Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
MickMacNee		12 November 2010	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	20 Apr 2024	04 May 2024
Mzajac	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	—	Case suspended

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Conflict of interest management	13 Apr 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing	Motion	(orig. case)	27 February 2024
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3	Motion	(orig. case)	18 April 2024
Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing	Motion	(orig. case)	16 April 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

MickMacNee

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 15:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• MickMacNee - 16:08, 12 November 2010
• Scott MacDonald - 16:09, 12 November 2010

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

According to an archives search (there are probably more):

1. March 2008: ANI - incivility and other disruption at AfD by MickMacNee
2. May 2008: ANI - proposed interaction ban of MickMacNee with respect to another user
3. September 2008: ANI - incivility and other disruption at AfD by MickMacNee
4. November 2009: ANI - incivility and other disruption by MickMacNee
5. November 2009: AN3 - revert restriction violation by MickMacNee
6. August 2010: ANI - incivility and other disruption by MickMacNee
7. September 2010: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots - opinions about MickMacNee's AfD conduct
8. September 2010: AN3 - edit warring by MickMacNee
9. October 2010: ANI - AfD disruption and incivility by MickMacNee
10. October 2010: ANI - Nationalist disruption and incivility by MickMacNee (also some followup discussion at this ANI thread)
11. November 2010: ANI - Discussion following the latest unblock of MickMacNee
12. November 2010: ANI which triggers this request (permalink) - AfD disruption by MickMacNee

Statement by Sandstein

Like many Wikipedians, MickMacNee has made substantial and valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. But unlike almost all Wikipedians, he is also habitually disruptive: he has received nineteen blocks since 2008 (block log). The problems for which he was blocked run the gamut from edit-warring to incivility, personal attacks and general uncollaborativeness, often in the context of nationalist disputes related to "British Isles" terminology, but also with respect to other issues. The common theme is a recurring inability or unwillingness to work collegially and collaboratively with others (see the discussions referenced above and his block log).

He was most recently indefinitely blocked by me on 30 October 2010 after an ANI report (no. 10 above) for making a disruptive AfD nomination for nationalist reasons and reacting to complaints about this with the statement "(...) my parents told me that the British were evil baby raping bastards. So, whenever I see an article that uses the phrase 'British Isles', I feel compelled to delete it.". The subsequent community discussion was broadly supportive of that block (see also no. 10 above). All admins reviewing MickMacNee's unblock requests agreed that an unblock should only occur after MickMacNee agreed to binding restrictions preventing future disruption (see talk page as of 2 November 2010).

Nonetheless, on 2 November 2010, Scott MacDonald unblocked MickMacNee without discussing the matter with the community or with me as the blocking admin, without obtaining any credible assurances of good conduct by MickMacNee (who had not once addressed the reason for his block, except by saying that he was drunk at the time), and in the face of what Scott MacDonald himself said was "a community decision not to unblock".

Unsurprisingly, as of 11 November 2010, there is another ANI report (no. 12 above) highlighting continued AfD disruption by MickMacNee, of the sort discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots, including statements such as this. Numerous people have commented to the effect that this now needs ArbCom action to resolve. I agree, since it is apparent that nothing prevents an admin to undo another block simply because the admin thinks that they know better than everybody else.

I ask the Committee to take the action required to prevent continued disruption by MickMacNee. This could include, e.g., a site ban and/or a topic ban from the issues and venues in which he has been disruptive.

I also ask the Committe to consider formally restricting Scott MacDonald (or better yet, admins in general) from making potentially controversial unblocks without first obtaining the clear agreement of the blocking admin, the community or ArbCom, in order to prevent more uncollegial and counterproductive unblocks of this sort.  Sandstein  16:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In reply to the concerns by Risker and Kirill, at least part of MickMacNee's disruptive conduct has been extensively discussed at RfC, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots. I'm not sure what another RfC could express that the multitude of noticeboard threads did not already, namely, that MickMacNee is habitually disruptive and shows no inclination to stop (including in his statement here, which again does not address his own conduct at all). We're only here because Scott MacDonald prevented a resolution at the community level. In this respect there is a divisive dispute between administrators, which this Committee normally addresses without prior dispute resolution.  Sandstein  06:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Carcharoth, I can't see what further dispute resolution could achieve. The recurring problem with MickMacNee's editing has been near-unanimously identified by many, but community action to address it (a block until effective restrictions are agreed) has been frustrated by Scott MacDonald, which is why we are here. As regards the scope, as far as I am concerned, it is the disruption by MickMacNee. It's up to the committee whether it wants to address this problem directly by sanctioning MickMacNee, or indirectly by restricting Scott MacDonald (and other admins) from preventing a community solution, or both. As a practical matter, I would favor the former approach, as a matter of policy, the latter.  Sandstein  07:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MickMacNee

