User talk:MickMacNee/Archive/2011

Rfc stuff

I outdented your recent comment, thus making it easier to read. Hope ya don't mind. GoodDay (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy, happy

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 08:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!

File:Verre de whisky.jpg

Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia!

HeyBzuk (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/WikiScotch}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 16:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of SARTRE at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Safe Road Trains for the Environment

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

DRV of Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124

I have asked for a deletion review of Kingfisher Airlines Flight 4124 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 20. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Mick, I edit conflicted with you at DRV. Since the article was deleted, the DGCA in India have issued their Final report into the accident. Amongst the four recommendations are changes to information passed to aircraft by ATC. Mjroots (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Lee Crooks

Hello! Your submission of Lee Crooks at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Calistemon (talk) 04:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Lee Crooks

Gatoclass (talk) 10:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Refs

Hi Mick, I saw you added this para to the England national football team manager article. As the article is currently featured, could you add a reference to cite those numbers you've included? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not right this minute no. Wht's so special about the numbers? I consider the numbers as ucontroversial as the rest of it, which was not cited as I don't consider it particularly open to challenge, per WP:CITE, which is the only standard, FA or no FA as far as I'm aware. MickMacNee (talk) 16:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do it. Thanks anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities

Hi MickMacNee. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of YouTube celebrities (4th nomination), your input is sought at Talk:List of YouTube personalities#RfC: The criteria for inclusion on List of YouTube personalities. There are disputes over who should be and who shouldn't be included in the list. Cunard (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 7 Day Sunday

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC) 03:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Chris August and Starry Night (song)

Several days ago I suggested an alternative to these articles that you reviewed for DYK. Would you please see if your concerns have been addressed? Royalbroil 03:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. MickMacNee (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Vickers Wellington LN514

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Channel 4's Comedy Gala (2010)

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Channel 4's Comedy Gala (2010), and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.ticketstub.com/events/channel-4s-comedy-gala.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) VWBot (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Healey

Materialscientist (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

And I had been told....

And I had been told that you had dropped your previously arrogant and aggressive style. Sadly it appears not.

That clause seems totally trivial: if Platini is asked a question by a half-witted journalist, or maybe an intelligent sly journalist, he might be polite enough to answer, but that does not make the exchange encyclopaedically relevant. BRD is not an accepted policy, and your editnote was not a meaningful rebuttal of the grounds that I gave for the deletion. Kevin McE (talk) 21:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd describe it as clear reasoning myself, in the face of a false rebuttal. Kevin McE (talk) 22:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I didn't say that you had said that BRD was a policy, and yet you imply that I (and, for some reason best known to yourself, the membership of WT:FOOTY) should consider ourselve constrained by it. Kevin McE (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Aircrashes

Hi Mick. Re your comments at ITN/C re recent aircrashes. You say that these get created from the initial rush of news reports and then abandoned. While the first part may be true, the second is an illusion. As you know, aircrash investigations take time, over 8 years in one case that I know of. Yes, aircrash article get created when they are recent. Doing it this way has the advantage that sources are easier to find. After the inital creation and corrections, things do tend to go quiet, but that doesn't mean that the accident has been forgotten. Until the final report is published, there is often nothing more to add to the article. Once published, then the article can be updated and corrected as necessary. Anyways, it's not all recent aircrashes. MilborneOne and me have been busy creating articles of aircrashes from the 1920s to the 1970s, as well as sorting out the UK aircrash list. Mjroots (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If an aircrash is truly notable, then no, it doesn't all go quiet until the report is published. There would always be intermittent coverage. That's the core difference between notability and news infact. The fact that you seem to see no issue with creating the article straight away from the immediate news, and then also see no issue in updating it from the primary material of the report if that's all there is, is the basic issue. At no point do you ever ask the basic question - am I writing this article because I can, or because I should? Is it truly notable, or am I just adding to an ever burgeoning collection of RECENTISM? And if you really have been writing about crashes from the 1920s to the 70s, if you have been using only proper sources which show real lasting WP:EVENT type notability, rather than some poor or completely involved source like the ASN or simply resorting to searching for the contemporary news sources and just replicating the process of what happens today for current crashes, then I cannot understand how you really don't get the difference at all. If you are doing it properly, you simply wouldn't be able to write as many articles from a particular year in history as are being stuffed onto the project for 2010 and beyond. It's so obvious it's unreal, which is why those Afds full of blind assertion are so utterly disgraceful. Go and find that Afd where I presented an example of an almost exact duplicate of the crash that was being asserted as obviously notable, from history. It was a near perfect match, just from 30 years or so previously. If you can write about that using proper sources and produce something that nobody could ever hope to disagree didn't pass EVENT, then I would be convinced. But I seriously doubt you could. MickMacNee (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

ASN has been no help with the early crashes. Anything before 1943 or so is only covered in ASNs wikibase, thus being in danger of failing WP:RS immediately. However, Flight and The Times have proved invaluable in researching these, along with a few other sources. You are quite capable of finding my articles should you so wish. Mjroots (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Flight is hardly independent - as always, the bar at which they choose to and to not write about an aircrash is different to Wikipedia. To support info, it's fine, to support notability, it's clearly not. And if you refer to The Times newspaper, as I said, if all you are doing is delving into archives so you can use the contemporary news coverage, then you aren't really doing anything different to what's occuring now, and aren't really satisfying EVENT at all, not the lasting aspects certainly. MickMacNee (talk) 21:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

But I'm not just using those sources to get contemporary news coverage. They are used to cover inquiries and reports into accidents. The first mid-air collision of airliners is obviously notable (not one I created), but what about the first mid-air fire; or an accident that was the first fatal accident for the airline involved, and which led to the first public enquiry in the UK into an aircraft crash (and the expansion of a major airport serving London); or an accident in which one of the Bentley Boys was the only survivor? Are you saying that we should not be covering these because they have not been covered in books on aircrashes? Mjroots (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously telling me these events have not been covered by books? You know full well what the kind of crashes are that I've got an issue with, and it's certainly not any of those examples. Not even close tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

AFAIK, the firs mid-air collision got some minor coverage in one of MacArthur Job's books. Other than that, very little has been published for aircrashes occurring before the start of the jet age. The Comet accidents are probably the oldest that have received significant coverage. Mjroots (talk) 10:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Picture for Isner - Mahut

If you want illustrate, picture from the match of isner mahut (the quality is good but not of the top) :

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Isner%E2%80%93Mahut_match_at_the_2010_Wimbledon_Championships

They come from : http://www.flickr.com/photos/voodemar/5535146798/ were you find more picture by Voo de mar

They are present in the french page.

I tell it to you because you are the principal contributor of Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships. Mamiejeanjean (talk) 19:04, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've added the scoreboard image. If you ever want to add images, it's not that hard - this is the code for that addition. See WP:IMAGE for general help. MickMacNee (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Behaviour on ITNC

You seem to be annoying a lot of other editors on ITNC, it is not acceptable to use ITNC as your personal battleground over and over again. You made a very good point when you said that ITN should be removed from the front page, however it isn't acceptable to "force" that to happen now we are making progress by battlegrounding. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Iraq War#Not over

Who exactly were you addressing that comment to? Swarm ^X 02:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Castles in ...

Hi, I saw the page move from castles in the United Kingdom and Ireland to castles in Great Britain and Ireland but doesn't Great Britain commonly refer to the biggest island in the British Isles? There are castles on Anglesey and the Isle of Man for instance which are included in the topic but not under that title. !Castles in the British Isles! works only if you consider Ireland to be part of the British Isles and given the whole British Isles naming controversy involving Arbcomm that's a can of worms I was hoping to avoid. Hence why "UK and Ireland" was chosen, although as you pointed out it is somewhat anachronistic. Do you have any suggestions regarding the best name for the article? Nev1 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Other than tacking on 'and related islands' onto the end, no, not really. I think the title is more accurate when it refers to 98% of the land mass, rather than when it refers to 25% of the time period. MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a fair point. "...related islands" feels a bit clunky, but I suppose it's more accurate. As it's Hchc2009's article I'll bump it along to him. Looks like I gave some dud advice. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I could live with either version; I suspect that my own slight confusion as to the precise definitions of GB, UK etc. will be shared by the typical reader of Wikipedia, so provided the title gets across the general theme of the article, I think it will work! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Gabby Logan

See Talk:Gabby_Logan#86.161.97.4

But - next time, can you a) use {{helpme}} or {{adminhelp}} here, on your own talk page, and b) if it is 'sensitive' please email the oversight team instead (fast response), Special:EmailUser/Oversight (to avoid undue attention).

Many thanks for alerting people,  Chzz  ►  12:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have email enabled. I was using the talk page to record the history for future admins. MickMacNee (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; no problem. It's just we prefer to deal with helpme/adminhelp on user talk pages, because it is a direct dialogue between the helper and helpee, as opposed to being about the article - e.g. this discussion - hence doesn't really belong on the article talk. Not a problem though. Thanks again, 13:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

British Isles

Howdy Mick. I'm still convinced that LM & LB are socks. However, those SPAs have stated repeatedly, that they'll leave the British Isles issue alone, if the other side stops with their attempts at deletions. GoodDay (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Socks are irrelevant, the issue is infested with somethig far worse - game playing and wiki-experienced meat puppets. The labels are quite apt - in real life, the worse thing you get from socks is a smell, and they are easy to deal with - a bit of sniffing out the culprit and you're done. When there is rotten meat in the equation however, evne the smell of it gives you a sour taste in the mouth and a sick feeling in the stomach, and rather than wanting to seek it out for cleaning, you get a complete aversion to going anywhere near the place where the meat might be, lest you get galloping gut rot. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

There's need of 'atleast' a 1-year ban for the adding, deleting or replacing of 'British Isles'. Also, HighKing has got to move away from his obsession. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

AN/I

I probably should've been more discrete with my inquiries than ask you for clarification at AN/I. My intent was not to draw you in to some protracted debate, I was sincerely looking for information. Apologies if my questions have made your Easter stressful. Thanks for your patient replies as well. Tiderolls 16:37, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, more than happy to. If more unvolved admins like yourself actually took an interest when these reports surface on ANI, and dealt with more than just the easy catches, then this disupte wouldn't have festered for half as long. I'm having a pretty good easter as it happens tho :) MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Further; do I understand correctly that the naming conventions are being drowned in a battle of sources? Tiderolls 16:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I think its pushing it to even say there was a convention. BISE came up with the startling conclusion that having a source is better than not having one, which is where LM is now coming from. For the situations where there are sources on both sides though, BISE more often than not simply regressed into 20 pages of rehashing frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Dreadfully sorry!

Oh, Mick, will you ever forgive my error in thinking the piped link [[Elizabeth II|Queen Elizabeth II]] was actually [[Queen Elizabeth II|Elizabeth II]], as it was when I first fixed it here? It seems to have angered you so much. I do hope you are okay. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Probably not. Not least as such basic mistakes are hardly the worst thing wrong with your editing now is it? MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

That all depends on who you ask, I suppose. I am fallible and can't please everyone. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd be amazed if you pleased anyone here tbh. Have you ever put yourself up for editor review? MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had 6+ years of editor review on Wikipedia.

BTW, for whatever it's worth to you, I apologise for the sarcastic tone of my OP here. It felt right at the time, but now it just seems cheap and childish. I'm sorry. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Wedding of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine Middleton

Under which right do you remove the tag? Highly seen or not, if it doesn't respect the rules, then there has to be a ribbon. I don't have enough time to do it myself, but you do seem to have. → Kind Regards, Lppa ^{Let's talk about it!} 20:20, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

My right as an editor, that's what. I'm sorry, but there aren't any rules here that say such a non-urgent and frankly unimportant tag has to stay on an article if someone thinks it's not needed. And why should the thousands of people reading it have to suffer its eyesore just because one person thinks there's a problem? By all means, if you want it restored, find a consensus at the talk page. MickMacNee (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

your a dick

stop trying to ruin a highly viewed page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.160.121 (talk) 16:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales on Daily Mail

Good call. Thanks for telling me. Wikipedia's changed too fast since I became an admin in 2007. --Deryck C. 21:00, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It's changed massively. It's just a shame the Afd process hasn't kept pace, and poor or invalid arguments still pretty much rule the roost, even for biographies. If the debate hadn't been landslided by those, we might have had more time for further debate, and you might have learned even more about where I was coming from - as an editor who having only been an editor since 2007, has only ever seen policies and Afd instructions that state that in those debates, BLP considerations and serious and encyclopeodic coverage comes first, subjective disagreement over depth/significance comes second, and tabloid interest/page hits last. Anyway, that's the theory. The practice will probably have to wait a good few years longer yet. MickMacNee (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MickMacNee. You have new messages at Talk:2011 World Snooker Championship.
Message added 22:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 22:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MickMacNee. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 05:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

World Championships at ITN/C

I wish I could be surprised at a long rant that merely displays that my comment (which merely said that the fact of an event being a world championship does not make it ITNworthy, as some contributors seemed to be suggesting) was scarcely read. Kevin McE (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What did I get wrong exactly? You queried the assumption, and so I felt duty bound to have a rant about the validity or otherwise of the assumtion. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

But you didn't address the assumption that a World Championship, per se, is ITNworthy, you went off on one about your perception and assumptions about the relative popularities of the sports mentions. Kevin McE (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Delta

I'm not sure it would be productive, given that the thread was about my own conduct as an admin, and not about the legitimacy of the edits I challenged. If you think it's relevant, feel free to post diffs, but the NFCC issue isn't my axe to grind, since I said before that I could really care less about the images on the article. It's obvious I'm not going to get him to stop, and anything more effort is going to make me look like I was insincere. I was serious when I said I don't hold ill will, and even though I agree with you to a point, it's not a contention I want to make anymore. bahamut0013^words_deeds 18:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

You're free to do what you want, but as I said at the ANI, there's a well trodden playbook at work here, and win by attrition/fait accompli is very much a part of it. In terms of ideology, the deck is certainly stacked, so it's the people who want to build a good encyclopoedia using non-free content where justifiable, as the EDP mandates, have to work twice as hard, as the zeal runs deep in those who hold the ideal that Wikipedia must be free at all costs. I would just say that if you thought it important enough to say on people's talk pages, it's worth preserving in the 'official' archive - as talk page discussions in this area have a habit of being forgotten about, and this incident is probably already being written up as another instance of Beta being unfairly treated or victimised as he fights the good fight against evil-encyclopoedia destroyers like yourself. And whatever you did or however you feel, you know that's fundementally not true. Believe me when I say, everything that's happened here, was straight out of 2009, and even earlier. If not on the ANI page, then I suggest a private mail to arbcom, as you are still an admin, and they are theoretically supposed to be keeping a track of his conduct, given as he is supposedly on his last last last chance to demonstrate that he Gets It. MickMacNee (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint, but the last thing I need is to jump on that bandwagon right now. bahamut0013^words_deeds 19:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

ah dear...

