Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BlueRobe

Proposed solutions templates

Maybe I missed, but I didn't see an explanation of what these templates are on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct so not sure what that's about. Anyone know? CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question, but would like to note that I too have found the documentation for the RFC process to be very confusing. It is definitely something that we should consider improving, as far as clarity. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be nice also if Sandman888 explained why he moved comments here. Assumedly vs. policy or something but I don't feel like checking. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

At the bottom of the RFC page (and top I think) there is a reminder to use the talk page for discussion. It avoids clogging up the RFC and is accepted practice. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on User:BlueRobe's preceding response

There are notices on each of the talk pages (including Libertarianism) where all users have been invited to join the discussion here, whatever their views on the matter (not just "left wingers"). The people I specifically notified were either people that were directly involved in the conflict I was filing the RFC/U over, or people that had requested to be notified if an RFC/U was filed against you, due to conflicts you had with them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussion from Banned Editor, User:Karmaisking moved to here:Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BlueRobe/BannedEditor

This is insane; you don't like that some people happen to disagree with you, so you lead a holy crusade against them. This obsession with removing BlueRobe and Darkstar1st, who happen to be some of the leading proponents of a Libertarian page that actually represents Libertarianism. This should be dismissed immediately; this crusade against your opponents should stop. Toa Nidhiki05 15:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: "...This obsession with removing BlueRobe and Darkstar1st, who happen to be some of the leading proponents of a Libertarian page...

I don't think User:Jrtayloriv even edits the Libertarianism page. BigK HeX (talk) 18:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is trying to "remove" BlueRobe -- we are trying to get him to provide reliable sources and interact in a civil manner with other editors. As you can see from the "Desired outcome" section, the desire of everyone who certified this is that he continue editing, but that he do so in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Claiming that there is a "holy crusade" or that people are "out to get him" is just a way to avoid any discussion of the issues that have been clearly presented here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As I have said many times, I do not consider myself left or right wing ("libertarianism isn't left or right, it's ahead). However I do recognize that there are many people and WP:RS identifying Anarcho-capitalism, Left libertarianism, Libertarian socialism, Geolibertarianism as forms of libertarianism and these should not be driven from the article. My editing on those forms in the lead or in subsections is no reason to hurl what BlueRobe considers an insult at me ("Leftist"), especially when I have repeatedly said I don't like left-right labeling of myself (though I admit it exists in WP:RS). So this is just one more example of incivility in my mind. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea who User:Torchwood Who? is, or why he shows so much anger in his posts to this page, who why he is engaged in blatant meat-puppetry to get other users to come inhere to vilify me. Seriously, how many hours has Torchwood Who? spent examining my history to find everyone and anyone I have ever had a disagreement with so he could personally invite them here? BlueRobe (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You are going to see many uninvolved editors you've never interacted with coming here to comment on your behavior. That's the purpose of the RFC/U process -- to bring in uninvolved, outside parties to comment on user conduct. Many of them will closely examine your behavior -- again, this is what is supposed to happen. It would be better if you would consider what they are saying, and see if you can civilly discuss it with them, so that you can learn how to improve your conduct. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As a point of order, can I respectfully request that User:Jrtayloriv and Torchwood Who? stop threatening anyone who dares to publish their support for me on this page? Such blatant intimidation of witnesses certainly wouldn't be acceptable in a real Court of law and I see no reason why it should be acceptable here, (except that, it does provide a hint of the sort of harassment that I, and others, have had to put up in the talk pages.) BlueRobe (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide diffs for threats that I have made against people who "support you"? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• ...it was my refusal to engage with Jrtayloriv that kicked him into this ridiculous prosecution in the first place -- As far as the behavior that caused me to initiate the WQA, and then this RFC/U, please see the "Statement of the dispute" section above. You might also want to look at the "Desired outcomes" section to see my motivations for taking the time to go through with it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Could someone please provide an example of my alleged (see below) "disruption" of the Libertarianism -- Yes, here is an example: [1]. Several more have been provided above. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

