Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Joefromrandb


 * Responding to the revocation of his rollbacker rights due to edit warring: edit: "go f*** yourself"; edit summary: "f*** off dipsh**" GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sudo's view is inaccurate
I've never edit-warred with Joefromrandb, just reported him for edit-warring. And he's edit-warred with a whole lot of people, and you guys are essentially going to ignore that? p b  p  13:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You should probably read what I've written again. I never claimed you were edit-warring with this particular user, nor would that change anything I've said. - SudoGhost 13:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Um, yes you did: "Not only are GabeMc and pbp guilty of the same edit-warring they're accusing Joefromrandb of,"' That sounds like accusing me of edit warring  p  b  p  13:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That comment was made to point out the same things you're accusing Joefromrandb of. That certainly looks like the same kind of edit-warring you're accusing Joefromrandb of, so what's "inaccurate" about it? - SudoGhost 14:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's misleading in that you make it sound like I've been edit-warring with Joe p  b  p  14:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've clarified it, which should clear up any confusion that what I've said was inaccurate or misleading. - SudoGhost 15:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Translation of Sudo's logic: unless you are 100% completely drama-free and 100% innocent then you cannot complain about anyone else's behavior. Imagine if this standard were applied in State judicial systems. Also, FTR, I never had any conflict or any cross words with Joe until about two weeks ago when he began confronting my work at multiple pages. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I take issue with the fact that both of the "other" views other than mine/Gabe's fail to adequate emphasize that Joe has edit-warred and personally attacked people, that there are diffs to prove it, that those actions are not to be tolerated, and that it is OK to ask him to stop them. That should be the primary thrust of each opinion  p  b  p  17:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I likewise take issue with the fact that both of your views fail to emphasize that the two of you are also problematic in regards to this editor, and that you two are applying a standard of behavior that the two of you are unwilling or incapable of meeting yourself. Do you have to be "100% innocent" to complain about another editor?  No, and if that's what you're reading in my comment I can see why you're having a problem with others on Wikipedia.  When you are consistently guilty of the same things you're complaining about, often towards that same editor, it makes this RfC/U come across as nothing more than petty and hypocritical.  Your actions are not okay, your actions are not to be tolerated, and any discussion of inappropriate behavior includes the two of you by nature of your inappropriate interactions with this editor.  Is the editor acting inappropriately?  Yes, but so are the two of you.  That is my viewpoint, you are unable to dictate what should be "the primary thrust" of each opinion, especially when a good number of your diffs are as misleading as they are. - SudoGhost 19:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If their actions are inappropriate, then separate RFC/Us could be started about them, or other avenues could be pursued. This RFC/U is about Joefromrandb and his/her actions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Scrutiny of the involved editors, not just the one they're complaining about, is part of an RfC/U. Given that a good number of those diffs they provided are misleading and inaccurate and Joefromrandb's behavior presented in other diffs is tied directly in to the inappropriate actions of these two editors it is would be inappropriate to exclude discussion of their actions in this RfC/U.  I'm not saying Joefromrandb did nothing inappropriate and should not be discussed, but such a discussion should address the problem.  - SudoGhost 20:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Two admins warring?
(facepalm) smh p  b  p  19:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Is everything a "war" to you? It's a simple misunderstanding; didn't see the guideline barring disagreement endorsements. I don't hold any ill will toward him (and I hope he holds none toward me) and, believe it or not, I'm not going to be plotting to have him reamed in an RfC. --  tariq abjotu  19:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a war. Tariq was right and I was unaware of more guidelines on RFC/Us.  I've left a summary instead.--v/r - TP 19:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To be fair, RfC/Us are structured differently than discussions on most of Wikipedia and it seems to throw a lot of editors off, because logic would say that if you disagree with or want to reply to someone's point specifically you should reply to them like in any other discussion, but not here apparently. - SudoGhost 19:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said you were lol. I'm glad the two of you have worked it out  p  b  p  19:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:KETTLE
TParis's view and User:Mark Miller's endorsement of it seems to have been made with a misunderstanding of what I wrote; the RfC might have more merit if it came from other editors is what I said. That stands true; I think the diffs presented would look different and the summaries would be a bit more accurate if any other editor had made them, which would have given the RfC/U a stronger case. It hurts the RfC/U when diffs are given with inaccurate summaries and omitted information, as it makes all of the diffs given suspect. That is not implying that WP:KETTLE invalidates the actions of Joefromrandb, and I wasn't suggesting that it did. - SudoGhost 20:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume good faith. In the future you might be more careful with what you write, however the implication is that the two editors have less merit for whatever reason.-- Mark  21:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said nor suggested that you didn't assume good faith, so unless you're accusing me of lacking the same I don't see what that has to do with anything. I've already clarified what I said, so there's no reason to continue to suggest I'm implying something that I'm telling you right now I'm not implying.  In regards to your endorsement saying "Actually they are saying that", I can also clear that up for you too: no, I'm not saying that WP:KETTLE invalidates the RfC/U. - SudoGhost 21:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I really don't care that you wish to take AGF to mean something completely different than it was intended. Continue? Whatever. I noticed that you changed the view after it had already been commented on....so, I'll just leave things the way they are for now.-- Mark  21:31, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm referring to this, so continue is what I meant since you continued after I clarified that no, that's not right. Next time you accuse someone of not assuming good faith you should read this, given that this is the second thing you've inappropriately accused me of recently without merit.  "Be more careful with what you write" indeed.  I also left a small note pointing to the talk page so as to avoid further confusion; I changed nothing. - SudoGhost 21:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are going to be so uncivil as to make unfounded accusation of assuming bad faith, were done here. Oh, I see...you hold grudges. Got it.-- Mark  22:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And you changed your "view" twice. Once before my comment and once afterwards.-- Mark  22:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not unfounded when it's found in this same discussion, unless you can explain what "assume good faith" was referring to if not to accuse me of not doing so. You'd be hard pressed to find evidence of me "holding grudges"; pointing out that your unfounded accusation is not the first time you've done so is not holding a grudge; one could also say the same of you based on that rationale.  I've already addressed your "changed" comment; repeating it doesn't make your comment any more accurate the second time around. - SudoGhost 00:54, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the issue is here. There is a preference for people to come to any noticeboard or forum with clean hands. And when they don't, things don't go as well as they would like. An easy example is at AN3. Reporters who accuse others of edit-warring while they were edit-warring themselves come across poorly. The KETTLE behavior doesn't mean the reported party wasn't actually edit warring, but the result often is no action, protection, or blocks for both parties -- something that acknowledges that the reported party's actions weren't in a vacuum.


