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)[reply]

A word of advice (I was going to e-mail you, but you've not got it set) from one who's had his ass hauled before arbcom more times than he cares to remember. Arbitration ain't litigation - so be wise to its subtitles. The arbs don't generally care too much about the fine points of each dispute (although parties tend to rehearse and argue such things before them to the point of tedium). The arbs, to their credit, tend to look at the bigger picture. They tend to look at someone's community interactions in the round, and ask whether it is working, or whether some restriction or ban is merited. That's certainly what your detractors will be trying to demonstrate to them. What you are best doing is pre-empting what the arbs will see. Do a little self-reflection - show a little self-awareness. If you can do that, it saves the arbs doing it for you. Are there certain editors or topics that tend to get your goat? Would you be best avoiding them going forward? Are there some "topic bans" you might self-impose? The people who survive arbitration are the ones who show themselves to be reasonable, open to correction, and capable of amending their behaviour. The people who die by arbcom are the ones who go in with self-righteous rage and demonstrate the exact battleground tactics that their opponents are complaining of. Everything you say now can, and will, be taken down and used against you in evidence. Arbs are far more interested in your actions now, and what might happen going forward than the details of who was right or wrong one some page six weeks ago. There is little doubt that your opponents are looking for you to be banned for a time. They will probably keep pushing that point, and be miffed if they don't get it. You can probably avoid that if you can be reasonable, restrained, and cooperative with the process. By its nature arbcom dislikes banning people, and if a ban was inevitable it would have happened before now. What happens next is ultimately in your hands, you can give your detractors what they want, or you can seek another way forward. best advice - don't post anything in haste on an arbcom page. Oh, and best not to attack your detractors. People who file arbitrations often get criticised themselves - (beware the boomerang) because they are actually engaging in the same type of battleground tactics they are complaining of. However, it is best for you not to point this out. Because that's just you battling back. It is best to demonstrate that, no matter what others do, you are capable of putting the weapons down, and quietly and humbly (as much as any Wikipedian does humility) working with the Committee to find a way back to peace and happy editing. Anyway, just my thoughts.--Scott Mac 19:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Rd232. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Mick, dude, do you really want to go down for something so silly? Don't give your detractors more ammo to use at ArbCom. → ROUX ₪ 04:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no issue with being kicked off this site for taking offence at being compared to a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. I don't know any sane person who wouldn't read such a thing and be offended in the extreme. I am entitled to remove any obvious attack directed at me, wherever I find it. MickMacNee (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mick, I'm gay and even I wouldn't editwar over something like that. Especially if I were in the middle of being pilloried at ArbCom. I understand your principles, but you have to realise you're shooting yourself in the foot here. → ROUX ₪ 04:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe we're just different people Roux. It's not even up for debate as far as I'm concerned. As for the timing, shit, you don't think that was an accident do you? Don't be so naive. MickMacNee (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should deal with it through the proper channels, and gain consensus for its removal via dispute resolution, rather than edit warring to attempt to remove it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you'll know, an edit warring case has been opened against you here [1]. Dayewalker (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for Edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—slakr^\ talk / 04:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You better make that block indefinite Slakr, because as soon as it expires, if that attack is still not gone from that page, I intend to revert it again, as many times as is necessary. If you or anyone else here wants the right to compare me to a member of the Westboro Baptist Church then you are going to have to make it official, and make sure the only way I cannot remove it is by force. I will not dignify this block with an unblock request, as that would give out the ludicrous message that this is even up for debate. MickMacNee (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could have told Hammersoft that you felt it was a personal attack, and he most likely would have removed it, as he has now. If he hadn't removed it after your request, you could have attempted some sort of dispute resolution. Edit warring was not the right way to resolve the issue, even if you felt that you were in the right. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't read his comments as soon as I realise it is him who has written them.". Do you wanna have a guess who wrote that? I'll give you a clue, it was part of the post you were insistant on restoring. And please, enough of the "even if you felt that you were in the right". I was right. I AM right. This was not a poxy content dispute. Your insistence that I jump through dispute resolution hoops with an editor who has declared I am someone to be purposely ignored, to get such an obvious attack from them on me removed from sight, is ludicrous. Slakr is a disgrace to this project. Fastily is a disgrace to this project. Everybody who battled against me to restore what they knew I took as a direct attack on me, whose intended meaning isn't even in dispute as far as I'm concerned, is a disgrace. You all disgust me. With the exception of Delta. His actions were entirely predictable, a perfect example of what he's all about, unchanged after all these years, still the same old sociopath. If any of you doing the reversion or otherwise defending this farce would be remotely happy to be compared to the WBC, even for an hour, then you are fucking insane, and you really have let Wiki-bullshit melt your brains. If this was a BLP you bastards were restoring this into, you'd all have been banned hours ago. Not blocked, banned. I really do wonder what Jimbo would make of this frankly. Complete disgrace. MickMacNee (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After having been made aware of a recent request for arbitration regarding you, I have looked at your recent contributions and noticed the above exchange. Considering your comments above to the effect that you intend to continue the edit-warring for which you were blocked after this block expires, and because you continue to make severe personal attacks against other editors – specifically, calling them sociopaths – I have increased the duration of your block to indefinite, because it appears that a time-limited block is not sufficient to prevent continued disruption on your part. You should be aware that if you continue to make personal attacks on this page while you are blocked, you may lose your ability to edit this page.  Sandstein  11:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, you blocking here is extremely poor. Given that you indef blocked Mick before, and were extremely peeved when I unblocked him, and eight months later are still gripping to arbcom that your block shouldn't have been overturned, and debating just today whether or not you should be a party to the arbcom case about Mick due to that block, you jumping in here on your charger and blocking yourself looks like opportunism of the worst order. If Mick needs blocked there are 1400 other admins to consider it - you don't need to be the crusader. For exactly the same reasons I will not review this block, comment on its merits, or unblock. But deciding to take this on yourself is very poor judgement.--Scott Mac 11:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is noted. I have made the block subject to a discussion at WP:ANI#MickMacNee blocked indefinitely.  Sandstein  11:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hah. Sociopath wouldn't even cover you Sandstein, you power crazy fuck. Just happened to be wandering along reviewing my contributions eh? Out for a little stroll were you. Just spotted a little personal attacky wacky did you? Fuck you, you utter freak. Maybe I should join the fucking Westboro Baptist Church, it seems being compared to them is viewed as rather a mild insult around these parts, and on current evidence I think I would start meeting a better class of people frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mick, I know you're pissed off here, but just consider your Miranda Rights here for a moment: anything you say can and will be used against you, and no matter how provoked you feel, it will still be used against you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"no matter how provoked you feel". Are you for fucking real? If I wasn't already feeling just a tad provoked with Hammersoft & then Delta's involvement, and if that hadn't already been pushed to dangerous levels with Sandstein the wandering minstrel's act, then you turning up here, of all fucking people, casting your own judgement over what I should and should not be upset at, in amongst editors of the likes of Treasury Tag, doing his best to look all innocent but probably creaming his pants right now. Well, if that doesn't royally take the fucking biscuit, I don't know what does. Come on, anyone else want to cover themselves in glory and come and give me some 'advice' over this soap opera? Chime in with either a palpably biased opinion on the facts, or just giving it as informed neutral opinion, even though your due diligence would make Enron blush, and your sense of natural justice would embarass Mugabe. Any of you fucked my mother recently and want to come and give me some words of wisdom? Miranda rights. Ha. That suggests a level of intelligence here that just doesn't exist. And as we all know, teh wiki isn't a court room. You need to have a semblance of higher level qualifications to work in one of those. You fucking retards by contrast, are discussing the merits of an extension of a block to indefinite on the basis of a threat I made to remove an attack, that's since been removed by the attacker. Why don't you just go the whole hog to compound your collective shame and restore the attack to User talk:Rd232? If this block is to mean anything, you'd better do that at the very least, otherwise, shock horror, you rather lose your ability to claim that blocks are in any way preventative, and Sandstein loses the chance to wear his gold spandex super admin suit and award himself another barnster, or whatever the fuck he does to reward himself after another triumph like this. Probably strangles a kitten or some other small defenceless animal, the freak. MickMacNee (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of standard procedure, parties to an arbitration case can be unblocked summarily to allow them to participate in the case proceedings. Please indicate whether or not you wish to be unblocked in order to participate in the case. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 13:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee, I see from WP:AN/I that you've now been blocked indefinitely due to this situation. From reading that thread, and the WP:AN/EW thread, the whole situation strikes me as a snowball turning into an avalanche. Quite a number of people are looking at the avalanche aftermath and saying "that's bad" without taking into account its genesis. I find that extremely unfortunate.

