Trichome

thcscience_admin
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: AGK (Talk) & AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrator: Kirill Lokshin (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Arbitrators active on this case[edit]

Active:

  1. Casliber
  2. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
  3. Cool Hand Luke
  4. Coren
  5. David Fuchs
  6. Elen of the Roads
  7. Jclemens
  8. John Vandenberg
  9. Kirill Lokshin
  10. Mailer diablo
  11. Newyorkbrad
  12. PhilKnight
  13. Roger Davies
  14. Xeno

Inactive

  1. Risker
  2. SirFozzie

Recused

  1. Iridescent
To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

RE: Evidence from Chester Markel[edit]

Issue was overtaken by subsequent developments. AGK [•] 10:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the diffs alleging edit warring, at least some of them don't meet the accepted defination of edit warring. For example this was given. [1]. Look at the history of the article.

  • Jan 2, edit by Kwekubo.
  • Jan 4, MMN reverts with civil & informative edit summary.
  • May 30, Kwekubo reverts MMN with edit summary
  • June 5th, MMN reverts with edit summary.

This doesn't come close to breaking 3rr per year. I believe CM needs to sift through his diffs and find examples of disruptive editing, and not just find every diff where MMN hit the revert button.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't necessarily have to break 3rr to edit war ;). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True but it takes more than 2 reverts in 6 months.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've thinned out the diffs, and organized them by the affected pages. Chester Markel (talk) 23:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet[edit]

As Chester Markel (talk · contribs) is a sock of John254 (talk · contribs) should his section not now be removed from this gabfest? pablo 07:45, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not to leave it there as a general situation. SirFozzie (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence (weeded of the Delta evidence) is general rather than specific to Chester Markel. If a view emerges that it is tainted because of chester marke's banning I will be happy to incorporate it into my eviidence. DeCausa (talk) 08:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just wondered – I don't have an opinion on whether it's tainted. pablo 09:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That the proceedings should go ahead does not mean that the editor was unbanned or that he had standing to be making these edits. And it would go well above any tainted notions for that matter. It's perhaps ironic that the very resolution that one of the principal proposals relies on includes very specifically "to discourage disruptive and hostile behavior, and repel trolls and stalkers." By leaving this section here, this would seem to promote a position which lacks Community support: that if you can go undetected right up until arbitration, you have enough standing for your contributions to stand or the entirety of those contributions to be replaced by proxy (which is how some could read DeCausa's offer above). Of course, SirFozzie, if you intend on letting this user present evidence in this case, then that's a separate matter, but I make this comment on the understanding that this confirmed sockpuppet is unable to be involved in the legitimate underlying dispute(s) (particularly due to the fact it had no standing to be legitimately editing in the first place). On a slightly related point, one of the statements (while the case was being accepted) noted (1) Chester Markel did not have any real involvement in the dispute anyway and (2) what actually motivated the escalation. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Chester Markel already provided evidence and proposals in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Racepacket. Mathsci (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear on my offer. I would simply put into my evidence the diffs that are relevant. The diffs are diffs and stand in their own right regardless of who put them in evidence. The arbitrators and most other users who participated in the Request phase took the view that there was an issue here that needed to be looked at. It wasn't based on Chester Markel's good standing. (As Mick said "Who is Chester Markel?"). Chester Markel's motivation/standing is irrelevant to the basic question of whether there is an issue about MMN that the arbitrators need to deal with. DeCausa (talk) 10:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the point critical here is that the case is active and open; but yes, the extent of the disruption caused is extraordinary. DeCausa, you'll notice that I specifically said "the proceedings should go ahead"; some might even suggest these were destined to happen, while others were hoping this would be the way the dispute is addressed and resolved. The proceedings will still need to press on; the wheels are already in motion. But what I am raising here is a much broader point. Irrespective of what each individual feels about the arbitration process, several editors hoped the dispute would be resolved here for very specific reasons, yet a banned user has disrupted (be it in a big way or a small way) this process and the very reasons for wanting to bring it here. We have an unresolved question of just how much a banned user is permitted to influence proceedings. When I look at Chester's evidence, I don't see diffs alone. It was fortunate that Risker minimized the inappropriate canvassing that was going on during this case (as it occurred on the Community noticeboards). But I'm left wondering what is being done about this problem by the rest of AC. Is canvassing and banning policy limited to the mainspace and public Community pages (so that it does not apply in relation to ArbCom proceedings and pages)? To me, it seems that is how AC is enforcing the policies (because the Community would not permit this to stand even in an RfC/U). I'd actually thought that the canvassing and ban policies were made with the intention of relating to ALL edits made ANYWHERE on Wikipedia (that is, including arbitration pages and proceedings). Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • -His edits can be reverted and that includes the opening of this case - ask yourselves - all of you - would you answer a case requested by a blocked sockpuppet - the answer is no you wouldn't. You have to ask yourself, if the request was not started by such an account perhaps there would not be a case. Off2riorob (talk) 15:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Numerous other editors in good standing have provided evidence against MMN that was reviewed as part of this case's opening. Banned sockpuppet starting this or otherwise, it's clear that a section of the community believes there is an issue – this is not simply about "(answering) a case requested by a blocked sockpuppet". Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, Mick has a fair few editors upset with him - that doesn't retract from the falsehood of this particular case and there is nothing to answer here, the case should be closed. Off2riorob (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clearly, ArbCom decided differently when accepting the case (again, as I said, on evidence provided by more than the banned user). There is obviously something for Mick to answer. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted on the workshop page, arbitrators make their case acceptance decisions based on the comments made by the range of users who make a statement or comment at the request; if only one person comments, it's pretty unlikely that a request will be accepted. Our community does not automatically invalidate consensus-based discussions because socks have initiated them or participated in them, the consensus is just analysed while discounting the comments by the socks. The community might want to make suggestions on how to mitigate Chester Markel's potential influence on the end result of the case, but his initiation of the request does not invalidate the case in and of itself. Risker (talk) 15:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crikey, this discussion is in about four locations, fair enough. I accept your comment but personally disagree with that position - this request would not exist without a blocked sockpuppet having opened it. Off2riorob (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-

      • Personally, I can remember a somewhat similar situation in another ArbCase (the Mantanmoreland one). The key bit of evidence that lead to the RfC/U and then to the ArbCom case was a sockpuppet investigation filed by a user that turned out to be the reincarnation of a (different) banned user. This SPI's CheckUser results provided a key bit of information (namely that while the two accounts were not technically related, one of the accounts edited only from open proxies. This information was used throughout the case without claims that it was tainted by where it came from. The case was valid and accepted, not just due to Chester's comments, but also due to the many other people that posted, and other angles that existed in the case (for example, delta, and the Lengthening of the block/shortening of the block issue by Sandstein/HJ Mitchell). SirFozzie (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As DeCausa wrote, evidence is evidence and diffs are diffs, so I agree with the Committee's decision not to strike Cherter Merkel's evidence from the case, but the proposed remedies in the workshop are more in the nature of opinions and analysis, so I wonder if the Committee wouldn't want to consider removing Merkel's contributions there? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strike Chester Merkel's contributions[edit]

