Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan

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

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: 03:08, 6 November 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.

Statement of the dispute

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.

Desired outcome

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.

Busy

I am busy in real,life - I want to address your issues - but have limited time schedules - please accept that - thanks - Youreallycan 19:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Description

See statement above.

Evidence of disputed behaviour

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

Replies to claims of disputed behaviour

Attacking users

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

Prioryman s a failed clean stater

• - 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)

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

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 certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

1. Prioryman (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
4. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

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)

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

Response

• 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

I am not even editing article space

• - 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)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• @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)

Views

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.

Outside view by Nobody Ent

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)

   Addendum: Many of the don't endorse objections aren't addressing the point. The goal is to be an informal non-binding process enabling users to discuss problems with specific editors (emphasis mine). The desired outcome quoted above, and some of the comments posted, are not about discussing, they're about getting YRC banned/indef'd. You don't discuss with torches and pitchforks. If the community feels YRC's behavior has become out of control -- not an unreasonable position -- and he will not voluntarily return to compliance with Wikipedia practices, RFC/U is not an appropriate venue. A ban discussion can be held at WP:AN, or a ArbCom request can be filed -- the civility enforcement case was accepted without a prior RFC/U. Nobody Ent 22:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

2. Collect (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
3. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
4. I don't think I could've hit the nail on the head more squarely (or roundly, or whatever). So: "Exactly".VolunteerMarek 19:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Prioryman asked YRC, on Jimbo's talk page, "Remind me, why haven't you been indeffed yet for your perennial obnoxiousness?" (Prioryman (talk) 11:49, 5 August 2012 (UTC)). His very next edit in Wikipedia, a little under an hour later, was the creation of this RfC/U in his user space: [43]. --JN466 23:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
6. That personal attack by Prioryman just prior to posting this RfC gives evidence supporting this view. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
7. – NULL ‹talk›
   ‹edits› 01:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Quite several other concerns with this RFC, but I can register here as a start. Franamax (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
10. - Instaurare (talk) 07:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
11. The fact Prioryman has filed an arbitration request even as this RfC is going on, and less than a week after it went live, suggests to me that this rings a lot truer than the individuals below would like to admit. I see this view not as rejecting the concerns about Rob's editing, but rather as noting legitimate concerns about Prioryman's motives.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
12. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 12:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC) This appears to be vindicated after the filing of the arb request.

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. [ Response to Nobody Ent's addition: Frequently a Ban discussion at ANI is halted because there has not previously been filed an RFCU - and RFCU is frequenrtly seen aas a required step towards rispute resolution before an ANI ban can be enacted]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

   To address Nobody Ent's addendum, the "Desired outcome" does not call for any bans, and individual commentators calling for bans do not invalidate the RFC. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

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)
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)
8. With respect to NE, I believe he's misread the situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Perceived inappropriate behavior is the whole reason RFCs are raised.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
12. Ticket punching? Or simple due diligence. --Drmargi (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
14. Appears to have no basis in reality. T. Canens (talk) 09:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Pure fantasy. Viriditas (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
20. I see that sentence, although not artfully crafted, as a statement of fact. This RfC/U contains way too many attempts to contrive boomerangs. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
21. The fact that YRC/O2RR's behavior gives us little confidence that a non-binding RFC/U will get through to him when nineteen blocks and numerous noticeboard reports have failed doesn't make this a bad faith RFC/U. The bad behavior (and escalation of same) that merit an RFC/U are well documented; the fact that the user's behavior during this process will put it on the fast track to ArbCom is his own fault, and really it should have happened long ago. Nobody Ent's comment seems to suggest that there is good behavior, bad behavior, and behavior that is so bad that Wikipedia cannot take measures against it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
22. I think that is a perfectly fair and accurate assessment, and do not accept that this is a bad-faith RFC. RolandR (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
24. I don't see a bad faith RFCU, I see an editor who has realistically assessed the situation and has expressed little hope. The door is still open, though, for YRC to respond positively. Binksternet (talk) 04:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
25. I've seen cases like this many times, where I saw an RFC I felt was ultimately doomed to just go to arbitration. Whether it's advisable to express those doubts could be debated, but that debate has no bearing on the validity of this RFC. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
26. This is an opportunity for YRC. That's why the community needs to be very clear as to which of his edits are contentious and why they are contentious. Also we need to keep the emphasis on what changes we want to see. That some of the participants think it is unlikely that YRC will take the opportunity to change is not actually a problem. The time to go straight to Arbcom or AN/I is when you have consensus that whatever is now said won't make a difference, and that the past edits are sufficient grounds for action. The RFC is valid because YRC has the opportunity to surprise us, though the whole "haters" business now means that things really aren't looking promising. ϢereSpielChequers 12:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
27. Pass a Method talk 14:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
28. It is a simple statement of fact that repeated community discussions have gone nowhere, because of filibustering, attempted boomeranging, and consequentialist defenses of Off2riorob/Youreallycan by BLP literalists. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
29. Based solely on YRC's responses in this RFC, that statement has gone from being a simple reasonable prediction to a fair description of reality. So no, the "bad faith" claim is purest kneejerk nonsense. --Calton | Talk 05:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Maunus

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)

Adding attempts after my last dispute to resolve the dispute somewhat amicably.[44][45].

• 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)

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)
2. Agree with Ryan Vesey. The problem is longstanding and decisive action is long overdue. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
5. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Well said.
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)
7. —Ryulong (竜龙) 21:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Eloquently put. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Endorse as it currently stands (not the redacted part). Rivertorch (talk) 05:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
11. YRC, what the hell does this have to do with a content dispute? Viriditas (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
13. Endorsed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
14. T. Canens (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
16. Yes, the end does not justify the means. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
17. The first step is admitting you have a problem. Until YRC does that - and he doesn't - it is unlikely that he will abandon his disruptive behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Gamaliel (talk) 22:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
20. YRC assumes bad faith all too often. Binksternet (talk) 04:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
21. This behavior is on full display in this RFC. Skinwalker (talk) 12:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
22. Pass a Method talk 14:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Agree that YRC assumes bad faith, but disagree that YRC has "noble intentions". In fact, I think this supposed BLP extremism is just a means for YRC to promote his personal views, such as to minimize the visibility of gay people (see #Outside view by Roscelese) and Jews[46][47][48]. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

   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)

   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)

   And in the process you act nasty to other living people with whom you are supposed to collaborate. Maybe this can jump your memory:[49]·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

   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)

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

   So what is my POV which apparently is so well known, you <personal attack redacted>? Unless you re referring to this [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t800062/] - in which case it becomes clear to all what your POV might then be.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

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

   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)

   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)

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

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

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

   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)

Outside view from Collect

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. [50], [51], [52], [53], 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)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Collect (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
2. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Belchfire-TALK 08:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
4. --JN466 10:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
5. VolunteerMarek 19:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Cla68 (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
7. – NULL ‹talk›
   ‹edits› 01:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
8. I have more limited interaction with YRC, but have to say that based on my observation of both his/her behavior and the kind of problems that produced blocks, that any evidence of Canvassing (or tag teaming) particularly taints this RfC. In my experience, YRC was very constructive when approached constructively, but over-reacts to uncivil or WP:PA editing by others. A quick and incomplete survey of the disputes and the editors allegedly canvassed, at least by my limited observation, seems to indicate the disputes all involve bad behavior on BOTH sides. Any canvassing will bring many editors who are themselves problematic to the process. The behavior described mostly does not just "happen", in a vacuum, but is a response to attacks on persons who are Article subjects or on YRC. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Endorse this and also agree with 209.6's assessment above. I'm unclear on what the actual motives are of the RFC filer. From my observations over time, the best way to get poor responses from O2RR/YRC is to pile on all at once. The argument that "well gosh I had to notify people I mentioned" runs very thin when you can work out your wording in advance. Franamax (talk) 01:45, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Agreed. Instaurare (talk) 07:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Agree - Notifying previous blocking admins does seem like canvassing by the definition. Arzel (talk) 15:35, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
12. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 12:24, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Per nom.

