Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Adnan Oktar		19 November 2010	{{{votes}}}
Longevity		18 November 2010	{{{votes}}}
MickMacNee		12 November 2010	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Adnan Oktar

Initiated by Geoffry Thomas (talk) at 14:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I felt the current page of Adnan Oktar violated the Wikipidia concerning rules of a living person. The page is about to be roled back and I wish support from a moderator to tell me what to do. I have deleted ANY information from the page. Only rearranged it and added new, sourced information. Please advice me what to do.

Involved parties

• username1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• username2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• username3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• username4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Diff. 1
• Diff. 2

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• Link 1
• Link 2

Comment by uninvolved Sandstein

This seems to be a content dispute about Adnan Oktar, see Talk:Adnan Oktar#Neutrality and proposal for rollback and Wikipedia:FTN#Adnan Oktar. It is unsuited for arbitration because of the lack of prior dispute resolution. Please see WP:DR for dispute resolution options generally and WP:BLPN for a forum in which to discuss WP:BLP concerns with the community.  Sandstein  14:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/1/0/0)

• Decline at this time. Arbitration is a lengthy and contentious process that represents the last stage of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. Please understand that this does not mean your concerns are unimportant to us—simply that this arbitration page is not the best place to raise them. Please follow one of the suggestions that Sandstein has provided above to obtain help in addressing your concerns. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity

Initiated by JJB at 23:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

Admins not distinguished below. See party COI details.

• John J. Bulten (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Itsmejudith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Griswaldo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• David in DC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 12.144.5.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Longevitydude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Petervermaelen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Plyjacks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TML (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Brendanology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DHanson317 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Berries and cream 33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ResidentAnthropologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• NickOrnstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• SiameseTurtle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• general, TML, Kletetschka, ResidentAnthropologist

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• USERTALK, no consensus
• COIN 1, COI found, no action
• COIN 2, COI found, no action
• MEDCAB, COI party abandoned discussion
• FTN 1, more apparently neutral editors took interest, no other result
• ANI, no action

Statement by John J. Bulten

ArbCom will be shown evidence that Ryoung122 (talk · contribs · logs · block log), indeffed 2007-11 and restored 2008-08, both by Maxim (talk · contribs · logs · block log), has violated every policy for which he was indeffed and every condition of his restoration. ArbCom will be shown evidence that Ryoung122 (repeatedly found with significant professional COI) and his professional colleagues have significantly influenced other editors to mimic his behavior on WP, particularly in policy violation areas. The incomparable resultant semiwalled garden (per FTN 3) goes back five or more years and is not easily managed by nonbinding resolution methods due to antipolicy majoritarianism.

Specifically, following the order in the two links above and using illustrative diffs only, Ryoung122 has (A) harassed with extreme incivility and personal attack, (B) disrupted with chaotic talkpage edits and failure to discuss his reverts, (C) pushed POV (biasing GRG over other verifiers, verified cases over unverified, and various age claims over others with math-abusive criteria), (D) inserted unverified information, often attributed to his inaccessible Yahoo group or not found in cited sources (including one death report of a living supercentenarian), (E) continued to edit the same areas through IP account 76.17.118.157 (probably et al.) without clarifying it is him, (1) continued to demand 100 days' time to locate sources and failed to deliver even then, (2) continued to exert ownership over discussion aspects without respecting other ways of seeing things, (3) edited many COI articles while claiming only one or two articles are COI for him rather than a wide range, and (4) canvassed online and offline.

The influenced editors have also been uncivil and attacking, failed to discuss reverts, pushed POV, inserted unverified info, possibly used sock or meat puppets, refused to provide sources for such areas as data layout, exerted ownership and declined to see alternatives, edited COI articles, and canvassed online. Several such violations appear here. Unblocking Kitia for discussion might be useful, per Kitia's talk request for ArbCom.

Some of the many other issues were submitted to ArbCom for private guidance about mentioning publicly.

The arbitration will provide direct solutions to potential future conflicted edits and remove other barriers to policy-based consensus in the longevity topic area.

If not addressed in the subsection below, I categorically decline to confirm or deny any statements made by other editors. JJB 23:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC) anchored 02:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Filing technicalities

I apologize if the evidence originally present of the parties' self-identifications, or of their affiliations, both noted from the "COI list" link above, constitutes an undue weighting of what should be a more neutral section. As shown at that link, I characterize the first six names above as "apparently neutral", the next five "apparently conflicted", the next seven "apparently unduly influenced", and the last four apparently conflicted but dormant. A clerk should also decide if this diff needs further action. I am unaware of a way to shorten the party list, as it appears all 22 editors listed need review. JJB 03:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC) struck 02:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Since Itsmejudith has boldly shortened the party list, I comment that the original was intended as a list of all editors that need review, whether because of interest in such a case (6) or apparent COI or undue influence (16), regardless of current status. If understood as a list of all current thus-situated editors, without prejudice against review of the other editors' behavior, Itsmejudith's adjustments will stand, but I have made other adjustments as well:

• Add TML as a party, deleting marking as "uninvolved", due to conflict of interest properly self-disclosed below, with my hopes that TML will serve as a contrasting example of good COI management.
• Add ResidentAnthropologist as a party due to evidence to be provided to ArbCom of this editor being unduly influenced.
• Delete The Blade of the Northern Lights, marking as "uninvolved", because this editor has clearly said what needed saying and need not be listed as an ongoing party: with my apologies for misgauging the editor's level of interest.
• Add User:Kletetschka to the noncurrent parties list due to evidence to be provided to ArbCom of this editor being unduly influenced.

