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)
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
talk 00:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
" Men's Rights Resolution Dispute"
...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)
Now I know.
And here is a super useful page Manual of Style.
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)
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 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)
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)
Perhaps you should consider doing something [ [6]] here. Something is needed there. Carptrash ( talk) 15:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
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 - T P 02:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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/wiki/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)
[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]
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) |
Thank you for the Barnstar. :-)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk) 20:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)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 [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)
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.
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)
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.
CSDarrow ( talk) 19:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
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.
Despite this, I admire your contributions, and note your Persistence award above. Kudos -- well deserved. Memills ( talk) 17:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [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)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet ( talk) 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
MastCell
Talk 21:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)You've violated the 1RR restriction on Men's rights movement ( | 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 Talk 21:12, 11 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:
My points of appeal are
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.
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. MastCell Talk 23:26, 11 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. 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)
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.
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)
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)
Ranze proposed a WikiProject Men's Rights: Wikipedia: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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk) 00:43, 20 December 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 have blocked for activity on Men's_Movement. (not the same as Men's rights)
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:-
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 ::==( o ) 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.
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)
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)
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.
You don't get to do this ever. Dreadstar ☥ 00:15, 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 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:-
In light of the above I respectfully request that my block be lifted.
Accept reason:
Following discussion on this page, I've decided to unblock your account. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
Thank you for time. CSDarrow ( talk) 16:41, 10 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:
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
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.
In light of the above I respectfully ask that my block be lifted.
Decline reason:
I will be happy to post your appeal on ANI if you can present it in a shorter form. Long walls of text tend to not get looked at. I cannot unblock as only a community consensus or the blocking admin can unblock you. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 02:37, 17 September 2014 (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'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)
Chillum. Thank you for your feedback. I will re-prepare my appeal. I'll restore the formatting for now if that is ok. CSDarrow ( talk) 02:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Is that what you want me to post on ANI, or are you still talking to us on the talk page? Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
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:-
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.
I respectively ask my block be lifted.
CSDarrow ( talk) 00:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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
talk 00:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
" Men's Rights Resolution Dispute"
...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)
Now I know.
And here is a super useful page Manual of Style.
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)
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 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)
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)
Perhaps you should consider doing something [ [6]] here. Something is needed there. Carptrash ( talk) 15:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
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 - T P 02:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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/wiki/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)
[7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]
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) |
Thank you for the Barnstar. :-)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk) 20:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)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 [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)
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.
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)
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.
CSDarrow ( talk) 19:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
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.
Despite this, I admire your contributions, and note your Persistence award above. Kudos -- well deserved. Memills ( talk) 17:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 [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)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Binksternet ( talk) 20:07, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
MastCell
Talk 21:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)You've violated the 1RR restriction on Men's rights movement ( | 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 Talk 21:12, 11 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:
My points of appeal are
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.
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. MastCell Talk 23:26, 11 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. 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)
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.
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)
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)
Ranze proposed a WikiProject Men's Rights: Wikipedia: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)
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)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk) 00:43, 20 December 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 have blocked for activity on Men's_Movement. (not the same as Men's rights)
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:-
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 ::==( o ) 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.
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)
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)
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.
You don't get to do this ever. Dreadstar ☥ 00:15, 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 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:-
In light of the above I respectfully request that my block be lifted.
Accept reason:
Following discussion on this page, I've decided to unblock your account. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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.
Thank you for time. CSDarrow ( talk) 16:41, 10 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:
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
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.
In light of the above I respectfully ask that my block be lifted.
Decline reason:
I will be happy to post your appeal on ANI if you can present it in a shorter form. Long walls of text tend to not get looked at. I cannot unblock as only a community consensus or the blocking admin can unblock you. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 02:37, 17 September 2014 (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'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)
Chillum. Thank you for your feedback. I will re-prepare my appeal. I'll restore the formatting for now if that is ok. CSDarrow ( talk) 02:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Is that what you want me to post on ANI, or are you still talking to us on the talk page? Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
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:-
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.
I respectively ask my block be lifted.
CSDarrow ( talk) 00:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
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)