Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case: Difference between revisions

Edit links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 424: Line 424:
=== Statement by Cas Liber ===
=== Statement by Cas Liber ===
I tend to agree that the politics and opinions of alot of editors will impede any debate that takes place on AN/I (or elsewhere) to the point that it will be impossible to gain consensus, especially for long-term tendentious behaviour. Hence a case examining the conduct will be by far the easiest way to determine if sanctions are warranted or not. AN/I will be buried in walls of text, indignance and vitriol. Hence I recommend accepting the case. Just try to make it a quick one. [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 00:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree that the politics and opinions of alot of editors will impede any debate that takes place on AN/I (or elsewhere) to the point that it will be impossible to gain consensus, especially for long-term tendentious behaviour. Hence a case examining the conduct will be by far the easiest way to determine if sanctions are warranted or not. AN/I will be buried in walls of text, indignance and vitriol. Hence I recommend accepting the case. Just try to make it a quick one. [[User:Casliber|Cas Liber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 00:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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


=== Statement by {Non-party} ===
=== Statement by {Non-party} ===

Revision as of 00:58, 19 March 2015

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Battleground on e-cig articles   15 March 2015 {{{votes}}}
Collect   18 March 2015 {{{votes}}}
[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Yasuke 13 Nov 2024

Currently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open.

No arbitrator motions are currently open.


Battleground on e-cig articles

Initiated by QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by User:QuackGuru

