Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan

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: ~~~~), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 09:20, 12 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.

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

Attacking users

I am under attack - users are attacking me as we speak - Youreallycan 23:42, 5 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 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. [37] - 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)
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)

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)

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)

Remind us, Prioryman, why are you still here, despite having been indeffed thrice? [38][39][40] 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)
• 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)
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 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)
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)

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)

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)

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:[41]·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 [42] - 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)

2. 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)

   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. [43], [44], [45], [46], 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)

   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)

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. 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)

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)

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)

    You User:ChrisO are a failed clean start and a multiple violator at Arbitration. - Youreallycan 23:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

11. Accurate summation, and unlike others is more rationally accurate. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 23:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Users who don't endorse this summary:

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)

Users who don't endorse this summary:

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)

Users who don't endorse this summary:

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.