Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mike18xx

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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: 09:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 02:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute[edit]

User:Mike18xx has totally ignored calls to acknowledge and promise to stop meatpuppeting off-wiki. He has also been continuously displaying behaviors of incivility, personal attacks, and general antagonism.

Desired outcome[edit]

  • An immediate end of meatpuppeting;
  • an immediate end of incivility behaviour

Description[edit]

After being blocked too many times for violating 3RR and incivility, User:Mike18xx got into a relatively long wikibreak (around 9 months). After his coming back, he delved into editing a new article [WikiIslam] which is now deleted after a AfD. It was during the AfD where he proceeded to meatpuppeting off-wiki by inviting people to come to Wikipedia to just revert. The case was brought to the ANI. The case also involved some of the incivility issues concerning him. An acknowledgment of those wrongdoings and a promise not to do them again was asked but the user has always ignored them. He has been contacted to perticipate further in the ANI a couple of times but until now he abstained and kept on editing business as usual, ignoring any request from fellow wikipedians.

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

  1. Soliciting meatpuppets to "vote-away" in an AfD and edit warring on select articles
  2. Racist personal attacks made against editors with not-so-curiously Middle Eastern surnames.

Applicable policies and guidelines[edit]

  1. WP:MEAT
  2. WP:NPA
  3. WP:NPOV
  4. WP:BATTLE
  5. Wikipedia:Etiquette

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute[edit]

  1. The archived ANI thread where some editors have asked him to acknowldge his acts and promise not to do them in the future
  2. A request by Haemo
  3. A request by Probivouac
  4. A first note of FayssalF
  5. A second reminder of FayssalF

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

  1. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been going on a long time. See also [1] ("mind your behaviour" section), [2], [3] and [4], which are previous attempts to get a change in behaviour. I am not sure this editor will change their fundamental approach but perhaps an RfC will be the thing that causes Mike18xx to realise that it is needful. ++Lar: t/c 10:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Struck. Although the points made are valid, they are more properly part of an outside view. ++Lar: t/c 16:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I urge Mike18xx to address these valid concerns so that there is nothing more to dispute. Proabivouac 11:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ITAQALLAH 14:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

  1. Pablo D. Flores (Talk) (10:27, 6 June 2007)
  2. Aminz 02:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A. L. M. 10:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- tariqabjotu 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This has been going on a long time. See also [5] ("mind your behaviour" section), [6], [7] and [8], which are previous attempts to get a change in behaviour. I am not sure this editor will change their fundamental approach but perhaps an RfC will be the thing that causes Mike18xx to realise that it is needful. ++Lar: t/c 10:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While sensible discussion regarding the paramaters of wikigroups including the Muslim Guild should be encouraged, I would suggest this shouldn't distract attention from unacceptable user conduct. Addhoc 10:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Looking over this material, it is entirely consistent with this user's objectionable behavior on The Intelligence Summit and Operation Sarindar, which I have brought him up to WP:AN/I for (see link here for discussion). This user has clearly and flagrantly violated Wikipedia policy over and over. csloat 23:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

I hereby categorically state that I will not attempt to do again offsite exactly that which the Muslim Guild (look who's #6!) did onsite with completely open brazeness (note simultaneous claims to be "committed to the policy of NPOV" *and* to belonging to "a society of obedient servants of Allah who aim to spread our dominance across Wikipedia". (User picked at random from the list.) Is the "Muslim Guild" gone? Why no;; it's merely hiding under the cover of a re-direct. So, then, you may record this apology, as it were, for engaging in "meatpuppetry" in a manner not approved of by other blatant meatpuppeters.--Mike18xx 15:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{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:

  1. Sounds good to me: "I hereby categorically state that I will not attempt to do again offsite ..." . --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 16:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Now Mike18xx has not only ended the disputed behavior, he has also mentioned that he do not intend to repeat these actions. -- Karl Meier 17:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dead issue. Dead horse. Done to death on AN/I already. Move on and find a life.202.154.82.159 03:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

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.

{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[edit]

Outside view by Karl Meier[edit]

The statement of this dispute "User:Mike18xx has totally ignored calls to acknowledge and stop meatpuppeting off-wiki" is false. Mike18xx has not ignored other users request that he should not ask people outside Wikipedia to come here and add their comments and votes. Fact is that since these request has been made, there has not been a single incident where he has done anything like that again. He has responded by ending the disputed behavior, but apparently that is not enough for the creator of this RfC. So now I ask myself, what is the intention behind bringing this issue up again? What does he want from Mike18xx, apart from ending this behavior, which he is something that has already done? I can't figure this out myself, so I have to ask: FayssalF, what do you want from Mike18xx apart from not posting such requests at forums anymore? Do you have any evidence that he has continued this behavior apart from the single incident that you keep bringing up? As for the comment that he made about FayssalF's user name, that is again an old issue which FayssalF has told me doesn't matter to him, and that he doesn't want any excuses for the inappropriate remark. So if FayssalF don't want any apologies from Mike18xx regarding this, and don't care about this old comment in general, then why does he dig that old dirt up again? Is the intention of this RfC to end a disputed behavior (which has already ended), or is it just an attempt to get an editor that some editors has point-of-view disagreements with humiliated or banned?


