Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:34, 21 April 2009

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 03:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC).

Collect (talk · contribs · logs)

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

Statement of the dispute

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

Cause of concern

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

Edit warring

See his block log: [1]

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

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

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

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

Using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith AND edit warring

Edit wars again, after his latest block, (13 April 2009), deleting "collectivist" on Fascism

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

Technically, he didnt break WP:3RR. First revert 17:21, 13 April 2009, latest 18:22, 14 April 2009, gaming the system with less than an hour and he knows this: [3]. Claims he was reverting vandalism altho it was a sourced good faith edit: [4]

Again, tendentious editing concerns on Drudge Report: [5] [6]

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

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

Gets warned [7] and claims it wasnt edit warring, pointing to an essay written by his friend User:THF (Wikipedia:TAGGING) [8]. Background on THF and Collect. Even THF says it was edit warring. [9]
Now things to consider here:
- Edit wars.
- Points to an essay (As an experienced editor, Collect should have known the difference between essays and policies/guidelines).
- Points to an essay written by a friend (their positions seem to be very close in several articles).
- Tries to justify his edit warring based on his friends essay.
- Collect archives his talk page [10]. But he randomly deleted that whole convo above [11]. Now, Wiki lets editors do whatever they want with their talk pages but it will be very difficult for any future editor, who may have problems with Collect and wants to go over his talk page, to find this info.

Cause of concern 2.0: violation of terms of unblock

*After getting blocked, Collect had agreed to 1RR or less for at least a month on 3 March 2009. [12] And he got unblocked. [13]

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

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

There was no 1rr violation: [14]

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

After getting blocked, Collect promised on March 3 to not edit Drudge Report for a week or more. I shall also avoid the Drudge Report article for at least a week...[15] But he was back to editing it just three days later: [16][17][18]. This was noted here: [19]

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

Eg: [20]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Desired outcome

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

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

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

For me (Phoenix of9) and Mike: extensive discussions in Talk:Rick Warren. We tried several dispute resolution processes with Collect: 2 RFCs [21] [22], cabal mediation [23], official mediation [24]. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple RFC and debates on Joe the Plumber. Here are a few samples: [25], and [26], and [27]. You'll see Collect doing battle with many different editors. Sometimes the interactions are friendly, but mostly Collect operates in an adversarial way which brings the less pleasant aspect out in all of us. And here's an example where I tried to unsuccessfully reason with him directly on his talk page. [[28]. He kept on trying to remove this well cited content until he was blocked for multiple revisions [29] (that's a good example of failure). Mattnad (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, I've noted Collect's suggestion that I'm equally at fault when it comes to Joe the Plumber, and cites a warning by Tantalas39. Now here's a later comment by Tantalus39 where he draws a distinction between us, "I can't help but notice that one of the two persistent edit-warrers on this page, Collect, has made no effort to discuss anything during the page lockdown. This is very telling, and will be given due weight if edit wars continue. Tan | 39 17:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)"Mattnad (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

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

During those dispute resolution processes, Collect was calm and civil. These are all very positive qualities. However, at the same time he was also disruptive. With his civilness, his disruption is hard to detect. But here, an example:Me trying to tell him why relevant reliably sourced material should be in the article - Collect refuses the listen (failing to resolve the dispute): [30] -[31]; [32] - [33]/ [34];[35] - [36] / [37]; [38] -[39]. An admin trying the same - Collect refuses to listen (failing to resolve the dispute): [40] -[41]; [42] - [43]; [44] - [45]; [46] - [47]; [48] - (Collect doesnt respond). This is just one issue, one example, where Collect engages in disruptive editing, especially with respect to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Collect refuses to listen to views other than his own and argues for deletion of reliably sourced relevant material. Collect continued his disruptive editing, in the form of tendentious editing, violating terms of his unblock on 6 March 2009 (see above) and engaging in edit wars on 13 April 2009 (see above).Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the above statements in 2 and 3. Failure to resolve disputes was the norm.Mattnad (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See on the Project TalkPage (specifically the sections on dark colorized background [49]) as examples of failure due to "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" and evasive "Only Heard Straw Man". ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 22:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.

Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mike Doughney (talk) 00:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)~~ please see discussion page. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Dicklyon (talk) 00:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattnad (talk) 07:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Teledildonix314 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.

Jim62sch^dissera! 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Brendan19 (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anarchangel (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Introman (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dlabtot (talk) 04:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bruno23 (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Writegeist (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Buster7 (talk) 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Ikip (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ratel ► RATEL ◄ 10:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Colonel Warden (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
GreekParadise (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by User: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. I initiated several RfCs and a 3O to get more input, but he continues to deny the sense of every input that he disagrees with, slaps lots of "relevance" tags on things that are clearly relevant, asserts that sources don't say what they plainly do say, etc. He's quite difficult to reason with or work with, and quite disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Agree. Whether he's saying WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, or I Only Heard This Straw Man, the result is a fight instead of a collaboration. I've been pleading for an entire month with Collect about this, but he always evades discussing the problem, so now i will give go to the Project TalkPage to show the evidence of two admins who affirm this exactly. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 20:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Strong agree. this is the same theme througout this RFA, that Collect will regularly disrupte pages by targeting completly acceptable sources to skew the page to a conservative slant, excluding all other views, in violation of NPOV. Ikip (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Consistent with my experiences. See [50]. Collect was arguing that these "contentious" edits added without "consensus". He was later blocked for edit warring over this citations.Mattnad (talk) 06:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The signs are clear. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Collect will fight a consensus. Then when he loses, he will return weeks later to delete an entire paragraph he doesn't like when he thinks no one is watching. He is very forceful at removing ordinary well-sourced material that does not reflect his viewpoint. Rather than working to additionally include his own viewpoint-sources, he just deletes and fights the ones he doesn't like. I also agree that he intentionally misconstrues sources and claims no sources for a certain fact exist, even though he has been shown those same sources four or five times or more. My battles with him have been on the contentious Sarah Palin bio.GreekParadise (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. His willingness to fight indefinitely to remove sourced material that might alter the meaning in a direction that could,however remotely, be seen as casting a negative light upon the subject of the article, was really quite remarkable. I doubt the subject himself would have objected, as the material was perfectly fair. I have only encountered it directly on this article, where I responded to a RfC, as I rarely work on the political articles he does--but looking at the edit history, it seems characteristic of the editor. DGG (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

Q. How do the above editors respond to what seems like a case of canvassing on the part of User:Phoenix of9 as shown here: [51], [52], [53]? Per WP:CANVAS: Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion. Soxwon (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. In his latest edit war in Fascism, he deleted sourced material. [54] [55]. A typical tendentious editor. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A. Edit warring and tendentious editing is disruptive editing. Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q Yes tendentious editing is, but that doesn't seem to be the case at this point so is it truly disruptive if he's got concensus? Soxwon (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. Read: Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. "Characteristics of problem editors - You have been blocked more than once for violating the three revert rule; you argue about whether you in fact reverted four times or only three, or whether 3RR applies to a calendar day or a 24-hour period." Collect did edit war on Fascism Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q But there are other characterisics on the list and the majority of them aren't met, does breaking one means he gets the label? That doesn't seem to add up. And also, if Collect isn't allowed to cite an essay as a guideline how come you are? Soxwon (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. I'm not edit warring now and justifying that with an essay. Your questions doesnt make sense, so I will prolly not answer any further. Phoenix of9 (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. Yes, I'll be bold and say it: even if there are other characteristics on the list and some aren't met, breaking one means he gets "the label". 207.237.33.36 (talk) 23:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response

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

Response to concerns

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

The other "users" were canvassed specifically for such an action here, and the proponent has been anxious to have such an action for a lon time despite there being no contact in any article edits between us for two months. The claim is stale, and meritless. Complainant has abot a thousand edits, and has now made 29 edits to Rick Warren (3%). [56] I have made over 6,700 edits of which 23 were to Rick Warren (.3%). There is an ongoing mediation on the topic to which Mike Doughney and Phoenix of9 have been party, and Mike Doughney sought to use the material from the mediation on AN/I. [57] with no contact after that time. Phoenix of9's issuing of the RfC/U during mediation is questionable.

Phoenix of9's canvassing and other acts: [58] and more on RfCs on others (many more diffs available on such canvvassing), [59] seeking to get a WQA on another editor, [ advising a blocked user to use a specific admin, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Benjiboi&diff=prev&oldid=274615951 solicitation of an additional party to join themediation, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mike_Doughney&diff=prev&oldid=276319229] comment about AN/I saying M D should wait a little, [60] showing his purpose in editing Rick Warren, [61] solicitation of Mattnad a month ago, and all of two weeks into mediation, [62] solicitation of Ikip, [63] solicitation of Mike Doughney, and again reerring to the mediation, [64] solicitation of Introman a "new user" will about a hundred edits.

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

As to Phoenix of9's behavior: [65] fslse assertion of 3RR, [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chrishpaytas/Archive] unconfirmed accusation of a person being a sockpuppet.

Re: The "final warning" on [[Joe the Plumber[[ see the same warning given to Mattnad [66] .

As to William Timmons note [67] for complainant Dicklyon. For actual and substantial editwarring. My widely spaced adding of actually appropriate tags (note the talk page for verification of that) was not only not editwarring, not 3RR, but actually on the basis of consensus of the other editors (entire Talk:William Timmons is appropriate here unfortunately). Working on his last 10,000 edits for speed, he made 148 edits on William Timmons and 245 more on Talk:William Timmons. I made all of 84 ever, and 139 on talk. About half his edit level.

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

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

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

[69] revert 02:22 16 Apr

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

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

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

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

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

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

[76] revert 2:16 16 Apr

[77] 1:52 16 Apr (revert of PhilLiberty)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to the discussion on Talk:Fascism note [87] for the nature of Introman's contributions, asserting the US is fascist becasuse the Mercury Dime had the fasces on the reverse.