 * I don't see anything different here. As Sudo has said, the RfC guidelines (and virtually all noticeboard guidelines) stipulate that filing parties and all parties to relevant disputes are subject to scrutiny. The actions of Purple and GabeMc are particularly important here, as their modus operendi has leaked into this RfC. Rather than seeking to resolve the issue at hand (which is the primary purpose of RfCs), they have turned this into a character assassination, where they've thrown whatever tenuous diffs and evidence they have at us just to see what sticks. As at AN3, this approach -- burying adversaries under supposedly nefarious diffs to obfuscate their own actions --doesn't work. In this case, for example, we're treated to a shamelessly editorialized orgy of evidence that obfuscates any real issues there are with this editor. It shouldn't take long to find what I'm talking about, but let me name a few examples:


 * In this edit, Joe states that he believes the Roger Waters article is full of bias and, thus, be subjected to an FA review. The filers, however, characterized this as "threatening a revenge FAR". No longer in the RfC p  b  p  17:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC) FTR, I characterized it as a threat of a revenge FAR in light of Joe's comment from 4 August. Joe didn't indicate any concern about bias until after the "t/T" edit war.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In this edit, Joe reverts an editor whose solitary contribution is to remove sixteen kilobytes of content from an article, undiscussed. The filers, however, characterized this as "a massive and highly inappropriate revert". No longer in the RfC p  b  p  17:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In this edit, Joe responds to Gabe's accusation that "outed" Joe when he said that he's from Philadelphia -- a point mentioned on his own userpage [as Bishonen said]. The filers, however, characterized this as "implying an editor is stupid and dropping an f-bomb".
 * In this edit, Joe asks an editor who removed his comments to not do so again. The filers, however, called that an "aggressive edit summary". No longer in the RfC p  b  p  17:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In this edit, Joe removes a diff that is falsely attributed to him. The filers, however, called that "removing material from GabeMc's talk page" (I guess that is a matter-of-fact description of what he did, but it's presented as wrongdoing).
 * In this edit, Joe restores links because he disagreed with Gabe's assessment of them as overlinking. The filers, however, called that "tendentious editing". No longer in the RfC p  b  p  17:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In this edit, Joe describes an article as a "piece of shit". The filers, however, called that "a personal attack". Reworded p  b  p  17:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In this edit, Joe said that someone was "making this up as [he goes] along". The filers, however, characterized this as "condescending incivility". No longer in the RfC p  b  p  17:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In this edit, Joe chastizes an editor for removing his comments from a talk page. The filers, however, characterized that as "misusing the term vandalism". No longer in the RfC p  b  p  17:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * In this edit, Joe removes information about a living person because he felt it didn't give a fair assessment of the person. He only performs this revert twice. The filers, however, characterized this as "edit-warring".
 * In this edit, Joe removes excessive tagging from an article by a party who was displeased with the result of an AfD debate. He only performs this revert twice. The filers, however, characterized this as "edit-warring".
 * In this edit, Joe calls something that likely isn't true libel (which means ). The filers, however, characterized this as "a legal threat".
 * In this edit, Purple says . The filers, however, called that "trying and failing to resolve the dispute". Yes, really.


 * And there is more. This doesn't even touch the fact that every curse word is treated as if it's a crime against humanity, without distinction between whether it's directed at someone ("go fuck yourself") or whether it's used for emphasis ("for fuck's sake, Mick Taylor is not a member of the Rolling Stones"). And all of this is before we even get (finally) to the KETTLE-like actions of the filing editors.


 * There is no doubt that Joe could be more civil and, in some cases (particularly going back to late last year), much more civil. But most of the recent behavior, which is supposedly the impetus for this RfC, is mischaracterized by two editors who have been baiting him for the past couple weeks. Unfortunately for him, he has made a number of enemies along the way who still hold ill will toward him and are thus eager to get him sanctioned. Still, all editors with RfCs initiated against them are entitled to be treated fairly, not needlessly vilified with undue accusations. --  tariq abjotu  22:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Aside of your point-by-point rebuttal not even touching half of Joe's edits mentioned, in either edit-warring or personal attacks, here are a few things wrong with it


