User talk:MickMacNee

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stickee (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Beat me to it, had to go out before I had time to notify. Thanks Stickee. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Emperor of Exmoor.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Emperor of Exmoor.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

See also this discussion. Bovlb (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing per this ANI discussion. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  07:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, see my comments in the AN/I thread to explain why I support this block. And further, I agree that an unblock should not occur unless editing restrictions are developed and agreed upon by you. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 08:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickMacNee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is a completely invalid 'indef' block. There is no way I could ever hope to defend myself against such an obviously bad faith charge as a vague hand wave to a block log and an amateur pyschology review of my personality and future 'threat level' to the pedia, so how is anyone going to be able to review it fairly and objectively or ever take any assurance from me, certainly one that wouldn't see Sandstein taking them to arbitration? This cannot be lifted by any action from me, so this is not an indef block, but a unilateral community ban seeking post-ban consensus, without so much as a by your leave or the redlink WP:Requests for comment/MickMacNee ever turning blue, ever. Infact, I've never even been under so much as a 'civility parole' before, let alone anything so serious a sanction as to warrant this unilateral ban. Admins are not supposed to have the power to do this to good faith contributors who are not right there and then charging around adding 'Dave is a tool' to articles. If they did, they could pretty much unilaterally ban anyone they didn't like and who hadn't had the presence of mind to routinely drop their history and create a new account every now and again. That's certainly not an environment that fosters good community cohesion or encourages people to be truthful and honest. I've never cleaned my account history like that, but perhaps I was naive? If Sandstein thinks he has the support to have me community banned, based on my entire wiki-career, then he should have done it properly, and shown that consensus existed first, instead of doing what he just did, and turning up at a stale ANI thread to demand someone give a him a reason not to indef block me, and when unsurprisingly not receiving any contrary response in just 8 hours (and only one support too!), unilaterally banning me. I wasn't even watching that thread anymore, believing it had died out out of lack of interest, the whole thing was over as far as I was concerned in terms of immediate issues, and unsurprisingly, I've been asleep in the 8 hours he waited for feedback on the 'long term' issues, because it was night time here. He clearly dumped the accusation at ANI before going to bed, and then banning me was apparently task no.1 in his breakfast routine this morning. This is not good enough in terms of WP:ADMIN, WP:DR (because Sandstein clearly has a personal issue with me, and is not imposing this ban on me on behalf of the community in any way), or WP:BLOCK - "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." I wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting any admin to unilaterally ban someone if simply giving nothing better as justification that it would 'prevent damage' than a vague hand wave to their block log, one or two diffs of recent actions which are not ongoing, and a clear general dislike for their attitude, without ever having even raised so much as an Rfc on it. That ANI thread ironically shows that. MickMacNee (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

