Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kmaguir1

message: While this issue is not directly identical with the main issue of this RfC, I believe it is still notable background.  Following his 10 day block for sockpuppetry in trying to insert disparaging original research on Michel Foucault, Kmaguir1's first several edits were first 'ing, and then AfD nominating several articles unrelated to his prior areas of editing issue, apparently on the exclusive basis of the fact they were created by editors he had conflicted with.  Moreover, in the course of those AfD discussions, he has repeatedly made insulting comments about the editors of the articles and of the "keep" voters on those discussions.
* Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Yee (second nomination) (article created by LotLE×talk) (result keep)
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymundo Baltazar (article created by User:Agnaramasi)
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Martelli (article created by LotLE×talk) (result keep)
*Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006_August_27#Category:Nominalist Wikipedians (category created by LotLE×talk) (result keep)
I believe this pattern indicates a general goal of simply escalating conflicts rather than of working productively on article content. 
Users who endorse this summary:
# LotLE×talk 06:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  View by [[User:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]] 

message: Just a web of falsity. I have been an AfD hound, going after every non-notable article I could find, and have been doing such for quite a bit now. Lulu was not targeted--I had looked at her edit page before, a long time before, and of course, people wonder who people are. Alex Martelli was a bit of a problem, because I couldn't find much, but then later there was a strong 'keep consensus'. However, the Danny Yee deletion is probably going to get a no consensus, because there has been a strong argument for deletion. Again, no Wikipedian is immune from deletion. Raymundo was gone, anyway. I would assert bias on behalf of Lulu for Agnaramasi, her fellow Judith Butler partner in crime, with respect to the Raymundo Baltazar article. She was the only vote for keep. So that balanced out the Alex Martelli, and leaves us with Danny Yee, which is still very controversial. As for Nominalist Wikipedians, I don't think she's a real nominalist, in the historical sense of the word, nor could anyone be, so I nominated for deletion. Merely because she like Occam's Razor, that doesn't a nominalist make. She probably likes Berkeley and the hazy Episcopalianism. The general accusations are ridiculous--there was a lot of confusion about Danny Yee; I called putting his picture up on the page to try to make him seem more 'notable' deranged; I did not call him deranged. 
Users who endorse this summary:
-Kmaguir1 09:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  View by [[User:Kmaguir1]] 

message: I see some wrongdoing on both sides of the arguement, and things done in bad faith on either side. Regardless of who started it, someone end it. Kmaguir1 needs to agree to start working towards consensus in articles in the future. He needs to realize this is not a competition and cool down when things get heated. Is it possible someone is editing his information because they are biased? Yes. Is it possible he is biased? Yes. That's why working towards a consensus is important, so that the general population of editors agree on the content included and a wide range of views are discussed and, hopefully, a neutral stance is included. I reiterate, this is not a competition, this is not an epic battle between good and evil that you have to win. 
On the other side of the arguement, the complaining parties need to take Kmaguir1 in good faith. Might this be difficult given the amount of personal involvement vested by either side? Yes. We're all grown-ups though, as far as I can tell. Just because someone from Oxford MS agrees with Kmaguir1's stance on the deletion of an article doesn't mean he made the 1 and a half hour trek down to Ole Miss to skew the consensus on an AfD with a sock puppet. That's pretty unbelievable. You can't go around claiming everyone who agrees with him is a sock puppet or that he has some malicious intent behind everything.
I'm criticizing both sides, Kmaguir1 needs to realize that people aren't out to get him or hide some secret truth. The opposing side needs to follow protocol and take him in good faith from that point on, and everyone especially needs to continue working towards consensus. The inclusion of the material in the bell hooks page is a progressive step, and everyone needs to follow through and get on with things. 
Regards Shazbot85Talk 22:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I wanted to, I could post from about a dozen different IP addresses just by using SSH, and without leaving my chair.  And if I were to go fetch the telephone from the next room, I could probably convince another dozen people to vote on something from their respective locations.  Actually, I had no idea that Oxford was quite that close to Memphis.  But Kmaguir1's obviously familiarity with Oxford suggests that even if he were not visiting it whatever day that was, he quite likely knows people there.  This RfC isn't about sockpuppetry; but it also hardly seems unlikely that such is what happened on the AfD vote (where very oddly the first-ever edit by an IP address was to an AfD, something that just about never happens with genuinely new editors). LotLE×talk 23:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's presupposing bad faith regarding Kmaguir1, which is what I'm fighting against. From what I've read, you ought not to presuppose bad faith in an editor, regardless of past wrongdoings. What I'm proposing is not a leap of faith on your part, but hope for a reaction from your camp if he is willing to reform his behavior, and I'm not saying that he is, I have no idea. As for your Ole Miss claim, there was no concrete evidence to support sock puppetry, which is why a case wasn't brought up I'm assuming. But I know the idea was still thrown around. Again, I assert that this was done in bad faith and I'm hoping that will end. Shazbot85Talk 23:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be easier to assume good faith if Kmaguir1 would go a significant fraction of a day, let alone a whole 24 hours, without committing any conspicuous acts of bad faith.  His repeated WP:POINT deletion of the image on Danny Yee to show he was upset at the failed AfD is only a few hours old.  In any case, the suspicious vote on that AfD is almost certainly either directly or indirectly by Kmaguir1.  I don't really know whether it was him asking his friend in Oxford to do it, or whether he shelled into some other account, or whether he was making a day visit to that town.  It didn't matter to the vote, since admins disregard IP votes on AfDs, but it's certainly something I won't forget to mention if it becomes necessary to report him for further sockpuppetry. I know he's your personal friend, so you feel it right to think the best of him, but I don't really see his behavior getting better absent a lot more significant sanction than his 10 day block. LotLE×talk 00:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, with nearly complete certainty, that the Oxford, MS vote was entirely unrrelated to Kmaguir1. I know him and he nor I have the understanding of the internet, wikipedia, or IP addresses to shell into another account (I have no clue what that means). I'm consistantly trying to reiterate the point to him that this should not be a battle to be won, or a fight between a "right" and a "wrong" faction. I think that point would be helped if that notion wasn't fueled any further.Shazbot85Talk 14:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I'm concerned, this is all up to the closing administrator. S/he will have to decide what form a deserved admonishment will take. Once that's decided, I'll continue to work with Kmaguir1 if/when he seems capable of accepting criticism and following WP:BLP, WP:POINT, and WP:CONSENSUS. There's been precious little evidence of this. If it's forthcoming, great. Again: I will accept whatever decision the closing administrator makes. I certainly hope we can all just get back to editing. I am resentful about wasting this much time, but it seemed necessary, given how much time has been wasted because of (in my opinion) Kmaguir1. That's all for now.--Anthony Krupp 22:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your involvement, Shazbot85. Perhaps you can sway Kmaguir1 in a way that no one else has been able to.--Anthony Krupp 22:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for resolution 

message: I have continued to follow things, and the behavior of User:Kmaguir1 on the AfDs listed above, and particularly in deleting the image in the Danny Yee article, is disturbing.  Wikipedia does not need petty retaliation.  Good reasons should always be given for edits, particularly when you have just tried and failed to AfD the article. I think User:Kmaguir1 owes the community an apology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianyoumans (talk • contribs) 
:I agree. Even since this RfC was opened, Kmaguir1 has shown himself to continue disrupting. It is possible he's beginning to learn basic rules of collaboration, but I think the learning curve is high. And that may require an "admonishment," as his only supporter on this page has also stated he needs. The closing admin should decide what form this admonishment should take. Despite his false allegations that "we" ask him to get sources and then obstruct him when he gets them, one can see from my edit history that I have worked with his text when it is usable, and requested elaboration when it is not. And sometimes I have elaborated it myself. In any case: I think that this RfC has collected the comments it's going to collect. How does one go about signalling to administration that someone can review and decide on it?--Anthony Krupp 15:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you perhaps misunderstand RfC's, Anthony Krupp.  They never really have a closing admin, they just sort of whither on the vine.  I don't know if this will prove helpful, but these are not like a court with a verdict... they're more like a discussion at a bar about which sports team is better :-). LotLE×talk 15:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment: Recent Behavior

message: I'm not sure if I'm going to add anything formally to the RfC, but I wanted to lay out my comments, since I was asked to do so.  
Here's what I've gathered from all of this.  Lulu and Anthony could probably have dealt with things differently (like trying an RfC or some other dispute resolution method earlier), but I get a distinct impression of bad faith from Kmaguir1.  One of the tipping points for this is the anon IP's vote in the AfD, which is suspicious; Lulu is absolutely right that newbies nearly never participate in AfDs right off unless they have a very good reason to.  I also dealt a good bit with the s that were posted by Kmaguir1 and his (suspected) sockpuppets.  Thos actually proved a lot to me, even if it was not conclusive...I saw a lot of similarities between Kmaguir1 and the other accounts, including the way they both used the  template rather than the  one.  
I won't go too much into my suspicions, though, since that's not what this is about.  I don't see enough effort on either side to really create a consensus or work to incorporate both parties' edits into the articles, although that is happening more on the side of Lulu and Anthony than on the side of Kmaguir1.  
I wish things could be resolved calmly, but I doubt that's the case, considering the past.  So perhaps a cup of tea might be a good idea?  Rather, I'm suggesting that both sides take an extended break from the articles in question, and possibly work only on discussion without editing the main article significantly.  I think a lot of what is happening is overlap of edits which end up pleasing no-one.  I don't know, though, really.  —Keakealani •talk•contribs• 19:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree a sit down is needed. It's wholly possible to get along with people you don't get along with, in fact, it's a neccessity. Shazbot85Talk 22:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  View by [[User:Keakealani|Keakealani]]