Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jebbrady

Procedural concerns
Pairadox mentioned a concern on his SarekOfVulcan's talkpage about possibly being perceived as a cabal if contributing to the RFC/U. I thought of that too, and I tried to forestall accusations of cabal-hood by noting in my evidence that twelve editors have tried to work with the problem user, and so far as I know, none of us know each other or have worked together before. I don't know what to expect; I thought this situation would have been dealt with by now. We have to show that the community is exhausted, so I assume that more endorsements or even additional certifications are helpful. -- LisaSmall T/ C 19:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoops! a quick apology to Pairadox and Sarek for forgetting which user page I was on at the beginning of my cabal note above. Thanks to whoever fixed it. -- LisaSmall T/ C 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there should be any Cabal concerns. So long as the RFCU looks to be a good-faith step in a problem-solving process, no-one should complain. I have been thinking of endorsing, but am not eager to collect diffs. I would certainly sign off on any neutral recitation of the history. Can someone clarify how much I am endorsing if I sign 'Endorse this summary' in Requests for comment/Jebbrady? Am I thereby backing everything that was said by anyone else in sections 1.1 through 1.6? Thanks to anyone who can explain. EdJohnston 19:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(The above two comments originally posted at User_Talk:Lisasmall.) Pairadox 19:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed, as I understand it, you would indeed be endorsing everything by signing at Requests for comment/Jebbrady. If you don't feel comfortable with that, another option is to create a section called "View of semi-involved EdJohnston" (or similar title) between the "Response" section and the "Outside views" section. You can add as much detail as you want there, including a note that you agree or disagree with portions of 1.1 through 1.6. Hope that helps. Pairadox 20:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ed, I have a longer take on it. The official explanation is reached by clicking on "more endorsements..." just above your comment here on my talk page. The page says that you can sign under each view, and you can explain your position briefly (two sentences?). I'm not clear on where your view goes. Right now, there are three evidentiary sections: Sarek's narrative, which starts the complaint; RelHistBuff's, in a subhead; mine, in a subhead. I guess you could go in under each of those, or as many as you like, and say something like "Endorse as far as those episodes with which I am familiar --tilde-sig" or "Endorse except I think ideal outcome would be _______. --tilde-sig"


 * The instructions also say you can add view of your own; maybe as another subhead after mine? or in that area above "outside view"? And if you're sick of looking for diffs, just come out and say so, politely of course. Something to the effect of, "I here summarize my view. I do not provide diffs due to time issues, and believe they would largely just repeat the diffs provided by Sarek, RHB, & LS" and then go on to summarize your impression of Jeb as a Wikipedian.


 * If you do choose to file a view of your own summarizing your tried-and-failed attempts, I guess you're entitled to sign on as a certifier with your name under mine in that section; and instead of going to the existing three sections to endorse, you could do a blanket endorsement in your own view (with exceptions if you need to make them).


 * I can't tell you how much I'd rather be working on the article than learning so much about Wiki's policies and procedures. But to me, it seems there's just no point if I know everything I do is going to get yanked out and any attempt to discuss will be met with another 100K of belligerence. -- LisaSmall T/ C 20:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I added my signature to the RFC. I have noticed that even an RFC/U that does not lead to administrative action can have the effect of restarting progress on an article. Any reasonable changes you were thinking of making on HWA or WWCOG should now be seriously considered. EdJohnston 15:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Next Step
I have tried to figure out this RFC/U process and it seems that this page is not monitored by a third party or admin or arbitrator. Basically the ones involved in the dispute lay out their differences. The problem is if the "user whose conduct is disputed" never responds, then what happens? It seems it is left like this until some volunteer closes and archives the RFC. So I believe the only way for this process to work itself out is for interested editors to get back to working on the article. I have avoided it for eight months due to the behaviour of Jeb, but I will now get back to it and I would suggest anyone else to do so. If Jeb continues with his disruptive behaviour, then this RFC/U should be archived and the procedure calls for arbitration. --RelHistBuff 07:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the next step in the Dispute Resolution process calls for formal mediation, but I agree with turning the focus back to the articles. Jeb will either respond or he won't. He doesn't appear to be editing much lately (having a few of his IP addresses blocked might have slowed him down) and we shouldn't have to wait for his return. Pairadox 08:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Three points:
 * I think mediation would be absolutely pointless, and agree with Sarek's initial decision to go right to arbitration. I can't find the case at WP:RFARB any more, and I can't find their archives.  Does anyone know where it went?  Last I saw, there were only three recorded votes of the four needed for disposition.
 * Second, I think that the RFC/U should be vigorously pursued because I don't expect this problem to go away. Maybe Jebbrady is not participating because the IP he uses at work has been blocked, and (though he was told) he doesn't realize he can still use that IP if he just logs in.  Maybe he's on vacation, as so many people are in August.  Whatever has caused the temporary lull since August 24, I don't think it should quash the ongoing RFC/U.
 * I think you're is right, maybe this lull is a time when it's worthwhile to do edits.
 * I look forward to a short, simple, NPOV and comprehensive bio of Herbert Armstrong, and appreciate the collegial efforts to get there. I pulled some references from TIME, the NYT, and JSTOR during the difficulties, and will see if I can add them over the next couple of days. -- LisaSmall T/ C 12:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw where it was removed: with three against and none for, it wasn't going to get the 4 needed to accept. I see that cases are only added to the rejected archives if an interested party does it, so I'll track down the diff and add it.--SarekOfVulcan 13:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just hate to see another ARCOM case declined because formal mediation hadn't been tried; they can be sticklers for that sort of thing. Pairadox 13:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sarek, I don't know if you did it or if someone else did it, but the RFARB has moved here and is linked to a diff. Whoever moved it did so with only three votes, not the required four, but obviously, the fourth vote wouldn't have made a difference.  Pairadox, I know, but supposedly the arbs "value product over process" and I think that the four sock interventions, seven third opinions, and twelve editors ought to be enough to convince the most indulgent panel that Jebbrady is a disruptive editor and merits WP:BAN.  If someone started a mediation case, that's what I'd say.  He's had formal and informal interventions both ad infinitum and ad nauseum. -- LisaSmall T/ C  13:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did it. Also, it doesn't take 4 to reject: it takes 10 days without getting 4 net accept votes to reject.--SarekOfVulcan 13:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WesleyK response
(I posted this comment in his section, but realized that since I signed another section, it shouldn't be there.) --SarekOfVulcan 21:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wesley, I'm sorry, but you haven't established that you aren't a puppet -- especially since you have 5 edits total at this point. I don't think Lisa can fairly take the accusation out at this point.--SarekOfVulcan 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please look at those edits more carefully:

a) they consist of only two actual comments:	1) my one comment to you regarding WP:BLP (edited three times) 2) my one comment on RFC page asking lisasmall to remove meat puppet implication (edited twice)

b) comment (1) was edited three times within three minutes and comment (2) was edited twice within 3 minutes

c) it should be quite clear that I posted only twice and the edits were to correct mistakes because of my own unfamiliarity with posting using Wikipedia's unique system. All of which is really ancillary and has nothing to do with the accusation because two of those edits were made afterward to defend myself and request the removal of the accusation from the RFC.

Please don't attempt to obfuscate the issue with irrelevant information that is out of context. The editor making the accusation in the RFC must bear the burden of proof and a singular posting (the contents of which was a discussion of WP policy, and with which you agreed by the way) hardly counts as evidence.

Please remove the reference and implication.Wesleyk 13:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)