Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 18:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



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

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

I am opening an RFC/U on the admin Mjroots, as I feel it is the only course available to me, having been warned that making the allegations I am about to make in here, apparently constitute personal attacks. I don't believe that making the following allegations are remotely a personal attack, but if I get blocked in the next few minutes, I guess you will know why.

The dispute is over his apparent interpretation of what is and is not acceptable conduct during Articles for deletion debates, in which he seems to have an issue with me and wants me restricted, while also being in dispute with me over the content issues in dispute in the same Afd's.

Desired outcome

 * I would firstly like to see Mjroots admit that making arguments and rebuttals is a perfectly acceptable practice in an Afd, and that the concept of what constitutes 'badgering' in an Afd is very much open to community interpretation, of which he is a servant, not master


 * I would also like him to accept that after an outside review by uninvolved people, when he alleged I was badgering in Afd's, I was found not to have done anything wrong, and as such, he needs to refrain from continuing to make the allegations as if they were true, or that he needs to take the dispute further in an appropriate way


 * I would finally like Mjroots to accept that when he is personally involved in a content dispute with another user, it is not appropriate to give the impression that his understanding of policy is not questionable by that user, and that his status as an admin gives him no right to claim he understands pages like WP:AFD better than anyone else, and certainly not when it becomes clear his view is not the community's view

Description
For background, there is a basic content dispute between me and Mjroots, namely, for certain types of aircrash articles, he has wildy different opinions to me over the concepts of historical notability or significance, and WP:NOT#NEWS. As a content dispute, that is progressing, and will probably also land at a notability Rfc.

As an admin, Mjroots is expected to have a working understanding of the community view of core activities like Afd. However, during this dispute, it has become apparent that Mjroots' opinion of how Afd debates should be conducted is quite different from the community's view, and he has quite wrongly attempted to push that opinion to the level of trying to have me sanctioned, and curtail my ability to speek in Afd debates, in a clear attempt to eliminate an opponent in a content dispute. This proposal was rejected, but he has continued to besmirch me, suggesting that he does not accept that he is wrong. He also seems to think that his status as an admin makes him immune to question on such matters. All admins should also know that groundlessly besmirching editors with whom they are in content dispute with is totally unnacceptable, it is simply 'conduct unbecoming'.

Evidence of disputed behavior
Mjroots recently filed a proposal at WP:ANI, in which he alleged that I have engaged in "constant badgering" at Afd, and requesting support for the viewpoint that:

"[MickMacNee] should be allowed to nominate articles for deletion, giving reasons for nomination in the rationale. After that, MMN should only be able to reply to specific questions asked of him, or where a clarification is sought. Failure to observe the restriction to be met with a 1 week block, increasing to 1 month after a 3rd offence, such restriction to be logged at WP:RESTRICT"

Applicable policies and guidelines

 * Articles for deletion
 * Administrators

Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute
After discussion at ANI, the thread was closed because, in the words of the closer, "Nothing was violated, community standards are as they have ever been", which he further explained to him by stating "The response [to the request for a restriction] came in at snowy levels....Basically, the discussion found he did nothing wrong in the XfD's". 

I'm not making any comment as to whether the closer was right, but this is what he said, and as of now, the discussion remains closed with that conclusion. In my own view, at best, the only thing that even comes close to justifying the sanctions he tried to place on me, are the views expressed in the essay Don't bludgeon the process, and plenty of people in that ANI thread, aswell as the closer, seem to think that in the particular Afd's cited as examples, my behaviour did not constitute crossing the line from strong argumentation, to badgering or disruption.

Evidence of failing to resolve the dispute
(Provide diffs to demonstrate that the disputed behavior continued after trying to resolve the dispute.)

After the ANI thread was closed, Mjroots made a comment to another user, in which he seems to make clear he disputes the outcome of the ANI thread, and still believes that my "behaviour" was somehow wrong, and that now other admins will presumably be 'watching me' thanks to his bringing it up.

Rather more worryingly, shortly after his proposal was closed, and after I had strongly objected to his proposal as being not supported by WP:AFD or any other policy or guideline, and widespread community norms, and got an NPA warning for my trouble, in a 'thank you' note to the admin who gave the warning, he stated - "For the warning issued to MMN. You'd think he would know better than to attack an admin on an admins board, wouldn't you?". It's hard not to take that as anything other than an attempt at intimidation, or at least an indication he think his comprehension of pages like AFD is not open to challenge simply because he is an admin.