All contributions made by the sockpuppet of the banned editor John254 should be struck through for clarity. None of his contributions, proposals, remedies etc should be considered, unless they are also raised by an editor in good standing on their own volition. Mjroots (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, support for that. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems fair. DeCausa has already said he will take up some of CM's evidence, and I will likewise do so if he does not. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't have a problem with it as I'm happy to add back in the evidence (minus the Delta material), proposals etc. which does seem to make it slightly pointless. DeCausa (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK to me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
+1 Protonk (talk) 19:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. DeCausa or someone else can copy over the relevant diffs, and CM's evidence and proposals can be stricken. That CM filed the initial complaint is unfortunate, but this is not a court case between CM and MMN. That CM is no longer a participant in no way invalidates the issues raised herein. The case should proceed without CM's contributions, after the diffs have been copied. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although this proposal is OK, contrary to the suggestions above, this proposal does not actually undo the damage that has already been done; it's simply enforcing one of the two applicable policies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where's the canvassing, and what damage has been caused? T his isn't a !vote, it's arbcom. It's not like they're going to be swayed by uninvolved parties coming in and making noise. They'll take a look at the diffs and the arguments provided and render a decision. I'm not sure how canvassing applies to arbcom cases. The involved parties remain involved parties, and the uninvolved parties remain people who make comments or suggestions, both of which will only be taken under advisement if they are pertinent to the matter at hand.
It's clear from the AN/I thread that this was going to come to arbcom anyway. That CM filed it is unfortunate. As you said yourself, "canvasing" was limited to community pages. I'd hesitate to call that canvasing. It's not like someone was going around to everyone who's ever had a problem with MMN telling them to come and sway arbcom's decision. I don't see how anything that CM did has polluted this case or impaired the ability of the arbs to render a fair verdict, although if you disagree I'd be happy to look at diffs which suggest otherwise. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The main concern is that the system is too susceptible to abuse, and the procedures and policies need to clarify the exact expectations and the remedies when those expectations are not adhered to. So, using Community and ArbCom policy, and what is being suggested here, here's a summary in practice:

(1) Banned users are not permitted to edit on Wikipedia or participate in proceedings (except in limited situations involving an appeal of their ban). If banned user has edited the project, and they are discovered, they may be blocked, and their edits may be reverted or struck.

(2) If an user is on a mission to influence a discussion, Wikipedia will provide a means for such an user to successfully do so (subject to condition 3 below). Banned users in particular have nothing to lose when going on such a mission seeing their contributions will be struck/removed and will be blocked anyway (which is of little difference to someone on a dynamic IP). Namely, the user can canvass editors through biased messages (campaigning), sending messages to a partisan audience of editors (votestacking), or sending messages in secret (stealth canvassing), or by mass-posting (spamming).

(3) Even if through the user's message (before it is struck/removed), the editors have been made aware of the discussion or have been invited to push a particular position, those editors will be welcome to participate in the discussion and their comments will be treated no differently to other users who did not receive that message. This is because nobody's judgement has been "impaired" by it and there are no diffs to absolutely prove that the canvassed editors:

(a) only participated in the discussion after being canvassed;

(b) only pushed that particular position after being canvassed, and

(c) presented those particular diff/s and allegation/s in the discussion after being canvassed.

Is that an accurate summary of how Wikipedia is working in practice? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above isn't material in an Arbcom and doesn't deal with Throway85's point. "This isn't a !vote, it's arbcom. It's not like they're going to be swayed by uninvolved parties coming in and making noise. They'll take a look at the diffs and the arguments provided and render a decision." Evidence is evidence. Doesn't matter where it comes from. DeCausa (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have not produced anything concrete to show that the Community permitted ArbCom to choose which policies and standards it is to comply with. As to relevance, I have raised this point because I consider it a material point, and it is especially relevant in a much broader context than one that is limited to this case or the question of whether or not "DeCausa wants to make Chester's evidence stick in this MickMacNee case somehow". The questions are quite straightforward. Are arbitrators human Wikipedians or are they not? Are these proceedings happening on Wikipedia pages or are they not? Is my earlier response (numbered 1-3 at 07:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)) an accurate summary of how Wikipedia is working in practice? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is your proposed remedy? CM's contributions can and should be struck, that much is clear. However, there's nothing stopping anyone from reintroducing that evidence. Diffs are diffs, and will be weighed by the arbs on their own merit. This still isn't an RfX or XfD - canvassing does little besides bring new people with new evidence to the table. That evidence will be weighed and judged as any other. I agree that it should not be encouraged, but I'm unsure what can be done about it. The cat's out of the bag, and it doesn't appear to have done much damage. When canvassing occurs at an AfD, the closing admin takes it into account and adjusts their weighting of the !votes accordingly. The outcome is still determined by the arguments and sources offered. You don't cancel the AfD and start again unless the disruption was so severe as to make reaching a reasonable conclusion unlikely. That doesn't appear to be the case, here. Perhaps arbcom can be asked for some clarification as to how best to procede when canvassing occurs in an arbcom case, or it can be put to the community at an RfC. Regardless, there doesn't seem to have been sufficient disruption to this case to take any action. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Evidence from Mjroots[edit]