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

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

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

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

Noting material added after this was opened: The diffs 9 and 10 (as currently numbered) from my userpage support me quite nicely. In the latter, the complaining editors admits to misciting facts, which was one issue I had with him. As for any accusation of ownership, that editor outedits the next edotor on Drudge Report and on Matt Drudge in each case by a factor of five or more. And on the talk pages by about a factor of three. He has [88] his top four pages being those four, amounting to well over 20% of his total edits. My edit count on his articles is exceedingly small in comparison. Again - thanks for raising that issue. Collect (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

In regard to canvassing about this RfC/U: The following were contacted at one point or another on their usertalk pages by Phoenix of9: Introman, Anarchangel, Brendan19, Jim62sch, Mattnad, Dicklyon, Mike Doughney. The following were contacted on their usertalk pages by Mattnad: Jim62sch, TheRedPenofDoom, Bruno23, Tanthalas39, Brendan19, Steve Dufour.

Specific reponse to Brendan19, who was canvassed to enter: [89] precisely shows your position on Joe the Plumber. You had previous been given multiple 3RR warnings on Rush Limbaugh. You mysteriously entered Talk:Union Banking Corporation to leave [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Union_Banking_Corporation&diff=prev&oldid=272553569] His 3RR report on me (He was "newbie") at [90] was remarked on as "unhelpful commentary that has nothing to do with writing an article is routinely removed from talk pages." His immediate second bite at the apple got "Can't see a vio here. Contiguous edits count as one. Last edit in particular seems to just insert }} - are you really complaining about that? Please read WP:REVERT William M. Connolley (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)" I ralize you were upset that adding curly brackets is not an edit violation, but we are supposed to AGF at some point. Collect (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please see [[91]] which is my specific response to the falsehoods above. Brendan19 (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Response to "evidence" of dispute resolution steps : Not a single one shows any evidence of a dispute resolution step at all, Mattnad includes basically all the various melane items presented by Phoenix without any "proof" of anything as to dispute resolution. He has not shown his personal involvement with any dispute resolution steps. He has, indeed, clearly shown this to be a melange of items none of which had disoute resolution steps. And this is not a law brief where you say (essentially) "and the same stuff as above applies here too." Mattnad has made zero attemps at dispute resultion at all, and his "Evidence" is not in conformance with the rules of an RFC/U at all. Collect (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

L'Envoi

Alice in Wonderland covers this exercise in detail, a votestacking and futile excercise where no normal procedures get followed: 'What do you know about this business?' the King said to Alice.

'Nothing,' said Alice.

'Nothing WHATEVER?' persisted the King.

'Nothing whatever,' said Alice.

'That's very important,' the King said, turning to the jury. They were just beginning to write this down on their slates, when the White Rabbit interrupted: 'UNimportant, your Majesty means, of course,' he said in a very respectful tone, but frowning and making faces at him as he spoke.

'UNimportant, of course, I meant,' the King hastily said, and went on to himself in an undertone,

'important--unimportant--unimportant--important--' as if he were trying which word sounded best.

Some of the jury wrote it down 'important,' and some 'unimportant.' Alice could see this, as she was near enough to look over their slates; 'but it doesn't matter a bit,' she thought to herself.

At this moment the King, who had been for some time busily writing in his note-book, cackled out 'Silence!' and read out from his book, 'Rule Forty-two. ALL PERSONS MORE THAN A MILE HIGH TO LEAVE THE COURT.'

Everybody looked at Alice.

'I'M not a mile high,' said Alice.

'You are,' said the King.

'Nearly two miles high,' added the Queen.

'Well, I shan't go, at any rate,' said Alice: 'besides, that's not a regular rule: you invented it just now.'

'It's the oldest rule in the book,' said the King.

'Then it ought to be Number One,' said Alice.

The King turned pale, and shut his note-book hastily. 'Consider your verdict,' he said to the jury, in a low, trembling voice. ..... 'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first--verdict afterwards.' ....... 'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

'Who cares for you?' said Alice, (she had grown to her full size by this time.) 'You're nothing but a pack of cards!'

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. Collect (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies and guidelines

List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.

Users endorsing this response

--Lyonscc (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firestorm ^Talk 03:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)Please read this for details of my endorsement.[reply]
Soxwon
Cube lurker (talk)
Kelly ^hi! 18:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ferrylodge (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

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

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

A. Where a source is not a "reliable source" or, worse, is used to back a claim which is not even made by the source at all, there is no reason to use it. I also feel that where 6 to 15 sources ("overciting") are used for a single claim that removal f the excess sources is not only proper but unneeded for the article to be usable. Most claims do not really require more than three reliable sources. [92] represents one article which had "too much stuff" in it , and where my edits were apparently deemed correct. [93] shows a lede wth the following sentence "Fascism opposes communism, conservatism, democracy, individualism, international socialism, liberalism, materialism, pacifism, laissez faire capitalism and political pluralism.[9][4][3][10][11][12][13][14][15] " which I felt was rying to say too many things with to many cites even though each word had only one or two cites, but I felt the concatenation was not good style for a lede. In one other case, I believe 13 cites were in an article for a single fact, which I regarded as overkill. WP is an encyclopedia, not a list of every cite anyone can find. Collect (talk) 10:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Q. As a follow-up to your response on Joe the Plumber. If I understand your response, the only change you would have made was fewer edits. But you also mentioned that "I....forgot that I am not the only man here". Can you explain how that realization will shape your future interaction with other editors on Wikipedia? Mattnad (talk) 22:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Q. You claim above to be an "inclusionist", but you've fought tooth and nail to remove every bit of data that you can get away with removing on the Drudge Report page. I find it laughable that you would claim inclusionist tendencies given your behavior, just as I find it absurd you should claim to be a liberal. Will you please admit that these are both lies and that you will refrain from misrepresenting yourself in future as per AGF? Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 10:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A.'

Q.On the Helen Jones-Kelley article, you added a series of negative editorials about her as as special section and repeatedly reverted other editors who sought to tone the negative criticism down [94] [95] [96] [97]. Since you've edited many BLP, how many other articles have you created special "editorial" sections? If few or none, why did you decide this unique expository technique was essential to the Helen Jones-Kelly article?Mattnad (talk) 10:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. An interesting misstatement if fact. I repeatedly asked for others to add balancing material. There was an AfD on the sarticle for having too little referenced information. At the time, much RS material was being deleted in diffs like [98] making the article into a stub. Talk:Helen_Jones-Kelley has many places where Mattnad, for example, asserts that any material about the data base searches was a BLP violation. Where that editor argued that there was no RS for HJK being a Democrat of giving money to Obama, the use of newspaper commentary was appropriate. The other editor routinely removed all criticism of HJK, amazingly enough. When asked to add positive matial, the response was "Nope. Not playing. Mattnad (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)" which rather oimplies he was the one looking at it as a game. I used the Talk page instead of doing reverts. Collect (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To other editors reviewing this, note Collect's refusal to answer the question and instead redirect and attack.Mattnad (talk) 12:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PRECISELY! WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is one of my biggest beefs with each tendentious situation involving Collect. Whenever there's a possibility of "not winning an argument" a case of "deafness" suddenly occurs. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 12:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noooo, this is an extremely presumptuous and charged question, and also a wife-beater which most likely explains why he didn't answer it directly. Soxwon (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it was difficult for him to answer since his conduct was indefensible. I was hoping for a tiny acknowledgment that perhaps creating a section of exclusively negative editorials might be outside the bounds of good conduct on a BLP. It took an administrator to set it right since I wasn't interested in another edit war.Mattnad (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Q. While I agree with some of your removals in this edit, given the situation, I must ask: as an experienced editor, in reviewing articles with high volumes of sourced information, how do you determine which links to remove and which to retain? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A.

Q. From my review of some of your talk-page edits, you appear to be somewhat stubborn in your editorial POV. Can you provide some examples of discussions on talk pages where you brought issues forward with a willing and easily perceived attitude to be ready to come to consensus with other users? (I'm asking how you view use of discussion pages, and for you to provide examples.) 207.237.33.36 (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A.

Outside view

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

Outside view by Ikip

Currently from mid 2008 to November 13, 2008:

Personal attacks and lack of Assuming good faith
" Troll. And I suspect that this feeling is unanimous"[99] "What is the PC word for a creature under a bridge who keeps reappearing here?"[100] " The clowns are out again."[101] " Not only was Keoith now not even listed as "liberal" the entire NON-PARTISAN cite was deleted. This is unconscionable after I thought we had reached an agreement"[102] " Burrying the coote at the bottom of the page is disingenuous at best."[103] RE: User:Therefore "Note further that he made absolutely no comments on the talk page from 1 Nov until 13:35 on 10 Nov, which I think may indicate that he has a sockpuppet (sigh) of either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SmallRepair (who made the previous reversion on me) or of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steve_Dufour who made prior edits and had been blocked as far as I can tell.[104] "Your accusation is ill-founded at best, and abusive at worst. As I have not come anywhere near your claim of multiple reversions with 24 hours, I fear it is just plain abuse on your part. Kindly desist from such."[105] "Try reading WP:BLP. I've cited it before, and so far WP has not deleted it."[106] " Most of the time it has actually worked -- so while I appreciate the suggestion (and I have deleted pure trolls) I felt that this particular case as it reflected what had made it into the main article in the past had to be addressed."[107] RE: Inclusionist: " Take another look. He did not do what you think he did. Theresa Knott \| The otter sank 21:16, 26 October 2008" Collect's response: "Still confusing after all the 30 edits overnight. I fear I think he is abusing process in order to prevent reaching a consensus he does not desire."[108][109] " I can cite a bunch of times you have used POV as a means of "debate." In each case, it was abusive. I think the current example is as well."[110] " Try shoopping for a new consensus then."[111] " Replying to hundred line screeds is difficult. Try reducing your posts to manageable levels dealing with IMPROVING AN ARTICLE."[112] " Cite for your claim Walter Annenberg personally chose Ayers? I didn't find a source, but I am sure you have one?"[113] " You are deliberately issuing and promulgating your own "interpretation" instead of stating what your cites state. That is intellectually dishonest… Or is misstating the facts about the beluga issue important enough for you to ignore the concept of seeking compromise at all costs? IK consider your claims abysmally inaccurate and misleading and POV. " [114] " I was given a "final warning on vandalism" by a Tenditious editor on my Talk page"[115] " The article references to Wasilla and the Boston Herald article were both used to reach consensus. Removal of the Boston Herald article is vandalism as a result"[116] Response: No it is not; it would behoove you not to abuse terminology, it undermines your point and makes real vandals look good. the skomorokh 20:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC) "This is "gaming the system" and sometimes they even leave their spoor in other articles." [117] " Your claim that 3RR applies is erroneeous and, frankly, a bullying tactic at this point."[118] " I did not immediately use the PBS source which has bad "writing" until it looked like you were ignoring all newer polls."[119] " Without violaiting WP:AGF, it is possible that some have invested thousands upon thousands of lines in order to wear everybidy else down." [120] " You might want to note CC is now actually stalking me -- finding every political article in which I made edits and reverting them with warnings that he will drive me off WP."[121] " Are you stalking my every edit?"[122] " Threatening me for trying to follow the opinion of a third party whom you asked for an opinion? Sheesh. This article is now trash, and your threats do not improve its quality one iota." [123] " Um -- have you noticed that you are the ONLY person claiming that you are consensus incarnate?"[124] " Also note that KC has been an active participant in the recent bickering."[125] " Usually those who have an axe to grind will make the interpretation most favorable to their own positions, which means that "truth" may be impossible to find. And equally difficult to make this a legitimate article, I fear."[126] " Um -- my sole and only ain has been NPOV. I fear that your POV is heavily evident in your rant above. Thank you most kindly. And try reading AGF someday."[127] " My reaction? So far my opinions of "administrators" who take pains to point their status out is underwhelming. Give me honest folks any day who desire no titles nor pomp!" [128] " The Palin article is now going to be the laughing-stock of WP. Thank you most kindly."[129] " OK -- GP revert a thousand times to play games. You win -- the article is, in my point of view, now trashed by those who play revert wars rather than compromise"[130] " Congrats on proving yourself wrong again!" [131] " Kindly do not misstate what I said. I did not state that "Google news ... is more relevant than Google general". It makes for ill feelings."[132] " Prescott Bush's page is being heavily vandalized, and your post unfortunately came in at the precise same period of time."[133] " WG, I think you may be stalking me -- vide Talk: Prescott Bush. Kindly cease." [134] " Thank you for noting the sudden vandalism of the formerly stable Prescott Bush article. I think a number of the vandals/ drive-by editors are connected with my presence in Talk:Sarah Palin, including the IPs, "Wayfinder", a "Davey Collect" blocked account, and possible Writegeist…"[135] " That you do not wish balanced opinion is regrettable." [136] Response of Strike your personal attack, please. I strongly object to your entire statement after the first three sentences. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC) I demur that I made a "personal attack." And I strictly stand by "accusations do not make good faith." Thank you most kindly! Collect (talk) 13:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] " Yet again someone tries inserting trash." [137] " As for your suggestion that I have NOT read the policies -- I assure you that I have (actually over 200 pages of policies now) and I find your statement to be demeaning in the extreme."[138] " Is there a problem here? Or are POV-pushers going to push yet again? " Response: " Cease mentions of "POV pushers" - that is hostile and does not promote a friendly working atmoshpere. If you feel specific edits tend to appear biased, it is easy to say so without making personal attacks at no one in particlar, or at specific editors with whom you disagree. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)" [139][reply] "1 checquered IP" [140] " If you don't wish to abide by the comments you solicit, then you ought not keep consensus shopping. WP suggests that those who operate in bad faith should be ignored." [141] " I was open to any title until some person violated the assumption of good faith needed for WP to operate. Thatr person continues apparaantly to operate in less than good faith. When a person does so violate rules, I tend to regard their shopping for new consensuses as being problematic." " The claim tyhat WP users are not competent to know a simple term is weird." [142] " Editors who have reverted while a section was already asking for consensus, who have added material and vandalized the section in question in bad faith, have made my decision for me -- the only proper title for the SECTION is "bridge controversy."[143] " As you ought be aware, the changes made by vandals included material in that section. Including the "spinmeisters" stuff, which had been removed quite awhile ago now. Did you miss that one? We in consensus decided to keep the section short. Adding images and editorial material back in does not make the section short. Is this a difficult concept? [144] " More vandalism at this point. Insertion of material removed by consensus. Wilful iteration in the hope that iteration will convince anyone. Agreeing with oneself. I started this with an open mind, but the openness depended on finding good faith. Alas, when bad faith is shown, my own views must, perforce, be affected."[145] " Removed referenced items calling other editors' edits "vandalism"[146] " Jossi -- you are a wilful reverter and inserter of material in a section under discussion. How can "reasonable" be associated with ignoring WP consensus rules?" [147] " they decide to add POV material to a stable section which, I suspect, could well be reverted as a "bad faith edit" if anyone will do that task."[148] "The proposal elsewhere appears to be precisely removal of this controversy from the articles of notable individuals, and placing the material into a nice backwater of an article. Withe the specific legal case just started, removing it from JtP is, IMHO, quite foolish." [149] Inability to work with other editors, threatening other editors, if Collect does not get his way " Otherwise, I shall go back and suggest deleting the entire stuff about Keith - ok? Either have balance, or leave it out."[150] "Please try pushing this in talk"[151] Calling other editors contributions, "spoor": "Several editors have cross-linked spoor on user talk pages at this point. This one may be a sockpuppet for sure, to aid in a wrestling event."[152] Did you mean "ex-spam-ples"? Seems to me that the ste is sufficiently far afield as to me trivial in this article. [153] Accusing other editors of being a sock Sluggo [154][155] Accusing other editors of calling himself a sock, no evidence given Collect Accuses User:Writegeist of calling Collect a "sock for Kelly, Ferrylodge, Fcreid, THF and a few more”, refuses to give edit diffs or apologize.[156][157][158]

WP:LEGAL WP:LIBEL threats, WP:Wikilawyering
Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel." In short, the policies are exceedingly clear.[159] Probably 'nuff said, but I am being libeled, and you might be as well.[160] Congratulations. You are now into palpable libel. Not just asking questions, but making false and despicable assertions. [161] " IOW, had WP been around for the Jewell case, the "widely published information" which was later found libellous would have been fine here? Seems odd -- since WP practice has been to completely delete any articles where real libel might be found." [162] RE: The article, Joe the Plumber, I have provided substantial input on that policy, based on an increasing body of international law. Collect (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[163][reply] "I did state that libelling other editors does poison the Talk page, perverts the proper use of the Talk page and is errant and wrong. I would also state and aver that libeling editors is not proper behavior. Thank you most kindly." [164] " Such libels do not belong on a TALK page, for G-d's sake!"[165]

Silly arguments, example of tedious behavior, and finding NPA when there is none. Sensitivitivy of Collect, everything is a personal attack against him
Silly arguments Argument about the past or present tense in the word supported/supports, which Collect had a several week edit war about.[166] Finding NPA when there is none part 1 RE: [167] Boy, you really do not understand WIkipedia's policies at all, do you? Slrubenstein \| Talk 19:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC) "Boy"???? I would suggest that placing a question which goes to the heart of this entire section of the Talk page is exactly and precisely in line with WP policies. Thank you by the way very much for calling me "Boy" as it is quite dispositive of the "AGF" issue with regard to how you view it. Collect (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC) First of all, Collect, I did not call you a "boy." Please find a dictionary - "boy" is a common exclamatory term, like wow or golly. And your question runs counter to WIkipedia policy. I personally have no issue with that African prayer. Apparently you do not either. But you know what? Your view on the matter is irrelevant. So is my view. Editors' views do not go into articles. You throw around words like fact and false a lot, but Wikipedia is about notability and verifiability, and not about true or false. You ropinion that the controversy is false has no place in any discussion on this article. Someone lese's view that the controversy is "true" also has no place in this discussion. The only question is, is the controversy notable and if so, are there verifiable and reliable sources for providing an account of the controversy and the various views involved in, and about, the controversy. Then it is just a matter of writing an account of these notable views from verifiable sources. There is only one ground for excluding it from Wikipedia: that it is not notable and to include it would give undue weight to a non-notable set of views. And perhaps the controversy is not notable enough for inclusion (I never heard of it and I listen to and watch the news regularly). But this is the only grounds for exluding it, not the fact that you think it is false or silly. You really need to get over this belief you seem to have that your judgement that a one view is better than another, or one topic truer than another, is simply irrelevant. Boy! Slrubenstein \| Talk 20:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC) First -- "Boy!" is an exclamation. "Boy, ..." is NOT an exclamation. Your message to me did not use "Boy," as an exclamation. Exclamation marks are not commas. A comma is used when you are addressing someone with the name you give before the comma. Yhe issue I was dealing with is the relevance of ANY statements which might inaptly deal with a subject's religion. This entire section about dinosaurs falls into that classification. Giving weight to a view which is notable only because of deliberate misinterpretation is improper. In the case at hand, I have sought to show that such wilful misinterpretation is errant. I am sorry that you only feel "notable" is your only concern. Thank you most kindly. Collect (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC) if that is how you want it, that's your business. boy as an interjection, with a comma rather than an exclamation point, can still mean the same thing as boy with an exclamation point, just as boy with an expclamation point can still be vocative. Slrubenstein \| Talk 23:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Exclamations in the form of "Boy, you ..." are quite rare. Since this seems to be degenerating into English grammar discussions, I think it has outlived its usefulness here. Rather like having a (sic) contest, or the like. Interjections generally are not followed by commas, at least not in any Manual of Style I have found. Collect (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Finding NPA when there is none part 2 Please don't fall into the same trap as others have done.[168] Collect's response: Are you asserting that you are using this as a trap of some sort? [169] See also: >>the bridge to nowhere vs. Bridge controversy argument on Sarah Palin >>the "earmarks" vs. "Funding requests" argument.[170] Response from Bobblehead: laughSweet mother of pearl. Do we have to add "As of" dates to every one of Palin's positions now? Unless there is evidence that her opinion has changed, then the default is that she continues to hold that position. Oh well. ;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[171][172][reply] As I was around, you are making a personal attack on me. Thanks! [173] " You see, Collect, Wikipedians are allowed to disagree with you and even criticize your edits without its being a personal attack." User_talk:JamesMLane 05:51, 13 October 2008 Collect's response: "...I find your claim that I "repeatedly expunged" to be a personal attack. One which you proudly repeat." [174] Tedious editing Definition game: An "allegation" is not a "conjecture” large argument over this. [175]

Other editors comments in dealing with Collect, highlighting his tedious and edit warring nature
Collect's traditional allies Admin: User: Gwen Gale: You didn't revert vandalism, that was a sourced, good faith edit...16 April 2009[176] Collect...you've been edit warring. Stop it. 16 April 2009.[177] User:Baseball Bugs Unless you've got other examples, I don't think anyone's trying to annoy you[178] User:THF: Edit-warring over tags is still edit-warring, even if the people removing the tags shouldn't be removing the tags. Raise it at BLPN rather than making multiple reverts.[179] Collect, can we avoid editing and reverting on the paragraph until consensus is reached on the talk page?[180] … better still for you to first build up your credibility by doing a lot of quality editing, and reducing your dispute-to-edit ratio.[181] Admins Admin: User:KillerChihuahua I request you also refrain from further speculation or comments about others motives. I will enforce the probation if I see you commenting on another editor again. [182] (Thanks for this edit diff Ferrylodge) As, for example, here. Let it go - do not continue the complaints and arguments.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&diff=next&oldid=263127004] Admin User: Tanthalas39 Enough. One more revert on Joe the Plumber, and you're going to be blocked for a week for long-term, persistent edit warring. After that block is up, any further reverts, we'll start at a month and go from there. Move on from that article. Admin: User:Scarian Hello, I have blocked you for a period of 48 hours for violating the three revert rule on the Drudge Report article. The article was locked for 3 days by admin Deacon, and even after that time you and User:Soxwon still continued to edit war. Admin User: Deacon of Pndapetzim Declining block request 3 March 2009 You were blocked a few months ago, and then unblocked after a similar promise. The lesson I fear, is yet to be learned. For that reason I feel I have to decline this request. other editors User:Aprock: I'm sorry to see you that you've come to a point where you can no longer view some of these issues with an open mind. I really think you're taking the dynamics here a bit personally. User: 75.63.7.15: As for your edits of those articles, you entirely eliminated well-referenced material without reasonable justification. Unfortunately, this appears to be something that you do on a recurring basis notwithstanding the objections of other editors. It is a disruptive strategy that should be ditched.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&diff=next&oldid=258433651] User: Factchecker atyourservice: Your behavior is CONSTANTLY abusive, even more so when you've been proven wrong and feel the need to lash out at the other person in order to cover up the fact that your views have just been comprehensively shown to be false. The first numerous times you asserted a false rule, I chalked it up to a misunderstanding. But now, after having the rule explain to you, you persist in attempting to spread false Wikipedia rules, and it constitutes ongoing abuse[183] … You seem determined to distort policy in whatever way suits your purpose at any given time.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&diff=next&oldid=253675885] User: Brendan19: you repeatedly push for what you want in spite of others wishes. you think you are right and you seem unwilling to compromise. i tried to warn you about your excessive editing, but you said i was wrong.[ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&diff=next&oldid=256314896] sigh I see we are full circle here. You are attempting to re-insert your original POV edit. You are suffering from WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You refuse to listen to editor's arguments and refuse to answer their direct and obvious questions... To date, three editors disagree with your idea of characterizing the commentators as "left wing or "right wing". I don't know what else can be said without repeating it umpteen times. Therefore 23:25, 11 November 2008, 00:07, 12 November 2008[184] Also: I'm concerned that you are edit warring while not participating in the talk page's discussion. It looks like you want to insert criticism of Olbermann but don't want criticism of conservative commentators. That is an unbalanced POV that WP:NPOV excludes. Two alternatives: include criticism of all commentators or none. This isn't the proper page to include criticism of any of the commentators, so I reverted to none. I would support include words such as "conservative" and "liberal" or whatever but not this one-sided approach. SmallRepair (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2008.[185] " It seems to me that Collect, having failed with one set of arguments, is now (a) resorting to personal abuse ("your words are not worth the paper they are printed on" in tandem with (b) throwing a bunch of new and irrelevant arguments at Factchecker's very reasonable suggestion of incorporating a significant, relevant and reliably-sourced piece of information. I will not revisit Collect's original arguments. Factchecker, as I said, has painstakingly demolished them." Writegeist (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2008 [186] Collect...Your negative "get-in-the-way" behavior throughout the past months has been obvious to many. As outlined above by Fchecker and Wgeist you have continuously taken a stand against anything in the least bit contrary to the bland, uninformative article you desired. Your tactics were obvious and constant. Even now you are busy chopping away at the very heart of what was a commendable article. Buster7 (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2008[187] " Your own conduct is wildly in violation of AGF and civility. You have been abusing other editors, questioning their motivations openly and without apology, abusing rules, and using unmasked sarcasm as a typical mode of daily speech. You make no attempt to abide by the civility or AGF guidelines, and rather, your interest in those guidelines seems solely limited to making implied threats and indignant comments about how others ignore these guidelines while making no attempt to observe them yourself. Thus your AGF- and civility-related complaints have no merit and are simply an attempt to WP:GAME the system. As I pointed out on your talk page, people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones… 21:39, 25 October 2008…I have spent more time catering to this fictitious notion that you are interested in civil discussion than I care to admit. The reality is that when you lose an argument, you change the subject and switch to personal attacks, then have the gall to issue threats when anyone else dishes some talkback. It's all there in the archives.Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2008[188]… The bottom line is that you and several others share an "ends justify the means" mentality that anything and everything should be done to keep criticism out even if it means misstating, contradicting, or ignoring the rules, guidelines, and goals of Wikipedia. 20:38, 22 October 2008. [189] " Wikipedia editors do not fact check Time articles and determine whether they are corroborated or uncorroborated. I have stated repeatedly that your repeated attempts to keep sources from being used in articles represent blatant original research and an attempt to discredit reliable sources based on your own personal opinions. This is highly inappropriate. Wikipedia has clear policies for attributing controversial material so that it is clear that the material is attributed to the source and not Wikipedia. In fact, the bulk of user activity by you, Collect, and Zsero seems to involve you trying to convince other editors, completely contrary to Wikipedia guidelines and policies, that they are not allowed to use this or that particular source which you don't want to be used. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[190] I'm not going to reargue "continues" with you, Collect. As you well know, every single editor other than you, after very lengthy discussion in the archives, believes that dozens of reliable sources should be relied upon even if we don't have a direct quote from Palin on the subject. Without that belief, wikipedia and most of the Palin article could not functionGreekParadise (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2008…"Now I'm still willing to work with you on compromise language if you want. But if you keep running to administrators to complain every time we disagree on Palin language, I think you'll make the administrators very angry. Work with me. You'll find I'm a lot easier to work with than against. Other pro-Palin editors (Fcreid, Kaiser, Ferrylodge, and others) have worked with me with success. I just don't like repeated reversions in the dead of night without going to the talk page first to seek a change in the prior consens" User:GreekParadise [191] … Bobblehead, JamesMLane, Grsz, Buster7, and I all agree that when the source says Palin supports the bridge, it means Palin supports the bridge. A single editor (Collect) believes that "still supports the bridge" and "supports with some reservations" actually means "her opinion . . . is unclear." GreekParadise (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Sarah Palin article.[reply] "No, Collect, you are again misusing policy to promote your own POV. BLP says that when adding biographical information to an article, we should avoid gossip, and be very careful to use reliable sources. As a matter of fact, the policy makes it clear that opinions - yes, opinions - from major newspapers are examples of acceptable material from a reliable source" User: Slrubenstein " You see, Collect, Wikipedians are allowed to disagree with you and even criticize your edits without its being a personal attack." User_talk:JamesMLane 05:51, 13 October 2008 Response: "…I find your claim that I "repeatedly expunged" to be a personal attack. One which you proudly repeat." [192] Finally, I must say that you seem to have a tendency to discover consensus in favor of your personal position where others do not see such consensus. I respectfully request that you be a bit more cautious in asserting the existence of consensus. JamesMLane t c 06:15, 3 October 2008 [193] " As for ME not being civil, you and your compatriots Zsero/Ferrylodge have been the most flagrant violators of civility I have seen so far, repeatedly and broadly assuming bad faith, explicitly in your comments, quipping sarcastically in trivial situations (e.g. "I'm sure you have a source for that... right?"), abusing new editors, and even using profanity in your conversations with me. You regularly complain about editors "wearing others down" yet you complain incessantly on every topic even after it is clear that there is no policy left to discuss and you simply want to bicker with the other editors... to wear them down. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)" [194]

