A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.
Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.
There appears to be a pattern of long-term incivility, personal attacks, and edit-warring by User:Joefromrandb. Multiple editors have asked him to tone it done, and they have been met with recalcitrance, and sometimes even with personal attacks or accusations of trolling or being a kid. Joe's behavior suggests competence issues. p b p 20:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This summary of the dispute is written by the users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. Other users may present their views of the dispute in the other sections below.
We would like Joefromrandb to:
If this RfC/U had come from anyone except Purplebackpack89 or GabeMc it might have had more merit to it, but this entire RfC/U is a case of WP:KETTLE. See the talk page for clarification on this, since editors are misreading what I've written. I took a look at this report starting with the diffs for edit-warring. Both pbp and GabeMc have filed multiple reports at WP:AN3 in the past few days, here, here, and here. Not only are GabeMc and pbp guilty of the same kind of edit-warring they're accusing Joefromrandb of, but the administrators commenting on those reports disagreed with pbp and GabeMc's assessment to the point that pbp has been advised by multiple administrators at WP:ANI and WP:AN3 to find something else to do that doesn't involve filing frivolous reports against Joefromrandb, [1] [2] [3] and yet they've included those diffs here as "evidence", but omitted the actual AN3 reports as those would have discredited their accusations somewhat.
In the next section the two editors accuse Joefromrandb of calling other editors trolls, yet GabeMc has called Joefromrandb the exact same thing multiple times just within the past few days alone. [4] [5] [6] The diff in which pbp claims he "asks Joe" to stop with personal attacks is rather misleasding; it wasn't a request, it was not one, but two simultaneous templates, Template:uw-wrongsummary and Template:uw-npa4, followed by a " don't you dare" comment, all within the same edit. I can't imagine many editors would respond to that in a positive way, especially when it's followed by the same exact template prefaced with "here's another user warning for your trouble". That isn't someone "asking Joe to stop", but it does look like an attempt to escalate a situation specifically to use any response to pad an RfC/U.
The three points listed here are not unreasonable, but the problem is that those are things that apply to GabeMc and pbp as well. - Sudo Ghost 02:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Users who endorse this summary:
I have no doubt that Joefromrandb doesn't qualify as a model editor (case in point, this discussion). However, I share SudoGhost's concerns that this RfC is largely discredited by the actions of the two editors who initiated it. Sudo didn't mention the latest AN3 report against Joe, which I rejected on similar grounds that previous AN3 reports were rejected -- the filer (in this case, Gabe) does not come with clean hands. (I was then rebuffed, effectively told that because Joe is wrong, his edit-warring was reprehensible, but not Gabe's.)
Much of the evidence comes across as cardstacking, without any context and consideration for what was going on. This is not evidence of disruption, and he only reverted this material twice. Same goes for this. This and this are edit wars that include one of the filing editors. I find it odd that this is used as an example of edit-warring; in actuality, it demonstrates Gabe's propensity to find anything to pin to Joe. There's no evidence the diff Joe is removing can be attributed to him; in fact, it's almost certain it's not him since he has an unblocked account (and thus has no reason to resort to evasion) and since that IP is based in the UK, while Joe's userpage suggests quite strongly that he's in the US. Most of the evidence of incivility (while not, of course, excusable) came as a result of the two filing editors' blatant taunting. Both filing editors have been prominently collecting links to Joe's supposed transgressions ( here and here) as if they're preparing for battle. They've also been trying to recruit editors for their push against Joe. Despite Purple being told to leave Joe alone, he and Gabe have somehow managed to forge a partnership over the past few days aimed at entrapping Joe. In this thread, which seems reminiscent of the cool kids gossiping about the new kid as he sits alone at the lunch table ten feet away, we see GabeMc say "I'll continue to collect diffs and I encourage you to do the same" and Purple say "What we're hoping for is, either at the RFC/U or not, he makes a big fool of himself in front of a whole bunch of people." Joe's annoyed response was to be expected, and, of course, that's what they wanted, so they can have more ammo for their next move (this RfC) against him.