Arbitration is supposed to be the last resort in the dispute resolution process, after all reasonable steps have been attempted. Despite what Sandstein claims, none of the people who regularly claim I am all sorts of scum at ANI, have ever done anything about it in terms of constructive dispute resolution. And not one of those ANI reports ever resulted in any sanctions, probations, or anything else you would characterise as reasonable steps prior to a case. Most of my blocks are instantaneous, and worked out one-on-one. ANI reporting is not calm, reasonable, dispute resolution, it is a pile-on fuckfest, where nobody should assume anyone is a neutral good faith participant. And what even is the dispute here? That Sandstein couldn't get an indef block to stick on me? And that's my fault how exactly? Or is it that I have breached some magic number of permitted blocks? Does the committee see any evidence at all that the general claims Sandstein makes above about me above have been remotely rigorously examined in a proper DR venue or process, with rational, calm, fair, evidence based analysis, and neutral recall/summarisation? In terms of proper dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee remains a redlink, as it has done for over three years. None of my detractors has ever attempted any reasonable or good faith dispute resolution with me, except the occasional attempted lynching at ANI. Sandstein is clearly a willing part of that culture. His first attempt at dispute resolution with me was to attempt a unilateral community ban without any prior discussion. His second attempt is now to file an arbitration case. This is not reasonable, not reasonable at all. Compare how I have been treated to how the community handled the entire process for User:Gavin.collins. This case is seriously premature, and as such should be rejected, unless the committee wants to start setting precedents that the DR process really is just ANI -> Arbcom. MickMacNee (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scott MacDonald

When I unblocked Mick, I made the following statement on ANI:

I have no reason to dispute the initial block. Indeed when I saw it reported here, my reaction was "well, he had that coming". Mick has a troubled editing history, and he and I have clashed and there's no love lost. I note the initial block was endorsed, but I also noted that people didn't rule out an unblock, if conditions were met, and if there was some expectation that Mick would change his ways. Initially there seemed little chance of that. Indeed after some of his responses on the talk page, I locked the page, and took that as the end of the matter. Throw the key away and forget him. The story looked inevitable. However, pushed by Giano, I thought I'd make a final attempt to mediate something. Asking any Wikipedian to eat humble pie, admit their sins and promise to be good, is unrealistic. Yet that's what the earlier negotiations with Mick were attempting to get him to do. Has ANYONE ever done that? In the end, we don't need anyone to confess guilt, we just need them to recognise the behaviour that makes it impossible for them to continue with Wikipedia, and indicate a willingness to amend it. Thus, I went as Nixon to China, and had this discussion with Mick. I had no desire to unblock him if there was no chance he'd avoid being reblocked for something pretty soon - but he did indicate he understood that. Please do read that discussion before commenting here. As a result of it, I unblocked him. If I'm wrong, I'm a naive fool, and I'll be the first to block him. If, however, he does take "evasive action" to avoide [sic] the usual circle (of indef block - unblock - more drama - community endorsed ban) then we win. Anyway, if consensus is to reblock, then with a heavy-heart I'll admit my failure.--Scott Mac 17:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've little to add to that. I did not directly undo Sandstein's action. Under a particular set of circumstances, Sandstein used his admin's judgement to block, and submitted his decision to ANI. I have no quarrel with that. His decision in the circumstances was generally endorsed (with some dissension) but an unconditional ban was not in any way. My mediation with Mick achieved what I saw as a new set of circumstances, and I used my own judgement to unblock and test Mick's words. I submitted that judgement to ANI, where it was not overturned. I have taken no part in events since then and offer no view. If it is the case that Mick has behaved in a manner worthy of sanction since my unblock then I disappointed (although not altogether surprised) - but it is not a matter I wish to be involved with.

If Sandstein has issues with my unblock, then I ask where his RFC is?--Scott Mac 17:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Scott MacDonald?
• Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Unblocking?

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

I'm slightly-involved here, having blocked MickMacNee for edit warring a while back, and generally in Ireland-related articles. I would like to urge ArbCom to take this case for two reasons: one, to determine if MickMacNee's persistent incivility rises to the level requiring a long-term block; and two, to determine if admins unblocking without first attempting to influence a clear consensus in favor of a block should be sanctioned. For the second part, I'm a bit more involved, having had blocks unilaterally reversed in the middle of community discussion.

I agree that admins should be able to correct other admins' errors, possibly even in the face of an expressed consensus -- what I am objecting to here is blocks being reversed while community discussion is ongoing, when the reverser has not participated in the discussion at all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

See also the current discussion at User talk:Gimmetrow#What do you think you're doing? regarding another unblock (apparently) against expressed consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)

I was the blocking admin on the TreasuryTag discussion Wehwalt links below. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Question for Risker

Considering that the behavior is question is long-term incivility across a wide range of articles, what sort of dispute resolution are you suggesting would be best to pursue here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Wehwalt

The willingness of cowboy administrators to unblock even while discussions are still pending at AN/I, or even pre-empting a discussion prior to its start, and without consulting with the blocking admin, is an increasing problem, as other admins struggle to preserve civil discourse on the wiki. This has seen application in blocks of those troublesome editors who are given to well-spoken incivility, and who have friends who urgently advocate their unblocking, without the need for apology. At the present time, there are editors whose civility blocks are likely to stand for only minutes. Hopefully, given that this case is likely to be accepted, this is something ArbCom will take seriously and do something about.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

See also:

• (unblock of Malleus Fatuorum by Moni3)
• (unblock of TreasuryTag by Rd232)

Statement by uninvolved Rd232

The problem here is mostly an inability to deal with serial incivility, because incivility is subjective and the seriousness with which it is taken varies. As a result dealing with all but the worst kinds of civility and personal attacks really needs community input rather than unilateral admin decision. The problem, in a nutshell, is not a lack of community backing for unilateral and inevitably somewhat arbitrary decisions, it is a lack of a mechanism for reining in serial incivility from established editors. I had suggested when I unblocked TreasuryTag imposing a civility probation. I'll just quote my proposal from there:

I think part of the problem in these sorts of circumstances may be the practice of not having punitive blocks. For precisely the sort of low-level problem behaviour alleged here, it makes it very hard for any enforcement to happen, unless an individual act is sufficiently egregious to justify a block (but even that may just lead to the behaviour being marginally moderated). So what you end up with time and time again is unilateral action by an admin who gets ticked off (justifiably or not), and then a big debate which turns essentially on whether the community is also, broadly, ticked off. Really, maybe the answer is to explicitly make friends with the idea that in some limited circumstances punitive blocks are allowed. Then issues could be more systematically handled, and for example after community discussion at AN or ANI an injunction issued to stop or at least moderate the behaviour (and not just in the short term). Then, if the injunction is breached, a punitive block might be exactly what's needed to focus the user's mind, and (broadly) help prevent future misbehaviour. However, this block would have to be after community discussion to justify it.

In other words, a civility probation would permit a user to be blocked for incivility which admins would normally hesitate to block for, with established community backing both for the probation and for the block for infringing it ensuring the block sticks. Why would this be so helpful? Because most of the time opposition to mid-level incivility blocks stems from "it's not that bad, people say stuff". For a user under probation, there is the definitive retort "yes, but he's under probation".

I commend this approach to the committee as a possible sanction. Rd232 ^talk 19:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved JodyB

I encourage the committee to accept this case to give us some guidance on two important and growing issues. His comments notwithstanding MicMackNee cannot claim any ignorance of the rules and expectations of his behavior. Any attempt to hide behind process to prevent discipline should be rejected out of hand.

