Moving from main page as it's not really evidence, to make space. (And I don't want to simply delete it.)
And an apology:
- I apologise to Mick for anything I may have said or done, ever, to upset him. I also withdraw any suggestions that I made that my distress arising from interactions with him is in any way, shape or form his responsibility. Whatever unflattering characterisations of Mick which I made were mere reflections of the emotional state induced by those interactions, not statements of fact. If anyone sees any truth in those characterisations, that's entirely a matter for them.
Rd232 public
talk 14:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not exactly withdrawing this; I am sorry if I upset Mick somehow (which would help explain his behaviour towards me). However absolving Mick of all responsibility was going a bit far, and really a symptom of my wanting to have no further interaction with Mick at all, given what an unpleasant experience it had been for me. With a bit of time/distance, I'm making the effort to clarify a couple of things, so moving this here to make space. PS I'm slightly disappointed, though not entirely surprised (in fairness there's an awful lot going on), that
in 40k of text (at time of writing) Mick didn't find space to acknowledge the apology.
Rd232 public
talk
17:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Why would I need to acknowledge it? If you meant accept, well, I don't. The problems for other editors that your various unilateral interventions at ANI caused are still ongoing, this case included. If you're proud that your intervention meant Delta still thinks he can act the way he did in the edit war on your talk page of all places, well, there you are, live with it. I seem to be expected to, as he yet again escapes any kind of scrutiny for blatant, indisputable, violations & general gaming/battlegrounding.
MickMacNee (
talk)
15:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- "Why would I need to acknowledge it?" - you don't need to acknowledge it, but generally when someone apologises, the polite thing to do is to acknowledge it, even if you don't accept it. (I trust I don't need to explain the difference.) As for Delta - well I see your combativeness is undiminished ("if you're proud..."), and that you see no need to acknowledge that I opposed the indef-block over that incident and supported an edit-war block of Delta... Or that consensus couldn't even be achieved for my proposed soft topic ban for Delta from NFCC, so why you still somehow blame me for failing to get a site ban passed is beyond me... Hard to see why you don't win friends and influence people, really it is.
Rd232 public
talk
18:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Polite? You 'soft ban' failed for the precise reasons I said it would, which you completely and utterly ignored. And while others might give out credit for taking ineffectual positions which don't change anything, I don't. I simply remember the actions you did take that did have real consequences, actions that ignored large sections of the community, and were anything but polite.
MickMacNee (
talk)
19:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- So, your position is unchanged? i) a thread where no consensus could be found to block for minor incivility could have achieved consensus for a site ban ii) allowing a site ban discussion to continue at length with no plausible prospect of success would not prejudice a potential near-future site ban discussion perhaps started in a better venue and with better summary of relevant evidence iii) splitting the pro/con difference on the civility block discussion to compromise at 24 hours (half-way between overturn and 48 hrs, without the behaviour endorsement overturning might suggest) was bad iv) that compromise on the civility block was directly causal for Delta (deliberately, in your view?) exceeding his speed restriction by 10% the next day v) proposing a lesser topic ban sanction which you argued was equivalent to a site ban for Delta was bad, even though you wanted a site ban.
Rd232 public
talk
19:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- My position is unchanged in that you had no right to consider that a simple thread on an incident of 'minor incivility' when you demonstrably had no knowledge of the editor's history, either as regards civility or how he has treated past efforts at 'compromise' (and worse, you flatly ignored everyone who did know this), that the resulting ban discussion did have a prospect for success if eventually closed by someone with said knowledge, and that your post-closure excuses of wrong venue & prejudice etc were just that, excuses. You deserve no credit whatsoever, not in the slightest, for then trying to suggest a topic ban which you had no idea amounted to an effective ban, as if that's somehow what you intended in the first place. Delta is the same editor he always was, still racking up the blocks, still pissing people off, still riding roughshod over various policies, but now, instead of him being up before arbcom appealing a rightfully imposed community ban, I'm here because you were so pissed off at my justifiable crticism of your actions with him & TT, you chose to do the exact opposite to me at ANI that you did for Delta when you got your chance. As an illustration of just how inneffective you were as an admin toward Delta, he even felt confident enough to in middle of this case to GAME me & bold as brass 4RR, and on your talk page no less. He's laughing his ass off right now, and all you're worring about is not getting acknowledgement of your 'apology' from me. Pah.
