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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Guys,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page ... If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page ... the page will be deleted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

comment

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

Outside view by Darkness Shines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Moving on, WP:BAN includes the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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