I have never intentionally personally attacked anyone on this project. I do recall another time where a comment I made responding to someone was construed as a personal attack by that person. After reading it again, I realized how that could be the case, so I retracted it and apologized for it. I am doing the same here.

In writing what I wrote, I was attempting to draw a comparison of discussion styles. Bwilkins notes in this diff pretty much what I was attempting. In no sense was I ever attempting to say you are a member of that church. I was cognizant at the time I wrote that passage that I needed to be careful to ensure I was commenting on discussion style, and not on you personally. There was a subtle distinction that I was attempting to make. Given the ongoing ArbCom case, and given our past interactions, it was not a distinction I should have attempted, especially in text which is a highly limited method of communication.

Sometimes, there are subjects that are simply too hot to touch, regardless of the motivations and attempts at doing so in appropriate ways. I should have realized that mentioning that church in a discussion would be such an example. When I wrote it, I was thinking of a Chaser's War on Everything video I saw on YouTube. It was humorous, and highlighted why a discussion with them would not progress the way a person would hope. I wasn't attempting to say you are a member of that church, or any sort of equivalent person.

I apologize for the post. I could just as well have made my point to Rd232 without mentioning that church. Had I done so, this whole fiasco would not have transpired. In the very least, even if I still thought it was something I should include in my note to him, I should have done so via e-mail to him.

I've made a post at the WP:AN/I thread here, emphatically opposing the indef block. I'd previously suggested that the 72 hour block should be removed [2] as well.

As I noted in the post I made to Rd232's talk page, I don't read your comments anymore. Some people do not work well together, regardless of their best intentions. You and I are two such people. That said, it would not be proper for me to make this post to your talk page and not be willing to read whatever response you wish to make. Just please, please, keep it civil. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]