: Whoa... get the relation to the MRM? I don't either. [[User:Memills|Memills]] ([[User talk:Memills#top|talk]]) 23:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
: Whoa... get the relation to the MRM? I don't either. [[User:Memills|Memills]] ([[User talk:Memills#top|talk]]) 23:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
*This is SOP for Memills. Any administrator who takes any action against them is biased. Memills will also wikilawyer the topic ban issue and the alleged administrative bias to death. I've found it better after addressing any reasonable questions to bow out as otherwise it's an endless waste of time.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
*This is SOP for Memills. Any administrator who takes any action against them is biased. Memills will also wikilawyer the topic ban issue and the alleged administrative bias to death. I've found it better after addressing any reasonable questions to bow out as otherwise it's an endless waste of time.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 00:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
:: Once again from Bbb23: asperisons rather than attention to substantive issues (as amply noted above). It is SOP if it ain't your POV.
:: Care to re-review your decision to use your POV hammer to permanently topic ban me (without even a diff) against community consensus? ...that based on my entirely legitimate edit to correct a factual error by a highly POV editor, SonicYouth86? Then to rely on Sonicyouth86's version of the situation (at the top of my Talk page here), despite the fact in another dispute with her a review by a neutral 3rd party found she was in error? As Jimbo himself stated about your admin bit: this is not the type of behavior we want from admins. [[User:Memills|Memills]] ([[User talk:Memills#top|talk]]) 00:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Revision as of 00:43, 30 July 2015
Tendentious editing on men's rights related pages
I assume that you are aware of the fact that men's rights related pages were placed on article probation in 2011. You were warned and/or blocked seven times for violations of the terms of the article probation. From looking at your edits from the past days I can see that you didn't adjust your behavior. Let me give you just one example of your continued disruption in the topic area. You have been trying to misrepresent a source in Masculism for over a year. You started in May 2013. Your POV editorializing and use of unrelated sources was corrected. You tried again in October 2013. That time, you removed information sourced to a peer-reviewed article because it contradicted your opinion concerning your two pet projects, men's right movement and evolutionary psychology. This month you tried again using the same old rebuttal derived from completely unrelated sources and a misrepresentation of the source. Your POV edits were reverted. What did you do? You re-reverted to get them in. Your editing pattern consists of a series of violations of said article probation. The main problem seems to be that you do not understand WP:Synth and (mis)use unrelated sources to craft your own rebuttals to information that contradicts your view of the men's rights movement. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sonicyouth86 (talk) you have very strong POVs re these topics, and we have disagreed previously. During one of our previous disagreements, I requested a review by a neutral third party, and their conclusion was that you were incorrect (see this).
Again, it is time to stop the edit warring and request a neutral 3rd party review. I have requested a review of one of these issues here at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. More such requests may be needed. Memills (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're being serious or not after your two most recent edits in the masculinism article. Do you not see that a source from 1989 cannot possibly respond to a source published in 2012? You have been trying to add the same piece of synthesis and editorializing since May 2013 and you continue to edit war over it. Is this some elaborate hoax or is your understanding of our content policies truly as warped as it appears? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure why you think the dates of publication is the issue here. It isn't. The issue is accuracy, notability and relevance. Are you unaware of our policies re this? In the past, you edit warred with me until I had to ask for a review by a neutral third party to intervene to get you to stop and to remind you of the importance of our policies . Memills (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How does your edit and your edit warring over some version of that edit meet the criteria of "accuracy, notability and relevance"? Even your attribution to "Blais (2012)" is inaccurate because you didn't include the co-author Dupuis-Déri. The phrase "which she erroneously believes" was your attempt to insert your POV into the article. Your POV is inaccurate, not notable and irrelevant. Then you made it even worse by trying to craft a rebuttal ("However, contrary to her claim...") from two books that are unrelated to the subject of the article and the specific point discussed by Blais and Dupuis-Déri, that do not say anything about Blais and Dupuis-Déri (because they were published before B & DD), and one of which is referenced incorrectly. Several editors have reverted your changes and explained why your contributions violate our content policies. Instead of rethinking your approach you waited a few days or weeks and restored your edits when you thought that nobody was watching the article. You've been at it for over a year. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid we just don't agree -- even on what the basic issue is or what the relevant WP policies are. There is little to gain for us going back and forth continually. Again, I will look into getting a review of this issue by a neutral 3rd party WP:THIRDOPINION. Memills (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, no I won't. Bbb23 just prevented me from even doing that... So much for a review by a neutral third party. Of course, you could request one. Memills (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...incredible. A complaint by SonicYouth on your Talk page, and, apparently that is sufficient to activate your trigger finger.
I am afraid that your clearly biased pattern of policing the pages related to the MRM deserves a formal review. I would have thought that the outcome of the previous AN complaint against me would have given you a bit of heads up. Memills (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to Bbb23's comment at the log of sanctions (no mention of it here at my Talk page), Bbb23's reason for the topic ban was this highly inflammatory, POV post by SonicYouth86 (at the top of my Talk page here). Bbb23 stated that it was SonicYouth86's post that provoked his action. Bbb23 did not even directly refer to the actual edit that I made. This was my attempt to counter a clearly false representation of "evolutionist psychology" (sic) with an RS reference. SonicYouth86's comment apparently provided the excuse Bbb23 was waiting for to to pull an itchy twitchy trigger finger, despite being an involved administrator and rejecting community consensus by doing so. Memills (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits at WP:RSN regarding Michael Kimmel and his journal violate at least the intent of the topic ban. However, I can see some wiggle room in the wording of the ban, so I'm going to clarify the ban by adding that you are also prohibited from discussing the topic of men's rights on any page at Wikipedia unless it is in the context of an appeal of the ban itself. BTW, this is the same language used in your previous topic ban, so it's nothing really new.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing new, indeed. Same language and biased administrative actions from you, this time in direct violation of community consensus. Memills (talk) 16:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23, I highly recommend that you review Tutelary (talk) comment on your Talk page:
There was not a consensus to topic ban Memills and that you are trying to impose one when the community has rejected it is very telling of your intentions. I invite you to reverse this action before I take to the noticeboards.
In addition, you are an involved administrator. You voted in the last tban discussion and cannot be considered uninvolved for sanctioning this specific editor. Your own quotes'
Suppport indefinite topic ban. I was a bit on the fence when this started. Much as I respect Kevin's zeal and antipathy for agenda-driven editors, he has a history of being a bit overly aggressive in this area. That said, the discussion with Memills about the legal threat cemented my support. Memills's discussions in the MRM area are similar. There's nothing wrong with an opposing viewpoint, but Memills keeps harping and harping on the same theme until they try the patience of all other editors. Additionally, Memills tends to use fringe sources and oblique attacks (always superficially civil) when having these discussions. This isn't just a different perspective. The style is WP:POINTy and self-absorbed. And it never seems to stop, which, in many ways, belies Memills's assertion that they are non-neutral.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I noted that you did not provide any diffs or list any problematic edits here on my Talk page. I presume you are not just accepting SonicYouth86's comments above at face value? Apparently, you did.
Since you did not provide the diffs to the actual edits, and related Talk page discussion, I will:
Note there that I suggested that "Again, it is time to stop the edit warring and request a neutral 3rd party review."
None of the above even comes close to justifying an indefinite topic ban, especially by a highly involved administrator and especially in light of the recent AN consensus to reject a topic ban. Memills (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Memills, I'm sorry, but that AN thread you link to (I don't think I participated in that) was closed by DangerousPanda, and I'll cite one of their comments: "Yes, Memills has been disruptive in this specific topic area. Have they been disruptive enough to be indef topic-banned? Not yet ... probably very close, but not yet, based on the proof and the discussion below. Would it be wise for Memills to voluntarily withdraw from such topics before they are topic-banned? Very much so." In other words, that you weren't topic-banned in that discussion is no carte blanche--it is, rather, a warning. I suppose the dirt being thrown back and forth involved Kevin Gorman, but there is no reason to suppose that because Bbb made a few comments there (supporting a topic ban) they are now too "involved". Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update (for the record) 12/24/2014: DangerousPanda was stripped of his administrator status (desysoped) by Arbcom for violating WP:ADMINACCT. But the problem obviously goes beyond that individual case -- the system needs to be changed so that administrators who repeatedly make biased judgments are more quickly and easily sanctioned or desysoped (as noted by Ihardlythinkso) Memills (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, seems to me that since Bbb23 !voted for a topic ban that makes him pretty deeply involved. Now, by unilaterally reversing the consensus-based decision of another administrator NOT to impose a topic ban without discussion with that administrator, or others, Bbb23 is in serious violation of several administrator policies. Memills (talk) 19:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It may seem that way to you, but your reading is not correct. No, that doesn't make them involved (at least not by our definition of "involved"); no, they didn't overturn anything. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:INVOLVED#Involved, administrators should not sanction in "...disputed cases in which they have been involved. ...Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." Bbb23's !vote (noted above) for a proposed topic ban (which was unsuccessful) is certainly "involved."
Further, imposing a permanent topic ban against community consensus, and, without consulting first with the administrator who made the contrary decision, is clearly in violation of WP:WW. Once a decision has been made by the community or an administrator, it is a violation for an "...administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision..." This is especially evident when an administrator is "...deliberately ignoring an existing discussion in favor of a unilateral preferred action..." Bbb23's obvious "preferred action" was a topic ban, since he was involved in imposing them previously and had recently voted for one. Per WP:WW this is a serious violation that "...usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration ...(and sanctions have) varied from reprimands and cautions, to temporary blocks, to desysopping, even for first time incidents... If an administrator abuses administrative powers, these powers can be removed. Administrators may be removed by Jimbo Wales, by stewards, or by a ruling of the Arbitration Committee."
Finally, there is simply the issue of due diligence and bias. Bbb23 admitted that he relied on SonicYouth86's highly biased version of the situation to arrive at his decision. Nowhere, not here on my Talk page nor on the sanctions log, did Bbb23 provide a diff of my actual edit in question. That relatively minor edit countered a false statement and it was backed up by a RS. To use that edit for the basis of a permanent topic ban is far beyond the pale. Memills (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You violated your topic ban with this edit. PAS is discussed in the MRM article and is used predominantly by men's and fathers's rights activists. You are topic banned from editing the MRM and all related pages. If you edit the PAS page again, I will take it to the patrolling admin and then to AN/I. Furthermore, your contention that the law refers to PAS is incorrect; the law clearly differentiates between PAS and PA and even says so in a separate paragraph ("Neste ponto, faz-se necessário a diferenciação entre Alienação Parental (AP) e Síndrome da Alienação Parental (SAP).") The law only applies to PA, not to PAS. Thus, the law is misplaced in the PAS article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PA and PAS are family dysfunctions that are researched and treated by psychologists and family and child psychotherapists.
The law clearly referred to and warned about the development of PAS:
7 FINAL
The consequences generated by the imposition of particular interest to parents over the interests of children are deep, such as the development of the Parental Alienation Syndrome. We stress the importance of family as structuring power for good training, intellectual and psychic children and adolescents, especially in demonstrating that the fundamental rights inherent to these must be respected regardless of the form in which they present their family, taking into the large number of separations and divorces.
Memills, I'm sorry, but I agree with Sonicyouth here: PAS is a hot topic in men's rights, and your topic ban thus prevents you from editing the article. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Drmies and Sonicyouth - PAS is a men's rights article, per your topic ban. Please find another area of Wikipedia to edit. May I suggest you check out CAT:ANC? If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, there is no better place. We have 33,099 articles which need attention, dating back to September 2007. KillerChihuahua20:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks TP for the suggestion. However, I prefer to contribute to articles related to my content areas of expertise.
Neither the parental alienation syndrome or parental alienation articles make mention "men's rights."
As I noted above, PA and PAS is primarily a psychological issue that focuses on psychological dynamics, mental health and relationships (areas in which I am a content expert, fwiw). A scholar.google.com search for "parental alienation syndrome" returns about 2,800 hits; "parental alienation" returns about 4,090 hits. "Parental alienation" and "men's rights movement" returns 8 hits.
The MRM may touch on upon many broad topics, including PA and PAS, marriage, health, and men's or women's psychology, "evolutionist" psychology, etc. To prohibit editing a substantive article unrelated to MRM, one that makes no mention of the MRM or men's rights itself, simply because an MRA has once commented on the topic, is an overly broad and restrictive interpretation. The MRM has had about zero influence on these topics. Memills (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see that you replied here. If you look more closely, you'll see that the MRM article mentions PAS and the PAS article mentions a subset of the MRM, fathers' rights groups. You'd be hard pressed to find a larger men's rights site that doesn't discuss PAS as it's a significant MRM talking point. Why don't you work on the millions of articles that are unrelated to the MRM topic area? Perhaps I should add that I wouldn't have mentioned your topic ban if your edit in the PAS article had been constructive but I already explained here and elsewhere why I think that it wasn't. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You would be also be hard pressed to find a MRM website that doesn't talk about relationships, sex differences, or psychology (areas where I can contribute some expertise). Are those topics too now under the purview of the MRM? Of course not, these are vast topic areas in their own right. PA and PAS originated and are researched in the fields of psychology and psychotherapy, not the MRM.
What concerns me is your apparent lack concern about simple factual accuracy. Several times I have reversed or edited your edits to correct factual inaccuracies.
You stated that Thornhill and Palmer asserted that rape was best conceptualized as "mating strategy." That is factually incorrect. It took a neutral third party to review the evidence and substantiate that.
You deleted my edit to correct the statement that "evolutionist" psychology asserted that men and women evolved to be psychologically compatible. That is factually incorrect. Your complaint about my correction (see the top of this page) resulted in this, imho, highly inappropriate topic ban (per my critique of it above).
And, here we are again. In this case, you deleted a statement using the rationale that the law didn't refer to PAS -- when in fact it did. But, even if there was a question about the use of the term "syndrome" -- you could have moved the material to the PA article, as I suggested as a compromise. Is there some reason why you prefer that certain information not appear at WP?
What should distinguish WP from opinion websites like Reddit, Jezebel, A Voice for Men, etc.? WP should respect NPOV, balanced and unbiased presentation of multiple perspectives, and, most importantly for an encyclopedia: a strong emphasis on factual accuracy. Memills (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notification
I just wanted to let you know that I've responded to your assertions at DP's ArbCom case. Long story short, I do not feel that the situation involving the ANI post initiated by Kevin Gorman against your continued participation on anything related to men's rights or feminism constituted misconduct on DangerousPanda's part. Feel free to leave a comment there; your thoughts would be appreciated. Kurtis(talk)21:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. I have responded there. By the way, the previous AN initiated by Kevin Gorman was not about feminism, it was about the MRM (and was closed due to lack of consensus). Memills (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or seek consensus at a community noticeboard.
Bbb23 (talk), you are an involved administrator. Given that previous involvement (noted above) and the apparent uncritical reliance on statements and repeated requests to block me by a highly POV editor, SonicYouth86, on your Talk page, and here, I believe this administrative action is in violation of WP:ADMIN in general, and in particular WP:INVOLVED.
This is at least the second time you have relied on a highly biased and POV analysis by Sonicyouth86 (talk) as the basis for a block. Sonicyouth86 (talk) has been WP:WIKIHOUNDING me for quite some time. I asked her to stop this on her Talk page just a few hours before your action above.
Note: I added this comment on 11/29 primarily as a note to self (and, after Bbb23's responses below).
I just noticed the statement included in Bbb23's block notice, above:
"Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or seek consensus at a community noticeboard."
Ironically, the Tban imposed on me by Bbb23 is in violation of this policy (as I noted in sections above). Bbb23 imposed the Tban soon after the community, via an AN case, decided NOT to do so. Bbb23 then unilaterally imposed it without first discussing it (as required) with the administrator who closed the AN case in my favor, and, without first seeking community consensus to reverse that AN case decision. This is a misuse of administrator tools that is made more egregious by the fact that Bbb23 was an involved administrator as evidenced by his !vote on that AN case. Memills (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested discussion with you previously. I found that you were either unresponsive or dismissive. However, again, as a first step, I am open to another attempt at discussion with the goal of constructive resolution. Memills (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a prelude to a constructive discussion. However, I believe you need to explain why you think the diffs presented did not violate your topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply.
I have made no post or comment about the MRM since my topic ban, nor have I commented on men's rights more broadly.
I have edited pages related to my area of specialization: psychology and biology. These are the areas where I have made the most contributions to WP since I joined in 2006.
In response to a previous accusation by SonicYouth86 (see above) that my edits on the Parental Alienation Syndrome article violated the MRM topic ban, I noted that:
"You would be also be hard pressed to find a MRM website that doesn't talk about relationships, sex differences, or psychology (areas where I can contribute some expertise). Are those topics too now under the purview of the MRM? Of course not, these are vast topic areas in their own right. PA and PAS originated and are researched in the fields of psychology and psychotherapy, not the MRM."
For material to be eligible for inclusion in the MRM article it has been policy that the material added must specifically refer to the MRM. Material about psychology related to gender differences or biological statistics related to health, or even men's issues in general, are disallowed in the MRM article unless the source specifically refers to the MRM. It is an overly broad interpretation to suggest that the topical standard that is used for the article itself is irrelevant to determine whether a post is in violation of a MRM topic ban. I was not topic banned from editing articles related to psychology, feminism, sex/gender differences, or feminist (or anti-feminist) authors such as Christina Sommers.
Again, I have made no edits or posts about the MRM or men's rights. I have posted on topics that may be of interest to the MRM or MRM activists, but, those articles stand on their as independent topics, and, they are within my areas of expertise: psychology and biology (and, in particular, sex/gender differences). In is in these topic areas where I believe can offer some relevant knowledge to WP.
Given this, I would appreciate it if you would lift the ban. As a compromise, I am willing to agree not to make comments or edits about the politics of "what should be" (rather than the psychological or biological "what is") of gender: i.e., the primarily political aspects of feminism or men's issues in general. Memills (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"For material to be eligible for inclusion in the MRM article it has been policy that the material added must specifically refer to the MRM." I'm not sure this is relevant, but I'm curious why you think your description is "policy". That said, I believe there is overlap between the men's rights movement and feminism, false accusations of rape, and certain notable people like Sommmers whose involvement overlaps. In addition, I think there is overlap between your "areas of expertise". In other words, you are narrowly drawing lines between topic areas in an effort to avoid violating your topic ban. Yet, your topic ban clearly says it is to be broadly construed. Unfortunately, you have a history of pushing the envelope and arguing distinctions when the distinctions, assuming they exist, are immaterial. You should be staying far more clear of your topic ban than you are. If that means there's nothing left for you to edit because you have no other interest, that's just the way it is. Many topic-banned editors lose interest in Wikipedia because they are interested in only the topic for which they were banned.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...which can be a net loss for WP. Psychology and biology are very, very broad fields. Any topic ban that was so broad as to include all the subtopics in those fields would be quite over-broad.
Per your question:
"For material to be eligible for inclusion in the MRM article it has been policy that the material added must specifically refer to the MRM." I'm not sure this is relevant, but I'm curious why you think your description is "policy".
I should have used the word "consensus" rather than "policy." Take my word for it, it is the consensus (happy to provide diffs). This issue has been repeatedly discussed on the MRM Talk pages (I brought it up once to ask for clarification).
So, there is a narrow topical scope for the article itself, but for topic bans that scope, according to your interpretation, expands beyond the limits of the MRM itself to any topic that the MRM is involved with. If tomorrow an MRM activist made a claim that religion supported the subjugation of women, articles about religion could be deemed within the scope of an MRM topic ban, "broadly construed."
But that goes beyond what WP:TBAN says: for a T-Ban for weather, "the section entitled "Climate" in the article New York, for example, is covered by the topic ban, but the rest of the article is not."
The same standard applies here: An MRM T-ban would not extend to articles about feminism, false accusations of rape, or Sommers (since these articles are not about the MRM, per se). But it would cover any sections of those articles that talked about the MRM (or, more broadly men's rights). It is an overly-broad interpretation of the MRM to include topics independent of the MRM (especially when the MRM article itself narrowly limits its scope to the MRM, and does not itself even extend to men's rights or issues more generally). To suggest otherwise is analogous to suggesting that a T-ban on weather extends to the article on New York, or any city, because those articles have a section on climate. Memills (talk) 22:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up. But... your reply did not address the issues and WP policy that I noted. Rather, it is characteristically unresponsive and dismissive. Memills (talk) 01:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keilana, None of these edits referred directly or indirectly to the MRM or, more broadly, to men's issues or rights. The articles that I have edited are independent of the MRM -- in fact, none of them even make reference to the MRM.
