Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Collect: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:19, 21 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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" [sic] ' 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm just noting it because I think you are misrepresenting yourself. It is not only me who thinks you are a conservative [1]. 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)[reply]

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. Wikipedia is worse off for it.Mattnad (talk) 18:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

From notes I made at the time:

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 Wikipedia. Kelly, I can handle. Anarchangel (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

As a counterpoint to this claim by Collect, Collect repeatedly insisted on including his catalog of negative editorials [2] [3] [4] [5] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 03:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 ^Talk 04:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 16:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^Talk 02:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [6] Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[1] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^dissera! 17:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I found out about an hour ago, by accident.[7]Ferrylodge (talk) 18:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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^dissera! 17:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^dissera! 19:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^dissera! 19:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^dissera! 19:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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?" [8]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.) Jim62sch^dissera! 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soxwon, you're assuming. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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). Jim62sch^dissera! 21:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm only German by descent. So...uh...hah. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Well, I do babel a lot. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 21:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try [9] 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 [10] , accusing me of "forum shopping" at [11] accusing me directly of Wikistalking at [12] and his sudden appearance on a page he had never been before at [13], and so on. Writegeist's POV and tagteam accusations at [14] and undertaking an "investigation" of me at [15] Making another tagteam accusation at [16] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 06:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teledildonix314, fyi here's a diff for a Collect response: [17]. (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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 07:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

(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 ^Talk 18:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be precise, I'm characterizing you as one sided. [18] 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)[reply]

Are either of you aiming to be the subject of an RFC? The squabbling is not helpful. Stopping is strongly suggested. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(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 ^Talk 18:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stop using Template

Give the comments a title. Has anyone ever done an R"FC before? Jim62sch^dissera! 21:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This was explained here: [19]. Another clear proof that Collect is not improving with respect to WP:Game. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

This is a request for comment on en.Wikipedia, 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

given the circumstances, it is normal. A good reason for discretion. Jim62sch^dissera! 00:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 04:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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[20], 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)[reply]

Care to copy edit that last sentence? Jim62sch^dissera! 18:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 2009 17:37, 13 April 2009 12:04, 14 April 2009 (now deleting it eventho it's sourced)18:22, 14 April 2009 as verified by [21] and [22] Phoenix of9 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 01:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"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: [23]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 20:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 [24].Mattnad (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 06:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badagnani 5 editors certify, 5 endorse
Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DrKiernan 3 editors certify, 6 endorse
Wikipedia: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 15:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)Offending comments have now been stricken Firestorm ^Talk 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you say your going blind, I'll believe you. Here: [25] 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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 16:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 16:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:

“

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) then Collect is abiding by the conditions for his unblock in relation to reverting other users.

”

Collect did edit war after his block [26] [27] and did violate terms of his unblock [28]. 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)[reply]

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

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 [. . .] [and if so] Collect is abiding by the conditions for his unblock.' [29] 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: [30]. 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

~~(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

What I'm seeing in accusations of being from Russia.[31], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 01:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 02:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. [32]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 02:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia generally, but it certainly isn't helpful in a discussion. Ironholds (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yep. Jim62sch^dissera! 00:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

strongly endorse -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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 [33]. 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)[reply]

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 [34] 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 [35] 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}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 21:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

i humbly submit evidence in the above sections with blockquotes which have colorized backgrounds. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_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)[reply]

Certainly, i am always honest, even my Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 21:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More False Claims from Collect

This was in response to Wikipedia: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. [[36]]. 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]

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 Wikipedia... 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 Wikipedia could have been avoided or alleviated by those approaches; perhaps those approaches are good for just about everybody, including you. In all honesty ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 22:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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...

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...

--Buster7 (talk) 00:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

also, read the following [[37]] and tell me you dont see similarities. Brendan19 (talk) 07:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^Talk 03:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 04:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 05:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

- 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)[reply]
  - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 ^Talk 03:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@ EDitor:207.237.33.36.. The earliest version [[38]] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Research results;[39] I guess its a secret!--Buster7 (talk) 11:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- !!Wow, I wonder what this is about. Please review: [40] 207.237.33.36 (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collect continues to try to disrupt Wikipedia 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 [41] because we were having problems with Collect in Talk:Rick Warren. I also contacted User:Introman [42] because he was the one Collect was edit warring in Fascism. I also contacted with with User:Mattnad and User:Ikip [43] [44], but they were already talking about a RFC [45]. 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. [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51]. Now, Collect calls this "votestacking" and "canvassing". Amazing...

2) Collect knows we went thru many dispute resolution processes. I also tried to explain here [52] [53]. 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. [54] [55]

When filing this RFC, I used the 2nd template [56], 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 [57]. I said that I used the 2nd template in AN/I [58] where Collect was present [59]. But again, he still tried to have this RFC invalidated [60].

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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Diffs? Jim62sch^dissera! 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Motion to Close

Enough already

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm not sure if this is proper procedure, but this has gone long enough. At this point it's just become a back and forth exchange and doesn't accomplish anything. Two options have been presented: Mentor and various bans/blocks that should go to AN/I. It's obvious from the comments he's not doing them voluntarily so if you feel they're necessary your going to have to go to AN/I. I don't see how this can be productive other than to provoke more ill feelings and/or antagonize all users involved. Soxwon (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I think we've exhausted all attempts to uncover evidence, and this is becoming rather bitter -- needlessly so. We need to come to a decision and move on. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: :Theres a 3rd option. 1rr for 18 months. And this RFC has been going on for only few days. This is VERY PREMATURE. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You being able to come up with things that you consider valid solutions doesn't change the bitterness, borderline personal attacks and sniping going on at this page, nor does it change the fact that since Collect doesn't think this RfC is valid (and he needs to for you to place any sanctions on him) this is going nowhere. Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose many options, I also feel it is premature. Ikip (talk)

An RfC is non-binding, you can't force him to and he obviously refuses. That's why I classified it along with the others as AN/I stuff. If the RfC can't accomplish anything b/c all of the parties involved are too antagonizing, bitter, and combative to work towards an agreement than it can't serve it's purpose and should be closed. From your edits and his it was clear from the beginning that this was going to be a smorgasboard of mudslinging, bad-faith accusations, and general ugly behavior that only serves to polarize and harden each side to their positions and promote mutual ill-will. If I'm coming off strong it's only b/c this page has just been one big mess from the start. Soxwon (talk) 18:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been going on only for 5 days. Look at the list [61]. Some RFC's are going for months. More editors may comment. More evidence may be presented. You are coming too strong and you are simply being ridiculous. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because some drag out, doesn't mean this has to. Personally, I'm getting tired of the sniping, and would like to see us come to a decision. The options are in the proposed remedy section. If after five days we've found no more evidence of recent inappropriate behaviour we're not likey to. Additionally, the conduct of several. editors on both sides of the argument has me considering opening RfC's on them. Given the vituperation I've seen here, keeping this mess of an RFC open longer may damage a few other wikipedians. I think most of us agree that Collect has acted inappropriately and action needs to be taken -- let's focus on that and not on venting our collective spleen. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We found more recent evidence: Collect trying to disrupt this RFC, as evidenced above Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the nastiness of certain editors, I hardy see this as a surprise. In fact, logically speaking, you just supported Sox and defeated your own argument. Quite frankly Phoenix, you remind me of an angry teenager. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How very civil of you. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But, theres more evidence coming. I loved the "Collect's selective use of policy to suit his own POV, ignoring policy when it is convenient" in Ikip's outside view. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep going, if you make enough edits like that you'll end up proving my point. If that's your idea of "evidence" (a possible violation delivered with a good deal of malice and stigma attached) then you obviously have lost focus as to what this process is supposed to accomplish. Soxwon (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, and I'm getting just a bit pissed at of of the ~~fucking~~ bleding nonsense ~~bullshit~~ and hatred been spewed here: Collect is problematic, but far, very far from the worst I've encountered here. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not close. collect just decided to go to wonderland and pretend he is alice instead of answering to some straightforward concerns. to close this in his absence would be counterproductive. he needs to step up and face the music. Brendan19 (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your statement proves a vengeance-driven motive and thus a counterproductive ones. His message and recent suggest to me someone who has been pushed too hard and is starting to show signs of cracking a bit. Soxwon (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose I can guarantee that there are dozens of editors that have similar involvements and dealings with Collect that have not yet made an appearance. Since they can not be told (canvassed) about this Rfc, they will have to discover it on their own (which I am confident will happen). The results are the Guru; let's leaave the door open for passersby. Some of them may stand up for Collect.--Buster7 (talk) 19:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They can be told as involved parties, what I objected to was canvassing only those who agreed with Phoenix. Furthermore, they can make an appearance on AN/I. This is just a stewing pot of hate b/c ppl involved keep attacking. Soxwon (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you are free to notify anyone (especially as most folks don't have the RfC page watch-listed). Note, too, that canvassing only occurs when you express an opinion in the notification. Nonetheless, teh dramaz is getting a bit much here. I've only seen a bit of logic applied here, and way too much spewing. If you have any questions regarding my involvement, see my user talk page which has two sections on Collect. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse motion per my response to Phoenixof9 above. Ironholds (talk) 19:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose True, comments are occasionally intemperate, but only from a very small minority. The majority of comments on the RfC page are not ingredients in Soxwon’s perceived ‘smorgasboard of mudslinging, bad-faith accusations, and general ugly behavior’. To me, there are not enough of those ingredients for the smorgasbord; maybe just enough for a little baloney on the side. I would like the RfC to remain open at least for another few days in the (OK, perhaps forlorn) hope of getting fresh comments and new perspectives. Leave the door open, as Buster suggests. Good solutions that none of us have thought of might be proposed. And Collect might attract some positive and persuasive comments. Meanwhile it might be a good idea for all of us who have had our say to ease off the back and forth now, until/unless there is something really important or new to respond to. Writegeist (talk) 19:59, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - A close. I would suggest that we discount the votes of editors that are involved, because of course, it's a given they are going to have a bias in regards to opening or closing this issue. The only votes which should count are those of uninvolved editors. I've been watching this RFC for awhile now, and I can already see that it is going no where. No amount of accusations or mudslinging will do anything. If you want this RFC to accomplish something, the accused party has to agree of their own free-will, so unless Collect sold his soul to you, I don't see that happening. If you want to force a change on him or her, take it to ArbCom, or ANI. Otherwise, this is just a waste of other editors' time and patience.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 19:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The RfC has only been open for 4 days and is still gathering significant input. It should remain open for at least two weeks to allow for editors who many still be away on Easter holidays and other domestic activities. So long as the discussion remains fresh and does not become repetitive or stale, then it may usefully continue. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the motion to close: It's been pointed out that the RFC has limited power: it's a little like an intervention, but the subject, Collect, must agree to change. His responses indicate that he feels his past and present editorial approach are acceptable, and he does not think this RFC is valid. He's willing to accept a "mentor", but I'm not sure that means "change". I now see no useful purpose for this RFC if the objective is helping Collect become a more cooperative editor.Mattnad (talk) 20:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor pointed out that an RFC can also serve the purpose of letting other editors comment on the subject even if there's little expectation that the subject of the RFC will respond constructively to it. For this reason, I retract my endorsement. Mattnad (talk) 13:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose:Please note that Sox is beginning an edit war regarding this section. I have attempted to archive this section with the following comments, which has now been reverted twice [62] and [63]. Closing an RFC after 4 days is appalling, as is the idea of "voting". This is not up for a vote. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per ending RFC's, the bot closes RFC's after 30 days if consensus it not reached, which clearly has not happened yet in this case. Ending this after 4 days is an appalling suggestion.
Additionally, it deserves mention that an RFC "is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information". Those goals are just now beginning to be addressed, much less met in their entirety. :*Perhaps the issue of Collect's behavior will go to arbitration (or, more likely, several cases of arbitration) as recommended in WP:RFC...but for the meantime, per all RFC guidelines, this RFC must stay open. As such, I am archiving this section. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No but it does give an idea of how non-involved editors feel and that's a good indicator if this should be closed. And if the first part isn't going to happen the second can just as easily be done w/AN/I. Soxwon (talk) 21:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose closing this Request for Comment. From the very beginning there were accusations of "canvassing and votestacking", although they seem disproven (to me). If we leave the RfC open then more editors will potentially come here and offer additional opinions and suggestions. It's difficult to see how anybody can argue that there's canvassing, but then simultaneously argue that we should close the RfC before other detached people have a chance to come comment. And it doesn't matter whether anybody here believes or disbelieves that Collect will listen to the comments and consider any of the suggestions... we have no crystal ball. In fact, in order to be assuming good faith, we basically must presume that Collect will potentially find something constructive in whichever portions of this he cares to acknowledge, and we basically must presume that Collect will find encouragement in the fact that we're still just commenting rather than dragging him into AN/I or ArbCom (at the moment). Furthermore, there is already an automated process which will close this RfC when appropriate, so attempting to shut it down by fiat— or even by a vote— is pugnacious grandiosity. I object to even being made to vote on this. If the voyage to Wonderland was on a round-trip ticket, maybe there will be some dialogue and conciliation after the initial few days of evidence and arguments. Being presented with huge criticisms of one's online conduct is bound to distress anybody, so maybe after the distress has a chance to wane there will come a period of consideration and collaboration. We can help prevent the distress by using only objective evidence, using only civil rational ideas rather than emotional argumentativeness, and displaying an overall idealistic goal of improving Wikipedia in a friendly way, rather than attacking each other. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 00:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are NOT being made to vote. This is NOT up for vote. We will come to a consensus on this issue, and since there are a fair share who oppose closing -which is wholly finite-, the RFC will remain open. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick question