KimDabelsteinPetersen
Some of the e-cig enthusiasts are WP:NOTHERE to improve the e-cig pages. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret and see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive867#E-cig editors for previous ANI discussions.
KimDabelsteinPetersen opposes a topic ban for AlbinoFerret. That's because User:KimDabelsteinPetersen has also made many controversial edits to the safety of electronic cigarettes page. Let's review some of KimDabelsteinPetersen's recent edits.
Revision as of 13:05, 30 January 2015 This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions. The sources are reliable per WP:MEDORG. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Discussion on positions. The sources are reliable per WP:SNOW according to the current discussion.
Revision as of 13:11, 30 January 2015 This edit deleted text and sources from two reputable organisations again.
Revision as of 11:20, 26 January 2015 This edit mainly deleted text from a formal policy statement written in Clinical Cancer Research, a peer-reviewed medical journal. The impact factor for the journal is 8.19.
Revision as of 19:20, 7 February 2015 This edit mainly deleted text from a review and text from reputable organizations.
Revision as of 06:27, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS.
Revision as of 10:00, 25 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
Revision as of 22:47, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again.
Revision as of 23:46, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted numerous sources, including deleting text and sources from a number reputable organisations and sources from reviews against WP:MEDORG and WP:MEDRS again. KimDabelsteinPetersen does not see policy violations to back up a ban.
KimDabelsteinPetersen, aren't you also deleting a lot of sources against WP:MEDRS? This diff shows AlbinoFerret is making many counterproductive edits and deleting of a lot of reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed topic ban for AlbinoFerret. KimDabelsteinPetersen is also deleting a lot of reliable sources which suggests he/she is promoting a certain favorable POV for e-cigs. Should KimDabelsteinPetersen be topic banned? KimDabelsteinPetersen has earned a topic ban from the e-cig pages IMO. Does the community prefer a topic ban for KimDabelsteinPetersen for 6 months or one year, an indef topic ban, or just a warning or no action?
KimDabelsteinPetersen thought it was okay to delete so many sources over and over again. But it is not reasonable to continue to delete pertinent information about of the safety of e-cigarettes. Both KimDabelsteinPetersen and AlbinoFerret are the main problem editors IMO. No reasonable argument has been made to delete so many reliable sources including deleting reviews such as (PMID 24732159) and (PMID 24732160) and (PMID 25572196) after over two weeks. Please review the current discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Removal of mammoth edit. I think I bring a sharp editors pencil to many controversial places where most editors prefer to stay away from. That said I hope editors will try to follow WP:PAG a bit more rather than making blanket reverts to an older version. Often, reliable sources and pertinent text sourced to reliable sources are being reremoved over and over again with non-argument discussions on the talk page. What could possibly be a logical reason to delete so many sources? There is currently no open thread at AN/I for a proposed topic ban for KimDabelsteinPetersen. The community is not handling this specific editor at this time at AN/I. KimDabelsteinPetersen, do you agree in the future you won't be so quick to remove so many sources such as MEDRS compliant reviews? QuackGuru (talk) 19:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Courcelles, User:Seraphimblade, User:Thryduulf, User:Euryalus, and User:Dougweller. No matter what happens at AN/I there is no specific proposal for dealing with KimDabelsteinPetersen's apparent advocacy at the e-cig pages. He has not even been warned for continuing to delete so many sources and reverting back to an older version. I request Arbcom deal with User:KimDabelsteinPetersen continued disruptive editing and WP:ADVOCACY. QuackGuru (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Euryalus, the discussion at AN/I was closed because it wasn't going to go anywhere. I can start a new discsuion at AN/I with your permission for User:KimDabelsteinPetersen to see what the community wants to do about this matter. At AN/I it was a subsection that lost focus. QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Euryalus, I have been involved in disputes where there has been community-imposed sanctions and no administrative action was taken. For example, take a quick look at the acupuncture disputes. The result was a huge waste of time. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Statement by QuackGuru. Alter-med pages are under community-imposed sanctions but that did not stop editors from causing mass disruption. I'm afraid the disputes at the e-cig pages will continue for a long time and the end result will be lower quality pages and the community will lose good editors from wanting to improve the pages. QuackGuru (talk) 01:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the Committee closing the discussion for now as long as the Committee or an admin gives me permission to re-report KimDabelsteinPetersen to AN/I for discussion. I can re-post a more concise report than the one above with a specific recommendation. QuackGuru (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlbinoFerret
User:AlbinoFerret is making a lot of comments and edits to e-cig related pages. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/AlbinoFerret&offset=&limit=500&target=AlbinoFerret See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive864#User:AlbinoFerret for previous behaviour issues. AlbinoFerret tried to hide the Environmental impact section from the page that uses a reliable MEDRS compliant source to verify the claims. He eventually tried to delete some of the text.[1][2][3][4][5] AlbinoFerret deleted sources from reputable organisations.[6][7][8][9]
User:AlbinoFerret also deleted a source from a formal policy statement. After User:AlbinoFerret could not delete the reliable source he then added context that was inappropriate.[10][11][12] See Talk:Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes/Archive_1#Original_research_2.
Both User:AlbinoFerret and User:KimDabelsteinPetersen appeared to be against using the formal policy statement written in a peer-reviewed journal for medical claims.
See Talk:Electronic_cigarette/Archive_21#Policy_Statement_from_the_American_Association_for_Cancer_Research_and_the_American_Society_of_Clinical_Oncology.
Revision as of 23:02, 24 February 2015 This change deleted numerous sources.
Revision as of 22:04, 28 February 2015 This change deleted numerous sources again.
AlbinoFerret's last major edit was Revision as of 22:13, 28 February 2015, which deleted numerous sources, including deleting reviews against MEDRS again.
AlbinoFerret claims "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[13] But AlbinoFerret has not given a specific reason to exclude relevant information about safety. WP:COMPETENCE is not the issue IMO. AlbinoFerret has turned the e-cig pages into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Positions. The sources are reliable per WP:MEDORG. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Discussion on positions. Please also review the current discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Safety of electronic cigarettes#Removal of mammoth edit. I think an indef topic ban is better solution rather than a short-term topic ban. It is clear that AlbinoFerret is not here to improve the e-cig pages. It appears AlbinoFerret wants to have lengthy discussions on the talk page in an effort to prevent the article from moving forward. The community discussions to resolve these matters have not gone anywhere. This should not go to AN/I again and again. The repeated trips to AN/I is a waste of the communities time. Like AN/I, I'm sure things will get ugly soon. The reason there is currently a mess at AN/I is because no uninvolved admin at AN/I closed the thread when the evidence of long term disruption was previously reported to AN/I back in November 2014. The main e-cig page has been fully protected multiple times. The dispute is likely to continue for a long time unless administrative action is taken. QuackGuru (talk) 21:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since no action was taken for a very long time at AN/I I closed the thread I started and hopefully the discussion can continue here. Note. If I am not allowed to close the thread I started at AN/I feel free to revert or if an uninvolved admin wants to take action feel free to revert and take action at AN/I. The thread at AN/I can still be reclosed by an uninvolved admin. See diff. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 00:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlbinoFerret has agreed to take a break for 6 months from the e-cig pages without receiving an official topic ban and without any admission of doing anything wrong. QuackGuru (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AlbinoFerret claims "The constant negative POV pushing has created a NPOV problem." AlbinoFerret has had numerous chances to explain what is the current problem. I don't know what is the current issue. Articles are never prefect, especially for new articles. I do try to improve the wording. I think it is time to move on from previous resolved disputes. I just hope in the future editors won't delete a bunch of relevant text sourced to reliable sources. AlbinoFerret thinks that "The subject of the article is not "Nicotine"."[14] Maybe that explains this edit. AlbinoFerret is giving old diffs. For example, the wording for the nicotine sentences has changed. See Safety_of_electronic_cigarettes#Nicotine for the current wording I helped improve. The first two sentences for the nicotine paragraph are "Nicotine is regarded as a potentially lethal poison.[21] Concerns exist that e-cigarette user exposure to toxic levels of nicotine may be harmful.[21]" The lede says "E-cigarette users are exposed to potentially harmful nicotine.[12]". What is the problem with the current wording? QuackGuru (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My comment here is a reply to AlbinoFerret's comment.[15] The source says "Other studies have shown that some ENDS users experience side-effects such as mouth and throat irritation which may be caused by exposure to nicotine itself, nicotine solvents, or toxicants found in the aerosol (30, 31). However, given the relatively low doses of nicotine that ENDS deliver, and users' ability to titrate the desired dose by adjusting the frequency and topography of their puffs, serious overdose from ENDS aerosol inhalation is unlikely. In contrast, the concentrated nicotine..."[16] The part "serious overdose from ENDS aerosol inhalation is unlikely" and the part about "in contrast" is much later in the source. The text in the safety page is in the same chronological order as the source. QuackGuru (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This change by AlbinoFerret was in part "he is seen as a necessary evil." I am offended by this comment. This is a baseless accusation. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A1candidate
User:A1candidate is one of the editors who made full reverts back to an older version.
Revision as of 19:02, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted a huge chunk of the page.
Revision as of 22:25, 27 February 2015 This edit deleted a huge chunk of the page again.
Would you delete so many sources? Is it possible that all those sources including reviews are somehow unreliable or not relevant to the page? QuackGuru (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
InfiniteBratwurst