Collect removing well referenced sections Collect's selective use of policy to suit his own POV, ignoring policy when it is convenient
Collect edit wars when he deletes the wikiquote template from the article.[195][196][197] Collect argues: Nope. REMOVING fully citred material from an article is contrary to WP guidelines. That you do not understand simple declarative sentences in reliable sources does not mean you can delete them. Thanks! Collect (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC) [198] Whoever keeps reverting RS and sourced material without posting on Talk with a reason -- that is not a good course of action. Collect (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC) [199] Collect's actions: Deletions to Business_Plot, 1,184 well referenced words in the same day,Talk:Business_Plot#Deleted_material_of_User:Collect with no discussion before hand. Removed immense amounts of referenced section in Sarah Palin: Bridge Removed Associated Press and Anchorage Daily News as "editorializing"[200], fakr.noaa.gov, associated press[201] Anchorage Daily News (2), Gannett News Service, Associated Press, [202] Clothes' Removed Irish Times,[203] Removed CBS News, Daily Mail, The Examiner, The Mirror,[204] removed huge section, including Style magazine, Los Angeles Times, The New Yorker, CNN, The New Republic, etc.[205] Interviews Removed New York Times and Guardian.[206], Associated Press as "extraneous commentary".[207] Racial Removed New York Times. "are we to list every editorial opinion held by every columnist" [208], "excess refs deled" Los Angeles Times, New York Times, harvardcitizen.com,[209][210] NOW Washington Post, The Guardian,[211] Pipeline "article is on Palin, not on pipeline" removed U.S. News & World Report.[212] Religion removed Newsweek,[213] removed Time magazine[214] removed Time magazine x2[215] removed LA Times[216] LA Times x2,[217] removed Time Magazine x3,[218] Huffinton Post,[219] Huffinton Post and LA Times[220] Library Weak reason: "quote is not germane in itself to the section. All it does is lengthen a section with a quote not on point." cityofwasilla.com, [221] removed New York Daily News.[222] Firing' Removed New York Daily News[223] New York Daily News x2[224] Whale Removed New York Daily News [225] Removed large section, including references from MSNBC and Los Angeles Times[226][227][228] fakr.noaa.gov, Associated Press,[229] Wikipedia Washington Post, NPR.org, San Jose Mercury News.[230] Rape kit[231] Removed Los Angeles Times[232]"extensive quote in captions not per consensus"[233] Ethics removed Associated press.[234] Post election infighting, future career removed ABC News, Huffington Post, Canadian Press, Chicago Tribune,[235] BBC, NPR,[236] Removed referenced sentence in Prescott Bush as "not a valid claim". Wired.com[237] Removed large referenced section in Thomas Muthee, huge well referenced section deleted, including Associate Press and Times Online.[238] ABC News [239] Associate Press as "COATRACK",[240] Removed huge section with references from Christian Science Monitor (2+), The Daily Mail, Times Online, Associated Press, Boston Herald.[241] removed again.[242] Also,[243] Removed large referenced section in Dino_Rossi.[244] Referenced sentence[245] Large section, Rasmussen Polls, Seattle Post-Intelligencer,[246] Removed NPR site from Westbrook_Pegler.[247] More.[248][249] Joe the Plumber: Repeated reverts of well-sourced content from MSNBC, Toledo Blade, Atlantic Magazine and Newseweek: [250] [251], [252], [253]

Caveat, with hundreds of edit diffs listed here, I am bound to make a few mistakes, I will happily make any corrections pointed out

Users who endorse this summary:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikip (talk • contribs) 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Wow! Thx! Very comprehensive evidence. I endorse, especially "Collect removing well referenced sections Collect's selective use of policy to suit his own POV, ignoring policy when it is convenient" Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
generally endorse, although not necessarily with every specific characterization Dlabtot (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The gaming in respect of sourced material seems quite accurate. The generally disagreable nature of his other interactions seems familiar too. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--A Nobody^{My talk} 22:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Particular emphasis on removal of Reliably Sourced material without consensus. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 00:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A well presented, well researched list. The "Inability to work with other editors" sections is on the weak side, but the other sections are strong. Endorsed. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this section, your right, I retained three of the edits and moved them to another section. Any other suggestions are welcomed. Ikip (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good list. I had no idea he was practicing his bad ways so widely, but this agrees with my experience with Collect. Dicklyon (talk) 02:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What has been obvious to many can now be seen BY many. Business-like presentation of facts. Lets the reader/viewer decide the level of transgression.Support --Buster7 (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
not everything seems so egregious, but there are many examples of poor behavior and i bet there are many more that have yet to be included. again i must point out, the majority of his bad behavior (if not all) occurs w/ political topics. Brendan19 (talk) 07:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me some examples, and I will refactor or remove these. thanks. Ikip (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse completely. Thank you for working on this list. I could cite other examples myself, but I haven't had the time and I appreciate your taking the time.GreekParadise (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - good summary and structure. Mattnad (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Ikip. SluggoOne (talk) 03:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I share Dicklyon's felling that this is more extensive than I had first realized. DGG (talk) 09:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Dlabtot

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

Users who endorse this summary:

Dlabtot (talk) 06:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe by Northeast, he means Chukchi Peninsula. Thats pretty Northeast on world map. :P In any case, as I said, it doesnt matter that he is a conservative. What matters is that he is misrepresenting himself, which is inline with his general behavioural pattern. Phoenix of9 (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Collect also plays a word game in this arena. When other editors (periodically) suggest he has a political POV, he says he's hasn't participated in any campaign. This somehow suggests to him he is not being political in his edits (I guess). Mattnad (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Collect has no interest in including ALL notable views. Only his own.His history is proof. --Buster7 (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong agree. As Buster writes, Collect uses policy to mask and push his own POV. This alone would not be a problem, but he actively removes and edit wars to remove other editors well referenced views. Ikip (talk) 11:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ► RATEL ◄ 09:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~
Agree. It's OK that he's a right-wing conservative and strange he would lie about it. The problem is he's OPPOSED to allowing anything but a right-wing conservative view in the bios, when both sides should be represented.GreekParadise (talk) 15:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Threeafterthree

Comment: I edited the Druge report a little awhile back but didn't get to deep into it. I also edited JTP abit, but minor stuff. I have seen Collect over at Sarah Palin I believe. He seems to be, imho, a good faith editor and willing to use the talk page and discuss and comment at great length. Does he have an opinion on how articles are crafted and how policies are interpretted and applied? Of course, who doesn't! This appears, but I haven't spent hours reviewing it, to be a content dispute on some pretty contentious type articles, nothing new there. Again, this looks to me like some folks who aren't happy with an editor who's opinion they don't share. Anyways, unless there is something alot more definitive to show here, I don't see the point. Regards,

Users who endorse this summary:

--Tom (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ferrylodge (talk) 17:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Lyonscc (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly ^hi! 18:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ironholds

This RfC appears to be a half-baked desire to "punish" Collect rather than resolve any actual issues

I've had previous encounters with User:Collect, mainly around AfD. While I may not always agree with his opinion it is always one backed up by policy and common sense, which is why seeing a Request for Comment threw me a bit. Most of the concerns are, to put it bluntly, crap; the Edit Warring appears to have ended after his unblock, for example. The section with a title starting "Using Wikipedia policies and guidelines in bad faith" gives no examples or evidence of him doing so; yes, he cited an essay, many people do. To do so isn't to say "this is the word and the lord" but more "here is my opinion on the matter said in a slightly more eloquent and refined way". 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.

This isn't, in my opinion, something that requires a Request for Comment; this reads increasingly as a bad faith attempt by users to undermine somebody they disagree with in a content dispute. People need to learn that RfC is not a place to bring people you don't quite like in the hope that you'll have enough yes-men to force them to back off. Ironholds (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification for the first point: it has now become clear that Collect has indeed edit-warred after the block; my apologies, I missed the diffs. Punishing him for those violations at this point is ridiculous; it is water under the bridge. Ironholds (talk) 01:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved

Users who endorse this summary:

Ironholds (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - this is my view, as well.--Lyonscc (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Firestorm ^Talk 00:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)I have been convinced that there is enough of a basis for this RFC Firestorm ^Talk 16:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Soxwon~~ (I agree with the second bullet point, but will withdraw for now)
Cube lurker (talk) (Full Endorse of opening sentance, second bullet point, and the general idea of the first bullet point if not every word.)
Frankly, this RFC reads like the manifestation of a grudge against Collect for holding an opposing point of view. Edit-warring has ceased, and existence of content disputes following unblock is not a sign of bad faith regarding edit-warring policies and guidelines. Ray^Talk 20:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the first and second points.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 01:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the purpose is not to punish, it is to improve. My own editing could certainly use some improvement; whose couldn't? It would be a great boost to Good Faith if there were some sense of fallibility, but all i'm hearing from Collect is "nothing wrong with the way Collect edits". That still doesn't mean anybody should ever be punished, it just means there could be an admission of room for improvement. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 20:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ferrylodge (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly ^hi! 18:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thing feels like a witchhunt. There are no clean hands here. Oren0 (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jayen466 09:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<comment removed, this sub-section is for users who endorse the points, it is not to discuss the points>.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 12:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sorry, moved my comments here 207.237.33.36 (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Outside view by Colonel Warden

Fails to respect consensus-building

In my experience of disputing a matter of NPOV/OR at Daily Mail, User:Collect fails to work in a collegiate way to reach compromise. He seems to routinely revert to his preferred version contrary to WP:OWN, fails to engage properly in dispute resolution and seems to just game in his use of sources and the opinions of other editors. This seems quite unsatisfactory when the issue is one of misrepresentation. Note also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Collect.

Users who endorse this summary:

Colonel Warden (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Good points Colonel. That is why Collect has been booted several times for edit warring. I also feel that Collect is not a sockpuppet.[reply]
Dlabtot (talk) 20:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mattnad (talk) 22:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. ► RATEL ◄ 09:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to the basic issue; however, i have absolutely no reason to believe Collect has anything to do with Sockpuppetry. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 11:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also agree to the basic issue of Concensus building. I have no knowledge of any sock-puppetry.--Buster7 (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--A Nobody^{My talk} 22:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree (with no knowledge of sock=puppetry).GreekParadise (talk) 15:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But re. sockpuppetry: THF/Collect case: [254]: no investigation, case declined, no checkuser run = inconclusive. Scramblecase/Transity/Collect case:[255]: closing clerk noted that the filer presented insufficient significant evidence, also that the case was a weapon in a content dispute, and closed the case without checkuser = inconclusive. Therefore irrelevant here. WP:AGF . Writegeist (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum

Disruptive

As a fresh example, please see this diff. In this, User:Collect makes a knee-jerk reversion of hours of work, undoing several well-sourced additions to the article in question. These are mostly peripheral to the detail which he is warring over and so his action is overtly disruptive and damaging to the project. As this RfC indicates that such disruption is his SOP, he should be blocked until he gives a satisfactory undertaking to behave better.