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)

   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)

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)
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)
4. Bzzt. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
6. You can't be serious. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
9. Really? T. Canens (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
10. What Viriditas said above. Nsk92 (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
11. What Boing said. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Endorse. Not endorsing. per Boing and Roscelese. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
14. How could this possibly be seen as a personal dispute? As T. Canens said, Really? Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
15. No, this view is tantamount to claiming that two wrongs make a right. That approach is how disputes on Wikipedia become escalated. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
16. Definitely in disagreement with this. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
17. Wikilawyering. Gamaliel (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Per Gamaliel.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Binksternet (talk) 04:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
22. For better or for worse, this is exactly how RFCs are supposed to be used. If someone thinks it's a wrong usage, that's something to bring up as a policy change, not a criticism of this specific RFC. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Pass a Method talk 14:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
24. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
25. Pure Wikilawyering to avoid confronting some basic issues. --Calton | Talk 05:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Dominus Vobisdu

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)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. I wholeheartedly endorse this summary. -Kai445 (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
3. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC) Right to the point, actually.
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)
5. But also with Boing's additional comment. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
7. —Ryulong (竜龙) 21:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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 ("to claim to be a British Jew is racist in itself"). 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)

   Wow. I did not know about that comment. I repeat, how was this guy not banned ages ago? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

9. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
10. 'Nuff said. --Drmargi (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
14. My feelings exactly. Nsk92 (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
22. Rope, etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
23. — Ched :  ?  22:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC) As harshly worded as this is, I had to think about this for a while before putting my name here. But the more I think about it, the more I feel YRC has used the "I defend teh BLP, I defend teh Wiki" smokescreen long enough. I hereby remove my name from the YHBT list at this point.
24. Gamaliel (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
25. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
26. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
27. Skinwalker (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
28. Pass a Method talk 14:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
29. Arcandam (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
30. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
31. Enough is enough. At least I had the ability to recognize when the community was getting frustrated to the point of indef block and turn my editing around! There is a point which has failed to be hammered in by the 19 blocks, we need to make the 20th an indef unless this editor changes their editing habits and fast there is still time... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 22:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
32. What Barts1a said. And the ad-hominem fallacy of Lionelt and the Wikilawyering of Collect, below, are completely irrelevant. --Calton | Talk 05:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
33. 100%. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 11:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
34. It's the 20th time!! as per ROPE, stick a fork in it, we're done here. Additional cries of "He hates me" throughout this page merely reinforce the opinion that he sees nothing wrong with his ways, and will therefore be extremely unlikely to change them. -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 19:30, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
35. This is the only statement that can form the basis for a specific administrative action (a lengthy ban), so it is the only one that really matters. Looie496 (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
36. I really didn't want to sign up to this one, but O2RR's actions since the RfC/U was created - particularly the ongoing focus on haters (my concern is with the mindset, not with specific words) and seemingly intransigent misunderstanding of reasonable processes - have exhausted any remaining goodwill. Lots of blocks over the years, lots of other drama, yet O2RR is still determinedly trying to escalate each disagreement into a personal feud. That's a shame. I don't want to see him indeffed, but what's the alternative? Other previous restrictions were ignored or abandoned sooner or later. bobrayner (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
37. I previously chose to skip over this view and neither endorse nor oppose, but if ArbCom is going to throw the issue back to the community, well then I'm going to endorse this in part. I pretty much agree, now, with what Bobrayner said just above me. I don't endorse everything in this view, but I want to make the basic point that we are now at the stage where a site-ban has to be on the table. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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)
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)
3. Dominus is hardly a neutral observer in this. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Honest assessment, or Dominus attempting to take out an "enemy"? Instaurare (talk) 07:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Expressly contrary to the purpose of RFC/U. Predetermined objectives of attempting to remove an editor for the project reflect a fundamental disrespect for the desired outcome of this process, which is about negotiation and compromise on both sides. Regardless of its support or opposition, this view is incompatible with RFC/U and will have no bearing on its outcome. – NULL ‹talk›
   ‹edits› 02:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
6. As someone on the talk page appears to construe anyone not opposing this view as endorsing it, I suppose it's best I say that I do not endorse it. JN466 10:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
7. A site ban is excessive. He is not a racist or a homophobe; the problem is edit-warring over BLP content, ABF and incivility. A lengthy one-revert restriction on BLP content and a short rein on civility will sort this out. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Coren

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)

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? ;>
2. Accurate assessment -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Rschen7754 19:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Last paragraph shows YRC is either unable or unwilling to attempt any introspection. Fasttimes68 (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
7. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
9. —Ryulong (竜龙) 21:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
11. Accurate summation, and unlike others is more rationally accurate. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
12. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
13. — Ched :  ?  01:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
14. - --Drmargi (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
17. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
18. This seems like particularly good advice. MBisanz ^talk 05:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
20. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Well stated. T. Canens (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
25. I think that this view, along with Dennis Brown's comments to YRC after concluding that the mentorship was going badly, really gets to the heart of the matter. YRC starts from the position of wanting to do right by BLP, and that's altogether a good thing. But then he gets into a mindset that it's him against the world, and anyone who disagrees with him is not merely incorrect, but is someone who must be prosecuted. I think that a great deal of this problem is a matter of temper, rather than bad faith. I think that YRC simply gets explosively angry over these disagreements, and this anger results in disruption. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
26. The first step is admitting you have a problem. Until YRC does that - and he doesn't - it is unlikely that he will abandon his disruptive behavior. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
27. Gamaliel (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
28. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
29. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
30. Well said. Binksternet (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
31. Skinwalker (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
32. Pass a Method talk 14:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
33. 28bytes (talk) 20:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
34. Jusdafax 02:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
35. Agathoclea (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
36. Cautiously endorse, my caveat being that with regard to "stretching BLP...beyond...limits", in most incidents I've witnessed my impression was more that YRC was probably right or had a proper, discussable point on the underlying content - however, interaction-wise, yes YRC, you need to adopt new strategies. Franamax (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
37. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
38. I agree with many of the views stated here, though this is the only one I'm going to sign off to avoid a pile on. That YRC continues his erratic attacks against editors, edits in article space despite saying he doesn't edit there, and uses the schoolyard taunt of "hater" to describe anyone who disagrees with him during this RFC shows his inability to listen to good faith criticism. I'm not sure there is any point in keeping this open, and think that a RFARB is probably needed to affect any meaningful change here. AniMate 18:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
39. Agree — ΛΧΣ21™ 04:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

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.[54] 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)
2. Per Wnt, this idea that "BLP trumps every other rule" has empowered trolls, COI spooks, and edit warriors to erode the Five Pillars. Perhaps the community should discuss an amendment to the policy to clarify what is unacceptable "BLP enforcement" behavior. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Boing! said Zebedee

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.
2. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Rschen7754 19:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
4. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
6. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)

   The logic (?) starts earlier: BLP trumps all policies --> YRC "does good work" on BLP --> YRC is always right --> ... Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

9. Endorse 100%; I have nothing to add. Rivertorch (talk) 05:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
12. Yes, this view is exactly correct. It really is a matter of anger getting the best of him. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
13. VolunteerMarek 19:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
14. I think part of the reason YRC has survived so long is because his extreme disruptive behavior does come in bursts. He get blocked or taken to a noticeboard, claims he'll retire or stay out of the topic area, then a month or so later he's up to his tricks again but between people who weren't familiar with him before and his fanclub, it's impossible to get a sanction even with months' worth of evidence. However, the repeated nature of this behavior clearly demonstrates that these promises of reform are not sincere or, at best, temporary. I'm reluctantly okay with one more chance, though based on YRC's behavior here I think he's already missed that chance. But someone whose anger leads him to regularly disrupt the encyclopedia and harass other users, while perhaps deserving of pity, is not deserving of leniency. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Gamaliel (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
16. One thing that is true is that YRC overheats. It's partly a result of a dearth of other editors committed to upholding the letter and spirit of BLP policy at BLPN, but I don't see any change on that front any time soon. It's an unpleasant job, just like this one. Perhaps it would help if YRC took a one-week break from BLPN every month, or something like that. --JN466 00:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
17. OohBunnies! (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
18. The assessment of the situation is dead on, but I harbor much less optimism about a turnaround. Binksternet (talk) 04:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
19. 28bytes (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Mostly agree, though I'm not convinced this should be the one-last-chance - I'm unclear on the filer's motives. I note Jayen's comment just above. We need editors willing to staff noticeboards and do the grunt work. Franamax (talk) 02:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Instaurare (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
22. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 12:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) Endorse fully, as this seems to be the heart of the problem; I also agree with Franamax, that I am not concerned that this should be the "one last chance". In the past, Wikipedians who did good work were excused, to a greater or lesser degree, for shitty behavior at times (or even nearly constantly): this standard has changed as the community has. I have never been in a dispute with YRC (that I can remember), nor have I ever c/overtly supported him, but, when I have passed through various sections of WP, his name sticks out as one doing (or at least, who did, or can do) excellent work in areas where many don't. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 12:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. "One more attempt to help him deal with his anger issues"? No, his anger isn't just one of the "issues" in Off2riorob/Youreallycan's persona; it is his persona. Some users have pointed out that he has been blocked 19 times; what they don't say is how many times he has avoided blocks because YRC's WP:FANCLUB says that he has just been having "a bad day" and that all his accusers are POV warriors who hate BLP.