But I think that the greater issue here is the way unblocking is done in the midst of a dispute. Scott MacDonald is, so far as I am concerned, an excellent administrator. It is rather sad that he happens to be the one caught up in this discussion. Nevertheless his actions are, at the very least, confusing and possibly even troubling.

As an administrator I can assure the committee that most desire to wield the mop with efficiency and fairness. However it has become clear that there is no consensus as to when to unblock. Some statement from the committee could clarify the issue.

I urge you to accept this case and clear these two matters. I will not offer specifics now but if you choose to move forward I will attempt to suggest remedies and guidance.

JodyB _talk 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite

This is a pattern of behavior from Scott MacDonald, which I will provide evidence of if this case is accepted. Hipocrite (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement from HJ Mitchell

I had drafted a longer statement, but decided to save it for the full case. I've a feeling nothing I say will prevent this from going to a full case, but I do believe that MMN's conduct alone does not merit arbitration. However, the issues surrounding his most recent indefinite block require examination by the Committee and if this is the only way, then so be it. I believe Scott MacDonald's conduct, possibly my own conduct and, in particular, that of Sandstein should be scrutinised. I would say, though, that I believe Sandstein's suggestion of a siteban is unwarranted and I do not believe Sandstein is a neutral party in the matter. For the record, I am not uninvolved and I have made admin actions in the matter as well as contributed to previous discussions (in which I've taken a variety of viewpoints). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken

As a rank-and-file editor, with no involvement in this case, I urge ArbCom to take it on. The behaviorial concerns are real, and have occured over a good deal of time. An RfC will not solve them, and to not take it on on that basis is, I think, slipping a bit into bureaucratic thinking.

This is not a situation which arose, had one AN/I outing, and then came to ArbCom, it's been building over time, and, as Sandstein's list above shows, has been featured on the noticeboards many times. To think that an RfC is going to settle it is naive, and only puts off the problem for some future time, when it will again end up here. The last AN/I had, again, no resolution, and it was the community's decision that since it could not handle the problem, ArbCom needed to step in. ArbCom, then, has, I think, the obligation to take this on, and not to refer it back to the community, which has shown no great ability to solve the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to declining admins

I think that Shell's second comment hits the nail on the head, and I urge you to reconsider your decisions to decline the case. I've got no dog in this fight, I've never had problems with any of the named participants, and, in fact, few interactions with them at all that I can recall, but there are both individual and general issues here that need to be resolved, and ArbCom is clearly the only venue in which that can possibly happen: there are too many conflicting views which cannot be harmonized through discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely ArbCom can define for itself the scope of the case? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Wifione

I have been involved in the issue involving the unblock of User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back by Gimmetrow, which he undertook before discussions could take place with the blocking administrator, and without the blocked editor in question addressed the reasons for which he was blocked. Details can be found here. In my discussions with Gimmetrow (additional discussions here), I had brought out the fact that Gimmetrow went specifically against our WP:Unblock policy which strongly advises the unblocking administrator to contact the blocking administrator and then discuss the issue with them, before taking up the unblocking action. While Gimmetrow did contact the blocking administrator, before discussions could start, Gimmetrow commented that as 24 hours had passed without the blocking administrator commenting, he was undertaking the unblock action. Post this move, four administrators opposed Gimmetrow's unilateral unblock move. I did too, pointing to our unblock policy. That said, I would urge this arbitration case to not only address the particular case, but more importantly address the issue whether an administrator wishing to unblock a blocked editor can do so unilaterally. Our current policy says they cannot. But specific administrators are doing this and putting the policy into question. Thanks and regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by LevenBoy

I request immunity to speak openly and honestly here.

A number of the individuals and particularly admins involved in this request are involving themselves in the British Isles renaming dispute, a dispute related to earlier Irish naming disputes, which I sense is likely to arrive here sooner rather than later. I would go as far to write that this case be set aside and Mick's most recent conduct be included in discussion of that case. One that Sandstein is referring heavily to. As someone who is involved in the British Isles renaming dispute, and is very well informed about the issues, the Wikipedia history and the current state of play, it is very clear that Sandstein actually does not understand what Mick wrote, where it is coming from and is misinterpreting the situation.

