This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Prioryman (talk | contribs) at 22:45, 15 August 2012 (→Statement by Prioryman: - withdrawing arbitration request). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Requests for arbitration

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Youreallycan

Initiated by Prioryman (talk) at 20:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Prioryman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Youreallycan‎
• User talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive730#User:Off2riorob / User:Youreallycan

Statement by Prioryman

The subject of this arbitration request, Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has a persistent problem with personal attacks and edit-warring. In the last seven months, he 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). He has been blocked 12 times for disruptive editing / edit-warring / 3RR violations, 6 times for personal attacks and 1 time for (disputed) legal threats. Just under a week ago I began an RfC/U concerning his conduct (Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Youreallycan‎) in which 90 editors have participated (as of 13 August). The evidence at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Youreallycan#Evidence of disputed behaviour is a small sample of the many, many incidents which have come up at AN/I and elsewhere. During the RfC/U, YRC made more personal attacks against other editors , , including myself, and has edit-warred in the RfC/U itself. There has been a very strong consensus that his behaviour is unacceptable and needs to change immediately or be resolved forcefully (note Coren's comments in particular).

Over the last 24 hours or so he posted comments to the RfC/U's talk page that suggested he would be amenable to editing with restrictions. However, he has today posted further personal attacks against myself , restored a personal attack after it was hidden by another editor , and edit-warred on my own user talk page . These are exactly the behaviours for which the RfC/U was raised in the first place, and his continued misconduct, even while talking about possible solutions, makes it clear that he is unwilling or more likely unable to change his spots. The community has had to deal with this editor many times before but has been unable to come up with a satisfactory solution, and the most recent attempt, a mentorship, was repudiated by YRC after only 6 weeks. It's plain that there is nothing short of arbitration that is likely to resolve this, and so I bring this case here for your consideration. Prioryman (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Added: YRC's comments below, focusing entirely on attacking me and completely ignoring the issue of his own conduct, are a good demonstration of the problem. Prioryman (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@Arbcom: I note that a number of you have suggested dealing with this by motion. I think that would be a good idea; the evidence in the RfC/U could certainly be expanded upon but it would just be more of the same and I don't think it would shed further light. The issues are simple. I have no particular preference for the outcome (and I have not called for any particular outcome) but I think you would not find it difficult to come to a decision given the clarity of the facts. Prioryman (talk) 07:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

@Update: Following discussions between myself, YRC and Anthonyhcole (who I'd like to commend for the part he's played in this matter), it seems that a solution has been worked out and is getting the almost unanimous support of parties involved in the RfC. On that basis, I'd like to withdraw this arbitration request, as it seems that the matter has - provisionally at least - been resolved. Prioryman (talk) 22:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Youreallycan

Previous account was User:Off2riorob.

This User:ChrisO is a failed clean starter and a user previously restricted on multiple occasions at arbitration - that good faith users see this as an attempt to remove the link between his editing restrictions and his new account - and has also been dysopped by the committee - and has demeaned WP:Vanish with his failed return. that he still to this day refuses to accept - Youreallycan 20:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

This failed RTV violator User:ChrisO - User:Prioryman has only very recently opened a RFC user about me - a few days ago - I have been working to try to address the issues there - this escalation to arbitration is totally undue - Youreallycan 20:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I also note and was discussing this in the RFC user that I would consider a good faith WP:Vanish - Youreallycan 21:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC* Please note = I have objected to User:AGK participating in any case - User_talk:AGK#Agk - he is continuing to rejecti my request - Youreallycan 04:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Nomoskedasticity - the complete discussion - discussion should not be assessed by a single one from a whole discussion - here it is complete discussion and edit warring revert history - Youreallycan 20:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I object to a motion - I have no previous arbitration history at all - unlike User:Chris O User:Prioryman - this is according to comments here not only about me but also about the bad faith feelings surrounding User:ChrisO failed clean start WP:RTV and his refusal; to link to his previous arbitration history and controversial contribution history - - After almost one hundred thousand good faith beneficial contributions to the en wikipedia project I deserve more that a motion;; - Youreallycan 20:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• They are all coming now - diff - Youreallycan 20:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

&&Anothere one - diff of blind opponant - Youreallycan 20:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• As per my comment above that "the escalation to arbitration is totally undue" - at the RFC user progress was still being made in some/mostly good faith discussion with the community there- since this escalation I have not even looked at the RFC user, and why would I look at it when there is this escalation - IMO this arbitration was opened by the user to derail the apparent proposals in the RFC user and talkpage discussions working towards a beneficial resolution for me and for the community, which was ongoing - I have not contributed at all there since the users imo undue escalation, but I am open to return to discussion there and to seek resolution there, in preference to a case here - I was discussing there and making some possibly acceptable offers to the community, I will return there to finish that dispute resolution if this is closed but until then that discussion has been derailed. - Youreallycan 20:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• The user that is escalating this discussion User:ChrisO - now editing without declarations as User:Prioryman was exposed as a failed clean starter when he attacked me in his defending another anti Scientology activist BLP violator, User:Cirt - he is still not declared as such on the previous userpage - there is no excuse for that and there are multiple good faith users that object to the failure and demeaning of WP:Vanish clean start - any case here should clearly deal with that issue also - Youreallycan 23:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Also please note - I was also attempting to offer/willing to accept as a good outcome for myself and the project - to accept a good faith compassionate vanish from the project - and to remove all my contributions under both my users names to a vanished user account - If anyone with the ability to do that is up for it please go for it. - Misplaced Pages:Courtesy vanishing - I promise not to return and violate it.Youreallycan 00:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment by TenOfAllTrades

Is it necessary to open a full case or can this proceed by motion? The extant RfC appears to hit the high points of the evidence that would be needed. Unless the ArbCom's intent is to give Youreallycan the opportunity to continue attacking every other editor who has criticized or disagreed with him, there doesn't seem to be a lot of complexity to this case, and the usual two-month soapbox-and-circus process seems superfluous.