   Here's one example,[55] where YRC was edit-warring on ANI, editing other users' comments and making comments like "fuck off", "fuck your mother", and "fuck you and your mother". Yet he was excused because this tired "anger issues" apologia. No thanks; no more. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by WaitingForConnection

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)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —WFC— 22:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
3. Nobody Ent 02:19, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Belchfire-TALK 08:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
6. VolunteerMarek 19:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
7. You win some, you lose some. --JN466 00:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Respectfully endorse. Perhaps a scrupulously followed 1RR with no exceptions would result in more discussion and remove reasons for blocks (we don't do civility blocks, anyway, do we?). JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   Alas, YRC already had a one-revert rule. It has been flouted, both in articles and other namespaces (here's an example where YRC editwars to modify somebody else's comment on a user talk page). Even if YRC were able to follow a rule like that, I'm concerned that it could worsen, rather than remedy, the main problem. bobrayner (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

9. There are plenty of editors who act the same way as YRC, but know how to skirt around rules and avoid blocks. There is plenty of antagonism going around. Instaurare (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Per Instaurare. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 12:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
6. Gamaliel (talk) 22:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
7. There may be contentious editors out there who have cleaner blocklogs because they pick their battles more carefully and always aim to retract just short of a block. But if so they aren't the role models that I'd care to see YRC follow. Better in my view to do what I managed to do very early on - be honest with yourself as to what gets you hot under the collar and then don't edit those topics. ϢereSpielChequers 23:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
8. T. Canens (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
9. He's had more chances than any other user in the entire history of Wikipedia. Viriditas (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Pass a Method talk 21:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Per Kudpung, YRC is a single-purpose BATTLEGROUND account. There is no history of redeeming, uncontroversial content contributions. Also, the YRC fanclub's technique of discrediting each user who has in dispute with him doesn't work when the "hundreds of users" that YRC admits to have alienated are coming out of the woodwork. His disruption is so has created such vast and deep scars here that an attack on YRC's detractors is an attack on the community itself. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Ryan Vesey

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)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. —Ryulong (琉竜) 02:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)

   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)

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.

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

   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)

   Omit much, Rob? See User talk:Mkativerata#Recall where you and Hipocrite were talking recall of his adminship. You said "I would so enjoy demeaning you as you did me, diff". He referred to you as "wikipedia's class clown" (which really would be Bugs, but meh;). Mkativerata was an excellent participant and you are a toxic participant who hounded him off the project. His immediately prior edit was to request removal of his sysop bit because of "the drama that I fear I'm about to be put through." By you. I criticised your approach two years ago, and you've only gotten worse, and show no sign of changing. Ducking and waiting for this to blow over isn't going to fly, and while this RfC is moot given your response to it, a community ban discussion will be the next step and should that fail, you should be speedily taken to RFAR and site banned. (Wiki needs to do this shite in less than years, btw. And see: User talk:Mkativerata#Sad to see you go; far fewer will miss you;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

7. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
9. Straight to the point. T. Canens (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
10. This is at the heart of the concerns that I raised in my opening statement. Prioryman (talk) 11:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
11. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Short, simple, and accurate. Silverseren^C 11:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
15. Good summary. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
17. Putting it another way, YRC either needs to learn, a lot, from this RfC/U, or find himself facing an ArbCom or community site ban. BLP is indeed very important, but being able to function within a collegial editing environment is very important too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
18. I agree. YRC/O2RR has offended and alienated so many editors, and continues to display this even in this RfC. I don't accept that his contributions to BLP are a sufficient counterweight to his aggressive boorishness and his well-documented prejudices. Indeed, were his contributions so essential that without them Wikipedia would descend into a cesspit of libel, defamation and other BLP sins, then the project would clearly be terminally damaged. No editor is indispensable, and one who causes so much offence and dissension, who has been blocked 19 times in three years, and whose behaviour has led to so much time spent in countless discussions, is eminently dispensable. RolandR (talk) 21:40, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Gamaliel (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Agree. The "I defend teh BLP/wiki" ruse followed by the "Everybody hates me" routine has got to come to an end. Sorry, my AGF meter has run dry at this point. Either edit like a mature adult, or don't edit at all. — Ched :  ?  23:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
22. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
23. Totally. Binksternet (talk) 04:36, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
24. I'm not the kind to civility police, but there's point at which weaknesses in civility become a battleground mentality. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
25. Every minute spent agonizing over this is a minute that is lost forever to encyclopedia building. Skinwalker (talk) 13:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
26. Pass a Method talk 14:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
27. Formerip (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
28. Arcandam (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
29. This view is more moderate than my own, but it may be the basis of a solution. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
30. The only regular appearances I've personally encountered of YRC or his previous incarnation have been on WP:ANI, where he's usually been combative, hostile, and -- more often than not -- wrong about the issue he's taking up cudgels about. So yeah, not mistaking WP for a battlefield of some war in his own mind is the minimum he needs to do. --Calton | Talk 05:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
31. Hobit (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
32. Ironholds (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. Way over the top.VolunteerMarek 19:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Sorry, too many Wikipedia buzzwords. I prefer to endorse people who speak normal English, and express what they mean like a person, instead of becoming some sort of chameleon spouting Wikipedianese. --JN466 00:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   Really? The statement was only 46 words long and used ordinary English. So help me out here: which "buzzwords" were you referring to? "Collaborative"? "Community"? "Encyclopedia"? --Calton | Talk 05:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

3. Vesey's view is a generic comment that doesn't add to the discussion. Instaurare (talk) 08:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Drmargi

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)

Not sure if this is appropriate, but give the comments below, I feel I must append my statement above: limitation of the above statement to NPOV to BLP articles noted and the editors' opinions respected. However, I feel that YRC's near-fanatical approach to BLP, coupled with his open hostility to a cadre of specific users as well as administrators in general render his objectivity as comprehensively lost. --Drmargi (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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.
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)
3. Mostly endorse, but with same caveat as Rivertorch. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
5. Yes, that's right. It's as though YRC believes that, so long as he is "right" about BLP, anyone who disagrees with him is absolutely and irredeemably wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Gamaliel (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Sort of. But if he truly cared about living people, as he claims to "defend the BLP" - would he actually treat other living people a.k.a. "our editors" the way he does? A bit of a paradox in that I think. — Ched :  ?  23:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

   That's the irony. He seems more concerned with notable others than to the people with whom he interacts here on a regular basis. --Drmargi (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

8. Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Yes, YRc cares a lot for living people, as long as they don't edit wikipedia.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Agreed. A large part of the problem is that he seems to believe that, to coin a phrase, "extremism in the defense of BLP is no vice". Prioryman (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
11. T. Canens (talk) 09:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Bingo. The incivility and battleground mentality is only a symptom of the root problem, which is abuse of BLP policy. It needs to be clarified or reworded, like WP:V recently was, to prevent future abuses like YRC's. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who don't endorse this summary:

Outside view by Roscelese

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: [56] [57] [58] (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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
5. The edits to the Santorum article where designed to shock and were completely inappropriate. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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 [59], 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)
8. I should note [60] - my comments at [61] 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 [62]) 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)
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)
10. Shameful and unacceptable pattern of behaviour. Nsk92 (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
14. My first friction with YRC/O2rr was back in September 2010 at the Charlie Crist article where I soon came to the conclusion he was homophobic, and that this stance was toxic to collegial editing. Later he said "the gay claim - every time I see it it makes me squirm and its all I can do do stop myself removing it every time. I will remove it completely as soon as I can get away with it. Wiki is not a gay activist of gay outing website for rumors that accuse people they don't like of being gay, with reports and films written by gay activists." This was an over-the-top reaction to my wish to use perfectly reliable sources such as a film and several newspaper articles by a veteran investigative reporter. Binksternet (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Yup. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
16. I have noticed this too. Pass a Method talk 14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
17. Arcandam (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Addendum: YRC's "enablers", as Skinwalker puts it, have made routine appearances on the dramahboards wherever prominent gay Wikipedians exist to be persecuted; just ask Fae. The inaction of the powers-that-be on the YRC problem is further evidence of institutional homophobia on Wikipedia. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
19. The view expressed here might be a bit too strong. I'm not willing to conclude that YouReallyCan is homophobic: it's not a word I tend to use without a lot more justification, primarily because, not being a psychiatrist, I don't like to get into big arguments about what is going on inside people's minds. And I'm very much aware that some LGBT editors do engage in outing and other dodgy behaviour. But the kind of attitude that the diffs linked to above point to does seem very problematic in terms of creating an editing environment that is welcoming for LGBT editors. I think Mark Arsten has pretty much got it right in his comment above. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

   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)

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)

   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)

   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)

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)

   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)

   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)

   Note that saying "my opponents hate me because they're anti-gay" is strictly verboten, but saying "my opponents hate me because they're pro-gay" is merely pointing out a biased agenda. I'm not sure, but from the Fae discussion I think a lot of admins and even ArbCom agrees with this. Unfortunately, Wikipedia de facto policy itself is anti-gay, making it difficult to say what YRC is. Wnt (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

   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)

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

   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)

   Loser - Youreallycan 18:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

   • I excuse nothing, Roscelese. I oppose your abusive excesses in furtherance of your aims, that's all. Belchfire-TALK 18:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

   • I suggest that you open a new Rfc then, instead of trying to shoehorn your complaints about her into this one. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

