Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:57, 4 September 2014

Note

Just a note to remove the red link from you talk page. You have taken a name that places the bar pretty high and I am hoping that you live up to it. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A friendly notice

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.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. Cailil 00:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Men's Rights Dispute

"Men's Rights Resolution Dispute"

Just making sure

...that I was right to do this. Cheers, Reyk _YO! 06:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is fine. I am not sure what happened there, no idea how the signature got there. Ty. CSDarrow (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Always wondered how to do this.

Now I know.

And here is a super useful page Manual of Style.

Slow edit warring

Hello SCDarrow,

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.

I see that you were informed that men's rights movement is on article probation. Please consider this a reminder. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't come into my talk page you ignorant peasant and lecture me on the do's and don't of Misplaced Pages. You actions on the Mens Rights site are appalling and are compromising the whole Misplaced Pages concept. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages might be in order. CSDarrow (talk) 13:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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 , so others can see it.

CSDarrow (talk) 04:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

CSDarrow, as an administrator, allow me to lecture you on the do's and don't's of Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages". 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)

• 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 , , , and 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. Perhaps then you could answer me this question:- Is it the policy of Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages' ". 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.

Misplaced Pages is hemorrhaging editors and the Misplaced Pages concept is in crisis. It looks like its lost another.

CSDarrow (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Possible formal complaint against Viriditas

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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

Thanks for your kind words. If you do form MRM pages elsewhere throw me an invite. CSDarrow (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should consider doing something ] here. Something is needed there. Carptrash (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 - TP 02:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages wants to retain quality editors they had better improve their product. Have a nice day. CSDarrow (talk) 04:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Oh wow thank you, that is kind of you. It works a charm :-). CSDarrow (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Scholars

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 article. Claiming otherwise shows a rather grave misunderstanding of social sciences, I believe.

Thanks to Pudeo for that. CSDarrow (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed -- this is an essential point to understand. Thanks Pudeo. Memills (talk) 03:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Harvard Business Review

You mentioned something written by its senior editor on Misplaced Pages: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)

The HBR article

http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/hbreditors/2013/03/whats_worse_glass_ceilings_or_glass_cellars.html

was re-posted in bloomberg.com here

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-07/what-s-worse-glass-ceilings-or-glass-cellars-.html

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)

Ranze. I found it on the Wayback machine here http://web.archive.org/web/20130415042247/http://en.wikipedia.org/Apex_fallacy. Not much there, I believe there was Fallacy of composition and Cherry_picking_(fallacy) as well. CSDarrow (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Stuff

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for your diligence in trying to clean up and remove bias from the men's rights movement article. The Morphix (talk) 13:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

TY

Thank you for the Barnstar. :-)

May 2013

CSDarrow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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 on the Men's Movement page, (not the same as Men's Rights Movement). Discussion here . 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)

Decline reason:

Per comments below. — Daniel Case (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages at a systemic level. CSDarrow (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. Some very respected and clearly skilled editors have also made this observation. I care about Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. Democracy and fair play are not a natural human state, neither at the individual or institutional level. If Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages, 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. Misplaced Pages 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.

CSDarrow (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed -- Misplaced Pages has some serious problems

Your comment "There are some profound problems with Misplaced Pages 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.

Despite this, I admire your contributions, and note your Persistence award above. Kudos -- well deserved. Memills (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

Thanks for the heads up, this is new to me. I see what is going on here now. It is Cultural Marxism at its finest. CSDarrow (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Your addition to Men's movement has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Misplaced Pages:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Misplaced Pages. For legal reasons, Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

I am guessing you won't clarify what capacity you are acting in either. CSDarrow (talk) 01:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages's integrity. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 'census' in using them as such. CSDarrow (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

CSD, I see that you have now accused yet another editor of bullying and have threatened to report him at AN, too. I have to wonder if you're on some sort of wikikamikaze mission. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• 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 Misplaced Pages'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--Cailil 22:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Of all the people I have encountered on Misplaced Pages, I find you one of the most troubling. CSDarrow (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

1RR at Men's movement

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)

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. 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)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

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. MastCell  21:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor correction: the current round of edit-warring occurred on Men's movement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) rather than men's rights movement. Both articles are clearly listed as being under 1RR; see the header on Talk:Men's movement. MastCell  23:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction is also clearly marked in an edit notice which appears whenever an editor edits the page. See Slp1 (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblock appeal

CSDarrow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My points of appeal are

• 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 . 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 MastCell , was involved in a contentious exchange with me yesterday. I could be argued that conflict of interest is an issue here.

Thank you for your time. CSDarrow (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. MastCell  23:26, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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. MastCell  23:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I assume CSD is a lawyer because of all his comments where he invokes legalese or implies that Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

CSDarrow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

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)

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. Misplaced Pages'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)

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, Misplaced Pages'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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 - TP 13:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

Nothing either "appalling" or "beggar 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)

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)

Not sure what you mean - care to provide a link/diff to that? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:45, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

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.