Discussion closed. AGK [•] 10:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think the RFC initially appeared to work, and I certainly think it was worth a try. What's unfortunate is that Mick seems to have reverted to form. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not dignify what Mjroots has written on this Evidence page, by even calling it evidence. This admin's so-called efforts to "rein in" in my conduct consisted of precisely this sort of non-admin like attempt at smearing me, and generally trying to just make me quit the arena of dispute so he could carry on making his own unique policy violating contributions to it based on nothing but a bizarre notion that you can say anything you like at Afd and have it counted as clueful opinion, as long as you do it 'nicely', through this tactic of simply stating his personal opinions of what I do and don't do during my 'unnacceptable' contributions as fact, devoid of anything that could remotely be classed as evidence. If he actually has anything to add here to his baseless assertion that I "not listen to the community", after the events of the Rfc that he didn't even get around to filing himself, despite having made the same charge against me multiple times across multiple venues in his incessant smear campaign, he can do so. If he wants to be added as a party to this case, I would welcome the opportunity to show precisely what his failures in the listening department really are, and have the issues I raised in that Rfc on him properly examined, devoid of the phenomena that was the real reason why he escaped scrutiny there. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For info, I was in the process of writing a RFC myself when one was filed by another editor. It was at User:Mjroots/MMNRFC - I don't mind if the page is temporarily restored to show that this was indeed the case via its edit history. It's not that I couldn't be bothered, but someone else got there first. As for baseless assertations, Mick makes one above when he says I've been conducting an "incessant smear campaign" against him. Since his RFC closed, I've had very little involvement with MickMacNee, and as far as I recall, haven't performed any actions in an administrative capacity involving MickMacNee. If any of the Arbs wish to add my name to the list of parties, then that is fine. I object to MickMacNee adding me as an involved party. If he was going to do so, it should have been done at the outset so that I had opportunity to respond. Contrary to what MickMacNee may think, I don't spend my time following him around the Wiki. I've got better things to do, like writing articles (just four more until my 1,000th article or list created, of which only two got deleted). Mjroots (talk) 16:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, I've taken a look through the comments on the evidence page, and the opening page and its talk page and its quite clear that basically everyone who has commented so far has been pretty critical, about as positive as it gets for you is my evidence, and that isn't really very positive. If you don't want to get blocked for a long time at the end of this process you need to stop attacking anyone as you have to Mjroots just above here. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I think your basic issue Eraserhead1 is that you find it hard to distinguish between an 'attack' and a 'criticism'. Only one of those activities is a violation on Wikipedia. I will criticise Mjroots for his demonstrable & demonstrated failings as regards his actions toward me until the heat death of the universe, or until he stops this mis-remembering act of his, particularly as it continues to this very day. It's rather hypocritical of him to complain that he's never interacted with me since the Rfc and thus shouldn't be added as a party, when he's turned up here to resume the smear campaign that he was conducting against me right up to that point, as some kind of 'evidence' in this case. If the arbitrators think I need to be banned for that, I really don't care. I tried my best to deal with his actions in the right way, it failed without the issues even being examined. And I participated in the Rfc against me, even though I didn't have to, on the apparently flawed basis that it would protect me from further hijacks at ANI. And this is where it's got me. MickMacNee (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If all you wanted to do was to criticise Mjroots then you wouldn't be so heavy handed about it and attempt to dismiss it outright without providing any reasoning for that claim that stands up to scrutiny. Frankly regardless of what I think if other people agreed with your assessment there would be people here supporting you far more than they have so far. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead, we're getting nowhere fast here. What say we leave it to the Arbs? Mjroots (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Full reasoning and diffs were provided at my Rfc on him, as required by policy. The arbs can review it at their leisure, and see if Mjroots responded adequately or with any satisfactory explanation of his behaviour at all, except with the sort of smearing he's decided to turn up here and repeat as 'evidence', that I was trying to put a stop to. One of my Rfc criticisms was that he cannot follow basic Wikipedia procedures which he really should know, or at least be able to read up on and adhere to, being an admin, and he's shown that even here with his submission to this page that he still has this problem. He will always have it, whether he's been following me around recently or not (and the issue never was stalking, but his dislike of how I pointed out his lack of policy backed argumentation in Afds in one of the topic areas he edits in most). It took me several attempts to get him to even admit what he was doing was against the basic Afd rules. And I'm not entirely sure how the lack of people supporting me here is evidence of anything. This is not a popularity contest, but a truth contest. The fact a lot of people treat DR as a popularity contest (or rather, an exercise in sticking up for the person whose content position best matches yours regardless of site wide consensus, or an exercise in piggybacking one persons complaint if it goes after the person you have a beef with in unrelated dispute), a phenomenon he was more than happy to encourage & take advantage of with a select bit of advertising of that Rfc here and there, in a few fortuitous places. Maybe he is smarter than I've always given him credit for tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the draft of the RfC that I had started re MickMacNee to allow the edit history to be examined, which will prove that I was beaten to the filing of the RfC by another editor, although I had started the draft first. Mjroots (talk) 22:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. And what is shows is that you took all of 1 day to simply place some links on a page, which you hardly had to do any research to find. That was 29 November. The user who filed the Rfc on me did so on 26 December. It's pretty clear you weren't 'beaten to it' in the slightest, and it's pretty clear that you started that page merely to wave in any future ANI threads as a threat/smear against me. This was the exact sort of completely non-admin like behaviour I tried to have addressed in my Rfc on you, behaviour which conintues to this day both in your 'evidence' here, which is anything but, and your continued casual smears such as this on various different pages around the pedia, where you make claims such as this, that I have in the past alleged harassment by you. It's nonsense, but as always, we won't see hide nor hare of you actually providing diffs to back up any of these smears. Infact, it's quite the opposite, it's you who has claimed to be being harassed by me in various places, yet as an admin, you did nothing at all admin-like about this greivous charge, not least prove this smear in a way that any other admin would believe it. MickMacNee (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was to file a RFC in January, but I was also hoping against hope that it would not be necessary. Obviously other editors aren't as patient as I am, hence the filing of the RFC in late December. As for not taking any administrative action against you, you know damn well that an adnin must not use the tools against an editor they are in dispute with. I'm certainly not going to chuck away the keys to the mop cupboard over you. As for that diff, if you actually care to read it properly, you will see that there is no smear against you. The real issue, MickMacNee, is your method of interaction with other editors, particularly those who do not share your point of view. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Clerk action) Discussion closed. Bickering won't help. AGK [•] 10:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from clerks about the filing party being blocked[edit]

The clerks assigned to this case were recently asked what the effect will be of the filing party, Chester Markel (talk · contribs), being blocked indefinitely. After consulting with the drafting arbitrators for this case, we can confirm that the case will proceed as normal. As I understand it, this is how we would proceed anyway; the filing party's identity is in most respects irrelevant. I hope this clears up any confusion about this recent development. AGK [•] 19:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His identity might be irrelevant, but the fact that until Sandstein decided to escalate it into an 'I told you so' soapbox against the committee and admins who undo his attempted unilateral bans, all the named parties in the case except this filing sock had declined to offer any evidence, and had said they wanted to take no part in the case, surely is. MickMacNee (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rd232 evidence moved from main page[edit]

Discussion closed. AGK [•] 10:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Moving from main page as it's not really evidence, to make space. (And I don't want to simply delete it.)

And an apology:

  1. I apologise to Mick for anything I may have said or done, ever, to upset him. I also withdraw any suggestions that I made that my distress arising from interactions with him is in any way, shape or form his responsibility. Whatever unflattering characterisations of Mick which I made were mere reflections of the emotional state induced by those interactions, not statements of fact. If anyone sees any truth in those characterisations, that's entirely a matter for them.

