Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mk5384

Initial RfC Postings

Refusal of Mk to participate

Just for the record, Mk is apparently refusing to participate in this RFC [1]. -OberRanks (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Also just discovered that MK removed my name from the RFC notice he received, apparently so that people casually viewing his talk page would not be able to see that I was the one who requested his unblock in favor of this RFC [2] [3]. In doing so, he technically altered the talk page comment of another user, although this is a gray area since it was posted on a user talk page instead of an article. -OberRanks (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Further reaction from MK to this RFC can be found here [4]. -OberRanks (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Noted but perhaps it's best not to do a play by play on a user's reaction after an RfC is underway... let the RfC run and see what transpires. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that does seem rather counterproductive. I was recording the initial diffs as evidence of the user's reluctance to participate, but that points been made now. -OberRanks (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That's probably the least of your worries if the RfC ends up deleted anyway because of a failure to meet minimum requirements. 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 (in the form of diffs), and each of them must certify the RfC/U. (Such evidence need not demonstrate every single instance of attempted resolution and failure by the two certifying users - even a couple of the most recent and pertinant instances is sufficient). If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page, this RfC/U will be deleted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The RFC is now certified, I'm sure we'll have more users endorse it as time goes by. -OberRanks (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to keep a tally here regarding MKs statements regarding this RFC, the user again made statements regarding his refusal to participate [5] [6]. I reviewed some archived RFCs and found that it is somewhat common for the subject of the RFC/UC to ignore it completely, so this might be what is to be expected. -OberRanks (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Support

I don’t know what an RFC is and thought that I’d post a comment here. A more experienced editor is welcome to move it to the appropriate place. I am commenting since I may have had one of the first interactions with Mk5384. He attempted to change the basic strategy of Blackjack, vetted by many editors and innumerable sources. He claimed as sources four authors, three of whom I know. Unable to cite any page numbers, he engaged in streams of name-calling, demands for apologies, and threats. He then looked through my Talk page, and attempted to enlist the support of an editor that was long gone after repeatedly vandalized my Talk page. If you look through his several past arguments, a pattern would appear to emerge. When he has a disagreement, he appears to look for flaws in what he may perceive to be an ”enemy” and cites past conflicts. Of course, anyone that has edited here for a significant period has experienced such conflicts. I believe he wants to contribute. (Although his multiple daily updates of the number of edits that he has made on his own page are unusual.) I made many references to WP:CIV in his early days and many people since have done such. I do not know if he can continue to contribute. I think that some of his several bans may have been halted too early as in many cases he has emerged with continued accusations. But, I support the “desired outcome” as opposed to an indef. As a last chance.Objective3000 (talk) 00:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You may wish to endorse the summary on the primary page if you've had these types of dealings before. -OberRanks (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Concern

I have 2 concerns. First I am concerned that OberRanks (talk · contribs) and Mk5384‎ (talk · contribs) may be the same person, I see their behaviours as very similar. Second, I am concerned because, for example here, OberRanks encourages just the behaviour the editor is professing to be destructive. Mk5384 has gone overboard, and needs to dial back the rhetoric quite a bit, but I am very unsure that an RFC/U started by, say, myself or OberRanks, is going to be helpful to the editor or the project. In any event, I hope that Mk5384 can get past these issues and be a less-divisive editor. We need editors who care about the encyclopedia... it would just be more ideal if there were perhaps less "heat".- Sinneed 16:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm not the same person as MK, that's for sure, and I actually don't see any similar behaviors. We don't write in the same style, have interest in the same articles, and I think a trace of our ips would show us to be about 800 miles apart. But, I guess I can appreciate the concern. As far as my motives, they are spelled out in the "desired outcomes" of this RFC. I truly wish to help MK and see him move forward, renouncing all past behavior just as I did under User:Husnock. I have found that when the worst editor renounces past actions, apologizes to everyone, and moves forward, that deserves immense respect. That is why I made the HALO award you referred to, at the time I thought it was the best thing to do. However, with MKS recent actions, I believe helping him is becoming next to impossible now [7] [8] but perhaps there is still hope. -OberRanks (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I make no reference to the award, but to the wp:PA, comment on motivations of others, urging the editor to simply ignore disgreeing persons permanently, etc. Your reaction on being cautioned to focus on the content was very similar to Mk... that you were commenting on the content... that the other editor motives were part of the content.- Sinneed 18:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Could be, I honestly don't recall; I think at the time I was trying to bolster MK's spirits. As far as this concern that I am the same editor as MK, you're welcome to pursue that with an SP investigation if you'd like, but I don't think it would really go very far since our ips are so different, we don't write the same way or frequent the same articles, and I've been known on the site for years, both under this handle and User:Husnock. My identity has been pretty well established but if you have a legitimate concern, feel free to pursue it at the appropriate noticeboards. -OberRanks (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that they are the same guy, unless the guy is conducting an elaborate, extended social experiment. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

If it were more than a concern, I would have opened an SPI when I first expressed the concern to OberRanks.- Sinneed 21:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

This concern seems to me to be highly unlikely to be true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, given Mk's attacks on Ober, if it is the same person, then that is, quite frankly, evidence of a deeper level of personality disorder than a wikipedia Rfc can handle! ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 02:01, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

C of Es Section

With no one endorsing the section of C of E, I think its important to point out the possible cause. Everything C of E states is absolutely true. MK can be civil, can be productive, and can make good edits. The main problem is that MK also has a pattern of quickly lapsing into disruptive, attack like edits when things don't go his way. I also don't think at this stage MK needs any defending - he's been shown all the patience that the community has to offer. It is also disturbing then that even now MK is refusing to participate in this RFC while there appears to be a similar situation to these concerns developing at The Autobiography of Malcolm X with MK again accusing administrators of lying and misuse of their authority. [9] [10] [11] -OberRanks (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that MK is a lost cause. His immediate behavior after his short break was pretty good, until he became embroiled in the Malcolm X thing, and he shows some signs of awareness that he has a problem. He still tends to ascribe it to outside agencies rather than his own temperment, however. He needs to develop a bit more distance from his editing (a problem many of us have, myself included), not be quite so invested in what he's done, and dig in his heels less – nothing that happens here is quite as important as we sometimes tend to believe. So, while other editors should continue to help guide him whenever possible, most of the work really comes from inside. A good mentor might be helpful to him. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree and will also add that there is an apparent sign to MK when he becomes angry. MK will make rapid edits, one right after the other, stating things in anger, adding to the statements, fixing punctuation, re-adding statements, etc, etc all in the space of a few minutes (see the bottom of this contributions page as an example). I think this is one of the main reasons that MK gets himself into serious trouble - he posts without thinking. MK also apparently doesn't understand about edit diffs, mainly that everything he says and does is recorded and so are the actions of others. It therefore makes MK look very bad when he speaks of lies, unfair, actions, etc, when the edit diffs show exactly the opposite. -OberRanks (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Mentor for MK

Reviewing whats been occurring since the start of this RFC, I think a successful outcome may result with MK firmly accepting the guidance of a mentor. Furthermore, I think User:Xeno would be a prime candidate, as this administrator is the only one to which MK seems to be responding well to and MK even backed down when told by Xeno his behavior was getting to be a bit too much [12] [13].