Users who endorse this summary:

  1. -- Karl Meier 11:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thanks for the invite Faysal, but I agree with Karl here. Mike18xx did not meat puppet again after that first incident. This sounds a little harsh. You know for whom you should have filed a report like this? Kirbytime. Anyway, considering that the (false) accusation of repeated meat puppet is a big part of what is making the basis of this dispute, I wont certify the basis of the dispute. I'm not seeing anything lately in the contribs of Mike18xx that deserves any such attention. If there's any civility that came from him, I think that is in the past now. Everything looks ok to me. If there's any strong incivility from Mike18xx, then I agree this should be dealt with but I'm not seeing that recently. Now actually, there should be lots of diffs of any recent incivility but there's only one which is mild (Middle eastern stuff), so this RfC is not needed. If there were a good number of diffs with proof for incivility, I'd have supported your summary. I'm sorry but I'll consider your nomination of Mike18xx here in bad faith because, 1) As Karl said, the claim of "repeated Meat puppetry attempts" is false so this judgement seems harsh. 2) I didnt see you file a similiar report for user Kirbytime who was an expert troll and whose behavior here was 10,0000 times worse.
    Bottomline: This (the only diff for the Evidence of disputed behavior) is not enough justification to call for an RfC. Its a mild personal attack, sure and it would be best not to see that kind of stuff, but it goes on all the time by a lot of people. Recently, a group of editors were personally attacked by SlimVirgin (where she called editors anti-Islamic) and another editor Ibn Shah told me that "its haram to help you in any way". All personal attacks should be toned down. Lets close this case, Mike and everyone else including SlimVirgin will hopefully continue to refrain even from any mild personal attacks. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is a storm in a teacup and the continuation of hostilities here seem motivated more by political differences than any breach of Wikipedia protocol. Mike18xx doesn't appear to be indulging in any damaging behaviour at the moment and the pursuit of him here seems somewhat dubious to me. Let's fight our battles fairly, but let's move on when they're done. Nick mallory 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Said it all, Nick. Bullseye.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.154.82.159 (talk • contribs)
  5. This RFC raises two issues. The meatpuppeting one has been satisfactorily dealt with. The incivility one strikes me as overstated; the so-called "racist personal attacks" turn out to be neither racial ("Middle Eastern" is geographical and cultural but not racial) nor all that personal. Read Mike18xx's comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jihad Watch (2nd nomination): he could have been more collegial, but he avoids incivility and personal attacks throughout a provocative AfD. I've expressed concerns about Mike18xx in the past, but I now have no problems with his current approach. (Which is a long-winded way of agreeing with Karl Meier and Matt57.) Now let's close this RfC and go back to editing articles ... please? CWC 09:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is a pointless and inflammatory RFC. Mike has acknowledged his solicitations to meatpuppetry and admitted his error; there is nothing else to discuss here. Nor were his comments "racist personal attacks"; unnecessarily heated, yes, but racist, no. Even if Mike's editing is generally disruptive, other editors should work to correct rather than harass him. Beit Or 19:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree with Beit Or. Zeq 11:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beit Or has stated this succintly and clearly, this is a a pointless and inflammatory RFC. Teens! 00:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Itaqallah[edit]

The scope of this RfC appears to involve the most recent (and most serious) behaviour of soliciting meatpuppets. FayssalF is right to raise this issue again, for we have yet to see anything from Mike amounting to a disavowal and regret of such behaviour.

Mike must, however, also change his attitude to Wikipedia in general. It is clear, from the external link provided, that Mike sees 3 reverts a day as an entitlement —("The Wikipedia page will *only* get deleted if nobody shows up to defend it initially. This includes spending one's three revert-per-day allowance to remove the inappropriately-placed tag. It only takes three or four people to watch that article a few times a day for this to work -- so gather up a few friends.")— and as such (even now), he continues to make three reverts a day on any particular article he may be involved in. The result of such long standing behaviour can be seen by his block log. The comments reflect an intent to game Wikipedia. This must all be renounced. He must also stop seeing Wikipedia as a battleground (as documented above) — too frequently he attacks and insults editors, or makes unnecessary comments, whereas he could get more done without such; discussing changes in an air of positive and respectful collaboration. Administrators have frequently approached him concerning this, and a reform in his approach is now long overdue. To a lesser extent, Mike must strive to prevent his strong views from seeping into and saturating his edits.

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a battleground.Proabivouac 20:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes. The meatpuppet issue is serious, yes but my major concern, believe it or not, is not that incident, but rather the pattern of non collegial behaviour on Mike's part (see examples from the past in the diffs I gave, or see examples from as recently as yesterday in edit summaries of his contribs recently), and the apparently held view that 3 reverts, day after day after day, is OK. 3RR is not an entitlement, and Mike may well find himself again blocked for revert warring in future, even if he doesn't actually do 4 reverts in a 24 hour period... he should consider himself warned on that score, because if admins start paying closer attention and they see this pattern continuing, they'll be handing out blocks for it. ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC) PS, it should be noted that the link to Mike's post, provided above as evidence of incitement on Mike's part, is blocked (at the customer I happen to be at right now), as being "Intolerance and Hate"... I found that quite interesting. ++Lar: t/c 20:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aminz 02:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --- A. L. M. 10:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Very much a yes, as there's simply been a never-ending pattern of belligerent behavior by this user. Looking through the edits and summaries and talk page comments and such is like reading through the worst of the worst at some Free Republic-style forum. This person needs to learn how to interact with others who hold opposing points of view. Tarc 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yup. It's the completely unabashed assholeism which is the problem here, such as boasts like this. Agreeing not to repeat specific actions while continuing to war with people in exactly the same way otherwise is gaming the system. Chris Cunningham 13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Agree. Mike may be agreeing not to violate certain policies but in the meantime he has continued to violate a host of others. csloat 15:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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/Mike18xx&oldid=1138660715"