Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
you appear to be edit warring against consensus found at Talk:Men's rights movement#Removal of Williams.2C 1995. I would also caution you against using misleading edit summaries as you did here when you wrote that you "moved" the material when in fact you rewrote and deleted parts of it against consensus and so that the text no longer matches the sources.
Don't come into my talk page you ignorant peasant and lecture me on the do's and don't of Wikipedia. You actions on the Mens Rights site are appalling and are compromising the whole Wikipedia concept. Wikipedia is beginning to falter due to a lack of editors and Men's Rights is the flagship of that demise. I lay the blame fair and squarely on the likes of you for creating a hostile editing environment. Next time you come onto my talk page with your puffed up little comments perhaps a little introspection and concern for Wikipedia might be in order. CSDarrow (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More precisely there is a complaint on the Admin Notice Board by you Sonicyouth. I thought it is apropos for purposes of chronicling I link to it here [1], so others can see it.
CSDarrow, as an administrator, allow me to lecture you on the do's and don't's of Wikipedia. Do remain courteous: an editor comes here to notify you of the state of an article and its history, and you call him an "ignorant peasant". That is an unacceptable personal attack. Furthermore, your edits on Talk:Men's rights movement indicate that you view this place as a battleground, where you and another editor come out guns blazing, with little or no knowledge of guidelines regarding, for instance, neutrality and Reliable sources. So, coming from an editor who has as yet to show any regard for some core policies here, you'll forgive me for not buying into your "concern for Wikipedia". Continuing that kind of behavior is most likely to lead to a block, temporarily or indefinite. And more "peasant" remark, and more sneering about "puffed up little comments", will lead to a block as well. The article you sought out for editing has long suffered from soapboxing and battleground behavior, which is why Sonicyouth kindly notified you. Rather than cuss them out, you should thank them for their good faith: it seems they extended that much to you. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on: you were notified in September of last year already of the probation guidelines, laid down in Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. It specifically includes edit-warring--and [2], [3], [4], and [5] are plenty of evidence of your edit-warring. Therefore I will block you to prevent further disruption (since your last removal of that sourced information, whose inclusion consensus deems appropriate, was very recent, 13:39, 11 March 2013). After your block expires, you are welcome to return to the article and its talk page--but further violations will result in longer blocks. Drmies (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, frankly I think my response is measured considering what has been going on here. I was involved in this discussion well before sonicyouth turned up, before declaring there was a consensus I suggest you read the page a little more carefully.
A consensus is not a majority and a 'consensus' is not appropriate when the sentences under consideration clearly have problems; in particular expressing an opinion as fact and coatracking a perjorative notion. Also a consensus is not when there is an editor who disagrees and presents pertinent arguments for disagreeing. I have presented well formed reasoning for my edits that sonicyouth does not seem fit to respond to. To me it seems sonicyouth is edit warring. The sentence I am trying to add was crafted by Cailil not me.
You feel fit to lecture me on the do's and don't's of Wikipedia. Perhaps then you could answer me this question:- Is it the policy of Wikipedia to allow an opinion to be expressed as a fact? If so, then there are typos on this page WP:YESPOV. Similarly I might direct you to WP:FAITH, concerning your comment "..you'll forgive me for not buying into your 'concern for Wikipedia' ". Also unsubstantiated and sweeping pejoratives concerning my understanding of Neutrality and Reliable Sources are easily made, but not so easily demonstrated and are at odds with WP:NPA.
Wikipedia is hemorrhaging editors and the Wikipedia concept is in crisis. It looks like its lost another.
I may initiate a formal complaint against Viriditas, and it looks like you have cause to do so as well. Perhaps we might file a joint complaint? Memills (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never come across Viriditas before, I think he/she was mostly trying to establish authority. If there had been a history of that type of stuff then yes I'd join you. Wikipedia can be draining and rationing emotional energy is a good thing. Things are really busy at work atm, so I think I will continue with that rest I was taking from Wiki/MRM. I have been on it for ages and frankly nothing is changing, it is futile for now. I probably be back in the future, take care Memills. CSDarrow (talk) 02:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have had run-ins with Viriditas before -- none about issues of substance, but, more of what you have seen here.
I am very disappointed to see you leave. Again, you are one of the most reasonable WP editors I have seen on this article. I have a daytime job too, and, the policing of the MRM page is such a disgrace that I understand your motives to abandon it.
I am considering creating a men's rights page at Scholarpedia or Citizenium. If I do, I will leave a message for you here to invite you to contribute. Best of luck. Memills (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clever. Conservapedia at least acknowledges it is pushing a POV. To the contrary, WP claims it enforces an NPOV. Unfortunately, on some controversial topics, WP can be as biased as Conservapedia. To wit: the men's rights page is so biased by a cadre of editors and administrators sitting on the page that it might as well be an article from Feminisopedia. The unfounded ad hominems, threats and blocks against CSDarrow are but one sad example. Memills (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Final Warning
You were warned by Drmies when he blocked you for edit waring about personal attacks. This comment is unacceptable. Anymore remarks about other editors in that topic area will result in a topic ban.--v/r - TP02:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly your warning is moot cause I ain't coming back anyway, any attempts at constructive editing are futile. Secondly get your facts straight before you come onto my page all guns blazing, I was not banned for edit warring. Frankly Admin time would be spent more productively policing edit violations of the page itself rather than pursuing petty violations. Atm there is a group who are page sitting with no regard for Wikipedia's rules at all, and are essentially editing the page at will due to unconscious Admin complicity. Solve this and you'll solve the problem of the intemperate tone of the editor exchanges. If Wikipedia wants to retain quality editors they had better improve their product. Have a nice day. CSDarrow (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
he blocked you for edit waring about personal attacks.
Such a lack of consonants these days. Looking at this, trying to figure out what is a 'personal attack' here. "A fact at times I wonder might elude you" is the closest thing I can see. Of course if THAT counts as an insult then "The operative word being reliable" SY said to Memills could also be seen that way. Drmies is correct that "ignorant peasant" is wrong to say to other Wikipedians, but I don't see how the comment to SY comes anywhere near that. Ranze (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hint in regards to editing a lede
There is a gadget you might be interested in. If you go to that section of your preferences, there's an option to add a link that allows you to edit the lede (section 0). Pretty useful. ~ Amory(u • t • c)20:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have to acknowledge that in social sciences, there is no single prevailing paradigm but different schools. We can't just interpret one or a few sources as the only truth in non-exact sciences. Let's take the organisation studies as an example, there are several schools: scientific management, classical management theory, human relations, structural theory, systems theory, cultural theory, symbolic interpretation, postmodernism etc. You can't just pick one scholar and say it's the truth, in fact scholars often have differing views which they sometimes debate in the publications. The feminist school in sociology represents one normative view that inherently disagrees with the MRM. The feminist scholarly view can't be the only one covering the whole subject.
I think it's a rather fundamental acknowledgement editors must make when editing [an] article. Claiming otherwise shows a rather grave misunderstanding of social sciences, I believe.
You mentioned something written by its senior editor on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apex_fallacy but I seem to have overlooked any links. Somewhere on Bloomberg.com I think you said. Was this added to apex fallacy prior to its deletion? I will check if my userfication request is fulfilled (perhaps we could work on it in my userspace, you have permission) but until then I would be interested in reading that.
Once there, we can be inclusionist and help build an article to a respectable size, and stop people from deleting stuff as they like, until we can make another go at nominating it for mainspace. Common use on the web clearly won't be enough for here though. Ranze (talk) 21:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am keeping my eye open for more citations. Building in a userspace is also a good idea, I will add content when I find it. Presenting a well crafted entry will be difficult to delete. 21:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding User:Ranze/Apex_fallacy do you know how much is left to restore? I remember there was an extensive see also section, will add that back, but I am not clear on everything the censors removed in trying to kill the article besides that. Ranze (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
The reason for my block I am gathering is:- "CSDarrow is well aware of the rule, and their contention that they were reverting vandalism is meritless" * Firstly, I apologize for jumping in too quickly with a revert. * The lede is very contentious and had the wording added :- "The men's rights movement's claims and activities have been critiqued by scholars and others, ". The unqualified use of the term 'scholars' is an extremely contentious issue on this page. Adding 7 citations is excessive and odd for one sentence. All this material was added without any discussion or consensus at all. * In reality I had forgotten and reflexively reacted to what I truly considered vandalism. In fact I still do. The lede has been destroyed. Months of work had gone into arguing over every little word. This is disheartening though I realize is no excuse. * I also consider 2 weeks very harsh. But will take rest from this page for a while anyway, it's for the best. * I will also note within minutes of me being suspended Binkersnet has made this revision [22] on the Men's Movement page, (not the same as Men's Rights Movement). Discussion here [23]. I have a bad taste in my mouth atm. * I request at that at least my suspension applies only to the Men's Rights Movement. I shall be more careful in the future. CSDarrow (talk) 21:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
wow
You can't even treat me with enough common decency so as to respond to my appeal with any reasoning. To me it seems it was barely read given the time taken to respond. I find this disappointing and troubling. There are some profound problems with Wikipedia at a systemic level. CSDarrow (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you make an unblock request, it pops into a category that administrators look at. My guess is that administrators have probably looked at your request but have chosen not to comment. Per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, no admin can accept the request without approval by me (the blocking admin) or by community consensus. I, of course, can unblock you but am troubled by your request. I'll go through the bullet points one by one: (1) Good. (2) Irrelevant to the issue of edit warring. (3) You need to recognize that what you reverted was not vandalism. Any arguments to the contrary are absurd. (4) The two week sanction was because you've been blocked before and because of your post-edit-war contentions, which were unconstructive. (5) WP:NOTTHEM. (6) You're essentially asking to be unblocked in exchange for a topic ban. Even if I were to consider a ban, it would have to be broad and longer than your block.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, Thank you for at least responding, that is appreciated. I started making a point by point response to your remarks; but realized as I was writing that the problems here run deeper than my probably clever and persuasive, but ultimately superficial, comments could address. Simply hiding behind literal definitions of rules and regulations, and applying them as such, is intellectually lazy and is well proven to lead to a Totalitarianism. There is some thing very, very wrong with the Gender Issues area of Wikipedia. Some very respected and clearly skilled editors have also made this observation. I care about Wikipedia, I consider it a remarkable and revolutionary human experiment.
What is happening here are the first expressions of an effect that I believe is taking hold over vast swathes of Wikipedia. Democracy and fair play are not a natural human state, neither at the individual or institutional level. If Wikipedia thinks it is going to evolve into a Utopia moderated by good faith argument and diverse opinion, it's not. English Common Law took 50,000yrs to emerge; the optimism of revolution and independence led to Cold War Eastern Europe and the African dictatorships. The Arab Spring has become a brutal Winter. Wikipedia, if left untended, will slowly and inexorably head in the same direction.
I am saying this to you as I think you might be an Admin who cares. Wikipedia needs to address the issues History tells us about. Very high quality people are needed but they are in fact they are being lost. The first and most important step is appreciating there is a problem, listening to ALL editors is important.
Your comment "There are some profound problems with Wikipedia at a systemic level" is spot-on. I am afraid that there are very inadequate WP mechanisms that work reliably when it comes to fair administrative overview of controversial articles -- to wit: the rationale for your block above.
Instead, the operation of group dynamics, e.g., of one group of editors / administrators, "sitting" on a article about a controversial topic (the MRM article is but one example) by using inappropriate administrative sanctions undermines the mission and reliability of WP.
Until WP can reliably address these issues, I'm afraid that some WP articles will be terribly inaccurate and/or biased.
The downside of this, of course, is that WP is hemorrhaging editors -- many of whom are highly knowledgeable professionals or academics who simply cannot invest the time required to respond to biased wikilawyering.