User:InfiniteBratwurst (now indef blocked) said that QuackGuru "appears to be sheltered from any consequences by a group of editors and admins who agree with his position." If a group of editors and admins agree with my position it may be because I am continuing to make improvements to the e-cig pages. Some (or more likely most) e-cigarette enthusiasts have a problem with my edits and that is the reason they want me permanently banned. QuackGuru (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:KimDabelsteinPetersen

Statement by involved User:S Marshall

  • It's certainly a battleground. I'm finding it utterly impossible to improve the article at present.
  • I endorse the request for ArbCom to look at the whole e-cigarette family of articles and the quagmire of problematic behaviour that surrounds it.
  • In response to Seraphimblade's request: the community processes are inadequate. They deal with one user at a time, and give a result in clear-cut cases. AlbinoFerret's case, by itself, is something the community can deal with. QuackGuru and KimDabelsteinPetersen is another problem (or two other problems ---- I think QuackGuru's been admirably unselfconscious in starting this, by the way). In the AN/I thread, User:CFCF alleges that there are SPAs or near-SPAs involved, and I suspect he's right. User:Doc James says that interested parties have contacted his university to attack him personally. Taken together this is too much for community processes to cope with.—S Marshall T/C 00:23, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved User:Doc James

@User:S Marshall The user in question was indefinitely banned. So the community did deal with it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf, I agree. There is consensus for a topic ban of Albino at ANI at the moment. My hope is that QG will take a voluntary step back and work on something else. The main article has been long protected. Hopefully the scientific and medical world will spend some time seriously studying the matter and the risk versus benefits of e-cig will be more clear in a few years. Right now the majority of the scientific community states the risk and benefits are unknown as they have not been properly studied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:AlbinoFerret