{ The block is supported by more than sufficient evidence, and your lengthy unblock request does not state any valid and convincing reasons to unblock. Please review WP:GAB before filing any further unblock requests. Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yes, I've mentioned the timing issue at AN/I. It's a bloody scandal. Just one editor commented in the time between block threat and action. LemonMonday Talk 10:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Conceded that the timing issue may be seen as causing some concern, nevertheless there seems to be a consensus in the WP:ANI thread in support of the sanction imposed. I count five in support, one against, and three comments which did not come down clearly on either side. I am personally sitting on the fence, but feel that the thread should be correctly interpreted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct interpretation would require taking into account facts such as 'supporters' like User:Mo ainm recently whitewashed his account history to hide the fact he was racking up blocks, including in the BISE topic area, which he still edits in now, with no traceable link to his prior account, and as we see here, the with presumably no fear of an ambush from Sandstein like this. Or the fact that Bjmullan, he who says "MickMacNee has shown nothing but contempt for the whole concept of civility" (proof? unsubstantiated smear = inCIVIL behaviour remember?), can make this sort of comment in an article talk page (infact, the Ireland talk page of all places): "For what it's worth competing in the I was raped and pillaged by the British games doesn't count as recondition (sic) of anything" [1]. Still, there's the issue. For admins to seemingly do anything about any of this sort of gaming or POV pushing, in the face of no easy 'he called me a twat' blocks, or, 'block him, he's awfully mean to me, and all I've ever done for years is to be an SPA for the continual systematic erasure of a term from the pedia without ever making that a guideline, despite making the same argument again and again and never listening to anyone else, but I'm awfully carefull to be polite about it), they need Rfc's in triplicate, executed by an aggrieved party who has the temperament and patience of a robot. To community ban me however, all Sandstein apparently needs is to be able to lazily point to a 'long' block log, and have a post-indef block party (which he absents himself from), where everybody is invited except me, even though as said, this block prevents nothing in terms of active disruption and is pretty illegitimate in terms of DR. And presumably if during that time of enforced humiliation, if I blow my stack and say lots of naughty words, all the better for them I guess. Provocation, even from admins, being just like civil POV pushing - invisible to others as an offence worthy of ever recognising as inCIVILity. Note that none of this forms any part of my unblock appeal mind, before anyone chucks in the usual NOTTHEM get out card, I am just showing how such an ambush indef can become completely one sided after the event, and any such 'consensus' after the event will never be truly objective or even honest, and will do nothing except give an editor like me all the wrong ideas about what he should and should not be doing, if he ever gets back to editting. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Didn't read it all as you know, but spotted my username and that I edit in BISE area not true I'm afraid, I stay away from any where you are going to show up. Just making sure you are aware of the mistake you have made and check back at ANI what Alison said when you tried to bring this up before about I can't be arsed to look but something to do with WP:OUTING as far as I can remember, don't want to go down that road also do you? Mo ainm~Talk 14:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy for everyone to find out how you only came to realise that the reason you didn't want your old account name revealed was after Alison said it would be outing, even though it would be as much 'outing' as if I had rinsed my account like you, and someone later called me 'Mick'. I even think in that thread you nearly stated what your real reason was, until you realised that by returning to old ground meant is was a basic policy violation, and swiftly back peddled. I think you even came up with a third excuse even before the post-script outing excuse came up. It was BS then, and it's BS now, as is your ridiculous claim that you do not actively participate and influence what goes in this whole dispute area. If you want to email any current admin watching here with your old retired account name, and detail exactly what these 