The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.


In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 07:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

User:RobJ1981 has been engaged in an extended period of harassment of users. He utterly refuses to assume good faith, but also acts in violation of WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT and WP:OWN. He has been through two different Wikiquette alerts to no avail.

Desired outcome[edit]

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.

Description[edit]

RobJ1981 has been engaged in a long period of low key tenditious editing, wikipedia policy violation, and direct harassment of other users. These include...

Also general tenditiousness that isn't a direct violation of WP policy. For example, he ignores Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, regularly attacking the users instead of the changes that they want to make to the article or even the specific edits he doesn't like.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

  1. Refusal to assume good faith: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]
  2. Stalking & general harassment: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]
  3. WP:POINT: [16] [17] [18]
  4. WP:OWN/POV Pushing: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]
  5. Boundless accusations against others: [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]
  6. Complaints about "tattling": [64]
  7. Reverting without reason [65]
  8. General incivility: [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]
  9. Miscellaneous Infractions [86] [87]
  10. A series of edits stalking and harassing Le Grand Rois des Citrouilles in regards to his AfD contributions: [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115]
  11. Instances of being reprimanded by administrators [116] [117]

Please also see this ANI incident, in particular, Le Grande Roi's post within it. Many of Rob's actions that he claims were justified/innocent were in fact not, as demonstrated by the context.

Also please see Talk: WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008. You can browse the talk, both the current one and the archives, and see Rob's behavior for yourself. The dispute in brief - Rob insists that a table/list of the wrestlers in the game is against policy. He refuses to explain himself aside from vague allusions to a few policies, but he has no problems edit warring over the article. Note especially [118] - note how almost immediately after the RfC was taken down, Rob reverted and said "file a real RfC". Which is itself a violation of AGF, POINT, OWN and Harassment all in one.

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:AGF
  2. WP:POINT
  3. WP:OWN
  4. WP:CIVIL

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. I have made a few different attempts to engage with Rob in civil discourse. However, they are either ignored, [119] [120], and in two different cases [121] [122] just responded to with hostility and accusations[123] [124]? McJeff (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

(provide diffs and links to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute)

  1. As mentioned in the description, this behavior has been ongoing for several months. While individual issues may resolve themselves, Rob refuses to quit assuming bad faith. As of the time I was working on this article, he continued to add to his ongoing laundary list of wrongs I have allegedly committed against him. Rob currently has identical topics about me on Wikiquette Alerts and on ANI (although the name of the ANI case was changed to Various User Complaints about RobJ1981). See [125] and [126] This is after the wikiquette alert I filed on him caused an administrator to tell him to "knock it off", two different admins responded to the ANI saying "just avoid each other", and a third admin saying that there was grounds for an RfC on him. McJeff (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. These people (below) have experienced the exact same problems with Rob that I have. McJeff (talk) 02:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree wholeheartedly. From experience with this editor, it is apparent this editor is usually the aggressor in edit disputes, constantly reverts to his POV (regardless of what the talk pages say) and calls reverted content vandalism while accusing you of not knowing or willingly breaking policy. Any attempt resolve issues with this user are generally ignored. My attempt to resolve ongoing dispute with editor ignored,Another attempt to resolve the dispute resulting in being ignored A compiled list of disruptive behavior in 2008. Angrymansr (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I also agree. RobJ1981 has also been giving trash on other users talkpages constantly telling them to "Be civil" & "Assume good faith" when they already saw it from the rulebook. Also, the use of his busy tag on his talkpage is useless because hes on Wikipedia everyday harassing other users, particularly in the WWE article. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. I endorse per this discussion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yep. I think the evidence is clear taht this ongoing tendentious behaviour has been problematic for other users. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The clear WP:OWN issues have ruined several prominent articles. SashaNein (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I could not agree more. Dan the Man1983 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

A majority of McJeff's claims apply to himself as well. Revert warring/edit warring: WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008. Wikistalking: [127]: I created a MFD and he commented in it. He's templated my user talk page a few times (I'm pretty sure most were unjust).

In this section, I'll respond to each link McJeff lists:
  1. - This was a little harsh, I'll admit that.
  2. - This was justified, see the section on the Bully list talk page. I explained this above.
  3. - What exactly is the problem? I responded to an issue. Jeff clearly doesn't know the situation TJ and I have had (which includes TJ's overall problem with people, which included him being put on revert patrole after he was blocked numerous times). Not knowing the whole situation isn't helpful.
  4. - Again, Jeff doesn't know the situation. In this case, a frequent sock had once again got caught. I was stating my view on it, even if it was harsh. The editor had more than enough chances, why be nice about it still? Being nice didn't stop the sockpuppeteer.
  5. - Another issue with TJ. I was a little harsh, but see the section in question and read Gavin's post before mine: [141]. He states You seem to have a personal vendetta against TJ Spyke at times, while that is true... I still had a strong view on the matter at hand. It didn't matter if TJ was the one argueing against me, or someone else: I wasn't just going to agree with something just for the sake of agreeing.
  6. - That was several months ago, but with a few exceptions I let the matter go. However the situation with McJeff is different. I posted several places where Jeff pops up and posts where I did. Both places werent talk pages that he used in the past (either at all, or not very often). See my above section for the links, and notice the times.
  7. - Jeff removed my comments on a talk page for a while, and now he's saying I claimed ownership? I mentioned this above as well, however I'll expand on it a little more here. Jeff did realize what he did wrong and reverted it back, but not before an edit war (due to Jeff assuming I was wrong). It takes two people to edit war, Jeff is guilty here of making a false accustation.
  8. - A little harsh.
  9. - I shouldn't have reverted it and called it vandalism. I admit this mistake. But the revert was justified.
  10. - Nothing wrong with it. I didn't call it vandalism, and it was a simple revert.
  11. - Again, nothing wrong with it. Perhaps some can argue I was a little "tough" or something.
  12. - I shouldn't have said "go elsewhere" in the edit summary, but the revert itself was justified.
  13. - I don't see a problem with this one.
  14. - Another situation with TJ. I should've toned down my wording there.
  15. - I admit this wasn't nice, but the nomination was justified.
  16. - I don't see a big problem with this.
  17. - A little harsh.
  18. - A little harsh, but this was in response to the whole section Jeff made (which was attacking new people editing).
  19. - My ownership claim was justified here. Jeff was making a huge deal about tags on the article. Discuss and fix the problem at hand, don't just ignore tags because it's a "driveby" tagging or whatever.
  20. - Again: Jeff didn't know the situation about the blocked sock in question.
  21. - Not rude at all. A revert that explained why I reverted it.
  22. - Saying the word hypocrite in that context isn't that bad. Another case of Jeff not knowing the whole situation.
  23. - A revert with an edit summary I shouldn't have done. I admit this.
  24. - Another TJ problem. I had the right to do this. People were ignoring problems that TJ did, even though he is on revert patrole.
  25. - TJ again. I was a little harsh in this case.
  26. - I see this as justified, see as how TJ was fighting with several people.
  27. - LN made a rude remark in the first place, and I responded. Saying "knock it off" isn't a bad thing. Also, it's no secret LN rarely agrees with me. So his comment before mine was a bit uncivil.
  28. - It was trivia cruft, and I removed it.
  29. - A little harsh.
  30. - Not rude at all.
  31. - I had a point: guidelines aren't just ignored, because people don't agree with them. Saying get over it was wrong, I admit that part wasn't needed in the post.

That covers them all. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, this list of 31 is accurate as of my previous edit on 19:29, 14 April 2008. I don't have the time to update all of them.
A response to the current link #43 which is this link: [142]. It's wrestling project policy to not add just week-by-week results for wrestlers. I accused the person of having the IP as a sock, and here's a reply I got from him: [143]. So my accustation was correct. I want to point this out. He admitted to being the IP. Response to the current link #65, found here: [144]. I said a comment wasn't needed and it was uncivil, but because of that I'm uncivil? Yeah right. Read the post I was replying to: [145]. Another McJeff uncivil comment. He didn't need to post that.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

These are summaries written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Semi-involved view by ErgoSum88[edit]

Hmmm, I guess I'm not directly involved in this dispute, but I did have a brief dispute with RobJ1981. He nominated an article for deletion [163]. After which, Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles posted the article on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Trivia_and_Popular_Culture, notifying members that the article was up for deletion. Rob then reverted Le Grand's edits twice, as seen here [164] and [165]. At which point I stepped in and reverted his edit, [166]. Admittedly, I probably shouldn't have left an edit summary like that, but I was trying to get a point across in the limited space that I had. He then left a snide comment on my talk page [167] which I replied to [168]. Thats about all I can say about it. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. ErgoSum88 (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Please note as well that the author of the page put under MfD was not even notified as he indicated here.--Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. McJeff (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dan the Man1983 10:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Angrymansr (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SashaNein (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. See my thoughts about RobJ1981 on the discussion page & his talk page. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agreed. This user has also been involved in a dispute over at the WrestleMania XXIV article, but he does seem to be in the right in that particular dispute. D.M.N. (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-involved view by Guyinblack25[edit]

I was an editor that agreed with RobJ on Talk:WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008 regarding the inclusion of a full roster; which is still an ongoing issue. Though many have said RobJ was pushing an agenda and claiming ownership of the article, I have to disagree. RobJ was trying to switch a list of characters into prose to comply with the guidelines and practices of Wikipedia and the Video games Project. I joined the discussion after RobJ posted on the VG Project talk page (see posting), something he does so every now and then. While he did solicit help in the discussion, I would not have joined in if I did not agree with the view point on the subject.

