User talk:MickMacNee

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Stickee (talk) 08:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Beat me to it, had to go out before I had time to notify. Thanks Stickee. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Emperor of Exmoor.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Emperor of Exmoor.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 10:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing per this ANI discussion. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Sandstein  07:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee, see my comments in the AN/I thread to explain why I support this block. And further, I agree that an unblock should not occur unless editing restrictions are developed and agreed upon by you. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 08:15, 30 October 2010 (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 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is a completely invalid 'indef' block. There is no way I could ever hope to defend myself against such an obviously bad faith charge as a vague hand wave to a block log and an amateur pyschology review of my personality and future 'threat level' to the pedia, so how is anyone going to be able to review it fairly and objectively or ever take any assurance from me, certainly one that wouldn't see Sandstein taking them to arbitration? This cannot be lifted by any action from me, so this is not an indef block, but a unilateral community ban seeking post-ban consensus, without so much as a by your leave or the redlink WP:Requests for comment/MickMacNee ever turning blue, ever. Infact, I've never even been under so much as a 'civility parole' before, let alone anything so serious a sanction as to warrant this unilateral ban. Admins are not supposed to have the power to do this to good faith contributors who are not right there and then charging around adding 'Dave is a tool' to articles. If they did, they could pretty much unilaterally ban anyone they didn't like and who hadn't had the presence of mind to routinely drop their history and create a new account every now and again. That's certainly not an environment that fosters good community cohesion or encourages people to be truthful and honest. I've never cleaned my account history like that, but perhaps I was naive? If Sandstein thinks he has the support to have me community banned, based on my entire wiki-career, then he should have done it properly, and shown that consensus existed first, instead of doing what he just did, and turning up at a stale ANI thread to demand someone give a him a reason not to indef block me, and when unsurprisingly not receiving any contrary response in just 8 hours (and only one support too!), unilaterally banning me. I wasn't even watching that thread anymore, believing it had died out out of lack of interest, the whole thing was over as far as I was concerned in terms of immediate issues, and unsurprisingly, I've been asleep in the 8 hours he waited for feedback on the 'long term' issues, because it was night time here. He clearly dumped the accusation at ANI before going to bed, and then banning me was apparently task no.1 in his breakfast routine this morning. This is not good enough in terms of WP:ADMIN, WP:DR (because Sandstein clearly has a personal issue with me, and is not imposing this ban on me on behalf of the community in any way), or WP:BLOCK - "Blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users." I wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting any admin to unilaterally ban someone if simply giving nothing better as justification that it would 'prevent damage' than a vague hand wave to their block log, one or two diffs of recent actions which are not ongoing, and a clear general dislike for their attitude, without ever having even raised so much as an Rfc on it. That ANI thread ironically shows that. MickMacNee (talk) 10:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

{ The block is supported by more than sufficient evidence, and your lengthy unblock request does not state any valid and convincing reasons to unblock. Please review WP:GAB before filing any further unblock requests. Jehochman ^Talk 12:35, 30 October 2010 (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.

Yes, I've mentioned the timing issue at AN/I. It's a bloody scandal. Just one editor commented in the time between block threat and action. LemonMonday Talk 10:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Conceded that the timing issue may be seen as causing some concern, nevertheless there seems to be a consensus in the WP:ANI thread in support of the sanction imposed. I count five in support, one against, and three comments which did not come down clearly on either side. I am personally sitting on the fence, but feel that the thread should be correctly interpreted. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 11:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct interpretation would require taking into account facts such as 'supporters' like User:Mo ainm recently whitewashed his account history to hide the fact he was racking up blocks, including in the BISE topic area, which he still edits in now, with no traceable link to his prior account, and as we see here, the with presumably no fear of an ambush from Sandstein like this. Or the fact that Bjmullan, he who says "MickMacNee has shown nothing but contempt for the whole concept of civility" (proof? unsubstantiated smear = inCIVIL behaviour remember?), can make this sort of comment in an article talk page (infact, the Ireland talk page of all places): "For what it's worth competing in the I was raped and pillaged by the British games doesn't count as recondition (sic) of anything" [1]. Still, there's the issue. For admins to seemingly do anything about any of this sort of gaming