Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Michael D. Wolok

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 14:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 12:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

[edit] Description

Michael_D._Wolok (talk • contribs) is a new addition to the Wikipedia community. During his two months here, he seems to have violated quite a few of our norms and alienated quite a few users. He has also undertaken a rather extensive and vicious smear campaign against me without ever attempting a dialogue with me. Wolok consistently adds material which violates verifiability and original research policies and fails to cite his sources or meet our neutral point of view policy. Wolok abuses article and user talk pages by posting lengthy and irrelevant personal anecdotes or hateful screeds, sometimes spreading them across hundreds of pages simultaneously. Wolok wages spamming campaigns against me and steals other people's words or lies to bolster his case. Wolok consistently assumes bad faith, attributing to malice what may actually be simply editorial decisions which do not favor him, while simultaneously assuring everyone of his innocence and good intentions. Wolok solicits for help from third party users by the hundreds, but refuses to follow their advice when given. Wolok may very well have exhausted the community's patience. Certainly mine is gone.

Many of Wolok's actions might be excused due to his newness and unfamiliarity with our policies (for example, he only learned about his talk page (despite several references to it) quite late in the game, so he missed many messages). However in time, as Wolok learns more about our policies, his transgressions seem to get worse, not better. Wolok continues to spread malice about me in many places, and responds to my good faith attempts to engage in an editorial discussion about content with sarcasm. Wolok paints himself as a martyr here, and does not admit the possibility that he may have acted in error, maintaining his own adherence to policy, never learning from his mistakes. But in the two months he's been here, it's hard to find an edit that wasn't reverted or part of his campaign. I am filing this RfC not to try to crucify Wolok, nor to kick him while he's down, nor to bite the newbie, but simply to get him to shed the belief that he is not just being persecuted by a single admin with a bad attitude, but instead to recognize the possibility that perhaps he may be violating our editorial policies, acting against consensus, causing widespread disruption, with the hope of getting him to end his campaign of solicitation and adopt a less adversarial position. And I do believe some censure is in order.

I also encourage Wolok to use this RfC to air his grievances against me, though I am not going to make his case for him. It may well be the case that I have been curt with him, and if that's so, I'm willing to take my lumps, though I dispute any claims of personal attacks or incivility.

-lethe talk + 14:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

[edit] Adding inappropriate material

Wolok makes many POV, unsourced, unverifiable, or original research edits to article main space. In fact, it's quite hard to find edits of his which pass these criteria.
  1. This diff shows the principle material Wolok wants added to Many-worlds interpretation. Contains many unsourced and probably incorrect statements. Contains many NPOV and unverifiable statements. The text is reverted by several different users, including me.
  2. At the article rape, Wolok replaces the definition of grey rape with instructions for googling and is reverted by Sam Blanning. Adds again, reverted again. Removes the section on grey rape again, this time replacing with an unsourced paragraph about how rape of children leads to homosexuality, and is reverted, this time by Antaeus Feldspar. Removes again, and is reverted again, at which point I block for 3RR violation.
  3. Again at rape, Controversial and unsourced claims that rape leads to homosexuality quickly reverted by LtPowers.
  4. 20 June. At Bill Gates, unsourced POV material reverted.

[edit] Inappropriate uses of talk pages

Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Using talk pages to post rants, wild theories, or endless debates is an abuse.
  1. Strange jeremiad about how the American media encourages pedophilia and a sad story about 14 year old prostitutes, followed by a tale about what happened when Wolok went to jail.
  2. Rants about the injustice of assuming that rape fantasy implies rape. Concludes with vague personal attack.
  3. Personal essay about the subconscious effects of rape and the endocrinology of sex.
  4. Ugly screed against lawyers. Possibly a veiled personal attack against Nlu, a trial lawyer, with whom Wolok is having a dispute.
  5. Theories about what causes rapists to rape.
  6. Requests information on spyware-free filesharing software and proffers opinion about the morality of people who write illegal filesharing software with or without spyware.

[edit] Stealing peoples words, lying, bad faith

  1. Wolok complains at the AMA. In his complaint, he copies verbatim another user, wikwobble. Thus he makes claims about me which were written by someone else for some other offender. He alleges that I am following him, reverting without comment everything he does. He alleges that I ignored his request that I stop, when in fact no such request was ever made.
  2. Wolok posts to 70 people's talk pages (see below) the unsubstantiated allegation that

    "I am having problem with an editor by the name of Lethe who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary. I have tried reasoning with him on discussion pages, but he refuses to read what I write."

