Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:37, 22 July 2012

Previous account was User:Off2riorob

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome to Youreallycan's talkpage. If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.

Youreallycan is using a one revert editing standard - I will revert only once in a 24 hour period and then discuss - Youreallycan 05:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

If you start a discussion here on my talkpage I will likely respond on this page as I like to keep discussion complete in one location. If you post an imo attacking comment here I will just delete it and you will no longer be welcome on my talkpage untill I remove the restriction.If I feel the discussion is confrontational or attacking I also reserve the right to request you to host it on your own talkpage. If I move the discussion to your talkpage please do not replace it here, I will delete it.

This user helped promote Ed Miliband to good article status.

Roman Polanski

Hi youreallycan. What do you think of my latest edits to the Polanski article? Are they still ok? --RJR3333 (talk) 07:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude - I can't believe you are still not blocked - you are doing well - lol - enjoy yerself wile you still can is what i suggst - lol - Youreallycan 07:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

But seriously, do you like my edits to that article? --RJR3333 (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

(removed prev - bit flippant comment) - I have not had time to in depth investigate - I will have a look in the next day and comment if you are not blocked by then - lol - oops - Youreallycan 07:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

But seriously, its all in the best possible taste - lol - Youreallycan 07:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If I seriously want to avoid being blocked, what argument should I make, or what should I do? --RJR3333 (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

BLPN

Misplaced Pages:Biographies of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Stephen M. Cohen

Stephen M. Cohen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Restore the content to the article. It is not contentious. There are no alleged convictions. The man has been convicted multiple times and there are other reliable sources in the article other than the court document I discovered hosted by the California State Bureau of Security and Investigative Services to show that the man has been convicted of these crimes that Kasanders, an obvious sockpuppet of several other accounts in the SPI case I linked to on BLPN that is shooting himself in the foot, whitewashed from the article a year ago.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not investigating any sock- puppet issues - I am only commenting in regards to your addition - Youreallycan 09:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

My addition is reliably sourced to a legal document for a court case in the California justice system. I would say that is a reliable source. Also your accusation that I reverted should be redacted from BLPN, as I self reverted.—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

@Ryulong - We are here at wikipedia English to primarily report notable issues that other secondary reliable sources have reported - This is not the case with your desired addition - Youreallycan 09:56, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

It is an official document created by a governmental agency. It is even hosted on a .gov domain. It is in effect a secondary source in regards to the other court cases. Have you even bothered to look at the PDF?—Ryulong (竜龙) 09:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes - I have even bothered to download it and read it/look at it - and I still support my position that your desired addition is unsupported in policy and guidelines, especially in regard to a living person - - Youreallycan 10:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A living person who has already been convicted of a major crime, which is supported by other reliable sources on the page and this one (under the "Cause(s) for Discipline" sections).—Ryulong (竜龙) 10:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Still receives protection under en wikipedia's policy and guidelines from undue reporting and publishing of primary externals - If you have additional WP:RS that support any content then that is what you should move to discussing - Youreallycan 10:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Well now you know that a secondary source has reported this, in a whole lot more detail than the DCA report. It was written by this bloke. If you are at a loose end, now, feel free to fix Kieran McCarthy, which seems to have had something dumped into it (which I haven't checked for copyright violation, but has the signs of one) and which I found by accident when I was trying to look up the other fella. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 16:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that one is also in need of a wiki clean up - When I have a little time and if the issues are not addressed by then, I will go over it later - regards - Youreallycan 03:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus to leave the appellation "criminal" in the lede. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Limited consensus does not override WP:Policy and guidelines - Jonny is an American rapist , Jonny is an American thief are also not acceptable "appellations" in similar situations. - Youreallycan 20:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone was convicted of a crime, and that is all that they are known for, then we can use the appellation of "criminal". Stop removing it. You do not have consensus. Also, stop your sweeping changes to the article. You are throwing everything out of chronological order.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

How the fuck is it "undue" whene have plenty of coverage on the page showing his crimes. His criminal activities are all he is known for.—Ryulong (竜龙) 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't come to my talkpage and swear at me - its undue to describe him as an ex convict - its hardly worthy of discussion its so clear - Youreallycan 20:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