The evidence of "trying and failing to resolve the dispute" is, to put it simply, laughable. Bombarding Joe's talk page with spurious warnings based on KETTLE behavior or behavior resulting from overt baiting is not "trying" to resolve the dispute. No, it's riling him up, knowing he'll respond in a mildly inappropriate manner. A surefire way, I'm sure, to resolve the dispute here is to stop engaging with Joe (as they have been told to do a number of times). Joe is not, despite the suggestion to the contrary, going out of his way to harass either of the filing editors. The proof comes in that ten of the last twelve threads at User talk:Joefromrandb are started by one of the two filing editors, rife with strident accusations of misconduct without any consideration for the filing editors' culpability. Gabe has said he apologized for calling Joe a "troll", but I doubt anyone would say "I apologized for the troll comment, but I stand by that its how I feel right now." meets basic standards of contrition.
Honestly, I fail to see here or in the various threads on my talk page, other admins' talk pages ( User talk:Bishonen, User talk:Black Kite, User talk:Laser brain, User talk:Mark Arsten), at ANI, at AN3, etc. (wherever they forum-shopped), why exactly I should feel any sympathy for the two editors who opened this request. They were looking for trouble and they found it. -- tariqabjotu 07:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Users who endorse this summary:
Users who endorse this summary:
First, Joefromrandb is clearly a disruptive editor who has a history of personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries. He really needs to clean up his behavior if he is here to build an encyclopedia rather than to quarrel. He has engaged in too many idle accusations of trolling.
Second, however, I don't see that there were the efforts to try to reason with the unreasonable editor that are, at least nominally, required for the certifiers of a user RFC. The efforts listed by the certifiers include one reasonable request, and numerous warnings and templates, not much of an improvement over the behavior of Joefromrandb.
Third, I have an alternate suggested result of this RFC/U. I suggest that an interaction ban between Joefromrandb and Purplebackpack89 be instituted, either by consensus or by the ArbCom. It is clear that these editors simply do not like each other, and should be told to leave each other alone. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Users who endorse this summary or outside view:
On reviewing the history of this User Conduct Request for Comments, I see evidence that is deeply unsettling that the certifiers have been removing some of the diffs and changing the evidence after the outside views have been entered, in one case with the stated intention of rendering an objection moot. Whether one thinks that user conduct RFCs are a useful part of dispute resolution or not (and I think that they normally are not useful), the changing of the allegations after the outside responses are in is improper. Even at best, that is, assuming good faith, it makes it more difficult for a later editor to understand what the outside comments are about. It is even less likely with after-the-fact editing that this RFC will result in any improvement than before after-the-fact editing. Can the certifiers please at least leave the evidence in its current state now, rather than forcing the commenters to shoot at a moving target? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Users who endorse this comment:
Having watched the ANI threads and various forum-shopping from Purplebackback89, I feel that both editors can be problematic. Both have been highly uncivil at times, both have edited disruptively. There is very little evidence of any proper attempt to solve the dispute prior to this RFC/U (ANI doesn't count, nor do spamming warnings on to talk pages.) However, given the evidence here, it's clear that Joefromrandb is the more disruptive of the two. I do, however, echo the sentiment of SudoGhost that it would've been better for a more neutral person to file this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Users who endorse this summary:
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.
( non-admin closure) I'm closing this following a request at AN/RFC, because a previous close due to inactivity omitted any summary of the discussion. Drmies's proposed summary was:
I've read through things and am of the opinion that the proposed summary is appropriate. To paraphrase and further expand:
do not excuse or justify Joefromrandb's own behaviors which are far more widespread.
respectfully.
is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus.
-- Trevj ( talk) 14:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.
Anyone is welcome to endorse any view, but do not change other people's views. Under normal circumstances, a user should not write more than one view.
This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct and have previously attempted and failed to resolve the dispute. Only users who certify this request should edit the "Statement of the dispute" section. Other users may present their views in the other sections below.
There appears to be a pattern of long-term incivility, personal attacks, and edit-warring by User:Joefromrandb. Multiple editors have asked him to tone it done, and they have been met with recalcitrance, and sometimes even with personal attacks or accusations of trolling or being a kid. Joe's behavior suggests competence issues. p b p 20:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC) reply
This summary of the dispute is written by the users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus. Other users may present their views of the dispute in the other sections below.
We would like Joefromrandb to:
If this RfC/U had come from anyone except Purplebackpack89 or GabeMc it might have had more merit to it, but this entire RfC/U is a case of WP:KETTLE. See the talk page for clarification on this, since editors are misreading what I've written. I took a look at this report starting with the diffs for edit-warring. Both pbp and GabeMc have filed multiple reports at WP:AN3 in the past few days, here, here, and here. Not only are GabeMc and pbp guilty of the same kind of edit-warring they're accusing Joefromrandb of, but the administrators commenting on those reports disagreed with pbp and GabeMc's assessment to the point that pbp has been advised by multiple administrators at WP:ANI and WP:AN3 to find something else to do that doesn't involve filing frivolous reports against Joefromrandb, [1] [2] [3] and yet they've included those diffs here as "evidence", but omitted the actual AN3 reports as those would have discredited their accusations somewhat.
In the next section the two editors accuse Joefromrandb of calling other editors trolls, yet GabeMc has called Joefromrandb the exact same thing multiple times just within the past few days alone. [4] [5] [6] The diff in which pbp claims he "asks Joe" to stop with personal attacks is rather misleasding; it wasn't a request, it was not one, but two simultaneous templates, Template:uw-wrongsummary and Template:uw-npa4, followed by a " don't you dare" comment, all within the same edit. I can't imagine many editors would respond to that in a positive way, especially when it's followed by the same exact template prefaced with "here's another user warning for your trouble". That isn't someone "asking Joe to stop", but it does look like an attempt to escalate a situation specifically to use any response to pad an RfC/U.
The three points listed here are not unreasonable, but the problem is that those are things that apply to GabeMc and pbp as well. - Sudo Ghost 02:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Users who endorse this summary:
I have no doubt that Joefromrandb doesn't qualify as a model editor (case in point, this discussion). However, I share SudoGhost's concerns that this RfC is largely discredited by the actions of the two editors who initiated it. Sudo didn't mention the latest AN3 report against Joe, which I rejected on similar grounds that previous AN3 reports were rejected -- the filer (in this case, Gabe) does not come with clean hands. (I was then rebuffed, effectively told that because Joe is wrong, his edit-warring was reprehensible, but not Gabe's.)
Much of the evidence comes across as cardstacking, without any context and consideration for what was going on. This is not evidence of disruption, and he only reverted this material twice. Same goes for this. This and this are edit wars that include one of the filing editors. I find it odd that this is used as an example of edit-warring; in actuality, it demonstrates Gabe's propensity to find anything to pin to Joe. There's no evidence the diff Joe is removing can be attributed to him; in fact, it's almost certain it's not him since he has an unblocked account (and thus has no reason to resort to evasion) and since that IP is based in the UK, while Joe's userpage suggests quite strongly that he's in the US. Most of the evidence of incivility (while not, of course, excusable) came as a result of the two filing editors' blatant taunting. Both filing editors have been prominently collecting links to Joe's supposed transgressions ( here and here) as if they're preparing for battle. They've also been trying to recruit editors for their push against Joe. Despite Purple being told to leave Joe alone, he and Gabe have somehow managed to forge a partnership over the past few days aimed at entrapping Joe. In this thread, which seems reminiscent of the cool kids gossiping about the new kid as he sits alone at the lunch table ten feet away, we see GabeMc say "I'll continue to collect diffs and I encourage you to do the same" and Purple say "What we're hoping for is, either at the RFC/U or not, he makes a big fool of himself in front of a whole bunch of people." Joe's annoyed response was to be expected, and, of course, that's what they wanted, so they can have more ammo for their next move (this RfC) against him.