"Could someone please provide an example of my alleged (see below) "disruption" of the Libertarianism page when, to the best of my recollection, I haven't made a single editorial change of the Libertarianism page itself?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueRobe (talk • contribs)

Disrupting the talk page is disrupting the article. The talk page is where editors collaborate with each other to improve the article. If the talk page turns into a battleground, then the article suffers, because improvements cannot be discussed, and editors' time is wasted in petty arguments rather than on article improvements. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Simple consumers of Wikipeida may safely ignore the talk pages, but the talk page is an essential part of an article, where editing is concerned --- and, obviously, we're talking about editors here. I'd say this is the obvious understanding throughout Wikipedia. BigK HeX (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on North8000 view

• I would not agree with making sourcing a requirement for making a comment on a talk page. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TPG. The point of talk pages is not to debate the topic of the article itself, but to discuss suggested improvements to the article. Changes to the article, when contested, need to be based on reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This has no relevance to my statement which it is supposedly addressing. First you start with repetition of a policy falsely implying that what I said conflicted with it. Then you went off on a tangent talking about contested changes to the article which is also irrelevant to what I said. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is totally relevant to what you said. I was pointing out that when there are content disputes, we discuss them on the talk page. And the way we resolve them is by providing reliable sources, and then discussing how to best represent the views found within them. This is in direct contrast to your statement that people shouldn't be required to provide sources on talk pages. The policies that I cited are also both relevant -- if we don't provide sources, we end up with arguments that are not based on reliable sources. This is exactly the sort of thing that WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:TPG are designed to prevent. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You are scrambling up this discussion. This started with me opposing someone saying that sourcing should be a pre-condition for saying something on a talk page. (= for every statement made, which is what that person was proposing for BlueRobe) Instead of discussing what I DID say, you are debating a straw man of something I DIDN'T say, which that people should never be required to provide sources in a talk page. That is why I said that your comments are not relevant to my statement. North8000 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Ditto; there is no reason at all to require sources except on main pages. Toa Nidhiki05 15:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

When there is conflict over inclusion/removal of content, we base our decisions primarily on what reliable sources have to say (see WP:V). If editors refuse to provide sources, then the talk pages just devolve into a political forum. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

See above. Plus your last comment is in absolute conflict with the reality of talk pages. Implying that they consists of just two things: talk page statements with references, or a "political forum" This is wrong for about 98% of what is on talk pages.

I agree that many people violate talk page guidelines and debate politics instead of providing reliable sources. But that is not a justification; it's merely an observation. They should stop; they should provide reliable sources and should adhere to talk page guidelines. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You are implying that there is a categorical sourcing requirement for talk on talk pages. This is not true. North8000 (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling people "fucking headcases", "bigots", "trolls", "stalkers" and telling them to "fuck off" or complaining that they are asking for reliable sources instead of rants is not "blunt discussion". It's a major issue with WP:NPA and WP:V. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't defending those types of things; sorry if I was not clear. Plus I don't think that those were in the Libertarian article. At least 4 of the 5 are over the top, and "stalking" would need investigation. I think that BlueRobe asserted that you came after him/her because they refused to engage with you. Is this true/false? North8000 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

As far as "coming after him for refusing to engage with me" -- you can see my reasons for filing a WQA and RFC at the top of this page. They include personal attacks, refusal to provide reliable sources in place of soapboxing, failure to assume good faith, and various other forms of incivil and disruptive behavior.