5. Way way way over the top, bordering on a nasty personal attack.VolunteerMarek 19:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Nah, he's not a homophobe. There's never been agreement in practice about when to tag a gay or lesbian person by adding an LGBT category. Some editors are very zealous about adding these categories, because they feel it validates LGBT-ness to have as many notable people in the category as possible, and others (including YRC) feel it is a private matter for the individual concerned until it becomes a part of their notability. And by policy, YRC is right, for WP:BLPCAT policy states, "Categories regarding religious beliefs or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Nevertheless it has been my impression that he is deeply hated by those who see things differently. Frankly, upholding BLP policy in this project automatically means you are going to be beleaguered. Not many have the stomach to do it, day in, day out. I don't, and gave up on doing it long ago. But I still respect a man who does. --JN466 00:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   The situations in question are not ones where BLPCAT prohibited using the category - on the contrary, they were ones in which the subject had very publicly self-identified and in which the subject's sexual orientation was highly relevant to his notability. This wasn't enough for YRC, who wanted proof that he was having gay sex. Like I said: BLP has until now provided a convenient cover for users who want to censor non-heterosexuality on WP, but the day where that will work is, hopefully, passing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   Good grief. Cla68 (talk) 04:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   Care to provide a diff? This sounds pretty outlandish to me. Fasttimes68 (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   I asked Roscelese to back this rather strong claim up with evidence. I expect he will either do so, or retract the accusation and apologize. Cla68 (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   As I have explained above and elsewhere, there have been times where BLP policy and YRC's desire to get rid of LGBT material and editors have coincided, but his vandalism of BLP articles to spite LGBT people and tabloidy speculations about BLP subjects' sex lives clearly demonstrate to the observer that when the two come into conflict, homophobia trumps policy, and people support him for it anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   I remember that case well. It was an actor who had played a role in an LGBT-themed film when he was young, and had unequivocally stated he was gay. Several years later, when he started developing mainstream potential, he and/or his publicist distanced him from these comments, saying he regretted making statements about private matters, and announcing that he had a girlfriend. YRC and I took the view that people's sexuality is their own to define, that there was no current public LGBT self-identification, as required by BLPCAT, and that the man should therefore not be tagged as LGBT any more. Roscelese disagreed. Now, who the hell is an anonymously written encyclopedia to tell a man, or disagree with him about, what kind of sexuality he has got. Lots of people have had a homosexual encounter and identify as straight, not bi, and vice versa. Leave people the fuck in peace to tell (or not tell) the world what they consider themselves to be sexually. It's none of your business. JN466 13:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   Trying to source a BLP subject's sexual orientation through tabloid rumors is never acceptable. YRC's edits indicate that he thinks it's acceptable when it suggests the subject is heterosexual, even when he has publicly identified as gay. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   And on the opposite side of the coin there appears to be times where some editors want to aggrandize LGBT visibilty by BLP tagging, correct? Don't get me wrong, YRC has plnety of civility problems that need to be addresed -- possibly in a site ban. But accusing YRC of blatant homophibia in this RfC/u (purportedly to eliminate the opposition) and then refusing to provide evidence is some shameful shit. Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   What about the evidence above do you believe to be insufficient? He vandalized a BLP and specifically stated that he did so because he thought it would make LGBT people angry, requested evidence of the sex life of a BLP subject (I'd love to see the laughing-down an editor would get if he insisted that we couldn't say that two heterosexuals were still romantically involved if we couldn't prove they were having sex right this minute - this shows a prurience about gay sex unsuitable for BLP and for Wikipedia), and makes a habit of verbally abusing LGBT people. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   Let's focus on this one item for the moment. You said The situations in question are not ones where BLPCAT prohibited using the category - on the contrary, they were ones in which the subject had very publicly self-identified and in which the subject's sexual orientation was highly relevant to his notability. This wasn't enough for YRC, who wanted proof that he was having gay sex.. And I asked for, and am still asking for a diff because to me this seems like an outrageous statement and I would like to examine what was actually said, and in the context in which it was said. Asking for a diff is a very reasonable request. Refusing to provide one raises questions about your motives.Fasttimes68 (talk) 15:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   Did you miss the quotes in my summary in which YRC/O2RR asks for proof that the guy is having gay sex because self-identification is insufficient? ("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") Or do you just not believe they are sufficient? Some clarification would be helpful. If you really require a diff rather than an archive of the conversation, I can try to dig one up, but I really don't think someone snuck in and edited YRC's comments after the fact to make him look bad. (I remember - I was there.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   Just above you said ...they were ones in which the subject had very publicly self-identified and in which the subject's sexual orientation was highly relevant to his notability. This wasn't enough for YRC, who wanted proof that he was having gay sex., and now I have just reviewed the linked summary (thank you for pointing it out to me). And Rob said ...that seven or eight years ago [the subject] said he was homosexual and since then there has been no reports at all of any homosexual activity - such as dates, relationship and no comments from him at all either - now hes reported to be dating a woman. How anyone could conflate what Rob said with your interpretation that YRC wanted proof that the subject was having gay sex is not displaying intellectual honesty. Fasttimes68 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

7. The evidence above (especially the Santorum stuff) doesn't indicate he's homophobic. Plus, as others have suggested, there are plenty of other editors with pro-whatever opinions. Let's focus on actual problems instead of assigning labels. Hot Stop 11:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   Could you explain why vandalizing an article for the explicit purpose of aggravating LGBT people is not homophobic? Would you say the same if he had inserted a vulgar slur against Jewish people into an unrelated article because there are so many pro-Israel editors around? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   Yes, adding well-sourced information to the Rick Santorum is vandalism, particularly homophobic vandalism. Are you not at all familiar with Dan Savage, the man who wrote what you described as homophobic vandalism? Hot Stop 23:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   Savage's coined definition of "santorum" does not include vulgar language, so even if Dan Savage, a public figure with no known Wikipedia editing presence, were somehow responsible for YRC's behavior instead of everyone being responsible for their own behavior, that would not explain YRC's insertion of vulgar language into a BLP. It would also not explain or excuse YRC's stated intent to disrupt the article in order to annoy LGBT people, because when someone seizes on the actions of a few as an excuse to abuse an entire group, this is generally admitted to be bias or hatred. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

   The evidence above (especially the Santorum stuff) doesn't indicate he's homophobic. Something seems to me not quite right about the phrasing of this. If none of the evidence indicates that he's homophobic, why would you say that a sub-set of it "especially" doesn't indicate that? Formerip (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

8. While using the word "shit" in an article is definitely inappropriate in that context, I would hardly characterize it as vandalism. Replace "shit" with "fecal matter" and any claim of vandalism becomes invalid. Calling it homophobic is just bizarre. Looking at the incident with the article on Charlie Crist, it is pretty clear YRC's description of the situation is accurate and not homophobic. Many gay rights activists try to paint their opponents as closeted gays to suggest they are hypocrites and it appears that is specifically what was at issue with the Crist article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   To be fair to you, TDA, you probably do not remember that Charlie Crist was asked if he was gay by 72-year-old veteran Florida journalist Lee Drury De Cesare; she was celebrating her 50th year of heterosexual marriage to her husband Tom. She said to Crist at a meeting of the Tiger Bay Club in Tampa in January 2005, "I have heard that you were gay, sir, and I wanted to know if that was true." The whole room was shocked into silence. Crist answered that he was not gay. She subsequently told a reporter she posed the question to bring the topic into public discourse. After this, Crist was asked privately whether he was gay by Bob Norman, a married heterosexual investigative reporter who in October and November 2006 published two news stories with many details about allegations that Crist was gay, including affirmation from Max Linn, a longtime friend and, briefly, a longshot political opponent in the Florida gubernatorial election, 2006. Crist replied directly to Norman that he was not gay. Then there was the 2009 documentary Outrage reporting allegations that Crist was gay, the film made by Kirby Dick, a heterosexual man married to Rita Valencia. Crist has never responded to the film as far as I know.
   So your "many gay rights activists" are not in evidence here; rather, there are heterosexual people who are concerned primarily about Crist hiding the truth and about Crist being hypocritical by backing legislation against gays.
   In the dealings I had with Off2riorob regarding this topic and how to present it in the article, he was repeatedly irrational about it. Other editors such as Protonk and Jclemens were reasonable about considering what sources were best and what wording to use. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   I presume you are aware that gay rights activists can, in fact, be straight.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

   You presume correctly. Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

9. Per Belchfire, a legitimate point about civility is drowned out by Roscelese's hypervigilance against those she thinks have personally insulted her. Instaurare (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   Oh, so evidence of NPA violations against LGBT editors (and near or actual BLP violations against LGBT subjects) is inadmissible if the person submitting the evidence is LGBT, good to know. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   WTF? That response makes no sense.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

   YRC/O2RR made most of the comments linked above in the Evans discussion before I joined the discussion, several are insulting to the LGBT subject of the BLP rather than to editors, and I hadn't been editing the article (additionally, YRC/O2RR's comments about anal sex certainly do not affect me), so the claim that I'm just out for revenge against a user who personally insulted me is weak. Unless, like Instaurare (NYyankees51), you seem to think that an LGBT user can only be motivated by personal hysteria and revenge instead of by WP policy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

