Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee

Case Opened on 17:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Case Closed on 12:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: [/index.php?title=&action=watch 1], [/index.php?title=/Evidence&action=watch 2], [/index.php?title=/Workshop&action=watch 3], [/index.php?title=/Proposed_decision&action=watch 4]

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Requests for arbitration, and report violations of remedies at Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

 * , filing party
 * Re-added by arbitrator instruction. AGK  [&bull; ] 14:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Added by arbitrator instruction. AGK  [&bull; ] 17:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Added by arbitrator instruction. AGK  [&bull; ] 17:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Added by arbitrator instruction. AGK  [&bull; ] 20:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Added by arbitrator instruction. AGK  [&bull; ] 17:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Added by arbitrator instruction. AGK  [&bull; ] 17:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Added by arbitrator instruction. AGK  [&bull; ] 20:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Requests for comment

 * Requests for comment/MickMacNee
 * Requests for comment/Mjroots Added by editor request on talk page. AGK  [&bull; ] 20:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Chester Markel
MickMacNee's tenure at Wikipedia has been characterized by edit warring, incivility, personal attacks, aggression, ultra-deletionist activism such as badgering editors who offer "keep" opinions at AFD, and other disruption. He's been repeatedly blocked for this behavior, culminating in Sandstein indefinitely blocking him in October 2010. Scott MacDonald unilaterally reversed several days later, knowing that WP:WHEEL precluded immediate reblocking. Last month, he was blocked for two weeks, but this block was again shortened. Most recently, his behavior at WP:ITN/C has been deplorable. He took action to deliberately provoke anger, and threatened to incite vandalism to an article solely in retaliation for a disagreement with another editor: "the only reason I would be updating it myself to the letter of the law now after the race, is to piss you off, and fuck your weekend up in the way you've fucked mine." "Your damn right, the only way I will bother to update that article now, to the letter of the ITN requirements, is to get it onto the Main Page, and thus have a flood of editors arriving there to make piss poor edits to it and waste your time having to revert them.". The most immediate issue has been discussed at AN/I, without any conclusive resolution. MickMacNee's response to a proposed editing restriction was so hostile and aggressive as to convince the administrator proposing it to block himself for a month. Every attempt to resolve this situation short of arbitration has failed. Chester Markel (talk) 04:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Rd232
Rd232 talk 11:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Expletives are not the main problem. They bother some people but not others, and so discouraging them is best, as is ignoring them when they occur. Mick uses them more than most, but this is just a symptom of the actual problem.
 * The actual problem is (per David Levy) Mick's apparent inability to accept that others may in good faith disagree or otherwise act in a manner he disapproves of, combined with getting very angry about it. This tends to lead to personal attacks, especially in the form of various forms of accusations of bad faith, and a vicious cycle of not really listening to what people are saying, which sharply reduces the likelihood of disputes being resolved amicably. More generally, it leads to an aggressive tone and manner which fundamentally undermines the collaborative environment Wikipedia needs to function.
 * Civility enforcement is notoriously difficult, because civility is often subjective and selective attempts to enforce it can be used as a weapon which actually reduces collaborativeness instead of enhancing it. There are no easy answers, especially when the civility problem is not an occasional outburst but rather a general approach. Here's a novel one: apply a civility probation under the terms of which any editor may apply a specific hat-style template (civ-hat) to comments by the user, if the comments are uncivil. The user would not be able to remove the hatting unless they substantively rewrote the comment (assuming it wasn't replied to, in which case striking or apologising inside the hat), and if someone else removes the hatting in good faith it can't be re-applied. An editor clearly abusing hatting after warnings would be blocked for disruption. Yes, it's probably a bad idea, but good ones are in short supply.
 * Addendum: MickMacNee's version of events regarding my involvement is wrong in too many ways to count. He repeats accusations of bad faith, and declares that I'm "pissed off about my highlighting his failure"... a statement which an outside observer would consider ludicrous, if they bothered to read the prior conversations I had trying to persuade him of my point of view of the disputed incident where I acted as an admin. (Clearly a pointless endeavour, since not even the most basic of points I made has stuck.) Perhaps worth noting is that my proposal of an edit restriction in the ANI thread flowed directly from Mick's very Mick response to my merely noting the existence of the RFC/U, and then my explaining to one editor who complained about admin inaction why I couldn't do anything further. If he had responded in a civil manner, instead of letting me have it with both barrels, the thread would have gone very differently. If any arbs want clarification of what actually happened re the Delta/TreasuryTag ANI threads and followups (beyond looking at the relevant discussions), the cause of Mick's animosity to me, I'm available by email (please use a you've-got-mail notice). Rd232 talk 18:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @newyorkbrad: OK, I will if/when the case is accepted and gets underway, if I actually end up participating (I have no desire to, but it may be unavoidable)
 * @Mick: "private evidence"? All I said was "I'm available by email". You're quite jumping to conclusions if you think that (a) I'd submit anything by email at all (the "you've got mail" notice was purely to cover both angles, I'm planning not to check back on this mess onwiki but I may do, and I don't check that email address so often) (b) that I'd submit anything by email without expecting it to be made public on my behalf or (c) that arbs would accept that unless there was some actual very good reason (which there isn't - there isn't any "private evidence" in this case, since everything happened entirely onwiki). I accept that mention of email could be misconstrued; but the immediacy and manner in which you jump to that conclusion is entirely typical.
 * @anybody who cares: my self-block wasn't some kind of "tantrum" or strategy; it was a genuine attempt to get the hell away from MickMacNee the only way I could be sure ("wikibreak enforcer", Mick? how little you know about the difficulty of really enforcing wikibreaks... cf Noscript, Leechblock, Stayfocusd and others). So I'm not best pleased at the development of an Arbcom case, which will probably amount to nothing constructive anyway, but give Mick lots more opportunity to lob insults and accusations and general bile at me. Rd232 talk 21:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Ncmvocalist: hope you're not suggesting I had any involvement in filing this request. I didn't, and if anybody'd bothered to ask me, I'd have beseeched them not to. Rd232 public talk 23:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @any: I won't be commenting any further pre-acceptance, and I'll try to avoid involvement in the case itself too. It would take far too much time and effort, and be far too unpleasant, and surely ultimately useless. I choose instead to let the arbs we elected see through Mick's bluster (much of it provably inaccurate) and get on with considering what's best for WP. My absent wife and baby are returning home soon, which is of far greater interest than worrying about what damage any uncorrected inaccuracies may do to my WP reputation. Mick's participation in this pre-acceptance phase has already pushed me closer to never returning than to unblocking myself. I simply do not wish to ever have to interact with him again - because I am not a fan of deeply unpleasant and entirely unproductive experiences. Rd232 public talk 23:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by MickMacNee
Apologies for coming late to the party. You'll have to ask Chester Markel why he filed this request at a time when I was sound asleep, and it would have to be today of all days that my keyboard decided to start randomly discarding keys. Having now fixed that and read the detail so far, I've drafted my statement. People can read it at User talk:MickMacNee/Arbitration request response. I shall be updating it accordingly as necessary, so put it on your watchlists if you've commented or intend to comment on this request, I won't be making any further comment on this page. There's no short version or executive summary I'm afraid, except 'wtf?' and 'who is Chester Markel'?. MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I will say one thing here. Given that it was the complete lack of response to his 'proposal' at ANI that has apparently triggered this request, I object in the strongest possible terms to people going along with RD232's subsequent pantomime tantrum and clerking his comments from his talk page to here, because he is 'blocked'. He is not blocked at all. If he truly wants a wikibreak which stops him editting, he should use the wikibreak-enforcer. If he wants to be blocked for his failures as an admin, I'm sure someone else can oblige to make it less of a farce. If he wants the right to comment on me here as a currently active admin who I will be presenting evidence on if the case is accepted, then he can unblock himself and do it himself, like a grown up who has respect for the people he has been making all sorts of attacks on. Nobody even noted here that they had been clerked over FFS. His willfull decision not to participate except in this bizarre manner needs to be recorded here, given the immediate part he played in it. And now that I think of it, I thought there was an actual policy against blocking yourself anyway, because there's no rational reason to ever do it. If not, then this is a pretty good example why there should be. MickMacNee (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I do not see what there is about this request that means this blocking farce needs to be taken to yet another level, to now be used by RD232 as a way of asking if he can file private evidence against me as regards this request, that I will obviously have no way of commenting on. This is nothing short of outrageous. I want a categorical assurance from all arbs that they have no intention of obliging him in this manner. MickMacNee (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by The359
As I was busy and missed the opportunity to write out a full statement when this was initially under request, and I cannot quite figure out where else to put this (I've certainly never involved with Arbcom before), I'm putting this here.

