→1932: new section |
|||
Line 225:
I apologize if this is answered somewhere in the hundreds of thousands of words spread out amongst the case pages, but from glancing over this case and the Collect case, I'm struggling to see what is sought here separate from the other case. Thank you. --[[User:B|B]] ([[User talk:B|talk]]) 21:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
:{{re|B}} According to the opening motion, {{tq|This case is focused on a broad topic and will examine allegations of misconduct within the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics# Locus of dispute|American Politics topic]], which – for the purposes of this case – also includes the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement#Locus of dispute 1|Tea Party Movement topic]] and any United States-related overlaps with the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control#Locus and focus of conflict|Gun Control topic]]. While Collect may participate in this case, no allegations concerning him may be made within it, nor any proposed findings or remedies posted.}} Hope this helps, --'''[[User:L235|L235]]''' ([[User talk:L235|t]] / [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]] / [[User:L235/siginfo|<small>ping in reply</small>]]) 01:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
== 1932 ==
What happened in 1932 that caused it to be used as a cutoff date? [[User:EllenCT|EllenCT]] ([[User talk:EllenCT|talk]]) 23:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
|
Revision as of 23:56, 28 June 2015
Case clerks: L235 (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (Talk) & NativeForeigner (Talk)
Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Preliminary statements by non-party editors (see note)
- Note This case originated as a request relating the behaviour of Collect, which became intertwined with requests for arbitration regarding the (partly overlapping) American politics topic area. Two cases were opened, this one to deal with the the American politics topic and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others to look into the behaviour of Collect and those who interact with them. Statements below may related to both or only one of these cases. A user's statement here does not imply any involvement with the American politics topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
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 ([1] [2] [3] [4]). His comments during content disputes are typically acerbic, dismissive, misleading and unyielding. He has misrepresented facts ([5] [6][7] [8] [9]), made WP:POINTY edits ([10] [11] [12]), forum shopped/canvassed ([13] [14] [15]), made carefully worded personal attacks ([16] [17]), and compared editors' contributions with McCarthyism ([18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]).
Collect persistently claims BLP violations at various fora, but when asked to substantiate his claims, he frequently evades providing straightforward answers ([24]), 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 ([25]). Many times the concerns are not BLP policy concerns at all ([26] [27]). 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"([28] [29] [30]). 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 ([31] [32] [33]).
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 ([34]), 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)
- @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)
- @Courcelles: The case proposed is about Collect's long-term conduct, not politics, and not every editor under the sun. The other parties listed should be removed from the case if it is accepted.- MrX 02:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by NE Ent
Case scope: Collect, narrowly. NE Ent 02:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Fyddlestix
I have gone into depth on this in the past here here and here. I thought it might be helpful to tell how I (as a relative neophyte) first encountered Collect:
I had no prior experience of Collect, Ubikwit, or the PNAC page prior to stumbling across these edits by Collect: 1234 5. This looked to me like WP:POINT and edit warring, so I tried to offer a compromise. Ubikwit responded nicely enough but I inferred that neither editor was going to be much interested in cleaning up the article, which was in a bad state.
I started some cleanup, but when I removed the 9/11 junk Collect replied to my talk page post, reinserted the questionable quote (which, by my count, 3 other editors had deemed wholly out of place in the article). I replied on the talk page with what I feel was a reasonable, well-thought out response, and removed the quote a second time, taking care to first add new, well-sourced text which I hoped might satisfy Collect.
Collect has treated me as an enemy ever since. He immediately filed this RFC, which as I told him, mischaracterized my position (but linked my edit). He refused to re-word it.
Since then I have observed that Collect sometimes calls for reinforcements on unrelated pages, and often cries "SYNTH" and "BLP" in situations where the violation is unclear. He refuses to reply when cornered with a request for specifics, only to reopen the debate elsewhere. Note those 2 diffs are exactly a month apart, and that the same issue is being discussed. Collect never replied to either post, but a day after the second one he did go to Jimmy Wales' UT page and posted the claim that the table was SYNTH again, without notifying any of the other parties in the debate. He then proceeded to badly mischaracterize the people debating him and his own actions. here for example he claims a group of us had "brought him" to drama boards, but Collect is the one who has made the most "board" posts by far: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. I made one.
