Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/RobJ1981

"You did it too"
This is a note to RobJ1981.

Even if you act under the assumption that every incident you cited in this post is accurate (I don't believe any besides possibly the one about the Triceratops in pop culture one are, but that's beside the point), "You did it too" does not even resemble a valid defense.

I'd also submit that "if you did it too" is valid, then I should be allowed to play the "you did it first", which to this point I haven't.

McJeff (talk) 07:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Attacking my defense now? That's not needed. The old saying goes: if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Frankly, I'm not surprised by your comment here at all. Of course you wont admit anything, otherwise you would be admitting you were wrong. We can't have that now, can we? As I stated elsewhere: it takes TWO to edit war, and two to have a conflict.  added a lot of fuel to this conflict. Dan said I hadn't edited it in a while (many hours before your comment, so I highly doubt you just missed what Dan wrote). There was no good reason for you to smear my name. Were you assuming I wouldn't read the page, or were you just assuming it was alright to smear my name with no problems in the future? RobJ1981 (talk) 07:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just want to point out that wasn't a personal attack and that I apologized for it anyway. An apology which you utterly ignored, for that matter, despite your admission that you have the page on your watch list.  McJeff (talk) 08:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For that matter, would if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all apply to leaving templates on people's userpages? Or accusing them of not knowing wikipedia policy, and harboring malicious intentions towards the project as a whole and you in particular? McJeff (talk) 00:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

count
I notice that at the 31 points that Robj responds to, he admits he was wrong on just about half of them. fifteen self-admitted incidents of gross incivility is a little high for one dispute. DGG (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I haven't gotten through all of Angrymansr's noted RobJ1981 etiquette and rules violations. And I haven't even started on Le Grande Roi's, and Roi has probably well over twice the amount that Angry did. Then of course there's my own, which I haven't gotten to either. McJeff (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Brief rebuttal to Rob's statement
Brief, because I don't really need to defend myself. I'm not the one who's had trouble with half a dozen editors over a multiple month period. Rather, Rob is the first editor I've had issues with that were not easily resolved.

And mostly, I can't rebut Rob's defense, because it isn't actually a defense to begin with. His defenses take the form of...


 * 1) It was ok because the other editor was also wrong
 * 2) It was ok because I'm right
 * 3) It was ok because I'm having issues with the other editor
 * 4) It was ok because he started it.

Those defenses fall particularly flat since Rob's major complaint against me and this whole ordeal is that "It takes two to engage in an edit war". Seems like he thinks it's everyone else's responsiblity to not disagree with him.

That I violated WP:OWN
Rob accuses me of violating WP:OWN on the Bully article. I will rebut that by linking to his Wikiquette Alert.



The exact quote, from administrator MangoJuice...


 * Ownership of articles only becomes a real problem if the "owners" are incivil to new editors or edit war with such editors based on them not being part of the accepted group. Nothing I've seen comes anywhere close to this. However, you keep telling these users they need to change their approach, which is not only wrong as far as I can see, it's also needlessly confrontational, and it is violating WP:AGF. I'm sure they've heard your concerns, but they're doing good work and I don't see them trying to keep others out. 

That right there establishes that his accusation that I violated WP:OWN is a malicious misrepresentation. He KNOWS that wasn't the way it happened, he's telling people it anyway. In other words, he's lying about me. McJeff (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

That I attacked him in bad faith on the Bully talk page, drawing the issue out
I have made this particular defense numerous times. Never has he even acknowledged that it was made.

The attack that Rob has decided to bring up every time he needs to justify his continued feuding with me, I will now quote. Emphasis mine.


 * RobJ1981 - I'll see if I can put this in a way that's neither tenditious nor bad faith. He holds a philosophy that wikipedia requires intensive regulation of information to enforce quality over quantity, and uses extremely strict adherence to the rules and policies to regulate content. He's not the only editor like that on wikipedia. That's why he's done the same thing he did here with lots of other articles.

That doesn't look like an attack to me, and even if it was impolite, I'd think the emphasized sentence would be enough to convince most people that I meant no harm.

He also refuses to acknowledge the fact that I apologized for the comment offending him.

His claim that I was the person who brought him up is completely false. Uninvolved user Paul 1953 first mentioned Rob in this post.

