Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests | Case | Collect and others

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Buster7 (talk | contribs) at 20:32, 2 April 2015 (→Collect creates and maintains stress: Another editor pointed out "stalk" might be a bit over-stated). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: TBD Drafting arbitrator: TBD

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Any editor may add evidence to this page, irrespective of whether they are involved in the dispute. You must submit evidence in your own section. Editors who change other users' evidence may be blocked without warning; if you have a concern with or objection to another user's evidence, contact the committee by e-mail or on the talk page. The standard limits for all evidence submissions are: 1000 words and 100 diffs for users who are parties to this case; or about 500 words and 50 diffs for other users. Detailed but succinct submissions are more useful to the committee. This page is not designed for the submission of general reflections on the arbitration process, Wikipedia in general, or other irrelevant and broad issues; and if you submit such content to this page, please expect it to be ignored. General discussion of the case may be opened on the talk page. You must focus on the issues that are important to the dispute and submit diffs which illustrate the nature of the dispute or will be useful to the committee in its deliberations.

You must use the prescribed format in your evidence. Evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are inadequate. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those change over time), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log is acceptable. Please make sure any page section links are permanent, and read the simple diff and link guide if you are not sure how to create a page diff.

The Arbitration Committee expects you to make rebuttals of other evidence submissions in your own section, and for such rebuttals to explain how or why the evidence in question is incorrect; do not engage in tit-for-tat on this page. Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop, which is open for comment by parties, Arbitrators, and others. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and Clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.

Evidence presented by MrX

Edit warring

Dispite six edit warring blocks and two reversion restriction blocks, Collect routinely edit wars:

John Waters [1] report:[2]
Michael Grimm [3]
Joni Ernst [4]    [5]
Marco Rubio [6] warning:[7]   [8]    [9] warning:[10] response:[11]
Breitbart [12]    [13]    [14] warning:[15]

False claims

February 26, 2014 Deletes proposed (sourced) content from a talk page falsely claiming "Your posting below of that material is now redacted as required by WP:BLP ... if it is a violation on one page, it is a violation on every page."[16]
October 30, 2014 False claim that "headlines are not part of any reliable source"[17] discussion[18] Similar claim on March 20, 2015 to game the system.[19]
December 27, 2014 Removes sourced content as a BLP violation, falsely claiming that "that Huston deliberately wrote an untruth",[20] although there was no such claim made. Took it to BLP/N.[21] Continued to filibuster even after all six other editors in the discussion[22] confirmed that the content was not a BLP violation in any sense.
December 31, 2014 Pointedly posted a false edit warring warning[23] which I fully disproved[24] (discussion:[25]). When asked to retract the warning, provide valid evidence, or report me, he deleted my post, suggesting that I needed a rest.[26]
March 14, 2015 Knowingly misled an editor to believe that it was partly my idea to create an article that the editor called "marvelously stupid".[27] Failed to notify me.
March 14, 2015 Falsely claimed that he was blocked for "standing on this" and alluding to McCarthyism.[28] He was in fact blocked for edit warring on a related, but different article.[29]
April 2, 2015 Falsely claims that I follow him more than 80% of the time.[30]. The Editor Interaction Analyzer actually shows that of the 133 pages that we both edited, he edited 82 of them first and I edited 51 of them first. 82÷133=61.7%.[31] He has been actively editing at least three years longer than me.