Remembering this is voluntary and is not something to accuse, nor a trial, but an attempt to get an editor to change their ways, can any of you who have been against Collect honestly say that you would respond in a productive manner to the verbal assault that's been launched? I don't care if you did it, would you, having suffered some these insults? Especially from editors with whom you've had a bitter disagreement with in the past? If you answer yes I seriously doubt your integrity. Again, this isn't about dragging out new evidence, having him "face the music," or anything like that. It's an attempt to convince him to change which you all are certainly NOT doing. Soxwon (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, sox, but i disagree. this IS about dragging out new evidence and, for me at least, having him face the music. when he says things ABOUT ME that i have proven to be absolutely false [[64]] i would like to hear from him about it. and i would argue that i am not verbally assaulting anyone. i am responding to false statements made about me by collect. unfortunately, as he has done before, he pretends not to hear that which he does not like. as for convincing him to change, i think you are right- we have not done that. Brendan19 (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just another quick question. If Collect is really acting in good faith, why didnt he strike his blatantly incorrect info in his response? Instead, he quoted Alice. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am I a mind reader? Your question is one that is extremely pointed b/c it accuses him of lying, disruption, and attempted evasion. Are you acting in good faith? Soxwon (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sox, i would argue that phoenixs question doesnt accuse him of lying. it just points out that he made statements which were EASILY proven to be false. the questions should be 'why didnt collect correct his info when shown it was wrong, or why didnt he at least acknowledge being wrong, or why didnt he make a better effort to be truthful in the first place? these are all questions that assume good faith, but need answers from collect before they lose that assumption. Brendan19 (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My "faith" is contingent on Collect's behaviour. Honestly, to me, Collect is a disruptive editor and he just continued that behaviour during this very RFC. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does that justify you sinking to his supposed level? Soxwon (talk) 19:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're slipping away from the point, and Phoenix is really proving the essence of Soxwon's statement. In response to soxwon: no, I certainly wouldn't respond well to being accused of meatpuppetry, edit-warring, POV-pushing, bullshitting and being intentionally disruptive. If anything it would sour my opinion of the people bringing it even more and make me less likely to listen to or consider anything that comes out of their mouths. Ironholds (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soxwon, Are you acting in good faith when you wanna close this discussion? If you say yes, I'll even believe you but right now looks like you just dont want further evidence about Collect being found out and documented here, sorry. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? No it doesnt. Why Are you making baseless accusations, exactly?Ironholds (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)You're right, I don't want more evidence placed here, b/c whenever it is it's accompanied by insults and pettiness. I don't want it presented b/c this is going nowhere and continuing it defeats the purpose of it, namely to get Collect to voluntarily change. Introducing evidence is fine. Antagonizing others is not. I'm done for now, I've asked for admins to consider this or if it is necessary. I'll await their decision before I comment further as I don't think I can state my opinion any more clearly and further edits will just increase drama. Soxwon (talk) 20:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to User:Soxwon's question, I would certainly engage with a process of this sort. In a project of this sort, it is important that people should be able to take criticism and react to it constructively. Failure to cooperate and assume good faith in the process is, in itself, evidence of a poor attitude. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reread the sections saying he has no credibility, accusing him of being mentally unbalanced, and other general harpoons fired at him and see if you still believe that you would react positively to an RfC like this one plz. Soxwon (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inflated criticisms are easy to deal with as, if they are far from the truth, then they should carry no sting. The only comments which might be unacceptable are those which probe into one's real identity too closely. For example, Collect says at one point that he is a NE liberal. In my case, it would be useful to know whether he uses these terms in a US, UK or other context, as my particular dispute relates to a UK newspaper. Understanding his background better might clarify any misunderstanding or cultural differences which will tend to cause tension or confusion. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye to the inflated criticisms, but persistent ones coupled w/what appears to be an attempt made to cajole you into something you don't think you're guilty of by editors you've had bitter disagreements isn't going to go over so smoothly. Soxwon (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, see WP:AGF and WP:NPA. The conduct here is simply beyond the pale, and certainly far from what I'd expect in an RfC: Oh, no, maybe it's acceptable to censure or sanction a user by crawing into a pit far l.ower than his. Yep. Jim62sch^dissera! 20:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks on Collect only hurt the attackers. I would strongly suggest that editors remove these personal attacks, by not striking them out, but removing these personal attacks completely. Although some editors have been guilty of personal attacks, that in no way changes the evidence presented here, which is deep and lengthy. Ikip (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ka.Boom. That was a total truth bomb. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest striking them would be better. We need to present an objective view of what has been going on here to anyone who joins the discussion. Censoring chunks of the discussion that make one side look bad doesn't do that. Ironholds (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow User:Jim62sch's point. It is to be expected that editors will air their grievances in such a forum. If these seem intemperate then this may indicate the extent to which the subject has antagonised other editors. If we are mealy-mouthed then the issues may not be properly understood. In my case, I have had nothing to do with Sarah Palin or many of the other articles mentioned. I have no political axe to grind and yet I find Collect's behaviour to be unacceptably disruptive. I find the complaints of other editors to chime with my own experience and so consider them sincere, rather than the expression of some political factionalism or malevolence. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if this were AN/I that might be acceptable (if it were indeed true). Yet, this is an RfC and whether or not it's a reflection doesn't matter. If Collect feels it is then the purpose isn't served and it becomes just generally ugly. Soxwon (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sox, would this perhaps have anything to do with this edit to your talk page? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd look at Daedlus' talk instead of slinging Accusations of bad faith you'd see the rest of the convo. Soxwon (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is section is not going to be closed. As said RFCs only work if all parties accept the proposed solutions. Collect has already noted he isn't, therefore, this entire RFC is pointless and a waste of time. RFC restrictions are entirely voluntary, and if the party that is supposed to be sanctioned, voluntarily, doesn't want to be, none of us can force him to do that, as, as said, RFCs are not binding. If you want binding sanctions, visit ArbCom or ANI. Otherwise this is all a waste of our time. Collect is not going to sanction himself no matter what amount of evidence there is available, it's that simple. Close this now.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_users, RfCs on users are "a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information". They are not intended to impose sanctions; therefore the argument that the RfC should be closed because it will not result in sanctions is spurious and sophistic. Dlabtot (talk) 22:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should try reading the entire RFC. All of the suggested remedies -are- sanctions. Since the only purpose of this rfc is to sanction Collect, it isn't going to work, and should therefore be closed.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 22:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are collecting information, per the specification above. Until this RfC, I had no idea that Collect was involved in these other disputes and this information is illuminating. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFC's are also used to collect information. The only purpose is not a sanction. Whether Collect chooses to participate or not, chooses to take recommendations or not, chooses to be sanctioned or not is completely incidental. I'd advise him to participate and consider other points of view, but he appears unwilling to do that. So the proceedings will continue in his absence...which appears to be the consensus here. I think we can all assume good faith adn trust that there are oposing opinions that are worthy of being heard. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, those involved do not close this, outside parties do. Soxwon (talk) 00:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an outside party, and I'm of the opinion the RFC should stay open. Perhaps you should consider coming to consensus on this point. To come to the consensus of closure is tyrannical -since there is no middle, it's only open or closed- not to mention that it is against what seems to be the majority opinion (not that it's an issue to be decided upon by vote count, but whatever). The only fair consensus is that the RFC stays open. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS- Read the lede. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT, Wikipedia isn't a democracy and if an RfC is nothing becomes nothing but one clump of personal attacks with such weak excuses as "fact finding" (which doesn't need the RfC you can accomplish this at the AN/I). The fact that only two options have been presented: mentor and bans/suspensions that involve the AN/I, and Collect's refusal to even recognize this as legit shows this has nothing left to accomplish. Period. The only thing now is further insults, bickering, and other non-productive behavior. Soxwon (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those editors who feel the RFC remaining open would be a waste of time, I can only advise you not to waste your time with your participation. You've made your feelings known and any additional points can be added as you see fit. But please do not dictate how others utilize a WikiProcess. Thank you for understanding. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question: When RFC's get out of hand like this, what is the next step? Is there some sort of RFC-Arb? From an editor or admin that we all can agree to trust to be unbiased? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Next stage is normally arbcom for the subject of the RfC, although I'm sure arbcom might have choice things to say about some of the RfC participants as well. Ironholds (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I'm just going to leave this one for now. Soxwon (talk) 01:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was asked by Soxwon to come and look at this page, relative to the mostion to close. All I will say is that there appears to be no concensus to close at this point. Note that I have only read the page from "motion to close" to the end, nothing preceding yet, and I have no opinion on Collect. (I recognize the name, but that is the whole extent of it.) Ladyof Shalott 02:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's too early for a close; the certification process has been taking quite a while as it is - I think outsiders can be given a greater opportunity to look and comment, or endorse any views they wish. The formatting is atrocious, which is in some ways understandable given that many users are unfamiliar with this process - so I'll fix much of that now. However, I hope that this can be closed after 2 weeks, if not superseded by a community sanction at ANI or ArbCom case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the fixes, Ncm -- I was too lazy to do it. Jim62sch^dissera! 15:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Where is Collect right now?