'outing' concerns were, so that they may independently verify your various claims and examine your current account's edit record in all areas, then go right ahead. I don't think it's going to happen tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickMacNee (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I do not accept my block being reviewed by Jehochman. I have an extensive history of dispute with him, and completely reject the idea that his ability to review is neutral or objective w.r.t. me in any way. If his claim that "The block is supported by more than sufficient evidence, and your lengthy unblock request does not state any valid and convincing reasons to unblock." is even half true, an admin who has never had any such dealings with me will be able to see it (as long as he gives me an opportuniy to clarify things as above). As to his suggestion, I do not see how reading GAB helps me at all - I will say it again, there is NOTHING I can say w.r.t GAB that would be an answer to Sandstein's original charges, which are effectively saying 'based on his block log I think this guy shoud be community banned', but he has done it by unilateral indef block instead of a ban discussion. How is recognising/admitting I have a long block going to help me in his charges exactly? Sandstein has declared he would not believe anything I said - "I do not believe that any assurances he may give about future good conduct are credible", and he has stated this block is placed based on my inherent character traits which I cannot do anything about he says, so where does anything in GAB even come into this? Except by perversly demanding that I must confess to Sandstein that I am an incurable pyschopath before he will unblock me? Is that a civil way to interact, or a proper way to admin? I think not. He suggests I should not be unblocked until a community discussion has occured as to what 'can be done about me'? Where is that discussion taking place exactly, and how is an indefinite block in the face of no ongoing disruption a pre-requesite to that even occuring? But, to keep it on GAB issues and not admin procedures, maybe you want me to talk about what I bring to this site? Well, after I had disengaged and calmed down from that ANI, I went and transformed the Power Snooker article from a copvio stub into a proper article, which seemed like a good idea since the tournament is going on right now. Yet just as was finishing that up, Sandstein was reviving that thread proposing this block, without even telling me. No, this block is actually a ban proposal without the consensus or discussion, not a 'block, then let's see if he get's it' exercise. If it's to be a ban discussion, I want a ban discussion, in the proper established way, not unilaterally applied. And if it's not a ban discussion, I want an admin to explain this block in a way that I actually can do anything about it in terms of GAB. I can't for example agree to any proposed sanctions, they have not been proposed. Similarly I cannot agree to listen to an Rfc's findings that has not been filed. I cannot do anything with a charge that says I am incurable bastard, from someone who has not shown how he has proven that through DR one bit, just a little wave to my block log and a nudge and a wink. I can promise to be a good boy and abide by all policies, but I don't think that's going to make a blind bit of difference is it? I will obviously mean it and try and abide by it of course, I am Grand Tutnum Editor after all, not some know nothing fuckwit who just registered yesterday, but the charges here do not allow that as an appeal, obviously. Now please, on this second attempt, can I just get an admin who has had no prior conflict with me, and who is prepared to answer/rebut my full unblock request properly (and any admin who would let a contributor with 26,987 article edits over three or more years just go down the pan on some lame tl;dr response, wants shot with shit frankly). Otherwise, I really am just going to start dropping f-bombs left right and centre and make wrapping up this ban discussion real easy for everybody, with all pertinent lessons learned, trust me. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First, you do not get to choose who responds to your unblock requests - the original block was made based on clear direction from the ANI discussion. Frankness is not bad, but WP:POINT, WP:SOAPBOX and WP:DICK are not sets of recommended behaviours. Neither is WP:SPIDERMAN. Here is my honest recommendation: right below this unblock, start drafting a list of possible restrictions that could be imposed on you in order to allow an unblock. Your list will clearly show whether or not you actually get why you're blocked. Below that, admins can suggets others. After that, we'll put it together and see how that works. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This is getting more and more ridiculous. There was no support for a community ban in that thread before Sandstein got involved. The only issue being raised by people before he got involved was a POINT violation, which came from my frustration at how concerted civil POV pushing at the BISE topic is being adminned, or not as the case maybe, and how nobody at that ANI thread was in the slightest bit interested in even acknowledging anything except basic and obvious civility catches like Triton. But Sandstein rejects a topic ban from BISE as a solution, so that's out. As for the suggestion that I don't know why I'm blocked, or I just need to realise what I can do about it, I have to burst this bubble I'm afraid. When Sandstein decided to get involved, he made it CRYSTAL CLEAR to me at least, that he does not believe I can do anything about the reason for my block, which was clearly and simply put as my block log length, and my inherent personality flaws. He believes I will always disrupt, always, always, (eventualy, he has to stretch that characterisation over several years mind, and several different kinds of disruption, and somehow his lack of being able to put a concrete finger on what 'it' is, such as by pointing to an Rfc, is somehow an issue for me, not him?), and he has thus swooped in well after the event, and blocked me indefinitely as a protection of the pedia. I can't change my block log (infact, I am clearly being punished for not being smart enough to not practice account hopping/whitewashing), and while I can promise to moderate my personality, I don't how I can put that into a proposed editting restriction to anybody's satisfaction. You either believe me or you don't on that score. Sandstein doesn't. I can promise to follow policy, but again, I don't see how that translates to a restriction. Sandstein clearly wanted a ban discussion, without having to have a ban discussion. He sort of got it, but even after he blocked me, there are clear dissenting voices both to the logic of his indef block given his statements, and exactly how disruptive I really am (and it is also clouded by having unidentified clear biased opinions in there who can barely conceal their joy, while not revealing that they are not exactly independent reviewers and have a vested interest in such a block-which-is-a-ban development). He is not interested in the slightest though. He is now trying to pass this off onto other admins now, and rather insultingly, is comparing an indef ban on me, a long term proven good contributor, to that which you slap on a basic, flat out first 100 edits disruptor/vandal[2], as if the cases, and the exit options, are remotely the same. This is all in the environment that I am incivil? Sorry, but no, this is just baiting. But I'm not biting, yet. Sandstein is for some reason, leaving it to other admins to have the 'community discussion' he originally referred to, about what I or the community should do before I can be un-blocked, but why is it down to them to figure out what to propose that will satisfy him? Unless or until this issue is sorted, unless or until he either phrases this as a non-fait accompli indef block, which he isn't exactly busting a gut to follow though, or as a properly proposed community ban, to see if the community shares his low low opinion of me, then you are going to have to believe when I say I don't have a fucking clue what you want from me with regard to suggested restriction proposals, and this whole exercise still looks for all the world like a ban discussion, which lasted eight hours and got one person's comment before it was actually enacted. Call this SPIDER or whatever, I call it being ignored after the event, when I can do nothing about it, and whereby, seemingly now if no admin comes along to make any suggestion whatsoever, and Sandstein certainly won't, then I'm defacto banned. All this in an editing environment where even BetaCommand is getting away with still violating actual proper written down and clear community sanctions that he was under, after not only Rfcs but even two arbitration cases, and still only getting a three week block!. And this indef-block is about simply preventing certain disruption based on nothing but me having been blocked a few times over years? No Rfc, no other discussion, no nothing. Come on, there is much more going on here, there is a definite malice, maliciousness and injustice to this whole sequence of events, and in particular to Sandstein's whole approach to me, personally. MickMacNee (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

