User talk:Rd232

Please add new sections at the bottom of the page

• Archives of previous messages: to October 2005; October 2005 to Dec 2008; to May 2009; to August 2009; to 15 November 2009; to 13 May 2010; to 2 Dec 2010; to 11 May 2011; to 12 June 2011.

arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#MickMacNee and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Chester Markel (talk) 04:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If you don't want to unblock yourself, I can copy your statement to the arbitration request. Chester Markel (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, being listed as an involved party I suppose I should make a statement. I'm not going to unblock myself; I'll make a brief statement here and leave it at that. Rd232 ^talk 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, seeing you blocked and then finding an ARBCOM case notice on your page shocked me for a minute. :) Don't see that you're involved there anyway.
Have a relaxing sabbatical, Amalthea 10:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Mm, well if I'd properly respected the sabbatical in the first place, you wouldn't be shocked, and I'd be more relaxed... :) Rd232 ^talk 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

This is an unfortunate turn of events. I understand stuff can get to be insane here, but nulli te bastardes carborundum etc. Best of luck. → ROUX ₪ 08:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement

• Expletives are not the main problem. They bother some people but not others, and so discouraging them is best, as is ignoring them when they occur. Mick uses them more than most, but this is just a symptom of the actual problem.
• The actual problem is (per David Levy) Mick's apparent inability to accept that others may in good faith disagree or otherwise act in a manner he disapproves of, combined with getting very angry about it. This tends to lead to personal attacks, especially in the form of various forms of accusations of bad faith, and a vicious cycle of not really listening to what people are saying, which sharply reduces the likelihood of disputes being resolved amicably. More generally, it leads to an aggressive tone and manner which fundamentally undermines the collaborative environment Wikipedia needs to function.
• Civility enforcement is notoriously difficult, because civility is often subjective and selective attempts to enforce it can be used as a weapon which actually reduces collaborativeness instead of enhancing it. There are no easy answers, especially when the civility problem is not an occasional outburst but rather a general approach. Here's a novel one: apply a civility probation under the terms of which any editor may apply a specific {{hat}}-style template ({{civ-hat}}) to comments by the user, if the comments are uncivil. The user would not be able to remove the hatting unless they substantively rewrote the comment (assuming it wasn't replied to, in which case striking or apologising inside the hat), and if someone else removes the hatting in good faith it can't be re-applied. An editor clearly abusing hatting after warnings would be blocked for disruption. Yes, it's probably a bad idea, but good ones are in short supply.

Rd232 ^talk 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Y Done Amalthea 11:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Addendum: MickMacNee's version of events regarding my involvement is wrong in too many ways to count. He repeats accusations of bad faith, and declares that I'm "pissed off about my highlighting his failure"... a statement which an outside observer would consider ludicrous, if they bothered to read the prior conversations I had trying to persuade him of my point of view of the disputed incident where I acted as an admin. (Clearly a pointless endeavour, since not even the most basic of points I made has stuck.) Perhaps worth noting is that my proposal of an edit restriction in the ANI thread flowed directly from Mick's very Mick response to my merely noting the existence of the RFC/U, and then my explaining to one editor who complained about admin inaction why I couldn't do anything further. If he had responded in a civil manner, instead of letting me have it with both barrels, the thread would have gone very differently. If any arbs want clarification of what actually happened re the Delta/TreasuryTag ANI threads and followups (beyond looking at the relevant discussions), the cause of Mick's animosity to me, I'm available by email (please use a you've-got-mail notice). Rd232 ^talk 18:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added this to your statement. Chester Markel (talk) 19:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Addendum2:

@newyorkbrad: OK, I will if/when the case is accepted and gets underway, if I actually end up participating (I have no desire to, but it may be unavoidable)
@Mick: "private evidence"? All I said was "I'm available by email". You're quite jumping to conclusions if you think that (a) I'd submit anything by email at all (the "you've got mail" notice was purely to cover both angles, I'm planning not to check back on this mess onwiki but I may do, and I don't check that email address so often) (b) that I'd submit anything by email without expecting it to be made public on my behalf or (c) that arbs would accept that unless there was some actual very good reason (which there isn't - there isn't any "private evidence" in this case, since everything happened entirely onwiki). I accept that mention of email could be misconstrued; but the immediacy and manner in which you jump to that conclusion is entirely typical.
@anybody who cares: my self-block wasn't some kind of "tantrum" or strategy; it was a genuine attempt to get the hell away from MickMacNee the only way I could be sure ("wikibreak enforcer", Mick? how little you know about the difficulty of really enforcing wikibreaks... cf Noscript, Leechblock, Stayfocusd and others). So I'm not best pleased at the development of an Arbcom case, which will probably amount to nothing constructive anyway, but give Mick lots more opportunity to lob insults and accusations and general bile at me. Rd232 ^talk 21:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to those who moved my comments across, I promise there won't be any more. Someone please drop me a line (email+user talk) if my further participation is required. Thanks. Rd232 ^talk 21:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving this myself with my public account (I'd forgotten about that, haven't used it in a year, and forgot to block it first). Rd232 public ^talk 22:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know an administrator could block him/herself. PS: Wouldn't a 1-month wiki-break suffice? GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

re "PS" - see above on wikibreak enforcement. Rd232 public ^talk 22:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Or to be more precise, Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer is trivially defeated by Firefox + NoScript, since the latter can turn off a website's Javascript, and the Enforcer needs it to work. Thence to browser addons like Leechblock and Stayfocusd, but they're easily defeatable too. Nothing comes close to the enforcement a block provides. Rd232 ^talk 09:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Keeping Rd232 public unblocked would seem to make dodging self-imposed wikibreaks even easier, would it not? ;) Throwaway85 (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't intentional. But it proved useful for the arbcom case. Rd232 public ^talk 14:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

• My present statement was to send a very specific message, but it is in no way connected to you (even suggestion-wise). Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
  • OK, thanks. Rd232 public ^talk 14:08, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 12, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion

I understand you would like to have no further interaction with MickMacNee. I too am in the same frame of mind. The WP:CIVIL policy, regardless of people's assertions otherwise, is effectively void. It is not applied to experienced editors in any meaningful form. Sure, the policy is part of the five pillars. But, it's a charade and a facade that we have to maintain for appearances purposes. It's often used as a bludgeoning tool against new editors, but ignored with respect to the experienced. MickMacNee knows this quite well. With that in mind, barring a permanent ban from the project, I think it highly likely MickMacNee will continue his highly uncivil comments towards anyone with whom he disagrees. You will be included in this, as am I. Since ArbCom will refuse to take any real action on this front, and since all other venues have failed to produce a more civil discourse from him, the only option left is the one I've applied to me. I don't read his comments as soon as I realize it is him who has written them. When I expect him to be in a conversation, I check signatures before reading anyone's comments. If it's from him, I just skip right by. There is no point in wasting any time on him, and truly it is a waste. I equate attempts at reasoned discourse with him to engaging in reasoned discourse with a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. Is it possible? Maybe. Is it worth it? No. I don't think you'd waste a moment of your time on someone from that church. If there's anything of significance which he relates in a discussion, someone will most certainly bring up the same point, obviating any need of reading his comments. So I suggest the same to you; just stop reading his comments. If he posts to your talk page, just revert it without reading it (but don't call it vandalism of course). --Hammersoft (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-3rr-resolve

Template:Uw-3rr-resolve has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. _→AzaToth 22:34, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello

I wondered where you were. I didn't know you were on sabbatical. The anon only has a toe over my line in the sand, but I guess he strode passed yours. I find that breaks where I just do essential reverts on a few of my favorite watched articles, and leave everything else well alone, are as or more effective and relaxing than taking a complete break. Maybe something for you to consider? DrKiernan (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But I've been vaguely trying that for a while, and it doesn't work terribly well; I always end up more involved with details than I'd want. Rd232 ^talk 14:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)