Sandstein writes quite erroneously, "He was most recently indefinitely blocked by me on 30 October 2010 after an ANI report (no. 10 above) for making a disruptive AfD nomination for nationalist reasons and reacting to complaints about this with the statement "(...) my parents told me that the British were evil baby raping bastards. So, whenever I see an article that uses the phrase 'British Isles', I feel compelled to delete it"

Firstly, to anyone involved it is stunningly clear that Mick was not making a "nationalist" nomination. He was creating a humorous parody of a nationalist nomination in an attempt to highlight, and make light, of some of the endlessly tiresome and silly drama we have been experiencing in this area (any topic with the term British Isles in it). Mick is not writing in his own voice. If he is guilty of anything, it is a very British sense of humour. The indefinite ban was completely out of place if Sandstein honestly thought Mick was being serious. If Mick was block for not being serious, or being too funny, then it would have been acceptable.

I do not know Mick's history so I am not going to defend him any further but I would like to say at present the British Isles renaming dispute has attracted a number of administrators whose attention does not go as far as actually contributing to the relating articles or discussion and which feels a bit like snipper fire from the edges. I am not totally convinced that they actually know the topic matters nor appreciate the cultural values (dark humour, appreciation of straight talking etc) of the individuals involved. They have been at it for a few 100 years and you have to suspect they enjoy it in a perverse way and have their own way of sorting things out. It is all part of the craic.

Speaking for parties on both side of the Irish Sea, on the whole "civility" is far more highly valued in honesty, straight forwardness and humour than in pretentiousness or false manners. In my opinion, there have been a lot of bad blocks flying about which have only inflamed the situation, put content creators off and damaged the project. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Cailil:

Except that the extremely prejudicial misinterpretation should be struck out.

I am sorry to oppose you directly here - not least because it could effect your permission for me to edit the Wikipedia - but as the impetus for this request is clearly based on an exaggerated misunderstanding or misconstruction of the circumstance for the sake of effect, accusing someone of a racial hate crime when in fact they were making light of an ongoing situation, it is wrong to go ahead. It would be far better to use the Arbcom's time to examine the British Isles renaming dispute as a whole, including the admin's conduct, rather than to take out a single individual involved.

There is an underlying conflict here between the proven content producers, which would include Mick, and the manners police. Mick's frustration should be understood not as 'the problem' but as a symptom of a big problem going on elsewhere (in this case the campaign of a few Irish editors to remove the term British Isles that he parodied). I think many of us feel that the manners police do not understand and appreciate the scale of burdens, obstructions to content creation and waste of resources that are being placed upon us by that dispute and are doing nothing about them.

It is an easy fix for the manner police to take sniper shots and "remove the problem" by removing individuals. Someone like Mick is an easy target. But it is not resolving the core issue. Some of us are far more worried about other issues related issues such as the apparent onsidedness of such policing. --LevenBoy (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

Micky's conduct at AfDs is irrelevant to me. I prefer to let the closing adminstrator of AfDs, decide if my posts are valid or not. As for administrators having trouble deciding on blocking/unblocking an editor, that's IMHO for administrators to decide amongst themselves. PS: AFAIK, Micky doesn't seek the replacement of British Isles on Wikipedia, that AFD-in-question, was just a gag on his part. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Jtrainor

This is just going to come right back here again eventually if ignored. If it's popped in then Arbcom should examine the behaviour of -everyone- involved, including Sandstein. It's long past time the air was cleared on this. MMN's point that substantial, or really, -any- form of dispute resolution hasn't been tried, is pretty much indisputable. This is literally more of the same lynch mob garbage that pops up periodically for anyone unpopular, except it's on ARBCOM instead of WP:ANI. Jtrainor (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cailil