You've written a lot about this block now, but not one word about whether your own conduct might possibly have something to do with this block. This is not going in the right direction.

The reason for this block is not your block log, but your disruption and your reaction to the reaction to said disruption. Now, you have two ways to be unblocked.

• The first is to convince me that you will not disrupt Wikipedia again. For the reasons mentioned in the ANI thread (notably your block log), this will be very, very, very difficult.
• The second is to agree to a set of restrictions that will prevent you from disrupting Wikipedia again as effectively as this block does. I can't think of any such restrictions right now, but maybe you can. I advise you, therefore, to go ahead with Bwilkins's suggestion.  Sandstein  21:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well, I think point 1. puts to bed whether you are trying to indef block me to prevent disruption, or trying to ban me with no community consensus whatsoever, except the laughing hyenas who turn up after the fact and like to omit crucial facts in their 'support' opinions. As for point 2, well thanks to you, it is apparently now just all down to me and the admins who you clearly think are your inferiors, who exist solely to sort out your blocks, to sort something out with me, after the event, even though you have given fuck all evidence to support your claims at all that I should be banned, bar a nice little wave to my block log and a wink, or a threat maybe. I wonder if any admin has the balls to challenge you as the AE enforcer in such an abuse. We'll see. You know less than fuck all about most of those block situations, because unsurprisingly, you don't involve yourself in them at all. Things like who/what/why w.r.t civil POV pushing in the BI situation are completely alien to you, except you just recognise my name right. Yeah. Just g.t.f.o. my talk page already Sandstein. If I'm getting fucked here, I want you nowhere near it any more. Any admin who wants to unblock me with conditions, can discuss it with you on your talk page to get the permission you will so hypocritically require no doubt, if they choose to give you that respect at all. Their choice. Not that you think that is a likely scenario, instead of nobody giving a fuck or just being happy with the outcome. So well done. Good game, good game. MickMacNee (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick, I've stayed out of this thus far apart from one or two comments on ANI. I'm willing to help you, but you've got to help yourself. Start thinking of a few restrictions you could deal with. It would be a hell of a lot more productive than trying to provoke admins. You're smart enough to realise that half the people who see the above are only going to see the wall of text and the "naughty words". Basically, give us a reason to think that you wouldn't cause disruption (regardless of everything else, that AfD was more than a little pointy) if you were unblocked. Proposing restrictions would be a good step in that direction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason is simple. I am not a moron. Had I for one minute believed that Sandstein's ambush ban-by-block ploy would remotely stand, I would never have made that pointy nomination, which I extremely hesitate to say, was made in no small part due to me being totally fucking drunk at the time. But that's no excuse, the underlying reason behind it stands - if no admin is prepared to even give lip service to the abuse that is civil POV pushing, or TE, in that area, then I am afraid Sandstein is going to have to block good contributors all the time, due to the blatant gaming that occurs there. Quite where this guy Cailill came from I don't know. I've never seen his name before in my life, and quite what his qualification for knowing who is BATTLEing or not in that area escapes me. His being Irish does not, no matter what threats he makes to people for pointing that out. Not that Sandstein gives a flying fuck who he blocks in any area, given his comparison of me to that vandal you recently dealt with. Anyone going to block him for inCIVILity for that? I doubt it. MickMacNee (talk) 17:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) In case you did not notice, I'm attempting to help you become unblocked below. My own doing - you're generally a proficient editor, and I - with no prompting from others - am trying to work with you to be unblocked in a way that helps you and the project. If you choose not to participate, feel free to mope and whine that you don't get a fair shake instead. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I second BW here. Whatever you may think of the block, the way to get it lifted is to make the effort to work with us and agree to some restrictions. Perhaps that should have been done in an RfC/U prior to any block or ban, but that's where we are right now and the way forward is to play the game. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Who said I was uncooperative? I can listen to constructive feedback just like anybody else, I can take on board any independent suggestions if they come with good faith. That's right Sandstein, I have nothing but time, co-operation and perfect patience for any admin who is here legitimately, even better if they have an Rfc or other DR on their side. But any admin seeking my unilateral ban from the community without a ban discussion can go fuck themselves, I will see them in hell, and before that, before an arbcom appeal committee, whether they feel they have special status or not. MickMacNee (talk) 20:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible editing restrictions in case of unblock