Thus, my biased grouping of the full list (including noncurrent editors) for the sake of categorization is as follows (note I have changed the word "neutral" to what I meant, "nonconflicted"; order is by intensity level, greatest to least):

• Apparently nonconflicted (5): John J. Bulten, BrownHairedGirl, Itsmejudith, Griswaldo, David in DC
• Apparently conflicted (6): Ryoung122, 12.144.5.2, Longevitydude, Petervermaelen, Plyjacks, TML
• Apparently unduly influenced (9): Brendanology, DerbyCountyinNZ, DHanson317, Kitia*, Berries and cream 33, Kletetschka*, ResidentAnthropologist, NickOrnstein, SiameseTurtle
• Apparently conflicted, dormant* (4): StanPrimmer, Bart Versieck, NealIRC, Cjeales

(*Dormant) JJB 02:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Responses to other editors

• @TML: Thanks, you are free to choose involvement level but I trust you don't mind your COI being reviewed.
• @David in DC: Thx
• @ResidentAnthropologist: Please refactor your first sentence as WP:UNCIVIL and your "buttons pushed" clause as a passively voiced and thus WP:WEASELy charge.
• @The Blade of the Northern Lights: Thanks for your thoroughness; addressed above.
• @O Fenian: I appreciate your bringing this to my attention earlier; already on the evidence list.
• @Itsmejudith: Thank you for the thorough historic overview. [While our intramural debate is only one subset of this case if ArbCom allows content at all, I repeat my positions that synthesis stands disproven, that the biblical-literalist POV on biblical longevity in its article is notable, well-sourced, and well-balanced with others, and that Boia and Thoms are in fact mythologists who see such a single historical phenomenon of cultural reporting of old-age data.] Note I have not self-disclosed any identification beyond the link between this account and the "John J. Bulten" editor account at WorldNetDaily. Verbum sat. I would also appreciate your sourcing the comment about "operates as an extension" of the Yahoo! group, and considering refactoring the sentence from which some might misinfer that anyone wishes WP to assert or imply knowledge about people's lifespans in disputed cases. JJB 02:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by TML

I do not wish to be heavily involved in this matter, but I have observed a number of events leading up to this arbitration request, both on- and off-Wiki, so I'll briefly outline my views on this matter.

Ryoung122, aka Robert Young, is an accomplished longevity researcher and has even contributed to the Guinness Book of World Records for many years. He has shown great expertise in the field of longevity, and I personally agree with most of his viewpoints in that subject area. In fact, I've even contributed substantially to his Yahoo! group and several other forums that he owns/participates. Based on the timing of his on-Wiki edits, he evidently doesn't participate in Wikipedia full-time.

However, like many other "expert" editors who have been sanctioned by the ArbCom in the past, it seems that Mr. Young has gotten so caught up with getting Wikipedia to reflect what he believes is right that he has a tendency to "monopolize" articles in his field of specialty. He also has his own idiosyncratic view of what constitutes reliable sources when it comes to longevity. He even has a tendency to be hostile toward anyone who disagrees even slightly with his viewpoint on longevity, including several people who have tried to mediate the current dispute between him and JJB. I have noticed some of his comments toward others are so hostile that even I myself would be intimidated if I were on the receiving end of those comments. Furthermore, he has, at times, called on others who participate in his groups/forums to support his views on-Wiki when he thinks other users are changing longevity-related content from his preferred versions.

Last month, I tried to warn Mr. Young on another website that his behavior would eventually land him sanctions from the ArbCom. I believe I have (to date) been the only person to stand up to his on-Wiki behavior off-Wiki, and not surprisingly, he dismissed my advice toward him.

I am saddened (but not surprised) that Mr. Young has now been dragged before the ArbCom on the basis of his behavior. Although I might defend his personal viewpoints on longevity, I regretfully cannot defend the pattern of behavior, both on-Wiki and off-Wiki, that has landed him in this situation. TML (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by David in DC

• Please keep me in.David in DC (talk) 12:43, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by (mostly) uninvolved ResidentAnthropologist

I Initially was inclined to view this as Randy and Sword wielding skeletons theory, I am still convinced that is still a substantial factor. As i looked closer, I did see some of what TML has correctly described as "idiosyncratic" issues with Mr. Young that are counter productive . However If this case is accepted and it should be... We need scrutiny on the other editors involved here and not just focus on Ryoung122. I think he has had some buttons pushed (The inclusion of Biblical figures leaps to mind) that have invoked some behaviors that these editors have brought up. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved The Blade of the Northern Lights

I'm not entirely sure if I should even be listed as a party to this case; my involvement is quite recent (November 11th, really), rather minor, and a total accident. I am not familiar at all with any of the acrimony between other parties to this, and I have no vested interest in any of these articles beyond ensuring the walled gardens are removed. While leaving a note on another user's talkpage for an entirely unrelated matter, I happened, completely by chance, to see User:Brendanology leaving a response to this user's comments at the Jan Goossenaerts AfD on the user's talkpage. As someone who greatly respects that particular user's views on many things, I took a look over there and gave my view, in which I noted that it seemed many of the "keep" voters were writing rather vituperative responses to the "delete" voters; "kicking the heat to light ratio towards the former" were my exact words. A couple of days later, I managed to find myself at the WikiProject World's Oldest People talkpage (how I got there I don't remember), and saw people voicing concerns about a huge walled garden controlled by people with major COIs. I figured that a set of fresh eyes would help, and when I took a look through, I found that there was some substance behind the accusations of a walled garden. I'm not particularly involved in the subject, nor do I have any particular interest in it, but something didn't look quite right from just a cursory glance. Beyond my comments over at WikiProject World's Oldest People, the only thing I can add is that Ryoung122 didn't really respond to the points I brought up; instead, he viewed my comments as attempting to paint him as a wild fringe theorist. If it had happened once, and/or other people made the same assumptions, I could pass it off as a mistake; however, at the ANI thread he did the exact same thing. Despite several requests, Ryoung122 didn't seem to want to respond to our concerns, and seemed intent on stonewalling his way through. Beyond this, I don't have very much to offer, and if I should be removed as a party to this case then kindly do remove me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:09, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by O Fenian

The behaviour of certain editors on longevity articles is beyond the pale, policies are ignored and our articles are treated as the official output of the GRG, and Ryoung122 is the "Senior Claims Investigator" for that organisation. Witness the behaviour of certain editors in this and this discussion where a family member of Margaret Fish (who is still alive) takes exception at her removal from lists, or in the case of this edit and this edit falsely reports she is dead. Editors insist on a news report that she is still alive, while relying on the GRG website which was apparently updated based on private information given by an anonymous government official.

I realise the sourcing for lists of this nature must be difficult. We are dealing with generally marginally notable people at best, and it is difficult to find a balance between including misleading information that people are still alive versus poorly sourced information that they are dead, but I am sure we can do better than the repeated (see the edit summaries in the page history) use of a Yahoo group as a source. O Fenian (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Itsmejudith

I first became aware of Longevity myths when it was raised at the fringe theories noticeboard in February of this year, here. The problem raised was the insertion of biblical literalist views. It seemed to me that there were much deeper problems, and that the whole article was synthesis. A way out was suggested; it seemed that there were two articles that needed looking at together: Longevity myths, and Longevity claims, but there was already some muddle about the scope of each. Discussion fizzled out at that point.

The problems with this suite of articles go back a very long way, before I started editing, to a time when policies were still much more fluid. The original 2003 version of Longevity myths, here is an exercise in debunking. The creating IP added the name Louis Epstein to his post. Epstein was in a constant state of warfare in 2003 about his right not to put a space after a full stop or comma and has contributed sporadically since then. In a very recent post, he [1] explains that he created Wikipedia’s coverage of supercentenarians from scratch and left when his viewpoint on some articles was not upheld. That’s basically accurate. It’s a pity that we haven’t managed to engage an editor like this and keep him on board and editing to the rules.

Robert Young has been editing as User:Ryoung122 since 2005. He had his own article, deleted after an AfD in which he intervened, in August 2007. The article on Louis Epstein was merged around the same time. Ryoung122 was indeffed November 2007 after this thread, and this one related to meat puppetry on ANI. He was allowed back again in August 2008. Young and Epstein work with Stephen Coles in the Gerontology Research Group. They publish lists on wwww.grg.org, and in the fringe science journal (probably) Rejuvenation Research. Young wrote his master's thesis on longevity, and appears to have posted chunks of it in our articles.

In the meantime, in March 2008 User:NealIRC created WP:WOP. This WikiProject got off on the wrong footing, with discussion still visible on the project talk page about the "group leader", and similar misguided attempts to run the project as a cabal. The founding editor was later blocked for a month for harassment, and hasn’t returned since. The recent bolding war on List of the verified oldest people, kicked off by a minor edit of mine, shows the extent of the ownership that is part of the culture on the project. It does indeed seem that, as JJB has said, the project operates as an extension of the World's Oldest People Yahoo! group.

Longevity myths was tagged as essay-like in April 2008 and for refimprove in July 2008. The article was still unsourced SYNTH of a myth-debunking character in April 2009 when John J Bulten came to it. By that point it had acquired a reference to a work by Lucian Boia, the nearest it has ever come to a reliable secondary source, and to William Thoms' work of 1879, as well as ELs to GRG and others. JJB cleaned up some very confused paragraphs and added some dubiously sourced material on Biblical longevity.

JJB edits under his own name, which makes it easy to find out that he is active elsewhere on the web, and is puzzles editor of World Net Daily. This allows Robert Young to accuse him of being a biblical literalist and POV-pusher. Both JJB and Young wish to see the Longevity myths article remain in more or less the same shape, however much they disagree about the title. For different reasons they both want to see a sweep from the Sumerian king lists through to cases of people who died in the last decades, although there doesn't seem to be a single expert on myth who thinks that there is a single phenomenon (of exaggerating ages) from early civilisation through to the present.

Although I instituted the COIN post and the ANI about Ryoung122's activity, that doesn't mean that I agree with JJBulten about the future shape of longevity-related articles. It would be wrong for our articles to assert or imply that people have lived beyond the known 122 of Jeanne Calment. Biblical literalism is a viewpoint that needs to be covered in the encyclopedia, but it isn’t generally a notable viewpoint in articles relating to human longevity. In contributing to this ArbCom proposal, I’m not aligning myself with JJB’s point of view. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (2/0/0/1)

• Without prejudice to considering this case, could a clerk please work with the filing party to significantly limit the number of "parties" in this case? Please note that there's a difference between someone who is actively involved in the dispute being brought forward, and those who have expressed an opinion on the matter at some point. Thanks. Risker (talk) 23:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Accept. I think the list of parties can still be narrowed further (all editors are welcome to present evidence without being parties), but it is clear that there is a long-running dispute here which has wended its way through various dispute resolution processes. Risker (talk) 23:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• I join in Risker's request. I also find the classification of the proposed parties to be unnecessarily confrontational and unhelpful in assuming the things that, if we accept the case, would have to be proved. It should be noted that if accepted, a case would examine the behavior of all parties. Awaiting further statements before voting. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• When I reviewed the AfD and the contentious discussion that resulted, I did a quick once over of the various people in the AfD, and the area. I tend to think we have folks treating this area as a BATTLEGROUND, and showing ownership. There has been a long-running MedCab case in this area that has not come to a fruitful end. Normally, I'd prefer to see an RfC.. but after seeing some of the attacks from the AfD, I think there is a case to be answered here. Voting to Accept. SirFozzie (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

MickMacNee

Initiated by  Sandstein  at 15:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Scott MacDonald (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• MickMacNee - 16:08, 12 November 2010
• Scott MacDonald - 16:09, 12 November 2010

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

According to an archives search (there are probably more):

1. March 2008: ANI - incivility and other disruption at AfD by MickMacNee
2. May 2008: ANI - proposed interaction ban of MickMacNee with respect to another user
3. September 2008: ANI - incivility and other disruption at AfD by MickMacNee
4. November 2009: ANI - incivility and other disruption by MickMacNee
5. November 2009: AN3 - revert restriction violation by MickMacNee
6. August 2010: ANI - incivility and other disruption by MickMacNee
7. September 2010: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots - opinions about MickMacNee's AfD conduct
8. September 2010: AN3 - edit warring by MickMacNee
9. October 2010: ANI - AfD disruption and incivility by MickMacNee
10. October 2010: ANI - Nationalist disruption and incivility by MickMacNee (also some followup discussion at this ANI thread)
11. November 2010: ANI - Discussion following the latest unblock of MickMacNee
12. November 2010: ANI which triggers this request (permalink) - AfD disruption by MickMacNee

Statement by Sandstein

Like many Wikipedians, MickMacNee has made substantial and valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. But unlike almost all Wikipedians, he is also habitually disruptive: he has received nineteen blocks since 2008 (block log). The problems for which he was blocked run the gamut from edit-warring to incivility, personal attacks and general uncollaborativeness, often in the context of nationalist disputes related to "British Isles" terminology, but also with respect to other issues. The common theme is a recurring inability or unwillingness to work collegially and collaboratively with others (see the discussions referenced above and his block log).