Rd232 public talk 14:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not exactly withdrawing this; I am sorry if I upset Mick somehow (which would help explain his behaviour towards me). However absolving Mick of all responsibility was going a bit far, and really a symptom of my wanting to have no further interaction with Mick at all, given what an unpleasant experience it had been for me. With a bit of time/distance, I'm making the effort to clarify a couple of things, so moving this here to make space. PS I'm slightly disappointed, though not entirely surprised (in fairness there's an awful lot going on), that in 40k of text (at time of writing) Mick didn't find space to acknowledge the apology. Rd232 public talk 17:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I need to acknowledge it? If you meant accept, well, I don't. The problems for other editors that your various unilateral interventions at ANI caused are still ongoing, this case included. If you're proud that your intervention meant Delta still thinks he can act the way he did in the edit war on your talk page of all places, well, there you are, live with it. I seem to be expected to, as he yet again escapes any kind of scrutiny for blatant, indisputable, violations & general gaming/battlegrounding. MickMacNee (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Why would I need to acknowledge it?" - you don't need to acknowledge it, but generally when someone apologises, the polite thing to do is to acknowledge it, even if you don't accept it. (I trust I don't need to explain the difference.) As for Delta - well I see your combativeness is undiminished ("if you're proud..."), and that you see no need to acknowledge that I opposed the indef-block over that incident and supported an edit-war block of Delta... Or that consensus couldn't even be achieved for my proposed soft topic ban for Delta from NFCC, so why you still somehow blame me for failing to get a site ban passed is beyond me... Hard to see why you don't win friends and influence people, really it is. Rd232 public talk 18:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Polite? You 'soft ban' failed for the precise reasons I said it would, which you completely and utterly ignored. And while others might give out credit for taking ineffectual positions which don't change anything, I don't. I simply remember the actions you did take that did have real consequences, actions that ignored large sections of the community, and were anything but polite. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, your position is unchanged? i) a thread where no consensus could be found to block for minor incivility could have achieved consensus for a site ban ii) allowing a site ban discussion to continue at length with no plausible prospect of success would not prejudice a potential near-future site ban discussion perhaps started in a better venue and with better summary of relevant evidence iii) splitting the pro/con difference on the civility block discussion to compromise at 24 hours (half-way between overturn and 48 hrs, without the behaviour endorsement overturning might suggest) was bad iv) that compromise on the civility block was directly causal for Delta (deliberately, in your view?) exceeding his speed restriction by 10% the next day v) proposing a lesser topic ban sanction which you argued was equivalent to a site ban for Delta was bad, even though you wanted a site ban. Rd232 public talk 19:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My position is unchanged in that you had no right to consider that a simple thread on an incident of 'minor incivility' when you demonstrably had no knowledge of the editor's history, either as regards civility or how he has treated past efforts at 'compromise' (and worse, you flatly ignored everyone who did know this), that the resulting ban discussion did have a prospect for success if eventually closed by someone with said knowledge, and that your post-closure excuses of wrong venue & prejudice etc were just that, excuses. You deserve no credit whatsoever, not in the slightest, for then trying to suggest a topic ban which you had no idea amounted to an effective ban, as if that's somehow what you intended in the first place. Delta is the same editor he always was, still racking up the blocks, still pissing people off, still riding roughshod over various policies, but now, instead of him being up before arbcom appealing a rightfully imposed community ban, I'm here because you were so pissed off at my justifiable crticism of your actions with him & TT, you chose to do the exact opposite to me at ANI that you did for Delta when you got your chance. As an illustration of just how inneffective you were as an admin toward Delta, he even felt confident enough to in middle of this case to GAME me & bold as brass 4RR, and on your talk page no less. He's laughing his ass off right now, and all you're worring about is not getting acknowledgement of your 'apology' from me. Pah. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And there we are, back to bad faith and hyperbole about my knowing nothing at all about Delta, just because I'm not so involved as to be incapable of acting neutrally in a way that manages how others with greater knowledge but less neutrality debate the issue. My actions at your ANI were hardly the opposite of the Delta thread (a ludicrous suggestion, seeing as in one I wasn't acting as an admin and in the other I was). As for gaming - again, ridiculous. You edit warred to remove another's comment, and several people repeatedly reinstated it. Delta went to 4RR, which was unjustified and should have been sanctioned, but WP:GAMEing? All too frequently, Mick, you sharply weaken legitimate concerns by framing them with hyperbole, often leavened with bad faith and a bit of venom. If you would just tone it down, people would listen to you rather more. PS "all you're worring about is..." - no, that's water under the bridge; in your replies here it's clear you have seen it but have no interest in taking it in the spirit intended. Rd232 public talk 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not hyperbole, I can prove with cast iron diffs, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you did not know enough about Delta to be getting involved, most certainly not unilaterally. And let's not forget, the ONLY person to respond to your proposal was an admin criticising your attempt to 'take your admin hat off' in making it. Not hyperbole, proveable events with real consequences for other editors and the site in general, that you are still pretending never even happened. As such, I could give a fuck about 'spirit' at this point. And the only ludicrous suggestion here is you trying to pretend Delta was just innocently trying to restore someone else's comment. Your naivety in all things about him is astounding frankly. Neutral <> clueless. MickMacNee (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, diminishing returns are now just a distant memory, so I leave it to you to evidence your position as best you can. As a gesture of good will (I'm a sucker for punishment), I'll point out that I have noted in my evidence that Jtrainor is not an admin, as you've claimed maybe half a dozen times. Rd232 public talk 21:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm sure he used to be one, and even if he isn't, he isn't AFAIK seen as an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about when he does chime in at ANI. The fact remains, his comment was the only response. The only response. If it was that important maybe you might have corrected me the first or second time I claimed he was. MickMacNee (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[2] [3]. Rd232 public talk 22:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm here because you were so pissed off..." MMN, you're here because you simply don't play well with others. Acknowledging that it is your behaviour, and not that of other editors, that has led to this case would go a long way towards avoiding the permaban. I mean christ, you have Jimbo himself saying you don't belong here. How big a dick do you need to be to get a founder to say they don't want you on the site? Who else shares that dubious distinction? You have a "me against the world" mentality that is both seriously grating and unconducive to what we're trying to do here. This arbcom case isn't really about one incident or another, it's about the sum total of your interactions with others on this site. They have been, in a word, shitty. You can claim that you've been mistreated; you can claim that all the admins are out to get you; you can claim anything you want. In the end, the common factor is you. You are the reason we're here. Refusing to admit that is just inviting the banhammer. There are two realistic outcomes here: either you admit wrongdoing and voluntarily agree to some remedial measures, or you get permanently banned from the site. If you want to be a part of Wikipedia, I suggest you pursue the former option. Otherwise, the site will get along just fine without you. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you go and look at the ANI that sparked this whole case. That is not me against the world, that is RD232 against me, after neutral and uninvolved people have dismissed the complaint. I'd also go and check what Jimbo actually said before you start claiming to speak for him. DeCausa and whoever can pretend what they like about what this case is about, they had to rely on a banned sock & RD232's ridiculous inflaming of a stale ANI for this case to even be filed. It got accepted because talk is cheap. As we see on the Evidence page, backing it up truthfully seems to be pretty hard. The only way I am a 'common factor' here is if you see arbitration in the way RD232 clearly does, as some kind of fucked up exercise in measuring an editor's popularity or willingness to bend over, instead of a clueful exercise in actually examining their evidence. You want editors who only give a fuck about whether they're popular, but don't really bother with the actual wording or intent of policies like WP:CON or WP:NPOV etc, well, DeCauasa et al are it. You want to hand the site over to them, be my guest, that won't be a place I want to work frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo's comment was gentle, but unequivocal. By suggesting you should be allowed to "walk away with dignity", he is quite kindly saying, "GTFO my site". The words are nicer, but the meaning is the same. As to this arbcom case, it's not about the AN/I thread. The clear message from everyone here is that there is an ongoing and pervasive problem with the way you interact with people. It's not about one incident or another, it's about your behaviour in general and in aggregate. You said some people view this as a popularity contest, and in effect you're right. This is about whether or not your fellow editors believe that your presence on the site is positive. It's not about your willingness to bend over, although a bit of repentance would go a long way. Look, I've never had any interactions with you that I can remember, and I have nothing against you personally. I do, however, have an issue with the way you conduct yourself, and it was that conduct in the AN/I thread that led me to follow this case. This is not a matter of who broke what policies, when, where, why, or how. The simplest distillation of the issue is that you are so combative that a bunch of people, including Jimbo himself, have come to the conclusion that the site would be better off without you. Stop trying to make this about other people. It isn't. It's about the way you interact with others. It's about your aggression and combativeness not being conducive to a cooperative environment. Now, were you to acknowledge that and commit to changing your behaviour, I'm sure that everyone here would agree to give you another chance. It would require an honest admission of wrongdoing, which from what I've seen doesn't seem to be something you're either capable of or willing to provide. The other, inevitable option is a ban, either lengthy or interminate. The clear message people are giving you is that your behaviour isn't acceptable. If you take that message to heart, and change your behaviour, then you will be a welcome member of the community. If you don't, then either arbcom or an rfc/u will eventually invite you to leave. It's time to take a step back and look at the community's reaction to you in aggregate. It isn't positive. If you don't change your behaviour, you will eventually be asked to leave. Maybe that's something you're okay with. Maybe it would suit you better to view yourself as the martyr who was pilloried by some nasty and underhanded conspirators, than to be the person who admitted wrongdoing and continued to participate in the community as "that guy who used to be a dick and was forced to admit it". Maybe your pride won't let you do that. I don't know for sure. All I can say with any degree of certainty is that there are only two plausible outcomes here: either you apologize and change, or you get banned. The tide is against you, and you're building walls in an attempt to keep your sandcastle dry. If being 6 taught me anything, it's that that never works for very long. I hope you take this to heart, but I'm not optimistic. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to debate what Jimbo means further, unless he expands on it. You might see it that way, I don't. And the issue is not pride, it's simply not wanting disputes to be treated as if they were popularity contests or public spectacles. The committee has a specific role, and dealing in vague context-less generalities isn't it. If they aren't up to that job, why would I even want to return frankly? If they want to use me as a test case to achieve what no admin except Sandstein has ever even proposed, then having observed him for a long long time now, why would I ever want to expend another microjoule of energy contributing to Wikipedia? This is only about me insofar as it can be proved the issue is me. The operative word being proof. Not assertion, not feeling, not vague idea, but proof. I'll eat whatever shit I feel is proven to be largely of my own making, and nothing more, particularly as this case appears to be a one sided affair. There's nothing wrong with that stance as far as I can see, not in the real world at least. Wikiland is maybe different. Sorting out who's who and what's what is difficult, but fuck, if they didn't want the job, they shouldn't have stood for the position of being allowed to ban editors who, as in my case, have put years into this site. I've yet to see anyone show I've ever actually damaged an article for example, even though claiming even that isn't beyond some people who hope to see it stick with people like yourself. If people want to allege I'm the reason this site is losing cluefull editors hand over fist just by being strident at times and not putting up with certain people's agendas and other bullshit, fine, ban me, and see how that works out in the long run when the new intake gets to my level of policy knowledge, if they even survive that long. If you want to let people judge if others have done wrong simply by taking what others say about them as read, then leave it to the likes of Sandstein, that's his level. Check my evidence to see what sort of adminship you'll end up with. MickMacNee (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Throwaway85 hit the nail on the head. DeCausa (talk) 20:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
