Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/MickMacNee

False statements
As this is an Rfc on me, I will be monitoring for, and aggressively removing, any statement made which are proveably false. As such, after just a couple of hours since filing, I have had to remove the following from User:Bzuk :
 * "There have been efforts both in the past and in recent times, to moderate M's pattern of behaviour, especially in dealing with others in a civil manner. I hope that the admin who had reversed a block and had undertaken the task of monitoring and tutoring in this area, will also respond, giving an opinion as to latest progress."

This is frankly BS. Sure I have had blocks, some even for incivility, but that's it. No neutral admin has ever felt the need to moderate me after the event, and the admin who reversed my most recent block most certainly did not undertake to monitor or tutor me in the slightest, infact quite the opposite. As such, this statement is a load of bollocks, and has been removed as such. MickMacNee (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The "lady doth protest too much." Please note that User: Scott Macdonald has intervened in Block log. Please do not remove other editor's comments. I was actually trying to help here. Bzuk (talk) 16:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * is correct, please do not remove comments from other users in this dispute resolution process. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are INVOLVED up to your neck in the issues in this RFC Cirt, so I suggest you refain from making any comment at all that might be perceived as a threat of use of tools. If you have a problem with me removing lies from an Rfc about me, then you know where you can go to find an uninvolved admin to judge that for themselves. MickMacNee (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have not made a "threat of use of tools". I will not use admin tools related to this matter. I will let the dispute resolution process continue with community discussion. I will not refactor or remove comments from other users, unlike another user at this RFC, as noted above. -- Cirt (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good then, because I intend to make the removal of blatant lies about me a core part of this process, as clearly stated above. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * User:MickMacNee: you are welcome to rebut any statements made, but please do not remove other people's statements. - Ahunt (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you know what you are talking about? Making proveably false statements about another editor is a blatant violation of WP:CIVIL. Removing blatantly incivil statements is a legitimate example of refactoring. If you want to restore the material, you are welcome to, but if you do so without showing how it is remotely true, you will find yourself at ANI having to explain why you did so after I had removed it on the clearly stated basis that it is demonstrably false. MickMacNee (talk) 14:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I asked you nicely and you respond with bullying and threats, but since this RFC is about just this sort of your conduct I have to assume that you're just trying to be humorously ironic. - Ahunt (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not threaten you, and I most certainly did not bully you. These are serious accusations. I told you you were wrong, I told you why you were wrong, and I told you what would happen if you ignored me. You don't like it? You want to cry? You want to make funny posts? I seriously could care less anymore. This Rfc is as much about my frustration with having to put up with this sort of crap from editors just like you, as it is about anything else. MickMacNee (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll will just assume that your continued insults here are just your way of being even more humourous, otherwise you would have proven the RfC right here on the talk page and there would be no need to continue this for the full time period. Obviously I give you more credit than being that meagre. - Ahunt (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can make all the assumptions you like. You've made some serious allegations, you've had your reply, twice now. You can read it, ignore it, laugh at it, I seriously could not give a fuck. It really isn't my problem going forward, I am not required to indulge you any further. MickMacNee (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Troubling example of WP:POINT
What's very telling of MickMacNee's attitude was, only 1 day into this AfD and 6 days before closing, MMN stated:


 * "I hope the closer recognises this, and comments appropriately in his closing statement, otherwise, as pointless as it usually is, this will go for review."

Not only is this expressing intent of having no respect for consensus in this AfD if it didn't go his way, but he admitted that it's "pointless" to start another DRV and yet did so anyway, ironically an example of WP:POINT. A very long explanation/justification/attack in response to this is expected. --Oakshade (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this assessment of WP:POINT violation, as identified by . -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree with the above assessment. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here it comes Oakshade. I know reading it hurts your brains, and that you have real difficulty holding a conversation where you actually have to read and respond to what the other person said, but so fuck? Do you really think I have no right to reply to your posts? Anyway, like I said in my response, there will be plenty of people saying all sorts of crap in here about what I do and don't like, but I seriously won't give a toss if the views expressed are not supported by neutral parties, and these people here most certainly do not fall into that class, even though they shamelessly want to pretend they do. The above responders comprise two people who want to make up their own notability standards at Afd, and the admin who wants to close that sort of crap Afd argument with not so much as a comment in that regard. No, worse actually, he called it a STRONG CONSENSUS . And we are all still waiting for an explanation as to how the hell he can come up with such a conclusion. Cirt will apparently never ever feel the need to explain it, or justify it, as the links show. (not that Oakshade or Mjroots are intested in the slightest, the idea that him actually giving an explanation would actually help their cause, goes right over their heads it seems). So, it is with most shock and suprise, to hear that the only thing that these people can possibly think is behind my objections to their violations of policy and procedure, is that I DONTLIKEIT. Brilliant. Well done for that amazing bit of logic and stellar example of quality argumentation and refutation. It's pathetic, and it's not an attempt at dispute resolution, it's not even an argument. And Mjroot's seemingly innocent nodding dog agreement here is frankly scandalous after all the crap he has been spreading all over the pedia about what I do and don't think, behind my back, while I waited for him to file this RFC. He was not interested in doing so it seemed, preferring to carry on spreading his bullshit on other people's talk pages, so someone else has done it for him. God knows why, but here he is, pretending he has nothing to do with this apart from being an innocent commenter. That's Mjroots, the supposed admin, who is supposed to know how to conduct himself, who is supposed to know how to settle disputes. He knows nothing of the sort, just like he didn't even understand basic Afd procedure like not being allowed to withdraw an Afd if the nom wants to, but hundreds of others have already voted. If he can be that clueless about basic procedure, and this oblvious to good and bad conduct, then what else is he clueless about? MickMacNee (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here we go again, more PAs from MMN against myself. For the record, MMN, I am an actual admin, not a so-called admin. That situation came about because an editor had enough confidence in me to nominate me at RfA, and almost 100 other editors also had that confidence and thus I was granted admin privileges. Being an admin doesn't mean that I have to know each and every corner of Wikipedia forward, backwards and inside out. Now, I suggest you retract those PAs above before you find yourself on a 20th block. I will be giving my own view later, there is no immediate rush, as RfCs are open for 30 days. Unlike you, MMN, I prefer to spend most of my time improving Wikipedia rather than taking part in the various dramafests that exist. For the moment, an article I recently created is at GAR. Said article is still substantially as I wrote it, with very little input from other editors. When was the last time you wrote a GA from scratch? Mjroots (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Even as you allege I have attacked you, you insinuate that I haven't been editting enough lately to be allowed to point out that you don't understand some pretty basic parts of the policies you've been telling everyone who will listen, that I break, habitually, behind my back all over the pedia. And that was just one example. I have more. I'd love to know what the 100 people who voted you in at Rfa would think of those incidents, if you ever stood again on the basis of your actual record. Maybe your fellow admin BHG might like to weigh in on that Rfa. Or the others who have seen you make proposals like when you suggested that Afd is a one time post deal. Yup, I certainly do know you are an admin, which is what makes these failures of basic knowledge even worse, and which is how I know when you are failing to meet the required standard of conduct also, when you laughingly pretend that you know how to properly deal with a dispute like this. Again, would you like to explain why someone else had to take this RFc forward for you? You certainly had not decided to drop it, as can be pretty easily proven. Anyway, wtf do you even know about my editting? Who the hell are you to even hint that I am answerable to you in that regard? You want to know what I've been up to while not dealing with your smears? Well, you know how to check that. I would hope. I know how to track yours, as you've made it a necessity for me to track how you've been going about resolving this dispute, in your adminly ways. MickMacNee (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can smell a 20th block cooking in the oven. T ofutwitch11 ''' (T ALK ) 17:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are quite correct that I hadn't decided to drop the raising of this RFC/U. However, it may have escaped your notice that at this time of year some of us are busy outside Wikipedia. Heymid was quite within his rights to raise the RFC of his own accord, and any other editor could have done just that. In fact, it is better that Heymid did raise this RFC, rather than myself, as it stops you yelling "involved admin" the second the RFC went live. Now, where did I say above that you are answerable to me re your editing of Wikipedia? I don't think that I did. You, like all other editors, are answerable to the whole Wikipedia community for your editing. As you are well aware, I am in dispute with another editor (who happens to be an admin) over an issue. No doubt you are also aware that we are have agreed to work together over the wording of an RFC, as the issue is not restricted to its current small geographical area, but is something that can apply worldwide. Anyway, this RFC is not about my editing or conduct, you've already done that, and received plenty of feedback from that RFC. This RFC is about your editing, and your conduct at AfD and DRV. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree User talk:MickMacNee's post above here "I know reading it hurts your brains, and that you have real difficulty holding a conversation where you actually have to read and respond to what the other person said, but so fuck?" and so on is a clear personal attack and must be withdrawn or is deserving of an immediate block. As noted User talk:MickMacNee seems to be working very hard here, bullying, threatening and insulting other editors and thus proving the the point of the RfC in the first place. - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you stop harassing people. It's not helping your case, maybe if you didn't write a book every time you made a comment these discussions would go better. T ofutwitch11 ''' (T ALK ) 17:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Read WP:HARASS. If you make this disgusting allegation again, you will be getting something a little more serious than a final warning, from someone who does know these policies. This goes for you, and anyone else here who wants to continue to pretend that they are actual uninvolved admins, and wants to be telling me wtf I can and cannot say in here, not least in response to rather clueless advice like this. And I think you already know what you can do with this. MickMacNee (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm "you will be getting something a little more serious than a final warning," Is that a threat? You can't block me, I wonder what you mean by that, were you threatening me? What would you like me to do with that message, bold it? T ofutwitch11 ''' (T ALK ) 18:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ohh, and by the way, I'm not an administrator. T ofutwitch11 ''' (T ALK ) 18:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (ironic e/c)Do whatever the fuck you like with it. I can't block you, you can't block me. We can both read WP:HARASS though. MickMacNee (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

In that case, maybe you should take another look at it. T ofutwitch11 ''' (T ALK ) 18:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've read it before, several times. MickMacNee (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't you read this then. T ofutwitch11 ''' (T ALK ) 18:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As before, not again thanks. Maybe there is a policy page around here that I could point you to, which will explain to what levels of dickishness you are rapidly ascending to with these tedious repeat insinuations that I have not read this or that page, when it's pretty clear that you are not talking to a fucking n00b here, and that, your astronomical dickishness aside, it's a good bet that any editor who has evidently managed to read WP:HARASS, will have also read WP:NPA at some point in their lives. MickMacNee (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an essay on Meta about being a dick, but since you seem to have read them all I need not show you. You must not have read WP:NPA clearly enough, because "I know reading it hurts your brains, and that you have real difficulty holding a conversation where you actually have to read and respond to what the other person said, but so fuck?" is not acceptable, under any circumstances. Your calling me a Dick, I'm just trying to solve a problem, but it is hard when you won't even consider anyone else's comments. Anyone else have anything to put forward? T ofutwitch11 ''' (T ALK ) 19:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Tofutwitch11, from what I see here, whether you intend it or not, you are achieving nothing more than provoking Mick and inflaming the situation. It is clearly not going to get us anywhere, so I suggest that you just drop the stick now. Thanks. wjemather bigissue 22:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to Ravenswing
I don't know why I have to lower myself to responding to this joker, but here goes. First off, he is not a neutral party. Why he didn't bother to explain this is not hard to figure out, given much of his post is just a smear. But there we are, hiding one's level of involvement seems to be par for the course in this RFC. Anyway, to specifics of his 'post':


 * "he casts disputes over his conduct as being him fighting for what is right and just against a pack of rascals who Just Don't Get It"
 * What a load of crap frankly. In the Afd he involved himself in, I rebutted his points over and over with respect to policy and procedure. He had ample opportunity to explain to me how I Just Don't Get It by responding to those, he flat out refused. Instead, he just went on and on and on about how the Afd was invalid because the reason for deletion was an essay. This was proveable bullshit, as he was told about three times by me and others, yet he repeated it and repeated it, in a blatant attempt to poison the debate. If there is anyone on Wikipedia who has an issue with not getting it, it's him, as that exchanged proved this beyond doubt.


 * "A review of his nineteen blocks, however, tells a different tale."
 * Again, more smearing. Anyone who can find a block in my block log that is even remotely relevant to the accuastion of this Rfc, i.e. that I don't respect consensus, then let's hear it. Not a hand waving smear that Ravenswing is attempting here, but some actual proof. Frankly, the whole 'I can ignore this editor because he has a block log' is the most pathetic aaspect of this whole dispute. It really is scraping the barrel frankly.


 * "to borrow his own words - he doesn't "give a toss" for policies requiring that he not edit war, attack or harass other editors, or snow discussions down with tendentious behavior."
 * Yet more smearing. Sadly there have been some fools who have alleged that me rebutting arguments in an Afd, something which is explicitly allowed, is somehow an attack or harassment, but this is of course utter bullshit, which is why the one time someone did try to 'report' me at ANI for 'harassment' at Afd, they were rightly told where to go. If he wants to allege TE behaviour in me, how about he gives some diffs where this has been an actual finding, let alone resulting in a block, rather than just another pathetic smearing accusation like this, an attempt to play the man not the ball. And yes, he is most certainly borrowing my words, but as usual, he is not using them in the way they were used by me. Still, again, this is expected in this RFC, and as I did actually say, if this sort of 'finding' only comes from the people who want the right to make crap Afd arguments, then I really won't be giving a toss.


 * "Nothing prevents Mick from passionate defense of his POV, and certainly he need not have the same views as others on guidelines interpreted by consensus"
 * By all means, truly neutral observers of this RFC can go and look at these Afds, and judge for themselves whether the issue is simply one of interpretation, or to be more truthfull, and certainly in the case of Ravenswing, that they want to be able to simply ignore core guidelines like EVENT, in favour of lame argumentation like his 'only an essay' tendentious nonsense, or vague waves to the GNG, and if about 5 people in an Afd simply do that, they then try and call that a consensus. It's BS, as any experienced Wikipedian could tell you. Try that sort of thing with the BLP policy for example, and see what would happen. Unless you are actually counting crap arguments, or worse, just vote counting, there is no consensus to be had in any of these Afds, which unsurprisingly, involve many of the same people spouting off about those who are 'ignoring consensus'. Normally you could find an explanation of that in the closing statement ... but, oh, wait, yeh.


 * "the collaborative nature of Wikipedia requires that you lose gracefully and move on"
 * Rubbish. The 'collaborative nature of Wikipedia' requires that if you want to win an argument, you do it cluefully, by for example making proper points with respect to actual policy, and the 'losing' side should be able to understand wtf it is that your argument actally was, even if they still don't agree with it. Come on RGTrainer, pick any of these Afd's and give a specific diff where that has demonstrably been the case. You cannot do it, becuase these Afd's have not been collaborative debates at all. They have been one long argument by assertion and vague wavery, combined with pathetic smearing like you engage in here against those who see this for what it is and call it out.


 * " WP:CIVIL is not part of an a la carte menu where editors can ignore those policies they find inconvenient"
 * Again, let's hear someone other than the people fighting for their right to make crap Afd arguments actualy declare I have been incivil in any of those Afds. As opposed to this yet more predictable smearing, there have infact been plenty of neutral commenters at ANI whenever someone goes there to whine about having been asked to properly explain their positions, or just make a valid argument at all, who have made the observation that the obfuscation and general games that occur in these Afds as a replacement for proper debate, is the true violation of CIVIL that is occuring here. It is also why you won't find me ever being blocked for incivility during this whole dispute, which is why you have to talk in such wavey smeary terms, and haven't given a single diff to support a single part of your post. If anything, it's the rules on how to participate in an AFD (and now Rfc) that is the part of our rules where you, and many like you, have absolutley no shame in ignoring because they are inconvenient, so this sentence is certainly some delicious irony in being placed in here.

MickMacNee (talk) 13:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Diffs would not be hard to come by; truth be told, I believe it would be harder to find discussions in which you've contributed that you fail to insult other editors or breach WP:CIVIL than the contrary. That being said, you make my case of your complete inability (or unwillingness; the difference doesn't matter) to act in a civil fashion better than I or anyone else could.  Who would need to "smear" you when you do such a masterful job of doing so yourself?   Ravenswing  14:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

... and those insults and incivilities are just in your last 100 edits, not counting this RfC. With over 20,000 live edits, I bet I could get a few hundred diffs was it worth the bother to do so. Really, if you're going to call someone out, be slightly better prepared?  Ravenswing  18:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Surprise surprise, no diffs, and just more of the same. Please, don't even waste your breath even pretending you know what CIVIL behaviour is. You've smeared me, you've been called out for it, and your chosen response is to smear me again. Why don't you actually go and read the rules for how to participate in a User RFC, or beter yet, try and dig up some specific wording of WP:CIVIL that would even remotely give credence to the childish nonsense you have written above as a cluefull contribution to a User RFC? And seriously, where did you get the idea that anyone on Wikipedia is required to respond to this sort of utter crap with anything other than what it deserves? Much like AGF is not a suicide pact, if someone is only here just to troll, and their only defence for their own incivility is this sort of nonsense, then they categorically do not deserve any recognition beyond what you would give to a common troll. You disagree? Of course you do. Big surprise. It's meaningless, as meaningless as a troll's defence of his own trollery would be. You really want to show you have a clue about CIVIL? Then by all means, go find anyone uninvolved who thinks your post here even deserved a response. You will have as much luck doing that as you did finding a single diff to support your tedious and repeated smears of me. Just stop wasting my time even pretening you are worth responding to. MickMacNee (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit summary)


 * I think I recall asking you for a bit more than some diffs which only you believe are evidence of incivility. While you providing some form of evidentiary basis for your smears is always welcome, they do not do much to convince anyone here that your idea of incvility, is actual incivility. Hence the concept of neutral review, and the act of making the evidence match what you actually said, or rather, implied, as that was pretty much the substance of your post, one long insinuation about blocks etc. Still, including a recent example diff in this list from an Mfd which must have around 50 admins watching it though, is pretty unintentionally funny. Or am I currenly blocked for that and I just didn't notice it? MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

AfDs revamping?
Differing interpretations on how AfDs should be run, is (atleast) partially the core of the commencing of this RfC. Ya'll should've tried to have gotten a clarification from Arbcom (for example), on how those AfDs are suppose to be conducted. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want ArbCom to clarify something which doesn't have an ArbCom case (like discussing an AfD), you have to create a new request for arbitration. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 17:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm recommending that you (plural) do so. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * While different interprations re: AfD may have been the motivating cause of its filing, this RfC/U is fundamentally about MMN's behavior. How AfD's should be run is, in any case, a matter of policy, which ArbCom does not set – they primarily deal with behavior.  Still. at this point, there is no need for ArbCom involvement; that would be appropriate once this RfC/U has concluded, if there is no appreciable change in MMN's behavior. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Inside view added
I've added my inside view on the matter; see Requests for comment/MickMacNee. Hey Mid  (contribs) 10:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Here is my reply to that inside view:


 * "I and a good part of the rest of the community are not completely happy with MickMacNee's conduct at Wikipedia, particularly at AFD and DRV"
 * Actually no. A good number of the people who participate in these Afds with poor arguments are not happy. They seem to think that this is enough to demonstrate the community is not happy, but it is not. As I've said repeatedly, if you can get neutral people to agree with this view, I will take notice. But I have seen the reverse whenever these 'complaints' are put out to neutral view.


 * "My opinion is that it's perfectly OK to challenge one or several votes in an XFD, but doing so by throwing out personal attacks and/or incivility is not acceptable behavior"
 * As above, you might think these are personal attacks or examples of incivility, and the rest of the involved people who have an interest in eliminating me from Afds might also think this. Do not confuse this with the neutral view. The fact that I have not been blocked for any of these supposed attacks speaks volumes in that regard. The fact none of you ever go to ANI to report these attacks (or on the rare occasions that you do, you don't get the response you were looking for), instead preferring to just flap your gums in places like this, also speaks volumes.


 * "MickMacNee's own defense is like "the voters are making crap afd arguments", but he does not address his own behavior in a different way than saying "I'm following WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD"."
 * I didn't really understand your point here, but I am not sure why it is apparently wrong for my position to be that I am following the instructions for how to participate in Afds? If others did the same more often, maybe they wouldn't feel so 'attacked' when challenged?


 * "As soon as someone makes a WP:PERNOM or WP:VAGUEWAVE vote, he immediately starts saying "that is not a neutral vote".
 * No I don't. I say it is a poor vote. As ever, you can think what you like about that, but if you can;t find any uninvolved people to condemn me for doing so, I'm not interested. VAGUEWAVES and PERNOMS are accepted by the wider community as being poor votes, that's a simple fact. You and the people arguing that they aren't in these Afd's might not like this sort of reality, but I am through with dealing with your filibustering in that regard. It is a fact that whenever a closer has actually closed one of these with reference to the actual arguments made, they very much do give these votes the little weight they deserve.


 * "MickMacNee seemingly has a much higher requirement for notability (specifically regarding transportation-related incidents) than what the wider community agrees with"
 * Again, no. My requirement is EVENT, a guideline written by hundreds of editors based on thousands of past AFDs in all sorts of topics. Some people interested in aircrashes don't like it, and shock horror, in Afd's restricted to just those people, you end up with a contradictory 'consensus'. Anyone who knows anything about Wikipedia knows that this is not a true consensus. It is infact extremely telling to note that whenever these Afd's do come to wider attention, attracting opinions outside of the group of regular opinionators who are the ones who so desperately want these Afds to stop, and to never get reviewed, then funnily enough, the outcome often shifts from 'super speedy omfg keep keep!!' to something more realistic, like No Consensus, or wait for 6 months. And for those who don't see the difference, again, I seriously am through with dealing with such basic lack of policy clue.


 * "Sure, XFDs are not votes, but assuming bad faith just because a vote is a PERNOM, VAGUEWAVE, or lacking a well enough detailed rationale is a bad thing to do."
 * This is your spin on my motivation, which is ironically, a rather classic example of assuming bad faith. You won't find me doing anything in these Afd's except point out what is wrong with people's votes, as per the policies and instructions. You want to call that bad faith? Go for it. Again, I am not interested unless or until someone neutral can agree with this belief. Given that you don't provide any diffs for this apparent ABF on my behalf, it's going to be difficult for them to even begin to believe you, no?


 * "MickMacNee evidently is aware (see the diff's second comment) that his DRVs are a waste of the community's time, as they were all closed as "endorsed", but MickMacNee still brings them to DRV."
 * Errr, no. What I said was, "as pointless as it usually is, this will go for review [should the closer not do X/Y/Z]". And as we all saw, the closer did not do that (and I suspect, it was probably because he never even read the comment). What this comment referred to was the fact that, as a venue for actually reviewing the cluefullness/cluelessness of Afd closures, DRV has an appalling record. However, just because it is in my view pretty likely that taking a crap closure to DRV will be a waste of time in that regard, it is not a reason for me not to do it, in the vain hope that just once, someone will actually, y'know, review the closure. The fact that the 'consensus' in these DRVs are mostly pileons from the exact same people who voted in the Afds, doesn't seem to bother anyone. Although it was ironic to see that the first opinion in the very last DRV came from someone uninvolved in the AFD, although he failed at the first hurdle in not actually giving a policy based reason for his endorsement, or even worse, not convincing anyone he had even read the rationale and the Afd debate it referred to (he would have had to have been superman to have done so) Still, it was a delicious irony to then see that exact same person complaining in another DRV about how they are not supposed to be just pileons from the original Afd voters, or a collection of unsubstantiated outside opinions. I wonder what the difference was. Yes, this is the venue you want to claim is giving super strong endorsements to these closures. Ha.


 * "MickMacNee seems to be having some sort of a hate campaign against Cirt (talk · contribs). In MickMacNee's latest DRV to date, in the opening statement he said "[...]it's starting to look like it's only ever Cirt who closes these aircrash Afds - that is surely grounds for reviewing his decisions".
 * Well, it's not a surprise to see you elevate that comment into an 'apparent hate campaign'. That's a pretty disgusting smear tbh. It is a basic fact that the last few aircrash Afd's were closed by Cirt. Allowing one admin that much influence over a disputed policy interpretation is a Bad Thing. If you can disprove either of these basic facts, then let's see you do it. Otherwise, even though it's wishful thinking, the correct thing for you to do would be to strike that unjustifiably smearing opinion of yours.


 * "There has been a lot of discussion on the talk page of this page. Several users agreed that MickMacNee has continued his incivility and personal attacks there. In fact, Tofutwitch11 issued him a final warning for said behavior. At least I was satisfied that MickMacNee dropped the stick before it was too late – that's good, because Wikipedia doesn't benefit from incivility and personal attacks."
 * As above re. your ideas of what is and is not an attack (ad nauseum it seems), the 'several people' you cite are infact all the same people - the people who would like to see me eliminated from Afd because they perceive being told things that they don't like to hear, is a personal attack, or having the poorness of their Afd vote pointed out, is somehow an act of incivility. I don't know where I've supposedly dropped this stick. I wholeheartedly reject Tofutwitch11's ridiculous 'final warning', he gave me zero reason to believe he knew anything about the pages he was incessantly and ironically uncivilly 'suggesting' I should be reading, and if anything, it is he who would do well to heed the outside response he eventually got, that he said was looking for, in his attempt to help. "Wikipedia doesn't benefit from incivility and personal attacks" - and Wikipedia does not benefit from people routinely failing to understand what incivility or a personal attack actually is, and if anything damages Wikipedia the greatest, it is people like Tofutwitch11 who try to use civility as a weapon, as a replacement for reading, understanding, and responding to points made to them, in a non-sarcastic, non-baiting, non-diffuse manner. He placed that warning on my talk page, which is watched by upwards of 20 admins. I ignored it, and carried on as normal, because despite what he claims, I have read pages like WP:NPA. And here I am, still not blocked for attacking anyone. One would hope that some of you might start to take this on board and realise that just because some of you might perceive something as an attack, doesn't necessarily make it one.


 * "Regarding how MickMacNee's behavior may be resolved, some users have suggested a topic ban. It seems that prohibiting Mick from challenging any vote and bringing AFDs to DRV is the easiest solution"
 * You have frankly got no hope in hell of getting me topic banned from Afd or being put under any kind of restriction like this, if the only people you can get to support this idea are, shock horror, the people who really really don't like having their Afd votes challenged. Any admin who would dare to place such a restriction on such obviously bogus grounds, in total and obvious violation of WP:GAME, will most definitely find themselves having to explain their reasoning before the arbitration committee.


 * ''"I've also read somewhere a user suggesting a civility restriction (which means Mick may be blocked for civility breaches), but another user said that is not a good idea, as that will just lead to more blocks according to their thoughts."
 * You understanding of this restriction is flawed. Anyone may be blocked for incivility at any time (and just going by the comments in here, I should be on my 101st 'incivility block' by now). A 'civility restriction' does not lower the threshold of what is and is not incivil, it merely (theoretically) ensures active monitoring for compliance. However, because this in practice just means you get people who don't actually know what incivility is, trying to use the 'restriction' as a weapon, most right minded users see them for what they are - a completely ineffective waste of time.


 * "I'm certain that MickMacNee can become a better user on Wikipedia. I think the easiest solution to the problems is that MickMacNee takes it slow and focuses more on content contributions, rather than spending hours (or even days) on discussing XFD votes and bringing AFDs to DRV, which do not lead to anything useful"
 * Your perception of what makes a good user is certainly up for debate, and you know nothing of my content contributions to be making such remarks either.


 * MickMacNee (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * was very respectful and civil with his post, and this is how you respond to him. You said you had twenty admins watching your talk page, okay, but they did not do anything because you stopped after the final warning, no matter how flawed you thought my judgement is. T ofutwitch11 ''' (T ALK ) 14:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Heymid alleging I am running a hate campaign against another user is respectful and civil is it? What utter nonsense. I didn't 'stop' anything after your attempt to warn me, except to stop indulging you. Just listen to the feedback that you yourself requested above, and just stop. You have nothing to add here at all as far as I'm concerned. MickMacNee (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, I acknowledge that my choice of wording was not the best. Mick, I'm not trying to act like an expert here. We are now at RfC/U because I and at least some others are having concerns regarding your discussion style at AFD and DRV. Mick, regarding the FedEx Express Flight 647 AfD, as soon as you found out it had been closed as "keep", you immediately started the DRV, without even discussing the closure with the closing admin. Regarding those that are concerned over your behavior, you seem to be calling all those parties "non-neutral". I see nothing non-neutral here. Ravenswing's outside view's already received a good number of endorsements – these users agree that your behavior is disruptive. Regarding the final warning, I agree that it possibly was provocative and unwarranted. Several users, including myself, have rightly expressed that your behavior is disruptive, but your problem is that you seemingly fail to acknowledge that your behavior is disruptive. Also, if you take a look at the citations here, are you proud of what you wrote in those comments? Hey  Mid  (contribs) 15:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You started it, but do really know what RFC/U is for? It is for gaining outside opinions from people who have never been involved in the dispute, and have nothing to 'win' or 'lose' by making certain allegations about what I've been up to, and unsurprisingly, endorsing other opinions from the same group of involved people. That is what I mean when I use the word neutral, it's a widely understood concept in Wikipedia, or at least I thought it was. As for Ravenswing's status, he was involved knee deep in at least one of these Afds, and was making some of the poorest arguments I've ever seen. He knows it, and I even referred to it in my response to him above. Just because he chooses to describe himself as uninvolved, doesn't make it true. If you really do know anything about this dispute, enough to start an RFC/U over it, I would expect you to already know these things. In the same veign, I also don't expect to be asked yet again about things like why I took that closure to DRV without talking to Cirt first, when I have explained that at least four times now, once in the Afd, and three times in the DRV. Not accepting/understanding those is one thing, but acting like you've never even seen them or that I've never explained them, having drafted this whole Rfc, is starting to stretch the bounds of reality. As for your list of 'citations', I don't know wtf you want from me there. You pulled a random list of diffs, and are alleging what from it exactly? If there is a supposed pattern there, I haven't a clue what it is, and you haven't said what it is. If you want to discuss those diffs in the context of the actual discussions, I'm all ears. I have no issue defending any one of those comments, but will not be doing so in this whole childish 'what do you have to say to these!' style. So in summary no, you can allege all you want that I am 'not acknowledging' how much of a disruptive editor you think I am, but I am doing in here what I always said I would do, which is listen to uninvolved neutral parties, and ignore the ones that aren't, because I've heard all their complaints before, and guess what, nothing ever came of them when presented for outside review, most certianly not blocks or any kind of Afd restriction, and for the usual reasons - the complainers do not know what an Afd is for, they do not know what a policy backed argument is, they do not know what incivility is, and they most certainly do not know what a personal attack is etc etc etc. Outside review from neutral parties is a core part of RFC/U - this is because whether you realise it or not, they are the only people who can fairly judge whether some of these allegations have any basis in reality. If you don't like this, then find another encyclopoedia to work on, because that is how dispute resolution is done here. And while we're at it, in terms of actual formal Wikipedia dispute resolution, this RFC is the first time I'd even heard anything from you about this, and now you want me to be concerned that you aren't up to speed on who has done what, or that you want my explanations from me for doing x, y or z? Too late, far too late. You want something from me now? Well, you are going to have to make sure you do mind your choice of wording, because my back is already well and truly up now. Your mistake was to probably observe Mjroot's bad mouthing of me behind my back all over the pedia, and think that this was the first stage in how DR is done around here. But like I say, that was your mistake, not mine. MickMacNee (talk) 17:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Micky's got a point, only outsiders should be weighing in. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, MMN does not have a point. Any editor is free to give their view, whether they have previously been involved in a dispute with MMN or not. Other editors may or may not agree with the stated view. Those who do agree may choose to endorse the view. Mjroots (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think he is right in the part that RfC/U's are designed to let uninvolved editors give their outside view on the case. I think I've seen a RfC/U where there have also been "inside" views – I think that's the reason why I decided to wrote an inside view myself. I don't know, do you prefer that both inside views be restored? Also, my impression is that GoodDay's arguments are WP:ILIKEIT'ish. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 23:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest people don't get carried away with what Mjroots or GoodDay want to claim my point was, and instead read what I actually wrote. Involved opinions are allowed at RFC/U, and I certainly never said they weren't (why would I have replied otherwise?). However, this exercise is actually about dispute resolution, not continuing the soapboxing of one side over the other, and the (neutral) person who will close it eventually (if it doesn't just die a natural death) is not obliged to assume that all endorsers of view(s) are neutral or uninvolved, and will take account of that in closing. The point of this exercise is to either get me to agree to that summary, or to show at a later date how unreasonable I was in not agreeing to a summary of the properly solicited and expressed, neutral view. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to realise that if an involved editor who is merrily making their claims here about what I do or don't do, cannot even get one uninvolved person to endorse their view (let alone more than one) then it's not neutral in the slightest. While they might get a kick out of it, in reality they will have just wasted their time without attempting to resolve the dispute at all, because nobody at ANI or any future DR venue is going to take a blind bit of notice of it, and I most certainly won't be, which was the point of my post above. No neutral view = no legimimacy as a form of any resolution. These are the basic facts of Wikipedia dispute resolution. MickMacNee (talk) 01:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Mm, but you're simply going to claim that anyone endorsing a POV you don't like is involved, in a clique, has a bias, on and on and on. Come to that, you persist in numbering me amongst an Involved Clique, based on what, two AIRCRASH-related AfDs I was in around the same time? (The argument I made which you characterize so poorly was simply that AIRCRASH is not, as you repeatedly inferred by naming "violation" of it as a deletion ground, an official policy guideline, and therefore cannot be violated) I'm in a lot of AfDs; I've got a few thousand edits at AfD over the years, which is why I'm familiar with your debating antics.  Two which struck me as particularly egregious was a British Isles-related AfD and a sports AfD, and the pattern doesn't seem to change much: you hammer tendentiously at nearly every post by any editor with which you disagree, you're frequently uncivil to those who disagree with you, you act as if no opinion on how a policy or guideline is to be interpreted is valid if it opposes yours, consensus be damned, you insist that personal attacks and insults to other editors are justified because they disagree with you on such policies, and you characterize any complaint about your tactics and deportment as really stemming from these disputes; the notion that anyone could object to your conduct out of any other reason save for malice or revenge seems inconceivable to you.  Ironically enough, I voted the same way you did on one of those AfDs - and have on a number of other AfDs - but was completely taken aback by your demeanor.    Ravenswing  04:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am saying they are involved. Everything else is your hysterical and ABF interpretations of my actual comments. One Afd or ten, it doesn't make a blind bit of difference given the way you argued in it, and bizarrely, still argue, you are involved for the purposes of this Rfc. I think we can officially mark this down as the tenth time you've been told that that nomination was not based soley on an essay, and the tenth time you have suffered from a severe case of IDIDNTHEARTHAT in response. The rest of your rant is just more of the same, infact, it is so chock full of sweeping rhetoric I don't know why the hell anyone endorses anything you say. Oh yes, that's right, they want the right to be able to argue like you do in Afds, and react the exact same way you do when challenged for making poor arguments. They want, like you, the right to be wholly incivil in the way you 'discuss' a content disagreement, yet reserve the right to accuse others of being incivil, or worse. Hypocritical doesn't even begin to describe it. Arrogance is more like it. You voted the same way as me on one Afd? So what, you want a medal or something? That makes the rest of your rants OK does it? Where was this exactly, let's have a link, to see what sort of quality argument you put to that vote. MickMacNee (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone's wondering, having already responded to Mick a couple of times in this page, there's no point in doing so further. I'll certainly be happy to respond to any other editor, since everyone else writing here - both pro and con - has demonstrated an ability to do so within the boundaries of WP:CIVIL.  This is not a schoolyard, and there's no requirement for anyone to respond to repeated taunting.   Ravenswing  21:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The boundaries of civil? Are those the boundaries that allow you to ascribe motives to me based on nothing but what you claim you've seen? Are they the boundaries that allow you to carry on pretending I have made serial personal attacks, yet funnily enough, in this community where throwing out personal attack after personal attack is about as 'egregious' as you could get, nobody but yourself gives a shit? I don't know what policy you think allows that, but it most certainly is not WP:CIVIL. I don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't wondering why you decided to play the pantomime card flouncing act at all, I fully expected it. You've nothing actually constructive to say in this venue of resolution in the slightest, but by God, you are going to make sure everyone knows how awfully upset you really are that I am not going to roll over and take your constant shit unanswered, not least if you carry on pretending with posts like this that your comments are remotely civil behaviour in of itself. The reality is, if I had ever personally attacked you, in the WP:NPA sense rather than whatever defintion you happen to be using, you'd fucking know about it, and so would I, I because I would have been blocked for it. Indefinitely no doubt. But I haven't, yet. You've a long way to push me before that. But fuck me it would be worth it, for you. MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

And it's probably pointless even pointing it out, but refactoring a post after someone else has already replied to it is pretty piss poor Wikiquette. Having seen this later addition though Ravenswing, you are quite correct, Wikipedia is most certainly not a schoolyard. Wikipedia is the place where, if being completely CIVIL, one does not even think about even giving the slightest impression that you think someone else is acting like a schoolkid, for fear of disrespecting and belittling that person. The schoolyard is the place where you find that rhetoric, embellishment, flouncing, and a general hypocritical and uncnostructive attitude, is what passes for civil dispute resolution. MickMacNee (talk) 02:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal and re-addition of this view
Heymid originally added this view on 10:20, 28 December 2010, which after revisions became this on 16:54, 28 December 2010. My original reply above came somewhere inbetween those two diffs. He then removed it on 18:21, 28 December 2010, before readding it on 16:19, 13 January 2011. First off, I think it's highly irregular to reinstate a view which has been absent for so long, without even noting this has happened. But second, and more important, there appear to be significant differences between the two versions. Given it has been placed in two different places, I've had to cobble together this diff in my user space to show the changes. Anyone wishing to verify it's accuracy will have to do so themselves, or ask Heymid, but it's what I'm working from. Now, to reply to those changes:

First off, and this goes at the heart of everyone's complaints that I am apparently too verbose in here, his changes introduced yet another example of how the devil is in the detail behind this rfc. He has added the bold part to this sentence: "As soon as someone makes a WP:PERNOM or WP:VAGUEWAVE vote, he immediately starts complaining "that is not a neutral vote" or "I cannot assume good faith in this vote"." The clear allegation here is that I automatically do not assume good faith in PERNOM/VAGUEWAVE votes. This would normally be a serious allegation, likely to draw endorsements from many outraged people, but it is also totally false. I am thinking that this impression came from this gem of a tiny half quote from an Afd, which was plonked on the main RFC page as some kind of evidence of something - "I cannot assume good faith in people who try to argue an Afd by throwing out PERNOMS and VAGUEWAVES[...]". What I will do now is reproduce in full, the relevant part of that post (which was from this diff) (italics added for emphasis):

"I can assume good faith in someone trying to argue an Afd point properly, but in a content policy misguided way, but I cannot assume good faith in people who try to argue an Afd by throwing out PERNOMS and VAGUEWAVES, and then when challenged on that, pretending that those are in anyway decent arguments or per the instructions"

What had actually happened was I had quite civilly pointed out the deficiency of some poor votes, as many people at Afd do (is anyone here btw going to seriously dispute that a PERNOM/VAGUEWAVE is not considered by the wider community to be a defacto poor vote?), and then someone else tried to claim on their behalf that they were OK because WP:ATA was 'just an essay' (ironically itself, an example of ATA), and that I was "push[ing] the boundaries of WP:CIVIL, and certainly show[ing] a distinct lack of good faith in your fellow Wikipedians", which drew that post in reply. So, now you can see how extremely selective the cherry picking of that quote was from the original and you can see what it is then used to try and support, in Heymid's view. As such, the charge wouldn't stand up to scrutiny if put out there in full, and with the necessary context/detail for neutrals to actualy judge. That is why I will not be paying much attention to non-neutral responses or endorsements, or neutrals who endorse views like this, but then say they have trouble reading all the evidence or background material.

I also find another of his changes particularly insulting, where he modifies the later parts to talk about his own history, and insert the statement "Finally, as generally agreed, occasionally good contributions do not excuse bad behavior.". This user has zero, not one idea, what my contibutions have been, over my four years here (compared to his one), and he also doesn't seem to realise that this is a sentiment I've always held, and have publicly stated in many other people's Rfc's/block/unblock discussions - I have no desire for anybody to be citing anything I have done as mitigation for anything, I hate it when it happens as it only draws inferences like this from people who know nothing about my views. It's not quite as hilariously untrue as the frequent claims I have admin friends, but it is just as equally ignorant of my own wiki-philosophy. I am more interested in people properly proving the allegations in the first place, if they want to start discussing/dismissing mitigations. I also resent his implication that my editting history has ever been similar to his, or that I've got something to learn from his reformation. Unless he wants to lay out what precisely he is comparing me to here, none of that really has any place in an RFC view. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Community
Wikipedia is based on collaboration. At the moment there's many editors un-satisfied with Micky's aproach to Afd & article discussions in general. Right or wrong, Micky you're gonna have to make adjustments to your approach. If the community reaches an agreement on indef-block per WP:CIVIL or whatever else they choose, there'll be nothing you can do about it. GoodDay (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * In looking at the issues in question, it should be abundantly clear to any and every one that M will not change his pattern of challenging and asking for review of controversial articles in AFD or DRV, which is entirely within Wiki policies. What is egregious and intolerable to the community is the degrading, disparaging and incivil personal attacks. These attacks have to be challenged and addressed and if the pattern of behaviour remains unresolved, can only result in action by the community. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've briefly worked with Mick before and found him to be a... "dedicated" editor. His incivility was immediately apparent (not with me personally, but in the "situation"); and I don't think I've ever seen another editor with so many blocks. He's not a bad editor at all: but he's insufferably rude in his treatment of others a lot of the time. I'm not going to "vote" on the page because the consensus is clear. The time for compromise is coming with Mick, because at this rate his back is not getting any further away from the wall. "Nuff said... Doc   talk  10:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiments above, save for the notion that there's any "compromise" possible. Seriously, is anyone under the belief that Mick is going to clap a hand to his forehead, cry out "Oh my God, I've been so horribly uncivil, I'll be a mild-mannered editor from here on out?"  No, of course not; his demeanor in every such dispute I've seen has been hostility, intransigence, disbelief and/or counterattacks.  No promise to clean up his act to any unblocking admin has survived the next dispute.  Off2riorob's solution of restricting Mick to one comment per AfD or review is the least called for here, and I would have endorsed that if his summary wasn't so heavily slanted in the "MMN is really right, you know, and he's only uncivil because a faction of rulebreakers is out to get him" direction. If the decision was left up to me, I'd give him a six month vacation and see if that proved to be a wakeup call.  Heaven knows that after three years of violation and nineteen blocks, that's not at all an egregious sanction.   Ravenswing  18:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a good job then that you don't have that power. I've never promised to 'clean up my act' to any admin, because I've never been blocked for having an 'act'. Your accusations in that regard are just that. Any blocks I've ever got have been for specific incidents, such as rising to baiting editors like yourself. Your rant here about what 'you would do if you had the power' yet again shows how these complaints stack up when compared to the responses of actually neutral people, for whom better evidence of wrongdoing is needed than just the raging assertions from the injured party. MickMacNee (talk) 20:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * At least in this forum, knock off the "baiting", "rants" and "raging" comments, this is unseemly. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As unseemingly as painting a fantasy picture for everyone that I have somehow broken numerous promises to unblocking admins? That somehow I have ever been blocked for some sort of persistent 'act'? I think everyone needs to start remebering that you don't have to be using naughty words to be riding roughshod through WP:CIVIL. MickMacNee (talk) 01:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, let's start with that premise, treating others with respect... and have a Happy New Year, to you and yours. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC).

Add
I added a diff to the list, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/Things_people_say&diff=404312225&oldid=404310357 *Delete It's a shit list, end of story. WMC is a proven ABF battler, he lost his AGF privelage to host pages like this on Wikipedia long ago. He doesn't get it, he never will get it. The opinion of his cheerleaders in that regard is fucking worthless] T ofutwitch11 ''' (T ALK ) 16:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

My comments
I intend to comment on this RfC/U very soon. Technically, I believe I should place my comments in the opening statement section as I endorsed the original filing of this RFC. However, the RfC/U has been open a number of days now, and adding substantially to that section would be unfair on all parties. Therefore, I intend to invoke WP:IAR and add my comments to the Outside view section. For clarity, I will title my comments "Inside view by Mjroots". Mjroots (talk) 08:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The relevant view has been moved into the correct section. There is nothing "unfair" about making an additional view or separate comment in the same section - as it is clearly marked as your own view. Please refrain from misusing WP:IAR. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not very often that I do invoke IAR. I don't agree with your edit, but it's not an issue worth fighting over, so I'll leave it as it is. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Mjroots

 * MickMacNee's participation at AfD and DRV can be disruptive and even counter-productive.


 * You've complained to ANI about this several times, for months on end, yet I have never so much as even been banned from posting in a single Afd, let alone been blocked, or given a broader Afd specific sanction. You have failed, repeatedly, to get any of you fellow admins at ANI to agree with you that what I do at Afd is so 'excessive', so WP:TE, that it warrants those responses. You were repeatedly advised ages ago to file an Rfc. You never did so. To my eyes, you have singularly ignored anyone who has opined on your allegations to either disagree with your interpretation of several procedural/behavioural policies, or who even say the exact opposite infact, such as pointing out that if anyone was being incivil, it was several of the people giving poor/non-existent keep rationales in those Afds, and reacting with attacks and ABF to perfectly legitimate challenges.


 * The main problems are the continual challenging of editors who hold the opposite view to him, and the following up of responses to these challenges with more challenges. I'm not saying that MickMacNee soes not have a right to challenge a !vote at AfD, as I accept that this is an accepted practice. Where it becomes troublesome is when it becomes excessive. MickMacNee may find that cutting down on the amount of challenging actually improves his case.


 * You are not saying this? Well, you've said that exact thing quite a few times before. If you've accepted it now, it's taken you a long time to realise what everyone else simply knew was basic policy. I can challenge anyone I choose in an Afd. I can even do it multiple times. We can even go back and forth many times, as long as we are discussing the actual article, and being civil in the true sense of the word, not the 'how can I get out of responding properly here' way. It's called proper, grown up, debating. It's how consensus is actually determined. It is how you make sure people know what they are talking about, that their knowledge of Wikipedia is more advanced than being able to say 'I think this is notable'. I still doubt you even really realise this is what Afd is for, and if you don't, you cannot really give reliable advice on what is and is not an appropriate amount of challenging.


 * Mick, I stated in my RfC that I accepted that editors have a right to challenge at AfD and elsewhere, did I not? Mjroots (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Which is the whole point. That Rfc admission of what everyone else knows as basic Afd 101 came months into this dispute, months after I had told you this many times in the Afds, and even after people had told you were wrong. And even after that admission in your Rfc, you have still continued to act as if putting some form of numerical limit on challenges or otherwise invent new Afd rules for single editors was a realistic kind of sanction system, rather than just a neat way of using WP:CIVIL as a weapon in a content dispute (c.f. "to treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself potentially disruptive, and may result in warnings or even blocks if repeated.") Disruption is disruption, someone guilty of the charges you keep making can expect, as a minimum, a full Afd topic ban. As a minimum. Again, that is Admin 101. And while we're at it, what you actually said was, in reference to one of your ANI complaints, that "I accept that the general consensus is that replies at ANI (sic) may be challenged". Again, flat wrong. Your charge was that not only was I breaking some made up rule about making too many challenges at Afd, you also charged that I was engaging in "incivil behaviour, harrassment, bullying" in doing so. (I'm still waiting for anybody to be sanctioned for alleging without any justification that I am a bully and a harasser - disgusting accusations at the best of times, and unsurprisingly, defacto block worthy violations of CIVIL if repeated). That consensus of that thread was, and I quote the closer, that "the discussion found he did nothing wrong in the XfD's". I did nothing wrong, in the entirety. Yet you carried on and on asserting that you still had a valid complaint against me, because that closure somehow only referred to the technicalities of being allowed to challenge at Afd. It was actually another pretty good example of you sort of 'accepting' an outcome (while later putting a rather hefty spin on the actual, neutral consensus outcome) without actually accepting it (c.f. the IAR comments above for another example, aswell as your recent template/navbox dispute). I tried to do the right thing and give you the opportunity to resolve that through your own user Rfc, to stop you conducting the dispute in probably the most un-admin like manner one could imagine, and instead you just carried on making the allegation as your RFC 'response', and have continued to do so even after that, with you now somehow claiming that the Rfc, which after derailing was simply closed through inactivity, has vindicated you. It hasn't. And as an admin, you know, or rather you should know, the only other step in DR that leaves me. MickMacNee (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Admins are generally good at determining consensus in AfDs, and there is a mechanism in place for the rare occasion that they get it wrong.


 * Most are good, some admins are even excellent at it. Cirt got it wrong, DRV or no DRV. You disagree? Well, go and ask him to detail how he came to the view there was a 'strong' consensus in the last few Afds, bearing in mind what that really does mean in terms of strength of argument. Ask him to explain the weighting, to account for specific points raised, or to explain anything at all. Ask him about the evidence that he never even read parts of that Afd, or that in at least one before he took just minutes to study it before closing. Put yourself in the frame of mind of a doubter, and see if you get any kind of satisfactory response to the charge that he is simply vote counting, or if not, he is not giving any kind of open and disectable defence to that charge. As for DRV being a mechanism for actually reviewing such things? It works sometimes, such as in the recent Expand template DRV. But to illustrate how much of a bad job DRV does in examining these aircrash Afd closures, compare and contrast S.Marshall's comment as the very first responder in that last aircrash Afd. Compare it to how very concerned he was in the Expand DRV that closing admins should really explain how they weigh arguments, and that people who participated in the Afd should really stay away from the DRV, and that the uninvolved people who do comment in the DRV should give a policy backed and reasoned responses, in an actual reviewing type manner.


 * He also needs to accept that when the general Wikipedia community consistently argues in favour of something which is against a guideline or essay, then it is the guideline or essay that may need to be changed, rather than the consesus of the community.


 * The general Wikipedia community are not the people who are participating in most of these Afds. Most participants are either people who love to write these articles, love to read them, or hang out on those people's talk pages. When one of these Afd's actually did come to wider community attention, ironically after one of your ANI complaints, both the quality of the arguments, the consensus both true and counted, and thus the closure outcome and explanation of weighting done, was completely different to the recent unexpanded closures of these which somehow claim that there was 'strong consensus' to be found in a collection of the usual vague waves and blind assertions. On the writing for the enemy theme I mentioned in my first response, in contrast to your failed attempts to change the guidance to your preferred view expressed in the Afds, in an attempt to resolve this dispute, I even drafted a guideline that followed your thoughts on the issue, and went against my belief that the current guidance was sufficient and simply not being followed at Afd. I duly put it out there to see if it had consensus. It bombed. Now you are here pretending I have never even attempted to resolve the difference this way. It's just more of the same unsupported smear theme really, attempt to make the content dispute go away by trying to pretend the issue is with me, not the Afd's/Guidelines.


 * The above was covered at the RFC that MickMacNee raised about me. MickMacNee should have been left in do doubt after that RFC that there were issues with his editing which needed to be addressed.


 * It was an Rfc on you. Period. I am not obliged to take anything from your Rfc. Do you really not remember people telling you this? Even one arbitrator infact? It wasn't even properly closed, so why are you even suggesting it had a conclusion I should be bothered about? I stopped reading it as soon as it became clear it had been derailed, and it was subsequently closed due to inactivity, nothing else. As far as I'm concerned, those issues with your conduct, in light of you being an admin, are still very much live, particularly after you carried on with your dispute resolution approach of talking utter crap about me on other people's talk pages, and pretending you were going to file an Rfc on me 'soon'. In terms of things I need to address, I tend to take the most notice of that sort of advice from neutral, uninvolved people.


 * An accusation he has levelled against me is that I am trying to eliminate him as an opponent in AfD debates by getting him perma-blocked or banned. This is not the case. When MickMacNee was last blocked, there were many people saying "throw away the key". I was not one of them, arguing instead for a reasonable set of conditions to be enacted as a condition for unblocking. Nothing was proposed that would have prevented MickMacNee from participating at AfD.


 * Even ignoring your failure to follow even basic DR, in favour of what you have been doing so far, if your goal is not elimination, why did you come to my talk page after I was indef-blocked for something completely unrelated to 'Afd disruption', and suggest that I should be unblocked only if I was prevented from making more than one comment per person at Xfd? That looks like an opportunistic attempt at elimination to me. At every single turn, your focus has been about making this about me, not the content issue. As I referred to above, the concept of building a consensus through such a high quality, content focussed debate, in these disputes that is so strong, so logical, and so clearly laid out with reference to the actual issues, without any lame accusations like opponents simply being deletionists, that the opposition can sit back and say, 'yes, I can see what you mean, and while I don't agree, I accept it', seems to be completely lost on you. Your pattern of debate is pretty much 'xyz should be "sufficient to sustain an article here", this my personal view, that's my view, everyone's entitled to their view'. Rarely, if ever, have you even shown how this relates to actual content policies, let alone the basic purpose of an encyclopoedia, except of course, to write out N=RS*V about a million times, before going back to the play the man tactic when challenged. Where you have actually tried to made suggestions to change guidelines where you display what you think of concepts like notability, they bomb. The revised guidelines are as far as ever from your ideas, and those of people like the guy who argues until the cows come home that every accident reported on by the NTSB is automatically notable.


 * If MickMacNee has an issue with a particular admin regularly closing particular types of AfDs (e.g. aircrashes), then he should firstly take the matter up with the admin in question. If the issue cannot be settled by civil discussion, then WP:AN or WP:ANI would be the next step. It may be that a particular admin is asked to take a break from closing these, or that other admins close the discussion of their own accord.


 * I did raise it with Cirt long ago, and I basically got flipped off with a pretty incivil 'the consensus was clear, you can always take it to DRV', which is the standard non-response from those admins who are not prepared to properly justify their closures to enquirers. The Afd where I gave full warning that it would indeed go to DRV should the closer yet again not explain the closure in light of the stream of non-arguments that were piling in, was about the third one he turned up at to declare a 'strong' consensus. He either never even saw my comment, or willfully ignored it, and me. Either way, by now he did not have any plausible defence of not knowing the full history of the dispute, or that the issues were hotly contested, meaning a full explanation was not only advisable, it's what most admins would infact do, as a matter of course. Never mind WP:CIVIL, WP:BURO demanded nothing else in that situation except bypassing him completely by that stage and going straight to DRV. Was I proved wrong in my assesment of how willing he was to explain his methodology, and how pointless it would have been to attempt discussion with him? Given his (non) responses in that DRV, and again in here, I don't think so. But if I was still pissed off about that enough to escalate it though, AN or ANI is not the correct venue at all.


 * The liberal use of foul language is not a good thing either. It's not that I am offended by it - having spent over 20 years working for a national service provider I've heard all the swear words going - it's mostly unnecessary. Sometimes, a well-placed swear word can add just the right fucking amount of emphasis where it is needed. However, excessive use of foul language generally does not add to an argument, and may even detract from it. This also brings up the issue of civility. MickMacNee has shown in the past that he can discuss issues in a civil manner, and should be encouraged to do so in the future.


 * Given the evasion, hypocritical whining about CIVIL, and other general crap I have to take from Afd participants for simply telling people that no, a VAGUEWAVE is not an example of a good policy backed argument, it's a wonder I don't swear even more. While it may be counter productive, and it may upset the delicate ears of those who simply turned up to give the usual vague wave, swearing in the way I do it is not a violation of CIVIL. I can show you a vast array of WQA/ANI outcomes on me to that effect. As ever, 'excessive' is a judgement call that requires knowing what the true community view of swearing actually is, particularly in heated venues like Afd.


 * The alternative is that MickMacNee continues in the same way that he has done before. This will lead to one of three things, an indefinite block with no admin willing to unblock for a long period of time; a community ban; or an ARBCOM case and all the fallout therefrom. Mick, please learn from this RFC and change your method of participation at Afd and DRV. The patience of the Wikipedia community may run out sooner rather than later otherwise.


 * My behaviour at Afd has been consistent for months, and I remain as unrestricted now as I have ever been. You don't speak for the whole community, or even for uninvolved admins, it's as simple as that. The last time I was indeffed, for something completely unrelated to your 'pattern of behaviour' story, more admins actually supported me being unblocked with no conditions, than supported your attempt to take advantage of it and have me unblocked if I was restricted at Afd. And your evidence to persuade uninvolved admins in that attempt is the same now as it was then. RFC/U is a voluntary process. All I am obliged to do is to show I have read, and responded to, the allegations. I am not obliged to put up with any attempted rail-roading, or any whining from people who do not even know what a personal attack is. Heymid for whatever reason filed your mythical Rfc/U for you. Since then though he's not really demonstrated he knows anything about the dispute, or what an Rfc/U is for. You and Ravenswing have put your accusations out there. After a brief attempt at a defence of his, he is now awol. As for you, I've no doubt my response will do nothing for you either. So, it's pretty unlikely anyone is even going to attempt to come up with a mutually acceptable proposed closure to this Rfc. It's up to you if you want to cite it unclosed in future on that basis, it's not even clear to me you know what the difference is, but in terms of what it does and does not show, I for one know who is who in the responders, and what is what in the claims. I'll fill in any closer on that score if and when. I've nothing to fear from an arbcom case, and I've nothing to fear from a properly conducted communtiy ban proposal. Unlike Rfc/U, in all of those things, neutrality and proof of claims is not just to be expected, but enforced.


 * MickMacNee (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why can't you respond to MJroots in less than 11000 characters and 2000 words? It would be much better for everyone (and probably more effective) if you responded with a considerably more condensed argument. Writing 2000 words on the subject is basically a rant, and that doesn't help anyone. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Writing more than 2,000 words is basically a rant? Sure, whatever. I apologise if it's so hard for you to read the other side of the story. I hope you at least found the time to properly read the statements you chose to endorse. I won't enquire as to whether you did any background reading to see if they had any basis in fact, I understand how hard it must be for you. After all, the average Afd in question has got to be at least a 1,000 words. Still, we'll gloss over the fact that this Rfc is essentially about people wanting the right to participate in Afd's in 10 words or less, and have their opinions counted. MickMacNee (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While you obviously have the right to respond a 500 word statement shouldn't require a 2000 word/4 page University essay length piece to rebut. I can't believe you think every point MJRoots has made is so appalling that it needed rebutting in such detail. Responding to only the key issues with his statement would make a more concise point and one that people can read and respond to in a sensible amount of time. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you've actually been in a protracted dispute with Mjroots, how would you know what amount of detail is required to rebut his allegations? I respond in as much detail as is required to show his allegations up for what they are, based on what I have learned in the past about his unwillingness to face up to more concise feedback at the first attempt, such as "That's not what an Afd is for", or "You do not get fifty free goes to allege incivility, either pursue DR, or stop". Long gone are the days where I assumed that because he was an admin, that sort of detailed feedback was not required to bring an issue to a close with him. I am wiser now. To avoid any future wasted effort on my part, I just stick to the facts. But because this dispute has been dragged out by him for so long now, there are quite a lot of facts that can be used to show his allegations for what they are, sticking as he does to the more generalised version, which has had plenty of outings by now. What you should be more bothered about is that his more 'concise'? view is still, after all this time, pretty devoid of actual specifics, and still requires a hell of a lot of assumption on the reader's part about what he does and does not know about policy, even though his numerous misundertandings of basic policy like WP:AFD, WP:CIV and even WP:ADMIN, are all a matter of record by now. They are all out there, alongside some of his other statements he has made on other's talk pages, which I suppose he thinks don't count. That is why detailed responses are required now, now that someone has decided to try and resolve this for him. If he chooses to ignore these facts, brilliant, it will resolve this issue faster the next time. It's even better if you choose to ignore them actually, if you insist on still endorsing his view. Sorry for the length of this response too. The concise version would have just been "Believe it". MickMacNee (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I guess we have to agree to disagree. The 2000 word reply above isn't the first time you've written too much content as a reply - its just the worst such occurrence I've seen. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You can do what you like. You are certifying endorsing an RFC you cannot even be bothered to read fully. Heaven forbid you were actually named as a party in an arbitration case, if you were, you would see how much actual evidence it takes to refute 'concise' yet vacuous complaints of the sort Mjroots loves to make. MickMacNee (talk) 14:04, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At least it's a civil rant. Mjroots (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not at all "AWOL." Unlike you, Mick, I don't feel the need to write an essay in response to everything everyone says.  I realize you will either never understand this or are militantly determined never to practice it, but Wikipedia is not a battleground where you batter your enemies - and you are ever so ready to categorize those who oppose your will as enemies - into flight or surrender, or else lie yourself in a heap of the fallen.  It is where we state our positions, state why we hold those positions, rebut as necessary, and then sit back and let the debate spin out.  Take AfD for an example; the explicit intent is not as a vote or a slanging match, but to put arguments out there for the closing admin to review and act upon.  Why, then, do you so often feel the need to rebut EVERY editor with views contrary to your own, oftentimes with the exact same tagline for the exact same POV?  Wasn't your first rebuttal sufficient?  Do you think the closing admin won't believe it or notice it if you don't you repeat it a half-dozen times?  That he'll think you're not serious unless you employ insults, accusations, taunting or profanity?
 * And that's the rub. I posted my view here, a view nearly ten times as many editors have endorsed as have endorsed your official response.  I responded to your first attack. I don't feel the need to respond to every attack and slur.  Why?  Because I've said what I had to say.  Short of compiling what must be a couple hundred diffs of your incivilities, personal attacks and insults, there's nothing more I could say save for repeats of the same ... and, truth be told, you're making my case for me, just about every time you post to this RfC, better than I could.  Perhaps you have time to indulge in a daily half-hour "Mick MacNee Show."  Some of us don't feel the need.    Ravenswing  13:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Mjroots posted his view, I have the right to reply, and in actual fact, I am expected to reply. Now that's the basic rules of Rfc/U done with, to the rest of what you said. I think we've all noticed what you do and don't choose to respond to. I am shocked, shocked I say, to hear that yet again, you have a million diffs to support your rants, if only you could be arsed to go and find them. I am shocked again to hear that yet again 'I've made your case for you', as if I've ever been blocked or otherwise actioned for doing all these things you love to claim I've done. Given this is the sort of rhetorical rubbish that you class as 'debate', it's not surprising you don't stick around when someone actually responds to it. You have ten times more support in here? Whoop de dooo. If Wikipedia were a battleground, you would be 'winning' this Rfc that's for sure. Unlike you though, I know who those people are, I know what most of them have and have not said in these Afds, so I can pretty well account for their motives, and can make a pretty good call on what this represents in terms of the neutral community view. Unlike you, I have absolutely no problem getting uninvolved and neutral people to support my positions. "Do you think the closing admin won't believe it or notice it if you don't you repeat it a half-dozen times?" - my invitation to Mjroots applies to you too. If you are going to come out with stuff like this as if my whole involvement in this dispute has been a complete delusional fantasy from start to finish, then why don't you go and ask Cirt about the latest closures. You go and ask him whether he notices people pointing out vague waves, whether they do it once or ten times (and no, I don't make a habit of posting the exact same response to every person in an Afd, this is another classic example of you not really knowing what you are talking about, but having no problem acting as if you do, and calling that a 'valid discussion point'). You go and ask him if it makes a difference whether there is any debate at all, whether every vote is challenged or not. Unlike yourself, I don't tend to rely on guesswork to figure out what a closer did and did not do. Infact, given the fact that you posted the exact same incorrect 'it's an essay' response many times in one Afd, it's simply rank hypocrisy for you to be making these claims, even if they were true. Still, as ever, it's refreshing to be told by you that yet again, there is something I will never understand, that I am a militant battler who throws out all sorts of attacks and insults all the time, in violation of all sorts of policies like NPA and CIVIL. Presumably you are going to do as much about that as all the other times you have made this claim. I suppose I will rack up yet another instant block for these blatant violations because, of course, when you make a claim you've been attacked, it's true right? Or maybe not, because whenever you are talking without any real supporting evidence like you did yet again here, it more often than not turns out to be false. Oops, I guess now I am taunting you? It's difficult to know what you do and don't class as actual discussion tbh, it's difficult to even know if you are going to read and respond to this post, or yet again refuse to reply because 'this isn't a schoolyard' (I'm still waiting for an explanationg of that refactor btw). You can see maybe, or maybe not, how it becomes more than just a bit of a pointless show to just even attempt to talk to you, right? I mean on any other basis than simply responding, 'yes, everything you said was completely true' of course. MickMacNee (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm personally not very interested in AfD's. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

TLDR, is why I haven't posted here in awhile. GoodDay (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Battlefield
Having just read all of the above, I am astonished by the sheer aggressiveness and verbosity of MickMacNee's replies. In some cases, it seems that he may be making a point which may be worth considering further, but at every stage he seems to have forgotten that Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really think he's forgotten it. I think he just doesn't give a damn.  He claims outright that his demeanor and actions are justified by the excesses of his opponents ... and really, what's his incentive to change?  Take a look at his block log: over and over again, he's been blocked for incivility, for edit warring, for harassment, for 3RR violations ... and over and over again, another admin comes in to overturn or soften the block.  He has every reason to continue in a similar vein that's led to an average of a block every other month for the last three years.  Why not?  Worst that's ever happened was a week's vacation, and that only seldom before the next unblock.   Ravenswing  01:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ravenswing - you've made this claim in here already, and it's been answered already. BHG - if I have tended towards verbosity to the detail, it is because I have had to deal with generic claims like this for months now, and simple rebuttals like ('no, that is not the policy', or 'no, that is not what happened', or 'no, that was not the result of that report', or 'no, you are not permitted 50 free attempts at making that allegation') have all but fallen on deaf ears where the main complainant, Mjroots, is concerned (Heymid filed this for him, but appears not to know much either about the dispute or even RFC/U in general). Having dealt with Mjroots yourself over NAVBOXES, you surely recognise this as an issue already. With Ravenswing's post though, the necessity of me sticking to the details to deal with the allegations will once again, shortly become clear, as will the likely benefit of everybody making sure they do actually read everything here before even thinking of endorsing anything (including noting where people choose not to respond to counter-points, in this supposed venue of civil discussion, cooperation and resolution). If people do actually read and investigate everything said here, then they will notice things like, in this very post above here's a diff, to prevent the issue of his refactoring posts, as already seen above, Ravenswing has for the umpteenth time had no problem making it sound like he knows my block history inside out, certainly enough to be able to make some serious claims about what I do and don't think as a result of it, and rather more disturbingly, to allege I have been given favourable treatment from admins (when in actual fact, such favourabe treatment has been for example, the lifting of one admin's unilateral attempt to community ban me against every policy going, based on nothing but, shock horror, the exact same thing that Ravenswing keeps attempting - a fact-lite vague wave to my block log and a pronouncement of the findings of some kind of amateur attempt to analyse my psychological makeup). In actual fact though, as if his prior failures to deal with responses to those claims didn't already show it, Ravenswing shows here that he knows so little about my block log actually, that he doesn't even realise when he is talking to one of the very admins who has unblocked me in the past! Given the allegations that followed, there's only one word for it - awkward!. If I tend to be short-tempered when dealing with the same generic claim for probably the fifth or sixth time, here, there and everywhere, even when I already answered the point the first time (which is itself a pretty obvious continuous and egregious violation of CIVIL), then is it any wonder? On the issue of BATTLE though, it's pretty clear with Ravenswing's interjection here into sections like this, where his issues arguably have nothing to do with the point you raised at all, that he is the one who is less interested in dispute resolution through engagement and civil discussion of the actual supportable facts (RFC/U), and more interested in continuing to use this place as a venue for his soapboxing (BATTLE). It's not far off from simple trollery tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to Tofutwitch11
Again, as above with Heymid, this is another view that has been added, removed, and re-added on 15:40, 13 January 2011, without this even being noted on the page. I'm not even going to check if anything has been changed in the mean time this time. FWIW, I think the fact that three people rushed to endorse it within 20 minutes of it being posted, barely even time to read it properly, let alone check it for accuracy or see what might have changed from the original, shows just how much due diligence is being done in this process. I'm not going to address it in detail, because it is pretty long on unexaminable POV, and short on actual facts that can be challenged. And unlike other people's views, the facts he does cite are quite quickly and easily disproveable by third parties if they look, or are just aware of common sense practices here, such as what would really actualy happen if one admin really did try to keep all the closures of Afd in one known disputed topic as his personal domain, for one word closure. Also, the probity and civility of Cirt's attempt at resolution on my talk page - he turned up, told me the issue how he saw it, and proceeded to give advice regarding what not to do over his own actions, on behalf of the community. He completely ignored most of my reply, then in further replies simply called me deaf a couple of times, and then left. He didn't even consider the possiblity of having an uninvolved admin confirm his perception of a pattern for him, and therefore have them act as a credibly neutral giver of such advice. Never before or since has he ever answered the questions I put to him then. Tofutwitch11 might well wonder if my comments over Cirt's closure procedure are true, he prefaces it as "according to Mick", but the contrib history and other black and white evidence supporting them still exist, Cirt's answers still don't. I'm ready and able to civilly discuss these as part of a proper and respectful attempt at resolution, even if no-one else is. Other parts of Tofutwitch11's view aswell are easily dismissed too - his confusion over the line between simple annoyed but justified brusqueness/sarcasm, and incivility, and personal attacks, the assumption that warning someone indicates implied competence with judging that line, and the bringing up of the 'so fuck' comment while painting it as a reply to a perfectly civil comment from a perfectly constructive editor etc, etc. He seems to want the right to claim I ignore everybody, yet he dismisses out of had obviously pertinent essays when they are referred to him, even though their relevance was blindingly obvious. I find him simply highly hypocritical in his whole approach to discussion and civility overall tbh. He's also made it pretty clear he's not even going to get involved in the talk page now, which makes detailed responses rather pointless. A strange approach for an attempt at resolution. On the whole I am just confused how he even knows enough about this dispute to feel he can certify it, given how late he came to it (the very last DRV infact), and some of the discussions/Afds cited even predate the date he registered here. MickMacNee (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing was changed from the original. I copied it exactly. T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 21:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment re Tofutwitch's view
I would have endorsed this view except that it seeks to prevent MMN in participating at Afd and DRV at all. This is something I have consistently said is not an aim of mine, and therefore I cannot endorse this view. I agree with all other points raised. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree here. I see no reason to prevent MickMacNee from participating at AFD and DRV. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 10:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, agreed as well. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 12:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I changed it a tad, better now? :) T ofutwitch11  (T ALK ) 15:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now endorsed the view. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to DGG
DGG, as I said in my official RFC response, I'm not likely to take anything more from just yet another brief assertion of what the consensus is, and how I'm just not seeing it. By all means expand your view w.r.t. to what I said in that response, but as it stands, no, there's not much for me to take from that at the moment. Everyone also needs to be fully aware that in these Afd's, I am not here to change the consensus, as the response and the specific DRV rationales should actually make clear - there is no need for anyone to be making suggestions on how I should be going about changing something I've never said needs changing - my issue is how the actual consensus in this area is being debated/asserted/closed/reviewed in this specific topic area by people, w.r.t. both content and procedural policy, and I'm clearly not alone in having concerns. MickMacNee (talk) 15:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you realize that this is the first post you have made that is bereft of any aspersions, allusions or deprecation? I hate to invoke a Pollyanna image but if you can react this way, why not do it continually? The honey versus vinegar approach bears far more rewards, or so the sages from Disney Studios say... Bzuk (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Its also the first response that's the right length. This is how every comment should be. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the very few sentiments Mick's given on this discussion page with which I'm in agreement: that there's no exit strategy propounded. So let's work on one.  Alright, Mick ... absent any other consideration, whether or not you agree with it, do you agree that the overwhelming consensus expressed on the main page is strong dissatisfaction with your conduct?  If you don't, then this RfC has no further purpose, and those interested can proceed to other methods of resolution.  If you do, what do you propose to do about it?  If "nothing," then as already stated.  Alternately, how would you propose mollifying that consensus?   Ravenswing  17:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "absent any other considerations" - no, that's not how the closure of an RFC/U works. It might be inconvenient, it might undermine your version of the consensus, but the issue of the involvement/bias of most respondents, the presence of other contradictory views, and the various other issues I've raised as responses here, are not something that you can 'absent' from any closure here, not if you intend to get my agreement. People moving on without me is not something that concerns me at all, as explained before in the response to Mjroots. MickMacNee (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If you persist in your belief that the several dozen editors who've endorsed a POV contrary to yours in this RfC (as opposed to only three endorsing your Response, and of those, one agrees that you're pointy and uncivil and another agrees you should be placed under an edit restriction) are Wrong and you alone are Right, that's an answer. For everyone else, okay.  The chief objection of the ArbCom members who rejected the request a couple months ago was that no RfC had been attempted.  It has, now.  Next?   Ravenswing  22:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Whatever. Arbs aren't stupid, they know when someone has made a decent attempt at resolution in an Rfc, and when someone has just been stringing it out in order to give the impression of due process. MickMacNee (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and given how high the majority is here they'll probably have the same view as that majority. We don't all hate you or something... -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, well, a lot of people like to pretend they know what an arb does and doesn't do. The fact you think I would be sad enough to see this dispute in the light of some pathetic 'you all hate me' stance is franky insulting, it shows me you really don't know anything about this dispute, or what I do on Wikipedia. It's not something I would ever do, and it's not something arbs would ever even consider either. They are only interested in the facts and the evidence, such as when you've admitted you haven't really read up on this dispute, yet still want to be counted as 'the majority'. Arbs don't give a toss about the views of the 'majority' most of the time - if the majority had the ability to properly deal with a dispute every time, then there would be no arbcom at all. MickMacNee (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

You've kinda missed the point. I am more than happy to accept that some of your challenges have a point, such as this one, however because they are often over the top lots of people are unhappy about your conduct with them. Ultimately if a large enough group of people are unhappy with your behaviour it doesn't matter if you are "right" or not - especially when the issues here are to do with your behaviour not your ideas, which has been made clear in all the outside/inside views in this RFC. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Beyond that, perhaps you're confused as to the purpose of a RfC, Mick: it's for resolution of a dispute. If the sides cannot agree on a resolution, the dispute goes up the arbitration chain.  In this case, one side believes you have a pattern of uncivil and hostile behavior.  You see nothing wrong with your behavior and have expressed no intent to change it.  I asked you outright if you accepted the consensus, and if so, what would you be willing to do to satisfy it.  Doubtless positive response on your part would have mollified some or many of the forty-one editors who have expressed concerns over your conduct here.  You not only refused to provide any, you professed complete indifference as to the further chain of arbitration.  No one could have been "stringing" anything along without that refusal, without which any further action would not be warranted.   Ravenswing  18:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That 41 includes the filer who knew little about the dispute, the certifiers who added, removed, and then re-added their views, the admin who tried to unilaterally ban me, the admin who tried to advise me to stop questioning his own Afd closures as some sort of DR, the admin who thought he was allowed 50 attempts at smearing me as some kind of DR, aswell as plenty of other users whose presence here can be pretty easily explained as being anything but impartial and objective observers, once their respective histories with me are made known. Once people are shown various diffs on this page that rather undermine both the accuracy of the evidence page, and in your case the diligence of the person who wrote a view on it, aswell as even giving light on whether some people claiming they are uninvolved should have even been endorsing anything given their apparent reading imparements, then it doesn't add up to much in my view. If you want to go to arbitration on that basis as an 'unresolved' dispute, go ahead. If arbitrators can see where you've actually attempted resolution in this process, rather than simply stalled, soapboxed, diva'd, etc etc, I'd be amazed. The rest will be handled by the fact that arbitration is independent, evidence based, and examines the conduct of all parties. MickMacNee (talk) 20:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You realize the more you rant like this the more you proove their case right? -DJSasso (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 'Rant' implies it was delivered simply out of emotion or anger, and without any basis in fact. Neither of which are true. Maybe if people weren't so quick to dismiss things I say as 'rants', this page might have been more usefull than it has been. MickMacNee (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the problem there in, if you have some basis in fact it gets lost because most of what you say in your extended comments are rants that do appear to be delivered simply out of emotion or anger. You really need to stop the ranting and strip your comments down to just the facts instead of what usually looks like incivility and attacks. Once you admit that you actually have a problem then maybe this will be useful, but as long as you continue to try to shift the blame to others then no you are right its not very useful. -DJSasso (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Under the circumstances I've outlined above at least, I have no need to shift any blame here, and I'm under no obligation to 'admit I have a problem' either. I've read and responded to the views, as uncomfortable as some might find that, and that's literally the minimum required of me in an Rfc. If anything further is to happen, that does actually depend on other people's willingess to not just read, but deal with, the facts. MickMacNee (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said you were required to do anything. I think the problem here is that you seem to be ignoring facts. There is clearly an issue here with your conduct. That you continually refuse to even acknowledge them, is part of the problem. But I will stop here, since its blatantly clear that you actually want it to escalate so that you end up blocked again. -DJSasso (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've ignored nothing and I've responded to everthing, every single claim irregardless of merit, with a hundred times more care and consideration than could have reasonably been expected in the circumstances (in reference to the actual history of this dispute, which I have absolutely no doubt is still not really known to anybody but the real drivers of it). What you are talking about is acceptance. Well, bring me some some undistorted and properly contexted charges, with some neutral and well defended backing, which as part of it includes sound and undisputed evidence given here on the talk page, rather than just the drive by endorsement from a group of editors whose number right now as part of the fabled '41' includes an image copyright violator and talk page ignorer (which is the very model of an editor to take lessons on civility from, no?), and finally with some recognition at all on your and other complainant's part that in this venue, while completely voluntary for me, you are expected as part of simply normal good behaviour, to accept or at least acknowledge certain basic facts such as the ones given above, or at least give the impression of trying to rebut them, rather than completely and utterly ignoring them, then you might just get somewhere on that score, and I might get the impression that it was worth me saying anything in here at all, that there would have been any difference at all in the outcome than if I had just told you all where to go with all these selective ideas about civility and proper discourse, all the diva acts, all the general unfocused and unproductive complaining and general wasting of my time, like this very thread. That's not to mention some of the other stunts and provocations that have occured, and are still uncommented on. At the very least, if you want to have me take you seriously, then try at least to give one actual concrete example to support statements like those in your last post. As you 'seem' to me to be 'clearly' uninterested in the better side of that coin, and now you have made the absurd claim that I am apparently trying to get blocked as you take your leave, effectively, your sole input here has been to endorse a view which meets none of those criteria, and then simply call me a denialist troll, and berate me for not accepting this as an obvious 'fact'. As dispute resolution methods go, that's pretty poor, and pretty pointless. MickMacNee (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mick, is there an admin or another experienced editor who you trust enough to talk off line and allow to represent you here? It seems to me that you are digging yourself ever deeper into a hole which will end up with sanctions of some type.  Like it or not wikipedia is governed not on content or rules but on behaviour and any neutral editor looking through the record is going to say (regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the positions you take) that this is an issue.   I don't think its going to move forwards in a public forum, hence the suggestion that you and someone (maybe an arbcom member) just talk off line and see if a position can be agreed.  -- Snowded  TALK  11:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My views on offwiki communication are similar to Giano's. Any uninvolved admin who wants to get involved can post here. It's not that hard to keep people out of sections they really shouldn't be commenting in, if they wish to only talk to me. I don't need anyone to speak for me though, others have already given proper views which adequately counter some of the more outrageous accusations that have been coming in. As I've said many times, if I get blocked because people are daft enough to believe the '19 block' behavioural story, and cannot really be bothered to think for themselves or investigate the actual issues, then I don't think I'll lose any sleep over it. I have always worked on the assumption that Wikipedia isn't that collectively incompetent, if I'm proved wrong, I'll go put my time into something else. Much like I don't lose any sleep over 'losing' an Afd if the only way the other side can 'win' is by pretty ropey argumentation, appeals to vote counts, and a fair wind in who closes it and how. MickMacNee (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I hope he doesn't find any such person. The central issue in this RfC is not served by Mick finding someone to run interference so that he himself commits no further incivilities in this RfC.  After all, Mick can't be expected to do all his future editing on Wikipedia through a more well behaved servant.  The central issue is, in fact, the premise that Mick refuses to act civilly, even when doing so in this RfC would have ended - for the time being, at least - any further action to sanction or restrict him.  If he can't do so, we need to know that, and disguising this through an interlocutor is papering over the dispute. That being said, Mick still doesn't get it and refuses to get it ... if any evidence is needed, his continuing belief that being blocked nineteen times for incivilities, edit warring and 3RR violations is wholly insignificant is Exhibit A.  His laundry list of issues is irrelevant.  His attempts to explain why the views of forty-one editors should be discredited are irrelevant.  There is no free pass on Wikipedia, ever, for WP:CIVIL violations. That's what's relevant.  There's no exemption to WP:CIVIL if you disagree with the other guy on AfD; you're not allowed to be uncivil to him because of that.  There's no exemption if you think the other guy was uncivil to you first; you're not allowed to be uncivil to him because of that.  There's no exemption if you are certain the other guy doesn't have a handle on correct policy; you're not allowed to be uncivil to him because of that. There's no exemption if you're certain the other guy's a jerk who's Out To Get You; you're not allowed to be uncivil to him because of that.  And there's not even an exemption if you're dead certain there's a cabal of haters and trolls trying to run you out of Wikipedia; you're not allowed to be uncivil to them because of that.   Ravenswing  14:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And I've claimed exemption/justification for incivility when exactly? Can you actually prove this without purposefully misquoting me? Do you have anyone neutral who has actually agreed with these claims, without anything to gain from doing so, like getting me banned from Afd? Have you got any proof at all that I've ever been blocked or sanctioned for doing this? Would you like to know how many times I've actually publicly said the exact same things? (I mean, you're not likely to know where they are, are you? Even though you profess such fantastically indepth knowledge of my Wikipedia career and ethos). You need to put up or shut up frankly, otherwise this is just another rather long way of you showing that your case is just a lot of angry noise about 19 blocks!, 19 blocks!, 19 blocks! and not much else. It didn't work in the Kangaroo Court that is ANI, and it's not going to be any use in this RFC either. You may honestly and earnestly think that on Wikipedia, it's the people who think they've been the victim of incivility, who are the ones who are allowed to block/sanction people for doing so, or even act as the consensus support for such. You'd be unbelievably wrong though. MickMacNee (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Mick, we've played that game before. First you claim that no diffs of your incivility exist.  Then you claim that the diffs are quoted "out of context," as if there is a context which excuses or justifies insults or incivility.  Or you launch straw man efforts or claim that diffs demonstrating your incivilities don't really count if the editors presenting them aren't (in your sole opinion) "neutral" or "independent." But I'll tell you what.  You use terms such as "kangaroo court" quite freely and discount consensus of your incivility as solely coming from people with axes to grind.  That presupposes there are a bunch of editors out there who don't think you've done anything wrong. Where are they, Mick?  So far, in this RfC, other than yourself, there is one, and only one editor, who has endorsed your POV and declined to endorse any other's.  If they're really out there, if this RfC is nothing beyond an ambush of an innocent editor, let's hear what those who agree with you have to say.   Ravenswing  16:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

AfDs
I reckon this Rfc is related to the big question about AfDs. "Have AfDs been violating WP:DEM"?, stay tuned. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, and I think they have. The problem is that a 'local' consensus of, say, 10 or 15 editors at an AFD should not override the established consensus of many more editors, in the form of policies like WP:NOT or WP:GNG. Yet people look at the AFD and go "well, that's consensus, and consensus must be accepted". It's a problem, but I have a nasty feeling that bringing it up now could just extend this RFC to a point where no decisions are ever reached.-- K orr u ski Talk 17:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Closure
If Mick is rejecting what's been brought up at this Rfc/U, shouldn't the Rfc/U be closed? What's the point of continuing it? GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The RFC should run its course, another week or so won't do any harm. Mjroots (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Although there are nuanced differences and alternate positions, there is a lot of community support for the outside view from Ravenswing and RFC user states - While an RfC doesn't create sanctions, it may provide justification for them by collecting information, assessing consensus, and providing feedback to the subject. Sanctions may then be created separately through the administrative, community sanction, or arbitration processes.- Mick would do well to not reject this out of hand and imo needs to address and comment as to how he intends to move forward and resolve the communities comments as regards his editing patterns. Off2riorob (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'm disgusted that his view was even allowed to stand to be able to get endorsed, full as it is with incivility (of the proper kind), blatant distortions and half truths (his classic use of 'my own words' for example), and more importantly, zero actual facts relevant to the dispute, as framed. It was simply a masterpiece of empty grandstanding. His sole point of fact at all it seems, was that I've been blocked 19 times (for very specific incidents, that he's extraordinarily reluctant to delve into lest it spoil his rather more generalised case) - and he's clearly going to bang that drum all the way to the top of the hill, as some kind of 'attempted resolution'. Bring it on I say, as this '19 block' rallying call was pretty much the only basis behind the indef block which was ultimately reversed (which can't have happened according to him) and the resultant thrown out case. MickMacNee (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's time for you to find a new hobby. Said without rancour. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC).

BTW, I've noticed Micky's been behaving quite well in recent AfDs. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Again, close this Rfc/U. For those editors who might be waiting for somekinda apology from Micky or are hoping to see him begging for mercy? it aint gonna happen. Going around in circles is what's basicly occuring now. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a very good reason that the RFC should run its full course. Early closure would be another piece of ammunition that MMN could throw back in any future dispute/discussion/case. Let's not weaken our case by strengthening his. Mjroots (talk) 10:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For the reasons mentioned above, that this is not the end of this dispute, this should not be closed early, but instead allowed to run its full course. - Ahunt (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously I don't see anything else productive this RfC can accomplish, but I agree there's little harm in letting the full term go.  Ravenswing  13:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've zero issue with closing this early as unresolved. I am not a WP:BATTLER, I have never treated this dispute as a battle, and I am not going to use that early closure as a weapon, which is very much how an actual BATTLER would actually think. I don't need to frankly - I will write one closing statement summarising the things that have happened (and more importantly, not happened, in this process), and I'll reply to anybody else's, should they choose to write one. It's been pretty clear for a while now that the major actors here have never really been interested in attempting to close this properly without any conclusion other than 'yes, you are 100% right'. The contrary views, the issues raised on this talk page, and frankly everything and anything I've said, have apparently been written in invisible ink, as far as they are concerned. There's nothing to gain by pretending this will change given a further week, unless someone neutral wants to get involved (and I doubt they would actually want that at all). MickMacNee (talk) 14:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Mick. I think I'm reasonably neutral, and I'm keen to see this resolved in a way that doesn't end in unreasonable sanctions for you. I'm not sure what kind of resolution is going to be possible here, but I'd like to do my best to figure one out, if that would be acceptable to you. Can I kick off the process by asking you to summarise (fairly briefly, if possible) what your view is currently of each of the desired outcomes, in terms of 'can you/will you abide by them'. I ask this, to be clear, without any view as to whether the desired outcomes are reasonable, but simply in the spirit of trying to get a picture of whether any kind of acceptable close to this RFC is likely to be possible, and what areas still have issues.
 * 1.MickMacNee will stop bringing AFDs to DRV, and will instead leave that judgement to other users.
 * 2.MickMacNee will accept consensus.
 * 3.MickMacNee will start commenting in a more civil way, and will stop attacking other users.
 * 4.MickMacNee will abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and will follow other users' advice.
 * -- K orr u ski Talk 14:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1.MickMacNee will stop bringing AFDs to DRV, and will instead leave that judgement to other users.
 * I would probably accept a ban from DRV (or the 2 man lock you described in your view), but probably not for the same reasons as others want. I would of course like to approve the wording of any such outcome, lest it be used against me in future
 * 2.MickMacNee will accept consensus.
 * Too vague, it would need to be expanded with reference to this actual dispute. I've never had an issues with accepting a properly argued case, and how to do that is actually very well explained in WP:CONSENSUS. Other people seem to think that consensus is mob-rule of the lowest common denominator of the simplest possible understanding of policy, but that's their problem frankly. If you maybe expanded this along the lines of your view, you might get something I could acknowledge. But I'm not sure what use it would be though.
 * 3.MickMacNee will start commenting in a more civil way, and will stop attacking other users.
 * The case for this is simply not proven form the perspective of a neutral review of what little evidence has been provided, and you can't just lump in 'incivil' with 'attack' either, they're different things with quite different normal sanctions. This RFC has simply been too long on rhetoric and gaming, and too short on honest review and outside input, for this to be a realistic finding. If people want to dispute that, then let's all go to abrcom - they can bring their evidence, I'll bring mine, we'll all demonstrate in the Workshop how well/badly we understand policy etc, and we'll then see what truly independent people make of it, given the whole context, and once the involvement/interests of all actors is fully identified.
 * 4.MickMacNee will abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and will follow other users' advice.
 * I would of course agree to that, because from my perspective, I don't make a habit of breaking policies or guidelines. The 19 blocks! noise is just that - worthless noise. However, if the implication of this is that I have broken any specific identified policies/guidelines (and no, others can believe it or not, but simply waving at CIVIL is not an example of that) in the dispute described here, then see 3.
 * MickMacNee (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, well for 1, we could propose that you voluntarily accept a ban on starting DRVs but you may request another user to start one, and you may still comment on them. That would hold until you requested review of the ban.
 * I think 2 should be ignored. It is vague and hard to enforce, it ignores genuine issues with the treatment of 'consensus' at AfD and besides it would be made more or less redundant by no 1.
 * 3. I'm afraid I too find that you can be uncivil. I think we will find a resolution here difficult unless you can acknowledge that you sometimes allow your temper/frustration to get the better of you, and that this results in you arguing in a way that does you a disservice. I think you could accept this much, without any reference to your understanding of policy, and it would appease a lot of people.
 * 4. If you agree to this, then that's fine, as far as I can see. Where you have broken policies, you have been blocked, presumably? Unless anyone has any outstanding issues, perhaps all that is needed is a promise of good behaviour in the future, and we can all move on.
 * Any thoughts?-- K orr u ski Talk 15:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The rest is OK, but I'd like to hear more about 3. I have indeed lost my temper at times and been incredibly incivil - but as you say in 4., I have been blocked for that when it occurs, or otherwise been given notice from uninvolved admins. What people are suggesting here is that I am routinely incivil, that it is always ignored (or when raised by those people at ANI, the reason nothing happens is that I have 'admin friends'), or that I willfully and knowingly opt out of it in certain situations. I still think this is pretty unproven, and not very well endorsed here by independent people, but if you had any examples in mind... There's been WQA report after WQA report where the involved people have tried to claim post X or response Y was incivil, and they always come back negative when actually reviewed by independent people. Contrary to the claims made in here that I believe I am Always Right and I decide for myself when I have and have not been CIVIL, it is those sorts of negative reports and outcomes that I have always actually based that position on. MickMacNee (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. As to part 3, my guess is that not every occasion of possible incivility is followed up, so relying purely on sanctions as evidence is not foolproof. Of course, you may say that if people think you have been uncivil, they ought to follow it up, but know that a lot of people don't, and it's probably better that not everyone is quick to dash to AN/I or WQA.
 * I'm not wildly keen to trawl through all of your contributions looking for incivility. But, take just one heated AfD discussion: The way you dealt with Lugnut was surely uncivil in places. You may have been correct, but calling someone's behaviour 'idiotic' or saying 'If you simply don't know that, you don't know much tbh' are, in my view, the sort of comments that the civility policy is meant to cover. Again, further down the same discussion, you say to Ravenswing "For someone who supposedly abhors trolling, you seem to be desperate to engage in some yourself here. My block log has got absolutley fuck all to do with anything in this Afd". I think what you need to say to this point is that you accept that your debating style is often perceived to cross the line into incivility (even if not every incident is actioned), that being correct is not a substitute for being polite, and that you will make a particular effort to be civil in future, even when you strongly disagree with someone. Does that sound fair?-- K orr u ski Talk 16:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Mick, you are not routinely incivil but you have been incivil even in this forum. You have to show constraint and moderation and NO incivility should be accepted. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * For one thing, it's certainly indicative of the mind set that comments on the talk page of something called "Requests for comment" could conceivably be characterized as "trolling."  Ravenswing  16:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not referring to a comment on this talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would accept anything along the lines of "being correct is not a substitute for being polite", because, and let's get real here - nobody in their right mind is going to ever defend what Lugnuts was doing in that Afd (a 1 line dismissive response to a 500 word detailed rebuttal of his copying and pasting the GNG as a vote is arguably not civil in of itself, and it's certainly not proper wikiquette), and nobody is ever going to defend what Ravenswing did either (he was simply trolling, full stop), and I was correct in both cases, albeit impolite in the way I said it. Substitute 'idiotic' with 'not making any sense' to Lugnuts, and substitute 'fuck all' with 'nothing' to Ravenswing, and there's not even an issue here - and civility is not a weapon to be used against others to win a content dispute, that's what the policy actually says (and never mind sanctions, simple independent reporting of these sorts of incidents is pretty much non-existent, and if this is the standard, the involved reporting of it by Mjroots has been indisputably one-sided). The fact that people don't properly deal with percieved incivility in the way the policy actually recommends, by actually reporting it (or ignoring it), really isn't an issue for me. It is an issue for me when they keep banging this personal opinion drum though - Lugnuts and Ravenswing declined to raise the incivility for action at the time, that's a fact, when others report similar incidents, nothing tends to happen, that's also a fact, so in my view, with Ravenswing being the lede example of this, he forfeits any rights to later claim in here, with such sweeping statements, that I have a proven record of incivility and a proven record of disregarding it in some sort of willfull way, at all, if he is referring to these sorts of things as the cited incivility. And while the first example probably would have elicited at least a warning had it been reported (and even then, there would be the usual debate about the difference between adjective and noun usage), it would have at least put some well-overdue community light on Lugnut's Afd technique (which is probably why he never reported it), but the second one in response to Ravenswing would most definitely have not, in my experience of the community's view of CIVIL, both over the lack of support for treating 'naughty words' as incivility, and the perception of it's effectiveness when being enforced in isolation. He obviously doesn't like the fact this is how enforcement of CIVIL works both in theory and in practice, but given the specific situation you cited, that's probably understandable. MickMacNee (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Motion to close
I'm not totally sure of the correct procedure here, but I think it would be really nice to move towards a definitive outcome, rather than just letting this die with nothing to show for it but a lot of accusations and antagonism. I would therefore like to move to close the RfC under the following conditions. Mick, since your agreement with this is pretty key, it would be great if you could indicate if you are happy with my draft resolution. Hopefully it is in accordance with our discussion above. It also meets all of the requested outcomes for this RFC.

-- K orr u ski Talk 17:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * MickMacNee agrees to voluntarily refrain from starting any DRVs on his own. He may, however, file a DRV if at least one user in good standing is prepared to countersign it, and he may comment on them once started. He may request a review of this restriction on WP:AN no earlier than six months after the close of this Rfc, and no more frequently than every three months thereafter.
 * MickMacNee has always acknowledged that there is no excuse for incivility, yet on some occasions in Afd, he has made comments others have perceived as incivil. He accepts that being correct is not a substitute for being polite, and he pledges to take greater care to avoid that behaviour in the future, as it negatively impacts on his otherwise proper contribution to Afds. Editors who believe Mick has been incivil accept that in future such complaints should always be pursued via the appropriate channels, to avoid simply creating countless unexamined accusations and counter-accusations.
 * MickMacNee agrees to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

Support
 * 1) -- K orr u ski Talk 19:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) From this point on, Micky's fate is up to Micky. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) --MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Based on some honest reappraisal shown in this section, I am giving this a tentative and guarded affirmation. Bzuk (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Mjroots (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 6)  Hey  Mid  (contribs) 16:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC) (See the discussion below for my rationale.)
 * 7) Not perfect, but as close as we're likely to get. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Per Heymid. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Oppose Discussion
 * 1) This closure doesn't address the communities issues and will imo result in Mick's indefinite restriction of his editing privileges. Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) This closure doesn't address one of the key issues: "MickMacNee will start commenting in a more civil way, and will stop attacking other users". The "civil" is somewhat covered above, but the personal attacks aren't. Yes I know those are not allowed for anyone, but since they have been a huge part of the problem here, I would like to see that specifically added and agreed to. - Ahunt (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) For reasons already stated in this section.   Ravenswing  02:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there needs to be some mention of civility specifically, and a restriction to one reply per poster at AfD to stop Mick hounding people at AfD too much. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 08:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(Moved from top. Hope this is ok here, to keep things clear.-- K orr u ski Talk 19:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

I'm temprorarily putting this on hold - I'm not totally happy with the wording and wish to discuss it further. Discussion continues below. MickMacNee (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreement seems now to be reached. See below for changes made to the statement.-- K orr u ski Talk 19:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Korruski, thanks for taking this on, but I would like some final alterations before I would support this motion. As follows:


 * MickMacNee will accept a voluntary ban on agrees to voluntarily refrain from starting any DRVs on his own. He may, however, request other users to start them, file a DRV if at least one user in good standing is prepared to countersign it, and he may comment on them once started. He may request a review of the ban this restriction on WP:AN no earlier than six months after the close of this Rfc, and no more frequently than every three months thereafter.
 * MickMacNee acknowledges that he has been incivil in the past. has always acknowledged that there is no excuse for incivility, yet on some occasions in Afd, he has made comments others have perceived as incivil. He accepts that being correct is not a substitute for being polite, and he pledges to pay particular attention to civility take greater care to avoid that behaviour in the future, as it negatively impacts on his otherwise proper contribution to Afds. Editors who believe Mick has been incivil accept that serious cases in future such complaints of incivility should always be pursued via the appropriate channels, to avoid simply creating countless unexamined accusations and counter-accusations.
 * MickMacNee agrees to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and will follow other users' advice.

In the first point, it's not really a 'ban' when it's being voluntarily accepted. Also, setting time limits/appeal interval on such restrictions is standard afaik. If people aren't happy with the lengths, speak up now.

The middle point really needed expansion to take account of my previously stated views on civility, and the real context of these complaints - I think most views would support the new version.

On the third point, I did have an issue with that part of it, I just forgot to raise it. I don't see what it adds, and I see it being gamed quite easily. MickMacNee (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, those conditions are acceptable. Above all, we don't want to see ya getting indef-blocked. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * - I have replaced the text in the box to Mick's version that he appears to be willing to accept. Myself I wonder if it is enough of a restriction to help him avoid getting in exactly the same situations from the past and moving forward. The last point is just silly, all users have to do that and as such why say you will do what all users are expected to do. Also there is nothing to address his multiple to long didn't read comments in AFD discussions when he is often a single person arguing against a consensus of opposition. Off2riorob (talk) 18:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * - note - although not the most supported my option was the best and the one that helps Mick avoid the trip wire of not stating a restriction that will actually help - One comment per AFD discussion and one comment per DRV with no option to start DRV discussions at all for six months. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've restored the original so everyone can follow what's occuring, let's see what Korruski has to say first before it is re-opened. MickMacNee (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One comment per Afd has been raised and rejected already at previous venues as unworkable, iirc. Not to mention it is effectively just a ban from Afd for all intents and purposes, given what Afd is supposed to be. TLDR isn't really an issue at all, nobody's ever been blocked or restricted just for that I believe, certainly not if it's thoughtfull input, rather than just copy-paste repetition. As long as the closer shows he read it, it doesn't really matter if others choose not to as they give their own opinions (infact, in closing, those sort of 'tl;rd' dismissals of other people's opinion are supposed to count against those doing the ignoring, not the other way around). And I've never been the single person arguing against consensus in an Afd - I might be the only person challening other people's weak votes, but there are always others who have voted with me. I do have a pretty good sense of when it's snowing and I don't tend to stick around to play in it. MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing a statement of "I've done nothing wrong." His agreement is purely voluntary and binds him to nothing, and taking the word "ban" out of the mix suggests that he can repudiate it at will ... presuming that an outcome consisting of nothing beyond that Mick needs to find someone to open DRVs for him is worth repudiating.  That everyone agrees to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and that complaints should be addressed through proper channels, is axiomatic and already binding on every Wikipedia user.  Of course no grounds to oppose the action exist - Mick certainly doesn't need ours or anyone else's permission to cease opening his own DRVs - but it's not close to an acceptable resolution of this RfC.   Ravenswing  19:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with both of you that the comment about obeying policies and guidelines is superfluous but, as you should be aware, it was stated as one of the desired outcomes of this RfC. That is why it is in here.
 * Off2riorob - a restriction on number or length of comments is not reasonable, in my view. Nor will it be acceptable to Mick since his main concern here is that his comments tend to be ignored at AfD. But, if you think it is the best solution, you are welcome to try to get it agreed.
 * Ravenswing, this statement is as binding as any outcome of an RfC ever is. If Mick continues to be uncivil, then you can go to ArbCom showing you have followed the process. But what else do you want out of this? Mick begging forgiveness is not going to happen, so you have to be prepared to compromise. Yes, the agreement is voluntary, inasmuch as any agreement at RfC is voluntary. However, he is agreeing not to start DrVs without support, which I think is a big step forward. Again, if he breaks the agreement then you can go to ArbCom with excellent evidence for binding sanctions. I'm prepared to admit none of this is perfect, but I fail to see what else people want. I took care to address through the four desired outcomes in reaching this agreement with Mick, and to me this seems to meet all of them.
 * Mick - I am happy with your changes. I will swap them into my post, and re-open it.-- K orr u ski Talk 19:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've signed accordingly. MickMacNee (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * One comment per AFD is nothing like a ban, you read and watch the comments there and choose your words and make a vote comment keep or delete or whatever and you move along, you get your say and you don't upset anyone for the reasons outlined and supported by people here, multiple posting and to long didn't read. I have seen you alone and replying to everyone, you should take a restriction that is going to help you get along better or you are history anyway, imo you will be indefinably blocked in the near future under your closure. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which Afd exactly? And don't you find it really disturbing that the basis of these complaints and attempts at restrictions might have nothing more substantial behind them than I 'upset' people (again, there are many examples out there where reported incivility has simply been cases of people not liking what they are being told, and these complaints have been thrown out accordingly at WQA/ANI), or that people don't want to read long comments (length alone is not actionable)? No, the allegations here were very clear - WP:DE. Hurt feelings is not disruption, and long comments are not disruption. MickMacNee (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (multiple e/c's, to Ravenswing) If a statement like 'complaints must be addressed through proper channels' is axiomatic, why have you never done it? And no, your ABF aside, I would not be able to simply ignore this DRV restriction - should I break it, I expect a report at ANI just like any other editor breaking a topic ban. What admins do about is not in my control, but I can't see how they would not give out a block for breaking it. The 'voluntary' aspect of it simply recognises that it is not being imposed on me against my will. We'll leave out the issue of whether it's an acceptable resolution once those of us who are willing to actually attempt resolution here have finished drafting the motion, and it's put out there. Then you can oppose it to your heart's content should you wish. I'd rather you spent your time answering the many outstanding points put to you all over this page, but meh, I can't force you to do that, just like you can't force me to accept the sort of resolution you are looking for. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the last point is probably redundant, but equally, I've no issue in signing it. MickMacNee (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - This motion to close is a load of shite. Bjmullan (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I assume that means you are opposed, then? Perhaps you can add some detail to that statement so we can understand the nature of your opposition and address it, with the aim of moving this forward. - Ahunt (talk) 00:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What's a shite? GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a biblical reference; Huttites, Shites, etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bzuk (talk • contribs) 02:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment Bjmullan. I'm sure that those of us making a considerable effort to get a positive result out of this process look forward to seeing what you would propose as a means of resolution.
 * To everyone else who has commented, either way, thanks, I appreciate it. FWIW, I'm well aware that this motion isn't perfect, but I do think there's a lot to be said for having some kind of resolution which Mick himself endorses, since the alternative is imposing sanctions on him involuntarily, and RfC isn't the place for that. You could create a motion that says "MickMacNee is incivil and makes personal attacks and harassases people he disagrees with at AfD, and he promises to be better in the future" and we could all sign it, but it would mean nothing. Still, if you think you can improve on this motion before the RfC closes, I'd be delighted to see it. (Genuinely, I mean. That isn't supposed to sound sarcastic!) -- K orr u ski Talk 09:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think a restriction to one reply per poster at AfD would be reasonable. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I get where you're coming from, I just wonder if it would be hard to enforce, as the nature of an AfD means it can be unclear who exactly you are replying to, or you can be replying to multiple editors. I'm actually thinking of something along the lines of 'Mick agrees not to respond to individual AFD !votes directly, but to address any flaws in arguments by means of generalised comment posts'. Still allows him to make his point, but reduces the feeling of harassment that can build up. I don't know if Mick will agree to it, though. Mick - any thoughts? I think this is one of the main concerns of some of the people who have opposed the motion.-- K orr u ski Talk 09:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm supporting the motion to close. Whilst it does not restrict the number of times Mick may challenge views expressed at AfD, one would hope that Mick will consider carefully whether or not multiple challenges, and challenges to replies, are really necessary. I do wonder whether or not any voluntary restriction agreed to by Mick should be logged at WP:RESTRICT, just for clarity's sake - this suggestion is not intended as a punishment, but merely to allow a record to be lodged in the usual place for such restrictions. The appeal at six months is reasonable, and one would expect such an appeal to be lodged then. Should the consensus of the community free Mick from these voluntary restrictions he agrees to, one would hope that he does not return to his old ways afterwards. Mjroots (talk) 14:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, everybody needs to stop using words like 'harassment' or 'hounding' - WP:HARASS has a specific meaning on Wikipedia, and making too many replies at an Afd isn't it, infact it isn't even close (infact, let's get real here again, making too many replies in an Afd isn't against any policy). This whole idea of a limited involvement restriction at Afd has already come up before, and been rejected as completely unworkable and completely against the spirit of Wikipedia consensus building. Any restriction of the kind 'one reply per poster' is frankly, a rather blatant attempt at gaming the system. Afd is a debate, if someone makes a poor vote, someone else is allowed to highlight that. If (as has actually happened in these Afds before) someone responds to that with a 'so what' type utterly disrespectful non-reply-reply (itself a violation of CIVIL btw), then preventing me from responding to that to detail exactly what is what, is achieving nothing except distorting the debate, contrary to the established rules. It is a sad fact of life that some people seem to think that Afd is a complete free for all, that you can say whatever you like, staying as close to or as far away from content policy as you like, and your registered opinion is then as good as anyone else's. They are wrong. Wikipedia is not a democracy, not everybody gets their own equal say in debates like Afd, only the people who can demonstrate they know what they are talking about with respect to established policy get the privelage of having their opinion strongly weighted in the final closure (well, that's the theory anyway). And on Wikipedia, the way you show you know what you are talking about is by defending your position through proper discussion in this back and forth exchange (and by corollary, the way you show you don't really know what you are on about is to give sarcastic non-replies to well detailed responses to your original vote, or simply sit there and declare you've given your opinion and simply declare it's as valid as anyone else's). Upholding civility plays a part in ensuring those discussions remain productive, but another common misconception is that telling someone they are wrong, or challenging their vote, is a violation of CIVIL. It's not. Never has been, never will be. The above motion accounts for the alleged incivility at Afd. For anything that doesn't come under CIVIL, well, the process is still live, you can still use this talk page to expand on what you think this Rfc has shown. MickMacNee (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, AfDs have developed into 'voting' & 'vote counting'. If anybody had the energy, a review of how they're conducted might be a idea to tackle. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I was not entirely certain whether to support or oppose, and I would rather feel myself more comfortable in going neutral, but after rethinking, I've assumed good faith by supporting this motion. My personal belief is that this motion is a step in the right direction, and while I do agree with Ahunt's concerns, my personal opinion is that something, in most cases, is better than nothing. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 16:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems that there is a consensus to close. Mick, you could ask at WP:AN for an uninvolved admin to close if you wish. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At 8-3? I doubt it. We must be getting clos to the time-limit on an Rfc, though. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * GoodDay, it's not a requirement that an RfC/U be open for 30 days; if an agreement to close an RfC/U has been reached, there's no point in keeping it open for the remaining days. In this case there's a great amount of consensus (8 supports out of 11 !votes) for a reasonable motion. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 19:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This Rfc/U has gone stale this last roughy 3-days, so if it's closed, I won't protest. Also, note that Mick hasn't been around AfDs lately, so perhaps through practice, he's heeded others advice 'without actually admitting it'. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Mick does tend to have periods of a few days without editing, so that's not unusual. Anyway, no harm can come from asking for a closure, it will either be closed or stay open until 30 days have elapsed. Mjroots (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ncmvocalist is usually the user who closes any RfC/U. Hey  Mid  (contribs) 20:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * And now I've closed it.
 * This really is being delisted due to inactivity first and foremost; the RfC/U has received the input it was going to, and although it isn't 30 days exactly, it's pretty much 28 days since the RfC/U was created. No input has been received in the last 5-6 days in the RfC/U, and the grounds for keeping it open for the extra 2 days aren't really made out.
 * That said, the agreement has been noted in the summary and is also a reason for closure.
 * I'd like to praise the participants for working on coming to an agreement. It required a level of determination, skill and compromise on all sides, but it's really good to see that something came out of it at this time.
 * At the same time, it was unfortunate that not every single participant could support the resolution to which the 8 editors agreed. A RfC/U is a voluntary and non-binding process of coming to agreements. Some users may need to consider whether they are approaching the dispute with the right state of mind at this point in time. Good faith works both ways.
 * I wish the participants of this RfC/U the best of luck and hope the resolution brings about some good for all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)