Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee

The following discussion is an archived record of a user conduct request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.

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: 20:30, 22 September 2024 (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]
Ravenswing 21:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Merridew 19:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View by certifier Mjroots

see also Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/MickMacNee#My_comments
MickMacNee's participation at AfD and DRV can be disruptive and even counter-productive. The main problems are the continual challenging of editors who hold the opposite view to him, and the following up of responses to these challenges with more challenges. I'm not saying that MickMacNee does not have a right to challenge a !vote at AfD, as I accept that this is an accepted practice. Where it becomes troublesome is when it becomes excessive. MickMacNee may find that cutting down on the amount of challenging actually improves his case. Admins are generally good at determining consensus in AfDs, and there is a mechanism in place for the rare occasion that they get it wrong. He also needs to accept that when the general Wikipedia community consistently argues in favour of something which is against a guideline or essay, then it is the guideline or essay that may need to be changed, rather than the consensus of the community.

The above was covered at the RFC that MickMacNee raised about me. MickMacNee should have been left in do doubt after that RFC that there were issues with his editing which needed to be addressed. An accusation he has levelled against me is that I am trying to eliminate him as an opponent in AfD debates by getting him perma-blocked or banned. This is not the case. When MickMacNee was last blocked, there were many people saying "throw away the key". I was not one of them, arguing instead for a reasonable set of conditions to be enacted as a condition for unblocking. Nothing was proposed that would have prevented MickMacNee from participating at AfD.

If MickMacNee has an issue with a particular admin regularly closing particular types of AfDs (e.g. aircrashes), then he should firstly take the matter up with the admin in question. If the issue cannot be settled by civil discussion, then WP:AN or WP:ANI would be the next step. It may be that a particular admin is asked to take a break from closing these, or that other admins close the discussion of their own accord.

The liberal use of foul language is not a good thing either. It's not that I am offended by it - having spent over 20 years working for a national service provider I've heard all the swear words going - it's mostly unnecessary. Sometimes, a well-placed swear word can add just the right fucking amount of emphasis where it is needed. However, excessive use of foul language generally does not add to an argument, and may even detract from it. This also brings up the issue of civility. MickMacNee has shown in the past that he can discuss issues in a civil manner, and should be encouraged to do so in the future.

The alternative is that MickMacNee continues in the same way that he has done before. This will lead to one of three things, an indefinite block with no admin willing to unblock for a long period of time; a community ban; or an ARBCOM case and all the fallout therefrom. Mick, please learn from this RFC and change your method of participation at Afd and DRV. The patience of the Wikipedia community may run out sooner rather than later otherwise.

Users who endorse this summary:

View by certifier Tofutwitch11

I haven't known nor interacted with MikMacNee for very long at all, I first came across him in the FedEx Express Flight 647 DRV, where I questioned he bringing it to DRV, as others had done, but received an off topic dis of everything that Cirt (talk · contribs) has done wrong. He went on to bash Cirt, stating that " He has closed far too many of these Afds, ensuring that it becomes a question of over-reliance on a single person's judgement over a dispute that has huge implications for thousands of potential articles, and tens of thousands of historical ones (look at the figures presented in the Afd). And he's done it repeatedly with either one word closures, or closures like this, which when examined, don't actually say anything at all wrt the issues. " Cirt can close as many AFD's as he wants, as long as community consensus is shown in the close. As seen above, MickMacNee has brought many of these Air Crash AFD's that Cirt has closed to DRV, partly because Cirt closed it, and because of his very strong personal opinion, which differed from other thoughts.

I don't think, however, that MickMacNee has a hate campaign against Cirt, rather against what he has done. According to MickMacNee, Cirt has failed to read over AFD discussion before closing them, and has ignored MickMacNee's comments.

There has been much discussion regarding his behavior, and how he acts towards other users in the past. From what I have seen, he has ignored them, and hasn't changed much at all. Infact, on this RFC's talk page, MickMacNee said " I know reading it hurts your brains, and that you have real difficulty holding a conversation where you actually have to read and respond to what the other person said, but so fuck? " to another user, because they expressed their opinions. Another personal attack. I gave MickMacNee a final warning about the personal attack, to try to put a stop to it, he refused to believe that what he did was personal harassment, and told me, and other users to read the essays on PA, calling our actions dickish and uncivil. Some may see the final warning to be provocative, but enough is enough with these personal attacks. I have since ceased using that talk page, because he will not listen to anyone, or even consider that what other people are saying may infact be true, and every time I post there he tells me that I forgot to read some essay on how to act civilly.

Cirt (talk · contribs) and I, tried to have a Civil and productive discussion on his talk page, as seen here. You can see, we failed. He just won't consider anyone else's opinions, and will refuse to believe that he is wrong, even slightly wrong. That I believe is the root of our problems, and why we are here today.

I think that MickMacNee can become a better user, ~~if we keep him out of AFD/DRV's~~ if he can begin to accept consensus, and respect other users. He has 20,000+ contribs to the project. He should take this as a chance to learn, and continue contributing to the project as he used to.

Users who endorse this summary:

Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 15:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ravenswing 15:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bzuk (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mid (contribs) 16:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC) (Note, though, that the "hate campaign" part of this statement comes from my original view (see the struck part). That part is not included in my current one.)[reply]
Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Merridew 19:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

View by filer 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, mostly 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 seems to be something 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", and so on. As soon as someone makes a WP:PERNOM or WP:VAGUEWAVE vote, he immediately starts complaining "that is not a neutral vote" or "I cannot assume good faith in this 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. In MickMacNee's latest DRV to date, in the opening statement of that one 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. Tofutwitch11 issued him a final warning for said behavior, a warning which I and others interpreted as provocative and an attempt at inflaming the situation. 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.

Assuming MickMacNee takes it slow and focuses more on content contributions, rather than spending hours (or even days) on discussing/challenging XFD !votes and bringing AFDs to DRV, which does not lead to anything useful, I'm convinced that MickMacNee's behavior can improve. It will not take just a day or two – but like Mjroots, I don't want to see MickMacNee one day indefinitely blocked again, community banned, or banned by the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). In the past, I myself have also engaged in disruptive behavior. While I did not necessarily agree or acknowledge that the community felt my behavior was disruptive, I still altered my behavior, because I knew the community was not happy with my behavior. I hope MickMacNee thinks the same way. Finally, as generally agreed, occasionally good contributions do not excuse bad behavior.

Users who endorse this summary:

Hey Mid (contribs) 16:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bzuk (talk) 16:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Merridew 19:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC) excepting the beginning of the 3rd ¶[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 14:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[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.

Users who endorse this summary:

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]
Says it all. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Belatedly, Sandstein 15:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sandstein. It's sorta hard to disagree with this... T. Canens (talk) 18:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Ravenswing

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." 21:44, 26 December 2010

Users who endorse this summary:

Ravenswing 18:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC) (hm, should endorse my own summary)[reply]
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]
Seth Kellerman (talk) 18:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kbdank71 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 22:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Minima c (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
one brave monkey 21:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin McE (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 11:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Danger (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. T. Canens (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cailil ^talk 01:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein 12:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BilCat (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
shoy (reactions) 21:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kudpung (talk) 02:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Merridew 19:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view by Off2riorob

Firstly, Mick as I have seen is a quality contributor to news articles and suchlike and I give thanks to him for that. Mick imo is very often totally correct according to stated policies and guidelines. What he needs to accept is that localized cliques of interested parties sometimes hold opinions that don't explicitly comply with those stated guidelines and policies. Mick needs to accept that and not let it upset him, make his comment and leave it at that. It is his single handedly attempting to right the wrongs of the wikipedia, and as is to be expected, failing ... that upsets him and leads him to be rude to other well meaning contributors. I think an edit restriction of one comment per AFD or any other review would be beneficial to him and to the wiki.

Users who endorse this summary:

Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep.Hobit (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Them From Space 05:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Atmoz (talk) 23:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay (talk) 05:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mid (contribs) 10:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt (talk) 19:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Merridew 19:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC) w/nod @WP:CONLIMITED[reply]

Outside view by Korruski

In essence, I endorse Off2riorob's outside view (above). However, I do not support the strict edit restriction on AfDs, so here is an outside view of my own.

It is obvious that Mick can be caustic, aggressive and uncivil in his responses. His case is rarely helped by his tendency to write reams of text, that most people (understandably) cannot be bothered to read. However, if one takes the time to read what he says, I believe he often has a far better understanding of policy and the complex nature of consensus that many of the people attacking him.

It is a pity that his DRVs have come to be viewed as so POINTy and disruptive that they are rarely addressed with any real care and attention. Indeed, on one recent one, the tone of a number of comments was that 'since the last DRV was unanimously closed as endorse, this one should be too', which is unfortunate and unfair. I believe there is a genuine concern about the way relatively niche articles (such as aircraft crashes) are dealt with at AfD, where arguments are made that have little or no grounding in policy, and yet are accorded equal weight by closing administrators. What Mick needs to do is learn to occasionally just shrug and move on, and pick his battles with a bit more care so that he does not become disruptive. If he cannot do this voluntarily, and some kind of restriction is required to allow us to move forward, then I propose that he refrains from starting any DRVs without the support of at least one other editor (if necessary, this could be a specific trusted editor who is prepared to assist in this matter.)

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view by DGG

As it happens, on the particular AfDs and DRVs involved, and with respect to this type of article more generally, I do not agree with the general line of reasoning taken taken by Mick, & I admit I find some of the repeated DRVs a nuisance. But nonetheless, I am very reluctant for us to ever impair the access to administrative review processes for anyone who is working in good faith. I hope Mick will realize that the general consensus is firmly against him, and, if he wants it to change, a more nuanced approach to challenging it-- at long intervals-- is the better course.

Users who endorse this summary:

DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bzuk (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ahunt (talk) 16:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mjroots (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Mid (contribs) 09:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jack Merridew 19:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Summary

Participants (including the subject of this RfC/U, MickMacNee) agreed to the following resolution:

MickMacNee agrees to voluntarily refrain from starting any DRVs on his own. He may, however, file a DRV if at least one user in good standing is prepared to countersign it, and he may comment on them once started. He may request a review of this restriction on WP:AN no earlier than six months after the close of this Rfc, and no more frequently than every three months thereafter.
MickMacNee has always acknowledged that there is no excuse for incivility, yet on some occasions in Afd, he has made comments others have perceived as incivil. He accepts that being correct is not a substitute for being polite, and he pledges to take greater care to avoid that behaviour in the future, as it negatively impacts on his otherwise proper contribution to Afds. Editors who believe Mick has been incivil accept that in future such complaints should always be pursued via the appropriate channels, to avoid simply creating countless unexamined accusations and counter-accusations.
MickMacNee agrees to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

This RfC/U was closed due to the above agreement/resolution; it was also closed due to inactivity. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.