QuackGuru is a tendentious editor. I incorporate all the proof and diffs found in this closed AN/I case that was no consensus. He has harassed me and made harassing statements about my disability which were not settled in this AN/I case. link1 link2. QuackGuru while not a SPI is an advocate against that is drawn to controversial medical articles WP:ADVOCACY. He has a long history of blocks and bans for harassment, edit warring, and other related things. Nothing will be solved at AN/I because fellow medical editors block any action because they think he is useful.
He added a Editorial to the page for a medical claim diff then argued round in circles link Arguing its a review diff diff saying it was WP:MEDRS diff. He then started a new section arguing round in circles again with a deceptive section heading. link. Just today, he added the same source to the talk page as a "New Source" #6 diff McKee2014.
He has removed claims that lessesn the negitive impact of his edits. Here he removed one from the Environmental section diff and here lessened the wording to make it less neutral diff.
He inserted blatant negative POV that users of e-cig users were exposed to "lethal" nicotine diff diff when the source said harmful as shown in this section of the talk page link when it was pointed out to him, he changed it to "toxic" diff.
In the body of the article, he added nicotine is lethal, I added a part from the source that put it into perspective diff He moved information that lessens impact, added OR by making it sound like the mitigating factors were part of the liquid and not use when the source clearly is talking about use diff. He also added more claims between to further distance the negating claim that users were taking "lethal poison diff.
Added adverse effects "Major adverse effects reported to the FDA included hospitalizations for pneumonia, congestive heart failure, seizure, rapid heart rate, and burns" diff. But omitted positive part of the claim (mitigating factors), added by another editor that was in the same paragraph in the source diff.
The constant negative POV pushing has created a NPOV problem. The main article has a NPOV tag link The Saftey of Electronic cigarettes also had one, but he keeps removing it.diff.
Dont think this is just a few isolated events. He is an advocate against, plain and simple. I could write pages on his inserting POV and ignoring NPOV, this is what I could find in a few hours. AlbinoFerret 05:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced material? What QuackGuru doesnt mention is that the material he says was removed was the product of long discussions on using policy statements and a still ongoing RFC that had only a few replies at the time. The other removal was over 20,000 characters of edits, 16,400 at one time [diff to a contentious article that he spent a month in his sandbox building without and notification or discussion on the articles talk pages.WP:CAUTIOUS Then edit wared it back in without discussion diff. All the while there is an ongoing RFC on the sources he inserted. AlbinoFerret 07:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With this addition to the case diff QuackGuru shows a reoccurring problem WP:IDHT where he ignores what is said in comments and comes up with his own meaning to what has been said, not what actually is said. The talk page clearly sets forth a OR by synthesis problem, where he starts off adding nicotine is lethal, then in the very next sentence where we find "The user inhales an aerosol containing chemicals and very addictive nicotine." creating a synthesis that the user is inhaling "lethal" nicotine. Which he later adds to the lede as one sentence.diff AlbinoFerret 07:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit diff brings in WP:COMPETENCE. He doesnt see the synthesis? Even the new version has WP:ORIGINALSYN issues. Its a very big POV issue as well, adding negative claims is all QuackGuru has done to my knowledge. Remember, this is the same section that my above paragraph that starts out "In the body of the article, he added nicotine is lethal," above where he has separated the fact that a lethal dose is unlikely from the claim its lethal. AlbinoFerret 08:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

QuackGuru says some editors want to block him because of his edits. I question why any editor would approve of relentless POV pushing, and Ownership of articles from an editor with a super long history blocks and banns for past examples of similar behaviour. The community has done nothing as cases against him reach no consensus or let his actions slide by because he is seen as a necessary editor evil . But he is not necessary, for he will likely continue doing the same thing as cases in the past have had no effect on his behaviour, and other editors can and will bring information to the articles he now edits or would edit. Failure to act will embolden him as it has done before to continue to harm the NPOV of the articles he edits, something needs to be done to protect articles from violations of the NPOV pillar going forward. In the event that the arbitrators do not hear this case I seek leave to bring the outstanding issues raised here (POV and OWN) back to AN/I to see if anything really will be done by the community. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken

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

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

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

Although I've been known to comment on case requests before, I'm not entirely certain of proper procedures. Should involved parties be added to the case unilaterally, as was done here, or does this require permission of some sort? BMK (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Euryalus - Thank you. BMK (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Euryalus - I'm a bit surprised at your change of vote, considering how things have progressed on the AN/I threads in the last day or so, which is that AlbinoFerret is talking a voluntary 6-month leave from the subject, and the communty-imposed discretionary sanctions thread keeps gathering support !votes from editors on both sides of the issue, leading me to believe that it will be closed quite soon with the imposition of community DS. If I've read the tea leaves correctly, would it not be better to give the community sanctions some time to see what effect they have? I don't dispute that there's still a reasonable likelihood that the issue may wind up back in the Committee's lap, but I'm not convinced that there's also not a reasonable possibility that normal admin actions under community-imposed sanctions can't go a considerable way to fixing things. BMK (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NE Ent's argument for the committee to take up the case, which amounts to "People abuse MEDRS therefore the committee needs to deal with this", seems rather silly. Pick a policy, guideline or essay, and it's going to be possible to find an editor who goes overboard with it (MOS strict constructionists, for instance, are particular prone to abusing that very useful collection of opinions), but it's outside the committee's purview to change policies or guidelines or to rewrite essays. HJ Mitchell is more accurate when he points out that the problem is not the use of MEDRS pe se, but the fact that the SPA/COI/POV editors on the other side of the equation are relentless in their opposition to a rigorous presentation.

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

Statement by Involved editor SPACKlick

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

Statement by uninvolved JzG

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

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

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

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

Statement by involved EllenCT

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

Statement by NE Ent

It is concurrently true that "the community can handle this" and there is a case ( File:Canofworms1.png ) to be made. "Wikipedia community" is, of course, a fiction: the scale of en wikipedia -- ({{NUMBEROFACTIVEUSERS}} 122,190 {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} 6,913,426 {{NUMBEROFADMINS}} 851) -- is such that there are multiple overlapping sub-communities, not "a community." The WP:MEDRS sub community is problematic and difficult to address, because they are well-meaning, dedicated folks who think they are doing the right thing. Indicators:

  • WP:MEDRS claims "Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information.[1]" (emphasis mine) But if you follow the [1] you find it says no such thing: it says "the English Wikipedia is a prominent source of online health information compared to the other online health information providers studied." Nothing about "importance" nor "widely used."
  • Doc James states: " Right now the majority of the scientific community states the risk and benefits are unknown" meta:Vision states "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's our commitment. " (emphasis mine)
  • This sub-community uses WP:MEDRS, not as -- as it says on top -- a content guideline "that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply," but rather as a hammer to exclude almost all information which is not in "peer-reviewed" science journals. What they don't tell you is Why Most Published Research Findings Are False that Can't be replicated As Eva Emerson, editor-in-chief of Science News recently wrote, "self-criticism and self-skepticism have always been part of good science." [17]. There are qualities (e.g. humility) I have rarely observed in MEDRS participants. For an example see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Hans_Adler_and_Circumcision. NE Ent 09:36, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tgeorgescu, the practical remedy for the encyclopedia is to support statements with inline citations, so the reader has access to, and can evaluate, sources of information: the sum of all knowledge. For a decent example see Crystal healing, which reports the claim of a source that One method is where the practitioner places crystals on different parts of the body, often corresponding to so-called "chakras"; or else the practitioner places crystals around the body in an attempt to construct an "energy grid", which is purported to surround the client with healing energy. Do I believe that? No. Do I believe that a decent number of people believe it, and therefore it should be in the encyclopedia? Absolutely. NE Ent 09:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved A1candidate

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

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

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

"Second, it is a battleground. A battle against quackery in the real world, with prosecutions and a litany of exploitation of cancer victims by unscrupulous quacks, a battle on Wikipedia to hold back the lunatic charlatans whose motivation and determination to use Wikipedia to promote their beliefs is generally far stronger than the determination of any individual Wikipedia to ensure that we remain dependable ont hese subjects"
- Administrator JzG, 09:39, 27 February 2015

Whether Wikipedia is a battleground or not isn't the main issue here, I'm simply pointing out the fact that some administrators do in fact view this place as a real-world battleground. Some have even openly acknowledged their sympathetic views towards QuackGuru's cause [18]. This partly explains why previous attempt at dispute resolution have failed and it also indicates that future attempts at dispute resolution are likely to fail, unless these administrators change their behavior.