For this to work, a few things would have to happen:

1. MK must admit that the items brought up in this RFC are very valid and very serious. I have a very big concern that MK is seeing this RFC as baseless, even though near to ten independent users have certified or endorsed it. Furthermore, MK is constantly repeating "I did nothing wrong" [14] and that the RFC is full of lies (even though the RFC evidence are links to MK's own edit diffs). I feel that closing this RFC without MK taking responsibility for his past actions would only give MK a feeling that he has been vindicated and it will back to business as usual.
2. MK needs to accept his mentors criticism without complaint and that mentor should have the power to block MK for non-compliance.
3. MK needs to absolutely make a pledge that he will cease using profanity and cease personal attacks against other users. This includes calling other users liars who challenge or question him. -OberRanks (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

If that works for everyone, I think we should approach Xeno about it. -OberRanks (talk) 17:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that Xeno appears to be the leading candidate. I would also consider the role, though I am not an admin with tools. However, as I am one of the people he attacked and thus I signed on to this Rfc, he may not be interested. But if Xeno says no, I'm willing to help. No matter who it is, it might be pulling teeth to get Mk to admit to any past errors, he's clearly got a lot of personal pride and touchy feelings, so personally, I'd be OK with just moving forward with an agreement from Mk for better future behavior that includes an ironclad agreement that there be absolutely, no profanity, no personal attacks, and definitely no blaming or accusing others-even if they may have erred themselves; a "two wrongs don't make a right" policy might be a diplomatic way of phrasing it. Montanabw^(talk) 17:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Xeno was approached. MKs response can be found here [15] and it appears he has no interest in accepting a mentor. Also disturbing is this thread [16] [17] where MK further states that this RFC consists of lies told about him. -OberRanks (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Copied from talk page of Xeno

Xeno, I opened up a discussion here regarding the possibility of you becoming a mentor for MK. -OberRanks (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've never participated in formal mentoring before, so I'm not sure quite what it entails. Of course, anything would be strictly voluntary on the part of Mk5384. –xeno^talk 17:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As you know, Xeno I often come to this page seeking advice. Whilst your advice has been extremely helpful to me, and I am certainly greatful, I have no interest in any sort of a formal mentorship.Mk5384 (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I must admit I doubt I would be of much use as a formal mentor (I'm quite lazy, you see). My talk page is always open, though. –xeno^talk 18:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, and I'm sure I will continue to come to your talk page, and hound you mercilessly for advice.Mk5384 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And again, I will respond in the RfC proper, if OberRanks will agree to an interaction ban if I can show that he's lying about me in the RfC itself. I, in turn, will agree ahead of time to a voluntary lifetime ban from Wikipedia if he isn't.Mk5384 (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to really think about what you said there. You are claiming that the RFC contains lies, but the evidence on that page is a list of diffs to your own edits. The RFC is also certified and endorsed by several other users. I am not going to make any "deals" to get you to participate in the RFC, but if you feel it was filed in malice and contains lies and false statements, report it to WP:ANI or, at the very least, respond to the RFC itself. If what you are saying is true, I will most certainly be immediately disciplined by the Wikipedia community. -OberRanks (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, for the record, as of today, I count 11 users on that RFC who have endorsed and certified that your behavior needs to change. I don't see how we can all be lying. -OberRanks (talk) 19:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The only person that I said is lying is you. I stand by what I said. If you haven't lied about me in the RfC, I will accept a lifetime ban from Wikipedia, effective immediately. But if you have, you agree to leave me alone for all Wikiternity.Mk5384 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

You should bring that up at the RFC talk page and present your evidence that I filed a false RFC containing lies. I'll accept whatever sanctions the community sees fit, including a permanent interaction ban and a lengthy block on my own account if what you say is true. -OberRanks (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll present very quick proof; not evidence, that you have lied in the RfC. Again, only if you agree ahead of time to leave me alone permenantly. Not "what the community sees fit", as Xeno, above states there will likely be little penalty for lying.Mk5384 (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Xeno, with your permission, I would like to copy this thread to the RFC talk page. A lot of this discussion should be documented and its hard to do that simply with diffs. -OberRanks (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just ensure you copy the permanent link of the revision you harvest the material from and note it the edit summary when you paste it. –xeno^talk 20:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you. I would also ask that if MK has any further concerns or wants to pursue this claim of lies on the RFC he bring his concerns to the RFC talk page. SHould he continue to post here, I would encourage you to either copy them yourself or direct MK to the proper place for this discussion. -OberRanks (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have already spelled out the terms under which I will respond at the RfC itself. I am finished with this discussion. If OberRanks agrees to an interaction ban upon proof of lying, (of course with the stipulation that I agree to a lifetime ban if I am wrong) I will respond. If he does not, I will not. Sorry to have cluttered your talk page with all of this, Xeno. The ball is now in his court.Mk5384 (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Responses from MK

MK has apparently approached Xeno again about this RFC, the full thread can be found here [18]. Of particular interest is that MK states "OberRanks has a separate user account devoted to this RfC" implying that there are parts of this he hasn't seen. The only other user account I have is User:Husnock which has been inactive for years. I think MK might be getting confused with my sub-page where the RFC draft is written. Since MK won't come here and explain what he is thinking, it is difficult to tell. There were also these statements made regarding "lies" told [19] [20] [21] [22]. The second part I'm not concerned about, but just wanted to stress that I have no other active Wikipedia accounts. -OberRanks (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I should also add that MK has apparently really picked up on this conversation between User:SarekOfVulcan and myself, in which MK has made some statements that I was "admonished" for changing the RFC after it was filed. For the record, Sarek and I were discussing an administrative procedure where you could not add or change anything in the RFC after it was endorsed. Once that was cleared up, I self reverted about 3 lines added to the RC [23] [24]. Sarek can verify, but I think there is little basis for any concern. -OberRanks (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

MKs Proposal

I'm sure everyone saw above that MK is at last saying he'll participate in this RFC if I accept an interaction ban should it be proven that I lied in the RFC. I suppose that would be acceptable, since I would expect nothing less than a block or a ban if it was proven I maliciously filed an RFC. I think, however, that MK is missing the point that this RFC is about HIM, not about me. I also highly suspect that this "quick proof" to which MK refers is a technicality or a comment taken out of context. I am therefore very wary of agreeing to any "terms" with MK. I also strongly feel that MK knows exactly what is going on and is fully aware his behavior on Wikipedia has been unacceptable. This latest approach to Xeno, attempting to shift the RFC focus on to me rather than him, is merely the same kind of pattern we have been seeing all along. I open the floor to what anyone thinks about this since, at the very least, MK is at least now willing to talk. -OberRanks (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion to OberRanks

It's clear to me that your effect on Mk5384 is akin to waving a red flag in front of a bull -- I don't ascribe any fault to either party for this, I'm not completely cognizant of the entire background (and don't really wish to be), I'm merely judging from what I've seen in the past on various talk pages. Since this is so, it seems to me that the value of this RfC in potentially helping Mk5384 to alter his behavior is undercut by your continued presence here. I would like to suggest that you think about backing off and letting the RfC proceeded without your input, and seeing where that leads. Again, I ascribe no fault to what appears to be a system problem in which baking soda and vinegar have a certain effect on each other that is difficult to stop once it's started. Please note that this is just a suggestion from an interested part, not a demand. Give it some thought. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I was actually going to suggest the same thing and I personally have no problem with that. This recent approach by MK to Xeno, where he at last indicated willingness to post to the RFC on the condition that I accept bans if it was proved I was lying, did however warrant some kind of response since, in MKs own way, he was at last starting to talk about this. But yes, if MK starts posting here and starts taking in what others are saying, I will more than certainly remove myself from the situation. -OberRanks (talk) 20:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ober, Sounds like you are thinking along pretty reasonable lines and Ken may indeed be on to something. Backing off might help and probably won't hurt. I'm sympathetic, as Mk's "conditions" are a Hobson's choice, though probably a bluff. I know a few editors who have a similar effect on me, they manage to hook me in by making ad hominem attacks that seem to come out of left field and I feel a strong need to respond, even though doing so usually means we're off the the races. Sigh. (and if I tangle with them again, I'm going to call on ya, dude, so you can peel me off the ceiling and then make me take my own advice! LOL!  ;-) ) Usually if the vinegar and baking soda pair separate, but with others who know the situation keeping an eye on things, it usually becomes pretty evident if there is a pattern. Here, I think Mk's past behavior does create a pattern, but he always can decide to change that pattern. Montanabw^(talk) 01:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I can state at this point that as of now I am voluntarily sequestering myself from this RfC and will make no further comments or posts to this forum. If that's what it takes to get MK talking, then that's fine with me. A neutral party should inform MK of this and indicate that this is as good as its going to get and he should really start participating. It should also be made abundantly clear that my departure from this is not an endorsement of MKs actions and it is certainly not a license for MK to post personal attacks, i.e. what would be blockable under normal circumstances (threatening, cursing at other users, etc) would of course apply here. With that said, best of luck. -OberRanks (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you OR, for that decision. I've dropped a note on MK's talk page to let him know, so let's see what happens. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Would have been nice, if he had stuck to it, but, as usual, he was lying. He didn't even have the guts to use his own account, and basically sock puppeted.Mk5384 (talk) 08:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In a comment on my talk page, MK has indicated that he's thinking about the situation, and is considering coming here when he feels he can do so in a civil and productive way. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I've printed out the RfC, as well as this discussion page, and I'm about to take it upstairs to peruse. Assuming I can find a few Valium, I'll attempt to respond after reading it.Mk5384 (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to note, that it will likely take me several hours to complete this response, which involves studying notes, comparing diffs, and searching archived material. I've placed an "in use" tag on the page. If everyone would extend me the courtesy of allowing me to finish this before they begin to respond, it would be much appreciated. I will remove the tag when I'm finished.Mk5384 (talk) 06:11, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Counter-Responses from Mk5384

