Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rbj

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: 18:16, December 28, 2005), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 05:20, 18 May 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Rbj (talk · contribs) has conducted a campaign of harrassment,incivility and defammation towards myself, Phroziac, and others.

Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries, other than to endorse them.} Like a long list of rude and combative USENET regulars on Wikipedia such as Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs), Jack Sarfatti (talk · contribs), Barbara Schwarz(now editing under various anon IPs),Sollog, among many others, rbj has basically done nothing else over the past few weeks other than going out of his way to try and hurt other users. This is beyond unacceptable on Wikipedia, and if he cannot change, he cannot remain within the Wikipedia community.

Evidence of disputed behavior

(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.)

[18] [19]

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

  1. WP:CIVIL
  2. WP:NPA
  3. WP:POINT
  4. WP:AGF
  5. WP:DICK
  6. WP:NOT
  7. WP:STALK
  8. WP:WQT
  9. WP:TPG

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [20]
  2. [21]
  3. [22]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. karmafist 02:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 02:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC); whatever was done to rbj, his response is totally inappropriate[reply]
  2. Mistress Selina Kyle 19:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC) - As above.[reply]

Response

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.

Ok, Since You Asked
Here's your evidence. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rbj CBD's absolutely right, if you just be nice to others and find a niche, Wikipedia is a wonderful place. You can end this now if you'd like, or you can keep on digging yourself a deeper hole. I have better things to do than deal with civility issues such as yourself, so remember that this is a one way vendetta, born from your apparent inability to take some advice and end a dispute. karmafist 02:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The issue, Karma, is whether or not you, yourself, (as are other admins) is subject to the very rules of civility that you cite. You seem to be convinced that these rules of civility just don't apply to you. Either that or you seem to believe that the threshold of incivility is higher for you (and perhaps other admins) than it is for me and the other lowly civilian lay-editors. Perhaps you're right "that this is a one way vendetta", if that means you get to rape us lay-editors and we just have to smile and take it.

Some of this is cut out from the (now rejected) RFAr:

This began a couple of days ago when I began to notice some bad edits made in very high quantity by Rchamberlain (notably regarding references to the Roman Catholic Church) On December 19 I left a friendly worded note ( "please be more careful with your editing") in which Rchamberlain's response was to blank it and ignore it (I think the meaning of that is clear). So I reverted the blanking (to make sure he understood that there is a complaint he should at least pay some attention to), and he again blanked it. This was repeated a couple more times until I finally got his attention and he left at my talk page the note [23] in which he said:

what the hell is your problem? 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)[reply]

I was not vandalizing his page. One could argue he was vandalizing his own talk page and was certainly insulting anyone leaving a comment by his blanking. On Talk_page#Etiquette, it says that "Actively erasing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) will probably be interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil, and this can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings." Nonetheless, I reverted the critique and added another asking him to choose between being a jerk or dealing with this "i was trying to be polite" because it was pretty obvious asking nice was not getting through to him.

On December 22, I reverted his page blanking a total of 4 times and, evidently Rchamberlain went crying to some admin (I could not find a record of this on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or any other page, so I do not know precisely how this was done) and just before I was going to get an admin to talk to this obviously closed-minded and POV editor, Phroziac blocked me, for no defined time, for no reason communicated to me (as the history of my talk page will tell). She did not come to me (via any form of communication) in advance to inquire what was going on. She did not come to me with a complaint about what I had done. No warning. No nothing. Suddenly I was blocked from Wikipedia with no explanation. When I figured out who did it (it's not real clear) I asked why and when I was getting unblocked and there was no response.

Eventually after several attempts to communicate with someone, Phroziac emailed me a note ending with "I just didn't think about leaving a notice. Sorry." yet I was still blocked with no prospect of being unblocked. So, for the first time since September 2004, when I created account User:Rbj, I reset my DSL modem (to get a different IP) and I went to NicholasTurnbull (whom I've known and respected from the infamous Bogdanov Affair) page as an anonymous IP (I know I'm not supposed to do that when I'm blocked, but I still maintain that this block was a bad rap), and asked for help. Reasonably soon, I was unblocked and I confronted Phroziac regarding her reasons and justification for:

  • Blocking me without first contacting me about the problem.
  • Blocking me without first warning me about such a block impending.
  • Not bothering to look into the root of the issue (did Rchamberlain have a legit case? was I continuing to "edit war" with him, if I was at all?)
  • Examining uncivil behavior of Rchamberlain. Examining his edit history and his deleted talk page history. What have people been saying to him and how has he reacted?
  • Showing a clear endorsement of Rchamberlain (she denies it) by summarily blocking me and doing nothing about Rchamberlain.
  • Expecting me to reduce her wikistress level, yet showing no concern for mine. Blocking a user is a very uncivil action and should be done only for the most necessary and justified reasons.

Her response was to flippantly say " Let's agree to disagree and turn our attention to improving Wikipedia in other ways. Cheers!"

I did not buy it and made it clear to her that I believed that she acted wrongly and she was just blowing me off. Her response was a simple curt taunt:

"WP:RFAr --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 23:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

The meaning of that is clear and smug ("take it up with the ArbCom") and I had made no communication with her at all about it since. I did not respond to the taunt, I just walked away from it. But that was not good enough for Phroziac. Three hours later I get this message from karmafist:

" ==Harrassing Phroziac== Phroziac said you've been harrassing her. Stop it. You can disagree with her if you like, but you will be civil to other users. karmafist 02:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Now who is being uncivil?? Can you guys leave it alone??? Can you admins try not to let your authority go to your heads? Must you demand that I capitulate to Phroziac, even though it's pretty clear she was too lazy to try to pick the correct target before shooting?

Karmafist, did you bother to look into this at all before you left your note telling me that I was harrassing her? Name one sentence, or word, where I was harrassing Phroziac.

Now here is how Karmafest responded to my RFAr, a thinly veiled threat to block me (this, of course, is not "harrassment"):

Your Response Answered Your Own Question
The tone of your response made it pretty clear that she was right in believing that you were harrassing her. Like I said before, don't do it. karmafist 05:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"tone" is your subjective evalutation. You are wrong. As was she. It still doesn't explain why you decided to rub my nose in it 3 hours after I walked away from this. You cannot avoid that fact. r b-j 05:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point here is that karma still relies on his axiom of me harrassing Phroziac when, in fact, there is no evidence of that. Then, for the crime of "sassing back" to his authority, he leaves:

You Should Continue Walking Away Then
Your most recent message shows that you don't understand how things work around here. I don't care whether you think whether you think someone is wrong or right, you will be nice to them. Period. I see you're a frequent USENET contributor, which apparently explains your rudeness. That's not the way things work around here. How it works is that users like you are nice to other users, or admins like me block you, repeatedly if necessary until you learn. I suggest you continue walking away from the prior situation and don't get into any future situations because now I and several other admins will be watching your contribs. karmafist 05:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, being frank is not being "nice", and admins like Karmafist are simply above reproach. Since Karmafist is an admin, he is allowed to be as nasty as he wants and he doesn't have to justify any assumption of "fact" he makes with any evidence. It also shows him clouding the issue by bringing up USENET (which I made no issue of at all, at this point). My response:

karma, this is evidence of you acting like a big tough bully: "I'm the big tough admin, and you better shut up or me and my tough admin friends will be watching out for you." You are the one being rude. You are now threating to block me because I am being frank. The ArbCom will not be ignorant of it. And you think you're good for the ArbCom? When someone is on the ArbCom, they think about things a while before making judgements.
BTW, i am highly respected on comp.dsp. once in a while some troll or jerk hears a mouthful from me (usually regarding the Dirac delta function, mathematician don't like how engineers think about it), but normally my posts are regarded as very helpful. and a few years ago, comp.dsp was rated one of the top five newsgroups for signal-to-noise ratio. so, let's see... highly regarded contributor to high S/N newsgroup. i should be ashamed of that? there are other newsgroups where i am much lower profile, like sci.physics.research but a few Nobel Laureates hang out there. it's good to walk softly there.
one more thing, i was involved in a WP slugfest that went to ArbCom (Bogdanov Affair) and came out smelling pretty clean. you and Phroziac have both underestimated my legitimacy as an editor and my competence to make a case. like Fearless Leader, you have likely overreached and your arrogance is showing. r b-j 06:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then, in response, more taunting and abuse from karma under the cover of authority:

This Is Fun
You're absolutely right, I am a bully, only a special kind of bully -- a bully to bullies like Dubya and yourself. You cannot intimidate me with claims of Nobel Prize Winners liking you ...

Note (besides the hypocrisy, I s'pose Karmafist thinks that raping the rapist is okay, too) the introduction of another lie (a misprepresentation of what I said). I never said anything about "Nobel Prize Winners liking" me. I said that because (once in a while) there are heavyweights (some Nobel) that have posted to the moderated newsgroup, sci.physics.research, that I tread much more lightly there than I do at comp.dsp. Also there's the repeated assumption that I'm a bully ("like Dubya") without any evidence. Is sticking up for oneself being a bully? Again, what words did I say to Phroziac constitute bullying, harrassment, or anything illegal here at Wikipedia? Is it the law here that no one is allowed to question the action of an admin? Is it the law here that we must accept that action as justified? And if we do not, we have broken the rules of civility?

... or that you're the king of trolltown ...

No, that's not a personal attack.

... or you'll go cry to the Arbcom (since you don't seem to understand -- the arbcom is a group of good people shackled to the point of near uselessness by a broken system.) I find the arbcom one especially humorous since you couldn't hide behind their apronstrings even if they wanted you to, which is unlikely since they deal with rude trolls such as yourself all the time and they've become jaded to whining such as yours. Oh yeah, you really should check those arbcom motions before you use them as proof, the one your speaking of has about a whole slew of people both on the arbcom and respected elsewhere on here either understanding the reasoning behind my methodology or appluading me for having the guts to take on people such as yourself who try to intimidate others.
Oh, and speaking of the "smelling clean" in regards to the Bogdanov Affair, you're incorrect. For one, anyone who gets involved in an argument (an incivil debate, IME) has debased themselves to the lowest form of communication and must deal with that shame. I'm fortunate here since you seem to be arguing while I continue to be warning. Secondly, being a lesser troll than some of the biggest trolls in Wikipedia history isn't something to be particularly proud of. That article has been hit with the Wikipedia equivalent of a nuclear bomb in terms of credibility, and since you were involved in it extensively, you share the residue radiation just because you were associated with the dispute.
...