 * Point #3: Joe actually drops the f-bomb, so it's an accurate characterization
 * Point #5: Joe removes material from another user's talk page that isn't his own, a major no-no
 * Is Point #7 profanity in a edit summary or isn't it?
 * With #10 and #11, he is still violating the spirit of edit-warring; and is hardly the only example of Joe edit warring in the last month
 * The last point is hardly the first person trying to resolve a dispute and being personally attacked by Joe. I count at least three other editors in addition to Gabe and myself; I'd further add the diff you cite is hardly the first comment I made on his page and was one made after he repeatedly personally attacked me
 * And, as has been pointed out by other editors, the KETTLE assertion is both inaccurate (I don't curse out editors) and hardly germane. Finally, I cannot fathom why you consider a mountain of diffs to be a criticism of Gabe and myself.  If Joe didn't have dozens of tenuous edits; we wouldn't have all those diffs  p  b  p  00:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That list was not intended to be a rebuttal of every point you listed. Rather, it is supposed to be a sampling of the mischaracterizations in this RfC. There are probably more points that are mischaracterizations and there are certainly points that aren't mischaracterizations. But the fact that you included these inaccuracies dilutes the real issues with Joe and calls into question the integrity of the RfC. The number of diffs you provided is overwhelming (in the actual sense of the word): your evidence relies on people seeing six dozen links with nefarious descriptions and judging from there.


 * In response to your objections:


 * Point 3: He does say "fucking", but in the context of saying that he has advertised his location to "the whole fucking world". As I suggested in the paragraphs after my list above, contrary to popular belief, the use of profanity is not prima facie incivil or a personal attack. Your characterization of that edit implied (because we know most people are not going to click on each link to see for themselves), that they were using the word "fuck" against someone.
 * Point 5: You wrongly condemn any and all removal of material from another editor's talk page. But youremoved a comment from his talk page too; is that "a major no-no" as well? Well, you have to look at the context, and, at least in this case, Joe's removal was reasonable.
 * Point 7: He called the article a piece of shit. Against whom is that a personal attack?
 * Points 10 and 11: It is obvious you have no idea what the spirit of our edit-warring guidelines is. Reverting is a fact of life on Wikipedia, and one is permitted to do it if one disagrees with an edit (heck it's part of generally accepted cycle). The issue is when it becomes excessive, as a substitute for discussion. There's no evidence of that here, and the rationale behind his reverts were reasonable.
 * Point 13: Look, you listed that diff as an example of someone trying to resolve the dispute, not me. If you were referring to a different part of that conversation, you should have linked to that portion. But as it stands, the diff you provided is not a "person trying to resolve a dispute and being personally attacked by Joe"; it's you making a snippy remark.


 * The KETTLE issues go beyond four-letter words (which, again, you have treated like the worst crime here). It's the incivility, battleground mentality, and edit-warring you and Gabe bring to the table while requesting Joe temper himself. --  tariq abjotu  01:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Vis-a-vis removing the comment you mention, I think it's worth noting that a) it was a personal attack and therefore acceptable for removal from talk pages and b) I put the comment back only a minute later.  I make no apologies for wanting Joe gone from this site; I believe his actions to be deplorable.   As for attempts to resolve the dispute, let me remind you that I have far more than I need; you take that one away and I still have diffs by five editors   p  b  p  01:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Tariqabjotu, regarding your cherry-pick of what is perhaps not a perfect RFC/U filing: I noticed that you skipped these ones below:
 * Battleground mentality: "This is a grudge that I will likely carry forever"
 * Here Joe seems to state that use of the f-word is gratutious profanity
 * Again, Joe seems to think that using the f-word is vulgar: "per my talk page query; I don't know of any circumstance under which "fuck" is not considered vulgar"
 * Responding to the revocation of his rollbacker rights due to edit warring: edit: "go f*** yourself"; edit summary: "f*** off dipsh**"
 * Calling an admin a "motherfu****".
 * Calling an admin a "motherf*****" and stating: "I will not rest until you are desysoped".
 * Calling and admin "incredibly fuc**** stupid".
 * Calling an admin a "fu***** disgrace" and assuming bad-faith about said admin's actions; i.e. accusing them of being ego driven.
 * Calling another editor: "a fuc**** disgrace of the lowest order".
 * Stating that an admin has a "shi*** attitude" and "admins are so fu***** arrogant".
 * Here Joe uses the words: retard**, as**ole and ba**s in the same edit.
 * Around 15 examples of Joe accusing people of trolling.
 * Implying an editor is stupid and dropping an f-bomb.
 * incivility in edit and profanity in edit summary


 * GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs) 04:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Please read this thread before commenting. Of course they're "cherry-picked". As I said in response to Purple above,
 * "That list was not intended to be a rebuttal of every point you listed. Rather, it is supposed to be a sampling of the mischaracterizations in this RfC. There are probably more points that are mischaracterizations [emphasis added]"
 * --  tariq abjotu  04:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I absolutely thought that Sudo's and User:Tariqabjotu's comments are tantamount to stating: "since both Gabe and PbP have some drama in their history, they can therefore never bring-up an issue regarding another user at RFC/U or AN/I or even complain to an admin." What I ask is this: where are the piles of diffs of me and/or PbP calling people "mother******" or "dipsh***"? Or telling admins to "go fu** themselves"? There aren't any. To be frank, I think Sudo's logic is in keeping with Pamela Mackey's defense of Kobe Bryant, which was based almost entirely on the fact that the alleged victim was "too promiscuous to have been raped". Also, as far as my edit warring with Joe, it amounts to I think 5 reverts in total, not counting my reversions of his alteration of my talk page and my attempts to remove personal attacks from him at another talk page. FTR, the second revert war Joe started with me involved removing links to opera and bassist, since Joe feels that these terms are obscure enough to warrant linking and my edit to be contentious enough so as to require a WP:BRD consensus discussion, really? A consensus discussion over two links and I'm supposed to assume good-faith? Please see WP:TEDIOUS. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  04:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You don't see a problem with making a big deal about Joefromrandb calling others a troll, when you did the same exact thing to Joefromrandb? You don't see a problem with providing "edit warring" links that administrators have already dismissed as frivolous (yet those AN3 discussions were omitted)? A good number of the diffs you've provided are misleading, which hurts the RfC/U. A good number of the things you've accused Joefromrandb of, you've also been guilty of. You were not raped, you had issues with an editor, where all parties involved acted less than ideally. You should really reconsider comparing your interaction with Joefromrandb with being a rape victim, and I really hope I don't have to explain how inappropriate and inaccurate that is. - SudoGhost 05:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I apologized to Joe for the troll comments within minutes and stopped making them immediately following the apology. I honestly think that Joe was trolling me out of revenge for the Beatles mediation. As far as I know, I retain the right to state my opinion. BTW, has Joe ever apologized to anyone for anything? I stand by the comparison with Bryant. You are trying to discredit the witnesses based on unrelated events, but FTR I havn't had any disputes with anyone except PbP and Joe this entire calendar year, yet you keep insinuating that I display a long-term and consistent pattern, but really, its like 5 or 6 conflicts in four years of editing, hence the Mackey defense comparison. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  05:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are not a witness, you are a participant. That's the key difference.  I'm not defending Joefromrandb by any means, but when I can look at your most recent contribs and very quickly see the same things you're accusing Joefromrandb of (and hardly unrelated since they specifically involve you and Joefromrandb), that doesn't give confidence in the RfC.  When the first few diffs given as evidence are as misleading as they are, it doesn't give confidence in the RfC, since it casts doubt on the other diffs.  Quality over quantity would make a better case.  I have insinuated nothing more than that, and if you've taken any meaning from my words that I have not explicitly said, now you know that such insinuations are not there.  I don't insinuate.  If I need to convey something, I say it, so please don't take meaning from my comments that aren't there. - SudoGhost 05:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * While I very much disapprove of Joe's edits, and Tariq and Sudo's characterization of my edits, I would have framed it in different words than Gabe did.  p  b  p  05:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And Gabe, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think he has apologized. I'll look at his talk page again to make sure  p  b  p  05:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I have explained, elaborated, and clarified my points as best as I can, extensively, in this thread and elsewhere. RfC guidelines state that . If you had a problem with that, you shouldn't have filed the RfC. Nevertheless, it's clear by your continual insistence on misrepresenting everything I say (despite extensive commentary explicitly rebutting your straw-man questions), to say nothing of how you've done that with Joe and SudoGhost, that you have serious "I didn't hear that" problems. Can you do me just two small favors though? First, don't draw analogies with rape; they're crass and insulting. Second, stop linking my name in every one of your comments; this page is on my watchlist and if I have an irrational desire to respond to another one of your mischaracterizations, I will voluntarily do so without your comments lighting up my notification feed. --  tariq abjotu  05:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm curious, since User:Tariqabjotu seems determined to turn this into some sort of boomerang, was fully protecting an article for 72 hours due to four brackets (two links) really necessary or appropriate? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  05:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If action was taken, it's not the worst. I actually considered requesting it myself.    p  b  p  05:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. --  tariq abjotu  05:14, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * For clarification, I was in absolutely no way intending to draw any comparison between Joe's behavior and Bryant's alleged behavior. The only point I was trying to make is that Sudo and Tariq's defense of Joe seems to be little more than: "Gabe and PbP made him do it, and since their records aren't 100% spotless, this RFC/U is therefore invalid". I readily admit that the RFC/U could have been tighter, but its the first one I've ever filed (and the last) and perhaps PbP and I weren't as organized as we should have been, but on that point: while we have both been repeatedly accused of baiting Joe by posting to our talk pages, I honestly thought that was preferred in the interest of transparency. So how could we have been more organized and remained transparent? FWIW, I have no issue communicating with PbP via email, but I have been told several times that unless its necessary for valid reason that editors should attempt to keep this type of stuff on Wiki. Again, has anyone ever heard of an edit war over two wikilinks? I havn't seen anything even close to as tedious. IMO, Joe was baiting me by reverting my correction of overlinking and asserting that I need to ask for consensus for even the most trivial changes to an article which I have devoted more than three years and 2,500 edits. I'm really not sure how anyone could see it any other way. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Tariq's critism now invalid
I have removed a number of links that Tariq was critical of, and that a couple of editors used his point-by-point criticism of this RfC/U. As such, I now consider referencing Tariq's point-by-point discussion to not be in and of itself a valid reason for supporting his view. There are still dozens of instances of Joe using profane language and/or improperly throwing around the word "troll" p  b  p  17:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Tariq's criticism was made on the original RfC complaint and still stands. Does anybody know what the policies are for this shifting gears? This seems like a nasty attack and then when your friends are appalled you backpedal to save face. This seems disruptive to an RfC process, switching tactics in the middle of the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.251.120.60 (talk • contribs)


