Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Rbj

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comment on my block

I'd like to point out that users can edit their usertalk pages while blocked. Blocking Rchamberlain would have done nothing. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

and, as i've told you multiple times, that's not the point. blocking me and not blocking Rchamberlain for an "edit war" showed a clear favoritism for Rchamberlain. the fact that after being blocked, he and i could edit our own user pages is simply non sequitur. and, of course, the inexcusable thing was that you didn't bother to inquire with me about what was going on before acting. there is no excuse for that. you simply acted as Rchamberlain's agent at my detriment. BTW, you should probably put this in the main page, but i'll leave it to you. r b-j 01:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

You were edit warring in his user space, of course you were the only one blocked. Things tend to favor someone working in their own space and minding themselves. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

but he wasn't just working his own space and he wasn't just minding himself. it's reasonable to expect more competent finding of fact than demonstrated here. r b-j 01:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

On the page you were revert warring on, his talk page, he was in his own space. If he chooses to blank his talk page, that's his perogative (the page history is still available, and if you need to provide something as evidence later, use diffs). Edit warring on another users talk page is absolutely and totally unacceptable. If the user reverts you, leave it alone. If something about their behavior is still unacceptable later (as in, they continue to do something you believe is wrong on an article), seek out dispute resolution (WP:3O, WP:RFC, etc). But harassing people is not how you resolve things. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

if you had read the RfAr or my response for the RfC here, you would have read that this was where i was going when i was inappropriately (most certainly prematurely) blocked. since i was not vandalizing his page nor was i personally attacking him (even though i was personally attacked by him [1] ), there is plenty of unacceptable going around. in addition, blanking a message left by someone else on your talk page is hostile Talk_page#Etiquette - Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?. but the least acceptable is abuse of authority by Phroziac measured in teaspoonfuls and by Karmafist measured in cubic meters. what this is primarily about is my bringing to WP attention this abuse of authority and then the childish abusive retaliation by those whose authority to abuse was so publically questioned. i am not backing down from that. and if you take the time to examine and fix the timing errors in your timeline (so you know what event happened before what other event) the fact of this abuse of authority is apparent. you get your timeline right and you will see a 3 hour gap, where i let Phroziac have the last word on this, where no one can accurately accuse me of any incivility, yet then Karmafist, at Phroziac's behest begins this harrassment that prompted me to the RfAr against them both (but primarily Karmafist since he is clearly the nastiest abuser of authority). these facts will not go away. r b-j 01:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

And again, blocked users can edit their own user talk pages. It would do nothing to block him. Blocks are intended to stop the offending actions, and are not a punitive measure. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consider how this looks to the [still idealistic] newbies

In case it matters, I am shocked and very disappointed at I what I am seeing here. It certainly dampens my enthusiasm for contributing to an outwardly noble enterprise, which apparently might be just a facade for some peoples' immature power trips. Why does wikipedia harbor admins who would lower themselves to the level of this dispute? I understand how things can escalate out of control, like road rage, but you don't expect road rage from the police. I blame those who protect the out-of-control cop more than the cop himself.

I have no idea why Rbj continues to want to contribute. I would have bailed long ago. I am considering bailing even now. If I get blocked for speaking out, that would only confirm my suspicions, and you would be doing me a favor.
--Bob K 21:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you read my "inside view" at all? I'm curious how you reconcile Rbj's actions leading up to this complaint, as well as his attempt at stacking the vote here, against the supposed misbehavior of Karmafist simply telling Rbj to leave Phroziac alone and stop harassing her (something which, if Rbj had intended to stop said harassment, should have been no-big-deal)? Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 00:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, I see, you're just another attempt at stacking the vote. Nevermind my earlier question. —Locke Cole • t • c 00:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

hey Brownose: I left Phroziac alone. Didn't you check that out? And I got harrassed by Karmafist anyway. and maybe, just maybe, your "Inside view" is less than persuasive. (oh, and BobK is no shill, he and i are gonna lock horns about whether or not the DFT inherently periodically extends its data, but there are bigger fish to fry over there. and although i responded to BobK, he came here with no prompting from me.) and you still have never proven your defamatory charge that i ever used a sock. (and you tried to get me to fall for that "unbiased" observer bit. ha-ha.r b-j 01:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And again with the personal attacks. Did you not read WP:NPA as I requested earlier? —Locke Cole • t • c 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, you'll need to show me where I say, without doubt, that you used a sock. With regard to Phroziac being "left alone", clearly she did not feel that way. What Karmafist did I would not classify as harassment in the least: if indeed you were leaving her alone, then his notice on your talk page required no action on your part. Instead, here we are because of your insistance that it was "abusive". —Locke Cole • t • c 01:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

well Phroziac can say that she's the Queen of England if she wants, but if you act on that (particularly to someone else detriment) you need to check it out.