Just FYI: I was one of the editors that was trying to keep that article from desending into a vanity article for the subjects of it. For that "residual radition", I am the "lessor troll"? Gee, thanks.

...I don't care about your content dispute with Phroziac,...

But I do.

... I don't care about any content dispute that you might have. You'll be civil to others. That is not negotiable. I also suggest heading over to Esperanza, they may be able to cure you of your troll affliction. karmafist 06:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then comes the patronizing:

Helping You Out
Now I see that your behavior might be more from inexperience rather than anything else, so here's some advice.
  1. The arbcom is too overloaded to listen to anything unless it's gone through the proper channels first or it's an emergency. Your thing is neither. I assumed last night that you were talking about the POTW case.
  2. The comment to Jimbo Wales is funny since I guess you've never heard of JamesMLane's Law. That probably helped me more than anything since whining to authorities rarely helps you, often it hurts you. However, since the arbcom selection procedure is still up in the air, your words there might have meant nothing at all.
Seriously, head over to Esperanza. I still think we can still cure you of your personality affliction rehabilitate you into the general community before it's too late. karmafist 17:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, (or actually before), I stopped having any direct contact with either Karmafest or Phroziac since they take any disagreement and turn it around into a personal attack with threats of action under the cover of authority. That, the abuse of editors under the cover of authority, is inexcusable.

One last example of Karma's arragance (he's just too important to have to respond to these trifling charges). From the RFAr:

Statement by karmafist
Yawn. I figured Rbj meant the POTW reopening case, but I guess I gave him too much credit considering that the arbcom doesn't accept cases without going through the proper procedure. You shouldn't bother listening to rbj's whining, much like Pigsonthewing, he has a USENET mentality, basically just looking for conflict wherever he can find it. Phroziac told me he was harrassing her, I told him to stop, he tries to weasel his way out of that warning, ala Zen-master or Kmweber, and we have an fun little discussion.(Well, for him it was more of an arguement while for me it was more of a warning.)
If anymore Harrassment of Phroziac or anyone else occurs from Rbj, i'll open up an rfc in the next week or so, I'll keep you all informed. karmafist 17:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the assumption of harrassment by me, without a single quote or citing of what words I have said to Phroziac that constitute harrassment. Now he has opened that RFC and has offered no specific citing of words or sentences from me to Phroziac that are harrassment.

Now from the other defunct motion to desysop Karmafist:

For a lack of a better analogy, I'd see a de-sysopping as a failure to fufill "Wiki-Bushido" in the eyes of my peers, thus requiring a "Wiki-Seppuku" more or less, which nearly happened 3 weeks ago.
I will do anything to protect Wikipedia, but I will not be shamed in the attempt to do so. I just wanted to inform you of this in case any of you hadn't heard before. karmafist 20:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now lessee..., Karmafist views himself as some sort of chivalrous Samurai, and he "will not be shamed in the attempt to" have him desysopped. He says that "do anything to protect Wikipedia," but qualifies that with protection of his ego, his pride which is more important that his protecting Wikipedia. I responded with:

even more bluntly, the self image he has of himself as some kind of knight or samurai when his behavior is simply that of a bully promoted to town cop (they gave him a badge and gun, but he's still a rude and abusive bully under the uniform) is delusional. the WP project is not simply a business or simply defined institution, but some simple comparisons can be made. a business needs founders, investors, customers, and employees. the leadership would include the company founder(s) and some of the top level employees. all of these editors who are adding content of value to the project are like investors (they are investing their own person capital, at some risk, for the benefit of the project). people coming here to read about learn something are like customers, and, although you're not getting paid for it, the sysops (admin and arbcom) are like employees. imagine a business where a prominent (mid-level) employee treats some of its investors the way karmafist deals with (potentially valuable) editors. once the leadership finds out about it, how long would that employee last at that company? or, on the other hand, if the boss didn't do anything about such an employee, what would happen to the "corporate culture"? with more karmafists appearing (which is what happens if this behavior is rewarded) and doing the same thing to the investors and potential investors, what will be the future of this business? Karma, shame is unavoidable at this point, but if you truly "will do anything to protect Wikipedia", the best thing you can do for that aim is to leave. r b-j 03:41, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I stand by those words. The best thing that Karmafist can do to protect Wikipedia is to leave and let us adults get some work done without being harrassed by him. It is too late for any apology from him (of course I no longer expect such) or any recognition of his wrongful actions or his dishonesty or hypocrisy. Karmafist should leave Wikipedia, he costs more than he is worth to the project. And if he doesn't do that voluntarily, he should be desysopped. The fact that he considers himself qualified for ArbCom (and like Ross Perot, he acts like he doesn't really want that power, but his actions refute that notion) is evidence of his sheer self-delusion.