Forum shopping and canvassing

October 1, 2014 Vote-stacking:[32]
December 12, 2014 Edit war.[33] Discussion ongoing on the article talk page. Posts at RS/N.[34] The discussion[35] doesn't go his way so he posts at BLP/N.[36] An editor points out the forum shopping.[37] Collect says "Nope. This is about a specific cavil just raised in an edit summary, for which this is the proper and only noticeboard. Cheers."[38]
January 24, 2015 Makes two reverts at Marco Rubio[39] and minutes later opens a BLP/N discussion, [40] bypassing the talk page altogether. I open a talk page discussion.[[41] Another editor makes a concrete compromise proposal,[42] resolving the dispute.
March 2, 2015 Campaigning[43]
March 20, 2015 Inappropriate notification (spamming and campaigning)[44]: "The case against me is vexatious indeed - I shall not contend against those who taste blood. The main complaint even includes my essays - so I wrote one which I hope you will appreciate".
March 21, 2015 38 minutes after I create an article, Collect attempts to rally support on Jimbo's talk page to delete it.[[45]

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

February 6, 2014 Posts this:[46] to his talk page after an admin told him that Collect's edit warring did not satisfy the criteria for a 3RR BLP exception.[47]
May 12, 2014 Posts a lengthy, rambling screed to an Arbcom case evidence talk page[48] I made a critical comment[49] and retracted it about an hour later.[50] Collect then copied my retracted comment to his talk page.[51]
October 2014 Creates multiple non-neutrally-worded RfCs, for one article, in a short span of time.[52] [53] [54]
March 15, 2015 Links to old version of an article [55] in which he is involved in a content dispute at AfD, BLP/N, Ubikwit's talk page, Jimbo's talk page and the article talk page[56] (also forum shopping).
March 14, 2015 Posted huge amounts of article content at BLP/N.[57]

Gaming the system

April 16, 2014 Wikilawyering and a false claim that " it is not usual for "place of birth" to be in BLPs".[58]
April 29, 2014 Posts non-neutrally-worded RfCs: [59] [60]
October 16, 2014 Edit wars.[61]. Starts a talk page discussion.[62] Ten minutes later starts an RfC.[63] Makes a strawman argument invoking the communist party.[64]
December 31, 2014 Undermines verifiability by removing a source based on false analogy (no crime was asserted in the source or the article). [65]
February 2, 2015 Replaced six occurrences of Heather Bresch's name from an article, replacing her name with "the person".[66] Minutes later scrubs all mention of the MBA controversy [67] from Heather Bresch. Upon being reverted in both cases, opens a BLP/N discussion [68]. Even a Bresch-affiliated paid editor objects to Collect's interpretation of BLP policy.[69]

(discussion).

February 7, 2015 Insists on strong sourcing and non-negotiable BLP adherence; makes edits like this.[70]
February 10, 2015 Reinserts material, which I had reverted in the previous edit.[71] I added a neutrality disputed tag to the section,[72] and an edit summary with "See my comments on the talk page". Collect starts a discussion at BLP/N.[73] I suggest that it's not an issue for BLP/N and that we should try to resolve it on the talk page. [74] Rather than join the talk page discussion, starts a pointy discussion at NPOV/N.[75]
March 20, 2015 Reverts an edit with six sources.[76] I open a talk page discussion, [77] which Collect bypasses and instead posts to BLP/N.[78] After Collect's argument is refuted by MastCell, with a list of sources, [79] Collect falsely claims "Your sources support that employees claim there was an unwritten policy in the DEP, and only in the DEP." [80] which I refute with specific evidence found in MastCell's previous post.[81] (discussion [82]).
March 2, 2015
February 5, 2015		 Removes wikilinks for notable people claiming "we do not generally add in extraneous names into any BLP". [83] Violates his own rule.[84]

Filibustering with strawman, red herring and tu quoque arguments

September 8, 2014 [85]
March 23, 2015 Refutes that he misused BLP policy, claiming that I also removed offending material.[86] When I post evidence that the material I removed had nothing to do with his BLP violation claim and ask him to identify the specific BLP violation,[87] he evades the question instead responding with a complaint about an edit I made in an unrelated article.[88]

Ascerbic, dismissive and passive-aggressive comments

January 19, 2014 "I made the mistake of assuming that people were able to look at the articles so edited without too much trouble. Clearly I was wrong and I apologise for making that assumption."[89]
February 14, 2014 "Alas -- what you "believe" is not how Wikipedia articles are edited. It has this horrid rule that articles use WP:RS reliable sources, and that is where your problem appears to lie. Cheers."[90]

