Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Mjroots

Certification
Question Is MickMacNee allowed to be named as certifying the RFC, or should this be done by two editors other than MickMacNee? Just to be totally clear, MMN was named as certifying the RFC by in this edit. Mjroots (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Two questions
-- Red rose64 (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) What does "tl;dr" mean in Sarek's comments?
 * 2) Are non-admins (such as self) permitted to comment?
 * Too long, didn't read? WikiuserNI (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, all editors are entitled to comment. Please feel free to do so. Mjroots (talk) 05:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My endorsements
I've endorsed some statements in accordance with Requests for comment/User conduct/Guidance2, where it states
 * Anyone can endorse any view, regardless of whether or not they are outside parties, inside parties, or even the subject of the RfC. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse.

I would also have endorsed the comment by User J04n, except that (as I read it) it infers that I have made PAs against MickMacNee and I disagree with the last sentence insofar as it attempts to restrict me from raising issues about MickMacNee's editing with other editors. As an admin, I should be able to discuss another editor if I feel that their editing is problematic. I'm not a "block first and then ask questions" admin. I don't like blocking any editor if it is at all possible to avoid doing so. I will block an editor for the good of the project, no matter who they are. Thus, the part of J04n's comment I feel I can endorse is essentially the same as BritishWatcher's, which I have endorsed Mjroots (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Observation
Just an observation. This RFC is about Mjroots, however many of the comments by users endorsing certain statements appear to be targetting MickMacNee, amongst other claims for wikilawyering and incivility. If you guys feel so strongly about this, I'd suggest opening an RFC against MMN, rather than tacking it on at the end of an endorsement of some other user's statement.

Furthermore, I also note that quite a number of editors who appear to be leaving such comments have also participated at the AFD in question and been rebutted to by MMN. Once again, if this is the source of the issue, surely that belongs an an RFC about him, not about Mjroots.

Full disclosure: !voted to delete on the AFD in question, having listed an identical article (later speedy-redirected) for AFD, but have no further opinion on the merits of most of the keep arguments (less those that cite WP:OTHERSTUFF).

Feel free to disagree, but I think this RFC is going off topic and should remain about Mjroots' conduct (again, no opinion). Strange Passerby (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, this is a tricky one. The only editor who has grounds for filing an RFC against about MickMacNee at the moment is myself. I have been advised not to do so after posting at WP:AN. I'm looking at it this way - by raising issues with MickMacNee's editing, other editors appear to be saying that it is not my editing which is giving any cause for concern. It is also noticeable that MickMacNee hasn't endorsed a single comment made by another editor. Mjroots (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, perhaps it's a suggestion that this RFC is an offshoot of Mick's responses to criticism, when he can (as noted on the RFC page itself) sometimes lash out a bit at other editors. WikiuserNI (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Which comment am I supposed to endorse? The offer of a compromise where somehow I have to accept a smear on my conduct before you accept you should be able to understand WP:AFD/WP:ADMIN or not? If I endorse that, it is an acceptance of your ludicrous charges of harassment or bullying you've made against me? Or should I endorse the rant from BilCat, which is barely even a coherent statement, and is just a laundry list of quotes pulled out of context. There are a hell of a lot of his comments I could bring up in response, but this Rfc is not about him, or me for that matter. He only has one purpose here, to distract attention from your actions and have a go at me, he said as much himself - "This is what you're defending here if you support him." And he wants to talk to people about CIVIL? Come off it. He should take my advice and try and see what would happen if he tried to pull this with the likes of Giano. Mask talks a lot of sense, but obviously, I do not agree with him that you are "fine as an admin", and it's telling that nobody here seems to want to focus on that without making it an issue about me, again, as if you not being a decent admin, or knowing what AFD is about, is somehow related to my conduct. I suppose I could endorse BritishWatcher, but I don't see the point, as it replicates parts of my statement. Infact, what I find bizarre is that you've endorsed his statement, as it says what you tried to do was completely innappropriate. As for Treasury Tag's statement, I don't even understand how he got there, and have responded below. MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So in summary, you don't want to endorse anything because nobody has written anything bad enough about Mjroots or nice enough about you? WikiuserNI (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "nice" has got nothing to do with it. I would use words like "objective", "impartial", or even "accurate". Although you do point out a major issue with many of the endorsers in this Rfc, namely the prevalence of people apparently willing to place simple niceness above other far more important issues of conduct, and to confuse CIVIL with being nice, and even worse, to treat disputes like trade-offs. Nice has nothing to do with it frankly, it is a far worse violation of CIVIL to fillibuster through debates and 'misrepresent policy', than to make sure you put a cherry on top when you tell someone else that they have 'misrepresented policy'. That's before we even get to the issue of the standards of behavioural conduct and policy competence which is expected of admins, which go far beyond issues of mere civility. MickMacNee (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I endorsed BritishWatcher's observation because it says leaving aside issues of civility. I thought that you wanted me to accept that questioning of !votes in AfDs was OK. Per consensus demonstrated on the ANI thread I raised, questioning is acceptable. Per my response in this RFC, incivility is not acceptable from any editor when challenging !votes in XfDs. Mjroots2 (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That was just one of the desired outcomes. MickMacNee (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Mick, put it like this then, you seem to be more interested in "scoring" or "winning" at this RFC than moving on. Perhaps you might be mistaken and there really is no issue here. WikiuserNI (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This is an Rfc/U. The issues are serious. If you don't see that, maybe you've not been in a similar position, or don't appreciate that NOBIGDEAL has been depreciated for a while now. I don't think you know me at all if you remotely think I am sad enough to bring forward an Rfc just to score points, as if this was Facebook or some other retarded social networking site. It's an encyclopoedia, and CIVIL reflects that, despite many common misconceptions as to what it's all about. MickMacNee (talk) 02:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a difference between it being no big deal and not being an actual issue. I accept that you really do beleive that there's an issue at stake, but you seem to be unable to accept that others might disagree on that point.
 * Although its nice to see that you're not raging as much and that we agree on social networking sites. WikiuserNI (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I notice up above that there are multiple references to opening an RFC "against" another user. It's not supposed to be a weapon, it's supposed to be a tool for voluntarily resolving an issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've refactored my comment, it was not intended to further provoke the issue. Mjroots (talk) 11:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Response to Treasruy Tag
There are 6 diffs in my statement, which covers both the proposal, and the problematic conduct afterwards. MickMacNee (talk) 15:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Time to close
This RFC has been running longer than 30 days now, and should therefore be closed.