According to his Alice in Wonderland comment, he is "on a WikiBreak", which, given the amount of information being compiled, is completely understandable. Do not misunderstand or misconstrue this an indication that he never intends to come back, unwilling to participate, or will not take this RFC and it's resulting consensus under advisement. Let's give him his space, focus on the actual issues at hand (re-read the RFC from the top if needed), and stop personalizing. Can we at least all agree to do that? Exhale, everyone, exhale. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, b/c he's not taking this seriously and has made that clear. From his talk page:

And so I am off on a wikibreak, as the pack of cards is only that -- the votestacking and refusal to abide by rules is only that. Take care all, and try to actually abide by the rules

And I would like the votestack list and correlations to be maintained by you in any case Soxwon (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not surprising if he doesn't take this circus seriously. It would be surprising to me if anyone did. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WELL IT APPEARS COLLECT ISN'T ON A TOTAL WIKIBREAK. He's made several minor edits to Gwen Gale's talk page. But on a good note, so far he's avoided making any edits to articles which may be controversial for him in consideration of this RFC. Just a heads up, and something to consider... 207.237.33.36 (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been chatting with me a bit as well (via email). Like you said above, let's everybody give the guy some space. Maybe a bit of slack too... how would you feel if you were in his shoes? He's not going away: he clearly cares a lot about Wikipedia and clearly thinks he can make a positive difference. See new section below (in a few minutes, that is). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He told me he was going to a Red Sox game at Fenway and personally I could think of no better place to spend a day (especially if I got monster seats and watched the Yankees get crushed :) ).