User:Seb az86556/Joe Sixlegs. Cheers! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

LOL. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Hammersoft. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

• As if your incivil templating of another regular wasn't enough justification for completly ignoring the warning, I'll simply remind you that I am fully entitled to comment on the contributor where their actions and conduct is going against policy and have been highlighted and indeed even sanctioned in the past. As ever, there are various things you can do if you believe you are being unfairly criticised, but also as ever, that's not a one way street. You've been fortunate with the closure of that latest ANI report with no real examination of the latest repeated patterns in your behavour, so I suggest you rest on your laurels and make hay while the Sun shines. Don't irritate me further with such templating as it might force me to start investigating things like just which sanctions or measures you still are or aren't obligated by, as you know full well your new account name or the misdeeds of the other party is of no relevance in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Pippa Middleton

Please read Pippa Middleton: Global sensation before you make any further AfD nominations. Further disruption will not be toleratd. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

If this wasn't an attempt at sarcasm, then all I can say is wow. I advise you to read WP:RS and WP:GNG before making any more postings like this, that's for sure. As you're an admin I won't embarass you further or put this out for further scrutiny by your peers than you have already just done by posting it here, by going into the detailed implications of what you've just asserted with this message, suffice to say, RS & GNG aside, if you believed your link contains sources or information I either wasn't aware of or hadn't taken account of before filing that Afd, or indeed weren't already in the article, you're flat wrong. As such, your allegation of disruption is most certainly rejected. MickMacNee (talk) 15:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your removal of the family business info from the article on Pippa Middleton. This partial merge, whilst a discussion is still ongoing on the subject, is WP:DISRUPTive. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A move of solely business related material from Pippa's article, which did not mention Pippa at all, over to the empty business section of the Middleton family article, is what you class as disruption is it? MickMacNee (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That's good to know. I hope others agree with you, as I reject your accusation completely. MickMacNee (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm still flabergasted over the fact that article passed 2 AfDs. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

ITN and consensus

If you want admins to do a better job of posting stuff commenting on this discussion I started on HJ Mitchell's talk page might well get results along those lines in the long run. I agree with you that its an issue, but there's only so much stuff that can be challenged in a short time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

Blocked from a template talk! You really need to try harder. Sarah777 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

?

I'm not sure if this was intended as a piece of reconciliatory humour, but I'm afraid if it was it's a bit unlikely to have the desired effect, don't you think? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, I think Sarah has quite a finely attuned gallows humour about her in these situations, and would have appreciated the spirit of the link. I'm sure out of all the things she imagines I've done to her, this wouldn't rank very highly on the scale of outrage. MickMacNee (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:British Isles

Template:British Isles has been protected to allow for discussion of its title. It has been possible to change the title of this template on a page-by-page basis. Titles that have been used on different pages being:

• British Isles
• British-Irish Council area
• Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands
• British Isles — or Great Britain, Ireland, and related islands

A user has raised the question of whether this practice is a violation of NPOV.

A list of alternative solutions (aside form those being reverted between) is invited also. --RA (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/I notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Please kindly provide me with the link to ANI where you commented about me. Bearian (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, it was AN. It's still up. MickMacNee (talk) 03:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

... and you'll be blocked for disruption if you open it again. WP:RFC/U is thataway... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you read my talkpage before posting, you'll know to keep discussions in one place. Of course, I say "discussion", but since I see very few pieces of actually factual information that you posted on my talkpage, or even anything that remotely resembles reality (or anything I said), the word "discussion" might be a stretch. The article was kept; get over it ffs. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I could give less of a toss about your talk page procedures right now. You see what you want to see tbh. BLP violation on the Main Page. Fact. Refusals to offer any editor or argument as a single example. Fact. Belief a Yahoo blog was evidence of coverage. Fact. Stating he believed my objections were probably a "joke". Fact. I'll get over it. A pity you don't seem to have a clue that it's not me it harms if the article is kept. You'll probably get over it too, as I'm damn sure I won't see you or him anywhere near the articles ever again. You won't be burdened with having to explain to the masses of fuckwits and retards who arrive at those pages wanting to add all sorts of shit, armed in no small part with that Afd outcome and the various degrees of keep arguments, all of which combines to be a pretty fucking vague picture as to what is and is not considered in depth significant reliable coverage of this subject. Fucking hell, it's even got a great big DYK tag on the talk page now, displaying for all the world what we thought was a briliant source to link to from the Main Page, the tabloid hit piece with one line about the 'fact' it supported from the article. Triggered straight after that closure. Fact. MickMacNee (talk) 22:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Mick, I am in complete agreement with you. However, I am also almost at the point of blocking you for a bit foryour own good. Please calm down. Wikipedia is sometimes screwed up, and sometimes we can't fix it. Flogging dead horses doesn't tend to help. Live to fight another day.--Scott Mac 23:17, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm calm. It can be fixed, simply by adhering to the rules and norms that already supposedly exist here. That's the most depressing aspect of all this. Seriously, you'd think I was talking bloody Martiain the way some people have been acting in this whole thing. MickMacNee (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

comments

We are dangerously close to being in agreement on a number of BLP/tabloidish issues at the moment. (Probably a bad sign for both of us). However, a word of advice from an old BLP warrior (who does not always follow his own advice) - learn to pick your battles. That there should not be an article on James Middleton is self-evidently true. That there isn't a consensus to delete is also true. The closure of the AFD was disappointing, and showed a deep lack of imagination and subtle understanding. It is, however, a reasonable close, and a great many admins would have closed it the same way. You will not win that one.--Scott Mac 15:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's self evident at all. Imagine what it would look like if all tabloid crap and random trivia was removed, you can't seriously tell me that's what you think is a biography? There's no way in hell that that Afd closure is anything but complete nonsense if we're talking in terms of cluefully weighing of the actual arguments and evidence against policies and guidelines like RS & BIO, let alone on finer issues like NTEMP. It was a bad closure made by what increasingly looks like an inclusionist and/or out of date admin, with no real concern for BLP at all it seems. And yes, a good many admins would probably also make the same mistake. Doesn't make it right. But I'm not as concerned about the closure as about Bearian's complete refusal to acknowledge as simple fact what any good admin should know is unarguably true about their roles here - they should be able to explain your reasoning w.r.t policy. If he can't, and if nobody else is concerned, I think that's far more serious issue needing resolution from the very top. MickMacNee (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Re-opening of a WP:AN

Until and if you get elected an admin, never, ever re-open a debate at any AN thread, or XfD for that matter. It's considered the worse incivility, and beyond your powers. You can insult me all you want, but don't mess around with the process. Bearian (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you fucking kidding? Are you really trying to take the fucking piss here? Don't you dare, don't you even think about lecturing me about civility. You, you who refuses to explain an Afd closure that led to a Main Page BLP disaster, trying to tell me what is and is not civil. You've got some goddam nerve you really have. Get the fuck off my talk page and go and fix the fucking mess you've left on the pedia. That is if you even give a shit. MickMacNee (talk) 15:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

And hold the fucking phone, "beyond my powers". Beyond my fucking powers? Are you seriously going to claim you know policy better than I do? You, who thought a Yahoo blog summarising Daily Mail coverage was evidence of notability? I spit on your 'powers' frankly. I hold your "powers" in contempt. You, who is so confident in his "powers" you won't put yourself up for reconfirmation. You, who has no problem 'trusting' users whose Afd rationales are dismissed elsewhere as nonsense by other admins, users who don't give a flying fuck about placing a DYK on the Main Page with a massive great BLP violation. I don't fucking blame you in refusing to be examined. I can fully understand how acting like a clam has become normal for you. You can count yourself fucking lucky I don't have the 'power' to prevent your violations. MickMacNee (talk) 16:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, admins have no more or less right to reopen debates than anyone else. There are lots of good reasons for not opening a debate - it can at times be disruptive or horse flogging, but it certainly isn't incivil in and of itself. Admins earn and don't demand respect, and RESPECT MAH AUTHORAH has really no place on Wikipedia. Other than the fact admins have some special buttons, they have no more rights here than any other user - actions are either good or bad, helpful or unhelpful. The status of the person performing the action is neither here nor there. God complexes are unhelpful. NB I'm not saying reopening a debate is always a good thing, and I've not commenting on whether it was justified in this instance.--Scott Mac 19:29, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well-said Scott. I personally don't give a shit who re-opens a thread, unless the long-dead horse has started to rot. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry that I upset you. Please be well. I'll get some feedback at AN/I about refactoring. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

That's more than enough

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:35, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to figure out what this block is specifically for. The above section? "General disruption"? NW (Talk) 16:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

MickMacNee/Archive (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've been blocked by BWilkins for doing nothing but criticising an admin he apparently admires [4] and could not stand being questioned on AN, and reacting to said admin coming to my own talk page and lecturing me like I'm some kind of cunt. While I'm flattered at the suggestion that by merely replying to that sort of provocation on my own talk page might constitute block worthy site wide disruption, it's bullshit. I had already complied with BWilkin's rather dubious threats to not reopen the AN thread which he edit warred to resolve himself having already commented on, so this block is clearly some kind of extra pay-back. I've got no objection to this block if an uninvolved admin is prepared to take ownership of it and re-impose it, but as imposed by BWilkins, let's not pretend it's something it's not.

