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 with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 15:21, 5 August 2012‎ (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 00:42, 18 August 2024 (UTC).

• Youreallycan (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

In the last seven months, Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has racked up 7 blocks and a further 12 blocks between March 2009 - November 2011 under his former username, Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The blocks have been for the following reasons:

• Disruptive editing / edit-warring / 3RR violations - 12 blocks
• Personal attacks - 6 blocks
• Making legal threats - 1 block

He has repeatedly promised to desist but has just as repeatedly failed to keep his promises. He took on a mentor, Dennis Brown, in May 2012 but only two months later rejected Dennis, making hostile accusations against him despite all the work that Dennis had done to help him [1]. He has shown few signs of improvement and is continuing to rack up blocks at the rate of one a month on average (and twice in July alone). He edit-wars repeatedly, makes personal attacks, fails to assume good faith, refuses to accept consensus and has failed to reform his behaviour. This is clearly a situation where a user has a long-term behavioural problem. Although he has repeatedly expressed willingness to change his behaviour and will no doubt do so again in this RfC, his repeated relapses indicate that he lacks the self-control to overcome his negative behaviours. The rate at which is getting blocked has accelerated from an average of a block every 3 months on his old account to 1 block a month on his current account, indicating that the problem is getting worse, not better.

Dennis Brown's comments on YRC [2] posted on 22 July are a good summary of what is wrong with the latter's behaviour:

I think you need to take a hard look at your attitude about BLP in general. The attitude that you would rather be blocked than allow something to be put in an article that you disagree with is incompatible with Wikipedia. Your editing here, putting the person in the article first and Wikipedia second may sound honorable, but it is actually combative and presumptive. ... You have taken [BLPs] to a level of fanaticism. You operate under the impression that it is you against everyone else, and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. You encourage a battleground by your perspective on BLP, and your perspective is incompatible with a cooperative environment. ... What you lack is a willingness to compromise or to accept when you are outnumbered in consensus. You have been very binary in your thinking here, even while you have made a lot of progress in communicating better, the message you are communicating is unyielding, uncompromising and is causing a great deal of disruption and distress among good, quality editors.

I have previously said very similar things in a December 2011 discussion of YRC's conduct [3] and it is discouraging that he has completely failed to heed other people's advice about the impact of his behaviour. Although he has made some good contributions to the project, his ongoing behavioural problems have caused repeated disruption and distress to others and he has failed to make use of the many chances he has been given to change his ways.

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

The ideal outcome of this RfC would be that Youreallycan will:

• Desist from further edit-warring;
• Cease all personal attacks;
• Come into line with generally held community guidelines in terms of conduct.

However, given his record I do not have any expectation whatsoever that this will happen and his repeated failure to keep his promises makes me believe that further promises will be worthless. I anticipate that arbitration will ultimately be necessary to resolve this issue.

See statement above.

1. [4] Comments from Dennis Brown, his mentor between May-July 2012, reviewing the problems with YRC's behaviour
2. [5] Edit warring on User:Coren's user talk page
3. [6], [7], [8], [9] - Edit warring on Stephen M. Cohen, following which he was blocked by User:Coren
4. [10], [11], [12] - further edit warring on Stephen M. Cohen a few days after the previous block had expired
5. [13] Harassment of another editor, disruptive editing and edit-warring (background info from User:Magog the Ogre)
6. [14] Challenging User:Magog the Ogre to block him, followed by [15] personal attacks against Magog
7. [16] AN/I discussion about harassment by Youreallycan of User:Magog the Ogre following the latter's block of the former
8. [17], [18], [19], [20] - edit-warring on Andrew Nikolić, resulting in a block by User:Moreschi
9. [21], [22] - personal attacks against User:Gamaliel, resulting in a block
10. [23] - AN/I discussion of YRC's personal attacks on other editors, resulting in a block by User:Timotheus Canens
11. [24] Blocked by User:Jehochman for edit-warring, feuding and making personal attacks against other editors
12. [25] Blocked by User:Crazycomputers for repeatedly edit-warring over the header on Talk:Jewish Defense League
13. [26] AN/I discussion on O2RR/YRC's disruptive editing of Ed Milliband
14. [27], [28] - Telling admins with whom he is in a dispute that he will "remove" their admin status and that they will face requests for "removal of your advanced privileges"; an example of his unpleasant style of personal interaction in a dispute
15. [29] - Comments to Moreschi: "If you block me I will create another account and defend living people with that account, that is what I do", [30] "When this account is banned I will create other accounts and use them to defend living people under attack from partisan COI contributors using en wikipedia to publish attack content"
16. [31], [32], [33] - gratuitous off-topic sniping and personal attacks during a discussion about Arbcom's procedures on User talk:Jimbo Wales and on this RfC/U page

I am under attack - users are attacking me as we speak - Youreallycan 23:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - User:ChrisO - is a failed clean starter - has multiple arbitrations against him that their failed clean start has failed to hide - Youreallycan 15:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:NPA
2. WP:CIVILITY
3. WP:DE
4. WP:3RR
5. WP:AGF
6. WP:IDHT
7. WP:BATTLE
8. WP:OWN

1. [34] December 2011 discussion on AN/I with constructive criticism and feedback from YRC
2. [35] [36] Offer from Prioryman to YRC to help him with advice and assistance, to which YRC responded positively
3. User talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0 - Dennis Brown's lengthy and systematic effort to resolve YRC's behaviour (started 15 May 2012)
4. [37] - YRC rejects Dennis as his mentor (22 July 2012)
5. Two failed attempts by Maunus at explaining why people including himself react unfavorably to YRCs communication style.[38][39]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Prioryman (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Br'er Rabbit (talk) (As Jack/YRC as Rob) 18:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC). Rob/YRC has long been a problematic participant. I've commented on a number of ANI threads to that effect and Rob came and sought clarification. I told him he needed to change his views and approach to wiki. He hasn't, of course. HeReallyCant. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. YRC's inability to back down when he is in the minority, and the refusal to compromise or act cordially when in such a situation, is getting problematic.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   There are multiple occasions where I have compromised and acted cordially - Youreallycan 14:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This RFCU has been opened in retaliation to comments I made on Jimmy Wales talk page about User:Prioryman - User:ChrisO a violator at arbitration level - an abuser of Wikipedia at all levels - I will post it below - Youreallycan 15:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Begin transcription from Wales talk page

@User:Prioryman -You need to declare your conflict of interest as a person that has received grants/money from Wiki UK/Fae's interested project - Youreallycan 10:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Are you saying that anyone who has benefited from Wikimedia needs to declare an interest? Then I presume anyone who has benefited or been disbenefited (yes, no such word) by ArbCom needs to declare an interest. Any maybe anyone who's been blocked or banned? I really can't see why anyone criticizing of ArbCom needs to declare any possible interest. Should anyone who's praised or criticized Fae also declare an interest? Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Dougweller - Are you involved in Wiki UK? Users that are strongly involved should declare - Nepotism might not quite be the right word - but for a small group of people in charge of one million pounds of charitable funds, there are clear issues in the organization- Youreallycan 11:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's no COI - I've never discussed grants or money with Fae. Remind me, why haven't you been indeffed yet for your perennial obnoxiousness? Now how about you address the substance of my comment? Prioryman (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have received grants/cash from organizations that Fae is/was the chair of. - You User:ChrisO are the violator with multiple arbitrations against you and a dysopping - your comment has no substance worthy of addressing.Youreallycan 11:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So long as anyone isn't banned from this page their comments should be taken at face value. You haven't answered my questions, instead for some reason asking me if I'm involved. Are you going to ask everyone? Dougweller (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know you are involved - as is User:Prioryman - no I don't need to ask everyone - Youreallycan 16:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And here I thought you were serious about BLP. Yes, I'm a member of the chapter - I thought I should join after I did my OTRS training at the WMUK office - I don't know who funded it. That's a COI? Oh, and I met Fae at the OTRS meeting but we didn't do any plotting (in fact if we spoke to each other I don't recall it). If that makes me have a COI, then you'd better check to see if anyone actually attended the AGM, as by your reasoning they would even have more of a COI than I do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 17:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remind us, Prioryman, why are you still here, despite having been indeffed thrice? [40][41][42] I thought it was because one of the arbitrators you impugn above took pity on you, and decided to overlook your chronic infractions. JN466 15:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of transcription

• Magog the Ogre has not tried and failed to resolve any dispute with me, he is just in dispute with me.Youreallycan 16:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• - diff - I am trying not to edit article space at all. - I have only edited one article to remove a primary citation. Youreallycan 22:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand your point. Ryan Vesey 22:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I have come to the point of almost no article editing - I am so high profile and have so many haters due to my defense of living people that I am almost unable to edit article space.Youreallycan 22:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• YRC, that's really not a good thing to point out in your defence. You do have a right to remain silent here. Formerip (talk) 22:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Alas, this is not true - read the Fae arbitration. Even if they revised the final principle to say only "truthful and accurate", he was punished for not answering RfC/Us and especially for trying to claim his right to privacy on Wikimedia Commons by not authorizing their admin to turn over personal information about himself. Wnt (talk) 12:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• YRC, what you still don't seem to understand is why so many people are critical of you. Self-pity is not the answer. And I have to second FormerIP's comments above. Your approach to this RFC/U is putting me in mind not much of a turkey voting for Christmas as one who not only votes for Christmas but also bastes himself, sticks an apple up his own arse and presents himself on a plate ready to be eaten. Seriously, if you don't have anything positive to say in your defence, don't say it, OK? You're not helping yourself. Prioryman (talk) 22:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:ChrisO - You are a violator of Wikipedia at all levels - repeatedly controlled at arbitration - the most disgusting type of POV user - go away - Youreallycan 22:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section is for statements or opinions written by users not directly involved with this dispute, but who would like to add a view of the dispute. Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" or "Response") should not normally edit this section, except to endorse another person's view.

The desired outcome statement given his record I do not have any expectation whatsoever that this will happen and his repeated failure to keep his promises makes me believe that further promises will be worthless. I anticipate that arbitration will ultimately be necessary to resolve this issue. makes it abundantly clear this is not a good faith RFC/U, but rather an attempt at ticket punching in order to get ArbCom to accept a case.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Nobody Ent 16:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Collect (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. There has been more than sufficient discussions about YRC's behavior at ANI, BLPN andf elsewhere in the past month to warrant an RfCU, and it has indeed been suggested several times in those fora that it would be the logical next step in addressing YRC's behavior.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm also adding myself to not endorsing this summary. I have no current opinion on the outcome of this RFC/U, but the disruption by YRC has been enough that this appears necessary and I doubt that it was made in bad faith. YRC's battleground behavior removed here only makes me more confident in the necessity of this. Ryan Vesey 16:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Normally the way RfC works is that an editor gives assurances that the complained-of behaviour won't happen again. The problem is that we have been here over and over again with YRC, and he has promised over and over again that he will not repeat the behaviour that's got him blocked - but every time he has repeated it. We've had enough cycles of Lucy and the football, so when I say that I don't expect any promises from him to be worth anything, that's based not on "ticket punching" but on experience. Prioryman (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I do not endorse Nobody Ent's summary. Like many others, I have had unpleasant experiences with YRC and have viewed with concern his disruption and defiance of many of the basic rules of Wikipedia. This Rfc/U for YRC is long overdue, as I see it, and has been made in good faith to air community concerns. The time has come for those concerns to discussed, for failed remedial methods to be examined, and for consideration of ways to effectuate an end to this ongoing, tediously predictable drama. Jusdafax 17:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. I see no bad faith here. This is a problem that has been going on for a long time, and all I see here is a good faith attempt to make some progress using the proper methods. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. This has gone on long enough, and this is a legitimate attempt to solve a perennial problem. I don't see any valid reason not to assume good faith. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. DoNotEndorse. The tree gets it VeryWrong; par for the course, really. I strongly endorse the comments by snunɐw. I'm fine with being tarred with YRC's 'hater' brush. (which is a bit of current American political rhetoric.) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. With respect to NE, I believe he's misread the situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Perceived inappropriate behavior is the whole reason RFCs are raised.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. With respect to NE, inappropriate behavior is the reason RfCs are raised and it is a legitimate attempt to solve a serious problem. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. I actually agree that this may be an exercise in ticket-punching, but Wikipedia's processes are what they are and it's more than in order to do that. It's not inconsistent with it also being what the user above describes. Formerip (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Ticket punching? Or simple due diligence. --Drmargi (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. I see no basis for assuming bad faith. The wording appears simply to acknowledge the probability of eventual Arbcom involvement. Rivertorch (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. Appears to have no basis in reality. T. Canens (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Pure fantasy. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. If there were no RFC/U, editors would demand that ArbCom reject any case, and Nobody Ent is perfectly aware of this. Stating an expectation that Rob/YRC will completely reject the outcome (only enforced by his response thus far) is simple honesty. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. I actually did make the same point in regard to Fae, but nobody cared. The RfC/U process is much nastier than the ostensibly informal and voluntary process it is presented as, but that's the way they seem to be playing it. Wnt (talk) 11:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. RFC/U is a standard process to decide on a further process that is empowerd to make binding decisions. It is not a ticket-punch to Arbcom who will certainly make their own decision whether or not to accept a case. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. I hate RfC/U, for reasons that can only be articulated by pointing to the fact that WP:LYNCH redirects to it. Nevertheless, I've seen Off2riorob around quite a bit, and I've always been rather concerned by their dismissive demeanour. Like I said, I hate RfC/U, but maybe it's one of the very few tactics that might actually break through to him. Then again, he doesn't seem to be able to admit when he's wrong, so even a bell ringer like this place would appear unlikely to have any positive results in the long run. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

YRC's response here is an example of a longstanding tendency to believe that any criticism of his actions are motivated by mistakes and bad faith on behalf of others, rather than even briefly entertaining the possibility that his behavior might contribute to the conflicts that he consistently finds himself embroiled in. For the record: I have never had any contact with Fae or WikimediaUK, I have however been in disputes with YRC in the past month, in which I have argued that I think his behavior is problematic in many ways. The main point I think should come across in this RfC is that while YRC has noble intentions those have to be compatible with collegial editing and with compliance to basic behavioral guidelines for him to be able to continue editing here. The end does not justify the means. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding attempts after my last dispute to resolve the dispute somewhat amicably.[43][44].