He was most recently indefinitely blocked by me on 30 October 2010 after an ANI report (no. 10 above) for making a disruptive AfD nomination for nationalist reasons and reacting to complaints about this with the statement "(...) my parents told me that the British were evil baby raping bastards. So, whenever I see an article that uses the phrase 'British Isles', I feel compelled to delete it.". The subsequent community discussion was broadly supportive of that block (see also no. 10 above). All admins reviewing MickMacNee's unblock requests agreed that an unblock should only occur after MickMacNee agreed to binding restrictions preventing future disruption (see talk page as of 2 November 2010).

Nonetheless, on 2 November 2010, Scott MacDonald unblocked MickMacNee without discussing the matter with the community or with me as the blocking admin, without obtaining any credible assurances of good conduct by MickMacNee (who had not once addressed the reason for his block, except by saying that he was drunk at the time), and in the face of what Scott MacDonald himself said was "a community decision not to unblock".

Unsurprisingly, as of 11 November 2010, there is another ANI report (no. 12 above) highlighting continued AfD disruption by MickMacNee, of the sort discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots, including statements such as this. Numerous people have commented to the effect that this now needs ArbCom action to resolve. I agree, since it is apparent that nothing prevents an admin to undo another block simply because the admin thinks that they know better than everybody else.

I ask the Committee to take the action required to prevent continued disruption by MickMacNee. This could include, e.g., a site ban and/or a topic ban from the issues and venues in which he has been disruptive.

I also ask the Committe to consider formally restricting Scott MacDonald (or better yet, admins in general) from making potentially controversial unblocks without first obtaining the clear agreement of the blocking admin, the community or ArbCom, in order to prevent more uncollegial and counterproductive unblocks of this sort.  Sandstein  16:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In reply to the concerns by Risker and Kirill, at least part of MickMacNee's disruptive conduct has been extensively discussed at RfC, at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots. I'm not sure what another RfC could express that the multitude of noticeboard threads did not already, namely, that MickMacNee is habitually disruptive and shows no inclination to stop (including in his statement here, which again does not address his own conduct at all). We're only here because Scott MacDonald prevented a resolution at the community level. In this respect there is a divisive dispute between administrators, which this Committee normally addresses without prior dispute resolution.  Sandstein  06:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In reply to Carcharoth, I can't see what further dispute resolution could achieve. The recurring problem with MickMacNee's editing has been near-unanimously identified by many, but community action to address it (a block until effective restrictions are agreed) has been frustrated by Scott MacDonald, which is why we are here. As regards the scope, as far as I am concerned, it is the disruption by MickMacNee. It's up to the committee whether it wants to address this problem directly by sanctioning MickMacNee, or indirectly by restricting Scott MacDonald (and other admins) from preventing a community solution, or both. As a practical matter, I would favor the former approach, as a matter of policy, the latter.  Sandstein  07:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by MickMacNee

Arbitration is supposed to be the last resort in the dispute resolution process, after all reasonable steps have been attempted. Despite what Sandstein claims, none of the people who regularly claim I am all sorts of scum at ANI, have ever done anything about it in terms of constructive dispute resolution. And not one of those ANI reports ever resulted in any sanctions, probations, or anything else you would characterise as reasonable steps prior to a case. Most of my blocks are instantaneous, and worked out one-on-one. ANI reporting is not calm, reasonable, dispute resolution, it is a pile-on fuckfest, where nobody should assume anyone is a neutral good faith participant. And what even is the dispute here? That Sandstein couldn't get an indef block to stick on me? And that's my fault how exactly? Or is it that I have breached some magic number of permitted blocks? Does the committee see any evidence at all that the general claims Sandstein makes above about me above have been remotely rigorously examined in a proper DR venue or process, with rational, calm, fair, evidence based analysis, and neutral recall/summarisation? In terms of proper dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee remains a redlink, as it has done for over three years. None of my detractors has ever attempted any reasonable or good faith dispute resolution with me, except the occasional attempted lynching at ANI. Sandstein is clearly a willing part of that culture. His first attempt at dispute resolution with me was to attempt a unilateral community ban without any prior discussion. His second attempt is now to file an arbitration case. This is not reasonable, not reasonable at all. Compare how I have been treated to how the community handled the entire process for User:Gavin.collins. This case is seriously premature, and as such should be rejected, unless the committee wants to start setting precedents that the DR process really is just ANI -> Arbcom. MickMacNee (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Scott MacDonald

When I unblocked Mick, I made the following statement on ANI:

I have no reason to dispute the initial block. Indeed when I saw it reported here, my reaction was "well, he had that coming". Mick has a troubled editing history, and he and I have clashed and there's no love lost. I note the initial block was endorsed, but I also noted that people didn't rule out an unblock, if conditions were met, and if there was some expectation that Mick would change his ways. Initially there seemed little chance of that. Indeed after some of his responses on the talk page, I locked the page, and took that as the end of the matter. Throw the key away and forget him. The story looked inevitable. However, pushed by Giano, I thought I'd make a final attempt to mediate something. Asking any Wikipedian to eat humble pie, admit their sins and promise to be good, is unrealistic. Yet that's what the earlier negotiations with Mick were attempting to get him to do. Has ANYONE ever done that? In the end, we don't need anyone to confess guilt, we just need them to recognise the behaviour that makes it impossible for them to continue with Wikipedia, and indicate a willingness to amend it. Thus, I went as Nixon to China, and had this discussion with Mick. I had no desire to unblock him if there was no chance he'd avoid being reblocked for something pretty soon - but he did indicate he understood that. Please do read that discussion before commenting here. As a result of it, I unblocked him. If I'm wrong, I'm a naive fool, and I'll be the first to block him. If, however, he does take "evasive action" to avoide [sic] the usual circle (of indef block - unblock - more drama - community endorsed ban) then we win. Anyway, if consensus is to reblock, then with a heavy-heart I'll admit my failure.--Scott Mac 17:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I've little to add to that. I did not directly undo Sandstein's action. Under a particular set of circumstances, Sandstein used his admin's judgement to block, and submitted his decision to ANI. I have no quarrel with that. His decision in the circumstances was generally endorsed (with some dissension) but an unconditional ban was not in any way. My mediation with Mick achieved what I saw as a new set of circumstances, and I used my own judgement to unblock and test Mick's words. I submitted that judgement to ANI, where it was not overturned. I have taken no part in events since then and offer no view. If it is the case that Mick has behaved in a manner worthy of sanction since my unblock then I disappointed (although not altogether surprised) - but it is not a matter I wish to be involved with.

If Sandstein has issues with my unblock, then I ask where his RFC is?--Scott Mac 17:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Scott MacDonald?
• Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Unblocking?

Statement by SarekOfVulcan

I'm slightly-involved here, having blocked MickMacNee for edit warring a while back, and generally in Ireland-related articles. I would like to urge ArbCom to take this case for two reasons: one, to determine if MickMacNee's persistent incivility rises to the level requiring a long-term block; and two, to determine if admins unblocking without first attempting to influence a clear consensus in favor of a block should be sanctioned. For the second part, I'm a bit more involved, having had blocks unilaterally reversed in the middle of community discussion.

I agree that admins should be able to correct other admins' errors, possibly even in the face of an expressed consensus -- what I am objecting to here is blocks being reversed while community discussion is ongoing, when the reverser has not participated in the discussion at all. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

See also the current discussion at User talk:Gimmetrow#What do you think you're doing? regarding another unblock (apparently) against expressed consensus. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)

I was the blocking admin on the TreasuryTag discussion Wehwalt links below. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Question for Risker

Considering that the behavior is question is long-term incivility across a wide range of articles, what sort of dispute resolution are you suggesting would be best to pursue here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Wehwalt

The willingness of cowboy administrators to unblock even while discussions are still pending at AN/I, or even pre-empting a discussion prior to its start, and without consulting with the blocking admin, is an increasing problem, as other admins struggle to preserve civil discourse on the wiki. This has seen application in blocks of those troublesome editors who are given to well-spoken incivility, and who have friends who urgently advocate their unblocking, without the need for apology. At the present time, there are editors whose civility blocks are likely to stand for only minutes. Hopefully, given that this case is likely to be accepted, this is something ArbCom will take seriously and do something about.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

See also:

• (unblock of Malleus Fatuorum by Moni3)
• (unblock of TreasuryTag by Rd232)

Statement by uninvolved Rd232

The problem here is mostly an inability to deal with serial incivility, because incivility is subjective and the seriousness with which it is taken varies. As a result dealing with all but the worst kinds of civility and personal attacks really needs community input rather than unilateral admin decision. The problem, in a nutshell, is not a lack of community backing for unilateral and inevitably somewhat arbitrary decisions, it is a lack of a mechanism for reining in serial incivility from established editors. I had suggested when I unblocked TreasuryTag imposing a civility probation. I'll just quote my proposal from there:

I think part of the problem in these sorts of circumstances may be the practice of not having punitive blocks. For precisely the sort of low-level problem behaviour alleged here, it makes it very hard for any enforcement to happen, unless an individual act is sufficiently egregious to justify a block (but even that may just lead to the behaviour being marginally moderated). So what you end up with time and time again is unilateral action by an admin who gets ticked off (justifiably or not), and then a big debate which turns essentially on whether the community is also, broadly, ticked off. Really, maybe the answer is to explicitly make friends with the idea that in some limited circumstances punitive blocks are allowed. Then issues could be more systematically handled, and for example after community discussion at AN or ANI an injunction issued to stop or at least moderate the behaviour (and not just in the short term). Then, if the injunction is breached, a punitive block might be exactly what's needed to focus the user's mind, and (broadly) help prevent future misbehaviour. However, this block would have to be after community discussion to justify it.

In other words, a civility probation would permit a user to be blocked for incivility which admins would normally hesitate to block for, with established community backing both for the probation and for the block for infringing it ensuring the block sticks. Why would this be so helpful? Because most of the time opposition to mid-level incivility blocks stems from "it's not that bad, people say stuff". For a user under probation, there is the definitive retort "yes, but he's under probation".

I commend this approach to the committee as a possible sanction. Rd232 ^talk 19:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved JodyB

I encourage the committee to accept this case to give us some guidance on two important and growing issues. His comments notwithstanding MicMackNee cannot claim any ignorance of the rules and expectations of his behavior. Any attempt to hide behind process to prevent discipline should be rejected out of hand.

But I think that the greater issue here is the way unblocking is done in the midst of a dispute. Scott MacDonald is, so far as I am concerned, an excellent administrator. It is rather sad that he happens to be the one caught up in this discussion. Nevertheless his actions are, at the very least, confusing and possibly even troubling.

As an administrator I can assure the committee that most desire to wield the mop with efficiency and fairness. However it has become clear that there is no consensus as to when to unblock. Some statement from the committee could clarify the issue.

I urge you to accept this case and clear these two matters. I will not offer specifics now but if you choose to move forward I will attempt to suggest remedies and guidance.

JodyB _talk 22:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Hipocrite

This is a pattern of behavior from Scott MacDonald, which I will provide evidence of if this case is accepted. Hipocrite (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement from HJ Mitchell

I had drafted a longer statement, but decided to save it for the full case. I've a feeling nothing I say will prevent this from going to a full case, but I do believe that MMN's conduct alone does not merit arbitration. However, the issues surrounding his most recent indefinite block require examination by the Committee and if this is the only way, then so be it. I believe Scott MacDonald's conduct, possibly my own conduct and, in particular, that of Sandstein should be scrutinised. I would say, though, that I believe Sandstein's suggestion of a siteban is unwarranted and I do not believe Sandstein is a neutral party in the matter. For the record, I am not uninvolved and I have made admin actions in the matter as well as contributed to previous discussions (in which I've taken a variety of viewpoints). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken

As a rank-and-file editor, with no involvement in this case, I urge ArbCom to take it on. The behaviorial concerns are real, and have occured over a good deal of time. An RfC will not solve them, and to not take it on on that basis is, I think, slipping a bit into bureaucratic thinking.