Users who endorse this summary:

Colonel Warden (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mild agree. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Soxwon

What we see here is some problems on both sides of the fence

Having thoroughly looked through the edits, talk pages, and other various bits of evidence, I have come to realize I made I mistake and rushed to judgement. I still believe that Collect is getting a raw deal on fascism and the Drudge Report. I also think that his edits on Rick Warren, Joe the Plumber, and Sarah Palin while driven by his opinion of policy weren't helpful and could be problematic. The problem is, that in each of these three cases the 'evidence' shows multiple editors involved and more often then not Collect wasn't alone in his opinion. Both Collect and the other editors show flashes of extreme POV, as well as bad faith remarks and edits. It doesn't seem like any of the above were clean and in positions to be slinging accusations. On all of the pages those asked to mediate said the same thing, that ALL parties involved were being stubborn and not getting anything done but arguing and causing problems, not just Collect. For instance on Joe the Plumber

Edit conflict, reply to TMC) Clearly you haven't been following along this whole time. This is the ninth time the page has been fully protected, mostly due to Collect and :Mattnad. In all honesty, they should be getting warnings for edit warring and eventually blocked (if they persist); locking down the page because two editors can't agree is :probably unfair. But, it's a complex page full of stubborn editors with nothing better to do. Tan | 39 23:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was and am following that page but stay away when it comes to editing it for reasons you just laid out. sigh.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:41, 11 December :2008 (UTC)

This was the general attitude throughout, that it was Mattnad, Collect and a group of editors. And the story is basically the same on the other two pages as well. I don't know what to say other than it would seem much more took place than is being revealed.

Users who endorse this summary:

Soxwon (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jim62sch^dissera! It was much more than Collect and Mattnad, too. The battle over the use of the word sobriquet, and the battle over whether Joe is really a plumber were just absurd. Jim62sch^dissera! 15:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside View by TheRedPenOfDoom

I believe that I am of a view similar to Soxwon.

Collect has freqently not demonstrated collaborative editing behaviors - which has frequently escalated differences to conflicts when editing with others (such as myself in our interactions at Joe the Plumber) who are also not demonstrating great collaborative editing behaviors.

Users who endorse this summary:

-- The Red Pen of Doom 23:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong agree. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong agree. ► RATEL ◄ 09:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. See also his response to my follow-up question about Joe the Plumber [256]. I think we have reason to believe he still "doesn't get it".Mattnad (talk) 11:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Escalation of conflict is not helpful, no matter how much one is convinced of righteousness. (I've certainly made those mistakes myself.) ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 20:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Things did indeed get very heated -- I took the cowardly route and ran away. :) Jim62sch^dissera! 15:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by 207.237.33.36

I think you may want to also consider some of the more minor edits this user has made, for example, while I CLEARLY showed good faith and civility and appreciation for other user's opinions on an mfd, this was Collect's comment. I was offended by his implication and responded in the next edit there...but I worry about "good faith" edits and that this user is not showing collaborative editing behavior...especially with noobs (which, btw, I am NOT).

Users who endorse this summary:

207.237.33.36 (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Buster7 (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC). Collect has little regard for IP accounts and pointedly disregards their input.[reply]
i endorse also, as the diff shows an explicit declaration of failure to Assume Good Faith (in so many words: "i see your conflict over there, so i assume you are up to no good over here") ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 20:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ratel

I lack social skills, some say, so I am certainly no paragon of virtue, but I have constructively edited a handful of pages on wikipedia for a few years and generally enjoyed it. However, I have come across one or two really troublesome editors who seem hell-bent on nothing but disruption and confrontation, and sadly, Collect is one of those, so I feel compelled to comment here. Admin Gwen Gale recently scolded Collect for blatant edit warring, which s/he seems to relish: diff S/he started in on the Drudge Report page and has done almost nothing but remove data from it and winnow down the content, to the point of changing sources (we were citing a page at Online Encyclopedia Britannica as a source for the word "conservative", so Collect edited Britannica and changed the source's wording during the discussion). As soon as one issue is settled, Collect will start in on another. On and on, I've never seen anything like it. S/he also has worked out the times that I typically edit, and as soon as I start editing the Drudge page, Collect would start editing simultaneously so that I had numerous edit conflicts. This happened 2 or 3 days in a row until I asked on his/her talk page to please stop it, at which time I was told that s/he "outranked admins and had the equivalent of well over a hundred working for me at one time". Delusions of grandeur? I also found myself suddenly attacked by an SPA on another page, an account that joined specifically to attack me, and this new user had identical diction and style to Collect. Of course I cannot be 100% sure, but Collect then chimed in when this new user made a etiquette report on me. It's all too neat to be coincidence. In summary, a troublesome and immature editor who is disrupting the encyclopedia for sport.

Users who endorse this summary:

► RATEL ◄ 09:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Buster7...especially the one or two editors part and feeling compelled to comment. (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip (talk) 15:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
mixed response: i disagree with any suspicions of "new user... too neat to be coincidence" or anything resembling sockpuppetry. However, i agree there is a clear pattern of hopscotching to another point of contention whenever an earlier point fails to go the way Collect desires, and that's why i describe the pattern as "conflict addiction". I might be completely mistaken, but i can't help feeling this displays an arrogant sense of righteous infallibility. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 20:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on 'troublesome', 'disruption' and 'confrontation'. But comments on the identical prose styles of Collect and Scramblecase, for all that the coincidence is truly remarkable, are irrelevant here. Writegeist (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Phoenix of9 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AgreeGreekParadise (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Buster7

'I have experienced and observed Collects editorial style first hand at Sara Palin during the months of the 2008 Presidential campaign...and elsewhere throughout the last year. I would characterize that his chosen editing style appears Oppressive and highly over-bearing. His actions, his stances, his positions and pronouncements rarely if ever seem to illuminate or amplify what is missing in any editing situation. To be in conflict with Collect (or opposition to Collect) is to enter a precarious and slippery world where it seems that simple facts, ficticious concensus [[257]] and mis-information become so intertwined that extracting even a nugget of co-operative editing is almost impossible. Many times concensus and editorial agreements will be moments away and Collect will cause the delicate balance to tumble like a house of cards.

Often he gloats....."If I were King......." (I"m searching for the diffs) and then presents some oblique, dictitorial solution for a minor editing problem. I have yet to experience pleasure when attempting to collaborate with Collect. It is always TEDIOUS. Wikipedia is a labor of LOVE. Working with or around Collect brings out the opposite emotion.

Users who endorse this summary:

--Buster7 (talk) 11:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, especially to: "will cause the delicate balance to tumble like a house of cards", which could be described as a symptom of Conflict-Addiction. The largest conflicts i've had on Wikipedia have been mainly a result of my own lack of interpersonal skills, but also have been around Collect. Just when consensus seems close, there will suddenly be an unnecessary "redirection" or an infuriating "I didn't hear that" which demolishes the house of cards. This causes small disagreements to avalanche into huge neverending conflicts. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 12:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC) I am reminded of my experience with Collect on a page. He removed different names for the page, showing that he had little grasp or understanding for the subject matter. When I gave 7 sources for these different names, he responded by deleting 1,136 well referenced words, which had been on this page for years, starting a tedious disruptive edit war, which included trying to change the name of the article to an invited name, that has never been used in any written source. In deleting whole sections of referenced material, I just wish Collect would follow his own admonishment: "REMOVING fully citred (sic) material from an article is contrary to WP guidelines."[258][reply]
Agree Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a pertinent addition

Additional Comment:

I was not invited to this Rfc. To those claiming canvassing, please note that the Rick Warren mediation is not the only article involving Collect. I am not a member of a Rick Warren Orchestra, or the William Timmons group or Saddleback or Joe the Plumber or The Drudge Report or Daily Mail or Helen Jones-Kelley or Union Banking Corporation or Rush Limbaugh or Facism. --Buster7 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

[[259]] A plaintive call from a good faith editor asking administrators for assistance at Sarah Palin due to Collect's interference.--Buster7 (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Lyonscc

If you ever wondered what it would be like to invite every editor you ever disagreed with to comment on you, take a good look at this page

I've had a number of encounters w/ User:Collect, primarily on the Rick Warren and Saddleback articles. While I've not always agreed with him 100%, I've not seen the issues described here. In fact, he's kept a pretty cool head in a number of situations w/ ultra-fundamentalist folks trying to insert blog-sourced material, etc. into these articles. As I look through the diffs and the pages cited, it seems pretty obvious that almost exclusively opposing editors, particularly those w/ axes to grind w/ Collect, were invited to comment, with the two primary exceptions being mediators in the current Rick Warren mediation, who were notified about this as we were starting to build consensus (in which Collect has been helpful in reaching compromises).

I don't think any action is needed against Collect, as this seems to be a baseless exercise orchestrated by those opposed to his POV in the Rick Warren mediation.

Users who endorse this summary:

--Lyonscc (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ferrylodge (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly ^hi! 18:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ferrylodge

It seems to me that this RFC got off on the wrong foot, and has stayed on the wrong foot. It began with a lot of obvious WP:Canvassing, which was very unfortunate because obvious convassing is much like the proverbial iceberg (indicative of what's below the surface). Canvassing is a very serious issue, and can severely undermine an argument even if the argument is 100% valid. It erodes trust, and skews outcomes, so I hope people will really try harder next time to avoid it.

I'll just comment here about the canvassing. I found out about this RFC from a notice placed by User:Ikip complaining about Collect at this talk page of an editor who had previously contemplated enforcement action against Collect.[260] Anyway, that's how I got here today, and it shouldn't have happened that way.

But getting back to how this RFC got started a few days ago, User:Mattnad certified the basis of this dispute, and then notified Jim62sch (who then supported Mattnad at the RFC), Tanthalas39 (who has not yet commented at the RFC project page), The RedPenOfDoom (who has had conflicts with Collect), Brendan 19 (who has had conflicts with Collect and who has backed Mattnad at this RFC), SteveDufour (who has not yet commented at the RFC project page), and Bruno23 (who then backed Mattnad at the RFC). These were minimalist messages that Mattnad left, with little more than a link to the RFC, but “Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion."[261] This was all very improper, and taints the whole RFC. I'm not saying to do it more surreptitiously next time; better to not do it at all. Thanks.

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by SB_Johnny

I haven't had much contact with Collect outside of watching him and others wrangle endlessly on the Sarah Palin article's talk page (and a few user talks on my watchlist), but my impression of him from that is of someone who feels pretty strongly about keeping articles "lean" (see his comments on Wikiversity to that effect).