MickMacNee (
talk)
19:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- And there we are, back to bad faith and hyperbole about my knowing nothing at all about Delta, just because I'm not so involved as to be incapable of acting neutrally in a way that manages how others with greater knowledge but less neutrality debate the issue. My actions at your ANI were hardly the opposite of the Delta thread (a ludicrous suggestion, seeing as in one I wasn't acting as an admin and in the other I was). As for gaming - again, ridiculous. You edit warred to remove another's comment, and several people repeatedly reinstated it. Delta went to 4RR, which was unjustified and should have been sanctioned, but
WP:GAMEing? All too frequently, Mick, you sharply weaken legitimate concerns by framing them with hyperbole, often leavened with bad faith and a bit of venom. If you would just tone it down, people would listen to you rather more. PS "all you're worring about is..." - no, that's water under the bridge; in your replies here it's clear you have seen it but have no interest in taking it in the spirit intended.
Rd232 public
talk
20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- It's not hyperbole, I can prove with cast iron diffs, beyond any reasonable doubt, that you did not know enough about Delta to be getting involved, most certainly not unilaterally. And let's not forget, the ONLY person to respond to your proposal was an admin criticising your attempt to 'take your admin hat off' in making it. Not hyperbole, proveable events with real consequences for other editors and the site in general, that you are still pretending never even happened. As such, I could give a fuck about 'spirit' at this point. And the only ludicrous suggestion here is you trying to pretend Delta was just innocently trying to restore someone else's comment. Your naivety in all things about him is astounding frankly. Neutral <> clueless.
MickMacNee (
talk)
21:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Well,
diminishing returns are now just a distant memory, so I leave it to you to evidence your position as best you can. As a gesture of good will (I'm a sucker for punishment), I'll point out that I have noted in my evidence that Jtrainor is not an admin, as you've claimed maybe half a dozen times.
Rd232 public
talk
21:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Well, I'm sure he used to be one, and even if he isn't, he isn't AFAIK seen as an idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about when he does chime in at ANI. The fact remains, his comment was the only response. The only response. If it was that important maybe you might have corrected me the first or second time I claimed he was.
MickMacNee (
talk)
22:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
-
[2]
[3].
Rd232 public
talk
22:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- "I'm here because you were so pissed off..." MMN, you're here because you simply don't play well with others. Acknowledging that it is your behaviour, and not that of other editors, that has led to this case would go a long way towards avoiding the permaban. I mean christ, you have Jimbo himself saying you don't belong here. How big a dick do you need to be to get a founder to say they don't want you on the site? Who else shares that dubious distinction? You have a "me against the world" mentality that is both seriously grating and unconducive to what we're trying to do here. This arbcom case isn't really about one incident or another, it's about the sum total of your interactions with others on this site. They have been, in a word, shitty. You can claim that you've been mistreated; you can claim that all the admins are out to get you; you can claim anything you want. In the end, the common factor is you. You are the reason we're here. Refusing to admit that is just inviting the banhammer. There are two realistic outcomes here: either you admit wrongdoing and voluntarily agree to some remedial measures, or you get permanently banned from the site. If you want to be a part of Wikipedia, I suggest you pursue the former option. Otherwise, the site will get along just fine without you.
Throwaway85 (
talk)
20:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I suggest you go and look at the ANI that sparked this whole case. That is not me against the world, that is RD232 against me, after neutral and uninvolved people have dismissed the complaint. I'd also go and check what Jimbo actually said before you start claiming to speak for him. DeCausa and whoever can pretend what they like about what this case is about, they had to rely on a banned sock & RD232's ridiculous inflaming of a stale ANI for this case to even be filed. It got accepted because talk is cheap. As we see on the Evidence page, backing it up truthfully seems to be pretty hard. The only way I am a 'common factor' here is if you see arbitration in the way RD232 clearly does, as some kind of fucked up exercise in measuring an editor's popularity or willingness to bend over, instead of a clueful exercise in actually examining their evidence. You want editors who only give a fuck about whether they're popular, but don't really bother with the actual wording or intent of policies like WP:CON or WP:NPOV etc, well, DeCauasa et al are it. You want to hand the site over to them, be my guest, that won't be a place I want to work frankly.