Desired Outcome

1.) MK pledges to avoid making personal comments towards other users- keep all comments on topic within articles---Given the number of personal comments OberRanks has made about me, this is just ludicrous. Realise that this is the fellow who went on User:Baseball Bugs' talk page to inform him he had discovered through IP traces, as well as conversations he had about me off wiki, that I am "a loud mouthed teenage exchange student from England". Pot, please meet Mr. Kettle.

2.) MK pledges to avoid using profanity on Wikipedia---That may be better suggested at Jimbo Wales' talk page. There is no policy against using profanity on Wikipedia, and in the words of French author Guy de Maupassant, "Profanity makes talking fun".

3.) MK strictly pledges to avoid making statements against other users which involve their personal lives, membership in groups outside Wikipedia, or matters concerning their families---I don't think I've ever made a statement regarding a user's family. I'm sure that this pertains to my stating that I don't believe OberRanks is in the military. OberRanks is of the bizarre belief that not only am I somehow required to believe that, but that the fact that I don't is a "sinister personal attack". It isn't, I am not required to believe what he says about his personal life, and I don't think there's one example of my behaving in this sort of conduct, other than that fringe example.

4.) MK renounces all past claims that other users have lied and conspired against him---If I did that, that would make me a liar. It seems a tad duplicitous to use the plural term "users", as OberRanks is, to the best of my knoweledge, the only user I have claimed has lied about me. OberRanks, on this page has accused me of accusing User:Malik Shabazz of lying. I never did any such thing. This is one example of OberRanks' own lies about me, and more will follow.

5.) MK pledges to adhere to WP:NPA and WP:CIV---What I will pledge to, is to treat others the way they treat me, which is what I have done all along. I'm not Jesus Christ, Buddah, Krishna, Mohandas Gandhi, or even Wayne Dyer for that matter, and I'm not going to pretend that I will turn the other cheek in the face of unacceptable behaviour against me. Note, that there was also another "pledge", that OberRanks quietly removed after he tried to sneak it in after the RfC was already certified. It was "MK pledges to avoid 3RR". This came about from a disruption at the Alex Haley article. I was blocked, (and quickly unblocked), after I reverted OberRanks' edit to the page. User:SarekOfVulcan and I had each made 3 reverts, which left the version I had last edited as the one that stood for the time being. OberRanks reverted me, with the priceless edit summary, "restoring to last approved version". (As if there is such a thing.) OberRanks, who, far as I can tell, wouldn't know Alex Haley from Haley Joel Osment, had never edited the Alex Haley article before, and it was an obvious case of meatpuppetry. And, incidentally, another user has since provided over 100 WP:RSs that show that I was right about The Autobiography of Malcolm X, and User:Malik Shabazz has finally shown a willingness to cooperate and compromise.Mk5384 (talk) 06:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) MK: I hope that you will have the opportunity to read this before you make your next post.

The minutia and specifics of your disagreements with other editors do not interest me in the least, what concerns me is the general tone and tenor of the comment above. Even if everything you have written is completely and utterly true – which seems to me to be somewhat improbable, human nature and the frailty of our psychology being what it is – you have not behaved in the best possible way in these various circumstances, and it's your behavior which is the subject of this RfC. If this is going to be of any benefit to you, if you are interested in being a productive member of the fractious, disorganized, semi-anarchic but conceptually civil and collegial community that is Wikipedia, you really need to get some control over your emotions and refocus your behavior in positive ways. That means, I think, that you've got to do at least a minimum of pondering about what you've done, as opposed to what you perceive others have done to you, in order to figure out how to proceed. If you're not interested in doing that, if all your energies continue to be outwardly directed instead of focused inside yourself, then we may as well close this RfC right now, because it will never succeed.

Further, I've been here for 5 years, which is almost an eternity in Wiki-time, and I think I'm safe in predicting that unless you're able to constrain your behavior, you will continue to have conflicts with over editors, you will continue to receive blocks and, eventually, you will either be indeffed or even banned, if you haven't left in disgust before then. I don't say that with any pleasure at all, but it's quite clear to me that this is the path you're on. At this moment, you've been offered the opportunity to change directions and get things right, but if you continue to perceive this RfC as, essentially, an attack on you instigated by one person, your mortal enemy... well, you're lost.

Please, do try to wipe away some of your preconceptions and look at this situation with fresh eyes. I know that's really hard, but I think it's what you need to do. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst my behaviour may be the subject of this RfC, I have every right to point out OberRank's behaviours as well. This is an RfC. WP:NOTTHEM has no place here, and if OberRanks was foolish enough to file an RfC, and not expect to have his own behaviour called into question, then that's on him. I readily admit that I have not behaved in the best possible way. What I'm attempting to show here is that OberRanks' behaviour is downright deplorable.Mk5384 (talk) 07:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

MK, it's not about your rights, and, frankly, it's not about OberRanks. It's about your future here. Do you want it to be productive and relatively smooth sailing, or do you want a continuation of what's been happening ofr the last few months? Because if it's not OberRanks or MalikShabazz you're knocking heads with, it'll be somebody else. Is that really what you want? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, as Gary Cooper Gregory Peck said in Twelve O'Clock High "I'm giving it my best shot, but I guess I'm shooting blanks." Considering your comments here and on my talk page, I'm going to withdraw and let you handle this the way you clearly prefer. Perhaps once you're done with all that, you might be a little more open to considering my advice, I don't know. I'll look in somewhere down the line to see how things are going. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive Diffs

Has anyone actually read these. Disruptive? Really?

1.) Cursing at an administrator---OR seems to have the impression that cursing at an administrator is a more serious infraction than cursing at a common user. This was on my own talk page, after I was baselessly blocked, and the administrator at whom I was cursing, said it was no big deal. I also apologised to the admin in question, and he accepted my apology. First, it was not all that "disruptive" in the first place, as it was restricted to my talk page. Secondly, the person at whom it was directed received, and accepted an apology, so it's misleading to even include it.

2.) Talk page rant---This was on his talk page, after I was unblocked after a ridiculous, contemelious indef. Again, it's on a talk page, so no real disruption anyway, there wasn't anything disruptive about the comment, and he also leaves out the response from the administrator, which stated, "best for you to disengage from Mk at this point".

3.) Pretty goddamn mad---It boggles the mind that he would include this as a "disruptive diff". This was on User:Xeno's talk page, where OberRanks had baselessly, and falsely accused me of sockpuppetry. ( I was completely cleared in the SPI.) I was "pretty goddamn mad" after he falsely accused me of a very serious offence, and I was the one being disruptive?

