Misplaced Pages

:Requests for comment/Youreallycan - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Prioryman (talk | contribs) at 17:38, 5 August 2012 (→Outside view from Collect: - reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:38, 5 August 2012 by Prioryman (talk | contribs) (→Outside view from Collect: - reply)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

To remain listed at Misplaced Pages: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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 22:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC).

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 . 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 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 Misplaced Pages. Your editing here, putting the person in the article first and Misplaced Pages second may sound honorable, but it is actually combative and presumptive. ... You have taken 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 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.

Description

See statement above.

Evidence of disputed behaviour

  1. Comments from Dennis Brown, his mentor between May-July 2012, reviewing the problems with YRC's behaviour
  2. Edit warring on User:Coren's user talk page
  3. , , , - Edit warring on Stephen M. Cohen, following which he was blocked by User:Coren
  4. , , - further edit warring on Stephen M. Cohen a few days after the previous block had expired
  5. Harassment of another editor, disruptive editing and edit-warring (background info from User:Magog the Ogre)
  6. Challenging User:Magog the Ogre to block him, followed by personal attacks against Magog
  7. AN/I discussion about harassment by Youreallycan of User:Magog the Ogre following the latter's block of the former
  8. , , , - edit-warring on Andrew Nikolić, resulting in a block by User:Moreschi
  9. , - personal attacks against User:Gamaliel, resulting in a block
  10. - AN/I discussion of YRC's personal attacks on other editors, resulting in a block by User:Timotheus Canens
  11. Blocked by User:Jehochman for edit-warring, feuding and making personal attacks against other editors
  12. Blocked by User:Crazycomputers for repeatedly edit-warring over the header on Talk:Jewish Defense League
  13. AN/I discussion on O2RR/YRC's disruptive editing of Ed Milliband
  14. , - 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. - Comments to Moreschi: "If you block me I will create another account and defend living people with that account, that is what I do", "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. , , - 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

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. December 2011 discussion on AN/I with constructive criticism and feedback from YRC
  2. Offer from myself (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. - YRC rejects Dennis as his mentor (22 July 2012)

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)

Other users who endorse this summary

Response

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)
Remind us, Prioryman, why are you still here, despite having been indeffed thrice? 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

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)
  2. Collect (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who don't endorse this summary:

  1. There has been more than sufficient discussions about YRC's behavior at ANI, BLPN andf elsewhere in the past month to warrant an RfCU, and it has indeed been suggested several times in those fora that it would be the logical next step in addressing YRC's behavior.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
  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 this editor and have viewed with concern his disruption and defiance of many of the basic rules of Misplaced Pages. 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 ways to effectuate an end to this ongoing, tediously predictable drama. Jusdafax 17:31, 5 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 hand anycontact 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)

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)

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:·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 - 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)

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. , , , , 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)

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)

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add your summary here. You must use the endorsement section below to sign it. Anyone is welcome to endorse this or any other view, but do not change other people's views.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Users who don't endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

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

Category:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Youreallycan Add topic