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

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As per instructions by the Arbitration Committee, all editors who offered statements were added to the list of parties. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Dear ODear ODear as a listed party

I acknowledge I am really far from certain regarding procedures here, but I question the inclusion of this indefinitely blocked party as a party to the arbitration, considering that individuals obvious inability to say anything. Maybe the name should still reasonably be included on a procedural basis, I honestly don't know, and there may well be a precedent in some other case, but it does strike me as being somewhat odd under the circumstances. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep. There's a rough consensus to remove them as a party, and this should occur shortly. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case, it should be relevant that my name was added unilaterally by this indeffed person.[1][2] I don't really have a horse in this race. No description has been made of my supposed bad behavior. Binksternet (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Question on scope

Is this case limited only to users' interactions with Collect specifically? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Case 1 might be defined as "Collect: what are the reasons for user conduct issues surrounding their editing?" This definition acknowledges the reality of ongoing user conduct concerns associated with Collect's editing, but doesn't prejudge the cause or the responsible parties. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

@Euryalus: Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Everyone who commented on the case filing is an involved party now? That's kind of unusual, I thought there was normally an effort to separate out the non-parties and move their statements to the talk page. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes (to both parts). It was done this way for expediency, but a winnowing of parties is now happening (slowly). Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Please remove me from the list of parties

I'm not involved here. Please remove my name from the list of parties. All I did was make a short comment about the filing. I'll know better next time and never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever comment on an ArbCom case, lest I get dragged into some stupid mess. (More seriously, who in hell thought it was good idea to add every commentator to the list of parties? Are you guys trying to create a chilling effect?)

Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)