Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce old

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Re: mediation

As stated on the project page, I see no solution arising from mediation, in part because Robert's behaviour is not simply directed at me, but is part and parcel of his "Robert the Bruce" persona, and of the way that he goes about editing and dealing with other editors. Exploding Boy 23:54, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "the issues on Foreskin restoration have been addressed

Unfortunately, as stated on the Talk: Foreskin restoration page, the issues have not been addressed, since Robert has thus far (that is, the last time I checked that page about an hour ago) declined to participate in the discussion, and since Jakew appears to share some of his views. As I said on that page, certain of the edits in particular represent a clear attempt at vandalism. Exploding Boy 23:59, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Content dispute

Why do editors bring their content disputes and ask for arbitration when they can't get their own way? Okay, there is no way to resolve the two opposing POVs. But that's okay. We can include both.

Has ExplodingBoy tried mediation with Robert? Maybe he should.

As far as I can see, Robert puts his POV quite forcefully and sometimes he is swimming against a tide. He does occasionally troll the willing (you could hardly describe Tony Sidaway and Theresa Knott as not willing to go for several rounds when they feel the urge and their fairly common appearance on dispute resolution pages can be taken as an indication of their willingness to indulge in contention -- I'm not criticising them, just noting it) and he's taken on some ferocious POV pushers (and is one himself). So what, basically? His edits don't tend to be unsound from what I can see. His attitude sucks sometimes but if we banned everyone with an occasional bad attitude, we'd barely have a community. Yet again we see editors who should be able to deal with what they perceive as a problem bringing it here.

It takes two to make an edit war. I urge the arbitration committee to consider rejecting this case and to invite ExplodingBoy to work harder to resolve content disputes on talkpages and not attempt to use this forum as a means of "winning".Dr Zen 05:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

We've got rather more than two, here. When an editor's behavior becomes a more general problem, I don't see that mediation can help. Theresa Knott's behavior and attitude isn't an issue, mine isn't, Exploding Boy's isn't. Robert's is, repeatedly and on nearly every article he chooses to edit. The effect of his ready assumption of bad faith and his constant resort to direct personal criticism, and where that fails to the most malicious innuendo, is a good illustration of the reason why Wikipedia has rules about assuming good faith and not indulging in personal criticism. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:22, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. He's either a very skillful troll, or he really believes all this balderdash he purveys, e.g. about power-mad admins being Wikipedia's worst problem (see WT:3RR#Edits and reversions for an excellent example). Frankly, I don't know which of these two is worse! Noel (talk) 21:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia has plenty of problems, of which the bureaucracy and its use of power are one, and POV pushers another. But trolls need food, Noel, and some of the complainants are all too willing to feed Robert. They believe they should escape censure because they are politer, but they are symptoms of the same problem.Dr Zen 06:04, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It's interesting that Robert's tone suddenly seems so much more polite when he's face with a request for arbitration. If his tone had been like that all along, perhaps he would have had fewer problems. As for a request for mediation, does anyone think based on the previous RFCs against Robert that mediation will solve anything, or that Robert will seriously agree to allowing "the other side" into articles he edits? He created two sock puppets, User:Friends of Robert and User:Robert the Bruce to evade the effects of the first User:Robert Brookes. As User:Friends of Robert, he deliberately tried to mislead people into thinking that he was not the same person as User:Robert Brookes. With his sock puppets, he ignored the results of the first RFC and continued the behaviour that led to it in the first place. The issue is not his POV. It is that his rude, abrasive, and disruptive behaviour continues. Robert makes snarky comments, insults other editors, attempts to agitate everyone who disagrees with him in the slightest, and insinuates that anyone and everyone who does not completely agree with him is some kind of foreskin obsessive who is out to get him. His behaviour is disruptive and rude and he makes editing articles a chore rather than fun. How many people has his rudeness and confrontation driven away from editing articles? How many people want to do major work on an article just to see all their edits removed in one fell sweep because Robert didn't like one thing they wrote -- and then Robert won't even TELL them what he didn't like when they ask, instead simply insulting them? "Unofficial mediation" on a page that hasn't had a single public edit for two weeks has to have failed. How can anyone have confidence that this "unofficial mediation" is producing results when nothing has been visible for so long? How long is this behaviour of Robert's going to go on? "No interest" in the RFC? Who wants to bother with an RFC that Robert will just evade again, just like last time? Perhaps that has something to do with the *second* RFC fizzling. -- thickslab 13:44, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