The final straw for me, however was his suggestion that this was my "preferred" version of the PNAC article. This is a blatant falsehood, and Collect knows that - I've done more into improve that article than anyone else in recent weeks, removing much of the material that Collect himself objected to. I know that Collect knows this, because he thanked me for my edits. Yet now he accuses me of wanting to reverse my own edits, and to restore content which he knows I oppose.
Please Note that this drama and Collect's conduct issues long predate the AFD that I and others have been accused of trying to influence by making this complaint. The article @ AFD was created, I think, to bring an end to the conflict that started here one way or another. Fyddlestix (talk) 04:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Apologies if this puts me over my (heretofore carefully adhered to) word count, but briefly: Dear ODear's suggestion that this is about blaming PNAC for the Iraq War, or about unjustly labeling people "neoconservatives," as well as MONGO's suggestion that this is some kind of "radical" liberal crusade against collect [35][36][37] are wholly without basis, and I will/would challenge them to produce diffs to back up their statements. Heck, I can't think of/remember a single other article in the American politics area that I'd edited before stumbling into this PNAC mess. My edits have also always been sourced with RS (usually academic monographs/journals), and been consistent with what the literature shows. Allegations of a relation to the Iraq war have always been clearly labelled as third party opinions, and countered through reference to literature that dismisses those assertions. PNAC was labelled neocon because an overwhelming majority of RS on the subject do the same.
- If Collect is eventually found to have engaged in unacceptable behavior, I hope you will also take a glance at the people who have been constantly enabling and defending that behavior, despite it often being (in my opinion) clearly unacceptable. Fyddlestix (talk) 12:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
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 to A1candidate - Not offended by the WP:TROUT. Tastes a bit like crow though. Jbh (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Some particularly bad comments by Collect
- The purpose of this article is not to simply list people which is already done in the parent article, it is to connect them to the Bush administration per se, and to link them to a purported conspiracy to cause the Iraq War. - Imputing I had a bad motive for creating article .
- After telling Collect that personal anecdotes (about McCarthyism) are not a useful argument in AfD - Is your argument actually serious- or just meant to demean those who actually seek to avoid the errors of the past? Some other references to McCarthyism [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], and [43] This is no longer analogy it is an attempt to frame the debate and conflate other editors with McCarthyism.
- Collect's claim "Apparently some feel compelled to point out its evility... when paired with this, in reply to a question of Whose idea was it, anyway?, Ubikwit, Jbhunley, Fyddlestix, MrX mainly. A few others join in from point to point. - All of the editors mentioned were mentioned in
Plain text
not code that would generate notifications and they had not been notified the thread was open. Jbh (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
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)[44]
I see no congruence between the above statement and the request made here by MrX. Jbh (talk) 00:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reply to
FloquenbeamCourcelles Jbh (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2015 (UTC) - My opinion is that we need to focus on the behavior issues of Collect. In my short interaction with him I have found that the behavior which is frustrating but OK in a user talk conversation with no import is extremely disruptive when trying to improve the encyclopedia. I have found that once he takes a position there is no compromise and no consensus is accepted unless it is his consensus. I have found no way to break through this. Sources are discounted or not addressed. Nothing will change his position, he keeps repeating hypotheticals and will not detail his actual complaint. When asked "What, precisely, do you consider to be SYNTH in this situation? What information do you want the sources to include so it will not, in your opinion be SYNTH? He simply disengages from the dispute resolution forum he started. "[45] Only to bring the exact same issue up again, and again and again. This last one caused me to create, out of shear frustration at his unwillingness to engage in collaboritive editing, the article which ended up at AfD and precipitated the ANI complaint which led to this Arbcom request.To fail to address the behavioral issues would, in my opinion, simply push the problem into the future and result in ongoing damage to the creation of the encyclopedia. If American Politics needs to be addressed I request it be considered a seperate issue. This is a behavior issue not a content issue. Thank you for your consideration. Jbh (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reply to Dear ODear ODear I have seen no statements or implications of PNAC "causing" the Iraq war in the time I have been editing in this subject area. Diffs, I believe, should be provided for such accusations so as to avoid taring all with the same brush. Also you should note that Collect was blocked for that same week Ubikwit was. While I have not always agreed with and often vehemently disagreed with Ubikwit I have found them open to compromise and I can have an intellectually honest discussion with them about the sources. Jbh (talk) 11:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
- Reply to Dear ODear ODear - In response to your email now provided to ArbCom - feel free to search through my contributions. MONGO has said he will do the same thing [46] but did not offer a way to avoid it happening. It also makes me reconsider my opinion on this [47] issue of threats I thought was closed. Jbh (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Guy Macon