Alleged "bad faith" on the List of characters in Bully talk page
Rob keeps mentioning this post as an example of my bad faith.

However, I was not requesting anything that isn't suggested by Talk page guidelines. Specifically, the How to use Talk Pages subsection. I pointed out to Rob on his own talk page that he was rather in perpetual violation of most of those tenants.

He doesn't communicate. As seen on the WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2008 talk page, his form of debating is saying "I know better than you so do what I say"

He doesn't focus on content. He focuses on the motivations and behavior of the other editors, almost invariably assuming the worst and then reacting to them as if that were the case.

Stay objective? No, Rob happily draws his personal issues with other editors into talk page discussions. See Smackdown vs Raw 2008, List of characters in Bully, and more.

Make proposals. In the case of the List of characters in Bully, the problem was that Rob would not make a proposal. He was specifically asked to make one and he refused.

The bad faith was not on my part - it was on his. My initial post that he's been complaining so much about was entirely civil and reasonable. McJeff (talk) 03:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

RobJ1981's Busy Tag
He insists users that he is busy in real life and may not respond to queries, however hes on Wikipedia everyday of the week trying to harass users. (I've seen Angryman's post of Rob's edits on Wikiquette Alerts). Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've explained this to Versus numerous times. He insists I'm lying about being busy. But the tag doesn't say I will never be on Wikipedia, all it says is this: RobJ1981 (talk) is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. It's not a big deal, and it should just be dropped. Also it should be noted: there's been several days where I've not been on, and several where I've only edited a little. March 2, March 6, March 13-16, March 21-23, April 2+3, April 9+10: very few edits. March 3, March 7-9, March 20, March 24-30, April 12: no edits by me. This is just the days on my 500 most recent edits. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean April 13th RobJ1981 (you had lots of edits on the 12th). Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how this is relevant to the issue; other than looking like an attempt to call RobJ a liar of some sorts. It is not uncommon for editors to check in regularly when on break and do some edits. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC))
 * He is editing on Wikipedia almost every day of the week on average. The evidence is on his contributions page! Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 23:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, being busy in real life means your off Wikipedia for like at least almost a week. Why is it there if you plan to show up almost everyday anyways? This is sort of strange... Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the information on Busy, the template only suggests that an editor will not respond quickly. In all fairness, perhaps RobJ should have placed this Semi-wikibreak tag on there instead. Assuming good faith, I'm sure this was an honest mistake and I see no reason to make an issue out of this. With all due respect, perhaps this situation has agitated you a bit too much. Maybe it would best to disengage for a brief while and come back. This page isn't going anywhere. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Outside view
I will be looking through this case and making my view known. I will note: I'm not impressed by the nature of the comment that is directly above mine. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone through one party's evidence. Will go through the other party's and write up my view. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I have one issue with your view.


 * You said that I was an equal contributor to the situation. While I don't personally feel that is fair to me, I'll accept that for the sake of moving forward.  Certainly I know I did not act with proper decorum at all times during the issue.


 * But the issue is not McJeff vs RobJ1981. I was just the guy who wrote up the report.  I actually suggested that Le Grande Roi des Citrouilles do the writeup, but was encouraged by him to do it myself because the experience would do me good.


 * I'd hate to have this RfC shrugged off with a simple "just ignore each other" because my actions were attributed to every person that Rob has had issues with over the last several months. McJeff (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * By being involved in the dispute with this editor, your conduct would also be looked into - it is almost insignificant who wrote the Rfc, and my findings would be no different had it been written by Le Grand.


 * I think you are a little unclear by the real purpose of an Rfc on userconduct; it gives one last chance to editors to change their approach where their conduct is unacceptable. As such, they do not involve any sort of administrative action, nor are they a replacement for mediation. An Rfc merely gives outside views on various aspects of a matter and can sometimes give an idea, or more, to the parties involved on how to change their approach. If the dispute is unresolved, perhaps because they don't change their approach, then it often proceeds to arbitration, where several remedies are imposed on parties who have engaged in disruptive or unseemly conduct. In this case, there are issues not just with the subject of the Rfc, but with others - as such, remedies/sanctions would be imposed on all editors mentioned and would not be confined to any one editor. Remedies/sanctions can vary, although, the harshest is probably being subject to an indefinite ban. This particular dispute is a result of the behaviour of both - it does not exist without the other, which is why we feel the only way it can be resolved without attracting a remedy/sanction on all editors involved, is to avoid each other. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: The AfD of List of Wii games (North America)
RobJ1981, I didn't care about the article that much, I was upset due to the lack of replies from you at the time, so I brought it up in the AfD... Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Response to Guyinblack25's view
First, don't get me wrong - I do believe that many if not most of the editors involved in the debate with RobJ1981 were out of line. That's why I haven't brought this RfC to their attention at the time. Piling on doesn't help, and despite what some may believe I'm more interested in a solution to the ongoing problem than just getting some shots in at Rob.