This is not a situation which arose, had one AN/I outing, and then came to ArbCom, it's been building over time, and, as Sandstein's list above shows, has been featured on the noticeboards many times. To think that an RfC is going to settle it is naive, and only puts off the problem for some future time, when it will again end up here. The last AN/I had, again, no resolution, and it was the community's decision that since it could not handle the problem, ArbCom needed to step in. ArbCom, then, has, I think, the obligation to take this on, and not to refer it back to the community, which has shown no great ability to solve the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to declining admins:

I think that Shell's second comment hits the nail on the head, and I urge you to reconsider your decisions to decline the case. I've got no dog in this fight, I've never had problems with any of the named participants, and, in fact, few interactions with them at all that I can recall, but there are both individual and general issues here that need to be resolved, and ArbCom is clearly the only venue in which that can possibly happen: there are too many conflicting views which cannot be harmonized through discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely ArbCom can define for itself the scope of the case? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Carcharoth:

An RfC on the blocking/unblocking issue could well be useful, but I do not believe that a user conduct RfC for MMN would resolve anything, and it is this issue that I am primarily urging be accepted by the committee. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Wifione

I have been involved in the issue involving the unblock of User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back by Gimmetrow, which he undertook before discussions could take place with the blocking administrator, and without the blocked editor in question addressed the reasons for which he was blocked. Details can be found here. In my discussions with Gimmetrow (additional discussions here), I had brought out the fact that Gimmetrow went specifically against our WP:Unblock policy which strongly advises the unblocking administrator to contact the blocking administrator and then discuss the issue with them, before taking up the unblocking action. While Gimmetrow did contact the blocking administrator, before discussions could start, Gimmetrow commented that as 24 hours had passed without the blocking administrator commenting, he was undertaking the unblock action. Post this move, four administrators opposed Gimmetrow's unilateral unblock move. I did too, pointing to our unblock policy. That said, I would urge this arbitration case to not only address the particular case, but more importantly address the issue whether an administrator wishing to unblock a blocked editor can do so unilaterally. Our current policy says they cannot. But specific administrators are doing this and putting the policy into question. Thanks and regards. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 09:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by LevenBoy

I request immunity to speak openly and honestly here.

A number of the individuals and particularly admins involved in this request are involving themselves in the British Isles renaming dispute, a dispute related to earlier Irish naming disputes, which I sense is likely to arrive here sooner rather than later. I would go as far to write that this case be set aside and Mick's most recent conduct be included in discussion of that case. One that Sandstein is referring heavily to. As someone who is involved in the British Isles renaming dispute, and is very well informed about the issues, the Wikipedia history and the current state of play, it is very clear that Sandstein actually does not understand what Mick wrote, where it is coming from and is misinterpreting the situation.

Sandstein writes quite erroneously, "He was most recently indefinitely blocked by me on 30 October 2010 after an ANI report (no. 10 above) for making a disruptive AfD nomination for nationalist reasons and reacting to complaints about this with the statement "(...) my parents told me that the British were evil baby raping bastards. So, whenever I see an article that uses the phrase 'British Isles', I feel compelled to delete it"

Firstly, to anyone involved it is stunningly clear that Mick was not making a "nationalist" nomination. He was creating a humorous parody of a nationalist nomination in an attempt to highlight, and make light, of some of the endlessly tiresome and silly drama we have been experiencing in this area (any topic with the term British Isles in it). Mick is not writing in his own voice. If he is guilty of anything, it is a very British sense of humour. The indefinite ban was completely out of place if Sandstein honestly thought Mick was being serious. If Mick was block for not being serious, or being too funny, then it would have been acceptable.

I do not know Mick's history so I am not going to defend him any further but I would like to say at present the British Isles renaming dispute has attracted a number of administrators whose attention does not go as far as actually contributing to the relating articles or discussion and which feels a bit like snipper fire from the edges. I am not totally convinced that they actually know the topic matters nor appreciate the cultural values (dark humour, appreciation of straight talking etc) of the individuals involved. They have been at it for a few 100 years and you have to suspect they enjoy it in a perverse way and have their own way of sorting things out. It is all part of the craic.

Speaking for parties on both side of the Irish Sea, on the whole "civility" is far more highly valued in honesty, straight forwardness and humour than in pretentiousness or false manners. In my opinion, there have been a lot of bad blocks flying about which have only inflamed the situation, put content creators off and damaged the project. --LevenBoy (talk) 14:19, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Cailil:

Except that the extremely prejudicial misinterpretation should be struck out.

I am sorry to oppose you directly here - not least because it could effect your permission for me to edit the Wikipedia - but as the impetus for this request is clearly based on an exaggerated misunderstanding or misconstruction of the circumstance for the sake of effect, accusing someone of a racial hate crime when in fact they were making light of an ongoing situation, it is wrong to go ahead. It would be far better to use the Arbcom's time to examine the British Isles renaming dispute as a whole, including the admin's conduct, rather than to take out a single individual involved.

There is an underlying conflict here between the proven content producers, which would include Mick, and the manners police. Mick's frustration should be understood not as 'the problem' but as a symptom of a big problem going on elsewhere (in this case the campaign of a few Irish editors to remove the term British Isles that he parodied). I think many of us feel that the manners police do not understand and appreciate the scale of burdens, obstructions to content creation and waste of resources that are being placed upon us by that dispute and are doing nothing about them.

It is an easy fix for the manner police to take sniper shots and "remove the problem" by removing individuals. Someone like Mick is an easy target. But it is not resolving the core issue. Some of us are far more worried about other issues related issues such as the apparent onsidedness of such policing. --LevenBoy (talk) 02:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

Micky's conduct at AfDs is irrelevant to me. I prefer to let the closing adminstrator of AfDs, decide if my posts are valid or not. As for administrators having trouble deciding on blocking/unblocking an editor, that's IMHO for administrators to decide amongst themselves. PS: AFAIK, Micky doesn't seek the replacement of British Isles on Wikipedia, that AFD-in-question, was just a gag on his part. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

By the way, did anybody consider trying WP:MED? -- GoodDay (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment by uninvolved Jtrainor

This is just going to come right back here again eventually if ignored. If it's popped in then Arbcom should examine the behaviour of -everyone- involved, including Sandstein. It's long past time the air was cleared on this. MMN's point that substantial, or really, -any- form of dispute resolution hasn't been tried, is pretty much indisputable. This is literally more of the same lynch mob garbage that pops up periodically for anyone unpopular, except it's on ARBCOM instead of WP:ANI. Jtrainor (talk) 18:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Cailil