In regard to how the discussion went, a fair number of other editor on that talk page (many of which have posted here as well) engaged in behavior I would say easily borders on uncivil to RobJ and myself. Is RobJ perfect? No. Is it ok to be uncivil just because others are being the same way? I don't think so. Is it fair for those that behaved in a similar manner to call for something as extreme as a ban on RobJ? Absolutely not, and such action should not be taken on a matter such as this. My two cents. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Guyinblack25 talk 17:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ncmvocalist[edit]

In this case, I see the complaining party as the editors who are involved in the dispute, including McJeff, Vernon (Versus22), Dan the Man1983 and Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles, among others. The other party is of course the subject of the Rfc – RobJ1981.

Evidence[edit]

The complaining party has given about 120 diffs (several which were repeatedly given) in evidence of the disputed behavior, under about 14 different categories. After enduring the laborious task of going through each diff, I find that much of the evidence did not fall under the categories cited, and in some cases, did not qualify as evidence of any sort of policy or guideline violation. However. I accepted certain diffs, including the following: [169] [170] [171] [172] [173] [174] [175]

The party who is the subject of this Rfc provided about 35 diffs along with brief responses against some of the evidence given by the complaining party. I accepted certain diffs and explanations, including the following: [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185]

Findings[edit]

Both parties have clearly engaged in disruptive and unseemly conduct, including edit-warring; personal attacks, incivility and assumptions of bad faith. This sort of misconduct is unacceptable. If this sort of behaviour continues, or recommences, then each party may become subject to an arbitration hearing, or may be blocked or banned for a specified duration of time.

I am very unimpressed that the recommendation by Stifle and Jasynnash2 at the AN/I-report was not taken seriously by both the complaining party and the subject of the Rfc. I am of the opinion that this recommendation was wholly appropriate, and the best advice that could be given. I have restated the recommendation/advice here: "stay away from any articles currently in the middle of your dispute, [avoid talking to or about each other, refamiliarize yourself with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines, and have another look at your conduct over time]…to help make sure these sort of issues don't occur again” If this is not possible, then both parties will need to take a break from editing and being involved in Wikipedia, whether it is voluntary, or enforced by administrators and/or the Arbitration Committee.

Principles[edit]

All of the editors involved in this matter are being reminded of the following Wikipedia principles – please comply with them if you wish to continue editing at Wikipedia.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors [emphasis added]. Wikipedia users are therefore expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Editors are also each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions – such exceptions are not applicable in this case.

Summary Conclusion[edit]

Both parties are therefore encouraged to avoid each other, stop engaging in disruptive and unseemly conduct, and comply with the Wikipedia principles outlined.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Guyinblack25 talk 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think this sums it up very well. Stifle (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Although I stand by my initial complaint, I acknowledge the fact that my own conduct left something to be desired at several points during this incident, and on that grounds, endorse. McJeff (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ArcAngel (talk) 00:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. User:Krator (t c) 12:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Jasynnash2[edit]

Please forgive me if I'm doing this wrong it is my first time participating in something on this particular area of Wikipedia. That said my view is as follows:

None of the main parties in the dispute are "innocent". The "excuse" of he did it first/as well/etc is not valid. We all need to hold a mirror up to our own behaviour and contribute constructively to the project. Attacking another user (whether through direct action/language or otherwise) isn't acceptable. Assume Good Faith and Be Civil aren't just Wiki policy/recommendations but, should be basic behaviour for mature adults. I understand and agree that we all make mistakes and sometimes are on our last thread when something is said that can put us over the edge. My advise/comment on this remains pretty much the same. I'm sure the editors involved have been productive members of the community in the past and can be again but, they BOTH/All need to make the effort. That is all. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-involved view by User:Krator[edit]

Disclosure: I am involved in the dispute to the extent that I started it (on 27 October 2007), and commented once afterwards essentially re-stating the argumentation. I am not involved to the extent that I have never witnessed the specific dispute between the editors above, or the behaviour mentioned in several diffs, and that all my edits to the article were far earlier than any of the disputed edits.

Some of my observations are below, using Ncmvocalist's terminology. These are focused on resolving the content dispute underlying the behaviour dispute, specifically, to lay bare some of the logical faults both parties make.

I encourage the parties of this Rfc to engage in constructive discussion by bringing forward constructive arguments why their text is the better way of representing the information. Proper venues for finding such arguments would be the manual of style, prescriptive (rather than restrictive) wikiproject guidelines and plain common sense. User:Krator (t c) 12:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. User:Krator (t c) 12:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Do not comment below. Please read the instructions above.

Summary[edit]

RobJ1981 blocked.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More