MickMacNee (
talk)
21:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
-
Jimbo's comment was gentle, but unequivocal. By suggesting you should be allowed to "walk away with dignity", he is quite kindly saying, "GTFO my site". The words are nicer, but the meaning is the same. As to this arbcom case, it's not about the AN/I thread. The clear message from everyone here is that there is an ongoing and pervasive problem with the way you interact with people. It's not about one incident or another, it's about your behaviour in general and in aggregate. You said some people view this as a popularity contest, and in effect you're right. This is about whether or not your fellow editors believe that your presence on the site is positive. It's not about your willingness to bend over, although a bit of repentance would go a long way. Look, I've never had any interactions with you that I can remember, and I have nothing against you personally. I do, however, have an issue with the way you conduct yourself, and it was that conduct in the AN/I thread that led me to follow this case. This is not a matter of who broke what policies, when, where, why, or how. The simplest distillation of the issue is that you are so combative that a bunch of people, including Jimbo himself, have come to the conclusion that the site would be better off without you. Stop trying to make this about other people. It isn't. It's about the way you interact with others. It's about your aggression and combativeness not being conducive to a cooperative environment. Now, were you to acknowledge that and commit to changing your behaviour, I'm sure that everyone here would agree to give you another chance. It would require an honest admission of wrongdoing, which from what I've seen doesn't seem to be something you're either capable of or willing to provide. The other, inevitable option is a ban, either lengthy or interminate. The clear message people are giving you is that your behaviour isn't acceptable. If you take that message to heart, and change your behaviour, then you will be a welcome member of the community. If you don't, then either arbcom or an rfc/u will eventually invite you to leave. It's time to take a step back and look at the community's reaction to you in aggregate. It isn't positive. If you don't change your behaviour, you will eventually be asked to leave. Maybe that's something you're okay with. Maybe it would suit you better to view yourself as the martyr who was pilloried by some nasty and underhanded conspirators, than to be the person who admitted wrongdoing and continued to participate in the community as "that guy who used to be a dick and was forced to admit it". Maybe your pride won't let you do that. I don't know for sure. All I can say with any degree of certainty is that there are only two plausible outcomes here: either you apologize and change, or you get banned. The tide is against you, and you're building walls in an attempt to keep your sandcastle dry. If being 6 taught me anything, it's that that never works for very long. I hope you take this to heart, but I'm not optimistic.
Throwaway85 (
talk)
22:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I don't want to debate what Jimbo means further, unless he expands on it. You might see it that way, I don't. And the issue is not pride, it's simply not wanting disputes to be treated as if they were popularity contests or public spectacles. The committee has a specific role, and dealing in vague context-less generalities isn't it. If they aren't up to that job, why would I even want to return frankly? If they want to use me as a test case to achieve what no admin except Sandstein has ever even proposed, then having observed him for a long long time now, why would I ever want to expend another microjoule of energy contributing to Wikipedia? This is only about me insofar as it can be proved the issue is me. The operative word being proof. Not assertion, not feeling, not vague idea, but proof. I'll eat whatever shit I feel is proven to be largely of my own making, and nothing more, particularly as this case appears to be a one sided affair. There's nothing wrong with that stance as far as I can see, not in the real world at least. Wikiland is maybe different. Sorting out who's who and what's what is difficult, but fuck, if they didn't want the job, they shouldn't have stood for the position of being allowed to ban editors who, as in my case, have put years into this site. I've yet to see anyone show I've ever actually damaged an article for example, even though claiming even that isn't beyond some people who hope to see it stick with people like yourself. If people want to allege I'm the reason this site is losing cluefull editors hand over fist just by being strident at times and not putting up with certain people's agendas and other bullshit, fine, ban me, and see how that works out in the long run when the new intake gets to my level of policy knowledge, if they even survive that long. If you want to let people judge if others have done wrong simply by taking what others say about them as read, then leave it to the likes of Sandstein, that's his level. Check my evidence to see what sort of adminship you'll end up with.
MickMacNee (
talk)
01:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Throwaway85 hit the nail on the head.
DeCausa (
talk)
20:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- rd232, I have to say I have very little sympathy with what you've posted here; it's verging on baiting - although I'm sure that's not what you intended. You know full well how MMN conducts himself and there was never any possibility that he would respond in any sort of civilized way. And expecting MMN to do "the polite thing"? That's just jaw-dropping.
DeCausa (
talk)
18:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- You're the one baiting here, unless you want to retract these characterisations of another editor. Please remember the 'profession environment' you supposedly support.
MickMacNee (
talk)
19:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Well I'm an optimist, and always want to see the best in people. (Ironically, it's the application of this to others which made Mick so pissed off at me in the first place.)
Rd232 public
talk
19:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- "characterisations of another editor"? Those "characterisations" are what this arbitration is about.
DeCausa (
talk)
20:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Oh, that's good then. Carry on then, by all means. I must have missed that exemption in WP:CIVIL.
MickMacNee (
talk)
21:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, amongst the other things you "missed" in
WP:CIVIL is
WP:CIVIL#Identifying incivility and
WP:CIVIL#Dealing with incivility. But I think everyone else is aware you've missed them.
DeCausa (
talk)
21:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I can identify rudeness just fine. I can identify someone trying to get a rise out of someone else by interjecting themselves in a discussion for the sole purpose of being rude, similarly so. And if you were remotely able to deal with perceived incivility the right way, then we wouldn't really be here now would we? Or alternatively, this case would have had your name on it as the filer, instead of some random banned sock.
MickMacNee (
talk)
21:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- I'll tell you: I assumed the manner of your input to the
Talk:United Kingdom threads was just down to you having a bad few days. (AGF I guess.) But when I saw this arb come up, I took the trouble to research your contribs. what I saw was that your style of involvement in the UK threads was your standard modus operandi, and not an exceptional incident. That has no place in Wkipedia. And that is why I offered to the clerks to take Chester Merkel's place if it was procedurally required.