 * I wouldn't necessarily characterize Tariq as my "friend"; we've hardly spoken aside of Joe-related issues. This seems an example of how Wikipedia works: you make an edit, another editor doesn't like it, you agree to change it  p  b  p  23:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, gee. No, that's how article editing works on Wikipedia, not discussion pages. You've surely been here long enough to know better, pbp. Bishonen &#124; talk 12:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC).
 * In my opinion, removing evidence people have already commented on moves some way to rendering the entire RfC/U invalid. You really shouldn't have done that. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A user conduct RFC is a specialized type of discussion page, because it involves evidence. Removing evidence after it has been commented on is gaming the system, at least if the objective of the RFC is to obtain consensus on the behavior of the user, which is what it should be, not simply to attack the user.  If Luke is suggesting that this RFC should be given an early close as having been invalidated by certifier misconduct, I agree.  It doesn't change the fact that Joefromrandb is a hostile editor, but changing the content of the evidence in order to invalidate responses has defeated the entire discussion process.  I am skeptical about the value of user conduct RFCs in general, but a user conduct RFC that is changed by the certifiers during discussion has no valid purpose; its only potential purpose is to create ill will.  Either the certifiers should acknowledge that they made mistakes and make no further changes to the RFC, or the RFC should be closed early due to certifier misconduct.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was indeed suggesting that the closure of the RfC/U should be strongly considered. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see this as misconduct so much as inexperience. IMO, Tariq baited PbP into tightening-up the included diffs, which perhaps he and I should not have done, but so often Wikipedia discussions are derailed by technicalities, not substance. If anything, those defending Joe are gaming the system by trying to stop this RFC/U. FWIW, I agree to not change anything moving forward, but I would also ask Robert McClenon if there would be any issue with closing this one and starting another? This seems like a way to get Joe off the hook via a technicality. If anything, the evidence is tighter, not weaker, so I fail to see how the removal of the weaker diffs would change anyone's mind who signed-on under: Other users who endorse this summary. Also, FWIW Robert McClenon is one of four editors who signed on and I don't see the other three changing their minds due to the tightening and reformatting of the evidence. Anyway, I don't see that any substantive changes were made when at least 25 diffs of profanity and hostility have remained during the entire RFC/U? Any thoughts? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "IMO, Tariq baited PbP into tightening-up the included diffs" Yeah. He really did just say that. --  tariq abjotu  21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gabe, I was primarily squaring the blame on PbP for messing this up, but your reply now makes me think it is 50-50. Tariq did not bait at all, he pointed out the gaping flaws in your case. You shouldn't have wholesale removed anything, but struck through offending material at most. Of course the evidence is tighter, but it's not what the RfC/U was based around. And you throwing back the "gaming the system" comment... well, that's not going to get you anywhere. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, as I said above, I think this was a good-faith mistake based on our lack of experience at RFC/U, and while I agree with you in general regarding the point, it wasn't made known to either PbP or I that we cannot remove any evidence. Had we known this, we would not have removed anything. At any rate, I don't have an issue with closing this one (should consensus for that develop), but I also don't see any reason why we couldn't just tighten up the report and re-file. Am I correct in my belief that should this RFC/U be closed early due to procedural error that we would retain the right to start another? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see the removal of a few diffs as a complete non-issue. People had complaints and I addressed them.  Why they're still complaining is beyond me.  Furthermore, it's still relatively early in the RfC, and the majority of editors are still yet to come, with each of them being presented with the evidence as it is now.  I don't frankly understand why there are 5 or 6 different views either.  Every single view starts by acknowledging Joe did unacceptable things; 100% of the editors agree to that.   p  b  p  21:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * What does Jusdafax think of this situation? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am in a summer slowdown mode, but have finally got around to endorsing the TParis statement, by far the most agreed to position. My view is to block or ban as a preventative measure. Jus  da  fax   04:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, one of the pillars of Wikipedia is assume good faith, so I can't assume intentional misconduct. However, another guideline is competency is required, and that implies the need to familiarize oneself with the policies before attempting anything as highly structured as user conduct RFCs or requests for arbitration, which are evidentiary proceedings.  I think that the ability of the certifiers to withdraw an RFC that they mishandled due to failure to understand the policies (ignorance) and open a new one would be a form of gaming the system to obtain an advantage, in a proceeding that is supposed to be corrective, not judicial.  I will note that the heading Tariq's criticism now invalid partially undermines the argument of inexperience or ignorance.  They knew that they were trying to defeat a criticism, and therefore claimed to have rendered it invalid, a much harsher statement than if they had simply said that they had addressed it.  Given that the certifiers knew that they were trying to leave Tariq's criticism "hanging out", my choice would be to close the RFC prematurely due to mishandling, with some period of prejudice, that is, during which no replacement RFC can be filed.  My second choice would be to let this RFC proceed with the knowledge that it is inherently flawed.  Allowing this RFC to be withdrawn and replaced would imply that there was NO intention to change the RFC in place, and there was.  Either close this RFC, with no replacement for at least two months, the preferred action, or let this one proceed, knowing that it was mishandled by the certifiers -- and not entirely due to ignorance, because they did try to undermine Tariq.  That is my opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Closure of this RFC (and I think that user conduct RFCs are only rarely useful) will not prevent the certifiers from pursuing a case at WP:AN, WP:ANI, or WP:RfAr, if they know that any such proceeding may boomerang, and that at those forums, as at RFC/U, removing anything from the record is intolerable. That is my opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

FTR, I have no intention of seeking sanctions against Joe at all costs; all I ever wanted was for Joe to stop using profanity to attack editors and to curtail his tendentious edit warring. I will assume good-faith that if this RFC is closed due to an error in procedure that Joe will not continue these behaviours. Having said that, I don't understand why you advocate a grace-period of two-months, which is excessive, IMO. If Joe resumes using profanity and making personal attacks in a matter of days, I don't see why another RFC should be excluded as a corrective measure. I would suggest that if removing evidence is enough to completely invalidate an RFC, then perhaps that should be stated explicitly in the filing instructions. While I understand that even an honest mistake could compromise the integrity of the proceedings, I'm not aware of that warning being obviously stated in any policy, though I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but hey, there are so many guidelines and policies that change daily who could keep-up on them all? We can't even agree on "t/T" without a four-month formal process, even though our MoS and all others are quite explicit regarding the issue. GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Profanity, on its own, is not sanctionable, nor should it ever be, because plenty of us (including myself) would end up blocked. You may not want sanctions against Joe at all costs; but pbp gives every indication of taking the opposite view. As Robert said, the major issue here isn't the removal of diffs, but it is why they were removed. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 06:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

GabeMc unfounded attacks
Does [this] this make GabeMc's criticism invalid also, improperly throwing around the word "troll"? A fine example of his behavior when editors don't see it his way, and in an RfC yet? Unfortunately this will have to be addressed in a different venue. Perhaps I will receive a backhanded, almost apology, for these unfounded accusations, ABF and incivility, also. Me thinks this complaint should be closed before Gabe digs his hole any deeper and we lose more editors. BTW, my ISP serves more than 3.9 million subscribers through a few major POPs. Checking GabeMc's edit history the sockpuppet accusation is very common behavior. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Looking at the diffs provided, Joefromrandbs seems to me to be an unpleasant person of the grandest scale. Gabe does some great work for the project and the attacks on him are completely unjustified. If anyone is culpable then it's Joefromrandbs. --   Cassianto Talk   22:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Vis-a-vis Gabe's comments, 99, Gabe might not have been right to rain down on you in the way he did, but there a number of red flags about you. They center around the fact that you're an IP in the first place, that you haven't made a lot of edits, but you have found your way to Wikipedia-space and commented primarily to assail Gabe rather than comment on the merits of diffs we've provided on Joe.  Generally speaking, this is highly unusual for an IP to find his way to Wikipedia-space so quickly; most IPs with the number of edits you do work almost exclusively in mainspace; many (but not all) IPs who go quickly to Wikipedia-space, particularly to make comments about a particular editor, have been exposed as sockpuppet.  Again, I'm not certain Gabe is correct in his sockpuppet assertion, but I also wonder if there's a chance you are, due to the reasons I've outlined above.  p  b  p  23:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, the Rogers Cable troll repeated similar comments to this one: "Gabe has caused too many accounts and IPs to quit editing or indeffed in the past over content disputes", ad absurdum. How could this "new" editor from the same IP range share the same view? I'm fairly confident that this is the same IP that harassed me, User:Evanh2008, User:BullRangifer, User:Dennis Brown and User:Coren. Some of us have been nearly continuously harassed by a Roger's Cable IP from Wasaga Beach for more than 13 months. IMO, this "new" IP 99 fails the duck test. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)


