Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:23, 16 April 2009

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC).

Collect (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Cause of concern

User:Collect is a tendentious editor with a long history of edit warring and using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith.

Edit warring

See his block log: [1]

After getting blocked for 3rr on Joe the Plumber, he "has committed to refraining from further edit-warring" and got unblocked (12 December 2008) then:

Admin: "Enough. One more revert on Joe the Plumber, and you're going to be blocked for a week for long-term, persistent edit warring. After that block is up, any further reverts, we'll start at a month and go from there. Move on from that article. Tan | 39 03:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)" [2]

Then he got blocked again on 3 March 2009 for edit warring in Drudge Report.

Then he apologized and agreed to abide by 1rr for a month and got unblocked again on 3 March 2009.

Using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith AND edit warring

Edit wars in William Timmons. This is unreported and before his latest block. More than 3 reverts about tags:

07:26, 23 February 2009 20:26, 24 February 2009 07:21, 25 February 2009 08:15, 26 February 2009 13:30, 26 February 2009 13:30, 27 February 2009 13:31, 27 February 2009 19:03, 27 February 2009 10:23, 28 February 2009 18:19, 28 February 2009

Gets warned [3] and claims it wasnt edit warring, pointing to an essay written by his friend User:THF (Wikipedia:TAGGING) [4]. Background on THF and Collect. Even THF says it was edit warring. [5]
Now things to consider here:
- Edit wars.
- Points to an essay (As an experienced editor, Collect should have known the difference between essays and policies/guidelines).
- Points to an essay written by a friend (their positions seem to be very close in several articles).
- Collect archives his talk page [6]. But he randomly deleted that whole convo above [7]. Now, Wiki lets editors do whatever they want with their talk pages but it will be very difficult for any future editor, who may have problems with Collect and wants to go over his talk page, to find this info.

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

17:21, 13 April 2009 17:37, 13 April 2009 12:04, 14 April 2009 (now deleting it eventho it's sourced)18:22, 14 April 2009

Technically, he didnt break WP:3RR. First revert 17:21, 13 April 2009, latest 18:22, 14 April 2009, gaming the system with less than an hour and he knows this: [8]

Again, tendentious editing concerns on Drudge Report: [9] [10]

Cause of concern 2.0: violation of terms of unblock

*After getting blocked, Collect had agreed to 1RR or less for at least a month on 3 March 2009. [11] And he got unblocked. [12]

~~Violates these terms on 13 March 2009.~~
~~Adds an OR tag 07:29, 13 March 2009. Restores the tag (1st revert): 12:00, 13 March 2009~~
~~Adds another OR tag: 07:32, 13 March 2009. Restores that tag again (2nd revert): 12:22, 13 March 2009~~

~~Notice that he is edit-warring again, over tags, like he did in William Timmons. And again, he points to his friends essay: WP:Tagging.~~

There was no 1rr violation: [13]

However, Collect still violated terms of his unblock, so this subsection is still valid:

After getting blocked, Collect promised on March 3 to not edit Drudge Report for a week or more. I shall also avoid the Drudge Report article for at least a week...[14] But he was back to editing it just three days later: [15][16][17]. This was noted here: [18]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct.

Desired outcome

Stop edit-warring. Use Wiki policies and guidelines in good faith. More transparency (not randomly deleting important sections of his talk page while archiving other sections).

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for those certifying the dispute.

Q. How do the above editors respond to what seems like a case of canvassing on the part of User:Phoenix of9 as shown here: [19], [20], [21]? Per WP:CANVAS: Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

A. 3 people is canvassing? I needed one of them to sign this RFC. Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q.

A.

Response

{This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed. Users not named in the request or certifying the request should post under Additional views below.}

Response to concerns

"This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users" is the first and primary requirement for such an action. This is a melange of trying to post every single dipute I have ever had, none of which involve the parties in any significant way.

The other "users" were canvassed specifically for such an action here, and the proponent has been anxious to have such an action for a lon time despite there being no contact in any article edits between us for two months. The claim is stale, and meritless. Complainant has abot a thousand edits, and has now made 29 edits to Rick Warren (3%). [22] I have made over 6,700 edits of which 23 were to Rick Warren (.3%). There is an ongoing mediation on the topic to which Mike Doughney and Phoenix of9 have been party, and Mike Doughney sought to use the material from the mediation on AN/I. [23] with no contact after that time. Phoenix of9's issuing of the RfC/U during mediation is questionable.

Phoenix of9's canvassing and other acts: [24] and more on RfCs on others (many more diffs available on such canvvassing), [25] seeking to get a WQA on another editor, [ advising a blocked user to use a specific admin, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiboi&diff=prev&oldid=274615951 solicitation of an additional party to join themediation, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_Doughney&diff=prev&oldid=276319229] comment about AN/I saying M D should wait a little, [26] showing his purpose in editing Rick Warren, [27] solicitation of Mattnad a month ago, and all of two weeks into mediation, [28] solicitation of Ikip, [29] solicitation of Mike Doughney, and again reerring to the mediation, [30] solicitation of Introman a "new user" will about a hundred edits.

Posts on my user page: None. (hard to give a diff for that) making it hard for me to believe he sought any resolution from me at any point. Absent any attempt at any dispute resolution, I fail to see how this can procede.

As to Phoenix of9's behavior: [31] fslse assertion of 3RR, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chrishpaytas/Archive] unconfirmed accusation of a person being a sockpuppet.

Re: The "final warning" on [[Joe the Plumber[[ see the same warning given to Mattnad [32] .

As to William Timmons note [33] for complainant Dicklyon. For actual and substantial editwarring. My widely spaced adding of actually appropriate tags (note the talk page for verification of that) was not only not editwarring, not 3RR, but actually on the basis of consensus of the other editors (entire Talk:William Timmons is appropriate here unfortunately). Working on his last 10,000 edits for speed, he made 148 edits on William Timmons and 245 more on Talk:William Timmons. I made all of 84 ever, and 139 on talk. About half his edit level.

Then I am accused of citing an ESSAY of all things. Amazingly enough, I find that many people do cite essays, and are not brought to an RfC/U for it. He asserts THF is my "friend" --but THF and I have had actually exceeding little overlap at all, and have remarkably different views. Then again, THF and I were accused of being sockpuppets -- until the absolute impossiblility was pointed out. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive520#THF_and_Collect_sockpuppetry] and Dicklyon out of nowhere appeared to support the accusation by asserting THF and I both lived in Washington, DC.

As to the "new user" User:Introman who is used as the basis for the false claim of editwarring on Fascism, I proffer:

[34] revert of Will Beback 03:04 16 Apr

[35] revert 02:22 16 Apr

[36] (revert of Alexius08) 1:58 16 Apr

[37] (revert of Collect) 19:34 14 Apr

[38] (revert of Collect) 21:19 14 Apr

[39] (revert of Soxwon) 22:56 14 Apr

[40] (revert of Soxwon) 23:06 14 Apr

[41] (partial revert of Fraterm) 01:05 14 Apr

[42] revert 2:16 16 Apr

[43] 1:52 16 Apr (revert of PhilLiberty)

[44] (revert of Collect) 22:02 14 Apr

[45] (added comment on disputed matter in Talk into article) 21:29 14 Apr

[46] (revert of PhilLiberty) 19:23 14 Apr

[47] (revert of Collect) 20:41 13 Apr

[48] (revert of Collect) 20:33 13 Apr

[49] (revert of Saddhiyama) 19:45 13 Apr

[50] (revert of PhilLiberty) 17:43 11 Apr

[51] (revert of PhilLiberty) 20:36 10 Apr

[52] (revert of Skomorokh) 19"30 9 Apr

and about 20 other reverts -- all out of just over 100 total edits. Or almost half of all his article edits are reverts. I would suggest a new user who in only a couple of weeks manages to make that many reverts is a teeny bit suspect. The claim that I am theone editwarring on Fascism is rather groteque at that point, I trust.

As to the discussion on Talk:Fascism note [53] for the nature of Introman's contributions, asserting the US is fascist becasuse the Mercury Dime had the fasces on the reverse.

Other than the AN/I filed by Mike Doughney, which is now hidden due to the privileged nature of mediation, I have had essentially no contact with him, so I can not see what he can "certify" at all.

The complaint that I deleted an obsolete and inaccurate notice from another editor on my talk page makes no sense at all. There is no requirement that such be retained, and many users delete all of them. The history remains and is adequately findable, which means that this charge is just tossed in.

As for "stop editwarring" since I have been in no editwar since the block, I consider that a claim made to allow the RfC to proceed. It implies that I am actively editwarring, which is false. As for using policies and guidelines, they have shown not a simgle example of me not using the policies and guidelines in good faith. Telling me to do so is meaningless unless they wish to claim I did not do so. Barring me from editing my talk page? I regard than as not even a half-way serious suggestion. I have never altered in any way the talk page history. Nor could I.

