Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BlueRobe

In order to remain listed at 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 &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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

Statement of the dispute
User:BlueRobe is being incivil, making personal attacks, refusing to provide reliable sources, and refusing to interact with other editors on talk pages. WQA has been attempted twice: once by myself [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:BlueRobe_personal_attacks_and_unwillingness_to_discuss_article_on_talk_page. here], and another by User:BigK HeX here. Several editors have voiced concern about BlueRobe's behavior, and made suggestions for improvement, all of which have been rejected by BlueRobe with extreme hostility.

The original issue started at Talk:War crimes and the United States, for which I tried seeking mediation at WP:WQA. This RfC is merely a continuation of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:BlueRobe_personal_attacks_and_unwillingness_to_discuss_article_on_talk_page. the WQA discussion], which BlueRobe refused to partake in, so all of the relevant diffs and information are already there. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Cause of concern
Editors report experiencing difficult communications with User:BlueRobe across a host of articles including:
 * 1) Talk:New Zealand, (for which he was blocked for vandalizing)
 * 2) Controversies of Jersey Shore (TV series)
 * 3) Talk:War crimes and the United States
 * 4) 2010 Canterbury earthquake
 * 5) Talk:Libertarianism
 * 6) Talk:Libertarian socialism

See a WQA filing here: Wikiquette_alerts

and here: Wikiquette_alerts

Even the response to the Wikiquette filing itself was laced with personal attacks:.

The filings were initiated on such evidence as a recent week which saw the following events:
 * 1)  personal attacks:
 * 2) assumptions of bad faith: accusations of "sabotage", a supposed lack of integrity, a supposed lack of integrity again, and yet again with a supposed lack of integrity, vague accusations of "sabotage" by "trolls", the sudden arrival of "people who have never even looked at the Libertarianism page" is attributed to puppetry ..... when an RfC had been initiated, and another unfounded accusation of a cabal.
 * 3) unfounded WP:OR characterizations of reliable sources: the RS are "crackpots"
 * 4) posting of unsourced, possible WP:OR on Libertarian philosophy / soapboxing:, #
 * 5) as well as these recent comments:

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


 * WP:CIVIL
 * WP:V
 * WP:OR
 * WP:NOT
 * WP:DISRUPT
 * WP:CONSENSUS

Desired outcome

 * User:BlueRobe will stop making personal attacks and interact in a civil manner with other editors, in an effort to reach consensus.
 * User:BlueRobe, when asked, will provide reliable sources when requested, as described in WP:V and WP:RS
 * User:BlueRobe will adhere to talk page guidelines. He will not soapbox, base arguments on original research, or debate the topic of the article, rather than suggested changes to the article.

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.)
 * WQA: here
 * another WQA: here
 * Article talk page warnings:, ,.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
 * User:BlueRobe's response to a WQA:
 * User:BlueRobe's response to a notification about this RfC/User:
 * Quote of a recent User:BlueRobe comment: "Jrtayloriv, Leave me alone you fucking headcase! Stop following me everywhere! Stop obsessing over my every word! Stop trolling my every comment! Stop harassing me! Stop obsessing over me! Stop stalking me! FUCK OFF!"

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute.


 * User:The Four Deuces -- BlueRobe's comments above are obvious evidence that he has difficulty cooperating with other people. This case differs from those where someone is pushing a POV - BlueRobe just has difficulty communicating and sees normal conversation, such as someone saying "I agree with you, find sources and we can put it in" as an attack.  BlueRobe has explained his problems in the past, "The fact that I have banged my head against such an extraordinary level of dishonesty and irrationality in this tower of Babel for so long is probably grounds for my expulsion from Mensa".  I think that BlueRobe has difficulty in distinguishing between differences of opinion and personal attacks.  I have no idea what the solution is, but I support this RfC.  TFD (talk) 05:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * User:Jrtayloriv
 * User:BigK HeX
 * User:Carolmooredc. With more diffs, from user talk pages, showing User:BlueRobe has engaged in various uncivil behavior in regards to editors trying to use wikipedia processes to deal with various behavioral problems in or related to the Libertarianism article: Insulting response to me after I warned another editor about a pending 3RR violation (on the warned editor’s talk page); Insulting response to two editors who had just warned another editor about another pending 3RR violation (on the warned editor’s talk page); Insulting response to my warning that someone BlueRobe was conversing with on his talk page had just been banned as a sock puppet; Mocking response “Meat puppet” on my talk page to someone else’s notice about a WP:ANI about another editor; Insulting response to my concern about another editor conversing with an identified sock puppet on his talk page (on the warned editor’s talk page); Insulting as a “nutter” etc. another editor who requested another editor not start another RfC (on the other editor's talk page) plus another insult on that topic here.