Refusal to cooperate and battleground attitude

August 27, 2014 [91]
February 22, 2015 Editor tries to resolve a content dispute.[92] Collect lectures about BLP policy.[93] The editor protests and requests specifics.[94] Collect continues to lecture, generalizing and evading the request for specifics.[95]

Evidence presented by Ubikwit

Amalgamated tendentious editing and gaming the system

Collect has cultivated a sophisticated, integral approach to tendentious editing, and is adept at marshaling Wikipedia resources in support or defense. Collect will attempt to dismiss sources he doesn't like (diffs later), failing that he'll pretend not to hear other editors talking about them(diffs later), or to engage the sources, basically refusing to collaborate. He will appeal to policy and make somewhat excessive use of notice boards in an attempt to obstruct the creation of content that he finds objectionable for personal reasons, no matter how high quality the sourcing, and as shown below, he won't abide by consensus if he thinks he has recourse to a wikilawyered interpretation of policy (e.g., "self-identification" in the following illustrative example).
Aside from the notice boards (mostly BLP, but also NPOV), he starts RfCs in the midst of an article talk discussion that has yet to reach a point where one might be called for, effectively cutting of the discussion and diverting effort and focus away from the issues actually at hand. He has also started RfCs at policy pages in relation to content disputes in an attempt to make a point and forestall the discussion or gain an advantage. Taken together this conduct represents a systematic abuse of Wikipedia resources for POV pushing (or obstruction); i.e, gaming the system with a battle of attrition modus operandi.

Illustrative case Joe Klein (and to a lesser extent, the related Neoconservatism)

  1. Talk thread
  2. BLP/N thread
  3. dual loyalties

Collect's initial strategy was to remove the infobox religious affiliation category as well as “Jewish” from the phrase “Jewish neoconservatives”, removing the aspect that makes the religious affiliation per blpcat notable and rendering the entire topic of dual loyalties based on religious affiliation unintelligible.[96] In light of the subsequent RfC and the like, it appears that the assault on categories (Collect adopted a similar approach in the Sam Harris article, which succeeded because of different circumstances) was aimed at precluding content in the main body that referred to the subject as Jewish (the content of the category).

  1. MrX agrees that sources meet blpcat and notability in terms of relevance.[97]
  2. Nomoskedasticity agrees that sources meet blpcat.[98]
  3. Nomoskedasticity indirectly warns Collect against reverting against consensus[99]
  4. Collect claims that blpcat policy overrides consensus between the three editors commenting on the thread.[100]
  5. MrX adds sources and queries Collect about collaborative editing.[101]
  6. MrX asks Collect if he intends to restore categories, etc. removed in this edit, which Collect had initially reverted and after which further sourcing was provided and the above-mentioned consensus reached.
  7. I repeat blpcat notability and ask him to abide by consensus.[102]

Starts pointy RfCs as diversionary tactic preventing resolution of content disputes, evincing a battlefield mentality

This RfC at BLP talk regarding Joe Klein article was not worded neutrally, and even the closer noted that it was pointy. I commented twice, first touching on rationale for bringing the matter to AE[103], then replying as to the necessity of accepting the "ethnicity" category, not being able to devote further effort to the dispute.[104]

Re: Sam Harris article
Rfc 1

  1. First he started this BLP/N thread targeting BLPCAT, which wasn’t at issue.
  2. Next he deletes several categories from the article on Harris' 'Jewishness'.[105]
  3. Then he started this RfC on Sayeed’s tribalism quote, which was not a statement that needed an RfC.
  4. I responded to the Sayeed related accusations during AN/I-2 here.
  • Note: This text, Christopher Hitchens once referred to Harris as a "Jewish warrior against theocracy and bigotry of all stripes" remains in the article,in the lead of this section. That seems to indicate inconsistency in Collect's approach of including material characterizing an article subject as "Jewish" when there is no "self identification" as such.