This is the last thing i said to her, she responds with this, and i harrass her where? no more communication of any kind at all. 3 hours later Karma begins his harrassment.

you posit: "if indeed you were leaving her alone". What evidence do you have that i was not? And at and before my last communication with Phoziac, what words did i say that were in any way harrassment? You see, these facts are pesky little things, Brownoser. They don't go away. And they are well documented. (unless your judgement is that firmly disagreeing with Phroziac's non-justification of "block first, ask questions later" on her talk page is, in and of itself, harrassment. If you apply that standard to Karmafist, he would simply burst into flames.)

Based on the facts, you simply cannot win this argument (no matter how you try to twist it). But if your position is really: "might makes right", i lose because Phroziac and Karmafist have wiki-power and i do not. r b-j 02:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't get it: you lost this debate when you began engaging in personal attacks. —Locke Cole • t • c 02:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

oh yeah, it was me who said to Rchamberlain:

got a hardon for me or something? once there's something worth leaving on my talk page i'll do it... until then stop vandalising my fucking talk page. Rchamberlain 03:13, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

remember Phroziac did nothing to Rchamberlain for his incivility and you cannot show any sign of incivility from me to him at all except after this rude message and in an indirect manner.

you see, Brownoser, that even when you try to change the subject, you lose the argument. because the facts aren't on your side. (the real issue here is abuse of authority from Phroziac and much more so from Karmafist, and then the naked harrassment that resulted because i didn't just bend over and take it.) r b-j 02:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

oh, and in terms of "lost the debate", there's the initial violators, Phroziac and Karmafist, then there Mistress whoever, a documented abuser whom i never had a word with (but she didn't like my inquiry to Kelly Martin) and who was solicited by Karmafist to this RfC, and then there's the Brownoser (who was nominated enthusiastically by one of the principle violators for adminship). who else supports you in this debate? r b-j 02:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

---

FYI, the way I got here is that I was curious about Rbj's slow response to come out for round 4 of a 15 rounder. I figured he had more important things taking up his time. I thought they might be interesting to me as well. But my subsequent investigation led me to this total waste of time. I don't claim to know or care about all the issues being debated. I have better ways to spend my time. But what I did read gave me the general impression that I have already expressed. Whether it is right or wrong is not the point at all. The point is that it's a real downer to find you all behaving this way. And the burden of coolheadedness falls heavier on the admins than on the users. So it makes wikipedia mgmt look bad. Thought you'd like to know. You're welcome. --Bob K 01:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, this was all started because Rbj made a lot of noise when I blocked him for an entire 24 hours. Not because wikipedia admins did something wrong. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 04:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't find any of this amusing. And I do not condone or encourage Rbj's language. I can easily believe he is not blameless. But it takes two to tango as they say, and admins are supposed to be the grown-ups here. Even if I accept the excuse that Rbj started it, I don't care. You need to be above it. Be professional. Please don't let users drag you into the gutter, if that's what you think happened. Just find a better way, or people like me will find a better place to play. I imagine some already have. --Bob K 05:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wtf? --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 15:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Against my better judgment, I am going to treat this immature response as a serious question, because I think we have a generation gap (or two) at work here. My response was an attempt to show you how your "he hit me first" excuse looks to me. It's like going into court for child abuse and telling the judge that your kid started it. Let me also say that I am sorry if I have reached the wrong conclusion. I am operating on a general impression/perception, because I am not going to waste my time reading all the he said / she said accusations. That is why I did not enter the voting. I am not your jury. I will vote with my feet, and that vote will be based on my perception of the facts, rather than the actual facts. That is how most people will judge you. So perceptions are important, often more important than facts. I am telling you this for your own good, not mine. You need users more than they need you. --Bob K 18:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to do a brief rundown of the chronology of events here, and maybe you can help me to understand how you think Phroziac is in the wrong (in any way) here:

1. Rbj revert wars with Rchamberlain on his talk page (a no-no here on Wikipedia).
2. Phroziac blocks him for 24 hours.
3. Rbj threatens to take Phroziac before the ArbCom for blocking him but not Rchamberlain (as Rchamberlain was i) neither at fault, nor ii) able to be blocked from his own talk page, this is a dubious complaint at best, and just plain wrong at worst).
4. Phroziac, feeling harassed, mentions the situation to Karmafist, who leaves a note on Rbj's talk page instructing him to stop harassing her and remain civil.
5. Despite supposedly having dropped it, Rbj, in response to Karmafist's note, creates an RFAr against Phroziac, Karmafist and Rchamberlain.
6. The ArbCom, rightly, rejects his complaint.
7. Rbj continues to harass Phroziac, and begins to harass Karmafist over his supposed strong-arming.
8. Karmafist, attempting to resolve the personality dispute, opens this RFC against Rbj. Phroziac endorses the dispute as an involved party. I endorse it as well.
9. What follows, instead of an attempt by Rbj to resolve this clear personality dispute, is more harassment, including harassment of me (and all I've done is endorse Karmafist's complaint!).
10. Rbj, after nearly three weeks of harassment (of Phroziac, Karmafist and now myself) was blocked for 48 hours by a neutral third party due to his behavior (you can see some of the attacks above with his "brown noser" comments).

