complaint by  got quashed in short order by  in a, in my opinion, very bad close. When asked JzG explained nothing and when I reopened the case implied I had a BOOMERANG coming. This experience told me that Collect it pretty much immune to ANI sanction and if he is to edit here there must be an alternate way to address issues that come up. The intention behind my other proposals is to simply restrict him from what I think are particular problems. These are:
 * Misuse of process - 90 day restriction on related noticeboard postings RfC's etc. If there is a problem someone else can open the others.
 * Campaigning - Neutral framing and notification requirement (where ever he is discussing a current dispute) and restriction on posting material relating to current dispute resolution on Jimbo's page. All AE blockable.
 * Misrepresentation - This is the one that makes me call for a site-ban because deception is antithetical to collaboration. However, in the spirit of coming up with a non-ban solution I came up with, the rather draconian, proposal that if he quotes an editor he must use diffs, if he mentions them by name, diff or reference he must link them. Failing to do so leads quickly to blocks. The notification requirement also addresses the aspersions issue since Collect seems to prefer commenting on editors who are not present in the conversation.
 * His propensity to create questionable narritaves of questionable accuracy like the Florida FRINGE, being harassed off of all BLPs and a whole slew of things at the PNAC article. Not sure how to word this but when he does it block him. This is usually in the context of misrepresentation and/or campaigning. This covers many of the aspersions claims as well since Collect seems to avoid direct confrontation.
 * The reason for these blocks is less to punish the mentioned behavior than as a trigger for the hammer I was trying to avoid in this exercise. If Collect manages to collect four of these AE blocks in any 12 month period he is site-banned for 3 /6/ 9 /12 months. The sanction package would be indefinite but none of the restrictions are particularly onerous. Maybe a 3 month site-ban/block at the beginning to get his attention if needed. Anyway, that is the thinking behind what I wanted to do with my proposals. I am not sure I got the wording right in them but that is where I wanted to go with them. My personal opinion is that Collect should have an indef site-ban because of his propensity for what I consider deception and misrepresentation. I recognize I am maybe too close to the issue and that those are hot button issues for me in any environment so I wanted to see if there was a way to keep the good, restrict the bad and be able to still ban him if it does not work. My belief is those four elements are what makes Collect's behavior pernicious rather than just annoying. Jbh (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you really understood the problem there. ANI is a drama fest and is suitable only for dealing with specific, narrowly defined and actionable complaints. Trying to deal with great sprawling disputes at ANI, almost always results in nothing but a shit-fight and lots of edit conflicts. And insisting on doing so very much does invite the boomerang. I do understand that in the absence of the late and unlamented user RFC, the venues do seem limited, and I don't have a great suggestion for an alternative other than AN, where longer-term and more nuanced discussions are possible due to the lower traffic, or the board specific to the class of dispute (e.g. WP:FTN or WP:RSN). Guy (Help!) 11:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reply. I do understand your position and can imagine your frustration dealing with ANI day in/day out. I would respectfully suggest two things. One, bad behavior must be addressed somewhere. Maybe ask to have ANI put under DS and gather some admins who are willing to do the hard work of getting it under control. Two, closing down a, in my firm opinion, a legitimate behavioral complaint about an established editor, particularly in the unhelpful and combative manner in which you did, makes ANI even more useless than it is and simply pushes problems down the road while really annoying good faith but less established editors. If AN is the better option possibly consider moving the complaint there or suggesting the OP do so rather than closing it with -
 * - "Querulous complaint remitted to AfD and WP:DR if the OP refuses to drop the stick after that." [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=651850505&oldid=651776308]
 * I just fail to see how that lessens the drama rather than taking part in it by dismissing the OP as a troublemaker who filed a baseless complaint. That is a response I expect to see when disruptive IPs or 100 edit POV warriors open something up not when a moderately experienced editor brings up issues that within days help form the basis for an Arbcom case. Possibly my limited experience dealing with such issues keeps me from seeing some nuance but, again in my opinion, your actions there, while appropriate for an editor expressing their opinion, were totally inappropriate for an administrator who chose to spend time dealing with the cesspool of ANI. Your dismissive close prevented any other administrator who might have been willing to deal with the situation from doing so because they would be reversing your administrative action which I understand is a pretty big no-no. Jbh (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * My take is that closing it was best. Another admin could have reopened it on the spot for further discussion but that did not happen. It's questionable that the complaint would have produced a different outcome had it been allowed to fester for another day or two.--MONGO 14:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just so. As to lessening drama, there is no way of lessening drama on Wikipedia since any attempt to reduce drama inevitably stirs drama. Much better to just ignore it. Guy (Help!) 15:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That is no doubt true, but you could have worded the close in a more neutral manner, telling the OP that the complaint was too complex, for example, instead of addressing him in a somewhat castigating manner for bringing it there in the first place when it was the first thread he'd ever filed at AN/I.-- Ubikwit  連絡見学/迷惑 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I did accept your close Guy, and in retrospect I can definitely understand the argument that the ANI post was unlikely to resolve much, and might even further inflame things. That was my first experience of ANI and I was quickly disabused of the notion - inferred from other users' discussions - that it was the right forum (or a useful forum) for issues like this. That said, I confess that I was disappointed that you chose to characterize my complaint as "querulous" and as motivated by a content dispute: at that point I'd already indicated my acceptance of the developing consensus in the AFD discussion, and I'd been very careful to focus on Collect's conduct rather than on content issues in my post.