• I apologize for the unbecoming statement about psychiatric help, that was clearly across the line. I would appreciate it if YRC either similarly retract the accusation that I am a POV editor or substantiate it with diffs.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I feel that YRC endorsed this statement below with his comment "Maunus is another of my haters". I am specifically endorsing "YRC's response here is an example of a longstanding tendency to believe that any criticism of his actions are motivated by mistakes and bad faith on behalf of others". Ryan Vesey 16:52, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with Ryan Vesey. The problem is longstanding and decisive action is long overdue. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. YRC originally mistakenly posted his comments under "users who endorse this summary". On reflection, perhaps they should have been left there, because they demonstrate perfectly the pattern of behaviour cited by Maunus. Prioryman (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sadly, I have to endorse this - YRC's responses here are pretty strong evidence on their own, if we needed any more. I say sadly, because I have great respect for much of the great BLP work YRC has done over the past few years - but time and time again, if anyone disagrees with his take on a issue, then it's their incompetence, their POV, their vandalism, etc. (But I should point out that Maunus hasn't behaved very well in the dialog below either - "probably should get psychiatric help" is a personal attack that really should have no place here.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Well said.[reply]
6. Per this, although I also want to register my disapproval of some of Manus' comments below. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. —Ryulong (竜龙) 21:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Eloquently put. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Endorse as it currently stands (not the redacted part). Rivertorch (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. I agree with this summary. Just for info, I recently edited one of the pages that YRC was interested in - just one edit - and he plastered my talkpage with incoherent rants about "Lol - you single edit warring revert in a hot dispute without any discussion at all reveals you for the user you are" &c. (I later noticed he was on 4RR on that article). That's just one example; as a single outburst it would be no big deal, but consistently making every little disagreement into something personal and adversarial is really corrosive to our environment. I used to greatly respect O2RR's BLP work; but all the other crap, and the highly selective interpretation of BLP and other rules, has eroded that. bobrayner (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. YRC, what the hell does this have to do with a content dispute? Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Yes, this is it exactly, the refusal to understand that the problems are being caused by him and not other users. Silverseren^C 11:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Endorsed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. T. Canens (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Endorse per Ryan. Bobrayner's experience is indicative of the problem. And WP:Civil is still policy which YRC is completely ignoring. Maunus shouldn't have made the comment he did but I see he's struck it. Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. Maunus is another of my haters - a simple content disputer - I have content disputes with him, he will tell you that.Youreallycan 16:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Interestingly I've actually tended to agree with you content wise (for example at Stephen Cohen), and only disagree with your behavior patterns. The real question is why apparently you have a virtual army of "haters", but I guess posing that question is to difficult to reconcile with your selfimage as a noble crusader.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't remember you ever agreeing with me - I defend living people against all comers, even the nasty living people - Youreallycan 16:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   And in the process you act nasty to other living people with whom you are supposed to collaborate. Maybe this can jump your memory:[45]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   You oppose/hate me because I was on the opposite side of a content dispute - so .... Youreallycan 16:51, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   No I oppose you because you acted like an asshole during a content dispute. I am completely able to handle disagreement. What ticks me off is selfrighteousness, uninformed and preconceived opinions, condescension and assumptions of badfaith - all od which disciplines in which you exel. A link to the content dispute is here - in which YRC takes a side in a dispute he has no background knowledge about and paints me as a POV warrior in spite of the fact that I had personally taken the same issue to BLPN to get input less than a month earlier.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes - your a POV editor - you are well known for it - Youreallycan 16:57, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   So what is my POV which apparently is so well known, you <personal attack redacted>? Unless you re referring to this [46] - in which case it becomes clear to all what your POV might then be.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   You are well aware of your POV - Fess up yerself - Youreallycan 17:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   My POV is that you should probably not be editing wikipedia. And probably should get psychiatric help. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:14, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   You are well aware of your POV - Fess up yerself - Note - the link posted by Maunus has nothing to do with me - and that his suggestion that I need psychiatric help is just a personal attack from a hater - Youreallycan 17:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Keep telling yourself that. Good bye for now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Get lost hater - this is not an excuse to attack me - Youreallycan 17:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Wow, Rob. Who needs diffs when you're handing out such awesome ammo. For your sake, best to shut up (for the project's sake, have a pot of coffee and turn up Faux News really loud;). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:40, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   The above demonstrates beyond any doubt that there is a problem with YRC's behavior. But that in itself does not make the initial comment an accurate reflection of the situation. A fundamental (albeit implied) pillar of Maunus' argument is that YRC is wrong to assume that criticism of him is motivated by mistakes or bad faith on the part of others. Regardless of the reasons, the above exchange is clearly two-way, clearly personal, and Maunus is clearly the one making it more personal. I don't know anything about previous interactions between these two users, but if the comments from Maunus above are any guide at all, YRC was perfectly entitled to describe Maunus as a "hater". —WFC— 21:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   The degree to which I "hate" YRC is entirely his own doing. For clarity's sake I don't hate him, but I find his passive agressive argument style coupled with veiled personal attacks and self righteousness to be absolutely intolerable. I admit that that is not an excuse making personal attacks, but I do believe that a direct personal attack is more honorable than a the veiled one's that YRC makes with a surprising frequency against anyone who ever disagrees with him.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   According to the principles of WP:AGF, it is wrong to assume that criticism is motivated by mistakes or bad faith. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I stand by my choice of words, although I agree with the point you are trying to make (just not the wording).

   When subjected to an unambiguous personal attack, we do expect the user "attacked" to maintain a degree of civility, and take specific steps (politely asking for a retraction --> seek a third opinion from an uninvolved editor --> request admin action if you still feel something needs to be done). But no-one, when told in an aggressive manner to seek psychiatric help, can reasonably be expected to assume good faith as such. Telling them to do so is likely to exacerbate the situation; systemically doing so simply creates a comfortable environment for those inclined to make personal attacks. —WFC— 22:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Sure, we can't expect YRC to assume the "psychiatric help" thing is good faith - I've criticized that specific example as a personal attack elsewhere on this page. But the issue raised here is that YRC appears to accuse all who disagree with him of bad faith - see his "Hundreds of users have been in dispute with me - I don't mind who you notify - bring all the POV haters" comment on this very page as just one example. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RfC/U's are not suited for continuation of personal disputes, and that unfortunately appears to be the case at hand. Mass notification specifically of people who have had disputes with YRC appear on their face to be CANVASSing of people predisposed to find fault with the user - hence violative of WP:False consensus from the start. [47], [48], [49], [50], etc. (amounting to a non-neutral notification, or aimed at a likely non-neutral subset of editos amounting to more than ten notifications in all by Prioryman) where the RfC/U normal noticeboard is used, as well as the usual WP:AN noticeboard, appears to be "frontloading" as the admins and editors who were CANVASSED regularly appear to be reading those boards in the first place. The extra notifications run afoul of reasonable prudence. As for the possible claim that the others were mentioned indirectly - the rules for RfC/U specify Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours as "uncertified". Adding separate "disputes" is not part of the basis for a valid RfC/U per that instruction, and that material relating to other disputes is not properly part of the initial RfC/U. . Collect (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Collect (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Belchfire-TALK 08:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. --JN466 10:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do not endorse this summary:

1. That is nonsense - I notified only those editors whom I had specifically mentioned in this RfC/U so that they would have the opportunity to correct me if I'd got the facts wrong. Many people have been involved in disputes with Youreallycan - dozens, probably - but since I've not mentioned them I've not notified them. It is generally regarded as good practice and a courtesy to inform people if you are mentioning them in conjunction with a dispute resolution proceeding. As WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification says, an appropriate place for a neutrally worded notification is "on the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior)" (my bold). Prioryman (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Hundreds of users have been in dispute with me - I don't mind who you notify - bring all the POV haters. Youreallycan 17:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. I don't see this as one specific personal dispute - it's trying to address an overall long term problem. And sadly, some of the responses here only reinforce the seriousness of the problem - the attitude "You do it my way or you're a POV hater" cannot be tolerated indefinitely. The diffs given represent valid examples of the problem and of attempts to solve them, and RFC/U is an appropriate step in an attempt to rectify the problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:55, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is not about YRC and one other editor. Countless editors have had unpleasant experiences with YRC, as they themself admit. This is a serious problem that needs to be finally dealt with. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Bzzt. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. This is not a balancing test. YRC's behavior should be evaluated on its own merits/demerits, not relative to the conduct, block logs or edit histories, of others. --Drmargi (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. You can't be serious. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. On the contrary, this RfC/U strikes me as an honest effort to deal with an ongoing problem. Rivertorch (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Because this is a wiki-wide user behavior issue, not a content issue on one or two articles, evidence from older disputes is absolutely admissible. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Really? T. Canens (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. What Viriditas said above. Nsk92 (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. What Boing said. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Endorse. Not endorsing. per Boing and Roscelese. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. There are good points about the possible not-as-good-faith-as-it-should-be nature of this RFC/U, but I can't endorse, per Roscelese. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. How could this possibly be seen as a personal dispute? As T. Canens said, Really? Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked NINETEEN TIMES, made at least that many promises to behave better, and broke every one of them. They've been blocked for editwarring and personal attacks, and have been taken to ANI for anti-semitic and homophobic remarks. They have consistently engaged in disruptive and tendentious editing brimming with unbridled hostility at any fellow editor who disagrees.

Why is this editor still an editor? They should have been indeffed long ago. You might as me to assume good faith, once, twice, even three times, and I will. But this is now the TWENTIETH TIME, at least, and I have no hope that this editor will ever be worth the enormous amount of time they've consumed and trouble they've caused. Ditch them without further ado. We all have better ways to spend our time here on WP than to waste it discussing this editor for the God-knows-how-manieth time.

AGF has its limits, and that was more than a dozen blocks ago. This reflects poorly on the administrators who keep unblocking them and giving them "second" chances. They've been given enough rope already to hand not only themself, but all the inhabitants of a mid-sized European country, as well.