DeCausa (
talk)
21:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Pointing out NPOV violations & poor practices in consensus building is indeed my modus operandi. Being annoyed by editors like you who try to brush off or otherwise dismiss those valid concerns, instead of directly addressing them as CIVIL demands, is also my modus operandi. It's called not suffering fools gladly. So yes, guilty as charged, on both counts. As you were the person who suggested the NPOV violation in the first place, and you were chief among the people doing the subsequent dismissal & evasion right to the bitter end, then it's no real surprise that I'm exactly the sort of editor you don't want to see around Wikipedia any more.
MickMacNee (
talk)
22:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- Pointing out NPOV violations & poor practices in consensus building isn't your modus operandi - as I said I've checked your contribs. "Being annoyed by editors like you who try to brush off or otherwise dismiss those valid concerns, instead of directly addressing them as CIVIL demands, is also my modus operandi." You posted
this before any response, let alone being "brushed off". The fact that you don't understand what the problem is with that is why you shouldn't be involved in WP. "As you were the person who suggested the NPOV violation in the first place". From the first you've misunderstood. I made a whole range of suggestions, including that one, none of which I particularly expected to get accepted. I dropped out of that discussion once i suggested it - it took on a life of its own. I made the final propsal that resulted in its deletion. Other than trying to end a pretty petty and irrelevant disputed issue, I couldn't have given a rat's arse on which particular solution was generally accepted. Perfectly happy with the replacement (which I drafted).
DeCausa (
talk)
22:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- No, I posted that after I was reverted having given a very detailed and policy backed rationale for the edit. And like it or not, apart from being a little strident, there's no actual violation there in the subsequent talk post. You might desperately want there to be, but there isn't. I ended that initial post with the statement "I'd like some answers, directly, or I'll be reverting, on the basis that 'see talk page' is not a legitimate defence of such flagrant violations of the MoS or NPOV". I was given the link and read it, and from then on, I subsequently received no answers, let alone direct ones, with you being the chief culprit in that regard. You didn't know why your suggestion was wrong then, and it's pretty obvious you still don't now. Not givng a rat's ass is definitely the impression you give out when it comes to giving policy backed arguments or listening to those of others. And what ever you did in the final knockings (I can't be bothered to check, but I really doubt your version here), you were certainly figthing for 'doing nothing' option right to the near end.
MickMacNee (
talk)
01:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- "Apart from being a little strident, there's no actual violation". You just don't get why you're here do you? The phrase you've written there is a big part of it. You don't get to behave the way you do just because you are right on policy or because another editor has the temerity to disagree with you.
DeCausa (
talk)
06:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
- This is a big point MMN, and it's one you would do well to pay attention to. Nobody is saying (far as I can tell) that you're wrong on policy or even that you're wrong to argue based on policy. They're saying that you're arguing in a very
dickish manner, and that you are routinely uncivil. Other people's incivility or personal attacks against you don't excuse your own behaviour. We give leniency to people who are baited, but not forever. You've established a pattern of behaviour that is not welcome on this site. Notice I didn't say *you're* not welcome. Just your behaviour. If you're willing to tone it down and stop trying to make everything into an argument about how other people are harassing you then you'd be more than welcome to stay. But the community has sent you pretty clear messages that your conduct is unwelcome and won't be tolerated for much longer. Look, this is the internet. People will be dicks to walls of text, without thinking that they're talking to a living, breathing, thinking and feeling person on the other side. Even in Wikipedia, where we try to maintain a collegial discourse, people are dicks. Most of the dickery is low-level, and goes unpunished. Yours is beyond that level. We're not asking that you stop arguing over policy or that you ignore everyone who bates you. We're just asking that you behave respectfully. Even if you maintained the general tone you've maintained here, you'd be fine. People wouldn't exactly like interacting with you, but they wouldn't be calling for your head, either. You're very stubborn and unwilling to consider views you disagree with, but that describes a lot of people here. If you could just cut out the aggression you would be fine. Saying you don't "suffer fools gladly" is fine, but it's not an excuse for being an asshole. You can point out the flaws in someone's argument or behaviour without also behaving
like this. Sandstein's blocks have been called into question before, and there are avenues available to discuss corrective measures if you think they're called for. Sometimes those avenues don't work. Such is life. That doesn't give you the right to react in the way you did. Were it an isolated incident then we wouldn't be here, but it wasn't. It was simply a particularly egregious example of your usual method of communication, and there's no excuse for it. None. Please stop trying to defend that kind of behaviour, and we can go back to writing articles instead of deciding what to do with you.
Throwaway85 (
talk)
07:16, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
reply
|