As suggested by admins

• Topic ban from BISE topics (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• I think that would be needed as a minimum, but from looking at the block log there seem to be problems with UK/Ireland issues generally, so I would suggest a general topic ban from anything broadly related to UK-Ireland relations, to include notably all British Isles terminology issues. But that does not yet cover the whole uncollaborative attitude/incivility/harrassment problem that has frequently led to blocks. We would need an effective, easily enforceable restriction for that too, but I can't think of any. Clearly we can't just rely on a promise to be polite and friendly.  Sandstein  21:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• I've already said this at ANI - Editing restriction at xfD and DRV - One challenge allowed per editor per discussion. Mjroots (talk) 13:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  Your ideas about how Afd is supposed to work are total nonsense. If you want to change the way Afds are executed, go to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. If you want to get me perma-banned for telling you shit you don't like, but can't prove in any way is a violation of any policy, then stick around, it's a common theme here today. MickMacNee (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  The problem is that when you try to answer every single comment at an AfD is it inevitably looks like badgering regardless of how correct you are in regards to policy. When you chuck in a bit of mild swearing the closing admin is just going to facepalm and ignore your arguments. Having said that, we can't reform AfD to stop people arguing and personally the BISE topic ban mentioned above is enough for me. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  As I said at my RFC, I fully accept you have a right to challenge responses af AfD etc, as does any other editor. As you have been told by more than one editor, the continual challenging of reply, and reply to challenge, and reply to reply to challenge is where this becomes excessive. What I have proposed does not remove your right to challenge responses at AfD or DRV, nor does it prevent you from nominating articles at AfD or DRV. I don't feel that this is unreasonable. I'd even be willing to allow you to make an appeal after a period of time, say 6 months or so. If consensus then exists, the restriction can be lifted. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

  If you'd read my comments at ANI, I actually argued against this block becoming a de facto ban. I don't like to see any editor blocked, or banned where that is avoidable. At the moment, I support your block, but am not totally opposed to it ever being lifted. Mjroots (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect, MJ, there is nothing in any policy about this. Your personal preference may be not to get into extended dialogue, but, as has been said before, you don't have to reply. I don't think it's reasonable to impose your preference on an editor when it's not supported by any of the relevant policies or guidelines. Iff those replies conform to CIV and NPA, then Mick or any other editor is perfectly within their rights to make so many replies they give the closer a repetitive strain injury. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page protected