As an aside, it's not appropriate for ArbCom members who would be recused from the case (if accepted) to be voting on whether or not to accept it. SirFozzie and PhilKnight should know better, and should strike their votes. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Risker, I'm disappointed. If a committee member believes that his participation might not be seen as impartial by the parties to the case or by a reasonable member of the community, then he should recuse without waiting to being asked. There's no shortage of warm bodies on the ArbCom; even if half the committee drops out of a particular matter there's still no problem with handling a case. Having enough Arbs to conduct business even when some of the Committee is unavailable is one of the reasons the ArbCom has been expanded in recent years.

To do otherwise invites an unholy mess a few weeks down the road when one of the parties says (probably less politely than this), "On looking at the evidence pages and the scope of the case, I realize now that the extent of your involvement was much greater than I recollected when the RfArb was filed; please withdraw from handling this case—no matter that you've already drafted some proposed findings of fact and remedies." While I applaud your enthusiasm for encouraging your fellow Arbs to participate in as many cases as they possibly can, sometimes the best thing they can do – for the appearance of fairness, and by extension for the reputation of their committee and of the project – is to sit one out and trust their colleagues to handle things properly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nobody Ent

Back when The Art of War was the rage in business circles, I read a review that claimed Sun Tzu wrote than when engaging an enemy one shouldn't surround them but should leave them a path to escape -- a surrounded enemy fights to the death (like Stalingrad). As I've previously commented, an RFC/U whose desired outcome states "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." isn't a informal non-binding process enabling users to discuss problems with specific editors but a ticket punch on the way to here. (Note that I'm not saying all, or even a majority of editors participating, are not making good faith contributions, but there's a significant minority who are out for blood and want nothing less than a ban). The fact that a "surrounded" editor with a history of hasty interactions with others lashes out is not surprising but predictable.

Note also the lack of discipline/protocol in many threaded back and forth interchanges between editors contrary to the stated RFC/U directions.

Are there significant and chronic issues with YRC's interactions with others? Yep, and he's acknowledged such, and there was some (slow, halting) progress to a proposal which would address the communities concerns. So I urge the committee to take two definitive actions:

• Reject this case until the RFC/U finishes.
• In the spirit of IAR and contrary to all that's written down, assign a clerk to ride herd on the RFC/U. Nobody Ent 21:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

The RfC/U is ongoing as far as I can tell. Actions here while such an RfC/U is ongoing are premature, and may have the effect of being aimed more at harming an editor than of seeking a collegial and collaborative environment. Handling multiple venues of complaints from a single editor have a chilling effect on all editors.

Note also that the complainant appears to have CANVASSed for the RfC/U (more than ten editors notified, and no admin who had unblocked YRC was notified), and, IMHO, has caused a real possibility of WP:False consensus. I understand that he feels that notifying only those who had "disputes" was proper, but since the definition of RfC/U requires it be limited to a single dispute, I find that to be a weak argument. Note further the good faith offer made by YRC, and the ongoing harassment by ChrisO/Prioryman who, quite frankly, likely faced a BLP topic ban from the Climate Change case, which was avoided by his "clean start" of sorts.

I suggest that the committee, if it takes this case, and in the face of the "Fae clean start" case, examine whether it should deal with all such clean starts by motion. I would suggest such a motion be broad enough to encompass all non-collegial acts by anyobne who has a "clean start" on the order of:

Anyone who uses "clean start" for a registered account shall be subject to strong civility restrictions including, but not limited to, a ban on noticeboard complaints about editors with whom he or she had previously been in conflict, and a general interaction ban with any editor who asks for one on their own user talk page. Any administrator shall be authorised to enforce such interaction bans.

I recognize this is a Draconian remedy, but one which will avoid scores of such complaints in the future. Collect (talk) 21:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments by Br'er Rabbi

I've had no direct conflicts with Rob/YRC, but have commented critically a few times over the last few years and suggested better approaches, and I certified the RfC/U and commented a bit there. Obviously there's no need for a full case; there are dozens of drama threads and a pretty clear showing of hands in the RfC/U. Note the endless instances of "hater" and "violator". And the nozzle set to *wide*. Copypasta one of the recent motions and end this.

Teh Battle of Stalingrad was not a fight to the death. Paulus surrendered nearly a hundred thousand men, although most of them didn't survive Siberia. nb: The film Stalingrad (1993 film) is really good. It's a German production from fifty years on. I also recommend Come and See (Russian perspective, but not at Stalingrad.)

Cheers, Br'er Rabbit (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

I think it is better if YRC takes the break that he seems to need and that the ArbCom case is conducted after that. Count Iblis (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate I'm sure everyone here, including Prioryman, wants YRC to continue editing here within community norms. Count Iblis (talk) 21:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Barts1a

As was pointed out in the RfC: O2RR/YRC has been blocked 19 times between the two accounts! 12 blocks for edit warring/3RR vios/disruptive editing, 6 for personal attacks and 1 per WP:NLT. 7 of those have been since December 2011 when they started editing with the YRC account. Racking up 7 blocks in 8 months shows some kind of constant behavioral problem which REALLY needs to be addressed should this user want to continue editing wikipedia.

The fact that even during an RfC the user continued to display the behavior which triggered the RfC in the first place it is obvious that stronger forms of intervention are required.

Before anyone points this out, I was in a similar situation some time ago (Minus the arbitration case!) but I managed to realize just how problematic my behavior had become and turn it around, I can only pray that it's not too late for YRC to do the same... Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 23:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Binksternet

The recent edit warring by YRC to place insults on Prioryman's talk page, while the RfCU is going on, is beyond the pale. To me it indicates that YRC has no intention of sustaining a peaceful solution. Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

Here we go again...

Yes, in this instance, I strongly urge the ArbCom to accept this case and bring about a resolution once and for all to a community dispute over the conduct of one user. The ongoing RfC has, quite predictably, failed to bring about a lasting settlement, as YRC remains unwilling to reflect on the behaviour that got him into this situation in the first place. I have a great deal of respect for most of the people participating in that community discussion, as they are all valuable editors with a great deal to offer the project. And that is one of several reasons why I support bringing this to ArbCom; these people have much better things they could be spending their time and energy on.

I vowed not to participate in this drama any further than offering my opinion a couple times and recusing myself from related matters thereafter — but once again, I am compelled to speak. It saddens me that Off2riorob/Youreallycan may soon be facing a siteban from Misplaced Pages, as I cannot recall a time where I've been contributing to this site and they weren't around, but sometimes it's necessary for someone to be told that they can no longer partake in something until they can demonstrate that the issues they've had will not resurface again. Master&Expert (Talk) 08:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Ebe123

With all these blocks in such a short time, it clearly indicates that the user has no interest to make helpful comments, instead abusing Misplaced Pages. The user had a lot of time to think about how he/she edited, and to use Misplaced Pages well, but the user chose not to. The failed RfC indicates that an ArbCom case is appropriate. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 16:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

A couple minutes ago, the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard got a request from IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) . The section is called The Zeitgeist Movement and I closed it, referring to here. I got reverted by Youreallycan without a reason , I reverted it, then Youreallycan made a statement although it was closed , getting me to revert again with the edit summary of "It's closed from further discussion" as it was closed , getting reverted again from Youreallycan with the edit summary of "Its not your oplace to edit warr about itb - Undid revision 507069342 by Ebe123 (talk)". This is inappropriate behaviour at a dispute resolution noticeboard. I got a notice on my talk page from Youreallycan , and I reverted it. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 17:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

To ErrantX: I was not ignoring the request. I was thinking that this ArbCom request could solve that dispute. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 18:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by ErrantX

This is an unfortunate mess, and sad to see. Rob is a good BLP worker - and I at one time used to help him stop the X-taggers (i.e. "jew-taggers" or "gay-taggers") who are prevalent in claiming people (either positively or negatively) to their tag - contrary to such things as WP:BLPCAT. These individuals should be identified and named parties to the case - or perhaps an additional case opened to examine this behaviour. A lot of his problems probably come from the stress of dealing with multiple, very persistent people, in this and other BLP areas.

One reason I stepped away from regular BLP work is because the slander, defamation and attack is extremely hard to cope with - no single individuals could be identified as major culprits. Many even work in complete good faith believing themselves to be acting fairly. But the persistent pressure from all sides can lead to situations where you are dealing with several explosive and sensitive situations at once, with editors equally capable of explosive discussion.

This got to me for a while and I walked away from Misplaced Pages, only coming back when I found a new focus to hang onto. I am resigned, somewhat, to the fact that defamation and attack still occurs, but I can't find the drive to help Rob in his passion.

He has tried, very hard I think. He snaps, (sometimes) gets blocked and then displays (IMO) genuine apologies for his behaviour. He has worked, though, especially in recent months, to address this behaviour - but in the minefield of BLP it will not take long for an editor to come along and cause the stress to ramp back up.

This is unfortunate because it is my strong belief that, however flawed, Rob has done significant and critical work in keeping us as sensitive to BLP subjects as he possible could. His contribution seems to be being measured in blocks and spats, with the good work glossed over (when allowing equal measure seems more fair). I'd go further and say that Rob is a key lynch pin in our BLP compliance and that if the ultimate outcome here is his removal from Misplaced Pages then we will be sorely impacted.

I count Rob as a friend, although we don't speak often, and I regularly come to his defence. I am sorry to say that I think the group of you have cornered him to the extent that he will not back down, and will go out all guns blazing. A sad end, and I hope deeply that I am wrong.

Make of this what you will, I simply wish to express my feelings on this matter. --Errant 17:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

@Ebe123; so your response to a request to help resolve a content dispute is... to ignore the dispute (or even attempting to resolve the matter) and point them here to add muck? I'll let you think about that one. --Errant 17:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork: I think that an Arbcom case would expose that the bad behaviour is on both sides. Rob is easy to sanction from a community perspective because he says rude things to people (i.e. civility issues, again!) - but there is a group of editors chasing him around and violating policy (as well as a ground swell of other editors who contribute to the problem - whether in good faith or not) that are a lot harder to sanction. They are a part of the greater problem; blocking or topic banning Rob might stop the disagreements, but it would affect the content. I'm divided on whether a case would be useful here: but I certainly do not think there is any community mechanism to properly examine the behaviour of all parties except for Arbcom. And I argue that this is needed for a fair outcome to happen (and by fair, I really mean "the best outcome for Misplaced Pages articles").

The elephant in the room though, and I've been thinking about this for some time now, is that this case request and several other recent ones actually touch on the edges/facets of a much larger and ingrained dispute within the community. These cases all involve similar entrenched editors on both sides. Whilst the cases themselves are narrow; either focused on one person, or a specific problem (such as the BLP case). I'm not being hypocritical in identifying this; I'm a part of it too (though I do try as hard as I can not to hold grudges, and to focus on what would make Misplaced Pages better rather than the politics). I wouldn't even identify it as two factions; there are several groups in play here. Some hold specific grudges, others more general ones. Many are well versed in Wiki-Politics and use them to their advantage.

How Arbcom can resolve this I don't know. Realistically the entire community needs a severe shakedown - and that can only come from us... but picking at it via narrowly focused cases doesn't really address the issue. If we make the argument that blocking Rob stops this focused issue then the same argument could be advanced for numerous other users. Prioryman has been at the heart of many of these matters (and has been in disagreement and dispute in various forums) - blocking him might be argued to have the same effect. Same might apply to DC, and a whole host of others (sorry guys for picking you out specifically - nothing nasty intended and I don't want to see any of you blocked! But it suffices to make my point with a clear example). The point I am making is that such an approach is simply reacting to bad behaviour without addressing the problem that leads to that behaviour. And without that latter step all that will happen is that someone new then becomes the next target. In a sense this is a war of attrition between several camps - with progressive Arbcoms and noticeboard threads used to silence, remove or hamper each other.

There is no easy solution to this - but I urge the Arbs to consider carefully if there is a way to address a larger part of the problems at hand rather than pick at small aspects of it over and over. --Errant 10:59, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jayen466

Echoing ErrantX's comments above. I believe this requires a case rather than a motion. JN466 18:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

It has been evident for quite some time that there is a determined claque of editors who are intent on using various Misplaced Pages dispute resolution fora as battlefields, targeting users who comment unfavorably on Misplaced Pages on external sites, who have been supported in disputes by comments on external sites, or whose views are in accord with criticisms made on such sites. This process has been kicked off in an apparently successful effort to silence yet another editor whose views are seen by some as excessively heretical. There is also good reason to believe that the complaint has been initiated, at least in part, in retaliation for legitimate criticism related to the used of funds at a Wikimedia-affiliated charity.

Further, it is distressingly clear that a significant segment of the community does not accept the entirety of the WMF's policies concerning BLPs, particularly promotional editing, and tolerates harassment and hounding of editors who try to enforce the BLP policy, particularly with regard to selective presentation of factual elements. This tolerance of bad, often theoretically forbidden behavior, leads to frustration and combativeness in its targets and provokes, as it is designed to, inappropriate responses, as is evident here. The continuing harassment and hounding may not be as conspicuous as outbursts like YRC's, but it does far more to corrode Misplaced Pages's content, its value as an encyclopedia, and its coherence as a community. Both ArbComm and the administrative cohort should be imposing far stronger sanctions against its perpetrators.

It's also instructive to note that the Committee's failure to address the WP:CANVASS violations in the Fae case has led to equally inappropriate behavior in this dispute. Rather than committing an overt violation, it is now permissible to construct a statement invoking the names of editors one expects to be sympathetic to one's position, then "neutrally" notifying then of the namedropping. This should be seen as an overt effort to evade an important guideline and corrupt consensus decisionmaking, and violators should be sharply sanctioned, extending in appropriate cases to bans from further participation in these proceedings. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

I find this whole matter to reflect rather poorly on both of the parties in this case. However, while Rob is basically just reacting poorly to provocation, Prioryman is clearly carrying on a vendetta stemming from the recently-closed case against Fæ. Prioryman was repeatedly involved in defending Fæ and this led to considerable off-wiki discussion and suggestions that he had a conflict of interest due to connections with Wikimedia UK. After Rob repeated this claim on Jimbo's talk page, Prioryman left a comment saying "Remind me, why haven't you been indeffed yet for your perennial obnoxiousness?" and less than an hour later created a draft RfC in his userspace. Prioryman's insistence on filing a request for arbitration merely a week after creating that RfC and while the RfC is still going on, reads to me like this is little more than a vexatious attempt by Prioryman to get Rob indeffed for a disapproving comment. Prioryman has magnified the issue by using the exemption in WP:CANVASS for notifications of editors mentioned in a case as a loophole to bring in only one side of a dispute regarding Rob's conduct, and repeatedly citing a block by an involved admin over an alleged legal threat, that was reversed mere minutes later on the basis that there was no legal threat.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

After spending a little time to look over the "evidence" on the RfC/U I am convinced that, if ArbCom accepts this, it must be treated like a normal case because there is far too much deceptive and vexatious action on the part of these editors going after Rob to be resolved by simply looking over the block log or regurgitating the claims therein as has been done with the RfC/U. Railroading through any sort of sanction would be woefully inappropriate, in my opinion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by John Lilburne

ErrantX sums the issue up nicely. For all of the piling on at the RFC I'm not aware of any of them complaining that YRC's BLP edits or opinions were contrary to policy, or that he was consistently overturned. Anyone that has concern for BLP issues is going to be a target for a number of editors, who having been thwarted at BLPN, will goad the participants there into some outburst that can then be dragged to one of the drama boards. Some of the taggers are, as ErrantX says, relentless. A discussion on the board that was resolved after 100s of comments, in say April, will resurface with the same editors, in June, only to resurface again in August. A case in point is the tagging in the Ed Miliband article (as seen at BLPN, Talk page, and elsewhere). This has gone on for 2 years and shows no signs of ever being resolved, until it gets 50 variations of Jewish categories, and splash in the infobox. Y'll need to investigate not just the outburst there but the build up, the snide comments and edit summaries, from the various participants, in the AFDs the Talk pages, and the BLPN on the subject in question. Pretty much the 'defenders' on the BLPN are treated by other editors as priahs, and receive very little support from the admin cadre. I'm not aware of any one stepping in to even admonish those that are there week after week promulgating some POV. Some have cticised YRC's reactions at the RFC, well that quickly became a case of YRC being tied up like a cat in a sack and dragged through a muddy ditch whilst a bunch of grousers shouted, whooped, and peed on it from the banks - is no wonder that the cat howled back. John lilburne (talk) 19:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity Don't AGF me, whilst describing a comment as a rant - K. Lets take a look at your recent edit warring over at British Jews wrt to Ed Miliband. This from the Jewish Chronicle