However, that doesn't change the fact that the piece of behavior Rob is being cited on in regards to the article was Ownership. Namely, he tried to insist on the prose version of the roster when consensus was against it, because policy claimed he was right. This would be one thing if it were true, but the fact that policy is against a list is itself disputed.

Most tellingly, though, is the fact that Rob repeatedly refused to justify himself. While Guyinblack posted a well reasoned, professional explanation of why he felt the list was inappropriate, Rob refused to debate the issue.

See here for an example of Rob refusing to debate the issue. For the record I do not endorse Dan's potshots against Rob.

Also see here where an uninvolved user - who was more critical of me than Rob - cites what I've just explained, Rob's refusal to actually debate the policy, relying instead on "I'm right you're wrong drop it".

In regards to the statement that I'm seeking a ban - I'm not "trying to get Rob banned". I want him to stop being so surly and tenditious, to quit ignoring WP:AGF, and to quit accusing other users of things including but not limited to AGF, Civility, and the malicious motivations he regularly attributes to people as demonstrated on the list of behavior. If he would agree to clean up his act that'd be just fine. McJeff (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I believe some of this is being taken out of context. RobJ has repeatedly tried to discuss the prose vs list matter on the talk page. Unfortunately though, the matter has degraded into a shouting match with both sides of the argument being too angry to reason with each other. If you look at the discussions prior to your example of RobJ refusing to debate the issue, you'll see him actively pursuing discussion. He has also stated similar statements in an archived discussion.
 * Also, for the longest time, no one had cited a real reason why the list should be included. The list was kept in only because the majority of the editors on the page wanted it in, and active members on the Video game Project talk page were unaware of it and similar pages. But per WP:CON, "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day; they are based on a system of good reasons." A majority in favor of something does not equate to a consensus.
 * Regarding the desire to seek a ban, I'm sure you're not out ban whoever crosses you. I understand you want a peaceful and amicable resolution, however I was referring to the "Desired outcome" section on the page, which states, "That RobJ1981 cease and desist in his tenditious editing, content wars, refusal to assume good faith, and harassment of users he disagrees with. It does not matter how this resolution comes about - whether Rob agrees to start following the policies, or if he is banned from editing wikipedia, both or anything in between would be acceptable."
 * Now, having said all that, I do not condone uncivil behavior. It is counterproductive, foolish, and I regret the times I've participated in it. Some of RobJ's comments do appear to constitute uncivil behavior, I can't deny or argue against that. However, a good majority look to be statements that have been either misconstrued, retaliatory to uncivil comments/actions directed at him, or uniformed actions made in the heat of the moment. He may have bit to learn about editing on here, but I believe his heart is in the right place on this issue regarding WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008.
 * Regarding the uninvolved user, ArcAngel has participated in the list/prose discussions, though not as actively as others. In my opinion, the most telling thing about ArcAngel's comments are how it implies how silly the fact this matter continue as long as it has in such a distasteful way. If I'm misconstruing ArcAngel's words, I apologize and claim ownership to that statement. To be quite honest, I think everyone needs to simply disengage from the situation for a while and move on. Life is too short for such disagreements and I personally would rather spend my time editing. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC))

Closing?
It seems that the issues that this RfC was started over have been resolved. Rob and I have been having no contact with each other, and (based on a quick scan of his contribs) he has stopped his routine of accusations against others and been significantly more civil in his edit summaries. With that in mind, I think this RfC can be closed.

