User talk:Bob drobbs

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Single purpose accounts

User:Bob drobbs seems to be editing this article exclusively. Assuming good faith, I nevertheless question whether this account was created for the purposes of advocacy of a specific point of view in violation of Wikipedia's fundamental principle of neutrality. Any response to this? User:Pedant (talk) 02:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The response is that this is the wrong place. Please review WP:TALK. Breein1007 (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

* We all have to start somewhere,

* current events tend to draw new editors,

* new editors are expected to make some mistakes as they learn the process,

* this particular one is not actually editing articles as much as participating in talk pages,

* this is not the place to discuss an editor

* and if you do want to discuss him you do it on his talk page instead of posting an unsigned accusation on his USER: page.

Aaron Walkhouse (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've edited anonymously a bit in the past. But the flotilla attack was a very interesting political event, and the protection on it did inspire me to actually create an account. Pedant, your accusations of me "exclusively" writing about this are false. I have also written a bit about the Ahmadis; another important political event. But most importantly, I believe that every single comment I've made in the discussions (and my few edits) have all been in good faith, with the ideas of truth, fairness, and good writing in mind.

If you have specific issues with any of my statements or edits, please let me know. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

• I collapsed the thread over at Talk:Gaza flotilla raid#Single purpose accounts. Concerns with Bob drobbs' editing belong here or at WP:DR. Bob drobbs, I've offered to act as a go-between if an editor has a concern about another editor which they don't feel comfortable raising themselves. That offer is open to one and all - yourself included. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 11:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Flash (photography), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Edited under a previous name

Hey Bob,

Out of curiosity, have you previously edited on Wikipedia using a different user name? NickCT (talk) 20:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Never. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

In an attempt to "seek to be more precise", do you think you might want to revise your previous statement? Bob, I really don't have anything against you. Either now or in past "lives", but I'd appreciate honesty here. NickCT (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

You're basically calling me a liar here. I would appreciate if you followed WP:AGF. I was as specific as I can be. No, I have never edited under another user name. Period. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok.... Well, I'll "assume" I got this wrong then. Good day to you sir. NickCT (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey, regarding your comment here. Look dude, I'm not calling you a liar. All I'm saying is that the editing pattern looks extremely suspisous. If you aren't Breein1007, you'll look at the chronology I provided objectively and agree that it does look pretty suspisious, then you'll forgive my reluctance to take you at your word. If you are Breein1007, you'll probably continue deceptively expressing a sense of righteous indignation. If I did get this wrong and the odd editing pattern is just a coincidence, I'm sure you'll WP:AGF and recognize that I'm not doing this to try and persecute innocent people.

Unfortunately it's the case with I-P issue that a lot of people seem to resort to dastardly tricks like WP:SOCKing. If you think others out there are engaged in this kind of activity, I'd encourage you to "stalk and watch their every move" (even if that person is me). WP:SOCKing and other deceptive behavior undermines WP's mission. NickCT (talk) 19:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I do _not_ understand what is suspicious. Two editors were editing a article at similar times, which happened to be on the headlines of newspapers all over the world. By those standards, FightingMac and I are the same person because we were both editing the Dominique Strauss Kahn article. Sheer idiocy.

So, what _exactly_ do you find suspicious about two editors editing a top new item while it's in the headlines? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you may be missing the point. The question isn't which articles, but the "chronology". You see one editor edit for 2 hrs, then stop. 3 minutes later the other logs on, edits for 2hrs and stops. 3 minutes, the same thing.....

That's a pretty strong indicator of socking if it occurs often enough. NickCT (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting, but you're on a witchhunt, so you find what you want to see. Out of curiosity, have you ever plugged yourself into that tool comparing yourself to various other users? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

re "you're on a witchhunt" - Could be. But don't worry. If you're not a witch, you're not going to get burned. re "tool comparing yourself to various other users" - No. And it's certainly possible I'm getting false positives. however; comparing your contribs to FightingMac, it's immediately obvious you're probably not the same person, b/c over the past 10 days you've both made complex edits in some cases at the very same minute. V. unlikely a sock would behave like that. NickCT (talk) 20:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

If you're not a witch, you're not going to get burned. <= LOL. That's what they told accused witches, right? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 20:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

(*chuckle*) Probably. But seriously, the whole SPI thing really operates in an "innocent until proven guilty fashion" (trust me, I've been on the receiving end before). If you're not socking, the correct response to this kind of thing is just to yawn, and shrug it off. NickCT (talk) 11:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• A really good way to handle this type of thing is ignore it, or ignore after you've answered the question once. Less work, less aggravation. Gerardw (talk) 15:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be under a misapprehension

Unless you have been editing under this account then the remark to which you responded on NickCT's talk page did not concern you (even if it had, I'm not sure what bearing my past mistakes would have re. your current, alleged, misbehaviour).

My mistake then. I thought you were talking about me. NickCT is hassling me, calling me a sock puppet, and implying that I'm a liar (see above). Since your comment is about someone else, apparently he's doing the same thing to someone else; rightfully or not. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Amin Abu Rashid - BLP discussion?

In one of your edits on this page you referred to a discussion on the BLP noticeboard. I'm curious what the result of that discussion was, but I couldn't find it. I found the noticeboard, but I found no discussion for Amin Rashid.

Can you please tell me where to find it?

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bob. I am a little unsure which edit it was on this page but the only BLP discussion that involved his was a small one here Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive122#Freedom_Flotilla_II - for more than this I will need a diff to the discussion, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... that's probably it, but sadly it looks like there wasn't really any consensus in there. Oh well.

FYI, here's a link to your [edit summary] -- Bob drobbs (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Dominique Strauss-Kahn sexual assault case

Please do not replace without consensus a claim that the living subject has found libelous and insulting, thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 19:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

And, I'll ask you to stop engaging in POV censorship. But we'll continue this on the noticeboard where it belongs. It seems that you're in a minority who seeks to keep this lawsuit on the page, while censoring the details of it. The majority supports either including the details of the libel case _or_ deleting it entirely. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Bob drobbs. As I've said before Off2riorob, I appreciate that you're fanatically observant of WP:BLP and I don't like the idea of victim blaming, but the tidbit in question here meets both WP:V and WP:N. You're over stepping your bounds in continually removing it. NickCT (talk) 13:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

revert war

Hi, WP:Edit warring - is this the way you are wanting to progress with this issue? clearly the issue is not resolved and the stable version is the primary location until then at least as I have experienced in the past. Off2riorob (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop reverting and accept this as a WP:3RR warning, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, this is not how I want to proceed. I want to find a workable compromise. But if you're going to storm out of the room, reject mediation, and insist that you get to be the sole arbiter for what gets to be in the article, then I will go ahead and make the changes based on the _only_ compromise which seems possible here. So, is this how _you_ wish to progress with the issue?

Your primary demand seems to be that we not put anything in the article which in any way implies she's a "prostitute". That's solvable by deleting the libel case. Will you accept that? -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:31, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If you won't accept that compromise, I'll ask you instead to please agree to mediation to help find a solution here. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

note - its not a compromise to repeatedly revert and add prostitute, please stop re adding this. Off2riorob (talk) 01:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Errant suggested that we add more "context and clarification". Bus Stop suggested the text. So, yes, it _is_ a compromise to add this additional statement calling the Post's article "false".

Though, I do realize that it's a compromise you're unwilling to accept. Once again, I invite you to join me in mediation and try to come to a consensus on this. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

re your comment

Hey Bob,

Wanted to respond to this.

While I think your position is probably supported by policy, I'm not sure you should pursue mediation at this point. Typically I find an RFC is a quicker, easier way to resolve these kinds of disputes. Let me know if you want help fashioning an RfC. NickCT (talk) 12:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

moving forward

Hi, as an agreeable solution. I will not oppose the removal of the content that says that the maid has filed a claim of libel against the New York Post. I don't really agree with its removal but I more oppose repeating the claimed libel/insult in our article. If more libel charges are presented and the issue of claimed defamatory articles is reported and raised in profile I reserve an option to re-present the first legal case for reconsideration/discussion/consensus inclusion. I hope this is an agreeable solution and we can request the lowering off the protection on the article and end the dispute. Regards. Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think think it's the best solution either. That is the nature of compromise -- No party loves it, but everyone is willing to accept it. And you are welcome to keep your right to argue for the re-inclusion of it at some later date, if it becomes more notable. Moving on ... -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, hopefully we can move forward from a fresh perspective and leave this dispute in the past. - Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 09:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me as though you've compromised to keep notable and verifiable information out of an article. Another sacrifice to the BLP fanatics? How scared we are to say that somebody said someone, somewhere involved in something scandalous might have perhaps been looking for money for sex. NickCT (talk) 11:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not the position as I understand - some users wanted to add a disputed press allegation against someone - other users have supported adding the detail but not repeating the specific wording of the claimed libel/insulting claim - sadly imo User:Bob drobbs/the users that wanted to repeat the alleged defaming detail about a living person in our article have objected to the inclusion of the basic detail without inclusion of the actual claimed press allegation, this has sadly resulted imo to censorship of the libel action. IMO the best position was to mention the legal libel action but not to repeat the details of it in our article - it was enough to provide the basic detail and a WP:reliable external link to where the details were already presented without us needing to repeat it in our article. - such a position of including the insult results in major BLP issues all over, from my experiance, we as a standard do not repeat the claimed demeaning insult/libel in BLP articles. - such a demand would result in additions of such valuable encyclopedic detail as - Harry said johnny was a Pakistani hating bastard Nigerian loving son of Satan, harry denied it and said he would sue for libel....the kind of attack content/disputed insulting name calling allegations that is regularly complained about by the subjects of our articles. If after the trial its revealed that someone was looking for money for sex we should/will happily report it - such allegations from a low quality sensationalist publication that the subject has since taken legal action against do not require detailing in our article, it is plenty to simply say, that the subject was upset about allegations published in the soandso news which they claim were false and they have initiated legal action against the soanso news. There is nothing BLP fanatic about my position at all. - BLP compliant, BLP cautious, BLP respectful, definitely. - Off2riorob (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