4.) Seeking punishment for "false accusations"---OberRanks saw fit to put false accusations in quotes. I don't know why, as that's exactly what they were. He falsely accused me of an offence worthy of a permanent ban, yet was not punished, censured, or even made to answer for himself. Again, I was being disruptive?

5.) Demand of an apology---Nothing blows my mind more than the fact that OberRanks would use this as an example. Please, please, all of you; if there's one thing that you do, read this. This was a statement I made after he went to ANI, in a matter that in no way concerned him, and told lies about me. This was a message that I vetted to administrator Xeno, who looked over it, and said it was fine. ( Incidentally, it was during these conversations that Xeno advised me to file against OberRanks at ANI; the one for which he "can't find a single edit diff".) How the fuck, in the name of anything that's reasonable, could this be considered, in the most remote way, "disruptive"? The lies I mentioned that OberRanks told about me at ANI, I'll get to later, but for now, here's another example of why OberRanks is a lying liar. "Demand of an apology"-absolute irredeemable horseshit! Read, "As I have said before, you owe me an apology, and as I have said before, I don't expect to get it." THAT IS NOT A DEMAND FOR AN APOLOGY. And please note, I very rarely "shout" in all caps, but that is just beyond the scope of anything that's reasonable.

6.) Further problems with administrators---Are you fucking kidding me? Here, I was seeking Xeno's advice to avoid problems with an administrator. Read what I wrote in this "disruptive diff": "I assume good faith, and I find John to be a fine editor, a competent admin, and a nice guy." "Again, and I can't stress this enough; I'm sure he knows what he's doing, and acted in good faith". I'm sorry, but I have to do it: WHAT THE FUCK IS DISRUPTIVE ABOUT THAT?

7.) Personal attack, ect. ,ect. This was concerning a dispute with another user, which I will deal with in a separate section.

8.) Will not change behavior---Again, this took place on my talk page, so any disruption would be limited. But yes, in that case, I was baselessly blocked, and I stated, as I had done nothing wrong, there was no reason to change any behaviour.

9.) Blatant therat to sock---OberRanks is now batting 1 for 11. This was, indeed, quite a disruptive diff. In all fairness, it came at a time when I was pushed to the point of blind rage, after a problem for which OberRanks was largely responsible. But that is an explanation, rather than an excuse, as there is no excuse for that. Also note that I later apologised for this statement, so again, it's a bit misleading.

10.) Calling admins a-holes, ect.---ibid

11.) Wikipedia is a goddamn joke---There was nothing disruptive about that at all. I said that at an article talk page, after an admin was reverting to his preferred version ad infinitum, despite an abundance of WP:RS that showed I was right. It's getting carried away to call sounding off like that on a talk page "disruptive". If I truly felt Wikipedia is a goddamn joke, I wouldn't have made 5,000 edits to it, and I certainly wouldn't be responding to this RfC.Mk5384 (talk) 07:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

MK: Please read my comment above before you post again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that I am, at this point, done with this. I appreciate, with the utmost sincerity, the concerns of BMK. However, I agreed to respond here so that I could defend myself. Not to fellate the proverbial phallus of those would readily burn me at the stake. "If truth shall be my companion in the flames, then so be it." I've shown above, that the overwhelming of what OberRanks has to say here is bullshit, mixed with a sprinkling of outright lies. If someone feels that I need to continue this conversation, then I will do so, by request. For now, there doesn't seem to be much purpose in contuining.Mk5384 (talk) 08:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of lying

This is another real gem. The first example, (You are lying), is from the talk page of User:Off2riorob. That user had accused me of violating 3RR, saying I had made 4 reverts within 24 hours, which, as I showed him, was not true. So I said to him, "You are lying". Is OberRanks truly that deranged that he thinks it is a personal attack to call someone on a lie?Mk5384 (talk) 09:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC) The next one (First posting of outright lies to an administrator) is where I was lamenting the fact that OberRanks had lied at ANI about me, and gotten away with it. In the John Pershing debate, User:Father Goose had previously come up with a compromise proposal to an inflammatory situation. I thought his idea was a good one, and I attempted, at the Pershing talk page, to gauge what kind of support there may be for this proposal, whislt referring to it all the while, as Father Goose's proposal. OberRanks brought up this solution that I had proposed, in a very negative way, at ANI, and referred to it a number of times as "MK's new proposal". It was Father Goose's proposal, and it was certainly nothing new. So when OberRanks referred to Father Goose's old proposal as "MK's new proposal, that was a lie. The reason I accused OberRanks of lying was because he lied. Let me repeat that. The reason that I accused OberRanks of lying is because he lied.Mk5384 (talk) 10:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC) The next posting is my absolute favourite.(Second outright lies posting to an administrator) Here, the examples of lies he told are contained in the very edit diff he posted. Is this guy on crack or something? It's no wonder he wants me to pledge to retract my accusations of lying against him.Mk5384 (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

While I think it's great you're dealing with this, I would like to ask if you could please tone down the language a bit. I'm only asking this because I fear that some admins won't like it and may end up ignoring all your arguments which I'm sure are true. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I will try to tone down the language a bit. Not because I care about what happens, and not because I care at all if admins like it. I will try my best to do that for no other reason than as a gesture of respect to you, because came here and stuck up for me!!Mk5384 (talk) 10:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Anti military threads

Another lie right there. Not one of those is an anti-military thread. Those are examples of the fact that I do not believe he is in the military, which I have every right to not believe. I take great offence at his attempting to stultify my character by lying, and portraying me as anti-military. Three of these are simply statements that I don't believe he's in the military, which I don't. They are in no way, anti-military, or personal attacks. Another, ( Some soldier you are), was in response to his refusal to apologise after being proven dead wrong in the SPI. He made baseless false allegations against me, and they were proven to be completely wrong. It was (and is) my opinion, that if he were really a soldier, he would have been a man, and apologised. Again, nothing remotely akin to being anti-military. The "play with toy soldiers" comment, was in response to his post on my talk page, where he had already been told myriad times, he was not welcome there. After a dispute with another user was resolved; again after a dispute with another user was resolved, OberRanks tried to reopen it, despite the fact that it was closed, and despite the fact that it had absolutely nothing to do with him. His behaviour was such an egregious example of schadenfreude that I responded in a way that I knew would piss him off the most. He deserved much worse than that comment. And again, there's nothing "anti-military" about it. With "Kiss Usama bin Laden's ass", OberRanks has helpfully provided us with yet another LIE that he told. He posted that at ANI as well, even though I never told him to "Go kiss Usama bin Laden's ass", as he claimed I did. During the Pershing debate, User:Aunt Entropy, who was generally against me, was actually agreeing with my proposed version of the article. Whilst agreeing with me, she made clear her vehement position against my proposed version of a different article, which was no big deal, except for the fact that OberRanks misunderstood it. So, OberRanks, in attempting to rebuke me, said, "I am totally with Auntie E on this one." I pointed out that he didn't even realise what she had said, and that he is automatically "with" anyone who is against me. I also made the reductio ad absurdum, "Usama bin Laden could come to the Pershing page, and post against my version, and OberRanks would run to kiss his ass". The next day, OberRanks decided to go to ANI, and tell the lie that I told him "to go kiss Usama bin Laden's ass".Mk5384 (talk) 10:16, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of harassment

Yes; that's what those are. I'm not sure what his point is there. I was discussing, with Xeno, how I should handle the situation. I said, "this is just about as clear a case of harassment as there can be". And I gave numerous examples of said harassment. So I really have no idea why OberRanks would post something negative about himself here, but I'm certainly not complaining.Mk5384 (talk) 10:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Applicable policies and guidelines

NPA--This is based on OberRanks' nonsense that my not believing he is in the military is a personal attack. Rather silly.Mk5384 (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC) CIV--AS I discussed above, I treat others as they treat me. NOTTHEM--OberRanks is quite fond of this one, which is all well and good, except for the fact that he doesn't understand it. WP:NOTTHEM has to do with appealing blocks. It has nothing to do with ANI, and it certainly has no place here. At ANI, when I have pointed out OberRanks' behaviour, he has cited NOTTHEM, as though he feels he enjoys some form of immunity, or something. Even on this page, OberRanks has stated that I "don't get" the fact that it is about me, and not him. What he doesn't "get", is if he files an ANI report, much less an RfC, he should be fully prepared to have the tables turned on him, and have his own behaviours called into question.Mk5384 (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Editor inputs

An observation

Mk, I have nothing to do with anybody who's mentioned in or responded to this RFC, including you, and so I hope you'll take this to heart when I say that you really must temper your tone. If you don't, nobody will listen to what may well be valid points behind the bluster because they won't be able to get past your offensive posturing. I understand you feel the need to defend yourself by going on the offensive, but ultimately it will get you banned. In other words, if you can't communicate civilly nobody is going to care much about whether you're making valid points, or whether your copyedits on an article were worthwhile. There are thousands of editors who can contribute to article content without cursing, frothing and creating a thoroughly unpleasant atmosphere, meaning if you can't do both you'll most likely just be shown the door. I'd prefer not to see that, but it's the reality of the matter. — e. ripley\^talk 12:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have already asked that of him, which he responded that he would try and tone down his language. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's excellent. I am curious, though: Was that before or after he posted these items to this talk page? — e. ripley\^talk 15:44, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It was after he posted some of the items but not all, it's there a few sections above this one. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In any case, do I really need to continue? I think I've made my point. There's plenty more I can say, but I'm not one for overkill unless it's absolutely necessary. I've shown how ridiculous this whole thing is; how it was filed in malice; I've demonstrated that OberRanks is, in fact, a liar. That would seem to me to be sufficient, although I'm more than happy to keep going if need be.Mk5384 (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

One (I hope) last thing. Providing OberRanks abides by the interaction ban, I feel quite certain that there will be no further problems. Every problem I have had here has either been caused, or exacerbated to an extreme level by him. Now that he has been removed from the equation, it should be relatively smooth sailing.Mk5384 (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading through his comments, I fear Mk5384 still does not understand the problem.Objective3000 (talk) 20:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

And I fear you still do not understand simple basic strategy.Mk5384 (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Mk, please remember that you were unblocked in favor of this RFCU. Throwing insults around is not exactly the optimal strategy here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For the love of Christ, what am I supposed to do? Tell him he's right? He had absolutely no need to come here and fuck with me. Also note that your post is misleading, as you had absolutely no right to block me in the first place.Mk5384 (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if my message was so short. Frankly, I thought the meaning obvious. Let me expand. There are nine users certifying or endorsing, and additional users adding outside comments on the problem at hand. MK has again stated that this is all the fault of one person, and that one person is a malicious liar. He claims that if this malicious liar leaves, all will be good. Only, this is the exact attitude that resulted in this RfC. The pattern continues. Numerous blocks, MK claiming the blocks are the fault of someone else, and accusations of Admin corruption and/or lies, and continued use of profanity and insults. IMHO, he will not examine his own interactions with editors. I know that it is possible to edit WP without blocks, because I’m an opinionated person myself, and it hasn’t happened to me. Like many users, I didn’t understand the rules of WP when I started. I now realize the enormous patience of the admins and some of what they must put up with in a purely voluntary effort. MK rarely “assumes good faith” -- a brilliant bit of guidance. But, it is absolutely clear to me that the people here are taking time out of their lives to help. They are acting in good faith. Just my opinion on the matter, and I will leave if others think this is somehow disruptive to a process that I have learned to respect.Objective3000 (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not "the attitude" that resulted in the RfC. It is the perfidious behaviour of one user that has resulted in the RfC. And judging by the number of editors who have had problems with you, you really have no room to talk about anyone else.Mk5384 (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

And once again, the pattern. You "investigate" anyone that disagrees with you and claim that they have problems. You don't look at yourself. You appear to actually believe that nothing you have done caused this RfC or your many blocks.Objective3000 (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't investigate. I have a good memory. And I'm saying people who live in glass house shouldn't throw stones. It's amazing that someone with your history of disruption would even show up here. And my "many blocks" is extremely misleading. Out of all of those "many blocks", I have been quickly unblocked all but once. But, of course, I wouldn't expect anyone to actually take the time to look at such a minor detail as that.Mk5384 (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

One final note: It is really immaterial at this point who started the RFC, or your past history with him. This is an examination of your conduct, Mk. Everything I have based my comments on is a direct result of looking through your own edit history. Even here in this talk page, you are cursing and throwing around accusations that do not address peoples' valid concerns about your conduct -- mine included. If you want to, you are within your rights to open up a user conduct RFC on him, but this RFC is focused on you. Let me ask you this. Do you think your conduct on Wikipedia has been entirely appropriate? If not, what specifically do you think has been inappropriate? And, what do you propose to do to improve that behavior? If you can answer these questions, entirely focused on your behavior rather than someone else's, it would go a long way toward helping your cause.

What people here are seeking is an acknowledgment from you that you have conducted yourself poorly, and that you have enough self-awareness that you can see that -- regardless of what other people are doing, or have done to you -- you have behaved inappropriately. If you can show people that you understand where you have gone wrong and are working to fix it, you will find a lot more good will coming your way from editors of all stripes. — e. ripley\^talk 12:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes; the RfC is focused on me. Therefore, in defending myself, I decided to concentrate on proving that the person who filed it is a contemelious liar, which I have done. I never realised that this was supposed to be a popularity contest. I joined Wikipedia, after using it as an educational tool for years, because I agree wholeheartedly with Jim Wales' goal to make "the sum of all human knoweledge" available to all. I think that my work here has been pretty much in line with furthering that endevour.Mk5384 (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me why you find cursing to be an appropriate way to express yourself on Wikipedia? — e. ripley\^talk 22:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of any policy that prohibits, or even discourages, for that matter, the use of four letter words. Note that Wikipedia has articles for words such as fuck and motherfucker. Referring to another user as "a fucking asshole" would be out of line. Adressing a ridiculous and malicious statement made about me with something along the lines of "this is fucking bullshit" is not.Mk5384 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that gratious use of profanity is unnecessary, and less than melifluous. However, when used in accompaniment with justified anger over execreble canards being both spread and perpetuated about me, I fail to see the issue, other than IDONTLIKEIT. Wikipedia is not censored.Mk5384 (talk) 23:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, in case anyone took it seriously, my posting of Guy de Maupassant's quote, "Profanity makes talking fun", was made in jest.Mk5384 (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIV "Participate in a respectful and considerate way, and avoid profane and offensive language" -99.100.46.197 (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I must be blind. I don't see that at WP:CIV.Mk5384 (talk) 07:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I have now gone, and read it through twice, word for word. That is not stated there. Honestly, what is it with you people?Mk5384 (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You just read WP:CIV twice and then came here to violate it? Please try to be civil. Do a search on the text for "profane" and you will find it.Objective3000 (talk) 11:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's at the very top, under "this page in a nutshell." Really, whether or not the policy spells it out (which it in fact does), it's implicit in this notion: "The civility policy is a standard of conduct that sets out how Wikipedia editors should interact: editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect." (emphasis mine) Expressing yourself here by cursing can in no way be considered respectful or considerate of the other contributors here. Don't you agree?

