Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RobJ1981

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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: 09:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 17:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

• RobJ1981 (talk • contribs • logs)

---

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

Contents 1 Statement 1.1 Desired Outcome 1.2 Evidence of disputed behavior 1.3 Applicable policies and guidelines 1.4 Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute 1.5 Users certifying the basis for this dispute 1.6 Other users who endorse this summary 2 Response 3 Semi-outside view by admin JzG 4 An outside view from a non-admin... 5 Discussion

[edit] Statement

RobJ has been exploiting the fact that I and Henchman share a computer to try and minimise AfD and RFC opposition despite several warnings and peices of evidence showing that he should not be doing this. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Desired Outcome

RobJ will respect us as who we are and not try to discriminate against us. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 09:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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.)

1. [1]
2. [2]

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

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

1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

1. [3]
2. [4]
3. [5]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

1. Henchman 2000 19:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC) _{It should be noted that I agreed with the statement BEFORE the sockpuppetry was added, if it had've been there before I came, I would not have signed here. This is the same thing happening to Bowsy and I, so it shouldn't happen to RobJ, even if he has the exact opposite opinion to me. Henchman 2000 09:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)}

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

[edit] 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.

I agree with Guy's comment below: this appears to be a retaliatory RfC. They threaten that I will be in lots of trouble (here as one example of when Henchman did it: User talk:Messedrocker#Was this fair.3F), but neither are admins (yet they act like they are). Threatening a person isn't a way to settle disputes. I have every right to my opinion, but they think I must change it. In regards to the puppetry Bowsy claims: people having similar opinions doesn't mean they are the same person. Dragging 2 other users into this (due to the same views on some things), is bad faith in my opinion. RobJ1981 06:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I pointed out there was meatpuppetry going on. They level a sockpuppetry charge at RobJ1981. Retaliatory. Geoff B 08:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-outside view by admin JzG

This appears to be a retaliatory RfC. There is only one problem, and that is already being addressed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Henchman 2000. Take it there, I think.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An outside view from a non-admin...

...Which may or may not be ignored at any time. I would put this on the talk page, but I think that we could settle this here and now.

What I can see here is that RobJ1981 has fallen victim to an involuntary crime...one that shouldn't REALLY be prosecuted against. You see, everyone has, deep down inside them, a never-ending desire to be right. We've all felt it--it's the power that drives controversy and debate. However, when that escalates to hatred and bias, it becomes a problem. But we shouldn't hold it against him. I, for example, have been known to bear teeth and claws in defense of an opinion...people that know me can tell you how true that is.

Bowsy and Henchman are very correct in the fact that their votes should not be counted as a single vote, nor is there any reason to disclude them from discussion, especially since they gave a reasonable reason why they use the same computer and have similar opinions. They know each other in real life. RobJ does not have any right to force users to have differing opinions simply so that they won't be thought of as "meatpuppets". It is discrimination, bias, and violates all that Wikipedia stands for when it comes to community consensus.

RobJ, however, is quite correct that Henchman should not have threatened him. As RobJ said, is is the internet, which more than a few people take a reason to boldly storm into the fray and attack without fear of retaliation. This, too, is wrong.

Now, it doesn't matter who is "More wrong" in this. I propose that RobJ simply leave the two users alone. If they have similar opinions, that's up to them. Since Wikipedia is not a vote, I think that their votes should be counted if they offer new insight into the discussions. It should be up to the closing admin whose discussion is actually viable. If the two users wish to work together because of their similar opinions, then let them. It's true that we are all different, but sometimes we can be very similar. This is not a crime, nor is it a violation of policy.

In conclusion, I must stress that Wikipedia is not about seeing who is right and who is wrong, it is about working together for a common goal. That goal is knowledge--the share of it, the discussion of it, the desire for it, and the safekeeping of it for all posterity. We are all brothers and sisters here.

Let this discussion be dropped, and everyone start thinking about how we can work with each other, rather than against each other. RobJ, it is OKAY to be wrong. Henchman, it is NOT OKAY to threaten people, even from ten thousand miles away. Bowsy, you've kind of gotten stuck in the middle of this. I'm sorry for that.

All those who desire to help build a greater culmination of ideas should be welcome, whether they live in a neighboring country, a neighboring state, a neighboring city, or a neighboring room.

Thank you. ~ PHDrillSergeant...§ 17:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] 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.