Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mk5384

The following discussion is an archived record of an user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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: 00:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC).

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · logs)

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:

Applicable Talk Pages

Common Defenses

People are lying about MK's behavior (extremely common remark) MK never provides evidence or diffs (28 Apr 2010)
OberRanks is really User:Husnock (referencing a dispute circa 2006) [1] Quickly Rebuked Further explored on Talk Page (28 Apr 2010)
This is a personal attack. (Response to Admin, admitted bad judgment) (7 Jun 2010)
OberRanks accused MK5384 of sockpuppetry. Accusation made by another user, MK was probably not involved (28 Apr 2010)
OberRanks was "warned" to stop harassing MK [2] single comment, why it was stated, user response , admin response (8 Jun 2010)
MK was advised by administrator Xeno to report OberRanks at ANI for harrassment. (Unable to find a single edit diff where Xeno actually stated this).

Applicable policies and guidelines

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

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}

-OberRanks (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Guy (Help!) 09:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]

++Lar: t/c 13:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC) (Ditto...)[reply]
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]
--John (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Per all above.[reply]
— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
– Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
– Objective3000 (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View by certifier SarekOfVulcan

{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 just left the following message on Sinneed's talk page. I see you have fallen victim to Sarek's newfound fascination with the block button as well. Between that and his refusal to leave his response in any other way than one that suits him, I really don't see that he wants to be a part of this collaborative project.

Users who endorse this summary:

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The response from the "victim" adds credence to Sarek's concern [3] -OberRanks (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I have never encountered this editor and have zero knowledge of the issues aside from reading Sarek's note at ANI. That said, I deplore Mk5384's "style", and strongly feel this type of editor can discourage others from participation. WP:BATTLE applies here, as some people just like a good fight and come to Wikipedia to do so. Sarek's point should be the core of further action taken. Jusdafax 21:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Objective3000 (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC) - I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that MK enjoys this conflict.[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

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.[4] As if that matters in wikipedia. The user needs to understand some things about what civility and collaboration mean.

Users who endorse this summary:

Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OberRanks (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
– Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Montanabw

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.

Users who endorse this summary:

Montanabw^(talk) 05:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OberRanks (talk) 13:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
– Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Curtis Clark (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by E. Ripley

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:

— e. ripley\^talk 17:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. -OberRanks (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
– Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 02:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Montanabw^(talk) 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 6 July 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:

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:

~~Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)~~ withdrawn, per talk page01:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some would say User:Xeno has already acted in this capacity, to a point. OberRanks (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Worth a try. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to Close

MK5384's responses to this RFC can be found on the RFC Talk Page. Given the various discussions, a Motion to Close is requested based on the following observations:

MK will clearly never state or admit wrong-doing and it would be unfair to force him to do so.
During this RFC, there have been no incidents of MK getting involved in any cursing or ranting outside of this forum nor has MK been blocked for any similar occurrence.
MK has accepted both the advice of Xeno and Guy, going so far as to even refer to one as an "unofficial mentor"

If a motion-to-close is granted, it is with the understanding:

If MK's name shows up again on the admin noticeboard, the admins reviewing the incident will be advised promptly of this RFC.
If there is again another serious incident which leads to another extremely lengthy block in response to cursing or threatening another user, this will lead to an ArbCom proposal.

Users who endorse this summary:

-OberRanks (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC) (agree only in motion to close & conditions, not in opening propositions - see my last comment on talk page)[reply]
Objective3000 (talk) 01:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with Beyond My Ken's comments above and wholeheartedly with his excellent comments on the talk page. My only good feeling about this is the amazing patience displayed by so many editors.[reply]
Montanabw^(talk) 16:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC) Agree with all of the above.[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.

Summary

Proceeded to ANI where restrictions were imposed. Ncmvocalist (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Statement of the dispute

Desired outcome

Description

Evidence of disputed behavior

Admin Board Discussions

Disruptive Diffs

Accusations of Lies

Accusations of Harassment

Anti-military threads

Applicable Talk Pages

Common Defenses

Applicable policies and guidelines

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Other users who endorse this summary

View by certifier SarekOfVulcan

Response

Outside view

Outside view by Baseball Bugs

Outside view by Montanabw

Outside view by E. Ripley

Outside view from The C of E

Outside view by Beyond My Ken

Motion to Close

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

Summary