Keep in mind, that I started my RFAr against Karma and Phroziac because after letting go of this (hey, they get to win!), they were evidently dissatisfied with that and 3 hours later wanted to rub my nose in it. That crossed the line. I did not start this RfC, Karma did. Now, they have brought up the newest charge: "stalking" (this is curious since stalking me is precisely the threat that Karmafist made 05:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)). I have not personally attacked either Karma nor Phroziac, but these are public pages, and if anyone says or writes a falsehood about me in a public space, I have the right to respond and I have. I will not repeat the mistake of Michael Dukakis in 1988 or Kerry in 2004. I will not let the falsehoods slide without a response. To do so allows such a falsehood to evolve in status from damnable lie, to plausible notion, eventually to indisputable gospel truth. Unfortunately, that's what happens when lies are not refuted right away. And Karmafist lies. Among other things, that is what he does.

Karma and Phroziac have made no attempt to justify their rubbing my nose in this 3 hours after I let it go and when I let Phroziac have the last word on it, and Karma has made no specific citing of what particular words or sentences I have said to Phroziac that are abusive or harrassment. They must not be allowed to make such charges without proof. And Karma must not be allowed to think he can harrass whomever he pleases, then resort to the childish accusation of his victim of the very crime he is guilty of. For either to do that is decidedly dishonest and hypocritical.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. As author r b-j 03:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC) amended 05:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. MARMOT - 'Steph' blocked me on IRC. Phroziac nasty. Phroziac evil. MARMOT 17:27, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by CBDunkerson

This RfC is another of Karmafist's campaigns to destroy 'bad users' who are really just regular users who happened to cross him. Virtually no effort has been made to settle the matter peacefully. The three links above purporting to show efforts to resolve the dispute actually do nothing of the kind... unless I missed the dispute resolution section on threats and insults.

Rbj was blocked by Phroziac for reverting another user's talk page after that user kept blanking it to remove various criticisms (from Rbj and others). This isn't the right way to go about things, but a common mistake when confronted with someone who won't discuss things. Rbj complained to Phroziac about lack of warning/notification, not blocking the other user too, and other aspects of the block in half a dozen or so messages over the course of a day. Karmafist then stepped in to stop the "harassment" of Phroziac with less than helpful threats and condescending messages about Rbj's "troll affliction". This is just a regular user who makes plenty of good contributions mocked and classified as a "troll" by Karmafist over a few minor mistakes/disagreements. He was understandably upset by Karmafist's disregard for civility and has unfortunately responded in kind.

Also, this ongoing incivility and campaign against all members of Usenet by Karmafist has to stop. If a new user made an edit like this with that kind of edit summary nobody would hesitate to call it vandalism. Nor to condemn his 'all Usenet users are trolls' rants which have been going on for some time ([24] [25] [26] [27] [28]) and continue on this very page. We should not hold admins to a lower standard than we would complete novices... and nobody should be harassed just because they happened to have posted to a particular type of message board.

Yes, Rbj has violated civility standards and before that made a few minor mistakes of procedure and decorum. However, that is no cause for this RfC... especially given that the incivility was clearly provoked by similar misbehaviour from the admin bringing the complaint. Both should apologize to the community (and each other if they are capable of it) for their incivility and let that be the end of it.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. As author --CBD ☎ ✉ 03:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  2. r b-j 03:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC) (but i would still like to see specific examples of my being uncivil to Phroziac or to Karmafist. responding to what they say and disputing it, is not, in and of itself, incivility.)[reply]
  3. All users, administrators or not, need to follow WP:CIVIL. BOTH sides here have broken the civility line. Karma and r-b-j should both apologize for their behaviour.  ALKIVAR™ 13:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I was going to write a new Outside view paragraph, but this says it all. I can only re-emphasize the quality of the contributions that r b-j has done in the past and be puzzled by the apparent total lack of effort in resolving the dispute before this RfC was filed. -- Ze miguel 16:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This RfC seems way over the top to me... following the links for some of the evidence posted at top, Karmafist's evidence of a "vendetta" seems to largely be R-b-j complaining about him/her and trying to persuade other users of the same. Accusations of racism?!? Leaving a comment (in response to a demonstrably false statement) saying "you guys are going to have to learn to differentiate a lie from truth" on User:Woohookitty's talk page is "harassment" of Woohookitty? There are seriously problematic users on Wikipedia and I have little tolerance for trolls, but this isn't it. (Note that R-b-j pointed out this RfC on my Talk page even though he and I have disagreed a number of times in the past, both on Wikipedia and comp.dsp.) —Steven G. Johnson 18:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. JoaoRicardotalk 21:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inside view by Locke Cole

I was content to just endorse Karmafist's summary and be done with this, but Rbj has decided to seek out a vendetta against anyone who disagrees with his point of view (as evidenced by his trolling on my RFA). Anyways, when I initially read Karmafist's summary I was curious what lead up to Rbj's conduct. I thought maybe Rbj was being victimized here over something that was trumped up. But, my investigation turned up quite a bit of evidence of wrongdoing by Rbj, including revert warring on another user's talk page, and generally being a dick.

Rather than paste all evidence here, I'll link to my userspace page where I've got it compiled. Please note that I stopped investigating once the timeline began to coincide with Karmafist's summary above.

Evidence here: User:Locke Cole/RFC/Rbj/Evidence

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. —Locke Cole • t • c 19:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rbj's attempts at stacking the discussion

It appears Rbj has been conducting a campaign to attempt to stack the discussion at his own RFC. I believe it calls into question this users motivation here, and whether or not he really wants to settle things (resolve the dispute) or whether he just wants to try and one-up Karmafist/Phroziac. Diffs follow. All times are UTC. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have edited in the section i created below, I am assuming it's okay for me to put comments here. I have no problem that you responded to me in the section below but I created it believing that we were not supposed to edit in other's sections in this RfC except maybe to endorse and comment such endorsement. I had not responded directly to Karmafist's falsehoods in the section he created, but instead copied the info and the mischaracterizations and responded to such in a separate section. I have also created a separate section to respond to your Inside view, you have responded inside it (which is fine by me) so rather than put this somewhere else, I respond here.
It is most certainly true that I contacted some editors that know me a little and know what I have edited because Karmafist has put forth the falsehood that I do nothing else here at WP except fight this fight and, except for CBD, that falsehood has gone unchallenged. I have not told these editors how to comment, but I simply asked them to read this RfC and comment if they like. Some have and some have not. and, in fact, Stevenj has brought up the fact he and I disagree often, both here and on USENET (comp.dsp), yet he could see the obvious that Karma and Phroziac are creating a fuss built upon falsehoods (I have been created a fuss about Karmafist based solely on the factual abusive behavior of this unfit admin). In fact, I suppose that Stevenj would fall under Karmafist's prejudicial "USENET trollery" since Karma has posted multiple times that he thinks everyone coming to WP from USENET are trolls. Look upi Steven's personal web page and you'll see him to be a Ph.D. at MIT and has created this very important work called FFTW ("Fastest Fourier Transform in the West"). In terms of an editor providing valuable content to WP, Stevenj would simply blow you or Karma or Phroziac out of the water.
I do not do IRC, I do not know the email addresses of any other these editors (but I could find Nicholas's if I had to) so I am doing "secret side communications". I believe in transparency, which I think is a good WP value.
So Locke, besides the fact that your nose is brown (I won't say with what or whose what), what is your problem with me contacting others to review someone else's falsehoods and comment? r b-j 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you have yet to either remove or justify your (false) charge that I have used a sock-puppet in your "evidence" page. When are you going to do something about that? r b-j 18:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe it to be false, so I will not be removing it. You'll forgive me if, given your conduct here, I don't take your "good word". —Locke Cole • t • c 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may believe whatever you want. Karma and Phroziac can believe whatever they want. But if any of you accuse someone else of some recalcitrance, you are obligated to produce proof of it. Other than that Verizon DSL IP 71.161.209.24 (talk · contribs) that I used on December 22 (admittedly to get around the block so I could communicate with some more reasonable admins, and where I signed my sole username), you produce any proof of any sort that I have used any anonymous IP (since September 2004, when I first registered Rbj (talk · contribs)) or any other username ever. Have some authorized admin or arbitrator "run a sock check" on me. You come up with a single shred of proof. Otherwise just shut up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbj (talk • contribs) 23:22, January 9, 2006
And again with the personal attacks. Please read and attempt to obey WP:NPA, or I will bring a second RFC against you for your conduct here and at my RFA. BTW, this is not Stevenj's RFC, it's yours. And whether or not you've contributed good content to Wikipedia is irrelevant if your behavior is improper. Please do not forget that. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Telling people the demonstrable truth about others abusive behavior here particularly that of an admin or anyone else entrusted with authority is not sufficient to qualify as a personal attack. See the biggest difference between the negative things I have written about Karma, and the less negative things I have written about Phroziac, and the even less negative things I have written about you, is that everything I have written is verifiable if people would bother to click the links and read. Phroziac and Karmafist have never offered proof that I harrassed either of them, and, setting aside my interaction with Rchamberlain for the moment, that I have harrassed anyone. (Just as you have never offered proof of me ever using a sock.) Yet Karma starts harrassing me, big time (and harrassment from an admin is even worse because they carry a badge and a gun) at Phroziac's request when I said nothing to her that was harrassment at all and nothing at all to her for 3 hours after letting her have the last word and walking away from it. Neither you nor Karma nor Phroziac have ever addressed that, even after I specifically focussed upon that charge multiple times. It's the technique of: "We get to lie about you all we want and level all sorts of untrue charges, and we don't even have to acknoledge the verifiable charges you bring up." In other words none of the WP rules apply to you or Karma or Phroziac, do they? r b-j 23:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

January 3, 2006

January 4, 2006

January 5, 2006

Locke Cole's "Inside view" has multiple inaccuracies

Locke Cole's "evidence": User:Locke Cole/RFC/Rbj/Evidence has multiple errors in time and order of events that presents a misleading and erroneous version of these events. In User_talk:Locke_Cole/RFC/Rbj/Evidence, he blames these errors (i pointed out one, but there are more) on his "timezone offset", but has not corrected them. Particularly since this "evidence" is a purported "timeline", he should withdraw his "evidence" at least until he corrects the mistakes contained therein (including the convenient omissions). This sort of investigative sloppiness is hardly worthy of an aspiring admin (but, hey, he can't be worse than Karmafist). r b-j 04:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The errors were few, and insignificant really since they were towards the end of the timeline (when they caught up with Karmafist's view). I believe the behavior exhibited early on, specifically the three-day-long edit war on a user's talk page, is the most damning evidence of your misbehavior. Could you please address why you think it's okay to revert war with someone in their own userspace? —Locke Cole • t • c 08:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And for anyone wondering, yes, I corrected as many of the errors as I could find, and believe I got them all. If there are any others, please feel free to leave a note on the talk page there. —Locke Cole • t • c 08:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please convert it to UTC? We don't live in your timezone. (Then I'll be able to check the veracity of your timeline.) Also, after you convert to UTC, may I add all of the abusive edits of Karmafist that you have evidently elected to leave out? There are errors of ommision. (As well as errors of characterization, e.g. i didn't "threaten" Phroziac with the ArbCom in that last edit, it was already after I started te RfAr against Karmafist and Phroziac. I was telling her why she was being taken before ArbCom.) These numerous timing errors (which may or may not all have been corrected), the fact that some of them changed the order of events, the errors of ommision that remain, your characterization of the edits, show you to be a biased third party. It's obvious.
And for anyone wondering or not, the "narrative timeline" in my extended response above, contains links to diffs of the evidence supporting what I have said. If Locke's timeline contradicts the order of events depicted in my response above, it is objectively and demonstatively false. r b-j 17:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the offensive characterization, thankyou for bringing it to my attention. I haven't had time to go through it all and correct any conclusions reached due to the timezone issue (but rest assured, I will). With regard to converting it to UTC, I may do that later, if I have time. Regarding your allegation of bias, I assure you I am not. Your deeds speak for themself, and Phroziac's block of you was entirely valid. Do not edit war in other peoples user-space, especially with the user whose space it is. You do not deserve an apology for being blocked, nor will you ever likely get one. Now you can go back to contributing and leave well enough alone (and hopefully learn that edit warring on a user talk page is bad), or you can continue wikistalking anyone remotely involved with this (as you've done on my RFA, and as you've done on the RFAR against Freestylefrappe), in which case you'll likely be taken to the ArbCom for your actions. And no, that's not a threat, that's a realization that your conduct cannot continue. You cannot continue to make personal attacks (telling me that my "nose is too brown", repeatedly, because I endorsed Karmafist's complaint against you). This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
they have this saying: "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..." What you just made here is a threat. And your deeds also speak for themselves. I have let Phroziac's block of me slide long ago. Remember, I let her have the last word on it and walked away from our disagreement of it appropriateness. Yet I was still harrassed by Karmafist at her behest. That I am not letting slide. Karmafist's behavior was so beyond the pale that he should be desysoped. The fact that you are carrying Karma's water for him (regarding this RfC, the ArbCom motion to desysop him, and my comment on Freestylefrappe's RfAr), repeatedly, when Karma has nominated you for adminship, is evidence of bias or at least a conflict of interest on your part. That is "brownnosing". As long as you repeatedly keep doing it, I will point it out, each time because it's the truth, your assurance notwithstanding. You are the one determining the frequency. r b-j 05:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What "deeds"? I endorsed a view against you, and for it, I've been stalked by you to my RFA (and personally attacked there for no good reason (not that a reason matters, as WP:NPA says, they're totally unacceptable, but you still engage in them even in your latest reply above)). In so far as believing me, I will remind you of WP:AGF– I've never done anything to you other than endorse a view because I agree with it. I've never threatened nor harassed you (as you have me), I've never personally attacked you. You have no reason to not assume good faith on my part. It's up to you whether this continues. Nobody forces you to make personal attacks and engage in harassment. These are all things you control. And as I said before, it's not a threat, it's a recognition that eventually your misbehavior will need to be addressed. The choice is yours: you can stop, or you can carry on. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's more than an endorsement. Like Karmafist, you create this list of "evidence" which is full of falsehoods in fact and in characterization. When I point out the undeniable, you make little fixes (which I am confident you would not have, if you were not called on it), but you don't really fix it. It's still biased and incomplete. And you "assure" me of your lack of bias.
and FYI, I have never used a sockpuppet. i have never used an anonymous IP on Wikipedia since creating the WP account User:Rbj in September 2004 except for on December 22, 2005 using 71.161.209.24 (talk · contribs) (when Phroziac summarily blocked me, without any prior or contemporanious notice, when I posted my complaint to WP:AN/I and to ask Phroziac for an explanation for the block and to ask Nicholas Turnbull for help) and each time I signed my real username to it, to be clear that the identity of the poster is me (that's the behavior of a sock-puppet?). I resent any insinuation that I have used any sock puppet ever. To make such a thinly veiled wiki-accusation without proof is wiki-defamation. You said that you did something about the "offensive characterization[s]" in your timeline and you conveniently did not complete the job. You also have conveniently left off all of the abusive messages and threats from Karmafist after I let this go with Phroziac. And you assure us that you're unbiased. My, that's persuasive. r b-j 06:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One last point: I am defending myself, mostly from false accusations of harrassment made by Karmafist, but also, to a lessor extent from false characterizations made by you. Since December 21, who did I ever attack or stalk? And you must be specific about words. What words did I say to Phroziac that was harrassment and justification for the repeated onslaught of harrassment from Karmafist. Who did I stalk? I'm not going to your talk page or Karma's or Phrozaic's to leave little threatening and patronizing turds (as Karmafist has done to me). When my name is cited, I have the right to respond and set the record right. If Karmafist wants to do a rant against USENET, fine. I leave it alone. But if he rants against USENET and then supports his rant using me for his "evidence", I have a right to respond at that location. If he wants to connect me to some other editor in some dispute of his, I have a right to respond and set the record straight. If you don't like my Oppose vote in your RfA and the very short reason I cited and you reply to it, I have the right to follow up. None of that is harrassment or stalking. Leave my name out of it. Or, expect a reply to any refutation you attempt of something that I said. I have not posted to anyone's page about any of this "out of the blue" (except maybe the initial post to Jimbo's talk page). It was always a response to something said about me that brought me into it or it was a response to an ArbCom member's action regarding my RfAr or the motion to desysop Karma.
Like Karma, you think you can just assume without justification that I "make personal attacks and engage in harassment". It's not an axiom. You have to justify that with actual words (of mine). And saying words that are true, that you happen not to like, and not even on your user space, is neither stalking nor harrassment. But threatening me or any editor that simply takes issue of your behavior is harrassment. r b-j 06:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no one else does it, Karma's list should be examined, item by item.

