Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 20:01, 3 May 2022

Comment

I see that all the complaints about this editor seem to be involved with articles directly related to the 2008 Presidential election. It looks to me that people on the other side of the issues want to eliminate some of their competition. One solution would be for WP to have a little less politically motivated editing all around. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think Drudge Report and Fascism are about 2008 Presidential election? Phoenix of9 (talk) 14:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I shall endeavor to be less involved in any case with political articles -- they make up less than 10% of the articles I have worked on at this point. Finding that some people do not necessarily share my absolute commitment as a traditional northeast liberal to be NPOV is tough sometimes. Thanks for the comment. Collect (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

1) First time you apologized and said you were not gonna edit war was on 12 December 2008. Yet you continued to edit war. Then you apologized again and said you were gonna stop again. And we know how that went. Hence, I do believe that this time (3rd time) Wiki community needs to send a stronger signal to you that edit-warring and tendentious editing IS NOT OK.

2) The response you have given to this RFC is another proof that you are continuing to use Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines in bad faith. You said that this "RfC/U does not meet the requirements at the start for an RfC/U" because we didnt have 'any "dispute resolution attemopts" ' So you suggested we should discontinue this mediation. Well, we did try dispute resolution attemps. In the mediation, you had mentioned. So your claim was dishonest and your attempt to discontinue this mediation was in line with your general behavioural pattern.

3) It is clear that you are a US conservative. Of course, there is nothing wrong here and political alignments of Wiki editors are irrelevant. However, my issue here is that you are misrepresenting yourself and claiming that you are a "traditional northeast liberal". Why do you do that? Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I fear that you are illustrating Steves concerns clearly. In nearly seven thousand edits I have been called on the carpet twice. Period. There is absolutely no edit conflict between us at all, and never was. There has been no dispute between us and never was other than discussions about edits. This, by the way is not "mediation" and is supposed to involve an actual problem which has been through some attempt at resolution. That you never posted on my talk page might indicate that you did not actually try contacting me on my talk page. And since my background is traditional northeast liberal, your attemopt to view me as the "enemy" is weird. Unless, of course, you find accusing people of lies to be a means of discussion? Thanks for your comments. Collect (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just noting it because I think you are misrepresenting yourself. It is not only me who thinks you are a conservative . And you hadnt objected to it there. Now that I noted that, I will not discuss this any further. I dont view you as an "enemy", there is nothing personal here, please do not flatter yourself. This is strictly about my stong belief that you are a disruptive editor. You have already partially caused one editor (User:Mike Doughney) to retire, you are damaging this project.

Trying to solve problems doesnt need to be exclusively on your talk page. We tried on mediation. We are not gonna talk about that here due to the privileged nature of mediation. So I do not understand why you keep bringing up the meditaion. However, it is suffice to say that this RFC is valid. Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no dog in Collect's most recent fights, but in my experience, Collect routinely avoids or perverts honest debate about the issues. I've seen more than one article get distorted by his antics: either directly through his personal edit warring, or indirectly by the edits of other editors who are forced to pile on more copy than would be necessary in a reaction to his tactics. Misplaced Pages is worse off for it.Mattnad (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

i agree with mattnad and i think the edit warring and pov edits need to stop. Brendan19 (talk) 18:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

From notes I made at the time:

13th October 2008:
12 reverts.
Any edit that reverses or changes another editor's work is a revert under the definition provided in the WP:3RR rule.Anarchangel (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
19:55
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=245061256&oldid=245060831
19:00
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=245049332&oldid=245048360
18:23
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=245041212&oldid=245040888
18:20
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=245040682
15:26
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=245006259&oldid=245005533
15:22
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=245005533
12:24
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=244976285
4:00
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=244917308
3:52
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=244915947
2:40
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=244904359
0:40
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=244884305
0:03
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sarah_Palin&diff=prev&oldid=244877720

On this same day that he made TWELVE nonconsecutive edits to Sarah Palin, Collect complained about 5RR by RafaelRGarcia on the SP Discussion page. The administrator Gwen Gale was then alerted to RRG's 5RR, and RRG was blocked. Collect added his testimonial to Gwen Gale's talk page in favor of RRG's block.

This is only Collect's most grievous offense in terms of blatant disregard of the most clear and unequivocal WP rules. His entire career is based on subverting those that are less clear and running rings around ones that are murky. Compared with Ferrylodge, Collect is discrete in editing mainspace, and contentious in the Talk area, which is to say, he is a contentious editor in both spaces.

On a personal note, if Collect and Ferrylodge are both banned, I will come back to Misplaced Pages. Kelly, I can handle. Anarchangel (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you forget that the list was found specifically NOT to violate 3RR. Or is the finding of a neutral admin insufficient? It is perhaps likely that you have an agenda as Steve noted -- and the removal of material not properly in the article due to BLP concerns does not count as 3RR as you well know. As for seeking banning of all who dare stick to BLP policies - an interesting concept. Collect (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As a counterpoint to this claim by Collect, Collect repeatedly insisted on including his catalog of negative editorials in the Helen Jones-Kelley article, despite concerns that it went against the spirit and purpose of WP:BLP. I will add that a neutral Admin eventually decided that it was indeed a violation of WP:BLP and removed the content. Mattnad (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting since not a single scurrilous charge was made by any of the RS editorials. BLP is to keep out contentious material, and that material was assuredly not contentious. And I specifically said I wanted editorials which showed her in a good light as well -- I deleted no editorials provided by anone at all there. I endeavor to precisely and properly follow BLP even when others do not. Collect (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(with humour intended), I don't think "endeavor" means what you think it does ;).Mattnad (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If I may, from what I've seen the discussions involved in the Drudge Report and Fascism involved more 3RRs than just Collect and to single him out is unfair. I also violated 3RR and was blocked as well. I know that things got heated and that it got the best of both of us. However, I found that he at least attempted to work things out on the talk page and did not get caught up in accusations of bad faith and some very angry comments that were exchanged. As for fascism, I have to agree about User:Introman, he does have a very forceful method of editing (and added insults due to another incident on Neoconservatism). Soxwon (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin comment characterizing the above as "12 reverts" is inaccurate at best. There is only one case where the same information is touched twice, making it 2R at best.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

From WP:3RR:

"Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period, whether or not the edits involve the same material, except in certain circumstances...A revert is any action, including administrative actions, that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. (This differs from the definition of "revert" used elsewhere in the project.)" Anarchangel (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Firestorm

In the interest of disclosure, the only time I have had a significant encounter with Collect is at Talk:Rick Warren, and mediation attempts associated with that. I was the mediator from WP:MEDCAB who first tried to sort out that whole mess. Phoenix and Mike are also parties in both the closed MedCab case and the ongoing RFM. Anything I say, therefore, should be taken in the context of my work with these users at the Rick Warren situation.

During most of the MedCab mediation (which is informal and therefore not privileged), these users butted heads frequently. I often disagreed with the positions of Collect, because I believed them to be a misinterpretation of policies relevant to that content dispute. That said, I believe that this user did have the wiki's best interests at heart, and his (often unproductive) suggestions were the result of a misinterpretation of policy, not indicative of an intent to disrupt.

Phoenix, Mike, Collect and Lyonscc (as well as several other users I won't name because they haven't turned up here) have been butting heads constantly over this content dispute. The dispute has, at times, been very ugly, with several people banned for blatant COI and multiple civility blocks handed out (I can't remember to whom off the top of my head, though). Therefore, I have trouble assuming that this RFC/U was made in good faith, and not as a tool in the ongoing content dispute. Firestorm 03:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think you have even read the contents of this RFC. Phoenix of9 (talk) 04:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have. This is a Request for Comment on this User. I have offered my comments about this User and his conduct in general, and attempted to place the creation of this RFC in its appropriate context. Near-simultaneous reports by you at ANI, AN3 and RFC/U cast significant doubt on your motivations. If I hadn't been working with you during the mediation process and gotten to know you a little better than that, I would suggest that this entire song and dance is getting WP:POINTy. If instead, you would like me to comment only on the specific issues that you raised, I'm capable of doing that as well.Firestorm 04:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you commented only on issues about Rick Warren, which is not part of this RFC. That may be your only experience with Collect but you dont need an experience to read diffs. Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh and if you think I'm "WP:POINTy", feel free to report me or whatever. Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Second comment

Okay, I seem to remember doing this already, but I seem be mistaken. So, I'll do so now. Collect has been here a while, and made a lot of contributions in that time. Quite a few of them have been controversial. Collect holds very distinct POVs, and his arguments and use (or misuse, as the case may be) of policy are often framed by his POV. Some people have stated that he uses edit wars to get what he wants, and there is some evidence to this assertion. I have also seen evidence that he tries to discuss his issues on Talk pages. Whether he does so TENDentiously is also up for dispute. I have seen some instances where his arguments are civil, rational, and make sense according to policy and guideline, and some instances where they are not. This has led me to believe that the user's interpretation of policy/guideline/essay is mistaken. That is something that can be corrected, through having a more experienced editor demonstrate how policy should and should not be implemented. I don't see evidence that he does what he does out of malice, or intent to POV push. I believe that he needs to better recognize his own POV and take more steps to eliminate its effect on his editing. Firestorm 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Statement regarding my endorsement of Collect's response

