User talk:Ched/YRC
OK folks - I'm going to give this a shot here. There is/was a discussion on WP:ANI regarding User:Youreallycan. Now, I closed the discussion at one point, and there seems to be a desire to continue that discussion. My closure was not an attempt to stifle conversation or "protect" YRC/O2RR .. but more that as an "incident" without a full verification it seemed to be a time sink as far as asking for administrative action. I'll go ahead and list my pros and cons here - then let you folks have at it if you wish.
- It's been claimed that Rob "defends the BLP"
- It's been claimed that Rob "defends the wiki"
- There was a RFC/U in which Rob undertook a vow of banishment and moderated behavior.
Now I do AGF that Rob has the best of intentions in contributing to the project. I also strongly suspect that there are people out there that have disagreed with Rob who would stoop to low levels to see him banned.
- I think that the YRC and O2RR block logs speak for themselves.
- Rob has on multiple occasions vowed to "change" - and then failed to do so.
Now: FWIW - this particular incident of "asking for an outing" seems a bit of a stretch to me. I've been victim of YHBT over the years, so I'm personally not taking the bait on this. I'll also note that "asking OTHERS to out someone is a bit different than outing them yourself" This was my major thought on closing, or attempting to close, the ANI discussion. Add to that the fact that Rob is unable to speak for himself on wiki at the moment, and I have a real problem with that part of it too.
In the end I'll admit that I would likely support a WP:BAN. To be honest, I considered proposing that back when he (Rob) and another editor (former admin. now banned) colluded to hound and harass User:BarkingMoon off the project. In fact, had I been willing to forward some of the email from O2RR to Arbcom, I think it likely they would have imposed an ArbBan. But I try to respect confidentiality for all. Rob may have the best of intentions, but I don't see him as able to stay within the guidelines at this time. I think the "I protect the BLP/wiki" stuff is getting old. I'm tired of it being used as a shield. But the RfC/U and a lack of an Arbcom case indicates (to me at least) that there are enough members of the community willing to give this another chance. At this point -- I turn this over to you folks, away from the "we need admin action" ANI. — Ched : ? 20:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- ArbCom should unremedy Rich Farmbrough to write automation and WMF should spend massive amounts of money to access google's server farm to continuously scour the inter-webs for any regular expression similar to a WP user's name near any negative things said about WP and when a hit is found we can immediately indef the WP user. That will end all the dramah! Jester of the court (NE) 21:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Given the strict conditions he agreed to at the end of the Rfc/u, I think the best solution might just be to let him come back and see if he can obey them. They're pretty strict, and he'll have to work hard not to violate them. If he's intent on acting disruptively, he'll be blocked pretty quickly under those rules. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- As far as I'm concerned, the ANI incident changes nothing as it was not verified to be him to the degree necessary to take any action. To consider anything that was said or done from that ANI and use that as a basis for any change from yesterday would be inconsistent with our ideals. I'm willing to consider any evidence that there has been breach of the terms of the RFC/U, but I will not accept a standard of verification that is different than what I would want the community to use on me if I were accused of the same offense. As admins and editors, we are duty bound to respect the outcome of the RFC/U, the consensus of the community, until reasonable and reliable evidence is presented that a breach of the terms has occurred. This principle is larger than any issue with YRC, as it speaks to and defines our character. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I very much agree Dennis - the two things that bother me with this particular "incident" are 1.) It is so easy to spoof or imitate another person on the Internet. and 2.) I'm really not comfortable with using behavior OUTSIDE wiki as something sanction able. Different websites have different rules .. and I'll be damned if I'm going to allow my convictions to adhere to en.wp rules to dictate how I'll act OUTSIDE en.wp. Don't get me wrong - I have my beliefs and principles, and I'll not compromise them ANYWHERE, but searching outside a certain scope troubles me. — Ched : ? 22:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone bothered by the fact that a Wikipedia editor is apparently attempting to follow YouReallyCan around in off-wiki forums to try and find things that can be used to ban him here? Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's a valid point. — Ched : ? 22:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, he claims he was there for other reasons, but I don't know how credible that is given the hyperactive role he's taken in seeking sanctions against YRC. Much as I respect Doug, it just feels wrong to sanction YRC based on these allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, your second sentence pretty much sums up my views. If YRC is going to be given a long block, it should be for something black and white--otherwise there will be epic drama. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Well, he claims he was there for other reasons, but I don't know how credible that is given the hyperactive role he's taken in seeking sanctions against YRC. Much as I respect Doug, it just feels wrong to sanction YRC based on these allegations.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think that's a valid point. — Ched : ? 22:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Anyone bothered by the fact that a Wikipedia editor is apparently attempting to follow YouReallyCan around in off-wiki forums to try and find things that can be used to ban him here? Cla68 (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- I very much agree Dennis - the two things that bother me with this particular "incident" are 1.) It is so easy to spoof or imitate another person on the Internet. and 2.) I'm really not comfortable with using behavior OUTSIDE wiki as something sanction able. Different websites have different rules .. and I'll be damned if I'm going to allow my convictions to adhere to en.wp rules to dictate how I'll act OUTSIDE en.wp. Don't get me wrong - I have my beliefs and principles, and I'll not compromise them ANYWHERE, but searching outside a certain scope troubles me. — Ched : ? 22:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:HARASS#Off-wiki_harassment exists for a reason. Your actions off-wiki, if they are an attempt to negatively affect something on-wiki, do matter. And Wikipediocracy is really the site most tied to Wikipedia outside the WMF's projects. There's a difference between Wikipediocracy and some other random site. Especially when both Wikipediocracy and Wikipedia Review have a history of harassment, outing, and other unsavory things directed toward Wikipedia and its editors. SilverserenC 01:44, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- The "...will be regarded as an aggravating factor" is a key phrase there, oft-missed by those in their zeal to get someone the dislike blocked. Priory filed an ANI solely for this alleged act, which by the wording of policy is generally not actionable. There's also the fact that you don't even know if that wikipediocracy account is genuine. Fluffernutter listed a set of criteria to judge such a thing, so until one or more of those are met, there's no case here. Tarc (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever may happen to YRC, Prioryman should stay the hell away from him. If I had the power that some of you have I would have blocked him already for hounding. YRC's behavior is frequently over the top, but Prioryman's actions in regards to YRC are despicable. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- The "...will be regarded as an aggravating factor" is a key phrase there, oft-missed by those in their zeal to get someone the dislike blocked. Priory filed an ANI solely for this alleged act, which by the wording of policy is generally not actionable. There's also the fact that you don't even know if that wikipediocracy account is genuine. Fluffernutter listed a set of criteria to judge such a thing, so until one or more of those are met, there's no case here. Tarc (talk) 04:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Having been impostored several times here (not off-wiki that I know of, but I don't follow those sites), and having seen it done to others here several times, it's perfectly credible to me that someone might set up a fake account intended to try to trick someone into banning someone. That's not to say it's not him, but only that you can't blindly take situations like this at face value. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:28, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've changed my mind and am glad I didn't take any action. Not because I don't think it is really YRC, but because YRC is at the moment not an editor here and no action should be taken until and if he returns. I still think he should be asked about this if he does return and that this is a pretty serious offense. Editors who choose not to use their real names, and that's most editors (although not me), deserve their privacy and we should protect it when we can. However, not all of us agree. I see that one of our colleagues (presuming we believe he is telling the truth about his Wikipedia identity) feels it's not so bad, and wrote "Setting aside the is-delhidan-riorob question, was there really anything that terrible about the initial "if anyone has anything on Cirt, expose it" comment in the first place? The Serens and the Dougwellers of that ANI thread act like he shat on the rug and hit on his grandmother while singing Springtime for Hitler."