Revision as of 16:54, 29 May 2013

Revision as of 00:11, 1 June 2013

CSDarrow (talk) 13:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not mandatory to edit Misplaced Pages. You are always free to leave. The Banner talk 17:41, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You actually took time out of your life to type that? CSDarrow (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)

Thanks for assuming good faith.William Jockusch (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"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)

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)

WikiProject Men's Issues

Ranze proposed a WikiProject Men's Rights: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Men's rights.

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.

Interested? Ummonk (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Sexism Article

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)

The reference is to Gender issues is general. CSDarrow (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

CSDarrow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have blocked for activity on Men's_Movement. (not the same as Men's rights)

"edit warring and gaming WP:1RR per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation"

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages.

• 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)

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 15:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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 B23 is referring to when he mentions gaming. Nformation 07:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages'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.

CSDarrow (talk) 13:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. To me there seems an element of mob rule to all of this. CSDarrow (talk) 13:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages, 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)

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)

July 2014

Welcome back, CSDarrow. I thought we had lost you. You missed out on some good reading: here, this, that, and there. Memills (talk) 01:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

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. Misplaced Pages 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)

...and, more of the same. Take a gander at my Talk page. Memills (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Blocked

You don't get to do this ever. Dreadstar ☥ 00:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There can not be a BLP issue here, Roger Whitcomb died some years ago, here , (4th from last para.). I thought this was well known. An indefinite block seems rather harsh.

Thank you for restoring my talk page edit rights.

CSDarrow (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

. Dreadstar ☥ 04:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I am at a loss as to what you mean by that. CSDarrow (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why you're indefinitely blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 04:38, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

CSDarrow (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

• I am assuming this is the main part of it, , 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 . Bbb23 did not issue a warning.

Very few would deny Whitcom was a radical and the term "nutcase" means a mad or foolish person. 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 . 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 , 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 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 . 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 , 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 a 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.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I have been blocked indefinitely by ], initially this also included talk page 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 of why I was blocked so it is hard to mount an appeal, through other posts after fact and elsewhere I can make a good guess. My points are:- * I am assuming this is the main part of it, , 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 ] by ], here . ] did not issue a warning. :Very few would deny Whitcom was a radical and the term "nutcase" means a mad or foolish person. 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 ] is sanctioning me for my commentary here . 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 ] is sanctioning me based on a comment made by ], here , 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 ] then back to Talk. ::(1) The first part here 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 ]. ::(2) I made a case in ], here . 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 ] 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 ] started to propose changes. ::(3) I think most of this section, here , was an attempt by me to extract the precise nature of the changes ] 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 a us awaiting a proposed change from ] or others. ::Due to the agreed upon inaccuracy of the entry I said I would ask ] 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. ] (]) 03:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been blocked indefinitely by ], initially this also included talk page 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 of why I was blocked so it is hard to mount an appeal, through other posts after fact and elsewhere I can make a good guess. My points are:- * I am assuming this is the main part of it, , 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 ] by ], here . ] did not issue a warning. :Very few would deny Whitcom was a radical and the term "nutcase" means a mad or foolish person. 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 ] is sanctioning me for my commentary here . 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 ] is sanctioning me based on a comment made by ], here , 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 ] then back to Talk. ::(1) The first part here 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 ]. ::(2) I made a case in ], here . 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 ] 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 ] started to propose changes. ::(3) I think most of this section, here , was an attempt by me to extract the precise nature of the changes ] 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 a us awaiting a proposed change from ] or others. ::Due to the agreed upon inaccuracy of the entry I said I would ask ] 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. ] (]) 03:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I have been blocked indefinitely by ], initially this also included talk page 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 of why I was blocked so it is hard to mount an appeal, through other posts after fact and elsewhere I can make a good guess. My points are:- * I am assuming this is the main part of it, , 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 ] by ], here . ] did not issue a warning. :Very few would deny Whitcom was a radical and the term "nutcase" means a mad or foolish person. 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 ] is sanctioning me for my commentary here . 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 ] is sanctioning me based on a comment made by ], here , 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 ] then back to Talk. ::(1) The first part here 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 ]. ::(2) I made a case in ], here . 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 ] 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 ] started to propose changes. ::(3) I think most of this section, here , was an attempt by me to extract the precise nature of the changes ] 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 a us awaiting a proposed change from ] or others. ::Due to the agreed upon inaccuracy of the entry I said I would ask ] 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. ] (]) 03:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• I did post to Bbb23 about what I consider to only be a borderline BLP issue. I also noted to Dreadstar that I wouldn't have gone straight to indef, 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 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. 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. 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--Cailil 12:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock