Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 08:40, 26 December 2010 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 13:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC).

MickMacNee (talk · contribs · logs)

Users should not edit other people's summaries or views, except to endorse them. All signed comments other than your own view or an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page.

Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who are concerned by this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

MickMacNee (talk · contribs) (MMN) is an editor who makes valuable contributions to articles, but who also holds strong feelings on a number of subjects. His behaviour has been examined at a previous RFC, which he raised about Mjroots' participation at AFD. Mjroots brought the issue of MMN's participation at AFD (archived discussion) at the Administrators' noticeboard.

MMN's problematic areas are AFD, DRV, and civility. MMN is generally disruptive in these areas, shows unwillingness to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and makes incivil comments.

Desired outcome

This is a summary written by users who have initiated the request for comment. It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus.

MickMacNee will stop bringing AFDs to DRV, and will instead leave that judgement to other users.
MickMacNee will accept consensus.
MickMacNee will start commenting in a more civil way, and will stop attacking other users.
MickMacNee will abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and will follow other users' advice.

Description

MickMacNee's disruption isn't related to his article editing; rather, his disruption mostly comes in discussions regarding transportation-related incidents. MickMacNee usually participates in most aircrash AFDs, and also brings them to DRV when he disagrees with consensus and/or the admins' closures of them. MickMacNee has brought 5 AFDs to DRV. All of those DRVs were closed as "endorsed". MickMacNee disputes many of the votes in the AFDs he participates in, and also in the DRVs he started.

Comments which show MickMacNee's pattern include:

Evidence of disputed behavior

AFDs which show MMN's pattern of participation:

DRVs which show MMN's pattern at DRV:

Applicable policies, guidelines and essays

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

-- Cirt (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots (talk) 15:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He just won't listen, to me at least. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary

Hey Mid (contribs) 09:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bzuk (talk) 13:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Note comment removed and is now on talk page.[reply]
Ahunt (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RGTraynor 21:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inside view by Heymid

As the filer, when I raised this RfC/U, I didn't do so as a way of outing MickMacNee; rather, I did this because I and a good part of the rest of the community are not completely happy with MickMacNee's conduct at Wikipedia, particularly at AFD and DRV. My opinion is that it's perfectly OK to challenge one or several votes in an XFD, but doing so by throwing out personal attacks and/or incivility is not acceptable behavior. MickMacNee's own defense is like "the voters are making crap afd arguments", but he does not address his own behavior in a different way than saying "I'm following WP:AFD#How to discuss an AfD". As soon as someone makes a WP:PERNOM or WP:VAGUEWAVE vote, he immediately starts saying "that is not a neutral vote". MickMacNee seemingly has a much higher requirement for notability (specifically regarding transportation-related incidents) than what the wider community agrees with. Sure, XFDs are not votes, but assuming bad faith just because a vote is a PERNOM, VAGUEWAVE, or lacking a well enough detailed rationale is a bad thing to do. MickMacNee evidently is aware (see the diff's second comment) that his DRVs are a waste of the community's time, as they were all closed as "endorsed", but MickMacNee still brings them to DRV. I don't know why. ~~Also, MickMacNee seems to be having some sort of a hate campaign against Cirt (talk · contribs).~~ In MickMacNee's latest DRV to date, in the opening statement he said "[...]it's starting to look like it's only ever Cirt who closes these aircrash Afds - that is surely grounds for reviewing his decisions".

There has been a lot of discussion on the talk page of this page. Several users agreed that MickMacNee has continued his incivility and personal attacks there. In fact, Tofutwitch11 issued him a final warning for said behavior. At least I was satisfied that MickMacNee dropped the stick before it was too late – that's good, because Wikipedia doesn't benefit from incivility and personal attacks.

Regarding how MickMacNee's behavior may be resolved, some users have suggested a topic ban. It seems that prohibiting Mick from challenging any vote and bringing AFDs to DRV is the easiest solution. I've also read somewhere a user suggesting a civility restriction, but another user said that is not a good idea, as that will just lead to more blocks according to their thoughts.

I'm certain that MickMacNee can become a better user on Wikipedia. I think the easiest solution to the problems is that MickMacNee takes it slow and focuses more on content contributions, rather than spending hours (or even days) on discussing XFD votes and bringing AFDs to DRV, which do not lead to anything useful.

Users who endorse this summary:

Hey Mid (contribs) 10:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt (talk) 12:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 14:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Up until the last paragraph, a sentiment for which I have significant doubt. RGTraynor 17:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Snowded ^TALK 17:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC) Agree with Traynor, behaviour is not confined to AFD/DRV but to other areas as well[reply]

Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

The heart of this dispute is what constitutes a good argument and Afd, and what constitutes a crap one. I happen to believe that there is no consensus to be had from a debate where one side can only offer vote counting of crap arguments, as evidence their position has support. Not least when the revelevant guidelines like WP:EVENT have the support of the entire community, rather than just the people who really like reading or writing articles about aircrashes, causing an inherent bias at the resulting AFDs. My position is supported by all the relevant guidance - WP:AFD#How to discuss an Afd, WP:DGFA and WP:DRV. It is also supported by the fact that in these sorts of long running Afd disputes, any admin who wants to close them in a way that ends the dispute is usually clued up enough to mention in the closing how they weighed the arguments. This has not been happening recently, and try as I might, nobody at DRV seems to give a fuck, and are happy to do anything but review the admin's unstated logic. People reviewing these AFDs and DRVs will see that there are voices out there who are not happy with this situation, so, please don't beleive this lie that this is a one man issue. And despite what people like to pretend, I can fully respect a well argued consensus, even if I don't agree with it (or DONTLIKEIT as you will no doubt hear), on the principle of Wikipedia:Writing for the opponent. The people who are so vociferously trying to make this dispute go away by making this an issue about 'my behaviour' though, frankly seem to know absolutely nothing about this concept. If completely uninvolved and neutral people, after properly reviewing the AFDs/DRVs, say that these AFDs are being argued properly, that admins are closing them properly, and yes, there is a well argued and intelligible consensus of the community to be had from them that EVENT is irrelevant, and that Wikipedia being a directory of aircrashes is a not a violation of WP:NOT, then I will accept that. If the only people who turn up to this RFC to allege I am a Very Bad Man, are the very people who want their crap arguments at Afd to hold sway, and want the freedom to make up their own notability standards, then no, I probably won't give a toss. MickMacNee (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary:

Mo ainm~Talk 13:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

Outside view by Scott MacDonald

A very Merry Christmas and a Happy New year to MickMacNee, Cirt, and everyone else.

Users who endorse this summary:

--Scott Mac 15:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mid (contribs) 15:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC) (No matter what happens, I too wish everyone, including MickMacNee, a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!)[reply]
Ditto Bzuk (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by RGTraynor

Mick's Response captures the heart of the matter: something either he's incapable of understanding - heavens knows many have tried explaining it over the years - or militantly unwilling to address. Persistently, almost invariably, he casts disputes over his conduct as being him fighting for what is right and just against a pack of rascals who Just Don't Get It. A review of his nineteen blocks, however, tells a different tale. He has yet to be blocked for having an unpopular or minority view; they have been, instead, for edit warring, 3rr violations, disruptive editing, harassment and chronic NPA violations. While he professes fidelity to certain policies and guidelines, and claims that his efforts are in their defense, it is plain that - to borrow his own words - he doesn't "give a toss" for policies requiring that he not edit war, attack or harass other editors, or snow discussions down with tendentious behavior.

Nothing prevents Mick from passionate defense of his POV, and certainly he need not have the same views as others on guidelines interpreted by consensus. But the nature of consensus is that sometimes you're on the losing side, and when you are, the collaborative nature of Wikipedia requires that you lose gracefully and move on. Whether or not Mick understands that, he doesn't practice it. WP:CIVIL is not part of an a la carte menu where editors can ignore those policies they find inconvenient. It is a fundamental policy of this encyclopedia which every editor - every editor - must follow. No newcomer receiving a fraction of the number of blocks Mick has would escape an indef block, no one would defend him, and no one would dare lift that block. To quote a famous sports executive, "The time for probationary lenience has passed, whether this type of conduct is the product of temperamental instability or willful defiance of the authority of the game does not matter."

Users who endorse this summary:

-- Bjmullan (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- -- Cirt (talk) 04:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ahunt (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Oakshade (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bzuk (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Wikireader41 (talk) 04:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Snowded ^TALK 05:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC) with regret and on the basis of contributions on British Isles issues[reply]
Mjroots (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mid (contribs) 09:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David Biddulph (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 17:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DJSasso (talk) 17:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by ExampleUsername

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.