Rfc 2
Subsequently, he started another non-neutrally worded RfC[106], crying BLP, etc. After Xenophrenic had deleted the Political subsection on false pretenses here, Collect referred to my restoration of the material, instead of my original edit here, apparently attempting to draw attention to my edit summary, which included an accusation of "gaming" regarding Xenophrenic's revert.

Canvassing/Campaigning on his user talk page

Several examples of campaigning/canvassing and not notifying editors he's quoting have been presented, and I'll add one more.
This shows Collect canvassing (I'm not sure how else to characterize it) on his Talk page[107] for input regarding a comment I’d made a last ce to here. Capitalismojo responds here and again, referring to “ancient libels”.

Evidence presented by Fyddlestix

My interactions with Collect have been limited to a single article: Project for the New American Century. On this article and related pages, over the past month, I have observed Collect:

Editing to Make a Point

Instead of making a case for removing a source he objected to, Collect repeatedly added lengthy blockquotes (from the source he wanted removed) to an article: [108][109] [110] [111] [112]. He also added categories that had no relationship to the article's actual subject: [113][114][115] [116].

In fairness, note one self-revert here (awareness of edit warring) [117].

Deliberately Misrepresenting Other Editors

In these edits [118][119], Collect made a number of assertions about 4 different editors which he knew to be false:

  • Asserting that MR X and I favored creation of an article that neither of us did.
  • Charged all four of us with "preferring" this this old version of the article, repeating that charge here, when in reality 3/4 of us had not seen/touched the article at that point, and Collect has thanked me for edits I made improving the article since then.
  • Refused to retract or apologize for these mischaracterizations, responding combatively when asked to do so: [120][121].

Campaigning/Support Seeking to an Excessive Degree

Collect has made an excessive number of posts on noticeboard, article talk, and user talk pages to try to drum up support in the dispute: [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134] often while discussions were still ongoing elsewhere, and without notifying others who were involved in the dispute.

Refusing to Listen or Explain his Position

Collect frequently cries SYNTH and BLP when the violation is unclear, but refuses to explain or detail his thought process when cornered for specifics. These two diffs: [135][136] for example are exactly a month apart, and the exact same issue is being debated in both of them. In both cases, Collect went silent only to reopen the debate elsewhere, the second time within hours: [137]. Other examples:

When he does respond to requests for specifics, Collect's responses are far from helpful: [152] (claiming BBC news is not a RS), [153] ("SYNTH is SYNTH").

Making Personal Attacks

Unwilling or unable to see the difference between discussing and promoting a single individual's opinions, Collect has unjustly accused other editors of promoting conspiracy theories:

  • Baselessly comparing another editor to (conspiracy theorist) Alex Jones on PNAC talk: [154] (see edit summary).
  • Alleging that an article was "promoting" an alleged conspiracy theorist and treating his views "as fact" by discussing them, implying that editors who were defending use of the source were guilty of same: [155], [156], [157].
  • When called on this [158][159][160] Collect either had no response, or doubled down on the assertion that any mention of the source was equal to "promoting" it [161], and accused other editors of "failing to notice" that the source was problematic [162].

Casting Aspersions

Collect has kept up a steady drumbeat of comments and edit summaries which backhandedly imply that his opponents are promoting anti-semitism, conspiracy theories, or McCarthy-style "guilt by association." Some examples: [163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176]. Myself and others have asked him to stop doing this repeatedly [177][178]. He has refused to acknowledge that his insinuations are an issue and has continued to make them.

Ignoring Facts

In this diff, Collect removed the statement that John Bolton was affiliated with PNAC as unsourced. In reality, Bolton was a director of the organization, and Collect had earlier participated in a discussion where specific evidence of this association was produced: [179]. I drew his attention to this fact here, but to date Collect seems uninterested in rectifying this error.

