User talk:William JJ

Topic ban

Pursuant to Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, you are now topic-banned for three months. During that period, you are prohibited from editing any men's rights movement article or talk page, broadly construed. This ban is based on your previous block for edit warring, your admission of having an agenda, and the opening of an abusive RfC.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I appeal this?William Jockusch (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that prior to opening the RfC, I asked if there would be any reason not to. In other words, I was making an effort to follow process. One responder was in favor; another was opposed (but could not point to a prior rfC). If it had been that important not to, you could have said something at that time. Furthermore, although it is true that I have strong feelings about the matter, I took great care to word the RfC neutrally, per the rFc guidelines. I therefore do not understand how it can be considered abusive.William Jockusch (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Pursuant to the probation terms, you can appeal to me or to WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll start by appealing to you. See the above. Surely the purpose of an RfC is to resolve a contentious issue. And this issue is unquestionably contentious. Do not the Wikipedia guidelines for handling of contentious issues exist precisely so that someone who is concerned about a contentious issue can use them? That is what I was attempting to do, by getting the opinions of uninvolved editors.William Jockusch (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the surface, it sounds reasonable to open an RfC to get further comment, but in this instance, there were surrounding circumstances that tainted the RfC. The issue had been discussed many times before. Even you admitted that before you opened the RfC ("No question it has been discussed"). You dismissed it with "But has there been an RfC?" as if an RfC is required. WP:RFC states that you should discuss the matter on the talk page first, but "If that does not resolve the problem, some other forums for resolution include ..." In other words, there's no reason to go to any further dispute resolution if a consensus has been reached. Binksternet told you that: "There is no requirement for a formal RfC when the article is stable and all of its editors have come to an arrangement that they can live with."

In addition, there was your other comment before you started the RfC: "I perceive the "misogyny" thing as a slur aimed vaguely at anyone who likes the MRM. As such, I can't live with it." That's an agenda-driven, refusal-to-collaborate comment. No one should be making that kind of statement about any content issue, but particularly not in an area that is so highly contentious and suspicious of editors with biases. Finally, the topic ban was based also on your block history concerning MRM; in other words, it was an escalation sanction, which is fairly standard at Wikipedia if an editor persists in the same disruptive activity.

With all that, I decline your appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If people were to be blocked for being agenda driven, you would have to topic ban more than half the people on that board. Was my crime being honest about it? Are you arguing, for example, that people who want that sentence out are agenda-driven, while people who want it in are not? Secondly, my statement was about what I perceive. Notice in particular the broad wording -- "sectors of the movement" is a statement about a large group of people, not about a particular individual. If my language is inappropriate, is that language somehow better? Notice in particular that my statement appears to be much more restrained than the statement at issue. I am talking about one particular sentence. The statement at issue is talking about unspecified sectors of a movement. Unlike my statement, it applies to a large group of people, not simply to a single sentence. Lastly, in regards to escalation, to accept that, I would first need to accept that I have done something wrong in the most recent instance. I am open to being persuaded of that, but it hasn't happened yet. In other words, if one does something wrong, serves one's punishment for it, then does something right, one should not be punished the second time. As of now, that's what I'm perceiving. I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but as of now, that hasn't happened. In addition, I would point out that while I did not accept Binksternet's arguments, my attitude towards Binksternet was far from dismissive. In fact, I described his or her linking of the other discussions as "helpful". That is, while disagreeing on substance, I was attempting to maintain decorum.William Jockusch (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in regards to the other three options on the RfC page, the RfC page itself seems to indicate that none of them apply to this case. Unless I'm missing something.William Jockusch (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to add to my reasons for rejecting your appeal. I am curious, though. Do you think you should have been sanctioned at all? If you think some sanction was warranted, what do you think the sanction should have been?--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the question. I'm going to answer it twice. In regards to the 1RR block, I have no issue with the severity. I am unclear about whether or not I violated 1RR -- see below. But if I did in fact violate it, 36 hours seems perfectly reasonable. As far as the question of whether or not I violated, I am confused by postings like your post I quoted below, which appear to suggest that the first change is not a revert. But the definition of a revert suggests that it is. So I don't know. [I'd provide a diff, but don't know how to find a diff for an old post like that. Here is the text: Declined. Mean as custard has not violated WP:3RR as he has reverted only 3x (as has Bhtpbank). Regardless, the material he removed should have been removed, and the notion that it should have been tagged or "toned down" is meritless in this instance.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)]. I'll give my second answer later.William Jockusch (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time with your second answer, but what I want you to focus on is the topic ban, not the 1RR violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:13, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your answers have not persuaded me that the topic ban was correct. I don't like going to the drama boards, but I asked ahead of time precisely so that an admin could say so if they thought an RfC would be improper. None did. My earlier post should have made it obvious that I would have been happy to have admin input at that point. If an admin, posting as an admin, had said that an RfC would be unjustified, I would have stood down. The actual responses to my question were 1 in favor and 1 against. This does not suggest any consensus that an RfC would be a bad idea. I don't see how I can magically "know" that the admin will disapprove of something if they don't say so.William Jockusch (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I simply don't buy several statements you have made in defense of the block. First of all, you assert that my statement was inappropriate. If I am to accept this, I would have to accept that using the term "misogynist" to refer to a large, vaguely-defined group of people does not constitute a slur against those people. I just googled the word "slur", and the first hit [1] included the following definition: "1. A disparaging remark; an aspersion." I believe the definition fits. Lastly, you imply that consensus has been reached. In light of the lengthy arguments on the boards over this very issue, I'm not buying it. In sum, while I would really like to reach some kind of understanding with you that resolves this for both of us and keeps it off the boards, at the moment, I'm afraid I don't see what that could be.William Jockusch (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing new to say, William. You need to decide whether to accept the ban or appeal it further.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to challenge you again on your assertion that there is a "consensus" in favor of this material. That's not the case.

