Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/BISE/October 2010

British Isles disputants

Triton Rocker

Request for enforcement of WP:GS/BI restriction

Could someone please deal with Triton Rocker (talk · contribs) who's third edit after coming off a one month ban was to make a personal attack on my editshere in direct validation of a civility ban that has been imposed on him at British Isles Probation Log. Just in-case Triton Rocker says he didn't understand the scope of the ban here is the actual words left at his talk page by Cailil (talk · contribs) You are being placed under a behavioral editing restriction. This account may be blocked if it is used to make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil,personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Thank you. Bjmullan (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triton really doesn't like me so I'll leave this for another admin to decide, but the fact that this was their third edit after coming off a month long block combined with the rest of their block log leads me to favor an indefinite block. Maybe point them at the standard offer. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, I saw Bjmullan request that TR retract his statement earlier. Having viewed the post and Bjmullan's own phrasing above: "...was to make a personal attack on my edits". Clearly, it's directed at the edits, not the editor, as per WP:CIVIL. Sure, TR was careful to put a paragraph spacing between his own statement regarding bad faith and the generic and non-directed "...It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise...". By Bjmullan's own statement, it was an attack on edits, not an editor. An over-reaction IMHO, and although a bit of warning is possibly due, there's nothing actionable here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Rocker was not only commenting on my edit at British Sky Broadcasting but accused me of provocative editing in general without producing any incident to back up his claim. A clear case of not assuming good faith. Bjmullan (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be sheer sophistry to argue that In my opinion, Mullan's edit to the BSkyB topic is a provocative and bad faith edit. I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him. is a comment on edits, not the editor. I am not a great fan of bureaucratic definitions of civility, but a direct accusation of bad faith is about as personal as it gets.Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bjmullan's edit was to change "Britain" to "UK and the Republic of Ireland" in more than one place after another editor had chnage dthe infobox to "British Isles". One source uses "Britain" only. The other uses Britain pretty much except for page with map (hunted down) showing the location of it's offices in UK and the Republic of Ireland. Subsequently there was a bit of an edit war between named editors and IPs. Isn't this what WP:BISE was supposed to resolve? Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much activity on his talk page and block log it's a bit of a maze, but I thought at some point there was an agreement that he would stay away from this whole "British Isles" conflict. In any event "I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him" certainly is an accusation directed at an editor. Any time a user accuses another of acting in bad faith they need to be damned sure that is what really is going on, and should always provide diffs to substantiate such a claim. Especially if they have a notice on their talk page proclaiming that there is "too much snooping and snitching on the Wikipedia" and a section header they added so that everything below it is identified as "harassment." We don't need this kind of battlefield mentality. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm waiting to see what his fourth edit is. And btw, there's no way to read "provocative and bad faith edit" as something other than a comment on an editor -- especially since ABF was specifically called out in the notice of his civility probation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing this for individuals who are new to this dispute and unaware of the issues involved. For those individuals who are already up to speed, please excuse some repetition as I make my introduction.

"Good Faith" has been established at WT:BISE that none of the contestants enter into edit wars, adding or removing the term "British Isles", without first consulting the community.

Mr Mullan, a support of the contingent who have for some time been habitually seeking to replace the term "British Isles" with "Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Ireland", did so here; [1]

The 'edit' was not in good faith. Why?

The topic is about satellite broadcasting to the British Isles. It was agreed by the community that the terms "Britain and Ireland" or "United Kingdom and Ireland" do not include the Isle of Man nor Channel Islands which exist in the geographic area British Isles. They do not. A simple Google search taking seconds shows that the company broadcasts to the the Isle of Man and Channel Islands. Common sense tell us that any signal going to the UK and Ireland would have to include at least the Isle of Man and more than often the Channel Islands. Therefore, Mr Mullan either knowingly or negligently introduced an error into the Wikipedia to support the ongoing campaign.

Mr Mullan is very aware of the issue of dispute and previous discussion. It is very difficult to read the editing introducing the error as but a provocation or a testing of the waters to see how far he can go. Courtesy would have been to brought it to WT:BISE but in this case there is no possible contention British Sky Broadcasting broadcasts to all of the British Isles.

* Why is our time being wasted there and here? It is just more LAME DRAMA.

My comment regarding my previous experience was not uncivil. It is either true or false. I could provide many example if anyone cares. Mr Mullan has an obsession with with me because of this British/Irish issue, follows my editing into other areas where he has had no interest, reverts my work and habitually reports me. This is just one more example.

I consider this a provocation where, e.g. the summaries are prejudicial and do not reflect the reality of my works. One such case would be the topic on Queen Elizabeth II, e.g. [2][3].

I would like to make it clear for newcomers to this dispute that I do not have a political or nationalistically motivated POV. My POV is that politics should be kept out of area which are not political and that the Wikipedia is not the place to decide international geonaming. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TR blocked for 1 year

Well Sarek, now you've seen that fourth edit. I have imposed a one year block. There is not the slightest indication that this editor is ever going to get the picture. Looie496 (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Triton Rocker has been given a block. However he accused me of following him around and used Elizabeth II as an example of where I followed him. For the record, I first edited at the article on 14 January 2010, Triton Rocker made his first edit nearly eight months later on 22 September 2010. His third edit at the article was to remove a large section of the last paragraph from the lede. Surely he must have realised that on such a high profile article that the lede would have been discussed and agreed on the talk page? Triton Rocker continued his usual MO of making edits without first getting consent, personal attacks and not assuming good faith. I quote him from the talk page: Miesianiacal, I appreciate the "Monarchy of Canada" is one of your things and you want to make a big issue of the Canadian-ness of Elizabeth II. Putting your personal interest aside,..., Considering the similarity of your interests to MIESIANIACAL, regarding the 'Monarchist League of Canada' et al [5], can I ask you both not to use this topic for your own political soapbox?. And finally here is the edit summary from DrKiernan (talk · contribs) after reverting one of Triton Rocker edits; unexplained, contentious, potentially misleading....Bjmullan (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Logged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A year's block? lmao, I see this "civility parole" has been taken to the extreme as was to be expected. Simply incredible. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's incredible that he couldn't restrain himself in the face of multiple warnings. Support 1-year block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No BW it's become quite clear that TR doesn't take Wikipedia's behavioural policy seriously. He can count himself lucky we're still using blocks of definite duraion. All TR needed to do was be civil and AGF. Endorse 1-year block--Cailil ^talk 12:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good block. Sandstein 13:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well played Bjmullen. AGF: the gift that keeps on giving. Triton sounded like a sensible bloke actually, Bjmullen certainly never had anything substantive to counter on any content point of his, so in a way I'm happy he has been released from the depressing need to learn the game himself to be allowed to participate in such complex and debate worthy issues like, does a satellite signal obey geographic or political boundaries, and whether we need references for such daftness. Go and do something usefull with your life Triton, come back maybe when the Irish issue has had it's own arbcom case, and people are put under real civility restrictions, which enforce the whole policy, not just the easy bits that any old gamer can pick up and use so easily as a weapon, and which actually foster real mutual respect, not the fake kind, and allows real, relevant and clueful content argumentation to come first, not last, in these tedious face-offs. Still, what's next on the BISE agenda today. 'Does the British Isles have a coast?'. Well, that sounds like a perfectly normal question to ask, *AGF mode ON*..... MickMacNee (talk) 13:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TR should've stayed away from the BI stuff, until his sanction expired. GoodDay (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban instead of block?

