Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Youreallycan		11 August 2012	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	none	(orig. case)	21 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Block of Rp2006	21 June 2024

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

• [1]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan‎
• User talk:Youreallycan/YRC2.0
• Wikipedia: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 (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan‎) in which several dozen editors have participated. The evidence at Wikipedia: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 [2] [3] [4], [5] [6], 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 [7], restored a personal attack after it was hidden by another editor [8], and edit-warred on my own user talk page [9] [10]. 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 2 months. 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)

@ TenOfAllTrades: while there's more (a lot more) evidence that could be added, it would really be overkill, I think. The RFC evidence is a representative selection and I'm not sure there is much to be gained by going the extra mile to dig up even more examples of the same things. Prioryman (talk) 21:11, 11 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)

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)

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)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (3/0/2/1)

• 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)

• 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)

• Accept. Similar to SirFozzie, I'll recuse if anyone requests it. PhilKnight (talk) 20:50, 11 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: PhilKnight has offered to recuse should a party ask him to do so; unless that happens, he can participate in the case. Risker (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)