    These statements are simply false. I am now in the embarrassing position of having this defamatory nonsense on every wall of every corner of the encyclopedia, which is what finally eroded my patience with Wolok and is the proximate cause for this RfC.
  3. Wolok posts at WP:AN. Met with skepticism [1], [2], [3], and responds quite venemously. Note that the allegations against Sam Blanning not only constitute personal attacks and assumption of bad faith, but are also factually incorrect. Blanning later refutes the allegations. Some choice quotes:
    1. "For some reason, Sam Blanning and Lethe think their personal opinions are infallible"
    2. "Lethe and Sam Blanning were both as nasty as can be. They were patronizing, condescending and scolding like school marms with PMS. They insulted my writing ability, and belittled my talent."
    3. "Now, Sam Blanning and Lethe continue their personal, petty war against me, attacking me every chance they get and making snide remarks. I thank you for your time, consideration and patience."
  4. Announces "this is baloney" in the thread about his spamming campaign.
  5. [4]

    "Lethe is the reason why I requested an advocate and mediation in the first place. He disparages and belittles me every chance he gets, and follows me around Wikipedia reverting everything word I try to add. He has been nothing but nasty and abusive since the first day I started editing Wikipedia. He is the very reason I am asking for help. There is no other."

  6. Wolok posts in several disparate inappropriate places a list of rules that I have violated, without evidence or discussion, just as simply a FYI for unrelated people.
  7. Wolok responds with sarcasm to a good-faith attempt at discourse about content at talk:many worlds interpretation.
  8. The spamming message claims that I follow Wolok from article to article reverting him, which is untrue; I have never reverted him anywhere except at Many-worlds interpretation.

[edit] Spamming

  1. First search for advocate. At the talk page of Aeon1006 and then at the talk page of Flcelloguy. To Flcelloguy he mentions his intent to also email every mediator. Both users reply, but their offers for help are never accepted. Aeon posts some email exchange in which Wolok accuses me of disliking the many-worlds interpretation (this is untrue), and claims that he himself invented this independently of Everett.
  2. Second search for advocate. Wolok spams dozens of users listed as mediators or advocates with an identical message. Note that although he spams indiscriminately, he is quite choosy about who he will listen to. See below under #Refusal to accept solicited advice.
    1. CaladSigilon 17:48, June 17, 2006
    2. BorgHunter 17:51
    3. Bottesini 17:54
    4. Cameronian 17:57
    5. Computerjoe 17:59
    6. Crazynas 18:03
    7. CyclePat 18:04
    8. Deskana 18:06
    9. Dyslexic_agnostic 18:10
    10. Freakofnurture 18:12
    11. Friday 18:13
    12. IanManka 18:15
    13. Izehar 18:16
    14. Jahiegel 18:17
    15. Jord 18:19
    16. Konrad_West 18:20
    17. Wisden17 18:21
    18. Wally 18:22
    19. Vijaykrishna 18:23
    20. TigerShark 18:24
    21. Thebainer 18:25
    22. Soltak 18:25
    23. Xxpor 18:26
    24. Scareslamfist 18:27
    25. Savidan 18:28
    26. Sam_Spade 18:31
    27. Robert_McClenon 18:32
    28. Randy_Johnston 18:34
    29. Pedant 18:34
    30. Osbus 18:35
    31. Inter 18:47
    32. Amalas 18:49
    33. Bottesini 18:50
    34. Cowman109 18:53
    35. CP\M 18:54
    36. Lithpiperpilot 18:55
      • First request to stop spamming by Cowman109 (never responded to) 21:15
    37. DavidBailey 22:31
    38. David L Rattigan 22:32
    39. Hunterd 22:34
    40. Digitalme 22:35
    41. Eagle101 22:36
    42. Evanx 22:38
    43. Fetofs 22:39
    44. FrancisTyers 22:40
    45. Geo.plrd 22:41
    46. Jbolden1517 22:42
    47. Kcordina 22:43
    48. Joebeone 22:45
      • Second request to stop spamming by savidan (never responded to) 21:46
    49. Ian13 22:47
    50. Keitei 22:48
    51. Kylu 22:49
    52. Olorin28 22:51
    53. Physicq210 22:52
    54. Sceptre 22:55
    55. Sam Blanning 22:57
    56. Kelly Martin 22:59
    57. Rick Norwood 23:02
    58. Blnguyen 23:07
    59. Sdedeo 23:09
      • Third request to stop spamming by sdedeo (never responded to) 23:13
    60. Tkevin1 23:19
    61. Kmweber 23:20
    62. Longhornsg 23:21
    63. Lottamiata 23:22
      • Fourth request to stop spamming again by sdedeo (never responded to) 23:23
    64. Xchrisblackx 23:23
    65. Matthew Platts 23:24
    66. Jimbo Wales 01:37, June 18, 2006

