Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Youreallycan

wording

in this section on item number 13, I think that technically the wording "Threat to admins to "remove" their admin status" is inaccurate. At best he is stating his own personal view that an admin. is lacking, at worst he is suggesting that he would seek to have the tools removed via other channels. Since YRC doesn't have the technical ability to remove anything from anyone - then any "threat" would be hollow and toothless. And in all fairness, I don't see that he has "threatened to remove their admin. status". A minor point to be sure, but still worth consideration IMHO. — Ched :  ?  14:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

He said (in the case of Fluffernutter) "I am looking to remove your admin status asap" [1]. You're quite right that he has no ability to do any such thing, but I cite it as an example of his unpleasant style of personal interaction. I've reworded the item to make this clearer. Prioryman (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Much more accurate I think. Thank you. — Ched :  ?  15:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, he made a couple other similar comments to Fluffernutter and DeltaQuad (they and I were 3 of the 4 closers of the PC RfC) about that RfC in completely unrelated issues, athough nothing quite like that; I wasn't on the receiving end of it myself, but it was frustrating to see them get attacked like that as it it'd make us more enthusiastic. And that RfC ended up going his way too... The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

My issue was was only the delay - and I mentioned it - I supported the close - Youreallycan 23:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan's edit-warring on this RfC/U

I find myself writing this with some disbelief, but YRC is now edit-warring on this very RfC/U. The rules are clear that the subject of an RfC/U shouldn't be posting a new section under "Views" (as per the instructions directly under the section header), so I moved his comments to his "Response" section. For some reason, I have no idea what, YRC has instead repeatedly reverted this [2], [3], [4] and labelled FormerIP a "hater" [5] and a "violator" [6] for pointing out the error in good faith and trying to fix it.

Could one of the admins watching this page please sort this out? It may be necessary to ban YRC from this page and allow him to contribute by transclusion from a page in his own user space. Prioryman (talk) 23:46, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• - It may be necessary to ban YRC from this page and allow him to contribute by transclusion from a page in his own user space - lol - 23:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by youreallycan (talk • contribs)

  then you do see that you're being disruptive and will be blocked for it. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

  Blocking me from this page is a violation of its creation- Youreallycan 00:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

  whatever /that/ means ... It would be for your own good, really. I'll not explicitly seek it ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

  lol? Not so much. I'd advise you to cool it if I thought you'd listen, YRC. Formerip (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Chat

Guys,

This is your friendly reminder to read the last couple of sentences at the very bottom of the page. You are not supposed to be arguing or replying to each other on the RFC page. If you need to talk about what someone else wrote, then that's why we have this thing called a "talk page".

In particular, nobody—absolutely nobody—except Youreallycan should be posting or changing even one word in the ==Response== section. That section is for the exclusive use of the RFC/U's subject. Any and all chat remarks can be moved to this page. Youreallycan has the privilege of choosing whether to remove or leave the remarks by other people in his section; anyone else is free to move any remarks outside of that section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There is some confusion here, I'm afraid. The changes to the Response section were occasioned by my moving comments that he had posted in the wrong place into that section. While it was in the wrong place (under Views, which is for outside comments) his comments received a couple of replies. Nobody has edited that material in the Response section; the replies all came while it was elsewhere on the page. I hope that clears things up. Prioryman (talk) 23:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

There should not have been any replies in the first place, no matter what section they were originally placed in. It is seriously wrong to have anyone except Youreallycan comment in his section, but there should not have been any replies anywhere on the page. Please read the very last sentence on the page: Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:IAR.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I've not participated in RFC/U's in the past because of this exact bureaucratic nightmare. What is the purpose of this? Ryan Vesey 00:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's there to reduce the probability of sniping between "Did not" / "Did too" camps degenerating too much. It's not always that successful. — Coren ^(talk) 02:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• You might have a point, though I'm not sure if this has actually been set down as a guideline - if it is true, I have no objection to moving the various comments to a series of threads on the talk page, preferably one heading with the same title for each section on the main page. I'd almost do it myself except (a) I don't know if it's actually the recommended style and (b) I'd prefer someone more neutral do this. Wnt (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

  It is documented at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/Rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Certification

Just noting here that the RfC may still need to be certified:

To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, 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 ... If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page ... the page will be deleted.

So far, the page has been certified by Prioryman, Magog the Ogre, and Br'er Rabbit. Prioryman has supplied a diff showing he tried to help resolve the dispute (as opposed to simply taking part in it), but there are no diffs that clearly show the same from the other certifiers (see this section). Br'er Rabbit has supplied this link where YRC approached him, but was Br'er's response an attempt to resolve the dispute, or just an other example of it?

I'm not trying to wikilawyer here, so apologies if it looks like that. The point of the requirement is that certifiers should have made clear efforts to try to avoid escalating to an RfC, and it's not obvious that they did (except for Prioryman). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, and I've invited Magog and Br'er to comment on this. Prioryman (talk) 00:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I stand by my certification. I'd made some comments that attracted Rob to my talk, where I advised him to change. He's obviously not done so. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of providing diffs is only to make things easier on the people who routinely patrol RFC/U pages. Generally, we can expect a person to be honest about their claims to have attempted to resolve the dispute, and pretty much any effort at discussion is counted as an attempt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

We have always distinguished between discussions that constitute the dispute, and "second order" efforts to resolve it. What I see in Bre'rs link is YRC approaching Br'er to try to resolve it ("As you are verbally expressing these feelings at multiple locations, would you be prepared to try to work it out together ...") and Br'er not really engaging ("... my overall impression is that I am unimpressed with your views and approach, so if you want to change that, express views that impress me" and "I'm calling bullshite ...").

I'm wondering whether it's fair to use that discussion a monthtwo years later as an example of Br'er trying but failing to resolve things, when in fact it was YRC trying but failing. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You probably need to read that discussion at User talk:Jack Merridew #your comments at talk wells a little more carefully to spot all of the interactions there. Here's what I see:

1. YRC (as Off2riorob) questioning comments made by BR (as Jack Merridew) at ANI.
2. BR raising his concern to YRC and explaining what YRC needs to change: "You express opinions in public places, and I've seen some of those, and my overall impression is that I am unimpressed with your views and approach, so if you want to change that, express views that impress me."
3. YRC asserting that "I am here to improve the content in our articles ..."
4. BR replying that YRC has 3 times more edits to talk than to articles.
5. YRC admitting a mistake and promising not to do it again (although he misses the point that he shouldn't need a policy to know what is acceptable): "Yes, if you are talking about this thread, it was a mistake and one I won't make again. Since I made the mistake the policy has been changed to say that is a complete no no and if it was in the policy at the time I would never have said it."

Br'er now clearly states that YRC's behaviour that he criticised in that exchange has not changed. I accept that any RfC/U which attempts to address patterns of behaviour rather than a single incident can be more difficult to certify. Nevertheless, if the purpose of this request for comment is to attempt to engage an editor with other editors' perceptions of that editor's problems, then I would have said that sufficient concern has already been expressed without worrying that elapsed time might make the process somehow "unfair". --RexxS (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's really too far gone to fret about certification. Nobody Ent 02:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(←) Honestly, SV, I think you're doing YRC a disservice by disputing the certification; he doesn't need a process, he needs an epiphany: it's clear that few of the people who have commented here to date hold great hope of a positive outcome, but this RFC/U is a last Hail Mary pass in YRC's direction. — Coren ^(talk) 02:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Per Coren ;> This is lame. a) it isn't "a month later", it's more than two years later, and teh bullshite's only gotten worse. b) I'll not point too exactly but the main issue in that old thread was Rob calling someone a paedophile (it's been suppressed). 3) meh, it rolls on. IV) ANI if full of Rob/YRV threads/ they all count as certifications. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This is unnecessary process wonkery. I have most definitely tried to deal with this user's problematic behavior on more than one occasion (I can think of three occasions). Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 05:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oh come on - not enough evidence of people having tried to resolve the problem? People have been trying to resolve this for years (literally) - have a look at Dennis Brown's attempted mentorship for a recent heroic effort to help, which was simply rejected the way YRC rejects everyone who disagrees with him. This really is looking like a last chance for YRC to avoid more serious sanction - please don't derail it over some wikilawyering pedantry. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Since I've been dragged here (kicking and screaming, I might add), I would point out that there have been significantly more issues that listed herein. If forced, diffs can be provided and it is obvious they exist, but I would instead rely on the good faith of others to trust me in this, and perhaps not be so bureaucratic in accepting what is obvious to virtually everyone here, that a discussion is needed in this non-binding forum. Dragging out every diff and every situation is more akin to piling on here, one reason I've avoided comment so far, as I think YRC has made some sincere and tangible efforts to correct issues, and I don't wish my presences to serve as a distraction. The issues are well known here. I think it is important we don't look pedantic here, even if unintentional. It is in YRC's best interest to simply move forward, as stopping and restarting a process that we all know will take place this week or next is more likely to court resentment, not equity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I take the point people are making here about process wonkery. My concern is only that we try to bring out the best in YRC, because he does make valuable contributions, and I fear this RfC (and the perception that the certifiers didn't fully try to resolve things with him before it opened) will make things worse; indeed, his responses to people are making things considerably worse for him. I had only just started to engage with YRC about the issues he's having on WP, and I was hoping I could help, so the timing is unfortunate from that perspective, but perhaps it would have made no difference.

  Just as a general point, RfCs can be very stressful, so the insistence that diffs be supplied showing clear attempts to resolve things beforehand by two certifiers is one of the pieces of process wonkery on WP that I find important. But I'll say no more about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Some editors are trying to bring out the best. Other editors are having a ban discussion more appropriate to AN than an RFC/U. In any event, the horse is out in the field, so it's too late to worry abou the lock on the barn door. Nobody Ent 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The nature of RfC/U

• An RfC is a tool for developing voluntary agreements and collecting information.
• An RfC may bring close scrutiny on all involved editors. In most cases, editors named in an RfC are expected to respond to it. The Arbitration Committee closely considers evidence and comments in RfC if the editors involved in the RfC are later named in a request for arbitration.
• See also RfC/U rules.

comment

That's directly from the "guide". My point being that I think many people feel lost as to what to do next. There have been blocks, AN discussions, AN/I discussions, BLP/N discussions. YRC claims that 100s hate him - but I think that's obviously and demonstrably false - otherwise he wouldn't still be here. It's NOT just any "ONE" thing - it's the collective totality of the behavior. The heart is there. The good intentions are there. But the "I must defend "teh BLPs", I must defend "teh Wiki" approach pushes the entire spectacle into some florid Don Quioteesque, Tilting at windmills, off-off-Broadway play, type of display, and even Sancho gets tired after a while. What else is there left to try SV? — Ched :  ?  01:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Darkness Shines

Having seen the people who are certifying this RFCU already going after YRC on ANI is it really OK for these same users to do this? Given they have made their feelings known? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Moved from main page. I'm not understanding the question -- certainly editors who have commented on ANI can comment here now. Nobody Ent 02:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

They're certifying they have seen a problem with his behavior in their interactions with him, they aren't certifying that a particular sanction is appropriate. The former isn't a COI situation, the latter could be. MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

By its nature, an RFC will draw the people most likely to have been in contact with the subject. In an article, it means editors who have commented/edited the page. In a User that means editors who have positive or negative interactions with them. And its very likely some of those will have been at AN/ANI. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Notices at administrators' noticeboards

Prioryman posted links to this RFCU at WP:AN and WP:ANI. One was closed as being irrelevant to the board's purpose, and at the other Prioryman was questioned about the possibility of forum shopping. My notice is simply to show that most of us aren't considering this a problematic pair of notices, since they were left completely nutrally. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

More silliness -- RFCs appear by inclusion on both AN and ANI, so while I don't feel posting the notices was necessary I don't see anything wrong with them, either. Nobody Ent 09:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack

This is ridiculous. Can we just indef block him and be done with it? Ryan Vesey 18:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that I am referring to YRC's personal attack, not myself. Ryan Vesey 18:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I am under attack and claims that I am a Homophobic and an anti Semite - what do you think that is upsetting? - That is the objective of the attacks here - to say hateful things and to get someone to ban me for my replyYoureallycan 18:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You are NOT under attack, and the behaviour of other editors is no excuse for your own poor conduct. GiantSnowman 18:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's assume for a moment that you are under attack, YRC. I don't believe this to be the case, but let's assume that you're correct - and now let's analyze your behavior. Someone is attacking you, with the deliberate intention of forcing you to lose your temper and be blocked. Your reaction to this is...to lose your temper, throw out accusations, call people names, and generally disrupt this RfC as much as possible? Can you not see how, if there is indeed some nefarious conspiracy going on here, you're doing exactly what they would want you to do? Why not torpedo their plans by not losing your temper? Speak calmly to them. Refute their claims. Seek outside admin help if you feel someone is violating policies. Any of these things would be more productive in the face of an "attack" than your strategy is. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I am quite tempted to just refer this straight to Arbcom, as it's obvious that YRC is not going to respond to this RfC/U in a constructive way. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen an RfC/U at which the subject has behaved so poorly. Prioryman (talk) 18:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really see what is being gained here. YRC had his chance to reform a long time ago, and refused it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This whole debacle is a transparent precursor to an ArbCom case. Don't forget to duck, the boomerang is coming. Carrite (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting parallels here to Mbz1's case. In both, we had a user who was ostensibly productive in a particular activity (BLP board, content creation/DYK), but also frequently used that activity in the service of their agenda (censoring non-heterosexual orientations, promoting memes about murderous Arabs and Muslims). The productivity won over a few sincere users who thought that their good work meant they deserved a chance, but also provided cover for a fanclub of users who shared the non-policy-compliant POV. This support let the user believe that they were untouchable and to treat any disagreement or policy complaint as a heinous offense. When the user's misbehavior to others finally got them taken somewhere, they doubled down on it and started throwing personal attacks left and right. YRC's torching his own boat here just as Mbz1 did, and I don't doubt that the results will be the same. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter - I am under attack - thats clear - the idea here is to attack me and to ban me - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youreallycan (talk • contribs)

Well, if you really think that's the case, what are you doing to prevent that happening? Prioryman (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You are a failed clean starter that has been controlled at arbitration on multiple occasions - you opened this because I made it known that you received money from Wiki UK and your involvement with User:Fae - Youreallycan 18:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It's hardly a secret that WMUK awarded a grant (of which I haven't claimed a penny yet, by the way), as it was discussed openly on the WMUK wiki. Why you think that is some sort of earth-shattering revelation is beyond me. Prioryman (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Mind you that Youreallycan and I definitely don't see eye to eye on everything, but I think that we could do without the accusations of homophobia and anti-Semitism; what I could tell from the diffs is that Youreallycan objects to categorizing articles, not the concepts of homosexuality or Judaism. That would reduce a ton of the heat here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Blade - if anyone is actually here in an attempt to help address any of my issues with contributing - I am here to discuss- Youreallycan

• I'll expand this and say that the ad hominem attacks against Prioryman are going over the line here too. What does Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#Prioryman s a failed clean stater have to do with YRC's behavior? Ryan Vesey 18:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• I deny that I am any kind of coin, clean or otherwise. Prioryman (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Good point Ryan - seems like YRC is happy to dish it out but as soon he perceives it coming his way, forget about it. GiantSnowman 19:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• User:ChrisO denies he is a coin? - if anyone is actually here in a good faith way to attempt to help address any of my issues with contributing - I am here to discuss - Youreallycan 19:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• You seem to be "discussing" in a rather peculiar way. Can you give me one good reason why I shouldn't just send this straight over to Arbcom? Prioryman (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• What is "discussing" in a rather peculiar way. - your intention seems only to escalate - Youreallycan 19:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Basically you only make ad hominem arguments. Which necessarily serves only to escalate and divert attention from substance. If you for example were to state "ok, since so many people seem to agree I am doing something wrong, then I'll consider if you have a point" that would be the beginning of a discussion.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, YRC - you are the one who is escalating. You really shouldn't use an account's former name if they have attempted to clean start. GiantSnowman 19:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

YRC is escalating, as are Prioryman and Maunus. It's pretty hard for an editor to escalate by themselves. Nobody Ent 22:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that responding to good faith concerns with "you're just a hater and a POV editor" is a good example of how it might still be possible to escalate single handedly. His entire line of argumentation in his response to my statement was basically designed to tick me off, he repeated the same statements as in our original dispute where he accused me of POV editing with no evidence and no knowledge of the subject matter he was discussing. OK, I deserve a trout for falling for it again, but hey there's a reason they call it "baiting", it attracts trout. I really honestly don't hate Rob, or wish to see him banned, but I do refuse to be treated the way he treats editors that he disagrees with. I would be over this the moment he says, "OK I overreacted I apologize" - but as long as he pursues the strategy he currently does claiming absolute justification in everything he does, I cannot just let it slip. Mistakes can be forgiven, knowingly and willfully repeating them cannot. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Avoid use of the undo and reversion tools.

