Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Michaelm

If he's being so disruptive and violating the 3RR rule, why hasn't he been banned? --Spinboy 18:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I noted, I've cut him some extra slack because of his language difficulties. I've been trying to manage him into being more productive, but was coming to the conclusion that he was a lost cause when this RfC appeared. I don't really like the idea of banning someone, and I don't know how to go about having someone banned. I am glad that Lacrimosus took this on. I'm just too soft and squishy for this kind of a fight. Kevintoronto 20:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The 3RR only applies over a 24-hour period: you'll notice that Michaelm typically waits a day or so. This doesn't mean that the reverting is any less annoying, because he still does not discuss. Lacrimosus 21:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments removed from User_Talk:Michaelm by Michaelm

I'm going to respond here to what you said on my talk page: "engnerince in some caseis" This brings up another point. You appear to have difficulty with English, which is not a huge deal, but I don't think it's wrong to ask you to please use a spell check before you post to talk pages or edit articles. Otherwise every edit to an article you make necessitates an edit by someone else to correct your grammar and spelling. Please use a spell check and repeat your message to me, I'm unsure of what you mean when you say "engnerince". Kurieeto 13:44, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I also agree with Kurieeto that you should spell check your edits. You can do this by typing them in Microsoft Word or Corel Wordperfect, using the spell check, and then copying what you have written into the article. Kevintoronto 14:50, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Michaelm"

What happens...

…if Michaelm ignores this Request for Comments and/or such edits as were subject of the RfC, which is what seems to be happening so far? Samaritan 23:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that Michaelm only seems to be making a few edits a week, so it's hard to get any sort of overall consistency there. If he goes about things that indicate that he's obviously refusing to co-operate with users who talk to him (one example would be the creation of the list of social democrats, now deleted, as a separate article), then we can threaten to take it to arbitration. Given his infrequent editing, however, we'd have to wait for more of the same behaviour to accumulate before formulating a case, I think. In the meantime, it's possible to survey Michaelm's edits and see if he's taking notice. Slac speak up! 10:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The edit history of Talk:Red Tory proves that anonymous editor 24.222.32.234 is Michaelm. 24.222.32.234 has made several recent edits to the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative Party of Canada articles that have required an immediate revert each time for the same reasons as before with Michaelm cited in this RfC. He has also become hostile when asked to explain himself [1]. Further disciplinary action is needed against Michaelm as he has not changed his behaviour in any way following this RfC. Kurieeto 00:04, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

He also made an edit to Labour Party (UK) under his user name. It should not surprise anyone that he changed the party's ideology from "democratic socialist" to "social democratic", and that he failed to provide any reason for doing so. Another editor reverted the edit, noting that the party calls itself "democratic socialist" in its constitution (if I recall correctly). Sadly, Michaelm has not learned from his mistakes, he refuses to heed to the advice of others, and he has now turned to making anonymous edits and posting abusive comments on Talk pages. Ground Zero 03:50, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I'd agree with describing the UK Labour Party as "social democratic" rather than "democratic socialist", since the latter term is not as strongly associated with the Third Way. But anyway, as far as any further action, I reckon mediation would be fairly pointless, given his uncommunicative style, but I don't know whether the Arbitration Committee would consider a request for arbitration - I would support the request, however. Is there a consensus that this is the best next step? Slac speak up! 04:09, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the UK Labour Party, my concern is that he made the edit without providing any explanation, as he has done so often in the past. He has this thing for pasting that label on parties whether or not they are actually social democratic. His repsonse to my reversion on PC Party of Canada is further evidence of how difficult he is -- he accused me of vandalism and of not providing any facts, when in fact, I had provided an explanation for my reversion, and he has still not provided any explanation for his edit. Given that he has not acknowledged the RfC, his persistent pattern of abusive behaviour and his refusal to change his ways, I am convinced that there is no hope of turning him into a good Wikipedia citizen. I am unfamiliar with the Arbitration process, but would support that if it is the next step in dealing with this guy. Ground Zero 14:43, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was unfamiliar with the Arbitration Committee, but after reading their associated pages it appears that they are the next best disciplinary step. I believe that a ban or block is required to at least get Michaelm's attention that he cannot ignore us and continue his ways. Kurieeto 21:31, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... thanks for the link. I was too lazy to find it myself. It actually looks like the next step should be mediation, not arbitration. Both parties are supposed to request mediation. If we propose mediation to Michaelm and he does accept, maybe we will finally get somewhere, i.e., he might just listent to a voice of authority. I expect that he will not respond, in which case we will have done all of the steps necessary before arbitration. Ground Zero 21:40, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

May I request that someone fill out the appropriate request for mediation page? I'm writing final exams right now and I can't do so myself. FYI Michaelm just deleted everything other than a welcome notice that was ever written on his talk page [2]. Thanks. Kurieeto 10:53, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Before we go to that, I think that we should agree on what steps Michaelm must take in order to address the concenrns that we have raised. This would be the basis of our request for resolution of the matter by a mediator.