Karmafist (and Phroziac, because she signed on the dotted line, too) hope to persuade people that I am violating the precise Wikipedia guidelines and policies that Karma himself regularly violates by piling on a long list charges, hoping that no one examines any closely.

  • Longwinded soapbox diatribe on rfar, verging on WP:NPA vio [29]
    • Karma's record of incivility, abuse of authority, and literally lying about it, is very long. To describe it with any justice takes a lot of words.
  • Another near WP:NPA vio on the talk page of Talrias (talk · contribs) [30]
    • Talrias responded to my "whining to Jimbo" and I followed up on his talk page as one would normally do. He said he was watching Jimbo's talk page and asked me to continue there, which I did. It is one and the same action as my bringing this to the attention of Jimbo. (but adding it as another item on the list of r b-j infractions makes it longer and impresses the not-so-swift.)
  • Whining to Jimbo, second including an NPA vio.[31],[32]
    • Hey, this is Jimbo's project. I think he has a right to know he has at least one abusive and dishonest admin working for him. Telling him about it is a violation for what reason?
  • He literally states that he has a vendetta here. [33]
    • In more places than that, I literally state that Karmafist should be desysopped, that my interest is for him to be desysopped, that wikipeida is better off without him, that (like Kelly Martin has said) he is not fit to be an admin. That is a fact. I stand by that. Call it a vendetta, but I call it poltical action to clean up the place. "Prosecution" is not "persecution". Karmafist is a malignant recalcitrant that violates editors under the cover of authority who is citing the legitimate complaints and attempt to do something about that abuse as some "violation"?? He is a bad cop who is cracking down on the very citizens who have lodged a legitimate complaint against him.
  • He tries to disrupt an rfar in an attempt to defame me.[34]
    • It's not defamation if it's true. And I only responded to that RfA because Karmafist dragged my name into it.
  • More defammation on an article talk page [36]
    • It's not defamation if it's true. You need to deal with the fact of your abuse of authority, Karma, rather than that people are talking about it. You are trying to suppress the ugly truth of your misbehavior.
  • More defammation in Everyking (talk · contribs)'s user space. [37]
    • Well, since they deleted the page history, I can't see what this "evidence" is. I have only responded to some other contact. I did not go to this page and edit out of the cold.
    • Since the page was not reconstituted, there is no evidence presented. If Karmafist was an honest person, he would delete this from his list of "evidence" since, as evidence, it is non-existent.
  • Complains to Arbitrator Raul654 (talk · contribs) [38], [39]
    • And your point is? Did Raul consider it a violation? He seemed to answer politely.
  • Tries to gain Freestylefrappe (talk · contribs) as an ally in his crusade of hatred towards me. [40]
    • Oh, but you've been accusing Freestylefrappe of soliciting me in some action against you. That's why I went to the RfAr page. The fact that you try to have it both ways, karma, is evidence that you're a dishonest admin. You accuse Freestylefrappe of soliciting me against you, and now you accuse me of soliciting Freestylefrappe. You're not a very honest guy, are you?
  • Tries to gain Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) as an ally in his crusade of hatred towards me. [41]
    • He responded to my RfAr against you and Phroziac. Had I no right to say anything to him about it?
  • Harrassment on Woohookitty (talk · contribs)'s talk page [42]
    • Well, you better ask Woohoo if he thinks I harrassed him. I only responded to your defaming me on Woohoo's page. You brought my name into another USENET bashing that happened to be (due to your choice) on Woohoo's page and I responded to it there. You're a dishonest person to twist that into me harrassing Woohookitty.
  • strawman defense/veiled accusation of racism in favor of USENET Trollery upon Wikipedia.[43]
    • This one is a gem! Let's look at the facts: Karma starts a section on User:Mistress_Selina_Kyle's talk page about me. (she's a well established personal attacker and I was only one of her victims, but, unlike Karma, she's a small-time hood.)
==Rbj==
Yeah, he's from USENET, and that's the way they act over there, so i'm not particularly surprised. Would you like to be a party on an rfc? Apparently, he's done nothing on Wikipedia during the last week except for trying to attack me. I'll probably start one soon. karmafist 23:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, them USENET people. they're all the same. in fact i can't tell one from the other. they all look the same to me. r b-j 01:13, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
now let's see, there's no prejudice expressed here? "Yeah, he's from USENET, and that's the way they act over there.." Then solicits this blocked repeated personal attacker to be a party to an RfC (against me, that inference is clear) when I did nothing to her. Not one word of attack or even defense. Karma, your little mendacious boy's technique of accusing your victim of precisely the crime you are guilty of doing is transparent. You're not a very honest guy, are you? And you underestimate people's ability to read. Lastly, he lies about what I do (or don't do) on Wikipedia.
  • Multiple NPA violations/Wikistalking on Locke Cole (talk · contribs)'s rfa for his statement here [44][45] [46] [47]
    • I have every right to vote and comment on Locke's FrA. Since my short comment was responded to, I followed up. Locke appears to be your protogé and has been carrying your water, I was simply pointing that out. And since you are decidedly unfit to be an admin, I was simply making the natural implication regarding Locke's qualification for adminship.