There have been three related undo wars already, before this RFC even started, and a further one after it did. Don't get sucked into the maelstrom. Avoid the use of the undo and reversion tools here. If someone does something that is not vandalism then talk about it. This is, after all, exactly the venue for the community to give verbal feedback about such things, expressing disapproval of such unbecoming conduct. Talk, don't revert war. Uncle G (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

This RFC/U is way out of control and needs some serious clerking. The instructions regarding threading aren't being followed -- if I had the time I'd be doing wholesale reverts. Nobody Ent 22:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Most RFC/U get out of control. The posting of comments in the wrong places is endemic. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The last stage: WP:ARB/R

I don't know about others, but I have learned much more than I ever wanted to know about Youreallycan. I don't believe much more light is going to be generated from this point on, just more heat, and I see no movement by YRC, just what I'd call entrenched hostility. Mentoring has failed, 19 blocks have failed, and there needs to be closure. WP:ARB/R is the last stage, of course, and I suggest that we let them handle the issues presented by YRC's editing style. Will someone take this to Arbcom, please? Jusdafax 01:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll probably do that. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

RfCs normally run for 30 days. Cla68 (talk) 01:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Right... We'll give it a bit more time until those 30 days are up, and then we may decide whether we should take it to ArbCom. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

... in order to give the time and opportunity for the editor in question to evaluate concerns and change tack. Given the tenor of YRC's responses to the concerns expressed, and the way this is degenerating, do you hold sincere belief that something will be different 27 days from now? — Coren ^(talk) 02:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It hasn't been up for a day and a half yet, so we should probably wait a few days just in case there's an attitude change, but I wouldn't see a reason to draw this out beyond that. Ryan Vesey 02:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The trouble with a lengthy Rfc, in my view, is that even if YRC suddenly has a change of heart in the face of a strong consensus against him (which is already established as I see it), we have repeatedly observed him sooner or later come right back around to the same style that gets him in trouble. I believe it best to avoid further examples of WP:BATTLE. Is there any reason why this can't be taken to Arbcom in the next few days, and does this Rfc have to be closed beforehand? Jusdafax 02:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a good point. We've seen YRC/O2RR make exactly the sort of promises for reform and moderation that RFC/U is designed to elicit, but then in a month or so he's edit-warring, attacking people, and generally pushing an agenda again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

YRC has now stated he is not going to comment further in his Rfc/U User talk:Coren#/* The RFC/U */ @Coren. My question: if he is no longer going participate, why go on with the circus? Let's close it, take it to the top, and let the members of Arbcom deliberate the merits of his collaborative editing skills, or lack of them, and hopefully examine the enabling process that allows him to act the insulting bully in spite of his shockingly massive block log. Jusdafax 04:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Look, I hate advocating any sort of ban on a longstanding contributor, but if everyone really wants him gone that badly, then just block him indefinitely for having exhausted community patience. Place a banned template on his user page and add him to the list of banned users. This drama will not help matters at all, and certainly is not conducive to the collegial environment Wikipedia strives to create. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem in letting the RFC run its course...just in case. In the grand scheme of things, 30 days is not that long, and if YRC's problems persist, it can be taken to ArbCom then. I might feel differently if I had ever been on the receiving end of YRC's anger, but I haven't, although I have seen him attack others. That he's put a lot of time and effort into helping the project is also obvious, which is why I'd rather go for the "one last chance" route. Just my two cents. OohBunnies! (talk) 02:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The hell with it. I'm not participating in this discussion anymore. The only reason I'd gotten involved in the first place was because I wanted to help diffuse the situation and hopefully try to get everyone focused on the encyclopedia, and not on getting someone banned. There are a lot of people on this page who I've gotten to know and respect, and I've also seen Youreallycan/Off2riorob making great contributions — but this whole debacle is just depressing to watch. I want nothing more to do with it. I'm taking a break from the site for a little while, and I have every intention of returning to editing articles once I'm back. Master&Expert (Talk) 02:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Focusing too much on drama issues can be so depressing and tiring. Have a nice break, and hope your Wiki-life stays productive and drama free when you return! :) OohBunnies! (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not stressed out; I avoid drama wherever I can. But in this case... ugh. It's flat-out disheartening to see so many valued members of the Wikipedia community partake in this nonsense. I wouldn't have even gone anywhere near this place if I didn't see so many people I know and respect being involved here. Bureaucracy is the very bane of my existence. There is nothing more dangerous to the functioning of this encyclopedia than cumbersome bureaucracy. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Often times, the cumbersome bureaucracy is needed to insure equity. Considering how drastic a step it would be to ban a long time contributor, the bureaucracy actually serves the purpose of slowing the process down just enough that decisions aren't made in haste, in the heat of the moment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I 100% agree with you there. We should go through every step to try and avoid getting someone banned. But by that same token, there's also the fact that it prolongs bad situations to the point where it brings out the worst in everybody. I feel like ArbCom would actually be a less dramatic step than RfC, although the arbitrators would probably disagree with me there. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Trouble is, ArbCom would be very likely to reject it unless all prior resolution steps had been tried first, including RFC/U. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Moving on, WP:BAN includes the following:

"Administrators are prohibited[3] from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee; or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so.

Administrator-imposed bans arising from an arbitration case should be appealed at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. If there is a dispute or question related to the interpretation of a ruling, its scope, or any other point of understanding, then a request for clarification or appeal may be filed with the Arbitration Committee." (End quote.)

In other words, Arbcom is the way to put a halt to this block-unblock cycle we are locked into with this editor. The step of taking this to resolution is the remedy open to those wanting a conclusion. Arbcom was designed for this moment, and seeing as there are no cases before them at this time, I suggest we use the tools that are in place without much more delay. Jusdafax 03:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can of course ask arbcom if they're willing to take the case now. But given that the RfC/U has only just been started, and tempers are high, they're likely to say that dispute resolution has not been exhausted. 30 days is a long time potentially for things to settle down, and if people are unhappy by the time it ends, it can still be taken to arbcom, with all the i's dotted and t's crossed. YMMV. JN466 03:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

RFAR is not the next step, a community ban discussion is. This RfC/U is now moot. YRC is not going to participate further and is not going to voluntarily agree to change. If a ComBan discussion does not indef him, then take it to ArbWorld. This RfC has served to gauge the community's opinion. Next. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If the purpose of this RfC is to correct the perceived behavior, not an attempt at a ban, then the participating editors should be expected to wait to see if the behavior is, indeed, corrected before taking it to ArbCom or discussing a community ban. I think, also, that the personal attacks and violations of WP:CANVASS by one or more of the certifiers of this RfC indicate that if this is taken to ArbCom, YRC will not be the only party named in the case. Cla68 (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Really, Cla, he's not agreeable. That's quite plan from his reaction to this RfC/U. Really he has a better chance of continuing his participation if a ComBan discussion results in hard restrictions in lieu of a ComBan. But if ArbWorld will take this absent a ComBan discussion, fine. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• If nothing else, I am getting a crash course in banning. Here is the link to the Community Ban info Wikipedia:Community ban#Community bans and restrictions. Unfortunately, it appears to me that after it is effected, that any admin can just unblock and the cycle begins over again... or am I misreading here? In any case, a page about a ComBan most likely turns into just another drama-fest. As I see it, the advantage of going to Arbcom is the relative finality of the ruling. And I agree with Br'er Rabbit, this Rfc/U is rendered moot since the subject states he is no longer appearing here, and that it sure looks to me that aside from the predictable supporters, that a substantial consensus exists in favor of serious and meaningful sanctions, not just another short block. Jusdafax 05:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sure Jusdafax, that you aren't here advocating for a ban, but expressing hope that YRC will amend the behavior that you feel is problematic? If that is the case, then you should be willing and able to allow some time to see if the RfC will have an effect. Cla68 (talk) 05:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  Jusdafax may not be, but I am. I didn't bring this RFC/U, I simply certified it and offered comments. He most definitely should be banned, by any means necessary. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

@Jusdafax; A ComBan may not be overturned by a single admin, it would take a subsequent AN discussion. This RFC/U should be shut down in a day or two as it will only result in pile-on. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really favour taking this back to the community both for the reason that you mention and because attempts to resolve this problem have so far failed. This has been due to filibustering by individuals who consider that self-appointed BLP "enforcement" is more important than Wikipedia's user conduct requirements. In particular, the fact that the bad faith brigade from Wikipediocracy is now fully involved suggests to me that a community discussion will be even more subject to filibustering than usual. However, I suppose it would be worth doing, if only to confirm whether or not the community is able to resolve this situation by itself. As for the timing, I will try to get some feedback from others on that, but, like Coren, I very much doubt whether the situation will have changed in 27 days. I'm inclined to give it a week and see what happens then. Frankly, letting it run for the full 30 days without YRC's involvement and with more and more criticism being posted seems to me to be piling on. For YRC's sake if nothing else I don't think that is really a very productive situation. What more can others say that hasn't already been said? Prioryman (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

As I just said, if ArbWorld will take this absent an AN discussion, fine. There certainly have been plenty of ANI threads over the years. Arbitration is for issues the community has shown it can't solve; this could easily be one. An AN discussion would look much like this RfC/U only it would not be about voluntary agreement (and neither would a trip to RFAR). Up to you, really. And no need to wait for this train wreck to stop smouldering; point to it as obviously failed. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think this RfC should run for its normal 30 days, and see no reason to close it preemptively. There may be an improvement in YRC's behaviour during this period after all this, and if not, and there are further violations of policy, any admin can impose a long block without even without referring to this RfC. And that will be the end of the story - at least for a long while - and talk of a community ban or RFAR may be unnecessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Prioryman, but call for an admin closure now. In my view we are done here. Jusdafax 06:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the train has left this station. Good point about ordinary blocking; plenty in the last few days to justify that. He could then be unblocked for the sole purpose of participating in a Arb:Case or simply allowed to offer comment from usertalk during an AN discussion. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a consensus here for an immediate closure. Additionally, it's come to my attention that YRC seems to be trying to work something out with Coren (see User talk:Coren#/* The RFC/U */ @Coren), which is a positive step. I think we should at least see what comes of that. This is only the third day of the RfC/U; I suggest that we should take stock again next Sunday when a week has elapsed. If there is no progress by then, it would be worth taking a poll of the participants to see if there is a consensus for continuing for a further three weeks, referring to AN or referring to Arbcom. Prioryman (talk) 06:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

That dime says this is shut down days before Sunday ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Finally, someone reacts to a threat charge with a sense of humor:) Cla68 (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

talk reply wuz fust ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Wikipediocracy bad faith brigade?" Prioryman, you do know that when you allege bad faith about another editor(s), you have to back it up with evidence or it could be interpreted as a personal attack? Cla68 (talk) 06:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I believe that Br'er Rabbit owes YRC five cents. I will notify him on his talk page. Cla68 (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC) (Actually, it should be 10 cents. Cla68 (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC))

When it comes to Wikipediocracy, it's all bad faith. Prioryman (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind naming the participants here you feel are acting in bad faith? Cla68 (talk) 06:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say they were acting in bad faith - they're assuming bad faith. This is quite apparent when you see the bogus claims of canvassing that you and other Wikipediocracy members are tossing around. But this is off-topic (as is your silly "threat charges" spiel) - let's get back to discussing how to proceed with this RFC/U. Prioryman (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that your motivation or background for certifying this RfC shouldn't be used not to address your allegations in the RfC, because to do so would be an ad hominem argument, which is a pet peeve of mine. However, you did ask YRC shortly before starting this RfC "why haven't you been indeffed yet for your perennial obnoxiousness?" So, do you think there might be something of a personal conflict going on here in addition to what you list in the RfC? Cla68 (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, according to YRC's own admission, he's (YRC) been in "personal conflict" with "hundreds" of users. And that's not to say that I think a phrase like "...your perennial obnoxiousness" is a particularly good choice of words. I'm just saying if we limit RfC/U to only users who have not been in "personal conflict" with a subject, then it's likely to become a very quiet place here, but also likely to breed more disruption there — Ched :  ?  08:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I will grant that my phrase was excessively waspish. I was involved in a serious discussion on Jimbo's user talk page about faults in Arbcom's procedures when he intervened to parrot an off-topic bullshit conspiracy theory against myself and Dougweller that Wikipediocracy members seem to be trying to propagate. It was completely unnecessary, typical of his boorish approach and a rather significant personal attack (Doug has rightly complained as well). I was going to raise the matter with Dennis Brown, his mentor, but found that YRC had not only racked up two further blocks during his mentorship but had "sacked" Dennis. Given that, and given my warning to YRC at the start of his mentorship that he was in the last chance saloon, I decided that it was about time to resolve the problem of his behaviour once and for all. I'd previously put together some notes for a possible RFC/U or arbitration case so I was able to put together this RFC/U pretty quickly and post it. So that's where I'm coming from with this. Do note, though, that I have previously opposed banning YRC and have tried to advise him and help him to resolve his issues, so this isn't about a personal conflict - as we have seen from the comments here, many, many people have a problem with the way he has acted. Prioryman (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"...conspiracy theory..." — You didn't answer his charge, you didn't provide a single detail to refute what he alleged to be true. Instead you rushed here to open up a Bureaucratic Annihilation Process of a serial sinner. So once again: what is the merit of his allegation, if any? And why did you open this procedure against this editor just now? Is it not perfectly fair to call this RFC retaliation? Carrite (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Talk of shutting down the RFC/U now is premature and I am against it. There is a reason we have these processes, to insure that the heat of the moment doesn't rule the day, and that everyone is given the opportunity to review and reflect. Everyone should have equal access to the standard processes, and not nearly enough time has passed to justify an early close. To be so impatient, so quick to draw first blood here, is unseemly and reflects quite poorly on us as a community. The goal is equity, not vigilante justice. We need a bit more patience and fewer pitchforks and torches. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I agree. I think we should certainly review its progress regularly to see if any resolution is in sight, which is why I suggested reviewing it next weekend after a week has passed. If YRC is continuing to rant at everybody after a week, I think it'll be obvious that he is not going to respond positively and a referral to Arbcom or AN would be preferable to another three weeks of such behaviour. However, if he genuinely wants to avoid a ban and take some action to address people's concerns, he has time to do so. It's encouraging that he seems to be reaching out to Coren at the moment and I'd like to see how that turns out. Prioryman (talk) 12:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Predictably, not so well. And so, about five days later as I requested in the original post in the section, we are on to Arbcom where those like myself hope that finally, finally, this absurd dramafest will come to a firm conclusion that finishes the years of disruption that have undeniably marked the Wikipedia editing history of YRC/O2RR. Jusdafax 22:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Why AN might be preferable to Arbcom

If pile-on endorsements, talk page bickering, and a subject who either drips vitriol or refuses to participate are what we can look forward to over the next 29 days, then by all means let's close this now. I was going to suggest giving it the full 30 days to ensure that those who have yet to weigh in have a chance (and, frankly, to give Youreallycan a few days to stop breathing fire and start responding appropriately), but consensus seems clear that something significant needs to happen as a result of this RfC, and that's unlikely to change however long it stays open. However, whether the RfC is closed now or in 30 days or somewhere in between is of secondary concern; more important is what comes after. If Youreallycan offers no constructive comments helping us to find a viable path forward, a course of action will have to be decided without his input.

Clearly, closure of this RfC with a continuation of the status quo would be unacceptable. The two obvious options, filing an Arbcom case and seeking some sort of binding restriction at AN, have been mentioned. There are pros and cons associated with both, but I suggest taking the latter approach. While I am confident that Arbcom would make a reasonable decision, the wheels of justice over there sometimes grind exceedingly slowly, and it would be really nice to get a definite resolution soon. With an Arbcom case, there would also be the risk of "collateral damage" from much scrutinizing of motives and methods, and that seems wholly unnecessary. (Those who have suggested that this RfC was filed in bad faith have their own options to pursue that line of reasoning if they so choose. There's no reason to muddle up the rather simple matter at hand with procedural concerns, and I think that might happen were this to go to Arbcom.)

While an AN (not ANI) discussion would inevitably mean rehashing much of what's already been said here over the past day or two, I don't think that would be the end of the world; it would happen at Arbcom too, but there it would be long and drawn out, while at AN it could all be over in a day or less, and that's an advantage. (Does anyone really want to prolong this?)

Another advantage to the AN approach, perhaps less obvious, would stem from the community's proving it is able to routinely police itself without relying on its elected specialists. Obviously, it hasn't been policing itself in the case of YRC, but there's still time. It should be an open-and-shut case involving repeated personal attacks, gross incivility, and WP:BATTLEGROUND violations, with the only alleged ameliorating factor—irrelevant enough at this point—being that the subject has "done good stuff too". If we need Arbcom to point the way on something this simple, what on earth does that say about us as a community?

A third reason that an AN discussion would be the better next step is because it would allow us as a community, should we decide to (and I think we should), give YRC one last chance to remain among the ranks of Wikipedians. I would propose something along the lines of a broadly construed topic ban involving any BLP-related content, a one-revert rule with no exceptions whatsoever, a zero-tolerance stance on anything even remotely approaching incivility, and a very clear statement that administrative actions taken under the preceding terms are not to be unilaterally overturned. That means no more temper tantrums on his part, no more indulgence on our part, and no more excuses on anyone's part; if he violates those terms even once, he's blocked indefinitely and can appeal in six months. Giving him one more opportunity to demonstrate that he's here to help build and maintain an encyclopedia, not conduct a one-man crusade to save humanity from that encyclopedia, seems like the right thing to do. If he's willing to give it a go, there are lots of utterly uncontroversial things desperately need doing around this place. We can facilitate that, but I somehow doubt that Arbcom would be inclined to leave the door open that far.

It is possible that consensus would be elusive at AN, but that seems like a small risk at this point, and I think it's a risk worth taking. If the AN approach fails, Arbcom still will be just as viable an option as it is now. More so, if anything. Rivertorch (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• You certainly make a strong case for AN, Rivertorch... cheers! Jusdafax 09:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• He has done good work in the BLP area, a topic ban from BLP issues would not be very useful. The problem isnt working with BLP's, its the way he does it. The goal here is to get him to change the way he does it while still being productive in the areas that interest/encourage him to help the project. If you remove his topic of interest, there is less opportunity for him to prove his value. Mandatory 1RR & civility parole should be enough to either eliminate that, or prove he is not capable of it. If he cares strenuously enough about a BLP issue he has more than enough contacts amongst the admin corps at the BLP board to get impartial opinions on an article, without resorting to his usual aggressive methods. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's not just about BLP though. The issues that I raised in my opening statement - incivility, a battleground mentality and edit-warring - have been apparent in multiple areas, including on project discussion pages such as this very RfC. I previously thought it might be worth restricting him from BLPs but I think the problem is more generic, in that it's about his approach to Wikipedia and other editors in general, not just about one particular topic area. Prioryman (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I proposed something very much like this in May 2012 (see [7]) but unfortunately it was opposed and did not get anywhere. It may well be that a similar proposal would be enacted this time as YRC seems to have lost the support of many of those who had previously opposed restricting him. However, when I read your suggestion I kept thinking, "this is someone who has had 19 blocks and numerous last chances and has broken every promise of reform that he's made." Why would anything be different now? Why offer him yet another last chance? I think everyone knows by now that he is incapable of keeping his promises of better behaviour. While my heart says that your course of action is laudable and reminds me that I previously opposed banning YRC, my head tells me that if we follow it we are just setting ourselves up for yet more drama: first AN in trying to enact restrictions and then in dealing with the fallout of YRC's probable failure to abide by them. My head tells me that we would be better getting this over with now and resolving the matter with finality rather than, potentially, prolonging the drama for several months more. Is it wrong? Prioryman (talk) 12:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• The restriction that's been proposed in the past was a topic ban from LGBT issues. It failed at the time, mostly because of YRC's fanclub showing up to support him, but although they've shown up here as well maybe the fact that he's obviously not been a constructive user for a long time will outweigh the users who want to help him push his agenda. If the idea is raised again, I recommend broadly construing the ban as well as explicitly specifying that it prevents him from discussing the sexual orientation of any contributor in any namespace, and also that we extend it to Jewish topics and to the ethnicity of any contributor. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• (shrug) No idea. I could well be wrong. But think of it this way: if AN fails, Arbcom is still on the table. If Arbcom fails (unlikely, I admit, but not inconceivable), would AN be a realistic next step? (That's head, not heart, I think. Sometimes I get them mixed up.) Rivertorch (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• You have a point. What worries me is not so much if AN fails because a restriction proposal gets opposed and/or filibustered again - then it can just be sent over to Arbcom - but what happens if a restriction is passed and YRC fails to abide by it (and he will fail). There will then be a big shitstorm on AN over banning him and it will probably just end up at Arbcom anyway. My head is saying, "why not just cut out the middleman and go straight to Arbcom"? The community has already failed to resolve this on multiple occasions so it's not as if community processes haven't previously been tried. The big advantage of a referral to Arbcom would be that it would save everyone a good deal of additional drama. Prioryman (talk) 12:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• This is all very presumptive and improper two days into an RfC/U, indicating a clear objective of banning, which is outside the scope of RFC/U. This isn't giving YRC a fair opportunity to address the issues, which is within the scope of this process. This hunt for a different venue to that will deliver a desired outcome is difficult to take in good faith. The process has started, let it proceed for now, per the usual and established methods, until a reasonable period of time has passed. If it gets shopped to WP:AN before this RFC/U has had a reasonable opportunity to deal with the issues, I will close the WP:AN discussion myself. I've tried to stay out, but I'm not going to stand by and watch anyone get denied the same due process and same degree of fairness we give every other editor. This is no different than I would do for any of you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  I agree completely. This is not the time for moving this to any other venue, and all this "What if the RFC doesn't fix it? What if AN doesn't work? What if the Earth is hit by an asteroid tomorrow before we've had a chance to ban him?" speculation is way premature. This is a voluntary process, and YRC absolutely must be allowed enough time to see if any possible progress can be made - and his initial response, and the number of people piling on against him, does not in any way change that. There is no urgency here at all, and no reason whatsoever to deny YRC fair process in accordance with accepted timescales. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP

In reply to John lilburne's remark on the project page that "[the] underlying issue here is that part of the editing community has NEVER accepted BLP policy":

I think that attitudes toward BLP policy and its application do underlie some of what's going on here, but it probably would be more accurate to say that part of the editing community disagrees with another part of the editing community over how BLP policy should be interpreted and applied. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, of course, but I suspect there are few among us who don't see the need for taking special care with content about living persons. I think WP:BLP is a sensible policy when it is applied judiciously, but sometimes it is used as a bludgeon to beat other vital policies, such as WP:NPOV, into submission. I see grave risks to the integrity of the encyclopedia—specifically to our ability to create neutral, comprehensive articles—when WP:BLP becomes an excuse for excluding content that is relevant, noteworthy, and reliably sourced. Or, worse still, for stifling legitimate discussion over whether to include such content.

BLP policy is a necessity because it prevents Wikipedia from inflicting certain kinds of needless harm on the world. When applied thoughtlessly, however, it becomes a means of whitewashing articles, reducing them to little better than reconstituted curricula vitae, press releases, or social media pages. That sort of occurrence is incompatible with the building of a serious encyclopedia. Judicious application of BLP policy requires the ability to assess contextual nuance, the willingness to strike a balance between conflicting objectives, and the wisdom to accept consensus. Those attributes are hard to discern in some editors, notably Youreallycan. As regards this RfC, it is worth noting that there are others who interpret WP:BLP similarly to YRC yet somehow manage to avoid violating WP's behavioral policies right and left. Rivertorch (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I find it hard to take Wikipediocracy member John lilburne's comments seriously when you consider that someone like Coren - who is nobody's idea of a BLP libertine - has told YRC that his approach to BLP is "very much extreme" and is "stretching BLP way beyond reasonable limits". Extremism in the defence of BLP is very much a vice, and it doesn't help when people try to claim otherwise. To quote Coren again, "it is possible to defend such a strong position in good faith and work with other editors productively. The problem is that [YRC] does not appear to be actually able to do that." That is the heart of the problem. Prioryman (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has had, and still has, a big problem trying to prevent activists from pursuing their agendas in BLPs. Some of the participants in this RfC have clearly stated that they don't agree with YRC's approach to defending BLP subjects. In my own experience, I have found that getting in the way of an editors trying to add sketchy material to a BLP often provokes edit warring and extremely personal, nasty, unpleasant comments. Cla68 (talk) 12:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's look at the example that Coren blocked YRC over: [8] (also see this discussion preceding his unblock). The edit-war was about whether to describe the BLP subject as a "convicted felon" in the lead sentence, without any professional label. The talk page consensus actually seems to be against doing so, yet the article still does it. And anyone changing the lead sentence will probably end up in a nasty edit war. This thing was on Jimbo's talk page a few weeks back, where someone said that essentially the two litigants had been taking turns editing the article. Which is of course the whole Wikipedia problem in a nutshell. Why on earth do we let people edit articles on themselves or their legal opponents, anonymously? This kind of thing will always happen, and there will always be the same kind of fallout. It's nuts. Biographies of living people should not be edited anonymously, and there should be a more solid and formal mechanism to handle BLP complaints. --JN466 13:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

WP should probably require that only editors using their real names edit BLPs, and also impose sighted revisions on BLPs as a double safeguard. Cla68 (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Two things; 1. the chances of getting the WMF to start forcing editors to use their real names for anything on-wiki is mathematically zero and 2. it helps to keep a sense of perspective; people who are entangled in a bitter lawsuit probably have more important matters on their hands than what a website says about them at the moment. Yes, we need to watch extra carefully and discuss, but "BLP violation" doesn't equal "Something one individual editor doesn't agree with". I've done some BLP work myself, and I find that if you calmly, rationally handle the situation you're far more likely to actually get things fixed without major controversy (One example would be my work with Ghazal Omid, although it's also worth noting that no one at BLPN bothered to help me with that while the debate raged below about another Jewish category; so much for claims of its current value. It only seems to work for minor issues that don't require anything other than a yes/no opinion.). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Well the talk page consensus was (I may be biased as a participant) ok with labelling him as a criminal given that was what he was notable for. Only real disagreement was in the wording. No one was outright against reworking it. The problem was with YRC seeking to remove any mention of it in the lede unless people went with exactly what he wanted. 'Do what I say or you cant have it' is not how you build consensus, and he was taken rather more seriously than he had a right to expect given that attitude. Its not surprising when you take an absolute stance that other people who may be more moderate/sympathetic are forced into the opposing position. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good afternoon petal. I see we are starting the Bad Kids thing again, personally I think you need try a different tune, but no matter. The problem is that YRC and a couple of others are pretty isolated over at the BLPN, rarely do any admins show up there other than to dump problems, and almost never to they pull the shutters down on the antagonists that camp out there to push the boundaries week after week. Given the circumstances I think the members here rather than complaining about the odd outburst, ought to be thanking him for being so complimentary. John lilburne (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys, let's not derail here. This RfC has basically nothing to to do with whether we should or should not enforce BLP. It has to do with someone who, in the course of working in the BLP area, has behavioral issues. Debating whether BLP enforcement is good or bad, or drawing a line between the "good" users and the "bad" users using their BLP opinions, or arguing about whether one case on one article should have been handled the way it was has no bearing on the issue of YRC's interpersonal behavior, which is what this RfC is about. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

People aren't robots. If three people curse you under their breath (or worse) every day because you're trying to do the right thing, there is a good chance you might get cross after a year or two. --JN466 15:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not YRC is doing "the right thing" is immaterial. He certainly believes he does, but his behaviour isn't contingent on that. There are literally thousands of editors who believe they are doing the right thing every day on Wikipedia, few of them are having trouble over it, and almost none have been getting into trouble at regular interval for years.

YRC's position on BLPs is a red herring; it doesn't matter what his position is, only that he is unable to edit collaboratively defending it. — Coren ^(talk) 15:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You ought to be addressing the underlying problem not the symptom. K John lilburne (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What we are seeing here is a symptom of the underlying issue which is BLP. That BLP concerns have effectively been left much to a small group of editors, who are pretty much isolated, and who come under attack from editors intent on inserting some POV into articles, you can see it above in the "Why AN might be preferable to Arbcom" section. That people when poked enough react to it is unsurprising. What I don't see is administrators stepping in to stop the self same tendentious editors that arrive the to argue their POV week after week. Unless the underlying issue is fixed whatever happens with YRC is besides the point because you'll end up with the focus switching to ATG or one of the others there. The dynamics are such that there will always be more Barbarians than Romans. John lilburne (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's complete bullshit. I hold the quite unpopular position that our BLP policy goes nowhere far enough, and that most of our BLPs should be deleted or stripped of most of their fluffy contents. I have frequently stepped in to attempt to curtail the kind of vile hatchet jobs that regularly pop up in our articles on people; even to the point of having filed an arbitration request to stop one of the most egregious abuses. Yet I've never edit warred, my block log is clean and, as far as I can remember, I've never had AN/I threads from editors despairing at the tendentiousness of my editing.

YRC isn't in trouble because of the position he holds, but because he is unable to edit collaboratively with people who disagree with him; and that will require changes from him, not changes in policy. — Coren ^(talk) 16:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't actually think it's complete bullshit. You have not put in 8,000 edits at BLPN, and had the cumulative effect of all the BLP policy violators you've crossed come back to bite you. Systemic changes are necessary: at present, we are not even able and willing to ban editors from a BLP if they are in real-life conflict with the BLP subject, or have called them names here in Wikipedia. WP:BLPBANs should be used far more often, and there should be a committee much like arbcom specifically for adjudicating BLP disputes. If we had that, things would not get to the point where YRC flies off the handle.

Yes, of course you two are different people, and it takes different things to make you fly off the handle – there is no question that YRC is far more apt to do that, regardless of BLPN issues. As a simple matter of practicality, YRC needs to change his approach, as nothing in the environment will change in the short term. For the moment though, while we're here, three cheers for your ideas on BLP management. :)) --JN466 16:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Stepping in sort out an egregious example or two is NOT enough. The nonsense goes on day after day, week after week, month after month. As an example see the Ed Miliband article. It is the same editors each time buzzing around, poking and goading in the hope to cause someone to flare up. Its going on today, on this page, for all but the wilfully blind to see. There are at least three or four examples on my talk page. Hand wringing and bringing out the mop to clean up when someone has left a jobbie in the middle of the living room carpet, is one thing, but ya'll neglecting the semen stains on the cushions, and the bogies stuck under the table edge. John lilburne (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are problems with BLPs, yes it can be stressful, but Coren is right - thousands of other editors contribute to hundreds of thousands of BLPs without the same kind of problems that YRC has. This is not a BLP problem, it's one individual editor's problem. I don't see other editors behaving in the same way that he does and I certainly can't think of anyone who's managed to acquire as many blocks as him without being indeffed. Plus if it was a problem caused by BLP stress, that wouldn't explain why he acts in the same way outside the BLP topic area. Prioryman (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this blocks/ifdeffs thing some type of jealousy? Any ways as we know people react oddly when poked and prodded. John lilburne (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

:::Coren you need to step up to the nplate and adress the cause not the symptom. John lilburne (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What we are seeing here is a symptom of the underlying issue which is BLP. That BLP concerns have effectively been left much to a small group of editors, who are pretty much isolated, and who come under attack from editors intent on inserting some POV into articles, you can see it above in the "Why AN might be preferable to Arbcom" section. That people when poked enough react to it is unsurprising. What I don't see is administrators stepping in to stop the self same tendentious editors that arrive the to argue their POV week after week. Unless the underlying issue is fixed whatever happens with YRC is besides the point because you'll end up with the focus switching to ATG or one of the others there. The dynamics are such that there will always be more Barbarians than Romans. John lilburne (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's been adequately answered. Formerip (talk) 17:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

John lilburne, did you mean to post the exact same thing twice on this page? Prioryman (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, cool it with the BADSITES. If you have evidence someone is misbehaving, present it. If you just want to tar people with the brush of being associated with a site you feel is problematic, that has no place here and is only serving to derail everything and ramp up the angst at a time when there's quite enough angst without your help. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Coren, I salute you you for staying on target here. Jusdafax 17:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment to Youreallycan

Free dinners for life, (Brazilian style of course), for services to WP:BLP

• If it is necessary someone can move this to his talk page

YRC, I don't hate you, I don't dislike you, I have no problem with you as a person; however, I do see a major problem in your ability to communicate with other editors. I hope at this point in the RFC, you are able to recognize this for yourself. In fact, many editors have expressed support for your contributions and BLP work, but are concerned that you take it too far and that you can't work with other editors on the topics. That said, what solutions do you have? Perhaps you could offer a reasonable suggestion that the community could accept rather than the community offering a solution that you have no choice but to accept. Ryan Vesey 13:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like Rob doesn't intend to reply to this, but I had visions of his suggestion being, like Socrates, free dinners for life as a proposed remedy. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Update

After 3 days and a promise not to edit articles hes back. He also posted this on my page "BLP violator: I think you are quite well known for this - at least know you as such". in other wosrds he intends to ignore this page and go on with the same behviour...Lihaas (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I see that YRC aka Off2riorob has pulled the notice. Interesting that he goes from you being "quite well known for this" to an apology in a matter of 16 minutes. It continues his well-established pattern of wild swings in behavior that has been going on for years, as I see it. I can only hope that the community will do something instead of just tolerate his ongoing erratic abuse. Jusdafax 08:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I dunno, looks to me like he just made a mistake and apologized. That strikes me as a good thing and not analogous to the other kinds of behavior he's accused of.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Point being, this latest lapse doesn't quite fit the narrative that YRC and his pals present, of the heroic, wise BLP warrior single-handedly doing good. Saying someone is a BLP "violator" on their talk page, and that he is "quite well-known for this," shows an extreme lapse of judgment, in my view. "Quite well known?" This is the guy's strong point, and why we must tolerate him further after 19 blocks? Sure looks to me like a lot of editors have gotten fed-up with the heroic narrative, and have had enough of YRC's highly hostile type of editing. Jusdafax 17:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Bbb23. That's admirable. You so rarely see people on Wikipedia admitting fault. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If I understood correctly what I saw, he apologized for putting the message on the wrong user's talk page, not for what the message said. If I'm right about that, then he was angry in (1) saying what he did, and also (2) initially saying it to the wrong person. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not that he redacted it (with such blatant fault its obvious an apology would come through), but what/how he said it and that he broke his agreement not to edit aricles. How could we trust a future agreement>Lihaas (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for suggestion from me

I have only read a few posts and I can agree with a few of them - I really need a break from editing here - I accept that - I am at the end of my tether with the project - what about a two month en wiki/total edit block and then a no revert restriction for another couple of months after that - (Who will support Pending protection, consensus supported - from its opposers? Please jump in there and contribute) I would really benefit from such a break - and on return a no revert restriction would help me reintegrate - Although I have got angry and said some wrong things I have also had plenty of the same against me - I do have like, over ninety thousand edits and over three years of attempted good faith additions and plenty of positive beneficial contributions, especially in defense and assistance of living people - I love this project/perhaps too much in the past and it has upset me - the POV additions and suchlike - I am sorry for falling out with anyone and please accept my apologies for that and understand it was more about me than you . Youreallycan 19:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here. Ryan Vesey 19:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats ok Thank you - If the community are unable to accept such a request I would ask for a compassionate WP:Vanish with my user names and content additions/discussion comments changed to the usual kind of User Vanished 456789 or similar and an indefinite block on my accounts, as a vanished user doesn't need to edit - this will allow me to easily/easier let go - Youreallycan 19:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll also comment that this would be the longest block ever on either account. I find this to be similar to the Wikipedia:Standard offer except with the unblocking shortened and predetermined as a result of it being self-suggested. Ryan Vesey 19:40, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Rob, I well remember multiple times when your edits have been very helpful to me, and I appreciate the way you acknowledge that "it was more about me than you". At the same time, I think there are other issues we need to discuss with you. One is that, when you feel ready, you really ought to read all of the comments here, unless you have already decided to vanish. Another is that you quite recently entered, in a similar spirit, into a mentoring relationship with Dennis Brown, and yet you ended up turning against him. It's asking a lot for the community to trust that you won't do likewise here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Admitting there is a problem rather than dismissing everyone as haters is a start, though I don't think your suggestion gets to the heart of the matter. Edit warring seems to be a byproduct rather than the main problem here, so I'm not sure a revert restriction is necessary. Knowing this RfC was going on, you sent an accusatory message to another editor, despite them not being responsible for the action behind your accusation. Its the constant assumption of bad faith, and the broad attacks on large groups of people you deem to be advocacy groups (gays/Jews/etc), in the name of BLP that really seem to be the problems here. Is two months away really going to fix that? AniMate 19:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As Dennis Brown often says, blocks are cheap. Let's go with the less strict measure over a more strict one. Ryan Vesey 19:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

So all you want to see happen is a revert restriction? That's great Ryan, but it still does nothing to address the rampant incivility. AniMate 20:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

And a self imposed 2 month block. Ryan Vesey 20:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well as Dennis Brown often says, blocks are cheap. This also does nothing to address his rampant incivility and assumptions of bad faith. AniMate 20:13, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Poor Dennis, how often does he say that? :-) AniMate, what would satisfy you? And I don't mean that belligerently. I just think it would be useful to know what you're looking for.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently Dennis is the authority here. Glad to be informed. I was thinking something along the lines of a topic ban. If BLPs and everything surrounding them are such a source of anger for him, why not have him stop editing them for several months. There are plenty of areas here that need improvement. He can work elsewhere, and if the behavioral problems persist, we can revisit sanctions. He's a BLP warrior, if we remove him from what he's fighting for, he may become just another editor. AniMate 20:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If he's a BLP warrior, could you quite easily toss out an example where he was wrong on the underlying issue? 'Cause ya know, otherwise it's just upholding site policy. Franamax (talk) 22:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd say he lost sight of the prize here. Also, most users uphold policy everyday, without violating civility, AGF, battleground, etc. Upholding policy by violating policy doesn't help improve things. AniMate 22:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi YRC, it's good to hear from you, and you certainly have my support for your suggestion - it sounds good to me, and I'll be happy to do what I can to help, if there is anything. Your initial responses to this RFC were clearly angry, but in my view you should not be judged on them, but instead on this willingness that you are expressing now that you have calmed down. (And it shows the importance of keeping an RFC/U open for a proper length of time - shame on those who wanted this closed down and YRC unceremoniously kicked out when it had barely started). It has always been my contention that your motives here have been honorable, and it has only been excessive enthusiasm that has turned into confrontation that has been your downfall. I think a break from Wikipedia would be good for both you and for the project. But, I suggest that, in the long term, you should seriously think about restricting your time here to a maximum number of hours per week, and don't even look at Wikipedia when those hours are done. AniMate makes a good point, above, that the edit warring is really just a symptom, and the anger is the real problem - you have attempted similar past solutions, and you have been genuine in them, but you appear not to be able to stick to such commitments when you get in an angry mood. So what I think you need to do is concentrate on avoiding getting angry in the first place, rather than trying to fix what happens after you get angry - if you can minimize your anger by restricting the time you spend here, I think you could end up with a workable solution. So, you have my support - but I do think this really is a last chance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

+1 to pretty much everything Boing says here. You need to have a coping strategy in place that will help you never get to the point of losing your temper at someone, rather than what's been happening up to now, which is losing your temper and then apologizing (sincerely and seriously, which you always are) when you cool down. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with AniMate. A revert restriction may be nice, but the civility violations and battleground behavior express themselves primarily in project space. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your supportive comments Boing! said Zebedee - I do accept/realize this would be a pretty much last chance scenario - and I accept the civility comments above (although I have strongly defended Jews and Gays in many content disputes and disagree with User:AniMate's comment that I have "broad attacks on large groups of people you deem to be advocacy groups (gays/Jews/etc")) - I object to all advocacy groups attempts to promote their issues using the server space of EN Wikipedia - We all know that this is happening ... its just I need to stop reverting, and the no revert clause in my offer will support this and I need to not get angry about the advocacy users and not make an attacking comment/response - the accepted last chance clause will address this also - Youreallycan 20:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you think about the suggestion that in addition to your comments, there is a temporary topic ban from BLP's? I'll have to leave one note that I wouldn't support this view in its entirety, there has to be some sort of exception to everything for unambiguously clear BLP violations "So and so just got his secretary pregnant and his wife left him" type of things. Ryan Vesey 20:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh yes, I was thinking about the antisemitism and homophobia allegations, though I chose not to raise them just now. But as you have, I should add that I do not believe the accusations - I see it more as your perhaps trying to beat your opponents by any means available when in an angry mood and using targeted attacks, rather than any real prejudice - anger, again, and no more than that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I have no content violations to BLP articles at all - I am not a BLP violatotor - as long as thats clear completely - If users are suggesting a two month BLP articles space edit block and no full site block then I will possibly contribute to other areas that need work and are less stress-full to me - I have in the past moved thousands of pictures to Commons for example - Youreallycan 20:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that you have violated the policy on BLPs. I'm suggesting your attitude in regards to enforcing it has brought us where we are today. I would object to any exceptions to the topic ban though outside of obvious vandalism, since I don't think there are any shades of grey in the area for YRC. What may seem like an open and shut case of a policy breach to him, isn't always a policy breach. If he finds something egregious, he can always inform someone else and let them remove it. AniMate 21:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Yes, I have repeatedly lost my temper in edit conflicts, especially in regards to content deemed violating of En WP:policy and guidelines . This is really the primary problem isn't it - perhaps the Two month WP:BLP avoidance below and a following two month no revert condition with an included community last chance agreement would be a way to progress - ? is a good way to progress - I can understand and accept this suggestion. Youreallycan 21:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is huge progress YRC, but I think you're just pushing things off again. From what I've seen here and elsewhere, your oppossers and more especially your supporters are looking for your proposed way forward to deal with these disputes that aren't easily solved. Taking a step back is always a good idea when under stress, but can you also give us some ideas on you (and we) can avoid these problems 4, 6 or whatever months from now? Franamax (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps a reenactment of a few of the editing conflicts by copying the relevant page versions and then editing them, would help. We're now spending a lot of time on the RFC anyway, so we can just as well replay a few of the past disputes. YRC is then instructed to vigorously argue the point he was aguing for, so things start out in the same way. But then he is instructed to not cross the line of personal attacks or any other problematic behavior. Count Iblis (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi, YRC; have nothing but good experiences editing with you, so this is FRIENDLY advice. Don't know how this would work, considering that I regard Canvassing and Tag-Teaming the most vile cancers on Wikipedia, but you are always at your best when you are NOT the lone editor of your perspective on a page. Perhaps it might help if you joined one or more Wiki Project pages, and if some WP-compliant way could be found to let you edit together with other supportive editors. Getting into situations where you are isolated results in nothing but trouble, even if you may be right. Obviously, you can't go to other editors and ask them to join directly, but putting areas of concern to a Wiki Project first, and why they are of concern, might help in avoiding those situations. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

Proposal How about: * Two month voluntary vacation from Wikipedia altogether, followed by

• No revert for two months after that
• Six month topic ban BLP (noticeboard, articles), concurrent with bullets one and two above? Nobody Ent 21:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Not on first consideration from me as acceptable/preferable/beneficial - thats ten months of editing restrictions - Youreallycan 21:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Supposed to be six -- worded it poorly. Starting now, no BLP for six months. Starting now, two months off. Starting now, no reverts for four months. Nobody Ent 21:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Not on first consideration from me as acceptable/preferable/beneficial - a two month ban and then a two month no revert editing condition with a concurrent six month BLP editing ban for a User that has never violated WP:BLP seems a bit severe to me - if the community supports such a severe editing restriction on me then I again would request the compassionate WP:Vanish as I stated above - diff - Youreallycan 21:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There ain't no "community" -- there's a bunch of overlapping constituencies. Some are gonna press for nothing less than a ban; some of us are more hopeful a brokered solution -- one that will benefit Wikipedia -- can be worked out. The break/restrictions needs to be long enough to get sufficient votes to pass. It's not that you've violated BLP, it's that historically BLP has been the trigger that's gotten you into the "me against the world" mode that disrupts Wikipedia. So if six months is too long, make a counteroffer -- what's the longest you'd be willing to take a break from BLP. Remember, if Wikipedia ends up sucking (or sucking more) -- it's not your personal responsibility. It's Jimbo's, he started the mess, right? Nobody Ent 21:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, nothing formally can be decided here. RfCs are generally nonbinding, and you can accept or reject any suggested proposals. Similarly, you can choose to vanish whenever you want to, but I believe that request needs to be made at the crats board. Finally, even if you do voluntarily agree to the suggestions here, that may not be enough to satisfy others who have participated here. They are free to continue pursuing this through the steps of DR, though of course any case can result in scrutiny of everyone involved. AniMate 21:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

True theorectically, but if YRC accepts a voluntary break/restrictions further attempts at DR prior to the completion of the agreement aren't very likely to go very far. Nobody Ent 21:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• - I have come here and made a series of voluntary offers - lets see after a couple of days how discussion about my offers resolves - I am busy in real life and finding this hard but am attempting to resolve for the best for me and the En Wikipedia project. - Youreallycan 21:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Youreallycan 21:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

So what's on the table is:

• Two month voluntary vacation from Wikipedia altogether, followed by
• No revert for two months after that

? Nobody Ent 22:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes thats is one offer , " I have come here and made a series of voluntary offers " - please see previous comment above - added to that there is also an understanding clause - for six months that there is a last chance community support for a ban if repeat behavior resulting in another block of any duration occurs - There are also comments , which I have some support for that a two months WP:BLP editng restriction followed by the above may be more beneficial to rehabilitation that the two months total En Wikipedia contributory ban.- Youreallycan 22:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Taking a page out of my book I see... Good move! Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A bit above, Boing! pointed out how wrong it would have been to close the process early, and that's an excellent point indeed. I very much like what YRC just said, about taking a few days to think about the ideas here. That's exactly the right approach to take, and I commend YRC for saying it. As I read the discussion here, I think that it's useful to note that a BLP topic ban might be a very good idea, not because YRC makes bad BLP content edits, which has never been the point, but because BLP leads YRC to become angry towards other editors, which is very much the point, quite apart from any issues of reverting. I'd even consider a BLP topic ban in the absence of any imposed block before it, if accompanied by a last-chance agreement about civility. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. I think its always a better idea to remove a problematic user from an area rather than from the whole project. The BLPs will survive a few months without YRC. AniMate 22:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, My Fair Lady and "Without You".--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would support a 2 month break (including talk page), followed by 3 months of 1RR. If there was a breach of the 1RR, it would (naturally) be a community decision if it needed extending, or if other sanctions are needed. I'm not sure a 0RR is needed simply because most of YRC's reverts are good reverts, it is only when he goes past the single revert that confrontation begins. While not a part of the agreement, I think Boing! makes some excellent points about limiting time, and YRC should take his advice to heart. As to RFC/U being non-binding, that is of no consequence as my experience has been that if YRC agrees to the terms, he will fulfill them, and I am comfortable taking him at his word. It is clear to everyone, including YRC, that we are at the frayed end of the rope here, but not beyond one more good faith gesture. I still want the best for YRC, even if it isn't obvious to him. If YRC agrees to this, it is my hope that the community will agree to this reasonable, last compromise, and allow me a little rope in offering it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I tried, but doesn't look like he is interested. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Dennis, what are your opinions about, perhaps instead, a BLP topic ban? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think a break or revert restriction will do anything to help the incivility and anger issues that accompany his edits. Frankly Dennis, YRC was unblocked several times by agreeing to have you mentor him, and yet here we are. Your rope allowance is extremely limited. AniMate 23:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats fine that you feel this way about me User:AniMate and that you feel and have accused me of antisemitism and anti gay editing- as you know I totally reject your opinions and other users reject your opinions also - please also note that as a WP:Administrator in strongly held negative opinions in regards to my accounts contributions for a repeated and lengthy period of time this User:AniMate is a self declared WP:Involved user in relation to me - diff on request if he disputes my comment - Youreallycan 23:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

That makes it harder to feel comfortable with a more lenient outcome. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll take your word that you're not homophobic or antisemitic, but you've certainly made statements that any reasonable user could misconstrue as such. I've never taken any sort of administrative action in regards to you, nor have I threatened to do so. I've gone so far as to specifically say that I wouldn't take any actions regarding you. That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to give my opinion here, so I'm not sure what purpose your statement about me serves. AniMate 23:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's a mistake, YRC. You are not going to get 100% agreement on terms -- some editors are looking for nothing short of a total ban. Engaging them is going to be counterproductive; we need the keep the focus on you -- making Wikipedia a better place by allowing you to continue the good work while greatly minimizing the disruption caused when you get over-engaged. Trying to discredit your critics only makes things worse. You're just going to have to shrug off the vociferous minority for awhile; if you're unable or unwilling to do that you're going to end up banned. Nobody Ent 23:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

As I have said , and linked to , twice? - If there is community support for severe editing restrictions here at the WP:RFCU and my good faith offers at lesser resolution are rejected then I have/will request a compassionate -WP:Vanish - diff provided twice above - Your claims that to avoid a ban I will have to" shrug off the vociferous minority for awhile; if you're unable or unwilling to do that you're going to end up banned. are totally reflective of the problem and not the solution - Youreallycan 00:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

In this case, I think the "vociferous minority" is actually the majority. There's a problem here, and it has crept up right here. You get extremely angry with those who disagree with you and personalize it, especially in regards to BLPs. I stand by my suggestion of a BLP topic ban, and I would say that 3 months would be sufficient. If behavioral problems continue, YRC can be blocked for a lengthy period of time or can vanish should he so desire. AniMate 00:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

There's zero evidence of anger and a lot of evidence of frustration. AniMate, you've stated your opinion; repeating it does not make it any more compelling. Nobody Ent 00:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I hear you, and if that's your choice I, at least, will support it. What I'm saying is your actions the next few days can determine which way things go. The community needs to see equanimity in the face of provocation right now. I've got four years of archives of editors unhappy with me for various WQA/AN/AC et. al. things I've done but no blocks or ANI threads or RFCUs 'cause I can accept criticism without lashing back. If you're going to wade into contentious areas like BLP you have to be able to do that. Nobody Ent 00:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

YRC, as a compromise with regard to BLP discussions, would you consider a restriction that allowed you continue contributing but just forbade you from arguing? So, if you get disagreement from other editors, you just drop it, and if you see a BLP discussion where other editors are already disagreeing, you don't join it? This would allow you to continue a lot of the work you do on the BLP board relatively unhindered. Formerip (talk) 00:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Addendum: be understanding and non-retaliatory in dealing with incivility. has been policy for a long time. If you (YRC) sincerely feel the lack of support for counter-attacking editors you disagree with is the problem, then I regretfully suggest it's time to end this and you should RTV. Nobody Ent 00:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks User:Ent thanks for your comments - You show support in your comment for WP:VANISH - lets see how the comments go over the next 36 hours (I am very busy in real life) but I have made multiple offers in good faith in an attempt to allow me to contribute in some beneficial manner , lets hope more users comment - Youreallycan 00:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My take on the most recent discussions is that, where Nobody Ent sees frustration rather than anger, I see obvious anger, resulting perhaps from frustration, but anger nonetheless. I'd like to find a way, short of a site ban or a choice to vanish, for YRC to be separated from the things that trigger the anger and the lashing out at others – and I don't think that reversions are the issue. But I'm pessimistic, seeing YRC's own comments, that there's a realistic way to achieve that. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It it possible for YRC to edit in an acceptable way despite these issues he encounters. What he has to do is to learn to never lash out at others, never say anything even remotely ad hominem, no matter how angry he is. You can always discuss a relevant editing issue by sticking to that issue, and there is never a reason to edit war, because you are not the only editor here. If you have a point, that can always be picked up by others.

YRC can use the persons the BLPs are about that he cares a lot about, as examples. Some of them are high profile people who also have their frustrations and you can bet that when interviewed on T.V. they will sometimes be very angry at the way a question is asked, yet they will almost always be able to give a polite answer, sticking to the issues. Almost never will you see someone lashing out at the in his/her mind the "journalist with an obvious bias" for asking the according to him/her "insinuating question" yet again. Count Iblis (talk) 02:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Rob, you've been a stupendously active editor since December 2008, and I see only one break in your editing of longer than 10 days or so, when you were inactive ~2.5 months surrounding Jan-Feb 2009 (except a few edits on January 29), and this was when you were still just getting started editing. In fact the only other breaks of >= a week that I see were May 2009 (1 week), and December 2010 (10 days). That is definitely a recipe for burnout and I think it explains some of the issues we're seeing. I very highly recommend staying away from Wikipedia completely for a while (probably several months at least) as a means of regaining perspective, which may come back only rather slowly.

My suggestion during your break is to not set a return date on your calendar or dive back in on returning, and to stay away from related sites like Commons and Wikipediocracy etc, and to avoid reading any en.wp dramaboards or anything else on WP likely to get you mad, etc. Rather, just enjoy life without aggravating yourself with Wikipedia til you've reached a state where you don't react strongly to Wikipedia any more, then re-enter when it feels natural to do so, starting gradually and in areas where you are calm. I've done this multiple times myself and IMO it's very helpful to reset my reactions that way. I hope it can work the same way for you. Finally, here is a joke, whose point here is that WP-style civility is a dialect that you can use consistently with a bit of practice. It can be built up just like any other editing skill, so there's no reason not to develop it. 67.122.211.84 (talk) 05:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm at a bit of a loss here. WP:VANISH says (in its nutshell form) "Courtesy vanishing means any user in good standing—upon leaving Wikipedia forever—may request renaming of his account; deletion or blanking of user pages; and possibly the deletion or blanking of discussions related to his or her conduct. This courtesy vanishing does not include the deletion of user contributions, and normally does not include the deletion of user talk pages." That would mean, for instance, that this RfCU would be deleted. It would also mean that any Bureaucrat enacting it has to accept that 19 blocks and this RfCU still leave YRC as an editor "in good standing". That seems pretty unlikely to me and if it happened we would have to rewrite our concept of the vanishing to explain that 'good standing' doesn't mean what most editors think it means. And I doubt that many editors here not supporting YRC's actions would be happy - certainly wouldn't. I really don't think YRC is going to be allowed to vanish, so we have to look at the other options. YRC's behavior needs to change, and I don't think he can do it himself (I note for instance how long is self-imposed 1RR lasted). Maybe an enforced attempt will work - force a break through a relatively lengthy block, then a BLP ban, then a 1RR restrction - will change his behavior. Dougweller (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, Dougweller, about WP:VANISH, and while it's true that YRC's conduct has at times been pretty bad, he's not in what I would necessarily call "bad standing". He's not some sneaky troll who is only here to disrupt. While it's clear that long term blocks might be in order in the near-future if certain issues are not addressed, if he chose to vanish instead, and leave Wikipedia permanently, the courtesy could possibly be extended to him on the basis of the years of hard work and positive contributions he's put in. Rather, I think said contributions are why he's still here now. But, eh, that's just my thoughts on that specific matter. OohBunnies! (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I see "in good standing" as an indication that WP:VANISH is not an ejector-seat available to editors who wish to evade community scrutiny. Formerip (talk) 16:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I am here attempting to work it out in good faith with the community - WP:VANISH is absolutely not some ejector seat as Formerip claims, but is at this time, one clear option on the table - Youreallycan 17:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC) Youreallycan 17:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

A block log as tainted as yours, Rob, should not be erased, lest we have another situation akin to the one that just preoccupied ArbCom about a "vanished" editor accidentally on purpose neglecting to mention the previous user name and edit history at the time he was running for Administrator. What assurances do we have from you that you won't run an RfA under your new name with your block history sanitized? Carrite (talk) 06:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Assuming you're referring to Fae, that was a (sort of) a cleanstart, not an RTV. Also, given the primary concern with YRC is his inability to maintain discipline in the case of conflict, if YRC could pull off a cleanstart without being identified as YRC that would actually be a good thing. We are what we pretend to be. So if a cleanstarted YRC pretended to be, and thus became, a sufficiently collaborative editor, that would be a benefit to Wikipedia. Nobody Ent 09:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Alt Proposal by WSC

If we can come up with some terms that address the problematic part of YRC's behaviour then I'm not convinced that this is the best time to block YRC, if anything I think that such a block would be punitive. Vanishing is even worse, there is no benefit to either the community or the vanishing editor to use that option unless the editor has been editing in their own name. Better to agree the terms of some sort of editing restriction and see if that can be made to work now, rather than see if that can be made to work after a couple of months when things are less fresh in our minds. I see two aspects of YRC's editing that are contentious; Firstly the escalation to anger, and secondly the POVs on certain topics. Escalation to conflict with other editors is a difficult pattern to define and therefore to change, and to be frank I'm very impressed with what I saw at user talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0. Since that hasn't worked then we need to broaden that approach by getting you to identify and avoid certain trigger factors. Someone earlier suggested limiting the number of hours per week that you edit, and perhaps YRC you can think about that. My proposal would be to stop each BLP incident at the point where you've edited the article to remove a BLP violation. If you can make that work for a couple of months then we might be able to add bits of escalation back in, perhaps starting with reporting articles on the BLP noticeboard. To resolve the POV issue and reduce the risk of anger we need YRC to avoid those topics where he has strong views that put him into conflict with the community. Clearly that includes LGBT, but I'm not convinced we need a topic ban from BLPs or Jewish BLPs, my reading of this edit is that he really wasn't being anti-semitic - he has an unusual concept of what it is to be British (I should declare here that I'm a British gentile, so if there are others who read this differently please pipe up, but I'm not seeing evidence in this RFC for him being anti-semitic). It would be wrong of us to ask YRC to publicly list his hot button issues, but I would suggest that he draws them up privately and avoids those topics that can lead him into losing his cool - apart from the LGBT restriction we will only be able to measure the result in terms of his subsequent lack of conflict - but that is the result that matters. So in summary I'm proposing that we build on user talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0, add a topic ban from LGBT broadly construed. and a zero escalation rule. The less easily measured aspect of this involves asking YRC to avoid any other hot button issues that he has. ϢereSpielChequers 11:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Absurd - his issue is anger, not improper editing on BLPs, nor improper editing on any subset of BLPs. And a few of his blocks have not actually been, IMO, proper - and been overturned or shortened, or been for nominal infractions and for nominal periods of time. The desire of some to apparently view this as "Fae II" is beyond comprehension. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't personally witnessed a lot of YRC's editing on Jewish-related topics, so other users will need to chime in to say if this is a pattern or not, but the comment RolandR linked is absolutely inexcusable and I do not care if it's because YRC just has an "unusual" understanding of nationality. He is not the first to think that Jewishness is incompatible with other nationality, if you know what I mean. Wikipedia cannot tolerate that kind of behavior. What's more, it demonstrates what I and other users have talked about elsewhere - that YRC's regard for BLPCAT stops at his own personal biases. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As for User:Roscelese's comment that "YRC's regard for BLPCAT stops at his own personal biases." - I absolutely deny that and have defended all comers irrespective - a simple glance at Rocalese's contribution history will reveal his/her single focused bias - the same is also true of User:RolandR - User:Roscelese's comment that, "He is not the first to think that Jewishness is incompatible with other nationality, if you know what I mean". - is just a personal attack and an attempt to portray me as a Nazi - "if you know what I mean" - this RFCUser is about me, but when I see them (there are more personal attacks against me here but I have yet to reply/and although I know they are there, I have not yet read them)) - I will not allow users who have been in content disputes to personally attack me without a response. We have all certainly expressed ourselves poorly in almost One hundred thousand edits - Here is the talk page discussion, I note that the fact that it was on my talkpage and a discussion with User:Cullen328 / mostly - a user I have a degree of relating history with - that it allowed for a degree of adult sharing - would I change some of the comments now - of course I would - Discussion on my talkpage link - but User:RolandR's diff needs understanding not as a stand alone post but as a part of a conversation, as a minimum.Youreallycan 13:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

YRC. If you are consistent with what you said in 2011 then presumably you don't like such labels as British Sikhs, Black British or British Muslims any more than you like labels such as British Jews? If that's so then you have views on certain aspects of BLP that many editors will be uncomfortable about, and some of those people will read your words and assume that you consider Jewishness to be incompatible with other nationalities. I think I understand that your position is somewhat different to that. But if those words no longer reflect your views or they didn't come out as you intended then now would be a very good time to clarify either what you meant or what you would now say. There are a range of opinions in this RFC from people like Collect who consider that your problem is anger rather than BLPs to those who've given up on you. But there are others here like myself who would like some reassurances. Occasional mistakes are only to be expected, views that are incompatible with certain subsets of BLPs rather less so. Also I'd appreciate knowing whether you could accept the proposal that I outlined. ϢereSpielChequers 18:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

from :So WSC, to summarize, your proposal consists of mentoring (again), an LGBT topic ban, and a "zero escalation" rule. What provision would there be for if Rob again repudiates and attacks his mentor, or refuses to take their advice? The largest trouble I see Rob having, frankly, is knowing the rules and that he should follow them, but getting into such a temper that he's incapable of doing so. This is what happened to his past mentorship with Dennis, where he worked hard on civility, but then lost his temper and did the wiki-equivalent of upending the chessboard and smashing the clock.

I can imagine a provision for this something like "Should Rob choose to end his mentorship or change mentors, he must get consensus for such a change at AN prior to doing so. Repudiation of mentor or mentorship without this, or repeated refusal to act according to the mentor's advice, will result in an indefinite block." That's draconian and unpleasant, but it's the only way I can think of at the moment to add a failsafe for when his temper flares against mentorship. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My proposal isn't actually contingent on mentorship, the last mentorship broke down so I wouldn't suggest going down that path. Instead I'm suggesting some clear and simple rules - avoid LGBT and don't escalate. The avoiding other hot button topics is more in the nature of advice since we aren't asking him to declare his views. I hope that would work, it would leave YRC free to contribute to large parts of the pedia. If that doesn't work and we wind up here again then I fear he would get a long holiday from here, but I hope that this would work for him and be acceptable to his critics. ϢereSpielChequers 18:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@Prioryman: Didn't you also exercise your right to vanish? Did it stick? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

"Either you take me up on this particular offer or you get nothing." Fluffernutter

• User:Fluffernutter - "Either you take me up on this particular offer or you get nothing."

• dff - Is not a position I am here to discuss, neither have I presented it , or is it a presented proposal of this Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment - Youreallycan 16:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  That was my interpretation of "If there is community support for severe editing restrictions here at the WP:RFCU and my good faith offers at lesser resolution are rejected then I have/will request a compassionate -WP:Vanish - diff provided twice above". You say that if there's community support for "severe" editing restrictions here, rather than accept those you will RTV. Am I misinterpreting your statement? Was it not intended to communicate that if the community rejects your offer, and imposes a stricter one, you will choose to vanish rather than accept it? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  • This is still a clear position of mine. nothing has changed, If there is community support for severe editing restrictions here at the WP:RFCU and my good faith offers at lesser resolution are rejected then I have/will request a compassionate -WP:Vanish - User:Flutternutter, "if the community rejects your offer, and imposes a stricter one, you will choose to vanish rather than accept it?" - ths is not a correct interpretation - commented earlier - the best thing for the project in this case if the community reject my appeals is a caring considerate WP:Vanish that would be better for me and for the En Wikpedia project.Youreallycan 17:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm having difficulty working out how you're disagreeing with her statement of your principles. Your explanation appears essentially identical to her comment. Ironholds (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • "Either you take me up on this particular offer or you get nothing." - Is portrayed as a position of mine - I do not in any way hold this portrayed position, - Youreallycan 17:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    A more accurate portrayal being "if you punish me more severely than my offers of acceptance, I leave"? So it's not that you won't accept anything, just that you'll only accept things as lenient or less lenient than the offers you've given? Ironholds (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    This again is not a position I hold in any way - I am open to any good faith beneficial proposal. Youreallycan 17:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

    • Unless they're severe, according to this. Ironholds (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      No - .... that is a comment of mine - but its not a closed fixed point - I am here to discuss and find a beneficial point for myself and the En Wikpedia project and community - If a point where I am unable to beneficially contribute to improvement of the content here then, I am open to a a good faith compassionate parting of the ways WP:Vanish in regards to my accounts - I clearly care about the En Wki project and am looking for the best way forwards for that - ~Youreallycan

      So would it be more accurate to say, Rob, that if the community decides on a sanction that you feel is bad-faith, or so severe that it would restrict you from what you feel you need to do, then you would choose to vanish? I'm not sure if that makes a difference in how I view the situation, but it can't hurt to be sure we're clear on what you intended to say. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      WP:Vanish is one of my high options at this time , that is irrespective of anything at all, but is reflective of the position from this rfcu . User:Fluffernutter do you object to me actioning WP:Vanish ? Youreallycan 18:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      My concerns about you vanishing involve two things: first, I think it's a shame when anyone RTVs, because it's a loss of their good to the project; second, I worry that in light of how how intensely and long-term you've devoted your time to Wikipedia, it seems fairly unlikely that you'll be able to maintain RTV if you do it. Obviously only you can know that for sure, but I think it's really something for you to think about - if you RTV, are you going to regret it in two weeks, a month, a year? What will you do if you decide you want to come back? Could you resist the temptation of creating a new account at that point and hoping people don't notice? This is all assuming you're eligible for RTV, which is a decision to be made by a 'crat, not by us all here. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      This is the point that Users like User:ChrisO have destroyed trust here - My requesting WP:Vanish would be in good faith and a possible beneficial point for the project and myself - it wouldn't be a deceptive lying falsehood like it was and still is with :ChrisO - If accepted for this compassionate position I wouldn't return to contributions at all. - As is normal and expected - User:ChrisOis not WP:Retired , thats a lie, he is editing as User:Prioryman- Youreallycan 19:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      Oh, lay off the personal attacks, Rob. You still haven't learned, have you? Frankly, I wouldn't recommend RTV. I think if you really want to cease editing, just ask someone to block you indefinitely. If you decide to return at some point, put in an unblock request the normal way. But considering the way you are still behaving, I think I'll start working on an arbitration request instead, since you're obviously not sincere. Prioryman (talk) 19:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      When the little lying POV pusher came pretending to be be a new user he started attacking me and defending User:Cirt another WP:BLP violating famous anti Scientologist {Formally User:ChrisO) he was recognized but it is still not connected as is should be on his user page - Youreallycan 19:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      If that's the way you want to have it, fine. Prioryman (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      Would it be possible for you two to give it a rest?? You don't like each other. We get it. Nobody Ent 19:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

      Actually, this is exactly the core of the problem, and "giving it a rest" is not going to make it go away. What Rob has to learn is to accept that Prioryman is here with his opinions and editing history. The problem is not that Rob has problems with Prioryman's editing here, but that he tends to lash out against others in these sorts of discussions. Rob really has to learn to be able to have the same discussion as he just had with Prioryman, but then without using phrases like "little lying POV pusher". A two months break may be necessary if he feels the need to calm down and get away from Wikipedia, but it is not suficient to deal with this problem. Count Iblis (talk) 19:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Deck chairs. Titanic. Yea, I'm frustrated too, because what the offer(s) are is as clear as mud. But rather than get bogged down in details and quibbling about who said what, who meant what, how to paraphrase what YRC said, et. al. how about we focus on converging to a specific concrete proposal???? The goal should be win - win -- significant enough to both gain community acceptance, and provide a structure for YRC to change his problematic habits while retaining an editor who's put a lot of time and energy into an underserved area of the 'pedia. I'm fairly flexible and will swim whichever way the school is heading, but at a minimum we all need time off from the drama, so I'd suggest a two month break as a starting point. (Personally I've found when I'm about to scream at the next lame WQA or ineffable AC decision, just not editing (or reading) for a period of time is the best solution. ) Nobody Ent 19:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's difficult, and it looks fairly likely that the matter is going to move from here to ArbCom. It seems to me that a win-win would include: (1) stopping situations where YRC lashes out at other editors, (2) letting YRC continue to contribute positively to the project, and (3) YRC being willing to cooperate with the plan, and not rejecting it subsequently. We can all envisage ways of accomplishing (1) and (2), but YRC's own actions on this talk page in the past 24 hours throw doubt on being able to add (3). If YRC can, himself, demonstrate that (3) is possible, on the community's terms, not just his own, then we might still be able to find a solution. But he's going to need to really show something new for that to happen, because it's not what I've been seeing in this talk so far. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Previous accounts

• See - User_talk:Youreallycan

and compare ...