Second, I have not been "stalking" BlueRobe (diffs please?), and have been working on Libertarian socialism for far longer than BlueRobe has been an editor. I came in to Libertarianism due to an RFC notification on the Libertarian socialism talk page. The fact that I am working on 3 articles that BlueRobe is disrupting (all of which I was working on before he showed up) is hardly grounds for an allegation of "stalking". -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(p.s. And by the way "fuck off" and "fucking headcase" were in the Libertarianism article) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

This does not answer my question which is whether or not they were / are trying to disengage with you. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, the (admittedly blunt) post that started all this, was, "Ignored and left unread. Sorry, Jrtayloriv, but you're much too infamous for your energetic trolling to bother with. BlueRobe (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)"

That sent Jrtayloriv into an emotional tail-spin and he hasn't left me alone since. BlueRobe (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

My reasons for initiating this RFC/U and the preceding WQA are listed in the "Statement of dispute" section above. I assure you that I am not in an "emotional tailspin", and will point out that if anyone is "emotional", it would be yourself, with statements such as "Leave me alone you fucking headcase! Stop following me everywhere! Stop obsessing over my every word! Stop trolling my every comment! Stop harassing me! Stop obsessing over me! Stop stalking me! FUCK OFF!". You need to stop trying to avoid the issues that have been brought up, and confront them. You need to alter your behavior to be in adherence to Wikipedia policy. Please see the "Desired outcomes" section for an idea of what needs to change. And if you would like to ask for advice on how to improve, I'm sure the other editors here would be willing to discuss it with you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not denied that BlueRobe tried to "disengage" with me; and he is refusing to interact not only with me, but with almost every other editor on the talk page who disagrees with him. However, nobody is under any obligation to "leave him alone" when he is disrupting a discussion on an article's talk page. Normally, disputes are resolved when editors who disagree discuss things in a civil manner, backing their claims with reliable sources, until they reach consensus. When editors refuse to discuss things in a civil manner and refuse to provide sources, we end up at places like this. He does not have a right to "ignore" other editors while continuing to disrupt the discussion process. If he doesn't want to involve himself in the discussion, that's fine. But if he chooses to, he needs to interact in a civil manner with other editors. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on Toa Nidhkiki05 view

Calling people bigots or jerks, and making bad faith accusations is non-productive. There is nothing wrong with BigK Hex or any other editor requesting reliable sources (see WP:V), nor is there any problem with them claiming that people are doing original research if they refuse to provide reliable sources. Also, please provide diffs to back up your accusations. As far as BlueRobe having done nothing wrong here, I think it's pretty clear from the evidence presented that this is not the case. He has been uncivil, made personal attacks, and refused to provide reliable sources. These are problems that need to be resolved. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• I have never interacted with BlueRobe on any article or talk page outside of this RfC and of the editors I've cited in my comments (above) I fail to find a record of interaction between them and BlueRobe outside of their distinct incidents. If you continue to claim meat puppetry against good faith commentators, who have a slim to non existent record of conversation with one another outside of this debate, then I may consider bringing these accusations to another forum for review.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on outside View by darkstar1st

Could you please provide diffs regarding removal of reliably sourced content, so that people can see what you're talking about? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

• Darkstar1, I'm sorry, but I'm at a loss to understand why you are making promises on behalf of BlueRobe. If you feel the user can't communicate his own intentions in this RfC in a civil manner is that not the under-pinning of this discussion?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The phrasing of the proposal read in an ambiguous way due to the definite "Will" instead of "could" or "should". I agree with North8000 and retract my question.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I saw it as a suggestion / proposal; I see no words that say otherwise. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I need diffs of this alleged "baiting". Going through an RfC process to determine what an entire article will cover, which User:BlueRobe continually demonizes as supposedly being filled with "leftist meatpuppets" and refuses to accept after the closure is not "baiting" nor a "minor debate". BigK HeX (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on questions

What do you mean by "BigK HeX is trolling you"? Do you have diffs to support whatever you mean?

As far as your personal attacks, "deranged rabid dog", "Jrtayloriv has deep mental health problems", "petty troll" -- you really need to calm down and stop (you've been warned repeatedly about this). Please take a look at WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. This is exactly the type of behavior (along with refusal to provide reliable sources), that has forced everyone to spend their time with this RFC.