After this edit summary [3], it is not unreasonable to presume that the discussion is pointless. The user is uninterested in working things through with the community, and should be considered community banned. Appeals go to arbcom-l‐at‐lists.wikimedia.org. --Scott Mac 21:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access has since been restored and this talk page has been unprotected. HeyMid (contributions) 22:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Mick, fancy an offline discussion with an admin who doesn't stalk AN/I etc? Happy to talk if you wish, either here or via email. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I can talk here if you want, but really, what's the point? Look at that ban-discussion-that-isn't-a-ban-discussion. If the community is happy with this being how community bans are handled, that's fine. I won't bore them with my side of the story behind the opinions of editors like Merridew or Wikireader41 (who even went to helpfully let Mjroots know [4] he should probably scoot over here and suggest the above nonsense about how I should follow his made-up fantasy land interpretations of WP:AFD before I should be unblocked.) And he's an admin FFS. Frankly, most of the people 'endorsing' this ban-which-isn't-a-ban snigger snigger, have back stories with me just like that, where I have disagreed with their ideas about policy, and they respond by claiming that this is inCIVIL behaviour. Someone somewhere said it best, CIVIL is not there to stop people from telling you things you don't want to hear. (Take a look at this Afd for just exactly what editors like Wikireader actually thinks is CIVIL behaviour and what sort of approach he uses which he thinks is perfectly CIVIL, let alone what he thinks passes for clueful policy argumentation). The rest are doing what Sandstein did, giving a little wave to my block log and pretending that there is a rule anywhere that says editors are supposed to be punished for being so stupid as to not keep whitewashing accounts. I will say again, if any one of those editors wants to point to any step of DR that has been followed in this case to actually support such a 'long block log' hatchet job ban-that-is-a-block like this, then go right ahead, to properly support some of the frankly wild claims about my behaviour and threat to the project, and how much better off the project will be without me. Opinion's like Cailil's are priceless, he even freely admits he never had anything to do with me until that last ANI, yet form somewhere he has magically shown evidence of behaviour sufficient to warrant this sort of obscure back channel stitch up. Yet for him to even begin to investigate an accusation of GAME behaviour in the BI area, he want's RFCs in triplicate, presumably then assessed by neutral observers. It's hypocritical bull. There are some cluefull opinions out there and I'm thankful for them being given, generally from people who spend more than five minutes investigating issues, or who can claim that they know my history well enough to give an accurate, neutral opinion on this block, as well as some downright fucked up and vengeful ones (the attempt to ban me from my own talk page for example for removing a troll who is again, just someone who thinks it was incivil to disagree with them at Afd - I was never the type of editor to whine about this sort of rant, or even complain to ANI about Mjroot's pretty obvious light touch and partisan treatment of such violators, being on his side of the dispute, but in light of who it was, that now that seems very foolish given what role they are now having in my demise, with Mjroots amusingly thinking this block was "Excellent". No such luck in that dispute for me...), but given the way Sandstein has gone about this, the cluefull inputs can easily be ignored in the round, especially now the old sub-page side-step has occured, unless another admin wishes to risk him taking them to arbitration if he and all the other party boys just want to ignore them. No, I don't see any way out of this for me now. I am supposed to be thinking of editting restrictions for myself, but seriously, when the charge isn't any more substantiated than 'you have a long block log', or 'he always violates NPA, just trust me' (obv. from people who have never read the last god knows how many WQA/ANI reports on me that were kicked out without so much as a warning, generally due to the fact that editors like Sven Manguard really really have no idea what the actual community view of CIVIL actually is), then what's the point? Nobody has any suggestions, because the charges are ridiculously vague. And that was intentional I'm sure, because more often than not, it's been Sandstein insiting I've done something wrong in many of those threads, and then ending up in the minority concensus on that score. So he's taken his opportunity now in a way that he can be farely confident his late, unilateral and opportunistic action won't be challenged. C'est la vie. MickMacNee (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have not posted here before because I thought Mcnee would say I was trolling him, and it is true (and I'm sure he will agree) we cordially dislike each other. However, I really don't see that prolonging this ban is beneficial to the project and if something is not of benefit to the project, then it serves no purpose and is unjustifiable. No one is looking good here. McNee is very acerbic, blunt and rude, but so I am told are many other people - it's hardly grounds for dispensing with their services - it's apparent that he has been trolled and forced into a corner and there does not seem a way for him to get himself out of it without eating huge quantities of humble pie and grovelling, which of course is not something he is going to do (much as I suspect some want to see him humbled and brought to heel) and I don't blame him. Whatever Mcnee says, it's pretty obvious that he's going to think twice before employing his tongue before his brain in future - Those that want rid of him are actually looking a little spiteful and vengeful right at this moment, they need to discover that revenge is a dish best served cold. Fighting a man backed into a corner with his hands tied never makes anyone look good. So I suggest they free him and see what happens over the next few weeks.  Giacomo  23:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Further fragmented discussion here [5].  Giacomo  07:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not think that anyone wants this to become a ban. This is a block, and I can't say how many people have suggested that Mick take part in drafting some acceptable restrictions so that he can be unblocked. Becoming a martyr is not helping the project - becoming unblocked with restrictions is. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• From what I have seen people do indeed seem to want a ban (or at best not care if the "block" isn't ever lifted) and furthermore they are too wary of trying to prove him guilty in a fair and satisfactory hearing. Screaming and heckling on ANI by a whipped up and assembled throng is not justice in any meaningful of fair sense of the word. It's the beahavior of those better suited to a tinpot banana republic, not an assembly of suposedly educated people.  Giacomo  12:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Howdy Mick, I'm hoping your indef-block will be lifted. In the meantime, I'd recommend avoid using colourful language, as it tends to heighten tension among others. GoodDay (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Power Snooker logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Power Snooker logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have restored the logo to the relevant article, per your rationale, and removed the orphaned notice. Bovlb (talk) 08:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

a question of rope

You don't like me. So, I realise posting here might be considered baiting or trolling. If that's the case, remove this and call me what you will, and I'll not trouble you again. However, sometimes only Nixon can come to China (which of us is Nixon and which is China, I'll leave aside), so I'd like to make you an offer. I've not looked at the circumstances of your block, and I'm quite open to the possibility it may be harsh or unfair. It's quite easy to take you the wrong way (Indeed, it took me while to realise that, despite the expletives, this is constructive "fair comment", and actually quite funny) and perhaps that's what happened here.

Given doubts over the block, I am somewhat tempted to unblock you. (I lack consensus to do that but, as you know, that seldom constrains my use of abusive admin power!). My problem is that, if I'm honest, my initial reaction to your indef block (and I expect the reaction of many others) was "well, he had that coming". People are of the opinion that you and wikipedia were bound to part company eventually. Now, that may well be not entirely your fault. It may be because Wikipedia is shit and can't handle people like you. But the problem that it gives me is that if I unblock you, it may well be in the expectation that it won't matter because you'll just get banned over something else. So, my unblock becomes a trolling designed to give you enough rope to hang yourself. And then we can all say "ah, well, that was inevitable wasn't it", and feel smug and superior again.

So, let me ask right now. Would it be trolling you if I were to unblock you? Is there any way you could work with the shit that Wikipedia is in a manner that the bastards won't just reblock you for a better reason next week?--Scott Mac 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Scott, if you and Mick can work something out here, I'd support an unblock. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no issue with you unblocking me on the basis that you probably expect another to follow in short order. I certainly wouldn't see it as trolling, others might like to think that I'm just that stupid, but I'm really not. You will have a problem with Sansdtein if you do though, but seeing as it seems both of you would be discussing that with no specific knowledge of my current threat to the pedia, other than vague ideas that I had it coming and the length of my block log, I can't see that ending in anything other than a personal opinion deadlock. Sandstein then taking you to arbitration might be the outcome, and I'll do my best to give a neutral account from my perspective. Any admin who blocks me in future will be subject to the same expectations that Sandstein has failed to meet. If they come here claiming to prevent immediate disruption, they shouldn't be doing so nearly a day later. If they come here claiming to be preventing certain disruption in future, they had better have some specific evidence better than their own unilateral opinions, and a post-block party where inevitably the only people who turn up are my best buddies from past disputes, happy that they finally get satisfaction for the numerous disputes they've lost with me in the past. (If you want to assess my actual threat level as the neutral community really sees it, then you could check the last few ANI/WQA reports on me, and see if they actually ended with any kind of sanction against me from which this sort of ban would be the only next option.) I've already pointed out the complete lack of any actual DR evidence given in this case. If they come here with the intention of indef blocking me until I 'get it' or agree to some sanctions, then again, they had better come here with something more substantial for me to work with in terms of actual DR, and unlike Sandstein, actually state that they even believe that would be possible. And if, like Sandstein, they come here just to block me with the full intention of it being the enacting of a community ban, well, I think all decent admins know what procedure has to come before they can ever get away with pulling that sort of manouvre. A lot of people might believe in their very soul that the community benefits from me being kicked out whatever the specifics, but I am part of that community too, with a shit load of productive edits behind me. Just because I don't myspace up my user page to celebrate them, does not mean I don't have the same rights as any other established editor here in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My problem is that I don't want to unblock you if it is just going to be a temporary reprieve (causing drama with those who object to me doing it - and me being arbcommed), followed by some incident and associated drama, followed by you being banned again. If that's the future then, regardless of whether you are in the right or not, all my action will have caused is disruption (although I'm not afraid of being arbcommed). You response seems to be "well this block is wrong, and so the next person better get it right". My question is, if I unblock you, will you do your bit to making sure no one has any grounds to block you next time? I'm not so much looking for agreed topic bans or any such legalistic nonsense, as an indication that you can see why it looks so inevitable that you'll end up banned, and do your damnedest to take evasive action. Not editing drunk might be a start (although I can't talk there). I not asking you to admit you've been wrong (that's asking too much from any Wikipedian) or to beg, I'm just asking: "given how Wikipedia is, and how seemingly arbitrary people can be, do you think there's any chance that you can find a way of working that doesn't end up with a community endorsed ban?". If you're up for trying, I am.--Scott Mac 16:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• I too support this proposal. If there is anything I can do to help you get unblocked, don't hesitate to message or email me. --John (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Well Scott, if I gave the impression that I think the next block is inevitable, and that my only concern is whether it is done right or not, rather than not drawing it at all, that was wrong - I really don't think that way at all. And yes, after this block I am well aware of the practical differences between what can happen and what should happen, so in my own interests, I am obviously going to try and make sure I cannot be put in this situation again. MickMacNee (talk) 16:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that's good enough for me. I trust you won't make me look a fool.--Scott Mac 16:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. MickMacNee (talk) 16:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The matter is now on ANI. Please help me by thinking very carefully should you chose to comment on what will inevitably happen now.--Scott Mac 17:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Lorry falls on train

Mick, would you consider that the unusual circumstances of this accident would justify a stand-alone article or not. It's mentioned under the list of rail accidents covering 2010, and at Oxshott railway station. Asking first to avoid drama later. Mjroots (talk) 17:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how anyone will consider that a historically notable incident. Maybe if there was some fault of NR/Highways that caused the truck to fall, but that report didn't suggest that. MickMacNee (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, at the moment, I don't feel that strongly over the incident. Maybe further details will emerge which will change things, maybe not. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Guideline for aircraft accidents and incidents

The current WP:AIRCRASH guideline never really had a consensus and it does not appear to reflect some of the discussions at articles for deletion. We need to change the emphasis that it must meet the more general guidelines like WP:EVENT and that it should only be a guide and not a scorecard to take to AfD. I have proposed a simpler guideline at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Aviation accident task force/Notability and tried to capture the trend from the AfDs. With your experience at AfDs your opinion would be appreciated. Thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2010 (UTC)