[2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]William Jockusch (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible complaint against administrator Bbb23 (talk)

I am considering filing a complaint at the ANB re the recent administrative actions taken against certain editors by administrator Bbb23 (talk). This administrator, imo, has far overstepped WP policies of AGF and NPOV with the unjustified and/or overly harsh blocks imposed on you, me, and, CSDarrow. This is also exemplified by premature closing of a legitimate requrest for a RfC by Bbb23 dff. Administrators who abuse their authority need to be held accountable; without it, WP degenerates into ego and agenda-driven wikilawyering. Let me know if you wish to join me in requesting a review of this administrator's actions. Memills (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic ban above does seem excessive. That said, the blocks, I don't know. The assertion that we violated 1RR appears to have some foundation.William Jockusch (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in regards to my own block, there is no question that it was not excessive. 36 hours is not a terribly long time.William Jockusch (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the topic ban of 3 months imposed by Bbb23 is way too harsh given the reasons for the topic ban, and, in light of your comments above.

In particular, Bbb23's comment (above) that "Binksternet told you that: 'There is no requirement for a formal RfC when the article is stable and all of its editors have come to an arrangement that they can live with.'" is stunning. First, Bbb23 says that the MRM article is contentious, then he/she accepts Binksternet's assertion that the article is stable and that editors are in agreement. Quite a contradiction, there. The article is not stable, never has been, and banning/blocking of editors with pro-MRA perspectives is not an appropriate solution. Memills (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- but -- one concern I have here is that I don't want my situation to be conflated with anyone else's. It is not my purpose to rail against admins generally, or even against Bbb23 in particular. So, while I unfortunately may have to go to the drama boards with my situation, I don't want to turn it into a general assault on Bbb23. Notice in particular that I am on the verge of accepting that my 1RR block may have been correct.William Jockusch (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your perspective re the "drama boards." Imho, WP needs some policy changes to better deal with the conflicts that arise on articles that cover controversial topics. Re this particular article, I have seen too much biased policing by administrators (sometimes in what appears to be collusion with some like-minded editors), resulting in a disproportionate number of topic bans / blocks for editors who attempt to present MRM information from a non-negative perspective. The article, as is, is basically "The Men's Rights Movement from a Feminist Perspective." Memills (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP needs some policy changes. But I don't think it would be productive or fair to blame an individual admin for the policy. I imagine that admins do have input into policy, but they don't make it, and enforcing it is doubtless a thankless task. While I disagree with the choice Bbb23 made here, I don't have enough evidence to say that Bbb23's policing is biased. Lastly, if one does have to go to the boards, I believe one's chances of success are helped if one's issue is narrow. In that regard, my situation is a narrower question than Bbb23, which in turn is a narrower question than the policy as a whole.William Jockusch (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

death panel Berwick sources

[9]

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fort Hood shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mother Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Label discussion

I've started a place for discussion of the WP:Label issue here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_Jockusch/WPLabel William Jockusch (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]