Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian

Case Opened on 12:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed on 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at arbitration request and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

• LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Abtract (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Collectonian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sesshomaru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [Admin involved in current "Restrictions" review]
• Natalya (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) [Admin involved in current "Restrictions" review]

Statement by LessHeard vanU

Apparently, according to the Abtract RfC, I became involved in this matter around 28th April 2008 when I offered to mediate a dispute between Abtract and Sesshomaru. This did not lead to any resolution, as the matter seemed to have abated. The RfC was created by Collectonian, which I certified as being involved in attempting resolution of disputes with regard to Abtract. On the 16th July 2008 I blocked Abtract indefinitely on the grounds of violation of WP:NPA, and 3 days later unblocked and then reblocked for 11 days (if memory serves for a sanction tariff of 14 days less time "served").

As indicated by the linked archive, I then became further involved in attempting to to resolve issues with the activities of Abtract - initially with Sesshomaru but more recently predominantly in regard to Collectonian. It is Collectonian's stated belief that Abtract stalks her contributions, and edits soon after her in a manner designed to promote unease. My view is that this is certainly a valid impression, and that Abtract should (and especially if the expressed view is in error) have made every effort not to edit in such a way as to give this impression of harassment. It does not appear, however, that this has happened but rather Abtract has persistently argued that his edits were techically permissable. Previously User:Ncmvocalist had attempted to agree a form of words between the three parties (Abtract on one "side", Collectonian and Sesshomaru on the other) to limit how each could edit the other parties areas of interest. Collectonian was then unprepared to agree to the form of words presented.

The problems between Abtract and Collectonian, and to a lesser extent Abtract and Sesshomaru, continued and were brought to my attention as a previously involved admin. I again approached Ncmvocalist to provide a further form of words to restrict the interaction between the parties in dispute, which he did so. I gained the support of two other admins (Natalya and JHunterJ) in imposing (since the last voluntary agreement was deprecated by one party refusing to comply) a set of restrictions on the parties, and to policing the said restrictions.

Since that time Collectonian has complained from time to time that Abtract had broken the spirit of the restrictions, and gamed the wording, in an effort to continue harassing her. I have briefly blocked Abtract for these "violations", and he in turn has questioned my impartiality and credibility in policing the restrictions. I have tried to agree the adoption of more precise wordings of the restriction, although I have been reluctant to do so since I hoped that compliance with the spirit of the wording (as exampled by Abtract and Sesshomaru agreeing not to report each other for minor transgressions, and have an understanding where each other might edit in future) would suffice, but have met with opposition from Abtract and non-agreement from the other admins.

Under the circumstances, all other avenues being exhausted, I request that the Committee accept to take this case to review the history of the parties, to ascertain whether Collectonian is correct (or might reasonably be correct in believing) in stating that Abtract has stalked her contributions in such a way as to harass her, whether Abtract has acted in good faith and in accordance to the principles of consensual collective editing over this period, and what measures might be applied to bring this matter to a conclusion.

nb. I would not be opposed to being made a named party to this matter, should Abtract or any of the other parties or members of the Committee so desire.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Reply to jpgordon

Per Ncmvocalist below, I would further note that a voluntary process was created by Ncmvocalist and administered by JHunterJ and was subsequently terminated and the current imposed restriction is not having the desired effect, an attempt to improve or add to the restrictions wording is being resisted, and my interpretation of the restriction and the proposed additional wording is being challenged as biased. It is because of the impasse now present that I decided to request Arbitration. I should note that all of the parties (including those dissatisfied with the current position) who have so far responded are supporting Arbitration, from which I would suggest that it is felt that we have gone as far as we are able in resolving this among ourselves and the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Request to Committee members

Is is possible to confirm that the imposed restrictions are still in place, outside of the ArbCom pages, both during the Request and the various procedures should the case be accepted? While I would not be inclined to "severely" sanction while these matters are being discussed, I would not wish the situation be allowed to deteriorate because the restrictions are in abeyance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

• Response to Flonight; Thanks, I shall do that if the case is accepted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Abtract

I became aware of Collectonian's ability to see the worst in people and her inability to apologise when wrong, during the bitch episode which I have copied in full below to make life easier for you. I particularly would like you to note that she tells me she has been watching my edits, she never once admits she was wrong or made any conciliatory nods towards mollifying me (nor has she since), and that the editor concerned in my original bitch edits himself thinks I was "stitched up" in his words. Since then I have returned the favour and watched her edits (I presumed that this was ok as she told me she watched mine) just in case she offended someone else as she did me, when I would offer what help I could. I have found her to be a fairly normal editor but with a trigger finger when it comes to warning people, and showing some ownership tendencies (don't we all sometimes). Just occasionally I feel the need to welcome a newbie that she has warned. I have not knowingly broken the restrictions imposed by Less although that's quite difficult to tell as they are vaguely worded and seem to be subject to retrospective change. So far as Sess is concerned, we have had some fun together and probably will again as we are at the opposite ends of the spectrum of editors, but we are getting along ok now and so far as I am concerned he shouldn't really be a party to this. I think that's all I have to say right now. Abtract (talk) 23:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Previously-included copy-and-pasted dialogue from a discussion page, referred to above as "the bitch episode", can be viewed here.

Statement by Collectonian

Abtract has stalked both myself and Sesshomaru off and on since May of this year, with me seeing to be his primary focus over the last few months. An RfC/U was filed in May which had no results. He was blocked four times for this behavior as a result of multiple AN/I's filed in June and July. Unfortunately, when he was finally another blocked indefinitely in July, he was given yet another chance and his block reduced to two weeks, then removed all together by a third admin. As already noted above, a non-admin attempted to create an agreement, and intimated that if i did not agree to it no one would care if Abtract continued his harassment. However I did not feel the agreement went far enough to keep Abtract from getting around it, as he would always jump through any loophole left in discussions before, so I refused to agree to it, but the agreement was made between himself and Sesshomaru, and Abtract soon backed out of it and returned to his usual behavior.

In late August, he falsely claimed that he was leaving Wikipedia all together, leaving a snarky "goodbye" message on my talk page.[1]. This was pretty much a completely false statement, as he quickly restarted his stalking and harassing edits, following behind my contribs to make minor edits behind me and edit conflicting me. In particularly he did this after I foolishly took his goodbye as the truth and began editing the Oxford Scientific Films article. He had initially created this article as another form of harassment because it was on my list of articles to create and directly related to Meerkat Manor which is a set of articles I am most involved with and he was warned to stay away from. Before editing, I asked JHunterJ, who had rmeoved Abtract's indef blocked, about editing it and he said to edit as normal.[2] So I did so, doing massive amounts of clean up, removing the factual errors and bad writing, expanding it, etc. Whenever I had an editing session, Abtract would pop in to make minor edits, then complain when we'd edit conflict. In one edit summary after I reverted his inappropriate changing of the date format from British to English, he wrote "get away woman."[3].

Abtract watches my contribs and randomly reacts to them, sometimes undoing them, sometimes filing false 3RR reports, such as he did during a disagreement at InuYasha[4]., or welcoming editors that I reverted for bad edits, including a vandal that was already indef blocked when he left a welcome on the user's user page (the talk page was locked!)[5]. While I thank the multiple admins who attempted to resolve this situation through the agreements, Abtract continues finding ways to game the system and break the spirit of the agreement by nitpicking the wording (or claiming its confusing). For half a year now I have had to deal with this stalking and harassment. As I hope can be seen above, Abtract does this purposefully and willfully because he thinks I have some obligation to "mollify him" and has a personal vendetta against me. I find his behavior disturbing on many many levels. I debated leaving Wikipedia, but I abhor the idea of letting such a person "win" by chasing me away from an activity I enjoy and I continue to have faith that Wikipedia will enforce its own anti-harassment and civility policies and put a stop to this once and for all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Natalya

Not a whole lot to say (or, perhaps, so many convoluted things to say that it's probably best not even to try), but I will say that we've attempted all manner of arrangments and rules and agreements between Abtract and Collectonian/Sesshomaru to allow them to still contibute productively to the encyclopedia, while not causing hassle to the other party. Somehow, sadly, none of these things were able to actually work for very long at all, and while I can't speak for JHunterJ and LessHeard vanU, I know that at least for myself, I have become so wrapped up in this (and they're likely more wrapped up in it than I) that I don't think I can even think straight about the best way to go about handling the disputes between the two parties. I sincerely hope that a better solution can be found, and if appropriate, here through Arbitration. -- Natalya 03:03, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JHunterJ

Beyond what LessHeard vanU says above and Ncmvocalist says below, I believe the chief sticking points now are

1. Possibility of penalties imposed retroactively against Abtract under restrictions that haven't been adopted.[6]
2. Abtract->Collectonian stalking perceived by Collectonian

The perceived stalking has lead to some complaints that I consider frivolous: This complaint about a welcome message to a user who hadn't been welcomed yet (but had been warned by Collectonian), or this complaint about an acknowledged good edit. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

• Accept. I can't even tell what these editors are arguing about, in some instances, but the pattern of interaction between them is unhealthy and needs to stop, and there certainly is ample evidence that dispute-resolution methods short of arbitration are not working. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, or rather, question, to all parties: is this not the sort of case most likely to result in a "keep utterly away from each other" ruling? Can a clean break be made? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, Accept -- though at the moment the outcome seems obvious. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• Accept, voluntary and the current non-voluntary restrictions are not working. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • To LessHeard vanU, perhaps a motion can be voted on (that confirms the editing restrictions) by the Committee shortly after the case opens. You can make the suggestion at the top of the workshop page. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
• Accept; other attempts at dispute resolution seem to have failed. Per Flo, some form of injunction might be necessary while the case is open. --bainer (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
• I would also accept. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Temporary injunction

1) The parties are directed to continue to comply with the existing editing restrictions detailed here until this case is resolved or until further direction of the Arbitration Committee. In the event of any disagreement concerning the scope of the restrictions, the parties should err on the side of caution and avoid any arguable violations. The parties are urged to present their evidence in this case as soon as possible and to indicate when they have finished, so that the committee can reach a prompt final decision which will supersede this temporary injunction. Nothing in this temporary injunction constitutes a ruling on the merits of the case or reflects any prejudgment that all, some, or none of the temporary restrictions will be included in the final decision.

