Meant mainly for MRSC: According to the instructions, even if you have written the primary "basis for the dispute" sections, you're still allowed to endorse an outside view. You should just not actually add to the outside view since you're directly involved. Discussion about any of the views should go on this Talk page. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll restore my endorsement. MRSC • Talk 16:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way that this users behavior under previous identities can be taken into account? I have filed this report [here] as sockpuppetry. His reply is plausible. He admits to having previous accounts.His behavior pattern remains questionable.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't appear to have used multiple accounts abusively. However, he was running into the same problems with the other accounts and with other editors for similar poor conduct and was blocked. I'm not sure if adding his additional poor conduct since the RFC and in his earlier accounts is neccassary, given they are on a similar theme. Someone more experienced in RFC could perhaps advise us on that? MRSC • Talk 11:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been mentioned here, so it's a matter of public record that it's in your considerations, even if not officially in the RFC. I'd say only pursue that if you feel it's important to your case - your own dispute with him is about how he's treating you, but if it comes down to something requiring administrator action, a note of "He's gotten into trouble for this before" would give you extra leverage. That said, I strongly advise you to continue trying to resolve the dispute peacefully first. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--Harkey Lodger (talk) 15:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yorkshire Phoenix wouldn't have any connection would he? User page and contribution history/style are comparable. --Jza84 |  Talk  16:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, for one thing I'm not sure that somebody who proclaims to be a Calvanist would work to get the Catholic Church aricle to GA status! :p The fact that YP has the same stance as me on the historic counties is coincidental and actually, its a mainstream/majority stance in at least Yorkshire. Also, for the record, if such information is relevent, I support Hull FC not Leeds Rhinos. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This means we are only concerned with the following three accounts:

• Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• CalcioSalvo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• SalvoCalcio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Thank you for clarifying that for us. MRSC • Talk 17:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is, unless there are any other accounts we need to be made aware of, Yorkshirian? --Jza84 |  Talk  17:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless a period of anonymous editing before ever getting an acount and between losing my old password and starting this one counts, then no. - Yorkshirian (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yorkshirian for responding to this RFC. This alone shows commitment to resolving this dispute and I thank you for that. I would like to give my analysis of the response as follows:

1. Focus on conduct: Much of the response is focussed on content dispute. Whilst there have indeed been issues over content, that is outside the terms of the RFC process and does not at all address the concerns I raised which were entirely restricted to his conduct. It is a shame he has tried to muddy the waters by referring to this, as the evidence I provided was entirely conduct-based. I line with user RFC rules I have no other comment on those sections.
2. Counter claims: Instead of replying to the claims I made in the RFC about his conduct, Yorkshirian has made a number of claims about my conduct and cited various policies. Firstly I note this relates to correspondence around the time the RFC was filed, so it is unlikely that this can have contributed to his earlier poor conduct. Secondly, the links he has given do not support the claims he is making. For example this comment was added to his talk page after he made some very serious allegations about User:Jza84, which turned out to be entirely without foundation. I concede I did encourage him to respond to the RFC. This was out of genuine desire to move things along and because there was an escalation of poor conduct which I thought would be better worked out here.
3. Respecting our policies: What I find troubling in this is the suggestion that because I have remained calm and used polite language in dealing with this dispute I have somehow been "offensive and a cause for friction". Respect and good manners towards other editors is core to Wikipedia and I feel Yorkshirian still does not understand the significance of this.
4. Team MRSC and Jza84: Looking at the discussions involving Yorkshirian's conduct on his talk page, on article talk pages and the support for my statement of the dispute, it is clear this is not a problem that originated from two editor alone and has been orchestrated by us as a conspiracy. A range of editors have found his conduct to be at fault and have commented on it at various forums.
5. Commitment to change: This is fantastic news. However, Yorkshirian should not see this as a need to "robotize" or "deflower". Talking politely and constructively does not necessitate talking like a robot.
6. Discussing contentious issues: This is perhaps the nub of the issue and the reason the RFC was filed. We all want to discuss points directly with Yorkshirian. Unfortunately he only used talk pages as a last resort and then with very poor conduct. If Yorkshirian agrees to the points in the RFC he will have no difficulty engaging successfully with other editors. The only reason we withdrew from discussion was because the conduct was so poor that it was impossible to continue on a rational and calm basis; and a perceived inability to accept consensus.
7. Agreement to desired outcome: As no evidence has come to light of either editors exhibiting anything like the poor behaviour in this RFC I feel it is inappropriate for them to commit to these desired outcomes. I cannot talk for Jza84, but I can confirm that I will of course address any point raised by Yorkshirian directly, provided he is polite, constructive and willing to listen (this has always been my position and remains unchanged).

In summary, great that Yorkshirian has responded. Unfortunate that he has brought content matters into the conduct RFC, has made several claims about me without proper supporting evidence and has made further claims elsewhere about Jza84. It is good that Yorkshirian acknowledges his poor conduct, but with regret that he has tried to suggest it originated from anyone other than him. However, Yorkshiran has made clear his desire to move on with constructive edits and discussion and that is all myself and other editors involved in this dispute have asked for. If he remains committed to the desired outcomes of this RFC I know he will receive the same back from other editors, as there are some fine contributors in the areas he edits around; all with strong commitment to Wikipedia policies; as have I. MRSC • Talk 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks fo the reply. However, I feel if you expect me to follow the "Desired outcome" which you authored, then it is only right that you make the same comitment to do the same to show that you are as willing as me to resolve the dispute. Presented in the Wikipedia:WQA was evidence of inappropriate behaviour on your side too,[1] it would be best all round if you can acknowlege that not all of your actions have been in line with acceptability. Content was mentioned because my at times strongly worded comments were a result of what I felt was antagonism in content dispute with you and Jza.

I am unconditionally willing to try and change my abrasive way of talking to a lighter one for the sake of civility, however, especially in regards to a 1RR commitment, I'd only be willing to try that part, if you and Jza were too. Otherwise I feel this is just masked bureaucracy to try and "win" or "gain advantage" in a content dispute. If, as you say, the editing of articles is not the question here, but civility, then things like the 1RR which you suggested is not relevent to this RFC at all. The rest of it I am fine with. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern, Yorkshirian, is that I feel myself and others have given you a commendable level of dignity throughout - never resorting (stooping I would say) to name-calling, purposely mis-attributing policies (which I will come onto), or making baseless allegations. A cursory glance at MRSC and I shows we each have had long and healthy userships on Wikipedia. Although we've clearly worked well together on some pages, we don't work as a "tag team" and have yet to work collaboratively on a single article.

Right now (putting some rather odd Template:Infobox UK place dispute which happened behind us), I feel a significant part (if not the crux) of the problem is your lack of adherance to WP:PLACE (I imagine MRSC and Harkey feel it is more WP:OWN and others). OK, you've requested some commitments on our (MRSC and I) part, but in response I'd like an additional commitment from yourself to respect our naming convention; there's little to be gained by mixing up the approach for Yorkshire-only related content, when the rest of the UK is capable of maintaining a level of agreement and harmony in the interests of the project.

For the record I think it would be a shame to lose you as a contributor; you're clearly very knowledgable, and have much to offer to help this wiki move onwards and upwards. I think Harkey made the best point throughout all of this here: Being shamelessly arrogant for a moment, I happen to think we're all some of the better contributors of Wikipedia, and should be capable of better than this. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that you have made these various claims against me because I feel you have misatributed policy and have been somewhat disingenuous. The comments I made to you were polite, concerned your poor conduct and all offerred a route to ending this dispute. I see the WQA as a somewhat petty retaliation by you for this RFC. However, I concede you might well have felt the level of contact from other editors was considerable, but this was because you were ignoring our attempts to talk to you.

I understand your concern over 1RR and how this may be perceived as a license for other editors to have some advantage over you. The intention of this outcome is to achieve a "talk first, edit second" on edits which are likely to cause conflict. As a general rule for myself, if I think I am going to make a contraversial edit, I go to the talk page first. Similarly if someone has reverted an edit in good faith and the reasoning is unclear, I go to the talk page first. I have commitment to ensure this remains the case on all Yorkshire-related articles. Where 1RR applies on your edits, I promise that where I feel your edits are innapropriate I will go to the talk page first. Of course this requires that you do not ignore the talk page.

Jza84 mention WP:PLACE and I think he is right to do so. You have issue with this policy and have challenged its legitimacy in a number of ways. Most recently you claim that as it was made in 2004 it should be revisited. There are two possible scenarious where I think this should happen. Firstly, because the consensus has changed and secondly because new evidence has come to light. In the first case the policy was carried with a majority group of editors who agreed with the policy and a small group of very vocal, very persistent editors who did not. It is now four years later and the same editor profile exists. Throughout UK articles a wide range of editors are happily abiding with this policy and a highly vocal tiny minority are not. For the second case, there is a wealth of academic literature produced on this subject and much of it was reviewed in 2004, and was looked at again as part of a literature review I undertook for several articles. There has been no shift in this literature since then and it is wrong to review the policy on that point either.

I recognise your attempts to reconcile and as regards to the desired outcomes, I will personally ensure that neither myself or any other editor uses them to disadvantage you. MRSC • Talk 22:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick comment: Keep in mind that our civility policies apply at all times, regardless of who is involved. While I agree that it's reasonable for Yorkshirian to ask that everyone agree to cooperate with one another and lay down any hostilities, the fact remains that everyone is ALWAYS expected to abide by WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc., regardless of any outstanding conflicts. Abiding by those policies is not a bargaining point. (I say this knowing full well that it is possible to be abrasive and blunt without violating these policies.)

So basically, remove or ignore any particular bargaining in this situation that has to do with "I'll abide by X, Y or Z policy if you do", as that is not a valid way to resolve a dispute. You all should agree to abide by those policies unconditionally. What I think you should focus your attention on, though, is agreeing to either work together or stay out of each other's way, but otherwise put aside your differences - agree to disagree if you need to - and get back to addressing the content dispute in a constructive way.

Jza84: Yorkshirian has requested that you apologize to him for the "racist" comment. It's apparent that he was personally offended by that statement, regardless of your intentions, and I think it would help to resolve the dispute if you owned that.

Content dispute: Behavior issues aside, it's pretty obvious that the source of a large portion of this dispute is a disagreement over some regional issues regarding the affected articles. Since you have so far been unsuccessful in reaching a consensus on what should be accepted in the articles themselves, you should see if you can work together on comparing your sources of information (since it's quite possible that you have individually reliable sources that conflict with one another) and seeing if you can establish which of them is more correct and verifiable. If that doesn't result in any headway, you should file a request for a third opinion or an article Request for Comment to get more eyes on the issue. (I regret that I can't help you with it, since I have no knowledge of the subject.) The important point here is that you achieve consensus and be willing to accept that consensus once it's been reached. (That doesn't mean it can't ever change, but significant changes need to be backed up with new information that justify them.)

I hope this all helps. Please let me know if you have any questions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify KieferSkunk, I don't feel this is a "content dispute"; I understood that the whole point of this corner of Wikipedia is/was to curtail Yorkshirian's (self-admitted?) bad behaviour. If, as you say, we're all required to follow policies X, Y and Z, then, if Yorkshirian can make a gesture that he'll abide by the aforementioned conventions and principles, then this episode is closed, and amicably so.

Putting the "racism" aside for a moment, there isn't actually a single policy or convention broken by MRSC or myself (as demonstrated by the endorsements on the project page), we're both adhering to things like WP:CIVIL, WP:OWN, WP:PLACE, etc and I think that should be taken into account here, by all, if it's to be the case on the main RFC. I would hope we are all mindful that the subject of this RFC is Yorkshirian, not MRSC and I.

OK, onto "racism". In the project page I've explained why I used that word, in the heat-of-the-moment, having had such uncalled language used against me at least twice before, and having given Yorkshirian a warning that I take offense. That it was racist, was, most definately, a bad call on my part and poor use of vocabulary. However, on greater reflection, Yorkshirian's statements are undoubtedly discriminatory: should he had used that kind of language in a work environment, he'd be looking at disciplinary action, probably under gross misconduct, at very least. Should I really be apologising for bringing this to light on a Wikiquette board??? - I think not. Again, Yorkshirian is the subject of this RFC, not I, and I don't endorse his response, and have yet to see any explaination as to why he, or anybody else, feels this behaviour is/was permissable. --Jza84 |  Talk  23:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On this point I would add that Yorkshirian showed clear prejudice against several editors he perceived to be of lower worth, based on their geographic locality. These words have different connotations, but the effect is the same; these people were pre judged and attacked based on a single attribute (their perceived origin) and this is very wrong. I would agree from an equality and diversity point of view, this action would usually garner serious sanction. MRSC • Talk 05:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(reset indent) The crux of all this is that when he is presented with indefatigable evidence of any kind, as to his behaviour or his editing, Yorkshirian attacks the editors, not the evidence. If he could address the message, not the messenger, in future then his problems would be resolved.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 06:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wondered where we were upto in terms of resolving this RfC? --Jza84 |  Talk  22:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still displeased with Yorkshirian's conduct. An edit I made has (again) just been referred to as "vandalism", [2]. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe he (again) breachs WP:AGF here. What action is going to be taken here? --Jza84 |  Talk  01:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More incivility and old habits here too. --Jza84 |  Talk  01:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new diffs are deeply worrying...and I had thought this Rfc had helped resolve such 'problems'. = ( --Cameron (T|C) 12:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It appears that this RFC went too long without any real feedback. May be time to escalate up the WP:DR ladder. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not! I don't think the behaviour warrant such a drastic step. --Cameron (T|C) 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Gross incivility and assuming bad faith are disruptive to the project, as they violate core Wikipedia policies. The civility part is one reason that people can and often are blocked from editing. Acting with prejudice, and accusing others of the same, is not acceptable behavior here. In my opinion, you guys have given this a reasonable effort, but Yorkshirian does not appear to be particularly interested in adjusting his behavior. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, after a second look, they do seems more serious. What does Yorkshirian have to say on the subject? Has anyone confronted him on the matter? --Cameron (T|C) 18:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. The conduct remains adversarial and uncivil. I am concerned that edits to Greater Manchester and Talk:Greater Manchester betray an inability to work constructively in collaboration with others. MRSC • Talk 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps coaching by an admin would be a good idea? --Cameron (T|C) 09:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Robin Hood where, again, he is "putting words into other editors mouths" as he has done before to me. This is most offensive and is disrupting the previous constructive editing of the article.--Harkey Lodger (talk) 06:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this still going on without action? --Jza84 |  Talk  19:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

not quite how I would have put it but you certainly have a point. Perhaps Yorkshirian just needs another nudge. --Cameron* 19:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does become tiresome when you're the butt of his abuse after six months AND you take part in a system that does nothing. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just took another look at the edits. I didn't notice the edit summary. Indeed, I find them more worrying than the actual edits! --Cameron* 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hense my section title (I don't normally use obscene language, but hell, this issue needs resolving). It's not the content, it's Yorkshirian's continued goading, abuse and spitefullness in his edit summaries against me which I find disgusting. Yorkshirian has a well documented history of only using edit summaries when he wants to attack someone. Well, if it's ok for him, why nobody else? Why isn't he adhering to his committments? --Jza84 |  Talk  20:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, it's pretty obvious that this RFC has failed to change anything. I'm going to escalate this to WP:ARBCOM for a further look. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is such a drastic step really necessary? Nobody has left him a note yet. Couldn't we take this to ANI instead? --Cameron* 20:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this edit summary totally undermines this RFC and the good work to bring this bad conduct under control. There is a clear lack of respect for Wikipedia values, which have been explained in detail and with incredible patience by a wide variety of editors. However, civility is not optional and we need to move into a new phase of dealing with our concerns. A ban from editing for a significant period appears to be the only way to impress upon Yorkshirian that we take the fundamental values of Wikipedia seriously. MRSC • Talk 21:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to Cameron's question: Going to ANI is actually a more drastic step than going to ArbCom (though ANI is likely to be the next step if ArbCom doesn't hear the case). ArbCom can provide guidance and set rules that Yorkshirian will be expected to abide by, if they feel it's necessary and appropriate, and they can enforce those rules (unlike MedCab, WQA and RFC/U, whose main purpose is to try to resolve the issue without administrator intervention). I do believe this is necessary, and at this point I'm pretty certain that mediation is unlikely to achieve results beyond what's already happened here. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm convinced especially after looking at the newly provided diffs. --Cameron* 10:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• [3] - talk page comment calls good-faith edit "vandalism"
• [4] - edit summary calls good-faith edit "vandalism"

The conduct appears to be getting worse again. MRSC • Talk 06:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. And the edit I made is inline with consensual views here. --Jza84 |  Talk  10:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply offended by this "bad faith nomination" - especially given the disussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Yorkshire#Controvertial. MRSC • Talk 18:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another "vandalism" edit summary [5] MRSC • Talk 18:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's madness, it really is. He's at RfC and RfA and yet continues to be abusive [6] under such close monitoring. OK, people misbehave from time-to-time, but I think this guy is really pushing his luck, dare I even say, begging to recieve a sanction. It's sad in that it doesn't have to be this way. Should he recieve a ban or other incursion, I would hope this gentleman recieves some mentoring should he wish to continue contributing in a contructive way. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no other reason for this edit. [7] MRSC • Talk 19:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, abuse is one thing, but breach of WP:POINT does nothing but damage Wikipedia's wider reputation. WP:BLOCK might be appropriate given its purpose is to curtail damage and disruption to Wikipedia. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A block from a non-involved admin would seem the right path forward now. MRSC • Talk 19:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm only too aware that (putting WP:AGF aside given the circumstances) he may be seeking to have me block him by way of making a counter-case. Not going to happen per WP:BRAIN. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Guys, I want to caution you on something: It's obvious that you think you're right and Yorkshirian is wrong, and conversely, he thinks the same of all of you. But it's easy to get stuck in "group think" mode, where you become so convinced you're right that you might be losing sight of actual attempts to work constructively. Since I don't know anything about the actual content dispute, I'm not qualified to take a side on this discussion, but the latest diffs you've pointed to show that the only thing Yorkshirian has done completely wrong is to refer to your edits as vandalism. Other than that, he does appear to be trying to discuss the issue, and at the moment he's not directly assuming bad faith or calling anyone nasty names like he was before.

I'm not saying he's right, and I'm certainly not trying to defend him. I just want you guys to keep a level head - I see signs that you're getting increasingly angry about this, and it's all too easy to become vengeful and start dismissing everything he says out of hand when that might not be the right thing to do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point to make, one that I rad carefully. However, I for one standby that he is being disruptive and abusive, and is continuing to get away with it. Yorkshirian's actions haven't made me bitter and vengeful, but rather it makes me sad, and unwelcome. His actions frustrate me by way of spoiling my time, efforts and enjoyment - things that I could readily spend elsewhere.

Allow me to be absolutely clear here please. I haven't lost sight of ensuring that Yorkshirian receive a ban, and major mentoring programme prior to that ban ever being lifted. That is my aim in terms of a resolution, as stated at the RfA. I state that with a very cool head. Certainly this process has failed my expectations. --Jza84 |  Talk  20:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say despair rather than anger. I can see him assuming bad faith [8] and trying to prove a point by reverting good-faith additions without summary. [9] We've been on a long and patient road with this editor, one where we have tried to correct his behaviour without threat of serious sanction. However, at some point enough is enough. MRSC • Talk 20:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(nods to both of you) Totally understand. I just wanted to make sure you keep an eye on your own attitudes in all of this, lest you start assuming bad faith yourselves. Observing bad faith is one thing, but assuming it is another.

BTW, to answer the implied question in all of this as to why he hasn't been banned yet: Frankly, I think it's because there aren't enough admins aware of his behavior. I appear to be one of only a few (Jza is an admin as well, but since he's directly involved, it's inappropriate for him to take action). And all told, Yorkshirian is being difficult, but is not outright attacking people, at least with respect to the letter of the core policies. (In other words, one had to argue more subjectively to arrive at the conclusion that he's breaking policies.) Additionally, it's not clear to someone like me (who doesn't understand the content dispute) exactly what the content problem is, so I'm not able to take direct action without risking being totally wrong about that action.

That's why I referred this to ArbCom. They are in a much better position to either render judgment or refer it to ANI (or elsewhere) than I am. This is what they're there for. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed this RfC, and would like to state that as a result of reading some of the edits that Yorkshirian has made recently, including some of the edit summaries, I have had no hesitation in issuing him with a warning on his talk page (User talk:Yorkshirian#Your personal attacks on other editors) that he will be blocked by me if he persists in this behaviour. I have also strongly suggested that he issues apologies and promises to not indulge in such behaviour again. If this is inadvisable given the presence of this RfC I will of course give way to any work that Arbcom may wish to do in this matter.  DDStretch  (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get any argument from me. Such would be included in the ArbCom case - feel free to add yourself to it if you want. If ArbCom sees that Yorkshirian has earned himself a block within the time frame that the issue is being considered, it may help to influence any decisions they make. (Not sure if that's necessarily a good thing, but that's how I see it working.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given Yorkshirian's reply to me on my talk page, I have blocked him indefinitely unless and until he gives an undertaing to stop the personal attacks and apologizes for them. I will add a note to the Arbcom case outlining what I have done.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]