Any objections? Any further comments? How do you close an RfC anyway? McJeff (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless it has been accepted as an ArbCom case, it generally remains open until the Rfcs filed before it are closed. Afterwards, it is archived periodically when there is no comment or the matter is resolved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
Even though I have largely avoided and ignored Rob as has been previously suggested to me, he persists in his interest in me:, , , , , etc. Considering that I have made serious efforts to avoid and ignore him, I think it reasonable that he should perhaps more firmly be instructed to do the same with regards to me. Sincerely, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * At the time I made my view on this case, I see I haven't named you as an editor of the complaining party, so you weren't subject to the recommendation to the same extent (as a final warning).


 * Unfortunately, it is possible that he didn't think the recommendation was to be followed with respect to you (and would not be expected to), so you will need to complete one other step. You will need to inform him of the fact you are following such a recommendation, and request him to follow it too and ensure any loose-ends are tied up by the end of your discussion (which may take more than one reply from you). If it is still not helping and you're unsatisfied, then your request will be considered. But note; the modifying of such findings may not exclude him from voting on deletion polls, even if you have become involved in it. But it will exclude him from going towards any articles that you're involved in, engaging in any discussion with or about you, and vice versa (in excluding you). Does that make sense? Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how I'm a member of the video game project, I think I have every right to be in any discussion on video games. I don't feel any of my comments were out of line. Also it should be noted: I've probably been editing video game articles a lot longer than Le Grand. Out of the links Le Grand mentioned: the Resident Evil 4 discussion (the video game project talk page diff, the last link he posted) is the only one he is actively working on from what I can see. Also, on the subject of that: he is the only one strongly pushing for the article to be kept, while everyone else is fine with a merge. People have tried to explain game guide policies to him, but he chooses to ignore it. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The community can generally be trusted to come to the right conclusion in a deletion discussion. Merely having the right does not mean you must exercise that right at all times. Also, I doubt very much by you (of all people) trying to interact with him, it's going to change anything. The 3rd and 4th diffs indicate comments that were unnecessary and can constitute trolling and harassment. If either of you feel the need to respond in an Afd (for example), then please completely ignore the comments of each other entirely. Do not engage in ANY discussion with or about each other - even if it involves having to ignore each others comments, no matter how much merit (or lack therof) they may have. Le Grand appears to have not replied to any of your comments, so you need to do the same. Note: I have modified my findings to include Le Grand as a member of the complaining party. The remainder of my findings remain as is. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going to note the same thing here I did on the AN/I discussion. Despite the fact that I rather strongly disagreed with Ncmvocalist's findings (feeling he was far too hard on me and easy on Rob), I withdrew voluntarily from both Wikiproject Professional Wrestling AND Wikiproject Videogames so as to minimize the likelyhood of inadvertent contact between myself and Rob.


 * I haven't checked this page for months. Rather, I found out about the ongoing incident between LeGrande Roi and Rob through a link of LeGrande's that I followed.


 * I feel that when I, as the complaining party, have bent over backwards to comply with an RfC decision I didn't truly agree with in the first place, and that the person the complaint was in regards to has made virtually no effort to change the behaviors that caused the initial complaint, that is bogus. McJeff (talk) 01:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to Krator's semi-involved view
I would like to contest the claim that I used the argument argumentum ad ignorantiam. As per a discussion on the WWE Smackdown vs Raw 2008 board, I fairly clearly outlined my argument, and cited wikipedia rules that I believe supported it.

Guyinblack invited me to continue the debate, however, I didn't, due to the RfC finding suggesting that I fastidiously avoid RobJ1981.

For that matter, Guyinblack informed me that Rob did in fact debate the issue properly earlier in the argument's history (I was a late addition to it), though I haven't seen this for myself. McJeff (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Future Note
The subject of this RFC is reminded for the last time of the final view and the supporting comments made on this page. Unless both parties have explicitly and mutually agreed to communicate to (and/or about) each other, then the view still stands. If any party fails to comply with the non-binding [emphasis added] view, then they must understand - the other party will be encouraged to ask for administrator intervention.

In the event this happens, I make a specific recommendation for the admin dealing with this; to enforce a block of an appropriate duration (escalating length for repeated harassment) on the party who is unable or unwilling to comply with avoiding the other party (if there is evidence of them doing so after 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)). This recommendation is based on the nature of this dispute - a long term one, and the avenues it has exhausted, as well as the evidence submitted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)