I'd love for you to continue contributing, but you're going to have to interact with other editors in a civil manner, and are going to have to base changes to articles on reliable sources. If you don't do this, you will get banned. That's not what anybody wants, but if you keep up your current behavior, that's what's going to happen. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Q. Can you accept the results of this RfC closed on Sept 2nd where the initiating editor found: editors who hold the 'libertarianism should be construed broadly' viewpoint have offered multiple reliable sources that attest to the first interpretation. Reliable sources treat, on the same page, multiple variants of libertarianism – treating them as aspects of the same idea.. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with CarolMooreDC that there was a clear consensus for the discussion amongst users who provided reliable sources (which are the only ones that "count"). However, I also agree with BlueRobe, that bringing this up here (although tangentially related, since it does deal with reliable sourcing issues), was probably not necessary, and would be better dealt with separately. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 00:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think CarolMooreDC's question is insightful. The issue of the closed RfC on the Libertarianism talk pages might actually account for 99% or more of the perceived incivility and misuse of the talk pages by User:BlueRobe (on the Libertarianism issues). If that issue were to go away, I think current matters on the Libertarianism page would calm, though this RfC does not give me much confidence that problems of another sort would not quickly arise. BigK HeX (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good point. I suppose that the discussion she mentioned was at the center of all of this, and thus does deserve mention here. Thanks for clearing that up, and sorry to CarolMooreDC for not asking for clarification before criticizing. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, by no stretch of the imagination was a consensus reached for the "broad" view in that rfc. Indeed, the "broad" view barely achieved majority among the editorial regulars, let along a consensus. You have been referred to WP:Consensus countless times in relation to this issue. BlueRobe (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There was not only a clear majority of editors !voting in favor of the "broad" definition (9 to 3), but the 3 who were !voting for the "narrow" definition did not provide any policy based reasons why we should leave out a significant viewpoint, which is extensively covered in numerous high-quality reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The decision was per the closer's comments, it was not defined per the original question which was an oversimplification at best. It basically said to include significantly held alternate Libertarian philosophies in the Libertarian article, with proportions in accordance with undue weight guidelines.North8000 (talk) 11:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on "Jrtayloriv and BlueRobe to disengage, BluRobe to agree to refrain from profanity"

BlueRobe does not have any right to "disengage" from any editor who he disagrees with. If he wants to work with other people on a collaborative encyclopedia, he has to collaborate. This means interacting with other editors.

If by "disengage", BlueRobe had meant that he wished to leave the Libertarianism article and stop arguing there, then nobody would have had any problem with that, and nobody would have had any reason to keep communicating with him. He is welcome to choose to not participate in a discussion, and not have editors badger him.

But what he seems to mean by "disengage", is that while he continually disrupts the discussion page, continues to make personal attacks and debate personal opinion, lashes out at other editors, makes bad faith accusations, and refuses to provide reliable sources for anything he's saying -- he simultaneously expects that other editors keep their mouths shut and let him do as he pleases. This is not going to happen -- he will either (a) adhere to Wikipedia policy, remaining civil and working towards consensus with other editors, and providing sources when requested, or (b) he will leave. Nobody is required to ignore his violations of policy, when they are interfering with progress being made on an article. As long as he's choosing to rant and attack people on article talk pages, he should expect that he will get a respose. He can't cite some imagined right to have people not respond to him.

And as far saying that BlueRobe needs to "refrain from profanity": profanity is the least of BlueRobe's problems, as you can see from the diffs provided in the RFC. BlueRobe not only needs to cease profanity, but needs to cease personal attacks and incivility in general; needs to learn about how to work with other editors towards consensus, even when he disagrees with them; and needs to read, understand, and start applying WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR; amongst other things.

Finally, as far as you framing this as a conflict between myself and BlueRobe, where we should both "disengage": I'd recommend that you look at the diffs, and note that this is a conflict between BlueRobe and numerous other editors on a wide array of articles. Trying to turn this into a one-on-one personal conflict is completely off the mark. Again, look at the diffs provided at the beginning of this RFC, and the WQA. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is closed out. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)