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.


 * -- Cirt (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * --LK (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * --User:N6n Regardless of the justification (or the lack of it), profanity is bad. I don't have a personal grievance against BlueRobe though. N6n (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

Response to concerns

 * Jrtayloriv, leave me alone! I do not want to talk with you. I do not have to talk with you. I am repulsed by your communication style. There would be NO issue here if you just left me the hell alone! For the love of all that is holy, desist with your endless harassment of me. I DO NOT WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH YOU. LEAVE ME ALONE. I do not want to talk with you and I do not want you to talk with me, so just go away.


 * It is truly astonishing to me that Wikipaedia allows Jrtayloriv's on-going harassment of me to reach this stage, simply because I refuse to respond to him in the talk pages.


 * p.s. Jrtayloriv, seriously, seek counseling to help you to deal with your newfound obsession with me, you raving lunatic.


 * Now, bring on the meat-puppets... BlueRobe (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is utterly disgusting. Jrtayloriv's obsession with me has brought his petty harassment to this ridiculous stage, simply because I won't talk to him? Remember, the reason that Jrtayloriv has initiated this action against me is because I will not reply to him in the talk pages. In what insane world is my "turning around and walking away" from an offensive editor considered inappropriate behaviour?

As for those backing up the claims of Jrtayloriv, we can predict who will be leading the charge: the left-wing faction of the Libertarianism talk page - User:BigK HeX, User:CarolMooreDC, and User:TFD. Evidently, their animosity extends beyond mere difference of philosophical opinion.

Curiously, in a clear example of meat-puppetry, Jrtayloriv specifically approached each of the left-wingers from the Libertarianism page and invited them to contribute to this page. And yet, somehow, he mysteriously forgot to invite any of the right-wing faction who share my concerns regarding the Libertarianism page. BlueRobe (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea who User:Torchwood Who? is, or why he shows so much anger in his posts to this page, who why he is engaged in blatant meat-puppetry to get other users to come inhere to vilify me. Seriously, how many hours has Torchwood Who? spent examining my history to find everyone and anyone I have ever had a disagreement with so he could personally invite them here? BlueRobe (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As a point of order, can I respectfully request that User:Jrtayloriv and Torchwood Who? stop threatening anyone who dares to publish their support for me on this page? Such blatant intimidation of witnesses certainly wouldn't be acceptable in a real Court of law and I see no reason why it should be acceptable here, (except that, it does provide a hint of the sort of harassment that I, and others, have had to put up in the talk pages.) BlueRobe (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please provide an example of my alleged (see below) "disruption" of the Libertarianism page when, to the best of my recollection, I haven't made a single editorial change of the Libertarianism page itself? Indeed, about the only editorial changes I have made to Wikipaedia pages have been a couple of trivial amendments to a couple of Reality TV pages, lol. Instead, I have DISCUSSED possible changes in the talk pages. If this counts as disruption, then, mea culpa. BlueRobe (talk) 00:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it strike anyone else as ridiculously absurd that one of the possible resolutions of this process is that Jrtayloriv and I agree not to engage with each other in the talk pages, when it was my refusal to engage with Jrtayloriv that kicked him into this ridiculous prosecution in the first place? And you thought Wikipaedia didn't have a sense of humour ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 01:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

'''Dear God! My own mother doesn't OBSESS about me as much as Jrtayloriv. Get some psychiatric counseling you fucking psychotic headcase!''' ALL I ASKED was that you leave me the fuck alone! What kind of deep-seeded personality issues do you have that you cannot recognise that "No means NO!" You and your raving lunatics from the left-wing faction of the Libertarianism talkpage have put significantly more time and energy into digging-up half-truths about me than you've put into the Libertarianism Wikipaedia page where all your antagonism started. Evidently, there are way too many mental health out-patients who have too much time and energy for their politically-inspired campaigns of sabotage and vile bullying. Now I appreciate why my colleagues tried to warn me off trying to provide positive and intelligent contributions to Wikipaedia - Wikipaedia does not want positive and intelligent contributions. Wikipaedia is nothing more than politics run riot, where the truth is readily sacrificed in the name of political agendas. Fuck you, and fuck the thoroughly-broken Wikipaedia that allows such unconstrained acts of bullying to proceed unchecked. You disgust me. Jrtayloriv, there's a special place (with padded walls) for you in hell.

To those who supported me, I offer my most sincere appreciation and a bit of advice: stop banging your head against some mad bugger's wall. This place is beyond help. BlueRobe (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(What's the point in saying it nicely, when I have been discretely advised that the conclusion of this Clayton's Court is a foregone conclusion?)