What we are left with is that the RfC/U does not meet the requirements at the start for an RfC/U. A melange of miscellaneous charges does not make for a valid RFC/U. The fact that the issuer and I have not had any "dispute resolution attemopts" invalidates it. The fact that no "efforts" have been listed, nor can be listed, invalidates it. The issuing of such an RfC/U by a party (Phoenix of9) to a mediation while the mediation is ongoing, is improper. The endorsement of it by another party (Mike Doughney) while the mediation is ongoing is improper. Collect (talk) 11:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noting material added after this was opened: The diffs 9 and 10 (as currently numbered) from my userpage support me quite nicely. In the latter, the complaining editors admits to misciting facts, which was one issue I had with him. As for any accusation of ownership, that editor outedits the next edotor on Drudge Report and on Matt Drudge in each case by a factor of five or more. And on the talk pages by about a factor of three. He has [54] his top four pages being those four, amounting to well over 20% of his total edits. My edit count on his articles is exceedingly small in comparison. Again - thanks for raising that issue. Collect (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff added: "Cause of concern 2.0" CONSECUTIVE edits do not count as reverts. Ever. And since the tag was not even a revert in the first place, he has now shown that I made zero reverts. So much for that one. Is there a minus-1 revert rule for me to have violated? Collect (talk) 00:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

Questions

Any users may post questions in this section. Answers should be reserved for the user named in the dispute.

Q. Why do you delete items that are sourced? Introman (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. Where a source is not a "reliable source" or, worse, is used to back a claim which is not even made by the source at all, there is no reason to use it. I also feel that where 6 to 15 sources ("overciting") are used for a single claim that removal f the excess sources is not only proper but unneeded for the article to be usable. Most claims do not really require more than three reliable sources. [55] represents one article which had "too much stuff" in it , and where my edits were apparently deemed correct. [56] shows a lede wth the following sentence "Fascism opposes communism, conservatism, democracy, individualism, international socialism, liberalism, materialism, pacifism, laissez faire capitalism and political pluralism.[9][4][3][10][11][12][13][14][15] " which I felt was rying to say too many things with to many cites even though each word had only one or two cites, but I felt the concatenation was not good style for a lede. In one other case, I believe 13 cites were in an article for a single fact, which I regarded as overkill. WP is an encyclopedia, not a list of every cite anyone can find. Collect (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q. If you could rewind the events on Joe the Plumber/Talk:Joe the Plumber to your first involvement and start again, how would your edits/involvement differ now? -- The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. I believe frankly that I suffered from "new editor syndrome." I had read far too many policy pages, and felt they should be used in articles, and often forgot that I am not the only one here (which should be an essay). This made me in some cases far too quick to do edits which, on reflection, others would have made at some point. I suspect many new editors do similar deeds. I do not regret learning from the exoperience, so the learning process I do not regret, but I should have better used my prior experience online to keep from having the feeling that I was one of the only people to help. Were I to enter now with the experience I have, I would have made far fewer edits, but those edits would still have been done with, I hope, the interests of the project as a basis. Have I changed my mind about BLP being important? No. But I know that thers also have the same values on policy. Collect (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q.

A.

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

Outside view by User:Ikip

{Enter summary here.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by User:Dlabtot

Editors are required to assume good faith, but as someone more clever than myself has said, WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. In this edit, Collect declares himself to be a traditional northeast liberal. I'd encourage any who are reviewing this RfC to examine Collect's edit history and form their own judgement about whether this was a frank, sincere, and good-faith self-characterization. It's not an investigation that will take a long time to complete. Dlabtot (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Maybe by Northeast, he means Chukchi Peninsula. Thats pretty Northeast on world map. :P In any case, as I said, it doesnt matter that he is a conservative. What matters is that he is misrepresenting himself, which is inline with his general behavioural pattern. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.Mattnad (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by

{Enter summary here.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Proposed solutions

This section is for all users to propose solutions to resolve this dispute. This section is not a vote and resolutions are not binding except as agreed to by involved parties.

Template

1) i see that collect has in the past been blocked for 24 hours and then for 48 hours. i do not know what the standards are for escalating blocks, but i would think that the next highest block would suffice (one week or so?). if that doesnt stop him from future edit warring/problematic behavior then he should be blocked for more and more time. while many of his edits are troublesome and combatitive he has also made many helpful edits. if people do not think a longer block time is a good idea i would also suggest a long term avoidance of political topics by collect. Brendan19 (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I don't really see justification for this, all you seem to have is Joe the Plumber. Soxwon (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2) ~~I suggest 1rr or less for at least a year for Collect. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)~~ In light of new evidence, I suggest 1rr or less for at least 18 months and 6 months topic ban on Drudge Report. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

@@ Line 102: / Line 102: @@
 :# [[User:Introman|Introman]] ([[User talk:Introman|talk]]) 01:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 :# [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 04:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
+:# [[User:Bruno23|Bruno23]] ([[User talk:Bruno23|talk]]) 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 === Questions<br> ===