The only reason that this case has come to RfAr is because the community has failed to resolve it - an RFC is going to be more poisonous that it will be helpful. And part of the problem here is the poisoned atmosphere that MMN's style of commentary and ad hominem creates in the talk-space. Sending this back to RFC could well be counter-productive.
To my mind, Scott's unblocking is just 'the straw that broke the camel's back'. MMN's block was for disruption to make a point at AFDs, for long running incivility, and abuse of talk-space. The discussions regarding that block (at ANi and at MMN's own talk page) both had a consensus to keep MMN blocked at the time Scott removed it. That unblock was contrary to blocking policy where "a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI)" exists. Furthermore Scott's unblock was unconditional there was no treatment of why Mick was blocked and no acceptance by MMN not to repeat the same behaviour, just a vague statement saying he wouldn't get himself blocked.
That said, I doubt that personalizing this as being about Scott is correct - IMHO if it wasn't him someone-else would probably have done it. But who ever unblocks in this situation leaves the rest of us ham-strung. There was an admin decision, there was consensus for it, but all that was followed by an out of process reversal of the decision. Such actions make a mockery of community decisions, and prevents any remedial action being taken due to the danger of wheel-warring. Either the community has the power to form a consensus not to unblock until 'the standard offer' is met or it doesn't. I would urge the Committee to deal with this matter by either:

1. Giving guidance for unblocking in cases like this
2. Dealing with the substantive issues with MMN's attitude and behaviour in the talk-space (as evidenced in Sandstein's post)

--Cailil ^talk 18:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• Reponse to LevenBoy: I'm going to keep this short - nobody has accused MMN of "a racial hate crime" and this is not about the British Isles Naming Dispute. I have nothing against ArbCom looking at that topic (or indeed my actions) but the systems of DR in place for that dispute are working thus an RfAr is not necessary.
  This case is about 2 things MMN's behaviour and his unblock.
  I would suggest that someone on civility parole should refrain from making pejorative remarks at RfAr, or otherwise showing a battleground-mentality (by this I'm reffering to your "proven content producers and manners police" remarks). If you want to ask me why this is my position please do so on my talk page--Cailil ^talk 13:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mjroots

I urge the committee to accept this case. MickMackNee's statement re a RFC is not quite true. Whilst a RFC hasn't been filed about him, the RFC he filed about me (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots) in effect turned into a RFC about him, so he cannot claim that he hasn't been told where his editing is problematic. I did consider creating a RFC about MickMacNee, but the advice I received from then-'crat Rlevse was that to do so would be counterproductive, which is why I haven't filed a RFC about MickMacNee. My view is that should the case not be accepted, then a RFC will follow, MickMacNee's editing will continue in the same vein, and we will end up back here in a few months. Insisting on a RFC in this case would be procedure for the sake of procedure. Take the bull by the horns and accept the case. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Question for Carcharoth - What is to stop the committee taking on this case as more than one case - one looking at the behaviour of MickMacNee, and another looking at the (un)blocking issue. That way, each separate issue can be fully examined. Mjroots (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharoth - A RFC on the unblocking issue may well be appropriate, and may provide clarification and future guidance on the issue. As I and others have stated, it is fairly clear that a RFC on MickMacNee would do little more than delay the inevitable ArbCom case here. Not to denegrate the seriousness of either issue, MickMacNee is the more urgent of the two. Mjroots (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Question for Newyorkbrad - How can you say that this is not going to be accepted at 4/5/0/0? There are active 11 members of the committee, so it could still finish 6/5/0/0. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(Pardon me for responding here in a threaded-like discussion, but WP:IAR.) The rule (which was created long before I became an arbitration and which I have never liked, though I suppose I understand the rationale for it) is that a "net four positive" vote is required to open a case. Thus, 6/5/0/0 would be an insufficient majority. If we were to reach that point, I would lobby some of the arbitrators opposed to reconsider taking the case, but I don't know that we are going to get there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

So we just sit it out and await the last two Arbs to make their decision for the moment then? Mjroots (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by RGTraynor

I'm not an uninvolved party; I've seen Mick's style from time to time over the years at AfD. Beyond that, I filed the most recent ANI concerning him.

Other admins and editors have said a good bit, much of which I endorse. One comment stuck out with me, that from Scott MacDonald: "In the end, we don't need anyone to confess guilt, we just need them to recognise the behaviour that makes it impossible for them to continue with Wikipedia, and indicate a willingness to amend it." I'm sorry, Scott, but you're dead wrong: we need them to recognize the behavior that's out of line, and change it. As I've reviewed the record, in marked contrast to the hostile, vituperative, profanity-laced, disruptive and tendentious style that's Mick's hallmark in AfD and content debates, his responses to blocks tend to be sweet reason. Once unblocked, it's off to the races ... for dispute after dispute, ANI after ANI, block after block. So when Mick asks why a RfC hasn't been filed yet, and others ask why a RfC hasn't been filed yet, may I ask what one would possibly accomplish? Would Mick be any more willing to listen to the community than heretofore? Would any assurances he'd give be worth any more than those he's given to unblocking admins? I can't imagine so.

I'm minded of a quote from a famous hockey incident of the 1950s, from the league president: "The time for probationary lenience has passed, whether this type of conduct is the product of temperamental instability or willful defiance of the authority of the game does not matter." He's been aware that many people in the community have serious problems with his behavior for years now. He's been blocked many, many times for it. Whether his conduct is just uncontrollable or he's willfully giving us the finger doesn't matter or shouldn't matter.  RGTraynor  05:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Minimac

My only notable interaction with MickMacNee may be irrelevant on the number of problems stated above, so in other words this could be a separate case. In the article Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships (Which appeared in the news section) he made an excessive number of reverts within a prolonged amount of time, but most of the time he does explain his reverts, which is probably the only good thing he's doing. However, I didn't understand this short-handed edit summary, explaining it as "tlne". The rest of the reverts that may need examining are [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] and [8]. Minimac (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Statement by User:Georgewilliamherbert

I understand Arbcom's reluctance here, and the conflated but connected issues, but you may want to consider that for certain types of issue we have already established that Arbcom is of necessity the first and not last stop in the dispute resolution chain. That there haven't been extensive admin conduct RFCs should not disqualify certain issues from being heard at this level; at a point, side conflicts and alliegances tend to make RFCs and noticeboard discussions very personalized and ineffective. I don't know that this incident necessitates Arbcom involvement, but the general problem is repeating and unresolved. Either the inter-admin consultations and noticeboard consensus standards are serious - and enforced - or there's no point in having them. That participants may not need serious sanctioning for an incident doesn't mean that they shouldn't be taken seriously.