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

"If the community lacks the cojones to sanction QG, who is the main culprit, and is content to let him off with a weak "warning" (how many warnings is that now?) it is against natural justice to sanction AF. I tend to agree with the view that arbitration will be the way forward here."
- Administrator John, 07:10, 10 March 2015

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

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

"He has been previously banned by Arbcom for similar behavioral issues and POV-pushing patterns. The Committee concluded that there was no apparent progress in QG's approach to editing. That was back in 2011. We are now in 2015, but has anything improved after four years of leniency and good faith assumptions? "
- A1candidate, 18:13, 8 March 2015

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

Statement by uninvolved user Tgeorgescu

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

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

Comment from Harry Mitchell

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

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

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Clerk notes

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

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

  • There certainly is a problem here. That being the case, it looks like community discussions to resolve the matter are still ongoing. Statements as to why arbitration is needed over and above that (or why it is not) would be very helpful. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. The e-cigs topic area is a mess at the moment, but it is a mess that the community is working on fixing and I see no reason for us to step in while the AN/I is still ongoing. If after the community resolutions (whatever they turn out to be) have had time to take effect there is still a problem then I'd likely be willing to take a case, but for now this is premature. Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline per DGG and Thryduulf. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I remain of the view that this is the kind of issue that can be resolved elsewhere. The e-cigs articles suffer from editors with strong POV, some COI and some apparent OWN. These can be addressed through a combination of more uninvolved editors taking part in the article and talkpage discussions, and swifter janitorial work at ANI. Procedurally, this is the correct course to recommend.
    So what's the problem? First, few uninvolved editors want to wade into the morass that is the e-cigs discusson and content, especially given the technical subject matter (and noting Doc James expert view above that existing research may not completely cover the field). Second, the ANI threads have been unwieldy and key points have sometimes sat too long, or forever, without outcomes. No one is "to blame" for any of this, but the consequence is an issue which should have been addressed by the community, hasn't been.
    As hope springs eternal, I was happy for it to go around another time. But further reading through the dead ANI threads has convinced me this is unlikely to happen. So, accept with an appropriate sense of trepidation, at least to look at a couple of conduct issues, and whether there is merit in (yet another) application of Discretionary Sanctions to bring some calm to the field. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: - anyone can propose that another editor is an involved party, though nonsense proposals will be removed. Proposing that someone is an invovled party obligates the proposer to notify them of that fact. Whether they actually are involved is determined by the Committee if the case is accepted. Of course simply being named as "involved" doesn't imply any particular outcome, it just lets people know they should probably pay attention to the proceedings. Equally, being "uninvolved" doesn't stop editor contributing to the case as it goes along. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@QuackGuru: - Sure, but I'd argue that ANI should be tried first. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: - perhaps, we are looking at the same set of material and seeing a glass half full/empty. I'm of the view there are wider user conduct issues than AlbinoFerret and the banned sock, and reckon this will continue over time. ANI sometimes struggles as a forum for dealing with patterns of behaviour that suggest COI or OWN, and an Arbcom case might save the time otherwise spent on a long series of individual sanctions debates. But I recognise the recent progress, and note that my quixotic accept vote is unlikely to win the day. The proposed community sanctions (if passed) are also a worthwhile step. -- Euryalus2 (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Collect

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

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by MrX

Collect's contribution history consists of constructive editing overshadowed by a long-term pattern of BATTLEGROUND behavior and Gaming the system. His user page, user talk page, subpages (User:Collect/BLP), and essays such as WP:Mutual admiration society, WP:Sledgehammer, Collect/Pissing on essays one does not like loudly testify to his combative approach. He has an extensive block log for edit warring, and has edit warred other times without consequence ([19] [20] [21] [22]). His comments during content disputes are typically acerbic, dismissive, misleading and unyielding. He has misrepresented facts ([23] [24][25] [26] [27]), made WP:POINTY edits ([28] [29] [30]), forum shopped ([31] [32] [33]), made carefully worded personal attacks ([34]), and compared editors' contributions with McCarthyism ([35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]).