Also, your association with Kevin Gorman, who has several times unsuccessfully attempted to have me topic banned, might raise suspicions that you are not using administrative tools in an unbiased fashion. Since I have never interacted with you previously, I wonder how you came across my edits? I am concerned that Kevin Gorman, or someone with a similar strong POV, may have contacted you. Did anyone contact you?
Especially given your interest in preventing and challenging systematic bias on WP, and your interest in keeping WP accurate and NPOV, I ask you to reconsider your administrative action. As it stands, it has the appearance of a POV-biased administrative action (similar in nature to the ones by Bbb23, above).
Oh my. I see here that other editors have expressed a similar concerns about Keilana's relationship with Kevin Gorman, and, have expressed concerns about biased administrative actions:
"I would bring to your attention the fact that Keilana is Kevin Gorman's 'appointed' point of contact when he is absent from the site, which raises a concern that Keilana is not sufficiently uninvolved to be taking administrative action in this case. Please refer to User:Kevin Gorman for his statement.... Nick (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)"
"...This was a bad block Keilana, plenty of admin opined as such except for Kevin Gorman, whose bizarre behavior over the last couple of months (not just regarding Eric) raises serious questions about his competency to be an admin to begin with. I agree with Nick, that Kevin's involvement with Eric is such that it borders on harassment and abuse, and if it continues, I will file at Arb myself... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)"
Kevin's conduct has indeed been questionable of late. I doubt anything will be done about it, though. Intothatdarkness 14:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)"
" ... (Keilana, is apparently a) close friend of the complaining editor [Kevin Gorman,] closes the AE and blocks only 2-1/2 hours after it was open and while the only admin comment was calling for a WP:BOOMARANG on Kevin for harassment of Eric... GregJackP Boomer! 03:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)"
Keilana acted very heavily handedly, and obviously hadn't even read the restriction she was enforcing on behalf of her friend Kevin Gorman, who is the real villain in this piece... Eric Corbett 20:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)"
Again, I invite you to reconsider your administrative action.
If you are unwilling to do so, thank goodness there may be easier ways in the future of dealing with these types of inappropriate administrative actions and bias via a community desysoping process. Memills (talk)
Quoting those complaints glosses over the fact that Keilana's block in that case was endorsed as the right thing to do. The notice you were provided with when you were blocked explains to you how to appeal; if you are interested in getting other eyeballs on this situation the simplest way to do that is just that - appeal for an unblock. Ironholds (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The length of her block was considered excessive in that case, and another admin reduced it. There was considerable concern expressed there about her connection to Kevin Gorman.
I asked Keilana for clarification re the reason for the block (since she did not provide diffs and did not indicate the reason for her action -- which administrators are supposed to do), and, whether she had been contacted by Kevin Gorman or someone else. I will give her a chance to reply. Memills (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And she pointed you to a string of edits, having already indicated the reason for the block in her initial message. Again, if you have a problem, appeal this. Surely if you're correct and Keilana is in fact making an unjustified block because someone you think she's friends with told her to do it through nefarious means, uninvolved parties will agree with you, so why not appeal? Ironholds (talk) 21:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She has yet to reply to my concerns that (a) my edits were on topics that are unrelated to the MRM, even broadly construed, and, my edits did not reference the MRM or even men's rights in general, and, (b) whether or not she had contact with Kevin Gorman with respect to this administrative action. I will appeal if she fails to reply and/or declines my request to reconsider the block or its length. Memills (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) A quick google indicates that Cathy Young has written (and been written about by both feminst sites and MRA sites like A Voice For Men, which cannot be linked here due to blacklisting) extensively on the topic of Men's Rights and gender controversy. In fact, our article about her indicates that such gender-controversial writing is the basis of her notability. Given that you were editing Social justice to add content related to her gender controversy work, it seems clear to me that interpreting that as a violation of your topic ban from "editing any page at Wikipedia regarding men's rights, broadly construed" and "discussing the topic of men's rights on any page at Wikipedia" was a reasonable administrative action, especially considering that you have a long history of violating and picking at the edges of the restrictions intended to keep you from disrupting this topic area (logged at Talk:Men's_rights_movement/Article_probation#Log_of_sanctions). I mean, another admin could replace Keilana's block with one in their own name if her name existing in your block log bothers you that much, but I would say any successful appeal of this block (which, if I understand our policy right - never a surety when it comes to how complex our discretionary sanctions have become - must be appealed via WP:AN, rather than via your talk page), no matter the issuer, is going to have to be based on your explaining how the topics you were editing weren't related to your Men's Rights history, rather than your arguing about who knows or doesn't know the blocking administrator. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are suggesting that I cannot quote or reference a particular author about a subject unrelated to the MRM, because that author has written about the MRM previously? The article to which I made an edit, Social justice, does not refer to the MRM at all, nor does the article she wrote that I referenced. Is it ok for me to reference John Stewart Mill on his theory of utilitarianism (apparently not, he wrote about women's rights too). This looks like an ever expanding game of "gotcha."
I think you're on a lot of people's radar because the Men's Rights general sanctions was a fairly big community do-up, and you have been active in the area and its drama pretty steadily since being involved in that initial stuff. At least, that's how you're on my radar. Anyway, yes, I am saying that if you are editing an article about something as heavily associated with Men's Rights as "Social Justice" and adding content related to someone whose own notability is based on their work in that field, you should be pretty unsurprised to find that you've crossed into "editing related to Men's Rights" territory. This is why we tell people to construe their topic bans broadly; if you're topic-banned from X, your block log will be much better off if you avoid "things that are basically X", "things that are about X", "people who write X", "people who write against X", "things people who like X name as one of their platforms for liking X," and anything else that you've gotten to because of your interest in X. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really care, but if the admin is having to do 6 degrees to Kevin Bacon to call out a topic ban violation (and those here defending it), that's just stupid. Oh, and to add, this is a Year long block. One has to wonder why the user wasn't spoken to first. Arkon (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, wasn't this probation expired a good while ago? Last time it came up it certainly didn't get any support on AN/I, though that may have just been the 1rv restriction, I can't remember. Or is it just there forever to be used as a pov hammer? Arkon (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The user was blocked for six months in November, so no, a year is a fairly standard escalation from there and the user is pretty likely to be aware the prohibition exists. Seriously, this is the thread immediately above the one you're commenting on. Ironholds (talk) 23:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that has what to do with explaining, or more constructively advising/warning, that the edits presented above supposedly breach this topic ban? Standard escalation means jack shit when the reason for the escalation lacks merit. Arkon (talk) 23:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The mutliple attempts by Kevin Gorman to topic ban me from the MRM all failed by community consensus. Shortly after the last AN/I by Gorman failed, Bbb23 then acted against community consensus to permanently topic ban me and despite being an involved administrator (insomniacs can see the all the sordid details above for a cure). Now 6 degrees of separation is used as the "gotcha" for a group of admins with a POV hammer.
What is the current hammer being used as an excuse to silence me for a year on topics unrelated to the MRM? This is it: I added a phrase to an existing sentence in the criticism section of the social justice article. The addition was that social justice warriors have been criticized for "embracing a "polarizing version of identity politics in which individuals are little more than the sum of their labels."
This is SOP for Memills. Any administrator who takes any action against them is biased. Memills will also wikilawyer the topic ban issue and the alleged administrative bias to death. I've found it better after addressing any reasonable questions to bow out as otherwise it's an endless waste of time.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again from Bbb23: asperisons rather than attention to substantive issues (as amply noted above). It is SOP if it ain't your POV.
Care to re-review your decision to use your POV hammer to permanently topic ban me (without even a diff) against community consensus? ...that based on my entirely legitimate edit to correct a factual error by a highly POV editor, SonicYouth86? Then to rely on Sonicyouth86's version of the situation (at the top of my Talk page here), despite the fact in another dispute with her a review by a neutral 3rd party found she was in error? As Jimbo himself stated about your admin bit: this is not the type of behavior we want from admins. Memills (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
