User:SBJohnny/sandbox

This is a Request For Comments about the recent behavior of, put to the community by. All Wikibookians with something to add about this contributor's actions are encouraged to comment, but please remain civil. While it is in the nature of this process to be critical, please try to remember that the RFC process is not meant to be a forum for personal attacks, and all should try to approach this objectively.

SBJohnny's Concerns
Robert's conduct of late has been alarming, destructive, and harmful to our project, and in many cases his conduct has been quite frankly bizzarre, and not at all what I would have expected from him had you asked me 6 months ago. The questionable conduct has taken place both on Wikibooks itself and on foundation-l, which is the mailing list for discussions of wikimedia-wide issues.

On foundation-l, [a recent post of Robert's] was inexcusably inflammatory, and might even be interpreted as a personal attack on Whiteknight (and a completely misdirected personal attack at that). This is evan more disturbing because Robert has repeatedly asserted (both here on wikibooks and in two emails to me) that getting "the foundation" involved in our local problems is a bad idea. I'm honestly not sure why their involvement would be bad (I personally wish we could be more of a priority for them), and I've gotten the distinct impression from those I've talked to that they don't want to get involved with us because of Robert Horning.

The problem both locally and in the wider world of Wikimedia is that Robert puts himself forward as the spokesperson for "the average Wikibookian" I feel rather strongly that some of his views don't reflect the community at all, but my efforts in suggesting this to him have not been taken to heart.

Localy (here on Wikibooks), he has also claimed that he speaks for the "unheard Wikibookians", despite any evidence to back up this claim. This wouldn't be much of an issue (most people assume their views are common sensical), but a few days ago he threatened to use administrative tools to make his point (he also insinuated that any administrator who didn't agree with him might end up in legal trouble).

I feel rather strongly at this point that Robert is more interested in pressing his agenda than he is in being part of a consensus driven community.

User:Xania's viewpoint
If Robert is speaking for the 'unheard Wikibookians' then I am one of them. I see nothing in his comments that could be interpreted as being uncivil or provokative. Maybe he has said something but I can't find any suitable reference and even if he had been uncivil or provocative then I wouldn't blame him as this has been the recent attitude by many towards him and he is merely defending himself. Wikibooks is great because we have such differences of opinion and this discussion, quite frankly, is ridiculous. Xania talk 10:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

xixtas' viewpoint
I think that putting a page like this up to complain against another user's civility is misguided at best, I have no idea what you hope to gain by this, Johnny. But its presence is the reason I have reservations about granting you bureaucrat status. -- xixtas talk 12:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Community Resolution

 * This part of the RFC process should only be undertaken after at least one week, when we as a community have some sense of what we collectively think.