Response to Outside view by User:Ferrylodge

I did not get here by any canvass, in fact, if you read my Outside view, you'll see that I came here completely as an outside participant because of an unfortunate and accusatory comment on Collect's part. And you'll be due to note that canvassing has been done on the other side of the issue, as well. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another response to Ferrylodge

In all fairness, I picked people who I thought were familiar with Collect's activities around Joe the Plumber and/or Helen Jones Kelley. Some clearly don't like collect, and others have demonstrated neutrality and support for Collect's rehabilitation. If you think there's bias among the editors I selected, you'll have to do better job than making a broad generalization. And I urge you to step back and ask yourself why there are so many editors who have taken the time to comment on this RFC?

So here's a proposal, why don't you go out and advertise the RFC freely as you see fit. I encourage to share it broadly on talk pages and any place that Collect has been active for a while. Then we can be confident that there has been no vote stacking as you have claimed.Mattnad (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Steve Dufour did comment at the top of the talk page and he's demonstrated he's no friend of my position.Mattnad (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PROPOSAL

Things have gotten out of hand. There are questions as to how RFCs are to proceed in the absence of several important players, such as Mike and Collect himself. There are many users who do not understand that this is an RFC on very specific edits that were made by Collect, not on the entire scope of his WikiUse.

In order to get a better overview for everybody weighing in, I propose we each review the Project Page to determine if there is information there that should be moved to this discussion page.

If you agree with this proposal, please say so in the appropriate section below, along with a BRIEF list of the diffs which you might transfer to this page. (If you don't know who to post a diff, please say so.)

If you disagree with this proposal, please say so in the appropriate section below.

Please note that if there is information in the Project that does not belong there, it may be moved to the discussion page regardless of consensus of this proposal. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this proposal:

I do not endorse this proposal:

This seems pointless. As you say above, information that should be on the talkpage can and should be moved anyway; having a little referendum on it is moot. Ironholds (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As IH said above.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, then I'll start moving all the things that so clearly don't belong. And I'll anticipate no reverts. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 05:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on your talk page, no, you won't. You have no such consensus to do so; assuming you didn't even bother to read, both me an IH posted in the section that said we do not endorse. I shall revert any such activities as you have no such consensus to do so.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 07:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we wrote that anything that isn't appropriate should be moved per WP:BRD, which he can do. We did not endorse a proposal for everyone to bring up diffs that they don't feel should be on the project page. Ironholds (talk) 07:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I retract what I said.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 07:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Wonderland

Observation: Collect gave ALL his fellow Editors the "Alice" fairy tale to read and to deal with. I personally could not think of any reason as to why a veteran editor would do such a silly thing. And, then I realized that the Alice thread is a perfect example of what it is like to work with or against Collect. When he has nothing to say....he makes up a fairy tale. It might be a fairy tale about an articles Consensus. It might be a fairy tale about interpretations of the Methods of Style or references or article History or his own importance within the scheme of things. But, the problem is that he makes stuff up and then uses it like it was reality. You may not agree with this observation, but for me it brought clarity to a long-lasting and muddy situation. --Buster7 (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but I think this is actually a quote from Lewis Carol, not something made up. Might be a copyvio though :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now that is some awesome out-of-the-box thinking. Alice in Wonderland is in public domain, though. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 21:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@~~Admin~~:SB J....I am not claiming Collect made it up. Of course it is the Rose Garden "scene" from A in W. The point is that it is a "fairytale-like" story that Collect leaves us to ponder. Maybe my analogy doesn't work for you. The point is that it is make-believe. Just like the claims that Collect makes...make-believe.--Buster7 (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment: SB J is a user, not admin. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users Involved

I took the liberty of contacting users in the articles mentioned to give their impressions based on interaction with Collect. I gave up on Joe the Plumber as I'm not going through 8 freakin' archives. If someone else wants to fine but that's a bit much for me.

IF YOU FEEL SOMEONE'S MISSING, CONTACT THEM AND ADD THEM HERE PLZ UNDERNEATH

Users Contacted:

ChildofMidnight (Drudge Report)

Zooplibob (Drudge Report)

24.187.128.136 (Drudge Report) ((Note: A little hesitant on this one as it appears to be a block evader though not proven))

Arimareiji (Drudge Report)

Wikidemon (Drudge Report)

Slrubenstein (Fascism)

FourDeuces (Fascism)

PhilLiberty (Fascism)

USNC Trooper (Fascism)

SluggoOne (Joe the Plumber)

JamesMLane (Rick Warren)

Banjeboi (Rick Warren)

Spotfix (Rick Warren)

CarverM (Rick Warren)

Benccc (Rick Warren)

Kevin (Rick Warren)

Jayen466 (William Timmins)

Rtally3 (William Timmins)

csloat (William Timmins)

DGG (William Timmins)

More to be contacted. This should get us a better idea since it isn't just editors he was in dispute with and we can get a more balanced view. Couple of other notes: Looking at Will Timmins it seemed like a free for all b/t Collect, THF, Rtally3, Jayen, DickLyon, csloat, and later Teledonix and somewhat DGG. Singling out Collect in this instance seems incredibly dubious. Soxwon (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added Ism Schism (Joe the Plumber). Long-time and recently active editor on the page. Mattnad (talk) 14:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And per Soxwon's request, here are a bunch of other editors who worked on Joe the Plumber that I've contacted.