Obviously I've come in at the end of a very long history for MickMacNee, so I have very little to offer in terms of an opinion of his history and behavior on Wikipedia for however long this has been going on. Therefore this statement will likely be the only one I offer for this Arbcom, as there is little need for my involvement.

I will however say that as an outside viewer who has not been personally involved in MickMacNee's past (yes, there was a brief interaction at ITN a year ago, but I certainly did not recall that the user I was talking to in ITN/C this week was the same user of a year ago until MickMacNee mentioned it), I can offer my perspective without all the past drama that many in this case seem to already carry with them.

I find MickMacNee's behavior to be disturbing, but I equally find Wikipedia's handling of such a matter disturbing. At the time of my filing of ANI, I was unaware of the long history of blocks that MickMacNee had accumulated. Although unaware of the specifics of the transgressions but aware that they basically involve edit warring and civility issues, my only question after becoming aware of the block log is: Why is this person still here? This is a user who clearly does not get it. Wikipedia has five pillars, not one. The greater good of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia does not override the fact that this is a community built on consensus, and with volunteer editors who should be given an ounce of respect. MickMacNee honestly does not appear to be aware that such a pillar exists, or that it has equal footing with all other pillars. His responses in ITN/C and ANI and here as well all seem to indicate someone who does not wish to address the topic of civility and instead feels that their offensive stance is justified because he feels he is "right per policy", and that Wikipedia being the way he wants Wikipedia to appear is more important than how he has to handle the users that stand in his way. Certainly everyone has their interpretations of policies on Wikipedia, as evidenced by the discussions over WP:CIVILITY in this Arbcom, but I feel that instances such as "I said that as a non-regular you were wrong in your stated ideas about what the rules are, and once that's been pointed out to you by a regular, then no, you do not have any 'right' to continue to claim your opinion is valid." is clear evidence of a user who has become completely closed minded to the true intent of discussions and consensus, and has placed more importance on his interpretation of policy than on the discussion itself. MickMacNee himself describes how "For it to be valid disagreement that I should be minded to respect rather than be infuriated with as a total farce of a spoiling tactic, it has to be done in a particular manner, with respect for what others say, without lies, nonsense, and other general bullshit posing as valid points, which nobody can be bothered to even defend half the time." It's either a valid response that agrees with him, or it's completely wrong response that is most likely backed by lies and deceit or agendas against proposals or against him personally, and the only way that an opinion can even appear in the gray area in between is if it is "done in a particular manner," clearly in a manner of his choosing. Hell, MickMacNee even questions why Chester Markel chose to start the Arbcom discussion while he was asleep. Are we supposed to be making sure we're all operating on the same time as MickMacNee? All of this makes me question the need for a user such as MickMacNee to remain on Wikipedia. I certainly have no desire to see administrators get trigger happy with editors who have done good things on Wikipedia simply because of their behavior, but at the same time I also believe that there is a point where the user's ever closing mind makes them more detrimental to the project, especially after such repeatedly warnings and discussions over their behavior without any sign of them actually stopping or improving.

That MickMacNee takes much of these disagreements as something personal that he must uphold vehemently makes it even worse. Repeated statements of MickMacNee's "ruined weekend" because of the ITN/C discussion show someone who has clearly taken things far too seriously. He feels wronged and must take time out of his personal plans to ensure that things go the way he wants. Hell, MickMacNee even thinks that myself and others are being "rewarded" because of the lack of consensus in the discussions as if it is a tallied score. This clearly indicates to me why MickMacNee would feel the need to seek revenge against those who he feels have wronged him by failing to agree with his viewpoints. Indeed, "You fucked my weekend, I'm going to fuck yours." And this makes this person's purpose on Wikipedia at this point solely non-Wikipedia related. My statement about the point in which a user's closed minded attitude becomes detrimental to Wikipedia compounded by a user who will seek to take revenge on those who questioned his closed minded attitude makes for a volatile cocktail.

Now, the threat itself. MickMacNee further claims that his sole purpose in making edits to an article is to "piss me off". This is the exact definition of WP:HARASS - "Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to discourage them from editing entirely." MickMacNee clearly states his purpose at the time of the previous statement is no longer to edit the Le Mans article for the purposes of ITN, but rather to cause me a headache in dealing with bad edits. This would quite clearly be an attempt to cause unpleasantness, and directed solely at me because of his mistaken belief in my WP:OWNnership of the article.

These three elements in the span of a roughly a day is exactly why I posted on ANI. My view then was that this user clearly had overstepped a bounds on possibly one, most definitely two, and clearly all three elements. Added in this user's history and this is why I ask myself "Why is this user still here?" The only time in the span of that day that MickMacNee did anything that would be generally helpful to Wikipedia is in making his original suggestion to ITN/C. The rest of the day, even though he certainly was well within his right to discuss the oppositions to his suggestion, was completely tarnished by MickMacNee's behavior, and he has spent the days after defending his behavior, or simply not addressing it at all to instead bring up tired old drama from the past because of users who have past involvement (with or without evidence).

And this is what brings me to my feeling that Wikipedia's handling of MickMacNee is disturbing as well. There seems to be a problem of civility issues being raised, but civility issues not being discussed to their end because of the users who may join the discussions, and the discussions diverging into past experiences. I certainly feel the WP:ANI thread was hijacked well before discussion of the civility/harassment issue was resolved, in part because of MickMacNee's decision to attempt to continue the ITN/C discussion in the ANI thread instead of discussing the civility issue. Further, the statements of some that I should "just brush it off" despite a few even claiming that it was indeed a threat, disturbs me most of all. We have quick responses to threats of legal measures against Wikipedia, quick responses to death threats and off-wiki harassment, including in-person harassment. Why then is a bold statement clearly stating an agenda to harass, no matter the means in which that harassment is achieved, brushed off? Certainly any threat on Wikipedia should be dealt with in a preemptive manner, not in a "wait until he actually does something" manner. Let me be clear in this final statement however: As someone who has received in-person harassment and threats and has had them dealt with swiftly by Arbcom in the past, I am very disappointed that other types of threats of harassment, especially from someone who is taking things to a personal and vindictive level, are brushed off and instead bogged down by infighting between parties with past experience. I am in no way attempting to say that MickMacNee's statements were as bad as death threats and the like, but it was still a threat to harass a specific user.

Finally, I would like to state that I have no qualms with cursing when used in a proper fashion. I would hope all involved are able to understand what is and is not a personal attack. Yes, some may not like cursing, but I do not believe it is something that will cause a user to feel discouraged from being involved in a discussion.

I'm sure this statement will receive responses, but I will more than likely not continue to be involved in this Arbcom as, as stated before, I do not have enough knowledge of the whole of MickMacNee's history and therefore this statement should play only a minor role in providing for the overall perspective. Feel free to shoot me any direct questions on my talk page if there is something that is not understood, I'm sure I fucked something up in all of this.

And for the clerks and whomever may know better than me, feel free to deal with my statement here as necessary, including moving it to another page where it would be better suited. The359 ( Talk ) 07:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (Clerk note) This statement was added after the case was accepted, and was initially added to the case talk page. I've moved it here and am noting here that the statement was added late. AGK  [&bull; ] 20:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (10/0/1/0)