As-is, you are saying that you mean it, but have been reluctant to act to a degree that the policy is being actively disrespected beyond what IAR can justify, and I would really rather that you step up to the plate and make people take it serioiusly. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (4/5/0/0)

• Awaiting statements, but based on the ANI discussions I am leaning toward acceptance, both to address Mick MacNee's behavior and to clarify application of the blocking policy. If accepted, I will offer to draft the case, and I will be posing specific questions to the parties and other concerned editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Accept. I will be posting questions for the parties soon after the case is opened. Responses, evidence, and workshop proposals should be posted within one week thereafter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Having reconsidered this request in light of the latest input and my colleagues' views, my vote remains to accept it. Nonetheless, it is now evident that it is not going to be accepted, and therefore I suggest that the parties proceed with RfCs as suggested below. I anticipate having some input in the one regarding blocking policy and related issues, and least by way of positing a list of topics that might productively be addressed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Ah, the nebulous second-mover advantage. Think I wrote something about that a while back. *sighs* I'm voting to Accept, if Brad needs a second drafter, I'm going to volunteer. SirFozzie (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Accept based on ANI discussions, but would reconsider if statements here show arbitration is not needed. Shell ^babelfish 16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just like ArbCom cases look at the behavior of all involved, RfCs may end up looking at the behavior of others; I'm not comfortable with the idea that because an RfC wasn't named after the right person we discount the attempt to resolve the situation. Between talk page history and the various other discussions, it seems that this behavior has been going on for quite some time with no consensus how to resolve it - that's exactly what Arb cases are for. The problem of the "second-mover advantage" is also one that the community hasn't been able to resolve. Declining the case is only going to postpone the inevitable and allow several issues to fester in the meantime. This is a chance to act proactively rather than wait to fight fires of CC proportion. Shell ^babelfish 22:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Decline for now. I am unconvinced that appropriate attempts at dispute resolution have happened here. In fact, I see very little attempt at dispute resolution, because ANI is almost the antithesis of dispute resolution. Frankly, I'm seeing this is more a decision on the part of some members of the community to not bother trying any level of dispute resolution other than Arbcom. Having said this, I question that this is as straightforward a case as some of my colleagues seem to feel. Risker (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

• In response to Sarek of Vulcan, there are at least three different cases being proposed here, and the one about Mick MacNee is the smallest part of the whole. The ANI discussions have a fairly common thread: heavily involved user comes with buddies to complain about opponent. It's hardly unique to Mick MacNee, who is not the only editor whose name keeps coming up there. It doesn't take very long to figure out that one way to "game the system" is to regularly dispute an editor's behaviour at ANI, because people eventually start saying "wow, I keep seeing this name here, that editor must be a real problem." It's one way to neutralize an opponent, even if the opponent is largely correct in their policy interpretation. Risker (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• In response to Sandstein and Mjroots, an RFC on Editor A that attracts comments on its initiator Editor B is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the same thing as an RFC on Editor B. In this particular case, the RFC was closed for inactivity without an impartial third party summary, and the final comment on the talk page by an editor who was neither Mick MacNee or Mjroots says "Maybe it's time for a true RFC on the real issues. FWIW." (from User Bzuk)[9], which indicates that even on 6 October 2010, the need for a separate RFC was already identified. There is a difference between problems that the community is genuinely unable to solve, and problems that some people in the community have decided they are unwilling to do the work to try to solve. This request seems to fall into the latter category. Risker (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

• Decline, largely per Risker; exceptional cases aside, AN/I does not constitute sufficient dispute resolution. I see no reason why the RFC stage should be bypassed here; and, in all honesty, this is framed more as a test case about the interpretation of certain wheel-warring provisions than as an actual attempt to resolve a specific dispute. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 03:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Accept; this is a recurring probem, and I very much doubt an RfC focusing on a particular instantiation of the problem is going to be of any help. — Coren ^(talk) 06:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Decline - more dispute resolution could help here, I think. Definitely some requests for comments at least. Carcharoth (talk) 14:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
  • As an additional comment, it is almost impossible to discern what the scope of any case would be. All those urging that there be a case need to read what others have said and see that this appears to be 3-4 different case requests bundled into one. Maybe it would be better if the separate issues were refiled as different requests for arbitration? i.e. one request for on a case on the conduct of MickMacNee and a different request for a case to clarify how unblocking should work (but then how do you stop such a case becoming an excuse for anyone and everyone to dredge up blocks and unblocks they disagreed with?). It is also clear that arbitrators have different perceptions of what they are accepting or declining, so maybe someone could notify the original filer of the request and see if this request could be withdrawn and new request(s) be made that more clearly state what is being asked for here. Carcharoth (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Replying to Beyond My Ken, it is difficult for ArbCom to decide on a case scope when ArbCom can't agree on what the scope of any case would be. As I said, refiling of the request could help clarify this, and those commenting could this time help by not immediately mentioning so many other matters as to render discussion of case scope hopeless. Responding to Mjroots, I don't think the committee has ever opened two cases from one request. Some arbs might accept one case and decline the other. I would propose a motion to try and resolve this, but there are still some active arbs left to comment here. One option suggested has been for a motion to require, in lieu of a case, a user conduct RfC and a general RfC on blocking policy and how unblocks are (or are not) working (that way, the community get to decide the matter, not ArbCom). At the very least, those two RfCs would help clarify the scope or need for any subsequent cases. Comments would be welcomed on whether those following this think that course of action would help. Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Decline: substantially per Carcharoth. There are two issues here, both of which can be significantly clarified with further community input, via separate RFCs. The first is MMM's conduct, which is probably straightforward. The second is to untangle the policy issues, by focussing on the strength of consensus required for unblocking and, by extension, the strength of consensus required to re-block to overturn the action of an unblocking adminstrator. There is probably a clear distinction to be drawn between performing an action for which insufficient consensus exists and performing an action which actually runs against consensus.  Roger ^talk 06:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Decline - per Risker, and Carcharoth. KnightLago (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)