rd232, I have to say I have very little sympathy with what you've posted here; it's verging on baiting - although I'm sure that's not what you intended. You know full well how MMN conducts himself and there was never any possibility that he would respond in any sort of civilized way. And expecting MMN to do "the polite thing"? That's just jaw-dropping. DeCausa (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one baiting here, unless you want to retract these characterisations of another editor. Please remember the 'profession environment' you supposedly support. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm an optimist, and always want to see the best in people. (Ironically, it's the application of this to others which made Mick so pissed off at me in the first place.) Rd232 public talk 19:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"characterisations of another editor"? Those "characterisations" are what this arbitration is about. DeCausa (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's good then. Carry on then, by all means. I must have missed that exemption in WP:CIVIL. MickMacNee (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, amongst the other things you "missed" in WP:CIVIL is WP:CIVIL#Identifying incivility and WP:CIVIL#Dealing with incivility. But I think everyone else is aware you've missed them. DeCausa (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can identify rudeness just fine. I can identify someone trying to get a rise out of someone else by interjecting themselves in a discussion for the sole purpose of being rude, similarly so. And if you were remotely able to deal with perceived incivility the right way, then we wouldn't really be here now would we? Or alternatively, this case would have had your name on it as the filer, instead of some random banned sock. MickMacNee (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you: I assumed the manner of your input to the Talk:United Kingdom threads was just down to you having a bad few days. (AGF I guess.) But when I saw this arb come up, I took the trouble to research your contribs. what I saw was that your style of involvement in the UK threads was your standard modus operandi, and not an exceptional incident. That has no place in Wkipedia. And that is why I offered to the clerks to take Chester Merkel's place if it was procedurally required. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out NPOV violations & poor practices in consensus building is indeed my modus operandi. Being annoyed by editors like you who try to brush off or otherwise dismiss those valid concerns, instead of directly addressing them as CIVIL demands, is also my modus operandi. It's called not suffering fools gladly. So yes, guilty as charged, on both counts. As you were the person who suggested the NPOV violation in the first place, and you were chief among the people doing the subsequent dismissal & evasion right to the bitter end, then it's no real surprise that I'm exactly the sort of editor you don't want to see around Wikipedia any more. MickMacNee (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out NPOV violations & poor practices in consensus building isn't your modus operandi - as I said I've checked your contribs. "Being annoyed by editors like you who try to brush off or otherwise dismiss those valid concerns, instead of directly addressing them as CIVIL demands, is also my modus operandi." You posted this before any response, let alone being "brushed off". The fact that you don't understand what the problem is with that is why you shouldn't be involved in WP. "As you were the person who suggested the NPOV violation in the first place". From the first you've misunderstood. I made a whole range of suggestions, including that one, none of which I particularly expected to get accepted. I dropped out of that discussion once i suggested it - it took on a life of its own. I made the final propsal that resulted in its deletion. Other than trying to end a pretty petty and irrelevant disputed issue, I couldn't have given a rat's arse on which particular solution was generally accepted. Perfectly happy with the replacement (which I drafted). DeCausa (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I posted that after I was reverted having given a very detailed and policy backed rationale for the edit. And like it or not, apart from being a little strident, there's no actual violation there in the subsequent talk post. You might desperately want there to be, but there isn't. I ended that initial post with the statement "I'd like some answers, directly, or I'll be reverting, on the basis that 'see talk page' is not a legitimate defence of such flagrant violations of the MoS or NPOV". I was given the link and read it, and from then on, I subsequently received no answers, let alone direct ones, with you being the chief culprit in that regard. You didn't know why your suggestion was wrong then, and it's pretty obvious you still don't now. Not givng a rat's ass is definitely the impression you give out when it comes to giving policy backed arguments or listening to those of others. And what ever you did in the final knockings (I can't be bothered to check, but I really doubt your version here), you were certainly figthing for 'doing nothing' option right to the near end. MickMacNee (talk) 01:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Apart from being a little strident, there's no actual violation". You just don't get why you're here do you? The phrase you've written there is a big part of it. You don't get to behave the way you do just because you are right on policy or because another editor has the temerity to disagree with you. DeCausa (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a big point MMN, and it's one you would do well to pay attention to. Nobody is saying (far as I can tell) that you're wrong on policy or even that you're wrong to argue based on policy. They're saying that you're arguing in a very dickish manner, and that you are routinely uncivil. Other people's incivility or personal attacks against you don't excuse your own behaviour. We give leniency to people who are baited, but not forever. You've established a pattern of behaviour that is not welcome on this site. Notice I didn't say *you're* not welcome. Just your behaviour. If you're willing to tone it down and stop trying to make everything into an argument about how other people are harassing you then you'd be more than welcome to stay. But the community has sent you pretty clear messages that your conduct is unwelcome and won't be tolerated for much longer. Look, this is the internet. People will be dicks to walls of text, without thinking that they're talking to a living, breathing, thinking and feeling person on the other side. Even in Wikipedia, where we try to maintain a collegial discourse, people are dicks. Most of the dickery is low-level, and goes unpunished. Yours is beyond that level. We're not asking that you stop arguing over policy or that you ignore everyone who bates you. We're just asking that you behave respectfully. Even if you maintained the general tone you've maintained here, you'd be fine. People wouldn't exactly like interacting with you, but they wouldn't be calling for your head, either. You're very stubborn and unwilling to consider views you disagree with, but that describes a lot of people here. If you could just cut out the aggression you would be fine. Saying you don't "suffer fools gladly" is fine, but it's not an excuse for being an asshole. You can point out the flaws in someone's argument or behaviour without also behaving like this. Sandstein's blocks have been called into question before, and there are avenues available to discuss corrective measures if you think they're called for. Sometimes those avenues don't work. Such is life. That doesn't give you the right to react in the way you did. Were it an isolated incident then we wouldn't be here, but it wasn't. It was simply a particularly egregious example of your usual method of communication, and there's no excuse for it. None. Please stop trying to defend that kind of behaviour, and we can go back to writing articles instead of deciding what to do with you. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Clerk action) That's enough of this discussion, please. AGK [•] 10:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On MMN's claims of not getting a fair shake[edit]