 * Accept Long running User Conduct dispute, relatively divisive to the community, RFC/U tried previously, ticks off all the necessary boxes. SirFozzie (talk) 06:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept - I don't have such a problem as others with expletives, but the other issues are needing looking at, namely is this behaviour good-faith concern about wikipedia practice or is it excessive battleground behaviour. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept per above. Kirill [talk] [prof] 10:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept; I've sometimes used expletives as intensifiers myself, but "the only reason [whatever], is to piss you off" is where I see the problem. &mdash; Coren (talk) 10:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept. Newyorkbrad (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mick MacNee that it would be helpful if Rd232 were to undo the self-block and participate in this case in a conventional fashion, whether or not he wishes to edit anything else right now. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept to evaluate the user conduct issues. PhilKnight (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Recuse, given that my name is the last entry in MMN's block log. – iridescent  16:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept, not about the cursing, but to look at disruption and issues resolving disputes. Shell  babelfish 20:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept - although agree with Shell that the cussing isn't really the issue. Can I state for the record that if RD232 wants to say anything else, he should unblock himself and contribute. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept Jclemens (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Accept. I agree that the swearing is not the issue. The problem I see is frequent use of combative approach in circumstances where I don't see the cause, need and/or benefit of the tone used. MMN, it is understandable that your response here and at User talk:MickMacNee/Arbitration request response comes across as bitter, however I recommend that you use this arbcom case, which is likely to be accepted, as an opportunity to demonstrate restraint and attempt to mend fences. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Temporary injunction (none)

 * There was no temporary injunction.

=Final decision = All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Collegiality
1) Wikipedia is a serious educational and scholarly project founded on the principles of collaboration and consensus. All participants are expected to conduct themselves according to the standards of collegiality and professionalism appropriate to such a setting.

The standards of collegiality expected of all contributors to Wikimedia projects are set forth in the Wikimedia Foundation Resolution on Openness, which urges editors to "promote openness and collaboration", "treat new editors with patience, kindness, and respect", "work with colleagues to reduce contention and promote a friendlier, more collaborative culture", and "work with colleagues to [...] discourage disruptive and hostile behavior".

The Wikipedia community has outlined similar standards in the "fourth pillar" of community policy, which asks that editors "interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner", "be polite to [...] fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree", and "be open and welcoming".


 * Passed 14 to 0, 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Collegiality and prohibited conduct
2) Wikipedia's core behavioral policies outline certain minimal standards for acceptable user conduct by explicitly prohibiting a number of disruptive activities, such as personal attacks and edit-warring. The expectation of collegiality among participants goes beyond compliance with these minimal standards.  The fact that a particular activity or attitude is not explicitly prohibited does not make it appropriate in a collaborative environment or conducive to maintaining a welcoming atmosphere.


 * Passed 14 to 0, 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Recidivism
3) Users who have been sanctioned for improper conduct are expected to avoid repeating it should they continue to participate in the project. Failure to do so may lead to the imposition of increasingly severe sanctions.


 * Passed 14 to 0, 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Conduct of administrators
4) Administrators are trusted members of the community who are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship, as administrators are not expected to be perfect, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status.


 * Passed 11 to 0, with 2 abstentions 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Involved administrators
5) Administrators are expected not to take administrator actions arising from disputes in which they themselves are involved. See Administrators. As a specific and clear application of this rule, an administrator who is a party to a pending arbitration case may not block another editor who is a party to the same case, particularly when the case arose in large measure from disputes between the two of them.


 * Passed 10 to 0, 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee (I)
1) has consistently and egregiously violated Wikipedia's standards of collegiality and professionalism by engaging in a variety of disruptive, hostile, and uncollaborative conduct.
 * Passed 13 to 0, 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

MickMacNee (II)
2) has been repeatedly sanctioned for disruptive conduct by numerous administrators.  The sanctions to date have included three indefinite blocks, as well as sixteen other blocks longer than 24 hours in duration.


 * Passed 13 to 0, 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Rd232
3.1) has used his administrative tools while involved.


 * Passed 5 to 1, with 5 abstentions 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Δ
5) engaged in conduct that created a hostile and unwelcoming atmosphere and materially contributed to the escalation of disputes within the scope of this case.


 * Passed 10 to 0, with 2 abstentions and 1 recusal 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Remedies
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

MickMacNee banned (1 year, then indefinitely)
1) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of no less than one year.  After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project.


 * Passed 11 to 2, 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Δ admonished and warned
4) is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs.


 * Passed 11 to 0, with 2 abstentions 11:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions
Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.