Can we please put an end to this already? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I wholeheartedly endorse this summary. -Kai445 (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I endorse the analysis, but I don't want to write off the possibility of one more attempt to fix things - as in my view, below. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Right to the point, actually.[reply]
4. After consideration, I'm going to endorse this strongly-worded summary. I also think community tolerance has its limits, and those have been reached at long last. I do not think YRC works well with many others, and his amazing hostility, shown right here in his own words, much less his lengthy block history, argue that in a project that must operate on co-operative editing and respect for others' opinions, Youreallycan aka Off2riorob simply fails to fit in. Let's stop going around in circles; if anyone has shown repeatedly that he is incapable of working collaboratively, it is YRC. I'd argue for at least a year block this time. I suspect a community ban is where we are heading. Jusdafax 19:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. But also with Boing's additional comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. See WP:AGF is not a suicide pact and WP:Competence is required. I believe YRC is a good-faith editor, genuinely trying to do the right thing on BLPs, but he has sadly demonstrated his inability to comply with our editing policies and cooperate with other editors in a civil way. I wasn't aware of his previous history as Off2riorob, but that only confirms my feelings that his behavioural problems are long-term and not going to change. Despite his positive contributions, the disruption he also causes makes him a net negative to Wikipedia, and we've given him more than enough chances already. We shouldn't have to put up with him any longer. Robofish (talk) 19:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. —Ryulong (竜龙) 21:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. - I agree with this. YRC/Rob has previously more than once made comments about Jews and Jewish identity which I found offensive, including the suggestion that one could not be both British and Jewish. I thought that he was topic-banned from articles concerning both Jews and homosexuality. His views in themselves, although in my opinion objectionable, are not sufficient reason to take any action against him; but, combined with his aggressive and hectoring style, and his apparent self-appointment as a one-man standards enforcer on BLP, they render him a net liability for Wikipedia, rather than an asset. RolandR (talk) 22:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. 'Nuff said. --Drmargi (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Exactly what I was thinking. I mean, you really do have to wonder what is wrong with the administration and why they are defending this guy. This really proves my point that admins have lost legitimacy. I mean, when you've got people up in arms about a guy who cannot be blocked for the most egregious of actions while editors all around him are blocked and banned for trifles, we really need to start asking the hard questions. User:Hopiakuta? Indeffed because a user had trouble understanding him. User:Penyulap? Indeffed because he made some enemies. And the list goes on. There's something seriously wrong here. YouReallyCan (formerly Off2RioRob) is clearly a protected user who is immune from the most basic policies that lead to blocks and bans of users every day. Everyone knows this is true. If any other user here started up with the "you haters hate" nonsense like he did today, they would have been blocked. And still, he gets away with it on his own RfC! What the hell is going on here? The only response we're entitled to is "but he does such great work on the BLP board". What the hell? Viriditas (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. I'm not a "hater". I hold no hatred for any of my fellow Wikipedians. I tend toward flight, not fight, so my interactions with Youreallycan have been infrequent and largely devoid of serious contention. I believe he means well, and I even occasionally agree with him. Nonetheless, there are areas of the wiki that his presence leads me to avoid. I have been dismayed for a long time by the community's unwillingness to satisfactorily address his conduct, and I'm referring to his recurrent personal attacks ("haters" on this page is a good example), his repeated problems interacting with editors contributing to LGBT-related articles, and his "my way or the highway" approach to BLP enforcement. Surely the cycle of offense-block-apology-unblock cannot continue indefinitely. Rivertorch (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Well said. A few times is a n00b's mistake that a user can mature out of. Twenty times - not counting the many, many times his behavior has been so far beyond the pale and still not got a block - is a persistent plague on the community that should have been dealt with long ago. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. My feelings exactly. Nsk92 (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Not so much an endorsement but more of a comment from me, particularly picking up on Viriditas' points: it is true that YRC has been given an amazing amount of forebearance from the community, but this is because (as others have said) he has done some positive work in the BLP area. The problem is that, for too long, his positive BLP contributions have been allowed to excuse his negative behaviours. You can see this dynamic quite clearly in AN/I discussions where restrictions have been proposed but rejected by editors on the grounds that his BLP contributions are more important than reining him in. To be honest, those editors have some responsibility for allowing things to get to this point; if he had been directed to focus on other areas and perhaps learn how to collaborate better with others, he might have ended up being a better editor and to have become capable of working on BLPs without constantly fighting others. Regrettably, it's much too late for that now. Prioryman (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. The main reason why so much rope has been handed out to YRC is because of his positive work in the area of BLPs. Unfortunately, in recent months, this work has begun to verge on the obsessive and YRC has begun to sport an understanding of BLP that goes far beyond the policy itself and is, in itself, disruptive. In addition, there is only so much that his positive BLP work can do to offset his continual incivility, refusal to follow consensuses. and the refusal to work congenially with users that disagree with him. Silverseren^C 11:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. When any user's editing, behaviour, or interaction, in spite of warnings, becomes disruptive or untenable to the point of no return, that user's presence on the project is no longer a net benefit. 19 blocks are beyond the point of no return. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. Perfect example of how some editors get away with murder on Wikipedia as long as they have their own cabal of defenders. Hot Stop 13:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. As a last-stop-on-the-train-line view. Right now, YRC is unwilling or unable to demonstrate to the community that he can work constructively at all times. Until he can do that in some way - commit to mentorship, explain himself and how he plans to cope with his temper, whatever - I don't see that there's much hope of him being able to work within the community the way we require editors to do. Disclosure: I became aware of this RfC due to a notice left on my talk saying that I'd been mentioned in it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. I think the rope has been exhausted many times over, especially considering the repeated references to "haters" on this very page. T. Canens (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. Enough is enough. As others have said, it's not that Admins have ignored him, it's that he has done some good work on BLP issues. However, it's not all rosy on that front either. Not commenting on his article work, he at times forgets that BLP applies in all Wikipedia space, including here. Note that in his response he includes material from Jimbo's page, where he accuses me, with no evidence, of being involved with WMUK and having a conflict of interest. I've waited to see if he'd retract that, but of course he hasn't. He didn't seem to see any need to provide evidence either. I used to think he was a good editor - I've finally lost any faith in him, and his good work is eclipsed by his more recent behavior. Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. This POV user is a user I have been in content dispute with and is a simple hater - he hates me - I defended living people against his POV - I opposed his POV - Youreallycan 17:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. This RfC/U is ill-formed for the conclusion this editor seems to seek. Kindly consider the purpose of RfC/U and the fact that the results of it must fall within those limits. Collect (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dominus is hardly a neutral observer in this. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are particular problems with the substance of what YRC is attempting to do. I do think he's stretching BLP way beyond reasonable limits – and this is coming from one of the Arbs that fell strongly on the BLP side of the last big scuffle on the topic and who still think that BLPPROD isn't sufficient(!). Nevertheless, it is possible to defend such a strong position in good faith and work with other editors productively.

The problem is that he does not appear to be actually able to do that.

He admits above "Hundreds of users have been in dispute with me", yet it never occurs to him once that he might be the problem; and I've never seen him so much as suggest that he might possibly not be entirely correct in all things. Combine this certitude of infallibility with the tendency to presume that anyone who disagrees with him must be doing so out of bad faith (note his responses to this very RfC), and we have an editor who – unless he manages to seriously change tack – is heading towards a precipice. I don't know if YRC can change, but I hope this RfC makes him understand that he must change if he intends to continue contributing here. — Coren ^(talk) 18:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2012 (UTC) typo alert re the faith of those who disagree with him. Typo indeed; I love it when I manage to say the exact opposite of what I meant. — Coren ^(talk) happen in many arbcases? ;>[reply]
2. Accurate assessment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Rschen7754 19:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Last paragraph shows YRC is either unable or unwilling to attempt any introspection. Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. With the caveat that for a while, he really, truly did appear to be trying (see all the work he and DennisBrown did at User talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0). I was hopeful that YRC was getting a handle on his tendency to lose his temper while that mentoring was going on, but it appears that at some point, he decided to renounce that work rather vehemently (here). As long as there was evidence that he was trying, I found some encouragement, but now it seems that he's pulled out all the stops and is determined to do things his way only. I agree with Coren that his intentions - upholding BLP, etc - are good, but he simply isn't able to go about them in a manner that's not disruptive (for instance, User_talk:Fluffernutter/Archive_8#Pending_changes, where in his enthusiasm for getting a result for the Pending Changes RfC, he issued some personal attacks and threats against me when the result wasn't quick enough in coming for his taste). YRC, please, sit back and refocus. To be able to do the BLP work you want to do effectively, you need to be able to do it while functioning within the norms of this community. Disclosure: I became aware of this RfC due to a notice left on my talk saying that I'd been mentioned in it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. —Ryulong (竜龙) 21:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. I don't think there's any disagreeing with this, but I would caution that I think we are well beyond the point of refocusing or changing tack. He has had 19 blocks so far, a failed mentorship, numerous AN/I threads and enough advice from others to fill a self-help book several times over. Quite honestly, if he hasn't "got it" so far - and his response to this RFC/U shows that he's a long way from that - he never will. Prioryman (talk) 22:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Accurate summation, and unlike others is more rationally accurate. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. — Ched :  ?  01:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. - --Drmargi (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. I have supported YRC long enough, but I think this has gone way too far. I agree with Coren's assessment, and I wonder what happened in the last year or so. Drmies (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. This seems like particularly good advice. MBisanz ^talk 05:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. Well put. I'm a big believer in giving someone "another chance", as long as such offers aren't renewed endlessly. We have millions of articles with no BLP component, so I can't help thinking there's plenty for Youreallycan to do here that won't lead to the regrettable outbursts that keep occurring. Rivertorch (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. Well stated. T. Canens (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22. That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Unless an incident happens in the future where YRC rises to papal authority and obtains papal infallibility, his refusal to understand that there is even the possibility of him being on the incorrect side of a dispute or opinion just causes disruption and chaos time and again. Silverseren^C 11:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23. When "Hundreds of users have been in dispute with [a user]", then that user needs to undersatand that s/he is the problem. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24. Pessimistically endorse. I agree with Fasttimes68 that YRC fails to show insight into his behavior and this suggests that he will find it impossible to change his behavior. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. Though I agree with some of this, I think that the substance is part of the problem. When BLP goes beyond merely accurate sourcing and thoughtful wording, and starts to exclude information, it becomes partisan and argumentative by nature. To defend the interests of one person generally involves dismissing the interests of another. The result is, oddly, that there are situations where I would see a BLP issue precisely where YouReallyCan does not - for example, in including the vehement repudiations made by the people whose work was cited by Anders Breivik, which though of somewhat low relevance seemed important to me in avoiding unpleasant insinuations.[51] Also, procedurally, the notion that BLP trumps every other rule led to this editor getting accustomed to a sense of what I'd call "police immunity", and led to the administrators pointedly not taking effective action even when he was getting into more and more trouble. So I don't think this should be seen as merely a matter of one rogue editor, but also as a matter of rogue policy. Wnt (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really wasn't planning to add my own view when I first saw this RFC/U, but I've read other people's thoughts, have looked at the diffs, and I have been an observer in the past and I have some thoughts in my mind - so I might as well share them...

Firstly, I don't think I've been involved in any disputes with YRC, and I have great respect for the amount of good BLP work he's done, both with this and his previous account - so there really is nothing personal here. But over the past few years, unfortunately, what I have seen is an approach to editing of almost polar opposites. He'll work fine for ages, perhaps get in some minor disagreements, but discuss things robustly but acceptably, and basically act like a perfectly good Wikipedian. But then one of his bad moods comes on, and we get the edit-warring, the personal attacks, the "POV hater" thing, the lot - and we end up at ANI or wherever. It usually ends up with YRC calming down, listening to people, promising to try better (and I'm convinced he is genuine when he makes such promises). And he's fine for a while... until next time. I'm seeing someone who regularly gets into very angry moods, and cannot control that anger, no matter how many times he might genuinely try to do so. We've even seen him turn against his mentor, Dennis Brown - and it's hard to imagine anyone more level-headed and constructive than Dennis.

If I didn't have the respect I do for YRC's many great contributions to the project, I'd be calling for a ban right now. But I do, and I would like to see one more attempt to help him deal with his anger issues and his inability to behave in a civil manner when he's in one of his bad moods. I don't know what form that attempt might take, I'm sorry, but I really hope someone can come up with something. But if YRC really cannot finally address the three bullet-pointed desired outcomes, above, I fear we'll end up with Community or ArbCom sanctions. I really hope we don't have to get that far.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC). Ya, although I've not seen much 'good' blp editing. Expect it all needs a critical look.[reply]
2. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rschen7754 19:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes, you've summarized this better than I attempted to one section up. If we could just get him to maintain himself in those "working fine" stretches rather than punctuate them with the "bad mood" stretches, this would be a moot issue. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what's left to try that hasn't already been tried. All I can think of is a strict parole where he runs talk-space comments past a mentor before posting them - but that's similar to what DennisBrown attempted, which only worked for a while, until YRC decided it was being run by someone who had a POV against him. Disclosure: I became aware of this RfC due to a notice left on my talk saying that I'd been mentioned in it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. I think YRC could make good BLP editing if he didn't immediately turn everyone else against him with his own argumentation style. But the first step would be to recognize that his own behavior is not raise above question and the ends do not justify the means - the second step would be for YRC to recognize that his particular chosen means (abrasive, confrontational argumentation) actually are an obstacle for him to achieve his ends.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Endorse with the caveat that one more try isn't adaptive, and will yield nothing. The line of logic is clear as illustrated herein: YRC is always right --> disputing editor is always wrong --> disputing editor is POV editor --> POV editor is hater. Until that line of thinking changes, and ceases to be all-purpose justification for all manner of confrontational behavior. All promises will be hollow until this fundamental issue is addressed. --Drmargi (talk) 02:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Endorse 100%; I have nothing to add. Rivertorch (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. I am not confident that one more chance will work. However, under the proviso that it would really be one more chance only, and that the slightest disagreement again of which he is the cause will result in an immediate and indef block by any passing admin, I'd be prepared to make an exception to my comment that 19 blocks is already beyond the point of no return. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Endorse. He's so good at what he does that we should make an effort to keep him if we can curb the problematic behavior. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 14:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

Periodically crossing the line is a flaw, as is a tendency to express opinions in a way that others consider uncivil. But YRC shares those traits with a lot of people who have commented in this RFC, some of whom have clean block logs. Looking at one or two of the comments above, and reminiscing about one or two egregious albeit accurate comments I have made in the past few years, I can say with confidence that there are multiple users here who at their worst are less civil than him.

The specific problem with YRC is his inability to recognise that there comes a point where no good can possibly come from carrying on. That the best way to further your cause is to pick your battles carefully, to learn that sometimes temporarily stepping back on an issue is better in the long run than hardening people's views. If we can successfully educate him in this area, the concerns raised by others would become less of an issue, and be a lot more manageable when they do surface. But if we're unable to, arbitration will probably be necessary. —WFC— 22:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —WFC— 22:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Pretty accurate, and provides for an outcome to help YRC work better with the community. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 02:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nobody Ent 02:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Belchfire-TALK 08:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sufficiently accurate, though I still find this RfC/U ill-formed and tainted per ArbCom dicta in the past about canvassing others. Collect (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. As previously noted, this is not a balancing test, and the behavior of other editors is not germane to the issue at hand. --Drmargi (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC) YRC/O2RR is long past the point where he just needs to be shown the error of his ways.[reply]
3. I partly agree with this view, but can't endorse it - after all this time, what we need is some way to stop the battlefield approach altogether, not the cleverer picking of battles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I don't think I can endorse it either. The advice is good, in general, but in this specific situation it's missing the point a bit. YRC shouldn't be "picking his battles more carefully", he shouldn't be battling at all. As for "successfully educat[ing] him in this area", I'm open to suggestions, but it's hard to think of anything that hasn't been tried already. And as I said elsewhere on this page, if he's not already been "educated" by 19 blocks, numerous AN/I threads and a mentorship, it's hard to believe that he is capable of changing by this stage. Prioryman (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Plenty of us here have racked up 1,000s of edits in contentious matters without having to do 'battle', and YRC is the subject of this discussion, not us. YRC does not 'pick his battles', he picks battles, and then complains when he gets hurt. His boomerang comes home to rest. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The battleground mentality of Youreallycan is incompatible with Wikipedia's goal of providing a collaborative environment to improve the encyclopedia. He cannot continue being part of this community unless it is shown that he is able to behave in a manner that is compatible with the community. Ryan Vesey 01:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —Ryulong (琉竜) 02:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I am particularly troubled by reports of his anti-semitism and homophobic rants. While I have not read these personally, I suggest these views have no place whatsoever here. No amount of "good work" makes up for such expressions of hatred. Add in the 19 blocks and the numerous attacks of rage, as demonstrated on this very page, and you have a serious cancer on our project. The time has come to purge the poison; Rob has got to go. Ban him and let's move on. Jusdafax 05:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Four months ago, I participated in an ANI thread concerning Youreally can in which I suggested that he find other areas of the project (e.g., not BLPN, not topics to do with certain minority groups) that might not lead to his losing control and attacking other editors. Since then, he's been blocked four more times. As far as I can tell, he still has the option of changing his focus. Rivertorch (talk) 06:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I was unaware of this ANI thread. Sickening reading, really. I say again, just ban Rob, and we might consider those supporting and enabling his long reign of terror for an Rfc/U. Why has this gone on so long? Nothing can justify this type of disgusting posting. Jusdafax 06:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

6. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC) Yes. Per Jusdafax as well. His positive contributions to the encyclopedia do not outweigh his driving away of other users and his abuse of policy.[reply]

   YRC drove off User:Mkativerata. That alone outweighs any purported good work. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   My contact with User:Mkativerata was over a cricketer - Mkativerata thought he was crap and wanted /tried to add that to a BLP - I objected - he left - he wanted to leave and has gone happily on his merry way - and that was/is fine and not something negative/I am responsible for Youreallycan 13:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

7. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. As with many Wikipedians I find myself agreeing with him on some issues and disagreeing with him on others. But even when I agree with him as on Pending changes I see him go too far and adopt a battling mentality - thinking of other people as haters because they've had the temerity to disagree with him. ϢereSpielChequers 08:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Straight to the point. T. Canens (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. This is at the heart of the concerns that I raised in my opening statement. Prioryman (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Short, simple, and accurate. Silverseren^C 11:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. A clear statement. I wasn't aware either that RYC was the reason for Mkativerata's retirement. One more chance only. Strictly one only. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. This is pretty much what it's coming down to, I think. We need evidence, some evidence, ANY evidence, that that YRC is able to engage in a constructive manner at all times, not just when he feels like it. Absent that, we've reached the tipping point of "contributions don't outweigh disruption." Disclosure: I became aware of this RfC due to a notice left on my talk saying that I'd been mentioned in it. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Good summary. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. Agree, although at the present time, here on this page, he is not showing that he can contribute constructively. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

I have never had any interaction with Youreallycan that I can recall, but have observed his aggressive-to-confrontational behavior, particularly with regard to administrators, on this board for some while with growing concern. While I think the vast majority of the critical issues have been articulated by the editors above, I would like to note a disturbing pattern, which I believe is at the root of much of YRC's confrontational and hostile behavior, that being that he believes that he advocates/speaks for or defends living people. Not only does that allow him to place himself in the role of "he who is unerringly right" (and an editor who doesn't share his views as wrong) thereby allowing him to engage in the behavior he does, but also allows him to see himself as the defender of the living at all costs. Small wonder he harbors the belief that so many editors are "haters" when his places himself on a pedestal that allows him to alienate all comers. As noted earlier, this belief system has reached a level of fanaticism that causes me to wonder if YRC has a tendency to take these edits personally on behalf of the living person whose article is being edited. That, in turn, suggests any level of objectivity YRC needs to edit is gone. --Drmargi (talk) 02:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC) A bit awkwardly put, but ya. Rob seems to have taken the BLP policy up as a weapon with which to wage unrestricted wiki-war.[reply]
2. Endorse with caveat. Re the last sentence, it suggests that any level of objectivity YRC needs to edit BLP-related content is gone. Rivertorch (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Mostly endorse, but with same caveat as Rivertorch. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. To put it simply, YRC's opinion about BLPs has reached the point where he no longer has NPOV in his edits and actions. His stance is so far into left field that he can no longer conduct himself properly or have a conducive discussion in regards to BLPs, because he has such a strong opinion on the subject. Silverseren^C 11:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

Other users have eloquently articulated in general terms the problems with YRC's/O2RR's corrosive homophobia, which manifests itself in, among other things, verbal abuse of LGBT users, slurs on LGBT article subjects, censorship of reliably sourced material on subjects' sexual orientation, and intentional vandalism in BLPs for the purpose of spiting LGBT users. I would like to submit a few of the many available pieces of evidence.

• vandalism: [52] [53] [54] (and comment explaining that he vandalized the article to annoy gay people)
• verbal abuse of LGBT people, paranoid conspiracy theories about gay editors, and censorship of material to the point of committing potential BLP violations in talk: "When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world," "This is not the gay times - get over yourself," "Do you have reports of recent homosexual activity from this living person?...if you can assert any recent homosexual activity in regards to this living person then please present it," "he has never had a same sex report apart from his own...some would laugh and say it was all promotional," "off wiki homosexual promotional tagging group" (also here)