If Mjroots still disputes the outcome of the ANI thread, or he really did want this to become a wider discussion about the behaviour of several users at Afd's generally, as he has suggested at the ANI thread, and not just to be about eliminating me from a dispute, then as an admin, he really should know how to progress that to gain the necessary policy or guideline changes. I will contribute to any such discussion in good faith, but I am not putting up with him ignoring the conclusion of the ANI thread as it stands and continuing to allege that I am disruptive in Afd's, because that is mud that sticks.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
Considering this involves an admin, I've asked at the admin noticeboard to see if anyone will certify this as a valid dispute, or whether I just have to live with him holding these views of my conduct, inspite of other people's assesments. I'm personally not prepared to put up with it, but I guess if nobody else certifies it, there's not much I can do, for fear of being blocked for making 'personal attacks' for reminding him how his proposal failed if he tries to continue to make these allegation against me.


 * MickMacNee
 * Certifying, not agreeing per se. I've written up my own view farther down the page. -- ۩ M ask  23:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * I perused MickMackNee's links to the discussion at the mod's coffee room and was disappointed at the mod Mjroot's behaviour, but MickMackNee's behaviour wasn't desirable either. I support MickMackNee and Mjroots in hope that this trial will be resolved in a principled, decent manner satisfactory to all. Protector of Wiki (talk) 04:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that I removed POW as a certifier as their contribs do not show them previously involving. Spartaz Humbug! 11:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Inside view by certifier AKMask
Alright. I certified just because I believe there are issues that need to be worked out here. I'm not taking sides in this paticular dispute. Here's the full text of my explanation for the closing which I provided to Mjroots. Putting it up so that it can be read because both parties have been quoting from it and both were quoting accurately. It takes no sides.


 * Hey, I feel the urge to justify my closing the discussion, it's the least you deserve since the thread was brought in nothing but good faith. First of all, for the stated purpose of the thread, I applaud that you brought it, checking in with the community is an important way to get a quick sanity check when you're unsure of something - it's why there are so many self-brought block reviews posted on ANI, people recognize the value of it. The response came in at snowy levels, which, while indicative of consensus, wouldn't have been worthy of a boxing of the thread. That came about because of the bickering and sniping going on between Mick and a couple editors. Basically, the discussion found he did nothing wrong in the XfD's, but as a consequence of that discussion he started toeing up to the civil line and others were pretty clearly baiting him to try and get him to step over it. When an editor is caught up in that sort of situational double entendre its best to just let everything cool down- It's hardly fair to punish someone for their response to a request for sanctions about an incident that wasnt worthy of sanctions in the first instance. Don't interpret this as me sheltering Mick from anything. If you're willing to look back 3 or 4 years ago (around this time), you'll find Mick wasn't always the deletionist he's cast to be - When myself and others began enforcing the WMF licensing policy and removing screen shots from lists of episode articles to correct gratuitous fair use image abuse, he directed quite a bit of his anger at myself. I shrugged it off. I've edited as an IP since 2004, have had this account since 2005, and have seen a lot of angry, angry users. Mick is ornery but he's not a troll and his intent is to improve the project. That earns you a lot of toleration. We are willing to put up with a lot of shit if you have a genuine desire and ability to help build a free/libre reference work on your own time for the benefit of all humanity. Take a Carl Sagan moment to think about the implications of what we are all doing here right now and it helps bridge the differences between contributors. There's a lot less separating us and all our different views and a lot more bringing us together and for that reason alone it means we are all deserving of a bit of respect from each other, at least enough to do a fellow contributor a favor by not letting him shoot himself in the foot. -- ۩ M ask  20:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Mjroots went through proper channels exactly the way he should, following community standards. The fact that he disagreed with the result but accepted it is comendable, its how a community should function. It's even perfectly fine for him to make a campaign to change minds and try to build a new consensus. After all, Consensus Can Change. As long as he abides by consensus as it stands now, his behavior is a model for how to go about things when you're in a (currently) minority viewpoint.