Response to Dr. Zen (about whom I'm curious to know, why is it he always seems to suddenly pop up to defend Robert in such disputes only to disappear afterwards?) I'm asking for arbitration not because I "can't get my own way" when it comes to the content of an article, but because, as explained on the project page, Robert the Bruce's behaviour and editing style is highly problematic. No. I have not tried mediation with Robert, and I see no point in doing so. The problem is not just limited to an interaction or interactions between Robert and me. Check any page that he edits regularly. He behaves this way with anyone who doesn't completely agree with his edits. Furthermore, I have no faith that mediation would accomplish anything other than waste my time. In the mediation between Robert and Theresa Knott, for example, Robert refused all mediators except Jakew, his frequent supporter.
Robert does put forth his POV quite forcefully and frequently he is swimming against a tide. This is part of the problem. Robert is completely unwilling to discuss his edits or point of view, despite repeated invitations (to begin with), requests (after that), demands (when that didn't work)... On the other hand, he is more than willing, as you say, to troll. I'd go further (in fact, I have already) and say that his edits are beginning to constitute vandalism. Robert is well aware of what constitutes neutral writing, but he is unable to restrict himself to it. He knowingly flaunts and flouts Wikipedia rules and conventions, and attempts to goad others into doing the same, safe in the knowledge that so far no attempt to control him has succeeded, and in the hopes of bringing negative consequences down on those he is trolling.
Some of Robert's edits are fine, and he seems like a good writer. Too many of them, however, are not, and has one other admin has stated, (I'm paraphrasing here), the positive is far outweighed by the negative when it comes to Robert. What little positive, neutral, well-written contribution he makes is simply not worth putting up with his crap.
Indeed it does take two to make an edit war, but the actions of those of us who edit the same articles as Robert are not edit warring. I have no interest in "winning." As I've stated repeatedly, I'm intersted in creating well crafted, factual and neutral articles. Robert is either unwilling or unable to participate in that process. I suggest that Dr Zen either reveal himself as a sock puppet or re-examine the evidence.
As for Delirium's remarks, I wonder whether he or she has thoroughly read the statements here and on the project page as well as on the various article pages/talk pages in question. The answers to his/her questions are all there.
Exploding Boy 17:09, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
As someone who's had significant disagreements with both, it's my fairly strong impression that Robert and Zen are different people. Very similar in some ways, yes, but that's different. Noel (talk) 21:52, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
My first thought was to tell you to fuck off. I'll settle for simply pointing out that I have other things to do, other concerns, than to discuss your problems with Robert over and over. I added what I wanted to add. You want to discredit what I have to say by making out that I'm a sockpuppet, that's fine by me. It's par for the course on Wikipedia to reach for the insult when one doesn't get what one wants. FWIW, I haven't seen any sign that you're interested in crafting "neutral" articles and plenty that you're interested in excluding points of view you don't agree with. That's what I think you're doing here and your endlessly repeating your assertions won't change my mind. Dr Zen 00:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Delirium

Regarding the comment about the "morass of flamewars" in the circumcision-related areas of WP, it is my distinct impression (whose accuracy can, I'm sure, be investigated) that the circumcision related areas of WP were relatively quiet until Robert's arrival several months ago. Since that time, I admit, they've been a morass, but in the context of what I perceive the case to be, Delirium's comment makes little sense to me (it seems to excuse someone's behavior on the grounds that, since they have turned an area of Wikipedia into a complete mess, they can be forgiven for being messy in it). Perhaps I'm misinformed about the situation, however. I will say that I attempted very informally to work productively with Robert Brookes (or at least get him to stop calling Theresa names) and was spoken to unpleasantly as a result. Shortly after my interactions with him, he disappeared (and Robert the Bruce mysteriously appeared at the same time) -- perhaps he sensed the heat would soon be on. I would therefore encourage something to be done with Robert...if it's to be mediation, then on with it, but my experiences with him suggest to me that his obsession with his POV will make mediation almost certainly fruitless. I know he feels that the other side in this debate also pushes its POV here (I am sure he's right) but I don't think that's an excuse for his behavior. Jwrosenzweig 00:29, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by Exploding Boy moved from Preliminary Decision section of project page

Moved by --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (1/4/0/0)

  • Accept. Previous attempts at dispute resolution have failed. Reject; the major involved parties are now demonstrating willingness to mediate. -- Grunt   ҈  18:59, 2005 Jan 14 (UTC)
No, they aren't. Robert the Bruce has stated above that the matter should be referred to mediation, but no one has actually agreed to mediation. In fact, several of us have stated that we feel mediation would be fruitless. Please review the following excerpt from the Wikipedia:Mediation page: "What mediation is not: Mediation is not Facilitation. So, while mediation may lead to better work on articles or between editors, it is not specifically designed to faciliate the editing of articles where people disagree but the issue has not come to an impasse yet. Mediation is not Arbitration. The arbitration process at Wikipedia exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia disputes. This solution may be anything up to and including a ban from editing the entire Wikipedia for a period of time. This is not the goal of mediation." Exploding Boy 20:19, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject. Seems that this hasn't actually gone to mediation (beyond one user's informal attempt to resolve the dispute), which I'd prefer is tried first. Beyond that, I'm not sure this is actually too out of the ordinary for the morass of flamewars that is the circumcision-related portion of this encyclopedia... --Delirium 02:28, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept. Neutralitytalk 15:23, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject as Jakew is continuing with his mediation attempt. However, if this fails, I would not necessarily insist on formal mediation as well. So, Robert the Bruce - I recommend you work on getting things sorted now, this could be your last chance. -- sannse (talk) 18:58, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject. Concur with sannse. I also urge the complainants to put their request in the proper form - this is quite confusing. Ambi 04:47, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I should like to point out to the arbitrators that the mediation currently in process (which, by the way, is unofficial) is between Robert the Bruce and Theresa Knott, who is not a party to this dispute. - Exploding Boy

[edit] May also be User: Robert Blair.

Could Exploding Boy suggest why he thinks Robert the Bruce might be Robert Blair? I find it hard to believe that RtB would want to argue with himself. - Jakew 19:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)