Evidence presented by Jbhunley

Misreprentation

  • Editing quote and removing context[180]. No diff. No notice to editor they were being quoted. This is the whole quote Context was removed to make it not look like it was a response to Collect's Am I obstinate about "guilt by association" post which he had quoted earlier on the page. (see from line 101)
  • What was said on page answer editor responds off page answer

Canvassing/Campaigning

Failing to notify other editors

  • Used Plain text to avoid sending pings [184] when naming editors under discussion.

Presents a view of reality not fully congruent with facts

Makes unacceptable accusations about other editors

Will not participate in finding compromise/Does not recognize other viewpoints

  • Tendentiously forum shops. Starts a BLPN thread but when asked to explain in detail to a new party (me) what his issue is[196] he disengages. Only to bring the exact same issue up again, and again and again all in a month. That BLPN thread is of particular interest because I had no edits in any politics area and little or no interaction with either Ubikwit or Collect. When asked to support his claims with policies or evidence he never answered.
  • Huge diff but it illustrates Collect's style of debate with someone (me) with whom had little prior interaction. It was fun as a discussion but bad if consensus was actually needed. Note his response to this question. Note this discussion was about FRINGE not BLP.
  • Complains of "harassment" rather than participating in this dispute resolution. [197] [198] [199] [200] [201] [202][203][204][205].

Unable to recognize discussion has progressed




Jbh (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by My very best wishes

Editing of BLP pages by Collect was reasonable

The focus of this dispute are BLP pages about US politicians. This subject area is already covered by discretionary sanctions. There was a recent WP:AE case brought by the same parties against Collect [206]. The complainers failed to convince admins on WP:AE, and I can easily understand why. After quickly looking at diffs in Evidence, it appears that Collect indeed removes some sourced negative information from BLPs of US politicians, as noted by Cwobell below, however, his removals seem to be usually justifiable. For example:

  1. Some information was arguably "undue". For example, in this "incriminating" diff [207], I do not see any reason why an opinion about climate change must be included in biography of this person. He is not a climatologist, and he does not make any serious decisions related to the climate change.
  2. Some information was sourced, but presented in a non-neutral way to disparage the person. For example, should someone be described primarily as "a conspiracy theorist" [208] (this removal: [209])? In any case, things like that are merely a "content dispute". More important, in the edit summary (diff above) Collect mentioned an RfC about it. If there was indeed an RfC with an outcome supporting this edit by Collect, he was probably doing right thing.
  3. Some of the editing by Collect was apparently done to enforce WP:Consensus (e.g. he mentioned an RfC here [210]). Brief discussion with submitter of this evidence shows that he is either unfamiliar with WP:BLP rules or does not care [211].

It follows that Collect has been engaged in numerous content disputes. However, he was switching to editing other pages after being in minority in discussions or having his edits reverted by a group of editors who followed him. Therefore, I do not see this as WP:TE on his part. An argument that he starts dispute resolution procedures (RfC and RSNB) in a bad faith [212] does not look convincing.

A lot of evidence (like here) is just a squabble. OK, these editors wanted a particular version of the page to stay not because they liked it, but for another reason. Why that matters? However, it does appear that these editors followed Collect to revert his edits (which were usually legitimate) and submitted several ANI/AE complaints that were closed by uninvolved admins as unconvincing.

Evidence presented by Bosstopher

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

Pages Collect wishes to be examined by Arbcom

Due to Wikipedia not being a bureaucracy all evidence must be placed on the specific page for Arbcom to read, even if arbcom are aware of the evidence in question and have been told specifically to read it. As such I will link all the things Collect wants read by Arbcom onto this page. Will probably rework this a bit later.

Collect has asked that all his essays be examined as rebuttal to claims by Mr. X that his essays are combative. [214]

Evidence presented by Cwobeel

Misuse of WP:BLP to suppress content

When Collect edits politicians and political figures' biographies, he often times raises BLP concerns that are at best tenuous, with a possible intent to suppress content that may reflect poorly on them, disregarding the availability of good quality sources, and in some cases even when the sources describe statements made by the figures themselves in public forums or to the press. He may think that he is doing this in good faith to uphold WP:BLP, but nonetheless it is a misapplication of policy that needs to be dealt with so that WP:NPOV, which is nonnegotiable, can be maintained in BLPs.