 * GabeMc is correct. This is the same disruptive and cowardly troll who refuses to create an account to solve their sockpuppetry problem. See: Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 99.251.114.120. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just gonna drop by and point out to you all that Gabe has been sending out E-Mails to people pointing then towards this RfC. Fine and dandy until you get to the point that he/she gives you a link for endorsing TParis' viewpoint but doesn't even bear a mention of the others. (aren't I a lovely little snitch?) MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 22:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, both Sudo and Tariq suggested that posting anything related to Joe on Wiki is considered baiting, so I agreed to do it via email. Sorry I included the link to TPars' Outside opinion and not the others; I should have linked only to the page. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Your continued misrepresentation of what others have said needs to stop right now, because it's happening way too frequently. Either provide a diff backing up this claim that I suggested anything like that or strike it now, because I never at any point suggested anything of the sort.  Saying you "agreed to do it via email" seems to suggest that you notified someone that you were doing to do this, but I don't see any record of this anywhere on the RfC/U or this talk page, so where did you "agree" to do it? - SudoGhost 01:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was referring to this edit. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That diff gives no indication that you intended to email users about this RfC/U, in fact it only makes a vague assertion that you and pbp should have emailed each other. Do you have a diff that shows where you intended to email select people about this RfC?  More to the point, do you have diffs that supports your claim that "both Sudo and Tariq suggested that posting anything related to Joe on Wiki is considered baiting"?  I am 100% positive that I said nothing even close to that, so you need to strike that comment. - SudoGhost 01:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I will not strike the comment. How do you suppose that you are coming off here? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You seem to be misunderstanding others a little too often, and always in ways that make your position seem a little better than it actually is. In the future, you need to provide a diff with anything you say on this talk page concerning what others have said, because you have repeatedly demonstrated that for whatever reason you cannot be trusted at your word.  If you do not, it is more than safe to assume that anything you say is at best an exaggeration, if not outright false. - SudoGhost 01:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * See now to me that's a personal attack, but then I'm obviously an idiot and you're obviously a supra-genius, right. This has been an interesting learning experience and I feel that I've grown through the process and though we made mistakes I stand by the core message of the RFC that its not okay to call editors "motherfu*****". Nice defense BTW, I'm sure you've derailed many a Wikipedia process in your day; you must be so proud! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You have made several claims that other editors have said certain things that were not said. That is not a personal attack, that is verifiably true.  The rest of what you just said is a red herring and irrelevant, unless you can provide a diff of any kind where I suggested that you were "an idiot".  I have "derailed" nothing; you shot yourself in the foot with your handling of this RfC/U. - SudoGhost 02:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, you must be so proud of yourself! What an efficient and effective use of your towering intellect! Well done, and yes, I suppose you're absolutely correct that I didn't handle my first RFC/U very well, but I don't mind small failures that teach me something. I make mistakes and I forgive myself for doing so. Cheers! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That kind of comment is incivil and pointless. I hope this is not the kind of behaviour that can be expected of you every time someone asks you to back up a negative claim you made about that person.  Go on and have the last word, but since you have repeatedly failed to back up your claims about myself and another editor, there's no reason for this discussion to continue, since that's all I was asking. - SudoGhost 02:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Olive branch
While I cannot speak for PbP, I am willing to offer User:Joefromrandb an Olive Branch, and agree to withdraw the RFC on procedural grounds should he commit in writing to refrain from using profanity, making personal attacks and edit warring. Although the validity of this RFC has been called into question by some, I think its fair to say that no one has explicitly disagreed that a good many of the provided diffs are problematic to say the least. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  00:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ...... So upon realizing you both received quite alot of negative feedfack over this, You think covering it up with the I am willing to offer User:Joefromrandb an Olive Branch, routine's gonna work?, You both baited him on & all 3 of you deserve a block!, end of!. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  01:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, that's an especially egregious assumption of bad-faith. FWIW, I don't care one iota if I get a block over this, but blocks are intended to be corrective, not punitive so I fail to see how a block on me would be a good one, but if you feel the need, go ahead and block me. FTR, I don't feel comfortable continuing an RFC with this many concerns. I'm also not comfortable with Joe getting sanctioned via this flawed process. User:Davey2010, FWIW. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Blocks are corrective and not punitive. That is true but irrelevant.  You and PBP89 seem to overlook the fact that you have wasted the community's time with this grossly mishandled user RFC, and so a block would prevent you from further wasting our time.  Anyway, if you really think that RFC/U's are meant to be remedial rather than punitive, why do you want another chance, after you broke the rules, to do it right?  Is your real intention to change the behavior of Joefromrandb, or to have him banned?  In the first case, why are you trying to edit the RFC and change the evidence to "tighten" the case?  Do you really think that you have multiple chances to reason with him, after you first didn't read the rules, and so didn't know that you weren't playing fair, but now you expect him to listen to you?  Or are you really trying to create a case to have him banned by the ArbCom?  If so, are you insulting the ArbCom by thinking that they won't notice that you mishandled the first RFC and got another chance?  Are you really trying to persuade the target user to be less combative by being more combative with him, or are you really trying to have him banned?  In either case, you really shouldn't get a second chance.  You did use a taunting heading, in saying that you had rendered Tariq's arguments invalid.  That wasn't ignorant.  It was clever.  If you really had meant that you hadn't understood,  you could have said that you had addressed his issues.  You have wasted the time of the community by mishandling a user conduct RFC, which is a very structured process, and then claiming ignorance, when it appears that you had some knowledge of what you were doing.  I do not say that a block is in order, but you did waste our time.  Either apologize, not merely for inexperience, but for ignorance (failure to read the policies), and withdraw the RFC, with agreement not to file another for two months, or apologize, and let the existing broken RFC to go to conclusion.  You didn't understand the rules, and you taunted the community in saying that you had rendered Tariq's comments invalid.  I see your request for a second chance as just wrong.  Maybe someone disagrees.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, I never once said that I had rendered Tariq's comments invalid and I don't want Joe banned. In fact I never thought that was even a possibility; this is his first RFC/U. Anyway, I'm not trying to get away with anything and I resent the implication. Let the RFC run its course or stop it short. Block me for wasting your time or don't; I don't care either way. I'm just an unpaid volunteer doing his best to improve the project. I freely admit that I am far from perfect, but I do try to apologize after disputes and to not hold grudges. I've expressed regret to Joe and as far as I know he and I are okay. Its the interpersonal relations that matter most to me. He made a very valid point about my arrogance that I fully intend to take to heart, so for me its resolved so long as Joe curtails the profanity and edit warring. So if you need to correct me for wasting your time (which you volunteered) then by all means block me. My work here has saved far more time than I've ever wasted and my net contribution to the project is positive. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  02:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Robert, and believe Robert's above comment to be a tad to the extreme. He and a few other editors don't like the structure of this RfC, but everybody agrees on the premise: that Joe has personally attacked other editors, edit-warred, and should stop.  The editors who are more concerned about the process than the premise are in the minority, and if nobody else votes on the RfC, it will be closed with no consensus for action against Gabe or myself.  I believe that consensus will hold when additional editors participate.  Do I want Joe to cease his improper actions right this minute?  Sure.  Do I think that, regardless of the outcome of the RfC?  Can't say.  Am I going to throw in the towel on this RfC at Robert's request?  No.  And no apology, sorry.  p  b  p  04:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Why don't you just restore the evidence you removed? You can add a comment or notation if you want, and even striking it might be acceptable [anyone else object to striking ?]; it's the removing entirely that's obviously a point of concern. --  tariq abjotu  05:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Tariq is being more willing to compromise than I am, so maybe we should listen to him or her, after Tariq was insulted with the comment that Tariq's objection was rendered invalid, which really did imply that the certifiers were putting up a moving target and so making Tariq appear to be talking to a wall. Either restore the evidence that was pulled, or close the RFC with prejudice.  The idea of allowing this RFC to be closed and a new one opened is not fair.  Robert McClenon (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't object to striking evidence. It is deleting evidence, which results in comments about it appearing to be stupid, that I consider improper.   Robert McClenon (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I will restore them later today as struck through, but that will a) mean I am cow-towing to your minority viewpoint, and b) mean that your criticism that I didn't is invalid p  b  p  13:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Has he done something that doesn't immediately harbour him a block? (For reference in case we get someone in this RFC who doesn't do the checks.) MM (Report findings)  (Past espionage) 10:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Who's he? Joe has done things that could get him blocked, yes  p  b  p  13:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Evidence restored
Two things:
 * 1) Robert's viewpoint that procedural concerns outweigh the premise is still a minority viewpoint, with a preponderance of editors signing on to viewpoints such as mine or TParis' that focus primary on Joe rather than procedural concerns
 * 2) I have restored the five or six diffs I deleted, each struck through and in the appropriate section.