   I can say that I rightly don't care about your sexual proclivities, except when you start using them as a crutch in an argument. Nothing in the comment by Instaurare suggested that your evidence was being dismissed because of your sexual orientation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

   Indeed, the sexual orientation of users is not relevant. For this reason, I hope you'll agree that Instaurare's comment was simply random and baseless rather than deliberately suggesting that a user's linked evidence is more or less reliable because of their sexual orientation - as I said, there is nothing that would lead one to think YRC's comments affected me personally - and for the same reason, I'm also surprised that you tolerate YRC's constant attempts to discuss the sexual orientation of users he disagrees with. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

   Roscelese, please avoid logical fallacies when debating an issue with other editors. Cla68 (talk) 07:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

10. The cited examples are not homophobic. This repeated accusation distracts from what may otherwise have been a valid criticism regarding civility. – NULL ‹talk›
    ‹edits› 02:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Roscelese previously tried to tag YRC as homophobic but failed: see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#Topic_ban_proposal_for_User:Youreallycan_.28ex_Off2riorob.29 (closed as "Oppose was largely the consensus.") Nobody Ent 19:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    As you'll notice if you read the content at the link, I was not the original proponent of the topic ban, was far from the only person supporting it, and - perhaps most telling - several of the editors who opposed a topic ban then are endorsing critical summaries and supporting restrictions on YRC now. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    You do realize that responding to every single oppose vote as you are doing can be seen as disruptive do you not?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Given that these are responses to my statements, I don't think it's disruptive to respond to misrepresentations of my position and my previous involvement. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

12. Per Tarc (with some comment I can't quite put in to words, that, "it's not about homophobia per se, YRC is equal opportunity"). St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 12:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Swatjester

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)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

   Of course, and I don't mean to suggest that, if anyone else read that into my statement. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

5. VolunteerMarek 19:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
6. I, too, can remember times when YRC has been very helpful to me. I agree that a full request for comment should include an acknowledgment of his good work. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Cla68 (talk) 23:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
8. There have been a great many of those cases, where the right thing was done, swiftly, and things never came to a head. And if you canvassed BLP subjects who had dealings with YRC, I bet you would hear much the same. --JN466 00:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Instaurare (talk) 08:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Per most of the above and contra Shrigley, I think this is an exceedingly accurate clock that happens to shout insults (maybe like Bender from Futurama?) when others point out the times where the accuracy is not at nominal. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 12:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who don't endorse this summary:

1. Vote Saxon! Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
2. No one (I don't think, and if they are, they are wrong) is arguing that YRC has not made significant positive contributions to Wikipedia. But behavior problems can not be considered as a separate or side issue, they are a significant part of an editors overall contribution and general fitness. Gamaliel (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
3. So what? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Jayen466

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. even though some editors may have strongly disagreed with the action taken.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. JN466 10:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)

   Reworded. --JN466 00:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

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)
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)
6. Yup.VolunteerMarek 19:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
7. I only endorse this part way. It's true that YRC has done a tremendous amount of good at BLPN. But as others here have noted, not everyone who disagrees with YRC does so because they have an ax to grind. And doing good work must never become a free pass for bad conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Collect (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Cla68 (talk) 23:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
10. →StaniStani  23:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
11. True story. Instaurare (talk) 08:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Endorse per nom. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 12:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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)
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 issues with Jews [63] 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
10. Nonsense. The picture this paints of YRC the noble marshal riding into the lawless Wild West town is an intriguing one but bears little relation to reality. Much of the work YRC has done regarding BLP concerns has been helpful, but much of it has been deeply problematic and not in the best interests of building a comprehensive, neutral encyclopedia. No users are indispensable; even those offering a unique aptitude or perspective are expendable in the end if they're disruptive enough. Moreover, it is absolutely unacceptable to present someone's good work as some sort of excuse for their bad behavior; there is no excuse for a sustained pattern of bad behavior. I'm not one to fling around words like "cabal", but I have to say that in some ways I find the small group of editors who leap to YRC's defense more troubling than YRC himself. By seeking to excuse his behavior, they have enabled its continuing for as long as it has, and that is doing no favors to the project or to YRC. Rivertorch (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Past glory of saving teh blp is not enough to be able to edit here. You also need to realize that all the "haters" you created while defending blps are in fact your colleagues.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Agreeing with WereSpielChequers' comment. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 22:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
13. YRC has made great contributions to the BLP noticeboard, but he's also caused plenty of dustups there. The noticeboard, and Wikipedia, will survive regardless. We're still managing to make it without RickK, and there were days when we thought we'd never be able to do it without him. Gamaliel (talk) 22:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
14. Good edits do not excuse or condone bad behavior that shows no sign of correcting itself. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
15. T. Canens (talk) 03:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
16. Pass a Method talk 14:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
17. The beatification of YRC in this Outside View hits the nail right on the thumb. He's certainly a prolific editor in the BLP arena, but he has a shaky grasp of policy, an alarming lack of self-awareness, a somewhat unsavoury set of biases and a talent for turning any polite discussion into a fight. The premise that we ought to apply a sort of utilitarian calculus so that editors who sometimes make useful contributions may be permitted to behave as atrociously as they like the rest of the time represents what is already one of Wikipedia's greatest vices, and it's actually the reason why YRC's behaviour has gone from bad to worse. Formerip (talk) 18:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
18. Relatively few people who endorsed this summary have spent enough time on the noticeboard to make an informed judgment either way. This battleground mentality in YRC's supporters which accuses every user who has a complaint about him of being ideologues is seriously problematic. Also, this hagiography is a pure diversionary tactic which doesn't address the issues of concern. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Meth is a hell of a drug Arcandam (talk) 22:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Per Viriditas. Binksternet (talk) 19:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Jayen466 (2)

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. [64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] 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)
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)
3. I'm actually not a big fan of the WP:CANVASS policy, but if there is a poster-boy for why it's bad and how it can be abused, this is it.VolunteerMarek 19:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
4. As I noted above - and where those who unblocked are not also notified, the violation of WP:CANVASS becomes clearer. Anyone closing this should be cognizant of the ArbCom statements found at WP:False consensus for sure. Collect (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Cla68 (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
6. Prioryman acting in bad faith? Shocker. Tarc (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Similar statement to Collect above, endorse both. – NULL ‹talk›
   ‹edits› 01:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
8. I struggle to see how this is anything but an attempt to GAME WP:CANVASS. However, since the view by Dominus directly criticizes the various admins who have unblocked YRC in the past, I am notifying them.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

   Noting in agreement that people who had "disputes" with YRC were notified - whilst those who agreed with YRC on various BLPs were not notified - this is not just a case of eliding notifications to some admins, but of eliding notifications to the others who did not disagree with YRC. This is a clear problem when folks CANVASS and assert that the notice was neutrally worded, when the selection of people to be notified ab initio was not neutral. Collect (talk) 00:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

9. Instaurare (talk) 08:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
10. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_{τω ^Θεώ} 12:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

   Noting further that JN466 and Collect have both repeatedly opposed action against YRC in AN/I discussions, and are clearly seeking to distract attention from the substance of this RfC/U by raising false claims about my actions. Running interference in this way is not helpful. Prioryman (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

   What would have been helpful is if you had notified all admins in YRC's block logs, including the ones who unblocked. Or if you had mentioned that the "legal threat" block e.g. which you cite above was undone by a bureaucrat, Avraham, after just 15 minutes, with the comment "Diffs show no legal threat at all." I can see no good reason for acting the way you did. JN466 23:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
5. Seems like a fruitless complaint. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
7. Tell me - how long was it from the moment this was started until it was posted on Wikipediocracy? And how many people signing above are members there? What WP:CANVASS needs is a MfD, because it isn't accomplishing anything. Wnt (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   • I think you're rather ignorant of the function of Wikipediocracy and the hows & whys of what generally goes on there. Posting about the RfC there isn't a solicitation to come weigh in here (esp as half the userbase there is banned), it is just initiating a sort of meta-discussion of what's going on. Personally, I first saw mention of this when the filer spammed it to the AN board. Tarc (talk) 00:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

8. Note that I would have seen it regardless. T. Canens (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Canvassing rules do not override your obligation to tell people that you have named them in an evidence statement. If Jayen466 wants to accuse someone of canvassing he needs first to ignore those notices that were to people who were entitled to be so informed. There is a separate issue if this has been canvassed to one or more off wiki sites, that would be troubling as such sites have been used for planning disruption here, sometimes involving banned users in the discussion. But I'm not seeing any diffs to indicate who was the guilty party in such canvassing, nor would I see that Prioryman had a motive to do that. ϢereSpielChequers 17:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
10. If there was canvassing going on then the an/i would have disclosed it. It didn't. Pass a Method talk 14:05, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
11. No amount of Wikilawyering will save YRC at this point. Even if you struck the views of the certifiers, and of all the people who were notified about this RfC/U on their talk pages, you would have an overwhelming case against him. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Master&Expert