He is a person who is solely known for the various crimes he has committed. He is an ex-con. There is nothing else about his life that we can use to call him.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

He (in my interpretation of en wikipedia policy - is a living person that was convicted of a crime in (add year here) and sentenced to (add sentence here) - Your position is to unduly label him as an ex convict in the lede unduly without any explanatory detail at all - this WP:UNDUE and as such is a clear violation of WP:BLP - Youreallycan 22:16, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Polanski citations

What do you think of the citations I added to the Roman Polanski article recently? --KeithJTasca15 (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh noes - is that you User:RJR3333 - lol - x Youreallycan 22:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

But, do you think they're improvements? --KeithJTasca15 (talk) 23:27, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre - Go "grow a backbone"

Stop it or I will ask at ANI to have you blocked for an extended period of time. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ask whatever you like - wherever you like at least I have not personally attacked you as you did to me - Youreallycan 15:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I've left a comment for you at ANI. I don't want to post any further on your talk page because you've already stated you don't want me here. The comment is to the effect of "I really value YRC as a contributor and want you to stay but please be willing to listen to a correction and this whole matter can be forgotten." Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Go "grow a backbone"

Regarding your personal attack on me on a high profile noticeboard diff - This is related - diff - Your claim that "I probably would have said this or even more had it been a conversation IRL" - is dubious indeed - lol - Youreallycan 14:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Fæ‎

This is unseemly. You seem like you're willing to take advice if it's offered politely, so let me politely request you not keep adding the "I told you so" business on his talk page. 28bytes (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It s not unseemly at all - You should allow the user to comment himself - he doesn't like others deciding for him what is unseemly or not - Youreallycan 15:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Commented now, so let's move on. I took your comment in good faith and I believe that you have nothing but good intentions. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool - I am hoping and supporting things here to work out for you - Youreallycan 15:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Re Stephen Cohen

You're at 3rr (and as I'm typing this, 4rr), and going against consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, enough with Cohen

I've blocked you for a week for that egregious edit warring.

Look, I was one of the Arbitrator known as the most fanatically hardass about BLP; and I'm telling you now that you've got it wrong. You've been told by numerous editors that your interpretation was overbroad, and even if they weren't correct you'd still have been edit warring against consensus.

You need to seriously sit down and reevaluate your participation here; have a talk with your mentor. — Coren  23:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've already started a thread at your mentoring page. I'm just not sure what I can do here YRC. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even sure you can edit there. I guess likely not, so we can discuss it here then. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

OTRS

I've removed you from the category. You should have removed it yourself. Dougweller (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Sent email to Dougweller with Q regarding this- Youreallycan 21:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"Youreallycan is using a one revert editing standard "

Really? Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have been - I agree I lost the plot and I was blocked for that. - Youreallycan 21:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request

Youreallycan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I would like to request unblocking - I was out of order reverting at ] - I have a lot of discussion on the talkpage and at the BLP noticeboard in regards to the issue, so its not like I hadn't discussed - I was under additional stress due to a ANI report i was having to defend at the same time - and the pressure got to me and my judgment was clouded - I deserved to be blocked - Since my block, edits at the article in question have moved the lede content to a position I am more satisfied with and although perhaps I still don't support it, my serious objections have been resolved, so that specific issue is for me resolved and not something I have any intention of returning to - I would like to be able to return to the multiple pending changes discussions that are ongoing and active at the moment and I feel my input to those discussion as an experienced user during the trial is beneficial at this time - I would happily accept an unblock condition of no article editing until the original block has expired but request unblocking for beneficial input to the ongoing discussions mentioned |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like to request unblocking - I was out of order reverting at ] - I have a lot of discussion on the talkpage and at the BLP noticeboard in regards to the issue, so its not like I hadn't discussed - I was under additional stress due to a ANI report i was having to defend at the same time - and the pressure got to me and my judgment was clouded - I deserved to be blocked - Since my block, edits at the article in question have moved the lede content to a position I am more satisfied with and although perhaps I still don't support it, my serious objections have been resolved, so that specific issue is for me resolved and not something I have any intention of returning to - I would like to be able to return to the multiple pending changes discussions that are ongoing and active at the moment and I feel my input to those discussion as an experienced user during the trial is beneficial at this time - I would happily accept an unblock condition of no article editing until the original block has expired but request unblocking for beneficial input to the ongoing discussions mentioned |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like to request unblocking - I was out of order reverting at ] - I have a lot of discussion on the talkpage and at the BLP noticeboard in regards to the issue, so its not like I hadn't discussed - I was under additional stress due to a ANI report i was having to defend at the same time - and the pressure got to me and my judgment was clouded - I deserved to be blocked - Since my block, edits at the article in question have moved the lede content to a position I am more satisfied with and although perhaps I still don't support it, my serious objections have been resolved, so that specific issue is for me resolved and not something I have any intention of returning to - I would like to be able to return to the multiple pending changes discussions that are ongoing and active at the moment and I feel my input to those discussion as an experienced user during the trial is beneficial at this time - I would happily accept an unblock condition of no article editing until the original block has expired but request unblocking for beneficial input to the ongoing discussions mentioned |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

- Youreallycan 14:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to support YRC's unblock request. I do not always agree with his points of view, but I do always respect his work at Misplaced Pages. I am confident he will return to his previous approach (1RR, mentoring) and that this was a brief setback, not to be repeated. Thank you, JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support an unblock but only if the 1RR was firm (not voluntary), indefinite (although it could be lifted later on request), and a violation of 1RR would result in a block. In addition, he would not be able to assert any of the exemptions listed for 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As the blocking admin, I can say that I have no objection to an unblock if YRC's mentor is agreeable to it. Dennis has been working with him for a while, and I think the best thing right now is for them to work it out together. — Coren  17:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to think about a proper reply here, so patience is appreciated. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 17:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that any unblock should include a 'firm' 1RR as he clearly ignored his statement that he was following 1RR. This would also need, as Bbb23 says, that he could not go over 1RR and claim exemption. Dougweller (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• - Considering unblock requests should be considered on a "its there further danger to the project" - my declaration to not edit article space and a pointer to the dispute that got me blocked is resolved - is a full protector of that - my unblock request clearly states an offer to not edit article space until the original block expires so I am unlikely to offer up official community indefinite 1RR restrictions for such a five day limited edit capability - Youreallycan 17:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

My reply

YRC, I've been mentoring you since May 15th. In most respects, you have worked very hard to improve your communications style, which has benefited everyone, including yourself. The last month, however, you seem to be reverting back to some old habits. This means my methods have failed, and I take responsibility for my failure, and I apologize for the price others have paid for this failure.

I think I've probably been too quick to jump to your defense, perhaps giving you too much benefit of the doubt, and incidentally encouraging the wrong behavior, even while my intentions were good. I am faced with either resigning as mentor, or radically changing my methods. Because it is a voluntary mentorship, you have always had the ability to withdraw and that hasn't changed. Sadly, I have no idea what the best action is here.

I think 1RR should be enforced, not optional. 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 Misplaced Pages. I've watched this attitude come back this last month, even while I've stayed silent.

Your editing here, putting the person in the article first and Misplaced Pages second may sound honorable, but it is actually combative and presumptive. The only way you will be able to come back and participate here is if you can come to the conclusion that you will edit to the letter and spirit of policy, not to your own idea of what the policy should be. Only if you can learn to accept that sometimes, you ideas are against consensus but that is just how it is, and sometimes you just have to suck it up and move on. You have to quit viewing yourself as the protector of the person that the article is about. Again, it might sound noble, but it isn't compatible with our goals here.

I'm pretty hard core about "doing no harm" in BLPs, which is one reason I stay out of the field, but you have taken it 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 corroborative environment.

Rob, you are a smart guy, damn smart. You have high ideals and I respect that. 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. Throughout the mentorship, I have 100% stayed out of what areas you edit it, and focused on only on helping you communicate better, never trying to control your actions, only helping you express your ideas better. Even the ones I disagreed with.