• - User_talk:Prioryman

• - Youreallycan 20:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration

Given YRC's continued personal attacks and edit-warring on my own user talk page I don't think there's any point continuing the discussion; he is clearly not willing to change his spots, even while discussing possible ways forward. I've therefore submitted a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Youreallycan. Thanks to everyone who's participated; your feedback has been very useful, and I'm sorry that the RfC/U has not reached a conclusion that resolved this problem. Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

He should have been blocked for editwarring on your talk page. Arbitration is gonna be...messy. Arkon (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Note from YRCan

Hi - A request to have this dispute be escalated is under discussion - until thats resolved I won't comment here - and I suggest/request other users do not either - please allow the desired escalation to be resolved and if/then lets return to discussion - Youreallycan 21:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess I can understand why you'd say that, but I'd actually suggest the opposite approach. A few arbitrators have now voted not to go ahead with the arbitration case, at least for now, to see if any progress can be made here at the RfC. However, for you to now stop participating in the RfC would presumably stop any progress from being made. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

And I guess I can understand why you'd say -that-, but I also suggest the opposite approach. Make your intentions clear. If you wish this to complete first, say so, and decline the arb request. If this does not come to a satisfactory completion, it can always be requested again. Arkon (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So let's sum up where we are now as of my time of late Monday, August 13, 2012.

• Arbcom members are being asked to hold off on accepting the case against YRC/O2RR so that this Rfc can run it's course. But YRC won't comment further, and urges others not to as well.

• In the meantime YRC has notably edit-warred on Prioryman's talk page, but can't be blocked because then he can't comment on the pages he is the subject of, one of which he won't comment on anyway.

• Meanwhile the very strongly worded statement by Dominus Vobisdu which urges an indefinite block for YRC [9] has 35 statements of endorsement, with 5 opposers! Does the admin community really need more than this, and if so, why?

• If YRC won't comment further at his own Rfc, and the consensus is clearly in favor of blocking him a 20th time, then please do so, end this now-moot Rfc, and let Arbcom decide what they are going to do.

• And yes, by all means let YRC continue to edit on the Arbcom page, of course. Much of the community is fed up with this issue, and the time has come to clear the decks for Arbcom to step up and deliberate the available evidence, which is the job they ran for. Let's not drag this out any further. Jusdafax 02:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I certainly expect the community to follow its documented protocols if its considering separating a user from the project. Specifically, "WP:RFC/U is an informal non-binding process enabling users to discuss problems with specific editors". If someone wanted to have a ban discussion WP:AN was the place to go. If someone to take the case to ArbCom, they should have just filed without the faux RFC/U. Nobody Ent 02:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You managed to sum up nearly half of the situation. Nice. Arkon (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's worth noting that YRC would already be on his 20th block if not for NY Brad's intervention [10]. I have no complaints over that but I think it shows the intractable nature of this problem - he has edit-warred at least three times and made numerous personal attacks since the start of this RfC/U. If he's not willing to change his behaviour even when faced with an RfC/U and an arbitration referral, it's plain that he's not going to. It's also quite clear that even now he still has defenders who are willing to argue, preposterously, that he is just the victim of provocation. I anticipate that an WP:AN discussion would split three ways between those who want him banned, those who want to give him yet another last chance and those who don't want to take any action. So this is virtually certain to end up with Arbcom one way or another. The community has never been able to get its act together when dealing with Youreallycan and I don't expect that situation to change. Prioryman (talk) 07:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am particularly troubled by reports of his anti-semitism and homophobic rants. While I have not read these personally,, then Add in his documented problems with those of the Jewish faith, as is now well documented on the talk page the reality is that YRC is neither of these. Ditch ... sack ... cat. John lilburne (talk) 06:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Jusdafax, do you have any evidence or justification for making those statements? Could your comments be perceived as holding YRC to a different standard than you are holding yourself? Cla68 (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• "has 35 statements of endorsement, with 5 opposers!" I hadn't bothered opposing that view to date, which is completely at odds with the defined purpose of an RfC/U, but I have now done so. JN466 11:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• @Brad - I am more than willing to return to discussion here as I have commented - but I find this hard (that is clear isn't it?) and to have multiple locations discussing me where I am expected to respond and where there are a lot of attacking personal comments is imo unnecessary and unfair - Youreallycan 19:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's fair comment. Maybe you should just state that you only intend to comment here for the time being. I think everyone would accept that as reasonable. Formerip (talk) 19:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone? - To get back to commenting - It would take me a while to read all the threads here and the comments in the RFC. - I don't want to read the hurtful personal comments as if arbitration is forthcoming this is meaningless - when is the arbitration request to be opened or closed? - Youreallycan 20:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Everyone? Yes, I expect so, so long as you're polite about declining to comment elsewhere. AFAICT, arbitration is only forthcoming if you let it by not engaging - and if you intend to let it, you should just say so and save everyone some time. In terms of hurtful comments, I would say the best thing to do is win your right to continue editing and then edit in a way that proves those comments to be wrong. I notice there's an orange tag on Justin Fashanu, for example. Seriously.

Regarding arbitration, it looks to me as if that is going to be on hold until and unless it becomes clear that the RFCU is not going anywhere. An arb probably still needs to confirm that, but that's how it looks to me. Formerip (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

"users who don't endorse this summary"

Is this a new trend? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope so, I like it. Ryan Vesey 23:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I invented it. :) ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's been done before ;) It's pretty core to this page. Not reading this page any more because the train left days ago. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm concerned to see these additional non-endorsement sections, and I think we ought to make explicit in the RfC guidelines that it shouldn't happen. We seem to be ignoring all the rules in this RfC, but those rules are in place for a good reason, namely to try to structure a calm debate that leads to recommendations for the editor, hopefully followed by a few weeks or months of leaving him alone to give him a chance to absorb the advice and change behaviour.

  The way this is currently structured (together with not requiring evidence of recent attempts by the certifiers to resolve the dispute, as opposed to taking part in it), has reduced the RfC to little better than a discussion at AN/I. It's not the first time this has happened, so when this one is over, I think we need to consider tightening up the guidelines. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Agreed. It's a bit of a slow motion food fight. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I completely disagree. The non-endorsement sections actually led to more not less structure, and prevented (but not eliminated) long threaded back and forth discussions in the RFC. If anything, these non-endorsement sections have improved the RFC process and should be encouraged in the future. Viriditas (talk) 01:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I've come to the conclusion that the addition of the "don't support" sections has ended up being an improvement. I'll add the caveat that I have formed such a negative opinion of RfC/U's effectiveness at ever reaching a consensus that I'd be hard pressed to imagine any change that would really have made it worse. But, that said, I think that this newer format has actually allowed for dialog and forward progress, as opposed to people speaking only with those with whom they already agree, in segregated camps. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal (2)

As the current ArbCom vote is not to take the case, let's get back to work, and let's keep it simple. I propose:

• Two month break/vacation from editing.
• Four months (from now) BLP topic ban and 1RR restriction. Nobody Ent 10:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Demur. 6 months without him at any BLP would be a blow to WP. I would suggest 2 month vacation, then a 1RR restriction on any BLPs for 2 months - with the requirement that a BLP/N discussion be opened before he enters a BLP. This should answer all the concerns raised on the RFC/U, and be sufficiently drama-reducing. I also suggest Prioryman be restricted from making any comments about YRC on any page, including noticeboards, article talk pages and user talk pages, as it is clear that the baiting which went on is a long-term problem, and that Prioryman be restricted from making any reverts of YRC edits on BLPs. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Arrrrrgh! 6? There is no six. Four months from now. First two months concurrent with the vacation. Concur with the Prioryman restriction, along with a YRC never mentioning "Chris0" from now until the heat death of the universe. Nobody Ent 11:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't think this goes far enough as it doesn't do anything to address the civility issue. Collect's attack on me is bizarre, as I'm not involved in any disputes with YRC over BLPs, nor have I ever reverted his edits on them as far as I can recall. Nor have I been involved in "baiting" him - in fact I've previously supported him and have offered my help, as my Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute shows. I've read claims that so-called "x-taggers" have been involved in clashes with YRC over BLPs, but I have no idea whether that's the case because I've not been involved in it and I've not followed it. If there's a case to be made against people "baiting" him then make it, by all means, but it's not something I've had any involvement in. I'll make an alternative proposal below to address the shortcomings in this one. Prioryman (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• (ec) (Talk like a Pirate day is only a month away!) Sorry about the misread ... but suggest still the "must be listed at BLP/N for discussion" restriction - especially since political "silly season" is in full swing with new (?) editors popping up regularly on too many BLPs. (appended) @Prioryman - I did not "attack" you - but simply noted what appears to be an actual "equation of state" involved here. And you and YRC have at least one intersecting BLP, so I do not know why you find that bit so onerous as to be objected to. As for "baiting" - I suggest most folks here know it when they see it. Lastly - since I try to be civil with others, I ask you try to be civil with me. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not going to get into an extended discussion with you, but I will just note that the trigger for this RfC/U was an unprovoked personal attack that YRC made on me on Jimbo's user talk page in the middle of a discussion on another topic in which he had no previous involvement. I have no idea why he chose to do that. If anything, this was an example of him baiting me, rather than the other way round. There was no ongoing conflict or dispute between us at the time so his intervention was a rather unwelcome surprise. Prioryman (talk) 11:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Your proposal below makes clear your position eminently clear - you desire we rid Wikipedia of a turbulent priest. You have not, however, provided a rationale for your claim that I have attacked you in any way above. That you found the YRC acts to be totally unprovoked shows, however, a significant issue which has not been resolved here. BTW, "intersect" finds on the order of 70 articles on which the two of you intersect which involve living people to a greater or lesser extent. That is not huge, but certainly not de minimis and may well involve long-term disputes between the two of you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Your comment seems to be quite the assumption of bad faith, unless of course you are commenting on Prioryman's nobility of character? Hal peridol (talk) 17:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• YRC is emphatically not Thomas Becket. Also, our intersections are pretty meaningless - we have so many edits between us, at least 160,000, that it would be more surprising if there weren't any intersections. And note that intersections are not the same thing as interactions. Prioryman (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal (3)

Nobody Ent's proposal above is along the right lines but the timeframes are inadequate, it doesn't address the civility issue and it doesn't offer an enforcement mechanism. I suggest the following as an alternative, building on Nobody Ent's proposal:

1. Two month break/vacation from editing.
2. Four months BLP topic ban to begin from the end of the two-month break.
3. Indefinite 1RR restriction.
4. Indefinite civility restriction.
5. Enforcement via a suspended community ban to enter into force if there are further 1RR or civility violations.

The key differences here are that the four-month BLP topic ban goes into effect at the end of the break, not at the start (which would be pointless), the 1RR restriction is made indefinite rather than merely for four months, an indefinite civility restriction is added, and a community ban is imposed but suspended, such that it would only go into force if there is a further blockable offence. This would mean that if YRC is blocked for a 20th time it would be an indefinite block. Prioryman (talk) 11:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I could support this: without #1 (the two-month block), #2 commencing immediately, #3: YRC can ask for lifting of the 1RR restriction in ten months (six months after the BLP topic-ban expires. (I've numbered your points for easy identification. Revert if that's a problem.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the two-month block/break, although Nobody Ent hasn't offered a rationale for it I believe YRC needs to spend a couple of months away from the wiki to decompress, get out of the hothouse for a bit and come back in a calmer state of mind. Right now it's obvious that he is very wound up and prone to the ragegasms that have brought him to this point. Prioryman (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We've all seen how much time Rob spends here. We are a large part of his community. I feel that two months too much. One month? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would support a ban that was much shorter than two months, provided we did something about the civility issues. So my preference is for a topic ban or two, perhaps simply interaction bans so that YRC has to avoid those particular editors who he considers to be haters. I don't see the need for a complete BLP ban, much of his BLP work is excellent. But there may be a need for some more selective topic bans, if I'm correct in reading the situation there are certain topics and certain editors that we need to keep him away from. Even if he is correct but unable to keep his cool then a ban from that topic or editor might be in order. ϢereSpielChequers 13:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We've also seen that YRC won't stop editwarring even during this RfC. I think he needs an enforced break, then an indefinite 1RR (he self-imposed one on himself in May but failed to stick to it). But this is the wrong page, if a ban/block is seriously wanted now, AN is the place. Dougweller (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Interaction bans would be pointless. YRC himself has said that he is in dispute with "hundreds" of "POV haters". Are we to enact hundreds of interaction bans? I believe that if we focus on the central issues of incivility and edit-warring the rest will fall into place. His negative interactions with others are primarily the result of those behaviours and the reactions that they cause. Prioryman (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd support this proposal. Though I'm neutral on whether a BLP ban is actually called for or needed, and I'd also support a proposal without that, the rest of this proposal does the best job I think we can do as far as addressing his hot points. YRC is burnt out and in need of an enforced wikibreak (I believe "two months" might even originally have been his suggestion?). After he comes back from that, there needs to be structure in place to keep him from derailing again - that's where the 1RR and the civility restriction come in. I would suggest that perhaps we add some sort of language to the civility restriction involving "if X users agree that a statement made by YRC is uncivil, then it is to be treated as uncivil, and [blah, enforcement]" to keep it from getting tricksy and everyone just spending more time on ANI than they ever wanted to arguing over whether something is uncivil or not. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't feel that (1) is necessary if (2-5) are in place. I think a BLP ban is extremely good idea, because it is YRC's primary trigger. It would do him good to spend some time editing without getting into discussions about biographies. I think a civility restriction should be a very clear "last chance" affair. After this point, there is absolutely no justification in wasting any more of the community's time in discussion about whether to retain an editor who seems incapable of controlling himself. But, overall, I would support this proposal. Formerip (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that the BLP issue is YRC's primary trigger - it only appears that way because he spends so much time there. The problem is what Coren has called his "certitude of infallibility with the tendency to presume that anyone who disagrees with him must be doing so out of bad faith". He always seems to believe he's right and he goes berserk when people criticise him. This happens in any area of Wikipedia - not just in relation to BLPs but on unrelated noticeboards, talk pages, user talk pages and so on. His repudiation and attack on Dennis Brown, his former mentor, is a case in point - that had nothing to do with BLPs. Likewise he has been sending abusive emails to an arbitrator, AGK - also nothing to do with BLPs. A BLP ban is necessary to reduce the tensions that he has helped to create in that topic area, but by itself it will not resolve the central problems of his incivility and edit-warring, hence the need for (3) to (5). Prioryman (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal (3a)

We're fairly close. Is this formula acceptable:

1. Four month BLP topic ban
2. Indefinite 1RR restriction, may appeal in six months
3. Indefinite strict civility enforcement, may appeal after twelve months
4. Enforcement via a suspended community ban to enter into force if there are further 1RR or civility violations.

On reflection, I oppose any cooling-off block as patronising. Although he does great work on BLPN, BLP is also a hot button, and I think it behooves us to separate him from that topic for at least a while. I'm not keen on nominating a judge or formula for identifying incivility; I'd prefer the community made the call on that. I'd like him to have the freedom, as we all do presently, to tell a troll to fuck off occasionally, if he's been civil for twelve months. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd support that, though without the fucking off. No incivility has to mean no incivility, period. There's no reason why he can't tell a troll to desist politely and, besides, it would be a good learning opportunity for him to be required to be civil with everybody regardless of what they are doing. Prioryman (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not suggesting he shouldn't be blocked for occasional incivility after twelve months of exemplary behaviour. But if his behaviour is exemplary for twelve months, and he briefly lapses, I'd like us to respond with an appropriate block, rather than a site ban. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Twelve months of complete civility, even to trolls, would be a good place to start. Prioryman (talk) 19:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Support in general but 3 is not good. No one knows what the heck "civility" means in the context of Wikpedia. See wqa archives and the following:

Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

So we'd end up just arguing about whether a pointed comment was "civil" or not.

Additionally, YRC really ought to take a total Wiki-break; I'd suggest at least a month. Real-life is a wonderful antidote to wiki-nonsense. Nobody Ent 20:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So, you would support the above without the civility clause but with a block. Would you support it without the civility clause and without a block? You may be right that it would be therapeutic for YRC to have a break. I don't know. Neither do you. And I see it as patronising, and of no obvious benefit to the project. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Civility is a central issue here. The trigger for this RfC/U was an incivility incident, so I can't accept a formula that doesn't include a tight civility restriction. I don't think it's going to be as hard to administer as Nobody Ent seems to think. I accept that there may be disagreements about whether some comments could be interpreted as personal attacks, but the incidents we've seen just over the last few days haven't been marginal at all - nobody is going to interpret "hater" and "violator" as anything else. Prioryman (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

YRC has proposed:

• Four Two or three month BLP topic ban
• Indefinite 1RR restriction, may appeal in six months
• Indefinite strict civility enforcement, may appeal after six months
• Enforcement via a suspended community ban to enter into force if there are further 1RR or civility violations.

It is stricter than I would prefer, and not exactly what anybody wants, but I believe it strikes a good mean and we should accept it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I support as I said - or could support a two month BLP topic ban, only if there is a declaration of good faith to my contribution history - I prefer two months but would be willing to accept three - I am not a violator of the primary policy WP:BLP just I am burnt out from having defended it for lengthy period - Youreallycan 21:53, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The request for a declaration of good faith is a bit hard to stomach, given that you have consistently refused to grant the same to editors with whom you disagree. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

YRC wants to make it clear he's been erring on the side of defending our subjects. I think that's reasonable. But, aside from that, can you agree to his proposed restrictions, and help us put this to bed? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I can accept that YRC has been erring. I support the restrictions you proposed above (not the whittled down version), but I also think it would be beneficial to the project if YRC stays away from topics relating to Jews and LGBT, as proposed by Roscelese below. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll need to go to ArbCom for that restriction. There is nothing like consensus here, or at RFAR, for the notion that he is either antisemitic or homophobic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I am unwilling to accept editing restrictions that assert homophobia or antisemitism - this issue is protected by the BLP edit restriction and the civility/and the one Revert and other editing restrictions - there is no need for any such severe and unnecessary declarations - as Anthony says - if you want such a declaration then the arbcom is the place for that - I will never accept such here - Youreallycan 22:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that you shouldn't have me made to go round wearing a "bigot" badge. That would be unfair and a little cruel. What I think you should do instead, as I indicated above, is aim to lay any suspicion about your personal views to rest through your actions, once you are back editing.

I would like to see the BLP restriction at four months, though. I see it as being a bit like cold turkey and a chance to experience Wikipedia without the stress that BLP discussions can bring, so that you might appreciate it in a different light once you are allowed back there. I think two months is too short.

I'm not sure I understand the "good faith" suggestion. Can you explain this again? Formerip (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Leaving to one side the question of homophobia and anti-semitism, the fact is that things go poorly when YRC edits articles relating to Jews and LGBT. I accept that those are subsets of the BLP hiatus, so the problem is resolved at that level for the four months. It would be a shame to have to revisit the broader BLP issue at a later point because of recurring problems with the subsets. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to be pragmatic. That restriction just won't pass here. But It might pass if you take it to ArbCom, and I would actually suggest you do that. Serious charges of homophobia and antisemitism have been made against YRC, and serious charges have been made under the heading "X-tagging". Those, in my opinion, need to be addressed by ArbCom. But these more general editor behaviours can be effectively dealt with here. I'm putting myself to bed now, but please consider accepting this proposal as it stands for now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No opinion on x-tagging, but I'm really surprised that you think having an editor tried at ArbCom on charges of homophobia and anti-Semitism would be a good thing. Which ever way it went, editors with a view would continue to hold the same view regardless. Let's look to the future rather than rake up the past. Formerip (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with either: forget them or take them to ArbCom, but this forum won't resolve those accusations. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I reject all allegations of antisemitism and homophobia, and consider any such allegations as personal attacks, and they would need to be confirmed at the highest level of arbitration - Youreallycan 22:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If civility were easy to administer Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement -- with 118 opening statements, just for starters would not have dragged on for two months. With regard to the break, YRC states above he is "burnt out." An editing break would be good for him and good for Wikipedia. I never said he needed to be blocked and, in fact, per the RFC/U rules I don't see how a block could be legitimately imposed; I'm suggesting he simply stop editing as part of a consensus agreement. I'd also suggest he stop reading Wikipedia for the same amount time. Nobody Ent 23:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

YRC Proposal

I think a civility restriction in my case would be easy to police - I accept it and a rude post is a rude post - not difficult to see - this is not a punishment is it, so as I think to allay community concerns about my contribution history and restrictions to assist myself at a difficult time - Adding one as per ent - and one per Prioryman - I will offer now to accept -

• - Three month BLP topic ban - conditions as per FormerIP's comments below - diff
• - Six months 1RR restriction
• - Six months strict civility enforcement.
• - One month voluntary total editing restriction.
• - Site ban if any condition violated.
• - note, all time terms to start after the one month voluntary total editing restriction

Youreallycan 07:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you agree a site ban is appropriate if you break these commitments? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Per AGF, that's a moot point since the assumption is YRC won't break the commitment. Nobody Ent 10:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think such a stance is unhelpful; if part of the problem is that previous commitments have been broken, then it's quite appropriate to plan for the possibility that future commitments may be broken. AGF does not extend so far that we must assume that any pattern of problematic editing will certainly, definitely end as soon as somebody points to AGF. I'm glad that YRC has responded pragmatically. bobrayner (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do agree to that also - Youreallycan 10:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not acceptable. The 1RR restriction and civility restriction need to be indefinite, appealable after a period (I'm OK with setting that at six months). If they automatically expire there is no chance for your compliance to be reviewed, nor is there any mechanism for continuing them if you are not compliant - it would require a whole new resolution or RFC/U to re-impose the restrictions. It's also not acceptable for there to be no enforcement mechanism, which I note that you're removed from the formula. There is a substantial number of editors who would like to see you banned right now, and the mechanism I proposed does actually require passing a site ban but suspending it, contingent on your continued restraint from edit-warring and incivility. I don't think there is any appetite for continuing the endless cycle of incident-block-incident-block that has led you to rack up 19 blocks so far. We need to break that cycle. The enforcement mechanism I proposed provides that, in effect, your 20th block will be your last. This puts the onus on you to do what is needed. If you can't accept the indefinite but appealable 1RR and civility restrictions and the suspended site ban, then I'm afraid there really is no alternative to arbitration, which is highly likely to result in an indefinite ban. Prioryman (talk) 10:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand you want something more severe but I think this is a pretty strong offer that will address all my editing issues and help a lot - over the next six months I will disappear from disruption/dispute resolution and become a good editor or I will be site banned - if after six months I have not violated these strong conditions and I am not site banned I will clearly be a beneficial editor. If you want a bit more time then I would be willing to remove the concurrent condition from the one month voluntary total site editing restriction - this will extend the conditions by a further month. Done Youreallycan 10:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support Nobody Ent 10:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think this is a reasonable proposal. I would also suggest to YRC that he thinks through his hot button issues and makes a point of avoiding them, and the people he doesn't get on with, and that recommendation would include taking relevant articles and userpages off your watchlist. ϢereSpielChequers 10:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Any proposal will have to have the agreement of YRC, and I think he has come a long way in this. Sure there will be people who are uncertain whether it will work, but hey, none of us can be certain we'll even be alive tomorrow. YRC deserves his chance - let's give it to him by accepting this proposal. And Prioryman, I think it would help if you stopped trying to squeeze the very last drop of blood from the stone - I think a bit of magnanimity would be more beneficial at this point. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Note concerning the BLP restriction discussion below: I do think it would be beneficial for YRC to also avoid BLP discussions during his break, as it would hopefully help him take the step back that I think he needs. But with the 1RR and civility restrictions in place, I don't think there is any need to enforce that and I am happy for it to be a personal choice - I still support the proposal with that clarification -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(Just to note also, YRC did inform me of this proposal change and invited me to change my response if needed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC))

• It's not a matter of getting blood out of a stone - it's about being able to verify YRC's compliance. If the restrictions automatically expire then there will be no verification. Having said that, I think I could probably support the proposal above. I'll have a think about it first. Prioryman (talk) 12:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, sounds cool - I think your support would mean a lot here, if you felt you could give it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see this as a verification issue, rather that after 7 months YRC is completely unrestricted. So there is a risk that after 7 months of caution YRC could revert to recent behaviour and we'd be restaging this debate, but the alternative is that after more than 7 months of squeaky clean behaviour any subsequent isolated lapse could be used to ban him. I'd prefer that if he behaves himself for 7 months and then does something that merits a short block he gets a short block rather than a ban. ϢereSpielChequers 12:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, have you decided about this yet? No hurry. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support (support suspended for the moment). I'm heartened by the offer and YRC appears to me sincere. I understand Prioryman's concerns, but I think they make very little practical difference to the offer, so should not be a deal-breaker. Assuming YRC continues to edit for the next seven months and does so civilly, there is no reason he can't keep it up for a lifetime. And, mechanism or no mechanism, it ought to be obvious to anyone that YRC is on the last of his nine lives. By the same token, since these two things (mechanism and length of civility restriction) don't add up to much, maybe YRC will think about just throwing them into the offer for the hell of it, if that will win over some waverers. Formerip (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If there are strong objections to any condition I will be looking to offer a more acceptable one - I am looking for a resolution with the community that is beneficial to it and to me, although I also do still want to be accepted as part of that community and to be beneficial to it. - and I do still intend to contribute under these conditions during the time frame. Youreallycan 13:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It looks as if YRC is making a genuine effort here and I concur with Boing and WereSpielChequers - with the proviso that YRC really needs to fully understand however, that one single new violation may invoke a total community site ban. The awareness of the possibility may help the enforcement of his own suggested conditions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I do fully accept that a single violation will result in a site ban - I support that also - I will still be looking to contribute and will as per one user commented above be voluntarily avoiding my discussed hot topic issues. - as a minimum during the editing restriction time frame - Youreallycan 13:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Rob, it would really be better if you didn't make changes directly to the terms of the proposal after people have !voted on it. This is quite a substantial change, and I expect people who supported one version might not support the other. I, for instance, would support the topic-ban version, but oppose the neutered version. If you need to lay off the BLPs, you need to lay off the BLPs, not continue arguing BLP topics as long as you don't add BLP content. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's his proposal. Terms like BLP ban are not really defined that well, so it's entirely appropriate they get clarified before final agreement. ArbCom caused a ruckus by tossing out the word automation without actually agreeing amongst themselves, let alone anyone else, what exactly that meant. Nobody Ent 15:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry if I didn't explain clearly - I don't mean he can't suggest other terms. I mean that he should not make the changes to the terms in situ. If people vote based on $foo proposal, but then someone changes it to say $bar, it will look as though people voted on $bar, when in fact they voted on $foo and may well hold an opposite position on $bar. To get around this issue, usually people will place an addendum at the bottom of a proposal to say "As of time blah, I am proposing this with terms blah instead of the original blah", or even better, they will start a new subsection with the changed proposal for people to vote on. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry Fluffernutter - I notified users that had previously commented but missed you - I think this position is very close now to complete - after a few updates - its hard to offer and update in real time ...as it stands with only a few replies (that I have notified of my changes) and your comments, I don't think there are ongoing issues - Youreallycan 16:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support In fact, more than was officially sought according to the initial statement for this RFC/U AFAICT. Collect (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support the currentversion of this proposal. Will need to reconsider my position based on any changes made to this version, should some be made. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please note - I have moved this to the RFC user page - Please see and edit your comments as desired/required Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Youreallycan#YRC_Proposal - Youreallycan 17:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP topic ban - clarification

What does this mean exactly - I am thinking it means I can talk in discussion about living people but I can't/won't make any edit about living people - my additional clauses /civility/1rr will allow me to contribute to discussion in a positive/beneficial way about living people - ? Youreallycan 13:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a topic ban, which means it includes talk pages and noticeboards. WP:TBAN I'm not sure if there is an exact archetype for this proposal to follow. I would expect it to mean that you can't take part in discussions about the application of BLP policy for the period. Formerip (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Basically you are being given the same offer as was made to Joan of Arc. John lilburne (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

He's being spared the stake. Anyhow, why would you know so much about delusional heretics? Formerip (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Only so long as he is confined in a small prison with no chance of release, and no chance of seeing the sun again. That was the offer Jeanne rejected. John lilburne (talk) 14:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLP says Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page ... Since Tiddlywinks mentions Severin Drix and Ferd Wulkan in 1965, and we don't know that they're dead, presumably YRC would be prohibited from editing that page? Nobody Ent 14:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think he would just be prohibited from editing material directly relating to Severin Drix and Ferd Wulkan (assuming they are real people and alive). Formerip (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - I think that the civility condition and the one RR restriction would render this BLP discussion clause as unnecessary and extreme punishment - if I cant revert and I cant make a single rude comment without being site banned then as I am not a BLP violator then I can be allowed to comment about living people but not allowed to edit content about such - ? - Youreallycan 14:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But then I don't think a holiday is necessary for the same reason. The thing about those two restrictions, the holiday and BLP topic ban, is they're meant to ease you into the application of the other two: civility and 1R. Many of us return from wikiholidays refreshed, and better able to deal with the stress; and dropping all editing or discussion of living person content from the next few months will remove a significant stressor, too. Both of these strategies are sensible and I recommend you sign up to them, to help you execute a significant behaviour change. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A four month En Wikipedia WP:BLP topic ban that if I mention any living person at all in any way on any page I will be site banned - is that the suggestion? - Youreallycan 15:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

What I'm recommending is not discussing or editing content about living people. Mention people all you want, but don't discuss or edit Wikipedia content about them. It's a wide restriction, I know, but that's the only formulation I could imagine being useful - from the point of view of stress-reduction. There are other meadows to wander in here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's how I would see it:

1. For mainspace: no content that falls under BLP policy to be added or removed in any article. I would exclude non-controversial attributions (e.g. "according to Professor Plum").
2. For talkspace: do not start or involve yourself in discussions about the application of BLP policy, and abide by BLP policy as it relates to talkpages. Other than that, feel free to mention living people.

Formerip (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

- Ah - ok - that seems a reasonable interpretation - I would be willing to accept that - thanks - Youreallycan 16:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm OK with that but, simply from the stress-relief point of view, complete avoidance for a while of any living person content would be more useful. Stress impacts self-regulation. Self-regulation is impulse inhibition and emotion control. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you somewhat Anthony - I have in these conditiobs a one month total project break and then the editing conditions should be beneficial , or I will be sited banned as per the clause - Youreallycan 16:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You know I'm right. :) Tinkering around BLPs without being able to say or do anything about WP:BLP violations will be asking for stress and in your shoes I'd mostly avoid that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

-(edit conflict) - I have updated and added a diff - see the diiff here - to this clarification statement from FormerIP - - thanks - Youreallycan 16:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to address the systemic issue

Quite apart from negotiating terms for Youreallycan's continued participation, to address the underlying systemic problem, I'd propose an elected BLP committee, somewhat analogous to the arbitration committee, that can make binding content rulings on specific, narrow points (or in exceptional cases refer the matter to a community RfC) and ban contributors from specific BLPs whenever community discussions at BLP/N or in an RfC fail to resolve the matter. What this means for YRC is that BLP disputes would be taken out of his and his opponents' hands at the point where they become intractable, thus defusing the interpersonal situation.

I actually think this is necessary quite apart from the problems described by various contributors in this RfC/U. We've had contributors involved in real-life conflicts with BLP subjects editing their opponents' biographies for years, with no admin prepared to step in under WP:BLPBAN. Thoughts? JN466 13:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We already have around 700 individual admins who are empowered to protect BLPs and can if necessary ban contributors from specific pages. If that isn’t sufficient why would a committee be better? Or to put it round another way, if the community trusts anyone sufficiently to put them on such a committee then why not just appoint them as an admin? Or to put it a third way, is it that our existing admins are aware of incidents but aren't acting, or is it that either incidents are not being spotted or they involve edge cases where both sides can point to policies and even sources that support their position? ϢereSpielChequers 14:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I assumed JN466 was referring to BLP content disputes (eg whether Milliband is a "British Jew"), and admins can't make such decisions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

They can't make such decisions directly, but if someone files an RFC then an admin can determine consensus when closing the RFC. In what way would this proposed committee be a better way to resolve such disputes? ϢereSpielChequers 14:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the point is that such a committee could resolve disputes after the conventional DR procedures have failed - and they have failed badly in many BLP cases. Much as ArbCom does, a BLPCom could issue binding resolutions that no editor (whether admin or not) could overturn. (I'm not supporting or opposing the idea, btw - just trying to understand it). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that we have unresolved disputes, and ones like the British/Irish naming disputes where every few years people will seek to restage the debate. But has there been an RFC re Miliband? Or are there others where an RFC has not resolved matters? ϢereSpielChequers 15:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea whether there has been an RfC for that specific issue. But the point is that whatever processes we have in place now, they're not working properly - if they were, we wouldn't have such disputes simmering for years. I've seen plenty of BLP disputes, and it would take a much bolder admin than me to try to judge consensus for many of them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

PS: And the argument against BLPCom is also an argument against ArbCom, surely? If we all use DR procedures and an admin can always determine a consensus, we don't need ArbCom. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Miliband issue has been through a couple of RFCs on categorisations, on whether to put Jewish or Atheist in the infobox, and how to describe his background. The problem with Miliband is that every couple of months or so there is another variation on the theme, and no one to say "Enough already!". Then you get whether singer X should be tagged with ethnicity E or religion R, and a huge debate about it. Then a couple of weeks later its whether actor Y should be tagged with ethnicity E or religion R, then whether singer Z should be tagged with ethnicity E or religion R. Each one similar each one the same participants, and if the answer is NO on one of them the debate will be re-raised a few weeks later. Ad nauseum. Y'll need clear bright lines, not how many turn up at any one specific time. John lilburne (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

This proposal seems tangential to the user behavior issue at hand. That said, the notion that the ArbCom can't rule on content is a myth. It's a popular story, certainly, and it is even espoused publicly by some members of the Committee—but it's a myth all the same. The 'trick' is to frame the content dispute as a user conduct issue. Suppose two users, Alice and Bob, have a disagreement over the content of an article. There's been some bickering on the article talk page, maybe a slow-motion revert war. Alice can't go to the ArbCom and ask, "Is my version of the article the correct one?" Bob, on the other hand, can go to the ArbCom and ask, "Does Alice's editing violate WP:NPOV?"

