User talk:Memills

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 18:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Memills. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Wlmg. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

FYI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I have blocked you for a week for these edits, which disrupt the discussion and are a direct attack on those with whom CSDarrow may be in disagreement. Unverified claims of personal, "ad hominem" attacks are themselves personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. NE Ent 13:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that Mathsci is proposing you should be banned from Wikipedia's community, because he says you coordinated the actions of several other editors and misled them about the purpose of Wikipedia. As you are blocked and not able to defend yourself there, I thought I should ask you about it here. Is what he's saying about you and those other editors true? Akuri (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

These edits were made under the auspices of the Association for Psychological Science (APS) Wikipedia Initiative. Unfortunately, Mathsci is, IMHO, a malicious editor, and does not respect or appreciate Wikipedia's mission, or its policy on good faith edits. Memills (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Accusing another editor of malice, without giving any reason, on display here while you are blocked, in part for personal attacks, is not a good idea if you want to be unblocked. As for the APS Wikipedia Initiative, it is totally inconsistent with Wikipedia's purpose. Its self-avowed purpose is to use Wikipedia to "promote" the aims of the organisation. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

APS, a scientific society of scholars/researchers, is totally inconsistent with Wikipedia's purpose? You've gotta be kidding -- right?

Where in any APS materials does it state that "APS Wikipedia Initiative is to self-promote APS? Do let me know. To the contrary, the motto of the APS is to "give psychology away" for free -- much like the mission of WP Memills (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

This block is daft, and apparently is motivated by POV issues. My comment in question was this: "Strongly support - for the reasons I, and others, have noted (especially notability and WP:LABEL). And, by the way, let me commend CSDarrow (talk) for persevering here, and in supporting WP policies here, despite ad hominems, bullying, and threats by those pushing an anti-MRM POV." This comment does not rise to the level of a block. My comment was a defense of another editor who was subject to incivility by other editors. Those editors, to my knowledge, have not been blocked. See these comments in context: here. Memills (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If the account you have given were the whole story, then I would agree with you and unblock. However, the block is in the context of disruptive editing of various kinds, and the incident you mention was just a part of the whole situation. All things considered, there is far more than enough justification for the block. I shall, however, change the logged block reason to clarify the situation. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:43, 30 April 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.

Hey so apparently this block expired 10 days ago, but was kinda wondering about the phrasing at the log where Drmies wrote

"harassment on Talk:MRM; block per article probation" on Apr27

and James added:

"also other persistent disruption" on Apr30

I would like to clarify: wouldn't "harassment" be enough? I don't understand how the context "per probation" appends to this. Does it mean that in other contexts, harassments on talk pages would normally be treated with a shorter ban than a week, but in the context of probation the punishment is heavier?

Would also like to know if perhaps edit diffs could be linked displaying the harassment, perhaps with bold emphasis on the nature of it? From an editor concerned about discussing such issues who would like to know conversational guidelines, what to avoid, etc. Same query regarding the 'disruption' type edits that are called persistant, so I can also learn to avoid disrupting while still contributing in a constructive manner. Ranze (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Ranze, there was no harassment or disruption. Note the lack of examples (diffs), or, if a diff is provided (which I did), read through it. Nothing there deserved a block. WP is broken. Memills (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Memills. 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You say to check the talk pages but surely you've some idea of what they're reacting to and calling harassment even if isn't actually. Can you show some diffs on yours or Darrow's that are being pointed to? Also please see bottom topic regarding project retitle. Ranze (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

See the comment that got me blocked (per above).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMen%27s_rights_movement&diff=552208726&oldid=552207758

First what prompted my comment (which did not result in a block):

"That doesn't mean I like all the yelling and carrying on CSDarrow has been doing However, trying to get a person to leave with bullying and threats because they loudly and obnoxiously hold a contrary view is probably not a good thing." Reyk _YO! 01:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

My response to this comment (which did result in a block):

"And, by the way, let me commend CSDarrow (talk) for persevering here, and in supporting WP policies here, despite ad hominems, bullying, and threats by those pushing an anti-MRM POV."