These are not the only examples, but I offer them as evidence to support other users' very correct assertions that YRC's subordination of proper behavior, both in terms of content and of user interaction, to his raging homophobia prevents him from being a contributor to the project. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I agree with what Lionelt says, below, but Wikipedia does require that editors maintain an NPOV approach and do not edit in a way that appears to endorse a homophobic POV. (I make no comment on whether YRC is or is not homophobic - when he's in one of his combat moods he'll throw any dirt he can find at people, and these might just be examples of that). So I endorse the aspects of this view that relate to behaviour, but do not endorse condemnation of YRC's character or views. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Call a spade a spade. I disagree with what Lionelt says below. Wikipedia:Civility is a policy. Please read it. YRC, your response is disingenuous and typical of your usual ignorance. You neglected to note that you said, "What the issue is is beyond me, they want to link it to R Santorum but they don't seem to like it referring to their lifestyle." Meanwhile, anal sex is practiced by heterosexuals in the same percentages (and by some accounts higher) compared to homosexuals. Further "anal sex" is not a homosexual lifestyle as you claim. Viriditas (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Lionelt's comment below is disingenuous in the extreme. Editors are not required to hold any particular beliefs in order to participate here, but they are most certainly expected to respect them in their interactions with others on the project. It is entirely irrelevant what Rob/YRC thinks about homosexuality in real life, but he is compelled not to make homophobic comments on Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I do agree that the tenor of some of his comments about LGBT people (and Jews) has been disturbing. Lionelt is completely wrong in his comments below; one of Wikipedia's five pillars is that editors should "should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", and open displays of prejudice are not compatible with that. Prioryman (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. The edits to the Santorum article where designed to shock and were completely inappropriate. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Being gay, i'm clearly not automatically on a neutral platform when discussing LGBT subjects, but I can also point out that none of YRC's past remarks above offend me at all. However, the underlying issues they represent is that it is pretty much impossible for YRC to neutrally edit LGBT topics with such an opinion, as he has become more or less one of the POV warriors that he complains about. Silverseren^C 11:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. I was unaware of Rob's highly unacceptable attacks against the gay community until this Rfc, though I was well-acquainted with his extreme intolerance against those he disagreed with. Add in his documented problems with those of the Jewish faith, not to mention his truly astonishing reactions in this Rfc, and it seems clear to me the case for a ban has been made. It is also clear that Rob and some of his supporters feel he is above the rules that govern Wikipedia. Time to prove them wrong. Jusdafax 11:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. I should note [55] - my comments at [56] indicate my perspective. However, I should note that it is difficult for me to differentiate homophobia on YRC's part from the background of homophobia in Wikipedia policy and practice in general. For example, it is viewed as acceptable (see [57]) to cite an incident where someone is arrested for drugs and escapes conviction by agreeing to treatment, but not acceptable to mention the sexual characteristics of the same incident, or even to say that the subject has been described as gay in several sources. I would also say that in principle, and in policy, Lionel is correct below; however, since the Noleander case (where I tried to talk them out of the principle...), ArbCom has been saying that ethnic bias is a problem, even if it drives technically accurate contributions; which they then tried to correct for in the Fae case by saying that making any allegation of such bias without absolute proof is a severe personal attack that can be blocked! Wnt (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. These issues have been a problem for quite some time. What is particularly worrying now is the fact, evident in YRC's post below, that he still isn't able to see why his mode of engaging with these topics has been so destructive. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Shameful and unacceptable pattern of behaviour. Nsk92 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. I don't know that YRC is a "homophobe" per se, but his conduct while editing in LGBT issues has often been seriously problematic. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. While accusations of homophobia have been overused recently by some, the fact remains that there is a strong homophobic undercurrent among YRC and his enablers. During one of YRC's many unblocking discussions, I was stunned to see editors in otherwise good standing argue with a straight face that the term "queer agenda" was not an anti-LGBT slur. I am unsure whether this was due to simple ignorance of this infamous phrase or actual malice, but either way it is totally unacceptable. Skinwalker (talk) 16:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Absolutely unacceptable behavior, and his comments here show that he still doesn't get it (and could be seen as still stirring). Dougweller (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. Being homophobic--not that I'm calling anyone homophobic--is a character flaw. However there is no requirement at Wikipedia that editors have inclusive, altruistic or any other personal views.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   There is, however, a requirement that they not abuse other users. If YRC kept his homophobia to himself, we wouldn't have had this problem over and over. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. I have defended Gay people and Jewish people from attack and from undue tagging - allegations that I am homophobic are personal attacks - I strongly supported not including the link to the Santorum attack site - but consensus resolved it should be included and I support that consensus. - I was hotly involved - as were many others and when I said ....I am cool - Its shit - shit and lubrication jelly mixed - leaking out of the arse-hole after anal sex - if thats not pretty enough or promotional enough for them then excuse me. What the issue is is beyond me, they want to link it to R Santorum but they don't seem to like it referring to their lifestyle. - was reactionary I agree but not homophobic. "When the LGBT sector matures and accepts itself as normal they will have progressed into my world," - is a decent statement - Its normal to me - Youreallycan 11:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   While your homophobic comments, and the fact that you're standing by them, give the lie to the claim that you aren't homophobic...honestly, it doesn't matter what's in your head. You could be a pro-equality person on a massive campaign to troll us all for your own amusement. This is about your behavior, not your beliefs. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Hater is all I can say to you - give the lie to the claim that you aren't homophobic. - you have nothing to support you bigotry- Youreallycan 15:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. The "OMG my critics are homophobes!" rhetoric was a common tactic employed by the recently-banned Fae, and look where he wound up. There are many editors here who have pursued a stridently pro-gay editing agenda, just as there are many editors who pursue a pro-Israeli agenda, a pro-conservative agenda, and so on. It is not homophobic or any of the other -phobics to point that out. Tarc (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   It is, however, homophobic to vandalize BLP articles for the stated purpose of annoying LGBT people, to request proof (what, photos?) that a BLP subject is currently having sex with men because self-identification as gay isn't sufficient, to claim that WP:NOT should preclude any mention of a subject's non-heterosexual orientation, to throw around conspiracy theories about the homosexual agenda when consensus isn't in his favor, and to compare LGBT people to backwards children. Plenty of users point out POV-motivated editing without getting blocked and brought to noticeboards twenty+ times for edit-warring and personal attacks. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   That is a simple content dispute - Your agenda/advocacy here is well known - I opposed you - consensus won the day - I accepted consensus. - You hate me because I oppose your using en Wikipedia/advocacy of Homosexuality - Youreallycan 17:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4. Perhaps, as others have pointed out, Roscelese has a legitimate observation to make regarding civility. Unfortunately, that message gets lost in her paranoia. Just as we are exhorted in a dispute to focus on the content and not the editor, Roscelese should have attacked the incivility and not the person. The implications should be obvious: uncivil behavior can and should be corrected, while alleging an innate flaw of character is designed to irredeemably marginalize. It is, at the end of the day, nothing more than a cheap shot, akin to wantonly playing the "race card". A smart person like Roscelese can and should strive to do better. Belchfire-TALK 17:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I and many other users have explained, YRC has demonstrated an inability to correct uncivil behavior. Whatever the cause - overriding homophobia, psychological issues, too much time on his hands - it should no longer be the WP community's problem. It's also both humorous and sad that you're making excuses for homophobic actions by setting up a straw man about homophobia being an innate characteristic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - get over your own bigotry - Youreallycan 18:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been following any of this, nor do I have any opinion on this RFC or anyone involved's behavior; my statement here is just to point out that Youreallycan has made some valuable edits in the past couple of weeks. I'm thinking particularly of one interaction, where James H. Fetzer, or rather more specifically the Talk page, was the subject of an AN/I complaint. Youreallycan helped edit an overload of templates at the top of the talk page that were aggravating what appears to be the subject of the article (who I had blocked, and then later unblocked, for legal threats relating to said templates). In doing so, Youreallycan helped defuse a situation involving a pissed-off editor/article subject that could have been a nasty series of blocks and evasions. I found him to be quite helpful during that process; see e.g. the AN/I discussion and talk page contributions.

My point in this is simply to highlight a recent incident where I found Youreallycan's contributions helpful to resolving a problem, something I think ought to be considered as this RFC goes forward. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yep, YRC has done plenty of good stuff too - when he hasn't got his fighting head on he can be constructive, helpful, and even friendly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. If Rob/YRC did not demonstrate a significant aptitude for this kind of work he'd have been uncontroversially banned years ago. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. While I agree with the above sentiment, as it is clear YRC makes a ton of good edits, I should also point out that being a good editor doesn't mean you have a free pass to conduct oneself uncivilly either. No matter the pile of good edits, if a user is causing significant disruption, chaos, and hindrance to the community and its attempts at discussion, then said user is incompatible with Wikipedia, its mission, and its community. Silverseren^C 11:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. Vote Saxon! Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Until Off2riorob (later Youreallycan) came along, the BLP noticeboard had tumbleweeds blowing across it. You'd post there, and things would be archived without response. He changed that, almost single-handedly, and made it into a functioning board. He is still far and away the most prolific contributor to that board, with a combined total of over 8,300 edits since June 2009 (Bbb23 is next, with 1800 edits since April 2010). In the vast majority of BLP cases he handled, his content judgment was sound, prevailed, and improved the encyclopedia, even if it may have been bitterly opposed and resented by editors who had an ax to grind.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. JN466 10:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Partially endorse. I've said before, and I'll say it here again, that O2RR/YRC has indeed made good contributions to the BLP field. That is certainly worth noting. The question is whether all the completely unnecessary collateral damage he has caused along the way is worth tolerating and whether his positive contributions mitigate the damage he has done. I don't think so, and as I recall, quite recently you didn't let another user's much greater contributions to the project stand in the way of trashing him on and off-wiki. In all honesty, I have to say that you and certain others share some responsibility for things getting to this stage by repeatedly opposing action against YRC's misbehaviour on the grounds of his BLP contributions. But right now we're beyond the point where you can excuse his actions on the grounds of positive contributions. Prioryman (talk) 10:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. With the previso that I agree with Chris about the wording. Perhaps "..., and improved the encyclopaedia, albeit some editors strongly disagreed with the action taken." would be a better choice of words. —WFC— 11:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'll endorse this. The quality of his work at BLP/N should be beyond dispute. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. If some bitter partisans' toes get stepped on, I don't really see that as a bad thing. Tarc (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. If only for the last clause, which strongly implies this RFC/U is purely retaliatory. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. YRC's rage explosions and his common want of civility drive away decent editors. I have avoided him for years, and others are saying the same thing. We don't need him at BLP or on this project at all when his documented hatred and intolerance of Jews and gays motivate his editing. The days when your argument worked are over, if I judge the growing consensus correctly. YRC's reactions here on this Rfc alone clearly show how YRC has justly earned his multitude of blocks. I wonder at your support for such a huge violation of of Wikipedia's basic rules, such as the Five Pillars. Jusdafax 11:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. I was going to agree, but then I finished that last sentence and...no, just no. Jayen, I feel you are completely lacking an understanding of the issues at hand here or are willfully ignoring them. Silverseren^C 11:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. YRC's post count on BLPN (and in general) is so high mainly because he can't express his thoughts effectively in a first draft and has to edit his posts 5 or 6 times to get things right. To gauge the real level of contribution at BLPN, divide the 8300 by 5. Anyway, the idea that he is responsible for the current high level of activity there is implausible -- and the notion that it is somehow meant to excuse the persistent poor behavior is preposterous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. I agree that YRC has made a lot of good contributions, but I can't endorse this view as all that good work does not justify YRC's escalating confrontational attitude, fanaticism, and personal attacks. It's getting worse, and something has to be done about it - and this is not about the grinding of axes -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. I disagree that the BLP noticeboard was moribund without YRC/Off2Rio. I defy anyone to go through the 2007/8 archives of that page and classify them as tumbleweeds. My experience has always been that a valid posting there was always useful - even if no-one responded there, fresh eyes would turn up at the article. I also disagree that it is the good work that he has done that has made him contentious, my reading of the situation is that it is his manner and especially his tendency to label others as haters that has made him contentious. If YRC would only realise that fellow editors who you disagree with in one discussion may well be ones you agree with in another then much of the heat would be gone. It is his presumption that those who have disagreed with him are "haters" that is at the root of his problem with the community. ϢereSpielChequers 12:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. I've already said where I feel the point of no longer being a net benefit to Wikipdia has been reached. If he regularly has pitched battles with 100s of others, then he must understand that he is the cause of his own problems. High and worthy edit counts are not a suit of armour worthy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. While it is possible that he has made productive contributions, the tone of this post makes it clear that these contributions are meant to excuse his agenda-based editing and attacks on other users. As I said elsewhere, his longstanding refusal to even try to cooperate with other users, especially LGBT ones, outweighs any work he may do as a contributor. I will also note that the flip side of the hours YRC puts in at BLP is abuse of the BLP policy in the service of his anti-gay edits, the belief that he is untouchable because he does BLP work, and a fanclub that is delighted to stack discussions and confirm that impression for him. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. I agree that YRC has done a lot of good work there, but his conduct there has caused problems as well, among good-faith editors in addition to bitter ax-grinders. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively notifying a dozen users and admins on their talk pages who have been in dispute with the RfC/U subject or have blocked him, as Prioryman did, violates the letter and spirit of WP:Canvassing. [58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65] The way to do this is to list the RfC/U at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList and trust that users will find it. And that's what users usually do.