I question, however, if that's the best use of time. Mick, lets face it, can be kind of a dick. I say that with respect of course, and use it as a descriptive not an attack. He's brash. He's angry. From time to time he verges into offensive. But really, at some point, who cares? Someone cussed on the internet and wasn't super nice. But he wasn't vindictive with it. Hell, instead of yelling around about this and letting it fester into resentment he came and, well, opened an RfC. Remember my point about Mjroots following the correct path? Mick did it too. Both are good editors. Both play by the rules. But they have diametrically opposing viewpoints. That creates tension.

Mjroots is fine as an admin. He didn't waver here. He should, however, probably try not to give a fuck what people say about him.

Mick should probably try to be nicer, but he's an overwhelmingly constructive force on the wiki and we owe him some small debt of graditude for that. To quote a recent movie, ""It's like that friend who's an asshole, but he's our asshole."

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) -- ۩ M ask  23:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

In reply to raising this RFC- I raised the issue at ANI as I felt that the constant incivil badgering of other editors in AfD discussions was becoming disruptive. Would MickMacNee have preferred that I blocked him first and then raised the issue? I raised the issue at ANI after consultation with 'crat Rlevse as to the best place to do this.


 * The ANI discussion was closed at least partly to protect MickMacNee from earning himself another block. This was explained to me by the closing editor. I stated that I did not agree with the early closure, this is not the same as not agreeing with the result. I accept that the general consensus is that replies at ANI may be challenged. I do not accept that this gives any editor the right to resort to incivil behaviour, harrassment, bullying etc. whilst challenging another editor's view. He asserts that he hasn't done anything wrong, yet several editors have said that he needs to tone down his responses - i.e., be more civil.

As I stated in the ANI thread, my raising of the issue wasn't just aimed at MickMacNee. I am aware that there are other editors who exhibit similar behaviour, and I was hoping that the community would recognise that and that the community could estalish some kind of mechanism to deal with excessive badgering of editors at *fD's. The result of the discussion seems to be that WP:CIVIL is the only tool we have to deal with the problem. This means that we now need editors to be prepared to apply that as and when the problem occurs.


 * My participation in ANI debates is in my capacity as an editor, as are most of my actions, yet MickMacNee attacks me as an admin when we have a difference of opinion. My personal view is that if a nominator produces a really good rationale for deletion, then he doesn't need to tackle each and every "keep" vote. Closing editors are capable of assessing consensus and judging the strength or weakness of various arguments for or against deletion. In the odd case where a mistake is made, there is a mechanism to deal with it.

I'm generally an inclusionist, subscribing to the formula V x (many) RS = N. With respect to airliner accidents, my view is that an accident resulting in the aircraft being written off is notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. In many cases, a separate article is justified. IMO, deaths give weight to the notability of an accident, although in some cases a lack of deaths does not equate to a lack of notability (US Air Flight 1549, British Airways Flight 38) - the "magic number" can therefore be as low as 0, but 10 should be a good baseline for automatic notability (IMO). There are some instances of incidents involving airliners being notable enough to sustain an article even where no deaths are involved and the aircraft is returned to service afterwards (British Airways Flight 9, China Airlines Flight 006). Bizjets, General Aviation and military aircraft accidents come under different rules, with a generally higher threshold of notability needed.


 * MickMacNee's suggestion of a RfC on the notability of aircraft accidents is a good one. The essay WP:AIRCRASH, although receiving some support, is silent on the question of hull losses. I've also tried to raise the issue of deaths, but without success. Other editors have said that the essay needs looking at again, so maybe a RfC will force the issue.

MickMacNee states that the dispute is over aircrash articles. It spreads wider than that, as railcrash articles are also involved such as Falls of Cruachan derailment. As I said at ANI, it is MickMacNee's behaviour in AfD discussions which I find disruptive. Compare his behaviour in the Falls of Cruachan derailment AfD, which did not end up with a result that MickMacNee wanted (thus his response) with my participation at the Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 AfD, which did not produce the result I wanted. I accepted that the community had decided that this particular accident was not notable enough to sustain an article. It is covered under the airline, aircraft type and airport articles, as well as in the article on aviation in the year it happened. I did thank another editor who voted "keep", even though I thought it would be likely that the article would be deleted anyway. Another example of MickMacNee's behaviour at AfD and DRV is this, which I had no involvement in whatsoever. MickMacNee needs to learn when to accept that he has lost an argument and stop flogging a WP:DEADHORSE.