I don't have a problem with a one year block, considering he just doesn't get it despite repeated warnings and blocks. However surely a better solution would be to just ban him from the British Isles area entirely, and interaction bans for any editors he's been in conflict with over the issue? This would allow him to get back to other areas of editing where he's apparently been productive. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering his campaign against "snitches", I suspect that he's going to have problems wherever he edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it's a good point. The reason I didn't propose a full topic ban last time was becuase TR already has Black Kite's limited ban (topic banned from editing) in place and I thought the civility parole would resolve his interaction issues - it clearly hasn't had that effect. That said TR did have a history of editing constructively at motor bike topics and I'd hope that when he comes back he returnes to constructive editing, thus banning him from what seems to be a hot-button topic for him might work - I'm open to discussing it anyway--Cailil ^talk 13:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This result seems odd. Apparently "commenting on editors rather than edits" is a blockable violation of a civility parole, and therefore a violation of WP:CIV? OK, if that's the operating rule, it should be applied everywhere, to everyone; that could make ANI a little complicated; some comments in this multipart thread appear to me to be comments on an editor. It seems to me, for instance, somewhat difficult to categorize speculation about future actions of an editor as "commenting on edits", since the edits haven't happened. So, could someone explain precisely why [4] is such a terribly uncivil edit? Gimmetoo (talk) 14:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I don't find the comment overly un-civil. However, a striking-out of it wouldn't hurt either. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While standing alone it wouldn't have been blockable, Cailil's civility parole specifically called out assuming bad faith. Since TR explicitly made an accusation of bad faith editing in the diff above, it was a clear violation of the parole.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting interpretation, Sarek. The "civility parole" invoked CP01 of WP:GS/BI, which does not refer to assuming bad faith, and so doesn't directly authorize any sanction specifically calling out "assuming bad faith". Or are you arguing that "no assuming bad faith" is authorized implicitly in WP:NPA or WP:CIV, which are mentioned in CP01? Furthermore, the application of the "civility parole" [5] mentioned a "consensus" at ANI, and the link goes to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive641#Expansion_of_sanctions_at_WP:GS.2FBI, where I don't see the specific wording of the specific civility parole for Triton discussed. Gimmetoo (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of his notification was quite clear. If he didn't like it, he should have appealed it -- and screaming about a "kangaroo court" is not an appeal -- instead of violating it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any phrasing of any appeal could have been construed as a violation of AGF... Gimmetoo (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The user's talk page ("If you wish to harass me, please do so below.") in combination with the history is indicative of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality Wikipedia is better off without. However, the longest previous block was 1 month; it's possible that something less than a year would be better, like 3 months - assuming that there is any hope of the user reforming. (And if there isn't, we might as well indef now as wait for more trouble.) Rd232 ^talk 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call me an old softy, but I believe TR should be only topic-banned for a year. AFAIK, his behaviour on other topics is cool. GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion with NcmV at the implementation thread that kind of ban is problematic. However, as I said in the civility parole notice I'm happy to review it after 6 consecutive months of 'clean' editing on wikipedia (not just a 6 month holiday). That goes for the ban too - I'd be happy to review it or let it be reviewed by the community after 6 consecutive months of constructive editing. The ball is firmly in TR's court all he needs to do is accept and abide by policy in spirit and to letter - if he does that then the restrictions will be lifted--Cailil ^talk 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triton Rocker came off his one month block @ 14:55 by blanking his user page. One hour and eight minutes later on on his third edit he attacked me. He never retracted nor did he accept that his edit was wrong. I believe that trying to get Triton Rocker to abide by any rules here would be very difficult. I fully support the one year block. Just for information (particular to Triton Rocker and MickMacNee) my name on Wikipedia is Bjmullan and not Bjmullen, Mullan or Mr Mullan. I would thank you to respect that. Bjmullan (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk to me about respect. In response to this 'attack', you threatened Triton in not one but two places, you went to his talk page saying incivil and baiting things like "When will you ever learn?", and you filed this ANI report, all before he had even made another edit, let alone had a chance to accede to your demands to redact the comment and flaggelate himself. You should frankly count yourself lucky that the adminning of this topic area is so transparently one sided. Wait a few minutes, and I'll probably get a months block for mispelling your user name, even though it was clearly just a mistake. Any admin interested in your insinuation it was anything other? I didn't think so. Or maybe you can petition for me to be put under a spelling probation eh. I'll start saving my pennies to fight the case you will clearly inevitably bring for mental anguish. You do anything and everything except actually defending your content edits, so if you're looking for respect, don't look in my direction, I am not one of these people who believes AGF is indefinite and one-sided. MickMacNee (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple blocks already for topic ban evasion. AGF doesn't ask us to completely abandon common sense and give 10 slaps on the wrist, thinking, "Hmm, maybe there won't be an 11th time. Then I might have to give him a big finger wagging. That'll learn 'em." Vodello (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On good faith, and being taken for total mugs