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)
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)
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)
4. If nothing else, if YRC's comment just above is as far as he is willing to bend, then that, in itself, is evidence that RfC/U really doesn't work. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
5. I hate these witch hunts. Instaurare (talk) 08:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

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)

   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)

   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)

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)
3. It's a dramafest that Youreallycan has brought upon himself in the almost certain knowledge that his kind of collaboration would land him here sooner or later. It's an unfortunate but necessary step towards helping him understand and offering him some alternatives, and if all that doesn't help, seeking formal sanctions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
4. There might be other reasons why a thorough examination of YRC focuses on the negative: most of YRC's contributions have consisted of picking fights with people. Nonetheless, some people who share YRC's ideology have posted defenses of him which try (and I acknowledge the difficulty) to find examples of positive contributions by YRC. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Fasttimes68

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 have honest concern for his overall well-being. There is life outside of Wikipedia. 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)

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)
2. Moral support. A very kind and generous view. I also would not want to speculate on any r/l circumstances, but I do think perhaps if we were to try to dip one more time into the AGF well .. that an epiphany and understanding of How to Accept Criticism with Grace and Appreciation would absolutely be required. — Ched :  ?  23:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Support, with much-enhanced respect and appreciation for the author. Belchfire-TALK 19:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Support, actually what we will gain?. Why we are going to make a mountain of a molehill? We must know that it takes two to make a quarrel. Are we willing to have a cup of love and wisdom. Cheers. Justice007 (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this view

1. Patronising piffle. --JN466 00:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
2. The "real life" activities of other users are of no interest to me, and with good reason. A person's "internet personality" can be hugely different to how they act offline, for a number of reasons, and so any speculation on anything relating to an editor's RL affairs are not useful and have no place here. OohBunnies! (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
3. I accept that no malice was intended, but I simply cannot look past the speculation about someone's health, regardless of how relevant it might be. If it wasn't for the fact that I am relatively supportive of YRC (in favour of something other than a permanent ban), I would have removed it. I would ask you to consider doing so.—WFC— 19:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
4. I would dispute your statement that "YRC is an excellent contributor, and often a BLP champion". You should read the comments on previous views to see how other people also dispute YRC's overall "excellence". Also, Wikipedia is WP:NOT your therapist. If a 20th block would cause "trauma" for YRC, then he should not be editing tendentiously. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
5. In the middle on this - I think a cooling down period of a month or so would do some good, but it would also seem punitive, not rehabilitative, as I imagine dozens of users would love to have YRC disappear for any period of time. Uninvolved parties should decide this one. Instaurare (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Carrite

User:Off2RioRob/YouReallyCan harbors extreme views on the matter of BLP that are often outside consensus and edits aggressively to enforce his perspective, for which he has been blocked repeatedly. User:ChrisO/Prioryman seems to have started this criticism/selfcriticism circus as part of a political vendetta against the subject of the action, having been righteously called out on a matter of conflict of interest. This entire procedure is nauseating and we should all shut the fuck up and get back to work.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Me. Carrite (talk) 01:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Yes, yes, and yes. ThemFromSpace 01:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Like Maunus, I endorse the two premises. Unlike Maunus, I also partially endorse the conclusion: this process is nauseatingly irritating. I don't endorse the part about us all shutting the fuck up and getting out of here, but this is the last thing that I personally am going to post on this subject (you know, barring something drastically changing) until/unless it goes to arbitration. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary:

1. I endorse the two premises, but not the conclusion which does not follow. Wikipedia currently has no better procedure for addressing persistent behavior problems. Not addressing them in this case is not an option. If someone have problems with prioryman they should start a separate RFCU - even if it turns out has acted in completely bad faith and on baseless grounds, that does not invalidate concerns from others regarding YRC.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
2. The claims of a seemingly political vendetta against the subject of the action are inapropriate; the RFC has been legitimately called and endorsed. It has been commented by uninvolved parties and if it is nauseating, it's because some users can't control their comments or perhaps do not comment appropriately, objectively and in good faith. As previously stated, YRC has brought this upon himself in the full knowledge that sooner or later his editing pattern would lead to escalation. The RFC will calm down after while and should run for its normal 30 days. when it will be reviewed for consensus and closed by a non involved editor. As in all discussions, weight will be accorded to the relevance of the comments.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   With all due respect, I think you are not paying close enough attention to the question of who started this action and why. No one doubts that there are a laundry list of transgressions by the subject of the action. But why now? And to what end? Carrite (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   Starting a comment with WADR is a false apology for a completely unjustified criticism of a participant here and is disigenuous. It's comments like that which make these RFC/Us a dramafest - or as one user put it: nauseating. It's irrelevant who started the RfC, it will now run its course and be closed on the weight of the comments of all participants - including mine and yours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

   Why now? Because YRC's conduct shows no sign of improving, and his repudiation of his mentorship - which I told him at the time was his last chance saloon - shows that he's not willing to improve. To what end? To achieve the #Desired outcome stated above, though as I also said above, I doubt the likelihood of that happening. Prioryman (talk) 08:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

3. It's a legitimate RFC attempting to address a legitimate problem, after the less drastic options at our disposal have failed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
4. The whole reason we're here is that one can only stick one's fingers in one's ears for so long before the noise gets through anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 08:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
5. The underlying issue here is that part of the editing community has NEVER accepted BLP policy, and you'll often find it castigated and denigrated - diffs of editors in this RFC having done so currently being complied. YRC has, along with a small number of others, stood up for the policy and stacked up resentment against himself, again by many of the editors commenting here. The BLP issues are relentless, the same issues are brought up time after time, and the same editors are involved week after week, month after month. Example Ed Miliband where how to describe his Jewish ancestry has gone on for 2 years. Every month or so the same editors are back with a variation on what got rejected before, the whole cycle repeats, and the arguing spreads across various venues and talk pages. My personal opinion is that YRC has developed an allergy to BOTOX and we really need to call in pest control. However, I don't hold out much hope as a chance to draw some bright lines was fluffed last year. I do approve of righteously though. John lilburne (talk) 09:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
6. There's aggressive editing and then there's tendentious editing with behavioral problems and an inability to work with others. The latter is what we are here about. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Yes, obviously we should ignore a long-standing problem. Gamaliel (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Two wrongs do not make a right, and I'm not really convinced that we have two wrongs to begin with, or at least it's not "in evidence". This RfC/U is about one user, not two, so save it for ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
9. Carrite's claim of a "political vendetta" is obvious nonsense, given that I have previously argued against YRC/O2RR being banned, have offered him advice and support, have complimented his work on BLPs and have had friendly discussions with him on and off-wiki about how he can improve his editing. I note that Carrite offers no evidence whatsoever for his claim of a "vendetta". It's a gratuitous smear. Prioryman (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

   Wow, I had no idea that posting on a message board made me an active "member" of a membership organization. That's great. I guess that also makes me a "member" of the Portland Oregonian... Nice little ad hominem dish there, good to see that you've learned from the best. Carrite (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

10. Per maunus and Binksternet Pass a Method talk 18:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
11. That some users are treating this as some sort of blood sport is not in question, although in fairness some of the worst offenders have retracted some of their stronger comments, for which I commend them. But regardless of whether this RFC/U was started for the right reasons, YRC's behavior does need to be addressed. —WFC— 19:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Open an RFC against Prioryman if you think he's behaving that badly, but there are legitimate issues with YRC that justify this RFC. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
13. Ignoring the issues won't make them go away. — Ched :  ?  20:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
14. T. Canens (talk) 23:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
16. A principle passed in the Fae decision: "Editors are expected to comment on the substance of other's edits, and not attempt to use editors' affiliations in an ad hominem method to attempt to discredit their views. Attempts to do so may be considered a Personal Attack." If YRC follows your example, and continues to oppose "haters", then in theory he should be subject to a finding like [72]. I should say that actually I rather agreed with your sentiment, in the Fae case - but here I don't think Prioryman was the one who "started it", and YRC isn't getting Examiner articles and parliamentary written evidence being submitted about him from a coordinated off-site campaign. Wnt (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
17. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC) (and I'm not convinced that everyone who has received funding or donated to WMUK, etc automatically has a COI).
18. This RfC/U has become larger than Prioryman. Stop trying to poison the well. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Let's focus on Youreallycan and not shoot the messenger. This RfC has been in the works for years. It is unimportant who filed it. Viriditas (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
20. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Ryan Vesey (2)

Youreallycan's suggestion on the talk page here was made in good faith and shows a genuine effort to improve. Ryan Vesey 19:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Collect (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Yes! I'm really happy to see YRC make this suggestion, and I think his proposal is quite good - a 2-month block, followed by a 0RR for "a few months" (maybe 3? 6?), will give him time to decompress, hopefully de-stress, and get back a little of the perspective that WP has a way of sucking out of people. I would add a caution that, if this proposal is implemented, incivility of the type we've seen on previous bad days from YRC cannot be tolerated upon his return. While civility paroles tend to be far more hurt than help when codified, he needs to remember that this is pretty much the last chance that he's being given to show us he can work within the community. That means not only not revert-warring, but also not attacking other editors. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC) Moral support for his good-faith offer, but the discussion on the talk page has convinced me that this offer wasn't so much "I want to improve, how about this" as "Either you take me up on this particular offer or you get nothing." While the offering of sanctions he can live with is a good sign, the "my way or the highway" later remarks make me think this is a case of him not being able (or willing?) to focus his improvements on where the community says the problems are. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
3. My comments are on the talk page, and I've always believed YRC's core motives are honorable. But I think we need a better solution than 0RR - we need to find a way to prevent the anger that leads to the confrontational frame of mind in the first place rather than treating the symptoms once it is underway. But I don't hesitate to endorse YRC's good faith here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
4. I don't doubt you're right, but I remain to be convinced about whether he is capable of improving. We've been here before, such as with the failed mentorship. Let's see how the ongoing discussion turns out. Prioryman (talk) 12:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
5. If he feels he should take a break, by all means. Though I don't think debilitating restrictions after he returns are necessary, per Binksternet below; they would just give ammunition and reignite the editor conflicts the wikibreak was intended to cool down. Instaurare (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary:

1. I'm going to put myself here, just temporarily, and I would rather that we not be rushing to vote on this, as it really requires careful discussion instead of taking sides. I still have questions. They're on the talk page. I might be persuaded to move to "Endorse", but I'm not there now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

   Since making my comment above, I've come to see the efforts on the talk page of this RfC/U as going nowhere, so I am now firmly planted in the "do not endorse" category. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

2. I don't think 0RR is good for anybody. There should be a more careful solution determined. Binksternet (talk) 18:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
3. There's never been a genuine effort to improve and he's been edit warring throughout this RfC. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by 67.122.211.84

This looks like a near-m:wikiwacko meltdown somewhat reminiscent of Rodhullandemu. O2RR/YRC has made around 90k edits in 3.5 years, with almost no breaks. As far as I know, they are all real edits (i.e. he doesn't run bots). His first edit as O2RR was in December 2008, on JN466's talk page. He made a few hundred edits, then was mostly inactive for a couple months, then got started again in March 2009. Since then (unless I miscounted), he's had only two pauses of a week or longer: May 2009 (1 week) and December 2010 (10 days). In the entire year of 2011 until he was blocked and announced his retirement, there were only 6 days (4-28, 4-29, 5-25, 5-28, 5-29, 10-25, UTC time zone) in which O2RR did not edit. O2RR announced retirement on November 24 after getting a 48h block[73] and started editing as YRC on Nov 26.[74] There have been 22 days in 2012 so far in which YRC didn't edit, but the last two were during the RFC, and on some of the others he may have been blocked. Meanwhile, as everyone knows, he works primarily in high-stress BLP areas.

I think this is a completely unhealthy volume of editing without breaks and a sure recipe for burnout. I suspect that YRC doesn't understand the benefits of quitting Wikipedia (m:wikibreak) for a while, since from the above data, it looks like he's never done it. In my own experience it has a wound-healing effect that results in a much improved editing perspective, but it can be quite a slow process. I highly recommend that YRC go on a leave of absence for at least 3 months. If at the end of the 3 months he's eager to start editing again, it's probably too soon: the idea is to stay away until you lose the urgent impulse to edit, and can instead do so serenely instead of by urge.

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Speaking from experience, breaks work. Instaurare (talk) 08:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary:

1. Purely because of the three month suggestion. Why not one month? Why not six months? This is otherwise good advice, and I can be presumed to support if the post is amended to remove a specific suggestion over a time period. —WFC— 19:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
2. Recommend one year, although YRC's comments indicate he isn't going anywhere. Viriditas (talk) 22:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Established editors, as this IP user clearly is, should not be allowed to participate in dispute resolution processes when they hide their identity in this fashion. Tarc (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Taking a week or two off would be helpful. But the answer here is to topic ban him off Ed Milliband at once and to expand that rapidly if the ownership and battleground editing don't stop. Carrite (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by Anthonyhcole

A site ban is unnecessary. He's not a racist or a homophobe. The problem is ABF, incivility and edit-warring over BLP content. What's needed here is a commitment from YRC to a lengthy one-revert restriction on BLP content, broadly construed, and a tight rein on incivility, followed by a lengthy block for any unambiguous breach of that commitment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

1. Yeah, I'm going to endorse this one (and do my best at not "do not endorse"-ing other bits of this RFC). I see no compelling evidence that YRC is homophobic, nor antisemitic (the best homologue I can find for "race" in this context, since "hate" for whatever group is clearly conraindicated here). As far as AGF or ABF, I think the software should be configured to automatically close threads where those TLAs occur - c'mon people, from my own POV I always act in good faith. We should be looking at actions and outcomes here, and of course the pattern of actions and outcomes is what is at question here. So continuing the analysis, yes, civility-wise YRC can be quite easily demonstrated as really quite far over the trenches and through the barbed-wire; but edit-warring? What are the BLP merits, what is the potential for tag-teaming, how well does our system of open outcry promote just outcomes? A rather different question than counting reverts in any arbitrary time period. The underlying problem is insufficient use of dispute resolution processes. The proposed remedy above, I support completely. Franamax (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who do not endorse this summary:

1. I really appreciate the good intentions of this view, but it strikes me as being at odds with reality. Although I actually agree with what the view says about what is needed from YRC, I don't see YRC as being able to deliver on it, so an attempt by the community to make it work will end up wasting everyone's time and energy. I also agree that he's not a racist or a homophobe, but that's not the measure of what a site ban requires. For all the good YRC has done for Wikipedia, and I readily acknowledge that good, his level of disruptive conduct can no longer be outweighed by the good editing he has done. We are pretty much at the point where a site ban is going to be necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who are in between:

1. I partially endorse this and partially oppose it. I agree entirely that the problem is ABF, incivility and edit-warring over BLP content. I agree that he needs to be under a 1RR and a tight rein on incivility. I disagree that we need a commitment from YRC because, frankly, he doesn't keep his commitments - it needs to be a binding restriction. I also can't endorse the view that a site ban is unnecessary. I've not called for one but I'm undecided about its necessity. If this can be resolved without a site ban that would be fine, but he shows no signs of changing his spots. Even though this RfC/U was raised because of his persistent incivility and edit-warring, he's continued to do both during the RfC/U. This is not a sign of someone who is either sincere or willing to take a different approach, so I think the option of a site ban - either immediate or suspended - needs to be considered seriously. Nothing else has got through to him. Prioryman (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

   I mentioned the commitment from YRC because that's how RfCs work. If he agrees to this formula here (or the one you've just proposed on the talk page) there'll be enough eyes on him to instigate a substantial block if he breaks the commitment. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

   I take your point about how RfCs work, but regardless of whether he agrees or not, the restrictions have to be binding not voluntary. In other words if he says no then they need to be imposed on him anyway. Prioryman (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

   Yes. If he doesn't agree to an arrangement that has the support of the majority here, this should go to arbitration. If he agrees to an arrangement here, the wording must make clear the consequences of a breach of that agreement. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside view by ExampleUsername

Users who endorse this summary:

Users who do not endorse this summary:

YRC Proposal

Note: An early draft of this was discussed here. YRC copied it here after it was tweaked a bit. I've taken the liberty of removing side discussions regarding earlier drafts et. al.; they remain on the talk page. Nobody Ent 17:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I think a civility restriction in my case would be easy to police - I accept it and a rude post is a rude post - not difficult to see - this is not a punishment is it, so as I think to allay community concerns about my contribution history and restrictions to assist myself at a difficult time - there are six or seven support comments on the talkpage but I think this is the place for it now . - Adding one as per ent - and one per Prioryman - Please note - This has taken a fair bit of discussion and resolution as well , its not perfect for all - but please don't reject it because its not your perfect position - it may well still be the best outcome. I will offer now to accept -

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

Youreallycan 07:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Just for the avoidance of uncertainty, I intend "talkspace" in the diff cited by YRC to mean generally "the spaces where we talk", rather than specifically pages that begin "talk:". Formerip (talk) 17:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • note - understood and accepted as per small discussion on User_talk:FormerIP#clarification - Youreallycan 18:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Support/Don't support comments

• Support Nobody Ent 10:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)Nobody Ent 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I think this is a reasonable proposal. I would also suggest to YRC that he thinks through his hot button issues and makes a point of avoiding them, and the people he doesn't get on with, and that recommendation would include taking relevant articles and userpages off your watchlist. ϢereSpielChequers 10:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Any proposal will have to have the agreement of YRC, and I think he has come a long way in this. Sure there will be people who are uncertain whether it will work, but hey, none of us can be certain we'll even be alive tomorrow. YRC deserves his chance - let's give it to him by accepting this proposal. And Prioryman, I think it would help if you stopped trying to squeeze the very last drop of blood from the stone - I think a bit of magnanimity would be more beneficial at this point. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support (re-instated). I'm heartened by the offer and YRC appears to me sincere. I understand Prioryman's concerns, but I think they make very little practical difference to the offer, so should not be a deal-breaker. Assuming YRC continues to edit for the next seven months and does so civilly, there is no reason he can't keep it up for a lifetime. And, mechanism or no mechanism, it ought to be obvious to anyone that YRC is on the last of his nine lives. By the same token, since these two things (mechanism and length of civility restriction) don't add up to much, maybe YRC will think about just throwing them into the offer for the hell of it, if that will win over some waverers. Formerip (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • If there are strong objections to any condition I will be looking to offer a more acceptable one - I am looking for a resolution with the community that is beneficial to it and to me, although I also do still want to be accepted as part of that community and to be beneficial to it. - and I do still intend to contribute under these conditions during the time frame. Youreallycan 13:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It looks as if YRC is making a genuine effort here and I concur with Boing and WereSpielChequers - with the proviso that YRC really needs to fully understand however, that one single new violation may invoke a total community site ban. The awareness of the possibility may help the enforcement of his own suggested conditions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I do fully accept that a single violation will result in a site ban - I support that also - I will still be looking to contribute and will as per one user commented above be voluntarily avoiding my discussed hot topic issues. - as a minimum during the editing restriction time frame - Youreallycan 13:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support In fact, more than was officially sought according to the initial statement for this RFC/U AFAICT. Collect (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support the currentversion of this proposal. Will need to reconsider my position based on any changes made to this version, should some be made. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I'd just like to remind YRC that a number of edits you made during this RfC would likely count as enough to get a site ban. I'm hopeful this will work and wish you the best of luck! Hobit (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose That Rob is willing to accept these restrictions that derive from Prioryman's proposal despite the obviously vexatious nature of this RfC says to me that most of the restrictions are not necessary in the first place. I have been looking over every last one of those blocks on the block log and there is very little of it that I think is relevant here or serious enough to merit severe sanctions such as these (I am working on a detailed analysis of that block log that I intend to post to the RfC talk page). Sanctions should be targeted and focused on the source of the problem, and the suggestions above do not fit that mold. I have my own idea for more suitable sanctions that I will propose once I have provided my analysis of the block log.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Feel free to propose other restrictions in another location, however I support and willingly accept these - Youreallycan 18:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)*
• Support YRC is willing to accept these restrictions, which is great. I think they are needed and that they have a very good chance of working. Dougweller (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. In an optimistic spirit, I want to take YRC at his word and give him this opportunity. If it works, that would be fantastic, and I'd much prefer such an outcome over a site ban issued now. But I want to make it very clear that I agree with what Hobit said above, that YRC's own comments during this RfC/U would have been enough to trigger the site ban proposed here. My prediction is that the civility part of this proposal is going to be the difficult part, simply because civility has always been so difficult for the community to come to agreement over. I have a very real fear that what is going to happen is that a borderline civility violation will lead to "drama" as the community tries to figure out whether or not to swing the ax of a ban. For that specific reason, I very strongly urge YRC to consider every edit, every comment, as though there will be a hanging judge determining what is or is not civil. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support I'm an optimist. Ryan Vesey 19:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support seems reasonable. Hot Stop 20:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Looks like a good deal for the community, and would (if successful) get YRC on the way to developing better editing habits. I don't see a downside here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. I said at the outset of this RfC/U that I wanted to see YRC come into line with generally held community guidelines in terms of conduct, and this offers a path to get to that point. He needs to be aware, though, that it is a very narrow path and he'll need to be careful about how he acts going forward. But I wish him well and hope that these temporary restrictions will help to guide his steps. Prioryman (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. I think one needs to leave some room for YRC to self-revert in case of a minor infraction. Otherwise, even if YRC really does do his best to stick to these restrictions, you can still have have ambiguous cases. E.g. some edit may be seen to be BLP related to some, a joke may not be appreciated etc. etc. When that happens, YRC should be asked to self-revert first, instead of having a huge AN/I debate on whether YRC should be kicked out of Wikipedia. Only if YRC refuses to self-revert, then one could go to AN/I and present a case against him. Count Iblis (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

My impression is that YRC understands that he cannot bank on a sympathetic hearing if he is uncivil in the future, and I think that is the best way. At the same time, in the case of a minor infraction, self-revert and sincere apologies will always count in an editor's favour. But I don't think any understanding that YRC has a right to bad behaviour so long as he follows it up in the right way would be helpful to him or the community. I take YRC to have set this standard himself in his acknowledgement (I many not be quoting verbatim) "a rude comment is a rude comment...one more and I'm gone, I understand". Formerip (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Moral support. I'd prefer that the stay-away be much longer than 1 month, and I'm less fussed about the specific restrictions like civility and 1RR. The idea is that an experienced editor with a positive attitude should be able to avoid edit warring and incivility without much trouble. Taking a long break (3 months is the minimum I'd consider meaningful) is the only way I know to restore a positive attitude from a state of burnout. It's like waiting for a physical injury to heal. It's better to wait longer for the burnout to go away, than to create a bunch of restrictions to contain the burnout's effects.

  I'd probably adopt Count Iblis's suggestions, as a way to avoid some drama if nothing else. And I'd add an indefinite 2-way interaction ban between YRC and Prioryman. I don't know or care much about the conflict's backstory, but the sniping has gotten stupid enough that it should stop. If something needs pursuing it can be done by other people; otherwise, leave it alone already. 67.122.211.84 (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support I think this is what everyone wanted. YRC can take some time off, refocus his energies, and figure out a way to continue editing productively. AniMate 01:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support – Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support only 'cause it seems the end is coming anyway. The civility bit especially will be immediately provocated by those who wish to see YRC gone forever - and there at least an ArbCase could have examined all parties. Noble of you YRC to state this as a commitment, but I already asked above somewhere that you clarify how you intend to actually resolve disputes going forward. You've not yet said that you will just walk away, and you've not outlined what steps you will take going forward. And no-one at all has discussed whether it would be uncivil of you to very politely repeatedly post to user or noticeboard pages on the same issue. But if this is something you feel willing to run with, and you will accept the outcome thereof, sure. I support this solution. And since versions may matter, the same one Fluffermutter diffs above, or the one as I commit, but those bold texts stole my lunch money. Franamax (talk) 02:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment -- is it not very strange that YRC is continuing to do BLP edits ([75]) under the circumstances? Do have a look at the history of that article -- the latest YRC edit there is the same as the series of 5 in one day that under normal circumstances would have led to an immediate block. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• What's strange is going from sporadic one-week blocks that frequently get lifted to a three month BLP ban, a six-month 1RR restriction, a six-month civility restriction, and a month-long voluntary editing ban with the violation of any one of the sanctions in this deadly cocktail leading to an indefinite site ban. Franamax's comment pretty much reflects my concern and one reason I oppose this even as it is at Rob's own suggestion. I do not see any way this absurd action Rob has basically been pressured into accepting under threat of being railroaded in an arbitration case initiated while this RfC was ongoing will result in anything but an indef, consistent with the apparent goal of the editor who created the RfC and RFAR. No surprise that the same editor also created the blueprint for this suggestion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support - But don't hold your breath that this will actually work... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 04:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support - "Voluntary" 1 month vacation should be made mandatory, in my estimation. I wouldn't bet 5 cents on these terms being met and sustained — a permanent topic ban on Ed Milliband would seem to be part of a real fix — but the proposed solution more or less addresses the issues at hand with a minimum of drama. Carrite (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support And this will sound like a really bad support, but I hope that people can look at my contribs to see that I appreciate a good argument. I've stated the YRC should be blocked for many different reasons. However, I believe his...skeptical nature for BLP's, even if narrowly aimed, is a good thing. Arguments win in the end. I believe the WP majority only wants the best for the encyclopedia. That majority includes YRC. Arkon (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support. It seems like there are a sufficient number of editors watching who will report any possible violations. Doc talk 08:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I've been watching this RFC from afar. I've also never interacted with Rob before, bar maybe a few threaded comments on ANI and AN. I propose a modification of the third condition. Indefinite strict civility enforcement, violation of which will lead to a site ban. Community review of this enforcement can be requested at 6 months. Blackmane (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman proposed this on the talk page, but YRC isn't keen, and points out that his surviving without being banned until the expiry of the restrictions is sufficient demonstration that he has lived up to this commitment, and a review of his behaviour - via a ban appeal - would be redundant. Would you consider supporting this proposal without your proposed amendment? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:26, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Strange, I must have skimmed past Prioryman's proposal since I've been following the talk page discussion as well. I'm of two minds about it. Prioryman summed up what was in my mind as well. However, that being said I guess I can support with Rob's commitment to abide by his proposal. Blackmane (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Support JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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