 * In response to the thank you I gave to SarekofVulcan, I actually considered blocking MickMacNee myself, but decided that I was too "involved" to take any action. Hence my rebuttal of his accusation and thanking the admin for warning him over the PA. Another editor once taunted me with "you can't block me!". I replied "I can block you, but whether or not it would be a good idea to do so is a different matter". This was another of those situations when an Admin needs to know when not to use the tools.

MickMacNee can co-operate in a civil manner when he puts his mind to it. I even gave him a cookie recently for doing so - see Talk:Gol Transportes Aéreos Flight 1907. I would therefore urge him to try and keep his temper in check when interacting with other editors. By all means type out all the invective and get it out of your system. Then delete it and compose a civil reply and post that instead.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Mjroots (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Mo ainm  ~Talk  13:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)    DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Bzuk (talk) 01:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) BilCat (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) --Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 8)  one brave  monkey  14:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) WikiuserNI (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Wikireader41 (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 12) Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 13) Wackywace  converse 18:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 14) Drmies (talk) 01:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 15) Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Further response
Since this RFC was filed, MickMacNee continues with his agressive editing style. He launched a PA against me when I answered another editor's question on whether or not the nomination of a number of articles by a particular editor merited further investigation or was that editor (apparently) a deletionist. Note that he did not attack the poser of the question for using the term "deletionist". The discussion deteriorated in tone overnight, so I took an administrative decision and closed it. The UPS Airlines Flight 6 AfD has also been the venue for further invective from MickMacNee, such as this, this and this
 * See Articles for deletion/UPS Airlines Flight 6 and WT:AV.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Mjroots (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) BilCat (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Bzuk (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) WikiuserNI (talk) 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5)  Mo ainm  ~Talk  18:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Wikireader41 (talk) 21:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Wackywace  converse 18:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) — Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм •  Champagne?  •  8:25pm  • 10:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Outside view by SarekOfVulcan
I'd just like to clarify that I warned Mick twice during the dispute above, one of which he links above stating that what he was going to say in here would apparently constitute a personal attack by my standards. was for Mick's statement that "". was in response to his further statement regarding Mjroots' "". Nothing in the statement above comes close to attacking his basic competency, so he doesn't have to fear blocking for bringing it up.

tl;dr version: "He's misapplying policy" isn't a PA -- "he's completely incompetent" is.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Cirt (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)    DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Bzuk (talk) 01:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Being a wikilawyer is not often productive.
 * 5) Mjroots (talk) 09:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  one brave  monkey  14:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Ahunt (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by J04n
I would like to offer a compromise solution to both parties. MickMacNee should agree to comment in a more civil manner at AfD and elsewhere and Mjroots should concede that rebuttals are acceptable at AfD. Personal attacks between the two editors should immediately stop, and discussions about each other with other editors should also stop. Time to move on.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) J04n(talk page) 19:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  — fetch ·  comms   20:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Cirt (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  Mo ainm  ~Talk  21:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WikiuserNI (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1)  Frank  |  talk  09:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2)  Rodhull  andemu  00:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Too many rebuttals are disruptive, but mostly in a self-defeating manner,  I've rarely seen textwalling (and Mick is far from the only person who's done it) make an impact in an XfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Barking Fish  Talk to me &#124; My contributions 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Bzuk (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  one brave  monkey  14:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) MickMacNee unquestionably takes things too far at times, but that is not to say that there was no basis for this RfC. Time to draw a line, make up and move on. --WFC-- 14:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by BritishWatcher
Leaving aside matters of incivility, it is the right of any editor, including MickMackNee to respond to peoples posts on an AFD and question them. People do not have to reply to MickMackNee's comments and the person closing the AFD may not take MickMackNee's responses into account, but someone should never have sanctions imposed on them simply for trying to debate an AFD rather than just accepting everyone giving a one line vote.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) BritishWatcher (talk) 08:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) It's not a discussion if we all weigh in and never return to reply. I usually reply to votes at AfDs to call people out for misrepresenting policy. Protector of Wiki (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Mjroots (talk) 09:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) WikiuserNI (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Rodhullandemu
Certification is only permissible from involved editors who have tried and failed to resolve the dispute. I've looked at User:AKMask's contribs and I see no involvement in this process. Therefore, User:AKMask's certification is defective in the absence of diffs that show this level of involvement. That does not ignore the issues involved, merely that correct process should be followed. Rodhull andemu  00:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I interjected into a dispute between these two editors on ANI, making an attempt to resolve the dispute by placing a cool-down period between them. I explained the purpose of the cool down to Mjroots on his talk page. It more then meets the requirements. -- ۩ M ask  01:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by BilCat
The following is Mick's view on civility in a discussion, per this diff