OK then, if people think that we should all AGF to a man in this topic, let's take a wander to the BISE page and examine the latest report shall we? It concerns the novel Storm Warning. Nobody really knows anything about the article or the book, but that's not really important. User HighKing, whose last god knows how many edits have been in or around BISE (I stopped after 500, SPA much?), has clearly gone looking for an article that uses the term, and has found one he thinks he can get the term removed from. It's usage there is not inaccurate, and it has yet to be established why the original editor used it (nobody is even bothering to ask), but HighKing has helpfully suggested how it can be removed, anyway, and asked if anyone has any arguments for or against this, in the wonky way that has somehow been established for BISE, even though supposedly, polling is evil. There are of course, no compelling arguments either way, but for some reason, we are not allowed to question HighKing's reasons for making this, and other, suggestions, without ever coming up with a guideline to mandate such a systematic programme of literary changes. So, would an admin like to suggest what the good faith response to this situation actually is, without breaking the holy AGF? Unless or until admins get real, and call a spade a spade, and deal with it as a whole, then the only thing that will pass for enforcement in this area is this sort of gaming nonsense, while the pedia gets systematically cleaned to adhere to a certain POV, i.e., that 'British Isles' no longer exists as a term, and any and all usage of it at Wikipedia has to conform to completely ridiculous sourcing requirements similar to that applied to 'terrorist', or 'palestinian', infact, even worse half the time. This is time wasting POV pushing nonsense, and it is no suprise people like Triton, who are not prepared to play the game, are so easily eliminated from it in this way. MickMacNee (talk) 16:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick you were already warned this month for your behavour at WP:BISE xfd[6]. This is an enforcement thread of an editor under editing restriction. Your issues with BISE and other users are a seperate matter. If you have an evidenced and substantive issue with another user then put it to the community in a concise and neutral way, so that within the parameters laid down in the Troubles RfAr or the BI topic probation we can deal with it, or open and RFC, or try mediation - there are multiple avenues of disute resolution to try. However, wikipedia is not a soapbox and your above edit is in breach of that and of WP:BATTLE. Take a step back and reconsider your approach, and seriously if you have evidence of people misbehaving show me I'm happy to look at it--Cailil ^talk 17:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny you should mention that Mfd. That was in effect a mini-Rfc on BISE. And the majority opinion of uninvolved editors who bothered to comment?. Their consensus was that it was an illegitmate cabal-like venue which is responsible for POV pushing. What a shocker, a complete surprise, you could have knocked me down with a feather. What was also not a surpise, was that this outcome was completely, totally, and utterly ignored. Just like it is repeatedly ignored here. Just like it would be repeatedly ignored after a full Rfc. Mediation? Would not even be accepted, let alone approached in good faith. Prior arb case? Out of scope (infact, it is the reason HighKing moved into this dispute full time). No, the only people who can do anything about this, short of another arb case, is you lot, and pretending that this latest incident is somehow completely seperate and unrelated to the behaviour I outlined above, is really not the way to go. There is no actual rule that I'm aware of, that you are supposed to restrict yourselves to investigating just the content of the initial report, not least if there is an underlying cause, which there so clearly is. If you want to prevent such reports coming every few months, until the end of time, then for crying out loud, stop ignoring these things. Nobody is ever going to take this through an Rfc just to be ignored, and it is arguably far too late for that anyway, the root causes date back years, and it is far too beneficial for the gamers to keep the status quo for them to ever take any notice of such a thing. On that score, from where I'm standing, Bjmullan's threats, demands and general incivility towards Triton fell foul of every single paragraph of BATTLE. And that was from a grand total of five or so edits. It all worked out pretty well for him though eh? He is the guy laughing his ass off right now at having eliminated an opponent from BISE, because he is now free to carry on and resume the TE style discussion which it looks like another poor and unsuspecting example of that extremely rare beast, a relatively neutral and uninvolved at BISE editor, Quantpole, is about to experience. Maybe he will lose his rag eventually too, find out that nobody in the admin corps even cares why, then say something daft and get himself put under probation, and then suffer the same fate as Triton. Rinse and repeat, rinse and repeat. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gamers? Jeepers, ya get involved with BISE & you're labeled for life. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick you aren't going to get another warning. Stop soapboxing. Stop treating wikipedia like a battleground. And stop attacking other users. Your above edits in this thread[7][8][9] and on TR's talk page[10] are in violation of these policies.
If you have evidence of disruption by other users present diffs, show patterns of behaviour in diffs and leave out the editorial please - we can all can make up our own minds whether the diffs constitute disruption or not.
Again if you want to present evidence of something go ahead but do so in concise and neutral way with diffs. If you are unwilling to do so, and unwilling to attempt dispute resolution you should not make edits that disrupt enforcement threads related to it--Cailil ^talk 20:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am about as unwilling and unable to deal with this issue, as everybody else was unwilling and unable to deal with POV pushing on Climate Change, or on Isreal-Palestine, or on Macedonia, etc etc etc. You want diffs? Well, i gave you enough info to be going on with, but if you want specifics, what about this from Bjmullan just now, Perhaps you could explain why you think using UK + I is wrong. That was after the person he is speaking to had already stated how he thought it was wrong. This is just the latest example of precisely the sort of incivil and tendentious editing that is the reason editors like Triton are so easily gamed off of that page and into a year's block. You will note that this is Bjmullan talking to the editor who is also relatively new to BISE, and merely trying to give his opinion. So, now you have a diff, what now? Am I still soapboaxing or disrupting this thread with an entirely unrelated issue? Should I still fuck off to the looney bin I apparently rode in from and castigate myself for not having written all this up in an Rfc before mentioning it, or is someone actually going to step up here? And before anyone says 'not blockable', I am only after just the slightest indication that admins will even acknowledge that this one particular edit, which took 5 seconds to find, is an example of incivil/TE behaviour (i.e. in this case, do not deliberately ignore other people's already stated opinions). I won't bore you with the thousand other diffs that would establish the long term pattern needed to get a block if not stopped, I just want to see if there is any market at all among the admin corps for enforcement of this kind of problematic behaviour, to give all of us who are heartily sick of it, just some indication that NPA/AGF are not the only things that matter here, and that the whole of CIVIL is relevant under this civility parole regime, not just the easy bits. MickMacNee (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Agree. Unfortunately, when, like TR, you are already under restrictions you are easy meat if you can't keep a cool head. Bjmullens edit was not good but TR knew he shouldn't be getting involved in edit wars. Fainites ^barleyscribs 22:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Mick it is very necessary to "bore [us] with the thousand other diffs that would establish the long term pattern" - otherwise we have nothing to go on. We don't do content disputes here on ANi, and if you want to raise an actual issue you need to show context, edit patterns, evidence of misconduct, relevant policies/decisions etc.
As regards the edit you mentioned yes Bjmullan's remark was unnecessary as was Quantpole's use of "disappointing". The conversation is a bit circuitous and the remarks mentioned (by both) are unconstructive. It is a borderline abuse of talk-space by both, but one that could be solved by striking. It is something the patrolling admin (TFOWR) will probably look into ASAP and if he misses it I'll poke him to remind him about it.
I warned you Mick to stop soapboxing and that we don't need the editorial. Stop screeding in wikipedia talk-space or you will be blocked for abusing it yourself--Cailil ^talk 00:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what Calil, the only Rfc I'm ever likely to file, is over your apparent wish to give more of a shit about people 'disrupting' non-article space noticeboards, than doing anything about a report of actual POV pushing in actual articles. Which thanks to your game-winning block of Triton, continues unabated. Not that you give a flying fuck of course, for obvious reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick I warned you, I told you it was your last warning, and I answered your question. Your above reply fails WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:SOAP. I'm giving you one opportunity to redact your remarks or I will escalate the matter--Cailil ^talk 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I've never blocked Triton Rocker--Cailil ^talk 20:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's spot on, Mick. All the admins involved here seem far more concerned with talk page etiquette than with the POV pushing, some blatant, some subtle, that continues unabated at the BISE page and elsewhere in connection with the British Isles issue. It sickens me to see what's going on. Triton received a totally uncalled for block and sanctions against him were imposed almost unilaterally when he wasn't even allowed to defend himself, and on it goes. The current block of one year is surely a joke! Triton's remarks that caused it were entirely acceptable under the circumstances when, faced with an editor who disregarded the rules at BISE, he had no option but to complain. I cannot comprehend how supposedly intelligent people, like the involved admins would have us believe they are, fall for this BISE shit hook, line and sinker. I can only assume they have little or no experience of comparable matters in the real world. It's so obvious what's going on here that a baboon would be able to fathom it out, and if that baboon had the wherewithal would impose topic bans on a small number of certain other individuals who are the real root cause of the problems here. The likes of Triton and a few others are merely reacting to a scandalous situation which is being ignored by the few people (admins) capable of doing something about it. LemonMonday Talk 17:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Triton was not banned from discussing the topic, and that's what Triton was doing. Triton's edit seems reasonable and quite civil. I support removing the block entirely. I also support removing any civility parole from Triton at this time. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make my position clear, I also support removal of the block and the civility parole for Triton Rocker. They are counterproductive in the current environment, and were both imposed in a situation of gross unfairness. LemonMonday Talk 18:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LM you were warned to stop forum shopping about this. Your edits are displaying a clear battleground mentality further edits to the project like this will be prevented by block. This is your last and final warning--Cailil ^talk 20:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cailil, it seems that you exist here simply to hand out warning and blocks. Much more of it and you'll be featuring in the Guinness Book of Records. I don't know what you mean by forum shopping and this so-called battle ground mentality. I am merely expressing a view on this very difficult matter, is that a problem for you? Well, it seems to be because every time I return to Wikipedia - and yes, I don't edit that often - you are not far behind issuing warnings and blocking me, no matter what I have to say. If I was not such a generous person willing to assume good faith I'd think you were deliberately targetting my remarks. I note in these threads copious amounts of dialogue the contents of which far, far exceed your own strict requirements for civility and other issues and yet you don't bat an eyelid. Why is that? I said To make my position clear, I also support removal of the block and the civility parole for Triton Rocker. They are counterproductive in the current environment, and were both imposed in a situation of gross unfairness. That is my view. It's obviously not your view but I can't help that. My comment is highly relevant to the current debate even if you don't like it. Your constant warnings and blocking threats are debilitating. Please stop them. Incidentally, it might help if you actually offered some views on the points being made here rather than doling out threats and blocks like there was no tomorrow. LemonMonday Talk 20:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarify - sorry Cailil, it wasn't you that blocked me it was User:Jehochman, but you do issue one hell of a lot of warnings and as I say, it would be useful if you actually put some views forward about the whole British Isles thing - what you consider to be the root causes and how these might be dealt with etc. LemonMonday Talk 20:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point being LM that TR's restrictions have been approved 3 times by community that discussion is over. Brining up again in hope that another admin will remove it is forum shopping and I've asked Jehochman to review your posts in light of my warnings.
"The whole British Isles thing" is under community probation and I will enforce that probation to the best of my ability on both sides. If someone puts forward a case showing in a neutral and cogent way that anyone has been violating that probation I am happy to act on it. But I will not let incivility and ABF pass - that's where problems on WP start.
If we can encourage people who don't like each other to work together productively everyone wins but if someone would rather flaunt WP:5 then they will just be prevented from doing so--Cailil ^talk 21:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not bringing it up in the hope that another admin will overturn it, rather that the community will reconsider it. Anyway, ~~I see what you mean by policy shopping here. I thought PS was looking for a policy to support your POV, something that happens a lot at BISE. Maybe both meanings are right.~~. LemonMonday Talk 21:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing my forums with my policies. LemonMonday Talk 21:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It's usage there is not inaccurate". And that phrase neatly encapsulates all I'm finding depressing about this whole "meta-BISE" debate. It's not inaccurate to describe London as being a city in Eurasia. It's also staggeringly unhelpful. This book involves a plane crashing off the Western Isles, and there's seriously an argument being made that we should say it crashed in the British Isles? Really? Surely we should be saying it crashed off the Western Isles? But "not inaccurate" is a new mantra at WT:BISE. "Not inaccurate". Rather than strive for precision and accuracy it's argued we should justify terms because they're "not inaccurate".

There are, obviously, times when "British Isles" is as accurate as it gets. When we're discussing extreme points of the British Isles, any alternative simply doesn't cut it. When the largest area that something occurs in happens to be the British Isles, any larger area simply doesn't cut it. When a source uses the term "British Isles" any other term simply doesn't cut it. And yes, there's POV pushing. Big surprise there. That's in large part the whole reason for WT:BISE existing - to address the POV pushing. But make no mistake - this isn't a one-way push with blind admins not noticing or - worse - siding with one faction. Like every other POV area on the project, it's a a two-way street with both sides (apparently) oblivious to the fact that they're partisan.

So what can I do? What am I not doing that I should be doing? Well, my first goal was to tackle the uncivil POV-pushing. Really - what is the point in tackling civil POV-pushing while turning a blind eye to personal attacks? Was I wrong to adopt that approach? I don't believe so, but I'm open to suggestions. And really, as an admin, what special powers do I have that Mick, say, doesn't? Well, I can block editors for breaching WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Beyond that - not much. Mick can start an RFC just as readily as I can. Would it be appropriate for me to start an RFC or other form of dispute resolution, or would it be better for me to leave it to Mick, LemonMonday or anyone else?

Right now I'm pretty jaded about BISE. When I've tried to mediate in POV disputes in the past both sides behaved more or less equally well (or badly...!) This time it's like one side has a suicide pact. It is fair to say the sanctions have been one-sided to date. It's also fair to say that one side has behaved far, far worse than the other. Both sides push their POV; one side pushes it in such a rude, aggressive manner than it's impossible not to react. I'm really - really! - not big on WP:CIVIL or civility blocks or sanctions. The fact that I've been prepared to block editors for WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA etc should speak volumes. I'd love to be a position where we can start looking at civil POV-pushing, but I'm not going to do that while incivility reigns supreme. Shouting loudly and attacking other editors does not make you right, any more than speaking ultra politely - but the latter at least makes for a far more collegial working environment. TFOWR 19:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the face of it you seem to be doing a good job at BISE, but when a detailed examination of the whole British Isles problem is carried out it can be seen that your efforts are actually not helping at all, in fact they are having a detrimental effect. This is because as Mick and a few other have noted, thy do not get to the crux of the matter. Have you ever stepped back and asked yourself the question - "Why do we permit a single user, now assisted by an 'apprentice', to push the anti-British Isles POV to the extent that he has been so successful at it that he now commands a whole project to support his actions"? It's a long question, and a big one, and it requires a big answer. To date a number of us have posed the question but no one who can do anything about it has answered. Maybe you could try? LemonMonday Talk 21:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps LemonMonday either before or after MickMacNee has produces his thousand other diffs that would establish the long term pattern you could layout your detailed examination of the whole BI problem for us all to see? Bjmullan (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the long term pattern. Just keep on clicking the older 500 link. LemonMonday Talk 22:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I paranoid? or has this ANI report turned into a Rfc. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks that way but I make it a habit not to read the ramblings of Mick I just scan them and look for the comments he invariably makes about HighKing no matter what the subject. Mo ainm~Talk 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Let's consider what would happen if I wandered away, taking Cailil and Black Kite with me. BISE would descend into precisely the kind of civil-free nightmare it's been in the past. So that's my number one priority - civility, not answering the "big questions" one side wants me to ask for them, but that they can't - apparently - be bothered to ask themselves in an RFC.

