Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BlueRobe 2

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: 01:39, 25 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
For background, note that there has been a fairly recent RfC/USER [ here] and a previous ANI [ here], and a previous block for flagrant incivility.


 * View by User:BigK HeX
 * BlueRobe is generally incivil and perpetually fails to assume good faith. He evidences few qualms about attacking editors, many times completely without provocation as he may not even have been a participant in a particular line of discussion before his first contribution is to disparage others.  He fails to positively acknowledge warnings (and oft-times, warnings end only in more personal attacks).  Also disruptive is BlueRobe's penchant for posting WP:OR, and to denigrate [ "second rate academics"] the WP:RS of viewpoints that seem to disagree with his preferred POV.

Cause of concern

 * Evidence from User:BigK HeX
 * On the first day that BlueRobe returned from his incivility block, he began leveling incivil comments, characterizing one editor as "a pathological liar who cannot be reasoned with on any level"
 * A small selection of the more problematic comments seen recently, IMO, would be: "Get a life, freak." in response to a simple 3RR warning. "User:Yworo is allergic to intelligent thought." "At the rate the lefties are poisoning the Libertarianism article with these oddball quotes..." "You're just feeding [ User:Fifelfoo's] ideological acid trip" said to the informal mediator  "So, now your delusional concept..." "Even the nutters on this page ..."  "I have zero confidence in Errant's ability to be a neutral mediator" about informal mediation, a lack of AGF which he later walked back here.


 * Evidence from Iota (talk)
 * Some recent contributions:
 * "Yworo, your lack of intellectual integrity DISGUSTS me"
 * "Fifelfoo.. Personally, I think you're laughing at anyone who does not immediately bin your RIDICULOUS suggestions when they are first brought to their attention - full credit to Marknutley for displaying such calm professionalism and bothering to check your (obviously unreliable) sources in the face of such WP:PatentNonsense"
 * "why are you bothering to spend time and energy trying to reason with someone who is so clearly incapable of being reasonable?"


 * Evidence from User:Jrtayloriv:
 * Openly expresses that he has contempt for Wikipedia community. Realizes that his offenses are blockable, but refuses to change due to his having "nothing but contempt for Wikipedia" -- -- "I am not the least bit bothered about being blocked, as I have discovered nothing but contempt for Wikipaedia as a result of the travesty that is Libertarianism and its appalling back-room politics. A pox on Wikipaedia"
 * More incivility -- . "Jrtayloriv, your passionate intolerance for another person's intelligent opinion is duly noted. Now, sod-off."

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


 * WP:NPA
 * WP:AGF
 * WP:NOR
 * WP:IDHT
 * WP:RS
 * WP:DUE

Desired outcome
A desirable outcome would be for User:BlueRobe to limit his comments strictly to discussion on reliably sourced content. He should become thoroughly acquainted with the WP:NOR policy. Also, the use of the article talk page as a forum to discuss the topic or as a sounding board for unsourced lines of thought should end, per WP:NOT. Needless to say, WP:NPA should be strictly observed, given that many editors have expressed concerns about his characterizations of editors and editors' motives. BlueRobe should willingly accept blocks for incivility, should he choose to make a comment on editors (or their motives or intellectual capacity, etc).

Failing this, BlueRobe should consider a voluntary ban from Wikipedia for a month, while he can passively observe how interactions are typically carried out in contentious areas.

Failing a positive response from BlueRobe, an administrator may need to intervene in order to end the unproductive environment created by BlueRobe's comments.

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.)
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * 5) With diffs mentioned at the diffs, in time series OR1 warning NPA3 warning NPA diffs request for refactoring of abusive element NPA4 warning _after_ NPA4 Request to seek informal counselling
 * 6) Previous WQA filing --
 * 7) Previous RFC/U --
 * 8) Previous ANI that resulted in recent block for incivility --

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)
 * As of this moment, a scroll through BlueRobe's contribs shows that his last dozen edits to talk pages give rise to 11 distinct comments (with a copyedit in there). Of these 11 distinct comments, 9 of them contain evidence of negative characterizations of editors (as opposed to comments on content).  To verify, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9.
 * Response to suggestion of informal counselling and repeated here

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


 * TFD (talk) 06:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Fifelfoo (talk) 06:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Snowded TALK  09:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Uninvolved users endorsing this cause for concern.
 * --Mkativerata (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Entirely uninvolved and entirely concerned Basket of Puppies  08:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * -- Cirt (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Additional users endorsing this cause for concern.