I sometimes hanker after what they had, which was not just a political community but a recognisably Jewish community: people who had been on Jewish youth groups and probably had more fun than I did when I was growing up.

and on that basis you want to tag and bag Miliband along with Disraeli? The cat squalling in the pee sodden sack is right. Its a whole lot more complicated then POV will allow. Oh and NYB you need to take cognisance of the above too. John lilburne (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

@IjonTichyIjonTichy your whine about YRC seems to be about the addition of the following private property social equality Resource allocation outline of automation wage labor profit motive Buckminster Fuller Ignaz Semmelweis Wright brothers Nicola Tesla Imagine (song) and Carl Sagan, as See also links to the The Zeitgeist Movement page. I recently became acquainted with TZM when some old friends from the 60s and 70s shoved some YouTube links my way. Now back in the 70s when I was downing a couple 100 mikes of LSD every couple of days or so I probably would of said "Oh WOW Man!" as it is I'll never get those 45 minutes back. The links don't belong there, and any pretence that there is some connection is purely delusional. Once again the Cat currently being dragged through the muddy ditch is right. John lilburne (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

@Roscelese Are you not one of those who Prioryman summoned to stand on the banks of the ditch. I see that at the RFC you've been on a campaign of defamation making a number of outlandish claims regarding homophopia which you are unable to substatiate, that you are also stated that "BLP has until now provided a convenient cover for users who want to censor non-heterosexuality on WP" which after a week you have yet to substantiate either. John lilburne (talk) 12:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

@Roscelese I read what you wrote over at the RFC, I also note that numerous editors told you that you were wrong, and that you were intellectually dishonest as well. What I have seen of YRC is that he will defend a subject against the addition of sexual tagging, or religious tagging, or ethnic tagging, unless there is a clear indication that the sexual, religious, or ethnic tag is part of why the subject is notable or because the subject self identifies as such. If that interferes with someone else desire to tag all the Jews, all the Gays, or all the Blacks then that doesn't make him an anti-Semitic, homophobic, or racist. Also bear in mind that many Jews, Gays, and Blacks also object to agenda driven tagging editors too. John lilburne (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

@Roscelese You have been asked to provide concrete evidence, what you have produced is nothing but assertion and spin. Assertions which when matched against the evidence has been found, by people that are not at all supporter of YRC, to be so wanting as to be dishonest. One of YRCs blocks back in January was for edit warring over the inclusion of hateful graffiti supposedly penned by a Jewish group on Palestinian property in the West Bank. That is some weird anti-Semite getting blocked for arguing against the addition of an image that would make a small group of Jews look bad. John lilburne (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Nomoskedasticity

Even with his editing under intense scrutiny, YRC indulges in behavior that demonstrates his difficulties interacting with editors he disagrees with ("POv pushing BLP violator"). YRC and his allies might want to consider that the perspectives of other editors are held in good faith and require constructive engagement (not abuse and rants, as immediately above). In YRC's case, the prospects would seem quite poor. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Request from Cla68

I formally request that once this case opens, that evidence be allowed to be presented on all "X-tagger" and other BLP violators and RTV abusers who have crossed paths with YRC over the past couple of years. I believe that the evidence will support that some of those calling for YRC's ban at the RfC have unclean hands. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, didn't Roger Davies unblock Prioryman once? Does this count as involved? Personally, I don't believe that any arbitrators need to recuse themselves because WP's active user community is so small, we all have interaction histories with each other, but perhaps Roger should explain the situation in case it gets brought up later. Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by IjonTichyIjonTichy

I echo Nomoskedasticity's statement (below) and Ebe123. From my brief interaction with YRC on The Zeitgeist Movement (TZM) article and talk page, from the TZM DRN above, and from reading everything on this ArbCom Case, I have the impression YRC is acting in good faith and is only motivated by his desire to help wikipedia. But perhaps YRC has a problem of intellectual maturity. By saying this, I don't mean to hurt or damage him, I am only saying this in an effort to help him improve as an editor. He reverted my edit on the TZM article without carefully considering the broader and deeper, but not immediately obvious, context and circumstances of the article. The TZM article is a controversial and complicated article which went, and is still going, through many daily edits. It takes serious time investment to fully understand the history of the article, the many nuances and complexities of the many issues related to the article's topic. This calls for a more cautious approach when editing the article. Despite this, YRC appeared out of nowhere, without ever posting a comment on the many (complicated, lengthy and involved) talk page discussions among multiple editors, and proceeded to edit the article to remove some links I added to the 'See also' section. Perhaps reverting my edit seemed obvious to him. Perhaps he was tempted to make what may have seemed to him to be an easy edit, an open-and-shut case, picking the low-hanging fruit. But a deeper involvement in the article prior to his quick-and-dirty edit may have convinced him that appearances can be (in this case as in most cases) highly deceptive, and that his quick-and-dirty, wham-bam-thank-you-maa'm edit was far from obvious. YRC is probably intelligent and bright, but it seems he needs to develop some humility, self-deprecation and an acceptance he is far from perfect (just like the rest of us), and an understanding that almost always there is more to editing an article than meets the eye at first glance, that there are many hidden, complex issues under the surface - issues that he tends, mistakenly, to gloss over in his rush to edit. He will become a much better editor if he first would spend more time (sometimes a great deal of time, requiring considerably more patience than he has demonstrated up to date in his youthful exuberance) to carefully, methodically, patiently evaluate the perspectives of other editors and engage with them constructively. Again, I'm not saying this to insult or attack or degrade YRC - I'm confident he is acting in good faith and that he is a smart and bright editor with a great deal of potential - I'm only saying this to try to help him improve, based on my own on-going experience. Apologies about the lengthy post. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment from WaitingForConnection

Regardless of the reasons, the conduct of some users towards YRC in the RfC was nothing short of disgraceful. Sorry to bring such a dramatic and loaded word into this request, but I can't think of a better one to describe unfounded speculation from multiple users about a subject's mental health. While I commend two of them for retracting, the people who did this have tied Arbcom's hands to quite a significant extent. Arbcom now cannot possibly hold YRC responsible for his conduct during the RfC/U, even if it is relevant (unless they also intend to investigate the conduct of the users behind those remarks, and I don't see what that would accomplish). If they were to hold him responsible for his reaction to this sort of treatment, it would serve as confirmation that the community is now free to hurl abuse and publish potentially harmful speculation about someone, and get them banned if they dare to respond with the unwelcome but wholly understandable contempt, disgust or outrage it warrants.

For me, the RfC proved two things. One, I reluctantly have to concede that Arbcom intervention is probably the only way forward, because the community as a whole (YRC's supporters and opposers alike) are clearly incapable of trying of handling the issue in a rational way. Two, that YRC's comment about having "haters" is completely justified. Of course, the existence of these "haters" may well be self-inflicted, and that is something that Arbcom will undoubtedly look at.

Using the same rationale as in the first paragraph, Arbcom cannot ban YRC at this stage – to do so would be to invite aggrieved parties in future RfC/U's to de-rail the process in order to accelerate an Arbcom hearing and the possibility of a ban. In this instance, it is instead Arbcom's role to place a series of binding measures upon YRC, designed to enable him to contribute in the BLP area whilst tightly regulating his interaction with other users. I therefore implore Arbcom to follow Elen of the Roads' suggestion of dealing with this by motion. If the measures you come up with don't work, then a full case will undoubtedly follow. —WFC— 01:11, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

Three suggestions/observations:

1. For me, YRC's comments above and the choices he has made over the last few days of the RfC/U point towards dealing with this case via a motion.
2. I'm concerned about the number of statements above, from editors who request a full case for the specific purpose of making this about Prioryman. Don't be fooled by that. You can see at the RfC/U that similar arguments from the same editors are getting little traction with the community. A boomerang here will become a double-boomerang. Better to keep it simple, even if there will be another, more complicated, case in the future.
3. There has long been discussion about whether a long record of positive editing contributions should or should not be a reason to excuse bad conduct. If ever a case has asked ArbCom to deal with that question in the specific, this is it.

--Tryptofish (talk) 01:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax

I am in total agreement with Tryptofish, above, on these important points. A motion will enable a relatively speedy resolution of this case, which the Rfc/U highlights in clear detail.

• Those wishing to deflect the spotlight onto Prioryman have an agenda at odds with consensus in the Rfc/U, as I see it, and in any case Prioryman should be congratulated for bringing this case forward despite the predictable hostility of YRC and his followers.
• What is really at stake here is what kind of place we want Misplaced Pages-en to be. I have been concerned for years that YRC turns many established and new editors off to the project, and merely looking at his edit summaries shows that his needless hostility over a wide area is a patent violation of the civility standards stated clearly in Misplaced Pages:Five Pillars. No amount of self-appointed "BLP-warrior" activity justifies his long-time disregard for this.
• I hope this case will be taken, be decided as quickly as possible, and that it will serve as a landmark decision that future Wikipedians will benefit from. Jusdafax 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Here is the gist of the thing. YouReallyCan/Rob is burned out like hell through dealing with the usual Misplaced Pages nonsense so he's being a bit nutty. He does need a break. He's gotten more and more incapable of putting up with the hypocrisy, double speak and the battleground that Misplaced Pages very clearly is, has been and unfortunetly will be. He means well, but as much as I sympathize with what he's trying to do, at this point he's going a but nutzoid.

At the same time, this whole request is insanely battleground-y and bad faithed. Prioryman is on some crusade and his presence on Misplaced Pages is becoming disruptive. He's very clearly gaming and wiki-lawyering this stuff out of a personal grudge. Does anyone here honestly believe that this kind of activity contributes anything what so ever to a writing of an encyclopedia? No? Then why are we putting up with him?

To Prioryman: dude, chill out, go back to writing articles (which I believe you were engaged in at some point). You've moved well into the "wasting people's time" territory from the "some things arbitrators should think about" territory. Give it up.

Deal with this by motion. Slap YRC with a 3 month block - or so - while he recovers his cool, and restrict Prioryman from filing any more idiotic battleground reports, be it here, at AN/I or wherever the hell else. There are people here who are into this for the articles, there are people who are into this who are for the drama, and there are people here who are into it out of personal grudges. Your problem is that sometimes these overlap.

All around, another stupid waste of time. VolunteerMarek 06:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Question by Beyond My Ken

As a matter of information, if ArbCom accepts this case, will it also be dealing with the question of Prioryman's "failed RTV" as explicated on ANI, or should the community proceed with their discussion about that issue separately? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Anthonyhcole

If you deal with this by motion, I think a stern admonishment with regard to civility and a one-revert restriction on BLP content will sort this out. If you decide on a case, would you include a review of the ongoing X-tagging problem and the small but tremendously disruptive group of editors engaging in that practice? Rob has been accused of antisemitism by jew-taggers, and homophobia by LGBTI-taggers. He's neither, and those editors need to be admonished for that, on top of sanctions for their tendentious editing. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:13, 13 Aug 2012 (UTC)

Statement by My76Strat

I encourage ArbCom to decline this case unless it is their expressed intent to "re-brand" their function as mediation of convenience opposed to mediation of last resort. It is impossible to sustain a position that suggest the community can not resolve this matter within their means. 76Strat  da _Broke da (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion from SB_Johnny

Given that the essence of how this landed here on the Committee's lap boils down to a pattern of biting, baiting, and battleground behavior on both sides, I hope the scope will not exclusively focus on YRC.

If the "X-tagging problem" is not going to be addressed due to "scope of remit" issues, I think a solution using motions would be best, given the potential for drama. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 18:40, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

@SilkTork & Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs: unless you genuinely believe that the parties to this case will somehow reconcile between now and the next time a case is requested (which might in fact involve acrobatic leaps of logic), I can't see how putting it off until later will yield anything other than more frustration on all sides. You really should have learned something from the Fae case requests: procrastination on the part of the committee caused harm to all sides (including and especially Fae)... you know this is going to end up back here again, but you're letting it fester when you should know better. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 23:37, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Roscelese

YRC's behavior during the ongoing RFC/U indicates that the RFC/U is not going to have its desired outcome of voluntarily bringing his behavior within acceptable bounds. Because that behavior is exactly the sort of behavior that precipitated the case in the first place - an unending stream of personal attacks, harassment of users he dislikes, playing the martyr when people sensibly point out his policy violations, inability to acknowledge his own missteps. I've already submitted evidence and endorsed various statements at the RFC/U, so I won't re-hash that here. The material at the RFC/U demonstrates why some sort of change is necessary - but YRC's own conduct demonstrates why that change is ArbCom. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

@John lilburne: no, as should be obvious had you bothered to actually read the section you linked to, it was begun after I had commented at the RFC/U. As I already explained, ample evidence of Rob's homophobic comments (as well as some of the antisemitic ones) is linked at the RFC/U and I will not re-hash it here unless asked to do so by arbitrators, since I see Rob's misconduct during the RFC/U as the reason for stepping up to ArbCom. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I reiterate that I don't believe it is necessary here to re-post everything from the RFC/U, which is linked for arbitrators to read, so I will state briefly that the claim that YRC is just "defending" BLP subjects who have identified as gay or Jewish from the agony and suffering of having Misplaced Pages refer to their statements identifying as gay or Jewish is absolute nonsense. It does not explain his antisemitic and homophobic comments about BLP subjects and it does not explain his attacks on editors. Defending a user who calls it racist to be Jewish and who claims that a BLP subject only identified as gay for the sake of publicity is the sort of thing that makes it clear that YRC's defenders are waving the BLP flag as a cover for their own activist editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Viriditas

The long-term behavior problems attributed to the person using the User:Off2riorob/User:Youreallycan acccount needs to be addressed by arbcom as soon as possible. The user is incapable of editing within the norms of the community and is unable to modify their behavior after multiple discussions, blocks, mentorships, and even a current RFC. The user is totally unable to accept or listen to criticism of any kind, seems incapable of having a rational discussion about a topic that involves compromise, and has exhibited what can only be described as a consistent pattern of disruption, including starting a massive number of unnecessary edit wars, insulting members of the Jewish and LGBT community, threatening to sock puppet, and making what appears to be delusional statements indicating that he alone can read the minds of the BLP subjects he is claiming to defend. For the sake of restoring peace and calm to the community and for the health of the user editing as Off2riorob/Youreallycan, I ask that arbcom take into consideration the preponderance of evidence and the failure of the current RFC to modify or change Youreallycan's behavior and to lay down the law. Viriditas (talk) 02:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Statement by HJ

I get on reasonably well with Youreallycan, despite having blocked him a couple of times (as Off2riorob). On a personal level, I quite like the guy—he is passionate about and dedicated to this project. However, he has for years failed to live up to the expected standard of decorum. He consistently refuses to drop the stick, to concede inch, to admit when he's in the wrong, and to assume good faith on the part of his opponents. This results in edit warring, ad hominems, personal attacks, and carrying grudges around to different parts of the wiki, thus getting into different disputes (of which at least two are evidenced on this very page).

Not all his accusers or attackers have always held themselves to the standard to which they hold Rob, and after having had chance to cool down, he often makes compelling and sincere unblock requests. This and the fact that his sympathisers are a wide and varied group, often with little else in common (unlike in many disputes), means that he rarely stays blocked for long. However, this conduct is so prolific and so persistent that I feel, regretfully, that arbitration might be the only process with a chance of resolving the problem (and my opinions on arbitration in general and the committee in particular are far from flattering).