Christ, this place needs an /ignore function. BlueRobe (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines
List the policies and guidelines that apply to the response.


 * WP:BITE presumptuously added by User:BigK HeX
 * WP:AGF presumptuously added by User:BigK HeX

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

Q. Assuming that the above evidence does indicate that a hostile tone is often present in your comments, do you believe that you would be able to make posts that would be considered much more civil? BigK HeX (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A. Your trolling of me is so persistent that you found your way to this page before you were even informed that this page existed. You need to get out more. BlueRobe (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Q. Would you agree that BigK HeX is trolling you, and should immediately stop?  Toa   Nidhiki  05  15:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A. It would be ridiculous for me to deny that BigK HeX is trolling me. If anything, his on-going harassment of me (and others) is considerably more frequent than that of Jrtayloriv. Rarely a day goes by when he isn't threatening someone who has challenged his political beliefs. Indeed, it is impossible to miss the concerted campaign of harassment that he, along with TFD and Carolmooredc, have prosecuted against Darkstar1st. BigK HeX spends more time issuing threats and harassment in User talk pages than he does in the talk pages of Wikipaedia articles. Indeed, the only real difference between BigK HeX and Jrtayloriv is that, where Jrtayloriv is simply a deranged rabid dog who won't let go of someone who wants nothing to do with him or his obsessive ranting (that is not a petty troll - I sincerely believe that Jrtayloriv has deep mental health problems), BigK HeX is cold and calculating in the tireless manner with which he wears down good people until they surrender and leave his Wikipaedia articles alone. BlueRobe (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A. Carolmooredc, 1) I challenged the view that the Libertarianism page community had reached a "consensus". I continue to deny that a consensus was reached, given that the vote-tally among that page's regulars was roughly evenly divided, (see WP:Consensus); 2) How is this relevant to the charges laid against me? BlueRobe (talk) 00:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by TorchwoodWho
On Aug.19th BlueRobe was involved in a content dispute involving the article Controversies of Jersey Shore (TV series) to which Bluerobe commented on their talk page "Reliable sources? I described a scene from the Jersey Shore program itself. It doesn't get more reliable than that." BlueRobe was then asked politely to supply a third party reliable source by Tmorton166, also on his/her talk page, to which BlueRobe replied "Wow. So, only Ronald Magro's ridiculous version of the event are to appear on the Controversies of Jersey Shore (TV series) ‎page? For your next trick, let's restrict the Wikipaedia Article on the Holocaust to those versions described by the camp guards. Wikipaedia = FAIL.". On Aug. 17th Blue was involved in an edit war on the talk page of New Zealand where they continually deleted the talk page contributions of other editors. This incident seems to have been spurred by a disagreement with edit Ryan Paddy in which Paddy explains to BlueRobe why their comments were inappropriate per policy. I admit that Paddy's last line of his comment on Blue's talk page was biting, but the response did not address that. Instead the response addressed the policy based reasoning for Paddy's comment. "No. It was the censorship of an intelligent, albeit politically incorrect, contribution, pure and simple." With that statement Blue is assuming bad faith and calling another editor a liar. This seemingly paranoid behavior appears to be unreasonable at best and woefully disruptive to the project at worst. In examining the conversations that brought BlueRobe to RfC with the opening user(s) I am left with the question of "Does Blue feel he/she will ever, at this point, be able to positively contribute to the project without resorting to personal attacks?" This question may seem vague and loaded, but I am asking in all seriousness. In the record there are several instances with unrelated editors who have attempted to be civil with you and intercede on content disputes that have immediately been treated as part of some type of conspiracy against you. I don't know if Blue will be able to control his/her perceptions enough to engage in civil collaborative editing and feel he/she may need a self-endorsed cool down block to gain perspective on the events?

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) --Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) BigK HeX (talk) 15:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) This is my only interaction with BlueRobe - but I think (s)he demonstrated a lack of understanding of WP policy on sourcing material and OR, took the friendly comment I left as a personal attack (assuming bad faith) and was pretty uncivil. If this was a one-time incident or persistent behaviour I can't comment --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 15:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) With the modifier that this appears to be ongoing behavior, so it would not be a cool-down-block but rather a preventative block to prevent future behavior of such inappropriate demeanor. -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Toa Nidhiki05
From what I can tell, this is a preposterous nomination. If anything, BigK HeX, CarolmooreinDC and TFD should be the ones with the RfC; their insane, bigoted, and ridiculous meatpuppetry should come to an end now. Those 3 have led a ridiculous charge against both BlueRobe and Darkstar1st; accusing them of meatpuppetry and acting in bad faith, among other things. BigK HeX, in particular, is acting like a jerk, accusing anyone who disagrees with him of acting in bad faith and using original research; BigK HeX would say the moon is made of green cheese, and then require an RfC and 'reliable' sources to shut him up. Blue has done nothing wrong here; he is simply fed up with BigK HeX trying to act like an admin and make threats against him and Darkstar1st.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toa Nidhiki05 (talk • contribs)

