Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:05, 17 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: 21:58, 9 October 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]

Cause of concern 3.0: More tendentious editing/WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT

Eg: [19]

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).

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

For me (Phoenix of9) and Mike: extensive discussions in Talk:Rick Warren with respect to Collect's WP:Game / WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. More: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-02/Rick Warren. Eg: Explaining Collect why reliably sourced relevant material needs to be in the article [20]. An admin makes the same point [21].
Multiple RFC and debates on Joe the Plumber. Here are a few samples: [22], and [23], and [24]. You'll see Collect doing battle with many different editors. Sometimes the interactions are friendly, but mostly Collect operates in an adversarial way which brings the less pleasant aspect out in all of us. And here's an example where I tried to unsuccessfully reason with him directly on his talk page. [[25]. He kept on trying to remove this well cited content until he was blocked for multiple revisions [26] (that's a good example of failure). Mattnad (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I've noted Collect's suggestion that I'm equally at fault when it comes to Joe the Plumber, and cites a warning by Tantalas39. Now here's a later comment by Tantalus39 where he draws a distinction between us, "I can't help but notice that one of the two persistent edit-warrers on this page, Collect, has made no effort to discuss anything during the page lockdown. This is very telling, and will be given due weight if edit wars continue. Tan | 39 17:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)"Mattnad (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

With respect to diffs above (Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute), Collect continues with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT-Wikipedia:Disruptive editing [27]. As of 13 April 2009, Collect still continues disruptively editing in Fascism (diffs are above)
See the above statements in 2 and 3. Failure to resolve disputes was the norm.Mattnad (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mike Doughney (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattnad (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

Jim62sch^dissera! 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brendan19 (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchangel (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Introman (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dlabtot (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bruno23 (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Writegeist (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buster7 (talk) 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Ikip (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: [28], [29], [30]? 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. Soxwon (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. How could you have accurately assertained the situation on the DR and Fascism w/o having talked to other involved editors (Ratel, myself, CoM for DR; Slrubstein, Four Deuces, R-41 for Fascism)? Soxwon (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. Actions of others is not an excuse to edit war. And Collects tendentious editing is not isolated to Fascism. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Could you please answer the question I asked? How could you know what the situation was like (did he think he had consensus, were there multiple editors blocked such as DR) w/o talking to anyone involved? Soxwon (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. I answered it. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Alright, maybe I'll be more specific, how do you even know the edits in question were tendentious if you have not consulted anyone involved? Soxwon (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. In his latest edit war in Fascism, he deleted sourced material. [31] [32]. A typical tendentious editor. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q Yes, but what about the other editors who agreed that the sources didn't back up the claims? Wouldn't they have informed you of that had you not asked them to participate? Soxwon (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. What? If you are so concerned about the behaviours of others there, you are free to open RFC's about them. As I said "Actions of others is not an excuse to edit war". You've been repeating yourself for a long time now, so I'll prolly ignore your further questions. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q How is consensus editing disruptive editing as in fascism? Soxwon (talk) 17:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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%). [33] 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. [34] 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: [35] and more on RfCs on others (many more diffs available on such canvvassing), [36] 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, [37] showing his purpose in editing Rick Warren, [38] solicitation of Mattnad a month ago, and all of two weeks into mediation, [39] solicitation of Ikip, [40] solicitation of Mike Doughney, and again reerring to the mediation, [41] 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: [42] 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 [43] .

As to William Timmons note [44] 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:

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

[46] revert 02:22 16 Apr

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

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

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

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

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

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

[53] revert 2:16 16 Apr

[54] 1:52 16 Apr (revert of PhilLiberty)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[63] (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 [64] 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 [65] 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]

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. The following were contacted on their usertalk pages by Mattnad: Jim62sch, TheRedPenofDoom, Bruno23, Tanthalas39, Brendan19, Steve Dufour.

Specific reponse to Brendan19, who was canvassed to enter: [66] precisely shows your position on Joe the Plumber. You had previous been given multiple 3RR warnings on Rush Limbaugh. You mysteriously entered Talk:Union Banking Corporation to leave [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Union_Banking_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=272553569] His 3RR report on me (He was "newbie") at [67] was remarked on as "unhelpful commentary that has nothing to do with writing an article is routinely removed from talk pages." His immediate second bite at the apple got "Can't see a vio here. Contiguous edits count as one. Last edit in particular seems to just insert }} - are you really complaining about that? Please read WP:REVERT William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)" I ralize you were upset that adding curly brackets is not an edit violation, but we are supposed to AGF at some point. Collect (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 a newbie and that is why it wasnt the best report. by framing it the way you do above you fail to mention that you were not just warned, but BLOCKED for the very same thing i was trying to warn about. [[68]]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

At this point, no evidence of any attempt by Phoenix of9 for dispite resolution with me has been entered on this page. Collect (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Firestorm: In the spirit of getting back to what we should be doing, I fully agree that I should review WP policies, and I trust that the noticeboard complaints will not be continued. Thanks! Collect (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Writegeist: I have always said I was a traditional northeast liberal. I am a "conservative" when it comes to what an encyclopedia should have in it, and an "inclusionst" for what should be allowed in userspace. I have sought never to use politics as a reason for edits, and you will not find any such from me. I regret that your animus to me continues. As a point of fact, moreover, this discussion has not actual rational to discuss my politics, nor should claims about my politics be relevant in any way here. My "deleted edits" ratio is about 1% (out of nearly seven thousand edits in over seven hundred articles), while yours is about 8%. Anything over 2% is unusual. Collect (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response about spurious sockpupet investigations: One more example of misuse of noticeboards. I have not been a sockuppet, nor had a sockpuppet anywhere in amy wiki of any shapet manner or form. Raising it as an "issue" is a tad bogus as a result. Collect (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to "evidence" of dispute resolution steps : Not a single one shows any evidence of a dispute resolution step at all, Mattnad includes basically all the various melane items presented by Phoenix without any "proof" of anything as to dispute resolution. He has not shown his personal involvement with any dispute resolution steps. He has, indeed, clearly shown this to be a melange of items none of which had disoute resolution steps. And this is not a law brief where you say (essentially) "and the same stuff as above applies here too." Mattnad has made zero attemps at dispute resultion at all, and his "Evidence" is not in conformance with the rules of an RFC/U at all. Collect (talk) 21:47, 17 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. [69] represents one article which had "too much stuff" in it , and where my edits were apparently deemed correct. [70] 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. As a follow-up to your response on Joe the Plumber. If I understand your response, the only change you would have made was fewer edits. But you also mentioned that "I....forgot that I am not the only man here". Can you explain how that realization will shape your future interaction with other editors on Wikipedia? Mattnad (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. I learned that there were at least four other editors who also strongly dusagreed with some of the OIV stuff being added. Now I know other editors also will seek to affirm consensus, and that they will do the correct edits. As all the edits had been made with the best interests of WP as a basis, I fail to see where your question is trying to head. Collect (talk) 23:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.