I would now like to clarify my current position regarding Collect's response to the claims made in this RfC. Specifically:

• I do not endorse anything from the first paragraph to the seventh, ending with the phrase "About half his edit level."
• I endorse the next paragraph and the list of diffs, but make no claims as to whether or not the user is "suspect".
• I endorse everything from "Other than the AN/I filed by Mike Doughney" to "Nor could I.", with the exception of his statement regarding "use of policy in bad faith." While I do not believe he has used policy in bad faith, I do believe that his interpretations of them are incorrect and recognize that it might appear to others to be bad faith.
• I endorse the statement beginning with "More stuff added: "Cause of concern 2.0"
• I neither endorse nor deny the validity of canvassing claims

there we go, I think that covers it. I'll add a small pointer here next to my endorsement. Firestorm 02:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments from dicklyon

My interaction with Collect has been primarily on William Timmons. He seems to be very stuck on conservative viewpoints, to the extent that he denies the validity and relevance of what's in sources if it reflects badly on conservative personalities like Timmons. He has been very forceful in tagging and removing perfectly ordinary well-sourced material. I've been a bit too reactive in fighting him (and User:THF) there, to the point where I got blocked, twice, without actually violating 3RR, while Collect didn't get blocked even when he had, for some reason. Anyway, the article has been locked down for a while, and I'd be happy to hear, from those considering Collect's behavior, whether I've been off-base there. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I had the same problem with him on Rick Warren. There, he also vehemently argued about addition of reliable sourced relevant material because it reflected badly on the conservative personality (Rick Warren). You can read some of that here: Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

At Rick Warren it seemed that he took part in the various discussions and it seemed from it that he at least attempted to obtain compromise. Your link shows that he had an opinion about the attribution of information, not a specific bias. Soxwon (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Just a comment on Collect's accusation of "Canvassing". He's making it seem like any effort to alert other editors is somehow unfairly influencing discussion. I will add this is an excellent example of how he distorts discussion to limit open and honest communication.

Per WP:Canvass:

"Canvassing is sending messages to multiple Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive."

I emphatically urge anyone to see the messages I left about this RFC. They were minimalist, with nothing more than a link. So as you reflect on this RFC and Collect, think about his approach and why there are so many editors who have endorsed this RFC. Mattnad (talk) 16:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And consider how the list was chosen. Was it sent to every editor on the articles involved? No. Was it sent to select editors who you felt had a gripe with me? Yep. Including one whose userpage was found tohave a personal attack on it just prior to the RFC/U? Yes. "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opiniopn" Clearly the case here. "On at least one occasion, a provocative attempt to stack an ongoing poll by cross-posting has contributed towards an Arbitration Committee ruling of disruptive behavior that resulted in probation and eventual banning by the community. " Collect (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I contacted a range of interested editors, including one you just thanked for his input. There were many more that I could have selected but I picked ones I though were "interested" to avoid mass-mailing. I'll be plain that my experience with you is mostly around Joe the Plumber: that's where you have been particularly abusive in your conduct so it stands to reason you'd be so defensive about their input. 16:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Care to state what the date of my last "abusive" edit to JtP was? Or the simple fact that you were precisely as abusive when Tanthalas39 warned you? Did you email the others who were active in JtP at least? Nope. In fact, you emailed people who you thought had a dispute with me. Of the top twenty editors on that article you emailed precisely one. Collect (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Slow down guys: the purpose of the rfc is not punitive (or shouldn't be) but a matter of concern. Collect, whether or not you've edited jtp lately or not isn't really relevant: I know I gave up on the article because of disruption -- a fair amount of which you caused. •Jim62sch• 17:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Read it -- the purpose is absolutely punitive. And one of the canvassed editors is seeking my banning (along with Ferrylodge who is not even aware he is being discussed by anyone here). Collect (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I found out about an hour ago, by accident.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's going to be punitive, I'm out of here. You need to work on a few things, Collect, and reading WP:BRD might be good, but if you really want to continue on wiki, you need to tone it down and be less disruptive. Not all of your edits are problematic, but the edit-warring and stubborness can get old. Maybe you should ask for mentorship????

I'm not a big FL fan, but you are free to notify him if you feel that the mentions of his editing merit it.

In any case, you really need to sit down and think about the effect your editing has. Im not casting aspersions, just asking you to reflect and moderate a bit. •Jim62sch• 17:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Might you look at my more recent five thousand edits then? And look also at my responses to questions posed. Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not look over all 5K - but you really didn't expect me to. A number of your comments, whether edit summaries or talk page notes do seem to be just a bit more forceful than is needed. Look, I sometimes fall into that trap too, but you really need to take a breath and pause. (If you only knew of the comments and edit summarys I've scratched before submitting!). Bottom line is that you need to come across as less confrontational -- oh, I have my momemts, but mostly I restrain myself. Just my advice -- feel free to take it or leave it. •Jim62sch• 19:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I certainly shall seek to be less confrontational for sure <g>. I fear some do not know that having only 84 "deleted edits" out of nearly seven thousand is better than many can boast. And having confrontations on six articles out of nearly eight hundred is not all that much of a problem. How many people get to seven thousand edits with no confrontations? Now if only I could edit a few edit summaries ... I know that a few have been snarky, but, I trust, not have been personal attacks on people. Collect (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

True on all counts. I too have left edit summaries that in retrospect I'd like to change now. Maybe make a few comments on the actual ref page admitting the oops's? Just an idea. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Alas -- almost all are archived, and modding archives is a big taboo. I am surprised at how folks with only a thousand edits (or even only a hundred) are willing to tell someone with far more edits and far fewer deleted edits that somehow they are superior <g>. I do apologize if one of my summaries upset you. Collect (talk) 19:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I accept the apology. I have 23K edits and a "few" have been snarky. In any case, just remember to reread your comments before submitting -- it really does help. If you make an offer, apologise on the rfc page, I'll support you. But, it has to \be a reasonable offer and you'll need to live up to it. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 19:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Collect: He has no credibility

As of 16 April 2009, Collect still has no credibility. He engaged in personal attacks, which are blatant lies: "A person who promised to basically hunt me down?" . I've never said anything that is close to it or even light years close to it.

Now the problem here and with his recent misrepresentation of himself when he called himself "a traditional northeast liberal" is typical Collect: 0 credibility:

Promised to stop edit warring twice. Fails many times.

Promised not to edit Drudge Report for a week or more as an unblock condition. Was back 3 days later.

This is why some enforcement on Collect is needed to protect Wiki from further disruption. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering your canvassing and careful selection of ppl who had a beef with him for notification, the comment seems valid. If you have an example of talking to anyone that didn't take your side, plz post it. Soxwon (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

the claim of being "traditional northeast liberal" is basicaly irrelevant, although I fully understand your point. On the other hand, I doubt that much can "protect Wiki from further disruption". And then there's the over-used WP:AGF to look at. Nonethel;ess, you're going to need more evidence of disruption -- as I agree that Collect has been disruptive, I assume there's more to find. (If you noticed, I endorsed this as a cause for concern, but not necessarily a cause for a ban.) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, you're assuming. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

edit conflict: Perhaps, I'll try to back off a bit, I apologize. Soxwon (talk) 20:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a ban. Collect's biggest problem is his tendentious editing which can be solved with enforcement of 1rr for 18 months. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:26, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I can live with that. Obviously we need to explain that clear-cut vandalism (I mean stuff that isn't subjectively vandalism) doesn't count.

It's OK, Sox, no worries, for what little it's worth I tink you're a good editor. On the other hand I always worry bout people who use "phoenix" as part of their nicks. (a joke, Phoenix of 9). &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm very glad to say that living in Canada has saved me from developing a German humour :P Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm only German by descent. So...uh...hah. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yea, just saw that on your babel. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do babel a lot.  :) &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Try where you list everything you could find on me and seemed upset that you could not add the RfM material as well. "I will go over his edit history and prepare a RFC, be patient meanwhile" Mattnad canvassing see , accusing me of "forum shopping" at accusing me directly of Wikistalking at and his sudden appearance on a page he had never been before at , and so on. Writegeist's POV and tagteam accusations at and undertaking an "investigation" of me at Making another tagteam accusation at and so on. The complainers have accused me of tagteam, and worse -- and they are the ones who assert that they have tried "dispute resolution" - but not a single one has actually done what they swear by signing the RFC/U that they have done. Collect (talk) 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect, thank you for demonstrating to everyone how you work. Now imagine dealing with this kind of diatribe when working on an article and you see why so many editors have thrown up their hands in frustration.Mattnad (talk) 01:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Showing what appears to be what should have been a WQA on editors for their acts is wrong? Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• comment - After reviewing the diffs from at least seven disputed articles (presented on talkpages, on noticeboards, and in this RfC/U here) in which User:Collect had editwars or editorial conflicts surrounding various political topics and prominent political figures, i fail to see an explanation for respresenting himself as a "Northeast liberal". As i was a resident of Vermont for thirty years, i think i can safely say Collect would be described by us actual Northeast liberals as quite far toward the other side of the Political Compass, i.e. Conservative/ moderately Authoritarian, and certainly disapproving of a "Northeast liberal" stance. This is not entirely subjective, anybody can look at the diffs and surmise the potential interpretation of Collect's Political Compass; i can only hope it is an accidental misstatement or a uniquely imaginative interpretation, rather than an intentionally misleading misrepresentation. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 06:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Teledildonix314, fyi here's a diff for a Collect response: . (Incidentally his comparison there between my 129 edit deletes and his 89 - a comparison whose purpose, I think, must be to imply I that am not worthy to comment on his WP behaviour - is of course meaningless without seeing all the deletes. Which Collect hasn't. They're only visible to admins.) Writegeist (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that deleted edits mean nothing. I have over 2000 of them, and I see it as a good thing, because I frequently nominate articles for deletion. It means that i'm effective at knowing which articles should be scrapped. Firestorm 07:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment to Firestorm: it should be pointed out that frequent deletion of edits can be indicative of edit warring. From EW: "Edit warring is a behavior, not a simple measure of the number of reverts on a single page in a specific period of time", and from 3rr: "When in doubt, do not revert; instead, engage in dispute resolution or ask for administrative assistance." While I'm sure that you have good judgment when using your deletion of edits, Collect shows appreciation of neither guide. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Dont bother, Firestorm endorsed Collect's response which have so many misinformation like "votestacking". Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix- This is a discussion page. I intend to discuss. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suggest you retract that statement. If you scroll up, you'll see that I do not endorse claims of votestacking. Your repeated attempts to characterize me negatively are unwelcome here. Firestorm 18:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, I'm characterizing you as one sided. This is really bad since you were the cabal mediator, I guess thats why I'm still stuck to and amazed by your partiality. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Are either of you aiming to be the subject of an RFC? The squabbling is not helpful. Stopping is strongly suggested. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(ec)That's precisely the problem; you're characterizing me in a negative manner. This is not an RFCU on me, so you shouldn't be characterizing me at all. The more you attempt to smear me, especially in front of other editors, the less likely I am to hold the basis for this complaint in high regard. I'm not the problem editor being discussed here, so kindly back off. Firestorm 18:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

stop using Template

Give the comments a title. Has anyone ever done an R"FC before? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it -- the rules specify "The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it" which absolutely none of them have done. It also says "This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users." Frankly Phoenix could have posted a WQA, but chose this level instead. Collect (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

This was explained here: . Another clear proof that Collect is not improving with respect to WP:Game. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So you claiming that the RfC IS valid is enough to prove that Collect is guilty? Soxwon (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

• It's indicative of an unwillingness to change behaviors to those which are more productive. So, to an extent, yes. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read the question, he was referring to himself, that's not really evidence. Soxwon (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't read my response: I said, "to an extent". If I were in Collect's position -and I'm not- I'd begin to consider every opinion here with some potential validity and with it's own fair POV. He's been through the ropes and some of them may be running thin. But his responses appear to become more argumentative and stubborn, not more appreciative...and good faith was indeed was one of the desired outcomes. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a request for comment on en.Misplaced Pages, a project page, not a court, it can't prove anyone guilty of anything but rather, it's meant to gather comments about a user's editing behaviour on this private website, maybe along with some non-binding consensus and maybe not. Speaking as a neutral admin, I think editors can carry on more or less as they please here, but I must say, I think the way this has been handled across the site has been so sloppy and otherwise muddled, it's unlikely to help. I'm willing to talk with Collect myself about all this, as an admin, when this RfC winds down. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You are not a neutral admin in this. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I am neutral. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix. OK so GG lifted C’s edit-warring block, and this could be viewed by a jaundiced eye as somewhat cosy and sucky-uppy. But don't let those instances alone lead you to believe that GG is not a neutral admin here, when this exchange between them today demonstrates neutrality. E.g. (my emphasis in these snips):

It was actually a vandalism revert at that point (sigh)... Collect (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You didn't revert vandalism, that was a sourced, good faith edit... Gwen Gale (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect...you've been edit warring. Stop it. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have evidence that works against it, you might be wise to WP:AGF at the moment. Also of course GG is not the only sysop watching the RfC. Writegeist (talk)

Suggestions have been made to provide Collect with a mentor. I would promote that he already has a mentor...Gwen Gale. Now he should take her words to heart.--Buster7 (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Folks -- it is not normal custom to repost from a usertalk page as though the posts had occured here. Collect (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

given the circumstances, it is normal. A good reason for discretion. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I misunderstanding, or is there an implication in Collect's comment just above that differing opinions should not be referenced or discussed here? Because at the very bottom of the project page is an (unsigned) reminder not to place differing opinions there, either (only "endorsements"). Honestly, where would you like us to place any opinions that are contrary to those you express? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That was a stray reminder which got moved over to this Discussion page, it was originally on the main Project page, and applies only to that Project page, as far as i understand. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 04:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect is correct that it's not customary to quote from a user's talk page as though the quote had originated here. That's why there's a link, so that merely rolling over it, let alone clicking on it, identifies the source as a user's talk page. The post is not presented misleadingly. Writegeist (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Care to copy edit that last sentence? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ironholds

It seems only people who support Collect, ie: Ironholds, Lyonscc, Firestorm and Soxwon are those who are unable to read diffs.

Ironholds said: "Evidence of edit-warring before the block is irrelevant; if there was no edit-warring after the block (and so far the bringers of this RfC haven't shown that there has been)"

This has been shown in RFC, specifically:

• Edit wars again (13 April 2009), deleting "collectivist" on Fascism

17:21, 13 April 200917:37, 13 April 200912:04, 14 April 2009 (now deleting it eventho it's sourced)18:22, 14 April 2009 as verified by and Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems the only ppl who support are those who disagreed with him on the talkpages, few neutral editors have seen this all have sided against you. And again, you have no idea what you are talking about on Fascism so don't even bother with the "It's SOURCED" crap. Soxwon (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant more "actual violation of policy" (i.e 3RR) than just "editing in a way you disagree with". I note that he proposed taking it to the talkpage (and then actually did take it there). I've got to be honest I didn't actually see that bit (so please don't make sarcastic comments like "unable to read diffs") but my point stands; your section on "using policy in bad faith and edit warring" shows no evidence of screwing around with policy, and while edit warring is something to be avoided he didn't actually violate any policy. The guideline on edit warring says "If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a compromise" which he did after the first revert. Ironholds (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I reject the notion that anyone who disagrees with you is "unable to read diffs" (that seems close to a No True Scotsman fallacy). Is it not possible that we have looked into it, and still feel that sanctions are unnecessary?

Looking at Talk:Fascism, I saw:

absent a consensus to muddy up the lede, I would suggest we discuss on the Talk page and not make the same edits over and over which are not in line with any consensus at all. Reasonable? Alas the prime mover for "collectivist" seems not to enter the discussion at this stage. Collect (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That seems like an attempt to do anything but edit warring over the lede of the article. Its enough to cinvince me that he is acting in good faith. Firestorm 01:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

"editing in a way you disagree with"? I'm not involved in Fascism. Try to keep up. Actual 3rr? Thats when "using policy in bad faith" comes in since his latest revert was 1 hr later than 24 hour period of 3rr. He didnt break 3rr but still was edit warring. And he knew this, boasting about how he didnt break the policy: . But he did break the spirit of the policy (ie: no edit warring), again as verified by the admins.