Collect persistently claims BLP violations at various fora, but when asked to substantiate his claims, he frequently evades providing straightforward answers ([41]), instead weaving convoluted semi-explanations and inapt analogies. Other times he simply doesn't answer legitimate questions. He insists on an unusually high, non-negotiable standards for BLP to including insisting on sources that verify other reliable sources ([42]). Many times the concerns are not BLP policy concerns at all ([43] [44]). In many BLP/N discussion, consensus found that his assertions of BLP violations were unfounded, yet he often persists in filibustering, forum shopping, and "moving the goal posts"([45] [46] [47]). Many of his BLP/N reports involve Ubikwit and apparently arise out a long-term conflict between the two.

There is a theory afloat that editors who have been critical of Collect are trying to eliminate a political opponent. While I acknowledge my own (US) liberal bias, I reject the thought-terminating notion that I, or any other editor, is trying to eliminate political opponents. A small percentage of my edits have been to political articles, but I have worked collaboratively with several conservative-leaning editors on political content (evidence available on request). I have also taken Collect's side on a number of occasions ([48] [49] [50]).

Both Fyddlestix and Jbhunley made good faith efforts to request that the community examine Collect's conduct (not content) at ANI, with abundant evidence. Unfortunately they were attacked as POV pushers and radicals ([51]), and the complaint was closed after eleven hours by an administrator.

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

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

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

  • @Writegeist:I'm hesitant to provide detailed clarifications for each diff because of the 500 word limit, and perhaps it should occur in the evidence phase anyway. It is almost impossible to understand the WP:GAME issues without reading the entire threads.- MrX 22:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Capitalismojo: (and others): This case has nothing to do with merits of the list article that was brought to AfD. Had I cared enough to research the subject more thoroughly, I'm almost certain that I would have voted to delete it as an undesirable POV fork. The issue at hand is a pattern of user conduct over a long period of time. That some of the above diffs relate to the AfD discussion is merely because they are the most recent and coincide with my perception that Collect's conduct has reached a tipping point.- MrX 23:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

OK -- see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_PNAC_Members_associated_with_the_Administration_of_George_W._Bush

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

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

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

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

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

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

See [52] with the close: Querulous complaint remitted to AfD and WP:DR if the OP refuses to drop the stick after that. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC) JzG

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

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

Oh -- for the claim I accused others of McCarthyism - the only salient quote of mine I could find was[53]

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

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


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

Statement by Dear ODear ODear

BLP violations and anti-semitism

Regarding MrX (talk · contribs)'s Rfar [54]. My use of "Jew tagging" refers especially to the anti-semitic harassment of the family of Project for a New American Century (PNAC)'s co-founder Robert Kagan and his wife Victoria Nuland, via Wikipedia, since 2008 (at least).

In recent days, administrator Coffee (talk · contribs) revdeleted the worst antisemitism from the talkpages of both Nuland [55] and Kagan [56] (although my requests for possible revdeletes reached only 2009 [57]). I have requested page-protections on both BLPs [58], following an increase in such vandalism, which have been granted by Ymblanter (talk · contribs) for Kagan [59] and Nuland [60]. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) has helped by constructive edits and reverting BLP violations for months[61]. A recurring harassment technique is the posting of the names of their (apparently minor) children.

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

User Ubikwit's behavior

As I wrote, the Kagan/Nuland family has been harassed by Wikipedia since 2008 (at least). Recent Jew-tagging involves Ubikwit (talk · contribs), despite his Arbitration topic-ban on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I revise remarks from [62].