The evidence of "trying and failing to resolve the dispute" is, to put it simply, laughable. Bombarding Joe's talk page with spurious warnings based on KETTLE behavior or behavior resulting from overt baiting is not "trying" to resolve the dispute. No, it's riling him up, knowing he'll respond in a mildly inappropriate manner. A surefire way, I'm sure, to resolve the dispute here is to stop engaging with Joe (as they have been told to do a number of times). Joe is not, despite the suggestion to the contrary, going out of his way to harass either of the filing editors. The proof comes in that ten of the last twelve threads at User talk:Joefromrandb are started by one of the two filing editors, rife with strident accusations of misconduct without any consideration for the filing editors' culpability. Gabe has said he apologized for calling Joe a "troll", but I doubt anyone would say "I apologized for the troll comment, but I stand by that its how I feel right now." meets basic standards of contrition.
Honestly, I fail to see here or in the various threads on my talk page, other admins' talk pages ( User talk:Bishonen, User talk:Black Kite, User talk:Laser brain, User talk:Mark Arsten), at ANI, at AN3, etc. (wherever they forum-shopped), why exactly I should feel any sympathy for the two editors who opened this request. They were looking for trouble and they found it. -- tariqabjotu 07:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Users who endorse this summary:
Users who endorse this summary:
First, Joefromrandb is clearly a disruptive editor who has a history of personal attacks on talk pages and in edit summaries. He really needs to clean up his behavior if he is here to build an encyclopedia rather than to quarrel. He has engaged in too many idle accusations of trolling.
Second, however, I don't see that there were the efforts to try to reason with the unreasonable editor that are, at least nominally, required for the certifiers of a user RFC. The efforts listed by the certifiers include one reasonable request, and numerous warnings and templates, not much of an improvement over the behavior of Joefromrandb.
Third, I have an alternate suggested result of this RFC/U. I suggest that an interaction ban between Joefromrandb and Purplebackpack89 be instituted, either by consensus or by the ArbCom. It is clear that these editors simply do not like each other, and should be told to leave each other alone. Robert McClenon ( talk) 23:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Users who endorse this summary or outside view:
On reviewing the history of this User Conduct Request for Comments, I see evidence that is deeply unsettling that the certifiers have been removing some of the diffs and changing the evidence after the outside views have been entered, in one case with the stated intention of rendering an objection moot. Whether one thinks that user conduct RFCs are a useful part of dispute resolution or not (and I think that they normally are not useful), the changing of the allegations after the outside responses are in is improper. Even at best, that is, assuming good faith, it makes it more difficult for a later editor to understand what the outside comments are about. It is even less likely with after-the-fact editing that this RFC will result in any improvement than before after-the-fact editing. Can the certifiers please at least leave the evidence in its current state now, rather than forcing the commenters to shoot at a moving target? Robert McClenon ( talk) 00:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Users who endorse this comment:
Having watched the ANI threads and various forum-shopping from Purplebackback89, I feel that both editors can be problematic. Both have been highly uncivil at times, both have edited disruptively. There is very little evidence of any proper attempt to solve the dispute prior to this RFC/U (ANI doesn't count, nor do spamming warnings on to talk pages.) However, given the evidence here, it's clear that Joefromrandb is the more disruptive of the two. I do, however, echo the sentiment of SudoGhost that it would've been better for a more neutral person to file this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reply
Users who endorse this summary:
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.
( non-admin closure) I'm closing this following a request at AN/RFC, because a previous close due to inactivity omitted any summary of the discussion. Drmies's proposed summary was:
I've read through things and am of the opinion that the proposed summary is appropriate. To paraphrase and further expand:
do not excuse or justify Joefromrandb's own behaviors which are far more widespread.
respectfully.
is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus.
-- Trevj ( talk) 14:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply