Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mk5384

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Objective3000 (talk | contribs) at 11:40, 1 July 2010 (→Other users who endorse this summary). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 21:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 23:15, 3 June 2025 (UTC).

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Mk5384 is having repeated problems with personal attacks and incivility towards other users. Specifically, MK will become involved in a topic on Wikipedia, become very emotional regarding the edits made, and usually will wind up making heated personal statements against other users. When cautioned by administrators, MK will usually claim that users are lying about his conduct and are engaged in a conspiracy. Such statements normally continue until MK makes a blatant personal attack, which usually results in a block.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

  • MK pledges to avoid making personal comments towards other users - keep all comments on topic within articles
  • MK pledges to avoid using profanity on Wikipedia
  • MK strictly pledges to avoid making statements against other users which involve their personal lives, membership in groups outside of Wikipedia, or matters concerning their families
  • MK renounces all past claims that other users have lied and conspired against him (note, this does not entail any one-on-one apologies, simply a broad statement to "wipe the slate clean")
  • MK pledges to adhere to WP:NPA and WP:CIV.

Description

Mk5384 has repeatedly violated policies regarding personal attacks and civility against other users.

Evidence of disputed behavior

The evidence of MKs activities stretch over several months and can be divided into the following sub-categories:

Admin Board Discussions

Disruptive Diffs

Accusations of Lies

Accusations of Harassment

Anti-military threads

Applicable Talk Pages

Common Defenses

Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPA
  2. WP:CIV
  3. WP:NOTTHEM
  4. WP:POINT
  5. WP:DISRUPT

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

Efforts to work with Mk are too numerous to list. He has been advised and counseled by approximately eight administrators over the course of several months.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

See above section regarding evidence of disruption. Mks block log also speaks for itself.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. -OberRanks (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC) (per this diff)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

:#SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC) (May move up to certifying later, but need to review my interactions first.) Moved to certify[reply]

  1. ++Lar: t/c 13:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC) (Ditto...)[reply]
  2. Parrot of Doom 14:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC) Mk5384 just needs to chill out a bit. His contributions to Pink Floyd album articles, although initially problematic, later demonstrated that he was trying to be constructive. He just isn't very diplomatic.[reply]
  3. --John (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Per all above.[reply]
  4. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. – Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Objective3000 (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Baseball Bugs

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I was involved in the Pershing debate, but that was resolved and I've pretty much kept my distance from the user since then. The unfortunate thing is that even while this discussion is going on, and even as his short block was lifted, he continues his pattern of what I see as heated arguments over single sentences, splitting hairs about specific words and so on. Another thing I found curious but perhaps revealing, is a few weeks back when he apologized for using colorful language in addressing a female editor.[3] As if that matters in wikipedia. The user needs to understand some things about what civility and collaboration mean.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OberRanks (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. After I first blocked him I really thought, from his reaction, that he'd got it. I'm mystified that he continues this behaviour, it's so pointless. The guy is clearly intelligent and perfectly capable of making a case calmly if he wants to, but his reaction to any kind of push-back is spectacularly disproportionate. This is Wikipedia, nobody dies. Guy (Help!) 17:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. –  Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Montanabw

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

I was the person at the receiving end of Mk's nastiness on the June 6 examples linked above. I found it very disconcerting to be called an a-hole (and gender is irrelevant) over a minor question of capitalization. It seemed to be unduly nasty and he went from zero to frothing at the mouth over something that made no sense whatsoever. But what troubled me more was Mk's threatening tone and clear bullheadedness in the face of being presented with clear evidence that he was incorrect in his assertions, his unwillingness to discuss the ways he was trying to edit a Featured Article (Thoroughbred against a longstanding consensus of a large team of editors, (resorting to threats and insults instead of dialogue) and then asserting that he had expertise and knowledge that actually compounded the errors in his thinking. I hesitate to get very involved in this RfC, but wanted to endorse the efforts by those who hope to rein in the nastiness of this user, which is really quite over the top. If Mk can become a productive editor who can work collaboratively with others, that would be an excellent outcome for all involved. I hope it can happen. Montanabw(talk) 05:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Montanabw(talk) 05:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. OberRanks (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by E. Ripley

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Mk5384 clearly has some problems remaining civil when he gets heated.

I notice in looking at these diffs that once he's been admonished for something, he often seems to suggest that he'll continue behaving in the same manner anyway because he feels he's been mistreated/falsely accused/etc. I'm somewhat sympathetic to that view to a point, because Wikipedia can be a clubby place sometimes. However there seems to be a real pattern here -- the behavior he's being admonished for very clearly is happening with some frequency, it's not just an isolated incident. Worse, and to underscore this point even further, I note that he's declared that he'll ignore this RFC because of who started it. At some point, when multiple people have observed, admonished and even penalized someone for the same behavior, the person who's being accused needs to take responsibility for their actions and try to correct them. It's not good enough to cry conspiracy and continue to do the exact same things and expect that you'll be allowed to continue here.

Most of the diffs presented here are examples of some pretty rude language and personal attacks, rather than actual problem content editing (maybe that exists too, I don't know -- but if so it's not really presented here). In some ways this is the most unfortunate of all user conduct problems, because the community is presented with someone who wants to, and has the capacity to, contribute usefully to articles. Yet at the same time he poisons the atmosphere of some articles on which he works, particularly when there's a whiff of contentiousness. Unfortunately even when someone brings some amount of value to editing content, if they ultimately can't work well with others on this kind of scale, they often find themselves escorted out the door.

I would like to see Mk5384 rein in his temper and try to collaborate better with other people here. Wikipedia strives for an atmosphere of collegiality that enables collaboration on articles. Any comments or actions that don't foster the goal of creating an encyclopedia have no place here.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. — e. ripley\talk 17:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Well said. -OberRanks (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view from The C of E

I will say I agree with E. Ripley, Mk5384 does have a slight problem with incivility when people challenge his views. But I've worked with him before on List of current heads of state and government and he seemed fairly reasonable there (apart from the occasional swear word in discussion). Our discussions are here for my page and here for the debate. These I'm showing is that he shows some civility and reasonability so he's not a complete lost cause, he just needs a little assistance from editors and admins alike on how to become a more civil and productive contributor to the Encyclopedia. A small case for the defense at least.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Parrot of Doom 09:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. OberRanks (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Beyond My Ken

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}


As an editor with potential value to the encyclopedia, but also significant behavioral issues, Mk5384 could benefit from the assistance of an experienced and patient editor to mentor him.


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Some would say User:Xeno has already acted in this capacity, to a point. OberRanks (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'd even consider the job if Mk promises not to kill the messenger by calling me an a**h*** again! ;-) Montanabw(talk) 17:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Mk5384&oldid=371187628"