 * CarolMooreDC (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC) (Have given up on trying to deal with his ongoing attacks.)
 * Iota (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC) (I've not been directly involved in debating this contributor, so I've no personal axe to grind. But it seems to me (s)he is poisoning the atmosphere of Talk:Libertarianism. A temporary ban seems to have been totally ineffective.)
 * Yworo (talk) 18:41, 25 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
''{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
{Add summary here.}

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



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

Q.

A.

Q.

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 GoodDay
I skimped through the editor's edit summaries & postings at talkpages. It looks like a clear case of dickery, to me. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Yworo (talk) 17:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) BigK HeX (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Cirt (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by
{Enter summary here.}

Users who endorse this summary:

-->

Views by involved editors
This is a summary written by users directly involved with the dispute and who would like to add a view of the dispute.

View by involved User:Marknutley
I believe the cause for BlueRobes anger is due to the atmosphere being promoted on the article talk page by some civil POV pushers. For instance you have User:BigK HeX saying he will ruthlessly revert anything he does not agree with, and should anyone argue he says he will report them for disruption. This is not the sort of statement which engenders good faith and a friendly atmosphere it is Battleground behaviour. Accuses BlueRobe of polluting the talk page the ngoes to BlueRobes talk page to continue the attack  BigK Hex is not the only problem editor on this article, there are several who edit war and tag team, i will follow up on this.

The constant slapping of warning templates on Bluerobes talk page has also escalated the tension here. Lets examine the diffs.
 * "Yworo, your lack of intellectual integrity DISGUSTS me" sounds bad right? But then again it was in response to this little gem from Yworo

Bluerobe is an obviously intelligent guy who is frustrated by the impossible task of working on an article which some editors have decided they wp:own, he has let his frustration get the better of him but i believe he is a good faith editor and will no doubt improve given the chance mark nutley (talk) 13:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC) I`ll examine the rest later

The baiting continues, User:Yworo I asked him to self revert the obvious taunt  he declines mark nutley (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * Xerographica (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * North8000 (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * North8000 (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Involved view by Errant
I had a go at moderating the Libertarianism page a few days ago - which I have tailed off recently because I am still mulling over what might be a better solution. The article (and talk page) revolves in fits and starts from civil co-operative work to incivility and ranting. The main dispute BlueRobe is involved in is the focus of the libertarianism article - and whether it should cover all diverse forms of libertarianism or whether it should focus on only the most common form (this simplifies the problem somewhat).

First off: I sympathise with his frustration. The page is becoming something of a battleground and there is no obviously simple way to establish a solid consensus and move on. There are multiple interconnected issues; such as where to draw the line at fringe groups/ideologies, what counts as a definition, what form of libertarianism sources are referring too. etc.

Secondly: I don't think that justifies the behaviour. BlueRobe has been lightly baited a couple of times (unfortunately I missed them or I would have stamped on the editors who did it) but mostly I think he hit a wall of frustration and "snapped".

Thirdly: I think BlueRobe has made an effort, when I first came on board to try and bring moderation to the page we clashed quite quickly. But he soon, I think, changed his mind and saw me in a positive light. While we clashed again a couple of times he was vastly more civil to both myself and other editors. He began using and discussing sources in a much better way. Recent behaviour stems out of, I think, a lack of recent progress that has upped the frustration levels.

I think the matter at hand is only really going to be sorted by formal mediation - the talk page is moving WAY too fast at the moment to reach a conclusion that everyone considers a consensus (whether in their favour or not) --Errant[tmorton166] $(chat!)$ 13:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * mark nutley (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Xerographica (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Xerographica (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Involved view by User:Jrtayloriv
Following the end of his recent block for personal attacks and incivility at Libertarianism, BlueRobe immediately resumed the same activities that got him blocked. He continues to attack other editors (calling them "freaks", "nutters", etc.), while engaging in extensive soapboxing on article talk pages. His short-term block obviously had no effect (see diffs at top).

He has openly expressed contempt for Wikipedia, says that he won't change his behavior, and doesn't care if he's blocked.

He contributes almost nothing to the article other than abusive comments and OR rants on talk pages. His account seems to exist for editing almost nothing but Libertarianism(or, rather, Talk:Libertarianism, since he contributes almost nothing but quickly-removed original research to the article itself).

I am having trouble seeing what value continued presence at Libertarianism holds for the community. And since he doesn't seem to care about being blocked, and hates Wikipedia so much, I guess he doesn't really value his presence that much either. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) BigK HeX (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Yworo (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) --Mkativerata (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Snowded  TALK  07:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Cirt (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

View by involved User:Xerographica
The bottom line is that the article on libertarianism is being vandalized. Unfortunately, the vandalism is not obvious like "libertarians suck". Rather, the vandalism is subtle and even more harmful in nature because it seems to be supported by a few reliable sources. This insidious approach makes it very difficult for uninvolved editors to identify the vandalism as such.

The large majority of reliable sources identify certain distinct and defining tenets of libertarianism while a few reliable sources use the word "libertarianism" to refer to unrelated ideologies. Some editors lack the critical thinking skills to differentiate between the different ideologies so their vandalism is at best, unintentional. Other editors can differentiate between the different ideologies so their vandalism can be considered very intentional. Their goal is either to attack libertarianism with straw man fallacies or to promote their unrelated ideologies.

BlueRobe has contributed an immense amount of time and effort to try and combat this vandalism. His efforts should be commended. This inquiry into his conduct reflects two things. First, it reflects how much the vandals feel threatened by his efforts. Second, it reflects the vandals' cheap and underhanded tactics that they frequently employ to try and remove any threats to their ability to vandalize the article on libertarianism. Xerographica (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

View by involved User:Snowded
I very much doubt that any RfC is raised where there are no problems with the article itself. Here we have one group of editors who have a firm opinion that the definition of libertarianism should be limited to what they consider its pure or majority form, and others who want to include various forms of anarchism which are also referenced as libertarian. The article needs mediation and/or third party editors if there is to be any chance of progress. My feeling however is that is a content dispute which is going to run and run.

The issues with the article are separate from those with BlueRobe. The majority of his comments are on the talk page and more or less universally address contributors and rarely content. As such this editor is inflaming what is already a difficult situation. At the moment the extreme nature of BlueRobe's comments is allowing other editors who are both soap boxing and also making a broad range of accusations against other editors to appear reasonable in comparison.

The community cannot address the content issues in this forum, but it can address the behavioral ones. Attempting to confuse the two and use frustration with content issues to excuse an editor who has show no willingness to learn from a block and multiple requests (from his/her own side) to act reasonably is not acceptable.

For the sake of full disclosure, I have a personal dislike of libertarian thought of all persuasions, but do not think that it is right for the article to be captured by one faction. I am in my limited interventions supporting a fuller definition and inclusion of more than right-wing approaches. -- Snowded TALK  09:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Yworo (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) especially "Attempting to confuse the two and use frustration with content issues to excuse an editor who has show no willingness to learn from a block and multiple requests (from his/her own side) to act reasonably is not acceptable." --Mkativerata (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) BigK HeX (talk) 00:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Cirt (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

View by involved User:Born2cycle
I agree with many of BlueRobe's complaints about the article, in particular the incoherent presentation of libertarianism in the article in two fundamentally incompatible senses: conventionally as advocacy of individual liberty including property rights as well as it being inclusive of the fundamentally incompatible so-called libertarian socialism, which is never referred to as (unqualified) "libertarianism" in reliable sources. However, the violations of WP:NPA are inexcusable, and violations of WP:NOT are disruptive. BlueRobe needs to be encouraged to pursue improvements to the article in accordance with policy and guidelines. Frankly, I need him on my side but not if he's going to be blowing himself up. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) BigK HeX (talk) 00:16, 27 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. ''

