Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian/Proposed decision

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

I am pretty sure that the answer is going to be "yes", but I would like to place on record that I have only just finished providing evidence (well, I can't find a couple of further examples I am aware exist and I don't think there are any other separate areas of concern) and I was going to float a couple of ideas on how (and why) to possibly deal with the matter on the workshop page. Can anyone give me an idea how long before we are likely to get the major body of Arbs voting? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, there's no rush. I will be following the workshop and will ruthlessly plagiarize any better proposals that I see and substitute them for mine. I will add that I generally post draft decisions on the workshop for comment before moving to /proposed decision; the reason I did not do so in this case is because Abtract indicated that he would not be submitting evidence when I asked him, so I thought it made sense to move to move the case expeditiously. Please be assured that your comments and proposals are welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'kay. I shall do so drekkly, but shan't duplicate what is already on the Proposed decision. I should think that only if there seems to be sufficient response to the workshop would there be any need for those to be replicated on the workshop page (since non-Arbs/Clerks cannot comment on the Proposed page). LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Collectonian's most recent submission of evidence; are any or both of these actions by Abtract in violation of the injunction? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checking to see. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The temporary injunction may be enforced as needed, but I hope that within the next few days, the decision in this case will supersede it and provide any needed clarification. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just to notify the Committee (if unaware already) that the non-voluntary restrictions enacted by the community are likely to be updated within the next day or two. The update clarifies that upon the conclusion of this case, the restriction by the community on Collectonian and Abtract will become void, and instead will be handled according to the Committee's restrictions. Sesshomaru's restriction will also be updated slightly for the benefit of admins who may be asked to enforce the restriction. I think we're done here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the information of the committee, a current thread on Wikipedia talk:Harassment has proposed an alternate term ("wikihounding") to replace the term "wikistalking". The purpose is to differentiate between the annoying on-wiki behaviours commonly associated with what is currently referred to as "wikistalking" and the potentially harmful and far-reaching on- and off-wiki stalking that some of our editors have endured. While the former is irritating and likely reduces the pleasure of editing for the "wikistalkee" (possibly even leading them to stop editing), the latter has caused (potential) harm to family members, careers, and personal reputation outside of Wikipedia; in a few rare cases, it has placed the well-being of Wikipedians and/or their families at risk.

The term "wikistalking" is derived from longtime internet usage of the term "stalk", which is generally benign and indicates a level of watchfulness. For example, IRC users may "stalk" certain terms so that they are alerted if those terms are used in a channel in which they are currently logged in. The same term, however, has oppressive overtones outside of the cyberworld, and is used to describe a level of harassment that is menacing and intimidating.

This is an encyclopedia, and the precise use of terms, giving greater weight to their more common usage, is an important principle in creating our content. Let's work toward doing the same thing in non-article space. I note Newyorkbrad's comment here, and he may now rest assured that at least one person would prefer to see another term used in place of "wikistalking". Risker (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thread on Wikipedia talk:Harassment is noted with interest. In fairness to the parties to this case, particularly the person who I believe has been harassed, I would rather not hold up proceedings in the case while the community discusses changing the terminology in the policy. If consensus develops to change the terminology, without a substantive change in the content, then the decision can be deemed to be modified accordingly, whether before or after the case has closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency I am the one who coined the term "Wikihounding" when Durova asked me to suggest a suitable replacement for "wikistalking". Everything Risker said is perfect. Jehochman ^Talk 16:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) For now, I don't think any of the parties closely following the case care so much about what word is used to describe it - what's important is that they all understand that the behaviour itself is problematic, and that the Committee noted that such behaviour has occurred. Given that (at least, as far as I can recall) wikistalking has been used to identify that behaviour, and that wikistalking was in the policy at the time of this proposed decision being drafted, any such change to the policy won't be significant. I know for a fact that all parties wish to move forward from here, so what's important is that the case comes to a timely close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with those sentiments. Jehochman ^Talk 16:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. Decisions should be written in view of the policy as it stands during the period under review; subsequent changes to policies are not necessarily germane. Having said that, this particular iteration of the Arbitration Committee has been somewhat more activist than previous ones, and may be more open to encouraging a change in usage. Risker (talk) 16:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The change in name is a good idea, one that the Committee can support by using the new term in our future discussions and rulings. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As this process is drawing to a close, I thought I would just get a few things off my chest.