For MickMacNee's info, his desired outcomes and my position on them.


 * 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 accept that AfD responses may be challenged. I do not accept that any challenges may be in breach of WP:CIVIL. I accept that the community has the right of deciding what constitutes badgering. As a member of that community, I reserve the right to voice my opinion on any particular editor's conduct in AfDs, including when I consider that they are badgering opponents.


 * 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 do not accept the MickMacNee was found not to have done anything wrong, as a large number of editors have told him, in this RFC and elsewhere, that his conduct at AfD is unacceptable.


 * 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
 * I accept that my understanding of policy, guidelines etc may be questioned by any editor in a civil manner. I have never claimed that my status as an admin gives me the right to claim I understand any policy, guideline etc better than anyone else. As I stated in my reply, this RFC is not about my behaviour as an Admin. MickMacNee has not shown any abuse of Admin powers by myself. A large number of editors have supported my statement of response that this RFC does not concern Admin actions.

MickMacNee continues the behaviour at AfD which so many editors have challenged him on. Any editor whose vote is opposing his opinion is dismissed as invalid. He has also threatened to take this issue to ARBCOM, presumably in a similar way that he takes AfDs that don't go his way to WP:DRV. He still seems to think that I've been in breach of WP:ADMIN. The relevant part would seem to be WP:NOTPERFECT (Accountability subsection). As with any editor, I have the right to raise an issue about MickMacNee's editing on another editor's talk page. Those pages are not WP:ANI and there is no requirement to notify MickMacNee that an issue has been raised about his editing. Raising an issue in such a way is not "going behind his back", as my editing history is freely available to all editors. Nor is raising an issue about MickMacNee's editing a personal attack on MickMacNee. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Needless to say, I think most of your closing conclusions are baseless. If you think your behaviour as an admin is only about whether you would actually make an obviously wrong move like blocking me directly, or whether your policy knowledge as an editor and conduct or standing as an admin are divorceable, you are quite wrong. You should maybe see how well this Rfa is doing, and maybe resubmit yourself for adminship and see if the same would not happen to you, if it came to light what your opinion of things like EVENT actually is, and whether that would not cause community concern as you try to ban people from Afd or any of the other things you have tried, and continue to try, to do to me, as merely a 'concerned editor'.


 * I think you have a really wierd blindspot in assessing what the community view of my behaviour at Afd actually is, and are blinded by the fact you clearly very desperately want me eliminated from it, so you don't have to be troubled by making your case. I would caution you to treat the signatures on this Rfc as anything strongly indicative in that regard, as I recongise most of them as people with a horse in this content dispute, or with prior history of conflict with me. I had hoped for ten times the amount of independent input, but I guess that's a bust now. I do note with interest the few independent views given, or the ones that make it clear they go against their prior interaction with me.


 * And given the fact you have been casualy mentioning this rfc on the talk page of certain editors, as you rattle on about how I'm 'at it again' and by the way, did you know about this Rfc?, nudge nudge wink wink, in obvious violation of wp:canvass and wp:civil, and which is something I specifically raised as an issue with your conduct here, I therefore have no faith that the return is truly representative, although I am willing to extend good faith to all those responders except the obviously biased and totally clueless ones, who wouldn't know an actualy civil comment on another editor if it hit them in the face, as they laughingly and with no hint of irony, raise the issue of incivility themselves. Thankfully in that regard, that is not an issue for my 'side' of this content dispute, and your continued failure to spot these violations, in your capacity as a supposedly neutral admin who asserts he has no trouble divorcing his admin/editor roles, is an issue entirely for you it seems, given the failure of Rfc as a venue for highlighting such errors and morphing into something completely different, seeing as you do probably notice 99% of them on your travels.


 * For proper feedback on my actions and adherence to CIVIL, while in the naturaly heated venue that is Afd, I take the view that the most recent ANI on me for doing the exact same thing you tried to get me excluded from Afd from, just like the previous time which kicked off this rfc, shows just what the independent community view of my adherence to civil actually is when put to actual neutral and independent review. And the resultant swing in the opinions at the actual Afd it raised, also shows on just how shaky ground you are when you claim that these Afds with participation only from the faces who signed here, is remotely representative of community consensus on the content dispute. But dealing with that is for another time.


 * Anyway, how this Rfc ended up being about me and not the very detailed and diff backed concerns with your own conduct is beyond me, I think that Bilcat's rambling and selecta-quoted response was the final nail in the coffin that this Rfc was ever going to be conducted properly and on point, rather than just being an exercise in misdirection and irrelevance to help out an ally in the content dispute, but lesson learned. Rather like hoping these particular Afds will be argued correctly will ever happen is just another wiki-naivety I will have to drop, to get policy to be actually followed, both conduct and content. If you think you are a fine admin and this Rfc shows it, and you intend to continue the highlighted behaviour, especially the utterly disgraceful accusations of harassment, which is and always will be a stonewall personal attack if completely unsubstantiated, aswell as the lower level attempts at back door character assasination and wiki-politics, when you can't get ANI to produce the goods, then I guess it really will take the independence and clufulness of an examination by an arbcom case for a reality check on that score. If you remotely think that just because it is actually possible to stalk your contributions, this makes your conduct ok w.r.t. to CIVIL, you are quite wrong. Infact on recent evidence, I think your whole familiarity or experience with the body of prior case law from past admin conduct cases, is pretty sketchy it seems. MickMacNee (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Mick, it's not that I want you eliminated from AfD. What I want is for you to present your case for deletion, then allow others to present their case for retention/deletion as is their wont. If you feel that an arguement is invalid, raise it in a neutral manner, rather than in a "inclusionist vs deletionist" way. Accept that people may have a different view to you, and that their view may have at least some merit. Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with people having differing views, but Afd is not a free for all, and it is not a love in where everybody's opinion is equaly valid, and the only way to be incivil is to be 'rude'. The actual merits of people's arguments is directly related to whether they made a good argument or a bad argument, and it is simply not incivil to challenge a bad argument, even though it's a sad fact of wiki-life that most people who have never read WP:CIVIL always think that it is. As AK put so well at ANI, WP:CIVIL is not about protecting you from things you don't want to hear, it's about protecting you from assholes. And if the only people you can ever find to agree with you that I'm such an asshole at Afd, are the people who make crap arguments at Afd and don't want them to be challenged, or people who think I am an asshole for having lost past disputes with me just like the ANI thread you tried and failed to have me sanctioned on, then quite obviously, you really don't have the wise and neutral support you think you do. Infact, I've pissed off a whole load of people in my three years here by simply not putting up with half assed argumentation and unintentionaly hypocritical appeals to civility from opponents in disputes, so by rights, forgetting this Rfc was supposed to be about you, there should be 50 names giving you a ringing endorsement if your defence is simple mis-direction of the issue onto me and mine, not 15 or so. And as a final simple matter of fact, unless you have diffs to the contrary, I do not generally use the labels inclusionist or deletionist at Afd, and if I do, it's in general terms to illustrate the philosophical issue, and not directed at an actual editor in an attacking or disparaging manner. You however have used the d-word, to directly describe an Afd opponent in a critical manner, and you claimed back then that this was a completely neutral act on your behalf. So, what I want to know is, has your view changed now in that regard? Is it or is it not neutral to respond to an Afd nomination by calling someone a deletionist? MickMacNee (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Mick, I used the "d-word" in response to another editor's question, as well you know. My view on that particular issue has not changed, there was nothing untoward going on with that editor's nomination of articles at AfD. Mjroots (talk) 13:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Mjroots you will have better luck banging your head against a wall than getting MMN to understand anything. as it is very clear from this RfC he is incapable of learning/ accepting  his mistakes.  It is very clear that most editors here at this RfC found nothing wrong with your behavior.--Wikireader41 (talk) 23:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I said Mjroots, you really should bear in mind whether the support of editors like this basic troll is such the ringing endorsement you wanted to see here. When you were contemplating who should be banned from Afd for being a disruptive and incivil influence, had you had your neutral adminning hat on, this guy would always rank above me in the list. But he is a loyal and consistent 'keep, duh!' voter, and always gets awfuly upset when his high quality reasoning is challenged, and is more often than not found playing the civility card rather than offering anything else as a rebuttal. Something to ponder for you, given that this is/was your time for reflection, not mine, or even his. MickMacNee (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's time for a true RFC on the real issues. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, but it can't be done while this RFC is still open. Mjroots (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)