Honestly, I like you and know that you are a good guy trying to do good things, but I'm disappointed in both you and myself here. I am full of doubt, which is not something I am accustomed to, frankly. I'm not sure that I can help you. I'm not sure that you can work in this environment. I'm torn in every direction here. I can't see moving forward unless you can come to a realization that what you are doing is destructive, to both yourself and the project. I can't make you have an epiphany, but it might require one.

Mentorship has been hard on you, but in many ways you have done well. It has also been very hard on me, constantly trying to guess what is the best way to respond in so many controversies. Even at the ANI, I didn't comment on the merits (which were weak enough) because of my frustration of the BLPN issues. I just didn't know how to reply. Coren did you a favor by blocking you only one week for another issue. While you might not understand this right now, I am going to do you another one by not unblocking you and recommending the block be maintained for the full duration. That will give us both some time to think on this.

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 18:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Considering some of your strongly opinionated comments here (above) and your bad faith rejection of my unblock request (there is no danger at all to the project - I accepted responsibility and offered a way to progress that included extremely limited contributions, including none at all to article space) ) and your recent negative attitude to me - I reject you as a mentor - and have removed mention of working with you from my unblock request - Youreallycan 18:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

YRC, please reconsider. While I understand you have an impression that DB has recently shown a negative attitude towards you, it's not at all my own impression. He has affirmed his liking for you; also his respect and support for you, his faith in you, and his consequent desire to do what he believes is best for you. He shows you great consideration. He has also been very honest about the dilemmas he has faced. IMO he's a great guy to have on your side - none better here - and I would be surprised if this view isn't shared by others. Your passion for your chosen specialty here is admirable (and there are many appreciative comments from other users on record). I strongly believe you are already a net gain to the project. It seems DB's main concern is to enhance that, and also to be of service to you in negotiating the path to a modus operandi that will more effectively help you achieve your aims here, and benefit the project. Please don't give up on him. I hope this doesn't piss you off. I don't mean it to. Writegeist (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Dennis has turned opinionated against me since I rejected and opposed his admin nominee - since that he has been like a ghost - no contact , no support - in his post above he refers to me as "a fanatic" - Youreallycan 19:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If you can't even collaborate with your own mentor without turning him against you, then how do you propose that we other editors work with you?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have done my best to work with him but he has become opinionated in my regards - so he has also forfeited his position to assist me - you are opinionated in my regards since long time - if you want to work with me then I am open to that , please try to move on from historic conflicts.Youreallycan 20:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to occur to you that there is a pattern here where anyone who has any past interaction with you almost automatically becomes opinionated against you. It should suggest to you, I think, that since the only constant factor in your interactions with others is you, then perhaps it is your behavior that causes people to become opinionated against you. I have no problem working with any editor who accepts normal standards for collegiality and who treats collaborators as people and not opponents. If you choose to do that in the future I will be happy to work with you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I work on hundreds of articles in such a way - as I have encountered you seem to be quite a confrontational contributer - if you want to move on from that I am here - Youreallycan 20:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I work on my own editing behavior every day, and I often apologize when I do something wrong, or when I realize I come across as abrasive or arrogant. That quite consistently works out to the benefit for all. Confrontational behavior causes confrontationality in others. That is why people confront you. You should not be editing unless you demonstrate both ability and willingness to reflect on your own responsibility for causing conflicts. I have never seen you do this. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Good - If you have never seen me reflect/apologize/back off from a dispute/accept consensus when it is against me - then you have failed to look - please back off - I am sick of attacking discussion with you - - Youreallycan 21:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Backing off. I didn't mean to attack you, although I do see that that it was probably unlikely for it not to be perceived that way under the circumstances. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - perhaps later - regards - Youreallycan 21:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I have NOT turned against him. Quite the opposite. I'm saddened by his perspective right now, but I accept he is venting. There should be no doubt that I am willing and wanting to help him. Sometimes that requires taking a firm stand and being blunt, and maybe I should have sooner. But do not misconstrue my meaning here, and please do not pile on in a negative fashion. Block or not, he is still a member of the community. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 20:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request detail

" - recent edit history - there are discussions going on at multiple locations, such as - and imo my input is beneficial - as per my unblock request - Youreallycan 20:48, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock