Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee

Arbitrators active on this case
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.

Preliminary statements by uninvolved users
(Clerk note) The following statements were submitted when this case was in the request phase at WP:A/R/C. The statements were submitted in conjunction with the statements by the named parties, which are recorded separately on the main case page. AGK [&bull; ] 11:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
It is my opinon that the problem with Mick McNee has two parts. The first is that Mick seems to believe that the use of expletives is the normal course of everyday speech: thus, his interactions with other editors are rife with "fucks" and "goddamnns" and other expletive expressions. It is my observation that Mick, for whatever reason, does not see these as uncivil speech. Thus, the first goal here might be to teach McNee the difference between formal speech and unexpurgated colloquial speaking. It seems certain from Mick's interactions here that strong speech is the norm he is is exposed to, but educated and intelligent people recognize thar differences in speech are necessary in differing circumstances: one does not speak the same way at the Royal Ball as one does in the local pub. it would be nice if Mick, who is not an unintelligent person, were to recognize that Wikipedia, while by far not the royal ball, is also not the local pub, and requires discourse which is somewhere between those two extremes. If Mick cannot bring himself to understand this, then I'm afraid he's essentially useless to the project. Wikipedia is not the Royal Ball. but it's not a pub debate either. It's a popular semi-academic encyclopedia written by the avergae punter, but one who understands how to cite sources, write without a POV, and not carry political and social preconceptions into the writing. Mick's prejudices are manifest in his writing and his behavior. If he can back off from them, fine, but if he cannot, he should not be editing here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Roux - Your point is a good one, but, to take your own fucking example as a case, there's a distinct difference between using such words for effect or jocularly (as you did), and using them in an aggressive and uncivil manner. Mick's use of swear words usually comes as a package with aggresive, uncollegial, near-personal attacks.  His use of language is for effect, all right, but the effect he seems to desire is to berate, belittle, dominate and cow his perceived opponents, and generally to win his argument by any means at hand except calm, thoughtful discourse. So, yes, perhaps I was wrong to latch on to Mick's use of swear words, when the real problems is his overall uncivil and uncollegial behavior, manifest in both his attitude and his language -- and looking down the page, I see that others are of that opinion as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

@Hammersoft - I agree in the main with what you say regarding the enforcement of WP:CIVIL, but disagree that the answer is to avoid enforcing it altogether. While there are those who disagree with it, I believe it generally has wide support in the community, and would have more support if it was enforced more vigorously -- intelligently, but vigorously. I'm afraid that we have almost reached the point where anything goes, and the worst kind of disruptively uncivil behavior, such as MMN displays, is not routinely dealt with, but has to come to ArbCom before anything is done. That is unfortunate, and it's a trend that needs to be reversed if editing Wikipedia is going to be less stressful than being in a snake pit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC) An additional remark: WP:CIVIL remains Wikipedia policy, and civility is one of the WP:FIVEPILLARS. To stop enforcing it is as radical a change as no longer enforcing WP:NPOV or throwing out WP:IAR. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @HJ Mitchell - Regarding MMN's opponents flocking to the "battleground" whenever he's brought to AN/I, I think it's worth considering whether he would have riled up so many people if it weren't for his behavior. Is it not Mick's continuing battleground attitude which creates those opponents?  If so, then arguing, in effect, that allowances should be made for him because those people have a tendency to show up when he's the subject matter is a bit odd.  If Mick didn't piss people off, there wouldn't be so many people pissed off at Mick. As for conflicts of interest, I don't believe I have any in regard to Mick.  I've been racking my brain trying to remember if he and I have ever interacted in any significant way, and the only thing I can come up with is during one of the very long reports on AN/I about Betacommand, MMN and I had a discussion in which I urged him to calm down, which was amicable between the two of us.  Otherwise, I can't recall anything.  But look: MMN says (paraphrasing) "Who is Chester Merkel", meaning "Who is this person filing a arbitration against me that I haven't interacted with", and you say (paraphrasing) "Many of the people complaining here have conflicts of interest", meaning that their comments shouldn't be taken at face value because of their previous interactions. Between those two standards, just about everyone is eliminated from commenting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by roux
I'm not involved, but seeing as I was on this page anyway...

As someone whose fucking language often extends to the fucking colourful, it's worth noting that in many parts of the world (specifically the UK, and those of us raised by people from there) swearing is not per se an uncivil mode of discourse. It's just fucking words. While BMK's comment above that MMN needs to fucking understand that some fucking language isn't fucking appropriate in some fucking circumstances, that's a two-way fucking street. BMK (and others) need to fucking understand that the use of certain fucking words doesn't necessarily fucking mean that there's any incivility intended or fucking implied. MickMacNee's use of fucking language is a fucking red goddamn herring. Is the intent behind his words incivil? Is he intransigent in adopting attitudes--not specific language--which are conducive to a fucking collaborative environment? Is he editwarring or otherwise acting against fucking policy? Those are the fucking questions which need to be fucking answered, not his word choice. → ROUX   ₪  08:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Scott MacDonald
I return to my wish not to be involved with this. I unblocked Mick 6 months ago - not involved since, no desire to be.--Scott Mac 13:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify. 8 months ago, I unblocked Mickmacnee after getting certain assurances about his future actions. It was contentious with some at the time, and Sandstein the blocking admin was displeased. There was in the aftermath a request for arbitration on Mick, which included the block/unblock which the Committee declined.

I have taken no other admin action since then - and have no involvement with the recent disputes (not has Sandstein as far as I'm aware). However, Chester Markel‎, who has his own unrelated quarrels with me, wants to reopen that block/unblock cycle as part of this request.

Naturally, the committee is free to reopen that historical block/unblock discussion. However, it seems distinctly incidental to the question here of Mick's ongoing behaviour. If the Committee want to look at the grounds and place of unblockings in general, as Sandstein is suggesting, then I'd suggest a separate case. However, I can't see what's changed that would make you wish to do that, and I'm not sure what you'd be "arbitrating" since the events are ancient history.

I'd be grateful for some clarity as to scope here. I'm happy to robustly defend my actions in November 2010, but I'd rather not waste my time if it is, as I suspect, a red herring. Otherwise, I'm uninvolved and content to remain so.--Scott Mac 22:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by DeCausa
The problem with Mick isn't about expletives or incivility per se - and if the focus of this ArbCom is to be that it isn't really worth spending time on (and the statements by Scott MacDonald and roux are therefore somewhat tangential). Per Casliber, it's the other issues. They all seem to come down to his inability to accept that an opinion alternative to his isn't a reason to explode into aggressive battleground disruption. This appears to lead him into some pretty silly behaviours (incivility, not accepting consensus, edit-warring etc.) In a recent discussion (in which I took an opposing position to Mick) in Talk:United Kingdom, on a very contentious issue which has been a long-standing problem, his input was de-stabilizing and disruptive throughout and unnecessarily fanned the flames of the dispute with his intemperate language and unconstructive ranting. After he posted a number of lengthy bad-tempered polemics, a consensus agreement was reached which Mick didn't like but which had the support of 18 (in fact all bar 2) of the participating editors. Mick's response was to point-blank refuse to recognise that there was a consensus "because it's such a giant policy violating crap bag". In a sense Mick's bad-tempered input didn't, in this case, matter because everyone else ultimately just got on with the job and reached a solution. Of course, it needn't have had that outcome with a different set of editors. To me, this is his central problem: his behaviour is so disruptive and unreasonable when he thinks he's in the right that the disadvantages he brings to the project outweigh the advantages. DeCausa (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * '@Scott MacDonald If he rants in a non-contentious issue, I agree with what you say. The problem is when he does it in an already contentious issue, where his behaviour can help to thwart consensus emerging. It's not just "an annoyance" if he de-rails the discussion. I said he didn't do that in this case ultimately, but it was a near thing. In fact, during the discussion he did begin edit-warring to try to get his way here and here but aadmittedly gave up when he was told "the fact you may not like the discussion is irrelevant, a discussion is taking place and a change has not yet been agreed" and given a 3RR warning (see Statement by Snowded, below). DeCausa (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC) Note: ScotMac subsequently deleted the comment to me to which this was a reply. DeCausa (talk) 07:30, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @MickMacNee The focus of Mick's initial response is how right he was and how wrong his opponents were in whatever dispute he was having. That is not the point, IMHO. The issue is about how he conducts himself. Echoing John Vandenberg's comment (frequent use of combative approach in circumstances where I don't see the cause, need and/or benefit of the tone used) this is how he first entered the discussion at Talk:United Kingdom to which I referred above. DeCausa (talk) 07:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by David Levy
DeCausa hit the nail on the head. The main problem isn't Mick's coarse language or even his incivility. It's his tendency to react to disagreement in a highly disruptive manner. When Mick has a strong opinion on something, he perceives contrary positions as indefensible and downright insulting, no matter how many editors express such views. So instead of engaging in constructive debate, he lashes out in anger, focusing more on the persons themselves (and how despicably he feels they've behaved) than on the matter at hand. Beyond his unwillingness to tolerate dissent or respect an outcome differing from his preference, he often refuses to even accept that his opponents are acting in good faith. He's so certain of his incontrovertible correctness (and the patent obviousness thereof) that he deems it impossible for them to genuinely believe what they've written. So on top of his other personal attacks, he accuses them of maliciously advancing insincere arguments as a means of deliberately sabotaging Wikipedia. All of this has a chilling effect on the proceedings, with editors eschewing/abandoning the discussion to avoid being caught up in the onslaught. Mick then cites their lack of further participation as evidence that they're unable to refute his counterarguments (typically boiling down to "I'm clearly right, so all of you are wrong.") and allegations of bad-faith motives. The most recent example, mentioned above by Chester Markel, is a discussion in which I took part (and opposed Mick's proposal) at Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates. The nomination was closed, but the thread has continued at Wikipedia talk:In the news. —David Levy 10:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * @HJ Mitchell: Indeed, it's fair to say that Mick's use of expletives and general incivility tend to receive excessive focus, both by users reporting his alleged misconduct and by administrators attempting to evaluate it. I suspect that this is because such behavior stands out and is easily associated with well-known policies (namely Civility and No personal attacks), thereby overshadowing a less obvious (yet far worse) consequence of Mick's actions: the creation of an atmosphere non-conducive to building an encyclopedia.  —David Levy 21:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Strange Passerby
I echo what has been mentioned above by David Levy, DeCausa and Chester Markel. My experiences with Mick have mostly been limited to being at ITNC, where he is often a divisive, almost polarising, figure thanks to the way he argues his points. I agree very much that the problem isn't so much the incivility; it's the way he uses this incivility and turns it into disruptive rants against other editors who happen to have taken an opposing view. This was also a problem at the one other place I've encountered Mick, an AFD on an air crash where he refused to accept the "keep" view and badgered those !voting such and, if memory serves, started a retaliatory RFC against an admin involved on the other side of the discussion,. It seems to me that unless Mick is able to discuss his issues with a calm head and without resorting to assuming massive bad faith on the part of the other camp, he's not well placed to build an encyclopaedia. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Snowded
I fully endorse the comments by DeCausa above and would have used the same example had I seen this before him. Its worth noting that Mick came into a discussion that he knows from long experience is controversial and immediately changed the article to the minority view even though a discussion was in place. It too a 3rr warning to his page to get him to stop. He then insisted that WP:BRD did not apply as he understood policy on the issue and no one had a right to challenge him. The language that followed was intimidatory (unless you know Mick in which case it was more "Oh my God, here we go again ...") and crude in the extreme. Basically if Mick thinks he is right, then everyone else is wrong and fair game for what ever invective Mick wants to throw at them. This has been a pattern for years and needs dealing with. And, in the interests of full disclosure I generally disagree with Mick's position on the articles where I encounter him. That said there are plenty of other editors with major differences, all of who manage to conduct their debates in a civilised way. Mick seems incapable of assuming good faith, or of recognising that other people may legitimately disagree with him -- Snowded TALK  12:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Hammersoft
I've had multiple interactions with MickMacNee over the years. I could sift through all of them and pull out quite a number of diffs. I'll refer just to the most recent one from May of this year; Most people above have been referring to WP:CIVIL type violations, but minimizing those in the context of a larger problem that he generates considerable heat as a means to an end. For the most part, I concur. It should also be understood that MickMacNee does not shy away from personally assaulting people as I've noted above, in clear violation of WP:NPA. Personally, I've taken to ignoring his comments as soon as I'm aware I'm reading him. Editors who are not familiar with his behavior will not have such a personal policy, with highly predictable results.
 * "patronisation from yourself is about as surprising as death and taxes"
 * "your totally pompous approach to human comunication"
 * "That's what I'll say forever more, until you grow the fuck up. Oops. Another personal assault. Dammit." (second part of this diff)

To be fair, I don't think MickMacNee has violated WP:CIVIL. As the policy is written, he has. However, the reality is that policy is empty. It rarely gets enforced with respect to experienced editors, even in seriously egregious cases. I seriously doubt ARBCOM has the fortitude to put some teeth back into WP:CIVIL and cause a culture change. Failing that, citing MickMacNee for any WP:CIVIL violations would be tantamount to enforcing a law while technically on the books hasn't been enforced for decades, such as a town in Georgia where it's against the law to eat onions before going on a date. Humorous, yes, but the reality here on this project is just as absurd. My fellow editors above note that WP:CIVIL is effectively unenforceable. They are right. It's time for that policy to be reformulated or thrown out completely. Some might say this is impossible; we must have a basis of civility here. The reality is we don't, and sticking to the guns of having WP:CIVIL as policy is as ludicrous as a snowball on the sun. As roux rightly noted above in language so overtly colorful as to be impossible to see as anything as a sheet of overwhelming grey, language that is not civil is actually quite civil...at least by Wikipedia standards. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Eraserhead1
I thought progress had been made after the RFC, but it seems that there has been a step backward here. While I agree with Mick that it would have been good to post Le Mans before the start of the race and that I don't think the opposers had a particularly strong point, it was posted at the end, and the disagreeing with posting it wasn't totally illegitimate. I also think David Levy was very patient at explaining the matter, even though unacceptable language was used by myself and others. Assumming the diffs given above aren't intentionally misleading I think Mick you stepped way over the line, the line is probably roughly at my comment, if not before that - it isn't my greatest ever post.

Personally I think civility should be taken more seriously, while there is a small minority of established editors who write good content who seem to feel that being rude to other users is acceptable there is undoubtably a silent majority of other editors who are discouraged from the project due to the lack of civility - and this has actually been covered in the Economist earlier this year as a problem. If the price that users who normally behave reasonably civilly (like myself I hope) get a 24 block for the comment I've linked above, then that's a price worth paying frankly.

@MickMacNee, why even here do you need to break WP:NPA. Saying "who is Chester Markel?" is rude and unproductive - and it just raises the drama stakes. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC) @Protonk, fair point. Retracted. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * With regards to scope personally I would suggest limiting the case to the more recent events. The unblock in November 2010 may or may not have been problematic - I can certainly see why people are upset about it - unilateral admin actions that are against consensus always annoy me when the occur on T:ITN, but if we're going to give indefinitely blocked users a second chance after 6 months per WP:OFFER I think its reasonable to apply the same to Scott McDonald and not worry about the November incident, as he hasn't been involved with MickMacNee since and it wasn't dealt with here at the time. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Rd232 on leaving, that would be a shame. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:16, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Brief comment in response to Eraserhead by Protonk (talk)
I have no great love for MMN, but I suspect that asking "who is Chester Markel?" means only what he says: he doesn't have a long term history with the user and is therefore confused as to why he should see an arbitration request from him. Were you to bring a RFAR against me my first comment would be "Who is Eraserhead1?" not because I mean to slight you but because I don't know you from Adam. Protonk (talk) 19:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Observations from HJ Mitchell
Round and round the merry-go-round! Mick starts a discussion. Discussion goes against Mick. Mick says fuck. Lots of people pretend to be offended, drag Mick to ANI and demand the right to throw rotten veg at him during his latest stint in the stocks. Mick says fuck again. Someone brings it to GovCom. Rinse and repeat.

Mick and I rarely see eye to eye, and I'm not going to defend him, as such. He's perfectly capable of doing so himself, and not everything he says or does is defensible. On whether a case is in order, I really have no opinion, but there are a few things the arbs should take into consideration:

1) Mick says fuck a lot. I don't think any sanction you can impose on him is going to stop him saying fuck. Beneath that, though, are two different issues. The first is that Mick does have a problem with accepting that consensus is against him and he does get angry and, well, swear a lot. The second, however, is that every time he gets dragged to ANI, his opponents on the BATTLEground turn up and many of the commentors at ANI have a vested interest, one way or another, in seeing him blocked or otherwise sanctioned. Thus, they complain loudly and frequently about him, while pretending to occupy the moral high ground.

2) That in mind, the conduct of everybody involved in this and the various discussions that prompted it needs to be examined. Mick's certainly does, but examining Mick's conduct alone will achieve little.

Finally, if you're going to take two months to drag people through the mud and let them argue amongst themselves, while standing in the way of something actually being done, don't bother accepting the case. However, if you can bring it to a sensible conclusion without wasting everybody's time, please do. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment by Ncmvocalist
Please do not open this case without clearly having a scope for this case (which the clerks can actually enforce). This is not so urgent that it needs to be opened within a number of minutes. It's already known that I appreciate the sentiment that you can't know what's going to turn up in evidence or who is to be named as a party, but I think there is sufficient awareness/insight by the Committee regarding some of the older events here. A spectacle involving other user/s will not be helpful, and it would be a great pity if an admin (and his friends) could continue litigating their every disagreement...even after the results of his most recent attempt. Maybe if the same standard that he applies to others was be applied to him, would things have panned out differently...I wonder.

So for clarity, if you have a problem with anyone who has removed their name from the party list, please indicate so now, whether that's because you are going to focus on a single action from 8 months ago or whether it's because there is other stuff which has not been specified. If not, please resolve this apparent issue-in-disagreement before the case pages are opened by (further) narrowing the scope. Ncmvocalist (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
It's not clear why I'm now also named as a party to this, apparently because I once blocked MickMacNee. But this does give me the opportunity to tell you that I told you so. The Committee was negligent in not taking action against MickMacNee and the unblocking administrator at the time, and it's at least a positive development that it is now set to take the case. I've not been involved in, or examined, this most recent instance of this circus, but I'll offer a general observation: longterm disruptive users such as MickMacNee are not, in and of themselves, a problem that the community can't solve. We have the block tool for that. What is much more problematic are the administrators who aid and abet the disruption by socially well-connected users by unilaterally unblocking them, often (as in the case linked to above) against consensus, knowing very well that a re-block is impossible because of the wheel-warring rule, and who then (as also here) decline to assume their responsibility for the continued disruption that normally ensues, even to the point of removing their name as a named party to this arbitration case. I recommend that the Committee take this case with a view to establishing clear expectations in and responsibilities for administrators who unblock others without express community consensus, and notably provide for sanctions against administrators who enable continued disruption by failing to assume these responsibilities.  Sandstein  20:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * (Clerk note) Section retitled from "Comment by Sandstein". AGK  [&bull; ] 11:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Statement moved from the main case to here following my self-removal as a party per the workshop request.  Sandstein   05:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Request by Mjroots
Can Requests for comment/Mjroots be added to section 1.2 please, maybe as a. Mick's behaviour was brought up independently by a number of editors there, and that RFC shows that he had been advised by the community that there were issues with his conduct long before his own RFC. Mjroots (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Done. AGK  [&bull; ] 20:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

General comment by Sandstein
Looking back on this issue and the last few cases in which I attempted to help the project by preventing disruption by, notably, persistently incivil established editors, I notice a pattern emerging: (a) foulmouthed ranting by the established editor with a long block log, (b) block by me, normally indef; (c) huge inconclusive drama thread; (d) unblock without discussion by a random admin, (e) optionally inconclusive ArbCom drama and huge waste of time.

Needless to say, this is unsatisfactory for all involved, especially me. I cannot help but conclude that our written standards of professional courtesy, conduct and decorum I attempt to apply are in practice not accepted by at least a substantial minority of established editors; that the conduct policies are essentially a dead letter, used only as a tool to whack content opponents with; and we are institutionally incapable to equitably enforce common standards of conduct. Or maybe I am indeed the block-trigger-happy narrowminded bureaucrat some see me as.

Be that as it may, whatever it is I am doing, it is not working and it often wastes more editor time than the initial conflict itself. Consequently, I intend to withdraw not only from AE, as I have already done, but from the general field of conduct policy enforcement, and leave this to the people who are elected to do so, until the community of editors and administrators is more supportive and expectant of, well, an adult and professional working environment. For the same reasons, I do not intend to continue to participate actively in this case unless asked to by arbitrators, or where necessary to correct an error of fact.  Sandstein  23:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sandstein: I would urge you to reconsider your decision. I have certainly not agreed with every action you have taken, but I have, as a rank-and-file editor, admired your willingness to deal with some very difficult and near-intractable situations, and your straight-forward and transparent approach to them.  You are one of a very few admins who will enforce civility standards (others appear to believe that WP:CIVIL has been overturned and is no longer in force) and your judgment in Arbitration Enforcement is, in general, quite good.  I surely understand the frustration that Wikipedia can engender, but I think it would be distinctly detrimentral to the commmunity for you to remove yourself from that arena. I urge you to think about it, and return to the good fight when you have re-energized yourself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got to agree there that civility matters. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but it's not a matter of "fighting" (a rather un-wiki concept) but rather my realization that we as a community (or at least a substantial number of administrators) simply do not take concepts such as civility, collegiality and decent conduct in general seriously. Attempting to enforce these dead-letter policies is a fool's errand, because any block is liable to be overturned at any moment on a whim, against consensus and without discussion, by an irresponsible administrator. It's happened to me twice with respect to this user, and it's simply not worth my time to try it a third time. The Arbitration Committee will likely write another fine-sounding set of principles about how collegiality and civility is important, to exactly zero effect. Only removing or restricting the administrators who abuse their tools to interfere with the work of their more serious-minded peers would be of any use, and most arbitrators would like to be re-elected by the anything-goes teenage/undergrad majority, so I doubt that they'll pass any measures to this effect even if they were to agree with my assessment. Or we could try to seek community consensus for a policy change that potentially contentious unblocks may not be made except after discussion and with community consensus - this is how I work and how any decent administrator ought to work. But I know that there are plenty of demagogues ready to stir up fear that such a change would open the floodgates to a torrent of Admin Abuse™, so a change to this effect is also not very likely.  Sandstein   16:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * (Struck the part about not participating actively, as I think I have some input to offer about the various solutions being proposed.)  Sandstein   16:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

filer of the request

 * See also: Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence

The file of this request for arbitration, User:Chester Markel was/is the block evading sock puppet of User:John254 - Are there any precedents for what to do in cases with such a invalid filer. The request would seem to be now invalid and requires closing. Well, I wouldn't want to answer any case requested by a block evading sockpuppet. Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been made clear it's going ahead. I offered to step in as "filer" if that was needed procedurally to keep it going and was told it's not necessary. see also statement by Risker. DeCausa (talk) 15:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the case is tainted. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a case, but it seems that there could be problems with continuing with this particular case. The way I see it, there are three options -
 * Continue with this case, taking into account issues over the raising of it.
 * Procedurally close this case, and open a new case.
 * A formal proposal is made at WP:AN to ban MickMacNee from Wikipedia.
 * The views of the various Arbs and Clerks concerned with this case would be welcome. Mjroots (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this case is somehow invalid. Chester Markel's evidence produced and actions in the course of this case can and should be ignored unless taken up by other parties in good standing (as DeCausa has offered to do to an extent). There is a serious problem with MMN and it would not be right for a case accepted based on evidence provided by numerous editors, not just CM/John254, to be closed simply because one party wasn't legit. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection
In view of the recent vandalism, should the four main pages be semi-protected to prevent such disruption. Talk pages to be left open in case any IP or non-confirmed editor does want to make a valid point. Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The vandalism seems to have been short-lived (famous last words). There's possibly a case for the Proposed decision to be protected, as it should only be edited by Arbitrators and Clerks, and was the subject of the vandalism. I'll leave unprotected but closely monitor for now. Of course, any clerk who feels otherwise may protect at their discretion. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 11:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Update on schedule for case
These proceedings are presently just shy of a fortnight late. In order to keep the parties and other observers abreast of the anticipated release date of the proposed decision, I have asked for an update from the Committee, and hope to pass this information on shortly. Thank you to the parties for your continued patience, and my apologies for the infrequent communication to date from the clerks. AGK [&bull; ] 15:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As people may have observed, a proposed decision has now been posted. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)