• Why I did not participate. I fully intended to participate, because I quite wanted this matter discussed in a neutral forum, but, when my opening statement was dramatically shortened by hiding much of it in a cross-reference, I felt that the process had let me down even before it started. I was given no good reason for removing what, to me, was a vital part of my statement.
• The bitch episode. The part of my statement that was removed contained the bitch episode. I am extremely disappointed that the only reference to it by arbitrators has been to dismiss it as a "petty disagreement". Petty is in the eye of the beholder and I do not consider it to be petty - I was accused of something I clearly did not do but Collectonian has refused to this day to acknowledge her guilt in this. I was expecting arbitrators to recognise this and make some reference to the fact that I was badly treated by Coll. Sadly this has not happened. Not only did it affect me but this episode had a dramatic effect on Coll - look at the way she has pursued my with rfc etc; look at the tone of her evidence; can you not see how vindictive she has become towards me? (I guess the answer is that you cannot or some mention of it would have surfaced by now). Just one mention of the injustice of her treatment of me in the bitch episode would have been nice (I am past expecting an apology from her)
• Did I stalk Collectonian? To be absolutely clear, this is what I have done. Following the bitch episode, I watched her talk page and her edits. This was nothing more than she had told me she was doing to me (see bitch episode below) and quite allowed within wp. I wasn't surprised to see that she treated others in the same high-handed way she treated me. You don't have to look far into her editing history to see that she would rather warn than welcome, that she has definite ownership tendencies, and that she is not above a bit of edit warring herself - not a happy combination. Yes I have 'edited after her' on a relatively few occcasions; each of these edits was designed to stand up for the under-dog (a good British tradition) such as this one: "May 2008 Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to List of Last of the Summer Wine episodes. Thank you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Hi, just thought I would mention that edit summaries, whilst being good practice, are not compulsory ... but I expect you knew that. :) Abtract (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gordonastill". I don't consider this to be "stalking" or "harrassment" and neither do the guidleines "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption. If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions." My highlighting of tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior. My editing has always been because I think my version is better than the previous one - yes I am prone to edit warring in a minor way but aren't we all?
• Collectonian's evidence is thin to say the least. I draw your attention to just two: "He has even filled (sic) false 3RR reports against me ... [1]." was this a false 3RR report? I don't think so. Surely I was right to rv the removal of an "underconstruction" article here? Several of his accusations concern my edits to Oxford Scientific Films an article I created wow was I in the wrong wrong there!. As for the rest ... read the diffs again please; you will find they all point to pretty normal edits, the only problem with them being that I made them. I am afraid you have been suckered here - Collectonian says it is so and you have believed her.
• Where was User:JHunterJ when I needed him? The only admin to have some sympathy with my position has been silent throughout this process, which saddens me.
• For the record. I would appreciate it if you would read this please.
• Also for the record. This was not me. Why has this not been investigated? An accusation is made and left on the record as though it were true - check it please (you have the means I am sure).
• (C) Make uncivil comments about or personal attacks upon any user. Why is this restriction considered necessary? I have not been found to have made uncivil comments of personal attacks in recent times and it is no part part this process so where did this come from? Don't get me wrong, I have no intention of indulging in those activities but I don't like the implication that I might if unrestricted.
• See Collectonian for what she is. I don't suppose you will but just step back and look at the bitch episode, my so-called harrassing edits and Collectonian's grossly over-the-top response here and elswhere - does this not seem like a vindictive attempt to avoid admitting she was wrong?
• There follows the full text of the bitch episode; please put yourself in my position :
  Abtract (talk) 12:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

A bitch of a warning

With regard to your comments on User talk:Abtract: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Collectonian (talk) 17:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry what's your point?

Abtract (talk) 17:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You need to stop making uncivil comments against other editors, even if you disagree with them. I have held off on further action in the hopes that you would take the advice of the several people trying to help you and change your behavior regarding edit warring and violating

WP:3RR, and take them, and the good advice I and others have given you to avoid further issues.Collectonian (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

yes, yes, so you said but what spurred you on to make this point now?

Abtract (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Your recent edit summary when you moved a comment. While technically accurate, it read badly. Collectonian (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you will have to be more specific, I make lots of edits. :)

Abtract (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

[2] this one. Collectonian (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems quite innocuous to me; what's your point?

Abtract (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

It can be misinterpreted, particular with the recent incivility issues, so just saying to consider the way you word things in the future, especially when dealing with an article like that. Collectonian (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What can be misinterpreted and by whom?

Abtract (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

By anyone who doesn't check your contributes to see you meant literally that you were moving it to Talk:Bitch rather than implying the person was just "bitching" and you were removing it. Collectonian (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have more faith in "anyone checking my contributions" than you do. Just out of interest why are you checking my contributions? And why do you feel it necessary to warn me in such stentorian tones for using the name of an article in an edit summary ... a summary which I am sure the editor actually concerned with the exchange understood and found helpful. Thanks for stopping by, but I really do think you could be more usefully employed than threatening me.

Abtract (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You came to my attention through your regular edit warring. As others already told you, when you act disruptively, people will start watching you. I am not threatening you, I'm attempting to help you, but you continue to respond to all attempts to help you avoid being blocked with sarcasm and a brush off. Collectonian (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply This information is appropriate for the Evidence page. The issue of the bitch remark has been noted by others so I'm familiar with it. Your unwillingness to drop the issue is the main reason that I voted to make the restriction an arbcom sanction enforceable by blocks. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this right ... you voted for sanctions enforceable by blocks because I feel agrieved at being badly treated by Coll but you see no need to even mention the fact that I was badly treated? Perhaps you think Coll acted really well in the bitch episode? I would be very interested in your views.

Abtract (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Abstract, you seem to be under the impression that because Coll. wronged you that you have free reign to wrong him repeatedly until he apologises. You also seem to feel you have a right to be apologised to. You have been repeatedly told that these two assumptions are wrong. Yes, Coll. had a bad moment. How many have you specifically and maliciously done since? Because thats the issue here. The occasional bad call is not actionable. What you are doing is. If you don't think so, than maybe the fact that EVERYONE but you thinks so should make you step back and re-evaluate your opinion. Let it go. 198.161.173.180 (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for admitting that he wronged me.

Abtract (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]