Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263

Motion: AUSC term extensions Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions that:

An extension to the terms of the current members of the Audit Subcommittee (AUSC) is authorised until 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC), to allow a functioning subcommittee until appointments are finalised. AUSC members may choose whether they wish to stay on until that period or retire with an effective date of their original term's terminus. As always, the Arbitration Committee thanks the community Audit Subcommittee members for their service.

For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Closure of RfC: Should Tesla's birthplace be changed?

RESOLVED

Closure endorsed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is a request to review the close at RfC: Should Tesla's birthplace be changed? to determine whether the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I discussed this with the closer Here. Also relevant discussion: Tesla's birthplace which contains one of the most important source, Nikola Tesla's statement that he was "born in Croatia".

I also point to

WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS

since I will cite several things from there.

I feel that the consensus, or that there is no consensus to change the version was decided upon unfounded objections, poor arguments. ALL of the presented sources have been disregarded with this consensus. I feel that many comments were not made in good faith and that those comments should be disregarded. "...administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith.". A lot of people have expressed their views on geopolitical situation (which by itself is beyond the scope of this discussion) and have not presented any source to support their claims. I plead many times to support their claims with sources, and that was not done, in fact sources that directly contradict those geopolitical analysis were presented. I regard those comments not made in good faith not only because they move this discussion in the wrong way but they are unsupported with any source. Also, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any).". I feel that ALL of the presented sources are in favor of my suggestion. With this consensus ALL sources have been disregarded with poor arguments (see discussion with closer). I feel that there is not a single source presented that disputes the edit suggestion. Also, the consensus have been reached on highly subjective basis of the explanation that "no change is needed, the present wording if fine". I feel that much stronger arguments were disregarded with subjective opinions, unfounded objections and unsupported claims. No amount of unfounded objections, subjective opinions and unsupported claims can overturn ALL of the presented sources that point the other way. Since the argument is quite long i would suggest you point your attention to the presented sources (also note that some sources presented by MrX are dismissed). Also point your attention to the summary of the sources listed in the article (which quality is indisputable) located at the end of this discussion. Asdisis (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Why not explain in the article that his birth place is a complex matter and describe what information the sources provide without coming to a conclusion?

Chillum

18:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that it is a complex matter. The only dispute is whether Croatia should be explicitly mentioned. Asdisis (talk) 23:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. Reliable sources are all over the map with regard to how they describe Tesla's birthplace. There are reliable sources that say he was born in Croatia, Serbia/Servia, Montenegro, Austria, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia, and so on. Thus, we must use editorial discretion to determine how best to inform our readers. Consensus has determined that it is best to omit the geopolitical subdivisions of Tesla's birth country, including Croatia, military frontier, and Lika. This leaves us with the consensus wording "Nikola Tesla was born... in the village of Smiljan, Austrian Empire (modern-day Croatia)."- MrX 18:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Sources are quite clear. All sources that negate Austrian Empire(Austro-Hungary) should be dismissed. I have clearly dismissed them in the discussion and no one, including you had objected. No one had disputed Austrian Empire as Tesla's birthplace, including you. In fact we all agree that Tesla was born in Austrian Empire. Thus, I feel that introducing unclear sources with obviously incorrect place of birth accompanied with conclusion that "reliable sources are all over the map" so the present wording should stay, is not done in good faith. It may be considered as a deliberate act to dilute the argument. Also, the conclusion that the present wording should stay can not be derived from that argument. Sources are not all over the map. Apart from dismissed sources, ALL of the rest is quite clear. Also note that the sources listed in the article itself are quite clear. Quality before quantity. The quality of the sources listed in the article is indisputable. The quality of sources that clearly list inaccurate birthplace is questionable. I gave the reasoning why the present wording should be edited. I haven't seen any reasonable argument why it should stay. I saw highly subjective opinions that "the present wording is fine". Your argument that "Consensus has determined that it is.." is logically flawed. This whole request disputes that consensus thus you can not base your claim on the premise that the consensus has determined something. Apart from this logically flawed argument, and highly subjective opinions there is no reasonable argument or source that supports the present wording (except Britannica). On the other hand there are numerous sources pointing the other way. Also I would like to mention the source mentioned in Enric Naval's comment who stated indisputable quality of one source. That source does indeed has the present wording and yet is the most important source that supports the suggestion for editing (see Enric Naval's comment and my answer). Asdisis (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. The close is correct in upholding the status quo, so I endorse it to that extent. However, the RfC question appears to be about the wording in the infobox, which the close doesn't address. Place of birth in infoboxes in normally given on WP using the town and then the political state that the town was in at the time. Some sources might not follow the same convention, but that's a red herring as far as the infobox goes. Formerip (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The RfC was also about the wording in the article body, specifically the first sentence under Early years (1856–1885).- MrX 21:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

To a limited extent, maybe. But the actual question posed was about the infobox, and the close didn't directly answer it. Formerip (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Are we reading the same RfC? There was no mention of "infobox" in the request at all.- MrX 23:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

The wording that the question asked to be changed came from the infobox, rather than the body of the article. Formerip (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse I read this RfC a week or so ago after it was flagged up in the requests for closure list (I declined to close it, as it hadn't gone past 30 days). There was definitely not a consensus to change from "Smiljan, Austrian Empire" to "Smiljan, Croatia, Austrian Empire". I did think there may have been consensus to use "Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier, Austrian Empire", but technically that was outside the remit of the question, and there were some continued weasling attempts to try and sneak "Croatia" by itself somewhere into the text, which may have killed that off. As a side comment, Asdisis' conduct in the debate was rather unbecoming, and they need to understand that they do not own the debate, nor decide its outcome. That's for the closer to do, and it was no surprise this ended up here. Number 57 21:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we all agreed that "Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier, Austrian Empire" is a better construct that the present one. I also supported several of Director's suggestions. However, sources are quite clear and Croatia should be explicitly mentioned. See my conclusion at the end of the discussion for explanation. Also, you may notice that Director is the only one willing to work on the consensus. With him leaving the discussion all that was left were unfounded objections. No one was willing to respect the presented sources or even suggest a consensus. People have only objected and lead the discussion in the wrong way, geopolitical analysis. I tried to reason with them. Although the discussion had moved in the wrong way, I tried to find sources that asses geopolitical situation of that time, including the sources that tell of national sentiment at that time, since the description of someone's birthplace does not have to strictly reflect geopolitical situation . I found several sources, which were disregarded with unfounded objections. Several times I plead those people who strongly objected to support their claims with sources. That was not done. Thus I regard those objections unfounded and not done in good faith. It's obvious that someone needs to disregard opinions and comments that were not made in good faith. As suggested by

WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. Asdisis (talk

) 22:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"_{Yes, we all agreed that "Smiljan, Croatian Military Frontier, Austrian Empire" is a better construct that the present one}." ... did we? At the discussion is quite clear that "we all" agred not to change the present wording. FkpCascais (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I should explain why I said that we all agreed. I and Martinevans123 were arguing that Croatia should be explicitly mentioned. You yourself have suggested "Having "Croatian" Military Frontier instead of Military Frontier in between Smiljan and Austria is already enough for precition.". No one objected to that. Director suggested to mention "Croatian Military frontier" several times, no one objected. I explicitly stated that I agree with that suggestion, however my objections went towards explicitly mentioning Croatia. Joy [shallot] also suggested "Croatian Military frontier", no one objected. Peacemaker67, also suggested "Croatian Military frontier", no one objected. 23 editor explicitly agreed with Peacemaker67 and Director(however he's not a major participant). Those are major participants and no one ever objected Croatian military frontier be mentioned. I can't asses the opinion of some editors, since the argument was not about mentioning Croatian Military frontier, so not all people have expressed their opinion. However I note that the 5 biggest participants have themselves explicitly suggested Croatian Military frontier and that no one had objected. Asdisis (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between not objecting and agreeing. The CMF was just mentioned in the discussions. You wanted Croatia instead of Military Frontier (or one of its sections, Croatian Military Frontier). You want more "Croatia" by any means, and you need to make a proposal with a precise edit and then see the result of your proposal. The only agreement reached by majority is that the current wording is fine. FkpCascais (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

My experience from editing for nine years is that sources can be found that align with pretty much every viewpoint possible (particularly on debates related to nationalist fervour), so I have no truck with people rejecting sources if they are not in line with common sense. However, I have a feeling that you simply don't get my final comments above. Please note Dennis Brown's comments below. Number 57 22:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

There is also a danger that someone initially writes inaccurate and highly biased construct that is impossible to change. I feel that the sources are rejected on Ad hominem basis. Asdisis (talk) 01:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Asdisis, your comments comprise the majority of the discussion, here and at that RFC. You made 62 individual responses in that RFC and I didn't count bytes, but I'm pretty sure it was well over half of the verbiage and possibly a record.
  WP:BLUDGEON comes to mind, as you seem to be invested in the topic at a level that is unhealthy for you and Wikipedia. I will pass on commenting on the merits at this time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
  21:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

That was only a small portion of time i spend. Majority of the time I spent researching numerous sources. I supported every claim with a source. I presented majority of the sources in the discussion. I tried to answer every dispute, although many of them were not made in good faith. I tried to be helpful in every possible way. That is why I have so many comments. I do not think that

WP:BLUDGEON in an accurate assessment at all, although I posted many comments. I think that every of my comments was done in good faith. I did not show any emotions, although some accused me of several misdeeds. Asdisis (talk

) 22:25, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you did ignore a lot of trivial evidence counter to your POV. The fact that you instantly refuse to acknowledge that, and are continuing to post at an unabated rate, sadly confirms exactly this assessment in my mind. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think I ignored any reasonable argument. Asdisis (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I created WP:BLUDGEON back in 2008, and this is pretty much what I had in mind. You've been polite enough, and I don't question your faith, but bludgeoning actually hurts you as people quickly ignore your comments after reading a few, and in fact, they may instinctively lean against you because it looks like you are too invested. That is the point of the essay, to help, not to scold. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I do not think this is the time to talk about

WP:BLUDGEON. I noted in this request that the discussion had been a long one and that you should point your attention to the presented sources. I think that pulling this question now can only lead to Ad hominem attack Asdisis (talk

) 00:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, I wasn't wanting to offend, only help. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse closure as (Non-administrator comment). As I said when I declined the initial edit request, he was not, by own admission, born in Croatia. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 01:12, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that is an appropriate explanation on several levels. Firstly, it belongs to a different discussion. Anyway, I disputed your interpretation. I had not admitted such a thing. It's based on wrong interpretation. Furthermore, it gives too much credit to my opinion and disregards valid sources. Also, it leaves doubt that you even read the RfC that is being discussed here. Asdisis (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse As this is a review of the close, not RFC #2, I won't inject my own opinion of the merits and just look to see if the close represented the discussion as a whole and had no fatal errors. We allow the closer leeway in determining the weight of each !vote, guided by policy and common sense. With that in mind, I don't see any action that was outside community expectations when judging consensus. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• CORRECTION I apologize, I provided a wrong link to the discussion with the closer in my initial post. I corrected it now, and I would appreciate if you would read it and make sure that this mistake had not influenced your decision. Here is the correct link again. This mistake also raises the question if MrX had even tried to read the discussion I had with the closer, since he would surly notice I referenced the wrong discussion. Asdisis (talk) 13:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse summary and conclusion represent the participants' views. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed indefinite topic ban for User:Memills from issues related to men's rights, broadly construed

Ok, I just have to say this is one giant load of crap from across all sides of the discussion. There are off-topic attacks on commenters, unfounded allegations on both sides, bickering, snide remarks ... unacceptable. Increasingly unacceptable is Memills badgering of a select number of commenters, so it's better to close this before they do themselves more harm. 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 ... and as they have other interests, now might be a wise time to embark in that direction as I expect future similar discussions to this will end with a completely different result the panda ₯’ 00:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• @Memills: has been sanctioned no fewer than seven separate times under the existing community probation covering topics related to the men's rights movement. I think that some of his recent behavior demonstrates that he is either unable or unwilling to understand Wikipedia's policies well enough to productively contribute in this topic area - ever. One rather telling diff can be found in a recent section of his talk page where he asserts that a reception section for a prominent, generally well-regarded author is balanced/NPOV because it contains one positive sourced statement and one negative sourced statement. People have been trying to explain what Wikipedia's conception of a neutral point of view is to Memills for years, and it's incredibly telling that after seven separate sanctions and dozens of good faith attempts to explain it (and other policies) to him, he still either cannot understand them or acts in willful ignorance.

Since Memills has previously repeatedly skirted his previous topic bans, I believe it is reasonable to automatically convert an indefinite topic ban in to a permanent site ban upon one violation. Memills has enough experience with sanctions to know what is meant by a topic ban; if he chooses to disregard his topic ban he does so not because he doesn't understand it but because he doesn't think anyone will enforce it.

A full log of the seven sanctions previously imposed by no fewer than four separate admins for violating the MRM probation can be found here.

Here is a collection of diffs of Memill's edits that I believe display his inability to contribute productively, at least in this topic field:

• In which Memills declares that feminism is based on the incorrect premise that patriarchy exists and only women are disadvantaged by it
• In which Memills describes the academic field of gender studies as 'inbred' (on the talkpage of a living person who is a distinguished professor of sociology focusing on gender studies)
• In which Memills suggests that a good faith CfD nom equates to 'propaganda by radical feminists'
• In which Memills seemingly suggests that only articles about science have to worry about following NPOV
• In which Memills again appears to think that one positive and one negative statement make an article neutral, despite the number of times people have explained
  WP:Equal validity
  to him.
• In which Memills restores a section that had been extensively discussed on the talk page of an article and removed as a blp violation while declaring he had 'no idea' why it was removed.
• In which Memills again demonstrates that he can't or won't accept that articles on Wikipedia are written based on what reliable sources say rather than personal opinion

• With seven previous sanctions under the existing article probation and continued failure to follow or understand our content policies I don't see a reason why Memills should be allowed to continue to edit in this topic area, especially when he makes essentially no beneficial edits in the area. Describing an accepted academic field as "inbred" is a pretty solid sign that he is unable or unwilling to edit neutrally (especially when he does so on the talk page of a professor of that field,) and combined with the rest of his behavior demonstrates that there's really no point in letting him continue to edit in the broad field - all it does is waste the time of good faith editors. Keep in mind that these diffs are not a comprehensive evaluation of the issues in his recent edits, and don't touch at all on his seven previous sanctions, which included stuff like comparing editors he disagreed with about the men's rights movement page to radical Islamists advocating violence. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin has gotten a little too involved in an intellectual disagreement with me. He apparently thinks that disagreements, including the expression of statements of opinion on Talk pages, are a violation of WP policies. In contrast, expression of his own opinions on Talk pages, or the expression of opinions by others with whom he is in agreement, apparently pose no such problems for him...

The best Kevin can come up with in the list above pretty much amounts to a rant about my opinions. He whines that Memills "declares," "describes," "seemingly suggests," "appears to think," "demonstrates." Where are the violations? Er... there are no violations of WP policy to which he can refer.

This is really a case of

WP:CENSOR

).

Uninvolved editors have previously noted Kevin's behavior toward me:

"...I do not agree with Kevin's treatment directed towards Memills. In this case I think Kevin is reaching, and looking for a reason to have Memills sanctioned, and to be honest it appears to be Battlegroundish behavior." --Kyohyi (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (search for Kyohyi at my talk page)

"...(note the) taunting [of memills] by Kevin Gorman... above in this section. --Pudeo' 08:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC) (search for Pudeo at my talk page)

Kevin previously initiated an ANI against me here which was declined.

For the background of what is really behind this ANI -- a personal disagreement between two editors -- see the recent discussions between Kevin and myself at my Talk page. Kevin also inappropriately continued these discussions on article Talk pages here (see, in particular, the collapsed section) and here. In these discussions at article Talk pages, I asked Kevin repeatedly to take his off-topic comments and disagreements with me to my Talk page. Instead of doing so, he continued the off-topic personal attacks on me at these article Talk pages. An uninvolved editor eventually closed a discussion because it was off-topic. And, I finally had to tell Kevin that if he continued, I would no longer respond on on the article Talk page (but that I would be happy to do so either here or at my own Talk page).

I suggest that it is Kevin's

WP:BOOMERANG, should be examined. Specifically, see previous ANIs against him by others with similar concerns here and hereMemills (talk

) 23:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• oppose Memills has gotten himself blocked a number of times, and certainly needs to tone it down, but the diffs you post above are evidence of thought-crimes against your own ideology, little else. There is nothing wrong with having a different point of view here, as long as we all edit neutrally - you taught me that. As for his assertion that deleting Category:Violence against men is radical feminist propaganda, that was perhaps in response to the nominator who call the category MRA propaganda. so language has become pretty heated on all sides. Indeed, I've been called a misogynist and a shill for the MRA just for daring to populate that category and defend its existence, but no admins have stepped forward to sanction those who made those claims. I think Memills provides an important counter balance. Civility could be improved and he can be stubborn, like me, but ultimately I think he's a good force in bringing a different and useful perspective to our interpretation of literature in this extremely complex domain, where there isn't, in spite of our wishes, a single answer nor a single orthodoxy that is always right.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

failing to understand it isn't some abstract thoughtcrime, it's directly disruptive. If you take a look at this diff and couple it with his edits to Kimmel's page, it is clear that for whatever reason he is unable to edit neutrally. There's nothing wrong with having a different point of view than another editor; there is something wrong with being unable to edit neutrally after the amount of time people have spent trying to explain policy to him. Seven sanctions and continued disruptive editing is a problem - there has to be a point where enough is enough. Kevin Gorman (talk

) 22:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

• oppose. This just looks like an attempt at censorship. Those diffs are just someone giving their opinion on various Talk pages. Howunusual (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Note for the convenience of the closer: Howunusual has fewer than 200 edits across all namespaces as of when I post this comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman:, I'm going to ask that you strike that comment. Their edit count is irrelevant, they are entitled to comment whether they are a dynamic IP, SPA, or Jimmy Wales. Edit count is not proportional to knowledge. It's wholeheartedly inappropriate to be discriminating against low edit count users, especially since they're in the hundreds. The user has also been registered for at least 8 months. I can somewhat understand a SPA, but this is not a SPA, but a regular user. Please strike your comment.Tutelary (talk) 17:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure it was accidental, but please try to avoid editing my comments as you did in posting this. The eventual closer is perfectly free to disregard my note obviously, but I'm going to leave it in place for now. Pointing out someone's extremely low edit count is not a personal attack, and someone's editcount being quite that low is often though not always an indicator of something that a closer should be aware of in assessing a discussion (though whether or not they do in this case, and what they consider it as, is up to them, not us.) Frankly, given that Howunusual managed to find ANI, FAC, and RFCU within their first fifty edits makes me wonder something entirely different than I was wondering when I initially posted my comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It was accidental, and I apologize for it. I was using Ctrl + F to find your comment using the keyword 'namespace' so I must've accidentally backspaced to enter it. Nonetheless, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines outline what to do in editor misconduct. Within the main page, it's easy to find the admin noticeboards. Main Page -> Community portal -> Dispute Resolution -> Administrator assistance -> AN noticeboard. For the tagging, I would've thought

assume good faith would be instituted, especially for an account that old and that many edits. Just because someone takes notice of admin noticeboards/RFC/U's does not mean something frivolous about them. I'm going to repeat my request that you strike your comment under AGF. Tutelary (talk

) 18:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman: are you going to respond to the request above by Tutelary (talk)? Memills (talk) 00:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've already responded. The closer is free to disregard my note that a !voting account had fewer than 200 edits, an edit pattern strongly suggestive of something rather interesting, and provided no evidence that they had analyzed the facts of the situation at hand, which weighs prominently in assessing consensus. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• • Not all of them are actually, and POV pushing on talk pages is problematic in itself. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support Following on from a six month topic ban with POV-driven BLP violations (the addition of critical material referenced to an obscure journal) in the Michael Kimmel article is unacceptable. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Lots of academic journals are "obscure." The New Male Studies journal is an academic, international, peer-reviewed journal, and it meets the criteria for a

WP:RS. Memills (talk

) 23:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A purported academic journal published by an Australian organisation which isn't even in the collections of the National Library of Australia [12] hardly seems reliable, especially given that the NLA is meant to have copies of everything published in Australia regardless of its usefulness. The British Library and Library of Congress also do not list a journal of this name in their catalogues. Similarly, the libraries of the Universities of Melbourne and Sydney and the Australian National University (Australia's main research universities) do not list "New Male Studies" as being part of their collections. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not a requirement for a

WP:RS. The journal has been in existence for less than three years (it may take awhile for new journals to get catalogued). The editorial board consists of almost 30 scholars, most of whom are university professors or are associated with research institutes. Memills (talk

) 00:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Memills just accused another editor of libel and pressured them to remove their support of a topic ban, as seen in this diff. Even if the libel comment isn't actioned on, whoever eventually ends up assessing consensus here should probably take in to account the fact that one editor apparently wanted to !support but felt pressured not to do so. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, you have just linked to a libelous statement made against me. I asked the author of the statement to remove it. He/she did. Now you re-posted a link to the deleted comment? What does that say about you? I ask you to remove your comment and link above (and with it my comment here) -- it is in violation of

WP:LIBEL. Memills (talk

) 23:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The original statement wasn't libelous, and posting a diff to it it certainly isn't libelous. The chilling effect that resulted in the removal of the original support !vote is something that may play some role in the assessment of consensus by the closing admin, who would be unlikely to notice it without a comment pointing it out, so I do not intend to remove my comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:00, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, you state unequivocally that "The original statement wasn't libelous"? That is truly stunning. You do not know. And, the irony is that you wish to suppress legitimate academic criticism of a book by Michael Kimmel that was published in a peer reviewed scholarly journal because it would hurt Kimmel's reputation, yet you endorse without evidence a malicious and libelous statement (that has already been retracted by the author) about me here? Do you not see the self-serving hypocrisy? Memills (talk) 01:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Umm, that's pretty unequivocal

WP:NLT. This looks like an automatic indef until Memills formally forswears all legal threats. VanIsaac_WS^cont

01:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Saying something is libel is no more a legal threat than saying something is a copyright infringment. It takes a threat of action to be a legal threat.