Note: CSDarrow subsequently got an award for his perseverance.

If my comment deserved a block, certainly the one that precipitated did as well. Rather selective administrative policing, imho. Memills (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Project retitle

At Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Men's rights Cycloane suggested it be retitled "Masculism", wanting to know your thoughts on this. Ranze (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

1RR

Please note that you have now added the same material twice in 24 hours on the Masculism page, which is under men's rights probation. Per the probation rule "Any editor reverting the same or similar material twice in any 24 hour period (+/-) is subject to being blocked without warning." Please take care. --Slp1 (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- I am aware of the rule. Memills (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Then why did you break it? --Slp1 (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't. I added material, which you deleted, and then I reverted your deletion. That is one reversion, not two. Memills (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

No, you altered somebody else's material (from "this theory argues" to "which they erroneously believe posits") as well as adding some material. I reverted and then you reverted again making the same changes to that first sentence. You've now removed "erroneously" but you've still changed "this theory argues" to "they believe posits" twice today. You've broken 1RR. I suggest you change that first sentence back to how it was originally to avoid any problem. Slp1 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's play "gotcha." You win this round. Memills (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

If I had wanted to play "gotcha" why would I have come here to talk to you about it, and explain the rule that you had apparently misunderstood? But what amazes me is that you didn't actually revert to the original version as I suggested, but changed it to a third formulation "and that this theory argues",[1] making it an even clearer 1RR violation, and apparently triggering the block Slp1 (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Plueez... you expect me to now believe your intentions were noble? Your goal has been to invest many, many hours to suppress the contributions of editors with whom you disagree about gender issues. You, along with some like-minded editors, revert and challenge their appropriate contributions, or attempt to have these editors blocked via extensive and persistent wikilawyering. Unfortunately, I have no doubt that you will continue to do so. Presumption of an editor's good faith only goes so far... Memills (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for violating WP:1RR on article subject to probation sanctions, as you did at Masculism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just an added warning. If this happens again and I am the administrator who sees it, you risk a very long block or a topic ban. Your block log and your contributions speak for themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you were the Administrator who also blocked CSDarrow. Interesting.

I stand by my contributions. They are consistent with the WP mission of creating reliable, accurate and NPOV encyclopedic articles.

Sad to see WP being gamed. Substantive issues take a backseat to hostile politicking, tag teaming, and picayune wikilawyering. The result is the hemorrhaging of WP editors, many are academic and professional content experts, who have generously volunteered their time here. WP is broken. Memills (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

No diffs given to substantiate purported violation of 1RR. Note -- editing or reverting one's own contributions do not fall under the 1RR rule. Memills (talk) 05:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The proof - especially as shown below - certain belies the claims made in this unblock request. A core aspect of WP:GAB (and the project as a whole) is honesty (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:42, 30 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.

For reviewing sysops. See above section 1RR for more info. The reverts as I understand them are as follows. The material in question is in question begins with the line: "The masculinist movement has to some extent appropriated the concepts of evolutionary psychology:" in work by Blais. Slp1 added this info on May 11 2013[2] and Memills altered it on May 29th[3] and then used the Undo function to maintain that change[4] that same day. Thus changing the same pre-existing text ("this theory argues" → "they erroneously believe posits") twice within 24 hours. Also apparently Memills accepted this above[5]--Cailil ^talk 11:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Calilil has asked me to clarify the violation on my talk page. Normally, an admin is not required to provide diffs in support of an edit warring violation as the history speaks for itself. I might also add that Memills makes a number of claims both within the unblock request and without that are troubling. That said, Cailil's summary is spot on in support of the violation. Mellil's claim that they edited or reverted their own contribution is a distortion of the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict- including with the unblock decline, but for the record.) My mind must be going. I'd totally forgotten that I'd added this material! Cailil has it right. Memills is to all intents and purposes a SPA on the subjects of Evolutionary Psychology and Men's Rights and here we have an intersection of the the two, unfortunately. He edits strongly in favour of both.