From what I've observed, Mk, you seem to believe that because you feel you've been unfairly persecuted, all of your actions and words on Wikipedia so far have been completely justified. Unfortunately that stance is incorrect. But even if you accept that premise, you have control over the words you use. Nobody has forced you to be crass, profane or rude; that is and has been your choice alone. So it bothers me that you either can't or won't accept responsibility for the simple notion that cursing is and was an inappropriate way for you to communicate here. You seemingly cannot even be regretful for that, which frankly is the least of your offenses. I do think it's emblematic of your larger problem with treating people -- even those like me who would be the equivalent of a stranger on the street -- with basic decency. I think you ought to maybe take a break from Wikipedia and think about what it is that seemingly makes it so hard for you to take responsibility for your own behavior.

This is the last I'll say on the matter; I had hoped that this more direct line of questioning would lead to some kind of acceptance and regret but it has not, and I don't want to goad you, so I now consider my participation at an end. — e. ripley\^talk 14:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, i.e., in summary; not spelled out in the policy itself. Under the circumstances of being attacked with lies, and the subsequent attempt at jury nullification, I think that I've been quite restrained.Mk5384 (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how I've treated you with anything less than basic decency, but of course, I apparently fail to see everything. As far as a break from Wikipedia, believe me it's coming. As Beyond My Ken pointed out, at some point I'll likely be indef blocked, banned, or wind up walking away in disgust. And after the way I've been treated here, that's as equally likely a scenario as the first two.Mk5384 (talk) 22:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

An experiment

Just throwing this out because I am a person who was mildly hurt by Mk's overreaction to a very minor quibble: Mk, can you do the following? 1) Apologize for calling me an asshole, not because of my gender, but because it's a bad thing in general to call people ugly names. 2) Can you agree that, on the capitalization issue that seemed to provoke you into using such language, that you did edit against consensus and failed to discuss the issue rationally, but rather you escalated quite quickly into personal attacks? If you can appropriately apologize to me and thus to the other editors who worked on the articles in question, I think it would help show everyone here that you are a person who is capable of self-examination and appropriate mea culpas. Montanabw^(talk) 03:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

My overreaction? Because you disagreed with my good faith edits, you threatened to report me for vandalism. Then, you put a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template on my user page, in spite of the fact that I had close to 4,000 edits at the time. I realise that WP:DTTR is not any sort of official policy, but I think that any reasonable person would agree that it was in bad taste. You said that "one of my edits appears to be unconstructive", which violates WP:AGF, and provided me with such helpful pointers as, "see the help page to learn more about editing", and "use the sandbox for test edits". Then, after I self-reverted (giving me a grand total of zero reverts), you filed a 3RR report against me. Had I not self-reverted, your 3RR report would have been false. In the face of my self-revert, your report was simply malicious. You threatened me, you insulted me, and you filed a false report against me, and you think that I should apologise to you? I know, I know. This about me, right? What you did is irrevelant. Simply unbelieveable. You actually think that I should apologise to you?Mk5384 (talk) 08:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think that answer pretty much settles it for me. I guess there is nothing more I can do. Montanabw^(talk) 20:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"...I treat others as they treat me"

At Wikipedia (or in any other cooperative enterprise), that's not enough. If you don't set out to treat people better than they treat you, you harm the project. If you care, I can explain in detail why this is so. It is similar to a strategy in games theory; in your case, you blatantly violate step 3.

I consider myself uninvolved, beyond that you harshly and repeatedly dissed a Wikipedian whom I respect. From your posts here and on your talk page, I see no value in your participation in Wikipedia. I accept that my conclusions are probably skewed and unfair, but they are based primarily on your "persuasion".

I've seen people community-banned from both en.wikipedia and commons for less than you have already done. At the end of the day, this is Wikipedia. People don't die, as Guy said, but we are all here on sufferance of people who may not understand us or appreciate our strengths deciding that we are a net benefit to the project. And this is a "prisoner's dilemma" that any of us can walk away from.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of blabbering some gibberish about how I "harshly and repeatedly dissed" anyone, perhaps you could provide an example?Mk5384 (talk) 03:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you; you've proved my point. Support community ban. Now wasn't that easy to get another enemy? (Oh, and it was someone whose name appears on the RFC—not OberRanks—so it is documented here, and no, I won't tell you who, because I don't want to take the chance that you'll attack that editor again. I'm not adding new info for you to dispute; it's the same old stuff.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. You're not going to "tell me who" because it didn't happen. I can't tell you how absolutely petrified I am that you have declared yourself to be my enemy. I'm sure the opinion of someone who, by self admission, is "skewed and unfair" will go a long way.Mk5384 (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO. No, sorry, that's not fair; I'm not following the rule I endorse above. Let me try again. The evidence against you has already been presented. Much of it consists of other people's interpretations of how you treat them. I am not providing any new evidence, so it's unimportant to anyone but you for me to spell it out; it's important to you only because you want to dispute it. But there's no gain in your disputing it in a manner that makes people feel as attacked as they were in the first place. No one in that position will ever take your side, no matter how "persuasive" you think you are. You may regard all of us as just a bunch of [add your own expletive], and you may be right, but you can't write Wikipedia yourself. You need the help of other editors. And the evidence suggests that either you piss off well more than half the editors that you disagree with, or else you are the unluckiest editor in Wikipedia, having run into all the assholes at once.

The theme of this RFC seems to me to be "Mk5384 acts abusively to other editors". Your "defense" supports this. And I predict that, if you respond to me here at all, it will consist of more of the same. And I wonder why you think it will be more effective this time.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

ARBCOM

OberRanks is talking on his talk page, and others, about a motion to close this RfC, and go to ARBCOM. I whole heartedly second that motion. I would looooove to deal with him at ARBCOM. If anyone is interested in that as a solution, then by all means, let's.Mk5384 (talk) 09:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

You are free to file one if you think this RfC was baseless and a deliberate attack against you, although I think most everyone here knows what would happen if you went to ArbCom with the kind of edits and posts you have been making here. See below for further comments. -OberRanks (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Motion-to-Close in regards to the Point's-Been-Made

I'm breaking back in here not to go back on my word but to offer a conclusion to this and I think even Mk will appreciate what I have to say. A few things to point out here:

1. No matter what some editors and users say, MK will clearly never miraculously state "All of you are right, I'm very sorry, I'm wrong" and I don't think its fair to ask him to do that. With that said, point number 2 follows.
2. During this RFC, there have been no incidents of MK getting involved in any cursing or ranting outside of this talk page, nor has MK been blocked for any similar occurrence.
3. MK has accepted both the advice of Xeno and Guy, going so far as to even refer to one as an "unofficial mentor"

So, there is really is no need to continue to hammer at MK. I truly believe that in the back of MK's mind some things have begun to sink in. I find it very hard to believe that an editor of MK's obvious intelligence wouldn't see that with this many editors coming out of the woodwork, something is a-foot at the Circle K. We can leave it at that with the understanding:

1. If MK's names shows up again on the admin noticeboard, the admins reviewing the incident will be advised promptly of this RFC. And, yes, I will probably be the one to tell them.
2. If there is again another serious incident which leads to another extremely lengthy block in response to cursing or threatening another user, there will be a severe reaction such as an ArbCom proposal. I think, though, that MK will work to avoid such incidents.

