Revision as of 20:38, 11 August 2012

Requests for arbitration

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
Yasuke	13 Nov 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Youreallycan

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Statement by Youreallycan

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 rewove the lnk 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Prioryman

User:Prioryman -

Statement by {Party 2}

Statement by {Party 3}

Clerk notes

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 :''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
-=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/0/0/1) ===
+=== Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/0/0/1) ===
 *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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 20:29, 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. [[User:SirFozzie|SirFozzie]] ([[User talk:SirFozzie|talk]]) 20:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)