Outside view by North8000
My experience is a few weeks in the Libertarian article, plus seeing some (I feel clearly wrong) wiki-savvy anti-BlueRobe warrior tactics elsewhere by one of the main persons complaining about BlueRobe, which is actually what led me to this article. To me this looks like simple warfare at the Libertarian article where BlueRobe is blunter and the other persons are clever enough to wage war in a more wiki-savvy manner. I've been on the receiving end of some of BlueRobe's rougher language (including being accused of "taking the piss") but saw it as a blunt discussion rather than personal. Personally, I appreciated the directness. To BlueRobe I say tone down your language, to those doing wiki-savvy warfare against him/her, I say "we know what you're doing, so please stop it". To everyone, I say, instead, let's have some fun making a good article.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) North8000 (talk) 16:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside View by darkstar1st
This article has been frustrating adding sources and especially using text from existing sources, sometimes from the same paragraph, only to have them reverted with a reason as "revert, nonsense". Then when new sources are produced, the edit will be moved to the bottom of the article. Mitigating factors have caused bluerobe to lash out, perhaps a 2 party cease-fire would end the affair. Bluerobe will retract his comments, attempt an apology, and continue contributing sources and text to WP, a quick look at his contributions will verify he is a civil, intelligent, wordsmith, who is an asset to WP. other editors will attempt to accept his apology, and agree to avoid baiting blueobe into minor debates.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Darkstar1st (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) This nomination is a clear example of stalking and attempted censorship; and before you all say I'm 'making attacks', no one seems to comment when you constantly, endlessly follow us around and accuse us of bad-faith editing, soapboxing, and disrupting the Libertarian page, despite not ever having edited it.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  10:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside View by Gerardw
Saw the WQA post, looked at a few of the edits. BlueRobe's pattern of frequently aggressively replying to suggestions from other editors with denial / WP:IDHT doesn't bode well for a reasonable resolution. The RFCU is justified but seems unlikely to be successful. (I'm not posting diffs because the editors above have posted more than enough for anyone willing to follow them.)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Gerardw (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) BigK HeX (talk) 03:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Cirt (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Notification of ANI filing for User:BlueRobe
User:Torchwoodwho has filed a report at ANI here, so involved editors here might want to take the discussion to that page. It seems that this RFC/U has pretty much run its course, and is unfortunately not going to have a positive outcome. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

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. ''

Long-term Block
1) Whereas User:BlueRobe has maintained a complete failure to convincingly move towards civility, and whereas actions reasonably suggest that the editor has a disdain for the collaborative editing process, as well as a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and whereas User:BlueRobe expresses a disgust for the Wikipedia Project, I think a WP:BLOCK from Wikipedia for a period of no less than 9 months becomes a possible resolution. I think it is also clear that the user expects consequences, and that he knows that he brings consequences upon himself. I think this is a (sad but) reasonable consequence.

I doubt we will get voluntary agreement, but ... who knows. BigK HeX (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I would support a block, but I don't think that it needs to automatically be long term. I do think there should be a cool-off block for some minimum period -- maybe a week or two. But after that, I think he should be unblocked whenever he lets us know he's ready to have a civil discussion and adhere to policy. I don't think he should be blocked for 9 months -- he probably won't come back, and I would hate to lose a contributor to the project. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * If there is going to be a block (which there should not and most likely will not be), nine months is a very large, random number. To my knowledge, BlueRobe has never been blocked before, which means if this were to lead to a block, that it should be short. If feel BigK HeX wants 9 months for purely political reasons, not because he feels it is best for Wikipedia, but so he can continue his constant threats and attacks anyone and everyone that disagrees with him, particularly BlueRobe and Darkstar1st. I won't stand for this at all.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  10:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To me this proposed overkill looks like more warfare, but in a more Wiki-savvy form. North8000 (talk) 10:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv and BlueRobe to disengage, BluRobe to agree to refrain from profanity
I see this as having three components:
 * 1) A two way battle.  It appears that BlueRobe tried to disengage from Jrtayloriv, and Jrtayloriv wouldn't.
 * 2) BlueRobe's unacceptable use of profanity
 * 3) Edit war at the "Libertarian" article.

This would solve 2 of them. North8000 (talk) 11:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Template
2) Jrtayloriv can bite me. Sorted. BlueRobe (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:


 * Comment by others:

Template
3)


 * Comment by parties:


 * 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.