User:Collect/archive4

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Collect)
Hello, Collect. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Requests for comment/Collect, where you may want to participate. Phoenix of9 (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Collect, I've noted that you've been reaching out to other editors about the RFC. I wouldn't call that canvassing, so I hope you'll refrain from that accusation in the future if you happen to disagree with the effort.  Thanks.Mattnad (talk)
 * I wrote to a single editor about the RfC IIRC -- I would hardly call it canvassing by a mile.  I also told the mediation board why I would be absent for a bit -- which is not canvassing either. Seeking people to sign on to the RfC IS canvassing, however.  Collect (talk) 20:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Collect. Good luck. :) I know you're a good faith editor, but it takes its toll working in the trenches. I hope you don't get discouraged by your critics. If there are helpful suggestions great. But don't get too worked up over anything. Keep your head up and have fun. You might enjoy a break from the disputed and controversial stuff. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * My great-grandfather sailed round the Horn. I have a strong suspicion that one editor is a sock of a banned user - I gave diffs to an admin which showed a perfect jibe which was used to get the one user banned in part.  It s possible that this user may push as hard as he can on me.  Ratel has a WQA right now, Dicklyon has a couple dozen run-ins at AN/I etc,  and Phoenix is going to stretch the mediation out for a long time this way - I do not know if this was his aim.  Mike has real and substantial problems, and his retirement was not unexpected at all. Teledildonix314 sent me a very gracious email explaining a few things about his situation and his gratitude to me for my forbearance.   All I can say is that I have seen every single character in the past 27 years, no one is unique to WP by a long shot, and many of the ones in the past were far ore interesting as people.  Did you read my user essays at all? Collect (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my question at the RfC. Hopefully we can all work together assuming good faith, and that the assumptions become validated as true over time, and we can all get back to improving the encyclopedia! -- The Red Pen of Doom  11:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Amazingly enough, that is precisely my aim. I do not mind disagreements -- I would hate to be where everyone agreed with me for sure, but some people seem unwilling to accept that as a philosophy.  What I most object to is people labelling me with a label which is so far wrong were you to meet me that it is laughable.  Did you run across that at any point yourself?   I fear some of the fairly new editors involved (1K edits for some or less) who now know it all will learn that there is always more to be learned,  as I am sure I did. Collect (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, just thought I'd drop by. While you and I have had our disagreements in the past, I don't think this RFC is really justified. The editors in question have no idea what they are talking about with regards to the DR and Fascism, and seem to be just out to get you. Soxwon (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for stopping by -- you know you can certainly comment there, of course. Wat amazes me is that the RFC/U not only specifically disregards the guidelines for an RFC/U (it is supposed to relate to a single dispute with a single use for which actual dispute resolutin has been tried - and this one has every single possible dispute with every possible user and for which no dispute resolution has been tried )  but also seems to be a deliberate attempt to halt a mediation in process, and where the filing party has now filed multiple simultaneous complaints against me.   Collect (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * well I've put up my question, they can now try and answer. I still don't see how they can be so sure of tendetious editing on Fascism and DR when they themselves never bothered to get involved or discuss the situation w/those who were. Considering that those are half of the articles in question and they have centered on the DR this looks awfully suspect IMO. For now I'm just going to see how they answer and endorse, I've probably been on it too much as it is. Soxwon (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You might, of course, note that there is no sign that the RFC/U actually meets the official requirements of the RFC/U as not only does it not deal with a single issue, it does not even try to pretend that any dispute resolution has been tried by anyone at all . And with basically all the proponents being cross-pollinated on usertalk pages, it does look a teensy bit suspicious.   I thinkl they look on it as a "vote" and for that reason, the more reasoned discussion the better. Thanks! Collect (talk) 15:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Collect, you really must read more closely. The first part of the evidence (bullets 1 in both section) was provided by (Phoenix of9). Take a closer look and check the history if you don't believe me (Granted he should have signed his additions and I've asked him to do that).Mattnad (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Since absolutely none of it showed unsuccessful steps in dipute resolution, it is still not going to fly. And snarkiness is not going to help you.   Collect (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Here: Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok this suggests overkill and vendetta. Soxwon (talk) 00:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh dear -- it does? Who woulda think it of a person who is actively canvassing for support of his proposed punishment?  A person who promised to basically hunt me down?  Does it sound a wee bit like he thinks forum shopping is needed here/ Collect (talk) 00:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "A person who promised to basically hunt me down"? LOL. Collect, please do not flatter yourself, this isnt personal. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Neoconservatism
I don't do 3RR patrolling, but I've warned the user. If it continues then post a notice on WP:ANEW.  Will Beback   talk    03:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Phoenix of9 (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Block warning
Collect, it appears to me that in these edits: and  you are manipulating a Wikipedia process to remove information about your editing. My first instinct is to block you from editing, but I thought I'd give you a chance to explain first in case I'm missing something. Please note, I don't have a lot of time to spend on this. So if you have an explanation, make it concise. -Pete (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The specific edits above don't look productive. I'm not sure about the wider complexities of your case, I haven't looked into it too far. But if people are treating you unfairly, the best way to deal with it is usually to explain as plainly and directly as you can what's going on, rather than removing text from their complaints. Hope all goes well. -Pete (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Collect, you have my apologies -- I misread the diff. I'm really sorry. Totally out-of-line warning struck, above. -Pete (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A deletion review discussion you may wish to contribute to.
Hi. I've listed two deleted articles at Deletion_review, following the discussion on "lists of unusual things" which took place earlier in the year. As a contributor to that discussion, you might be interested in expressing an opinion on whether the two deleted articles should be restored. SP-KP (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)