The only reason that this case has come to RfAr is because the community has failed to resolve it - an RFC is going to be more poisonous that it will be helpful. And part of the problem here is the poisoned atmosphere that MMN's style of commentary and ad hominem creates in the talk-space. Sending this back to RFC could well be counter-productive.
To my mind, Scott's unblocking is just 'the straw that broke the camel's back'. MMN's block was for disruption to make a point at AFDs, for long running incivility, and abuse of talk-space. The discussions regarding that block (at ANi and at MMN's own talk page) both had a consensus to keep MMN blocked at the time Scott removed it. That unblock was contrary to blocking policy where "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)" exists. Furthermore Scott's unblock was unconditional there was no treatment of why Mick was blocked and no acceptance by MMN not to repeat the same behaviour, just a vague statement saying he wouldn't get himself blocked.
That said, I doubt that personalizing this as being about Scott is correct - IMHO if it wasn't him someone-else would probably have done it. But who ever unblocks in this situation leaves the rest of us ham-strung. There was an admin decision, there was consensus for it, but all that was followed by an out of process reversal of the decision. Such actions make a mockery of community decisions, and prevents any remedial action being taken due to the danger of wheel-warring. Either the community has the power to form a consensus not to unblock until 'the standard offer' is met or it doesn't. I would urge the Committee to deal with this matter by either:

1. Giving guidance for unblocking in cases like this
2. Dealing with the substantive issues with MMN's attitude and behaviour in the talk-space (as evidenced in Sandstein's post)

--Cailil ^talk 18:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Reponse to LevenBoy: I'm going to keep this short - nobody has accused MMN of "a racial hate crime" and this is not about the British Isles Naming Dispute. I have nothing against ArbCom looking at that topic (or indeed my actions) but the systems of DR in place for that dispute are working thus an RfAr is not necessary.
  This case is about 2 things MMN's behaviour and his unblock.
  I would suggest that someone on civility parole should refrain from making pejorative remarks at RfAr, or otherwise showing a battleground-mentality (by this I'm reffering to your "proven content producers and manners police" remarks). If you want to ask me why this is my position please do so on my talk page--Cailil ^talk 13:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mjroots

I urge the committee to accept this case. MickMackNee's statement re a RFC is not quite true. Whilst a RFC hasn't been filed about him, the RFC he filed about me (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots) in effect turned into a RFC about him, so he cannot claim that he hasn't been told where his editing is problematic. I did consider creating a RFC about MickMacNee, but the advice I received from then-'crat Rlevse was that to do so would be counterproductive, which is why I haven't filed a RFC about MickMacNee. My view is that should the case not be accepted, then a RFC will follow, MickMacNee's editing will continue in the same vein, and we will end up back here in a few months. Insisting on a RFC in this case would be procedure for the sake of procedure. Take the bull by the horns and accept the case. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Question for Carcharoth - What is to stop the committee taking on this case as more than one case - one looking at the behaviour of MickMacNee, and another looking at the (un)blocking issue. That way, each separate issue can be fully examined. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by RGTraynor

I'm not an uninvolved party; I've seen Mick's style from time to time over the years at AfD. Beyond that, I filed the most recent ANI concerning him.

Other admins and editors have said a good bit, much of which I endorse. One comment stuck out with me, that from Scott MacDonald: "In the end, we don't need anyone to confess guilt, we just need them to recognise the behaviour that makes it impossible for them to continue with Wikipedia, and indicate a willingness to amend it." I'm sorry, Scott, but you're dead wrong: we need them to recognize the behavior that's out of line, and change it. As I've reviewed the record, in marked contrast to the hostile, vituperative, profanity-laced, disruptive and tendentious style that's Mick's hallmark in AfD and content debates, his responses to blocks tend to be sweet reason. Once unblocked, it's off to the races ... for dispute after dispute, ANI after ANI, block after block. So when Mick asks why a RfC hasn't been filed yet, and others ask why a RfC hasn't been filed yet, may I ask what one would possibly accomplish? Would Mick be any more willing to listen to the community than heretofore? Would any assurances he'd give be worth any more than those he's given to unblocking admins? I can't imagine so.