p b  p  13:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Closure
Let me make something clear right now: Just because this is closed does not mean that the community approves of Joe continuing his action in the future. There was a consensus among editors that Joe's actions are not acceptable, and that he should stop doing them p  b  p  22:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That may be true, but you should note that several people also had severe issues with your conduct, both prior to, and during the RFC. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:05, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ...but not a consensus... p  b  p  13:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're going to try and leave a chilling remark, it's only appropriate that you receive one as well. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, I think it's optimistic thinking to conclude that there's no consensus about pbp's behavior, but at minimum there's a strong agreement concerning pbp's behavior as well as Joefromrandb's; that focused on Joe's edits on an RfC about Joe does not detract from that. - Aoidh (talk) 14:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a misreading of consensus, Aoidh. The proposal that got most support was TParis', that affirms that Joe acted wrongly and mine and GabeMc's actions are irrelevant.  That got more support than either yours or Luke's (who were supported by most of the same people) by a vote of more than 2:1.  Even my own proposal outvoted yours.  The only thing there's a consensus for is Joe screwed up and should probably stop swearing and edit-warring  p  b  p  22:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That seems like wishful thinking on your part, at best. There is quite a large agreement (no part of WP:CONSENSUS requires unanimous agreement) that your behaviour is problematic; that you rushed to file an RfC/U does not absolve you of your behaviour when engaging with Joefromrandb.  Thinking that only the proposal that matters is the one with the most endorsements is yet another misunderstanding of the RfC/U process.  It doesn't matter one bit to me if you deny it until you're blue in the face; edit-warring and incivility are disruptive to Wikipedia, no matter who engages in it.  You both screwed up.  If you try to deny that it speaks more of you than it does of Joe, who hopefully will use this as an acknowledgement that he should strive to improve himself, as we all should.  At this point you can do one of two things: you can accept it and take it into consideration in the future, or you can continue to argue pointlessly and have that refusal to acknowledge such used as ammunition against if your conduct is ever brought up at any time in the future, but to deny that your editing also brought concerns from this RfC/U as well would not help you in the long run. Aoidh (talk) 01:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I understand RfCs plenty darn well. A person who does not endorse a view is assumed to be opposed to that view in an RfC.  A majority of participants who participated in the RfC did not endorse your proposal.  That's consensus, RfC or not.  Sure, a few people don't like my actions.  There are a few people who don't like the actions of every editor on this.  A few people not liking my actions is not consensus, and your thinking it is speaks ill of you.  As for an RfC against me, it'd be forum-shopping by you to start one after a majority of people disagreed with you on this one.  p  b  p  03:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you understand RfC/Us, that only brings into question why you did certain questionable actions, if not lack of knowledge on how it worked. Regardless your response is disappointing, to have so many people comment on your behaviour and still believe that not only were your actions not discussed, but that you starting an RfC/U somehow makes you immune from both criticism and an RfC/U specifically focused on your own behavioural problems (not that I was talking about such).  Your actions were unacceptable, you can choose to accept that or not, but to pretend that there was no agreement on your behaviour on any level is more troubling than your previous behaviour, since it brings into question whether such behaviour is likely to continue.


 * As you deigned to make your opinion of Joe clear after this RfC/U has closed, let me make this perfectly clear: the community does not approve of your actions either. Many felt your actions were better discussed in your own RfC/U and that was where the disagreement was, not whether your actions were appropriate or not (and if you have confusion on that point, you are welcome to re-read both the RfC/U and this talk page).  If anyone that endorsed a summary disagrees and feels that what I'm saying is inaccurate, and that they do support your behaviour then they are more than welcome to correct me, but the consensus was that it belonged on an RfC/U specifically about you, not that your behaviour was not problematic (especially when your behaviour was the same as Joe's in many regards).  Further, you are not "safe" from an RfC/U in the future, both in general and in this case specifically due to the very consensus you're referring to: part of the proposal the majority of people agreed to was that an RfC/U against you specifically was an option.  That was part of TParis's view, which as you pointed out got the most support, so WP:FORUMSHOP would not apply (not that it would regardless).  Ignoring the concerns of your own behaviour (which, like it or not was a large part of this RfC/U) while commenting on the concerns of another editor's behaviour is not the way to convince Joe to improve his behaviour; if you ignore the RfC/U, how can you expect him to do otherwise?  If your concern was truly with getting Joe to improve as an editor, that's not the way to go about doing so.  You don't have to agree with or acknowledge this any more than Joe has to agree with or acknowledge your comment above, but both you and Joe should read the RfC/U and use it to improve; that way, you can use it as evidence of how you've improved as opposed to evidence to the contrary.  Go on and have the last word if you'd like, but I hope you'll prove me wrong and actually consider what other people say, especially if you expect Joefromrandb to do the same. - Aoidh (talk) 04:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)