Here are four things that I think that Michaelm could agree to do in order to avoid future problems:

cite sources and provide detailed explanations for all changes
not make changes to articles that have been rejected by editors of other articles
spell check all edits before making them
when an edit he makes is reverted, he will not make the edit again until the person who reverted agrees to accept the change as a result of discussion on the article’s Talk page.

Comments? Ground Zero 14:49, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all of your points and have nothing to add to them at this time. Thanks Kevin, Kurieeto 11:02, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Up to his old tricks

I posted these messages today on his talk page:

Michaelm,

Even though many editors have noted their objections to your behaviour at Wikipedia talk:Request for comment/Michaelm, and you have refused to respond to or acknowledge these valid complaints, you are returning to the same pattern of behaviour that has caused so much trouble in the past.

You have returned to New Democratic Party of British Columbia to change the ideology from "Social democratic and democratic socialist" to "social democratic" even though solid evidence had been provided that the party calls itself "democratic socialist" and, as usual, you have provided no evidence for your change.
You have made the same change to other provincial NDPs without providing evidence.
You have also changed the Moderate Party of Sweden and several Moderate Party politicans from "liberal-conservative" to "conservative". Where is your evidence for this change?
You are continuing to be disruptive and wasting the time of other Wikipedians.
You are not showing any intention of working with others to resolve these probelms, or of changing your behaviour. What is your problem?

If you delete this from your Talk page, as you have all previous attempts to reasons with you, I will just re-post it, so don't bother. Ground Zero 14:21, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have now reverted all of you NDP changes, and noticed that we had been through this before with you on several of them. Instead of getting into a revert war, please present your explanation/evidence to me and User:CJCurrie and User:Sunray who reverted your changes in the past. If you can make a convincing argument for the changes and we agree to them, then you will be able to make the changes without fear of us reverting them. That is a better way for all of us. if you make these changes anyway, despite what the other editors believe, then you will be wasting your own time and ours because we will just revert again.

I urge you to be reasonable and co-operative about this. If you are a social democrat, then you must believe in co-operative action instead of unilateral and arbitrary action. Please work with us instead of against us. Ground Zero 14:55, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I have posted the following on Michaelm's Talk page:

Michaelm, I regret having to take this next step, but it seems that you are unwiling to keep the promises you have made in the past about providing explanations and evidence for your edits. I am proposing that we enter into the Mediation proceess to resolve our diffrerences. Please review Wikipedia:What_is_mediation? and Wikipedia:Mediation. If you are willing to participate in a mediation process, plaese let me know. If not, I will take this to Wikipedia:Arbitration. Ground Zero 20:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael responded on my talk page:

I will be co-operative and reasonable and I just log on at 03:55 and I will work with you to billed a stronger encyclopedia with research. And I should not be so unilateral. I don't think Mediation or Arbitration is needed because I will be more then willing to help. If Mediation is need I will do it. Michaelm 04:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am of two minds about this. I don't think it is right to take up the time of mediators if this can be worked out with Michael directly. On the other hand, Michael has repeatedly broken his promises to work co-operatively in the past. What drove me to ask about seeking mediation was his latest imposition of "social democratic" on all of the provincial NDP pages. We had been through this issue with him before, and yet he went ahead and made the same changes again withoutproviding a whiff of exaplanation.

I can't speak for any of the others who have provided comments here, Michael, but I will give you one more chance. If you again make edits that have previously been rejected and do so without providing any explanation, I will go straight to arbitration, since you would be proving that mediation would be a waste of time. I recommend that you seek others' opinions on changes on Talk pages before you make them as you have now done after the fact on Moderate Party. I see, by the way, that an anonymous editor has undone your "liberal-conservative" > "conservative" change on that page. Ground Zero 16:21, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Eco-Social Democracy

I nominated this article, created and so far exclusively written by Michael, on VfD. Samaritan 18:33, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]