or POV pushing, in the face of no easy 'he called me a twat' blocks, or, 'block him, he's awfully mean to me, and all I've ever done for years is to be an SPA for the continual systematic erasure of a term from the pedia without ever making that a guideline, despite making the same argument again and again and never listening to anyone else, but I'm awfully carefull to be polite about it), they need Rfc's in triplicate, executed by an aggrieved party who has the temperament and patience of a robot. To community ban me however, all Sandstein apparently needs is to be able to lazily point to a 'long' block log, and have a post-indef block party (which he absents himself from), where everybody is invited except me, even though as said, this block prevents nothing in terms of active disruption and is pretty illegitimate in terms of DR. And presumably if during that time of enforced humiliation, if I blow my stack and say lots of naughty words, all the better for them I guess. Provocation, even from admins, being just like civil POV pushing - invisible to others as an offence worthy of ever recognising as inCIVILity. Note that none of this forms any part of my unblock appeal mind, before anyone chucks in the usual NOTTHEM get out card, I am just showing how such an ambush indef can become completely one sided after the event, and any such 'consensus' after the event will never be truly objective or even honest, and will do nothing except give an editor like me all the wrong ideas about what he should and should not be doing, if he ever gets back to editting. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

---

Request reason:

I do not accept my block being reviewed by Jehochman. I have an extensive history of dispute with him, and completely reject the idea that his ability to review is neutral or objective w.r.t. me in any way. If his claim that "The block is supported by more than sufficient evidence, and your lengthy unblock request does not state any valid and convincing reasons to unblock." is even half true, an admin who has never had any such dealings with me will be able to see it (as long as he gives me an opportuniy to clarify things as above). As to his suggestion, I do not see how reading GAB helps me at all - I will say it again, there is NOTHING I can say w.r.t GAB that would be an answer to Sandstein's original charges, which are effectively saying 'based on his block log I think this guy shoud be community banned', but he has done it by unilateral indef block instead of a ban discussion. How is recognising/admitting I have a long block going to help me in his charges exactly? Sandstein has declared he would not believe anything I said - "I do not believe that any assurances he may give about future good conduct are credible", and he has stated this block is placed based on my inherent character traits which I cannot do anything about he says, so where does anything in GAB even come into this? Except by perversly demanding that I must confess to Sandstein that I am an incurable pyschopath before he will unblock me? Is that a civil way to interact, or a proper way to admin? I think not. He suggests I should not be unblocked until a community discussion has occured as to what 'can be done about me'? Where is that discussion taking place exactly, and how is an indefinite block in the face of no ongoing disruption a pre-requesite to that even occuring? But, to keep it on GAB issues and not admin procedures, maybe you want me to talk about what I bring to this site? Well, after I had disengaged and calmed down from that ANI, I went and transformed the Power Snooker article from a copvio stub into a proper article, which seemed like a good idea since the tournament is going on right now. Yet just as was finishing that up, Sandstein was reviving that thread proposing this block, without even telling me. No, this block is actually a ban proposal without the consensus or discussion, not a 'block, then let's see if he get's it' exercise. If it's to be a ban discussion, I want a ban discussion, in the proper established way, not unilaterally applied. And if it's not a ban discussion, I want an admin to explain this block in a way that I actually can do anything about it in terms of GAB. I can't for example agree to any proposed sanctions, they have not been proposed. Similarly I cannot agree to listen to an Rfc's findings that has not been filed. I cannot do anything with a charge that says I am incurable bastard, from someone who has not shown how he has proven that through DR one bit, just a little wave to my block log and a nudge and a wink. I can promise to be a good boy and abide by all policies, but I don't think that's going to make a blind bit of difference is it? I will obviously mean it and try and abide by it of course, I am Grand Tutnum Editor after all, not some know nothing fuckwit who just registered yesterday, but the charges here do not allow that as an appeal, obviously. Now please, on this second attempt, can I just get an admin who has had no prior conflict with me, and who is prepared to answer/rebut my full unblock request properly (and any admin who would let a contributor with 26,987 article edits over three or more years just go down the pan on some lame tl;dr response, wants shot with shit frankly). Otherwise, I really am just going to start dropping f-bombs left right and centre and make wrapping up this ban discussion real easy for everybody, with all pertinent lessons learned, trust me. MickMacNee (talk) 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I do not accept my block being reviewed by Jehochman. I have an extensive history of dispute with him, and completely reject the idea that his ability to review is neutral or objective w.r.t. me in any way. If his claim that ''"The block is supported by more than sufficient evidence, and your lengthy unblock request does not state any valid and convincing reasons to unblock."'' is even half true, an admin who has never had any such dealings with me will be able to see it (as long as he gives me an opportuniy to clarify things as above). As to his suggestion, I do not see how reading GAB helps me at all - I will say it again, there is NOTHING I can say w.r.t GAB that would be an answer to Sandstein's original [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=393752970 charges], which are effectively saying 'based on his block log I think this guy shoud be community banned', but he has done it by unilateral indef block instead of a ban discussion. How is recognising/admitting I have a long block going to help me in his charges exactly? Sandstein has declared he would not believe anything I said - "I do not believe that any assurances he may give about future good conduct are credible", and he has stated this block is placed based on my inherent character traits which I cannot do anything about he says, so where does anything in GAB even come into this? Except by perversly demanding that I must confess to Sandstein that I am an incurable pyschopath before he will unblock me? Is that a civil way to interact, or a proper way to admin? I think not. He suggests I should not be unblocked until a community discussion has occured as to what 'can be done about me'? Where is that discussion taking place exactly, and how is an indefinite block in the face of no ongoing disruption a pre-requesite to that even occuring? But, to keep it on GAB issues and not admin procedures, maybe you want me to talk about what I bring to this site? Well, after I had disengaged and calmed down from that ANI, I went and transformed the [[Power Snooker]] article from a copvio stub into a proper article, which seemed like a good idea since the tournament is going on right now. Yet just as was finishing that up, Sandstein was reviving that thread proposing this block, without even telling me. No, this block is actually a ban proposal without the consensus or discussion, not a 'block, then let's see if he get's it' exercise. If it's to be a ban discussion, I want a ban discussion, in the proper established way, not unilaterally applied. And if it's not a ban discussion, I want an admin to explain this block in a way that I actually ''can'' do anything about it in terms of GAB. I can't for example agree to any proposed sanctions, they have not been proposed. Similarly I cannot agree to listen to an Rfc's findings that has not been filed. I cannot do anything with a charge that says I am incurable bastard, from someone who has not shown how he has proven that through DR one bit, just a little wave to my block log and a nudge and a wink. I can promise to be a good boy and abide by all policies, but I don't think that's going to make a blind bit of difference is it? I will obviously mean it and try and abide by it of course, I am Grand Tutnum Editor after all, not some know nothing fuckwit who just registered yesterday, but the charges here do not allow that as an appeal, obviously. Now please, on this second attempt, can I just get an admin who has had no prior conflict with me, and who is prepared to answer/rebut my full unblock request properly (and any admin who would let a contributor with 26,987 article edits over three or more years just go down the pan on some lame tl;dr response, wants shot with shit frankly). Otherwise, I really am just going to start dropping f-bombs left right and centre and make wrapping up this ban discussion real easy for everybody, with ''all'' pertinent lessons learned, trust me. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee#top|talk]]) 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I do not accept my block being reviewed by Jehochman. I have an extensive history of dispute with him, and completely reject the idea that his ability to review is neutral or objective w.r.t. me in any way. If his claim that ''"The block is supported by more than sufficient evidence, and your lengthy unblock request does not state any valid and convincing reasons to unblock."'' is even half true, an admin who has never had any such dealings with me will be able to see it (as long as he gives me an opportuniy to clarify things as above). As to his suggestion, I do not see how reading GAB helps me at all - I will say it again, there is NOTHING I can say w.r.t GAB that would be an answer to Sandstein's original [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=393752970 charges], which are effectively saying 'based on his block log I think this guy shoud be community banned', but he has done it by unilateral indef block instead of a ban discussion. How is recognising/admitting I have a long block going to help me in his charges exactly? Sandstein has declared he would not believe anything I said - "I do not believe that any assurances he may give about future good conduct are credible", and he has stated this block is placed based on my inherent character traits which I cannot do anything about he says, so where does anything in GAB even come into this? Except by perversly demanding that I must confess to Sandstein that I am an incurable pyschopath before he will unblock me? Is that a civil way to interact, or a proper way to admin? I think not. He suggests I should not be unblocked until a community discussion has occured as to what 'can be done about me'? Where is that discussion taking place exactly, and how is an indefinite block in the face of no ongoing disruption a pre-requesite to that even occuring? But, to keep it on GAB issues and not admin procedures, maybe you want me to talk about what I bring to this site? Well, after I had disengaged and calmed down from that ANI, I went and transformed the [[Power Snooker]] article from a copvio stub into a proper article, which seemed like a good idea since the tournament is going on right now. Yet just as was finishing that up, Sandstein was reviving that thread proposing this block, without even telling me. No, this block is actually a ban proposal without the consensus or discussion, not a 'block, then let's see if he get's it' exercise. If it's to be a ban discussion, I want a ban discussion, in the proper established way, not unilaterally applied. And if it's not a ban discussion, I want an admin to explain this block in a way that I actually ''can'' do anything about it in terms of GAB. I can't for example agree to any proposed sanctions, they have not been proposed. Similarly I cannot agree to listen to an Rfc's findings that has not been filed. I cannot do anything with a charge that says I am incurable bastard, from someone who has not shown how he has proven that through DR one bit, just a little wave to my block log and a nudge and a wink. I can promise to be a good boy and abide by all policies, but I don't think that's going to make a blind bit of difference is it? I will obviously mean it and try and abide by it of course, I am Grand Tutnum Editor after all, not some know nothing fuckwit who just registered yesterday, but the charges here do not allow that as an appeal, obviously. Now please, on this second attempt, can I just get an admin who has had no prior conflict with me, and who is prepared to answer/rebut my full unblock request properly (and any admin who would let a contributor with 26,987 article edits over three or more years just go down the pan on some lame tl;dr response, wants shot with shit frankly). Otherwise, I really am just going to start dropping f-bombs left right and centre and make wrapping up this ban discussion real easy for everybody, with ''all'' pertinent lessons learned, trust me. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee#top|talk]]) 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I do not accept my block being reviewed by Jehochman. I have an extensive history of dispute with him, and completely reject the idea that his ability to review is neutral or objective w.r.t. me in any way. If his claim that ''"The block is supported by more than sufficient evidence, and your lengthy unblock request does not state any valid and convincing reasons to unblock."'' is even half true, an admin who has never had any such dealings with me will be able to see it (as long as he gives me an opportuniy to clarify things as above). As to his suggestion, I do not see how reading GAB helps me at all - I will say it again, there is NOTHING I can say w.r.t GAB that would be an answer to Sandstein's original [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=393752970 charges], which are effectively saying 'based on his block log I think this guy shoud be community banned', but he has done it by unilateral indef block instead of a ban discussion. How is recognising/admitting I have a long block going to help me in his charges exactly? Sandstein has declared he would not believe anything I said - "I do not believe that any assurances he may give about future good conduct are credible", and he has stated this block is placed based on my inherent character traits which I cannot do anything about he says, so where does anything in GAB even come into this? Except by perversly demanding that I must confess to Sandstein that I am an incurable pyschopath before he will unblock me? Is that a civil way to interact, or a proper way to admin? I think not. He suggests I should not be unblocked until a community discussion has occured as to what 'can be done about me'? Where is that discussion taking place exactly, and how is an indefinite block in the face of no ongoing disruption a pre-requesite to that even occuring? But, to keep it on GAB issues and not admin procedures, maybe you want me to talk about what I bring to this site? Well, after I had disengaged and calmed down from that ANI, I went and transformed the [[Power Snooker]] article from a copvio stub into a proper article, which seemed like a good idea since the tournament is going on right now. Yet just as was finishing that up, Sandstein was reviving that thread proposing this block, without even telling me. No, this block is actually a ban proposal without the consensus or discussion, not a 'block, then let's see if he get's it' exercise. If it's to be a ban discussion, I want a ban discussion, in the proper established way, not unilaterally applied. And if it's not a ban discussion, I want an admin to explain this block in a way that I actually ''can'' do anything about it in terms of GAB. I can't for example agree to any proposed sanctions, they have not been proposed. Similarly I cannot agree to listen to an Rfc's findings that has not been filed. I cannot do anything with a charge that says I am incurable bastard, from someone who has not shown how he has proven that through DR one bit, just a little wave to my block log and a nudge and a wink. I can promise to be a good boy and abide by all policies, but I don't think that's going to make a blind bit of difference is it? I will obviously mean it and try and abide by it of course, I am Grand Tutnum Editor after all, not some know nothing fuckwit who just registered yesterday, but the charges here do not allow that as an appeal, obviously. Now please, on this second attempt, can I just get an admin who has had no prior conflict with me, and who is prepared to answer/rebut my full unblock request properly (and any admin who would let a contributor with 26,987 article edits over three or more years just go down the pan on some lame tl;dr response, wants shot with shit frankly). Otherwise, I really am just going to start dropping f-bombs left right and centre and make wrapping up this ban discussion real easy for everybody, with ''all'' pertinent lessons learned, trust me. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee#top|talk]]) 13:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}