NickCT, you're absolutely right. I have compromised to keep notable and verifiable information out of the article. However, it may still be possible to find a better compromise that includes the accusations with additional "context". If everyone other than rob agrees to it, we can apparently have an admin declare consensus, and rob would have no choice but to follow the decision.

Off2riorob, the idea behind WP:BLP is removing information which is not notable or not verifiable. An editor reaches a point of "fanaticism" when they begin censoring notable, verifiable, facts.

As for potentially slanderous allegations our job is to record the facts when they're notable and well-referenced. Period. Generally we don't include potentially slanderous accusations, not because they inherently violate WP:BLP, but because they're not notable enough. Hugo Chavez stood in front of the United Nations and called the President of the United States "the devil". This has been covered in wikipedia. Will you also try to wipe away that important moment in history?

If not, perhaps you need to start afresh and re-think your standards for censorship. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"the idea behind WP:BLP is removing information which is not notable or not verifiable. An editor reaches a point of "fanaticism" when they begin censoring notable, verifiable, facts." - This is exactly the point. WP:V & WP:N trump WP:BLP concerns. Not the other way around.

At the same time though, I'd agree we should be cautious here, b/c we certainly don't want to give the implication that the allegation is true. We should treat it neutrally and objectively. I'd suggest language like - "Person X sued newspaper Y for libel over allegations that person X had solicited money for sex. Newspaper Y was the only notable source printing the allegation." Clear, to-the-point, and gives context to the allegation.

As a side note here, I'd like to point out that as someone who knows a couple sex workers (not I might hasten to add in a professional capacity) I'm a little disturbed by Off2's repeated characterization of receiving money for sex as an "insulting claim" or a "demeaning insult". We are talking about the world's oldest profession after all. NickCT (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

In retrospect, I could have worded things better. "Fanaticism" is not when notable, verifiable facts are deleted. Notability isn't black or white. BLP "Fanaticism" comes in when an editor ignores this balance and declares that he is going to delete (or include) every instance of something based on his own, personal, unwavering rules. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 16:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

With off2riorob at top here (and also with ErrantX, essentially bored speechless with it if I understand him right). So how do you rate yourself on a score of 0-10 here Bob? I mean originally we had a neutral comment saying the maid had filed a lawsuit without specifying the nature of the charges and giving a reference. Anyone who didn't know about it could quickly use the reference to go outside Wikipedia and follow the story. But oh no, that didn't satisfy you. You wanted readers to know in advance exactly what NYP's story actually was about because otherwise it's {*air quotes*} "CENSORING". Result, after wasting a lot of quite a few people's time who try to keep Wikipedia workable against sometimes seemingly insurmountable odds, what you have achieved is that the reader finds out nothing about any lawsuit. So where's that 0-10, Bob? Me, I call it a null big time. FightingMac (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

FightingMac, all l I heard was whimper, whimper, whine.

The passage violated NPOV, because it was deliberately left there in a censored state so as to make the housekeeper look like more of a victim. Certain editors had zero interest in the merits of the case, or the facts of the case, only that it stay in the article so as to show how the accuser had been "attacked" in the media. That's blatantly POV.

As for you joining Errant, he has not shared Off2riorob's fanaticism. He suggested that we balance out the basic facts of the case, with appropriate "context". I think that is a very reasonable compromise. So, where do you truly stand on this?

Now, if you wish to be productive, you need to change your tone and maybe we can reach a better compromise. Otherwise, it's time to drop this. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik

Hello, Bob drobbs. You have new messages at Talk:Anders Behring Breivik.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.