I know that you 2 see this RFC in bad faith but thats also how I honestly see your responses. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yet you didn't see if he had concensus or if the other editor was at fault, you just simply assumed he was. Soxwon (talk) 02:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

When exactly did he "boast" about not breaking 3rr? this shows him pointing out that neither he nor the other involved editors broke any rules; that isn't boasting. Since emotive tone is rather difficult to convey through the internet how about we assume good faith until one of the editors here develops the ability to see inside Collect's head. Ironholds (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What are you still talking about? He did edit war after his latest block. This is verified by two admins now, including Gwen Gale. Not only you are unable to read diffs, but also you seem unable to understand when you are blatantly wrong. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Ironhold's statement that "Punishing him for those violations at this point is ridiculous; it is water under the bridge." I believe violations are violations, regardless of when they were done, and when a user is skating close to the edge as Collect, it's time to reel them in. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 17:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Another comment to Ironholds view

I'm not sure "punishment" is the right term. I think there's still a need for a partial and temporary limitations on where and how Collect is allowed to edit. This would help him focus on a cooperative, rather than confrontation approach on politically oriented articles. I will also suggest that Collect becomes most aggressive when challenged, so there are some editors who have not experienced the worst of his behaviors. Mattnad (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• I haven't ever seen him go apeshit, as it were, so I can't really comment there. What I meant is that "blocks" and similar measures are in theory meant to be preventative, not punitive. Blocking based on actions months back isn't "preventative" and smacks of punishment. Ironholds (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I'm aware, this isn't the place to discuss this point of view, only endorse it, could this perhaps please be moved to the talk page of this RFC?— Dædαlus 20:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Moved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought

Is this RfC even valid? I've yet to see any evidence of the parties who "attempted to resolve the dispute" actually having done so; as far as I can see they are more involved parties with an axe to grind than anything else. Could somebody provide some evidence that these people have tried to talk things out rather than just work on a hatchet job? Ironholds (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're alluding to me, I did attempt with months of discussion and RfCs to work things out on Talk:William Timmons, but you were Collect was not reasonable in response. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't what? I've never been there. I actually meant all the users who are signed as "attempted to resolve the dispute". The RfCs and discussion bits there were to resolve a content dispute, not to resolve issues with his behavior. Ironholds (talk) 04:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was responding to Collect. Struck out error and replaced with "Collect was". Dicklyon (talk) 04:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Many, many attempts to reason with Collect. RFC's galore. Please see JtP talk page. Even on a one on basis, here's a good example of an exchange where Collect refuses to permit a reliable source about Joe the Plumber .Mattnad (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I see that Ironhols is still unable to read parts of this RFC. Read above of this page. Phoenix of9 (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds, on the project page, you can see my suggestion as a solution a comprehensive referral to ANI. There you can see reference many attempts to persuade Collect to become a more functional and purpose driven editor with a willingness to find consensus and avoid potential for POV. Hope this helps you. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Ironholds 2

While I'm sure we all agree that this RfC has been poorly presented by editors apparently unaccustomed to the ins and outs of RfCs, it's not entirely without merit, as we have seen. The pejorative dismissal by Ironholds - 'reads increasingly as a bad faith attempt by users to undermine somebody they disagree with in a content dispute' - runs the risk of being read as a faithful quid pro quo for Collect’s support for Ironholds, less than a month ago, in the latter's third unsuccessful RfA. Writegeist (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now, I think that's a load of bollocks. Many, many users supported/opposed that RFA, most of which he will encounter again at some point. To suggest that this situation has anything to do with that RFA is a downright assumption of bad faith. Ironholds hasn't done anything wrong here. We've all had times where an editor supports our argument because it makes sense, and then at some point down the road, we support something they say because it also makes sense. There are also times when we disagree with someone who had supported us once before. Its just a part of this collaborative project. Firestorm 06:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. Ironholds's dismissal of the RfC contains a "downright assumption of bad faith", as you put it, that's no more helpful than if his support for Collect here were impugned as a quid pro quo for Collect's support at his RfA. Fact is, many RfCs arise out of difficulties that several editors endure at the hands of another. Thus they all run the risk of accusations of bad faith. Such accusations are totally unhelpful. Q.E.D. Writegeist (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What strikes me in this AfD is how many people certified and endorsed this RfC, (twelve), this is more than the other 3 RfCs open:

• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Badagnani 5 editors certify, 5 endorse
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/DrKiernan 3 editors certify, 6 endorse
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Andrewjlockley 3 editors certify, 5 endorse

If this RfC is a "' bad faith attempt by users to undermine somebody they disagree with in a content dispute'" then why all of the editors who support the context of the dispute? Why all the past blocks for edit warring? Are all the admins who blocked Collect before and all the editors who certified this RfC practicing bad faith? If you look at this "bad faith" allegation in this light, this argument sounds more conspiratoral than rational. Ikip (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Ikip, I suggest you ignore Firestorm. He completely lost his neutrality in this and have just been attacking to other editors here. Ignore him and give this RFC some time, we'll see what the neutral editors will say. Phoenix of9 (talk) 13:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I reject the claim that I have "been attacking to other editors" as patently false. I made one assertion about my doubting your intentions with this RfC, a claim that I later withdrew. That is not "been attacking to other editors," it is "editor." Singular. I have not attacked anybody here, I have merely defended an attack on Ironholds' character. Also, how precisely have I "lost my neutrality?" The only evidence I can see is that I don't agree with you. Firestorm 15:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You withdrew? I dont see your accusations on this page striked. Just another example of you losing your perspective on this. About neutrality, I explained, stop repeating yourself. Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh and thx for admitting to attacking me at least. But I dont understand how you admit that and still claim your neutral at the same time. Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, I should have said "ceased", not "withdrew". Just a poor choice of words on my part, not evidence of my loss of perspective, i'm afraid. Regarding my neutrality, I must be going blind, because I cannot find it. Would you please humour me and repeat it one more time or provide a diff? If I could see what your claims were, I could better respond to them. Re: the "attacks", I have not admitted to attacking you. I have admitted to making an assertion about the nature of the RfC and my own inability to completely assume good faith. If I had said that the RfC was baseless "because you're a (insert undesirable noun here), that would have been an attack.So please, stop accusing me. Firestorm 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Offending comments have now been stricken Firestorm 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you say your going blind, I'll believe you. Here: And if you need me to repeat one more time. You are not neutral because you refuse to see there are legitimate concerns about Collect's behaviour. You are not neutral because your first comment here was unbalanced. Instead of recognizing that there may be some concerns about Collect's behaviour, you simply showed "inability to completely assume good faith" (your words) and you simply used "Offending comments" (your words again). Furthermore, you agreed with Ironholds whose assertions (about lack of edit warring after block) was patently false.

Therefore, as I said, you are not neutral. So I dont see any point in engaging in further discussions with you and you are def not suitable for any mentorship of Collect. Phoenix of9 (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright, perhaps you are correct that I never commented on concerns about Collect's conduct. I seem to remember doing so, but I can't see those comments anywhere, so I must be losing my mind as well as my eyes. Anyway, since I didn't before, I will do so now and eliminate your reason to believe that i'm not neutral. Firestorm 16:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

After all this? If you are neutral, as you claim, why did it take so long and so much discussion? Why werent you neutral when you came (if you are now)?Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I came here from the threads at ANI/AN3. I came in, read the basis for the dispute, read the comments and who had endorsed it (which at the time was you and Mike), and interpreted it as an attempt to disrupt that mediation to push your own POV. I acknowledge that I might have been mistaken in my initial assessment, and also that those comments are not going to bring this to a quicker resolution, so I have stricken them.

As to why it took so long, it was really a very brief period of time. I don't think one day is all that long. In fact, I wish my days were longer, but that's neither here nor there. As I said, I thought I had already done so last night, but upon looking back through my contributions it became clear that I had not. So, I have corrected my error. Firestorm 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you havent. And its plural. It seems that you cant be neutral on this on your own and you need to be pointed out about your mistakes. You still did agree to Ironholds' view and your endorsement is still there. Ironholds said:

Collect did edit war after his block and did violate terms of his unblock . So it is mindblowing that you claim you are neutral when you cant even look at diffs and understand see simple evidence. So, as I said, you are def not suitable for any mentorship of Collect. And I guess I should now take my own advice to Ikip about you. Phoenix of9 (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have stricken my support. Please cease making false claims about my neutrality and my intelligence. Firestorm 16:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify. Ironholds dismisses the concerns of this RfC as 'crap', citing Collect's alleged compliance with his unblock conditions: 'Most of the concerns are . . . crap; the Edit Warring appears to have ended after his unblock Collect is abiding by the conditions for his unblock.' The facts do not support Ironholds's view. The following diffs show clear evidence of Collect's most recent breach of his unblock conditions. Yesterday, April 16, he is calling his latest edit-warring a 'vandalism revert'. The 'vandalism'’ is in fact a sourced, good faith edit, as sysop Gwen Gale points out. Collect blithely ignores this inconvenient fact: . GG now bluntly orders Collect to stop edit-warring.