Now, as any reading of my contributions to this case will elucidate, I am by no means in the Mick camp. I see his interactions with others, both in general and certainly in some of the cases that have been presented here as problematic enough to warrant ArbCom intervention. That said, the man has a point. There's no way he could possibly respond to all the charges against him in 500 words, and the other discussions have been collapsed. We're seeing little, if any input from the arbs here. In a traditional arbitration, both sides will sit in front of an arbitrator and explain their case and provide evidence, and the arbitrator will question them on the evidence and actively participate in an effort to reach a just settlement. That's not happening here. Instead, the parties are locked in a room with the peanut gallery (guilty) giving their input and the arbs behind a one-way mirror privately saying who knows what, only to emerge and render a verdict from on high. This isn't the right way to do things. At the bare minimum, arbs should be active participants in the arbitration (perish the thought), and their discussions on a matter solely concerned with editor conduct in public spaces should be taking place in public. Again, perish the bloody thought. It would be nice if Mick were also able to defend himself with more than an essay one would write for a grade 9 english class. I don't fault AGK for adhering to the rules, but the rules are pretty dumb if they leave someone a couple of paragraphs to defend themselves against and explain their actions to a multitude of others. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before AGK removed the link, he shortened MMN's evidence to 1500 words. It was a much better and more effective piece of work, from MMN's point of view, than his 6000 words. AGK did this by taking out MMN's verbosity and in so doing removed MMN's aggressive turn of phrase but retained MMN's key points. I expressed concern to AGK about taking out MMN's aggressive turn of phrase because I felt that MMN's inclusion of such language in his evidence was in fact part of the evidence. MMN didn't like what AGK had done and reverted it. The irony is that MMN would have been in a much stronger position in the arb with AGK's work instead of his own. MMN has made comments several times that he thinks the arbs are going to make a decision "against him". If I were being cynical, I might think that, with this expectation, MMN might prefer to put himself in a position where he could say he wasn't allowed to defend himself rather than have AGK's optimized "defence". DeCausa (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see much more discussion from the Arbitrators here - its certainly poor that they haven't really got involved, but Mick was given a fair shake on this one. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I hope that one or both clerks have consulted ArbCom on the length of evidence on user subpages. Previous cases, some directly involving more editors and far more complex, had extensive evidence on subpages (cases involving Abd for example). In WP:ARBR&I, Newyorkbrad admitted he had scanned my evidence spread across several user subpages (deleted as soon as the proposed decision had been settled). However, in that case advice was taken from clerks and a short summary appeared on the main evidence page. In this case, the evidence of Chester Markel/John645 seems overly long and much of it well outside the scope of the case. The main idea should surely be to aid ArbCom and also be fair to the main party. I hope that the evidence of MickMacNee on a subpage can be left in tact and linked to the evidence page, where he should provide his own short summary of that evidence in the standard form of between 1500 and 2000 words. The subpage can be deleted after the case has closed. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chester Merkel's evidence is 872 words in length, which is much shorter than Mick's. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At present MickMacNee's evidence on the evidence page is less than 500 words. I think this case is more analogous to single user cases like Ottava rima and ChildofMidnight. Mathsci (talk) 07:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's because Mick decided he didn't like the shortened version AGK wrote for him. That's Mick's problem. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really though, the case is about Mick and Mick alone. Oh, sure, Sandstein and HJ Mitchell might be "advised/reminded/encouraged to something or other" (even "cautioned" if the arbs are extra cranky), but the crux of the case is what happens to Mick. As such, he should be able to defend himself, especially seeing as the evidence provided was essentially 8 or 9 people against him, with Sandstein and HJ bickering over blocks. Are we really saying that he gets 62.5 words to defend himself against each accuser? Furthermore, if the general consensus is that letting Mick talk proves the case against him, why would anyone here who's spoken against him be opposed to letting him dig his own grave? Regardless, I'm still more concerned about lack of participation by the arbs. Where is everyone? I see a bunch of them writing and debating proposed courses of action, and very few actually talking to the people involved. That just seems broken. This really doesn't feel like dispute resolution so much as a group meeting to decide on the best wording for our flyer announcing our next group meeting. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) There is no reason why he should have liked AGK's summary. To help this case move forward and in the interests of fairness, I hope that MickMacNee will either adapt AGK's version or prepare his own. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 08:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The ball is in Mick's court. It's been said that the absolute limit is 1,000 words in exceptional cases. I'd say that this case qualifies as meeting that. Of course, Mick does not have to put forward any evidence at all if he does not want to. It's his choice. Mjroots (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a case of MMN getting 62.5 words per accuser. AGK cut his evidence down to 1600. He's been offered fexibility. I suspect if he cut it down to around the 2000 mark he'd probably get away with it. But the point is he's used 6000 words, which is way over the top. He doesn't need that much and the reason he's at that level is because of his verbose style. Having said that, I think it's appropriate that his evidence is presented in his usual style, because that's what this case is largely about. DeCausa (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
it would be nice to see some comments from the Arbitration committee here. The idea is to help solve the dispute and not just stay aloof. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)I agree. I also agree that the 500-word limit is very restrictive. I needed all of it just to cover the background of my involvement with Mick, and respond to his comments about that. It leaves me no space to actually present evidence as to Mick's pattern of uncollaborative behaviour, were I to change my mind and want to do that. (The saving grace is that Mick's behaviour in this arbcom case itself makes presenting evidence on that score fairly redundant, assuming arbs are paying attention to that as well as to the words on the Evidence page.) Rd232 public talk 12:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I support what AGK has done here, both in attempting to assist MMN in reducing the excessive length of evidence and then removing it when MMN decided he didn't like it. Kirill and I are still reading this, a lot of our attention is understandably elsewhere at the moment, due to the ongoing issues with the arbcom-l mailing list leak and trying to determine what happened and what was lost, etcetera. But we're still here, and we look over everything as we go (and again before we workshop/write a proposed decision). SirFozzie (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doing it for Mick was a pretty bad idea - it ended up being "written the way I would write it" instead of the actual words, meanings, and emotion behind the original. This has, however, nothing to do with giving Mick a "fair shake", and it sounds instead like someone's asking for a procedural quashing of the entire thing.
The simple reality is that no matter WHO submitted the case, it contained valid points - just like some anonymous tip line to the police. Each of those points still needs to be addressed. Rather than trying to refute evidence of what everyone already knows, Mick would have been better served acknowledging any past situations of WP:DICK, and proposing his own methods to address them in the future. Instead, ArbCom will be forced to enact them unilaterally instead. Putting one's fingers in one's ears and saying "lalalalalala I can't hear you" when being shown the problems with your behaviour does not bode well in a collegial editing atmosphere. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, why don't you go and declare your interest & involvement is in this case by presenting your evidence, rather than doing what you've been doing for the past few months. Then I'll see if I can fit my response to your allegations in the allocated 60 or so words per complainent, alongside all the rest. I will be genuinely interested in how you intend to spin yourself as someone who isn't a DICK of the highest order, once the facts come out. Maybe I can get my word count down by lumping you and RD232 together and reffering to you collectively, as your failures in admin conduct and their underlying causes are strikingly similar. MickMacNee (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, I'm neither involved nor am I your sworn enemy, as you seem to protray. Really, if you want to twist what I said above to somehow be against you instead of seeing the positives, then I think you do a great job of proving everybody's point all by yourself. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only person to have actually sanctioned me since I was conned into signing up voluntalrily to an Rfc/U that I was assured would prevent lynchings like this in future, by putting the onus on my detractors to show I was actually doing something wrong before any future filing, such as by getting a consenus at ANI, or an approval from a truly uninvolved admin, instead of what's happened here, involved people gleefully jumping on some nutter sock's idea of first stage DR, off the back of a dead ANI being stoked by an involved admin. Of all the people who can be reasonably expected to have something to say here in terms of actual evidence, you are surely first in that line, given the allegations. But the truth is that your sanction was reduced as having been grossly excessive, and I chose not to contest it further on the facts and wider history, simply for the sake of my time. What a mistake that was. Everything you've ever said about me or to me since has been against me. MickMacNee (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and the sanction provided was a response to your behaviour at the time, and based on the account history + the concept of escalating blocks. The time provided was in line with jurisprudence, and I made no arguments when a brief dicussion chose to reduce it. I have never spoken against you, only against behaviour, and have always treated every editor with similar behaviours exactly the same. I'm not part of your little paranoia-war against Wikipedia, nor do I even edit the same areas that you do - I'm the ultimate in detached and uninvolved, and trying to suck me further in the way you are is pretty weak. Be the adult that I believe you are, admit your own errors, and improve yourself before you point the finger elsewhere. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerks have traditionally allowed a reasonable degree of lattitude on lengths of statements; I for one do not feel that 6,000 words fits within the realms of reasonable. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we can find a happy medium? 6000 is excessive, and 500 is insufficient. I'm fine with around 1500, but I can also understand why Mick wouldn't want to use AGK's version. It's basically like going to court with your case laid out, having the court look at it and say, "no, no, no. That's not what you meant. This is what you meant." I'm not saying AGK was wrong to try to pare down Mick's evidence, but man I'd be pissed too. Now, I'm not granting Mick a free pass here. It was his...loquaciousness that caused his evidence to runneth over in the first place. I dunno. I can see both sides, and I can't think of a good solution. I know if I were Mick I'd hate to have to re-write my evidence after putting all that time in. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think anything up to 2000 words is OK in my book. He could also have worked from AGK's version - there was room for expansion, and he could have re-written parts of it himself. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Man, y'all suck. 6000 words is only 10-12 pages in Word and should not take that much effort to get through. Restricting people to 500 words on the main evidence page makes sense, to keep it from being overly long and spammy, but on a sub-page? Give me a break. That's ridiculous for a case involving someone with as much history as MMN. He'll probably need 500 words just to summarize everything that's going on.