Passed 4 to 0 at 21:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Conduct of Wikipedia editors

1) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly and disruptive conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, the perpetuation of petty feuds and grievances, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 6 to 0, 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Harassment

2) It is unacceptable for any editor to harass another. See the anti-harassment policy, Wikipedia:Harassment. Acts of harassment damage the editing environment and may deter contributors from continuing to edit Wikipedia.

Passed 6 to 0, 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

"Wikistalking"

3) As discussed in the harassment policy, "the term 'wiki-stalking' has been coined to describe following a contributor around Wikipedia, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to the other editor. Reading another user's contribution log is not in itself harassment as the logs are publicly accessible for good reason. In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles.... [However,] 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."

Passed 6 to 0, 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Feuds and quarrels

4) Editors who consistently find themselves in disputes with each other whenever they interact on Wikipedia, and who are unable to resolve their differences, should seek to minimize the extent of any unnecessary interactions between them. In extreme cases, they may be directed to do so.

Passed 6 to 0, 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) This case concerns a series of disputes between Abtract (talk · contribs) and Collectonian (talk · contribs), in which Collectonian has accused Abtract of harassment and wikistalking. (Concerns have also been raised raised regarding Abtract's conduct toward Sesshomaru (talk · contribs), but it appears that the issues involving that editor have lessened.) Several administrators have attempted to address the tension between these editors, first by proposing voluntary limitations on their interactions with each other and, when that proved insufficient, imposing mandatory restrictions that have also failed to put an end to the dispute. Because these dispute-resolution efforts failed to resolve the issues, the committee accepted this case for arbitration.

Passed 6 to 0, 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Abtract and Collectonian

2) Abtract and Collectonian appear to have first quarrelled in a series of petty disputes in April and May 2008. See for example this discussion and diffs found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract.

Passed 6 to 0, 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Harassment by Abtract

3) Over a period of several months since their initial disagreements, Abtract has harassed Collectonian on-wiki by persistently following and reverting or modifying Collectonian's edits. Based on the record as a whole, including admissions by Abtract, we conclude that Abtract acted with the intent to annoy Collectonian rather than based upon good-faith concern about her edits. See generally Collectonian's evidence, which is unrebutted, and which we have reviewed and find to be credible.

Passed 6 to 0, 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Abtract's evasion of restrictions

4) In view of the ongoing disputes between Abtract and Collectonian, restrictions were placed on their interaction, such as that they could not both edit the same article. Instead of using the restrictions as an opportunity for a fresh start at editing away from the user with whom he was quarrelling, Abtract has gamed the system and continued his harassment of Collectonian. For example, Abtract deliberately makes minor edits to articles that he knows are within Collectonian's areas of editing interest (but are not within Abtract's known areas of interest), thereby precluding Collectonian from editing them.

Passed 6 to 0, 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Abtract's block log

5) Abtract has been blocked several times for personal attacks, harassment, and violation of the editing restrictions, primarily arising from his quarrel with Collectonian.

Passed 6 to 0, 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Abtract's non-participation in this case

6) Abtract has stated that he will not present evidence in this case because of his disagreement with an arbitration clerk's reducing the length of his opening statement, even though an arbitrator personally assured him that his statement would be read in full and specifically invited him to present evidence.

Passed 6 to 0, 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Abtract restricted

1) Abtract shall not:

(A) Interact with, or comment in any way (directly or indirectly) about, Collectonian, on any page in Wikipedia;

(B) Harass or wikistalk Collectonian such as by editing pages that Collectonian has recently edited; or

(C) Make uncivil comments about or personal attacks upon any user.

Passed 6 to 0, 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Interpretation of restrictions

2) The restrictions imposed upon Abtract shall be interpreted in a reasonable fashion so as to allow Abtract to continue with appropriate editing while preventing any further harassment of Collectonian. Any attempts to "game the system" or "wikilawyer" the details of the restrictions are unwelcome.

Passed 6 to 0, 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Collectonian urged

3) Collectonian is urged to continue to avoid any unnecessary interaction with Abtract.

Passed 6 to 0, 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should Abtract violate the restrictions imposed upon him in this decision, he may be blocked for an appropriate period of time by any uninvolved administrator, with any blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abtract-Collectonian#Log of blocks and bans.

Passed 6 to 0, 13:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.