[edit] Exhausting patience

  1. Nlu posts on WP:AN/I because he feels Wolok has turned talk:rape into his personal soapbox, filling it with off-topic rants (see above). I make some capricious remarks, Tom invites Wolok to the party, Wolok flips out, fun ensues. See the archive. Tyrenius tells Wolok to be mindful of NOR, CITE, NPOV, and V. Wolok assures us that he has all those things in his text. This is the first in a long series of taxing rants on AN/I and AN.
  2. HappyCamper blocks Wolok for a short 15 minutes only to stop his spam campaign (in this, he is successful). He explains that he earnestly wants to help Wolok and promises to do so. He also reverts about 50 of Wolok's spams (see contributions, offset). He subsequently gets about a dozen complaints, some of which contain offensive accusations of bad faith (see this one by Bobcheezy where he asserts that HC reverts to make sure that Wolok never receive any help). HC subsequently leaves the project, citing the unexpected vindictiveness of his fellow Wikipedians. This numbered point isn't actually about Wolok's actions per se, but it does show the extremely damaging effect that Wolok has had on the community. I knew HappyCamper previously and am sad that we lost him due to this dispute.
  3. MWI. After taking a month off to slander me across the whole site in order to garner support for his edits, Wolok finally returns to the Many world interpretation article and returns to dialogue about his proposed text. Michael C. Price, a man of apparently infinite patience, agrees to discuss line by line why the additions are unsuitable. When Price makes some sensible suggestions for Wolok about effective writing, Wolok responds with insulting condescension and sarcasm.

    "Thanks, I never would have realized this on my own. Maybe, one of these days I will try effective thinking. It sounds so intimidating. In the meantime, I guess I will just have to muddle along with my trusty ol' ineffective thinking. I am so glad you have benefited from effective thinking. I promise to give it a try one of these days. Michael Price, you are one of the brightest people I know. We are not peers. You are countless orders of magnitude brighter than I. You are one of the most civil, patient people I know. I am at a loss to understand this highly pedantic, dress down. It is so not like you. I know I am not in your league, but give me some credit, and try to stay open-minded. I may not be the greatest writer in the world. I have never help myself out to be a great writer. But many people do find I present things in a clear and cogent fashion."

    CSTAR responds that Wolok is being disruptive, he doubts his ability to continue to cooperate with Wolok, and he thinks it's time for an RfC (so here we are).
  4. The fifth post to AN or AN/I gets reverted quickly by NSLE.

[edit] Refusal to accept solicited advice

  1. Tom sticks up for Wolok and invites him to AN/I. After another in a long series of inappropriate posts to AN/I by Wolok asking for help goes unheeded, I ask Tom to help him, and Tom agrees. Tom suggests that Wolok edit less controversial topics like the article on his hometown. Wolok later rejects this suggestion.
  2. Scareslamfist, one of the recipients of Wolok's spam campaign, asks me to respond to the dispute. I admit to him that I have reverted, and that I have perhaps even been "flippant" with Wolok. Scareslamfist file with ArbCom saying

    "Mr. Wolok was all derogatory with me, so I assumed he did not want my assistance. Also, there was no point in trying to mediate since Mr. Wolok would not cooperate with me."

    Wolok posts an email exchange which shows the two of them calling each other "flippant" many times. Note that ArbCom rejected the case.
  3. Several of the people contacted in the spamming campaign come back with the suggestion that Wolok be more mindful of NPOV and NOR. Wolok dismisses this suggestion without a moment's thought.
  4. Despite his indiscriminate spamming campaign, Wolok refuses help from a priest because of his religion.
  5. Note that one of the recipients of Wolok's campaign was Sam Blanning, whom Wolok later calls "patronizing, condescending and scolding like [a] school marm with PMS."

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. no original research
  2. verifiability
  3. Neutral point of view
  4. Cite your sources
  5. Be civil
  6. Assume good faith
  7. No personal attacks
  8. No more than 3 reverts
  9. don't spam

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Start with User talk:Michael D. Wolok which is filled with nothing but attempts to get Wolok to play ball. Many particular attempts are mentioned in the above evidence.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. I obviously support and certify the evidence above, which was written by me. -lethe talk + 14:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. I am involved only in the dispute as concerns MWI. I certify that I have made numerous attempts to discuss Wolok's contributions.--CSTAR 15:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. I certify that I have made numerous attempts to get Michael Wolok meet our neutral point of view & no original research policies in the MWI article. I should add, though, that I didn't consider his response (quoted above) to my stylistic suggestions to be sarcastic beyond the first 3 or 4 sentences. --Michael C. Price talk 19:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. Michael D. Wolok emailed me on May 11 to request help. We exchanged emails for a couple of weeks. In them he sought arbitration or a mentor to make sure his material was inserted into articles. I informed him of Wiki-norms, and urged him to use talk pages to work towards consensus, but he appeared confused by talk pages and wouldn't reply to me on mine despite several requests to move the conversation there. -Will Beback 22:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. I haven't made any active attempts to get Michael to 'play ball' since my warnings, but I've been observing his behaviour on Rape, WP:AN/I and a few other places and consider the summary above to be accurate (apart from one small issue - see talk). --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. I endorse the summary to the extent that it relates to Rape, Talk:Rape, and the related discussions. I have insufficient personal knowledge to endorse the remainder, although the behavior demonstrated by the user with regard to Rape lends credence for me with regard to the remaining allegations. --Nlu (talk) 15:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. With the exception of 'Rufusing to follow solicited advice". If anyone asks for advice, they are under no requirement to take it. -Mask 00:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] 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.



[edit] Advocates

User:HappyCamper deleted a discussion from my talk page. I've been a wikipedia for a while now and this feels like a gang up. On June 17th I received a "request for help," that clearly stated "...who follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary..." This long comment was deleted by HappyCamper. I responded on HappyCampers talk "I will simply believe you miss-interpreted my "statement" to feel free and edit my user page. Never the less I can't help but weigh the value of the statement and weigh your actions, which resemble WP:HA. YOU deleted "a cry for help" on a mediators/advocates page which alleges you or someone is stalking him. This EVIDENCE surely substantiates the allegations." Never the less, I'm not fully aware of the situation and believe it require further investigation, (which I, CyclePat, will be doing)--CyclePat 04:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. --CyclePat 04:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
    User does not understand situation. HappyCamper was deleting a request that individuals help MDW engage in an ongoing edit-war with Lethe, not with HappyCamper. HappyCamper was an uninvolved, third-party user cleaning up after spam. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Laura Scudder

I never interacted with Wolok, but I do respect HappyCamper greatly as an editor and have looked through their interactions together. Since HC is on a break right now I figured I'd try to say something in response to CyclePat's outside view.

The way I see it is that HC noticed the spamming of the user talk pages and saw someone unfamilar with Wikipedia process soliciting help in an editing dispute. He decides to clean up after the spamming and then help Wolok work out the dispute himself. To this end he blockes Wolok for fifteen minutes with the summary just 15 minutes - come to my talk page afterwards, I'll help you out. After the rollbacks he leaves a message for Wolok to reassure him that he will help but dispute resolution takes time. In a post to his own talk page explaining the rollbacks he says:

Michael D. Wolok has not been getting the feedback that he needs from the community, otherwise, I doubt the user would post repeatedly in quick succession to so many user pages. Clearly, he was just trying to get some help, and for whatever reason, was not receiving it for some time. [...] It is not often I see a user post to so many different userpages with the same message - in fact, this was the first time I've seen an account do this to this extent, and I have been here for well over a year. I wanted to tell the user that there was at least one administrator here who would dedicate a sufficient amount of time to help out - I did not see any evidence of this on the user's talk page.

My only other comment is that I can't figure why Wolok has fixated on lethe when others have clearly had disputes with him. I looked through both users' contributions to the article namespace since Wolok's first edit on May 11, and I can't find any basis for his accusation is that lethe "follows me around Wikipedia reverting all my edits without commentary" [5]. Outside of MWI, the only two articles they've both edited since that date are rape (where lethe only made this reversion of an anon) and wave-particle duality. To the latter Wolok made only one edit, this one word removal on May 18, and lethe reinserted the word on June 21.

In other words, so far as I can tell, lethe's first revert of any edit of Wolok's outside MWI came at least four days after Wolok accused lethe of following him around Wikipedia. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. — Laura Scudder ☎ 17:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Well, actually, I dispute that I reverted Wolok on any article outside of MWI 4 days after he began his assault. Are you referring to the reversion of the anon at Rape on May 18th? I think it would be fair to say that that anon was not Wolok. That edit was petty vandalism. But I did revert him yesterday at Wave-particle duality. I endorse this summary; HC was trying to help when no one else would, and Wolok's fixation on me is unwarranted. I will further add that I find CyclePat's accusations against HC offensive. -lethe talk + 17:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. With an extra endorsement for Lethe's statement regarding CyclePat. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. I endorse Laura Scudder's summary and agree with the additional comments by Lethe and Hipocrite. HC cleaned-up a messy spamming outburst and extended a friendly hand to MDW who he saw as a fairly new WPdian in need of assistance. Some of the comments directed to HC on his talk not only mischaracterize his effort but go on to suggest nefarious intent - a ridiculous contention. --hydnjo talk 23:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geo.plrd

Per CyclePat I was displeased to see someone had reverted my talk page without my permission. It seems MDW is new and needs a mentor, not to be thrown to the dogs.Geo. 15:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:

  1. Geo. 15:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Michael_D._Wolok_765b.html"