Below are some examples about which it could argued are content disputes. They could have been so if they were isolated cases, but in aggregate, it demonstrates a pattern of behavior that needs addressing.

Note that as a fellow BLP/N patroller, I have observed Collect making solid contributions and help uphold WP:BLP, but when it comes to articles of political figures, particularly from the right, the evidence shows that he misuses WP:BLP and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE, to suppress what he believes is unflattering content in violation of WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Jones (radio host) (October 2014)
Joni Ernst (September, October 2014)
Chris Christie (March, November, and December 2014)
  • [222] - Collect removes content sourced to Politico, which described a quote from Christie
  • [223] - Collect changes the wording from "scandal" to "affair", when all sources describe Bridgegate as a scandal. Also removes context.
  • [224] - Collect removes content about a bill vetoed by Christie
Marco Rubio (January 2015)
  • [225] - Collect removes content sourced to established polling organizations
  • [226] - And again
Rush Limbaugh (May 2012)
  • [227] - Collect removes content sourced to PolitiFact, despite being supported any additional sources.
Matt Drudge (May 2013 )

Evidence presented by Atsme

Several of the diffs provided do not support the claims against Collect

After reviewing quite a few of the diffs provided as evidence against Collect, what I've seen indicates the edits were made in compliance with policy. His edit summaries clearly explain the issues.

The following examples will demonstrate Collect's consistency regarding strict adherence to BLP policy, an effort that should be commended not criticized.

John Waters February 6, 2014

(→‎Homophobia accusations: rm named of living persons - accusations of homophobia are a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP and per discussions at WP:BLP/N)

Breitbart (website) December 21, 2014

(we cannot make claims NOT SUPOPORTED by the sources - the sources support that there was confusion about two people with the same name, not that Breitbart deliberately made false accusations about anyone)

I simply do not see any justification for editors to be lax on BLP requirements. Laxity should fall back to behavior that is violative of BLP policy, not to the editor who is being compliant. The question then becomes why is it so important for those who oppose Collect's actions to insist on the inclusion of material challenged as noncompliant? Based on the diffs, the issue appears to be whether or not WP should include tabloid style rhetoric and/or contentious material in a BLP which makes it a policy issue not a behavioral issue. Collect provided justification for why the material should not be included, and did so in compliance with NPOV, V and BLP. When in doubt, leave it out. Based on WP:BURDEN, I cannot see how Collect's edits would warrant any action against him.

Collect's essays are evidence in his favor

His essays demonstrate consistency as a prolific writer and generous volunteer, and make it rather apparent that he fully understands and strictly adheres to BLP policy and the 3 core content policies that govern it.

Collect's edit summaries are self-explanatory, and are further qualified by the actual edits

Talk:Robert Kagan March 20, 2015 Talk:Robert_Kagan

"BLP is one of the two most important policies on Wikipedia."

ANI March 20, 2015 ANI

"I would expect a redaction of offensive material about any editor or BLP subject, as such is contrary to my strict reading of WP:BLP."

Michael Grimm (politician) April 28, 2014 Michael Grimm (politician)

(→‎Federal Bureau of Investigation (1991–2006): WEIGHT applies to your favorite "FUCKING" quote per WP:BLP , and "refused" is an argumentative view)

Alex Jones (radio host) October 27, 2014

(Undid revision 631318900 by Gaba p (talk)per RfC - the ONLY part which has clear consensus is the NY Magazine cite)

Matt Drudge May 7, 2013

(Undid revision 553919359 by Iful (talk)undue weight on price of real estate - not biographical value)

I can't possibly provide an analysis for every single diff provided, but based on the ones I've reviewed, Collect's actions are supported by policy. It appears some of his statements may have been misconstrued.

Hope it's ok for me to add a few more comments, but this procedure has actually been a learning experience for me. I have with great interest studied more of the allegations to see if they were actually supported by the diffs, both above and below my post. What I discovered holds true to what I've already said above; e.g., they do not. Could the allegations be the result of misapprehension as it appears to be? For example, in the very well formatted presentation by MastCell below, I thoroughly investigated the two diffs provided under Outright BLP violations.
The first set of diffs re: Mike Nifong do not support the allegation rather they confirm a content issue. Collect's edit summary stated: (partial revert/rewrite -- maybe, maybe not -- but the media coverage has been deemed important on the article talk page and this bold change thus needs consensus) The allegation against Collect is that inclusion was a blatant BLP violation which he denied. One of the sources cited is Media Research Center News Busters by professional columnist/blogger, Clay Waters. Is the source unreliable for its purpose because MRC's mission is to expose liberal bias? I ask because I recently argued that Media Matters was not a RS for contentious material in a different BLP as their mission is to expose conservative bias, but it's still in dispute. The other source was the NY Times article by Roberts wherein it states Whatever the root, there is a common thread: a desire for teammates to exploit the vulnerable without heeding a conscience. [229]. Perhaps an inline text attribution should have been included in the article but either way, the source is reliable and supports the added paragraph, as do multiple other sources that could also be used.
The other evidence refers to a BLPN thread MastCell included but I will only refer to that evidence in case the statements and diffs are determined to be sanctionable as vios. The allegation refers to a thread Collect opened re: Jameis Winston. I confirmed the two blogs which may be unacceptable, (one may qualify as a 3rd party RS) but the other two cited sources are RS, including USA Today and Miami New Times. If what Collect did at the BLPN is considered to be a BLP vio, then would the same apply to its inclusion here? I hope not for both their sakes.
I also noticed some rather obvious partisanship in the compiled evidence of others against Collect who, as far as I'm concerned, has not revealed his political leanings, the latter of which indicates NPOV. Either way, I think we should all make it a point to shed ourselves of such tendencies at login. Atsme☯Consult 17:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by User:Factchecker_atyourservice

Not useful in its current form. Awaiting diffs.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


This case looks like political payback

Collect has a bumptious manner about him, but from my view, most of the hay made in his name involves left-leaning editors who are dissatisfied with the outcome of a content dispute that somehow relates to politics. The party who filed this case has a history of questionable, politically motivated, left-leaning editing of BLPs. In at least one case, this involved both obvious source misrepresentation and deliberate use of questionable sourcing, and when these problems were challenged, Mr. X became hostile & sarcastic and started making vague though baseless threats of invoking administrative process against me. I note also that another major participant here, User:Cwobeel, has an extremely well-established track record of trying to use administrative process to short-circuit a content dispute. Likewise, I doubt there is much merit to these charges & strongly suspect they are more a form of political Wiki-payback against an unpopular editor. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 13:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by MastCell

Trimmed from original submission to meet word limits.

Collect's pattern of behavior

Edit-warring

Background: Collect blocked 8 times for edit-warring. One overturned by consensus, several others lifted early on promise of good behavior.

February 2014: Violates 3RR, claim of BLP exemption dismissed. No action taken, agreed to stop edit-warring.
June 2014: Violates 3RR, claim of BLP exemption dismissed ([230], [231]), admonished by admin for misrepresenting his block log ("you do yourself no favors when you invite readers here to incorrectly infer that many of your previous blocks were not appropriately placed"). Let off with warning.
October 2014: Violates 3RR, reprimanded by closing admin for misrepresenting her comments ("The way you misuse a quote... is more than unexpected, it takes my breath away, I'm awed. You take cherry-picking to a whole new level.") Blocked for 48 hours.
Feburary 2015: Edit-warring. Let off with a warning.
March 2015: Edit-warring, closing admin notes "long-term problem" between Collect and Ubikwit. Collect's defense: "I did not edit war". Closing admin further notes regarding Collect: "... 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... You should know better, although maybe you do and this is just your strategy to get out of yet another block for edit warring." Blocked for 1 week.

Inflammatory and battleground behavior

Outright BLP violations

Page Sequence of events Collect's response
Mike Nifong Collect disclaims all responsibility for BLP violation:

Complete discussion threads here and here. (Collect erased the former).

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard Collect opens a thread on Jameis Winston.

Full archived discussion here.

Collect disclaims responsibility:

Other editors and admins express incredulity at Collect's approach:

Poor practical understanding of WP:BLP; e.g. RfC closure.

Stonewalling and misrepresentation of sources

Misrepresentation of policies

Inappropriate assertion of personal expertise

Repeatedly appeals to (his own) authority in disputes:

But dismisses others' degrees and expertise:

Flexible criteria for reliability

Repeatedly defends the Daily Mail as a reliable source:

Dismisses concerns as motivated by partisan bias:

Other editors (Jayen466 and AndyTheGrump) point out that the Mail repeatedly prints made-up stories: [244], [245]. Andy pleads: "why are you defending this clearly unreliable source?" Collect dismisses the fabricated material as "an error in release... nothing much".

Evidence presented by Buster7

Collect creates and maintains stress

Confession; I have been at odds with Collect for 7 years. Or, better stated, Collect has been at odds with me. Unlike the impression one might get from his comments of 4/1/15 on his talk page, I have done my very best to stay away from anything and everything he is involved in for at least 4 YEARS. I have only gone to his page to try to make peace or to ask him to stop stalking following me. Collect displays temperament that is ill-suited for a collaborative workplace. His constant accusations against dozens if not hundreds of editors shows a battleground personality that has been evident throughout his long history as a Wikipedia editor. Diffs are too many to provide so I suggest any editor scan his past talk pages (pick any two month period within the last 4 years) which will show the constant ebb and flow of confrontation with many, many, many, editors. Too many to name. His “it’s always the other guy who was at fault” retort is tiresome and a roadblock to any balanced adult discussion.

Collect engages in histrionics

Many veteran editors have been scarred by his many un-substantiated claims of sock and meat puppetry. It is his weapon of choice. As far as Collect is concerned all editors that cross him are either sockpuppets , meatpuppets or members of various cabals. This diff---> remove anything that might be remotely attacking anyone at all is of Collect changing a paragraph where he directly refers to me as a "Sockpuppet". A few diffs later--> absolutely no one can find the identity now, he admits he needs to cover his trail of calling a fellow editor the most detrimental and attacking word possible.

Collect refuses to bury the hatchet, has an Enemies List, and is vindictive

Normally, evidence from the past is not considered pertinent since an editor often will re-consider his actions as a novice and will make changes in his temperament and social demeanor as he transforms into a veteran editor. Not so with Collect. In spite of his claims to the contrary, he has an enemies list. Proof? On 26 August 2012, I offered Collect [an olive branch]. It was not the first and it also wasn’t the last. He rejected it. A week later he (Collect) posted an old communication of mine (remarkably from a 2009 request for advice that I made to User:Factchecker atyourservice) with another editor (Factchecker.....) onto Collect's his talk page and it has been there ever since. That is almost 3 years of misrepesenting a statement and doing it in a blatant bad faith manner on his talk page. [246] I would dare say that this diff and his comments today are clear signs that Collect has an enemies list and, for some vindictive reason, I am high on it.

Evidence presented by NE Ent

Self-focused rather than project focused, as indicated by thinking it appropriate to name "law" after themself, put into Wikipedia: space: Wikipedia:Collect's Law, see MFD, followed by pointy renaming of userfied essay when they didn't get their way: [247] NE Ent (formerly "Nobody Ent") 12:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by {your user name}

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

{Write your assertion here}

Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others/Evidence&oldid=654682207"