What makes Prioryman's behaviour here look like an exercise in bad faith is that he did not notify a single administrator listed in Youreallycan's block log only as having unblocked him after the above administrators blocked him, i.e. User:SlimVirgin, User:Foxj, User:Salvio giuliano. I cannot think of any good-faith reason to proceed in this manner. Really, no one should have been notified except per the usual channel, but if the matter is taken to admins' talk pages, then surely all interested admins have a right to be notified, regardless of their view of Youreallycan's contributions. Indeed, this is at the core of WP:CANVASSING.

(For as long as these admins are unnotified, I call on User:Prioryman to do what he should have done in the first place, and notify these admins as well on their talk pages. With alacrity.)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. --JN466 10:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is nothing more than a personal attack against me by haters - users with content disputes against me such as User:Jusdafax - after three years here he is hating still - Youreallycan 11:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. Jayen, it's obvious that you've not read this page properly, as I've already dealt with this issue under Collect's outside view. For the record, you are wrong. There is no such requirement to notify "all interested admins". What WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification actually says is that it is appropriate to place a neutrally worded notification is "on the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior)" (my emphasis). I did exactly that and no more, as to go beyond that would indeed have constituted canvassing. My purpose in notifying those whom I mentioned in my opening statement was simply to ensure that they would have an opportunity to review what I had said and correct it if I had got it wrong. Prioryman (talk) 10:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. It is quite obvious that the users notified were those that were mentioned or discussed in the evidence section upon creation of this RfC. Notifying said users was the proper thing to do and is not canvassing, as notifying allows said users to agree with the statements presented as evidence or state that their conflict with YRC was misrepresented. There is absolutely no canvassing here. Silverseren^C 11:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. I don't see any bad faith attempts to canvass - this was even listed at AN and ANI (unnecessarily, in fact), so everyone who has any interest will surely see it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I came here from my watchlist. RYC needs to understand that many of the commentators here are uninvolved, but perfectly aware of his history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Seems like a fruitless complaint. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. I don't know about others but I saw a link to this RfC at ANI. I don't think I have ever had any editing conflicts or disputes of any kind with Youreallycan. His comment above "this is nothing more than a personal attack against me by haters" says all one needs to know about his battleground attitude towards Wikipedia editing. Nsk92 (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've said this above already, but I'll reiterate it here — I hate RfC/U, for reasons I can only articulate by pointing to the fact that WP:LYNCH redirects to it. It really does serve the purpose of promoting drama and maintaining a focus on all the negative aspects of somebody's contribution history. Nevertheless, there are concerns about YouReallyCan/Off2riorob's approach to editing that do need to be addressed. Is this the right venue to do so? I don't know, but maybe it'll eventually break through to him that this cycle cannot be sustained forever — and if it is, it's to the detriment of the entire community.

Now, contrary to the impression my posting here may give, I really don't have any interest in participating in this dramafest. It is just not worth the time an energy that could be better spent writing articles or fighting vandalism. Right now I'm in the process of building a moderately lengthy article from the ground up, but I decided I'd just drop by for a second and offer my $0.02.

My advice to YouReallyCan/Off2riorob is as follows — please, just admit that you're wrong and move on. I know you may think you're right and everyone else is ganging up on you, but even if that's the case, is it really worth all this? You're a good editor, and I really hate seeing people go down the downward spiral towards their own demise. It's happened a thousand times before, and it pretty much always ends in misery for all involved.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. WP:LYNCH - LOL - - Well said, a decent comment. I have been wrong and been blocked for it / paid the price - mostly for edit warring to defend imo living people - I am sorry for that. - I should have used dispute resolution more - just I find wiki process so slow and tedious - I am a decent person - the hateful comments from users that have conflicts with me reflect more on themselves than me - Youreallycan 12:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse. I really hate RFC/U, and I really hope YRC can just listen to those of us who have good-faith concerns. Just learn patience, YRC, we're all trying to help. Really. And no one is perfect, so extend us more leeway when we screw up and we'll be more inclined to extend you leeway when you do. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 15:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. I agree about the drama-fest, and I think this is unlikely to achieve anything. But it's a required step before ArbCom appeals can be made - if we didn't do this, any ArbCom appeals would be rejected. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Although, bear in mind, the thesis statement of my argument is not that this process is utterly useless, but that in spite of my hatred for it, it might do some good for YRC. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, agreed - I should add that even if we don't think anything will be achieved here, I do think we should give YRC this last chance to act for himself before anything mandatory is explored. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. I agree that RfC/U is sometimes dramatic, but I fear that's unavoidable. RfC/U highlights the negative side of some editors in the same way that ANEW highlights the editwarring side of some editors and the COI noticeboard highlights that some editors may be shills or hagiographers. As long as we have longer-term problems with disputes around specific editors, we'll need RfC/U or something like it. bobrayner (talk) 12:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I'm sure YRC would put me in the 'hater' category. I’m not posting this to pile on or jab a finger in his eye.

I don't think that anyone would dispute the following:

• YRC is an excellent contributor, and often a BLP champion
• YRC has frequent periods of inter-personal communication difficulties with other editors

The writing on the wall is that YRC and wikipedia-en might be parting ways soon. I feel concern for the person behind the name YRC, whom appears to be deeply invested in this project. Depriving him the ability to contribute IMO would be a trauma to him, and I've no desire for him to suffer. What I say next, I say without any malice or intend to be taken as a personal attack; I can't help but wonder if YRC's real life relationships at times suffer similar communication problems. I have honest concern for his well-being. I urge him to take some time off from Wikipedia and to reflect on, and in a therapeutic manner, improve his communication skills. I'm told his mentorship with Dennis produced some wonderful results. Having a mentor outside the confines of wikipedia might expand upon this success. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this view

1. Mostly endorse; I can't endorse the speculation about IRL relationships, but no problem with the rest. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do not endorse this view

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.