Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Collect: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 19:52, 16 April 2009 editJim62sch (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers23,810 edits →Canvassing: r← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:58, 16 April 2009 edit undoPhoenix of9 (talk \| contribs)Rollbackers2,082 edits →Problem with Collect: He has no credibility: new sectionNext edit →
Line 112:		Line 112:
	:::::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. ] (]) 19:40, 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. ] (]) 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 19:52, 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. ]<sup>]</sup> 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. ] (]) 19:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:58, 16 April 2009

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Jim62sch 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. Jim62sch 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)