Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Collect

• Arcom rejected the RfAr on Collect, mostly because Collect acknowledged that he had edit warred, said he'd stop edit warring and apologized (however weakly) to many editors on their talk pages for having done so.

• This RfC has shown a strong consensus that Collect has been tendentious and disruptive with his edits to political articles.

• Although it is far more helpful to the project for an editor to deal with articles from a sternly neutral and encyclopedic outlook, it's ok to edit articles from a given PoV so long as policies are followed, there is no edit warring of any kind and consensus is abided in a civil way.

• Collect has a sound understanding of WP:BLP, but his edit warring and tendentious behaviour have harmed his ability to deal with BLP worries, without some editors believing from the outset that his BLP edits are stirred by something other than BLP policy.

• Collect has often answered worries about his behaviour by dwelling on the behaviour of other editors, instead of swaying his own behaviour. While a very few other editors have been untowards and PoV driven (and would likely have been sanctioned by arbcom along with Collect, had he not at last undertaken to stop edit warring himself), most of the editors commenting in this RfC have done so in good faith. By so often nudging talk about his own behaviour towards talk about others, Collect has been unhelpful and disruptive in a way which has sometimes been on the edge of personal attack.

• Collect has indeed made low-level legal threats and has wikilawyered his way through many disagreements, such as by abusing the sourcing policy, unevenly applying it to his own outlook and PoV.

• Collect is a skilled editor who has made many helpful contributions to en.Wikipedia, which makes the foregoing behaviours more worrisome, not less.

• Although the notion of mentoring is a worthy one, I've been editing this website for 5 years and have never seen it help for long. Hence, I never support mentoring as a "formal" remedy, but am nevertheless very ok with it when someone brings forth a good faith, one on one try at helping someone out.

• As the admin who unblocked Collect, I take full responsibility for not having more closely watched his edits in the weeks that followed. Had I done so, I'd have likely reblocked him for edit warring, this RfC would have never happened and arbcom's time would not have been wasted with a needless RfAr.

On the bright side, although there was smearing both ways (mostly on the talk page of this RfC), this RfC has at least brought together these worries on one page.

I've reviewed this RfC as the unblocking admin and am closing it with the following restrictions and comments:

• Given Collect's behaviour following the unblock, I'm restricting Collect to 0rr (no reverts or undo edits any kind) on all political articles and political BLPs for 6 months: He is free only to revert the most straightforward kinds of vandalism. If he makes a single revert to any political article or political BLP, I will block him from editing for at least two weeks. Editors can report reverts either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close.

• If Collect makes any more legal threats, I will block him from editing indefinitely until he straightforwardly retracts and disavows them. Editors can likewise report legal threats either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close.

• If Collect edits tendentiously or disruptively again, I will start a thread at WP:ANI asking for consensus to block him for at least 1 month for disruption. Editors can likewise report disruption either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close.

• Collect or any other editor can appeal this close or any of these restrictions at WP:AN as they please, when they please and I'll be more than happy to abide by whatever other consensus which might follow.

• I'm open to further input from any editor, on my talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (Adding after consultation with Gwen:) Collect should in the future avoid making accusations of sockpuppetry outside of normal channels (i.e., WP:RFCU), or if he likes he can contact an admin via email about any such suspicions. Wikipedia's checkusers are quite capable of confirming or dismissing such concerns, with intuition and experience making up for the  CheckUser is not magic pixie dust problem. Making accusations without taking the steps to find proof tends to have a toxic effect on the accused. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]