[1] (um, is that other post supposedly summarising events really a suggestion I am somehow behind the off2Delhi post?) Is this becoming a more common feeling here than in the past? I note some other Wikipedia editors in that thread seem not too bothered. And Cla68, your behavior concerning Prioryman (and I shall tell Prioryman I think he should try to avoid initiating actions relating to YRC in the future), seems similar to your description of Prioryman's behavior concerning YRC. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've already asked YRC if he can shed light on the situation, via email. He thinks I have wronged him in the past, unfortunately, so he may not be inclined to reply to me, but I did ask, if only to inform him that such a discussion was taking place. If only for fairness, someone needed to. This is what bothers me, is how easy it would be to throw fairness out the window for the purpose of what we see as justice, but there is no justice here, only solutions. I seem to be quoting that a lot lately. Even in the face of seemingly brazen violation of policy, we can't lose site of who we are and our larger goals of being an encyclopedia that is open to everyone, where each is judged by his merits rather than his popularity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, the appropriate thing to do would be to leave him the heck alone. YRC has a documented history of getting overly intense in maintaining WP standards as he interprets them, and a key remedy of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan, endorsed by the community, was a month long break from Wikipedia. He shouldn't be dragged back into it early due to off site trolling. Right now there is nothing to solve -- YRC isn't editing Wikipedia, and we don't have any control over the rest of the internet. Emailing YRC was hasty. Nobody Ent 13:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I waited a good deal of time before emailing him, so it wasn't hasty, but I gather that you were using that as a substitute word anyway. Had I not had a prior relationship, I would not have, and had I not been taken the stance I had, I would not have either. If someone is impersonating him on another site, I think he would want to know now. I also doubt he is truly staying away, based on my experience with YRC, and is likely peeking in from time to time. But I respect that you think it was stupid (my guess as to the word you would rather have used, just a guess) and you may or may not be right. I thought about it before I decided to do so, and just felt it was the lesser of the available evils considering the uniqueness of the circumstances. I tend to think he would rather at least be pinged than ignored in this situation. He hasn't replied, so he may be ignoring all Wikipedia mail, or just me, or something else entirely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, the appropriate thing to do would be to leave him the heck alone. YRC has a documented history of getting overly intense in maintaining WP standards as he interprets them, and a key remedy of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Youreallycan, endorsed by the community, was a month long break from Wikipedia. He shouldn't be dragged back into it early due to off site trolling. Right now there is nothing to solve -- YRC isn't editing Wikipedia, and we don't have any control over the rest of the internet. Emailing YRC was hasty. Nobody Ent 13:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Aaaaand on-topic! FWIW, Dougweller, the suggestion was raised at YRC's RFC/U that anyone editing a BLP must do so under their own name, so clearly an utter lack of concern for user privacy is out there, but since most of the defense of the supposed YRC came from his usual supporters I don't think it had anything to do with the actual issue at hand. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- I've already asked YRC if he can shed light on the situation, via email. He thinks I have wronged him in the past, unfortunately, so he may not be inclined to reply to me, but I did ask, if only to inform him that such a discussion was taking place. If only for fairness, someone needed to. This is what bothers me, is how easy it would be to throw fairness out the window for the purpose of what we see as justice, but there is no justice here, only solutions. I seem to be quoting that a lot lately. Even in the face of seemingly brazen violation of policy, we can't lose site of who we are and our larger goals of being an encyclopedia that is open to everyone, where each is judged by his merits rather than his popularity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- I've changed my mind and am glad I didn't take any action. Not because I don't think it is really YRC, but because YRC is at the moment not an editor here and no action should be taken until and if he returns. I still think he should be asked about this if he does return and that this is a pretty serious offense. Editors who choose not to use their real names, and that's most editors (although not me), deserve their privacy and we should protect it when we can. However, not all of us agree. I see that one of our colleagues (presuming we believe he is telling the truth about his Wikipedia identity) feels it's not so bad, and wrote "Setting aside the is-delhidan-riorob question, was there really anything that terrible about the initial "if anyone has anything on Cirt, expose it" comment in the first place? The Serens and the Dougwellers of that ANI thread act like he shat on the rug and hit on his grandmother while singing Springtime for Hitler."