And there's an even bigger question, which you've missed: why do we permit a single user, or group of users, to push any POV? Whether it's pro-Greece or pro-Macedonia, pro-Palestine or pro-Israel, pro-British Isles or anti-British Isles - it happens all over the project. What you're missing, LemonMonday, and I had thought I spelled it out in the post you replied to, is that BISE is about more than just anti-BI. It's about pro-BI pushing, too. As a project we don't have a good answer for POV pushing. I don't have an answer, either. But I believe, strongly, the answer will only come when we recognise that POVs never stand in isolation - there's always an opposing POV. You state "a number of us have posed the question but no one who can do anything about it has answered". Who, exactly, can do anything about "your question"? I'm not going to block civil editors on your say-so. You, however, have as much ability as me - perhaps more so - to raise an RFC. Again, I had thought that I had spelled this out in the post that you replied to. I reiterate: I have the ability to deal with civility. You have the ability to deal with apparent POV pushing. It just requires you to put in the leg-work, and run the risk that other POVs may be identifed. TFOWR 21:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has gone way off track. Poor TFOWR, minding his own business when suddenly this turns out to be a critique of of his abilities as an admin monitoring the BISE page. Never mind mate, I think you're doing an excellent job. ;) If there is no further action to be taken shouldn't this be closed? Jack forbes (talk) 22:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wise words Jack. I total agree with your comments. Bjmullan (talk) 22:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calill, I could care less what you think anymore. Take me to whatever venue you like, I will relish the opportunity of showing exactly how biased and one sided you really are wrt Irish issues. The POV pushing is carrying on at BISE whether you get your finger out of your ass or not. Well done. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us learn to live (over time) with Mick's rants, but this is now getting abusive to one of the few admins bothering to put time into a difficult area (see TFOW's comments above on civility). Would an uninvolved admin take a look at this? --Snowded ^TALK 13:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFOWR has been doing an outstanding job in the teeth of sometimes really quite extreme provocation. Clearly quite a number of editors need to take a holiday from this issue as they aren't handling the emotion of it well and getting involved in inter-personal flamage rather than focusing on the issues. And I speak as someone who might be associated with the "pro-British-Isles" "camp", if there were camps, which there shouldn't be. Believe it or not (and it's hard to from the above!), we do sometimes achieve reasonably civilised and constructive levels of discourse at BISE and when we do, things can be looked at in fine detail and with objectivity. The name calling is a total distraction and (I'm addressing this to those of you who seem to enjoy doing it) 100% counterproductive from your own viewpoint! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the main issue

Back to the main issue. TR was blocked for one year for this edit. Even those who consider this edit somehow faulty ought to view the fault as fairly minor. Even for someone coming off a month block, can this possibly deserve a year? Are we going to apply such a low tolerance to other editors, consistently? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those under civility parole and behavioural restriction who have repeatedly violated it in an area already under its own community probation - yes we will apply this consistently and we are. This measure has already been reviewed here and on TR's talk page. As has been mentioned before repeatedly bringing it up is an attempt to ask the Other parent and is forum shopping which is a violation of policy. Furthermore as stated to you earlier, attempts to wikilawyer are inappropriate.
And for clarity TR was given the chance to make a redaction of that edit you show but rather he chose to justify that edit, which he was restricted from making, with further ABF here in the above thread. He had notice of this discussion, he has had long enough to acquaint himself with his restriction, and yet he decided to make that comment in that manner anyway--Cailil ^talk 16:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am disputing the block. ANI is an appropriate place to review a block, and this a thread to review that block. Discussion led to the civility parole. Are you claiming that discussing this is "wikilawyering"? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm warning you that you are wiklawyering - an editor under probation or restriction is forbidden from making disruptive edits - full stop. There are no 'if', 'buts' or 'ands'. Big or small the infraction doesnt matter it just matters that TR did it and has not recognized that it was wrong. In case you missed it the block has been reviewed already here and on TR's page. This not the first or second or third time that TR has violated one of his restrictions. People only get so much rope.
From the point of view of wanting to help TR this isn't going to - the only way to help him is to encourage him to accept site policy and his restrictions, and to demonstrate that he will act within those parameters. If he does so I'll review his block myself. User:Magog the Ogre made the same offer hours ago. We're not blocking TR becuase we don't like him - we're blocking him becuase he's being disruptive. If he stops being disruptive he stops being blocked--Cailil ^talk 19:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"... because he's being disruptive"? I don't see TR adding or removing "BI" (TR seems to be observing TB01), nor do I see that talk page diff as "disruptive" (unless any posts from TR there are automatically considered disruptive). If you're going to block someone for a year, then it ought to be for doing something that's a pretty serious fault. I'm saying I don't see that. I'm about as uninvolved in this as I can imagine anyone being - I don't recall ever interacting with TR or you, or the underlying content dispute - and my opinion is that a "civility" or "disruption" block for that talk page diff would be questionable, and a one year block is grossly excessive. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification by blocking admin

Let me clarify something. The direct cause of the block was the line "It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise that...". This is an indirect way of saying you are a stupid liar -- it's about as uncivil as you can get. An editor who can't even recognize that such a statement is uncivil does not belong on Wikipedia. And this was the third edit after coming off a one-month block. There is really no room to move forward here unless TR demonstrates an understanding of why the statement was uncivil. I'm sorry to say that I haven't had time to follow all the discussion above -- if there is anything in it that addresses the main issue, I would be grateful for a pointer. Looie496 (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it's about as uncivil as you can get; not really. "You are a stinking fuck pig currently at the top of the fuck pig premiership" - now that's as uncivil as you can get (example only - don't take it as being directed at anyone). Contrary to the view expressed above, Triton's remarks [11] were not a direct attack on another user, despite the provocative action of that user. At worst, Triton's remarks are ambiguous in their direction. Consequently I suggest that a one year block is a substantial over reaction. He made just one edit that someone took exception to, for the wrong reason. I urge the community to declare the block void and have TR reinstated. We can address the sanctions elsewhere, along with a wider consideration of the British Isles issue. In line with TWOFR's recommendations I will be raising an RFC, when I've looked into how to do so. LemonMonday Talk 17:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who was not on a formal civility parole, it might not have been blockable. However, given that he was on that parole, he should have either kept his head down or appealed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason why anyone should "keep their head down" on anything around here. You're missing the point. I'm trying to tell you that it was not uncivil, and he has appealed but, surprise, surprise, it's been rejected. LemonMonday Talk 18:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...and several editors are trying to tell you that it was uncivil. Let's looks at two examples, and you can tell me whether you really, truly, believe them to be compliant with the terms of TR's parole:

In my opinion, Mullan's edit to the BSkyB topic is a provocative and bad faith edit. I have experienced a number of similarly provocative and bad faith edits from him. Part of the parole involves following Wikipedia:Civil#Assume_good_faith, which states Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help, not hurt the project. Everyone makes mistakes, and a reminder is sufficient most of the time, but even when difficult disagreements occur, it may well be that no one involved has any ill intent.
Assume good faith as much as possible. The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence; however, do not assume any more intentional wrongdoing than the evidence clearly supports, and given equally plausible interpretations of the evidence, choose the most positive one. Attempting to believe the best of your fellow Wikipedians, and they of you, helps to eliminate some of the problems that arise when we communicate only in text, and cannot use all the verbal and visual cues used in talking face-to-face. Are you seriously trying to tell us that "Mullan's edit to the BSkyB topic is a provocative and bad faith edit" represents anything other than an assumption of bad faith?
It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise that a Satellite company serving the British Isles, or from the East of England to the West of Ireland, would also reach the Isle of Man and/or Channel Island. It also takes no effort to find references for one or both of the other group of islands (e.g. "'Isle of Man on Air'"). So what is going on here? Looie496 has covered this above, and I guess you remain unconvinced. However, for the record, I at least consider "It takes no degree of intelligence or integrity to surmise..." to be a serious vio of WP:CIVIL. I'll leave discussions as to Sky's coverage of Western France, their T&Cs that cover the British Isles apart from Ireland, and TR's WP:OR to the talkpage.

Incidentally, this is a good example of pro-BI POV pushing. Here we have three things: (1) a satellite that beams down a signal to Western Europe, from Central France to somewhere East of Ireland; (2) a service marketed in Ireland; and (3) a service marketed in what the broadcaster refers to as "the UK" (it actually includes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, but excludes Ireland). There are arguments to be made here for both pro- and con-BI positions, but TR's blind refusal to accept that is what marks TR as a pro-BI partisan. The situation isn't nearly as clear-cut as TR would have us believe.

But I digress. Lemon Monday, TR had ample opportunity to modify their behaviour. It's regrettable that they chose not to. TR was well aware of the civility parole, they had good opportunity to read and understand what was required, they had previously been warned about precisely the kind of remarks which led to this latest block - and yet they chose to make them anyway. TR walked right into this of their own volition. TR had the chance to avoid this, yet chose not to. This isn't rocket science - all that's required is for editors to state their case without referring to other editors. Most participants at BISE managed to understand what was required. TR consistently demonstrated an inability to do so. TFOWR 18:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. His so-called violations, if they were violations at all, were minor in every case. LemonMonday Talk 18:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you seriously trying to tell us that "Mullan's edit to the BSkyB topic is a provocative and bad faith edit" represents anything other than an assumption of bad faith? TFOWR 19:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I explained that above; bad faith is justified in some circumstances - the policy says so. And when you think about it, it's ABF on the part of you and others to not give TR the benefit of the doubt here, because the whole thing is debatable and subjective. Maybe AGF and accept that he wasn't being uncivil? LemonMonday Talk 19:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I missed your "explanation" because you inserted it slap-bang in the middle of my post. (Please don't do that. I sign at the end of my posts for a reason). I've moved your comments to below. I'll reply to them at the end of your comments, not halfway through. I'd appreciate the courtesy of you doing likewise. TFOWR 19:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This applies: The Assume Good Faith guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious contrary evidence. With certain editors, editing a certain category of article, it's almost impossible to assume good faith, so TR was not in breach of the sanction on this point. LemonMonday Talk 18:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TR's main objection, and the reason for his remarks, were the actions of Bjmullan in removing BI before raising it at BISE. Bjmullan was clearly seeing how far he could go. The technical discussion is a secondary matter here. LemonMonday Talk 18:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ye Gods, really? That's your argument? That's not an "explanation" that's desperate wikilawyering - "it wasn't poor Triton Rocker's fault - the nasty other editor made them do it!" Are there any other editors who whom you feel we should never have to assume good faith? Do you have a list? Is it published, perchance, to make life easier for the poor old rest of us? Do you have any real answer - one that involves actual obvious contrary evidence? Backed up, perchance, by diffs and not your personal beliefs? TFOWR 19:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)TFOWR is correct you are wikilawyering LemonMonday .
Acusing someone of acting improperly has to be done in a calm neutral way that shows evidence by presenting diffs in order to demonstarte a history and a context. That is completely different from making claims based on some assumed knowledge of what another person's motivations are. Basing an argument on such assumptions is never acceptable. Basing it on evidence, across multiple sites of conflict, that can be freely accessed and weighed is a completely different thing (and one taht take stime and effort). TR, and in fact nobody, at BI has ever bothered to do this becuase the atmosphere is so poisoned by personal invective, assumptions and racial comments. None of which are permited, none of which will ever be tolerated and none of which will go ignored.
If you want us to deal with substntive civil pov pushing show us all a real abuse report that evidences context, history and proves something. If you want an example this was my way to show edit-warring (the collapsable boxes are optional)--Cailil ^talk 19:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFOWR, your sarcastic response above is uncalled for and adds nothing to the debate (btw, inserting in the middle of your post was a formatting error, that's all. It didn't call for a "slap hands" attitude from you). I was trying to be civil but it obviously doesn't work. Cailil, I'm just thoroughly tired of your constant complaints about other editors' remarks. I am not going to respond to you again and I wish not to enter into any discussion with you. LemonMonday Talk 20:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that's a "no", then? You don't have any actual evidence, and this is all just your personal opinion? TFOWR 20:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence? There is no evidence here. Everything is a matter of opinion. If I presented a load of diffs they would all be subjected to the opinion of you, me and everyone else. TR was blocked because in the opinion of the blocking editor he was being uncivil. In my opinion he wasn't being uncivil. In your opinion he was being uncivil. There is nothing hard and fast here. Ultimately he is blocked because he's fallen foul of people with power, who've acted purely on their own opinions. I get back to AGF - maybe there should be fewer opinions that assume bad faith. LemonMonday Talk 20:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. Several editors have presented diffs showing TR violating WP:CIVIL and assuming bad faith. You've presented your opinion that the diffs show something different. You've also offered your opinion that TR believed something, and your opinion that that alleged belief was correct. There's plenty hard and fast here - you just don't accept it. Much like the last several times this or similar issues have been raised at ANI or AN. I can dig out diffs if you want - this isn't just my opinion, I do have evidence. TFOWR 20:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LM, you've made a serious allegation of misconduct here against Looie496 (and every sysop that reviewed that block) you need to either substantiate it or withdraw it. You've already been blocked under WP:BATTLE--Cailil ^talk 20:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "sysop that reviewed that block"? Did any sysop responding to LR's unblock template have the option or discretion to unblock in this case? Gimmetoo (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they did and they continue to have that discretion. Also one, MAgog the Ogre, (as I did above) stated exactly what TR needs to do to get unblocked--Cailil ^talk 23:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LM, what do ya want? the sanctions to be lifted & TR unblocked? Then have drama at BISE? Why would you prefer such things? GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Triton Rocker

The following text is copied from User:Triton Rocker's talk page, at his request. LemonMonday Talk 17:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496 made a very serious procedural mistake (there was no Arbcom sanction) --- and misinterpretation. And yet he block appears to be based on his own further interpretation.

I agree "saying you are a stupid liar" is "as uncivil as you can get" but I did not say it. It is as simple at that. I address a difficult situation, in a difficult context of which Looie496 knows little ... in a formal, polite and civil manner. I really did.

Bjmullan could easily have doubled check on Google before entering an error into the Wikipedia. He did not. That is the sort of integrity I would expect of a Wikipedian --- BEFORE --- they made a edit in an area strewn with POVs and laid the onus of proof onto others.

Satellite Broadcasting

Contributing to an Encyclopedia also requires some applied intelligence. I am sure Bjmullan is intelligent. The question is, did he chose to apply it? Now, anyone considering Satellite Broadcasting in the British Isles for 3 seconds --- least of all someone involved in along term political dispute over it --- would realise that any signal to Britain and Ireland is going to hit the Isle of Man (which is in neither). Therefore, to change a correct "British Isles" to an incorrect "Britain and Ireland" --- AGAINST THE SANCTION --- could be a a bad faith edit.

In response to TOFWR, think again about the accuracy of the content. Satellite Broadcasting has two parts, the signal --- which can goes everywhere --- and the marketing of that signal. In the case of a company, we are not taking about satellite broadcasting per se but the commercial marketing of that signal ... which according to the company report was to the British Isles.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Triton Rocker (talk • contribs)

TR - re-read what I said:

Incidentally, this is a good example of pro-BI POV pushing. Here we have three things: (1) a satellite that beams down a signal to Western Europe, from Central France to somewhere East of Ireland; (2) a service marketed in Ireland; and (3) a service marketed in what the broadcaster refers to as "the UK" (it actually includes the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, but excludes Ireland). There are arguments to be made here for both pro- and con-BI positions, but TR's blind refusal to accept that is what marks TR as a pro-BI partisan. The situation isn't nearly as clear-cut as TR would have us believe.

The salient part is There are arguments to be made here for both pro- and con-BI positions, but TR's blind refusal to accept that is what marks TR as a pro-BI partisan. The situation isn't nearly as clear-cut as TR would have us believe. You presented the issue as a clear-cut case; I provided Sky links showing that it is not nearly as clear-cut as you would have us believe, and I did that to highlight what I regard as POV pushing. ANI is about behaviour (e.g. POV pushing); it is not about content disputes. TFOWR 09:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Again, I did NOT say "Mullan's edit was a bad faith edit". I said, " In my opinion, Mullan's edit ...". In the professional circles to which I am used, that is applying civility in an area of disagreement. It is suggesting that I could have been wrong. I spoke in general about intelligence and integrity. I did not say, "Bjmullan is being stupid and has no integrity" --- which would most certainly have been uncivil.

Lastly, in every legal or legalistic procedure I know, "truth" is a pretty good defence. In this case,

the individual who insert the factual content error walks away free,

the individual who drew people's attention to the correct facts is being blocked for a year

endless hours of wasted efforts and energy are expended--Triton Rocker (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I think we need to our eye on the issue of accurate content, value it and give it the first priority. Can we focus the discussion on that rather than what one individual imagines what another individual, whom he has never met, has said?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Triton Rocker (talk • contribs)

On Wikipedia this argument is known as "wikilawyering" - "I hedged what I said so that I could argue it didn't actually imply what every reasonable editor inferred from it."

Picking up on your claim that "the individual who insert the factual content error walks away free" - there is no agreement yet that there was a "factual content error": that's solely your opinion, though one you've repeatedly stated as if it were fact.

Picking up on your claim that "the individual who drew people's attention to the correct facts is being blocked for a year" - you weren't blocked for "[drawing] people's attention to the correct facts": you were blocked for violating your civility parole.

Picking up on your claim that "endless hours of wasted efforts and energy are expended" - I agree. Far too much time has been wasted on this already. I hope much less time will be wasted on it in the future. TFOWR 09:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

I would accept a topic ban from British Isles related topics --- IF --- that topic ban is also extended to Bjmullan. My 'partner' in this 'crime'.

The logic for this is based on Bjmullan history in the area of British Irish naming dispute, and his direct interest in my editing. In short, it takes two to tango. Bjmullan has time and time again played a support roll in HighKing British-Irish naming dispute, doing exactly what he has done in this case. If requested, I am prepared to do the work to evidence this by way of diffs. Most people involved know his position well.

Honestly folks, the British Isles naming dispute has gone well beyond normal standards of "assuming good faith". It has become a contest or Wiki-war with its roots in a nationalistic political dispute going back several hundred years.

I will happily accept defeat on the matter and remove myself if he is fairly taken out of it as well for his part in stirring up this drama. --Triton Rocker (talk) 03:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No dice. 1 year block. Those asking to continue to assume good faith are asking those involved to grab an electrified fence for the 11th time after it shocked them the previous 10. How many times has he been blocked for evading topic bans? AGF? Really. Vodello (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is copied from Triton Rocker's talk page, by request. LemonMonday Talk 10:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second Comment for ANI

All this talk of "anger", "battle" and "incivility" is a projection and a distraction.

Thank you Gimmetoo. Yes, I was observing TB01. I did not edit war and yet Bjmullan --- who reported my comments here --- did break the sanction and has walked away Scot free.

People, I am perfectly calm. I am also a grown up who writes in a formal manner. I know how to be uncivil. I chose not to be. Yet a new admin decided --- on the basis of an interpretation only --- decides that I was. I offer to you that it was simple inexperience or over-enthusiasm on his behalf and an overreaction which I do not hold against him. However, I do still suggest that Bjmullan's reporting was a deliberate and tactical move within the greater British Isles naming dispute rather than a good faith one and can provide the evidence if requested.

For all the distractive discussion, I note that no one is willing to address the inciting incident. Bjmullan's removal of the term British Isles --- AGAINST SANCTIONS --- and its --- ERRONEOUS --- replacement with "United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland" at British Sky Broadcasting. A factual error which remains 14 days later, see: [12].

Additionally, I note that it contains a confusing piped link which we also agreed at WT:BISE to avoid.

One of the comments that has been made before is that all the blocks, bans and sanctions that are being thrown around in this dispute are one sided. Here we have another case where one editor breaks a sanction inserting Republic of Ireland and it is overlooked and another editor defending the correct use of British Isles (from good references) raises the issue, and is banned.

One of the problems with Cailil's original sanction is that it was not well defined, that its real meaning was hidden. The term "incivility" is too broad, open to abuseful misinterpretation and not helpful for new admins.

In my opinion, and please allow me to be open and honest, Cailil's original sanction was really as simple as, "Stop pointing out that the editors removing the term "British Isles" are Irish republicans or nationalists ... even if they self-disclose their nationalist sentiments on their user or talk pages". Whereas I do not think that I have really been "uncivil", it is true that I did repeatedly point out that the editors removing the term "British Isles", and campaigning against its use, are Irish republicans or nationalists, and I stopped.

As an aside, I do think that discussions at ANI should be "without prejudice" (in its legal meaning), exempt from petty interpretations of "incivility" and not permissible as further evidence against an individual --- It is impossible to discuss an issue without discussing an issue, e.g. that there are nationalist agenda's at play here which need to be taken into consideration and discussed at a place like this. I do not know where is the correct place is.

My position is neither 'pro' nor 'con' either side of the nationalist dispute but remains that politics should be kept out of non-political areas.--Triton Rocker (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The political Pov stuff is irrelevant to me. As for civility stuff? when you (TR) are unblocked, I'd recommend mentorship for you. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reponse to Cailil

"And for clarity TR was given the chance to make a redaction of that edit ... Cailil talk 16:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)"

Actually, no. I made one small edit, placed one comment, and was working on a different response to the ongoing discussion altogether at which point I found myself blocked.

One question. As you are the one who defined my ban --- whilst a false but prejudicial checkuser was ongoing and I was blocked from defending myself --- can I ask if it is truly punitively "uncivil" to bring into consideration that so many of the individuals involved in this attack against me are self-disclosed Irish or of Irish descent?

Please note, I am politely asking permission to raise this issue here first --- not raising it.

Thank you. --Triton Rocker (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were asked to strike the edit here (at 17:10, 25 October 2010) and here (at 17:13, 25 October 2010). You weren't blocked until 05:17, 26 October 2010 (over 12 hours later). The "one small edit, plac[ing] one comment" you made was here (16:03, 25 October 2010) (13 hours prior to your block). A civility parole was suggested by Cailil at ANI, and modified and agreed by the community—as you already know. The implication that an editor's nationality or descent affects their editing constitutes as "ill-considered accusation of impropriety". Incidentally, nearly all the editors involved at BISE are British or Irish, or of recent British or Irish descent (I'm using the "recent" qualifier to avoid including Canadian or New Zealand editors, etc). TFOWR 08:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC) Originally replied at TR's talkpage; copied across from there. TFOWR 10:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I left out your comment. I wan't sure whether to add it or not. LemonMonday Talk 10:12, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee

Resolved

– Unblocked. Discussion has shifted to here - any responses made under the unblocking section on this subpage have been pasted in that discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Melniboné (AfD discussion)

MickMacNee (talk · contribs) nominated the article for discussion with a slim rationale. I asked him to elaborate and got this response. Thats all really. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to notify editors when reporting them to ANI. I have now done this for you. --Stickee (talk) 08:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Stickee, had to pop out Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

we let Mick edit here... why? Jack Merridew 08:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really had the patience to read through Mick's tl;dr replies I've seen on this page in some other threads.. but this edit is horribly WP:POINT stricken. It stands on it's own its so pointy. I'm with Jack here.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 09:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a pointy attack at the Wikipedia talk:British Isles Terminology task force/Specific Examples#Melniboné discussion, where I noted the lack of references and that the original editor had picked out the sentence with British Isles in it for deletion. It's a short discussion, you can see the background for Mick's action there anyway. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block's aren't supposed to be punitive, but... argh! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mick isn't necessarily the bogeyman he's sometimes thought to be. He comes in for a lot of flak because some folk believe using naughty words is forbidden, which is, frankly, crap. Mick speaks his mind, and frequently calls a spade a spade (actually, he usually calls a spade a "bloody spade", but that's by-the-by...) He's a regular at WP:ITN/C where he usually voices a contrarian viewpoint, which is welcome (well, by me at least). I genuinely believe Wikipedia needs editors who aren't afraid to voice unpopular opinions.

Mick does occasionally stray from the path of WP:SPADE onto tl;dr territory. That's a shame, as I think that beneath the walls of text there may be a valid point - but this isn't an issue for ANI.

What is an issue for ANI is WP:POINT. This report, and the circumstances that led to it, is not the first time Mick's tried to make a point like this. The common feature here is Mick's support for the term "British Isles" (albeit dressed up as apparent disdain for the term). Mick would be better served either taking it to an RFC or, if Mick feels that that won't, for whatever reason, work then dropping it altogether. I'd prefer the former, but really I don't care just so long as this is the last WP:POINT made. TFOWR 12:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to add to this the pointy, tendentious and abusive remarks made by Mick above (to me) in the above sub-thread. Particularly his last one which is a peach[13].
While I take TFOWR's point that using vulgarities is not forbidden per se using them in a screed of abuse at any other user is forbidden (per WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:TPG). Using wikipedia as a forum is forbidden (per WP:NOT & WP:TPG).
This AFD comes after his behaviour at the WP:BISE mfd a few days ago - which was harassing, incivil and soapy and while I sympathize with his actual point there the way he made it was inappropriate. His editing style are contributing to a poisonous atmosphere in an area already under community probation (see WP:GS) he is in fact in breach of that probation with this pointy afd - the question is now what after all of this should be done--Cailil ^talk 14:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, apologies Cailil: my comments on profanity were in no way intended to justify attacks on, or rudeness to, other editors. TFOWR 16:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not taken that way at all TFOWR - I undestand your point but I just want to underline why I take this matter so seriously--Cailil ^talk 16:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a pretty clear WP:POINT violation, but I don't see any need to block. To block would be punitive. I disagree that Mick's usual editing style is a problem otherwise. He's just someone who doesn't sugar-coat things. There does seem to be a rising frustration level recently, which is understandable given that WP:BISE is somehow still allowed to exist even after the WP:GS/BI sanctions were imposed. People are misciting WP:SOAP a lot here. It's about advocacy of issues external to Wikipedia, not writing passionately about internal issues. Gigs (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee indef blocked