To those who say we should await the outcome of the RfC/U, I would suggest they skim that discussion. I haven't participated, and was only vaguely concious of it until this RfAr popped up on my watchlist. However, the number and diversity of editors making the same point again and again suggests that the RfC has reached the stage where it can be wrapped up and the dispute moved on to the next step in dispute resolution. To insist the RfC runs the full month would be nothing more than an exercise in needless bureaucracy. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• I offered to be the lead clerk of this case. If anyone has an objection to this, please tell me on my talk page. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 23:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I have volunteered to clerk in an assistant role as I am currently visiting family in Taiwan. However, should I be convinced that I not do so (COI and such), I will not do so. Please alert me if you believe so on my talk page. - Penwhale | 12:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (6/3/4/0)

• Awaiting statements, but I've been following the RfC, and I'm afraid we are going to have to accept this case unless there is some meaningful progress toward a positive outcome there. My impression is that Youreallycan's responses to the RfC have alternated between expressing interest in sincerely addressing the issues raised, and angrily lashing out at editors whom he dislikes. He needs to decide very soon which of these approaches he wishes to adopt, and live with the consequences of his choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I suggest that Youreallycan think very carefully about what he wants to post in response to this request, before posting anything else. His initial reactions above are not encouraging. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Re TenOfAllTrades' comment, proceeding by some form of motion in this matter is certainly a possibility. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Accept. Warning to all participants that I don't think we'll have much tolerance at all for poor behavior on the case pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I note that today, Youreallycan was reported to the edit-warring noticeboard for an alleged 3RR violation relating to whether Ed Milliband is properly described as Jewish. Since it would be awkward and inconvenient for the named party to an impeding case to be blocked, in lieu of having the AN3 report proceed, I have instructed Youreallycan not to edit British Jews, List of British Jews, Ed Milliband and related articles for the duration of the case. This does not reflect any prejudgment of any issue in this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I have no objection to holding this case or declining it without prejudice, if people think there is a prospect that the RfC will lead to a useful result. To this point I have been pessimistic, but I would be glad to be proven wrong. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• I was initially encouraged at some of the statements that Youreallycan posted looking towards addressing the issues raised, however, with his comments here and elsewhere, he is attempting not to play "Defense", (ie, addressing the concerns that other users have raised), but try to mount an offensive (What does Prioryman's prior accounts have to do with the main thrust of the RFC, of which a pretty good majority is "Yes, there are problems with Youreallycan's editing", even amongst his supporters). For that reason, I am voting to Accept, although I will recuse in the main case if either of the main parties requests it. SirFozzie (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Noting that YRC has asked that if the case is accepted, that I recuse. This is a formal note that I will be recused on the case if active. In other words, Recuse SirFozzie (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept. AGK 20:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Should something less than a full case be necessary, I would prefer to open this case on a timetable of one week of evidence followed by a final decision. If my colleagues are not amenable to such an expedited case, I could accept handling this by motion. AGK 21:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• YRC has sent me abusive e-mails in the past, and a handful of editors on my talk page have determined that this means I must recuse. Naturally I disagree, but Prioryman has since agreed and it would be rather awkward to sit on the committee with a denied recusal request from both of the two parties. Recuse without prejudice to un-recusing should too many other arbitrators also recuse. AGK 11:12, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Accept. Similar to SirFozzie, I'll recuse if anyone requests it. PhilKnight (talk) 20:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Recuse as I unblocked Off2riorob in the distant past. PhilKnight (talk) 17:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Recuse as I have blocked YRC/Off2riorob in the past. Courcelles 21:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept. Noting, per NYB, that a motion is certainly a possibility here. Risker (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Note to Nobody Ent Ten of all Trades: PhilKnight has offered to recuse should a party ask him to do so; unless that happens, he can participate in the case. Risker (talk) 21:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept. Hopefully it may be possible to deal with the matter by motion, as the RfC is so fresh (and reasonably comprehensive). I can't see a rehash benefiting anyone. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• I don't recall interacting with either party in a manner that would prompt recusal, but am willing to recuse if either party reminds me of anything relevant in the next 24 hours. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Hold Until the RfC/U is closed. This can be interpreted as a provisional decline, which will switch to an accept if the currently open RfC/U closes without a satisfactory consensus. I empathize with those voting to accept, and believe ultimately this will be accepted, but I'd prefer to do things in the nominal order, rather than parties rushing to perfunctorily check all the boxes so an Arb case can be accepted. Jclemens (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept:  Roger Davies 04:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Accept. Kirill  12:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Decline. I think this is too soon. This is currently being dealt with by the community, and the indications are that there is a consensus that there is a problem with YRC and something should be done. There are discussions on the RfC talkpage as to the next stage: that would be to either wait for the RfC to be closed with a summary of the community's views, or to take the matter to AN and have a discussion to see if there is consensus for a community ban or some other solution. The Committee only gets involved in cases where the community are unable to deal with the matter, and I don't see that here. If the RfC is closed with no clear consensus for action, and/or an AN community ban/other solution proposal closes as no consensus, that would be the time to make an Arbitration request. SilkTork 10:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

@ Errant. If a dispute is balanced between two significant factions, then it would be appropriate for ArbCom to mediate as impartial observers. As the community discussion has not yet reached a conclusion, my feeling is that it is too soon to decide that there will be an impasse. If you have evidence that you feel would impact on people's perception of the situation, and so on the outcome of any decision, then it would be as valid to present that information in the RfC and/or in any AN discussion as it would be to present it in an ArbCom case. SilkTork 11:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

@ HJ Mitchell. I agree. I would expect someone to start a discussion on AN as that would be the appropriate next step rather than going straight to ArbCom. If there is clear community consensus, then ArbCom is not needed. SilkTork 09:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Decline per SilkTork. The community has a chance to address the RFC; until steps there fail I don't think all avenues of DR have been attempted. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 18:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)