QuackGuru

�Minderbinder �

LaidOff �

Arzel

�Rich Farmbrough�

Cenarium �

TerriersFan

�Zsero

�Amwestover

�Becksguy

�The Magnificent Clean-keeper�

There were many other editors, but these were relatively active in discussions and edits.Mattnad (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that's what I wanted. :) Soxwon (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent development - a primary function of an RfC is information-gathering. I hope, now, that Buster7 feels at liberty to act on his suggestion of notifying long-time and recently active editors at the Sarah Palin pages. It was nice (and typical) that Buster sought Collect's agreement, but it's not necessary. And anyway Collect is incommunicado. Writegeist (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing an RfC is an entirely different thing than canvassing for a content dispute. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 17:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Define canvassing -- I'm serious. To my eyes, it's only canvassing if you add a comment like "you've gotta help me stop this". Jim62sch^dissera! 17:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CANVASS? Soxwon (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I know about that, and I wasn't addressing Johnny directly. I think the ascriptions of canvassing we've seen here are out of line weith that very policy. Sorry if I was unclear. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing: should I include this?

There have been a lot of accusations of canvassing...

Should I include this canvassing in the RfC?

Asking for help in Muthee article. [65]

Sarah palin article.[66][67][68][69][70]

Prescott Bush article.[71][72]

Charles Keating article.[73]

Asking for help against User:WitchieAnna [74]

Asking for help against CC[75]

Accusing other editors of canvassing:

"If you don't wish to abide by the comments you solicit, then you ought not keep consensus shopping."[76][77][78][79][80][81]

Ikip (talk) 15:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, I'm going through and leaving a general message for any and all active participants. Soxwon (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a tough one. In my view, Collect was not canvassing in a bad way. But he does attack other editors for doing the same things he dose. It's a double-standard, no doubt, and as a stretch, it's possibly an example of bad faith attacks and/or wikilawyering.Mattnad (talk) 16:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see any canvassing in the negative sense by Collect. (But I don't see any by Mattnad either). Asking a number of users for feedback or assistance is not verboten. It's not something I'd be likely to do, but only because I wouldn't want the potential headache. Jim62sch^dissera! 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I think Collect objected to (and indeed I agree) was that those contacted were all against him. Most of the editors I contacted show support for Collect, but that was b/c all of the editors against were already here. Soxwon (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I suppose I should have been against him, and agree that some type of remedial action needs to be taken, but the vehemence and venom of some of the editors is just way beyond what is acceptable. If this goes to an RFAR, more than just Collect will get spanked. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it. You are talking about being constructive and then you are going on about "vehemence and venom of some of the editors". If you have specific concerns, address them, if not, heed your own advice. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I must: I have concerns about your behaviour here. You attack first and rarely ask questions later, and take umbragwe a comments that are clearly not ad homs but observations or even humour. If needed I can provide diffs, but it'd be easier if you simply read the page. This RfC is fundamentally abiout divisiveness, but in your own way, you are being divisive. You really need to tone it down a few notches. Soxwon was initially (maybe) just a little over-the-top but he picked up on the hint and chilled out, and is now quite an asset on this page. Reflect. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was pissed off at attempts to have this RFC invalidated and/or shut down. Its annoying when you have concerns (which I consider to be very true), but its even more annoying when others try to stop you from voicing them (even more annoying when you believe you are right). Now that those are over, I can chill and yea, reflect. But I do suggest you do the same. There is nothing humorous about "Collect is problematic, but far, very far from the worst I've encountered here" and "vehemence and venom of some of the editors". As I said, heed your own advice. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's enough of that fellas. We're here to comment on Collect, not each other. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 20:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ Phoenix. Many editors have noted that your edits have an over-played sting to them. A bit less caustic edge might be in order. Focus on the Editor to be commented on. The rest of US are not here to be attacked.--Buster7 (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has gotten a bit out of hand, folks.

This is really out of hand, and as Jim says above, quite a number of the people participating here (including Collect) need to rethink their approach. A few reminders:

This is a "Request for Comments", not to be confused with a "Grand Jury", "Demands for Apologies", or "Opportunity to Gang Up". All that should be done here is to collect the relevant information, and provide constructive criticism that Collect can (hopefully) heed, or (unwisely) ignore.
The canvassing stuff is just silly. Focus on constructive criticism and never-mind how people got here.
The wikilawyering over whether this is a "valid" RfC is silly. It's quite obvious that a number of users have serious concerns about Collect's manner of participation, so there's certainly no harm in getting it all out there both for his sake and for the sake of neutral commentators.
Collect is not under any obligation to respond to everything said here, and even if he was he at least can be afforded the benefit of time to reflect before answering (and would be wise to do so).

This talk page is a very good example of the Wikipedian community at it's worst. The tone is completely destructive: while I understand fully that this is something a lot of folks have been steaming about for a longish time, the approach to Collect here does rise to the bar where it's completely understandable if his responses are far from those of a model contributor. If sanctions are required, I suspect they will be applied to more than one party. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, precisely. I'm a bit disappointed at the vitriol, the use of numerous ad homs, and the divisiveness that the RfC is generating (especially as the primary thrust of the RfC is that Collect is divisive!). Let's try to look at Collect's activities objectively, stop sniping at each other, and try to be a credit to the ideal of WP. And, to echo an old saw: if you don't have something constructive to say, say nothing. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I also do hope Jim62sch can heed his own advice (eg: "angry teenager"). Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I simply said that's what you reminded me of. As a father of six I have some familiarity with the concept. For all I know you could be a grumpy old man. ;) Jim62sch^dissera! 18:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am the grumpy old man. Doggone whipperschnappers! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, still going with the "angry", "grumpy", etc. I'm sure "As a father of six", you are familiar with rolling eyes. Phoenix of9 (talk) 18:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the rolling of the eyes. Not for nothing, but I did that myself as a teenager 200 years ago. ;) For your listening pleasure. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And the sighs we teenagers make at ridiculous adult behavior. Soxwon (talk) 18:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should apologize folks, the Nomination for closure and then subsequent sections were indeed premature and my general commentary was not helpful either. I apologize to any whom I offended and specifically Phoenix, 207.237.33.36, and Brendan. Soxwon (talk) 18:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I endorsed not realising that everyone had not been comntacted, and because I was maddened at teh dramaz. So, I too apologise for wishing to close this early. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no need to apologize to me, but thanks for the gesture. the only things i found personally offensive were collects false accusations about me and i think it is precisely that kind of behavior that brought this whole thing about in the first place. i have never had problems like this with anyone else. i have come across stubborn editors in the past and i am sure i will in the future, but never anyone like this. i hope some sort of change for the better occurs. Brendan19 (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoooooo. Stick around, you'll find far more stubborn people around :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, just see Talk:Intelligent design or Talk:Greece. They'll curdle your milk. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for redo on the "resolutions"

It's pretty obvious that this RfC was badly needed (since there are clearly some issues that have been simmering for some time), but equaly clear (to me, at least) that it hasn't been going so well by almost any measure. I think the best way forward would be if those of us who have complaints or concerns about Collect's way of contributing can come up with some suggestions about how he can do better. Whether or not he requests or is given a mediator/moderator/coach/whatever, he still needs to know just what it is that he needs to do for his part in this. For my part, I humbly request that this be done without over-relying on diffs and such: plain English goes far. I'm comfortable assuming that he's not the sort that gets his jollies by annoying the heck out of people, so can the people who he's managed to annoy the heck out of just explain why in a plain and simple manner, and perhaps even offer him some suggestions about how to avoid doing that? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 23:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements?

Is it procedure for Users to endorse their own "Outside view", as Sox, Iron, Colonel, and others have done? Seems obvious that they believe their own perception to be correct, and looks in a quick review that their Outside View has more support than it already has. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is; the guidelines are such that you should generally sign your view through your own endorsement rather than at the end of your comment. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View SluggoOne

should be moved to this discussion page. He makes no comments regarding the "Statement of the Dispute", insulta Tantalus39 (an editor who hasn't even weighed in on the RFC anywhere), and all Sluggo's opinions were already addressed under "Move to Close" section of this discussion page. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knock yourself out. As long as Collect isn't editing, I have little to add. I informed two different big contributors of this, and I was still asked to say something. I wouldn't call my attitude towards admin (not just editor) Tan39, who I think is a highly capable contributor, "insults," since he would have a tough time defending against those charges. See: [82], [83], and particularly [84]. SluggoOne (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your references here have nothing to do with Collect, they address comments made by Tan. If you have diffs of edits by Collect or, if you have additional diffs you can provide related to his actions with others that have not already been pointed out, please add them to the RFC. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following comments were moved to this discussion page as they did not specifically address the RFC. Please read the statement of dispute before adding comments that are not relevant to those complaints. Additionally, please read the now closed Motion to Close 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

I guess this doesn't really fall under WP:CANVASS if Soxwon requested a comment from me. In light of Collect's predictable overuse of IDIDNTHEARTHAT, this RfC is a waste of time since it cannot result in actual sanctions. (He knows that, people. Why would he contribute anything?) He shut right up on the Joe the Plumber page when admin Tanthalas39 told him, in no uncertain terms, that the banhammer was imminent. [85] Tan39 has, however, gone insane, so his desperately needed aggressiveness toward Collect is no longer available.

Collect has gone on a wikibreak, and if he ever comes back, the steps leading to a flat out ban ought to be mostly skipped. His behavior in this useless RfC just reinforces this so much I wonder why efforts to help this arrogant dolt are being taken. Short of that, swing the hammer. Tan39 was ready to, and nothing's changed. SluggoOne (talk) 23:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't let it go

I'm sorry Ikip, I've tried to let this go but I can't. You brought up extremely bad faith and unfounded accusations here: [86] on an article that I never saw you active on. Considering the answer to your accusation: [87], it can only be inferred that you were looking through Collect's talk history and edits for possible violations to hit him on which is NOT how an RfC works, or you were trying to find evidence of collusion b/w him and I which is even worse. This makes me seriously question your comment and the fact that it is so widely endorsed (not to mention the same thing going on with Fascism and Drudge Report), you included a laughable list of usual allies (BASEBALL BUGS, YOU ACTUALLY INCLUDED HIM?), and the fact you keep accusing him of doing things on his own talkpage makes me seriously wonder about the validity of this whole RfC. After all, if that is the amount of time and effort you are putting into your investigations, how can any of us be sure of their accuracy? Soxwon (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see little difference between what Ikip has done and what you have done with your list of "Users Involved". And RFC is a Request for Comment by other Wikipedians. Some are directly involved while others can be Outside Viewers of the situation. Being listed at RFC means any Wikipedian is welcome to observe and weigh in. Looking for violations of a user in question is not out of the realm of acceptability for inclusion in an RFC. Ikip's observations of Collect's talk page has no relevance to the validity of this RFC...Ikip didn't start it and Ikip isn't going to end it. You can be sure of its accuracy be Acting in Good Faith, reviewing the evidence with an open and fair mind, and making sure the only info on the RFC page is that which belongs there, while the remainder stays here. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I reviewed the evidence and found it to be riddled with errors. It's not his job to look for violations since he has no idea what context they are in (as the accusation shows) and isn't reflective what an RfC is supposed to be (DISPUTE RESOLUTION, NOT A COURT OF LAW). If there are other editors, they'll come and share their complaints, but to go through and simply put down anything that looks like a violation is not AGF and isn't helpful. You're just going to antagonize the subject and perhaps others involved like myself. The fact that they didn't at least talk to those involved before posting Fascism, DR, or now the accusation of Meatpuppet/Tag team shows a clear lack of interest in whether the charge is correct or not which shows greater cause for concern. The fact is, other edits similar to these and other miscellaneous inaccuracies were in Ikip's summary and yet it was still endorsed. That to me suggests that other's didn't bother to check and make sure they were accurate, and that again means deeper problems. That is why I have brought this up at WP:WQA. Soxwon (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a fitting subtitle: "I can't let it go". I removed that section and apologized, taking your word for what you said.[88] So move on.

First you accuse editors of canvassing,[89] then you canvass yourself.[90]

You accuse editors of NPA, and then attack editors...and now this.

LOL: "makes me seriously wonder about the validity of this whole RfC" As if you supported the RfC before? You questioned this RfC from the very beginning Soxwon.

This is not and will not be the gotcha edit you want, as much as you seem to want to make it be.

It is ironic, but typical, that the editor who complains the most about drama and circus here is causing the majority of the drama, and making this RfC a circus. Hmmm...this sounds a lot like the subject of this RfC.

Soxwon edits on this talk page, the most at: 69 (Phoenix of9 second at 62]

Again, plz look at facts before making accusations. If you'd look at my edits,

more than a few were in a row as a result of a mistake or two that I've made,

as well as all the ones I did posting all the ppl I asked to come down here.

I am going to do what I advise all editors in RfC's to do, focus on the main page and ignore the sniping and baiting on the talk page. Ikip (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there are concerns, you are welcome to make your view known in the RfC; if there is something that requires administrator or arbitrator intervention, you know what to do. It's unconstructive and inappropriate to bring this up at an earlier stage in dispute resolution (WQA), which is why it's been reverted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said previously, I was unsure and enquired of another editor and that was the course they recommended. Soxwon (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hate drama, but public accusations w/o checking up on what you're doing (didn't talk to me, didn't talk to Collect, didn't go to AN/I, didn't go to anyone involved, didn't check to see in what context it was or even to the actual edit in question to see what was changed, luckily I saw it first or there could have been some real problems) is going to cause "drama" in the form of "annoyed editors." Soxwon (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What happend to that edit you are bringing up here Soxwon?

....you just "can't let it go"? Ikip (talk) 05:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Aervanath

The following comments were moved to this discussion page as they did not specifically address the RFC. Please read the statement of dispute before adding comments that are not relevant to those complaints. Additionally, please read the now closed Motion to Close 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

- Reverted; there is nothing unjustified or irrelevant in making this view in the RfC - restored. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you.--Aervanath (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but that's not correct. If you would read through the RFC -mess that it is- and this talk page as well -ditto- in order to maintain some semblance of order, there has been consensus that points directly addressing the Cause of Concern and it's evidence will remain in the RFC...while discussion remains on the discussion page. Please see [91]. Thanks. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no; you do not have a consensus to be making this edit - if a user finds an RfC useless or unproductive, they're entitled to voice their views on the very RfC itself - people are welcome to endorse the view or ignore it. What you find pertinant to the cause of concern is not what everyone else does. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article does have that consensus -not ME but THIS RFC- and that from people whose opinions on the RFC have been quite different than my own. However, should all commentary on how the RFC is being run to remain on the RFC itself, I will be forced to re-revert those edits which moved my own similar opinions to THIS page. What's good for the goose will be good for the gander. Let's remain civil and figure out a solution. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He just can't let it go

Soxwon, failing to close the RfC by having the most edits on the talk page, is now attempting to close this RfC at: ~~Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts~~ Opps, he is moving it to ANI now: RfC_for_Collect, after deleting my comments. Ikip (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns then are the same now, though now I have more proof (and no it's not just the one on conservatism). Soxwon (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll also want to look here: RFC_HELP_desperately_neeed 207.237.33.36 (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CAMPAIGNING

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGogo_Dodo&diff=284874071&oldid=284818953 207.237.33.36 (talk) 07:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I suggest you take the time to read, 207, WP:CANVASS. Gogo is not involved in this issue, and is completely uninvolved. I asked for his assistance because I trust his judgement. Canvassing is in regards to those who have something to do with the issue. I'm re-naming this thread to bad-faith, baseless accusation, because that is what it is.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 07:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If not Canvassing, it's at the very least campaigning. Along the lines of your wording: "a blatant waste of everyone's time...."the "discussion" (in quotes) has reverted to all involved parties mud-slinging at each other," ..."in no way productive"... "If anything, it is disruptive". I do not think I am mudslinging, wasting my time, acting unproductively, or disrupting any focus. I have renamed this section to something more civil than your choice and I stand by my identification. Perhaps you need a Wikibreak if you can not remain civil. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 07:49, 21 April 2009 edit 207.237.33.36 (talk) →Bad-faith accusation without base ← Previous edit		Revision as of 08:19, 21 April 2009 edit undo 207.237.33.36 (talk) →CAMPAIGNING Next edit →
Line 881:		Line 881:
	:You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. '''I suggest you take the time to read, 207, [[WP:CANVASS]]. Gogo is not involved in this issue, and is completely uninvolved. I asked for his assistance because I trust his judgement. Canvassing is in regards to those who have something to do with the issue. I'm re-naming this thread to ''bad-faith, baseless accusation'', because that is what it is.'''— '''[[User:Daedalus969\|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969\|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969\|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 07:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)		:You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. '''I suggest you take the time to read, 207, [[WP:CANVASS]]. Gogo is not involved in this issue, and is completely uninvolved. I asked for his assistance because I trust his judgement. Canvassing is in regards to those who have something to do with the issue. I'm re-naming this thread to ''bad-faith, baseless accusation'', because that is what it is.'''— '''[[User:Daedalus969\|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969\|dαlus]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969\|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 07:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

	::If not Canvassing, it's at the very least campaigning. Along the lines of your wording: "'''a blatant waste of everyone's time.'''..."'''the "discussion"''' (in quotes) '''has reverted to all involved parties mud-slinging at each other,'''" ..."'''in no way productive'''"... "'''If anything, it is disruptive'''. I do not think I am mudslinging, wasting my time, acting unproductively, or disrupting any focus. I have renamed this section to something more civil than your choice and I stand by my identification. Perhaps you need a Wikibreak if you can not remain civil. [[Special:Contributions/207.237.33.36\|207.237.33.36]] ([[User talk:207.237.33.36\|talk]]) 07:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)		::If not Canvassing, it's at the very least campaigning. Along the lines of your wording: "'''a blatant waste of everyone's time.'''..."'''the "discussion"''' (in quotes) '''has reverted to all involved parties mud-slinging at each other,'''" ..."'''in no way productive'''"... "'''If anything, it is disruptive'''". I do not think I am mudslinging, wasting my time, acting unproductively, or disrupting any focus. I have renamed this section to something more civil than your choice and I stand by my identification. Perhaps you need a Wikibreak if you can not remain civil. [[Special:Contributions/207.237.33.36\|207.237.33.36]] ([[User talk:207.237.33.36\|talk]]) 07:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)