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

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

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

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

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

During the week that Ubikwit was blocked from editing by Swarm (talk · contribs)[75], normal editing occured at PNAC. Disagreements occurred as usual during editing on contentious topics, but they were resolved as usual.[76]

User Binksternet's behavior

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

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

Volunteer Marek

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

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

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

Statement by Fyddlestix

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

Statement by Jbhunley

I wrote up the basics on my complaint in this ANI post. The ANI that material was meant for was closed in a matter of hours. I will break out highlights as time permits. I do not know how long I have to write my statement and I want to get this material in before it closes.

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

Reply to A1candidate - Not offended by the WP:TROUT. Tastes a bit like crow though. Jbh (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some particularly bad comments by Collect

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

While this is ongoing, and an AN/I thread is ongoing, this has been filed Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Collect. "May we live in interesting times" - but the primary bone of contention appears to be whether the material in this list violates WP:BLP, WP:SYNTH, or any of the other reasons presented above which, at this point, I daresay agrees with my basic stance. As it is thus intimately connected to this precise AfD, it seems proper to tell folks here about it. Cheers to all. Collect (talk) 5:45 pm, Today (UTC−4)[83]

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

Statement by MastCell

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

... you seem to have a habit where you throw out arguments and excuses and blame left and right but act as if you can do no wrong, that you're right no matter what and that your opponent is hellbent on destroying the encyclopedia and you're only trying to prevent that. But your actions simply don't reflect that. I actually always had a positive impression of you and certainly didn't expect to be blocking you for a week, but after a couple hours reviewing your AN3 report I was pretty surprised by the behavior I found and came to the conclusion that this is what was necessary. And you've completely victimized yourself in reponse, admitting exactly no wrongdoing except "letting him have plenty of rope". You should know better, although maybe you do and this is just your strategy to get out of yet another block for edit warring. ([84])

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

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

Statement by MONGO

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

Statement by Ubikwit

Request for greater clarity, from non-party Writegeist

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

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

Statement by mostly uninvolved Gaijin42

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

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

Statement by uninvolved A1candidate

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

1) Administrator JzG closed the ANI thread before the community had much of a chance to participate [85]

2) Administrator JzG contributed to the inflammatory environment by demanding "application of the WP:TROUT to the filing party" [86]"; this statement is likely to further offend the filing party.

3) When asked to clarify his actions, administrator JzG bluntly dismissed the filing party's case as "a rallying cry to attract supporters" [87]

This administrator has shown similar patterns of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in many other disputes. He also uses abusive language [88] and invokes his admin status to silence other editors [89]. He bites the newcomers [90][91], attacks other editors by labelling them "apologist" in the edit summary [92] and accuses them of being "quackery supporters" [93]. I think it is time for the Committee to take action.

Statement by Cla68

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

Statement by uninvolved Viriditas

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

@Collect: I am very confused about how a reference to a news story breaking that day about how Florida has "banned" any discussion of climate change by scientists in their state, amounts to "harassment" of your person. And when even mainstream Time magazine acknowledges that the GOP is "fringe",[94] your claim of harassment becomes even more strained. If you're not a senator or the governor of Florida, how can I be "harassing" you? Facts may be funny things, but they are not "harassment" of any kind. I should point out that according to WP:AOHA, "making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory...It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment." Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Non-party Capitalismojo

Suggest a decline.

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

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

Comment by Alanscottwalker

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

Statement by uninvolved Cwobeel

Politics aside, this is about behavior. We all have our biases, but when Collect edits conservative politicians' biographies, he often times raises BLP concerns that are at best strenuous, with the seemingly overall intent to suppress material that may reflect poorly on the politician. This, even if the material is the politician's own words! Here are some examples that illustrates Collect's editing behavior as described by Mr. X: unusually high, non-negotiable standards for BLPs (Joni Ernst article): [95],[96], [97], [98], [99]. Surely, we have BLP, BLPREQUESTRESTORE, and BLPNEWBAN to protect BLPs, but it should not be used as a blunt tool to suppress content that is properly sourced and relevant, or to misuse them in an attempt to game the system. I have no concerns in other areas to which Collect contributes quite productively, but behavior issues such as misuse of policies to advance a bias, are within ArbCom's remit. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cas Liber

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

Statement by Floq

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

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Clerk notes

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

Collect: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=652010103"