Note: MMN cannot presently be blocked under WP:GS/BI so it should be assumed that the block was imposed under general site policies. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. If a user with this immense block log continues to severely violate Wikipedia conduct rules, such as by filing that AfD and making such comments, and is furthermore dismissive of the concerns raised in reaction to this, this indicates that they have no intention of complying with the fundamental rules of interaction in a collaborative project and should be indefinitely blocked to prevent further disruption. Unless somebody can come up with a compelling reason not to do that, I'll be implementing that block shortly. Sandstein 22:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support such an action, given that they've shown they have absolutely no care for the editing environment here, and will do whatever they want to get their way, or prove some point. WP:DE and all that.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I have blocked MickMacNee indefinitely as the only way to prevent such disruption (and the associated drama) in the future. In view of his block log I do not believe that any assurances he may give about future good conduct are credible, because his persistently aggressive mode of editing can only be explained as reflecting aspects of his character that are very difficult or impossible for a person to change at will. As such, I ask that any unblock of MickMacNee be considered, if at all, only after thorough discussion in a community forum and accompanied by measures that prevent his returning to the topic areas in which he has been disruptive. (I am not proposing such measures at this time because the disruption does not seem to be restricted to a clearly identifiable topic and a full block therefore appears to be required). Sandstein 07:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the block. Looking through the threads about the most recent incident, I see an user that has no intention of following our core policies. Editors and admins working collaboratively to write the encyclopedia in areas where natural differences of opinion are common don't need the extra burden someone who deliberately provokes controversy to make a point, and insults the good faith work of other users. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 08:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the block. First off, the blocking admin threatened the block at 22:00 UTC or thereabouts, then carried out the block at 07:00 UTC. That gave nine hours for comment, but nine hours during which the vast majority of interested parties (i.e. those in the UK and Ireland time zone) would have been in bed! Nice One, NOT. However, more importantly, the block is a travesty because above all Mick is a content adder. In other words, he adds value to Wikipedia, which is more than the majority of jobsworth petty bureaucrats who haunt this page do. Give me an uncivil content adder any day. They are of much more benefit to Wikipedia than a non-content adding bureaucrat! And before you mention it, yes, I don't add too much content, but neither am I blocking those that do. LemonMonday Talk 10:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, you think because a user makes many content contributions, they're allowed to poison the well. Sorry, but that isn't the way things work here. Good behavior does not excuse bad behavior, especially when such bad behavior has created so much disruption.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 10:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not looking in the right place for disruption. Mick is not disruptive, he just calls a spade a spade. If you don't like his comments ignore them. He is a content adder! If you want to see real disruption look at the root cause as to why we have the BISE page. LemonMonday Talk 10:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are unaware of where I am looking, so don't act like I do. I'm looking in perfectly the right place; incivility, point violations, personal attacks. Adding content doesn't give you a right to treat other people like trash. Oh, and don't tell me about 'real disruption'. I deal with sockpuppets and ban evaders constantly. I've seen real disruption, that two edit filters, and over 500 blocks haven't solved, from a single user.. But I digress, disruption is disruption. Adding content doesn't give you the right to treat people like trash, to treat them like shit. No amount of saying the opposite will change the cold hard fact that this user has been disruptive, and as with all disruption, people have lost their patience, they have figured out that it isn't going to stop, and they've done something about it. You are really hardly one to talk down to others about their contributions, when you have about as much as could be easily surpassed in a day's time. I realize I have had blocks for incivility myself, but that's something I'm trying to change, unlike the user above. This is the third time I've said it, but that doesn't make it lose any value; content contributions doesn't give one the right to poison the well. This project is a community project, and killing off the community will only hinder the project. You hardly have the right to say that Mick has the right to insult people. If you're disruptive to the community process, you'll be blocked. It's been true of many disruptive users, as it is, and will be, of Mick.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 10:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this coming from a user who has been blocked for the same.. personal attacks, assuming bad faith.. As I said, I've had troubles in the past with the same; the big difference here is that I'm trying to change my behavior. But now, I've realized something; it is pointless arguing with you, you've made it abundantly clear you'll support Mick to the ends of the earth. They've 'done no wrong', 'they're completely in the right to be treating people like that', etc. It's pointless arguing with someone who is unwilling to see an abundant problem for what it is.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 10:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good block, the attitude that, sure we all know what Mick is like and we just ignore him does nothing for the collaborate nature of the project and we shouldn't have to put up with his constant sniping and attacks. Mo ainm~Talk 10:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good block, agree that there is no indication anything will change. → ROUX ₪ 11:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a good block. this user has shown nothing but contempt for the general standards of community behaviour. Physchim62 (talk) 11:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. His long term behaviour is hugely indicative of someone who is inherently unsuited to a collaborative project. I've actually agreed with quite a few of his opinions in the past and he's undoubtedly made some good contributions - but in the big picture I just don't think his good contributions in any way outweigh the acrimony caused by his other actions - egregious disregard for the general community standards, and a rather poisonous attitude to many other contributors that just doesn't seem to go away. ~ mazca ^talk 11:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good block. MickMacNee has shown nothing but contempt for the whole concept of civility and using the excuses he is a great content editor, or he calls a spade a spade just doesn't wash anymore. Bjmullan (talk) 12:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the block, but... I think a longer block, albeit not indefinite is in order here. I see a few week-long blocks and that is certainly indicative of problems, but I also have seen a side of this user that was quite helpful. I'm not willing to throw away the key. I think a 2-3 month timeout would be more than sufficient. I also think he could be unblocked to participate in this discussion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 12:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As that MickMacNee has not acknowledged problem with his own conduct and agreed to make changes in his editing approach, for now MickMacNee can comment on his talk page and have his comments copied here. I'm not seeing any willingness on his part to alter his conduct to follow policy. So, I see little point in unblocking. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 13:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, all Mick needs is a topic-ban from the 'British Isles' related stuff 'or' more accurately those articles talkpages. Mick may complain alot about BISE, but he's never participated in it 'or' disrupted it. Basically, the guy's being blocked for having a big mouth. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ban you propose would not be enough to prevent him from engaging in further disruption. His last block was for edit-warring about a French footballer, and the present incident concerns a disruptive deletion nomination of an article about a fictional island (and his reaction to concerns over said disruption, which includes the statement "my parents told me that the British were evil baby raping bastards"). He is not blocked for having a big mouth, but for continuing to disrupt the project over a span of multiple years despite many blocks. Sandstein 15:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still argue, the best way to deal with Mick (for those who are annoyed by him), is to ignore him. Having said that, I'm just 1 voice & so I can't possibly repeal his block. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, Afds can not be ignored. Also, convincing hundreds if not thousands of people to ignore Mick is not practical. So, we need to either block Mick or have him agree to abide by community developed editing restrictions. Of course, he can appeal to arbcom's Bann Appeal SubCcommittee, too. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 16:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't support banning editors unless they've committed sock-puppetry or have uttered open threats to others. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur totally with GoodDay. This is effectively a ban imposed without a consensus as a result of a stale ANI thread that has now turned into a desperate attempt to legitimise it while Mick can't defend himself. Is Mick annoying? Yes. Is he sometimes impolite or even uncivil? Yes. Does he have a habit of getting into edit wars? Yes. Are any of these so egregious as to totally cancel out all the good he does here? Absolutely not. I would support wholeheartedly some form of editing restriction, but this attempt to legitimise a unilateral ban by a single admin would set a very dangerous precedent. And I don't even particularly like the guy! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a ban, but a block, intended to prevent recurring disruption until such time as another equally effective measure to prevent further disruption is found. Just like, for instance, your own most recent indef block. I am not confident that, say, a topic ban from the "British Isles" topic would be equally effective, but you are free to propose it to the community as an alternative. Sandstein 18:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a topic ban would work. Mick has been consistently obnoxious across a wide range of pages. This isn't just someone who can't keep his cool when discussing a particular subject area; this is someone who has repeatedly shown himself to incapable of civilized discussing whatever he is discussing. Physchim62 (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support a block. Those kind of comments are not really acceptable for a collaborative process if you're just going to delete something you don't like on sight, where's the collaboration? If anything else, those comments (whether his or not) about the British Isles seem to fall foul of WP:LABEL to me. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse MickMacNee's long-term disruption of this project needs to end. If this is de facto a community ban, that's perfectly fine with me. POINT, CIVIL, NPA and the like have long been ignored by this editor. The block log is prima facie proof that shorter corrective measures have failed, often dramatically. Courcelles 21:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse with the clear understanding that this is a block to let Mick figure out what he needs to change in his editing style, and not any kind of community ban. Mick is a good user, hardworking and with a good brain, but he has become worn out by the constant battling over certain issues and needs to take a beak from them. Block until he figures it out. --John (talk) 03:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admin Endorse I have an ugly history with this user, having requested in a previous ANI that he be blocked indefinately for chronic, gross incivility earlier this month. This user knows the civility guidelines and willingly and maliciously ignores them. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure about this block. MickMacNee's last activity before he was blocked was to greatly expand the Power Snooker article, now nominated for DYK. Christopher Connor (talk) 04:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your point being because he has a DYK nomination he shouldn't be blocked? Good contributions can't be used as a currency to counter incredibly poor behavior. I can't trade a DYK for a screw you. Grsz¹¹ 04:38, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The block was to stop him causing further disruption but there was a few days between the two, and in the meantime he made constructive edits. Christopher Connor (talk) 05:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent block. Although I don't believe MMN should be de facto banned. Any unblock should come with a restriction on participation at AfD limiting MMN to nominating articles, and one challenge per editor in discussions about the AfD or that editors support or opposition to the AfD. A civility restriction should be imposed as a condition for unblocking too. - Disclosure. Regulars of this board are probably aware that I have previous history with MMN, so I don't come here in a neutral capacity. That said, I believe that my proposals are fair and not aimed at "eliminating" MMN as an opponent, a charge he frequently directs at me. Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beyond my note at the top of this subthread, I only have three other points to add. Firstly, in any legitimate Community review or appeal, administrators don't get anymore weight in their views than editors. So rather than state whether you are an admin or not, it would be better to explicitly state your level of involvement with the user (if any) - that's my second point. Finally, if requested, the person imposing the block (or the people who endorse the block) would need to demonstrate why such a serious measure is required. In other words, if the block was imposed for reasons not limited to a single AFD in the British Isles area, or a single response to a concern about the AFD, those reasons would need to be listed and shown in sufficient detail after someone requests those reasons. Obviously, this issue may not arise where no such request is made. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ncm, MickMacNee's behaviour at AfD and DRV has been brought up many times. An insight will be gained from some of the linked AfDs and DRVs at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mjroots. Hence the restriction I proposed above. Mjroots (talk) 09:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Disclaimers; I have been active in the BISE area, and I have been on the end of Mick's incivility a number of times. But this is a poor block, I think; not in the sense that Mick hasn't been guilty of repeated incivility, but that it wasn't preceded by a proper discussion but tacked on the end of a somewhat irrelevant thread. It would've been far better to have had a topic/civility ban discussion first, and if Mick had then broken that, you've got a de facto reason for a long block. At the moment, that isn't there. Black Kite (t) (c) 11:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mick understands policy but gives no indication that he intends to follow it. The previous blocks were a warning that his conduct was unacceptable. The indefinite block is a natural progression. This use of indefinite block is entirely within long established policy. A block with a set time will achieve nothing meaningful since Mick does not acknowledge a problem with his conduct. If Mick can agree to editing restrictions that will solve his user conduct issues, then he can be unblocked. But there is no reason for the community to continue to tolerate his outbursts and pointy contributions. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 11:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see your point; however that horrendous block log isn't actually as bad as it looks - when you ignore the blocks that were undone, he's been blocked four times in the last two years. I'd agree that previous to that the block log is pretty terrible - but I think he's actually been getting better over time and just loses his temper occasionally. However, let us see what Mick's reaction to possible restrictions is. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse until Mick wises up. The last time I commented on this editor was to plead clemency after he had been indef'd for having an "attitude not compatible with this project". I do not think that an inaccurate description of the problem; this behaviour is actively harming the project, and until Mick acknowledges this and gives a credible indication that it will not continue, his editing privileges should not be restored. Skomorokh 12:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin endorse; highly appropriate block. I don't think I've ever interacted directly with MMN myself, but his block log, and the evidence in the above thread, speaks for itself. Users who are repeatedly and consistently disruptive, and can't cooperate civilly with others, have no place in this encyclopaedia. Robofish (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block and request that anyone who has any influence over Mick help him to draft some possible restrictions to allow his unblocking, as per his talkpage. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse indef block, and agree with BWilkins' above comment - my only direct interaction with Mick has been in the above thread. I can see from his behaviour at XFDs and in the Britain and Ireland topic area that this was not an isolated incident. If others want to help Mick I'd suggest putting forward a set of possible restrictions under which Mick can edit constructively without disrupting the project--Cailil ^talk 20:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse indefinite block MMN has a long history of willfully violating and ignoring WP:NPA & WP:CIVIL and attacking editors who don't agree with "his interpretation" of WP rules. I don't think it occurs to him that different good editors can have differing interpretation of wikipolicy and that is perfectly acceptable. I have seen it happen on AfD's unrelated to british isles again and again. To say that the problems are limited to a particular area is completely inaccurate. Either we keep him off WP or we amend WP:NPA to say that it does not apply to editors who have made "x" number of constructive edits. I would suggest a threshold of 5000 if we are going to proceed in that direction. then we can all have fun on WP and call a "spade a spade" and use "naughty words" ad lib. As long as editors like MMN are editing having WP:NPA in present form is a joke. It is very clear from his block log that the disruption he causes is not going to stop by blocking him for a few days here and there.--Wikireader41 (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse block until Mick starts following WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA - its fairly clear he's going well beyond those rules - and in the real world you'd get fired by your boss if you were that rude. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Throw away the key — this is so-overdue. nb: I've had numerous encounters with Mick; none re 'BI'. Take it through an AN/Com-Ban discussion if need be, but this has been an obvious need for better than a year. Jack Merridew 17:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC?