 * Seriously, I really am not interested. If you want to chat to people about the theory that demanding civility before you feel the need to justify positions or defend arguments is remotely conducive to taking discussions to a higher intellectual plane or achieving a defensible outcome, then go and have a chat with Giano or one of his hangers-on, they love debunking that sort of tosh. I have absolutely no problem with people 'winning' the argument by simply playing deaf and dumb and trying to play the civility card. It's no skin off my nose, and the permanent record always tells the real story for any interested researcher of how decisions were arrived at, and shows who engaged and who evaded, who had a solid point and who was merely winging it. MickMacNee (talk) 6:55 pm, 11 August 2010, Wednesday (25 days ago) (UTC−4)

That is his approach to discussion: If you meet his requirements, he's civil, if not, well, he responds like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Alaska_Turbo_Otter_crash&diff=378382955&oldid=378372046
 * "It is not depreciated where it still has meaning. Using the aviation-porn term "DHC-3 Otter" instead of the simple "plane" is not a compromise, it is idiotic bureaucratic wonkery, and worse than that, it is project specific wonkery that flies in the face of WP:TITLE and WP:NCE (and right on cue, this is the part where you reveal your status as a fully paid up Aviation Project member). MickMacNee (talk) 16:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)"

I'm not certain I know what "aviation-porn" is supposed to mean, ut it sounds liek it means peoplle get sexual exitement from the long names or jack off whlile looking at the long title. Whatever it is, is it really civil?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Alaska_Turbo_Otter_crash&diff=378411677&oldid=378410479
 * "Jesus H Titty Christ. Fine, if you cannot be bothered to contradict my position, or justify your own, w.r.t to actual policy (just a link would do, if actual explanations are beyond your intellect), and your sole justification is an ignorant invocation of mob rule, citing the opinions of people who patently have no clue what they are talking about, and don't even understand basic, and I mean totally basic, things like WP:DAB, then fuck it, rename the article whatever you like. I am sure this is a strategy that will suit the pedia well in the future. Maybe we will be able to delete the policies as redundant in future even, as this strategy you outline for dispute resolutions sounds so brilliantly well thought out. What utter repugnant garbage frankly. I won't bore you by explaining that per CONSENSUS, a consensus of people without reference to policy is not actually a consensus at all, because I'm sure it would just fly right over your Aviation Project head. I'm off to go and copyedit those hundreds of 2010 alaskan plane crash articles we have. Busy busy busy. MickMacNee (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)"

Please show me where anyone other editor commenting on this page has ever behaved lioke this. ANd Mjroots is worng to try to call him in this? Of courese he has a right to discuss, but this kind of studd is badgering other, and uncivil.

This is Mick's "normal" behavior. This is what you're defending here if you support him.

Please note carefully when he will "politely listen and discuss", per this diff: 
 * "I come to discussions with a clue about policy. I do help discussions along, I explain my reasoning, I point to the policies and guidelines I am using to defend my position, and I politely listen and discuss with anybody who has a policy backed counterpoint to bring to the party. I above all go out of my way never to assert I say is true simply based on the fact that I think it is true, because that is simply stupid. I cannot and will not apologise to anybody who gets their nose bent out of shape if they cannot do me the common courtesy of doing the same as part of a discussion, and instead, wants to assert that their POV is fact, or that they don't have to follow policies or guidelines or even explain their reasoning when challenged, or that consensus is defined as just the majority opinion of generally clueless and lazy people, and that overall, being nice but clueless is more important than forceful but cluefull. MickMacNee (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you miss the last part? "consensus is defined as just the majority opinion of generally clueless and lazy people, and that overall, being nice but clueless is more important than forceful but cluefull." Is that civil? If it is, good, because I get tired of being nice all the time!