I do get the distinct impression that he's politically conservative (in the USAian sense), but haven't noticed his edits to be particularly political. He's certainly not one to back down often, but then again neither are his co-editors on that article. From what I've seen, editors of that political stripe are very much in the minority on Wikipedia, and editors of that stripe who edit a lot and don't "back down" tend to get accused of POV pushing. I do think some sort of mediation might help here, but the mediator(s) would need to be willing to warn both Collect and the editors he's struggling with, because from what I've seen there's always been at least two doing the tango, and I'm not sure he's any more deserving of being under the RFCU looking glass than a number of the folks commenting here.

Users who endorse this summary:

--SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs)
Ferrylodge (talk) 15:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kelly ^hi! 18:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly want to get involved in this request, but I think that this is a good, measured response. Quite an astute observation. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by GreekParadise

This diff [262] typifies my repeated problems with Collect. I had been working on the bridge section of the Sarah Palin article with dozens of editors prior to the Election. We were involved in a very long and sometimes contentious discussion, over several talk pages and more than a month over exactly how much media coverage to put about Sarah Palin emphasizing her non-support of the Bridge to Nowhere (the Gravina Island Bridge), despite her earlier support of the bridge. (So many sources were deleted that one frustrated editor put up a warning not to delete any more facts or sources without asking for permission on the talk page.) A paragraph on this media coverage was originally in the Bridge to Nowhere section. It had been whittled down to its bare essence from a much larger paragraph. An editor then decided to move it to the campaign section. I opposed the move but acquiesced in the majority view that it should be moved there. Three weeks after the election, when no one was watching, Collect deleted the ENTIRE PARAGRAPH, sources and all with not so much as a peep on the talk page [263] of this extremely contentious article. See [264]. Collect's only comment in the history was the extremely disingenuous "Bridges are fully covered supra. Unless we should delete the earlier section?)" Now Collect knew full well that everyone thought the two portions (history of the bridge and history of the media reporting on the bridge) were necessary; we simply disagreed on whether they should be one section (my view) or two sections (the majority view). Collect participated in those discussions. E.g. [265]. Now he was pretending he had forgotten all the prior discussions. He deleted an entire paragraph replete with detailed sources and footnotes that many different editors had compiled over the previous two months. He pretended it was redundant, while giving a facetious proposal to delete the earlier Bridge to Nowhere section. "Divide and conquer" was the strategy, I guess. Split the bridge to nowhere material into two separate sections. And then, months later when no one is looking, delete one of them as redundant (when in fact it was chock full of sources and different material) without any discussion on the talk page or warning to the many dozens of editors who agreed on the consensus in the first place. This is far from the only time Collect has done this on the Sarah Palin article. Frankly, the actions Collect took on this article is the single greatest reason why I am strongly considering quitting Wikipedia permanently.

Users who endorse this summary:

GreekParadise (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He made User:Mike Doughney quit too, you wouldnt be the only one. Endorse this view. Phoenix of9 (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ikip (talk) 00:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Buster7 (talk) 04:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC) If you quit, Collect wins. WikiThought: Bad Editors drive out Good Editors. It's never just the feud, if you will. It's how the feud is fought. No one minds losing to fair play.[reply]

Outside view by SluggoOne

comments moved to Discussion page 207.237.33.36 (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Outside view by Aervanath

This RfC is not going to achieve anything. There seem to be a few possibly legitimate complaints against Collect, but they are mixed in with large amounts of seemingly petty complaints. There is a lot of back-and-forth going on, little of it civil, and there seems to be no proposed outcome that all parties will agree to. An RfC/U is intended to solicit outside opinions on the behavior of an editor, in the hope that the editor will agree to change his behavior. There seems to be no indication that the subject of this RfC will accept any restraints on his behavior as a result of this RfC, particularly with some of the poorly-thought-out sanctions proposed below. This dispute has degenerated beyond the point where an RfC can accomplish anything. The parties involved should take this to Arbitration; nothing will be accomplished here.

Users who endorse this summary:

--Aervanath (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Si. --Ali'i 14:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed solutions

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

block w/ politics ban

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

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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

I think the legal principle of forbearance (or the wiki equivalent) applies here; the blockable things were months ago and are now water under the bridge. As such a block really doesn't work. A politics ban is too broad, as well; if you're going to push for a topic ban I'd advise trying something more narrow. Ironholds (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1rr or less for at least 18 months

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

Try to keep up. He still violated terms of his unblock. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His past broken promises are relevant. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Do plan on keeping the new proposal after having removed your "new evidence" and the other charge being a month old? Soxwon (talk) 14:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the other charge being a month old part...Soxwon (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough Soxwon (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ri) Shouldn't the discussion, in its entirety, be on either this page or the talk page? Reads like you're both talking to yourselves. Jim62sch^dissera! 21:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wait -- are we supposed to bounce between the two sub-sub-secions? Jim62sch^dissera! 21:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree collect needs more than mentoring. how will mentoring actually stop him from warring? he needs to have consequences and i believe these are appropriate. i believe collect could be a great editor if he stayed away from politics. Brendan19 (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
agree Collect is an excellent editor when he isn't in conflicts. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 02:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship

3) I suggest that this RFC be closed with no formal sanctions against Collect. This entire process, including nearly simultaneous threads at ANI and AN3, smacks of bad faith. I also suggest that Collect should reread the policies that he throws around so often, and take notes on the spirit of the policies/guidelines/essays. That would help him avoid further entanglements. Firestorm ^Talk 16:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AMENDMENT: It has been suggested that Collect undergo mentorship in order to improve his knowledge of policy and his ability to work with others. I think this is a good suggestion, and if the community or Collect feel that this would be a satisfactory alternative to formal sanctions, then I would volunteer for the job. I have extensive experience in dispute resolution as part of MedCab and even less formal mediations, so I think that I would be capable of teaching Collect to collaborate more effectively. Firestorm ^Talk 18:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

In part I agree that this process is far from ideal but that on it's own should not mean the learning from the process is null and void. In the past, sanctions against Collect have had limited impact on his behavior. It would seem that when he gets shut down by an admin on one article, he changes his focus to another article where the cycle of conflict repeats itself. So what I suggest instead is a temporary topic ban (politics) so that this editor can reflect on his approach and one would hope improve his conduct. If there's one piece of advice I can give Collect, is to refrain from treating Wikipedia like you're a litigator in court. This a community where you will need to work with other editors again and again so if you can learn to be less aggressive and more cooperative, you'll do better.Mattnad (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Re. Firestorm's offer in his AMENDMENT post above (which I saw after I posted my proposed solution below): that's an excellent idea, and I'm sure Collect will welcome it. Writegeist (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very stupid idea as Collect is a very experienced editor, with almost 7,000 edits. Firestorm refused to comment on Collect's actions (tendentious editing, edit warring, etc) so I think he is far from being neutral for some reason. Phoenix of9 (talk) 19:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship is something that nearly anyone can gain from if they actually try. If Collect is willing to put effort into this process, Firestorm's offer appears to be a great method to address the concerns raised by this RfC.-- The Red Pen of Doom 20:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I have not refused to comment on his actions; I have just not gotten around to writing it up yet. Also, Mentorship can benefit experienced editors; I think you're probably confusing it with Adoption, which is targeted towards new editors. Mentorship is routinely used both voluntarily and involuntarily when an editor's conduct is concerning, and is even the result of ARBCOM cases. Firestorm ^Talk 20:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You havent gotten around to lots of stuff and thats why you arent neutral. It seems that it was your knee jerk reaction to defend Collect (since you didnt read the evidence presented here and didnt comment on them). It also seems You havent gotten around to understanding that I reported Collect to ANI because he broke the terms of his unblock. It also seems You havent gotten around to understanding that I reported him to WP:ANEW because I was suggested to do so: [266] [267] in ANI. Yet, despite this, you accused me of bad faith and that clearly shows your own intentions. Phoenix of9 (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix, you might be well advised to not comment on your opinion of other editor's motives. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I am not the subject of this RfC. What I have done is proposed a solution that I think will benefit Collect as an editor, and alleviate concerns about his conduct and editing philosophy. What you have done is an argumentum ad hominem, all but saying that the idea is not valid because I have an opinion that you don't like.Firestorm ^Talk 21:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TheRedPenOfDoom, I just didnt like Firestorm's accusations towards me. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) this page is to discuss the actions taken by Collect not Firestorm. 2) just as "someone else was edit warring" is not an excuse to edit war, declaring that someone accused you is not an excuse to accuse them. 3) any further discussion of this topic should probably be on the Talk page. (feel free to move my comments) -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1) If this page is to discuss the actions taken by Collect, then Firestorm should cease his accusations. 2) Apples and oranges. Edit warring damages wiki articles. 3) This discussion is relevant. All suggestions about solutions should be contingent on reviewing the evidence 1st, which Firestorm hasnt done. Phoenix of9 (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1)I officially cease any accusations that I may have made. 2) nothing to comment on here. 3) Yes, I have. Firestorm ^Talk 01:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’m persuaded by Buster7’s comments below, and also by Collect’s recent input to Firestorm’s talk page, that Collect would be better-off with someone who is uninvolved, sopmeone he would take more seriously as a mentor. Otherwise there's cause for concern that Collect will be unable to curb his controlling antics, e.g. this offer to mentor Firestorm (!) Thanks all the same, Firestorm! You’re clearly an honorable fellow with good intentions who is trying to help. Writegeist (talk) 17:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful people like Firestorm generously offer to mentor (i've often wondered whether i should ask for a mentor for myself) but in this particular case, i think it would be wrong for Firestorm to mentor Collect. This is because Firestorm, Collect, myself, Phoenix of9, Mike Doughney, Lyonscc, and others have already been entangled in the Rick Warren Mediation for months, so it would be a burdensome complication which could derail rather than improve. Might i humbly suggest that somebody else who is generously available could please be asked to offer mentorship? I've seen Gwen Gale's name mentioned, because she has already been involved in a collegial way with Collect; there might be other admins besides Gwen Gale if she's unavailable; surely a bit of encouragement is the solution here, rather than neverending conflict. I totally respect the way Collect tries to be polite and calm and dignified, and even slightly humorous with his <g> grins and Thanks! pleasant manners; this is evidence of an editor who works in Good Faith, and deserves to be treated with the same calm good manners. Can we all think about offering this as a helpful suggestion to Collect? I know i could have personally used a mentor of my own a few months ago; maybe that's the easiest solution for Collect. Thank you kindly. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 21:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Alice in Wonderland edit shows how invested Collect is in actually being mentored or changing his behavior. Quite succinct. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

4) My experience with Collect is limited to the Barbara West (TV news anchor) article in October/November 2008, so clearly this could be part of what he characterizes as "new editor syndrome". He had a clear point-of-view (not a bad thing) and I found him very focused on his goals and too often refusing to answer straightforward questions, i.e., WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT after being asked the 6th time. However, he stopped short of WP:3RR (though saying I was threatening him to "bend to my will"), was civil, did provide balance to the article and did go along with consensus. I would think the proper remedy is to hook him up with an experienced editor who could advise a more collegial spirit, being more responsive to debate (e.g., answering the "tough" questions on point), adhering to WP:BRD and accepting that WP:1RR is the always the best policy. My limited experience wouldn't suggest a banning but patience and ~~adoption~~ mentoring by an admins. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 18:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

I rarely say this, but I think, think, Collect might be "redeemable" (like beer bottle? lol). Strong opinions are fine, disruption is not. But, this is all up to Collect. Jim62sch^dissera! 18:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

∴ Therefore, are you proposing WP:ADOPT? Or WP:MENTOR? It would help to substitute the relevant choice for 'Template' in the heading. Cheers, Writegeist (talk) 21:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring. Sorry for the confusion. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 23:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I posted and ran ... sorry all. But, yes, you got my intent. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Alice in Wonderland edit shows how invested Collect is in actually being mentored or changing his behavior. Quite succinct. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring

5) First, disclosure: there is a history of conflict between me and Collect. As to this RfC: I've had to deal with Collect at the Sarah Palin pages, and I've also reviewed his recent history at JtP. I regard some of his tactics as WP:TE and WP:GAME etc. and therefore as cause for concern, particularly in relation to NPOV in the articles he edits. It's my understanding that RfCs are all about information and agreements, not punitive measures. Collect is experienced -- nearly 7,000 edits. He knows what he's up to. So how about he simply agrees to refrain from WP:TE, WP:EW, WP:GAME and WP:WL in future? OK, so apparently there’s a likelihood of him breaking his word again, but I’m all for giving second chances. And thirds. (Some here, like me, are slow learners.) The fact that, as convenient, Collect apparently declares himself a conservative and then, elsewhere, a liberal, may not be germane to his editing at JtP. But if true, it implies a slipperiness that might call his good faith into question. Slipperiness calls for a tight grip. The proposed agreements might exert it. Worth a try? Writegeist (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ADDITION re. Collect’s response to the above post here – 'I regret that your animus to me continues' et seq.: I’m sorry to see Collect respond by going on the attack (a tendency I shared at WP until I learned the hard way). While I make no secret of the fact that his WP persona is hardly my favorite, Collect knows that nevertheless I set that aside and stood up for him when he was in a tight spot not long ago: despite the history of difficulties between us, it was with scrupulous fairness and no little generosity of spirit that I did my best to encourage fair, balanced treatment of him at MfD when he faced a complaint of posting an entire page which, according to the complainant and numerous other editors, constituted a concerted personal attack on the complainant and/or a continuation of an edit war between Collect and the complainant and/or a guide to Collect’s methods for gaming the system. I also asked that he be spared what I saw as a kind of mob justice [268]. For which Collect posted a note of thanks to my Talk.

So it seems all the more disingenuous to accuse me of animus here. I see no sign of any. My view is objective and my contributions here honest, positive and constructive. It's disappointing, particularly in light of this RfC, that Collect would still rather shoot the messengers than take the messages to heart.

Regardless, I still stand against any punitive measures. Writegeist (talk) 20:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Collect's response (addressed in my previous post) shows he still just doesn't get it, I think mentoring would be a better help to him than voluntary agreement. Changed this section heading accordingly. Please note that Jim62sch's comment below refers to the previous (voluntary agreement) proposal. Writegeist (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

I think mentoring might be good, but I do think there should also be some temporary restrictions as well. Call it probation. Collect has in the past received coaching from admins but seems to respond more to limitations on his ability to wage war (so to speak). How about Mentoring plus a 3 month restriction to 1 RR on articles that have a political bent. In my reviewing of the RFC, these types of articles are where the most conflict has occurred. Collect would be free to actively participate in the millions of articles in Wikipedia, but for political articles, he would need to take deep breaths (and some time), before doing battle as he has in the past. Then after three months, he could be free to edit as before. I'm sure he and Wikipedia will be better for it.Mattnad (talk) 13:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds reasonable -- it's a restriction, but not punitive -- more a chance (hope?) for reform. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

seconds are fine, thirds and we start pushing it. Overall, though, I agree. I think we can all reach an agreement we are comfortable with. On the other hand, I could be pissing up a rope, in which case "I told you so" would be applicable. Let's let it play out a bit, as the purpose of an rfc should be to resolve the issue. Unless we hit multiple rfc's, in which case ... Jim62sch^dissera! 19:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I support the concept of mentoring ~~I do not support the mentor presenting him/her self for the job..~~.with all respect to Editor:Firestorm for his generous offer. I would hope it could be someone completely at random with no previous involvement with Collect or any of his friends.--Buster7 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily uninvolved would be best -- however, trying to figure out who the friends are would be both difficult and quite probably unhelpful. For all we know, you or I might have worked with one of his purported friends elsewhere. The same could be true of any admin. Jim62sch^dissera! 17:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Alice in Wonderland edit shows how invested Collect is in actually being mentored or changing his behavior. Quite succinct. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's getting attacked from all sides, what do you expect. Soxwon (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect his to behave like the experienced WikiEditor that he is, respect other users' opinions here, and remain a civil participant. If he needs a break from the issues, I would expect him to take a WikiBreak. Nobody is going to make any decisions overnight, are they? 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Editor:207. The Alice in Wonderland edit shows Collect't disdain for WikiPedia and all the editors that have taken time to comment here. His rebuff was unnecesary and haughty. He could have left with a comment about reflecting on the proceedings and we all would have understood. But he chose not to do that. Instead he chose to proclaim his righteousness and frustrate any gentlemanly conversation. He insults even his supporters with his un-availability. They are left to fight the good fight without the subject of their support and his input. I know he will return, eventually. In the meantime we are left to collect our contributions. Please do not attack fellow editors because they have been given an audience to expound and express long-held viewpoints.--Buster7 (talk) 05:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

indef block

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

– RFC is not the place to discuss a community ban. If you want to ban this user, take it to ANI, not here.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be discussed and considered. While Collect is clearly a user of a great volume of contribution, this also stands to show his great understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. The examples shown here reflect his willingness (if not his eagerness) to use (bend/break) those same rules in a hostile manner to promote his own POV and agenda. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Not at all. What you want is essentially a community ban. Bans/blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. There's no indication that he's currently doing damage to the wiki, and certainly not enough to warrant a block. I'll be really surprised if anybody endorses this. Firestorm ^Talk 00:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support well, Firestorm, let me surprise you. Collect told me that he "outranked admins and had the equivalent of well over a hundred working for me at one time" diff I regard this as either insanity or a deliberate attempt to intimidate me. I think mentoring or a slap on the wrists will do little to cure this person of his/her ailments. I support an indef ban. ► RATEL ◄ 01:53, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Buster7 (talk) 02:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editor:RATEL. The diff you use is interesting. Not in what it says but how you interpret it. What Collect is talking about is his history on the Internet...but not at WikiPedia. He claims to be a historic Internet celebrity of sorts, with 80,000 plus edits and scores of minions spread hither and yon. But, of course, he didn't mind that you thought he meant he was an all-powerful hidden force in Jimbo's WikiWorld. --Buster7 (talk) 02:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

too harsh at this time, but if his behavior continues (which i dont see why it wont) then i see this being the solution. Brendan19 (talk) 02:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree — Bans are for vandals, abusive attackers, and people who destroy our work. Good Faith is for everybody else who has any hope of improvement. Good Faith has been given to me so many times, i feel like it should also be given to Collect, if he is agreeing to avoid editwars and tendentiousness. ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 02:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
too harsh Ikip (talk) 03:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a vote so why are we putting our opinions in bold? Soxwon (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i dont know sox, i guess i just did it for clarity. these pages get hard to read. anyway, why are we taking all this so seriously when it seems like such a wishy-washy process where it is almost certain that nothing will be accomplished? Brendan19 (talk) 03:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close this section NOW - This is not the place for community ban discussions, where only a handful of editors/users will see the discussion. If you want to ban him, then take it to ANI, not here. I am archiving this, as RFC is not the place to discuss community bans.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 03:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Referral to ANI

Per the indef block section, it's sudden closure by Daedalus969, and the comments of support it received prior to that: Daedalus' suggestion that Collect's editing be referred to ANI...yet again...sounds like a perfectly valid solution and/or additional solution to any other decided upon.

See this complaint, this complaint, this complaint, this complaint (which was escaped on a 1-hour technicality), this complaint - a REAL doozy, this complaint and its closing commentary, and this complaint.

This newest referral to ANI should include a summary of the multiple times Collect has been referred to ANI in the recent past with a summary of and wholehearted review of each of the outcomes. It will take some work to compile, clearly, but it would be worth it. The combined group of past ANIs, regardless of outcome, seem to indicate some verification for and validity to the DESIRED OUTCOME of this RFC. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 05:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

please note my attempt from dec 7 here. there was a simultaneous complaint against collect by someone else this complaint. dont confuse that one with mine. 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) 05:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

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

@@ Line 767: / Line 767: @@
 # [[User:Colonel Warden|Colonel Warden]] ([[User talk:Colonel Warden|talk]]) 14:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 # Mild agree. [[Special:Contributions/207.237.33.36|207.237.33.36]] ([[User talk:207.237.33.36|talk]]) 23:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
-# Agree. [[Special:Contributions/207.237.33.36|207.237.33.36]] ([[User talk:207.237.33.36|talk]]) 23:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 ===Outside view by Soxwon===