This sort of implicit content decision is readily observed in many ArbCom cases. Take, for instance, the findings and remedies in ArbCom's most recently close case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Falun Gong 2. There was no specific conduct issue identified with the editor Colipon; the sole finding of fact determined only that his edits on a particular topic were biased to one side. Nevertheless, all his edits on the topic are now subject to 'mandated review'—all non-trivial edits have to be proposed and approved on the article talk page before they go into the article. Two other editors who share his point of view were also restricted, and a general mandate was provided for admins to impose similar controls on other editors as needed. I'm not saying that I have any quarrel with the decision, or that it isn't a reasonable response from the ArbCom, but it would be silly to pretend it's anything but a content decision under a very small user-conduct fig leaf. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

We could re-open and rewrite WP:Government. Count Iblis (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree there are some similarities (as well as differences). "Government" is not a good word though, as it's generally understood to imply something far more wide-ranging; I'd rather go with Boing's "BLPCom". (I'll drop you a note when I've got something.) JN466 02:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This is completely off-topic. This is not a policy RFC, it's about user conduct. If you want to discuss changes to the way Wikipedia manages BLPs, please create a policy RFC. Prioryman (talk) 18:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's really quite surprising that anyone would think a discussion here would lead to anything along the lines proposed. Let's stick to the topic of the RfC. On that score -- a number of people seem to believe that YRC's frustrations justify his outbursts and poor behavior. If so, that idea should be discussed explicitly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's a question of gauging interest, and this RfC/U is not a bad place to raise the issue. Would anyone be interested in helping us draft a policy RfC on creating a BLP committee, so we have a better way of coming to grips with long-term BLP issues? --JN466 20:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested in working with you on that, Jayen. I don't have the energy to take any kind of lead role in it, but if others are willing to start drafting a proposal, I'd be willing to help out. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim. I'll drop you a note when I've got a rough draft. JN466 02:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Drop me a note also, please. Cla68 (talk) 05:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Implementation of civility restriction

Wiki-history teaches us that this is difficult to implement, take e.g. Delta. The initial focus is on behavior that is unambiguously bad which motivates us to consider this, but then you are left with behavior that the community will be divided about.

To prevent problems, I propose that one should appoint a mentor who imposes the civility restriction on YRC. The community may raise problems to the mentor, but the mentor takes final decisions. This will prevent huge AN/I discussions about whether or not YRC saying X is or isn't a violation of his civility restriction and if so, how long YRC should be blocked for that.

We should be realistic, you can't change a lion into a pussy cat overnight. The mentor will start by giving YRC feedback on problematic behavior, but after a month or so the expectation will be that YRC will have made a lot of improvement and the feedback from the mentor is only about minor issues that are not going well yet. Then, after 4 months, the community will have its say on how things have improved. In case of insufficient improvement, the mentor will be relieved from his/her task and YRC will be referred to ArbCom. Count Iblis (talk) 16:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that mentoring will work. It's been tried before (with Dennis Brown in that role) and YRC repudiated it after only six weeks. However, I take your point about the difficulty of dealing with fresh incidents of incivility. Perhaps it would be worth empowering a small panel of experienced uninvolved admins (let's say three in number) to review civility complaints against YRC. If they find that he has violated the civility restriction they can take the appropriate action; if it's a marginal case they can issue warnings and feedback as needed. That would avoid having a circus on AN/I every time someone feels he's been rude to them. Also, the reviewing admins would be in a position to evaluate whether YRC had been baited or manipulated into incivility and would be able to take appropriate action if that was the case. I suggest sharing the responsibility because that makes it less of a burden on a single person and would improve the quality of decision-making.

As for 1RR, that is a bright line, so there should be no difficulty administering it. Prioryman (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't agree to this, I'm afraid. Mentoring would be a burden on the mentor and Rob will know what's expected. I appreciate the point that there may be some vexatious or petty threads at ANI, but since a decision that he's been uncivil will result in the banning of a long time, good-faith, prolific contributor, I believe it is a decision that needs to be made by the community. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman, yes, a panel of Admins would also work, but I do think they need to give YRC feedback on his editing even when he hasn't violated the civility restriction. Anthonyhcole, I don't think one can deal with that via AN/I. This is really necessary, because the civility problems don't just happen out of the blue, usually a personal attack is preceeded by an ad hominen argument which in turn could have been caused by YRC not getting his way in an argument about some edit. If e.g. YRC is only able to restrain himself from engaging in the personal attacks, but apart from that he operates in the same way, it will only be a matter of time before he explodes again. Count Iblis (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Yes - its not easy to police - but I have violated civility and accept that - this is a kind of last chance offer - and I would be looking to keep my civility at a very high level to return community trust - so it won't be difficult to police - if I make a single uncivil post then the severe block/indef/clause will be implemented - I accept this without pointedness - a single rude post and go for it - Youreallycan 20:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Count Ibis, You are proposing an unusual solution to a very usual problem. This is not the place to be establishing ad hoc tribunals. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Perhaps my proposal is a bit too complicated, but we also have to learn from the problems with enforcing civility restrictions, take e.g. the case of Delta. An alternative set-up would be if YRC would always be given the oppertunty to strike or self-revert comments that are judged to have crossed the line. This makes the judgement itself less controversial and you will get les polarized debates about that. Also, one can draw the line of incivility such that minor incivil behavior can be addressed (there would then be the consensus for it to do that; obviously we're not going to kick out an editor from Wikipedia for minor issues). Count Iblis (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal (4)

Building on previous proposals, but intending to target problem areas even more specifically:

1. One month break. No edits in any namespace including user talk.
2. Four-month (I'm not sure about the length but people seem cool with four months in other proposals) topic ban from BLP, beginning when the one-month break expires.
3. Indefinite civility restriction.
4. Indefinite ban from LGBT and Jewish topics, broadly construed, in any namespace (including references to the sexual orientation or ethnic identity of any editor). YRC's edit-warring on this subject, while the RFC is ongoing, demonstrates that specific topics continue to be a problem area. May be appealed in one year.
5. Enforcement via a suspended community ban to enter into force if there are any civility or topic ban violations.
6. Enforcement via a suspended BLP topic ban to enter into force if there is any edit warring after the original topic ban expires.

I haven't included a 1RR restriction because I am hopeful that if YRC/Rob is topic banned from BLP, he will no longer choose to edit-war. I want to make clear that edit-warring is a function of Rob's disruptive approach to editing, rather than him being "provoked" or "forced" to edit-war by problems in the topic area, but BLP is what seems to set him off. I've added an enforcement provision should he return to edit-warring after the BLP topic ban expires, but I'm not sure what we would do if he continues to edit-war in other topic areas. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Can't support this. There is nothing like consensus here, or at RFAR, for the notion that he is either antisemitic or homophobic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The proposal is worth considering without raising the question of motivation (and indeed the proposal Roscelese made does not make assertions re motivation). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity is right. While I've made it clear that I think YRC's comments are antisemitic and homophobic, even users who disagree should be able to acknowledge that involvement in these topic areas produces NPA violations and edit warring on YRC's part. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This is an RfC. Results are the product of agreement between the subject and the community. You won't get agreement from YRC on this. The question of LGBTI identification of living persons needs addressing and it's too big for this forum. The topic ban on BLPs will effectively keep him away from LGBTI content anyway for the duration. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan is on script-enforced wikibreak

Per a discussion with and request from YRC, I have installed the wikibreak-enforcer script on his account. This means that he will be unable to edit Wikipedia until Sep. 16, 2012, even if other editors specifically request him to do so, say, to respond at this RFC. It would be helpful if other editors take this into account. Franamax (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You should probably create it in a common.js so he doesn't work around it. In addition, what measures, if any, will be taken to prevent IP (or user) socking. Ryan Vesey 21:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the .js tip, I'll do that now. Since he's not blocked, standard guidelines apply for use of alternate accounts, just like for you or I. Unless you want to put a big bar around his waist so he can't fit through the door of an Internet cafe, I don't think more is necessary just now. Franamax (talk) 21:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of Rob's block log

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I was going to post a view, but obviously this RfC has forced Rob to the point of submission to where discussion has been closed. However, since I just spent several days compiling a detailed rebuttal regarding the block log I feel there is no point in expending all that effort for nothing. So here you all go:

• Five of the blocks Rob received for disruptive editing pertained to the subject of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh and the 1985 Rajneeshee assassination plot. Most of these occurred over the span of two months three years ago, with one incident taking place a few months later. These blocks do appear legitimate, but there is a great deal of context to that situation. Rob was clearly inexperienced with Wikipedia when he started out in that topic and made typical newbie missteps. Additionally, since 2009 he appears to have almost completely avoided the topic as a whole and completely avoided the article that saw most of the problems after May of that year. That is an apparent demonstration of his ability to disengage from a heated dispute.
• The legal threat repeatedly being mentioned is a complete fiction. During a discussion about a blocked account, Rob noted that the individual apparently accused of evading the block had claimed it was an impersonator and the admin making the block should avoid claiming the account is connected to that named individual without checkuser evidence, a position consistent with the fact that WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia. That admin subsequently claimed the comments from Rob "came close to accusing me of libel" while defending his block. After Rob clarified that he was not against the block but just the claim about a living person, the admin blocked Rob for "making legal threats" and described the latter comment as "refusal to withdraw" the threat. It took all of 15 minutes for another admin to unblock Rob due to there not being a legal threat. This was a clear example of an inappropriate block by an involved admin and not an indication of poor conduct on Rob's part.
• In July of 2009 and a year later Rob did receive two legitimate blocks for personal attacks. The one from 2009 was a pretty typical juvenile sniping where he called someone a "fuckwit" for asking "who he was" to question an admin's unblock of someone who didn't want to be unblocked. Not exactly the worse thing I have seen on Wikipedia. The worse attack I have seen from him is the oversighted comment that led to the block in July 2010. Basically, it was prompted by an editor saying he was opposed to blocking people who identify as pedophiles and Rob's response after some combative discourse was to ask that editor if he was a pedophile. While hardly appropriate, I don't think it is particularly difficult to understand him reacting in such an emotional manner when it concerned a matter as serious as pedophilia and during an ANI discussion of the block many editors expressed the same view, though some obviously took a much sterner position. At over two years old it clearly doesn't point to current conduct issues.
• Following the most severe incidents were two edit-warring blocks in 2010 that are more indicative of an overly rigid interpretation of 3RR by admins, rather than anything more severe. The first concerned the article on William Connolley. What needs to be noted about this incident is that the first two "reverts" were clearly not intended as reverts. Rob inserted an indisputable fact about the subject that was being actively reported in the media with a citation needed tag. A minute later it was removed, and Rob corrected an error in his edit two minutes later that restored the edit. Given the edit summary there, this appears to have been a case of an edit conflict undoing an edit. The editor who initially reverted Rob goes to his talk page about it without mentioning reverts and Rob says he plans to cite it soon. He adds the citation ten minutes later, but only one minute after another editor removed it for being uncited so once more the edit conflict undoes the revert. It's really only after that when he actually made reverts that were reverts rather than edit conflicts. Unfortunately, the admin who made the first revert went in and made the 3RR block without discussion so that mitigating aspect of the issue could not really be explored. Had it been taken to AN3 for review by an uninvolved admin I believe there is a good chance he would not have gotten a block for 3RR as the first two "reverts" would be easy to recognize as edit conflicts and not intentional reverts.
• With the second incident the 3RR issue is not in whether he made more than three reverts, but what he was reverting. Rob had asked to be a non-admin Arb in November of 2010. The guidelines were clear that there is only one question allowed to each editor and that questions not complying with the guideline will be removed. After Rob responded to an editor's question, the editor repeated the question and Rob removed it himself. He did so three more times and was blocked for violating 3RR. It was lifted after just 13 minutes. That Rob simply did what was clearly justified by the guidelines shows that this was not a valid 3RR block. I would chalk that up to a bad mistake on the part of the admin blocking him that was quickly rectified.
• On Rob's block log after changing to the account Youreallycan, one of the first incidents was a block claiming Rob had called an editor a "bigot" and was feuding when discussing the article on Rick Santorum. The feuding claim is not entirely clear to me looking at the discussions, but the "bigot" comment is apparently referring to this discussion between Rob and Will Beback. First of all there is some bizarre miscommunication going on beforehand with Rob commenting about Santorum's career and Beback somehow misconstruing the comment as referring to his contributions to Wikipedia. When he responds by accusing Rob and Collect of following him to oppose "perfectly good edits" he made, Rob responds that Beback was seeing "his own bigotry" and this is what led to the claim of Rob calling him a bigot. The context suggests his use of the term bigotry was more a reference to bias and that he was essentially accusing Beback of seeing his own bias in others. It was hardly worthy of a block of any duration. However, there is a third claim not included in the block log of "edit warring false BLP assertion", but this claim of edit-warring is mistaken. The reverts being made by Rob in that situation were based on there being an ongoing discussion. Looking at the BLP noticeboard at the time it is clear there was no consensus for including the material when Rob was reverting it. As such, Rob's reverts were completely consistent with BLP policy on restoring deleted content without consensus. While a good faith block, it was completely unjustified based on my analysis.
• One of the major recent issues with Rob was an incident involving Russavia where Rob responded to Russavia asking about what agenda his edits to another article represented with "Was it your queer agenda? - or just your fucking agenda, can't you just pack all your fucking agendas in your fucking suitcase and Fuck off?" While I think the "queer" comment was more snarky than homophobic it was clearly an inappropriate comment either way. The problem here arises from the fact that another editor asked him to redact the comment and Rob redacted the comment. Despite this clear gesture of good faith, Russavia all the same went to ANI six hours later to demand a "lengthy block" claiming "the damage is done" and an admin quickly blocked him for a week. This was an obvious vexatious request for punishment and I can sum up the problem no better than the admin who lifted the block around 15 hours later. For a little extra reason why this block was problematic one need only look at the changes to the article Fucking, Austria that Russavia was claiming as an example of him not having an agenda with the heading changes being most telling. Rob's response was inappropriate and he acknowledged it, but Russavia was basically trolling that discussion by citing an obvious troll edit as an example of his good behavior.
• The ridiculously short block by Gamaliel earlier this year, from what I read, is one of the most inappropriate blocks provided. Basically, Gamaliel edit-warred with Rob over whether to say a joke sent out by a judge was racist ([11], [12], [13]). Gamaliel clearly had a strong POV on the subject given an edit to the article that was blatantly skewed towards a certain interpretation. Not much later Gamaliel began redacting so-called "personal attacks" by Rob that were basically Rob suggesting a trout and labeling Gamaliel as a partisan ([14], [15]). As Gamaliel was about as involved as it gets, the block of Rob was clearly inappropriate, especially with the claim of personal attacks. Were it not for the incredibly short duration I would consider it grounds for desysopping, though it was definitely a petty block.
• The last block that I am looking at in detail is from July of this year and involved Magog the Ogre. Rob had raised concerns about an editor repeatedly uploading images without appropriate copyright information on that user's talk page. The editor repeatedly removed the comments, including Rob's request for discussing the copyright issues, without explanation. Finally the editor removed a comment from Rob by marking it as vandalism and Rob initiated an ANI discussion on the subject of this editor refusing to engage in discussion about copyright issues and the vandalism remark. During the course of the discussion Magog said "Well, if the issue at hand is that he called it vandalism, consider that part of this thread closed. Grow a backbone and get over it." This was clearly an attack on Rob and if one doubts one need only look a bit further back where Magog said "No, it wasn't vandalism, but whatever, that's not the issue at hand (if you can't take a little heat, get out of the kitchen)." Magog, despite these repeated sniping remarks and numerous comments from Rob and others that failure to discuss copyright issues was one of the major problems closed the ANI discussion with the dismissive comment "Nothing to see here. User upset that someone called his edit vandalism." Rob tried to re-open the discussion several times by saying Magog was an involved admin and the uncivil comments certainly suggest as much. On one occasion when Magog reverted Rob's attempt at re-opening the discussion he accused Rob of "drama-whoring" in the edit summary. Magog then blocked Rob and included the completely inappropriate "drama-whoring" comment in the block log.

Looking over all the above, it is plainly clear to me that the civility restriction is not necessary as the only legitimate civility concerns are at least two years old. It is also clear that his biggest issues with BLPs is edit-warring. The only parts of the block log I have not mentioned concern edit-warring. A 1RR restriction is thus, in my opinion, the only thing that could have appropriately resulted from this discussion and all other absurd restrictions should be immediately lifted. Rob only consented to these conditions under considerable pressure from editors with a vendetta against him. As such I think all those editors who supported the restriction should reconsider their support as the evidence presented in this case has been woefully misrepresented for the express purpose of getting Rob indeffed and, as several editors said when supporting the restrictions, they are likely to result in an indef in the end. I believe these restrictions will only be used for the purpose of punishing Rob, which runs contrary to everything we stand for on Wikipedia. That is all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Your work is appreciated TDA, but if this is going to result in discussion where counter-allegations or interpretations are made which could cause YRC to feel the need to comment - well, in light of his wiki-break announced in the section above, that's a problem. Would it be OK if I put this into one of those purple hat thingies? Franamax (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Do what you like.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, make me look up how to actually do it. ;) Thanks for your consideration - and thanks again for your analysis. Franamax (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.