Thanks again Memils for your comments, they are appreciated. The number of really first class people I have seen come and go from these pages is really really discouraging. But rationally why would anyone stay if all you get is bullying and brow beating. I really don't understand why I stay around, as I imagine you do sometimes. CSDarrow (talk) 19:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest that we move the focus of our efforts to the relatively newly created Masculism page, which is about men's issues and rights in general -- and not limited to a description of MRM, per se. The canard that has been used repeatedly by feminist editors to delete information at the MRM page was that discussion of men's issues/rights wasn't about the MRM. At the Masculism that gambit will fail. Memills (talk) 05:10, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition to Men's movement has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the most cryptic post I have seen on my talk page. Perhaps you could explain yourself in more detail please. Also is this post being made in your capacity as an Administrator or a contributor, please clarify. CSDarrow (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but there's nothing cryptic about it. It's the standard warning used for copyright violations; you can, if you like, discuss the wording or even propose an alternative at Wikipedia talk:Template messages/User talk namespace. What it boils down to is that you copied content (or failed in an attempt to properly paraphrase it) from this report and inserted it in Men's movement in this edit. Whether Bbb placed the notice in his capacity of editor, administrator, or copyvio fighter is beside the point. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CSDarrow, you really to knock off this disruptive editing. You blatantly copy-and-paste two sentences from SLPC's website and then question the capacity of the editor who removed it? Seriously? I see that you were blocked twice in the past three months - for three days, then two weeks - for your editing in that article. If this type of editing continues, you know the next block will be even longer. By the way, I suggest you educate yourself on what constitutes a reliable source because the SPLC website clearly does not qualify as one. And your attempt to make it appear as though they are, by using phrasing like "The Southern Poverty Law Center reports", as if they're a legitimate news outlet, won't fool anyone. I'm not saying I don't agree with them on issues; only that they are clearly not a neutral source for encylopedic content. If you can find content about an SPLC position that is worthy of inclusion and comes from a source with true editorial oversight, like a newspaper or magazine, then it can be added. But this nonsense of plagiarizing content, from a biased website no less, needs to stop immediately. And essentially attacking editors - whether an admin or not - for making a proper edit as Bbb23 did, is ridiculous. So stop harassing him about his capacity because it doesn't matter one bit. In fact, if you have a problem with his revert, then add the content back and I will revert you myself. It's edits like yours that can seriously damage Wikipedia's integrity. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
76.189.109.155 Your views on the SPLC are not in the line with the copious arguments made on the Men's movemen page and RSN; in fact the wording I have used in the Men's movement talk page paraphrases those arguments. If wikipedia is willing to declare the SPLC of dubious reliability, I would be first to applaud that move. However I am simply abiding by the present Wikipedia 'census' in using them as such. CSDarrow (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "acting". I will be acting as an administrator, for instance, if you commit a copyright violation again and I block you for it. Drmies (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion should be on the Men's movement page not here, I would ask that all further discussion is there. I also feel it is time for me to make a report to the Administrators NoticeBoard, this is approaching bullying imo. CSDarrow (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In a way, I actually hope you do follow through with your threat because I know exactly what the result will be. You actually should have thanked Bbb for reverting your highly inappropriate edit, and then taken advantage of his knowledge to help you edit more productively. Instead, you have inexplicably chosen to make outrageous implications and threats. I suggest you immediately stop going down the path you're currently on because if you continue, it will likely not work out well for you. I don't want to see you get blocked for the third time, but that's where you're heading. If I were you, I'd apologize to Bbb23 and move on. But that's your choice, of course. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CSDarrow "administrators may delete obvious copyright violations on sight" and that goes for in article material as much as articles themselves. These situations are "treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues". See WP:COPYVIO. Making such edits does not make an admin "involved" (involved is the jargon used here for what you seem to mean by contributer - other may actually not get what you mean). Seperately even if an admin was involved they could still block for copyright violations - it's considered an emergency--Caililtalk22:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You just restored some quotes that you also restored in the last 24 hours, a violation of 1RR. I would like to give you the opportunity to self-revert before I take this to WP:3RRN. Binksternet (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a violation of 1RR I will revert, however I see no notification of that fact. Please show me, 1RR is not mentioned here[24]. I have to leave for the rest of the afternoon, if I am in violation of 1RR someone else can revert in my name. CSDarrow (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've violated the 1RR restriction on Men's rights movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The 1RR restriction is detailed at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, and you are clearly aware of it since you've been blocked previously for violating it. As this is your third block for edit-warring on this same article, aggravated by clear evidence of agenda-driven editing, a case could be made for an indefinite block or topic ban. I've elected to go with a one-month block instead, but please be aware that you're likely running out of chances to edit within this site's policies. MastCellTalk21:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Is customary to give the accused the right to defend himself in any disciplinary system. Unless you are in a totalitarianism. I have not been afforded this courtesy. I clearly stated I would be not available for the rest of the afternoon, see above.
I have apparently been blocked for edit warring on the Mens rights movement page. I have not commented or edited on that page in over 2 weeks. My recent activity has been on the Men's movement page. They are entirely different pages. The latter refers a broad movement encompassing a large number of very diverse and sometimes combative groups. The Men's Rights Movement is one of many groups covered by this term.
I am still not seeing that the 1RR rule applies to the Men's Movement page. I said very clearly if the rule was in effect I would revert (see above), I checked here [26]. This was quickly rendered moot as it was reverted by someone else in under 30 mins.
Edit warring requires 2 parties. In this case me and a group of others who disagree me. Every revert made by this group has not been in discussed in talk until either well after the fact or not at all. I have justified every edit I have made very carefully in talk
My last edit was a WP:BOLD. I would maintain this maxim was entirely appropriate for this scenario, and was one the things the writers of this policy had in mind. No counters could be found to my arguments for the inclusion of this material and the discussion imo was being derailed.
The arbiter of this case, ie MastCellTalk, was involved in a contentious exchange with me yesterday. I could be argued that conflict of interest is an issue here.
I don't see how there can be any doubt that 1R was broken on Men's movement, on 11 June, by CSDArrow. That the article is under probation is clearly enough marked on the talk page, and I don't see any ground for undoing the block in the other arguments. For clarity's sake, that MastCell would have a conflict of interest is an untenable claim; a revenge block by an admin is a very unlikely thing for which the admin in question would lose their bit very quickly. Or, it could be argued that they had a COI, but CSDarrow is not arguing it, and I don't see how they could. Administrators are cautioned to take heed in cases in which they might be involved, but MastCell's involvement with this editor and the subject matter seems minimal, and any other administrator, I trust, would have come to the same conclusion. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Comment from blocking admin: men's movement appears clearly subject to 1RR. The header on Talk:Men's movement states that the article is subject to probation, and links to Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation for specifics, where 1RR is listed as a component of the probation. Furthermore, the page's edit notice clearly indicates it's subject to 1RR. Anytime you try to edit men's movement, a big pink box will stare you in the face and tell you that the article is subject to 1RR.
Frankly, even if one were to accept a narrow and apparently incorrect technical argument about 1RR, there appears to be ample justification for a block (under the terms of the article probation) for tendentious agenda-driven editing, edit-warring, and disrupting Wikipedia in order to try to prove a point.
CSDarrow alludes to a "conflict of interest", which consists of my administrative input yesterday into an AN/I thread where CSDarrow committed a copyright violation and was rather unrepentant when called on it. I will defer to reviewing admins to assess the merit of the other components of this unblock request. MastCellTalk23:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is entirely inappropriate for the arbiter to argue against an appeal being made over his/her decision. You should remove your post. CSDarrow (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where you got that idea. The relevant policy notes that any editor may comment in response to an unblock request. It's fairly typical for the blocking admin to provide their viewpoint in this setting. It would be inappropriate for me to decline your request - another uninvolved admin will make a decision on that, and they are free to accept, reject, or consider my viewpoint as they are anyone's. MastCellTalk23:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assume CSD is a lawyer because of all his comments where he invokes legalese or implies that Wikipedia should operate like a court of law. He constantly makes unsupported claims that he is either being bullied, mistreated, or misunderstood, and that everyone who disagrees with him is wrong. He was fully aware that the content he added three times to the Men's movement article was contentious. Most importantly, he ignored not only the three editors who reverted his changes, but completely disregarded the fact that there was an active discussion taking place on the article's talk page about the disputed content. So the fact that he once again re-added the same content, in the midst of everything that was happening, is outrageous. It indicates CSD's inability to work cooperatively with other editors. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 23:52, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IP 76, I'm going to have to ask you to take a break from this matter. Admins are perfectly capable of handling this without further explanation, and your commentary seems too much like gravedancing to me. Please. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:58, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'll back out. For the record, I despise gravedancing. I just wanted to give context, based on my experience with this editor, while his block appeal was still pending. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I would like a neutral person to take a look at my appeal. I have previously been in heated disputes with both the initial blocker, MastCell, and in a particular with the arbitor of the appeal Drmies. I feel this is a Conflict of Interest situation. I should note Conflict of Interest does not in infer unprofessionality. I feel the rule I was sanctioned on was obscured to me, and that I had made it very clear I would revert if the 1RR rule was in place. A sanction of a 1 month block also seems severe. I have clearly made a mistake which I will not make again. CSDarrow (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
I see no proof whatsoever of "conflict of interest" or even a violation of WP:INVOLVED between you and the blocking admin - that argument runs awfully hollow, and is offensive at face. This block for a violation of 1RR on a heated topic - a restriction you were aware of. Indeed, a quick perusal of your block log shows recent blocks for the same thing on the same types of articles. As a matter of fact, the previous block - mere weeks ago - was for 2 weeks. Wikipedia's blocks work on an escalating nature - the intent of a block is to a) protect the project, and b) deter the editor from breaking the same rules again. All three of your blocks are for breaking the same rule on the same types of articles. With a previous identical block being for 2 weeks, obviously 1 months is the next level of escalation. Here's a piece of advice: over the next month, review a whole different set of articles, so that when this block is over you should completely ignore any article related to the men's rights movement. In other words, I'm recommending you self-impose a topic ban before you are either a) blocked indefinitely (which is going to be your next block), or b) are given a community topic-ban (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
A few notes on this block: This is a community article probation sanction which cannot be overturned by other administrators without either the support of the imposing administrator or community consensus. You asked for an opportunity to defend yourself, Wikipedia's policy allows you to retain access to edit your talk page during your block. Any defense you might mount may be placed here. As you should know, anytime a person is dangerous to society they are restricted to a prison. Wikipedia blocks work the same way. They are done to prevent damage to the project when a person blocked becomes a concern. If you wish to appeal, you certainly can. But you're approach to an appeal is all wrong. You're going to have to convince the unblocking administrator, and the community, why the block is no longer necessary. This isn't difficult to do, it can happen in the form of "My bad guys, I won't do it again". Because your block is only for a month, you don't qualify for WP:BASC. It's not 'totalitarian' because Wikipedia's governance doesn't govern 'the people,' it is for the protection and governance of the content. You are free to go and live your life as you chose. All you've lost is a privilege for a month. If this was a government whose responsibility was to the people, then yes, there would be an issue. But the priority here is the content, and not you. The system works in favor of the stability of Wikipedia. In that stability we find collaboration which leads to all of our other goals of consensus, neutrality, comprehensive coverage, and free knowledge. So if you want to appeal, you need to explain to us why you won't disrupt the stability of that article so the other goals can be accomplished. Make sense?--v/r - TP13:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BWilkins you response is appalling and beggars belief. TP your response is more thoughtful, although to my mind exposes the philosophical problems with the institutional culture of Wikpedia. A more detailed response to both replies is probably a waste of my time, as my guess is it will fall on deaf ears. Unless something is done Wikipedia will eventually fail or fade away, and replaced by something by Microsoft or Apple. The gender related pages expose and highlight the problems at the heart the issue, with my observations over the last few days especially doing so. Wikipedia has better attract higher quality people and take careful stock of the culture that has evolved over the last few years, else this incredible human experiment will crash. I thoroughly recommend people read and participate in Wikipediocracy, whilst it is still functioning constructively. CSDarrow (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing either "appalling" or "beggar[ing] belief" about my neutral, valid and truthful review of the circumstances surrounding your block, the evidence available, and the wording of the unblock request that you, yourself placed... perhaps you'd like to clarify where you find a discrepancy between your words/actions and my review? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the probation template has now been stealth changed, after the fact, to unobscure the full extent of its terms. Priceless. CSDarrow (talk) 11:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure this link was not in the probation template at the top of the talk page, Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation.. I would have almost certainly clicked on if it was there. The history of the template's displayed contents is not available for view, it's short coded. If I am wrong I will withdraw my statement. CSDarrow (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I think I have found it, I was in part wrong (I think). This change was made whilst I was away because of being blocked.
Another perspective It would be much easier to respect WP if one felt respected by WP. I am sorry to say that in light of all the discussion around "Misogyny", I don't feel that way. I imagine CSDarrow does not either. Apparently, the admins see no need to sanction a slur that is written in a way that just about any supporter of Men's Rights could feel that it applies to them, personally. That said, CSDarrow, even though WP does not respect you (or me), it is better to learn to respect it. Perhaps some day, WP will return the favor. Full Disclosure -- I have been the subject of a similar (but much shorter) block.William Jockusch (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And yet another perspective, this one from someone who also "suffered" a month block at the same article. Councilor Darrow arrived at that article at the same time as a bunch of other editors, who were, (opinion) problematic, and who showed no respect for wikipedia. it appeared that Darrow allied himself (herself?) with those editors, and, as you probably suspect, we are known by the company we keep, and Darrow's respect quotient fell accordingly. Some of his subsequent edits did little to alter this view. As far as that goes, your (User:William Jockusch) user page does not exactly suggest someone without a pretty strong agenda. But I've been wrong before and will be so again. Carptrash (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Assume good faith" is a guideline and not a rule. Were it a rule, I'd probably break it. I'm from the "respect is earned" school of life. Frankly, I get nervous about folks who say that they should be respected because it's the law. Carptrash (talk) 23:12, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Possible complaint against administrator Bbb23 (talk)
CSDarrow -- I am considering filing a complaint at the ANB re the recent administrative actions taken against certain editors by administrator Bbb23 (talk). This administrator, imo, has far overstepped WP policies of AGF and NPOV with the unjustified and/or overly harsh blocks imposed on you, me, and, more recently, an unjustified 3 month topic ban imposed on William_Jockusch who simply asked whether arbitration was needed on a contentious issue. This is also exemplified by Bbb23's premature closing of a legitimate requrest for a RfC dff. Administrators who abuse their authority need to be held accountable; without it, WP degenerates into ego and agenda-driven wikilawyering. Let me know if you wish to join me in requesting a review of this administrator's actions once your block has expired. Memills (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and created a candidate page for WikiProject Men's Issues and will make the page an actual WikiProject page once enough people sign up and give their input. I think it would be useful to have a place where work together to prepare material and arguments to respond to people who try to apply double standards to articles about men's rights.
Just to take this off the article talk page, but from edit histories Banedon has been around longer than you, though he may be newer to the Sexism article. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Frankly I am at a loss as to why I have been blocked, as far as see I have abided by the rules both in their letter and spirit. If I am warring then so are those reverting my edits. I have my edits reverted multiple times without any discussion or adequate responses to my arguments. The material being added is from a significant source, ie the SPLC. The commentary is certainly remarkable, to exclude it considering the gravity of the statements seems odd. This exact same article is used to support the idea that MRA's are misogynistic in the Men's Rights Movement page.
In point form:-
I have been trying to add material from the SPLC, a source that has been declared reliable by Wikipedia. This exact same article has been use to support the notion that Men's rights activists are misogynistic.
I have pains takingly and very carefully argued my case for the material's inclusion. None of my arguments has been countered. This is not surprising as arguing for the inclusion of commentary from a very significant 3rd party source is not a difficult case to make.
I have reverted repeated deletion of material for which no cogent argument or sometimes even discussion was given. I have done this within the 1RR rule.
If people object to the content then they should present arguments for its deletion, not just simple revert it with little or no reasoning. In this context I feel my replacement of the material is reasonable and within the spirit of Wikipedia.
If I am edit warring then I am having difficulty in seeing why others aren't as well.
Atm I find this block perhaps a little heavy handed and that there might be more constructive ways of solving this conflict.
As such I respectfully request that my block be lifted and this conflict be resolved in a more equitable manner.
EDIT: I find it unfair that Binksternet is now arguing against me on the talk page whilst this appeal is in process. I have no right of response.
CSDarrow (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
A very obvious example of a violation of the spirit of 1RR: waiting exactly 24 hours to continue an edit war; your statement below insisting on the correctness of your action ("it is called editing") indicates your intention to continue the exact same behavior. --jpgordon::==( o )15:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You reverted an edit, it was reverted , and then you reverted the reversion, on an article subject to 1RR—that's edit warring plain and simple. The two times you were reverted, it was by two different editors and neither of them have crossed 1RR, hence why you are blocked and they are not. The fact that they your edits didn't take place within 24 hours is what I assume B323 is referring to when he mentions gaming. NoformationTalk07:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read my reasoning for the inclusion for the material, can you counter it with anything other than I don't like it? If the vacuous reasoning for excluding the material is accepted then the greater part of Wikipedia's content should be removed. If multiple reversions by others are immune from Edit Warring then this allows for the brigading of a single user by the mob. The 1RR is 24hrs ie not 25hrs. If people are going to be blocked for editing after 24hrs then it is not a 1RR rule, it is an arbitrary rule. Arbitrariness is at odds with the most fundamental principles of any fair judicial system, and as such damaging to the very system it protects. I find your evaluation of this as Editing Warring as overly harsh.
Accepting your arguments would set some very dangerous precedents.
"Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation." (WP:3RR) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing material whilst in compliance of 1RR and demanding reasoning for its exclusion that make sense is not Edit Warring, it is called editing. I find your decision arbitrary especially since you did not engage me in discussion or issue a warning. A system of justice should not only be fair it should also appear to be fair, else the end effect is to damage Wikipedia. With respect, I don't think your decision is either. You also fail to mention that my first 2 reverts were 5 months ago. I would also ask you why the reverters of my edits are not editing warring as well, especially as they are reverting using patently absurd reasoning. Their reasoning imo is dangerous to the well being of Wikipedia. To me there seems an element of mob rule to all of this. CSDarrow (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed your latest comments because they are not directed to appealing your block. I've come very close to revoking your talk page access and will do so if you continue in this vein. As you show know, per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, there are only two methods of appealing this block. One is directly to me (the blocking admin), and the other is to WP:ANI. Planning some sort of screed about Wikipedians, administrators, neutrality, etc., to forward to Wales is not an appropriate use of this page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My sense is any further appeal to you would be futile. I also find your editing of my page excessive and your insinuation I'd write a 'screed' insulting. CSDarrow (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I removed your planned project as inappropriate use of your talk page while blocked. The use of your talk page during a block is more limited than it is at other times. If the basis for your appeal are the things you've already said, i.e., your unblock request, you're correct, I would reject it.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have met some people in my time, but for a member of a judiciary to actually announce he'd reject an appeal before hearing it is beyond comprehension. In my opinion there is structurally something very wrong with certain aspects of Wikipedia, the recent heavy handed and combative behavior I've witnessed being a symptom of it. I will get to the bottom of it and I will submit my report to Jimbo Wales. If I don't do it here I'll do it elsewhere. My guess is the mechanisms at play are not new and have been documented and studied before. Merry Xmas. CSDarrow (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well s/he did say that your appeal would be rejected "If the basis for your appeal are the things you've already said" but I am sure tat you've got all sorts of zingers that you've been saving for just this moment. Good tactics. Or is it strategy? Whatever. In any case we are all waiting to read your report about the rot in the system. A great way to start off the new year. And if it takes a month longer than that, it's okay. Chinese New Year. Carptrash (talk) 02:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was passing through and found all of that. Things don't seemed to have changed much around here. It is all rather sad really. Ultimately time is the only thing that will bring sense to this place. Wikipedia reputation has taken a hammering in the last year or so, and something fundamental has to change if the this great experiment is to survive. Any keep on a truckin' and rest assured there are like minded people around. CSDarrow (talk) 03:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following from afar, temptation and little too much free time got the better of me. Things unfortunately don't change. Social historians in a 100yrs time will have fun with this. CSDarrow (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, CSDarrow. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
There can not be a BLP issue here, Roger Whitcomb died some years ago, here [29], (4th from last para.). I thought this was well known. An indefinite block seems rather harsh.
Since Whitcomb has been dead for sometime and was inactive for sometime before his death, I am puzzled as to how this is a BLP issue. Considering the severity of the sanction I will prepare an appeal. Thank you for responding. CSDarrow (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A Brace, such as your claim here is not singular. Besides, you don't get to evade our civility and personal attack policies, and then defend your violations as if they are meaningless. Please feel free to prep your appeal, it's called an 'unblock request' as I see you are already familiar with. Dreadstar☥04:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh good to see we still have admins making terrible blocks. Even better that they are unable to justify them in policy. Way to go, random admin! You da real MVP. Arkon (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the comment wasn't about a living person, so the reason of the block is technically invalid - giving civility and personal attacks as secondary reasons just indicates the blocking admin was at loss. Personal attacks policy doesn't deal about non-Wikipedians, especially not dead ones. Also, is it just me or does the edit summary of "good bye" with unneeded talkpage access removal seem a bit taunt-ish? Perhaps the block was done in the heat of the moment, who knows. --Pudeo'03:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
I have been blocked indefinitely by Dreadstar, initially this also included talk page and email privileges. I discovered my talk page privileges were restored by coincidence, a fact I was not informed of, and as such am now able to launch this appeal. I have no idea what my full status is atm. I was not given a rationale as to why I was blocked so it is hard to mount an appeal, through other posts after the fact and elsewhere I can make a good guess. All comments referred to are in talk pages. My points are:-
I am assuming this is the main part of it, [31], ie a BLP issue for referring to an individual as a "radical nutcase". It can not be a BLP issue as Whitcomb died some years ago, I thought this was well known. This issue was first brought to the attention of Bbb23 by Cailil, here [32]. Bbb23 did not issue a warning.
Very few would deny Whitcom was a radical and the term "nutcase" means a mad or foolish person[33]. I believe any one who believes Marital Rape should be legal is foolish, hence the term "radical nutcase". I expressed an opinion that although strong is not impossibly true and is pertinent, I am not using it as a pejorative. Even though Whitcomb is dead I regret using this term and apologise if I caused any offense. I think my posting history shows that I rarely use this type of language; this was a very difficult discussion.
I am surmising from my talk page that Dreadstar is sanctioning me for my commentary here [34]. I again refereed to a brace (ie two) blogs as being that of odd and obscure nutcases , I did not name the authors or the specific blogs. I again, as above, am expressing a strong opinion pertinent to the discussion and not a pejorative. Again if I offended anyone I apologise, I could have used other language.
I also surmise Dreadstar is sanctioning me based on a comment made by Cailil, here [35], concerning me referring to Richard Dunphy as highly partisan. Universities thrive on diversity of opinions and perspectives. I don't consider 'partisan' a pejorative here, but a statement of my opinion on a matter of fact that is relevant to the discussion. This is something reasonable people can disagree on.
In addition to the above, there is commentary on my civility in general. This whole discussion concerned the statement that Men's Rights Groups in the UK support the legalisation of Marital Rape. This is an enormous claim to make and involves real organistions with real people, including Parliamentary Candidates running on a Men's Rights platform in the 2015 election. The accuracy of such a statement has to have a very high level of certainty. The whole discussion was heated and difficult but had direction and structure, I think we did well. There were 3 main sections: an initial discussion, then into WP:NPOVN then back to Talk.
(1) The first part here[36] was a hard, lengthy and contentious; where my comments above occurred. I think it is fair to say my posts, in addition to those above, were in general professional. We could not reach consensus and proceeded to WP:NPOVN.
(2) I made a case in WP:NPOVN, here [37]. This discussion was civil in my view. I think it is fair to say the consensus was that the entry on Marital Rape and the UK needed to be changed. It was halfway through this that Cailil entered the whole discussion, we exchanged words but my responses were within the tone he defined for our interaction. We then returned to talk where Cailil started to propose changes.
(3) I think most of this section, here [38], was an attempt by me to extract the precise nature of the changes Cailil was proposing so I could then address them. Wording is crucial here. The edit history here after I was blocked is troubled, but that in place in now correct. I see nothing here on my part that is unprofessional. The discussion ended in us awaiting a proposed change from Cailil or others.
Due to the agreed upon inaccuracy of the entry I said I would ask Bbb23 to remove it for now. Before I could make this request I was permanently blocked. I played no further part in the whole discussion.
I do not think my commentary, in addition to that above, is especially uncivil.
I apologise if I have offended anyone and will pay more attention to my language and who I refer to.
In light of the above I respectfully request that my block be lifted.
I did post to Bbb23 about what I consider to only be a borderline BLP issue[39]. I also noted to Dreadstar that I wouldn't have gone straight to indef[40], and I asked them to present a fuller rationale for blocking (in fairness both to CSDarrow and to a reviewing sysop). Dreadstar noted that the block was for disruption and in light of previous behaviour by this user[41] but a fuller rationale would still be helpful. Given CSDarrow's acceptance of the BLP issues I'd considered that aspect of the block discharged in the main. I will however underline that the description of authors in the manner that Dunphy was described is in fact unacceptable (a remark repeated, with an attempt at justification, in the unblock request). Wikipedians are not permitted to use controversial or damaging language about living people just because they don't like a source or what it says. This is a reputably published senior academic not a shock-jock, political activist or blogger. The matters around this block relating to content relate to ownership (see here) but IMHO a block is not necessarily the best sanction for this. It should be noted the Men's rights area is under probation WP:MRMPS and as a point of order WP:BLP enforcement comes under WP:NEWBLPBAN's discretionary sanctionsand thus this may need to be appealed at WP:AE Dreadstar may need to clarify this--Caililtalk12:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a quick comment because I'm going off-wiki on vacation shortly. I think the bases of the block were sketchy. I think indefinite was too harsh. I think that CSDarrow's last exchange with Cailil on the MRM talk page was tendentious. Had this unfolded otherwise, it might be different, but I don't think this needs to be appealed to AE. Such an appeal would be, at least in my view, somewhat murky. Other admins are welcome to comment, of course, on all of these points.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think an unblock may well be possible in this instance. Would you be willing to agree to avoid using the expression 'nutcase' in future? You can describe someone as a 'radical advocate on the fringes of the movement', if that's accurate, but I think it's probably best you don't refer to anyone as a 'nutcase'. PhilKnight (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dreadstar has archived a section from his/her Talk page that is highly relevant and I have linked to in my appeal. My link now does not work. Since the review process is not complete I'd ask the section be replaced till it is. Thank you. CSDarrow (talk) 22:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If one had read the full discussion properly, which I am sure you did, you'll note the consensus at the end was that changes needed to be made. I therefore fail to see how you would find it disheartening that I raised this issue; I personally find identifying and rectifying errors on Wikipedia uplifting. There is considerable difference between the text and sources of 2 years ago, how could you possibly not notice this? Your use of words like "strident" and "rehashing" is puzzling considering the issues central to this blocking. I am left with the feeling you should have put more thought into you post. CSDarrow (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that everyone who reads the discussion from two years ago and the previous and subsequent discussions will see that there is no consensus to delete properly sourced material. Slp1, Kevin Gorman, Kaldari and Cailil opposed your proposal, Memills, Perpetualization and Memotype supported it. I will not comment on the involved editors and the strength of their arguments because I trust that everyone can see for themselves. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have not addressed the issues I've raised, and fail to see how your response is pertinent this block review. You should not speculate of the opinions of others; especially when in fact Cailil was heavily involved and recommended a source change [42]. CSDarrow (talk) 00:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first diff is two years old and the second diff you really shouldn't be using as any admin; in any case can block any editor for any reason; valid or not and it will stick, whether or not the block was merited at the time. Linking to contributiosn doesn't really say anything, you'd need specific diffs for that. CSnarrow does good edits and I feel that an indefinite, original hard block (until Dreadstar changed that) for a single supposed BLP violation is over the top. He's even acknowledging that it is and is very willing to better himself. This is absolutely not the case for WP:NOTHERE or WP:TE. In any case, I think WP:ROPE should be acknowledged here. If what you said is right, then he'll slip to his old ways and will be blocked again. No worries. Reblocks are very cheap. If what you said is wrong, then he'll be a good contributor. Win win. Tutelary (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first diff shows that CSDarrow has opened the discussion about the marital rape issue two years ago and has been rehashing it and mostly repeating himself ever since. I see very few article edits (6 percent?), all in one topic area (since Sep 2012), and several MRM sanctions because of his few article edits. I think that bringing up WP:TE and WP:NOTHERE was justified. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of 2 years ago is considerably different in terms of the text and sources involved, even the section headings are different: Versions:- 16 Sept 2012 [43], 5 Sept 2014[44]. The issue here is also specifically about the MRM in the UK. I find it staggering that you should make such misleading claims in the middle of a block review. I should not have to defend myself against such accusations and ask for commentary from Admins. You should withdraw your accusation immediately.CSDarrow (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You just reverted the same edit that you had reverted previously. This is edit warring. You realise that there is a one revert limit for men's rights articles? --5.81.51.85 (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked for a year
I have blocked you for a period of one year in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator, in accordance with the Men's rights movement article probation. Bbb23 clearly warned you that editing that section without a clear consensus would result in a block, but as soon as the protection expired, you did it anyway. Further, judging by your contributions, your block log, and your unhealthy obsession with that article, I believe your agenda is incompatible with Wikipedia's goals, which is the reason for the lengthy duration. You may of course appeal by asking somebody to copy your comments to the appropriate venue. I apologise for any procedural errors—I was not familiar with these sanctions until today. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
CSDarrow, I wish this hadn't happened, but given the evidence, I have no choice but to endorse the decision. As a general note, I wish you could see what all this looks like from someone else's perspective: that is, I don't think you're doing the MRM any favors with what is essentially battleground behavior. At any rate, as correct as I believe this decision was, it's never a pleasant thing to witness it, and while this block is in my opinion for the best of Wikipedia as a project, I'm still saddened that we have to do this to a contributor who in all honesty is trying to do what they think is right. Take care, Drmies (talk) 16:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In which case we now go to ArbCom. Further mediation is almost certainly going to be futile, this absurdity has been going on too long. Your comments suggest you are not entirely up to speed on what has been going on here. Before issuing such a severe sanction, I think you have a responsibility to at least familiarize yourself with the recent specifics of the case. The most cursory reading, of even the last few posts, shows there is a consensus that what I removed was at best un-encylopedic. Even Cailil has conceded this. The reversion of my edit has now intentionally and knowingly added text that is at odds with the Five Pillars.
This is not a game or a pastime, there are real and identifiable people involved here, including candidates in the upcoming UK Parliamentary Elections. The claim being made on the page is an enormous claim to make; before Wikipedia says people support the legalization of Marital Rape it should be dead sure it is right.
If you issued your sanction mainly on information given to you by others, then there is a strong possibility you have been misled. I am left with the uneasy feeling there has been long term Gaming of the Men's_Rights page. If correct then it is at a deep and odious level. I will let ArbCom decide.
CSD, if you would like to appeal your block, your first step is using the <unblock> template. Your second step is WP:UTRS, and your third step is WP:BASC. As far as I know you cannot file a request for arbitration while blocked. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Kevin for your advice. I have been similarly advised to address this block first before I proceed. Which I will do. My block is only one part of what is going on here. CSDarrow (talk) 01:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, seeing as this is a Men's Rights Probation block the only ways to remove it would be from enforcing admin, or from community consensus. Unless you note this is a MRM sanctions block in the unblock appeal, it will probably be more messy going the routes Kevin mentioned. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, my bad - I always forget that. BASC would still have jurisdiction since they are in effect a court of last resort, but you'd have to previously try and fail to gain community consensus before going that route. According to the probation they have to be appealed at ANI if HJ won't undo it, so you'd have to find someone willing to appeal on your behalf there (or at least copy your comments over.) Sorry for the earlier confusion. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Block Appeal
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Reason for Block
I was blocked for 1 year, above, for an alleged violation of the page probation of Men's Rights by removing the mention of the United Kingdom in the following statement, here[45], ie
"Legislation and judicial decisions criminalizing marital rape are opposed by Men's rights activists in the United Kingdom the United States and India."
Other subsidiary issues are also raised that I do not think in isolation would constitute such a block, even if true.
Summary of Appeal
I maintain there was a consensus that the contended text was at best un-encylopedia. This text had remained in place for 5 days with out any viable alternative being supplied, or in fact any discussion at all. Due to the seriousness of the claim I removed the text and invited others to further discussion. I maintain this is not in violation of the page probation.
Introduction
The claim that UK Men's Rights groups are opposed to the decriminalization of Marital Rape is an enormous claim to make. If such a claim is made, Wikipedia should be very sure it is correct. There are declared candidates for UK Parliamentary elections, 2015, standing on a Men's Rights platform and members of the Governing Coalition that champion Men's Rights related causes from time to time.
This block is largely an argument of fact that can be confirmed or denied by the record of the discussion. The truth of the matter lies in the record and not in, in my view, misleading statements made by others.
Main Argument
The discussion was broken into 4 main parts, which I will now carefully analyse.
Part 1: This starts, here [46], and is the greater part of this section. Here I proposed the reference to the UK should be removed This was a tough discussion for all involved though I think will did well. A sequence of reverts indicated outside help was needed. I then made a submission to NPOV for opinion. The contended text is still in place at this point.
Part 2: This is consists my submission to NPOV [47] contending that the text violated WP:UNDUE. It it is fair to say that the result of the discussion was that the contended text violated WP:UNDUE. Cailil enters the discussion and concedes the source is 'shaky'. If the source is shaky then so is the whole statement imo. He then proceeds to gives a gives a variety of fixes and allusions to offline sources. I feel he is being vague. For me to address his multiple suggestions would result in a wall of text and the discussion would be confounded and lost. WP:NPOVN had delivered an opinion and discussion then returned to the talk page. The contended text is still in place.
Part 3: This starts at the break point here [48]. The proposals from Cailil just keep on coming, involving offline sources the pertinent text of which he won't share with us. I have now lost count of how many proposals he has made, none of which include the one he later used to unilaterally edit the page with. By design or otherwise, I feel this is a frowned upon debating technique called spreading. Considering the magnitude of the claim being made I feel any proposed change should be static, precise and with a well laid out justification. Despite repeated appeals to do so, Cailill simply refuses to do this and is confounding the discussion whilst the offending text is still in place. I state I will ask Bbb23 to remove the text as the consensus is it violates WP:UNDUE. I also state I'll await Cailil's final proposal.
At this point, before I contact Bbb23 , I am indefinitely hard blocked; later reduced to just indefinitely blocked. This stems from Cailil contacting an uninvolved Admin he clearly is familiar with [49]. My appeal of the block in accepted some days later, here [50].
Part 4: This is a continuance of Part 3, 5 days later. The contended text is still in place, even though there is a consensus the entry at least violates WP:UNDUE and no further discussion has occurred since then. The issue has become stagnant, and an entry that has been determined to be un-encylopedic has remained in place now for over 5 days. To force the issue I removed the reference to the UK, and invite further discussion. I do not see how this violates the page probation conditions. There is a consensus the entry is at best un-encyclopedic, it is still in place and there had been no discussion for 5 days.
My edit is reverted, which imo is knowingly adding material that is at odds with the Five Pillars. I did not re-revert. I am then blocked for one year [51], after what I consider to be a misleading post by Cailil to Bbb23[52]. The issue is almost instantly picked up by HJ Mitchell, who issues the block. This is the block I am appealing. Considering the complexity of this dispute, I find HJ Mitchell's determination remarkably rapid, and I consider the tone of conversation between the blocking Admin and one of the main disputants unusually familiar.
Almost soon as I am blocked Cailil unilaterally, without discussion or consensus edits the contended entry to his liking [53]. His edit is not one of those in the lengthy list of suggestions he made above. The remainder of the discussion imo is misleading and has one day old IP accounts contributing [54],[55],[56].
In light of the above I respectfully ask that my block be lifted.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You've written a rather lengthy unblock request. It's dubious whether people will take the time to read it all. That aside, as you know from the discussion above the unblock request, there are only two ways your block may be lifted, by the blocking admin or through an appeal to the community at WP:ANI. I think you need to decide to whom your unblock is directed because all any admin, other than HJ Mitchell, can do is decline it.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a complex case requiring a complex response. As the Admin in charge of this area I hope you read what I have written and perhaps get an picture of what has been going on since you were away. As you now I am unable to post to WP:ANI. CSDarrow (talk) 02:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not willing to grant any appeal that rests on re-hashing content matters rather than the conduct issues that led to the block. CSDarrow, I explained above why I believe your conduct was disruptive and tendentious; you don't have to agree with me, but your block log shows that I'm not the first person to come to that conclusion. I suggest you follow Chillum's recommendation and write a more concise appeal to be copied over to ANI, though I can't imagine you'd have much more luck there unless you addressed the reasons for the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly state the primary reason for blocking me is because "..editing that section without a clear consensus would result in a block" . Yet there was a consensus that the material had at least violated WP:UNDUE. No alternative text in a discussable form was forthcoming and nothing had occurred in 5 days. There is a consensus on Wikipedia that material that does not satisfy Five Pillars should not be there. Yet you blocked me anyway.
The fact Cailil has now done exactly what I am accused of seems to have gone unnoticed. He unilaterally, without discussion or consensus edits the contended entry to his liking. I bring this to your attention, I hope you will act accordingly. CSDarrow (talk) 14:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want the community to reverse the block then I would advise an unblock request that takes responsibility for the actions that resulted in the block rather than an explanation as to why you did not deserve the block. Your failure to judge consensus is a repeating theme in your block log and if your unblock request reiterates that lack of understanding it is unlikely the succeed. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}}14:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All advice is appreciated. I always make a point of listening to different perspectives, experience hold told me that those who don't are doomed. Experience has also told me to believe in yourself when you are sure you are right. There is a difficult balance to hit here. I will heed your words when I once more reevaluate everything. Thanks CSDarrow (talk) 15:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your summary isn't especially convincing. "I maintain there was a consensus that the contended text was at best un-encylopedia" is a good start, but from there you need to link to where this consensus was agreed. "This text had remained in place for 5 days with out any viable alternative being supplied, or in fact any discussion at all" seems to imply there wasn't a consensus. If there was a consensus, then you should link to the discussion. If you in fact edited the section without first establishing a consensus, you should explain why. PhilKnight (talk) 15:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your perspective, all are welcome as I said above. My argument in point form is:-
It clear by half way through the WP:NPOV discussion [57] that the entry is at best un-encylopedic. I don't think this is disputable, even Cailil had says the source is 'shaky'.
Based on that alone it should be removed. However common couresty would suggest wait if replacement text can quickly crafted.
Cailil then starts listing possible replacement texts towards the end of WP:NPOV that then continue on into Talk[58]. We now a torrent of ever changing suggestions, none of which he used in his eventual edit.
I think he is Filibustering and I know what will happen here. For me to address his comments would result in a wall of text and the discussion would be lost with the contended text still in place.
I try to pin him down by asking for a static suggestion, with both its justification and how the sources support it. He simply won't do this.
5 days elapses. Un-encylopedic content is still in place, no consensus on replacement text had been made, and in fact I don't even think a reasonable proposal has been made. The discussion has stalled.
I force the issue by removing un-encylopedic content, ie either come up with a reasonable proposal for discussion or leave the text out. I get blocked for 1 year.
Cailil then edits the entry to his liking without any discussion, let alone consensus.
I don't think I have violated the terms of probation. There was a consensus the text was un-encyclopedic, otherwise Cailil would not have made a non trivial edit of it. CSDarrow (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could I ask Chillum or someone else to please post my block appeal below in WP:ANI. Thank you.
Background
I was blocked for 1 year by HJ Mitchell, [59], for an alleged violation of the page probation of Men's Rights.
It is claimed I have edited without consensus. I believe this is untrue. The disputed text is the reference to the United Kingdom in the first sentence of the section here, [60]. The discussion is lengthy and starts here [61], though the pertinent parts start in NPOV [62] and continue back into Talk here [63].
Discussion
In point form:-
It clear by half way through the WP:NPOV discussion [64] that the disputed entry is at best un-encylopedic. I don't think this is disputable, even Cailil had says the source is 'shaky'.
Based on that alone it should be removed. However common courtesy would suggest wait if replacement text can quickly crafted.
Cailil then starts listing possible replacement texts towards the end of WP:NPOV that then continue on into Talk [65]. We now have a torrent of ever changing suggestions, none of which he used in his eventual edit.
I think he is Filibustering and I know what will happen here. For me to address his comments would result in a wall of text and the discussion would be lost with the contended text still in place.
I try to pin him down by asking for a static suggestion, with both its justification and how the sources support it. He simply won't do this.
5 days elapses. Un-encylopedic content is still in place, no consensus on replacement text had been made, and in fact I don't even think a reasonable proposal has been made. The discussion has stalled.
I force the issue by removing un-encylopedic content, ie either come up with a reasonable proposal for discussion or leave the text out. I get blocked for 1 year.
Cailil then edits the entry to his liking without any discussion, let alone consensus [66].
I don't think I have violated the terms of probation. There was a consensus the text was un-encyclopedic, otherwise Cailil would not have made a non trivial edit of it.
Hello. Per this post I have unblocked you for the sole purpose of participating in the unblock discussion. If this is acceptable to you then you are only to post in the unblock discussion on ANI and nowhere else including here. If this is not acceptable let me know and I can put the block the way it was.
Hi. Just letting you know I have closed the discussion at AN/I as consensus for retaining the existing block. Sorry, I know this is not the outcome you were hoping for. In passing, thanks to Chillum for helping this editor post their request. Euryalus (talk) 04:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I noticed that you’re a participant in the Law WikiProject, so I was wondering if you might be willing to take a look at some edits I suggested a few months ago for the Edelson article? They’ve been stuck in the Request Edits Proposal line for a while now, and since I have a conflict of interest I can’t make the changes myself. Thanks! Mtd6596 (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
![[8]](http://thejesusvirus.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/poor-in-the-US1.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_t5m74E7FGl4/TAHADR-prbI/AAAAAAAAA0c/Kj9Pt5jG0Vw/s1600/homeless-people.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jYbBpmssDO8/UM-cSYu9BDI/AAAAAAAAAfg/J7yskMhnvmM/s1600/childminers.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/files/2009/02/l111098-1.jpg){kind=link}
![[13]](http://ladylibertytoday.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/650-arlington-national-cemetery.jpg){kind=link}