I therefore say a motion to close may be in order. And while MK may very well have thought I was a liar and a revenge seeking editor, nothing can be further form the truth. Having been a disruptive user myself in the past, and having come back from the brink, I know it is possible. I also have no bad feelings towards MK, but would like him to think about how hurtful his Alex Haley comment was (see my response) and maybe move away from behaving that way in the future. -OberRanks (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

In conclusion, you are a liar. You have been exposed as a liar, yet you offer no admission, nor apology. And, as for an ARBCOM proposal, as I said above, you have no idea how I'd love to deal with you there. In typical fashion, OberRanks, you have created quite a mess, and now wish to walk away as if nothing happened. You agreed, on this page, to an interaction ban, if I could prove that you are lying. This RfC was filled with your lies, and I have shown it. It would do you very well to honour your word, for once, and leave me alone from this point forward.Mk5384 (talk) 18:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Its very disturbing that you would respond to a proposal like the one above with another blatant personal attack, i.e. "you are a liar" and would continue to state "The RFC is full of lies" when it is a list of your edit diffs and is endorsed and certified by more editors than I count. I am really starting to wonder at this point if this is really just an act, i.e. you are seeing how far you can go without serious sanctions and/or trying to provoke other users into themselves making attacks against you. And as for this "Interaction Ban", no such agreement was ever made or endorsed by anyone (other than you). My removing myself from the RFC was in response to a request from User:Beyond My Ken that I back off and allow the RfC to continue which is what I did [25] [26] [27]. If you feel I have lied, abused the RfC process, committed attacks against you, then there are numerous forums for you to report me at (although, I highly doubt that you will do that). The conditions of the Motion-to-Close stand; it would be best to hear the opinions of other editors since you've stated your position now very clearly. -OberRanks (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not a "personal attack" to call a liar a liar. And don't let me forget sockpuppet, after you edited the RfC anonymously, after promising not to.Mk5384 (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI and WP:SPI if you feel you have a case. -OberRanks (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You sockpuppeted right on this page. I'm not going to file anywhere, because, unlike you, I'm here to improve this project; not to harass others.Mk5384 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

And of course you know what would happen if you really did file a charge at a noticeboard - it would be thrown out and most likely sanctions leveled against you (can I say it any plainly than that)? And if you are speaking of two ip addresses that edited this debate during the discussion, ip traces have them coming from two completely different parts of the country [28] [29] so, even if I did edit anonymously (which isn't sock puppetry) I don't see how both of those editors could be me. But, as I said, that's what WP:SPI is for. -OberRanks (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As you told another lie, and have obviously returned here with the sole interest of causing trouble, I am once again, done with this. I will make no further posts here unless, OberRanks agrees, under penalty of being blocked, to cease and desist. Otherwise, have a ball. Toodles.Mk5384 (talk) 19:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Mk, IN NO WAY have you shown OberRanks to be a liar. Your arguments have not been in the least persuasive. Personally I feel that your constant false accusations of lying alone should result in an indef. Now you are making further false accusations. Add this to your posts to many editors containing profanity, snide remarks, insults and other personal attacks. Your behavior here has been wholly unacceptable. I think it is now fourteen editors that have agreed that you have a problem. And yet you continue to blame others. WP is a voluntary effort and civility is a requirement.Objective3000 (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunate that you choose to leave sarcastic remarks and a personal attack on my Talk page [30].Objective3000 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Just a warning to others to expect retribution if you make comments that MK doesn't like. He is now on my Talk page making nasty remarks about diffs from over a year ago. For what purpose I cannot imagine.Objective3000 (talk) 21:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There has now been a posting at this ANI thread regarding MKs conduct during this entire RFC. I would think at this stage MK needs to quietly walk away from this and accept the Motion-to-close. I'm certain that any further outbursts or incidents, especially at the ANI board, will be dealt with accordingly by the administrators. -OberRanks (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the RfC should be closed; I do not agree that the "point's been made", as the subject of the RfC has not acknowledged, indeed seems incapable of acknowledging, his part in any of this. That's not a point that has been made, that is a point which might as well have never been said, for all the effect it'a had on MK. The RfC should be closed because it's been shown to be useless. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

After MKs reaction to the above thread, I also agree with that statement. -OberRanks (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the point does not seem to have been made to MK. Even today, he posts personal attacks suggesting that he is owed apologies by others and once again calling the author of the RfC a liar.[31]Objective3000 (talk) 16:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Returning

I mentioned above that I was withdrawing from participation, but that I would look back in to see how things were going. I have done this, and I'm extremely disappointed with what I see.

• I asked OberRanks to withdraw from the RfC, in the hope that this would provide MK with the opportunity to participate.
• Instead of using the opportunity as a chance to air things out with the other editors involved here, and work through to a solution, MK used his participation to trash OberRanks and fight any suggestion made by other editors.
• Despite being told by at least 5 admins, 4 veteran editors and numerous others that there are problems with his behavior, MK refuses to accept this.
• MK puts all the blame for his troubles on others, and will not (or can not) accept any amount of responsibility for himself.
• it is quite clear to me that MK does not in any way understand what it means to be "collegial", and frequently violates, or at least stretches to the breaking point, the requirement for civility.

Therefore, I would like to formally withdraw my suggestion that MK be mentored. For a mentorship to be successful, the mentored person has to be open to suggestions and have enough introspective ability to recognize that they need assistance. MK exhibits neither of these qualities.

I also suggest that this RfC be closed as an abject failure, and that it be referred to the next time MK has a run-in with another editor, admin or not, as proof that a concerted and real effort has been made by other editors to help MK to see where his difficulties are coming from, and that effort was sabotaged by MK's unwillingness or inability to cooperate.

Now here's the controversial part: If I were an admin (I'm not, and never will be), I would seriously consider blocking MK indefinitely right now. It's entirely clear that he doesn't understand collegiality, that he's unwilling to commit himself to be civil, that's he's unable to take responsibility for his actions -- all of which add up to continued disruption from this editor. Whatever value he has to the project is certainly not worth the problems he brings. I would consider blocking him as a preventitve measure.

Understand, I don't ask any admin to do this, I understand that doing so would be skirting the question of "punitive" vs. "preventative" and that the fallout from it might be unpleasant -- but that's how I would be think, if I were an admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with everything Ken stated. The Motion-to-Close was as much of a peaceful resolution as one could offer - all MK had to do literally was say "OK" and walk away. Yet, instead, further posts about lies and now a twist about sockpuppets posting to the debate which certainly never happened. There doesnt seem to be much response to Sareks ANI post either, so I imagine this will fade away until there is another serious problem with MK's behavior. At that point, we will most likely revisit this again, most probably with an ARBCOM. -OberRanks (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where he thinks he's seeing socking, but he's probably still looking for revenge for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mk5384/Archive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that Mk believes that these two anon ip address are sockpuppets of me [32] [33]. Both appear to have made minor edits [34] [35], one of them an administrative edit by adding a section header and the other a one line quote from WP:CIV - of course MK picked up on this immediately and stated his comments had been modified by a sockpuppet account [36] which is ridiculous. The ips also appear to be coming from two different parts of the country. And, yes, most of Mks hatred directed towards me is linked to that SPI you referenced - MK has stated repeatedly his anger about "false accusations" even though, as shown in the evidence of this very RfC, the SPI was started by someone else and my comment in that SPI actually stated I didn't think MK was involved. Yet another example of MKs behavior and a desire to invoke WP:BATTLE. -OberRanks (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Closing Summary

Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I reviewed the closing procedure for an RfC/UC and, as a requirement for closing the RfC, participating users should agree upon a summary. Based on the comments of all concerned (including MK), I move that the summary for this RfC be as follows:

RfC was certified and endorsed by 11 separate users with 6 outside views also endorsed and certified. The majority of editors agreed that the subject of the RfC, Mk5384, has acted with significant disregard to Wikipedia policies regarding WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Mk5384 disagreed with most of the summaries and stated that the filer of the RfC, OberRanks, was acting in malice and that most of the points brought up in the RfC evidence were untrue. A majority of users (including Mk5384) agreed that if users still encounter issues with Mk5384 after this RfC is concluded, the next step would be a filing for Arbitration. Some discussion was also brought up with regards to Mk5384 accepting a mentor, but no formal mentor was assigned.