[1] (um, is that other post supposedly summarising events really a suggestion I am somehow behind the off2Delhi post?) Is this becoming a more common feeling here than in the past? I note some other Wikipedia editors in that thread seem not too bothered. And Cla68, your behavior concerning Prioryman (and I shall tell Prioryman I think he should try to avoid initiating actions relating to YRC in the future), seems similar to your description of Prioryman's behavior concerning YRC. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, "Tarc" at Wikipediocracy is also "Tarc" at the Wikipedia. You may dip this diff in gold, mount it on the wall, or file it away in a damp dusty place if you ever need to do something with it. My take on all of this is that it was a con worthy of Shaw and Kelly, but ultimate a failed one. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- My reading of your comment there is that you were suggesting that I was involved in the con - which is so silly it hardly seems worth the pixels needed to deny it. If it was a con, it was a good one. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your reading is incorrect. My meaning was that you were one of the primary "I'm gonna block him for this!" supporters at that particular point in time. Seren's furious hysterics every time there's even a whiff of Wikipediocracy involvement in a particular issue is bordering on the infamous/notorious these days, so, apologizes for seeming to lump you in with that. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- The solution to lowering Seren's blood pressure is simple: He should take it out of his favorites list and never look at it again. It looks like it's a bunch of whiny malcontents, maybe not as bad as Weekly Reader, but striving to be in that neighborhood. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- So WP:Ignore all fools in other words? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Tarc, thanks for the clarification. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- So WP:Ignore all fools in other words? Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- The solution to lowering Seren's blood pressure is simple: He should take it out of his favorites list and never look at it again. It looks like it's a bunch of whiny malcontents, maybe not as bad as Weekly Reader, but striving to be in that neighborhood. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:54, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Your reading is incorrect. My meaning was that you were one of the primary "I'm gonna block him for this!" supporters at that particular point in time. Seren's furious hysterics every time there's even a whiff of Wikipediocracy involvement in a particular issue is bordering on the infamous/notorious these days, so, apologizes for seeming to lump you in with that. Tarc (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- My reading of your comment there is that you were suggesting that I was involved in the con - which is so silly it hardly seems worth the pixels needed to deny it. If it was a con, it was a good one. Dougweller (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- For the record, "Tarc" at Wikipediocracy is also "Tarc" at the Wikipedia. You may dip this diff in gold, mount it on the wall, or file it away in a damp dusty place if you ever need to do something with it. My take on all of this is that it was a con worthy of Shaw and Kelly, but ultimate a failed one. Tarc (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
@ Nobody Ent, regarding notifying YRC: That seems to push things into a "damned if you do, and damned if you don't" category. I think it's only proper and fair that an editor be made aware of a discussion when they are the topic of that discussion. It would seem rather rude to conduct such a conversation without giving someone a chance to even respond to some of the allegations that have been made. — Ched : ? 21:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Both viewpoints are reasonable. My vote is just for being damned for don't. What exactly is YRC supposed to do about it that wouldn't violate the RFCU agreement? Nobody Ent 21:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- If he is being impersonated at Wikipediocracy, he could protest there. To date, he hasn't replied to my email, btw, but I don't read anything into that as it could be for a variety of reasons, including a desire to not talk to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
- Participating in Wikipediocracy during a wikibreak is probably bad judgment from the start, since the idea of a break is to let all wiki-drama fade from your mind by focusing on other things for a while. But, if YRC really had to be contacted by email, it might have been better if the contact had come from someone he's on good terms with. 67.119.15.30 (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Signature at top of page...
[edit]...was posted by Doug Weller on August 20th: [2] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)