Five users endorsed Ironholds’s Outside View in the RfC. As that summary is based not only on unhelpful assumptions of bad faith about the editors who brought this RfC but also the false assumption that Collect has complied with the conditions of his release from the edit-warring block, I am sure they will now wish to strike out their names. (Firestorm has already done so.) Or perhaps Ironholds will wish to strike out his summary, or revise it to reflect the facts. Writegeist (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have modified my endorsement, not struck.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

That is nonsensical. The "backing" of Ironholds' points was that Collect didnt do anything bad after his latest block. Thats patently false. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(entering a meeting, will reply after I'm out) My bottom line is that as I've followed this, I'm not seeing an RFC, a Request for Comment, I'm seeing a CFP, Campaign for Punishment. Is Collect perfect, no. If he disrupts an article will he probably get a block by an uninvolved admin. Most likely. But what I've seen from the promoters of this RFC has turned it into a farce. Maybe I should just turn this paragraph into my own outside view, but i'm calling it as I see it.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If by the emotive 'Campaign for Punishment' Cube lurker means the proposals for topic bans etc., I think they're actually outnumbered by proposals of mentorship and their endorsements. If so, 'Campaign for Punishment' seems an unusual way to interpret a situation where more people oppose what might be regarded as punitive action than endorse it. To me - looking beyond the instances of frayed nerves and evident frustration that are perhaps only to be expected where so many concerns are aired about behaviour that many here think is contentious - this RfC displays a laudable moderation on balance. There's obviously a genuine desire to do what’s best for Collect, the people he works with, and the project itself. BTW it's my understanding that blocks/topic bans are preëmptive, educative and protective - not punitive. Apololgies if I'm wrong on that. Sorry too if I misunderstood CL. Writegeist (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What I'm seeing in accusations of being from Russia., Attacks on Firestorm notably in this very section, and how many trips to WP:ANI have there been during this?--Cube lurker (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

None of which appears to support a characterization of this RfC as a campaign to punish Collect. The RfC is simply what it says it is -- a request for comments. And proposals for equitable solutions. To demonize it as a campaign for punishment appears needlessly inflammatory and diverts time and attention away from cool-headed consideration of the issues, i.e. the causes for concern (if they are indeed causes for concern). Writegeist (talk) 23:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you're free to return your attention to cool-headed consideration. I've said what I have to say. At least for now.--Cube lurker (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Thx. Writegeist (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

convenience break

Firestorm, if you are still claiming to be neutral, why do you still endorse Collect's response? You said "I have been convinced that there is enough of a basis for this RFC". So, in this case, wouldnt the neutral thing to do be either endorsing the evidence (which shows "basis") OR endorse neither mine nor Collects sections and write your own balanced outside view. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have not withdrawn my endorsement because while I believe there is evidence to suggest that at least a part of the original claim is valid (keep in mind that the "evidence" has changed several times since it was introduced), I also believe that his response to it is valid. Not all of it, mind you, specifically not the claims about bad faith, which I now make no judgement about, but I believe that his response has some good points. Specifically, a lot of the evidence was later debunked, and the claim about him citing an essay is also invalid - thousands of editors have done so, and there's nothing wrong with it. I would be comfortable modifying my endorsement to make it clear which parts I do and do not support, but I will not withdraw my endorsement entirely because I believe that is has several valid points. Firestorm 01:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, Collect changed his response many times as well. And dont you think my evidence has some consistent points, since you said: "I have been convinced that there is enough of a basis for this RFC"? Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do think your evidence (in its current form) has some good points. Once I am convinced that it is stable, I may consider endorsing some specific points of it as well. The point i'm trying to make is, some parts of your statement have enough evidence to make the claims feasible, and some don't. His response when he addresses the specific points you bring up is generally good, so I endorse those specific points. Claims he makes about the validity of the RfC as a whole, on the other hand, are not helpful and will not bring this to a close any faster. Some of your complaints are reasonable, and some of his defense of his actions are also reasonable. I don't see how that's not being neutral. Firestorm 02:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Evidence about his 13 April 2009 edit warring (after his latest block) was in my evidence right from the start.

About the essay, it's his friend THF's essay and noone seems to pay it much attention. . The abuse of policy comes in when he tried to use that essay to justify his edit warring over tags. So which of my complaints are not reasonable? Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

So he was incorrect to justify his edit-warring with an essay, yes. Two pointers, however; while doing so is wrong (your argument is worthless) it isn't against the rules, just silly. If you were to open a Request for Comment on every user who quoted or linked to an essay you'd have half of the community strung up. In addition I don't think they are "friends"; I've seen them disagree repeatedly before. Agreeing on issues does not mean you are "friends" with the user in question, nor does it invalidate your opinion, nor does it mean that any agreement between two users is the action of some kind of Cabal. Ironholds (talk) 02:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont think your comments are relevant since you are unable to strike patently false misinformation from your outside view. I mean if you dont understand clear diff's, there is no point in me responding to you. Phoenix of9 (talk) 02:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

He does have a point though. When using a policy to justify something, other editors have to respect it. With a guideline, they usually do, but there are exceptions. When citing an essay to justify things, it carries no weight in and of itself. Its basically like saying "Here is my opinion, but this person phrased it better than I can." Using an essay to try and end discussion because other editors have to consent to it is silly, and the people who let their arguments be steamrolled by an essay because they confuse it with policy are just as silly. So there's nothing against citing an essay in the rules. It doesn't matter who wrote it, and whether they are your "friend" or not (the recognition of their alleged friendship is an example of something in your evidence that I would not endorse). Firestorm 02:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read my outside view? I amended it. Please don't make godawful arguments like "well you were wrong on X, therefore I don't have to bother listening to anything else you say ever"; that is the domain of conspiracy theorists and crackpots, and they won't like you infringing on their space. Avoid borderline-personal comments and this will work a lot better for everyone. Ironholds (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Try to come up with something w/o "conspiracy theorists and crackpots", then maybe I'll answer you. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Firestorm, you partially agree with Collect's response and you endorse it. You partially agree with my response, yet you dont endorse it. If the issue is stability, Collect's response was also far from being stable. The inconsistency is clear. But yea, it is your every right to be one sided in this RFC. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

He cannot endorse both of them, can he? They're at loggerheads. I did come up with an opinion not involving "crackpot" comments; you refused to even consider it because I'd been wrong before. That isn't helpful on Misplaced Pages generally, but it certainly isn't helpful in a discussion. Ironholds (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Firestorm clearly answered that question in the second paragraph of this section. Let's show his opinion some respect. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

re: mentors and neutrality

There is no need in the world for a mentor to be "neutral". For a mentorship to be successful, the primary requirements for the mentor would be: that the mentor models the expected behavior changes (and holds the mentee accountable for his/her behavior), is knowledgable about wikipedia policies and social norms, and probably most importantly the mentor is someone that the mentee will listen to. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 00:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The point of mentorship is to help the editor move away from problematic behaviors and toward collaborative editing and consensus building. While it may be possible for an 'ally' to fill the mentor role, it seems obvious that someone uninvolved in same conflicts would be a better choice. Dlabtot (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, as I noted on the project page. Of course, the person could also be an "opponent" if Collect respected the person, although that mightn't be the most desirable choice. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• I think the Alice in Wonderland edit shows how invested Collect is in actually being mentored or changing his behavior. He is quite succinct. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 18:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to User:Ratel

Could you provide some diffs and evidence for your claims? The inference that Collect may have been socking, the statement about him having "one hundred users on his side", the deliberate edit-conflicting.. they all need to be sourced or your argument won't hold water. Ironholds (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Editor:Phoenix

For the sake of the WikiPedia community, please refrain from attacking ANY other editors. Present evidence and add to the resulting discussion. This is about Collect, not anyone else.--Buster7 (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• strongly endorse -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• agreed. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Response to Lyonscc

'...a baseless exercise orchestrated by those opposed to his POV in the Rick Warren mediation...it seems pretty obvious that almost exclusively opposing editors, particularly those w/ axes to grind w/ Collect, were invited to comment'

Incorrect. I am not 'opposed to' Collect's POV in the Rick Warren mediation. In fact I have no idea what Collect's POV is. I have never set eyes on the Rick Warren article or the Rick Warren mediation, much less participated in them. I have no 'axe to grind' with Collect: I already disclosed that 1) there was conflict between us some time ago, and that nevertheless 2) I strongly defended him at an MfD against a complaint of posting an entire page as a personal attack on the complainant and/or continuation of an edit war between Collect and complainant and/or guide to Collect’s methods for gaming the system. Strongly defended him . I was not 'invited to comment'. I have not 'orchestrated' this RfC. Please. Sweeping, false accusations are not helpful here. Writegeist (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

additional Response to Lyonscc

I am not opposed to Collect's POV in the Rick Warren mediation. Collect should be treated equally as all other editors, we all have a POV, if we oppose each other then we should work to resolve our disputes instead of evading the resolution process, instead of refusing to admit fallibility.

This is not just my "axe to grind" with Collect. Please consider the following two exchanges between Collect and a couple of administrators, VirtualSteve and Kevin, during last month. VirtualSteve said point blank to Collect:

Well yes I can see that two of the parties are involved in the Rick Warren article (with this article only later being mentioned in that thread), but that said the others are not involved in that particular mediation. I understand you would not appreciate views on canvassing for an RfC against you - but before you absolutely shut down on this alleged aggravation against you can I ask you this two part question, which is asked in absolute sincerity ... Why do you think that you are upsetting so many different people at so many different pages, or (if you prefer) Do you believe that all of these editors have no cause to be frustrated with you to the extent that they canvass for a possible RfC against you?--VS talk 21:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If you wish details about some of the people (including at least one who was apparently quite ill), I will oblige (sans names). Since I have not been involved in any political campaigns for more than a decade, the ones who argued that I was a "paid operative" but who themselves turned out to be high ranking campaign workers seems to me to have made the charges in a very self-serving manner. The ones who had sockpuppets were also selfserving, and a few bans have occurred as a result. I believe one may be manic-depressive, being effusine in praise one minute, and angry the next. I presented Gwen Gale with evidence concerning two whom I believe to be sockpuppets, but was told to just be quiet about it. The biggest reason for anger has been that I try to follow WP beliefs in NPOV strictly, which makes a few POV-pushers upset from time to time. Did you read my user essays? I feel they will give you a good feel of my positions. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect I'm sorry but that doesn't answer the fundamental question that I asked. Your answer tells me there are problems with editors who frequent wikipedia - something I am well aware of (you will recall that I have blocked or banned those that require such action). My question asks you in fact if you can find any fault with your own actions or do you consider yourself; your edits; and your editing style blameless? And no, at this stage this is not a rhetorical question.--VS talk 20:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Collect never responded to admin VirtualSteve's non-rhetorical question, although Collect did continue to engage in other conversations and edits at the same time. Thus, the worst possible kind of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

That was only three weeks after admin Kevin said point blank to Collect:

the 2 sources connect the invocation controversy with the web site alterations. There is merit in the argument that if reputable media outlets have made the connection we should do the same. Kevin (talk) 22:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sort of like if the NRA web site says something, that it should be attributed specifically to the president of the NRA? There is merit in the principle that extraordinary claims require extreme care in WP as well. Collect (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you arguing that I am ignoring the careful use of reliable sources in BLPs, or that the alteration of the web site is an extraordinary claim? Regarding the attribution, we do not specifically connect Warren with the change, just state the facts (the website was changed near the time of the invocation) and let the reader make their own assumption on the level of control over the website that Warren has. Kevin (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

did you see my proposal which allows the statement that the site was changed but does not contain the charges as to what was on the earlier page as it can not reasonably be sourced to Warren? The goal is compromise as I recall. Collect (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to answer my question above? It does seem to me that you are avoiding answering anything directly. Kevin (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Claims asserting that a church website is directly relevant to a BLP are extraordinary, especially when the purported former content is used to ascribe a position to a person who is not described as having written the material. I think that is fairly clear. I gave a hypothetical example to make it even clearer. And I am most certainly not trying to avoid answering any questions at all. Collect (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that 2 news refs linking Warren to the web site are acceptable so long as we do not state that he is/was the author of the content of the web site. It doesn't seem an extraordinary claim to me. Kevin (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And then Collect never continued any further in that discussion with Kevin, although Collect did continue to engage in other conversations and edits at the same time. Thus, the worst possible kind of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

I could give you personal examples of the exact same thing between myself and Collect, but they occurred during Mediation, and those communications are privileged and can not be brought here as evidence. So instead of divulging my mediation with Collect, i give you those two examples above involving Collect and administrators, examples which are nearly identical to my own experience. Reliably Sourced material is disregarded by Collect when it goes against his POV, and then he plays WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when challenged and questioned. Material which is close to consensus gets derailed by Collect, and then a request for discussion turns into an evasion of the contentious point, hopscotching to another region of conflict, distracting and disrupting any possible achievement of Resolution.

But i still don't think there is any reason to block Collect, because he is not operating in bad faith, he is not intentionally trying to harm any part of the encyclopedia. I think the mentoring suggestion is far more productive, combined with the suggestion of 1RR on anything at all contentious, because it looks like the only way to persuade Collect that he just might not be infallible. There is no use trying to "punish"... we should only be asking how can things improve? (And i humbly admit i can improve my own behaviors also, i'm just saying it requires first admitting fallibility.) ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 21:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Evidence of failing to resolve dispute

It might be best for User:Mattnad's note to be removed from this section as it adds no fresh evidence and only endorses Phoenix09's. Sorry, my mistake, I think Mattnad was probably referring to two comments he had made (about efforts to reason with Collect) in the previous section - not to Phoenix09's comments. Writegeist (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

i humbly submit evidence in the above sections with blockquotes which have colorized backgrounds. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~

Considering the apologies you had sent by email, I wonder a bit about this. might you consider posting what you wrote to me? Collect (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, i am always honest, even my Misplaced Pages email deserves scrutiny just as much as any TalkPage stuff. Would you like me to blockquote entire paragraphs here, or just specific points? Would you like me to post the section where i apologized to you for my impertinence and rudeness, or the parts where i praise your patience and good manners? Or the parts where i said i was sorry for any aggravation, before Sunray invited me to return to the Mediation? My interactions with you are full of Good Faith and attempts to apologize for my "new editor syndrome" incivilities, as you might say. Please be specific, and i'll not hesitate to repeat openly anything i've ever said to you exclusively. I've never had any illusions that our Misplaced Pages emails would somehow be "secret" or private, i do believe you deserve every bit of respect and good faith that i mentioned in those emails. Are you asking about this email from a few days ago? ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 21:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

• Follow-up evidence: Failure to maintain tempo or even give a courteous response to this section where you (@ User:Collect) ask me to consider posting our personal emails on 18th of April, and Failure to reply to three requests from Writegeist to give the diffs which would support the accusations you (User:Collect) made before 19th April regarding Sockpuppetry allegations (which i personally understood from your "manic depressive" slur elsewhere). That's not collaboration, that's WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and it's downright flippant. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 01:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Collect just removed write's question as "vandalism". Maybe this is should be added as an addendum to your section? Ikip (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, at this point, since we have megabytes of evidence already, and Collect's ongoing behavior only further illustrates that evidence, it seems redundant. This is why Mike Doughney quit: editors like Collect can get away with their damage for long periods of time, and the process of community arbitration is too passive to handle Collect's type of harm. All we can hope for now is that Collect will find some other venue to satisfy his conflict-junkie needs. His particular flavor of egotistical arrogance is the kind which will never truly admit wrongdoing, and he never even gives genuine apologies even when he has been caught red-handed and called on the carpet by administrators. So we might as well forget about any fantasy that he'll ever change, and just wait for him to shoot himself in his own feet enough times to put an end to his tarantella. My recommendation: ignore him as much as possible, don't bother taking his bait, and simply go to the appropriate administrators whenever you have an actionable situation. At least we can keep him behind the "electric fences" of 3RR, WP:TEND, and so forth. When he irritates you, don't give him the satisfaction (reward) of showing your irritation; just ignore him, or take flagrantly actionable cases of abuse to the Noticeboards. Maybe after another few hundred AN/I complaints, some administrator over there will finally decide to bring Collect to Arbitration. Until then, i will do my best to treat him as persona non grata. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 20:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

More False Claims from Collect

This was in response to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Collect#Response_to_concerns

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and also MISLEADING. i have one (not multiple, as you say) 3RR warning on limbaugh and it is on my talk page. i invite anyone to look into it and see the circumstances.

as to the 3RR report i made against you, yes i was new to the process (but not the "newbie" that you are referring to). what you call my "second bite" was my first and only 3RR notice against you. the other one was by a different person. please get your facts straight. there were multiple editors complaining about your edit warring, not just me. by framing it the way you do, you fail to mention that you were not just warned, but BLOCKED for the very same thing i was trying to warn about. ]. by the way, my warning was on dec 7 and your block was on dec 11- by william connolley. the fact that you claim my 3RR warnings to you were invalid shows your continued pattern of twisting facts to suit your needs. i find it to be a BIG problem that you seem to need continuous correcting in your facts.

i also did not mysteriously enter Talk:Union Banking Corporation. i was notified of another RfC on your behavior and decided to look for myself to see if you were edit warring. you were then and you seem to be now. please re-read my comment on the union banking corp. if you are confused.

in any event, this is about YOU, not me. i have never been blocked. you have a pattern of warnings, blocks, edit wars and you just dont seem to play well with others at times. the fact that this is not the first time multiple editors have had problems with your behavior is evidence of a problem in my opinion. lashing out at everyone who points this out to you is not the way to solve the problem. the problem lies with you. i suggest avoiding politics because you seem to keep getting in trouble in that area. Brendan19 (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to make comments, use the Talk page. And who did the canvass on "another RFC" on me? -- I recall Ikip railing against THF and making unsupportable accusations ... accidentall cross-pollination? Collect (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Above comment is example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT taking the form of "I Only Heard (Straw Man)". Was it proven that Ikip improperly canvassed against you? And even if there was canvassing, the "cross-pollination" with Ikip is an ad hominem concept which you are using to evade the discussion about YOU. This is what i keep trying to explain about your insistence of infallibility. Instead of considering for a single moment that you just might possibly have room for improvement, you evade the point of discussion by hopscotching to a different area of conflict. This is not going to lead to resolution. I still honestly believe that you are working in Good Faith, i still honestly believe that you are always behaving in the way that you personally believe is best for Misplaced Pages... but ten other editors are trying to suggest that you are not perfect. Other than one admission of "new editor syndrome" in the Joe The Plumber debacle, you have not budged in the slightest from your Pedestal Of Perfection. But that's not to say that i (nor anybody else) has any right to go knocking you off any pedestals.... All i'm begging you to consider is the simple possibility that this repetitive type of situation has the unfortunate appearance of tendentiousness, IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I Can't Ever Be Wrong, Everybody Else Is Wrong So Why Criticize Collect, etc, etc.... i know that's not your intention, but that's the way it's perceived. Do you please maybe think you could look at how that could be improved, possibly by admitting fallibility, possibly by accepting the advice of a friendly uninvolved mentor somewhere? I know that most of my own personal conflicts on Misplaced Pages could have been avoided or alleviated by those approaches; perhaps those approaches are good for just about everybody, including you. In all honesty ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 22:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

i find it quite telling that collect once again refuses to acknowledge his mistakes after i have once again corrected him. he also does not answer the concerns of teledildonix. instead he calls himself alice and takes a wikibreak. i would really enjoy reasoning with collect, but i am once again getting the feeling that i am talking to a brick wall. collect, are you deaf??? and if not, please acknowledge the concerns raised here by myself and teledildonix. running away to wonderland wont make all of this disappear when you return. and please dont respond with stuff about ikip or thf. we are talking about you. Brendan19 (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

still waiting... in the mean time collect has responded with stuff about ikip...]. Brendan19 (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

response to User:Threeafterthree (comment by Tom)

I would be very interested in seeing examples where Collect provided an open-minded attitude towards coming to consensus while using talk pages. My review of his edits do not find the same result as yours apparently has. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Request to Collect

From the above blockquote: :::If you wish details about some of the people (including at least one who was apparently quite ill), I will oblige (sans names). Since I have not been involved in any political campaigns for more than a decade, the ones who argued that I was a "paid operative" but who themselves turned out to be high ranking campaign workers seems to me to have made the charges in a very self-serving manner. The ones who had sockpuppets were also selfserving, and a few bans have occurred as a result. I believe one may be manic-depressive, being effusine in praise one minute, and angry the next. I presented Gwen Gale with evidence concerning two whom I believe to be sockpuppets, but was told to just be quiet about it. The biggest reason for anger has been that I try to follow WP beliefs in NPOV strictly, which makes a few POV-pushers upset from time to time. Did you read my user essays? I feel they will give you a good feel of my positions. Thanks! Collect (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Q...Can you provide the diffs of where you were called a "paid operative"?

A...

Comment...Here is the diff ] that begins a discussion re:paid operatives between myself and Collect. It is clear whom I name as operatives...not Collect. But it is Collect that takes on the role of persecuted 'Paid operative' in future diffs, for which I will provide evidence soon. Also, this may be a good opportunity to suggest that anyone seeking to know how Collect operates should study the Talk:Sarah Palin pages. --Buster7 (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Q...Who is the manic-depressive and how were you able to make such a serious diagnosis of a fellow editor over the Internet?

A...

Q...Do I have your permission to notify your fellow editors from the Sara Palin article of the ongoing Rfc here? (I will only notify the top 50 users of the Talk Page)

A...

Comment...To date I have canvassed ZERO editors.--Buster7 (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2009 (UTC) --Buster7 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

also, read the following ] and tell me you dont see similarities. Brendan19 (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

certified names of users: Mike Doughney

I don't know who struck Mike Doughney's name from the list of "Users certifying the basis for this dispute", but per the available details of this ANI, it seems that Mike did indeed "try and fail" at resolving the dispute. I suggest his name be un-stricken ("un-struck"?) and restored to it's John-Hancockian-glory. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has failed at resolving the dispute; the mediation is ongoing and progress is being made. Mike withdrew from it. I don't know who struck his name, but I don't think his withdrawal from an ongoing mediation constitutes failure to resolve the dispute. Firestorm 03:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

From the available ANI comments by Mike, it seems that effective March 11, 2009, the mediation had already been going on for "well past 10 weeks", at that time Mike wanted "more eyes need to be on (it)" (noted twice), Collect had announced an intention to call mediation to a halt, and Collect had referred to the mediation as a "high school debate club".

It deserves a minor mention that the admin who addressed Mike's comments there (THF) was the same admin who was previously accused of being a Collect-sockpup in another ANI. Albeit the fact that that ANI was resolved with No Vio, it still seems like, given the number of avail admins, somewhat of a conflict for THF to be involved in such mediation.

Additionally, that ANI is archived and noted as "closed". I don't know how you might know that ANI is still in process, how much or how little process is being made, or how you know that Mike withdrew. (Is it ongoing with Mike's involvement or is it ongoing without Mike's involvement or is it closed?)

Lastly, if Mike attempted to find resolution but withdrew prematurely, it was a failure to find resolution. I reiterate my suggestion that his name be restored to the list. Perhaps he should be notified of this project page... 207.237.33.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC). whoops, thanks sinebot 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

1) THF is not an admin. 2) The diff shows Mike Doughney retracted his own name after User:Collect's initial Response to the Concerns. It's completely understandable that four months of conflict would push anybody past the limits of patience; i've certainly self-immolated a few times already. When there is still no clear evidence of progress towards dispute resolution, i too am forced to feel the ongoing conflict is unhealthy, borderline masochistic, and not a productive way to spend my time on the Internet. I'll check back once more at the beginning of the new week, and if everything is still unhealthy, i guess the only smart choice would probably be to mimic the behavior of my wiser peers, to make like a Jet and Scram. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 04:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you can take a breather -as I'm going to tonight- and be able to come back after a day or two with a clear head. Don't let it make you nutty, but don't lose sight, either. PS- I'm not sure of your link to "Collect's Initial Response" above, perhaps clarify? I see that Mike took his own name off...and what a lovely edit summary, too. Seems like he was pushed over the edge by Lyonscc with his comment from the Rick Warren situation (see Mike's link). 207.237.33.36 (talk) 05:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

1) User:Collect's initial Response followed the same pattern as all other such TalkPages, RfC's, AN/I's, and Mediation Discussions involving Mike Doughney and Collect; that is to say: tendentious and ad hominem instead of admitting fallibility. The timestamps (and Mike's edit summary) indicated (to me) an obvious reaction of frustration and futility. 2) The direct link to the exchange between Lyonscc, Phoenix of9, Mike Doughney, myself, and others in the Rick Warren situation was removed by Gwen Gale because User:Collect complained that it could be construed as a personal attack against Lyonscc; and besides, we can't really belabor that any further in this RfC here today because it technically falls in the realm of "privileged communication related to mediation". But of course, anybody can read the diffs, and search backwards through the History, and see the obvious chain of events. This train has already been around the track a few zillion times during the since last autumn. ~_{Teledildonix314}~~_4-1-1~ 05:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

All the more reason to begin collecting the information that is available and pressing an ANI into a total block. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Personally, I just get on a game like Halo or Star Wars BattleFront and shoot ppl. Then I feel much better. :) Soxwon (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever keeps you off the ledge, dude. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Mike struck his own name following a request for him to provide evidence of him trying and failing to resolve the dispute. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Yes, that's clearthat he did...yet I'm inclined to reinstate it just the same. He is a "user who tried and failed to resolve the dispute" and evidence of his attempt has now been provided in this section. And you'll note that he did not DELETE his name, he struck it. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
    • He is not permitted to delete, and no one is permitted to reinstate - all he can do is strike if he wants to disengage, or is unwilling to fill out the details that go hand in hand with signing in that section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree wholeheartedly, and do not know where you got those guidelines from. Don't make up rules to suit your own agenda. Mike is a user who tried to find remedy with a situation and failed, and evidence can be provided: his name is therefore qualified for inclusion. Nowhere does it say he must himself certify to these facts -this is not a court of law- and nowhere does it say another user can not provide the evidence of his efforts...which is readily available in his history. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• I do not care for your ignorance of this site's guidelines and policies; but I will do something if it disrupts this project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Solution: Refer to ANI

PS- Don't forget to read this bit of fun... User:Collect/z . 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Plz note, There is no evidence of malicious intent in the change of source. Soxwon (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

With regards to your PS, note the disclaimer at the top of that page. Specifically, the part that reads "Do not use it as a genuine suggestion for behavior." Bringing it up is invalid. Firestorm 03:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you're right! I'll list that page at mfd as soon as I get a chance. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious, how do any of the cases presented save the 2nd and 4th show any misconduct? Soxwon (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the 2nd and 4th show misconduct. And the rest reveal that Collect tends to walk a fine line of policy and stretched guideline. You may also want to see my comments regarding THF here, adding another splinter. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

207, please include my attempt from dec 7 here. after reading everyones comments in this RfC it is like deja vu to read my noticeboard report... except it predates this. anyone see a pattern? you will note that my report lists 5 edit war complaints from five different editors about 4 different articles. and lets not forget one friendly 3rr warning about a fifth article from a sixth editor. all in one month. Brendan19 (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Brendan, yours is the second one listed, apparently you hadn't had a registered account at the time. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

also, sox, if two show misconduct isnt that enough? Brendan19 (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

That's strange, b/c in each case he was not at fault. Soxwon (talk) 04:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet the combined group seem to indicate some verification for and validity to the DESIRED OUTCOME of this RFC. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

@ EDitor:207.237.33.36.. The earliest version ] may be a truer reflection of intent than the current April/2009 versionUser:Collect/z. Much conversation took place (not sure where) between many editors and administrators as to the validity and incendiary quality of this "humour page". The essay was altered and softened to gain reluctant acquiesence. Even in the face of many critics the author showed remarkable inflexibility. I recall claims of satire and sarcasm and irony as reasons given for its existence. I do not find the humour. I didn't then and I still don't. This essay, in its earliest form, together with all the claims of impropriety to date, cause me to support a call for ANI.--Buster7 (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Buster: if you can research the history of that situation using the history page's "diff", and can provide evidence to the validity of what you're saying, you may want to include your observations in your outside view of this project page. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 05:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Research results; I guess its a secret!--Buster7 (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• • !!Wow, I wonder what this is about. Please review: 207.237.33.36 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect continues to try to disrupt Misplaced Pages processes - needs 18 months of 1rr

Collect is continuing being disruptive and trying to WP:GAME:

1) In his "response", he said:

"In regard to canvassing about this RfC/U: The following were contacted at one point or another on their usertalk pages by Phoenix of9: Introman, Anarchangel, Brendan19, Jim62sch, Mattnad, Dicklyon, Mike Doughney."

I contacted User:Mike Doughney for a RFC because we were having problems with Collect in Talk:Rick Warren. I also contacted User:Introman because he was the one Collect was edit warring in Fascism. I also contacted with with User:Mattnad and User:Ikip , but they were already talking about a RFC . I then filed this RFC and some people endorsed it. Then I made some changes in evidence and asked people who had already endorsed to review their endorsements. . Now, Collect calls this "votestacking" and "canvassing". Amazing...

2) Collect knows we went thru many dispute resolution processes. I also tried to explain here . Yet he still claimed this RFC was invalid in his "response". He tried to have this RFC de-listed, again with false claims of "votestacking" and lack of dispute resolution processes.

When filing this RFC, I used the 2nd template , which didnt have the "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" and "Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute" parts then. This is now fixed . I said that I used the 2nd template in AN/I where Collect was present . But again, he still tried to have this RFC invalidated .

3) Another example of Collect continuing his habit of misinformation (above and another eg: calling his edit warring consensus) seems to be here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Collect#More_False_Claims_from_Collect

I find it unbelievable that Collect continued to be disruptive during this very RFC. He promised not to edit war many times but still did in Fascism, he promised not to return to Drudge report at least for a week but returned after 3 days. So we cant really trust him when he says things like "I fully agree that I should review WP policies". Therefore its clear that there needs to be some enforcement to prevent Collect from distrupting Misplaced Pages again. So, again, I suggest at least 18 months of 1rr. This is not punitive, Collect will still be able to edit. It will just prevent Collect engaging in edit wars again. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Diffs? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

For what? Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Motion to Close

DIFFS and FOCUS

• Please, if we could all take the civil reminder that per guidelines, DIFFS MUST be provided as evidence in each and every post you make. Otherwise, it may be considered an attack post.

• Additionally, please remember the focus is on Collect's behavior, not each others'. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 21:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

ARBCOM

I immediately suggest that while the RFC remain open, the entire situation be referred to Arbitration. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Chill. Next time Collect causes any problem whatsoever, I'm gonna report him to ARBCOM where they can examine both mine and his behaviour in extensive detail. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I'm sure the official response will be sanctions for him, caution for you. Ironholds (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this mean you are closing this Phoenix? Soxwon (talk) 21:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well you can't have an RfC and something at ArbCom. Closing is really the best option, since this can't go anywhere; it requires Collect to consider this valid, which he does not. Ironholds (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Next time =/= "and". Read better. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make biting little comments like that, you've been told before. Query, then; what if he does something when this RfC remains open? And you haven't responded to my comment about Collect considering this RfC invalid. Ironholds (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What if? What if a giant undetected meteorite strikes Earth tomorrow and kills us all? Noone will be able to file ARBCOM reports or read my lil comments then. :P

How Collect considers this RFC is irrelevant. I agree with Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Collect#DIFFS_and_FOCUS, we need to focus on more evidence and diffs. As I said, I oppose discontinuing this RFC, please dont ask any more redundant questions. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This isn't redundant. You appear to be misunderstanding how RfC works; the parties have to agree to its validity otherwise solutions can't be found. Any solutions agreed to at the end of this are strictly voluntary, so if Collect doesn't think this is valid the entire process is a waste of time. He doesn't find it valid, so we're simply making hot air. Ironholds (talk) 22:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing in WP:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users that says or implies that the process is in any way dependent upon the approval of the user, or the user considering the process 'valid'. Dlabtot (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. "An RfC cannot impose involuntary sanctions on a user, such as blocking or a topic ban; it is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information". If Collect fails to consider this valid he isn't going to agree to "voluntary agreements", is he? Ironholds (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what is going to happen in the future, nor do I know what people will think or do in the future. I do know that the assertion that for an RfC to remain open requires the assent of the user in question is absolutely without basis. Dlabtot (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is that without the user wishing to agree to any "voluntary agreements" nothing can be done through RfC. I didn't mean that it is required, only that an RfC without any chance that the user will follow anything that results from it is moot. Ironholds (talk) 22:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Since you apparently know the future with such certainty, you can be forgiven for holding such a strong viewpoint about the early closing of this RfC. But those of us who have to wait for events to unfold before we know them might want to let things run their normal course. Dlabtot (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

"Know the future with such certainty"? Ironholds (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Did you read what Collect said? He's not going to submit to sanctions and so "normal course" for this is more insults and antagonism. Nice strawman argument btw. Soxwon (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have seen several RfC's which decide to have community sanctions. So whether Collect agrees or not is irrelevant. Ikip (talk) 22:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, read it again, it can only be voluntary. Soxwon (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well this RfC is a first step in a presumably good-faith attempt to get Collect to address numerous causes for concern. Naturally he can refuse, in which case I suppose there’d be subsequent steps. Therefore he might see a benefit in agreeing to a comparatively benign and wholly productive solution at RfC (e.g. mediation), instead of landing himself in a situation that, to judge by the massive number of diffs that have piled up here, might result in sanctions which he’d find more irksome. Writegeist (talk) 23:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Considering the calls for permanent bans I'd have to disagree with you. Soxwon (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This Rfc may continue "in abstentia". No one can blame Collect for removing himself from visible participation (his participation has been minimal). No one likes their dirty laundry shown all over the place. But, consider, that dirty laundry is a sign of hygiene problems that are anti-social and repulsive in social arenas.

Now...Collect can ignore the advice and good intentions of someone like Editor:Writegeist above and hide his head in the sand and pretend that its just a bunch of jerks with a vendetta....(and probably a cabal!) Or he can be a man and discover today what he needs to change so that tomorrow he can be a better editor. As someone said above, this is only the tip of the iceberg of diffs and history available to Collect's detractors. The damage that Collect has imparted in WikiLand is broad and multi-faceted. He should consider that unless he responds according to fundamental principles of conduct, the sanctions may be just as broad and multi-faceted. But, then again, you really don't believe he left....do you???????--Buster7 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

One question mark please, you're an editor not an evil genius from 19th-century Transylvania. He hasn't edited since he went on his break, although it is impossible to tell if he has been browsing the RfC. Again, to emphasise; this is a Request for Comment, not a Request for Arbitration. Any sanctions are completely voluntary, and unless he responds according to fundamental principles of conduct... he may disregard anything brought up here. Ironholds (talk) 05:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)