Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mikkalai

Invalid RfC

This RfC is invalid. It was not duly advertised at WP:RFC/U at the time it was created (20 May), and it had not been duly signed 48 hours after creation. (The first edit by a second contributor came more than 2 days after creation ([1]), the first formal signature more than three days, and the listing on the main page more than 4 days.) Moreover, the subject matter seems trivial. OMG, he said "bullshit" a couple times? Newsflash: There is a lot of bullshit on Wikipedia. Some of us are dealing with it on a daily basis, and some of us choose to call a spade a spade from time to time. I see nothing in the "evidence" there that even approaches a serious incivility or personal-attacks problem from afar. The only seemingly serious issue raised is that of the use of blocking powers. But the one case quoted was an open-proxy IP of an obvious banned troll, and the other was one of the worst serial revert-warriors Wikipedia has known (just look at that block log [2]!), and anyway, that incident was almost a year ago.

This is a pretty lame attempt by somebody to dig up dirt. If there's no objections from other admins, I'll delete this RfC soon.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with FP. - Francis Tyers · 08:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't know it was expired - I wouldn't have commented otherwise. However, you should notice that there's not really any other way to talk to this user; he refuses to respond to anyone on his talk page, for instance. I know I didn't know where to go back when I had my discussion with him. --Haemo 08:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:BlastOButter42 and User:Samwaltz had been working on this for a few days. It looks like we got a few of the details of the process wrong - this is the first time either of us have attempted such a matter. In any case, it should be clear that we have both been of a similar opinion since we wrote the Wikiquette alert - my agreement is not something that "just popped up 3 days later". samwaltz 08:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if this is true, and this was a good faith mistake, then we should let the process terminate itself. After all, it's the spirit of the process which is the key; not the letter of the law. --Haemo 08:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry everyone if we didn't follow the process to the letter. Samwaltz and I had been discussing this by e-mail since May 15; I created the RfC with his input on May 20, but I'd been very busy and I didn't have much time every day to work on it, so my working got spread out over several days. We didn't want to "advertise" it, as you put it, until we'd had enough time to put it together, or else it would have been invalidated because it was incomplete. But that doesn't take away from anyone's ability to comment or discuss, or really change anything that I can see, so I don't see that as a reason to invalidate this. As to the things being a year old, when Samwaltz posted this to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, one user there said "Is there any more behavior problems then just that one, because it was in a 2 day period, it could be some real life problems. Some more examples would be nice," so I went to find some examples of consistent incivility. I'm not looking to get him blocked for those -- they're just contributing examples, like everything else. Finally, I certainly agree that it's appropriate to call a spade a spade "from time to time", as you yourself said, but this goes far beyond that. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 10:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait and see what other admins say. If there's no consensus to delete, I'll turn my statement into an "outside view" on the page itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I don't see how that has any bearing on the issue. Of course I understand why the RfC policy is in place, but you have to ask, does how the page was created change anything? And an outside view on this seems irrelevant to the discussion, which is about Mikkalai. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 11:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be nice to the admins. Give them a cookie. samwaltz 13:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I want one. It's coffee time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FP, please consider this: [3]. So, on the 9th, the sponsor said he had filed an RFC. But this RFC says it was created the 20th. Was there an earlier one? Did he keep it in his user space? The diff in any case shows that the initiator at the time knew very well that he neeeded two signatures within 48 hours. He then went on to Wikiquette alerts, omitting that he wanted or had wanted to start an RFC and of course was told to start an RFC. IF people want to break the rules for a higher purpose, it is fine by me, but remember: the rules are there to defend people's rights. In this case, the right of User:Mikkalai not to be continually harassed. --Pan Gerwazy 14:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Samwaltz created a skeleton RfC page without any original content on 9 May, which sat around unchanged until 15 May, when Mikkalai himself deleted it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted, delisted

In addition to some of the concerns highlighted above, the efforts to resolve the dispute took place after the RfC was launched. Sorry. Thanks. El_C 18:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC

This is simply too irregular to be fair to any of the involved parties. I think they should probably just re-file the whole thing, if that isn't too much work. --Haemo 21:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The efforts to resolve the dispute took place after Samwaltz's mistakenly created RfC, which was deleted, but well before the proper RfC was created and filed. I detailed exactly what happened below. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 23:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what happened.

I of course understand everyone's concern with this, but both Pan Gerwazy and El C seem to have slightly misinterpreted what happened with this page, so here it is:

Samwaltz, apparently unaware of the RfC rules, created an empty RfC on the 9th without having contacted Mikkalai, and it was not at all valid. He then told me about it and asked me to comment and support it. I told him that an RfC was not the proper course of action at the time, and the empty RfC was deleted by Mikkalai a few days later.

I advised Samwaltz to go to Wikiquette alerts. There, he posted about Mikkalai, and 2 days later, I added some examples at the request of a user there. I also posted on his talk page asking him to come to WQA and comment, which he summarily ignored and removed, as he did with a similar message from Samwaltz. Users on WQA then advised us ([4], [5]) to go to RfC. So, Samwaltz and I began discussing it by e-mail.

I created a new RfC with his input on May 20, different from the improper one filed by him on the 9th, which had been deleted. I'd been very busy and I hadn't had much time every day to work on it, so my working got spread out over several days, but we didn't list it on WP:RFC/U until it was done, had been signed by both of us, and Mikkalai was notified. Other than the fact that it took me a few days to finish it, mine was completely proper, and both messages from me and Samwaltz on Mikkalai's talk page were made before the creation of my RfC, and well before it was listed on WP:RFC/U.

I'm not going to try to argue to undelete this, since it seems that the minutiae of the process are given so much attention that the real discussion would never become as important as the discussion about how the discussion was started. However, would there be any objection if I recreated it (properly and within the 2-day limit)? -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 22:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure there's an actual rule about this, but my personal opinion is, you don't really have a case anyway. I'd really recommend you take a step back from this, for now, and give the guy a rest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't imagine he's been getting too worked up about it, since he just deletes everything we leave on his talk page. But that's just the thing -- it's not as much like a "case" as most other RfCs are, because my concern is not with a specific incident, but rather a general problem with this user. But I know several people who have similar concerns with Mikkalai, and I was hoping they might bring their comments (which also might be more related to specific incidents) like Haemo and 67.158.73.188 did. Though now, of course, they can't, as it's been deleted... -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the RfC up.

Leave it up. I had a recent problem. Mikkalai deleted Green Andy, saying he was a Non Notable artist (A7) and had not enough sources and then protected the page to prevent me from recreating it with sources etc. It was a sufficent page, and should have been left up.

Let him have it.

GREEN ANDY IS NOTABLE.

Give it a rest Wikipedia.

Stealthrabbit ^{Say it, baby, say it!} 15:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]