MickMacNee is still complaining that proper procedures ref DR have not been followed. Therefore I'd like to propose that a RFC is filed at WP:Requests for comment/MickMacNee. MickMacNee should be unblocked, subject to an editing restriction that allows him to edit his user and talk page, this page, the RFC and ANI insofar as he is allowed to respond on threads raised about him, but nowhere else on ANI. I'm open to MickMacNee being allowed to correspond with named editors on their talk pages at his request, and subject to admin approval. The editing restriction to be in lieu of the block, and without limit of time. Breach of the restriction to be dealt with by reinstatement of the block. Mjroots (talk) 12:37, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that is a good idea. The discussion above is already clear enough that MickMacNee should be unblocked, if at all, then only with stringent restrictions that effectively prevent continued disruption. Nothing else could be expected as the outcome of an RfC. If MickMacNee would rather complain about perceived procedural errors rather than address his own conduct, then that is up to him. Besides, MickMacNee has announced that he intends to appeal to the Arbitration Committe; let's wait until that body takes any decision. Sandstein 12:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MickMacNee unblocked

User:Scott MacDonald has unblocked Mick following talk page discussion. I endorse the unblock just as I endorsed the original block, now that the need for the block seems to have passed. --John (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto (although I didn't support or oppose the original block). I just can't shake the feeling that a block isn't the best outcome for the project at this particular moment in time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No socks, no block. GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never supported a block in the first place, and I'm glad to see it undone. My view was, and still is, that a block in this case seems to be more punitive than anything else. Like was noted by Scott, Mick doesn't always make it easy to see that his comments are in good faith, but they usually are, even if passionately worded. The original issue at ANI was a pretty blatant POINT violation, but that kind of disruption is the exception, not the rule. Gigs (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to say that unless MMN was willing to try to change going forward, an indef was a good outcome for the project. But this is a better outcome. Endorse unblock. Don't make a fool of Scott, please. ++Lar: t/c 00:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent some time reviewing some of MickMacNee's recent contributions. I see three types of edit: contributions to article development; discussion related to article development; and some WP:pointed actions. The pointed actions are fairly few, but clearly unacceptable. The discussion ranges from the civil and reasonable, through the assertive and forthright, to the aggressive and confrontational. At the latter end, there are swearwords aplenty, but more importantly things that come across as insults and attacks. His original point may well be correct in many cases, but this fact is typically lost in the resulting drama. I am left overall with the impression of someone with a great passion for building an encyclopedia, and some skill in doing so, but who has trouble stepping back and walking away when that passion overwhelms good sense and becomes self-defeating.

There's been a bit of drama about the way this block took place. It had the appearance of soliciting a community ban, but the timescale was short and the thread dying down. I'd classify it as a unilateral block with some attempt to solicit community feedback in advance, presumably in anticipation of controversy. Communication regarding the block could have been better, but that's true in most cases, and I think we should move on.

As I'd hope we'd all agree, when considering blocks or other restrictions on editing, we must balance the goal of preventing disruption with that of building an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Being a valuable contributor does not give licence to poison the well for others, but we must take potential future productivity into account in dealing with all but the most recidivist vandal, and let people have a little rope.

I'm glad to see that MickMacNee is now unblocked. I hope we can make this situation work out for the best for all of us, but I think it will require effort on both MickMacNee's part, and on ours. I think two maxims are relevant here: If it's the right thing to do, then someone else will do it. and There is no deadline. When things get heated, when you find yourself about to post a comment in anger, take a break. Sleep on it. Let someone else edit for a while. Don't think of every point as a battle you have to win. It's better to leave an article with a minor deficiency for a few days than to escalate to disruption. Seek consensus and third opinions.

That's my take on the situation. I hope it's helpful. Bovlb (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.