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) BilCat (talk) 02:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) WikiuserNI (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Mjroots (talk) 09:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Bzuk (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC) Using anger and bullying tactics all the time will only lead to the inevitable conclusion that this editor is not a benefit to the project. I also take exception with an earlier comment that because of his contributions to the project, there should be some leeway. His edit history shows a preponderance of edit reversals in the mainspace articles, where he spends the majority of time, either wikilawyering with, or in conflict with others. When you look at his "true" contributions, his writing is exactly what he rails against: "lazy", "misconstrued syntax and poorly formatted sentences" with few references. I see no redemption. Still a WP:DICK, but no one deserves the last comment.
 * 5)  Mo ainm  ~Talk  17:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) East of Borschov 06:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  —   Tivedshambo   (t/c) 05:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC) MMN seems to take any !vote against him personally, and feels he has to argue against every such !vote. This is not just the case in the aviation afd mentioned, but also this afd, which MMN immediately took to deletion review when his nomination failed. Whilst a wiki-lawyer may argue that there is nothing written down to prohibit this, it does get tedious and annoying, and smacks or bullying behaviour. IMO, If MMN cannot accept that other users have a different opinion to himself, he is in the wrong place, and Mjroots was quite correct in his actions. (Follow up - I struck out most of this comment as this is supposed to be about Mjroots' behaviour, not MMN's)
 * 8)  Red rose64 (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC) I come here as one of Mjroots's WP:TPSs. I've always found him to be civil, and willing to defer when necessary. I'm not an admin, but I've been asked if I'd like to become one. Accordingly, I've looked at WP:RFA to see what I would be up against; and also at WP:RFAFC, to see some of the reasons for failure. One common reason for an "oppose" vote in an RFA seems to be lack of participation at WP:XFD: so I've looked at some of those, including several mentioned earlier in this page; again, to see what goes on. I would be reluctant to participate in a XFD if my "oppose" !votes were likely to provoke bitey responses from the nom. It's been said that Wikipedia is short of admins. Maybe this is why.
 * 9) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 10) Wikireader41 (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 11) Sjakkalle (Check!)  13:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * MMN, every experienced editor has to learn to deliver criticism in a neutral and matter-of-fact style, without lapsing into incivility. It takes a little acclimatization but is not that difficult.  Please think of it an aspect of WP:COMPETENCE and work to develop it just like any other useful skill.  Giano is not a good example to cite or follow.   69.111.195.229 (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Ahunt (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by TreasuryTag
The only evidence which has been provided is a diff of Mjroots making a mild-worded proposal on the administrators' noticeboard. To me, this seems in no way problematic.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) ╟─TreasuryTag► high seas ─╢ 20:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Mjroots (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Bzuk (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC) I still believe that the root cause of the issue has not been addressed.
 * 4) Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Wikidemon (talk) 16:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 6)  Mo ainm  ~Talk  16:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7)  —   Tivedshambo   (t/c) 08:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) Ahunt (talk) 19:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Outside view by Wikidemon
Despite any AN/I result to the contrary, MickMacNee should be counseled to tone down the frequency, aggressiveness, and personal nature of his AfD rebuttals. Rebuttals are indeed permitted, but it is redundant and unconvincing for the editor who nominates an article for deletion to repeat their point again and again by way of rebutting every editor who thinks otherwise. Too much of a good thing can indeed be a bad thing. There is no policy against adding ellipsis to the encyclopedia...but if I fill entire talk pages with them I think it would be fair to ask me to stop. It mystifies me why an editor would advocate for his right to do such a thing, because messing up the flow and tone of his own deletion nominations to the point where nobody wants to read the whole thing hurts his case and probably decreases the likelihood of a deletion result.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) (because I hear it's customary to endorse one's own point) - Wikidemon (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) WikiuserNI (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 3)  Red rose64 (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 4)  Mo ainm  ~Talk  16:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Bzuk (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC) This, I believe is finally getting to the root causes of the dispute; the constant berating of every contrary vote in an AFD is not only unseemly but entirely unnecessary.
 * 6) --Wikireader41 (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Mjroots (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 8) -- Cirt (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 9) Ahunt (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

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