Ask me

) 01:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The following statement from Memill's talk page about this situation is a pretty explicit threat of action "Again, I plan no legal action (not my style), unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., the retraction was reversed, another libelous statement was made, etc.)". Even ignoring that, NLT doesn't only apply to actual legal threats, it also applies to

perceived legal threats. Memills falsely accused someone of libel and used the threat of legal action to coerce them in to removing their comment from a discussion. That's a prettty classic example of the type of chilling effect that NLT is designed to prevent, and another demonstration that Memills is either unwilling or incapable of abiding by Wikipedia's policies. Kevin Gorman (talk

) 02:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, I was accused of "paid meatpuppetry (with grades)." That is false, malicious and libelous. The author of that statement has retracted it. You have re-asserted it twice now. We can avoid further escalation of what should have been intellectual debate between the two of us. Now, it is has become quite personal.

Let me suggest a way out to de-escalate: Remove the link to the diff, and your comments in this section. If you do, we can both allow this incident stop here.

If you refuse, I really have no other choice but to file a complaint per

WP:LIBEL ("It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please... E-mail us with details of the article and error."), and, file an ANI here with a request to sanction you for violation of this WP policy. Memills (talk

) 02:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly: linking to a statement is not libelous, even if the original statement was libelous. Secondly: the original statement, which you have misquoted, was not libelous. He stated his opinion of your actions, and luckily, I do not live (nor is the WMF or its servers located) in a jurisdiction where opinion can constitute libel. You can disagree with his opinion, but you can't change the fact that it's a statement of opinion. I don't agree that classes using Wikipedia based assignments constitute paid editing or meatpuppetry, but it's an opinion shared by plenty of other Wikipedians. You could try to argue that calling you 'constantly disruptive' was a statement of fact, but in California at least you probably wouldn't succeed, and even if you did, truth is a complete defense to libel in all applicable jurisdictions. Moreover, if you tried to litigate over it you would almost certainly be considered a limited purpose public figure (both for your activities on Wikipedia, and for reasons I can't state publicly without breaking policies,) and would have to prove actual malice.

TLDR version? The statement wasn't libelous when @

WP:NLT - even after you were made aware of its existence, and you should expect to be indefinitely blocked for trying to use legal threats to prevent people from voicing their opinion about whether or not you should be tbanned imminently. Kevin Gorman (talk

) 02:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for the sake of convenience for any passing admins, here is a diff to an unambiguous violation of NLT, besides what is found in this thread. Stating that you have no plans to take legal action unless an editor restores a non-libelous comment that you intimidated them in to removing is an egregious violation of

WP:NLT and inconsistent with being able to edit Wikipedia. Kevin Gorman (talk

) 03:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where is the legal threat? There wasn't one. I stated that there was a violation of

WP:LIBEL. The author has retracted the libelous statement. Kevin has now re-asserted it by both linking to the comment (deleted by its author) and re-asserting it by stating that "The original statement wasn't libelous." Memills (talk

) 01:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Let's be very clear and precise about this.

That statement is libelous. Please remove it.

is not a legal threat. It characterizes a statement and asks for voluntary relief.

That statement in libelous, but I will not take any legal action. However, I ask you to remove it.

is also not a legal threat. It characterizes a statement, but makes it explicit that no legal action will be taken over it, and asks for voluntary relief. However,

That statement is libelous, but I will not take legal action as long as it is removed.

is a legal threat. It characterizes a statement and then makes legal action dependent on the actions of the other editor, making it coercive in nature. Suppose, for instance, that the other editor does not believe that the statement is libelous, and therefore there is no reason to remove it, so having not removed it, the other editor will possibly be the subject of legal action. The only way that the other editor can avoid the possibility of legal action is by doing exactly what Memills says he must do. The other editor's freedom of action is restricted by the coercion that's been applied -- and that's clearly a chilling effect.

Unfortnately, the third choice is what Memills has said, in the edit that Kevin Gorman provided a link for:

Again, I plan no legal action (not my style), unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., the retraction was reversed, another libelous statement was made, etc.

The wording is different, but the meaning is precisely the same: "Unless you have not done what I said to do, I will not take legal action" is the functional and logical equivalent of "Do as I say or I will take legal action".

Given this, I think an admin should serve up an indef block for a violation of

WP:NLT, until Memills says, explictly, "I will not take legal action", with no conditions or caveats connected to it. BMK (talk

) 06:38, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The ed17 (talk · contribs) has blocked them. I agree with BMK's analysis: there was a clear intention for those posts to have a chilling effect. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

For an opposing assessment, see the comment by Ihardlythinkso (at the bottom of the section). Ihardlythinkso notes that: "I think this discussion is out of control and the sanctions imposed are unjustified and also abusive. ...there isn't any intention expressed to eat poached eggs when unnecessarily saying one reserves the right to. Except between the ears [imagination] of those who would want to interpret such a statement that way. ...it's all absurd and doesn't hold water what you're asking of him. One has to wonder why." Memills (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I'd have preferred to see more article diffs than discussion diffs as evidence here, but on the other hand, since Memills came off his second topic ban and almost immediately began pushing the same POV, I don't think we need to apply the same standards we do for a first offense. Memills needs to be encouraged to find topics that are completely unrelated to the MRM, feminism, and gender. His work does not appear to be a net positive contribution to Wikipedia. Some of the edits he's making now are ones that failed to find consensus almost a year ago and for which he was reprimanded at the time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• oppose Appears to be little more than the latest attempt to censor gender related articles and silence any editors who don't comply with the strict feminist POV of those who try to dominate such articles. Memills is an asset to Wikipedia and in particular to this area of study.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Blah, whatever. Arkon (talk) 02:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban I can understand people writing this off as yet another content dispute, but taking all the links together shows that the topic would be better off without the persistent pushing of a point of view. The libel issue above shows the passion involved—this is the Internet, and if an editor cannot tolerate a poke from an opponent without testing the borders of NLT, they are not a good fit. Rather than reaching for a lawyer, an appropriate response would be to either confirm that the editor's students have edited or commented in the topic, or deny it with a brief explanation. Johnuniq (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose- while I do agree that Memills needs to be better behaved, it also appears to me that this is at least partially motivated by a desire to punish Memills for having unpopular opinions. Reyk _YO! 03:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This point was going to be reached sooner or later, and I say right now is the right time. Memills is
  WP:NOTHERE to improve the encyclopedia; rather, he is here to push his POV. I have jousted with him on talk pages and articles, and I can say from experience that this editor is detrimental to the project. Binksternet (talk
  ) 03:46, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. We need more neutral editors to edit these areas, not to bus in more editors with a strong POV to balance out the other editors with a strong POV. It's fine to disagree with people or to even have a strong viewpoint, but there's a line that gets crossed when you edit to
  right great wrongs. I probably wouldn't even have bothered to vote in this discussion except for the legal threat, which seems to indicate that this user is drawn to drama. Without that, maybe I'd be able to assume good faith that the drama would eventually die down. This is too much drama and POV for one user. Maybe a break from such controversial areas will help. If he can edit in other areas without drama or accusations of a feminist conspiracy, then I'd support a lift. NinjaRobotPirate (talk
  ) 04:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support I would've opposed the proposal if Memills had contributed on different pages, subjects. But surprisingly the editor hasn't. He may appeal, but after 1 - 6 months. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

You apparently didn't check my Contributions list -- they go way back to 2006 and cover multiple topics in psychology and evolutionary biology. Ready to switch your vote now? Memills (talk) 00:22, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Memills' consistent disruptive editing and POV pushing (e.g., pushing for inclusion of men's rights authors [13][14] and obscure men's rights journals like the "Journal of Male Studies" in the article about Michael Kimmel). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Evidence for why this is appropriate can be seen from the user's responses in this very thread. jps (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban based on material presented. I don't know that we actually have permanent bans. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Moot because Memills is blocked per NLT with talk page access revoked. Accordingly, this thread can probably be closed. 69.174.58.36 (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  (ec) Actually, that is incorrect. Memills can be unblocked at any time by unambiguously retracting the legal threat. If the community has imposed a topic ban, it would be in effect then, if they do not, Memills would be free to edit in the subject area - so the question of a topic ban is still quite relevant. BMK (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  The removal of talk page access looks harsh, and it's not necessarily permanent and does not constitute an effective ban - Memills could request its reinstatement by email, and another admin could restore it any time they feel like it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  At a minimum, any admin who "felt like" restoring talk page access should consult with the administrator who revoked it.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  The procedural details aren't really relevant - the point is that the block/talk page access denial is not necessarily final and doesn't invalidate this discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I've reverted the close of this section, because an NLT block does not invalidate a ban discussion. The block could be ended very quickly on retraction of the threat (even if talk page access has been revoked - an email appeal could easily see it restored). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• 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
  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)
• Support Unremitting advocacy for the most marginal POV content imaginable.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Much like Bbb23, I was pretty ambivalent at first about this. Memills' conduct through the posting of the legal threat was a bit of a red flag, but it has been his/her reaction to the NLT problem that has cemented that Memills isn't here to build encyclopedic conduct, (s)he is here to get his/her way. VanIsaac_WS^cont 22:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support, per Bbb23's points above. BMK (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. A review of Memills edits shows a history of disruptive and tendentious editing around men's rights issues. gobonobo ^{+ c} 03:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The majority of "supports" are based on the contents of his view. Howunusual (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

  And you got inside the minds of those people to know why they voted ... how? (Strange that you did not make the same claim for the "oppose" votes, that they did so because they agree with Memills. Wonder why that would be?) BMK (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

By reading what they wrote. For example, this "reason" to ban is based purely on the view he advocates: "Unremitting advocacy for the most marginal POV content imaginable" Howunusual (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing is against wiki policy no matter the view being pushed. You have critically mistaken or misrepresented others' views here. VanIsaac_WS^cont 02:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

If promoting a point-of-view is against policy, then the majority of editors of political articles should be banned. The fact is, most of those voting "Support" for the ban have complained about the beliefs of the person they want to ban. Another example: "Support topic ban for Memills' ... POV pushing (e.g., pushing for inclusion of men's rights authors"Howunusual (talk) 14:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

There is a distinct difference between having a point of view and pushing a point of view. Our system is set up so that if editors of opposite points of view both edit an article, both doing their level best to edit neutrally, then the result is going to be an unbiased article, or as close as we can get to one. If, however, an editor consistently edits in such a way as to promote their own POV, they are intrinsically biasing the article, and doing so intentionally. Most Wikipedia editors try very hard to be neutral, but POV-pushers don't try, their purpose is to proselytize, and that is the category into which Memills falls. That is why a topic ban is necessary. BMK (talk) 04:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support a topic ban. Would consider a site ban based on the legal threats. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Memill's edits on talkpages have not been all exemplary in some of the disputes, but he is an important editor because of his specialization in evolutionary psychology. Simply put, we need editors that think differently - we can combine different viewpoints in an article via concensus and that way the articles will be improved. How is it that only he is "POV-pushing" – only one side of the dispute has a POV? Sadly, I can recognize a lot of people who have been holding the opposite view in disputes with him voting for a topic ban. Topic bans shouldn't be used for ideological sniping. "Pushing a POV" is not a reason for a ban in topics where there are several POVs per se. --Pudeo' 22:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • He would be able to continue editing articles about evolutionary psychology although, judging by what other editors have to say about his contributions in that topic area: [15][16][17][18]...), his edits seem to be just as problematic in terms of
    WP:OR. --Sonicyouth86 (talk
    ) 14:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Apparently Memills has been already blocked indefnitely on June 28, despite this discussion still going on. I wonder why was this raised as a seperate issue in the first place if there was a problem with legal threats which are not topic-related? Please close. --Pudeo' 23:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • This discussion started at 21:13, 27 June 2014, and the NLT block occurred at 03:14, 28 June 2014. Such a block can easily be lifted at any time—the editor just has to withdraw certain statements, and then they can continue as before. Therefore it is necessary that the issue be properly considered and this discussion continued until consensus is established. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
    • He had his talk page access removed as well. --Pudeo' 02:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
      • One email is all it takes. Johnuniq (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Agreed. NLT blocks are essentially procedural as their purpose is to stop people from using Wikipedia to potentially progress a legal matter which can't be dealt with here, and are lifted as soon as an admin receives a convincing confirmation that the editor has no intention of pursing legal-type remedies and will not issue further legal threats upon being unblocked. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose The diffs shown at the top don't support the sysop's statements. Number 1 isn't even close, diff #2, the language is intemperate, but still doesn't support what the sysop is saying, pretty much the same as the rest. The sysop is involved (note - not the same as WP:INVOVLVED) - I mean that he's commenting as an editor and has had a few back-and-forths with Memills as evidenced by the diffs. I'd suggest closing out with no consensus. Kosh Vorlon    10:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The AN initiation, block, and Talk page access removal, all smell foul. (But this is how things are done on the ever-so-pleasant Wikipedia. How fucking nasty!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

  Note to closer: The editor who made the comment just above, Ihardlythinkso, generally has a knee-jerk anti-admin POV, so their comment should be weighed accordingly. BMK (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

  More fucking shit on the abusive irresponsible AN board. I considered my opinion carefully and can back it up. You wanna make this personal with your patronizing ad hominem insult as if I were a vandal or a sock. Go stuff it BMK and consider your contribution to the nastiness of these boards. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The diff's presented don't demonstrate the need for a topic ban. Arkon (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Weak support. Not here to build an encyclopedia. Advocacy editing. Using Wikipedia as a soapbox. If they return from blocking, I say they should find other topics to edit. I have changed from strong to weak support after re-reading the diffs. While I still firmly believe the editor is problematic and that the diffs do show enough of a POV being pushed and a walking over other opinion that topic ban may be appropriate, I can also see what oppose opinions are speaking to.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• You don't think that Gorman pushes a POV!? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - A ridiculously tendentious set of diffs which do not demonstrate disruptive editing patterns in the least. I hear the horn of a political steamroller... Carrite (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Evidence does not support the concern. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment re consensus. Without any comment as to the weight that should be given any particular vote by a closer, I believe the count at the moment is 16 supports, 10 opposes (if I counted wrong while I scrolled, someone please let me know).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you are exactly uninvolved and I would oppose a close by you. You're the primary adder and mostly the admin who topic bans people using MRM discretionary sanctions. There have been multiple contentions even by Jimmy himself told you to resign. I do not want you to be the closing administrator. Tutelary (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

My better judgment tells me not to respond to posts like yours, but sometimes I (unfortuately) can't resist. If by "primary adder" you mean to this topic, that's not true. Other than my support vote, I've barely made any comments, not including this one. As for your other reasons, they are irrelevant. You missed the most obvious reason. I can't close a discussion in which I voted. So, you get your wish. Aren't you pleased? (This is a good example of why I don't come to these boards as often as I used to. The silly stuff people spout here is hard to read. Kids say the darndest things.) Cheers.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• That's really interesting. (When closing is subject to evaluative argument, you point out the "vote count". (It seems you don't really agree with fundamental WP precept that consensus is evaluative, versus vote-counting. [Else why w/ you point out the difference? Huh?!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• There's your anti-admin knee jerking again - but please do make an effort not to be silly about it. It's hardly unusual in a long and drawn out discussion of any type for someone to post a bald summary of the !votes without attempting to usurp the role of the closer and weigh the comments as a closer must do. It helps to give everyone on all sides of the discussion a sense of where the discussion is without having to slog through the entire thing. Your seeing something sinister in it is simply ludicrous. BMK (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'd have asked the same Q whether admin or not, so who's "seeing something sinister", might it be you? I think closers can count okay. And I doubt very much that a vote-count contributes to a "sense where the discussion is" without reading anything. And your "slog through the entire thing" code-phrase to mean reading or scanning to get that sense you refer to, seems to convey that you think reading or scanning is such a terrible burden -- oh my gosh! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• As a thankfully past American politician used to say "There you go again," seeing "code-phrases" in what is actually straightforward writing meaning precisely what it says. Not everyone has the time, energy or interest to read a whole typically-Wikipedian excessively long and verbose discussion, so the count serves as a signpost that lets them know what the current status is. That you see something wrong about it is a reflection on you and your increasingly warped and sour attitude towards this project, not on the editor who posted the count. More than that I will not say, except (and I've said this to other editors who are now banned): If you hate it so much here, why do you stick around? Your bitching and moaning and continuing crabbiness isn't going to change a damn thing, so just go away and find something else to do instead that makes you happy, since volunteering here no longer does. BMK (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Your waging war and attempting to shame and intimidate me personally on this board is a misuse of the AN board let alone counter WP principles and policies. So why don't you give it a rest and stop harping on me. If Bb23's vote count report was a service to "everybody", then I suppose it is just a coincidence said reporter is on the side with the most votes counted. Yes I hate the underhanded and abusive crap that characterizes the WP environment, I think you're a prime contributor to that by your harassing messages to me, and attempt to invite me off the site. (I suggest this place would be a lot kinder and more objective if you took the hike outta here with your crappy attitudes and misuse of venue and policies meant to generate collegiate discussion. [Are you done now, or do AN readers get to slog through more of your personal attacking and unprofessional behaviors here?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose I see no aggressive edit warring, I do see editor bias and removal of maintenance templates, but nothing that I think would support a topic ban in that regard. Editors do not need to see feminism as the all purposeful truth and the light, nor would a person who is a supposed MRA be barred from editing articles. The first few diffs seem to indicate that due to them being critical of some idealogy being fundamental of the topic ban. There needs to be absolute, irrevocable and inexorable disruptive editing, and the diffs do not demonstrate that. Tutelary (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest you take a look at his behavior at Michael Kimmel, as well as his longer term pattern of editing. I think the Kimmel related diffs pretty conclusively demonstrate that he either doesn't understand or is unwilling to accept WP:NPOV, a cornerstore of our project - and I could understand that in a new editor, but not in a long term editor with seven sanctions in the exact same area for failing to follow policy. I think the diff collection I put together was pretty impressive given how short a period of time it covered, but there's plenty of other older edits in his history confirming that he refuses to understand or abide by our fundamental content policies. I don't try to block editors who are critical of feminism; I actually oppose most topic bans suggested in this area, including the most recently suggested tban other than this one, and from memory, the one suggested before that too. Trying to frame this as me trying to get rid of an ideological opponent suggests that you haven't really examined Memill's editing behavior - it's true I disagree with him about plenty of stuff, but I disagree with lots of people about plenty of stuff, and often oppose proposed tbans for them over the issue at the same time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to take a glance at Michael Kimmel. Memills added this reception section and taking a gander at it, I'm not exactly sure what the problem was with it. I do see that in the first bit, he added the bit about being 'pro-feminist' (which was not in the original source), but that might've been added via the other two sources which they cited. Also, I see that they're using a 'male studies' source to cite some stuff. Being a biased source doesn't necessarily negate nor delegitimate what it's attempting to portray; though there may be other factors that disqualify it. I read the resulting talk page discussion and it seems rather heated at points; but overall seems to stem from other factors, such as Jimbo and ANI and to the fact that NEWSBLOG may apply and other things. Additionally, on that page, he didn't seem to edit war with anyone. Maybe that's a side effect of being sanctioned 7 times. I see that he only reverted three times on that page and in a period of 6 days. 1, 2, and 3