So.. where is Phroziac in the wrong? Maybe Karmafist is in the wrong slightly for being so terse in his note to Rbj, but if Rbj was really "done with this" as he claimed, then that note should have just been ignored. Where is the flagrant abuse of power here? Where is the wrong that needs to be righted as Rbj believes? If you like, feel free to go over the discussion and the timeline I've put together at User:Locke Cole/RFC/Rbj/Evidence (which has some gaps in it, because honestly, I don't think this is that big of a deal, and I have better things to do than go spelunking through the history of this indefinitely; however, if Rbj has information he believes is relevant to that timeline, I'd happily accept his pre-formatted diffs and include them). I look forward to your response. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all that information. I did read it. I will acknowledge (again) the possibility that I misjudged the situation. I think you read my advice to Phroziac too narrowly, as I was afraid you might. It was a reaction to her post, but it was meant for everybody, especially Karmafist.

• I don't know what that name means, but it doesn't make a very good first impression. Consider Karmaflower or something like that. First impressions are also often more important than facts.

I am not going to look for things to quibble about regarding your version of the story. No doubt Rbj will do that anyway. He definitely does not handle things as I would. Anyone that P.O.'d should just leave of their own accord, IMO. I never doubted that Rbj's temper is part of the problem. But my own technical interactions with him have not revealed a hint of it. So I assumed someone else, such as Karmafist, is also part of the problem. Rbj has nothing to lose here and no power. So I directed my concerns at those who presumably do. And I put more importance on some tactless thing written by Karmafist than on anything written by Rbj, because of his authority and responsibility. I have made a lot of contributions in a short time, and I hope that they are valuable ones. But I felt like a sucker when I discovered that this is what everyone else is doing with their time. That's just how it felt, and I thought you would like to know, in case there is some better way to handle these things.

--Bob K 20:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I was actually hoping that someone would say "Thanks Bob, we appreciate your concern.", rather than immediately accusing me of "stacking" (even though I didn't vote) and using disrespectful quips like "Wtf". --Bob K 21:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that, but after seeing Rbj solicit about a dozen editors to try and stack the discussion on this RFC, I was a little concerned that perhaps he'd solicited you via e-mail or Usenet. (And when he left a comment on your talk page, that's what it began to look like). I really think you've got it all wrong, and hope you'll check out the description of RFC at WP:RFC (briefly, it's a form of dispute resolution, there is no punishment given out, it's an attempt to discuss things and resolve the issue presented). Certainly it may seem like a waste of time, but Wikipedia takes harassment and personal attacks seriously. Disruptive editors, no matter how much they contribute or the quality of their contributions, need to be dealt with. Karmafist felt Rbj was harassing Phroziac and himself, and hoped (and may still hope) to resolve this with this RFC. Afterall, the only actions by admins here has been reactionary (Rbj misbehaves, an admin blocks him; Rbj harasses, an admin opens an RFC; Rbj engages in continued harassment and personal attacks, an admin blocks him). It's totally within his realm of control to make this stop by simply stopping the initial behavior that started all of this.

But, again, I'm sorry I got it wrong with regard to your note here. I hope you'll see that the mistake was innocent (and maybe even understandable) given the situation lately. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. And to Rbj, wherever you are, I hope that you and Karma can find a way to put this all behind you. Go have a beer together or something. I have enjoyed your technical contributions, and I hope to continue doing so. Good luck to all. I've had my say, and now I'm going to try to mind my own business. --Bob K 22:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Uh, siccing an attack dog after me because I told you your block was wrong and it clearly shown favoritism (no notice of Rchamberlain's abuse on my talk page?) and then let you have the last word on this and then had no contact with you at all, then siccing Karmafist on me 3 hours later, that had nothing to do with this, did it? you just weren't satisfied that i walked away from it were you, Phro? you had to rub my nose in it. (i just must not disagree with the admins like Phoziac because they're always right and if you don't agree, they have their ways of getting you to knuckle under.) and all that abuse from Karmafist because i didn't just bend over and spread my buns for him to make it easy for him to rape his next victim, that had nothing to do with this either, did it, Phro? you and Karma just cannot be wrong, can you? it's just beyond your character to be in error. r b-j 05:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to sic him on you. You were repeatedly harrassing me about it. I don't have favoritism. I didn't rub your nose in anything. I'm not always right. Karmafist isn't a rapist. There is no cabal. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 05:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Randomly ran across this dispute and was completely amazed at the sheer amount of time that all concerned parties continue to expend in its pursuit. It's been a week since the last comment here, hopefully that means that everyone has just decided to drop it and ignore their respective antagonist(s) KrazyCaley 07:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)