Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop

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.

Workshop proposals with regards to unblocks
Sandstein has made the point, which I think is a valid one, that one of the issues surrounding Mick's conduct was that unblocks were handed out too easily when Mick was blocked, and I think his analysis comes across as reasonable.

However I was recently involved in a case where a user who had conducted a first time offence involving some sock/meat-puppetry, which involved only a very small number of edits including one talk page discussion and a single page of shared edits - for this they were given an indefinite block which was clearly excessive.

Then because the administrator in question refused to lose face and reverse the block themselves, even though they were unable to adequately justify it with policy, it took to threatening to take the case to Arbcom to get the matter cleaned up. This wasted vast quantities of time and energy that could have been put to something more useful. Of note I can provide diffs if needed to back this up.

While discouraging unblocks would make unblocks of popular editors less likely, which is a good thing, it would also make unblocks of less popular editors less likely as well, which is fairly clearly a bad thing.

I think a publicly visible centralised review system for blocks would be more beneficial as that would bring unblock requests out into the open and make it clearer to everyone that they need to be applied consistently across editors - that's the current system for page protections - and the ones that are discussed publicly are normally applied equally and fairly sensibly.

As there is also clearly an issue with popular editors getting their mates to unblock them, even when they know its going to ANI and thus be public and so I think a requirement to require multiple uninvolved admins (say 3) to make a decision in each case would be a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Chester Markel
I note that Risker has blocked as a sock of John254. I seems to me that per DENY his proposals should be removed from the Workshop page. They have already drawn some response, but in my view the need to deny recognition to banned sockpuppeteers should outweigh the inconvenience. Looie496 (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This is about the fifth thread on this. Arbs and clerks have already stated this will not happen. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, to be more specific, it has been stated that the case will continue regardless of the fact that the initiator was blocked. I'll leave it to my colleagues who are active on this case to decide whether or not to "close" Chester Markel's proposals, but in the interim there is nothing at all to prevent another editor from making the same proposals if the second editor believes it is appropriate, and no requirement on any editor to make comments on Chester Markel's proposals. Risker (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's already been proposed on the Evidence talk page that CMs contributions are struck through, and that has been supported by several editors. Mjroots (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a theoretical issue only. If the evidence or proposal for a ban gets struck out, I'll put them back in my name. DeCausa (talk) 07:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is fine, as you are an editor in good standing, and do not appear to have the intention of meatpuppetry in doing so. My concern is that we do not give MMN any chance to claim that the case is so flawed that it cannot possibly go ahead, or having gone ahead it should not have done so. For this reason, CMs contributions should be struck through to show everyone that they have not been taken into account. It seems that there is consensus for this course of action, and I therefore ask that the Arbs direct that this is done. Mjroots (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it's probably too late and MMN could reasonably make that claim at any point because striking contributions does not prevent the inappropriate canvassing effect which has arguably taken place - the damage is already done (and the most frustrating part is how the impatience of a single banned user has led to this situation). I'm not sure why an editor would feel a need to replace those contributions (when by his own admission, he was inappropriate canvassed with that information). I thought there was no dispute that there are grounds for this case to continue, so are the participants now saying that the case will not be able to continue if Chester Markel's contributions were not reinstated? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The only people who can decide on whether or not the case can continue are the Arbs, which is correct and proper. The case probably could continue without CMs contributions being reinstated, as the wider picture was looked at when deciding whether or not to accept the case. I would hope that the previous request for arbitration and both RFCs come into this wider picture. There is enough evidence available as to the problems with MMNs editing and interaction with other editors. Mjroots (talk) 08:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to read into what I was saying; I appreciate it. If the case could continue in that way, then MMN could not reasonably claim that there was an issue in the way the proceedings were conducted after a certain development came to the knowledge of all of the participants in the process. Obviously, some people are having trouble either comprehending (or accepting) this point, but if that's the case, perhaps there was little point in some of the involved users putting in the effort so that it could come here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's clearly directed at me. I'm sorry you feel the need to say that I haven't taken the time to read what you were saying, or that I don't comprehend it and that there was little point in me participating in this case. I don't believe that is a fair response to what I have said. DeCausa (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clearly appreciation directed at Mjroots. As to you personally, you are giving me another reason to believe you are not reading into my comments or fully comprehending what I am saying. In my comment at 09:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC), I did not say there was little point in you (DeCausa) participating in the case; the comment refers to the effort that was made before this request for arbitration was considered and before these case pages were opened, and the original reasons why that effort was made by several editors (aka to avoid any more attempted shortcuts or complaints about how the user was handled or how 'fair' the system is when it is clearly susceptible to abuse). That is why I said "perhaps there's little point in some of the involved users putting in the effort so that it could come here", not "perhaps there's little point in some of the involved users putting the effort to participate in this case". [emphasis added for clarity] I hope I have made myself clearer for you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that. I'm still sorry that you feel the need to dismiss what I have said in this manner. DeCausa (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand Ncmvocalist's points. "I'm not sure why an editor would feel a need to replace those contributions (when by his own admission, he was inappropriate canvassed with that information)." Is he referring to me? AFAIK, I'm the one saying I'll replace them, so (unless I'm misunderstanding, which I may well be, that appears to be a reference to me) but I wasn't canvassed and never said I was. Also, there's no need "to be frustrated" since no one else/few but Ncmvocalist seems to be saying that the canvassing presents such a problem. Arbs, clerks, most users are saying go ahead with CM's contributions in tact. "I'm not sure why an editor would feel a need to replace those contributions". Chester Markel put in evidence the basic problems with and history of MMN's behaviour as well as the basic proposal that he should be banned. Those of us who support that point of view simply added to that "round the edges" as there was no point repeating those core areas. If you delete that core, then obviously (from the point of view of those of us who support that point of view) that core needs to be restored if they are struck out. It's pretty obvious and pretty non-controversial I would suggest. DeCausa (talk) 09:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, ArbCom decided to accept this case based on their view of the issues in question, not because of the person who initiated it. If I'd proposed it, they would probably have made the same decision. As they would if it had been Sandstein who started it, or FT2 or any other editor. So to start with, there is absolutely no reason to discontinue the case simply because Chester has proved to be untrustworthy: Mick still behaved as he did, the parties to the case still behaved as they did, and that is why the Arbs chose to look into things.

The question of how much credit should be given to Chester's proposals etc. should likewise by dealt with by ArbCom IMO. They are the people who have to make the final decision on motions and so on, and they are quite capable of exercising that judgement while giving Chester's contribution as much credit as they feel it deserves.

So in a sense I'm saying, relax, forget the case's slightly unorthodox rootes and move on. I have every faith that the potential problems here will be dealt with. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► secretariat ─╢ 10:25, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposals by Chester Markel

 * Moved from project page


 * Proposed findings of fact

1) MickMacNee is a disruptive editor. His contributions are characterized by edit warring, incivility, personal attacks, hostility, aggression, and deliberately inflammatory commentary.
 * MickMacNee


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, per evidence. Chester Markel (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, though normally findings of this type concerning an established editor first note their meritorious contributions (which I assume MickMacNee has too) and then proceed to specify the disruptive conduct with selected diffs as illustration. Also the history of blocks and failed DR attempts would need to be mentioned, but that's standard stuff which the drafters will put together.  Sandstein   16:16, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I recognise that you are probably just setting down the jist of your proposed findings and would be happy with something more balanced being passed in the final decision; but is that not a little sweeping? Also, findings usually state the specific nature of disruptive behaviour in such findings, and almost always enclose diffs to substantiate the finding. I've no view on the actual finding being proposed here, and am only remarking on the form of your finding - not its content. AGK  [&bull; ] 16:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've updated the finding to describe the problematic behavior. Diffs and other substantiation of the claims are provided in my evidence submission. Chester Markel (talk) 19:45, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

2) Δ is a disruptive editor. His contributions are characterized by edit warring, incivility, personal attacks, disregard for consensus, and misuse of bots and scripts.
 * Δ


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, per evidence. Chester Markel (talk) 19:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

3) Sandstein's latest block of MickMacNee was adequately justified by policy and supported by consensus.
 * Sandstein's block


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, per evidence. Chester Markel (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

4) HJ Mitchell's reduction in the length of the block placed upon MickMacNee's account was effectuated without consensus.
 * HJ Mitchell's removal of the most recent indefinite block placed on MickMacNee's account


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, per . Chester Markel (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:

5) Hammersoft made a comment which could be construed as an egregious personal attack on MickMacNee, starting a heated edit war.
 * Hammersoft


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed, per evidence. Chester Markel (talk) 20:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure about the "egregious", particularly compared to what MickMacNee is in the habit of writing, but I agree that the comparison with members of a notorious hate group was a personal attack. (Not that this justified edit-warring about it or making recriprocal attacks.)  Sandstein   16:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Better wording would be Hammersoft made a comment which MickMacNee construed as an egregious personal attack on himself, starting a heated edit war. Mjroots (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

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.
 * Proposed remedies

1) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 * MickMacNee banned


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Chester Markel (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but needs to be complemented with an effective restriction prior to his return to editing, along the lines of Kirill Lokshin's proposals.  Sandstein   16:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Agreed per Sandstein. The latest incident leading to an indef. block reduced to 72hrs, discussed at AN/I (and not to mention his reaction) has got to be the final straw and is a microcosm of why MMN shouldn't be involved in WP. As Jimbo Wales said about that last diff, this "seals the deal for me...there comes a time when it is best to walk away with dignity, and to allow people to walk away with dignity.". Despite being coached by ScotMac on his Talk page he has behaved in this Arb pretty much as he always done. There is no hint of regret, retraction or apology in anything he's written. In fact he's set out his manifesto pretty clearly: "I can be perfectly calm and reasonable if others are talking sense". Talking sense=agree with me; I can be perfectly calm reasonable=I have the right not to be if you disagree with me. No change there. If he comes back after the year there needs to be some additional protection/assurance for the community that it's just not back to his previous incorrigible behaviour. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

2) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 * Δ banned


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * Not an appropriate proposal in this case; this was clear even before we realized who Chester Markel was. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Chester Markel (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The suggestion above by Chester Markel seems to be completely outside the scope of this case. Perhaps a clerk could have a quiet word with Chester Markel so that he can learn how to conduct himself more calmly and patiently on ArbCom pages. Mathsci (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * At the direction of arbcom, delta has been added as a party to the case. Therefore, my evidence and proposals concerning him are within the scope of the case. While your advice has been duly noted, I respectfully disagree. Chester Markel (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Chester Markel still seems to have misunderstood the scope of this case, judging from the evidence he has provided. On WP:AN. after posting this proposed remedy, he appealed to other users to provide evidence about the conduct of Betacommand / Δ "over the last several years". That request was removed by Risker. Mathsci (talk) 15:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The notice was removed on the basis of a claim that, notwithstanding the language of Canvassing describing a single, neutrally worded notice posted in a neutral location as "appropriate notification", non-parties to an arbitration case should not be contacted regarding it in any manner for any reason. It had nothing to do with my evidence or workshop proposals exceeding the scope of the case. Chester Markel (talk) 16:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be treating this case as if it were Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee and/or Δ. Mathsci (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the evidence added on Δ is off point. Just because Δ is a party doesn't mean the entirety of his behaviour should be reviewed. I think it would be helpful if the arbitrators clarified this as otherwise a whole raft of irrelevant evidence, proposals etc will just confuse the issue. DeCausa (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The entirety of MickMacNee's behavior over the last several years is being examined, not just recent incidents. It would be unfair not to apply the same standard to Δ, whose history of participation has been no less problematic. That the case is named after a particular user is not conclusive as to its scope. Chester Markel (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, this case would only review Δ's behavior to some unquantified extent, requiring another case for everything else. It doesn't seem like a particularly efficient use of resources to have to examine Δ's conduct twice. As the issue is going to be coming to arbcom sooner or later, we might as well get this over with. Chester Markel (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a different issue and you didn't mention it in your Request for Arbitration. If you had, I would have opposed it. DeCausa (talk) 22:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This just seems like a poor attempt to use someone else's arb case to push a ban on Delta. Delta is a controversial user and there are a fair number of people who'd like him banned, but this is a very sneaky attempt at gaming the system imo. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Chester Markel was a sockpuppet of a banned user: he has now been blocked indefinitely by Risker. His mechanized manner of editing, using only AWB, never adding any content, did look a bit odd. His wikilawyering combined with wilful escalation and disruption in this ArbCom case were even more worrying. On a number of occasions he has made requests on noticeboards for particular users to be banned (Mindbunny, Orangemarlin, MickMacNee and Betacommand). In view of his pivotal role in orchestrating this case, can it in fact still proceed? Mathsci (talk) 07:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * While Chester Markel initiated the case, many other editors provided commentary that also supported the opening of a case; all of these discussions would have been borne in mind when my colleagues chose to accept the case. Just as in other discussions, the participation of a banned user does not inherently taint the entire proceeding; for deletion discussions, consensus minus the comments of the banned user is assessed, and in this situation the arbitrators base their acceptance decision on the totality of all of the presentations made. You will note that I did not vote on acceptance, and I have elected to be inactive for this case (I anticipate that the proposed decision and voting will take place when I am taking a scheduled break from arbitration duties); hence my comment in this section. Risker (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying this. Thank you also for acting speedily as soon as you suspected that something was not quite right. Mathsci (talk) 07:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

3) Sandstein is thanked for the willingness to control disruptive editing reflected in his latest block of MickMacNee. Administrators are advised to refrain from reversing blocks until agreed by the blocking administrator or clear consensus is shown for unblocking.
 * Sandstein commended


 * Comment by Arbitrators:
 * As I said above, we are not going to examine the events of November 2010 in this proceeding. Kirill [talk] [prof]


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Chester Markel (talk) 20:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * @Kirill: revised to reflect only Sandstein's latest administrative action with respect to MickMacNee. Chester Markel (talk) 21:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Commendations or admonishments are seldom helpful. Agree in principle with the second part but may propose something about this separately.  Sandstein   16:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * I would phrase this rather as "Administrators are advised to refrain from extending or shortening blocks until clear consensus is shown for such a course of action." With no commendations or finger-wagging either. Carcharoth (talk) 01:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if even that phrasing is necessary, particularly when it seems the cause is generally limited/due to an individual admin (and friends). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to do this. Can't we just chill out about the two of them. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This commendation is unwarranted. It is unclear why it has even been mentioned in the remedies. Mathsci (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

4) HJ Mitchell is reminded that the reversal of blocks unilaterally or without sufficient consensus disrupts Wikipedia and creates the need for lengthy arbitration cases, and is requested to take greater care to ensure community support for unblocking.
 * HJ Mitchell reminded


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Chester Markel (talk) 20:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * The case was already in progress. Arguably it was Sandstein's use of an indefinite block that dragged more people into the case. If the 72-hour block had been left to expire, or an indefinite block discussed before being imposed, I doubt any of the additions of new parties to the case would have happened. Carcharoth (talk) 01:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we really need to do this. Can't we just chill out about the two of them. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This reminder is unwarranted. Mathsci (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Carcharoth (and this point was noted during AESH case). Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the targetting of Sandstein and HJ for their specific actions, but I think a general "reminder to all admins" about wheel warring is warranted. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

5) Hammersoft is reminded of the need for civility and avoidance of comments which might reasonably be construed as personal attacks.
 * Hammersoft reminded


 * Comment by Arbitrators:


 * Comment by parties:
 * Proposed. Chester Markel (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In view of his apology I agree with Carcharoth that no action is needed in this respect.  Sandstein   16:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment by others:
 * Your proposed findings neglect the full explanation, apology and withdrawal he made of that comment. Given that, I would say no remedy is needed here. I wouldn't even have added Hammersoft as a party to the case. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It was unhelpful to suggest this as a remedy. Chester Markel himself made the second report to WP:AN3 after this RfAr had been approved. He made no attempt to discuss matters with Hammersoft and, as a Carcharoth has written, has not given an accurate account of Hammersoft's actions. Mathsci (talk) 15:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Block log annotation
Some of the comments on the workshop page (about looking at the context of blocks, so as to understand the significance of a block history) prompt me to point out that I recently created a means to annotate block logs. See VPR. There is a certain tendency, particularly at moments of drama, for a block log's significance to be judged primarily by length, regardless of context or age or cause of older blocks. This is like judging the strength of a legal case by weighing the paper it's printed on. Rd232 public talk 11:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Change to the blocking policy
I've suggested a change to the blocking policy which requires the blocking admin to be contacted in some circumstances. Comments are welcome. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:25, 21 June 2011 (UTC)