• SUPPORT the closing summary. -OberRanks (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• COMMENT: I strongly oppose OberRanks being the one to come up with the closing summary, since he was the one who opened it in the first place. I also oppose me being the one, having had too much interaction with Mk5384 in the past.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Forgive my ineptness at this- first one of these I ever did, so I wasn't sure who should write it. The instruction states a summary must be written that all users agree upon and if there is a dissent, the RfC should be treated as closed due to inactivity. The above summary was my attempt at a very neutral summary; of course, someone else can modify it in any way they see fit. The instruction also states the user who posts it on the actual RfC page must be completely uninvolved. -OberRanks (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I haven't done a whole bunch of these either. Your statement above is fairly neutral, but considering how Mk feels about your participation here, I don't think you should even be supplying phrasing. Wait for someone else to do it, and then opine if you must. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
    • I think I will step back from this summary for exactly the reason Sarek states. -OberRanks (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree with Sarek and commend OberRanks for stepping back. Someone else should finish this Rfc, and I have even less experience than you two at this. But I think the basic direction Ober has put up is a good start. Jusdafax 17:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support and comment I'm OK with the language of the proposed closure. Ober is actually kinder than I'd be and I would like to commend him for his restraint in the face of some very vicious and uncalled-for attacks. I was attacked far less than Ober (Mk only called me an asshole and malicious, he didn't call me a liar). I would have added "Mk attacks almost every person who disagrees with him in some fashion, he sometimes peppers his attacks with obscenities, and when called on his behavior, more often than not responds with a claim that he is completely in the right, totally justified in all his behavior, and the other person is not only completely wrong, but also wants to unleash vicious and hateful attacks on Mk." I would also add, "Mk seems to think that everyone is out to get him and apparently is seeking higher levels of involvement so that he can persist in his battles and portrayal of himself as a martyr." But I'm not going to propose that as a summary, I'm going to vote for Ober's version as far more nuanced, accurate and balanced. I, for one, am tired of Mk's histrionics. The solution at this point is probably some variation on DFTT, and if it takes a ban to do it, then a ban may be needed. Sorry to vent, but yes, let's close this thing. Montanabw^(talk) 03:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well said, Montanabw. On further thought, if no one steps forward soon I'd agree with your statement to support Ober's good faith closure, which as you note is gracious under the circumstances. And again, for the record I have 0% involvement with Mk in the past, or anyone here whatsoever. I ran across this matter in ANI. Jusdafax 05:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact that MK hasn't come here to disrupt this closing summary discussion actually speaks volumes. I think that some things might have finally begun to sink in and that further discussions between MK and other editors he respects might curtail certain actions in the future. As far as this Wiki-hatred of me, I think to save face Mk will never admit any wrong-doing in his conduct towards me and will continue to state I am this malicious vengeful editor who filed this RfC as a sole attempt to get Mk thrown off the project. That's okay because this is just the Internet. I highly doubt that if Mk were standing in front of me in real life, he'd ever have the courage to call me any of these things to my face or disrespect my service in the military as he's done several times. As I said further up in another thread, part of me at this stage thinks some of this might be an Internet personality or even just an act. I think if left alone at this stage, Mk will in all likelihood stay off the noticeboards and perhaps edit peacefully. -OberRanks (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• SUPPORT I think that's a fair conclusion. Mk has been warned and needs guidance but at least he's not being thrown off the site for not being aware of certain policies and possible victimisation (not quite sure about that one, but I'll go along with it). The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • He has been more than "warned", he was INDEF'D a number of weeks ago, and also "retired", until an admin unblocked him on the condition that he improve his behavior. Is there any evidence of improvement? Should the indef be reinstated? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I suppose the only defense I can give is the same one I gave in my outside view which I believe can be showing his potential as an editor and just needs a mentor to try and help him control his language. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much the language itself, it's the matter of going ballistic every time someone disagrees with him, typically over the use of a single word or sentence in an article. It reminds me of a Dilbert where some new guy proposes something that's a very minor topic, Dilbert disagrees, and the new guy says, "I will fight you to the death over this!" That seems to be MK's standard approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If you check his contrib history from when he started in mid-January, he was polite and cooperative at first, but took a serious turn toward belligerence with the Black Jack Pershing situation. Oddly enough, MK is apparently an expert on the game of Black Jack, and I'm guessing that's how he stumbled across the Pershing story. Hopefully he'll take away something good from all this discussion here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

He became a problem rather quickly. Two weeks after arriving, he called me a clown. I referred him to WP:CIV. He responded "If you consider the term clown to be derogatory, perhaps you should join a support group to bolster your self-esteem" and continued name-calling. He then attempted to bring back a user that had been blocked for repeatedly making self-promotional edits and who then used a sock to vandalize my Talk page. I referred him to WP:CIV several times. Eventually he left, I assumed because the sources he claimed all disagreed with the edits he made to BJ Basic Strategy. I agree with your hope that he will take away something good from this discussion. But, it's difficult to see that possibility given his continued behavior.Objective3000 (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, he showed his true colors sooner than I had realized. He completely misses the point of what civility about, which is not "self-esteem", but maintaining a good working environment. I'm guessing no one took him to WQA at that time, which unfortunately would have sent him the message that civility was unimportant. Good grief. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking back, I made three mistakes. First, I may have had the first interaction problem with him. I referred him to WP:CIV a few times, but took no action other than gentle nudges. I have never taken an action against any editor in my two and a half years here as it is not my style, and perhaps that is a mistake. Even now, after 2.5 years, I consider myself a neophyte and am hesitant to take actions. Second, I did not add my interaction with him to the RfC as there was so much evidence that I thought it was piling on. Had I added the contact, as minor as it was relatively speaking, as an early contact it may have added to an understanding of the problem. Third, in his first month he claimed to be an ”expert” in the field related to the page that he was editing, and insisted that my knowledge was flawed, to put it kindly. Twice since, in the intervening six months, he has claimed that I do not understand the subject. Now, in six months I never responded to that repeated claim, as I think it is completely irrelevant. At WP, I am just an editor. My particular expertise in a subject area has little meaning without refs. I never mentioned this to him, or ever posted it anywhere here, but I am positively mentioned in 22 respected books on the subject at hand. So the f--- what. That gives me no more rights than anyone else to make edits or proclaim “truth,” which is why I have not mentioned it in 2.5 years of editing WP. Perhaps if he understood early on that you need to understand that you don’t know with whom you are having a discussion on the I’Net, it would have given him more respect for the medium. In retrospect, I may change my interaction with people that appear to present problems. (BTW, I will probably later delete the reference to 22 books for the same reason I haven't mentioned it in the past.)Objective3000 (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I think the summary is accurate and neutrally worded. Probably OberRanks should have not written it, but it's a good summary nonetheless. That said, I've just proposed a community ban at the AN/I thread, as I think that's about the only way to reach this user. ++Lar: t/c 18:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Someone should advise Mk of this ban proposal on his user talk page and that someone should definitely not be me. -OberRanks (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, anybody who comments on this thread here or anywhere else should definitely not be you. I understand you promised at one point you would keep out of this. Why are you still here? It has been plain for everyone to see that your continued involvement has only been fanning the flames. Let this go, now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
      • Good point. I personally think though we are well beyond that stage where I promised Beyond-Ken to back off from the RfC - indeed during that time frame MK did little but fill the talk page with personal attacks against my motives. In any event, at this stage we are just trying to end this and I have tried to keep my involvement at an administrative level so we can conform to the rules regarding closing an RfC as well as get neutral visability by uninvolved users. I do agree my involvement should be minimal to none, though, so will make an effort to avoid posting so much. -OberRanks (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
        • Don't post at all. There are plenty of other people who can take care of this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
      • That sounds reasonable and there doesn't seem to be much more reason to do so. Best of luck closing this out. -OberRanks (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• It's a bit early to close this still, though it shouldn't be seen as preventing appropriate escalation. I'll close this if/once a binding outcome results from the ANI, be it in the form of a site ban or other sanction. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I've closed this for the time being as "Escalated to ANI where restrictions were imposed" so that others can look at the actual restriction discussion without assigning blame on the sole words of a closer. The link to the ANI should be updated upon the discussion being archived into the ANI archives. Note, the restrictions aren't technically imposed/enacted yet, but there is a clear (unanimous) community consensus that supports the restrictions and eliminates any need for this to be open for any longer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)