It appears that the standard "Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter" section is inadequate in this case, because of stated opinions such as "Accept as two distinct cases" and "Accept Collect case about that editor's behavioral issues. Postpone American Politics II". There should be two counts for the two proposed cases. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Having read the reply in the clerk's notes section, I would strongly encourage the arbitrators to not discuss their options on the mailing lists and deal with the case opening by motion instead of by vote count. Those vote counts are an important part of any arbitration case, and help us non-arbitrators to give informed advice to you. It would be a simple matter to ask a clerk to create two vote tallies rather than us having to create workarounds like the "Presumptuous pseudo-clerking by Short Brigade Harvester Boris" section. I'm just saying. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by uninvolved Begoon
I don't have a view on the specific rights and wrongs here, because I haven't examined them. One thing does concern me, though. Whilst I can see the merits to achieving better focus by splitting into 2 cases, it seems to me that Collect is likely, then, to be "defending" himself in 2 simultaneous cases. That seems, on the face of it, a somewhat onerous expectation. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nature of the "split" and "separation"? Begoon talk 13:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Statement by Rich Farmbrough
Having come across a recent aspect of this and looked at it in some detail, it seems to me there is a case to be made that their are WP:BATTLEGROUND issues involving this collection of editors, which the community has not resolved. As usual proper analysis of who said what about whom and when would be required to establish exactly which editors require the application of which sized trout. If it is felt that one or more editors cause disruption only when editing a certain topic, then a topic ban is clearly an option.
I would suggest caution in opening an "American Politics" case. If the AfD referred to by AlanScotteWalker (with whose comments I agree) among others reaches the "wrong" conclusion, it is hardly a significant worry, nor will it be the first, or last, AfD to do so. I strongly doubt that any action by the Committee could make a whit of difference to the alleged, and quite possible, political bias in the community. Nor do I see that placing "American Politics" (broadly construed) under any known form of sanctions would be a useful exercise. Indeed we have far too much of the encyclopedia under various forms of sanction already.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough
Statement by 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 several edits to the AfD debate, none 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)
Update: The AfD was closed with a delete (Collect's position) was the "clear consensus" per closer. 30 Delete, 1 Keep, 2 Keep/Merge, 5 Merge/Redirect, 1 Delete/Merge.
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)
{{Ping|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)
It's my party?
So let me get this straight: because I posted four words (Case scope: Collect, narrowly. ) suggesting the case not be about politics, I'm a "party" in the case about politics? NE Ent 02:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think everybody who commented is "party". EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Guerillero removed you and Beyond My Ken, I just removed Floquenbeam. More will come. Courcelles (talk) 02:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please remove me. My comment was purely procedural. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're now removed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please remove me. My comment was purely procedural. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
...and I'll cry if I want to
Similarly, my last comment specifically pointed out that I should not be listed as a party, since I almost never edit American Politics articles and have never been part of any dispute concerning them. Please remove me as a party pursuant to part 3B of the motion. BMK (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- See the above, you've been removed. Courcelles (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Listing of Parties
According to the Arbitration Committee: "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." What it does is to give you the right to post 1000 words and 100 diffs in evidence if you wish to use that right. For the committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Wording
This case is distinct from the Collect case, and nothing about him directly is to be part of whatever this case is about (I'm still trying to figure out why this exists) but the statements are the same, with the bulk of it about Collect. I'm sure the committee has good intentions here but I am confused.--MONGO 05:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- All statements were copied to both cases. The opening statements aren't of particular significance during the case anyway, since their purpose is to help us decide whether to take the case. Once the case is open, the evidence presented is what matters. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Question
I have no edits in the area of American Politics that are not entwined in the Collect case. I believe any complaints relating to me can be addresses there. Is it possible to be removed from this case? Thank you. Jbh (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I'm pretty much in the same boat - I'm hard pressed to think of an article outside Project for the New American Century (ie, outside of my interactions with Collect) that I've edited which might fit within the "US Politics" area. Fyddlestix (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed the both of you. If someone were to present anything against you here, you'll be re-added to ensure you have the opportunity to respond. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:25, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
This is embarrassing.