Karma, besides the mendacity of all of these "charges" you really insult the intelligence of people looking into it. You are the WP:DICK. You are the one disrupting Wikipedia to make a point that no editor shall stand up for their rights against you and get away with it. You are the violator. Again, this started when, out of the blue, you started harrassing me, stating falsely that I was harrassing Phroziac when I said nothing to her in 3 hours and let her have the last word. Because I did not accept such abusive behavior from you, you have tried to escalate this. Eventually people will figure this out. They will figure out that you are a mendacious, abusive, bad admin who has misused his admin authority on too many "regular" editors, and this regular editor is not gonna walk away from it anymore. I'm standing up to the bully whether or not he has a badge and gun. r b-j 08:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary 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.

Both editors, but particularly administrator Karmafist, must disengage immediately and cease using Wikipedia to pursue their personal differences. This is an encyclopedia. If you want to have a personal fight, try some forum site.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hear, hear. David | Talk 10:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Pjacobi 14:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Either one of the parties comes up with evidence, that some article space problem is the root of all this, or just drop it. Wikipedia is not a social experiment.[reply]
  4. --CBD ☎ ✉ 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. JoaoRicardotalk 21:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. — T-Boy: (complain bitterly) (laugh contemptuously) 08:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mangojuice 20:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Robert McClenon 22:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. goatasaur 01:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view #2

Both editors must disengage immediately and cease using Wikipedia to pursue their personal differences. This is an encyclopedia. It is not meant to be used to settle personal disputes. There are many avenues (IM, IRC, email, even a phone call) that should be used to resolve this, not the Wikipedia site.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Woohookitty(cat scratches) 07:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC) Just wanted to add that I do not consider what rbj said on my talk page as "harrassment". I told him to stop using my talk page to continue the war and he stopped. I put in my own here though because I blame both users equally.[reply]
  2. --CBD ☎ ✉ 21:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ---KrazyCaley 07:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC) The bickering between these editors, encountered by me while reading talk pages on related articles, is counterproductive. While it is improbable that these editors are equally to blame, investigation into which one of them has interfered or harassed the other more is just as counterproductive. The sheer amount of effort poured into this page by both editors is somewhat disturbing- the time used to fire broadsides at each other here would certainly be better spent improving WP. Hopefully both editors can agree to disagree, or failing that, at least to leave each other alone. If, as each accuses the other, one is guilty of flagrant policy violations, surely another editor besides these respective nemeses will notice and report the same.[reply]

Outside view by McClenon

This appears to be a feud. I have signed the two previous statements asking both parties to disengage. I will add a few comments. The list of incidents cited by Karmafist was unpersuasive. Much of the evidence consisted of links rather than diffs, and many of the incidents appeared to be reasonable. Posting requests to Jimbo and to admins to look at a controversy is reasonable, and the fact that Karmafist views those as personal attacks is troubling. On reading only the statement of the conduct, I was almost inclined to be willing to sign Rbj's response - - until I read Rbj's response, which is lengthy, tedious, and angry, and does contain personal attacks. Both editors need to chill.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 22:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Bob K 23:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


just a stupid note (move it if you don't like it here), since now for the third time, i have attempted to "walk away" from this: both previous times that i have walked away from this, i was sorta shot in the back by Karma (the first time, evidentally at Phroziac's behest) and by Phroziac the second time. even when i let them have the last word, they respond with parting shots. the last time i was blocked for 48 hours to silence me from answering their falsehoods (which continue to remain unanswered on the talk page, today.) sorry for a long and tedious statement, but Karma's lies and Phroziac weak and self-serving arguments deserved deconstruction. there is no moral equivalence in this feud. Phroziac and most certainly Karmafist are nasty, immature, and irresponsible admins who abuse their authority here (giving kids badges and guns is a systemic problem here at WP). i will not retract that truth. r b-j 02:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume management can not or will not remedy that problem. Then what I suggest is that everybody try to learn from this experience, and going forward try to make allowances for the generation gap. Don your thickest skin, and keep your disrespectful remarks in the box... the one with the locking lid. Written communication seems to bring out the worst in people, like driving. Keep that in mind, and resist the urge to escalate a small crisis into a train wreck. --Bob K 04:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rbj&oldid=1142569606"