Personally, I was left feeling very disillusioned and a little confused by the experience: To this day I'm still puzzled as to where someone in my position was supposed to or could have raised the issue of Collect's conduct productively. Also, to open the complaint, go to bed, and find in the morning that I'd been accused of POV pushing, witch hunting, harassment, etc by multiple editors, but denied an opportunity to respond by a quick close (given the chance, I would have strenuously denied all of those allegations, and could have posted evidence that clearly refuted them) was an experience that very nearly made me swear off wikipedia altogether. I don't hold it against you or anything (this already feels like ancient history) and tbh I'm not sure why we're discussing this here, but since I was pinged above and the subject came up, that's my perspective. Fyddlestix (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The ANI thread/close came up as I was discussing how there are no processes to handle Collect's behavior problems (Nor does it seem from JzG's response that there is a way to address anything much anymore.) if they continue and explaining why I thought General Editor Probation might be a partial solution. I took the opportunity when JzG responded to express my opinion on how he handled matters to him. Jbh (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, I guess my comment that I'm not sure where an issue like this could be discussed is pretty on-topic there, I'm still confused on that point. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. That is the problem. As I understand it ANI or maybe AN was the place to go when there were behavior issues. Over time it turned into more and more of a drama-fest. As I have looked in on it over the years first the mantra of 'preventitive not punitive' was the rally cry that kept 'experienced editors' from being sanctioned, then 'content creators' were given leeway. Now the excuse is there is too much drama so why bother. It is still possible to get something done if a: it is a clear cut 'bad act, and b: if it is not someone with more than ten thousand or so article edits. JzG's response is the most egregious I can remember but I really only read through ANI if my attention is brought there from reading a talk page or noticeboard. I understand where he is coming from and agree that there would have been no real resolution if the thread had continued. However opening the ANI thread likely directly affected the timing of this case because a critical mass of editors were fed up with Collect's behavior all at the same time. If the ANI had been silently closed it is likely we would not be here today. My guess is that if a similar situation comes up again it might be possible to ping one of the admins you notice having done admin work where the issue is. Although if that is/becomes common practice we might as well just create WP:Administrators' Noticeboard/Star Chamber and be done with it. :) Jbh (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note - Just to be clear. While I disagree fundamentally with how handled the ANI in this case I do not believe he did anything warranting sanction. We have differing views on how to deal with these kinds of issues but he has the experience with how things pan out at ANI. I do request he consider toning down the closing statements though. Jbh (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, now I'm completely confused
How is it that Mr. X is allowed to post a long nonsense list and I'm not allowed to refute it? The clerk hatted it with the note "unproductive back and forth", but in actual fact he left the "back" intact and only redacted the "forth". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 14:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Conduct on case pages
The Arbitration Committee has adopted a zero-tolerance policy with regard to disruptive or other inappropriate conduct on case pages and has authorized the clerks to implement and enforce this policy. Accordingly:
 * 1. Threaded discussion in Comments by parties and Comments by others subsections of the Workshop page are not permitted and are considered disruptive.  (These subsections are for comments on the original proposals only.)
 * 2. Case-related posts to the talk pages of clerks are not permitted and are considered disruptive.
 * 3. Civility is required on arbitration pages and everywhere in Wikipedia.

Violations of these rules may result in sanctions.

For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it not OK to respond to questions on the purpose and thread within the proper area (ie responding to question of a party in the party area if you are a party). I get the no back-and-forth of mine you hatted but are the other responses wrong as well? Is it proper to assume the type of conversation that has been hatted it bad and, in general, what has not is OK. A little guidance would be helpful. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This question is under discussion by the arbitration committee. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. Thank you. Jbh (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * belated reply, sorry. Responding in the party section is fine if you're a party. Threaded discussion isn't prohibited except by specific Committee decision, which we haven't done here. However as a drafter of the case I prefer people to use the replyto template rather than threading, as past experience shows it keeps the conversation focused.


 * Re hatting or removal: case talkpages exist to assist the Committee in reaching a PD. All sorts of perfectly legitimate commentary and opinion is at risk of hatting or removal if it doesn't advance this end. It's not a criticism of the comments, its just that they don't -or no longer - advance the Committee's deliberations. So please don't be concerned if a good-faith post is hatted. Also if you think something has been removed or hatted that shouldn't be, feel free to let the clerks or drafters know.


 * Re clerk talkpages: Case-related matters should be posted on the relevant casepage. Important to remember clerks enforce case rules and ARBPOL, but aren't the decision-makers on the case - if an enforcement action or case direction seems incorrect, please raise it with the Committee or the drafters, either on the casepage or via email.


 * Finally, we are past closing time for this Workshop. Have turned a blind eye to it for the next little bit as people are still posting useful stuff, but the curtain will come down fairly soon. We're also pursuing the apparent novelty of conducting a case according to the announced timetable, which means the PD is not far away. So if anyone has any last minute useful analysis to add, now is a really good time. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for getting back to me. That does make a lot of sense from a case management viewpoint, Jbh (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Question for the committee
In the course of posting proposals, findings etc., are we allowed to posts supporting evidence in the form of diffs that were not posted during the evidence stage? I'm asking this in case I post some workshop proposals since my involvement during the evidence stage was minimal.--MONGO 16:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This question is under discussion by the arbitration committee. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Short form answer: no to providing fresh evidence (for example, something that brings in entirely new parties to the case), as this should have been posted in /Evidence. However you can provide new diffs and analysis to rebut existing evidence or accusations.


 * So - looking at the evidence we already have, if you feel there's an alternative way of looking at it, or a key context that's been missed, or diffs that would disprove a current allegation but which haven't been posted so far, feel free. But if you want to suggest the entire issue is the fault of User:PreviouslyUninvolved, then the opportunity has passed. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a middle position I'm not sure that I understand the Committee's postiion on. You write "if you want to suggest the entire issue is the fault of User:PreviouslyUninvolved, then the opportunity has passed", but what if an editor wishes to provide new diffs, not previously posted on the evidence page, which suggest that the entire issue is the fault of User:ALREADYinvolved? Is that allowed, or is that a violation of the closing of the evidence phase? BMK (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically fine, because that sounds like rebutting existing allegations and/or putting them in context. In practice, it depends a bit on the content of what you'd like to post. I won't do justice to the case in the following summary, but for example, evidence has been presented that Collect engages in battleground behaviour. If someone wanted to present fresh diffs showing that the battleground was actually the fault of someone other involved party, who was following Collect around and goading him, that would be fine and could go in the "analysis" section in this page. A few people have already helpfully posted there. On the other hand, no one has suggested that anyone is engaging in (say) copyvios. If you had evidence that any involved party was systematically breaching copyright, you've kind of missed the boat in posting it. If this is still unclear, apologies and I'll have another try. Have only had a couple of hours sleep and my ability to communicate is slightly impaired. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, that's quite clear, thanks. BMK (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It is requested that an arb or clerk answer this question
"However you can provide new diffs and analysis to rebut existing evidence or accusations." There's a list of accusations against me on the workshop page. One of the Arbs has stated that the accusations will be considered even if the adjacent remedy isn't adopted. So far I have been repeatedly denied the opportunity to rebut the accusations, and my questions asking why were repeatedly ignored & also hatted. If I'm not allowed to rebut these accusations, can they please be hatted? And can somebody respond to this question directly with words, instead of hatting it? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 12:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Case pages are not for discussion. I proposed a remedy, you asked for me to clarify it, and I provided diffs so that you would see what I think is obvious to most other observers. At that point, it should have been left to the Arbs to decide, but you continued the discussion repeating much of the same conduct. Your response simply didn't help you at all.- MrX 12:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking you, as was 1000% obvious. Please don't insert yourself into this discussion and act like you are speaking for the Arbs when responding to a question directed towards the Arbs & clearly asking for a response from the Arbs. There doesn't appear to be any rule that prohibits me from responding to these claims, and above Euryalus appears to be saying that in general, claims like this can be responded to on the Workshop page (which is where I made my response).   Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 12:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I apologize. I was not trying to speak for the Arbs. I thought that his talk page was for discussion about the workshop and I thought my perspective might help (since I'm directly involved).- MrX 14:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, likewise, I thought that the Workshop page's discussion sections were for discussion of the proposals made on the Workshop page. Particularly I thought that the "comment by others" sections appended to each proposal were meant to imply that "others" — i.e., people who were not invited to participate in the case itself — were permitted to engage in that discussion. And even more particularly, when you made a laundry list allegations, some of which were frankly ridiculous, I just assumed that the "comment by others" section appended to that proposal would be the appropriate place for me respond. My mistake, perhaps I'm simply not supposed to respond? Still no response yet, and it remains a mystery. Oh wait, Robert McClenon has posted on my talk page (not sure why) that "threaded discussion is not allowed". Could An Arbitrator Or Active Clerk Who Is Willing To Explain Stuff please explain what this means and where I'm supposed to respond?

And, finally, if it's just physically impossible to allow me to respond to these claims can they please be hatted Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They're analysis and rebuttal of evidence presented. I've moved the post to the analysis section, replete with a spelling error on my part (sorry, )., hope you don't mind that I removed the blockquote templates - they were filling too much space in the page layout. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I thought about not including those, but "lists of responses" are always such an eyesore, I was trying to improve the readability without threading the responses into MrX's original post. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 15:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a fan of the idea of blockquote templates but the wiki reality doesn't thrill me. It looks readable at my end even without them, hopefully this is true for others too. -- Euryalus (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Here's something I noticed
WE = Wikipedia Editors. During the evidence stage and the workshop stage WE clench our teeth and WE snarl at each other. But as the time approaches that the case is going to be closed, WE begin to heal and to reach across fences. When all is said and done, WE are collaborators. . Buster Seven   Talk  19:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * @Buster7: That's a nice thought, but I'm not sure it accords with my perceptions as an onlooker to some of these cases. Perhaps I'm simply cynical or jaded, but what I see as the case progresses is that as it becomes more and more likely who is going to be sanctioned in the end, those people become less aggressive and more reasonable, probably with the hope that their new-found attitude will help mitigate the severity of the sanction.  It usually doesn't work.  I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with it, since saving our own tails is part and parcel of innate human psychology, so we can hardly blame people for trying to get the best deal they can. BMK (talk) 22:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose Buster's generalized statement of optimism doesn't really provide anything concrete to work with, but I don't see how a generalized statement of cynicism or pessimism serves any purpose at all.  if you're talking about a specific editor then please be forthcoming about it.  Otherwise I don't see how this statement is helpful. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 13:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Factchecker_atyourservice: You shouldn't try to read anything more into this than that Buster7 made a general observation, and I responded with a contrary general observation. It was not specifically about this case, and was no more or less "helpful" than Buster7's comment. BMK (talk) 18:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Possibly useful to move some Talk page material to Workshop?
A conversation between User:Jbhunley and myself began on the Workshop page in the section housing evidence from My_very_best_wishes and spilled over onto my Talk page.

I found the dialogue to be constructive and I wanted to ask the Arbs to consider whether it might perhaps be useful to move the material from my talk page to the Workshop page or elsewhere. Just a suggestion. Thanks, Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 13:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to this. I commented on FCAYS's talk page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factchecker_atyourservice&oldid=prev&diff=656006181] so as not to violate rules here and because it was more a narrative. Jbh (talk) 13:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a bit long, but sure. if you want to post it on the Wotkshop page it would go in the "Analysis" section, but I think you should post and hat it simultaneously so people know there's something there to read but it doesn't overwhelm the section due to length. Alternatively, post it right here on the talk page. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I just stuck a link to it in the "General discussion" section at bottom and marked it "further reading". Seems like the least intrusive option. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 02:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Harassment
I notice that a number of proposals refer to harassment. Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I don't see that any substantive evidence of harassment has been presented. Would it be possible for those who have posted or supported such findings to clarify which aspects of the case constitute harassment, in their views? Alternately, if evidence of harassment has been presented off-wiki due to meaningful privacy concerns, then of course I won't pursue this further. MastCell Talk 18:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment moved from /Evidence
Evidence presented by Black Kite
 * 1. Whatever Collect says, his political persuasions are obvious.
 * 2. He regularly overplays the BLP card when defending his preferred right-wing nutjobs.
 * 3. Sometimes he goes too far with this and gets blocked for edit-warring.
 * 4. Sometimes he goes too far in attacking his "opponents".
 * 5. There are dozens of editors like Collect.
 * 6. A majority of his edits are positive.
 * 7. Why are we here at AC dealing with one of dozens of editors like this?
 * 8. Complete waste of time is obvious.


 * Actually, these points (at least #1-6, and maybe the last 2 as well) would make a reasonably complete and accurate set of findings for the workshop. MastCell Talk 23:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You do realize what hatting actually does, right? I am grateful, as otherwise I might have overlooked Black Kites's incisive summary of this case.  The Traveling Boris (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it draws attention to the material but largely prevents people adding additional comment to it. Explanation:


 * Why bring it here? - The post offers a point of view on how to interpret the case from someone who has not previously been heard. Without necessarily endorsing the content I consider it a courtesy (see header) to include that analysis of the case on this page. I'd do the same with any other good-faith analysis offered at this late stage.


 * Then why hat it? - We're a fair bit down the track in evidence analysis so there's not a lot of point in further responses to this post. It doesn't offer new diffs, make any accusations or raise new arguments. So having posted it, I've hatted it so we can read Black Kite's views, consider his analysis, and kind of move along.


 * If people really do want to discuss Black Kite's analysis further, I'm happy to unhat it and let that conversation proceed for the next little while before the Workshop closes. But it's unlikely to contribute much to the PD, which is now only a few days away. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation and accommodation. To be honest I wasn't all that concerned one way or another, just pointing out a perhaps unintended consequence with the superlative wit, erudition and modesty for which I am renowned. The Traveling Boris (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I know, I just can't resist explaining things. Having heard the story of your name, I do not doubt your personal attributes. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Re: Black Kite's comments - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. BK's argument seems to be that since Collect is doing things that a number of other editors do, why open a case against him? BK seems to feel that the answer is "There shouldn't be a case"  I, on the other hand, feel that if BK has evidence that other editors are doing the same thing that Collect is accused of doing, BK should present evidence against those editors in a case request.  In the real world, we don't forgo prosecuting crimes because some people get away with it. BMK (talk) 08:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I am curious as to what BlackKite's thoughts would be about editors who rabidly defend left-wing nutjob views or attempt to place them into articles about living right-leaning people. I think if that were the observation, "dozens" would have to read "hundreds" or more.  I'm in agreement that we shouldn't really single out Collect for what is in fact everyday behavior on Wikipedia, but I get the impression that I would differ from the author in thinking that a more appropriate approach would definitely not involve a more thorough and explicit cleansing of right-leaning editors. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 11:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So in your view, Collect should get a pass because you agree with the political POV he's pushing using the techniques and tactics that are being explored in the case, but you'd be quite happy to have editors whose politics you disagree with be run up for the same actions -- presumably, I would guess, because you believe a leftist cabal controls Wikipedia, and more rightist editing is required to "centrify" things. That's hardly surprising, given your WP:POLEMIC diatribe passing for an essay here, but at least it makes it explicit that the "sneaky, dishonest POV warriors" you're complaining about aren't all sneaky, dishonest POV warriors, only the sneaky, dishonest POV warriors who oppose your views. BMK (talk) 12:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Lawl, I'm to respond to this frankly illogical screed? Or is it just angry window-dressing?  You must be running your industrial-scale straw suppliers positively ragged. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)  (talk)  (contribs) 15:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I apologize to everyone, and especially to the arbs, for having brought this to attention. Though I guess it's not all that bad to have a limited space for folks to let off steam. The Traveling Boris (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * In ArbCom's defense, I think that they recognized that there are other editors besides Collect with behavioral issues around American politics, and their plan was to deal with those n other editors by opening a companion case (American Politics 2). For whatever reason, though, that case hasn't produced much substance. MastCell Talk 16:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Workshop extended?
Arbs or clerks: has the workshop closing date been extended and, if so, what is the new close date?- MrX 21:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi . Mentioned this briefly in the section on Case Conduct above - time has expired for workshop but I was ignoring that for a little while as people were still posting useful stuff. However it will be closing at about 9pm AEST (11 hours from now) so speak now or forever hold your peace. The PD delivery date is unchanged. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification Euryalus.- MrX 11:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Private evidence
A brief comment on private evidence.

Private evidence is a routine component of many Arbcom cases. There are many good reasons for evidence to be forwarded privately, and it doesn't seem necessary to rehearse them all here. However where private evidence makes an accusation against another editor, then in fairness that editor should be given the opportunity to respond.

In this case:
 * A small amount of private evidence has been received, some of which makes allegations against other editors.
 * None of the private evidence contains anything that would intrinsically prevent those allegations being communicated to those involved.
 * I have anonymised the credible items of private evidence and forwarded relevant parts to editors it accuses. If you received an email from me on this topic, please feel free to email the Committee with any response you wish to make.
 * If you did not receive an email from me today, please rest assured there was no meaningful private evidence relating to you.
 * Please note the Committee will not a) post or debate private evidence on-wiki, b) publicly or privately confirm who sent it, or c) discuss who it relates to or what it was about.

None of the above seems any different from what usually happens when private evidence is received. Am noting it all here to demystify the process and make sure all involved in the case know exactly what body of evidence the Committee wll consider in relation to them. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think any secret evidence was offered against me, but if there was, please let me know. I don't have access to the email address that was associated. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_blah_blah_blah)   (talk)  (contribs) 14:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * No, nothing that related to you. -- Euryalus (talk) 15:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Workshop closed
Thanks to all who took part here or at /Evidence. Proposed decision due on Monday. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)