In this edit [6] he changes "The masculinist movement has to some extent appropriated the concepts of evolutionary psychology: this theory argues" to "Blais and Dupuis-Déri (2012) suggested that the masculinist movement has to some extent appropriated the concepts of evolutionary psychology: which they erroneously believe posits ". I reverted the edit as POV editorizing while leaving the attribution to the authors, but Memills reverted to [7] and subsequently removed the word "erroneously"[8]. This broke the 1RR requirement about not "reverting the same or similar material twice in any 24 hour period". I pointed out the problem in the section above, but instead of reverting to the original version as I suggested, he made a third edit- this time changing it to "Blais and Dupuis-Déri (2012) suggested that the masculinist movement has to some extent appropriated the concepts of evolutionary psychology and that this theory argues ....".

It is subtle but this final edit with the addition of "and that" significantly changes the meaning of the sentence. Its effect is to cast doubt on Blais and Dupuis-Déri's analysis, which is evidently Memills' purpose given his other edits to this section (and indeed the encyclopedia). Unfortunately in my experience this is par for the course. Memills' strategy often seems to be to test the limits and see what he can get away with. See this block for making an edit while topic banned. Also more content problems of the same sort in terms of misrepresentation of resources etc see this for an analysis.Slp1 (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"It is subtle but this final edit with the addition of "and that" significantly changes the meaning of the sentence. Its effect is to cast doubt on Blais and Dupuis-Déri's analysis..." Incredible -- this speaks for itself: "and that" does not 'significantly change' the meaning of the sentence.

What I see above is more gooey thick bias, and, more wikilawyering. What is most troubling are the obvious efforts to suppress relevant, notable and referenced information with which these editors strongly (and I do mean strongly) disagree, and the extent to which they are willing to use biased wikilawyering (mostly about minutia and insubstantial issues). Their purpose is not to improve the accuracy, breath and reliability of WP, but to banish editors with whom they disagree. It's simply political gamesmanship -- not the type activity that creates a good encyclopedia. Memills (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Men's Issues

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)

I'm in. Memills (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Wikiprojects are not formed in order to defend or push a POV but rather as a central location in which to discuss improvements to articles on a particular topic. If you start a men's rights issues project you should expect that it will be populated by anyone with an interest in the subject, not just people who want to "prepare material and arguments to respond to people who try to apply double standards to articles about men's rights." In other words, most of the people you're accusing of applying double standards will likely also be part of any MRM project. N^oformation ^Talk 12:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV is the goal. A frequently expressed concern by several editors is that many of the pages related to the MRM reflect an anti-MRM POV, and these articles are patrolled and "sat on" by a group of editors who are pushing an anti-MRM POV. They have relied on wikilawyering to suppress relevant information with which they disagree. This is inconsistent with the NPOV mission of WP. Memills (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I can't really comment on that because I don't follow the MRM topic (with the exception of brief reads when it's on AN) but based on Ummonk's wording above he appears to be trying to form a coalition of like-minded editors. I'm just pointing out that wikiprojects are specifically not a coalition of like minded editors. So even assuming that your position above is true, forming a wikiproject will do nothing to curtail the problems because the same editors on the other side of the dispute will also be part of the wikiproject. Your best bet for improving MRM articles is to follow the steps outlined at WP:DR, especially making use of WP:DRN. N^oformation ^Talk 17:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments. IMO, Wikipedia currently lacks (but needs to develop) administrative policies to deal with situations when a group of like-minded editors with a POV "sit" on an article, such that the article becomes NPOV. The "consensus" policy of WP is ineffective in this situation. Memills (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've been here since 2007 and I can't tell you how many times I've heard similar sentiment expressed but thus far no one has come up with a comprehensive way to address such issues (and I'm doubtful it's possible). The consensus system does work - sometimes it takes a long time and a lot of pain - but hey, we've got 4 million articles and counting so we must be doing something right. Utilizing DRN to its fullest extent helps to bring in the largest array of editors, thus helping to ensure that no one POV is exclusively represented in any given discussion. Still, head over to WP:VPP if you ever come up with a novel idea for a policy change. N^oformation ^Talk 18:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Consensus works great on non-controversial articles when editors have no vested POV; not so well on controversial articles.

Thanks for the link to WP:VPP. I am not up to speed on how new policies get proposed / implemented, but will check it out. This is a difficult problem -- but perhaps not an intractable one. Memills (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

This is a warning that the MRM probation sanctions apply to all pages, including user talk pages. This edit is unacceptable. I suggest you change your rhetoric or you risk being blocked again.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

Hi there, no problem and I'm glad to be of assistance. That situation seems to have become inflamed in a way that needs a fresh approach to unlock. If the third opinion doesn't resolve the issue, you can - perhaps in co-operation with the other involved editor - start a RFC to invite broader participation. Before that, starting again by looking at the actual edit and sources might get things going. --Dailycare (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks -- I appreciate your willingness to provide a neutral, 3rd option. Memills (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Please read my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

Pursuant to Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, you are now topic-banned for three months. During that period, you are prohibited from editing any men's rights movement article or talk page, broadly construed. This ban is based on your previous block for breaching WP:1RR; your persistent disruption on the Men's rights movement talk page, even after being warned specifically about your behavior; and this edit, which has a misleading edit summary and intentionally defied consensus on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In brief, what's this all about?

I think I better go back to editing mainly badminton stuff. I only recently did anything on the "men's movement," because it seemed to me that there was some fairly obvious POV in the lead. Perhaps you can give me the short version of why reasonably polite and thoughtful discussion on the Talk page here draws warnings from some administrator (at least, I assume the guy's an administrator). Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the badminton stuff is definitely more peaceful. :-)

What is going on, imho, is multiple editor ownership. Been going on for quite awhile, with many pro-MRM editors sanctioned, blocked or banned. Several good faith editors have dropped out entirely. Right now the article is owned by a small group of feminist editors. Memills (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comment is not a violation of your topic ban because the ban covers only MRM articles and their talk pages. However, this page is still subject to probation sanctions, and I could - but won't - sanction you for the comment. Just consider this another warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge I have not been placed on probation. Given that, why would you suggest that this page -- my own Talk page -- is "subject to probation sanctions?" Even if I was on probation, what specifically is there about the comment above would warrant a sanction? My comment above is civil and, as I indicated, it is an expression of my opinion. Editors should certainly be free to express their concerns / opinions / dissent in response to administrative actions against them on their own Talk page.

Again, as I have mentioned to you before, I am concerned that your administrative actions on the MRM page, as well as toward me and a few other editors of that page, has shown bias, and that some actions have bordered on censorship. This is about 180 degrees away from the mission of WP.Memills (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Memills your topic ban is due to the subject area of Men's rights being under a probation, that was explained to you in September 2012[9]. You are currently topic-banned and thus restricted from editing or commenting on the topic everywhere and anywhere on the article and article talk pages of this site duration of that ban. However any comment anywhere and everywhere is still subject to that probation because the subject of the men's rights movement is under probation. I've linked to the policies for this above but if you want to see them manually search for WP:TBAN, WP:PROBATION and Wikipedia:GS#Sanctions_placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community. Your current ban's terms were explained to here[10]. And as a matter of clarity it IS appropriate for you to ask Bbb23 (as the sysop who imposed your ban) questions if you are unclear about the ban, BUT it is not appropriate to talk to others about it. Furthermore alleging misconduct where there is none is a very bad idea. When you're stuck in a hole don't dig--Cailil ^talk 11:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, that's incorrect. As a matter of clarity, it IS quite appropriate to discuss with others the actions of an administrator that one believes violates both the letter and spirit of WP (censorship and biased sanctioning), especially when similar concerns are expressed by another editor (noted in the section below).

I am surprised to see your comment here. You note on your User Page that "Cailil will not use his sysop privileges on any page where he is actively editing or could be considered 'involved' in a content issue." You are definitely involved in MRM page with a clear POV, and your "advice" here is consistent with that POV. Memills (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Posting a comment on your talk page talking about administrative issues doesn't require using sysop privileges, and thus doesn't violate Cailil's userpage statement. Ex: I'm not a sysop, and just made a comment talking about administrative issues in the section below this one, so clearly posting a comment as Cailil did doesn't require using sysop privileges. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If you don't want to hear good advice Memills fine but the facts remain as they are. As above casting spurious aspersions (as you have just done) is liable to make your situation worse rather than better. Of course I'm involved at Men's rights topics (I have been even before I was an admin) and thus I have never used "the tools" there (that would mean blocking/unblocking accounts, or moving, deleting and/or protecting pages). You might be confused so I'm happy to let this go if you strike the above--Cailil ^talk 11:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No aspersions cast. However, as a sysop, your advice carries more gravitas. Given that, I found your comment here on my Talk page unexpected and surprising. Memills (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A slight difference with you

I have to disagree with your comment above that some of Bbb23's actions "border on censorship." No, some of his actions epitomize censorship and although I am generally quite reluctant to call for administrative procedures against anyone, and am not at all knowledgeable about such procedures, I think we need to get the ball rolling in this case. As my late Dad would have said "the guy's an utter bird." Nobody editing on Wikipedia should have to deal with this Little Napoleon nonsense.Badmintonhist (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur. To get the ball rolling:

Step 1 would be to note our concerns on Bbb23's Talk page -- which we already both have done.

Since he has not responded to our concerns there, Step 2 would be to document (with Diff links) the instances that we believe exemplify censorship or bias, and include them in a request for review at the Administrator's Noticeboard WP:ANI.

Step 3 is to request arbitration at WP:A/R.

In addition, the MRM article, and associated pages, need a peer review, especially with respect to the issue of multiple editor ownership]. The MRM article has been on probation for too long, that that is now being used, imho, as a gambit to silence editors who have made attempts to make the article more neutral and less POV (as both of us have witnessed). Memills (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Badminton: when you are trying to criticize the actions an administrator has taken about an article that is currently under probation, it is an exceptionally bad idea to do so in hyperbolic terms on the talk page of another editor. I would suggest that it would likely be in your best interest to strike your comments here and start an AN/I post about Bbb's actions if you have a significant problem with them. If you continue to discuss the actions of other editors taken on a page that is indisputedly under probation currently using phrases like 'epitomizes censorship' on the talk pages of other editors, it'll eventually result in action taken against you by someone else, because language like that is a clearcut violation of the terms the article is currently under. You don't have to like the fact that the article is under probation, but as long as it is under probation you would be bloody well-advised to follow it. You're perfectly entitled to call for administrative procedures against someone, but you do that at ANI, not on another person's talk page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Kevin, there seems to be some confusion here. If there is a WP policy that suggests that one cannot discuss on personal talk pages issues relevant to administrative actions on an article that is under probation, please point out the relevant WP policy that specifically states this. I haven't seen it. Memills (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You can certainly discuss such issues on personal talk pages, but they're not a place where you can request administrative action be taken against probation enforcing admins who you think have gone too far. But Badmintonhist's first post here, being worded the way it was, could be taken as a fairly clear violation of the terms of probation - since it makes an accusation "Bbb's actions epitomize censorship" without providing diffs to substantiate the accusation - and also calls Bbb crazy and accuses him of having a napoleon complex. If he has a real problem with Bbb's actions, the way he can get that problem addressed is to go to ANI - if he continues just talking about it on your talk page and insulting people in the process, it's not likely to end terribly favorably for him. I know you don't like the probation currently in place on the article, but certainly you can see that it is currently in place, and that calling someone crazy violates it (since there's a blackletter prohibition in it against insulting other editors.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of irony here -- what appears to be attempts to censor (or silence) concerns about censorship. Kinda bizarre.

Kevin and Cailil (above), both involved editors on the MRM article with an apparent anti-MRM POV, seem to want to limit what can be said on personal talk pages about the issue of censorship on the MRM article. Of course, this itself smacks of attempts to censor. Cailil states above to me: "You are currently topic-banned and thus restricted from editing or commenting on the topic everywhere and anywhere." Then he back-pedals and strikes "everwhere and anywhere" because that is contrary to WP policy. Kevin comments to Badmintonhist that "language like that is a clearcut violation of the terms the article is currently under" but later appears to acknowledge that the probation status of the MRM article is not the issue, but thinks that Badmintonhist is being hyperbolic with his comment that Bbb23's actions related to the MRM article epitomize censorship. If Bbb23 has in fact engaged in what amounts to censorship, that phrase is not hyperbolic.

These comments are gooey thick with irony, and paradoxically serve to strengthen the original concerns. Memills (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no, I certainly haven't said that the probation status of the article is not an issue. Calling an uninvolved administrator crazy and otherwise insulting them on another user's talk page over administrative decisions they've made about an article under probation is literally asking to get blocked. If you think people are trying to censor you, don't give them an easy excuse to do so by breaking plainly laid out rules. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Check again, Kevin. I have never cast personal aspersions against Bbb23. I have civilly expressed my concerns about bias and censorship with respect to some of his decisions (to which he has never responded). Memills (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Which might explain why my entire series of comments was directed at Badmintonhist, and not at you? All I'm doing here is to point out that unless Badminton changes his behavior, a banhammer will be whacked soon. I'm not hoping for that banhammer to be whacked, which is why I have been suggesting ways that Badminton could change his behavior to avoid it. Badminton's very first post in this section certainly cast personal aspersions against Bbb23. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 rebuked and asked to resign as an administrator by Jimbo Wales

I see that Bbb23 has recently received quite the "don't censor" rebuke from Jimbo Wales [11]. I wonder what ol' Jimbo would think of Bbb23's little Napoleon routine at the Men's rights movement talk page. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, thanks for the heads up.

Jimbo himself writes to Bbb23: "I think you need to resign your admin bit. Your actions are very very far outside the standard that I expect admins to follow.--Jimbo Wales" Direct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive810#Involved_actions_and_edit_warring_by_User:Bbb23_at_Talk:Asaram_Bapu

Also, see some of the comments on Jimbo's Talk page about BBb23:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Bbb23

"I think here is a workable plan: Step (1) Bbb23 should resign as admin, step (2) study wp:BLP about police charges, (3) apologize to Jimbo, (4) contemplate why Jimbo's comments were ruthlessly removed, (5) meditate on an "attitude adjustment", (6) rerun for admin after adjustment, or follow a 12-step program for reforms. We do not need a trigger-happy admin deleting links to wp:RS reliable reports of police charges in a talk-page, and edit-warring without wp:CLUE against the founder. Jimbo is right, again. Resign as admin. -Wikid77 22:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I must say that I agree with Jimmy and Wikid77. Bbb23 should resign as an admin because his actions were not befetting of what one would expect of an administrator.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)"

Looks like we were not the only ones who had concerns about Bbb23's interpretation of WP policies.

Memills (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess we shouldn't gloat, but from my perspective it's hard to feel sorry for an administrator who blocks a perfectly reasonable line of argument and then acts as if I should know why the hell he's doing it. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Six-month topic ban

Pursuant to the Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, you are now topic-banned for six months. During that period, you are prohibited from editing any men's rights movement article, section of article, or talk page, broadly construed. You are also prohibited from discussing the topic on any page at Wikipedia unless it is in the context of an appeal of the ban itself. This ban is based on your previous sanctions in this area and a resumption of your disruptive behavior on the Men's rights movement talk page ([12]) shortly after expiration of your three-month topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)