Decline reason:

I've reduced the block to 24 hours. I can't see any legitimate reason for such a long block, for what appears to be nothing more than "you disagreed with me" and the non-existent offence of "non-admin opened a thread on an admin board". I've left the 24 hour block in place for civility; while I personally disagree with the civility policy except in extreme circumstances, I recognize that it has broad acceptance, and there seems to be a general concurrence on the AN thread that 24 hours is a legitimate block. I've marked this as a "declined unblock request" for procedural reasons, since some element of the block is still in place and this allows you to appeal that part as well should you so choose. – iridescent 17:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I need a break from this nut house, so I can live with that tbh. MickMacNee (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

+Moral support. Mr. MacNee - people do see this sort of thing; it doesn't go unnoticed. I've no idea if it can be 'fixed', but still; at least one may take comfort, perhaps, that there is sanity out there. Sort of. Almost.  Chzz  ►  01:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

{{uw-3rr|United Kingdom}} I'm putting this up now Mick, you know that a consensus was reached, you know you should use the talk page, and you should know that you don't determine policy --Snowded ^TALK 15:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

VPP?

Hello, MickMacNee. How are you? I have not fully read the debate on it as yet but I noticed your edit summary on the UK page when you made a change. What does VPP level consensus mean? Carson101 (talk) 15:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The Village Pump policy discussion page - a place where a wide number of experienced editors discuss ideas of general site wide importance as they relate to policy interpretation. MickMacNee (talk) 15:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You never know till you ask. Carson101 (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

United Kingdom

Had my proposed sentence, "United Kingdom is a country, consisting of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales" been adopted, there would've been no need for any footnote. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Yup. I wish I'd seen the whole farce unfolding at the time, could have been nipped in the bud quite easily with some clue hammers. MickMacNee (talk) 01:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's called "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", the clue is in the name.--Scott Mac 17:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Great clue!? It's not called "United Kingdom and the country of Northern Ireland". That would be much more clueful :-) The question as far as I with my very limited english language skills understand it is, whether Northern Ireland is unanimously called a country or if there should be any hint in the article text that this is not the case. It seems to me as if the article text is not fully NPOV and as if the solution to balance this POV is a strange footnote which doesn't balance anything at all. --Adornix (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you really think about the logic of that you've got a pretty good point there Scott. Why replace "and Ireland" with "and Northern Ireland" if you were not replacing one country with another? Wikipedia isn't the real world - only a fool would say that it is in its present state imo - but deep-down and in a societal sense, we all surely know that the UK simply created two new countries out of one when they split Ireland into two. Whatever NI was called, it was meant to be the equivalent in status of the other three British unified countries - just as Ireland was before it. NI from the start had to be as devolved as possible just to be run properly, and 'province' was probably a diplomatic term as much as anything. Splitting Ireland into two countries wasn't exactly a painless process.

IMO, using the progressively-used "country" over "province" only really genuinely upsets people who also see NI as the 'six lost counties of Ireland', and feel they are due at some stage to get it back - like it's an Irish Hong Kong. They can't accept that the area was made into a consistent country of a sovereign state. The area had been of a predominantly British Irish (rather than pure Irish) identity for centuries, which is why the UK kept the part of Ireland they did: they were never ever planning to give it back. They simply split one country into two countries: although reading Wikipedia you would never get that from reading NI-related articles - NI on WP is rarely presented without reference to the Irish or its troubled history. Polical compromises like dual citizenship are a consequence of years of 'the Troubles' (and a happy one) - not a step towards returning NI to Ireland for unification. As Simon Schama put it in his recent UK history (in reference to reuniting Ireland); "What would they do with all the British"?

Wikipedia needs to stop giving such a platform to nationalists, and draw respect for sovereignty into its guidelines. Sovereingty/nationalism should never be an inherently 50/50 thing in weight. Look at the United Kingdom first-line 'footnote' now - it states that 'country' is politically controversal, rather than just one of a few all-unofficial terms that are used. Nationalist politics in the first line of the United Kingdom article? Completely outrageous surely, but try just removing the political bit and see what happens.

One problem I can see Mick, is that your heavily-written insistence that there should not be a footnote at all (and with almost no-one present supporting you as far as I can make out) could prevent a reasonable discussion on what a decent first-line footnote should actually contain. I would like to start such a discussion up (centering it on removing the unsuitable politics), but would like your feedback on my doing it first. Would you continue to argue that there should not be a footnote at all? And could I convince you that it best to allow a footnote to happen smoothly, and to focus on properly weighting its content instead? I appreciate that footnotes are part of overall article weight, but that could be dealt with accordngly, after the footnote is in place. I don't find the idea of a footnote totally unreasonable in the matter of UK naming: it could actually solve a number of problems, and a good deal of the never-ending UK/IRE debate. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a note, but is it not the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", so when they changed it from "and Ireland" to "and Northern Ireland", they weren't replacing countries? --HighKing (talk) 00:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

If it's purpose is to do something as regards NPOV, such as present and refute different cases, then it cannot be a footnote. The policies are clear on that, per the texts I gave in the 'policy position' section. It really is absurd for anyone to argue that presenting the NPOV is something that would be considered too distracting to be included in standard text. It's absurd infact. Just try and find any article that is of recognised quality that actually does this. Check out Barack Obama. Check out Gibraltar. There are hundreds of articles out there with controversial or disputed terms or phrases in the lede that don't have footnotes hanging off them left right and centre. If I have to make this a whole Rfc issue before people will realise that, I will. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that UK/IRE is full of anomalies - like it or not (and it's a 'not' in my case) it is simply accepted by admin and arbcom that it we live in a 'special case'. Bending rules is written into Wikipedia to allow for this kind of thing (warranted or not). I was going to say that is is obvious that you are not going to get anywhere simply by repeating your point in blocks of text - and suggest you start the Rfc or this will go on forever - but I see that progress is being made of sorts. If it does get to the stage where you feel you need to make the RfC, I'll also use it to put forward my suggestion - so hopefully either you'll get a result or I will.

When it's a train going round a circular track, it's hard to know what to do. I'm finding it hard to joint in, and I know others are too. When I got my pencil out and had a go at re-writing the first parag, I found the best way to do it was through the waters, but I used the term 'British Isles' and 'constituent' too – it's actually quite hard to avoid either of them. I have no qualms with just using 'sovereign state' for the UK, as it's close to both kingdom and country. I think the simplest suggestion in a major Rfc vote would be to have all 5 articles pipe-linking "constituent country" to the Countries of the UK article. I've got no doubt that in a major poll this would get the majority vote, as the usual dissenters will become a small group. People would still try an get in a footnote though – that just isn't going to change imo: the UK is just too convoluted for decently-concise explanatory prose (ie an decent explanation in the intro window, where people fight for space). The only people who find "constituent" offensive imo are quite serious nationalists - it appears illogical for most people to find the offense in it that they do. The term is simply made to measure, like using 'Republic of Ireland' for Ireland when needed (in both cases the linked-to article can be different imo, eg Countries of the UK, and an Ireland state/island disam page – but that's another issue.). Matt Lewis (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

The UK and related articles are not 'special cases' in terms of being able to follow good practice as regards NPOV or the MoS. I know all the regulars like to think it is, but they need to get out more, and realise we have many other equally complex articles. Lord knows I cite many of them as examples when I'm debunking whatever the latest 'special case'/'IAR'/'already agreed on talk page' view of what a clueful consensus is. And no, I find use of 'constituent country' offensive for the same reason as I find the British Isles eradication efforts offensive, both are examples of people trying to abuse Wikipedia's NPOV and ignore basic common good practices and policies in other areas, to get the tail to wag the dog for their particular special interest. I've no doubt which way large scale polls would go on both issues given enough independent input, the same way it went on the ROI naming issue - for the NPOV view. Anyway, the footnote's gone it seems, so I see no need for the Rfc, as it's subject was only ever going to be, use of footnotes to present the NPOV. MickMacNee (talk) 13:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we should have got the the woman and her new friend to sit down and sort together and sort our articles instead of going to racecourses.--Scott Mac 18:11, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

New resolution proposal

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that a new proposal has been made in a thread you contributed to at AN/I concerning the possibility of prohibiting a user from initiating actions at AN, AN/I, or WQA. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

RfC on People's Pledge

I opened the RfC. I hope I set out the question in an acceptable way. Please feel free to comment if not. Thanks. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN exchange

I've moved that exchange to User_talk:Rd232#Delta; it should have been on my talk page in the first place. If there's anything you said in that exchange that you want to feed into the discussion at AN, feel free to do so in a new post. Equally, if you can't refrain from moving it all back to AN, I won't undo it - though that would hardly be constructive. Rd232 ^talk 18:50, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd moved it back already before you even posted this. You seem to have serious problem with knowing what is and is not likely to be seen as a contructive/contentious attempt at refactoring tbh. For an admin, that's extremely disturbing to see. MickMacNee (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

"My god you're an obnoxious, unsympathetic and unhelpful character." was the reaction I just had. Rd232 ^talk 19:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't give a fuck. I stopped caring about what you think around the same time you stopped giving a flying fuck about anyone else's right to have a proposal on ANI go untouched, starting with TT, and now this farce, and you started claiming I was blind/stupid/thick or any of the other shit that's come out of your keyboard at me lately if I dared point out a few hard truths about your logic. Unsympathetic? Don't make me laugh. You've not got one ounce of symapthy, not one drop, for the hundreds of admins/editors who have been all around the houses with Delta/Beta before, who have placed block after block, made proposal after proposal, sat through arbitration case after arbitration case. It seems to me that if it's not your idea, it's not valid or constructive. It seems to me that if you never personally experienced it, it never happened, or it's not important. MickMacNee (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's your perspective. It's wrong. I listen to argument and evidence and seek compromise. You seem to do neither, but get very upset when you don't get your way. Hey, you're only human, I don't expect you to be flawless. Rd232 ^talk 19:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh what a surprise. I'm wrong, because I'm flawed. Whatever. You're the guy who listens so intently, who is so perfect, you had to apply a block on a person you had not a few hours earlier given a block reduction to and a slapped wrist. Your the person who listens so intently, you didn't even know the basic, very basic bits of history behind that user that would have told you exactly what was going to happen. Your the person who puts his own judgement over the judgement behind solid hard fought community sanctions on a seriously problematic long term editor. Your so perfect, you even believed that there was any room for compromise with this editor. An editor who has shown that to be misguided again and again and again and again. Not just to other admins, but goddam arbitrators. Yeah, you're real perfect you. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Really, you predicted that reducing the civility block by 24 hours would make him narrowly (c 10%) exceed the speed restriction on editing? By the way, your response to my "you're only human I don't expect you to be flawless" takes a fairly unique mindset. Are you suggesting I think I'm not human? Rd232 ^talk 19:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And I see you've decided to hat the exchange even after I explicitly rejected your attempt to refactor it? With a nice little lecturing summary to boot. And you call me obnoxious? You need to have a serious look at yourself you really do. MickMacNee (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion didn't belong there. An editor of your experience really ought to know better, and when an admin moves a discussion away from the administrators noticeboard, pause for breath and reflection whether maybe they have a point. Rd232 ^talk 19:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

And when the admin who disagrees and does the moving is one and the same person, he better realise when he's taking the piss lecturing others on reflection. I've already had to deal with one admin this month who held the rather misguided view that he could control where my posts do and do not go on the 'admins' board simply because he was an admin. He has now been suitably corrected. He was also pretty out of date on some core issues too, and also wasn't shy in coming forward about them until corrected. MickMacNee (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about re "one admin". But I will say if you don't like the hatnote, you're welcome to move the whole shebang back to my talk page, sans hatnote. Rd232 ^talk 19:56, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Another of your classic compromises. You want to find out what I'm on about, do some research, it was within the last week or two, There must be something you're prepared to research on around here before claiming others are just talking shite? Maybe not. MickMacNee (talk) 20:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Another of your classic "somebody else do the legwork, or else trust whatever unevidenced comments I've made". Rd232 ^talk 20:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, because it's oh so hard for you to research Delta eh. There's even a nice little sub-board at AN all to himself, all neatly organised with it's own nav templates and archive boxes and everything. Still, you're wasting time here, there's plenty more houses for you to go around yet in your attempts to compromise with him and go over the same ground others have been over a million times already, learning the same lessons you may or may not be able to learn yourself yet, while he takes the piss out of you just like he's done to everyone before you. He's got your number, he didn't even have to say a word for you to come running and reduce hs 2nd to last block. What an amazing piece of prevention that really was. MickMacNee (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I gave up persuading you long ago, but... I'm aware of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Δ and I did look at the recent history, in the context of bringing a complete mess of an ANI thread deriving from a minor incident to a conclusion, explicitly without precluding someone taking a well-evidenced and well-organised look at the whole issue in a broader scope, away from that mess. Now, I'm unwatching this page. Rd232 ^talk 21:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:MickMacNee and WP:ITN/C. Thank you. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#MickMacNee and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Chester Markel (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 11, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

A word of advice (I was going to e-mail you, but you've not got it set) from one who's had his ass hauled before arbcom more times than he cares to remember. Arbitration ain't litigation - so be wise to its subtitles. The arbs don't generally care too much about the fine points of each dispute (although parties tend to rehearse and argue such things before them to the point of tedium). The arbs, to their credit, tend to look at the bigger picture. They tend to look at someone's community interactions in the round, and ask whether it is working, or whether some restriction or ban is merited. That's certainly what your detractors will be trying to demonstrate to them. What you are best doing is pre-empting what the arbs will see. Do a little self-reflection - show a little self-awareness. If you can do that, it saves the arbs doing it for you. Are there certain editors or topics that tend to get your goat? Would you be best avoiding them going forward? Are there some "topic bans" you might self-impose? The people who survive arbitration are the ones who show themselves to be reasonable, open to correction, and capable of amending their behaviour. The people who die by arbcom are the ones who go in with self-righteous rage and demonstrate the exact battleground tactics that their opponents are complaining of. Everything you say now can, and will, be taken down and used against you in evidence. Arbs are far more interested in your actions now, and what might happen going forward than the details of who was right or wrong one some page six weeks ago. There is little doubt that your opponents are looking for you to be banned for a time. They will probably keep pushing that point, and be miffed if they don't get it. You can probably avoid that if you can be reasonable, restrained, and cooperative with the process. By its nature arbcom dislikes banning people, and if a ban was inevitable it would have happened before now. What happens next is ultimately in your hands, you can give your detractors what they want, or you can seek another way forward. best advice - don't post anything in haste on an arbcom page. Oh, and best not to attack your detractors. People who file arbitrations often get criticised themselves - (beware the boomerang) because they are actually engaging in the same type of battleground tactics they are complaining of. However, it is best for you not to point this out. Because that's just you battling back. It is best to demonstrate that, no matter what others do, you are capable of putting the weapons down, and quietly and humbly (as much as any Wikipedian does humility) working with the Committee to find a way back to peace and happy editing. Anyway, just my thoughts.--Scott Mac 19:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Rd232. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 03:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• Mick, dude, do you really want to go down for something so silly? Don't give your detractors more ammo to use at ArbCom. → ROUX ₪ 04:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I have no issue with being kicked off this site for taking offence at being compared to a member of the Westboro Baptist Church. I don't know any sane person who wouldn't read such a thing and be offended in the extreme. I am entitled to remove any obvious attack directed at me, wherever I find it. MickMacNee (talk) 04:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Mick, I'm gay and even I wouldn't editwar over something like that. Especially if I were in the middle of being pilloried at ArbCom. I understand your principles, but you have to realise you're shooting yourself in the foot here. → ROUX ₪ 04:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe we're just different people Roux. It's not even up for debate as far as I'm concerned. As for the timing, shit, you don't think that was an accident do you? Don't be so naive. MickMacNee (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • You should deal with it through the proper channels, and gain consensus for its removal via dispute resolution, rather than edit warring to attempt to remove it. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Just so you'll know, an edit warring case has been opened against you here [1]. Dayewalker (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for Edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—slakr^\ talk / 04:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You better make that block indefinite Slakr, because as soon as it expires, if that attack is still not gone from that page, I intend to revert it again, as many times as is necessary. If you or anyone else here wants the right to compare me to a member of the Westboro Baptist Church then you are going to have to make it official, and make sure the only way I cannot remove it is by force. I will not dignify this block with an unblock request, as that would give out the ludicrous message that this is even up for debate. MickMacNee (talk) 04:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You could have told Hammersoft that you felt it was a personal attack, and he most likely would have removed it, as he has now. If he hadn't removed it after your request, you could have attempted some sort of dispute resolution. Edit warring was not the right way to resolve the issue, even if you felt that you were in the right. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"I don't read his comments as soon as I realise it is him who has written them.". Do you wanna have a guess who wrote that? I'll give you a clue, it was part of the post you were insistant on restoring. And please, enough of the "even if you felt that you were in the right". I was right. I AM right. This was not a poxy content dispute. Your insistence that I jump through dispute resolution hoops with an editor who has declared I am someone to be purposely ignored, to get such an obvious attack from them on me removed from sight, is ludicrous. Slakr is a disgrace to this project. Fastily is a disgrace to this project. Everybody who battled against me to restore what they knew I took as a direct attack on me, whose intended meaning isn't even in dispute as far as I'm concerned, is a disgrace. You all disgust me. With the exception of Delta. His actions were entirely predictable, a perfect example of what he's all about, unchanged after all these years, still the same old sociopath. If any of you doing the reversion or otherwise defending this farce would be remotely happy to be compared to the WBC, even for an hour, then you are fucking insane, and you really have let Wiki-bullshit melt your brains. If this was a BLP you bastards were restoring this into, you'd all have been banned hours ago. Not blocked, banned. I really do wonder what Jimbo would make of this frankly. Complete disgrace. MickMacNee (talk) 08:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

After having been made aware of a recent request for arbitration regarding you, I have looked at your recent contributions and noticed the above exchange. Considering your comments above to the effect that you intend to continue the edit-warring for which you were blocked after this block expires, and because you continue to make severe personal attacks against other editors – specifically, calling them sociopaths – I have increased the duration of your block to indefinite, because it appears that a time-limited block is not sufficient to prevent continued disruption on your part. You should be aware that if you continue to make personal attacks on this page while you are blocked, you may lose your ability to edit this page.  Sandstein  11:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein, you blocking here is extremely poor. Given that you indef blocked Mick before, and were extremely peeved when I unblocked him, and eight months later are still gripping to arbcom that your block shouldn't have been overturned, and debating just today whether or not you should be a party to the arbcom case about Mick due to that block, you jumping in here on your charger and blocking yourself looks like opportunism of the worst order. If Mick needs blocked there are 1400 other admins to consider it - you don't need to be the crusader. For exactly the same reasons I will not review this block, comment on its merits, or unblock. But deciding to take this on yourself is very poor judgement.--Scott Mac 11:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is noted. I have made the block subject to a discussion at WP:ANI#MickMacNee blocked indefinitely.  Sandstein  11:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Hah. Sociopath wouldn't even cover you Sandstein, you power crazy fuck. Just happened to be wandering along reviewing my contributions eh? Out for a little stroll were you. Just spotted a little personal attacky wacky did you? Fuck you, you utter freak. Maybe I should join the fucking Westboro Baptist Church, it seems being compared to them is viewed as rather a mild insult around these parts, and on current evidence I think I would start meeting a better class of people frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mick, I know you're pissed off here, but just consider your Miranda Rights here for a moment: anything you say can and will be used against you, and no matter how provoked you feel, it will still be used against you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"no matter how provoked you feel". Are you for fucking real? If I wasn't already feeling just a tad provoked with Hammersoft & then Delta's involvement, and if that hadn't already been pushed to dangerous levels with Sandstein the wandering minstrel's act, then you turning up here, of all fucking people, casting your own judgement over what I should and should not be upset at, in amongst editors of the likes of Treasury Tag, doing his best to look all innocent but probably creaming his pants right now. Well, if that doesn't royally take the fucking biscuit, I don't know what does. Come on, anyone else want to cover themselves in glory and come and give me some 'advice' over this soap opera? Chime in with either a palpably biased opinion on the facts, or just giving it as informed neutral opinion, even though your due diligence would make Enron blush, and your sense of natural justice would embarass Mugabe. Any of you fucked my mother recently and want to come and give me some words of wisdom? Miranda rights. Ha. That suggests a level of intelligence here that just doesn't exist. And as we all know, teh wiki isn't a court room. You need to have a semblance of higher level qualifications to work in one of those. You fucking retards by contrast, are discussing the merits of an extension of a block to indefinite on the basis of a threat I made to remove an attack, that's since been removed by the attacker. Why don't you just go the whole hog to compound your collective shame and restore the attack to User talk:Rd232? If this block is to mean anything, you'd better do that at the very least, otherwise, shock horror, you rather lose your ability to claim that blocks are in any way preventative, and Sandstein loses the chance to wear his gold spandex super admin suit and award himself another barnster, or whatever the fuck he does to reward himself after another triumph like this. Probably strangles a kitten or some other small defenceless animal, the freak. MickMacNee (talk) 12:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Mick, I have some advice for you. If anyone ever refers to you again as a member of the WBC, please post a message at my talkpage. Give me a link to it and I will delete it. I may not use your method, but I promise you I will get it deleted. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. I fear your confidence in what you could achieve in this situation might be misplaced. We'll see - once the findings of the case come out, it'll become clear in that incident at least, whether the arbitration committee stand on the side of decency and respect, or the side of wikibullshit and GAMEing. On early indications I'm apparently supposed to simply retire and take my complaints about such attacks to someone who gives a shit - comparisons of editors to the WBC are seemingly no big deal in wikiland. Stay tuned.... MickMacNee (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice response. I mean that sincerely because your language was not too offensive to me. Comparing a Wikipedia Editor or any person to the WBC is a very big deal to me because of the grief they cause and their disrespect for everything a caring person respects. I can achieve almost anything especially when told it isn't possible for me to do it. I just go ahead and do it. Please keep your language clean because you don't want to shock this 71 year old lady, do you? I will stay tuned. Very Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 12:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Notification regarding MickMacNee case

As a matter of standard procedure, parties to an arbitration case can be unblocked summarily to allow them to participate in the case proceedings. Please indicate whether or not you wish to be unblocked in order to participate in the case. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 13:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

No thanks. With his subsequent explanations, it's pretty clear Sandstein placed this block as an attempt to have the case wrapped up early by default, in pretty much the exact same why he tried to unilaterally deal with me months ago, a tactic which failed then, and which he is clearly still upset at the committee/community/Scott, for allowing his judgement to be over-ridden. Now I've seen his excuses, even if we were to lobotomize ourselves and view this as a simple 'edit war' & related offences, I guess I needn't have wondered why Delta was getting off so lightly in comparison to me as regards Sandstein's view from 10,000 feet goes, given our respective documented histories, motives, and the facts of the specific offence, which makes the gap between his application of indefinite to me, and the eventual 24 hours Delta has received & then had overturned, as resembling the distance from the Earth to the Moon. I want this block removed & expunged as a matter of basic morality. I refuse point blank to be seen to have been correctly punished for removing a blatant personal attack directed at me, immediately after I found it, rather than engaging with the attacker who had in black & white stated he will ignore any and all communication from me, no exceptions, or otherwise taking the time to find someone to acknowledge the unarguable truth about its nature and remove it for me. There is no Wikipedia rule at all, in any way shape or form, that mandates taking such as disgraceful approach to an editor's basic right not to feel attacked or publicly denigrated, and if people don't realise that, and worse, they are ones with the block button enabled, it's them that need to be forcibly removed from this site, not me. It is categorically not OK to compare anyone by association in that manner. No if's, no buts, no form filling, no begging. For the benefit of Resolute or anyone else who thinks it is, rest assured faced with the exact same situation, I would do the exact same thing. This site is not so great that I would willingly have myself be treated that way, just for the 'privelage' of contributing. I've got more self respect than that, even if some of you haven't. Hammersoft frankly could not have made a more obvious and direct attack on me as far as I'm concerned, and I'm damn sure that Jimbo would see it no other way either. I dare anyone to ask his opinion on it, because I'd be very dissapointed if he did anything other than support my position on it 100%, and dished out a few emergency desysops for good measure. If the result of Sandstein's second unilateral action as regards me is that I cannot defend myself in the case, so be it, I won't contest the case any further. Unless or until this block is lifted & expunged for the abuse it was and the disgrace it is, and I receive an apology for this humiliating treatment done in the name of so called Wikipedia policy, then that's how it's going to stay. MickMacNee (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

...as you seem to think it might make a difference, I've posted links to both here and ANI on Jimbo's talkpage as you requested (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

An apology

MickMacNee, I see from WP:AN/I that you've now been blocked indefinitely due to this situation. From reading that thread, and the WP:AN/EW thread, the whole situation strikes me as a snowball turning into an avalanche. Quite a number of people are looking at the avalanche aftermath and saying "that's bad" without taking into account its genesis. I find that extremely unfortunate.

I have never intentionally personally attacked anyone on this project. I do recall another time where a comment I made responding to someone was construed as a personal attack by that person. After reading it again, I realized how that could be the case, so I retracted it and apologized for it. I am doing the same here.

In writing what I wrote, I was attempting to draw a comparison of discussion styles. Bwilkins notes in this diff pretty much what I was attempting. In no sense was I ever attempting to say you are a member of that church. I was cognizant at the time I wrote that passage that I needed to be careful to ensure I was commenting on discussion style, and not on you personally. There was a subtle distinction that I was attempting to make. Given the ongoing ArbCom case, and given our past interactions, it was not a distinction I should have attempted, especially in text which is a highly limited method of communication.

Sometimes, there are subjects that are simply too hot to touch, regardless of the motivations and attempts at doing so in appropriate ways. I should have realized that mentioning that church in a discussion would be such an example. When I wrote it, I was thinking of a Chaser's War on Everything video I saw on YouTube. It was humorous, and highlighted why a discussion with them would not progress the way a person would hope. I wasn't attempting to say you are a member of that church, or any sort of equivalent person.

I apologize for the post. I could just as well have made my point to Rd232 without mentioning that church. Had I done so, this whole fiasco would not have transpired. In the very least, even if I still thought it was something I should include in my note to him, I should have done so via e-mail to him.

I've made a post at the WP:AN/I thread here, emphatically opposing the indef block. I'd previously suggested that the 72 hour block should be removed [2] as well.

As I noted in the post I made to Rd232's talk page, I don't read your comments anymore. Some people do not work well together, regardless of their best intentions. You and I are two such people. That said, it would not be proper for me to make this post to your talk page and not be willing to read whatever response you wish to make. Just please, please, keep it civil. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a deep breath...

or go for a walk or punch something. Anything that focuses your attention on something other than Wikipedia for a few days. I've restored your original block duration (about 58 hours) since the point is now moot and I have some small faith that GovCom might come up with something meaningful.

My suggestion to you, Mick, is to try to participate in the case (when you return in 58 hours or so) and try to see the case as something useful and present whatever evidence you want to. But getting so wound up isn't going to endear you to GovCom (who might actually listen to you if you conduct a defence rather than shooting yourself in the foot), nor can it be doing your blood pressure any good.

But if you don't want to play the game and would rather just continue to prove your "opponents" right, let me know. I'll indef you and you can negotiate your return to editing from there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not happy tbh given it's still a block for trying to do what any sane person should do in that situation, but ... thanks I guess. In true wiki-decency style it'll probably have expired before I can get anyone to man-up and expunge it properly. I see you're already getting a lot of thank you notes and invites to dine at the ambassador's house for this, so sorry for that. MickMacNee (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I also offer my apologies Mick. I honestly didn't understand how or why you were offended by the comment, and simply jumped to the wrong conclusion when I first reverted you, and my only revert I might add. Believe it or not, my intentions were good, but I simply made things worse. FWIW, I did drop a note at SirFozzie's page stating that I was the original culprit to revert you. Again, I do offer my sincere apology for my part in this. — Ched :  ?  21:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated. I'm sorry that some might later lump you in with the likes of Sandstein, Delta, Slakr & Fastily et al, who frankly have far more to be ashamed of than simply making a simple mistake. MickMacNee (talk) 21:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Too much has happened in these last few days for me to hope to catch up. Anyways, I hope thing will work out for ya, Micky. GoodDay (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Length of your evidence submission

Your evidence submission at User talk:MickMacNee/Arbitration evidence runs to over 6000 words, which is grossly in excess of the 500 word (and 50 diff) limit. Please could you remove enough material to ensure that your evidence is not so lengthy? If you do not, or cannot, do so within 24 hours, a clerk will delete your evidence subpage or remove the link to it from the main evidence page. We are ordinarily more lenient on the evidence length of the main parties to a case, so please contact me or another clerk if you think we ought to use our discretion here, or if you need assistance in reducing the length of your submission. Thank you. AGK [•] 21:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Just delete it then, I've had the feeling for a while I am being tried in absentia, so we might aswell make it official. That will be the crowning glory of this whole farce. How the fuck I'm supposed to defend myself in under 500 words when the scope of the case appears to be effectively 'anybody who has ever had a beef with Mick come and tell your story here' I'll never know. MickMacNee (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you how, although you'll just delete this post. You've tried to say why you were "right" and why your "opponents" were wrong in each case. (Misguided on policy etc) That's why it's 6000 words. But you're not answering the case against you in doing that. You might s well delete the 6000 words. The case is about the style and manner you conducted yourself. That doesn't need 6000 words, and those 6000 words don't explain it. All you need say is you allowed your temper to get out of hand, you realize it was wrong and you'll aim do better in future. But you won't do that will you. DeCausa (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I won't delete it because I don't do that. I can count on one hand the number of posts I've ever deleted from this page since 2007. Still, let's all keep pretending you know all about my 'style' and 'manner' eh? MickMacNee (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

And you need to say what steps you'll take to avoid your temper getting the better of you. My evidence points out that you can behave appropriately in discussions. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

You're the guy who thought asking who the filer of the case was, was a WP:Personal Attack. That was ludicrous even before we all found out I was pretty justified in wondering. You stick to worrying about your sections, I'll worry about mine, and how I do and don't act when confronted by mistakes like that from people who seek to be my judge. MickMacNee (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I retracted that comment at the time... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

500 words isn't much for a party to a case; it's downright stingy for the subject of a case. I'm surprised there isn't an explicit higher limit for the subject, because vague "leniency" isn't really helpful for someone trying to construct a good response to what are inevitably complex issues litigated in some detail. I understand these cases get wordy enough anyway, and having a higher limit (like 5k words) would too easily become a target length... but this doesn't seem a particularly good place to cut length. Editors need to be able to defend themselves, and the subject often has a great deal more to talk about than other parties. Clarity and brevity are not necessarily at odds, but putting a great premium on brevity doesn't tend to help clarity. Besides which, brevity and clarity takes time; the subject already has more to do, normally, and then also needs more time to tighten the evidence up and make it both short and clear, which is asking a lot. TLDR: give subjects an explicit higher limit. Rd232 public ^talk 22:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

At a minumum I should be entitled to 500 words for each separate theme. 500 words for the accused is reasonable when there is an actual identified dispute with identified parties who have something specific to say over a time-limited period, but the only dispute here is the tedious Mick Is A Very Bad Man show, and the notion of who is and is not a party in this case has been somewhat nebulous, if not wholly pointless, as far as I can see. MickMacNee (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Sandstein has managed to get down to the word limit. And anyway the hard word limit is 1000 words. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

No, he's withdrawn it all as it happens. MickMacNee (talk) 22:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Initially he got it down to the word limit. I think Rd232 makes a good point that subjects should get a higher word limit. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and then he removed it all after got what he was after - having dragged HJ Mitchell through the mud and made some rather outrageous claims that we were buddies, he has managed to humilate him enough to get him to promise never to undo one of his admin actions as long as it's subject to an in-progress ANI Kangaroo Court (you can forget the discussion with him personally part, in my case at least, such as discussion would have been a very short one, and entirely pointless). MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"theme" is nebulous. 500 words per party would be simple and have a certain logic. Rd232 public ^talk 22:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that it matters as it's not going to make a blind bit of difference, but 'theme' here covers the situation of 2 or more people arriving to essentially describe the same particular dispute but from a slightly different perspective. I don't claim to need twice as many words to defend myself against that. MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

• Mick, if you were to reduce your evidence to something as reasonable as 1000-1500 words, then I'd be fine with that. I am even okay with a submission that nudges 2000, if it is not repetitive. Unless one of the arbitrators overrules me and requests an ordinary submission, then, as I said, I'm okay with permitting a much longer submission than is normal, because you are the named subject. I'll check back here tomorrow night and see what you've managed. Regards, AGK [•] 23:54, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

  It's not going to happen, not in 24 hours, probably not even in a week. Just delete it. There's no real repetition there at all, and while I could probably trim it, I cannot remove 5 in every 6 words without having the same likely effect as saying nothing at all. It might have been different if arbitrators had properly outlined a scope or who the parties were, but I'm not prepared to second guess myself as to what is and is not important enough to say given what others have said or done; even the evidence of the banned sock is apparently not ignorable, as it can be co-opted at any time. MickMacNee (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

  • For starters you could drop all the content about Chester Merkel, as he's a banned sock. That alone loses 1700 words. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• From 6000 words, I shortened it to ~1700 words. Please review that and tell me if you are happy with my changes. I did not take out any major points, but I did substantially shorten the phrasing and presentation of most of your points. I also put in red somewhere that I think you need a diff, but that's your choice. If you are satisfied, I will post your evidence back to the evidence subpage of the case. Regards, AGK [•] 10:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

AGK, this is slightly strange. You've made MMN's evidence significantly more effective in two ways: firstly, by making it expressed much more clearly and secondly, by making it expressed in a more reasonable/civil manner. I guess there's no problem with the first, but as this arbitration revolves around issues related to the second point, is that appropriate? I'm not trying to say that you've done anything improper, just what you're supposed to do as clerk. But in this particular case, how MMN presents his evidence is also surely part of the evidence. DeCausa (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

From the bits I examined, I wasn't happy with the rephrasing, so I've reverted the lot. I apologise if you're offended by that, but I wish you'd asked first. If DeCausa wants me banned because of what he thinks is incivility, then let the arbs see it & agree, or ban me by default for not caring enough to spend another 20 hours of my life on this bollocks to get it down to code. I've seen what he thinks is and is not civil conduct where it counts, where people's actions have direct consequences on article quality, and frankly, I don't want to participate if the arbs agree that his method of communication and argumentation is how you are supposed to conduct yourself here for the betterment of the site. Infact, if they side with him, then I'd like to be allowed to remove every single byte that has been stolen from me over the years on such false pretenses of what is and is not policy here, frankly. MickMacNee (talk) 12:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm An Arb clerk does lots of legwork for you improving your evidence and cutting it to an acceptable length, and you revert it wholesale? Words fail me. Rd232 public ^talk 20:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Puts it well. Mick if you don't want to be part of the community feel free to walk away. We don't have to go through Arbcom and hopefully come to a reasonable compromise if you don't want to. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:59, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Mick, it is of course your decision, but if your evidence submission is not of an appropriate length then it cannot be accepted - and will not be read at all by the arbitrators. I am indifferent as to whether you redact your submission yourself or use my edited version, but if you want to submit evidence and present any kind of defence then you will need to do something about the word count. As of now, there is no link to your evidence on the case pages, because no acceptable submission exists; the rules are rather clear on the question of whether a 6000(!) word document can be evidence. AGK [•] 00:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Except, see Mathsci's comments about previous cases using subpages for more extensive evidence, with a summary on the main evidence page. Perhaps rules and practice are not entirely aligned, which risks arbitrariness. Rd232 public ^talk 12:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

15:07 post

Good post .. and thank you. Best to ya Mick. I really do appreciate all your work here, even if I don't always agree on every point. I think you're good people, and I do respect you. Cheers. — Ched :  ?  15:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested improvement to Evidence presented by MickMacNee

Some links and diffs would make it a lot easier for an uninvolved reader to evaluate. For example make "a stone dead ANI report" a link to the ANI report and after "seize on some events" add a couple of diffs giving examples of that happening. Guy Macon (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That's just my summary of what I believe I am supposed to be fitting into 500 words of evidence in this case, unless or until I get any direction otherwise, like, say, a scope, or even a consistent list of parties. If you want the actual diffs & details, see my evidence subpage, which was removed by AGK for being slightly too long. MickMacNee (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Do the rules allow you to set up an evidence page in userspace and link to it from the arbitration request page? (Just in case anyone wonders, I am neutral on this. My concern is with the fairness of one person having to answer nine 500-word sections in a single 500-word section.) Guy Macon (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not if its over 500 words apparently. MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I just looked at your evidence subpage, and it also appears to be lacking diffs and links. For example, you say "In his filing statement, he said I threatened to vandalize the Le Mans article. I did no such thing" with no diff showing where he said that. Guy Macon (talk) 20:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The filing statement is the post at the top of the case request page, made by the filer. MickMacNee (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

That isn't the only place where a link would allow one to evaluate your statement Just to pick aonother at random, "RD232 was an admin who was in very recent conflict with me" - no link or diff showing the conflict. Like I said before, I haven't bothered reading the evidence. As far as I am concerned all charges could be completely false (wouldn't be the first time a bunch of folks ganged up on someone innocent ) or completely true (wouldn't be the first time someone obviously guilty loudly proclaimed innocence), but you seem to be expecting the reader to go find things like The filing statement or the past conflict mentioned above. I won't comment further - it is your defense to make and I intend to stay neutral - but I do advise that you provide links to evidence when you make a claim. Unwatching talk page now. Good luck. Guy Macon (talk) 02:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Good luck

I think the Arbcom case against you is retarded in just about every way possible and ought to be declared a mistrial. Hopefully you come out of it relatively intact. Jtrainor (talk) 04:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Your request for arbitration: User:Δ

Whilst clerks generally allow a reasonable degree of latitude with regards to word limits, your replies to various parties and general comments are excessive. Please would you reduce your submission to within more acceptable limits (around 1,000 words). If you find yourself unable to reduce your submission to these extended limits, I or another Arbitration Clerk will reduce your statement for you. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I've cut one general comment, everything else is directed at specific user's later comments. If that's still not acceptable, you guys will have to seriously start examining whether these word limits are remotely set at the right level. MickMacNee (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for trimming it down. As I said, we allow a reasonable degree of lattitude and I recognise that it is not easy to stick within the set limits. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit condescending, isn't it? LiteralKa (talk) 07:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review

Howdy Mick! I see you got a mention on Wikipedia Review. Good stuff. The Skywatcher and me (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)