I'm minded of a quote from a famous hockey incident of the 1950s, from the league president: "The time for probationary lenience has passed, whether this type of conduct is the product of temperamental instability or willful defiance of the authority of the game does not matter." He's been aware that many people in the community have serious problems with his behavior for years now. He's been blocked many, many times for it. Whether his conduct is just uncontrollable or he's willfully giving us the finger doesn't matter or shouldn't matter.  RGTraynor  05:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/3/0/0)

• Awaiting statements, but based on the ANI discussions I am leaning toward acceptance, both to address Mick MacNee's behavior and to clarify application of the blocking policy. If accepted, I will offer to draft the case, and I will be posing specific questions to the parties and other concerned editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept. I will be posting questions for the parties soon after the case is opened. Responses, evidence, and workshop proposals should be posted within one week thereafter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Ah, the nebulous second-mover advantage. Think I wrote something about that a while back. *sighs* I'm voting to Accept, if Brad needs a second drafter, I'm going to volunteer. SirFozzie (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Accept based on ANI discussions, but would reconsider if statements here show arbitration is not needed. Shell ^babelfish 16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just like ArbCom cases look at the behavior of all involved, RfCs may end up looking at the behavior of others; I'm not comfortable with the idea that because an RfC wasn't named after the right person we discount the attempt to resolve the situation. Between talk page history and the various other discussions, it seems that this behavior has been going on for quite some time with no consensus how to resolve it - that's exactly what Arb cases are for. The problem of the "second-mover advantage" is also one that the community hasn't been able to resolve. Declining the case is only going to postpone the inevitable and allow several issues to fester in the meantime. This is a chance to act proactively rather than wait to fight fires of CC proportion. Shell ^babelfish 22:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Decline for now. I am unconvinced that appropriate attempts at dispute resolution have happened here. In fact, I see very little attempt at dispute resolution, because ANI is almost the antithesis of dispute resolution. Frankly, I'm seeing this is more a decision on the part of some members of the community to not bother trying any level of dispute resolution other than Arbcom. Having said this, I question that this is as straightforward a case as some of my colleagues seem to feel. Risker (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• In response to Sarek of Vulcan, there are at least three different cases being proposed here, and the one about Mick MacNee is the smallest part of the whole. The ANI discussions have a fairly common thread: heavily involved user comes with buddies to complain about opponent. It's hardly unique to Mick MacNee, who is not the only editor whose name keeps coming up there. It doesn't take very long to figure out that one way to "game the system" is to regularly dispute an editor's behaviour at ANI, because people eventually start saying "wow, I keep seeing this name here, that editor must be a real problem." It's one way to neutralize an opponent, even if the opponent is largely correct in their policy interpretation. Risker (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• In response to Sandstein and Mjroots, an RFC on Editor A that attracts comments on its initiator Editor B is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same thing as an RFC on Editor B. In this particular case, the RFC was closed for inactivity without an impartial third party summary, and the final comment on the talk page by an editor who was neither Mick MacNee or Mjroots says "Maybe it's time for a true RFC on the real issues. FWIW." (from User Bzuk)[1], which indicates that even on 6 October 2010, the need for a separate RFC was already identified. There is a difference between problems that the community is genuinely unable to solve, and problems that some people in the community have decided they are unwilling to do the work to try to solve. This request seems to fall into the latter category. Risker (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Decline, largely per Risker; exceptional cases aside, AN/I does not constitute sufficient dispute resolution. I see no reason why the RFC stage should be bypassed here; and, in all honesty, this is framed more as a test case about the interpretation of certain wheel-warring provisions than as an actual attempt to resolve a specific dispute. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Accept; this is a recurring probem, and I very much doubt an RfC focusing on a particular instantiation of the problem is going to be of any help. — Coren ^(talk) 06:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Decline - more dispute resolution could help here, I think. Definitely some requests for comments at least. Carcharoth (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As an additional comment, it is almost impossible to discern what the scope of any case would be. All those urging that there be a case need to read what others have said and see that this appears to be 3-4 different case requests bundled into one. Maybe it would be better if the separate issues were refiled as different requests for arbitration? i.e. one request for on a case on the conduct of MickMacNee and a different request for a case to clarify how unblocking should work (but then how do you stop such a case becoming an excuse for anyone and everyone to dredge up blocks and unblocks they disagreed with?). It is also clear that arbitrators have different perceptions of what they are accepting or declining, so maybe someone could notify the original filer of the request and see if this request could be withdrawn and new request(s) be made that more clearly state what is being asked for here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)