All in all, I think he was pretty bearable on the talk page discussion, and certainly isn't severely disruptive, not meeting my 'irrevocably, unambiguously disruptive' standard. I stand by my !vote. Tutelary (talk) 21:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi @

WP:NOTHERE. Kevin Gorman (talk

) 23:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

...more of the same, Kevin. Michael Kimmel is an academic who wrote a book. Another scholar critically reviewed that book in a RS -- a peer reviewed, scholarly journal. You wanted mention of that review removed, and apparently you still don't want it referenced. Talk about NPOV -- that alone is seriously inconsistent with WP policy. Tutelary (talk) reviewed the interaction to which you referred and saw no evidence of disruptive editing. I believe that would be the same conclusion of most neutral editors. Memills (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Highlighting this comment so that anyone wandering by notes the exchange above - it both demonstrates that Memills does not understand the fundamental tenets of NPOV, and, tangentially, that he doesn't know how to read diffs (I was not the person who removed the citation in question. Kimmel is a well-cited scholar - I don't have an easy way to calculate his h-index currently, but a quick GS check shows well over 5000 cites. The citation in question is of dubious reliability (Nick-D highlights why elsewhere in this section, and other editors have questioned it as well,) but even assuming it is reliable, it is one source in a journal that as far as I can tell has literally never been cited except by itself. Memills apparently continues to operate under the impression, even after this entire section, that a reception section that consists of one brief positive mention cited to the NYT coupled with one lengthy negative mention cited to a journal of this variety is balanced and NPOV. If anyone reads this exchange and thinks that Memills has a solid enough understanding of our basic content policies after doing so, please pass me some of whatever it is you're smoking. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

...check your mailbox. You might be able to open a head shop soon. Here is the entirety of the WP:RECEPTION section:

"An acceptable approach to including criticisms in Wikipedia articles is to separate the description of a topic from a description of how the topic was received. The latter section may be titled "Reception", "Response", "Reviews" or "Reactions". These sections include both negative and positive assessments. This approach usually conforms to the WP neutrality policy, because it avoids being "all negative" or "exclusively laudatory" about the topic.

And, note this diff were I restored a deleted positive comment about Kimmel to the Reception section: "Kimmel is a prominent author in the pro-feminist academic subfield of men's studies." Now, if I was so biased against Kimmel, and did not understand or support NPOV, why would I do that? Memills (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - What I see is the accuser being deeply involved in this topic area (#1 editing topic) and being an opponent of the ideas of the accused here. That's a fact, yes? I also see lots of text but no diffs that actually demonstrate bannable behavior. The block log of the accused has blemishes, but is not chronic. No doubt the accused holds minority views on this topic, but we achieve article balance by working through these differences in a constructive manner, not by annihilating our opponents. Carrite (talk) 22:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not my #1 editing topic (which is pretty obvious from my userpage,) although it is an area where I am sometimes (though certainly not always) a highly active editor in. I also generally oppose topic bans in the area, including with people I disagree with (including, for that matter, the last topic ban requested in the area.) I've probably spent more time attempting to, in good faith, explain how to contribute productively to the encyclopedia to SPA's in the area than most other editors in the topic area. By most standards, I would consider an editor who has been sanctioned seven times in the same topic area to have more than "blemishes" on their editing record. If you examined my editing patterns in the topic area, I don't think you could reasonably accuse me of trying to obliterate my opponents - and if you examined the editing patterns of Memills in the topic area, I think you'd have a pretty hard time showing that he's made any significantly productive contributions in the topic area in question - ever - and has mostly just engaged in

WP:NOTHERE behavior over.. and over.. and over.. Kevin Gorman (talk

) 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:NOTHERE. --Sonicyouth86 (talk

) 20:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think that this section is more or less ripe for closure. I agree with Bbb23 that !vote counts are a good first order proxy for assessing consensus in a discussion, but think that whoever does end up closing this section would benefit from looking significantly beyond that. A couple noteworthy things I've found in the !voting patterns: many !support voters are people who have seemingly examined the area in question in some depth, including a number of people I've never interacted with before, as well as a number of administrators who are used to patrolling the area. Few of the !oppose votes seem to present the same level of analysis of the situation, and many come from corners that I suspect should be given less weight - e.g., the !oppose voters with only several hundred votes, those who are only active in the particular topic area in question, those who although active elsewhere have either previously been in significant conflict with me, are generally anti-sanctions, or both (e.g., Ihardlythinkso.) Although I'm obviously not going to be closing this section myself, I do feel pretty strongly that whoever does end up closing it should spend more time in doing so than in evaluating simpler sections, since figuring out what really reflects Wikipedia-style consensus here may be a bit of a doozy. Really, I probably should have just quoted
  WP:CONSENSUS as a good general reminder of best practices and summary of how I feel - "The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." Kevin Gorman (talk
  ) 01:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Kevin Gorman, your characterization as my having "significant conflict" with you is misleading. My actual history with you consists of two incidents where I queried you for your accountability re two assertions you made re Eric Corbett (the first one false, the second one misleading): 1) that he was celebratory toward a suicide (your "danced on a grave"), and 2) that he favored no block of user Kaldari for socking (misleading; what he said was that he recogized the ANI did not support consensus for a block). In both cases you responded to my queries for your accountability about your assertions with snobbish dismissal and run-around. The two responses taught me about your attitude and behaviors. (I've had no other conflicts with you, unless you want to add your dropping by an ANI on me where [I did not respond after] you registered a !vote to block me. (The other two block !votes being from my admirers users BMK and Happy Attack Dog.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I see little benefit in engaging with IHTS directly further and will not responding to his further comments in this section, but would point out to the eventual closer of this section and other passersby that IHTS's previous comments here combined with the fact that Floquenbeam previously found IHTS's behavior inappropriate enough to state that he would be blocked if he didn't stop trolling my talk page suggest pretty strongly that the strength of IHTS's !vote here should be considered pretty explicitly in the context of the excerpt I quoted from

WP:CONSENSUS earlier. !Votes that are cast based on personal feelings and without consideration to established policy or the facts of the matter at issue should not receive the same weight as !votes that are. Kevin Gorman (talk

) 04:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Typical shrillness from you, Kevin. Oh yes, Floq never overreacts and is always right. (And BTW, s/he didn't call it "trolling". Just you. My crime was persisting when you were obviously snobbish and dismissive rather than accounting for your misleading statement re Eric. It was clear to me you were being intentionally misleading just to be prickish. When I persisted, Floq, I presume, thought you had enough since you had been earlier strongly admonished by Arbcom.) You criticize "!votes based on personal feelings", but your block !vote mentioned was clear to me a grudge/revenge !vote, based on your discomfort when confronted with good-faith straight-forward questions you prefer to dodge. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I really don't get it. You're obviously really unhappy here, it shows through in everything your write. BMK (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind, I guess you have your reasons or compulsions or whatever. I just wish you weren't so goddamned goshdarned negative about everything all the time, it's a total bummer. BMK (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Three extremist words from your pen in one sentence ("everything", "all the time", "total"). Are things so black & white Ken? Just relax. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Closing notes This discussion has run its course & people are now just bickering at each other, rather than discussing the topic. (FWIW, most said they want a topic ban.) It's moot anyway:
  WP:AN/I -- for no other reason than to minimize the surprise & conflicts his return would cause. -- llywrch (talk
  ) 19:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I had a very civil & respectful conversation on my Talk page with a couple of the people involved with this, who pointed out some additional details. I've thought them & felt my closure needs to be modified. Hence I'm adding two more points: (1) This discussion stays archived only as long as Memills is no longer editing; should he return to edit under any username, then anyone may re-open this discussion. And because no formal decision has been made on the proposed topic ban, another Admin may -- & is free to -- decide that consensus exists based on what has been posted. (Not that I would suggest anyone do that. And I'll add a note on his Talk page to explain this thread to him & any Admin. (2) This discussion is now closed until Memills returns. Any further comments added to this thread after the time stamp on my edit until he returns will be reverted. -- llywrch (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Thread reopened Since I have now unblocked Memills (per UTRS ticket #11297), I am also reopening this discussion to allow a decision to be reached. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Although I think Llywrch has handled this in a laudable way, since Memills has now been unblocked I believe that someone does need to take on the rather unenviable task of fully evaluating consensus w/r/t the topic ban. It is likely to take more effort than it looks like at first, and I've made some comments about it here that point towards some of the issues involved. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
• Call to close withcomment. There has been some discussion about diffs provided. They do not justify administrative action but they do seem to show a point of view being pushed, and a little too aggressively. They also show some disregard to almost all opposition to even the idea of MRM and that seems to be a core issue with behavior. Through sanction on article probation, Memills has clearly been warned, banned and blocked from editing the article several times over the recent past. The subject is one that the editor has a very well known history of conflict and disputes ranging over several notice boards. I closed a DRN request as having gone on too long with no end in site and a lot of that could well be attributed to Memills continued discussion of the point without a clear objective towards anything but exclusion of the content that was well verified and still in the article. I have no opinion of the movement, the article or the editor other than, Memills + Men's rights movement = Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Request for opportunity to respond I have just been unblocked, and, I have just returned home from travel out of state. I would appreciate it if admins would postpone closing for 24 hours to give me an opportunity to respond. Thank you. Memills (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No one has yet closed the thread so you are welcome to respond. You have been unable to respond here since the 28 of June the day after the thread was begun. So, I'll amend to retract the call to close.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Appreciate that. Memills (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Brief response by Memills

I am frankly surprised that this has continued for so long. And, with such an intense level of personal malice. I believe this ANI was well summed up by the succinct comment above:

"A ridiculously tendentious set of diffs which do not demonstrate disruptive editing patterns in the least. I hear the horn of a political steamroller. Carrite (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)"

Let me address both of these issues, "tendentious diffs" and "political steamroller," because I believe they are the core issues.

1. "Tentidious Diffs"

First, others have already noted the "tendentious diffs," that do not support the accusations. Let me highlight just just one here. Kevin accuses me (and, apparently he is serious!) of "...comparing editors he disagreed with about the men's rights movement page to radical Islamists advocating violence."

He might be accusing me of hyperbole. But, apparently he is serious. If I actually said that, it would be pretty radical. Of course, I didn't, and, the diff does doesn't come close to supporting the claim. My actual comment was not even hyperbolic -- it was about irony: The irony of closing (censoring) a Talk page discussion about whether there was censorship on the Talk page! Here is what I actually wrote:

"That the [Talk page] "discussion" [about

WP:CENSOR

] was closed only adds more layers of self-parody on top of irony... Reminds me of photos of radical Islamists carrying posters advocating violence toward anyone who suggests that Islam is not a religion of peace. Is the irony really lost on them (facepalm)?"

It takes quite loose imagination to accept Kevin's interpretation that I am comparing editors who disagree with me with radical Islamists advocating violence. But that is what he wants casual reviewers who don't have the time to actually check the diff to believe. In fact, he repeated it three times!

Kevin accused me of POV-pushing. Others, however, suggest that I bring an important perspective to the table:

"This just looks like an attempt at censorship. Those diffs are just someone giving their opinion on various Talk pages. Howunusual (talk) 22:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)"

"I think Memills provides an important counter balance. ...I think he's a good force in bringing a different and useful perspective to our interpretation of literature in this extremely complex domain, where there isn't, in spite of our wishes, a single answer nor a single orthodoxy that is always right.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk)

"Appears to be little more than the latest attempt to censor gender related articles and silence any editors who don't comply with the strict feminist POV of those who try to dominate such articles. Memills is an asset to Wikipedia and in particular to this area of study.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)"

"Editors do not need to see feminism as the all purposeful truth and the light, nor would a person who is a supposed MRA be barred from editing articles. The first few diffs seem to indicate that due to them being critical of some idealogy being fundamental of the topic ban." Tutelary (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not here to proselytize or POV-push. I am not anti-feminist, nor am I a men's right activist. I have stated that I believe that: "A more helpful perspective is that both sexes have their own unique set of problems that deserve attention, analysis and redress. Coming from that perspective, rather than being at each others' throats, editors could collaborate on WP articles related to both topics more effectively and harmoniously. Memills (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)" (italics added)

And, without

WP:OUTING myself more than someone has already (noting that I give out grades), the reason that I am here is to insure that the content areas within my areas of expertise are present fairly and accurately. However, as this ANI exemplifies, that is not always easy -- and others have noted

that too: "Occasionally, real-world experts contribute to Wikipedia out of a sense of social responsibility: they see content that is substandard, and given Wikipedia’s reach would like to improve the content so that the public is not misinformed. But most genuine experts find editing Wikipedia a less than agreeable experience.... (many) tried and gave up, resigning themselves to the fact that bringing Wikipedia content in their subject area up to scratch was more than they could do in their spare time."

2. "political steamroller"

Kevin likes to mention my history of sanctions. Here a couple of relevant comments from my Talk page:

" ...I have contributed to WP since 2006. Despite many edits on what used to be (but has since calmed down) an extremely contentious article, evolutionary psychology, I received just one 24 hour block in 2011. One sanction in 5 years of editing, not bad. However, note what happened when I first started editing the MRM article in 2012. Sanctions started to be handed out like candy. Five sanctions in 2012 - 2013 for my edits *only* on one topic: the MRM article. Weird, huh? That is a red flag. Something is going on with the policing on the MRM page. And, as the log of sanctions shows, for the experienced editors, the sanctions were handed out virtually always to those on just one side of a contentious issue. Mostly likely those experienced editors haven't changed, something else has. Memills (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)"

(Note the block log to see a clear bias re who gets blocked. Also, there is a mysterious recent block of me there that never appeared on my Talk page, nor, on the History page of the blocking admin. Strange.)

"...I think it can be empirically documented... (that) experienced editors with no or few sanctions start getting them by editing MRM related pages from a non-feminist perspective. Then, a positive feedback loop begins. For those editors who have been sanctioned, when they return, even legitimate discussions (by myself, CSDarrow, and others) on the Talk page can be deemed "disruptive" and sanctioned. Then "this editor has X number of previous sanctions" which sets a precedent for further sanctions, and so it goes in a positive feedback loop. Also, those editors are seen as "trouble makers" and closely monitored... And, here we are -- spending time on this rather than actual writing / editing. Memills (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)"

An uninvolved admin (who has not voted or commented above) wrote to me in a private message: "I wanted to suggest that you take this to BASC instead and ask for an Arbcom case here. I think WP:FRINGE is being abused (here) by activists. This shouldn't be misunderstood to mean that I support everything you're doing, but I don't think you should be blocked for thought-crime either."

I could respond in detail to more, but I believe enough virtual ink has already been spilled over what should have remained an intellectual disagreement between two editors. Memills (talk)

It would be a bit weird if you had taken this to BASC at any stage, given that you have never met the criteria to actually take something to BASC.. and also a bit weird to comment that WP:FRINGE is being abused, since the only two references to it in this entire section are your last post and my reply here, and I've rarely seen it mentioned elsewhere related to the MRM. I'll let the rest of your response stand without comment with the hopes that whatever admin ends up closing this does a thorough job of evaluating where consensus may lay. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The admin referred me to BASC because I had been indefinitely blocked (see above), and, that would have been the next appeal step if the block had not been reversed. Memills (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Carrite's post was a good faith argument that the diffs did not demonstrate disruptive editing patterns in the least, but the diffs were posted by the OP only to demonstrate "an inability to contribute productively, at least in this topic field". The diffs were the center of a good deal of discussion but the post made in its entirety hasn't been addressed all that much...you have been sanctioned so often over this issue, isn't it fair to ask the community if the article would be improved without you for...say a year or more depending?. This isn't blocking you, this is just topic banning you, but you (and other editors) still do have the option of taking this to Arb Com and that certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that's where this is heading.

I read the above and I notice you make a few comments about your sanctions and they do not seem to take much responsibility and there is even an accusation of something odd about your block log? OK, but I really think the issue, with all due respect to the opposing !votes, is this long term pattern of sanctions that include topic bans and blocks all related to the same subject. I am not seeing a conspiracy theory here that the other side of this is getting admin help and I think you simply do not understand what presenting something fairly and accurately means. I think you are here to right great wrongs. I think you need to demonstrate that you can collaborate on an encyclopedia. An indeff topic ban on all article on Men's rights, broadly construed is perfectly acceptable in my mind in this instance, but it is a consensus of editors that is what is needed.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wait, exactly who is it that has "an inability to contribute productively, at least in this topic field"? What about Kevin stating 3 times in an ANI (not just on a Talk page), with a straight face, that I compared editors with whom I disagreed to "radical Islamists advocating violence" when the diff clearly shows that is a gross misrepresentation?

I am not suggesting a "conspiracy theory." I am suggesting that the issue of biased admin policing on the MRM is an issue that can, and should, be investigated. And, there is a sanctions log that could be reviewed for bias. Memills (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not Kevin Gorman, nor do I know anything about Kevin Gorman. If you want a boomerang I suggest you begin a thread to demonstrate it is deserved, but I still hold you accountable for your own behavior and lack of neutrality that brings huge amounts of disruption. Suggest a ban on Gorman if you feel one is justified, but biased admin and Kevin Gorman are no excuse for your behavior on Wikipedia and using it as a soapbox and political arena to right great wrongs caused to men or their agenda anymore than any single purpose activist on the encyclopedia, and frankly you are quaking just like that duck right now.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, the "oppose" votes strongly disagree with you. They have heard quaking too, but they say it started with the opening set of tendentious diffs. Given the overall cacophony and the lack of consensus, perhaps it is time for duck hunting season to close. Memills (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Its rabbit season?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't have said, er... illustrated, it better myself. It is either duck season or rabbit season, depending on one's pre-existing biases and perspectives. And, therein does not a consensus make. Memills (talk) 00:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

The analogy puts you as daffy duck trying to get the community to go after the "wabbit" because things are aimed at you. As much as the rabbit may be a target, the issue here is you, the duck, quaking like a single purpose, political activist, pushing a POV. I support the topic ban and believe, that the opposing editors failed to take into account a number of issues from the original post. With no comment on that and only attacking the list of diffs....they left a rather huge gap between what this topic ban is about and/or for and for the most part, just didn't address the concerns at all. I would hope a closing admin would weigh that with what the supporting editors have been saying about the entirety of the original post...that after giving you much leeway after so many temporary topic bans and blocks that a community topic ban may be best here. Most of the opposing !votes don't even seem to want to touch that topic, but it is the main reason for the topic ban. Your history clearly shows a disruptive pattern and a disregard to other editor beliefs to a point of disrespecting those other beliefs in both editing and interaction with others.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

We heard you the first time Mark. Personally, I think it is a bit daffy. Disrespect is demonstrated by incivility (e.g., the false "radical Islamists advocating violence" claim) and misrepresentation (e.g., bizarrely inconsequential or misleading diffs), not by differing opinions expressed on Talk pages. I believe that the opposing editors did consider Kevin's claims, and, by their own investigation, found them false, lacking or misleading. At least you could respect their conclusions, rather than dismiss them as having "failed." Memills (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

No, actually you didn't "hear me". No one did because text does not make a sound. It doesn't matter what you believe. What I am saying is outright. The opposers ignored the facts that the diffs were merely illustrative (and boy were they) and the majority of the reasoning to a topic ban is your history of disruption that those opposing editors did not address. To be blunt here, the topic ban relates to your disruption and your arb com sanctions from that disruption and the diffs merely demonstrated your treatment of others and their ideas and is very disrespectful and uncivil.

You have been topic banned over these issues and you have been blocked over these issues and now editor's are asking for you to be banned from editing those topics any further and I agree. I believe the consensus here is to topic ban you when you disregard all comments that ignore the real reason the OP has proposed the ban. You were not proposed for topic ban over that list of diffs. You were and are being proposed for a topic ban because your history shows disruption that has been intervened on by admin for a number of reasons, including ignoring arb com sanctions to the article MRM. I believe you need to be encouraged to contribute in a more respectful and less disruptive manner, and discouraged from your current behavior. That is exactly what topic bans are for and I truly think you would benefit from it. But...I have said my piece and you have said yours. I think it is time to call for a close here.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

They aren't ArbCom sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, "Pursuant to the Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation" So, that should be admin sanctions for violations of article probation, not arb com sanctions itself. Thanks Bbb23. But now that seems to bring up a few things from double checking:

• From just the visible history on Memills talk page I see they were blocked by Drmies in April of 2013 for this. Unblock denied. Memills last comment there was "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)".
• In may, the next month, Memills broke article probation rules of 1RR for articles under probation. Unblock denied. Memills last comment there included this: "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 ".
• On July 15, Bbb23 warned the editor for this. There was no comment from Memills.
• On July 27 Bbb23 asked the editor to review a warning they had left about article probation.
• On the 29th of July Memills was topic banned for three months by Bbb23 for violating the Article probation. On August 3rd memills posted: "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)"
• On September User:Badmintonhist began a thread on Bbb23 that Memills jumped on instantly discussing the admin extensively against WP:NPA by discussing details about the admin that were not related. Memills made this comment on November 4; ""Bbb23's little Napoleon routine" is a borderline personal attack", made two days after.....
• Blocked by Bbb23 (on Nov 4, 2013) for 6 moths for "Pursuant to the Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, you are now topic-banned for six months" AT this point the editor admits to being "sanctioned" (admin sanctions) 6 times over the MRM article. And then writes: "This particular administrator, Bbb23, imho and in the opinion of other editors (see, for example, [13], [14], [15]) has a history of insufficiently substantiated, impulsive, and biased administrative actions, particularly related to this article. Jimbo Wales has previously asked this administrator to resign -- an unprecedented request to my knowledge (see this discussion.)"
• On the 20th of December Bbb23 notifies the editor of violating the topic ban.
• The last block was on was on the 28th of June, 2014 for borderline legal threats.

I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that Memills has been disruptive and been given chance after chance. Sorry for getting arb com sanctions and admin sanctions for violations of article probation confused.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC) --Mark Miller (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Mark, you seem quite invested in this, and, are a bit quick on the trigger finger. You state:

"Memills made this comment on November 4; 'Bbb23's little Napoleon routine.'"

Check again. That statement was made by another editor who also expressed concerns about bias in Bbb23's policing of the MRM pages. In fact, several editors have expressed such concerns. For example, CSDarrow (talk) was sanctioned repeatedly by Bbb23, even for civil expression of opinions on Talk pages. A review of CSDarrow's talk page is revealing. Unfortunately, CSDarrow has apparently been effectively silenced by Bbb23's repeated biased sanctioning of him -- it appears that he is no longer contributing to the project. That is a loss for Wikipedia. Even Jimbo himself has asked Bbb23 to resign as an administrator.

There are two possibilities here. Either I intentionally violate WP policies, and the previous sanctions are thoroughly justified. Or, there has been systematic bias in the policing of MRM-related articles and Talk pages.

Let me repeat what I noted above:

" ...I have contributed to WP since 2006. Despite many edits on what used to be (but has since calmed down) an extremely contentious article, evolutionary psychology, I received just one 24 hour block in 2011. One sanction in 5 years of editing, not bad. However, note what happened when I first started editing the MRM article in 2012. Sanctions started to be handed out like candy. Five sanctions in 2012 - 2013 for my edits *only* on one topic: the MRM article. Weird, huh? That is a red flag. Something is going on with the policing on the MRM page. And, as the log of sanctions shows, for the experienced editors, the sanctions were handed out virtually always to those on just one side of a contentious issue. Mostly likely those experienced editors haven't changed, something else has. Memills (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)"

This bias was noted by Shakehandsman, above: "oppose Appears to be little more than the latest attempt to censor gender related articles and silence any editors who don't comply with the strict feminist POV of those who try to dominate such articles. Memills is an asset to Wikipedia and in particular to this area of study.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2014 (UTC)"

However, this is getting a bit off topic -- the above issues re biased policing of MRM-related articles is an issue for another day.

The point is that this ANI must stand on its own. It doesn't. One of Wikipedia's core principles, consistent with its mission, is clear: an editor should not be silenced / topic banned for civil and relevant comments on Talk pages simply because the opinions expressed are unpopular with some editors and admins. This is especially salient for Talk pages associated with articles about contentious political issues. Memills (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I assume you mean "This AN must stand on it's own"... which isn't really the case, although ideally it would. As is made abundantly clear on every AN related page, issues are considered in the context in which they arise, even if that context isn't fully included in the original post. Also, the idea that we can't tban people for being disruptive is about the furthest thing away from being a core principle of Wikipedia than the idea that we have an obligation to bottlefeed baby wallabies (which are really cute and is something I would totally support adopting as a core principle.) Your single-minded focus on Bbb is impressive, given that you were sanctioned by at least three other admins for disruptive behavior in the same content area. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Expressions of opinion, civilly expressed, is not disruptive editing -- especially on articles about contentious political topics. As noted by Shakehandsman above, part of the context here is the issue of systemic biased policing of gender-related articles, and not just by Bbb23. Memills (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

How ironic that you are citing Shakehandsman as some sort of authority in this context. For Pete's sake, his editing pattern in gender and ethnicity-related articles got its own Wikipediocracy article and people are beginning to notice. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, people are beginning to notice (here, too). Memills (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone please close this mess? I would suggest looking at Mark's analysis of where consensus stands a few posts up, I agree with it. Nothing good is likely to come out of this section remaining open any longer. In closing this section I would also suggest it is probably appropriate to err on the side of tbanning him vs not tbanning him if you find assessing consensus a close call, given that in theory at least the exact same tban could've been instituted on the whims of a single admin in the first place. Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Kevin, I agree this should be closed but only because it is no longer constructive. I disagree that the closer should err on the side of a tban; that strikes me as unusual. Also, no administrator could tban Memills indefinitely if you're thinking of the probationary sanctions. They allow tbans of no more than a year. Barring some other basis, no editor can be banned unilaterally.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Even halting the disruption for a year beats letting it carry on for the next year. I don't think detailed analysis of consensus (as has been partially done by Mark Miller above) will find it a terribly close call, but I do think that if the closer happens to find it one, the fact that all of this behavior has occurred under the umbrella of a set of community sanctions in the first place would be a reasonable tipping factor. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It is time to close, without consensus. Handing out topic bans to silence editors with unpopular or minority opinions expressed on Talk pages should be done only when thoroughly justified. As noted by Tutelary above, "There needs to be absolute, irrevocable and inexorable disruptive editing, and the diffs do not demonstrate that. Tutelary (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)" Memills (talk) 21:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's be Australian for a moment

Today Kevin Gorman has been a part of one page being protected in this area, due to his admitted carelessness. A look at here will show you another result of this, and the fashion in which he would continue had Isla Vista not been protected as well. Arkon (talk) 03:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Arkon, cut the crap. I made one edit to an article whose talkpage and edit history I had not thoroughly examined before committing it while I was looking over an entire category tree. The article was pre-emptively protected by an admin seeing four edits over the course of a day by four different editors and thinking an editwar was likely to ensue. If I had not been paying attention and had just carelessly been mass-editing, it would've been just as easy for me to edit through the protection Crisco put in place as it was for me to edit before it was put in place - I'm perfectly capable of editing a fully protected page. You'll note I didn't do that, and instead took it to talk. The androcide page you link was me further cleaning up the categories and removing one cat from an article that had been placed in both the subcat and parent cat, following the guidance put forth by
  WP:RS is 'nothing' but a guideline.) Kevin Gorman (talk
  ) 04:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Topic ban proposal for Gibson Flying V

topic banned from anything height-related on any article related to association football. He is also reminded that harsher sanctions were suggested in this discussion and it is very likely that the community will impose them if he is the cause of any further disruption. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs

) 13:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

If you were not aware, {{

doesn't like it, and he appears to cherry-pick sources to 'support' his pro-cm agenda. His edits in this area, and accompanying attitude, are becoming increasingly disruptive. The issue/user was previously raised here. GiantSnowman

21:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Therefore I propose an indefinite topic ban from anything height-related on any article related to association football, broadly construed. GiantSnowman 20:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I was a participant in the original {{Height}} allowing cm discussion, and was a supporter of the template supporting the measurement because there are some edge cases where it is appropriate to use cm over m. That said, I remember the concern that this editor was going to pull this sort of stunt and I vaguely remember him agreeing that any user that attempted such a thing should likely be blocked from editing for being disruptive. Please verify that is actually what he agreed to and act appropriately on that aspect. If, I am mis-remembering and that is not what he said, or he has decided to redact that statement, I do not think topic banning him from exclusively association football related articles is appropriate and I would expand the ban to anything height-related on any article, broadly construed. I have an inclination that anything less than that and he'll just jump to tennis or baseball or ... related articles instead. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 23:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
  • "...some edge cases where it is appropriate to use cm over m"? Interesting take. "...this sort of stunt"? You're not taking User:GiantSnowman's hysterical claims at face value before checking for yourself are you?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Drop the sticks, guys. This isn't closed because of censorship, it's to make you guys stay on topic. Gender bias or not, this is completely unrelated to the case at hand. Make another topic if you want to discuss it. Ansh666 05:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Careful - only women can be "hysterical" because only women have a huster (Greek for "womb"). So, careful with those personal attacks the panda ₯’ 23:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC) I've been accused (again) of bad-faith editing. My edit history and WP:SOURCES speak for themselves. The accuser is the one who needs to be more careful, and I suspect this thread will conclude with something to that effect. (hysterical (hɪˈstɛrɪkəl) — adj 1. of or suggesting hysteria: hysterical cries 2. suffering from hysteria 3. informal wildly funny. Not that 'hysterical' is an adjective reserved for women, but even if it were, that could only be construed as a personal attack if there were something inherently wrong with being woman-like, no? Perhaps we should all be a little more careful?) --Gibson Flying V (talk ) 01:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) I know I will probably regret this but did DangerousPanda seriously just say only women can be "hysterical" because they have a womb? I gotta tell ya, I found that a tad offensive and not exactly to Wikipedia standards because from what I am reading here, it is almost as if they were suggesting that it would not be a personal attack to say a female editor was being "hysterical". While I know that is not what the editor meant, being careful doesn't appear to be what was done with that post.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC) (ec) He was simply making a little joke based on the etymology of "hysteria", which is indeed derived from the Greek for "womb". "Hysteria" may be used for anyone these days, but it originated as a word that described only the behavior of women. Like I said, a joke, and not offensive. BMK (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Excuse me, but yeah...it was offensive. BMK....you don't get to decide what is offensive for others. Please understand that. This was an uncalled for collapse of criticism of a post that should not have been made and is very relevant to gender bias, joke or not. I noticed it was not explained by the joker themselves. Perhaps if they said so it would be better and not someone else that then decides to collapse the relevant problems caused by not being careful when telling others to be so.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Actually, I get to decide what I think is offensive, and I also get to decide what I think an average person would or should find offensive, and I also get to decide when I think another person is being overly sensitive. And in my opinion it was a joke, it wasn't sexist, and you're seriously overreacting to a bit of etymological sarcasm. So unless you're holding to yourself the power to determine, in absolute terms, what is and isn't offensive on some absolute scale, let's just mark this down as two people having differing opinions, and I'll make a mental note that you seem to be lacking in a sense of humor, at least on certain subjects. BMK (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Let's not forget, the "little joke" (whether humerous or otherwise) about my use of the term 'hysterical' to describe another user's claims (not the user himself) was used as the basis for an accusation of making a personal attack.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I and ONLY I get to decide what I think is offensive to me, and no one else. I see that we have found that joking around about women in such a manner and about what is a personal attack is just another one of those stupid things editors bring up here that needs to be hidden away from discussion. Gender bias is not a fucking joke. I didn't think it was funny. I didn't think it was appropriate and I think collapsing the criticism smacks of censorship and one editor deciding what should and should not be seen. I also get to decide what I think is funny and if you want to tell jokes about race, or sexual orientation, you will get the same reaction from me.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Sure...gender bias is a stick...that is used to bash people over the head with. I am not holding it so I have nothing to drop.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC) So, I amend my mental note to say that you have no sense of humor about a number of subjects. And to be clear, I don't believe there are many subjects about which it is not possible to be humorous, and the comedians I like and the programs and movies I watch would probably be considered by you to be incredibly offensive -- about which I care not a whit, since they're funny, sometimes godamned funny, regardless of your dour disapproval. You, on the other hand, get to make a mental note that I am an insensitive unevolved ass in need of some hardcore lessons in empathy. I can live with that. BMK (talk) 05:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC) NO...actually I still get to decide that for myself. You may think yourself as an ass or that I might think that, but I still temper my opinion of you with what I know about your editing. You may be able to act like that, but I don't believe it is a defining characteristic of you.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I have a great sense of humor. I don't think gender issues are a joke, especially in this type of situation, and I see you and others do. This illustrates a great example and I am happy to leave it at that....an example of the gender bias on AN. While it is not everyone, it is surely enough to see how desperate people are to cover it up and look past it. A little cocksure I suppose, but than I guess women don't have cocks so they can't be sure? This is some really stupid crap to see how this page works for some editors and then those that do not adhere to the humor are collapsed and hidden away. What a fine decision to make a joke about women being hysterical and think everyone has to shut the fuck up about it when this is the very board to complain about admin behavior. Cool. Anyone got any vagina jokes?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:59, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Nah, I'm too cocksure to have a vagina joke. (And, actually, you don't get decide whether you have a sense of humor or not -- other people decide that.) BMK (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Mmmmm no. Others get to have their own opinion, they do not get to decide if I do or do not have a since of humor. Since this was a joke of an offensive nature, telling me I have no sense of humor is only upsetting in that you find it humorous. See...I get to have that opinion, but I do not get to decide that it is a fact that you find it humorous. It is still just an opinion until you state it as fact. Frankly, this is shocking to me to see from you, but I don't know you that well.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC) You can fight it all you want, but the judgment of others about you will inevitably outweigh your own judgments about yourself. It's just the way things work. BMK (talk) 06:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Not really. I don't judge myself. I only note the senses I am aware of. I can do that...you cannot. And yeah....that is the point I was making. The judgment of others will inevitably outweigh the couple of differing opinions here. The only thing is, you are only another, not all others. But then I have a better opinion of you than you seem to have of me. But then I am the one complaining that the joke was not appropriate and you are arguing it was.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I don't have a "bad" opinion of you, per se. From this conversation, I'd just say that you're rather humorless, you're a bit too politically correct for your own good, your view of the world is somewhat solipsistic, and you value your own judgments more than you value those of others, which you probably shouldn't. Plus, you're going to meet a tall dark stranger who will take you on a journey to a far-away place. Toodles. BMK (talk) 06:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC) I am not about political correctness (I don't even know what that really means these days). I am for an understanding that some jokes are simply not appropriate for a professional site and that when one tells another person to be careful, it shouldn't be followed by or be preceded by a lack of care. I am also aware that Wikipedia has a gender issue. I real gender issue and this is the very sort of thing that is just insensitive. Besides, that wasn't really a funny joke as in "Haha", but the kind of joke that makes fun of a specific gender trait. I really did find it offensive and don't generally laugh at that sort of thing. It is too serious an issue on Wikipedia. However, I do understand what you are saying, I just feel this issue has been in the forefront too often to just take a blind eye to it. I had to say something or I would feel like I was letting down the community for not speaking up when I saw the comment. Not looking for intervention. Not asking for sanctions. Just not letting it go without commenting on it. I will say this much more and then I am disengaging. What I see is a bad joke that had true gender discrimination and bias. Not that the editor feels that way, but that the joke was indeed aimed that way. I do not feel any editor should be called "... humorless...too politically correct for your own good, [with a] view of the world [that] is somewhat solipsistic, and you value your own judgments more than you value those of others, which you probably shouldn't." All from just standing up for the lack of sensitivity to the gender issue here. To me and many others, this was simply dragging this out to defend someone that need not be defended. if it was a joke, then just leaving it at that would be enough, but I didn't actually see it that way and I think the criticism was justified and warranted here. As I said, if "careful" is what you are asking for, then "careful" is what should have been attempted. I am off now (some might say I have always been a bit off to begin with). Have a good night everyone. --Mark Miller (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose topic ban - This doesn't seem to rise to a topic ban yet. Perhaps in the future with more history. See comments below.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support If this had only related to the very recent discussion, then I think it might have been a bit harsh, but as this edit from January shows (replacing one source with another to justify using cm), this has been a problem for some time. Number 57 07:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

By all means do check the above diff, but be sure not to miss its related discussion. Very telling.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Further evidence - this, where he changes height to 178cm to 180cm, even after I had previously provided two reliable sources which showed height to be 1.80m and he had previously insisted that 178cm was the 'correct' height. Ignore the units for a moment there - and concentrate on the fact that he is cherry picking sources to support his bias/disruption. Or to put it another way - he dismissed my three sources as 'incorrect/unreliable', realized they were actually 100% correct, but then went and found a whole new source just so he could 'justify' keeping the format in 'cm' as opposed to the agreed standard of 'm'. GiantSnowman 07:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

To clarify this:

reliable source. User:GiantSnowman then came along and removed the source I introduced from the article altogether, replacing it with a reference to national-football-teams.com, saying in the edit summary that it "is a better source than Goal.com" (obviously untrue), and changing the height to 1.78m. One small problem though: his "better" national-football-teams.com source shows Jiang's height as 1.80m, not 1.78m. Strong evidence that User:GiantSnowman's interest is actually restricted to the units (not the heights) of articles that I edit (not anyone else). Naturally I undid this blatant knee-jerk reversion, and he subsequently showed me at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height some cherry-picked sources that displayed Jiang's height as 1.80m. As an editor who is actually concerned with the quality of Wikipedia's articles, I investigated further and found that the Chinese Olympic Committee's official website had a profile for Jiang (the best possible source for this case, I'm sure all can agree). It showed his height as 180cm, so I did the right thing and updated the height to reflect this, of course introducing the COC source as well. The article now has had two reliable sources (goal.com and the COC official website) added, along with the subject's height, none of which would be there if I had never come along.--Gibson Flying V (talk

) 08:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No reply, User:GiantSnowman? Wanna search my edit history for another diff and try again?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 07:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• I feel I've already been forced to type out too much about this ridiculous witch hunt. So for now I'm just going to point to User_talk:Gibson_Flying_V/Archive_7#Changing_height_from_m_to_cm.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

This would fall under

WP:ENGVAR. Brits tend to use m, where as here in the colonies my driver's permit lists my height in cm. It therefore doesn't matter what sport the individual plays, it's the ENGVAR that matters. A Canadian footballer who plays in the Premier League should have their height in cm, while an American who plays in the Premier League would have it ft/in the panda ɛˢˡ”

11:21, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

ENGVAR is not an issue here insomuch as non-British editors have also supported use of 'm' across all association football related articles. Why therefore can Gibson continue to get away with editing against that consensus? GiantSnowman 11:34, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the Footy project had no right to enforce such a rule across all Footy articles, because

WP:ENGVAR certainly DOES apply in this case. Measurement is a part of specific dialect/language - check your Windows settings and you'll see the effect of changing. Now, that doesn't mean that Gibson isn't being disruptive, because they sure as hell are the panda ɛˢˡ”

14:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps one of the better posts here that clears up a number of issues. I understand editors feel that Gibson is being disruptive but to what extent and exactly how, seems to be the sticking point. Just not following the Project guide is clearly not an issue and the Project has no authority to enforce their consensus across all articles within their scope. But that doesn't mean the editor can get away with edit warring etc. has there been edit warring? Has a 3RR violation been reported? Are there civility issues? Just not collaborating with a project is not a violation and doesn't rise to a topic ban, but the others things mentioned, if also an issue might constitute a very good reasoning for a ban. At the moment it looks more like the project members trying to force their will on the rest of the community. Not as if the footy subject has not been a disruptive issue already. Are there Arb Com sanctions?--Mark Miller (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on what exactly is disruptive about my edits? Taking untold amounts of editors' time discussing a complete non-issue is far more disruptive than adding accurate information and reliable sources to biographies of living persons in my opinion.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

@

Marcelo Vieira. Have they been uncivil? Yes, see numerous uncivil comments at both the RFC and the WT:FOOTY discussion, both of which I linked to in my opening post. GiantSnowman

07:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I see that Gibson made a bold edit three days after the last edit on that page here where he added a RS to the birthdate and changed the height. That was reverted by Kante4 here. The revert removed more than just the height edit but removed the reliable source to the birthdate with no explanation or concern mentioned. That was an inappropriate revert to me and I think I would have reverted back based on what was done myself. Gibson did revert that. And I don't see that as an edit war as RS was removed. It also didn't violate 3RR. Gibson began a discussion and does not appear to be disruptive there in my opinion. I understand this is frustrating, and that sometimes disputes arise over project related guidelines and the main MOS. But to me this seems to be something needing more discussion on the talk pages and more patience with each other.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This appears at the top of this page:

• If you are seeking administrator intervention for a specific issue or dispute, you should post it at the Administrators' noticeboard for incidents (ANI) instead.

Was this thread started here by mistake? --Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Um no - "Issues appropriate for this page could include [...] ban proposals", and yes that includes topic bans. I am not seeking admin input per se, I am seeking community input and community consensus - just like we had at
  WT:FOOTBALL, which you consequently ignored. GiantSnowman
  12:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Sorry that I've come late to the party. My perception of Gibson Flying V is that the editor wants to be true to the references. If the reference states player information in cm, the editor will intentionally select that source and change a subject's height to use that reference and then falls back on that subject and refuses to accept the consensus to use m. I suggested the topic ban and fully endorse it more because the editor refuses to work cooperatively and recognize consensus. I am not following this discussion so if you need me, ping me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

If this were to have gone to

WP:DRN, the project guide would not have been allowed to be argued. Only the main MOS would be. Project style guides are a local consensus and the main MOS is the broader community consensus. I am unwilling to support a topic ban over a project style guide, which is a local consensus and see this as an attempt to override the wider community consensus.--Mark Miller (talk

) 02:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox_football_biography#Parameters reflects the Football Wikiproject's long-standing consensus for both units (m and cm) being acceptable, which also matches the Wikipedia-wide consensus as evinced at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers/Archive_143#Human_height and later confirmed at Template_talk:Height/Archive_2#Human_height_is_more_commonly_expressed_in_centimetres_than_metres. User:GiantSnowman's recent attempt to change that to only metres being acceptable at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height has been far from successful as anyone who reads the discussion and understands that consensus is not a vote will see. This is a waste of everyone's time.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is wasting time. This is certainly not a cut and dry situation and discussion is where and how we discover the facts. Disengaging from the topics for a period might actually go a long way towards editors assuming good faith here.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant only insofar as the appeal for an administrator to enforce a topic ban. I also worry that the more that is typed out (and therefore must be read) here, the less real evidence like edit histories, sources and prior discussions will be looked at.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:14, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't an administrator topic ban proposal. This is a community ban proposal. If you did something really blatant, you would have been blocked, if even temporarily or an admin would have warned you. I think Admin topic bans are possible and I think I have seen at least one (not sure) but this is a poll to establish a consensus to topic ban you by, or from the community.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

As a quick aside, I don't particularly like the accusations that we at WP:FOOTY are trying to enforce a certain style - we're not really. But as a WikiProject we have MOS and it is important that relevant articles use the MOS; if the MOS is deemed incompatible with wider Wikipedia-wide MOS/guidelines then that's another discussion for another day. We are here to discuss Gibson's disruption. GiantSnowman 07:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I was very careful with my wording. I never said it was clear they were doing it, although this discussion does show the suggestion that Footy editor have a consensus that Gibson is being accused of violating. I said: "at the moment it looks like..." You actually said: "ENGVAR is not an issue here insomuch as non-British editors have also supported use of 'm' across all association football related articles. Why therefore can Gibson continue to get away with editing against that consensus?" The answer to that is, a local consensus cannot override the wider community consensus. Is it possible, any of those Project style guides were incorporated into subpages of the main MOS. That occurred a few years ago with regional style guides but am not clear if that was a straight across the board raising of all project style guides or just the pages that dealt with regional topics. Sorry if that came across as an accusation.--Mark Miller (talk) 17:39, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem, I just wanted to (try and) clear something up! If it is possible for the Project MOS to be incorporated into the wider MOS then even better, in a similar manner to the "no infoboxes on composer articles" we seem to have? Anyway this is off topic and getting away from the matter at hand! GiantSnowman 17:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support based on continued pattern of
  AGF should not be a blind pact to allow disruption of Wikipedia through exhaustive POV pushing.—Bagumba (talk
  ) 20:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Where do I begin??? I'm amazed at how many people seem to think that reflecting reliable sources in biographies of living persons constitutes "disruptive editing". For the supporters of this absurd ban suggestion an awful lot seems to depend on this assertion that consensus existed to only use metres in footballers' infoboxes. Now, you don't appear to have read anything I've said above, so here we go again: As per Template:Infobox_football_biography#Parameters: the player's height is to be displayed in the units most common within the country he or she plays (with a conversion). Accordingly, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height, GiantSnowman said, "Infobox football biography does not say "use m instead of cm" ... and the useage guide mentions m, cm and inches!". This is in line with the community's wider consensus that metres or centimetres are acceptable, depending on sources (this is also just common sense). Please show us this mysterious "consensus" you speak of which states that only metres are acceptable. The usage of metres is clearly supported by some (not all) editors at Wikiproject Football but not in reliable, English-language sources. Some of the metre supporters are from continental Europe and have no idea that centimetres are in fact the norm for metrically expressing human height in the anglosphere. Let's not forget, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons's introduction states: "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Therefore, I am of course perfectly happy with every diff you provided above (as well as my entire edit history). Not once have I removed a reliable source from an article (as my accusers have). Not once have I replaced a source with one of lesser quality (as my accusers have). Not once have I failed to use the same unit used in the source (as my accusers have). Since you've looked at my edit history, you must know that the footballers' articles I've improved are merely a drop in the ocean of the wide variety of biographies for which I've added, corrected and sourced heights over the years. Do you have any idea how many thanks I've received for these edits? Do you have any idea how many heights were incorrect before I came along? Do you have any idea how many more reliable sources have now been introduced to these articles as a result of my "disruptive" edits? Above you refer to my "continually repeating a failed argument". What failed argument exactly? You seem to have forgotten that you and the rest of the anti-centimetre gang came out on the wrong side of that RfC, which was always going to reflect policy & guidelines, wider consensus, sources and common sense by (albeit belatedly) allowing the use of centimetres. The anti-centimetre gang are an extremely small but incredibly loud minority, and appear to be the ones with something to answer for when it comes to the questions of disruption and incivility. Nobody enjoys being wrong. But it's better to do so with dignity rather than trying to abuse the power to take a parting shot at the ones who proved you wrong.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Gibson Flying V I wonder if that last post might be better collapsed with the title "Gipson's reply" so as to not over power the discussion.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer it left the way it is myself, but don't feel that strongly about it. You're welcome to collapse it if that's what's best. Admittedly I'm by no means a regular at these kinds of discussion boards.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I won't change it. But since you are now repeating yourself it might look better for you. I won't force my opinion on ya though. Off to dinner. Just stopped by the house to feed the dogs and now back to the 4th of J, BBQ at the neighbors.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman

07:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That's OK, User:GiantSnowman. It's all stuff that I know you're already fully aware of.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Well yes, because it's just a re-hashing of same argument you've used for the past 6+ months, which obviously isn't working given the support for topic ban and the agreement you are being disruptive. GiantSnowman 08:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, not quite. But there are some links to that (Here's another favourite). There certainly is agreement amongst the same band of editors that are arguing persistently against allowing centimetre usage. But what we're actually here for is wider community agreement.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• Is it just me, or is the concept of "reliable sources" in a discussion about Style simply a re-herring? If you find an reliable source that lists *my* height in ft/in then that's all well-and-good, because in any article about me, it should be listed in cm because I'm Canadian. The reliable source merely confirms my height - how we display it is based on style guidelines. The TLDR argument above seems to suggest that if I find a height for me measured in cubits, then we're required to list it in cubits because that's what the source says! the panda ₯’ 09:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

This is the

WP:ENGVAR question, which has popped up quite a few times. But a wide-ranging survey of reliable (in terms of editorial control and appropriateness for an encyclopedia to take cues from with regards to style) sources reveals that every single variety of English appears to prefer using centimetres over metres anyway.--Gibson Flying V (talk

) 09:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Um, quite obviously no. It's this ridiculous belief that you're right (when you obviously are not...and CONSENSUS says you're not) that makes me now say SUPPORT TOPIC BAN AS PROPOSED and recommend additional restrictions. If you're not willing to abide by the most

WP:DISRUPTIVE the panda ₯’

12:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

"Um, quite obviously no". Again, I'm going to have to invite you to be more specific. "No" what? What is my "ridiculous belief"? What am I "obviously wrong" about? Where is the

WP:CONSENSUS that I edited against? You can type out all the personal opinions based on what other editors have said here that you want, but what's needed is real evidence of actual disruption (clue: there is none). Thank goodness it's written down in policy that quality of arguments is more important than quantity, and that things aren't decided by mere vote-count, or I'd really have something to worry about.--Gibson Flying V (talk

) 21:13, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously - the conversation above also counts as consensus against what you've been doing - the only consensus yet to be determined is whether or not to outright ban you from touching anything related to measurements. I'm giving you perhaps inappropriate credit here, but seriously, this entire THREAD says you're wrong - which means, you're wrong. Stop trying to argue otherwise - the longer you

stick your fingers in your ears, the more people (like me) who will decide to !vote in favour of your topic ban ... that's not a brilliant thing to do whatsoever the panda ₯’

12:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

DP - precisely. The consensus for footballers is that metric height should be displayed in 'm' not 'cm'; Gibson has been cherry picking sources to display height in his preferred format. They have even edited against what sources say (see this!) in order to display height in his preferred format. GiantSnowman 12:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

It's hard for me to believe that you actually read the conversation above (or any of the conversations linked to), User:DangerousPanda, as you didn't answer a single one of my questions. I think it's becoming clear who has their fingers in their ears, hmm? You also opened your contribution to this discussion very early on with a groundless accusation of me making a personal attack, so you did your own credibility no favours there. It's not too late to have a quick read and change your vote, though. User:GiantSnowman: you, like the rest, have remained perfectly silent on where exactly the ever-elusive "MOS" and "consensus" that state that centimetres must never be used for soccer players are. You understand how crucial this is when claiming that someone has intentionally edited against them, don't you? I've already provided the links for the consensus that centimetres are acceptable, which you have edited against and are now attempting to thwart further by having me topic banned. It's one thing to say consensus exists. It's quite another to show that it exists.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support (Changed from oppose above) a topic ban on any and all article related to
  WP:IAR to improve the project. The past behavior seems to show a clear pattern and it is clear the editor will argue their case continually against the project's and their own good. Frankly I am a little embarrassed it took me this long to see. I think that there has been patience by those involved and that this may be the best solution. The editor can always ask for a review or lifting of the ban in the future. I don't support the ban on measurements as seeing that as a bit excessive. I apologize for the gender issue distraction, it was off topic and needed to be hatted.--Mark Miller (talk
  ) 13:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing against the wishes of a small band of disruptive editors is not the same as editing against consensus. The MOS and consensus that User:GiantSnowman says I'm editing against are fictitious. Why are editors taking his word for it and ignoring the evidence I'm providing that the real consensus is that both units are acceptable?--Gibson Flying V (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"Acceptable" does not mean across the board compliance. Perhaps you believe the RFC on the Template:height talk page has some influence on the proper display of human height straight across the board on all articles on Wikipedia. That is incorrect. That is a local consensus for use of that template and how it should function and be used when consensus agrees it should be used at all. Each article has either major contributors or most interested parties. The footy project held a proper, project level discussion to decide how to proceed with that information and chose a different route than the discussion on the RFC. It is just a template and they come and go as they become obsolete after time. They are not policy, guidelines or official procedure. The project can decide to use or not use the template, select a specific preferred method, spelling or orthography and can choose to ignore what guidelines are must appropriate for the regional or specified use to those articles under the scope of that project.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"Acceptable" does not mean across the board compliance. So very true. Yet a small band of editors are still trying to enforce metres only across all soccer players' biographies. The influence that the RFC at {{Height}} had was removing a shortcoming in its parameters that amounted to a ban on centimetres in any article (of any Wikiproject) the template was used regardless of whether they appeared in the sources. Correcting this paved the way for a situation in which the relative prevalence of the two formats as seen in real-world sources could finally be reflected accurately on Wikipedia. An improvement, I'm sure everyone (except my accusers, who argued pointlessly against it till the end) could agree. However, as you've already seen, these people will still undo any edit that introduces the cm format to a soccer players' biography (whether with {{height}} or {{convert}}, it doesn't matter to them), without regard for whether cm is what's used in the source, or the subject's country. The footy project held a proper, project level discussion to decide how to proceed with that information and chose a different route than the discussion on the RFC. Where? The current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Height? If this is the long-awaited evidence of consensus to only use metres on soccer players' articles (and it isn't), then I can only be accused of editing against it since it was begun, right? Yet, as you say, diffs from over the past 7 months have been provided. The fact is consensus remains, at Wikiproject football as it is on the rest of the encyclopedia, for either format to be used (with recourse to reliable sources). If this were not the case, why did User:GiantSnowman recently start that attempt to build consensus for banning centimetres? If Wikiproject Football's consensus has always been for metres only, why has Template:Infobox_football_biography#Parameters always said with regards to the 'Height' parameter: "The player's height in the units most common within the country he or she plays with a conversion (e.g. by using {{convert}})." It goes on to say in the Style guide section: "As per the manual of style the player's height should be in the units most common in the country in which he or she plays. ... Ideally, measurements should be presented using the {{convert}} template, which automatically converts units between formats and handles the presentation of units. ... {{height}} is a similar template designed for infoboxes, which presents units in short form by default." Therefore User:GiantSnowman, in a further acknowledgement that the long-standing consensus is for both units to be used, has asserted repeatedly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Height that {{Infobox_football_biography}} does not favour metres over centimetres. Consensus at WT:MOSNUM, as it was at the RfC, and as it remains at Wikiproject Football, is for source-based flexibility when it comes to units.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support per reason stated above. Also the behaviour that he shows is just headscratching. Kante4 (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

See User:Mark Miller's post above at 18:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC).--Gibson Flying V (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

In my July 4 posts, I don't see edit warring per se, but reverting can be seen by others as an aggressive move. I also ask in one of those posts what eventually changed my mind...exactly how are you being disruptive and to what extent? How...by creating unnecessary disputes on a broad range of project related football association articles over the same issue, changing content on measurements. To what extent....over a broad range of project related articles for nearly 7 months where the project has formed consensus against the content or changes. Sorry, that is what I ended up seeing. You should have disengaged some time ago on your own.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed "reverting can be seen by others as an aggressive move." (See this, hours ago). Let's be clear, if this small but loud minority of editors simply complied with the wider community's (and their own Wikiproject's) consensus that units should be determined by either

WP:IDONTLIKEITs all round. User:Kante4, who appears to be German and therefore used to seeing metres discounts their contribution to consensus-determining discussion on questions of style at the English Wikipedia as irrelevant for being based on personal opinion only, and showing no understanding of the matter. What I'm seeing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Height is an attempt by User:GiantSnowman for the Wikiproject to move away from the current consensus of unit flexibility which has been rejected with good reasons by three editors, and accepted by four (and that's including Kante4!).--Gibson Flying V (talk

) 12:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Motion to close

• I think the consensus above is pretty clear, please can an uninvolved admin review and close? GiantSnowman 11:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The closing admin, I trust, will not fail to notice your days-old attempt at

WP:BOOMERANG that hits you for trying to prevent an editor from improving the encyclopedia in line with sources, policy and consensus. All this of course is only possible if every bit of this discussion (and those linked to) is checked and read through carefully. For what is in fact such a small issue that's a lot of reading and I don't envy them the task.--Gibson Flying V (talk

) 21:26, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

No, the closing admin will recognize that there was clear consensus at WT:FOOTBALL about the (non-)use of 'cm', and they will recognize the even clearer (in fact unanimous!) consensus here that your behavior has been nothing but disruptive. GiantSnowman 21:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The closing admin can read for him/herself User:GiantSnowman, and (unlike yourself) knows that mere repetition of claims and head-counting are almost meaningless.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 21:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Haha - oh the irony of you talking about "repetition of claims" and trying to tell anyone else about

WP:CONSENSUS... GiantSnowman

21:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Ahem. Yeah.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As a participant in the RFC referred to in this discussion, I would like to recommend that the closing administrator's comments on that discussion be reviewed. The rough consensus there was for adding the capability for the Height template to express heights in cm. The closure forbade mass replacements in existing articles in order to change expressions from m to cm. But there was no consensus regarding when cm was permissible and when it was not. Neither was there any overriding consensus as to m being more "correct" generally. Either unit may be shown by separate consensus within a specific domain to be the prevalent form, whereby it may be enforced consistently, but that RFC does not specify for any particular domain. Enforcement of one unit or another must derive from separate consensus. The RFC notes that perfect consistency is not required, and the argument in the RFC is that neither unit is "correct" to the exclusion of the other; rather, it is a matter of unofficial general acceptance if one is used rather than another, not anything mandated by the SI system of units.