The main page for this case is preloaded with a boatload of irrelevant and unremovable comments that have absolutely nothing to do with this case. I told you that splitting the case by motion was a bad idea but I had no idea how bad. I implore arbcom to start a fresh, new case about American politics 2 without any leftover comments about Collect, about how to best to split a case, or about users posting informal vote counts because of the original dumb decision to not tell the clerks to display the votes for each case.
I personally object to being forced to comment on an arbcom case that I did not choose to comment on. If I copied a comment by an arbitrator to another somewhat related page while keeping the signature and date intact I would be facing sanctions. Move all of the old comments to a subpage that clearly indicates the case the comments were made to and mark it historical. This is brain-dead and embarrassing. We're better than this. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- This case seems to exist so any named party can sling mud at other named parties or add names of unnamed parties so they can sling mud at them. If arbcom is trying to put a stop to bickering on American Politics related articles (must be 300k of them broadly construed) good luck.--MONGO 23:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think that there is a real problem in the US politics articles and I think arbcom can and will solve the problem without allowing any mudslinging. My only complaint is that our procedures for splitting cases totally suck. Nobody is to blame -- it just kind of grew that way -- but it is something we can easily fix. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- The articles simply mirror the polarization in American Politics in real life especially over the last 15 or so years. Expecting polarized volunteers to get along and not bicker about such topics is expecting the impossible. I have not looked at whatever the American Politics 1 case was about but one would have hoped things would have been fixed then...maybe next year we can move onto part three arbcom case....I dunno.--MONGO 02:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- The American Politics 1 case got not much participation relative to the immense amount of conflict that has blighted the topic area over the years. Consequently it didn't do much to fix the problems. This case also looks quiet so far, so I don't expect much from it. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- The articles simply mirror the polarization in American Politics in real life especially over the last 15 or so years. Expecting polarized volunteers to get along and not bicker about such topics is expecting the impossible. I have not looked at whatever the American Politics 1 case was about but one would have hoped things would have been fixed then...maybe next year we can move onto part three arbcom case....I dunno.--MONGO 02:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. I think that there is a real problem in the US politics articles and I think arbcom can and will solve the problem without allowing any mudslinging. My only complaint is that our procedures for splitting cases totally suck. Nobody is to blame -- it just kind of grew that way -- but it is something we can easily fix. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Guy is absolutely correct. I hear-by withdraw permission to use my comment on this case. Moreover I wish to add the caveat on the Collect case that I am an an uninvolved editor. It should be perfectly clear from context, however perfect clarity it seems is not enough for this particular Committee. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC).
- I just changed the section title from "Preliminary statements by non-party editors" to "Preliminary statements posted to another arbcom case by non-party editors" with the edit comment "I intend to strongly oppose anything that even hints that I have ever made an arbcom statement about American Politics."
- Yes, I do appreciate an arbcom member removing me from the involved parties list and moving my statement here, but that does not change the fact that arbcom impersonated me and forged my signature, and I have seen no real apology or indication that they understand that this behavior is wrong or that they won't do it again. I never posted any statement concerning American politics 2. What if this had happened in the gamergate case and I ended up being harassed off-wiki because for a few days it looked like I was involved and did post a statement?
- While I would never actually do such a WP:POINTy thing, what do you think would be the result if I took one of the arbitrators accept votes from this case and copied it into the Infoboxes II case, complete with signature and time/date stamp? I suggest that suddenly "I didn't make a statement in that case and you shouldn't have used cut-and-paste to make it look like I did" would become a violation that results in a block. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Opening statements
It's a little nuts that the opening statements for the Collect case and American Politics 2 are identical. It's clear, for example, in Andy's statement, that he is referring to the American Politics case but his statement is cross-posted to the Collect case. Can these two cases become disentangled? The decision was to create two separate and distinct cases and no part of them should be automatically cross-posted to the other just because the initial case request mentioned them both.
And I say this because if this practices continues, it will confuse all parties involved. Some effort needs to go into making sure these cases are separate and do not overlap in content. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- In addition to manually disentangling these two cases, we should change our procedures so this never happens again. See my comment in the section above this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- It's rather rare that two cases are opened from a single request like this. The arbs should work this out on their own time --L235 (alt / t / c / ping in reply) 13:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- I don't care how rare it is. You clerks, simply by doing your job (and I emphasize that no clerk did anything even slightly wrong here) did something that would have been a blockable offense otherwise. See my comment at [ Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#This is embarrassing. ] for a fuller explanation. The last thing I want to do is to fault you or any other clerk involved for simply doing your job, but I also am not going to allow anyone to forge messages in my name. My assumption is that this simply has not caught the attention of any arbitrator and that once they realize the consequences of their decision to split this case by motion they will draft procedures that insure that the inadvertent forgery will never happen again. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Missing parties
As I mentioned in the request statement, if this case is being heard, Xenophrenic should be named as a party. I'm wondering if I can just post evidence against him and that will result in him being added, but not sure, thus this post.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:32, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Incidetally, the evidence has already been set forth, for the most part, in a previous request that I linked to in the statement pertaing to this case[48]. Though I pinged Xenophrenic when mentioning him in the request pertaining to this case, he didn't respond. Considering that he had been the main antagonist in the dispute on the article raised by LM2000, it would be farcical not to list him as a party.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 00:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Generally speaking, if evidence is being presented against someone in a case, we'll add them as a party as they should be notified and have an opportunity to respond. Being added as a party isn't in itself negative, it just means you're kept up to date with notifications and can present longer evidence. It doesn't mean you're going to be sanctioned or that you've done anything wrong. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- I was wondering what would happen if someone was removed as a party, but later someone addressed actions by them as evidence in the case... so you're saying they'll just be added back in? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's correct. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- I was wondering what would happen if someone was removed as a party, but later someone addressed actions by them as evidence in the case... so you're saying they'll just be added back in? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Please remove me from the case
I wish to be removed as a party to this case. As I stated in the case request, the case I brought is not about politics. If other editors wish to pursue such a case, I wish them well. Thank you.- MrX 00:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I find it deeply disturbing to be added to the Collect case, even more so to be added to this one, given that my comment was to the effect that that I could see no reason or benefit from such a case - in effect I was speaking against an idea of some Arbitrators. The message has to be - speak out against an Arbitrator and you will find yourself subject to Arbcom cases. I was against people being added to cases by fiat before, especially where the arb concerned had history with the editor they wanted adding. A blanket addition is not an improvement in process however, it is more likely to cost us valuable editors. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC).
Please remove me as a party to this case. This is all becoming rather irritating.
- I posted one very short, uninvolved comment at the original request.
- I was subsequently added as a party to 2 separate arbitration cases.
- With the exception of that one, I hoped, helpful comment I have no involvement at all.
- I have received four notifications/pings concerning all of this.
- I needed to post at the "Collect" case talkpage to get myself removed there.
- Now it seems I need to post here too.
This is all very discouraging and inconvenient as a result of making one comment in a spirit of helpfulness. Thanks. Begoon talk 14:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@Begoon, MrX, and Rich Farmbrough: I have removed you all as parties to this case and will move your statements to this talk page in a moment (I have not looked to see whether you should be removed from the Collect case as well). As repeatedly noted though being listed as a party to an arbitration case explicitly does not presume any wrongdoing nor indicate that findings of fact or remedies will result.
If anyone else wishes to be removed as a party from this case, please just make a simple request in this section (with a short explanation if you think it necessary) and it will be evaluated. Please use the equivalent talk page of the Collect and others case to make requests for removals from that case. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Thryduulf. I do understand that being listed as a party does not imply wrongdoing.- MrX 15:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. While being listed does not imply that one will be sanctioned, of course, the fact is that being listed (except in, shall we say, "unusual" cases like this) is possibly the only case where WP:NOTCOMPULSORY is broken. Not a few editors have decided to leave the project simply because an arbitration case is a whole lot of unpleasantness (and work), far outweighing the benefit of being allowed to donate ones time and effort.
- All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC).
- @Thryduulf: Please remove me as well. I have posted evidence in the Collect and others case, which is about editorial behavior, but will not do here. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Cwobeel:. I've seen your request, but I've asked my colleagues for a second opinion before saying yeah or nay to it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Do whatever you need to do, but I will not be party to this case. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've removed you. Dougweller (talk) 13:48, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Do whatever you need to do, but I will not be party to this case. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Cwobeel:. I've seen your request, but I've asked my colleagues for a second opinion before saying yeah or nay to it. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I would also like to withdraw myself from this arbitration. From the edits on the evidence page, it appears this is devolving into what I feared. I would much rather not be involved in that. As much as my opinions are now known, I don't think being dragged down due to what this appears to becoming is something that would benefit myself, or the community at large.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Seraphimblade, Thryduulf, and NativeForeigner: See above, another removal request for the drafters to consider. AGK [•] 20:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I respectfully request to be removed as a party to this case. I was not an involved party in the collect case request,[49] making one brief comment on the advisability of opening the case. I have no ongoing disputes with any editors of any political persuasion and little advice to add to those who do. Capitalismojo (talk) 22:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Capitalismojo: I've removed you as a party as I agree your comment was procedural and mostly relevant to the Collect case anyhow.
- @RightCowLeftCoast: I have not removed you at this time. Your statement is directly relevant to this case, and the evidence you have presented gives the impression of involvement. The caveat to this is that I haven't got time today to see if that impression is borne out when looking deeper, so this is not a final answer. Seraphimblade or NativeForeigner may be able to look sooner than I can and I wont disagree with whatever their conclusion is. Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- If this case continues, there are many more editors than we who have been listed (including those who have been removed), who have edited in the wide realm of "American politics", who are not parties here. This is evident by more recent evidence that has been presented/posted in an attempt to present some editors in a negative light who are not named parties. Therefore, being a party of this case is not a determining factor of the issue being discussed. Thus, the remedy ArbCom comes up with as a remedy, whatever that maybe, will impact parties and non-parties alike.
- As I said in the evidence page, I am not going to engage in digging up dirt on other editors, but that appears to be what has occurred. A witch hunt against individual editors as an attempt to create a picture of all editors who edit within the wide realm of "American politics" does not help Wikipedia, IMHO. Moreover, the majority of evidence presented has been by those attempting to cast a negative light upon non-liberal editors.
- Perhaps it is the failure of non-liberal editors to defend themselves/ourselves. Perhaps this is just backing of the statement that I made that got me involved here in the first place.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I see I have been “added by motion.” Please remove me. I’ve had precious little involvement in American political articles since the Sarah Palin circus seven years ago, where i learned my lesson. I made only one post on what is now the Collect arbcom case page, in which I simply asked for clarification from one editor as to the connection between his claims and his diffs (indeed I titled it “Request for clarification”), and queried a point of logic in a post by another. I have absolutely no interest in posting evidence to this case or participating in it in any way, despite Collect irrelevantly and gratuitously dragging me into the other one (from which I was removed by request). Thanks. Writegeist (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Writegeist: Done. I agree that your statement was not relevant to the scope of this case. Thryduulf (talk) 10:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrators active in editing articles within the scope of "American politics"
Should arbitrators who have or had been active in editing articles that can be seen as being within the scope of American politics recuse themselves from this case?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- That's far too general a question. Especially for a topic this broad, any edits whatsoever to anything that might be considered related is not sufficient. We might then have no one to hear the case. Beyond that, it depends on the individual circumstances. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
- From WP:ARBPOL: "An editor who believes an arbitrator should recuse will first post a message on the arbitrator's talk page asking the arbitrator to recuse and giving reasons. Should the arbitrator not respond, or not recuse, the user may refer the request to the Committee for a ruling."
- If there's one or more arbitrators who you (or anyone) believe should recuse themselves, please let them know directly. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks, this is the first arbitration that I have been asked to participate in, albeit reluctantly (for fear of what this may devolve into).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
- If there's one or more arbitrators who you (or anyone) believe should recuse themselves, please let them know directly. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
What is the scope of this case?
I apologize if this is answered somewhere in the hundreds of thousands of words spread out amongst the case pages, but from glancing over this case and the Collect case, I'm struggling to see what is sought here separate from the other case. Thank you. --B (talk) 21:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- @B: According to the opening motion,
This case is focused on a broad topic and will examine allegations of misconduct within the American Politics topic, which – for the purposes of this case – also includes the Tea Party Movement topic and any United States-related overlaps with the Gun Control topic. While Collect may participate in this case, no allegations concerning him may be made within it, nor any proposed findings or remedies posted.
Hope this helps, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
1932
What happened in 1932 that caused it to be used as a cutoff date? EllenCT (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)