Compulsory counseling/mentoring
1) BlueRobe has been blocked for a month due to his incivility. He was nearly indef blocked. Fifelfoo suggested that BlueRobe be required to receive "compulsory counselling/mentoring after a block as an element of the block". Since BR has already been blocked, this seems to be a reasonable remedy or outcome from this RfC. Of course, it presumes a volunteer can be found to do so and that BR will accept the arrangement. Presumably as proposed it would be a requirement for unblock, and non-acceptance would extend the block indefinitely or until such an arrangement is accepted. Yworo (talk) 22:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * I think that it would be a good idea as well. I'd also like to ensure that he has acknowledged each of the things brought up in the RFCs/ANIs, and that he can point to which aspects of Wikipedia policy he was violating, and how he will avoid it in the future. I'd also suggest a permanent topic-ban for Libertarianism-related articles -- his account is clearly a single-purpose account for editing Libertarianism, and he is unable to work civilly with other editors there due to his strong personal connection to the subject. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that he should remain under sanction of some sort until such time that he acknowledges the problematic behaviors and his plan to rectify them. BigK HeX (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe we ought to make the strongest attempt at saving the editor for the encyclopaedia. The editor has previously received sanctions, and has not changed their conduct.  If we persist in handing out sanctions for 'punitive effect this will not change the editor's conduct, and we will be deficient as a community.  Punitive sanctions are not changing the editor's conduct in this case, they are merely protecting the encyclopaedia from their conduct.  We have an encyclopaedic obligation to attempt to rescue the editor from the negative effects of their behaviour on the encyclopaedia, and not merely leave them to their devices and an escalating sequence of sanctions that merely result in the encyclopaedia being permanently protected from the editor. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

Everybody Stop Warring at the Libertarian article
It's a complicated issue, and warring makes it hopeless. Let's all have some fun making a good article.

I consider bringing weak complaints like this particular one against those with opposing views to be a part of the warring. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Could you explain why you think this complaint is "weak"? The administrators who blocked him for personal attacks (again) thought it was a pretty clear violation, and was blockable. I'd like to hear your defense of his actions. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You are skipping several weeks of recent history to bring that up. The block was for some really nasty language, which ceased after the block. I consider the above to be much milder, doubly so in the context of knowing that it is distillation by BigK looking for the worst in weeks of extensive dialog. North8000 (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I consider your continued defense of the policy-violating behaviors of the vocal minority, and your hositlity to the enforcement of behavioral policies to be contributory to the warring and an additional hindrance to having fun and making a good article.  Case-in-point, is this attempt to downplay BlueRobe's pretty clearly problematic behavior, and to villainize my enforcement of the behavioral policies.  You really should re-examine your biases.  If you really have few, as you assert, then you, too, should be just as ready to shut down the repeated WP:OR and soapboxing at Talk:Libertarianism regardless of whether you may agree with it (or not) -- blatant original research is NOT proper behavior on Wikipedia, and that is a huge factor in preventing us from making a better article.  So, while you may think your stance on the article lies "in the middle", you may want to consider whether you've actually been doing a great deal to encourage the disruption and add unnecessary problems.  You acknowledge this is a complicated article, so -- with so much complication in dealing with the sources and material -- it should follow that the last thing we should have to deal with are behavioral issues...  BigK HeX (talk) 14:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree on most of those points. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW: "you really should re-examine your biases" IMHO sounds a bit strange for somebody initiating a complaint about WP:NPA and lack of WP:AGF. Ipsign (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is only complicated due to some editors insistence that all and sundry go into the article, like obviously anarchist and socialist groups. There is no need for complication, just describe libertarianism as it is, not as some would like it to be mark nutley (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * FWIW: As a completely uninvolved bystander I tend to agree with North8000. Involved editors IMHO tend to have very strong opinions on the article subject (see, for example, replies of BigK Hex and Marknutley right above); it in turn might easily cause conflict of interest from their side in this case of alleged incivility. Ipsign (talk) 14:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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.

Summary
On 1 October 2010, soon after this request for comment was raised, BlueRobe was blocked indefinitely. Hey Mid  (contribs) 22:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)