Seriously it's not like Arbcom has any kind of special time limit on dealing with this case.

There's nothing wrong with someone having a lengthy evidence subpage as long as it's material germane to the case. If you don't want to read all that? Too bad. That's your job as an arbitrator-- to read over the available evidence and render a decision. ALL of the evidence. Jtrainor (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out a few potential problems[edit]

I've been following some parts of this case, and a few things strike me as potentially problematic about the way things have developed here. Maybe not individually, but taken collectively, things start to stack up.

  • (1) The filing of the case by a now-blocked sock - I'm aware that this has been discussed and addressed elsewhere, but in conjunction with the other points below, it looks unfortunate. What should have happened when the filing by a sock was uncovered is for extra care to be taken with this case.
  • (2) Jimbo's comment about the case when asked on his talk page. This seems to pre-judge any possible appeal to Jimbo after the case closes. It would have been better for Jimbo to say he would only comment after the case closes, and it might be an idea to make that a principle in this case.
  • (3) Overly stringent evidence quotas. It should be clear that when you have a single party on whom the case centres, and multiple editors presenting evidence against that editor, enforcing the same evidence length on all parties is patently unfair. Unless responses to the evidence is allowed on the evidence talk page, with a link there from the relevant evidence section. The user's own evidence section shouldn't be taken up with rebuttals, but should be taken up with showing what benefit they bring to the encyclopedia (given that this case is clearly a 'net positive' or 'net negative' decision). It would also be fairer to require the 'opposing' parties to limit themselves to a collective 500 words on the same issues and not repeat themselves.
  • (4) Clerks rewriting/shortening evidence for parties without permission. I accept that clerks have evidence quotas to enforce, and I can even accept that they may be best placed to rewrite/shorten evidence if a party agrees to this, but surely permission needs to be asked first? I've been reviewing the exchange here and AGK (the clerk enforcing the evidence guidelines) first says: "If you do not, or cannot, do so within 24 hours, a clerk will delete your evidence subpage or remove the link to it from the main evidence page" He then says "if you were to reduce your evidence to something as reasonable as 1000-1500 words, then I'd be fine with that. I am even okay with a submission that nudges 2000, if it is not repetitive". All fine so far. This is then followed by "From 6000 words, I shortened it to ~1700 words. Please review that and tell me if you are happy with my changes." MickMacNee then says "From the bits I examined, I wasn't happy with the rephrasing, so I've reverted the lot. I apologise if you're offended by that, but I wish you'd asked first." That is a perfectly reasonable response and objection - I would be horrified if anyone modified evidence I'd submitted without asking first (removal, fine, but not modification). Then, for some reason, the other parties to the case turn up and start participating in this conversation on MickMacNee's user talk page that they should have been told to stay out of. They try and paint MickMacNee's response as a "fail" - see the facepalm by Rd232. In my view, it would have been better for the evidence to be removed (as eventually happened), rather than allowing a messy sub-narrative of "attempted shortening" and peanut gallery commentary from other parties to the case, to muddy the waters.
  • (5) The clerk note at the top of MickMacNee's evidence section currently says "MickMacNee's evidence submission comprises of over 6000 words, and the link to it can therefore not be included (as it was) because of the word count restriction.". However, the very next evidence section (the one by Rd232) includes links to the very page that MickMacNee is not allowed to link to! This seems slightly odd to me.

As I said, individually, the above points may not be too bad, but collectively it doesn't look good. Carcharoth (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK... 1) yes... but concretely what? 2) agreed - make it a principle. I don't hold much truck with the "appeal to Jimbo" but as long it exists such a principle is necessary 3) there's been some discussion about this, and in some circumstances (like here) a subject clearly needs a higher quota than parties. (Not that I'm delighted with a 500-word quota for a party, mind you.) This should be formalised, as should handling of links to longer evidence subpages, which seem sometimes to have been allowed (with Evidence page shorter summary). 4) shortening without permission wasn't a good idea, but the same effect could have been had by providing the redraft on the talk page. Either way, not using that help as a basis for improving evidence seems facepalm territory to me. 5) Obviously I drafted that before removal of the linked section. If the substantive evidence I'm responding to isn't restored in some relevant form, I've wasted words I could have used for something more relevant to the core of the case. ... Now what? Extend the evidence period with a higher case-subject quota? Rd232 public talk 01:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, yes, but that is not a decision you or I get to make. By all means suggest it to arbitrators and/or clerks and see what they say. One point you didn't respond to was the point I made about how other parties to the case (or those only looking in on the case) turned up on MickMacnee's talk page and jumped into a conversation between him and a clerk. I know that is easily done with the best of intentions, but do you think that was helpful? Best practice when leaving such notices on user talk pages is to include a note asking others to give the clerk and the user space and time to discuss the matter, and asking others to comment at the case pages (if at all) rather than to join in on such conversations, or to add comments in a separate section or subsection, and leave the clerk and user space to talk without added noise. I know it can be hard, as the convention in most spaces is that anyone can jump in on conversations in progress, but some conversations should be treated with a bit more circumspection. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why with more than usual circumspection? That's contrary to normal practice e.g. when someone is appealing a block, those who have views regularly add comments. I added a comment because I had an issue with AGK taking out MMNs usual aggressive style, which in is itself part of the evidence. Don't see why I shouldn't have posted that. Also, it's unclear how other posts would stop AGK and MMN didcussing whatever they want to discuss. DeCausa (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(i) well I made the suggestion here. I don't know what else to do. (ii) "a bit more circumspection" - what makes you think this didn't happen? The discussion was among the most civil and collaborative we've had in this Arbcom case. iii) I'm unaware of such best practice, and there was no note from the clerk about that. Rd232 public talk 07:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

Eraserhead says, "As a general point civility isn't taken seriously by the community and there are a small number of regular editors who seem to regularly behave in an uncivil way and essentially get away with it."

Wow, is that ever true. It's too bad that we've let things get that way, but it is undeniably true that (to give an unrelated example) this rude comment would result in an immediate block for a newbie, but the community consistently turns a blind eye to this editor's profanity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it is probably strictly outside the purview of this case it would be nice to see some input from the committee on this. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grade-A lameness[edit]

So evidence on Betacommand is supposed to be put into this case. Someone even did. All well and good-- except that the person who submitted the evidence was (justly) banned as a sock and had his evidence struck, MMN can't provide the evidence due to a draconian application of the evidence word limit, and no one else in the case cares about Beta.

So I look forward to this case being closed with absolutely no examination of his conduct whatsoever and the arbcom case filed against him being declined. The case itself is stale too, with no major edits to any of it's pages in more than a week. Jtrainor (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Brilliant. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Their evidence is collapsed - not struck. Others are free to add more evidence regarding Δ or proposals to the workshop. If MickMacNee has evidence he would like to submit, he can ask one of the drafting arbitrators for an exception to the word limit (given the expanded scope). –xenotalk 22:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You guys have been pretty strict on the word limit. I complained about Mick's evidence when it reached 6000 words, but then the word limit looks to have been strictly enforced at 500 words. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 06:34, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have forgotten this conversation you were involved in a month ago, where AGK said "something as reasonable as 1000-1500 words, then I'd be fine with that. I am even okay with a submission that nudges 2000, if it is not repetitive." (That was in relation to User talk:MickMacNee/Arbitration evidence, since Mick originally just linked to that from the Evidence page.) Rd232 talk 09:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True enough, but after that it looks to have been strictly enforced at 500 words. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence

Leave a Reply