All this being said, I have not watched the specifics of recent editing by Gibson Flying V. But if he has simply made new entries and expressed heights in cm in those edits, then he has not violated the RFC. I will say that during the RFC he seemed unable to grasp that cm was not an absolutely correct unit to use. However, the chief complainant here, GiantSnowman, was at least equally unable to grasp that m was not an absolutely correct unit to use. Given the irreconcilable nature of the discussions at the RFC, it is my guess that what you have here is simply a continuation of a campaign of opposition between the two that (as the RFC closer put it) is based solely on fear rather than upon reason. If you find it necessary to topic ban Gibson Flying V, I suggest you look equally closely at the behavior of GiantSnowman to determine whether or not the same should apply. Banning an editor on one side of a disruption does not necessarily remove the disruptive influence. A disruption derives from an inability to reason, and there can be multiple sources such occurrences in any disagreement. What is clear is that unreasoned arguments are being allowed to disrupt editing across a wide swath of articles, to cost a great deal of community energy and time, and that it is the unreason on both sides that should not be allowed to dominate the editing community. Evensteven (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Evensteven: - where have I shown any disruptive editing? No-one is accusing Gibson of violating the RFC outcome, we are saying that he is violating the consensus at WP:FOOTY (that we use metres for association football-related articles), and in the process of doing so his actions are disruptive. That is why the topic ban is for association football-related articles only; he is fine to implement 'cm' to articles on actors and hairdressers and tennis players if that change is supported by the relevant WikiProjects, who again might have their own MOS. GiantSnowman 11:39, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I also note that you "have not watched the specifics of recent editing by Gibson Flying V" - so how can you comment? Have you read the above discussion or are you simply here because you were asked to? GiantSnowman 12:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) to the closing administrator, please also be aware of the additional disruption on Template talk:Height of Gibson creating multiple sections to facilitate his personal agenda of eliminating all heights on wiki that aren't in cm. This is exactly what I was saying in my post way up top about the scope of this topic ban needing to be all height related things, and not just those associated with football. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 10:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Why on earth would you not address the concerns raised at

WP:SOURCES to be reflected organically on Wikipedia. How could anyone possibly have a problem with that? This will only be achieved if there is no inherent bias amongst Wikipedia's tools and editors for or against m or cm. Isn't the whole Wikipedia philosophy to simply reflect what's in sources without bias (i.e. with as little editor intervention as possible)?--Gibson Flying V (talk

) 11:17, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• What you fail to understand
  consensus will change, but I'm sure that is a long ways off at this point (at least a year and more likely 2-3 years). Anyways, I wish you well and I wish you good luck! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c}
  ) 11:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template Editor User:Technical 13

Consensus seems to endorse the removal of the userright at this time. However, several editors do mention that this removal is not eternal, rather until T13 demonstrates a commitment to using the tool appropriately. While it is not my role to proffer specific times, I would encourage T13 to keep editing unprotected templates, and seek to embody a collegial spirit in that endeavor, as well as in general editing, and strictly adhere to our policy on edit warring, which we should all know can happen before three reverts. Go Phightins! 12:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At the suggestion of

WP:RTE#User:Technical 13: As one of the top User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable responders, being a member of this user group is required to continue my work. There was no justifiable reason for this user group to be removed per Wikipedia:Template editor#REVOKE, which does not have a "various concerns over template-editing" criteria, and the administrator who performed the action refuses to discuss his action and detail what those "concerns" are. So, I'm here to request reinstatement into this group. There was a no comment from Mr. Stradivarius (talk · contribs) on the grounds that he was involved in the discussion that in part led up to this action by MSGJ (talk · contribs). Xeno (talk · contribs) has yet to reply to my request for expansion of what they have seen, as I do not see it the same way. Thank you all for your consideration in this matter. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c}

) 17:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

T13 asked me to expand, the two examples that come to mind are the T/M:Documentation that led to the removal and T:Archive basics (where a user had to come along later and program functionality to work-around T13's unilateral change), similar concerns at

WT:AN#MediaWiki Error on AN and AN/I archive pages, edit warring over a "big" tag, etc. While not all related to the template editor right, examples of T13 edit warring or pushing his preferred version where there is no consensus or external desire for such changes. –xeno^talk

17:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• I think the T/M:Documentation horse has been beat to death, and I've already apologized for any inconveniences and agreed to not edit that package any more. There is nothing else I can do there. I'm still not happy that template and module do not offer a class to allow people to hide it if they so choose, and I've already said how I intend to cope with the situation. I do find
  WP:THREATEN
  threshold, but I digress there.

WT:AN#MediaWiki Error on AN and AN/I archive pages is still an issue and there have been reports on Bugzilla:

that others are having issues as well.

Wikipedia:VPR#RfC: Should deprecated.2Finvalid.2Funsupported HTML tags be discouraged.3F shows there is indeed an issue and there was no edit warring over a "big" tag

. There was just a request for clarification of why it was a problem, I explained and the issue was dropped.

The T:Archive basics is a good example. I made a change to a non-protected template to offer users a notification if the archive page size was greater than the recommendation for the size of a talk page.

WP:EDITCONSENSUS process works, no? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c}

) 19:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reinstate user right - I am surprised that preventing T13 from using the TE user right is even considered an option, in the absence of unambiguous abuse. I understand that some editors might have "concerns" about T13's apparent insistence to push the changes he thinks need to happen, but I don't see anything even close to a level of dispute that I would consider appropriate justification for removing the user right. I find T13's "defense" to be credible and serious. He himself admits that nobody's perfect and shows willingness to take the time to work through any issue. Relentlessness when faced with resistance to change isn't always a bad thing when there are improvements to be made, and I have faith that T13 only intends to improve things, not push a particular POV or cause disruption; however it is understandable that frictions ensue and it's part of working with people. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Also: If a template works for 100% of users, but with some minor annoyance for a few, then an edit is made to the template which doesn't affect functionality and still makes it work for 100% of users but removes the annoyance, is that not a net improvement? Lack of a so-called "good reason" for an edit should never be a reason to object to the edit; objections should stand on their own right. If the edit breaks nothing, and yet fixes something minor and that only affects a few users... then it's a good thing. If someone contests the edit, and the initial user then makes another edit while taking in consideration the opposer's concerns, that I'd say that's a pretty standard process for making improvements. Technical 13's intentions are unambiguously to improve Wikipedia, either for all, some, or few users. You can "accuse" him of being very pro-active and persistent instead of careful and timid but the intentions and competence should be more than enough to ensure the community doesn't prevent his work, but instead encourages it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – reinstatement of the user right. Edit warring against other holders of the template permission is analogous to wheel warring among admins; it simply isn't done. Wikipedia:Template editor contains this language: "Do not change the template to your preferred version when consensus has not been achieved yet to resolve the dispute. And never wheel war with other admins or template editors." Until I saw that User:MSGJ had already removed T13's template permission I was thinking of proposing that it be suspended for at least a month. So far there is no place to find a complete list of the problems with T13's edits but User talk:Technical 13#Edit warring on template-protected pages contains some of the issues. Anyone who has no previous awareness of the dispute and wants to see an example might notice that Template:Documentation is normally template-protected and it was the subject of an edit war beginning with Technical13's edit at 23:46 on 2 July. That page has now been fully protected to stop the war. Since these pages are down in the basement of Wikipedia they are included about ten zillion times and an edit war is hardly benign. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Just a quick note: "oppose" can be ambiguous as the only bolded part for anyone skimming through the discussion. I recommend "Reinstate user right" or "Endorse removal" (or something else like "Suspend TE for X days" or whatever better sums up your opinion) as explicit and precise options to bold in your !vote. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Observation T13 came to WIkipedia and made some immediate mistakes in the way he handled a couple of issues. He annoyed me and others. These self inflicted difficulties caused him to come to notice of folk pretty much every time he has made any sort of error.. It seems to me that he comes under the microscope even when he does things right, and does so in a way that no other editor with his heart in the right place does. He seems to have picked up a 'bad guy' label, something that is odd since I have not seen his edits deviate from being for the good of the project as a whole. I believe that he is a huge net benefit to the project. I'm not an admin. If I am entitled to express an opinion here I wish him to Retain TE rights or have them reinstated. Fiddle Faddle 19:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate user right in 24 hours - I've never seen him be anything but a hard worker. That being said, with regards to templates, there should never be anything close to an edit war between TEs, just by definition of their role. TEs should stick with a 1-revert limit per day, and temporary rights removal for defined short periods at first, and up to full removal if it continues to happen. --Netoholic @ 19:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I would go so far as to say that Template Editors should actually adhere to

WP:WHEEL, since this is fundamentally an administrative prerogative that they are exercising. VanIsaac_WS^cont

20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Resinstate user right (as non-administrator observation) under
  WP:ADMINACCT. An administrator should be required to detail the reasoning behind their actions as well as the supposed 'concerns' that they undergo them, as they are ultimately responsible for their administrator actions. This administrator has not done such. @MSGJ: should explain what exactly the concerns were to detail that the right be removed from the individual. The right should be given back by default until the appropriate and removing admin has voiced their concerns, in which I will reassess my !vote. Tutelary (talk
  ) 20:05, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse removal The Template-editor user right does not confer the right to make controversial edits without prior discussion.
  Before all this began,
  disrupt Wikipedia. Earlier on in the thread we find Mr. Stradivarius suggesting ANI; later; Technical 13 tries to call my bluff but decides to raise me instead by starting this thread (which I observe is at AN, not ANI). --Redrose64 (talk
  ) 20:02, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• The thread is at AN because I specifically pointed the user here after closing their
  WP:RFP/T request. I agree it could've gone to ANI instead, but that'd a pretty minor detail overall, and one I am fully responsible for. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉
  20:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• • (
    Doc}} or {{Documentation}} from templates when I work on them. Simple. (underlining key words for clarity) which followed I will simply delete the documentation template from templates when I'm editing them and restore it when I'm done. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c}
    ) 20:22, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Hm. So, I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand, I think it was a bad move for MSGJ to remove the TE tools without discussion. Several of the issues, while they were related to TE and would've factored into a decision to grant or not grant TE were a fresh request made, did not involve a use of the tool. Removing it would've more been a matter of a "vote of no confidence", one might say, rather than a direct response to sustained abuse of the tools, and such things should really be done by community consensus (or whatever the nearest analog is), rather than a single person. Our rules against wheel warring can tend to create a first-mover advantage in these scenarios, which also makes a consensus-backed decision preferable, though I doubt that MSGJ had that in mind when they removed the rights, and despite the fact that the letter of the law technically gives the advantage to the second mover. Moreover, T13 is by and large a productive editor, certainly a net positive overall.
  However, I can't say that the removal was totally unjustified or outside the realm of reasonability, either. Persistence in the face of opposition is not always a bad thing, no, but if it involves substantive, non-discussion changes, it usually is (hence our rules against edit-warring), and if advanced permissions are used to make said changes, it almost certainly is (hence our rules against wheel warring). T13's problem, it seems to me, has always been a simple dogged stubbornness, and this isn't the first time it's gotten him in trouble by any means. There's a fine line between persistence and pigheadedness, and I think T13 strays over the line too much. This thread is an example of that. Compounding the issue is that T13 has made enemies from this (most notably Hasteur), and it seems that these feuds affect his judgement (see also this). (To be honest, if interaction bans weren't seen as such a horrifying badge of shame, I'd propose one between Hasteur and T13; I think that would solve quite a bit of the drama surrounding them.) Finally, when called on this, T13 tends to double-down on his position; this leads to excuses like "nobody's perfect". I don't think these are "nobody's perfect, let's laugh it off" kinds of mistakes; these are "I'm sorry, this won't happen again" kinds of mistakes, and T13's response so far seems to be more of the former than the latter.
  I suppose what I really want here is for T13 to retain (or regain, I suppose) TE rights by making assurances that, from now on, and with the understanding that it has been a problem for them in the past, they will scrupulously follow the rules about involved use of advanced permissions, edit warring, and wheel warring, and that, if there could be any doubt about those policies at all, they will opt for discussion or abstention, rather than action. I don't really think that losing T13's edits in this area is a good thing in and of itself. But, given the drama that has continued to generate, I don't think a simple restoration without any assurances is wise; allowing MSGJ's removal to stand for now might be the lesser of two "evils", so to speak. So, reluctant support of tool removal for now, with hopes for a restoration soon is what I'd go for, I guess. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In regards to the editor interaction between Hasteur and I, there are a lot of places where our interest and contributions overlap, and not all interactions between us are negative. I've suggested an interaction ban between the two of us on at least one occasion in relation to a specific topic, but I didn't feel like anyone heard me.

  As to your concern of follow the rules about involved use of advanced permissions, edit warring, and wheel warring, I'm stubbornly going to maintain that there was no edit/wheel warring. I didn't revert any changes by anyone here. What I did do was carefully read the edit summaries of the reversion of my various edits and then modify the improvement of the template to address those concerns. Isn't that what we are suppose to do? In hind sight, I admitted that my first edit of the template fell under

  WP:TPE#ND where no discussion is needed. There was no dispute about adding a class that had no visual effect on the template by anyone. The only dispute was using the {{#if:{{REVISIONID}}|{{#ifeq:{{REVISIONID}}|0|show stuff|hide stuff}} method of hiding the template in page edit mode. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c}

  ) 21:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose reinstatement of permission I'd be willing to accept this if it were the first, second, or third time where T13's usage of the right was not in line with the reasons that the permission are gratned, but Technical 13 has consistently shown a lack of clue and fulfilling requests. There have been multiple cases where T13's "improvements" have either introduced new functionality that is not called for in a template, being stubborn in fufilling requests clearly backed by community consensus, breaking templates followed by rapid fire "fixes" causing a significant amount of Update Server passes, and using the privilege to win out over opposition to their change. There have been multiple suggestions to Technical 13 to exercise more caution when dealing with Templates, with responses to Template-Edit-Protected requests, with responding to complaints about their editing, and in general with their Customer Support (See their talk page and archives for the numerous gravestones where complaints go to be ignored or flippantly rejected by Technical 13). Until there is maturity/clue/tact, we should not be granting T13 such right. And by the way
  WP:HATSHOP in preperation for collecting the supreme golden key of the Janitor's closet (Adminship). Hasteur (talk
  ) 22:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • The big hiccup in that hypothesis, of course, is that I've repeatedly turned down suggestion on my talk page that I should run a RfA. I also hope that you properly notify all those editors you mentioned on their talk pages. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• (uninvolved) Besides the discussion mentioned above that was moved to Template talk:Archive basics, there was also a side discussion about maximum Size of Archives and I just added an update in the Three archive maximums section.
  Cheers. —Telpardec (talk) 22:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I came here after Hasteur's linking of my username above sent me a notification. I have had a few minor interactions with Technical 13, and encountered them at a few other discussions. The impression I have formed has been of technical skill combined with a lack of maturity, and of a focus on technical matters with inadequate regard to the importance of the community of editors.
  The evidence of edit-warring on protected templates is alarming, because changes to high-visibility templates create server load issues and affect many articles. That appears at first sight to be very good grounds for endorsing removal of the privilege.
  My hesitation, and the reason why I am not so far making an explicit endorsement, is that this seems to me to be an example of a type of social problem which the community repeatedly struggles to resolve: an editor with a valuable skillset whose value is undermined by drama. I think of a very fine content-contributor who made an art-form of incivility, and polarised the community between those who placed greatest weight on the fine articles and those who prioritised the maintenance of a collegial editing environment. I was deeply involved in at least one round of the Betacommand saga, where a genius at coding bots had the social skills of an anti-personnel mine.
  This case is nowhere near those extremes, but we are faced with a similar set of issues. My instinct is to follow en.wp's default Pavlovian approach, removing privileges when abused and reinstating them when the editor has demonstrated a renewed ability to work collegially. Maybe this is the best we can do, but I wish we could find a better way :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment – I have been involved in a couple of incidents in which an editor asked for a change to a protected template, and Technical 13 posted a refusal to make the change, even though there was a consensus among other editors that the change should be made. I hope that these times when he did not edit a template will not be presented as a reason to withhold the Template Editor right. No editor should or can be forced to make a change that he feels is wrong, just because he happens to have the technical skill and permissions to make it. The template editor right is a technical right, given to those who are trusted to have the technical skill not to mess up the templates. If T13 or any another template editor doesn't want to make a certain change, and speaks up against it, this should be perfectly okay. This makes that editor is “involved”, and another template editor or an admin with the appropriate tech skills should come along and look for a consensus to make the requested change, taking all comments into account. This happens with other types of discussions all the time – at AfD for example. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  I don't think that a simple refusal to make an edit is the issue at question here: of course nobody is forced to act if they don't want to. But there's a difference between simply deciding not to personally implement a request that one doesn't agree with on the one hand and actually marking a request (with which they are intimately involved) as closed-rejected on the other (see here). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  With respect to Anne Delong There's a difference between declining to implement the request yourself (and explaining why you don't see a reason to) and actively rejecting a edit request. Further, in the case identified by Writ Keeper the base request is an attempt to force the Revert over a BOLD action that Technical 13 did themselves using the Template Editor right. While T13 may have had the technical ability, their ability to interpert consensus when against them clearly indicates that we run the risk of having actions similar to the ones that T13 is already on notice for occurring again which is the exact reason we should keep the permission revoked until such time that protecting Wikipedia from a reckless privilege holder is no longer in question. Hasteur (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  To add some perspective, this is the equivalent of an admin blocking a user, then the editor uses the unblock template and the same admin reviews his/her own block and declines. While template editors aren't admin, they still hold an advanced permission bit, so the behavioral expectation is similar: If you use the bits, you don't prevent or shut down independent review. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  That's a rather clumsy analogy (no offense intended). What I see is that T13 made a bold edit, as he is known to do. A request for it to be reverted entirely is made by Hasteur. Instead of proceeding with that request, further discussion ensues to pinpoint exactly what the objection is (the arrows pointing to the Save Page button or whatever). The content that was the cause of the "dispute" is removed (and thus the objection resolved), and the request for full reversion of the edit is closed as having been resolved another way. I would be more inclined to encourage and applaud this process as efficient and constructive than to condemn it. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Anytime anyone's actions are under review, they shouldn't be the one to close the review. That is a universal truth here, no matter how you assign the responsibility of advanced bits. While "efficiency" is always good, it isn't the end goal, equity and transparency are. Note that I've not voiced an opinion on the removal of tools, and limited my observations to framing this singular example of less than perfect judgement. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  I agree that it would have been better for the sake of transparency for someone uninvolved to close the actual edit request, as is standard when one's actions are under review, but I honestly think that it would have made no difference on the end result and that this eschewing of bureaucratic procedures was neither in bad faith, nor conferred an "undue advantage" to anyone. I do not believe T13 acted this way in order to actively avoid review, but merely because he considered leaving it open for someone else to do what he could himself do was very inefficent. Due process is important, but most people who accomplished bold changes in the world's history did not adhere to the "due process" and still produced constructive results. I'm not excusing the entirety of T13's uncommonly bold actions, but I think it is important to keep in sight that the end result remains, for the most part, desirable for the project. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Let's look at this carefully. Hasteur requested ONLY this change undone, this is one template out of six using the exact same format (seems like a

  I can't hear you response was very inappropriate and personally attacking essentially calling me a flat out lair despite linking to all the diffs showing the consensus to keep going. The only objection was this editor's comment that said they thought the chain of arrows was unnecessary, but there should be a step-by-step guide like Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/How to edit with a video and screenshots illustrating the editing steps would be good to help complete newcomers. I interpreted this as "something is needed", and since I'm not adept at making such videos, the arrows was "something". Regardless, this was not an instance where the userright was an issue. The complaint was at brand new, still unprotected preload templates that anyone could edit. I created the templates, Hasteur made a bold change to what I created, I reverted it and said let's discuss it and started the discussion (which all editors that revert are suppose to do, if you revert, it is your responsibility to start a discussion). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c}

  ) 23:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  I'm a bit confused by the description of events, since as can be seen

  from the discussion, Technical 13's next comment in the discussion thread was six hours later, where he said he removed the arrows, so I don't see any period when my comment was used to support their inclusion (and it would be odd to do so, given that I explicitly said they were unnecessary, and more confusing than helpful). Also note that immediately after my comment, another editor raised an objection, and Technical 13 replied to it and later included it in a timeline of events, indicating their awareness of it. isaacl (talk

  ) 00:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

  As I said, I acknowledged that "something" was needed. Based on your comment and the other discussion, I realized the the little arrows that direct a new user that may have never edited on Wikipedia before weren't what the WPAFC community wanted, so I spent a little time thinking about it and came up with something else (the addition of a demonstration Save page button to show them what to look for). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 12:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse removal. Right now, Category:Wikipedia template-protected edit requests is empty. I rarely see a backlog here. We have 83 template editors, and my general impression is that T13 has been disproportionately responding to these requests, and often in a less than user-friendly manner, particularly with "not done" rejections. By taking requests out of the queue, he removes the opportunity for another more editor-friendly template editor to perhaps understand and implement a request. In particular, I'm thinking of the "please specify precisely the edit you want to make" kind of rejections. A more helpful template editor might understand what the requester wants to do, and suggest the technical change that would do it. This is just my general impression, sorry for not taking the time to dig up specific examples. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Could you clarify whether you endorse removal of the user right because it was abused or misused? Your post seems more to imply that you would prefer that T13 doesn't respond to edit requests, but nothing about the removal of the user right itself. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Perhaps Wbm1058 has something like this in mind. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Historically, the burden of providing a clear, complete and consensus-backed edit request has always been on the requester. Edit requests at all levels are routinely declined for small missing details (as was the case here). That someone else (you, in this case) went "the extra mile" to fulfill an otherwise incomplete edit request is entirely to your credit, but should not be held against the original decliner. If you want to change that so that a template-protected-edit-request shifts that responsability partly from the requester to the responder, I'd actually support that, but I do not believe that this is something currently in effect. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I feel that, per the examples given by others previously, the right has been abused or misused to the point that merits removal of the right, for some minimum unspecified time. I was adding my perpsective, and Redrose gives a good example of that, I'm sure others can be found. I've had an "edit skirmish" with T13 as well: see Template talk:TL. A lot of these may not seem particularly severe when taken in isolation, but after a while, they add up, and we reach a point like this... Wbm1058 (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Another wonderful inconsistency. I'm admonished and de-TEed because I allegedly don't know how to get consensus before editing, and then during the discussion for this, I'm admonished because I asked for a link to the consensus of a requested change. Per
  WP:PER it is the requesting editors responsibility to show that a consensus has been reached before requesting an edit with the edit protected templates. I closed this example as such. I hope you do see how this can be confusing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c}
  ) 12:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This is really not that inconsistent, and you shouldn't be that confused. In some cases which may be assumed to be not controversial you could be more bold and proactive. Maybe ask for a link to consensus without closing the request, and wait a reasonable time before closing if it becomes evident that such a link will not soon be forthcoming. In cases that are controversial, you need to be less bold. It's OK to sometimes assume wrong re: controversial or not, but once a request becomes obviously controversial, then slow down and seek a consensus. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• If I oppose the change, does that not make the request controversial? Also, leaving the request open for another
  is against current policy and I'm assuming consensus. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c}
  ) 21:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, yes, if anyone opposes an edit request, then that request is potentially controversial and should be discussed. My comments are supplementary to the rights-removal decision, and in response to your statement "As one of the top User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable responders, being a member of this user group is required to continue my work." "Sometimes responding editors may request further information, and disable the template"... you're not required to immediately disable the template. A judgement call, and—just my opinion—being a little slower on the "not done" trigger can seem to be a more "editor-friendly" response. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I may request further information, but if I do, than the template should be disabled. That is what it says. It is a linear if...then statement. If I request further info ... then disable the template. Also, I've seen maybe a handful out of hundreds of requests that I have closed reopened with more information or clarification. I've also seen what happens when these requests are left open, either someone else comes by and disables the template, or they stay open without an answer for weeks or months and I find making a requester wait that amount of time for a definitive response to their request far more bitey than closing the request (which clearly says that when they add more information they are welcome to reopen the request or start a new request) asking for more details or clarity. Why should it be my fault that they are too lazy to clarify or reopen the request or start a new request? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:17, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're also not reading the directions in the big tan PER template on every request that reads; "The edit may be made by any template editor. Remember to change the <code>|answered=''no''</code> parameter to "'''yes'''" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category." — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Reluctant endorse removal. So, there's a lot to unpackage here. I'm really disappointed to see a "request denied" response from MSGJ in terms of an explanation. There should have been one. I'm also not really convinced that nature of T13's edits on Template:Documentation could cause any systemic problems (but I think that the nature of the template itself necessitated some caution in editing). T13's experience in template editing is definitely valuable.

That said, this is another example of T13's bold approach that is in conflict with the need for discussion. Like

WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, it is anything but collaborative. I agree with Writ Keeper's assessment that T13 engages these situations with too much stubbornness and it is not conducive to being a template editor in the long run. I want to see T13 reinstated, but he should acknowledge that this was not a collaborative process and that simply withdrawing from templates is not actually a solution to the broader concerns expressed here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line}

02:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The Template Editor page gives a fair amount of direction about care in making changes to the templates, but very little direction about responding to requests. In fact, I had to go through two more links to find the instructions, where it says 'Once the request has been responded to, the responding editor should disable the protected edit request template by changing the |answered= parameter to "yes"'. This makes it sound as though any kind of response triggers the “yes”. Protected templates can be edited either by Admins or Template editors, but Template Editors, while expected to follow Wikipedia policies, are mainly chosen for their technical expertise, and may not all be experienced in judging consensus. Should the information on the Template Editor page be expanded with some direction about answering requests? For example, perhaps the instructions could say that the “answered=yes” should be added if the request was fulfilled, or if the request was not fulfilled for clearly explained technical reasons, but that if a TE disagreed with the edit for other reasons he or she could leave a comment or join a discussion about why the edit was a bad idea, or just ignore the request, but should refrain from adding the “answered=yes”, so that other Template Editors or Admins would still see it. If this had been clearly written, Technical 13 may have avoided some missteps. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  That sounds like a good idea to me. I imagine that it's easy for technically-minded editors to interpret instructions like that too literally, and I think some clarification on how to judge consensus when responding to edit requests would be welcome at both

  WP:PER when answering requests", or something similar. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪}

  10:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  I like this idea, but think that the wording etc. need to be tweaked a little. I'd rather see something that specifically discouraged setting answered to yes by the editor that made a bold change ( this does not include one where the editor just implemented an edit request with consensus ) where the request was for a revert to begin the BRD, unless they are reverting as part of answering. I see a loop hole in that if a TE makes a bold edit for what they believe to be technical reasons that they might not see the issue in answering requests that they revert themselves. I also worry that change is too tight disallowing answered=yes in rejecting requests. We do not require editors to be admin to close many types of discussions, if there were previous discussions on a topic that rejected something I don't see why a TE shouldn't be allowed to just reject an end run edit request etc. Perhaps something like if disagreeing with an requested edit if there are no objections, the responder should post there concerns and not set answered=yes. If there already are other objections and no consensus then they can set answered=yes and add a comment requesting that consensus be sought before trying again or the like. PaleAqua (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

  • I was leaving them open for others that might want to go the extra mile trying to decipher an incomplete or unclear request, until I got yelled at for it. I swear, I can't win on some of this stuff. I do what I think is right, and get told I'm doing it wrong. I change my way to make that user happy (which Jackmcbarn endorsed and that is why his user script has the quick close buttons that I often use), and now I'm being told that was bitey and I'm doing it wrong... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Sounds like a good argument for why that that bit of the instructions needs to be clarified and/or tweaked. PaleAqua (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. Note: I was one of the two editors that reverted Technical 13's recent edits to Template:Documentation and Module:Documentation. I think it's a shame that the situation has had to escalate this far, but I broadly agree with MSGJ's removal of T13's template editor rights. I was surprised that T13 didn't stop to dicuss his recent edits to Template/Module:Documentation, and I think that this plus the past incidents that were brought up on T13's talk page by Hasteur are enough grounds for removal of the right. We require that template editors respect consensus when using their right, and template editors who don't do this (whether purposefully or not) are going to create significant friction in the community. However, as I said, it is a shame for Technical 13 to lose these rights; he has done an awful lot of hard work editing templates and answering edit requests, and he deserves recognition for that, rather than vilification. I would support restoring the rights if T13 can show that he understands where he went wrong this time, and if he can show that he is willing to make the effort to follow the rules more strictly in the future. Writ Keeper has made some good suggestions above about how he might go about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Unfortunate support T13 is indeed a fairly technical person when it comes to HTML coding, etc. That's a positive. However, they suffer from an unfortunate case of "fukyouiamrightitis", which has been a part of the personality since they joined the project. One only has to go back to their first ANI dust-up about blinking signature functions, which led to an editing restriction as condition of unblock (which they continue to violate as they add their personal desires into signature guidelines and loudly proclaim as law). People who hold any form of advanced permission must be able to respond to concerns in their editing with something other than "fukyouiamright". Until this communication/criticism acceptance improves, it's unfortunate that the permission needs to be removed the panda ɛˢˡ” 11:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Back in February I approached Technical 13 to voice my concerns about his editing of protected templates, in particular regarding frequent re-reverts without discussing the concerns of the revert first (...#Protected templates). This still seems to be the case, so I agree with MSGJ's action. Amalthea 12:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
• As the administrator who removed the template editor userright from Technical 13, I guess I should probably comment here and respond to some others' comments. Firstly I would like to make it clear that this was not a rushed or instinctive reaction to the most recent spate of problems, but a measured response to a long history of concerns and issues with the use of the userright. I do not intend to provide full details or diffs, but they most can be found in T13's talk archives. The concerns are numerous, from not taking enough care when editing templates, not seeking consensus for changes, re-implementing controversial changes which have been disputed, acting while "involved", and using the userright to enforce his preferred version of templates. I did not engage with T13 on my talk page because he should have been well aware of the reasons for removal and I regarded his tone as a form of wikilawyering. In response to Writ Keeper, I would point out that the userright is handed out on the decision of one admin, so I do not think it is inappropriate that it is removed in a similar manner. In conclusion I would like to acknowledge T13's technical work with templates, and suggest that he take a lengthy break before requesting the template editor userright again. He surely has a lot to offer the project, but the mistakes and drama were starting to outweigh the positives. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Your claim for why you removed the right looks a lot like a to prevent further disruption to the project yet you did it after I said I was done with it and wouldn't be touching the template or module anymore. This seems like an entirely
    punitive misuse of the administrative tools. I would expect an administrator to not be a part of such a misuse of the term of wikilawyering, but I digress. In response to the response to Writ Keeper, the right is given out by one administrator just like that admin right is given out by one crat. I'd say that there was plenty of support for me getting the right based on the comments left on my talk page and that a community consensus should have been reached before removing the right as there was no danger to the encyclopedia in waiting. I'll also go on to mention there are other projects that are now waiting on me to make changes and fix things that are being held up by me not having the right and this loss of the right has resulted in a net loss to the project. Hopefully things get set right soon, so things can start getting fixed. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c}
    ) 12:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose restoration of right, per MSGJ above. T13 having this right is not a net positive, based on past observations. --John (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) In addition to any sanctions stemming directly from this decision, any new areas of conflict which involve contemporary American political and social issues may be placed under standard discretionary sanctions by the Committee without the need for a full case. Requests for new sanctions may be made at

WP:ARCA

. In evaluating such a request, the Committee will consider factors such as the length and severity of editor-behavior issues in the topic area, whether other remedies have proved inadequate to address the issues, and relevant community input

2) Arzel (talk · contribs) is limited to one revert of any specific edit every seven days, excepting unambiguous vandalism. If he should violate this sanction he may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator. This restriction may not be appealed for one year, and appeals will be limited to one every six months thereafter.

3) Arzel (talk · contribs) is warned that continuing to personalize or politicize content disputes is disruptive to the project, and continuing behavior of this nature may lead to further sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project.

For the Arbitration Committee, S Philbrick(Talk) 14:21, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss this

Template Editor Jackmcbarn

Closed. I'm sorry, but the language and tones used hear make this look like a vendetta, especially since the time between the protected edit request and this post was a scant two hours.

involved, since 'templateeditor' is an admin right. Technical 13: Stop trying to cause drama. "They're controversial as I have opposed them" makes it clear there isn't really a problem with the edits in and of themselves. Reaper Eternal (talk

) 16:47, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'm requesting the de-TEing of

TPE #3 revocation criteria as can be seen here, here, and here. This user is refusing to revert their controversial changes which have been disputed, acting while "involved", and using the userright to enforce his preferred version of templates. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c}

) 15:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

They weren't controversial changes. Multiple editors supported them in a discussion before they were made, I made them, and now you (just you) are opposing them. Also, this request seems rather

WP:POINTy, since you just lost your TE rights in the discussion above at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Template Editor User:Technical 13. Jackmcbarn (talk

) 15:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• (
  CANVASS other editors. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c}
  ) 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

no-one supported making this change before it was done That's blatantly false, especially since

WP:CANVASS you think it violated. Jackmcbarn (talk

) 16:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• You show me where Timtrent proposed that the button be removed from the template for all users in edit mode before the change was made. I want to see that diff because I have seen no such thing. As to what part of canvassing was violated, we might go with
  campaigning based on the tone of your message directing the people who commented that it was helping reduce new editor issues with the button. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c}
  ) 16:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The diff would be this one, specifically "Is there a way that this route can be intercepted and turned into a valid submission?". Though he didn't mention the exact mechanism at the time, it's clear from his later postings that my solution was indeed what he wanted. Also, here's the exact message I posted that you call canvassing:

Technical 13 has now requested that I lose my TE rights for not reverting the changes. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive263#Template Editor Jackmcbarn. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

According to

WP:CANVASS, campaigning is "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.". That message is purely factual. You did indeed open this thread to request I lose TE, and the reason is indeed that I declined to revert the changes. Jackmcbarn (talk

) 16:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Boomerang. It would have been better if these changes had come as a direct action of a edit request, but I see no major objections to the concept of this prior to T13 deciding to try and force a revert. Even in the edit requests it's clear that T13 would much rather reach for the Revert than discuss the solution. I also agree that this request for permission revocation is highly pointy and would appreciate it if T13 would demonstrate a point 2 argument as the point 3 argument is weak at best. Hasteur (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• As you wish, there is also a demonstration of
  the editor demonstrating a pattern of performing obviously controversial edits to protected templates without first determining consensus. Also, I'll note that the "Discussion" phase is suppose to happen after the "revert" phase unless you are capable of making a change that eliminates the need for the reversion in order to properly discuss, which I am not capable of doing. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c}
  ) 16:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not a pattern, since this is the only example you have, and it's not obviously controversial, since again, you're the only one opposing it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• It is a pattern as there are multiple refusals on multiple requests and I'm not sure why you think that there needs to be more than one editor that opposes something to make it controversial. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

To make something obviously controversial, it can't be one person opposing and everyone else in favor. Nobody would have expected for you to object to those changes before they were made. And even though multiple edit requests were involved, it's still not a pattern, since you created them all at once, and I responded all at once. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• Some thoughts, in no particular order:

  1. Jack, as MSGJ said on the discussion in question, your actions here were not of the wisest variety. In questionable cases, always err on the side of underinvolving yourself.

  2. T13, your method of going about this is making you look like you're reacting in anger to losing your own TE right by trying to level the playing field so your "opponent" can't have his either. Which is to say, regardless of whether or not the complaint has merit, your making it this way is hurting your case.

  3. Perhaps this is a side effect of my not being involved in template policy/editing, but the evidence being presented here is not doing a good job of showing me where the dispute was (linking to a diff doesn't tell me how it involved using TE to get the upper hand) or whether there is a larger pattern of misuse here (the diffs T13 provides are all from today, and all involve T13).

  4. With the caveat that per #3 I may be missing something, this looks a lot like two people who don't much care for each other bashing each other with sticks and disrupting the work everyone else is trying to do in the process. That is the absolute opposite of the way advanced user rights are intended to be used, and I advise you both to disengage from each other. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter:

1. Indeed. I now realize that closing them myself was a bad idea.

3. I made edits to some template-protected templates, T13 opened edit requests to request I self-revert, and I declined to the requests and marked them answered. After T13 raised his issue, there was no further use of the TE right involved.

4. I wouldn't say we "don't much care for each other". We got along fine for a long time, and it's just been this past week that there have been issues. (And I'd like for it all to return to normal.)

Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that this discussion is very productive or necessary. It seems to me the time would be better spent on the template's talk page discussing whether the changes should stick or a previous version should be restored, rather than here asking for bits removal from somebody one is in a dispute with. I note that if the issues are so egregious as to warrant removal of the bits, somebody else not in a dispute with the user is likely to notice and file a request here. It seems to me that it is far too personal for cool judgement ("They're controversial as I have opposed them" is quite possibly one of the most poorly worded statements I have seen.) Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 16:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A quickie?

 Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hey rock and rollers, we could use a quick close at Talk:Black_Sabbath_(album)#Genres_revisited--the matter does not appear to be controversial anymore. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

declared former COI

I've disclosed a former conflict of interest. Comment on the original thread, if necessary. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to provide some more explanation ... and the discussion was supposed to be held here about this, not there. the panda ₯’ 00:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• For interested passers-by, the particularly interesting thing about this is that it involves WikiExperts, and a recent article that Atama and I were both not quite sure what to say about. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

UTRS backlog

If there are any admins about with a moment to spare, could you please pop into

UTRS to review the handful of old requests there? I'm bumping up against a couple of my own blocks there, and some of the appeals are quite old. Cheers in advance, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots}

18:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Authoritative basis of threats to temporarily desysop as a "WMF action"

Ok, we have apologies from both sides, and we've all sung kum by ya. Yes, there are issues with media viewer, and community is displeased, but it's not going to be dealt with in this forum the panda ₯’ 00:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Eloquence has just threatened Peteforsyth with a temporary desysop if he modifies the whole site's JavaScript again. This is in response to an action Peteforsyth took following this discussion about disabling the Media Viewer feature (following consensus in the RfC on that topic).

Here is the threat:

Per Fabrice's explanation, please refrain from further edits to the site JavaScript, or I will have to temporarily revoke your admin privileges. This is a WMF action.--

*

20:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know exactly what the definition of such a "WMF action" is. What is its authoritative basis in being used to unilaterally threaten the temporary suspension of tool access from an editor? — Scott • talk 22:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it partly had to do with the fact that that action by Pete disabled Media Viewer for all users regardless of preference (based on what I have read). (Non-administrator comment)

(talk)

22:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the threat: It's odd and disheartening, because Erik knows very well that edit-warring is not my style. But from the broad view, I don't think any further action is needed -- he clarified his statement on my talk page. The bigger issue here is not about threats and such, we can let that go. The bigger issue is how far the Wikimedia Foundation will go to impose its disagreement with a carefully considered and strong community consensus. I suppose we don't know the answer to that yet, but I'd say we have seen some surprising things in the last few hours. -Pete (talk) 23:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I've provided some context here; please also see Fabrice's detailed response.--

*

23:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@Eloquence: I didn't ask for "context". I asked for an explanation of what authority you claim to make such a threat. Please answer the question. — Scott • talk 23:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• Well, a formal WMF warning would need to come from their formal WMF account, not a normal user account. Making such a "threat", while possibly valid, would not be actionable as a WMF action the panda ₯’ 23:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Not all staff use multiple accounts; especially those with long history in the projects often do not, myself included. For this reason I always clearly specify when acting on behalf of WMF, as stated in the disclaimer on my user page. In this case, I am doing so.--

*

23:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

My bad then - it's a rarity. However, while

WP:CONSENSUS? I can understand undoing the changes and saying "the WMF will take this discussion into account and address it formally shortly", but not slap someone's wrists for doing what they were asked to do by the community the panda ₯’

23:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my message to Pete came across as heavy-handed. I wanted to be clear that we're not going to disable this feature, as per Fabrice's response to the RFC, and that applies to changes implemented in site JavaScript/CSS as well. But you're right that an explanation without a warning would have sufficed.--

*

00:10, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

As I was about to comment; This is Erik's 'formal WMF account' in theory

talk

) 23:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I am also interested in what a 'WMF action' is. Its not an OFFICE action as that has quite specific criteria. I will be darned if I can find anything anywhere that supports the Deputy Director, Vice President of Engineering and Product Development threatening to desysop a Wikipedia Admin for implementing community consensus. Other than of course, because he can. It doesnt look good for the new ED if ANOTHER technical 'upgrade' is rejected due to its shoddy nature... Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

See my above comment. I believe that also disabled it for users with the feature enabled, although feel free to prove me wrong if I am mistaken.

(talk)

23:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

True true. Of course it would not have happened if they had listened to the community in the first place and switched the badly-written piece of junk to off by default. But there we go, water under the bridge etc. I am still interested in finding out what a WMF action is though. Because at the moment it seems to be 'What we want but dont care if anyone else does". Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

While you are completely free to state your opinion, you don't need to be rude about it; there are certain disadvantages and advantages in using Media Viewer regardless of whether you choose to see them.

(talk)

23:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I would think the outright rejection of it on multiple projects with extensive descriptions of its flaws and why it is not fit-for-purpose are enough justification for the above comments. But I will withdraw 'Badly written'. I stand by shoddy and junk however. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems that the WMF may refuse to create a possible implementation in which the feature is off by default, but possible for users to enable. If that is the case, I don't know how possible it is for the volunteer community to implement that. Is it possible we will need another RfC to determine whether it is preferable to have it disabled entirely, vs. the current implementation that has been rejected? Is there another way forward? That seems pretty awful to me, but better than the current standoff. I am disappointed that we are not learning about the WMF's refusal to work with this consensus until after the closure of a strong consensus that evolved over a period of 30 days. -Pete (talk) 23:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Why is that surprising though? It is not the first time they ignore consensus. Consensus *here* is meaningless to them when it comes to their pet projects. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Disable it by default and provide a browser extension for those who would like to opt-in to using it. That implements the consensus. If that's too clunky, the Wikimedia Foundation can cooperate to produce a better solution. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that we have little recourse here. Regardless he was acting on community consensus, so that does seem like an unnecessarily heavy handed way to deal with the concern, it was done in a way that drives a wedge between the community and the Foundation. A bit demeaning and assumptive, to be frank. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any way that

WP:OFFICE as "Office actions are official changes made on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation, by members of its office. These are removals of questionable or illegal Wikimedia content following complaints. Office actions are performed so that the end result is a legally compliant article on the subject". There's no way that enabling tools that were disabled based on local consensus to do so falls under that definition.—Kww(talk

) 23:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, guys -- while I acknowledge that there is some reason for concern about @Eloquence:'s civility toward certain members of the movement, this is not the time or place for it -- it's a distraction from the important issues at hand. I've known Erik for many years, and sometimes we don't agree, and sometimes we don't express that in the best way. Between the two of us, I am confident in saying that both of us have been at fault at one point or another. The threat is not a big deal IMO, and I would be much happier if we could let that piece of it go. -Pete (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

He just overrode community consensus with a single revert and threat. You can't expect the community to just look the other way. added Although the below may in part explain the authority, perhaps that should have been explained. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a hell of a way to talk to a volunteer.

Chillum

23:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

To put it as eloquently as I can, he can fuck right off with that bullshit. This is a consensus based community project, we do not kowtow to the corporate hierarchy. -- John Reaves 00:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You're looking for

WP:CONEXCEPT. Alanscottwalker (talk

) 00:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I guess we are stuck with the image viewer.

Chillum

00:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"You made a link to a disambig" warning fault

• I received one of those link-to-disambig messages; it is at User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Disambiguation link notification for July 7. But it did not contain the usual link to the process that automatically lists the disambig possibilities and lets the user click on the correct choice. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vpt#Other_tools. --S Philbrick(Talk)

13:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Visual Editor has made it easier for editors to introduce disambiguation errors, and now one of the main tools to clean up these errors has been taken away. It seems like no one with the power to do anything about it cares to promote the accuracy of links in the encyclopedia. This is very disheartening. bd2412 T 13:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Visual Editor is a god awful tool, if ever we make it mandatory that will be the end of my contributions to WP. GimliDotNet ^{(Speak to me,Stuff I've done)} 13:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you'll be the only one... Peridon (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

There are no plans to disable the wikitext editor.

VisualEditor now actually makes it easier to avoid dab links, because its link tool puts dab links in a separate, labeled list. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

@

WP:VPT: search for "Dispenser", that being the provider of these tools. --Redrose64 (talk

) 14:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Regarding Visual Editor and disambiguation, see Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive 2014 3#Link disambiguation for a recent discussion on this topic between myself and the product manager. Wbm1058 (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

dab solver was working yesterday for other links. I think the author is trying to make the stuff work with the changed servers. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

• I got into "fix with Dab solver" just now, but it said that I do not have permission to run it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• This loss of toolserver dabfix is a serious inconvenience. Is there any chance the tools will be salvaged? In ictu oculi (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The community sanctions related to men's rights should be removed.

ENOUGH.

I wanted to think of something witty to say in this close, but couldn't. Heat > light, and the consensus is clear: the community sanctions will not be removed. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The community article sanctions placed on the men's rights movement no longer serve a purpose and should be removed. There have been a fairly decent number of productive, positive contributors to this topic area in the past - almost all of them have either left the topic area or significantly reduced their editing. There's a distinct reason why: the community has consistently demonstrated that it is unwilling to enforce even our most basic behavioral and content policies in the entire topic area, despite the presence of said article probation. Since the article probation no longer has a point, there's no point in leaving it in place.

I was one of the first highly active contributors in the general area to try to approach article writing with the idea that we should use high quality reliable sources and stick to the same basic content policies that apply to other areas of Wikipedia. When I started editing the topic area, articles literally said shit like 'anti-dowry laws are a form of legal terrorism' and suggested that all feminist organizations use the fear of domestic violence to oppress men. I've also been one of the most patient and persistent contributors to the topic area, explaining our basic content policies calmly and politely to dozens of new contributors spending tremendous quantities of time assuming good faith of newbies (who, oftentimes, were organized by the men's right subreddit or similar groups.)

There have been a fairly decent number of other productive, positive contributors to this topic area at various points in the past. The vast majority of them have either left the topic area or substantially reduced their editing. This is not coincidental: consistently dealing with an influx of consistent mostly good faith editors who don't understand that the purpose of Wikipedia is not to push a POV is taxing, but consistently having to deal with long-term disruptive editors who have not made any positive contributions in the topic area whatsoever who can't be removed from the topic area is maddening. I lasted longer than most editors in the topic area but dealing with the community's unwillingness to enforce even our most basic behavioral and content policies in the entire topic area has made it an entire area no longer worth touching for me, and I'll be dewatchlisting every related page (being optimistic, I give it thirty days before the whole suite of article is worse than it originally was.)

Since the community has consistently demonstrated that it is unwilling to enforce even our most basic behavioral and content policies in the entire topic area, we should not pretend that we are willing to do so by continuing to have the apparent sanctions in place, and in refusing to do so, we should acknowledge what the result will be: another large topic area controlled by fringe activists because those who aren't fringe activists are not generally willing in the long-term to tolerate complete bullshit with no support from the community. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Kevin, this isn't your finest hour. Obvious
  WP:POINT. I almost closed and hatted this, but I got the feeling you wouldn't let it go at that. It is my opinion that this needs to be closed without action and Kevin go watch some TV for the evening. For reference, read this [23]. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER
  02:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Community sanctions are only useful as long as they serve an actual purpose. Community sanctions that no longer serve an actual purpose should be rescinded as obsolete. This set of community sanctions no longer serves an actual purpose, as demonstrated by the hilariously severe lack of retention of productive editors in this area. If you see them as still serving a valuable purpose, I'd invite you to point out what that purpose would be. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, I'm out of advice. I've asked you to just walk away for a day, the linked discussion shows you are upset, and this report is purely reactive and pointy. I understand you being upset and not saying you shouldn't be, but this is the worst way to deal with it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I would invite you to revisit my previous post and actually answer the question posed in it. We impose community sanctions for particular reasons, and if a particular set of community sanctions fails at fulfilling its goal, there is not a point in continuing them. So, without an articulatable and strong reason to have the sanctions still in place, they shouldn't stay in place. Whether or not I am upset (and I'm not, and would prefer if you discontinued speculating on my emotional state) is pretty irrelevant. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, you seem to be unaware of how presumptive your request is. You are asking the community to admit it made a mistake in their previous discussion, thus the cure is to remove the General Sanctions. That is the whole reason for me linking WP:POINT. It isn't even subtle, Kevin. You are upset, so perhaps you don't realize how blatant it is, but it is pretty obvious to everyone else. That is a false premise for a report, it is literally unactionable. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 03:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Community sanctions are not of infinite duration, and have been removed from multiple articles in the past - e.g., the Palin sanctions. Periodic review of whether or not sanctions should still be in place isn't WP:POINT, it's good practice. To paraphrase your last post in this section, most editors would be getting warned at this point for failing to address the substance of a post and instead speculating on the emotional state of editors. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I think all the people who were editing when I first noticed the main article which triggered these sanctions are still around and not completely dormant in the area. I'm sure I'm forgetting a few, but yourself, sonic, kaldari, pearl, slp, bink, are all still around. I know it's worth little to nothing, but don't strike your name off that list on a close that went against you. Arkon (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention of outing anyone's private motivations, but describing your list as incorrect would be a bit of an understatement. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Go write an article, add content, copy edit, upload a file, contribute to a project....anything that allows you to disengage from this and start doing something else.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

If this was aimed at me: posting a proposal suggesting we remove sanctions that no longer have a purpose hardly precludes me from doing other shit at the same time, both Wikimedia related and not Wikimedia related. It's a little bit disturbing that every response so far has not addressed the whole thing about 'Why should we continue to have community sanctions that have proven pointless?' Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm a few time zones away from you and have to get up in a few hours so I have to go. No one can address the issue because the request is fatally flawed. Kevin, most editors would be getting warned at this point for being pointy and disruptive, you are failing to get the point. You really need to come around. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 03:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Multiple sets of community sanctions have previously been revoked, generally at AN, with at least one occasion happening after someone involved in originally placing them suggested they no longer served a useful purpose. Stop speculating on my emotional state and address the actual legitimate issue raised here, or stop posting in this section. Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose removing community sanctions in the men's rights movement topic area. I think it it likely that I have made no edits in this area, and I am certain that if I have made any, they have been minor. So, I think I qualify as uninvolved. Such sanctions are not a magic bullet, and their failure to prevent all contentiousness in the area is not an argument to abandon them. I consider it likely that matters would be worse without the sanctions. It is not productive to hammer argumentatively about a point which has received no support from others. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment-This seems unpleasantly like a tantrum because the proposed ban on Memills failed to gain consensus. I suggest this thread be closed before it gets any sillier. Reyk _YO! 03:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah, someone might want to do something. Arkon (talk) 03:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. As one of the most active admins actually wielding MRM sanctions, I agree with Cullen. We would be far worse off without them. I also agree with
  pursuit, Kevin, and you're not helping the project. You're a smart fellow. Try to step back and look at it more objectively, and, yes, we are permitted to reasonably infer your motives from your conduct, even if we're wrong. We do it all the time.--Bbb23 (talk
  ) 05:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

With no effective sanctions taken in >6 months, there's not an obvious argument for keeping the probation in place. Though you're welcome to speculate on my motives, continually doing so instead of addressing the actual issue raised isn't exactly a convincing argument. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose lifting sanctions. The argument for lifting the sanctions fails to demonstrate the benefit gained thereby, or the harm prevented. My gut feeling is that the sanctions are a net good. I would prefer they be left in place. Binksternet (talk) 05:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Continuing sanctions requires active justification, not vice versa - without a reason to leave the sanctions in place, we should default to the position that anyone should be able to edit, in line with Wikipedia's general principles. With the last remotely effective action taken under the MRM probation that couldn't have been taken by any admin under their own authority being something like half a year ago, the argument to leave sanctions in place is lacking. It'd be a different issue if clear, direct violations of the sanctions were regularly acted on, but they aren't. Any admin reviewing recent MRM related activity would find a colossal number of actions that fall well within the bounds of activity sanctioned under the probation terms, yet essentially none have been taken action on. Absurdly selective enforcement bordering on no enforcement is, by itself, a pretty strong argument against continued sanctions. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:44, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Support Hell freezes over: Kevin and I agree. Memills (talk) 05:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose(edit conflict) - Per Cullen, Dennis and Bbb23.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
• one rule for one and another for others? the reporter here (K Gorman) has 4 reverting contribs to Androcide https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Androcide&action=history and has not a single twinkle warn on his chat page Mosfetfaser (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Time frames and context matter, broski. You can probably find pages I have >35 reversions on without receiving a warning for them, even ignoring the whole DTTR thing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

one more Five removals now https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Androcide&diff=616488017&oldid=616487883 - Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, five reverts. And if you continue to revert without justification or engaging on the talk page, I imagine it'll be six soon. If you disagree with my edit, take it to the talk page, and advance an actual reason for disagreeing with it. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, obviously. If the sanctions aren't working, the answer is surely to ask for more eyes and more action to get them working better. Dumping the sanctions is like saying "We haven't caught any thieves for ages, so we might as well make theft legal". Kevin's frustration is understandable, but this is not the way to solve the problem. (And as usual, Dennis offers wise advice) — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This would be a fine suggestion - in fact an excellent one - if it worked. It doesn't. The last meaningful sanction (and by meaningful, I mean not within an admin's normal discretionary abilities) taken under the sanctions was literally last year. Requests for additional eyes on the article have, in the past, resulted in additional eyes - for two weeks. 99.999% of articles on Wikipedia are not in sanctioned areas; this isn't like saying "We haven't caught any burglars lately in our special burglary enforcement zone, maybe we should dump the extremely uncommon ordinance because it doesn't work." What might solve the problem? Enforcing the probation ridiculously aggressively, which is not going to happen. In the absence of that, we're better off without the probation, and with a giant editnotice warning people that editing the article is likely to result in a comical number of personal attacks, a constant flood of tendentious editors (many of whom organize off-site,) an inability to actually rewrite the article to be a decent article, a constant uphill battle to get basic content and behavioral policies enforced, and no reasonable likelihood of administrative assistance. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Kevin, I get that your'e passionate about how you want the article to go, and I get that your'e passionate in the belief that something is now wrong with how sanctions are being enforced. You have a consensus that includes fellow sysops , that states the opposite. Let it go. I'm currently under a TBAN because I didn't, I'd hate to see that happen to you as well. Kosh Vorlon    11:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not passionate about how I want the article to go, except inasmuch as I'm passionate about wanting the article to use reliable sources and try to adhere to NPOV. You're under a topic ban because you committed a BLP violation on a page under arbcom sanctions, which is a significantly different situation than this. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Kevin feels entitled to complain. OK, that's probably healthy. But if Kevin weren't an admin but a mere reg editor, without admin-friend connections and maybe even some admin detractors, consider how smoothly the typical WP dumbed-down cliches and memes might fit for a setup for a lynching:

  The user exhibits overwhelming

  WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. The community has little choice now but to concede that this user is either unable or unwilling to find an epiphany he so desperately needs to be able to edit productively within the community. (We are here to build an encyclopedia, folks, and Wikipedia is not for everybody. Some just don't function well in a collaborative editing environment, and I'm afraid the time has come to recognize this user as a net negative to the encyclopedia. Time to show him to the door. It's either now, or be right back here in a couple weeks doing this all over again.) The user should be reminded that "Indefinite" is not "infinite", and after 6 months or a year he is welcome to return for reappraisal by his peers if the needed changes can be met. But perhaps it's best in the long run for everyone concerned if he would just find another hobby where he might be happier and can invest his time more productively.

  (All meaningless exaggeration of course. But does sound familiar too!? Even rehearsed!? [That's my point: Don't do this. To anyone. Stop the bullying. Use heads and be nice.]) Thanks for consider, Ihardlythinkso (talk

) 12:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Riotously funny! And, seriously disconcerting at the same time. Note the multitude of Kevin's WP policy violations just in this one AN section alone. The fact that Kevin has not been already been sanctioned (although Dennis Brown came close by informing Kevin that he needed to cool down or risk being sanctioned) is telling. A similar rant by a non-admin editor who reacted in this fashion to an AN decision that did not go their way would have been rapidly shut down and sanctioned. At Wikipedia some animals seem more equal than others. But this is no longer amusing or a sympathy case -- it needs to stop. Memills (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

IHTS, a post from you telling anyone else to stop bullying is comical. Half the meta discussions you contribute to could reasonably end with you receiving an NPA block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

You missed the point, Kevin. (Not surprising though.) And you're still on a roll. (Go for the gold!) 'Bullying' in the context I used it obviously refers to setup to block and/or sanction. (I can do neither to anybody. Duh. Nor have I used any of the memes against any editor on either of the AN/ANI cesspool boards. Almost all of them I've never used anywhere, period.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Kevin, your "That's comical" seems to be your pat insult -- I seem to recall your "That's laughable" response when I suggested you apologize to Eric Corbett for falsely accusing of 'grave dancing'. (But in the end you did apologize, didn't you!?) Time to trade in your pat insult for a new one, perhaps your old one is overused and misfires. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh! And. You seem to be obsessed with me. (Afterall, to conclude Half the meta discussions you contribute to means of course that you have reviewed all the discussions I've ever been in. [My! But it feels a little freaky you'd take such an interest. Please stop!?]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC) p.s. Love you too.

• Oppose The sanctions seem to be preventing more harm than they cause.
  Chillum
  15:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.