Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
Your conduct in the brief time you've been here is a problem. Some of it is run-of-the-mill Wikipedia problem, and some of it is MRM problem, and to a certain extent there is overlap between the two. First, your recent discussion with Binksternet on the MRM talk page crosses several lines. Just so you know, the probation sanctions apply not just to changes made to articles, but also to conduct in any part of the topic area, including talk pages. Your walls of text about male circumcision, what you call male genital mutilation (and then MGM), are singularly out of place. Your endless points about "backlash" are passive-aggressive. On the one hand, you try to come across as dignified and polite, but it's clear that your comments push your own POV relentlessly. Finally, your idea as to whose burden it is is based on what? This isn't a court of law (many of your comments are wikilawyering). In some contexts at Wikipedia, there may be a default or a burden, but your throwing around the term to justify attacking the article because of its use of the word "backlash" is not based on anything but your own idea of how things should work.
Now, let's move to Wikipedia itself. User:Maleliberation/images is an inappropriate page. I suggest you request its deletion (tag it with WP:CSD#U1 to do so). What is its purpose? In large part, it appears to be promoting your website, which is not permitted at Wikipedia. That also brings up another point. You need to change your user name, or you risk being blocked for having a user name that is associated with an organization (see WP:GROUPNAME). I could block you right now for the user name alone.
So, here's the deal. First, get rid of that user page. Second, request a user name change, which can be done at WP:CHUS. Third, get the promotional page in your user space deleted. Fourth, stop your disruptive arguments on the MRM talk page.
Just so it's clear, there are several warnings embodied in this post. Take them to heart, or you risk being sanctioned.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:57, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: Documentation of history suggesting bias by Bbb23 including non-responsiveness for 8 days to requests for clarification from
you, and documentation of hostile comments before that. Documentation of context of repeatedly Binksternet's claims of not understanding or,
claiming to be hearing me say the precise opposite of what I just unambiguously typed in (I said I do not ask for the word to be deleted) and then
when I repeatedly clarify, admin being sent to me to accuse me of 'relentless' (clarifying) posts which Binksternet's actions left as the only
option left other than complete capitulation. Next, online link indicates my username is acceptable, quoting its details directly. Then, my
acceptance of removal of the url of website, removed from user page. Finally, my request to you to undo all warnings, for all except for the url
removal, which is now complied with. (Important other details mean reading this summary is not sufficient, I'm adding taking extra time as
extending courtesy to you so you have outline of main points)
@Bbb23:Note: I assume you will inform me if you despite my analysis, below, of WP:GROUPNAME so I can take it to Noticeboard. I take
it you will not merely state that you've warned me and I haven't done "therefore I sanction" since that would effectively deny me the opportunity
to challenge on Noticeboard after warning and before sanction.
1. a. I wish to state for the public record that you have displayed an openly hostile attitude towards me since the beginning, specifically attacking
me for my username "maleliberation". Although the term you used was "lovely" it seemed intended otherwise, and after I inquired, you clarified and
stated directly that your calling it "lovely" was meant "sarcastically" (the word you used). Your initial comment " I'd like to draw everyone's
attention to a new editor, @Maleliberation: (lovely user name, isn't it?)"
[1] and later
confirming it was "sarcastic" after I politely inquired, "Still not sure how you meant your calling username 'lovely'"
[2]. On the former link, I also
replied to concerns you had about my using the first person singular and about my, deliberately open, candid, and honest, comment on a user page
about my intention to post graphic images, as other wikipedia users have posted entire collections of images the have created, showing why neither
is sinister and pointing out the latter part of what user pages are for, not just on commons.wikimedia.org but on wikipedia.org.
I just noticed, in your profile: "This user does not understand mean people. Please be nice" and "This user strives to maintain a policy of
neutrality on controversial issues" There are better ways of showing both of these than to launch on a sarcastic attack against a name. It's not a
nice thing to do even if the name was very negative like LoveMussolini or other crazy name, all the more so, against a word with "liberation" in
it, which says absolutely nothing negative about others (and with the user page clearly stating support for "liberation" for both halves of the
human species).
Is this appropriate behavior for an admin? Is this helpful behavior? Is this constructive behavior for an admin? You seem to think so, but I
suspect others will differ.
b. I also note for the public record that my note ended with "Or does this address your concerns?" inviting you to write back either there or on my
user page, but that you did neither. That was on October 26, 8 days ago (today being Nov 3), and in those 8 days you did not see it fit to
contact me with any response to express or indicate that you had any remaining concerns, after my response, about the images (or anything else),
following my Oct 26 reply, despite my specifically explaining and directly inviting you personally to do so. Nothing for 8 days.
Again, is this a model for behavior by an admin? Following this, I receive your notice and your "warning" immediately in the day following a post
expressing disagreement with another senior editor whose posts made clear that they share similar views to your and a few days after some very
polite but critical remarks I made on [3], where I wrote that another user's comments were correct about
at least one thing, namely he had expressed concerns about your post, and I wrote that indeed you [Bbb23] "did specifically choose to comment on my
user name, and sarcastically call it 'lovely' which is not a good idea", as I wrote in my Oct 31 post on Slp1's talk page.
c. I note for the record that this writing of mine just quoted, is fairly well representative of the not only polite but gentle and collegial tone I
have kept to, even after your "sarcastic" comments about my user name, I user a tone of "this was not a good idea". I even mentioned on your User
page, in the passing that, on the Noticeboard
[4] I had
deliberately used the most toned down way to inquire, writing "I'm also not sure if your comment about our user name being 'lovely' is to be taken
at face value or in irony" which was a conscious choice of words on my part, bending over backwards to avoid asking "did you mean that
sarcastically?" and using the gentler term "ironically?" to inquire (to which you did not respond there to this, on the Noticeboard, to this or to
my asking whether I addressed your concerns, though on your user page you did later respond (only) to the former, stating you were "sarcastic").
This history raises at the very least the appearance, perhaps more, of a (trainee) admin coming after me due to either a) not liking my name, or, b)
due to not liking the fact that I wrote polite but critical remarks about them (Bbb23) on a user page (the above mentioned extraordinarily mild
phrase "not a good idea" about your comment or c) due to not liking my disagreeing with a like-minded senior editor
[5].
The critical remarks about you were basically what I said above: that you attacked my user name. This is not a constructive thing for anyone, least
of all an admin, to do) or This is all the more troubling because, while there are good reasons not to attack someone's user name even when there
are legitimate concerns about whether the name indicates negative proclivities, this was not the case with you, since you quoted and were well aware
of the positive and affirming nature of what my user name means to me. You indicated you were aware because you quoted my User page as saying I
stand "for ending the abuse and shame and oppression and defaming and restrictive roles and unfair treatment of..women" as well as "of men" Both
halves of which are not only not objectionable but positive and affirming, yet even with this knowledge about what the username stood for, you
expressed your "sarcastic" (your term) distaste.
I would suggest that a person expressing a strong distaste, as you did, for something so positive, raises concerns and is perhaps itself
"objectionable," especially if the person not only feels this way about the affirming message, but can't resist their urge to state their distaste
in writing, as you did, and all the more so somewhat disturbing especially as an admin. You are aware of these issues, writing earlier about not
wanting to do anything that would "[make] it more difficult for me to act in my capacity as an administrator" at the noticeboard link, yet your
attack on my user name, even knowing it stood for "ending abuse" and ending "unfair treatment of..women" (and of men) which is very troubling, not
only raising questions whether you can be even handed, but about general disposition. (What else do you find objectionable besides such positive
messages? Are you disturbed by the image I created showing a standard feminist/women's liberation symbol, "shaking hands" with a male analogue,
referring to " cooperation, [and] mutual respect"? What next? Are cute puppies objectionable too? In the context or your open political views, the
strong sense is that any deviation from your is seen as a threat to be controlled, even if, and maybe especially if, the person shares a
pro-women's-rights view, since then my posts can't be as easily dismissed as "anti-women", so must be squelched even more? Is that who you want to
go after, I wonder?)
Before you criticize me for not being more concise (or for a "wall of text" in the more aggressive choice of words you decided to use) this is due
to needing to give context and background for the record including about your past adversarial and even antagonistic posts, and your not
responding for 8 days to my request to let me know if you still had concerns (no, the delay cannot possibly be due to the images not being
uploaded yet, since my Oct 26 message explained exactly the gif/png images of liberation/cooperation symbols would be uploaded, and put into
the public domain, so you knew, in advance exactly what it was. Yes no reply for 8 days to my direct question whether I addressed all your
concerns) and needing to respond to a series of charges and statements now.
2. About MGM. First of all the term is not only common but the default in anti-MGM circles. If you or others choose to edit the MRM pages, you need
to inform yourself about this. (As I noted there are overlapping circles including children/infants rights, human rights, and mens' rights, but
even a quick google would inform you that even the milder groups, use the term. For example, even going to Jews Against Circumcision[6] they write, "We must embrace the notion of Bris Shalom, in which the genital mutilation
part of the ceremony is omitted." They use stronger language about it amounting to sexual torture, on other pages
[https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&hs=WQq&channel=fs&q=mutilate+OR+mutilation+site%3Ajewsagainstcircumcision.org&oq=mutilate+OR+mutilation+s\
ite%3Ajewsagainstcircumcision.org]
So indeed, it is not just MRAs/MRM who use the term, let alone only misogynistic MRM/MRAs using that term. MRAs/MRMs, both misogynistic and
non-misogynistic use the term, and non-MRAs/MRMs use the term. It's not that uncommon a term. Yes is is value laden, so are both of the opposing
terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" also value laden. So MGM is common enough (and growing in popular usage) in human rights, infant rights, and
boy's and men's rights circles. I do not fault you or Binksternet for not knowing, but now you know. You will find nurses (including
predominantly, female ones) using that term, etc (By the way I am personally associated with that website or with that group, in case you're
wondering. I noticed you expressed strong concern because of 2 out of my 16 edits having been pointing at Warren Farrell's web page. It is my hope
you do not leap to conclusions that there are conspiracies where none exist.)And if you've done any research at all on me e.g. the draft website or
even the profeminist icons on my User page, it should be very clear that I'm personally anything but "conservative" politically and therefore have
no alliance at all with that IP address using William fellow (since I noticed him calling himself "conservative") beyond that one comment he made.
I understand it's part of your job to be alert, but the level of suspicion you showed for merely 2 out of 16 edits including references to one
website can make users feel they have to walk on eggshells any time they mention any website, in this case the jewsagainstcircumcision, and add
disclaimers before you automatically become suspicious.
2b. There is nothing "out of place", neither "singularly" or otherwise, nor are my posts "endless" nor "passive-aggressive" but I have been forced
to take far more of my timethan one would reasonably have expected to be necessary, to explain things where the other party assuming they were
listening, did not hear, or otherwise mischaracterized. Example: I was told there was a consensus to keep the word backlash even after I
said directly that I support keeping that word and that I even personally agree with the applicability of that word, to many or even much of
MRM. Despite this, the reply was as if I was against the use of the term. This force me to reply and clarify, and refer in quote to what I had said,
to show I was not asking for the word "backlash" to be removed. Thus my time and Binksternet's time was eaten up unnecessarily:
1. You write that "nobody came up with a single scholarly source to support the removal of the word "backlash") This statement on your
part suggests to me that you are under the impression that I am suggesting we remove the word backlash. I am not. Please note my earlier statements,
"I do not question that there was consensus, if you say there was, about the term "Backlash"" and I support INCLUDING the word "backlash" in this
article. I not only support including it, I also personally BELIEVE that it applies to parts of the MRM, as I noted in another earlier statement I
made above, where I said I completely agree, writing, "Some parts, I completely agree, arose as a backlash against either feminism or
feminism-influenced"
That's a pretty bad case of putting words opposite in the other's mouth, Bbb23, and I was extremely patient with it:
If Binksternet had not somehow missed the parts in bold here in my original, first post there, they would not have written to me suggesting I
would need to find "a..scholarly source to support the removal of the word "backlash"" which forced me to re-state again, that I had unambiguously
said I'm not asking for the removal of the word, but qualifiers, and so forth. It's not right to add injury to insult [sic] and attack/warn the
party who was forced to restated because the other repeatedly didn't read, or misread, then ignored or very much mischaracterized the nature of the
request I was making (neither is my having to dealing with this and having to clarify, an example of "pushing relentlessly my POV"), as the example
above is just one. It's not even "POV", it's restating my request which was grossly misrepresented, and the reasons, and which party
necessitated, the repeated efforts (the so called "relentless") I've now clarified.
And I do not ask you to sanction Binksternet but I will say as a user I do not appreciate and do not think it's the role of administrators to
not only ignore what truly border on passive-aggressive actions (repeatedly claiming not to understand the question and request and entirely
mischaracterizing it, of the other) as Binksternet did, and then subsequently, when I am patient, polite, and even more patient still, and
carefully spell it out as their actions forced me to do (that or capitulate), to then have 'me get a warning as a result. That's not right, and
I hope you see this, now that you have the record and context (and links to further context) I gave. If not, I'll be happy give at noticeboards,
and example of Binkersnet's "relentlessly" saying they are hearing me demand we remove the word "backlash" despite my repeatedly stating the
opposite, and similar actions.
To save space here, I'll just add that several other instances of not reading what I am writing, followed this, forcing me to correct their
misreadings again, and to clarify, and so forth. We are all human and make mistakes and I do not suggest Binksternet be sanctioned but their posted
forced the length and the wasting, or taking up, of my time and theirs. That reality does not equal "passive aggressive" on the part of the person
repeatedly misquoted, or their suggestion misunderstood, needless to say.
Calling for basic reason and logic be followed is not 'lawyering'
2c. "Finally, your idea as to whose burden it is is based on what?" I'm very glad you directly asked (only wish you had done so before
leaping to 'warn me), since it's too easy to find one or several "WP:" links which superficially appear to sound related. Because in this case,
this has nothing to do with legalese, or "technical interpretation" or "Using formal legal terms [inappropriately]" but about using the term in a
tautological, therefore logic related (not law related way). For example if a user BN is in conversation with a user ML. As is clear from context
below, to "fly" is in the analogy, "to be a backlash against feminism" and the different birds are components and parts of the MRM, perhaps I
should have used the more popular example of penguins but below, ostriches are used:
*BN: I put in the article's current version that "birds are creatures that can fly and..."
ML: That's not accurate. Not all birds fly. I agree many do. And I am not for deleting the word fly, I am for keeping it, but we need to sue it
more accurately. Not all birds fly. Ostriches do not fly. We should put "many birds" or "most birds" before the word "fly", something like that,
how's that sound?
BN: We had a discussion and consensus. Not one single scholarly source to support the removal of the word 'fly' was found. Also my patience is
limited for polite discussion with anyone who is against militating babies, but I'll make a brief exception here.
ML: Just to clarify, I am not, repeat, not calling for the removal of the word "animals who fly" but modifiers. Can you show me a scholarly source
claiming the ostriches fly? I'm sure there isn't one, and I doubt you believe ostriches fly, but if you feel strongly that all birds fly the burden
of proof is on you to show a scholarly references claiming that ostriches fly. Again, I am not calling for the removal of the word "fly" By the way,
on a personal note, I even share many of your views that many birds fly, I even agree that flying is very accurate about most birds.
BN: There is a lot of passionate words on your post, but you do not give any reliable source that says that ostriches do not fly. Until you do
that, we will keep the current version that says "birds are animals which can fly" And my patience for polite discussion is over.
ML: I'm sorry to see you fail to differentiate between sympathetic olive branch comments directed towards you, with "passionate argument",
something rather different, but much more sadly, you seem to suggest you can't see the difference between a logical issue, which is the opposite of
"passionate argument". As a matter of simple logic, the burden of proof is on you who make the strongest claims about universal applicability of
"can fly" It's up to you to prove that "can fly" applies to ostriches. You have failed to produce one single reference in this entire conversation
that is a scholarly source for the claim, for your claim, that ostriches can fly.It's your homework, if you assert that. There is no homework for
someone who says, "you can't claim what you don't have a reference for, that ostriches can fly [7]
This last one made on Binkersnet's User Page as well as on the MRM Talk since they made a statement about being out of patience with what they
called "polite conversation" while at the same time mischaracterizing my request, so they can disagree and stop engaging if they wanted to, which is
fine, but so make sure they don't leave thinking they are disagreeing while entirely misunderstanding what they think I'm asking for. This is when
they might have complained to you, that I dared post on their User page gently explaining why the burden of proof is on the if they continue to
assert that "all birds can fly" (all parts of MRM including anti-MGM, is "a backlash against feminism" when anti-MGM includes many women, includes
even many liberal and feminist women)
So it's a matter of basic, universally understood and accepted logic. To have the article say that "birds are animals who can fly" is to make the
claim that ALL birds fly and the burden of proof is on those who make that claim of universality, particularly, especially, given that the
example of ostriches have been given, and is a well known one. If no one had heard of anti-MGM it's like no one having heard of ostriches, and
Binksternet would be forgiven for thinking, "Yes, but all our studies about all the birds we know about, always showed they could fly" in that
case. But that's not the case, we know about anti-MGM, we know about ostriches, so it's no longer "all the studies we've done about all the birds
we know about" but you're skipping a major, known about bird. Well, if you're skipping it in your references, fine, but don't have the Wikipedia
article claim "birds are animals that can fly".
We don't need to go to the Philosophy or Math departments to take a logic course to know that if someone claims "ALL birds can fly" the burden
is on them, to prove it, if they want the article to say that, especially when a major type of well known bird has been named, ostriches, and after
saying "sure you agree ostriches don't fly, but if you really think they do, show me an article that they do fly, and I'll maybe agree to saying
'all birds can fly' but otherwise, we should have the article say, 'many/most birds can fly'"
It's been exhausting to write this but it has been forced upon me. Had you taken the time to ask me to give context or explain, before leaping to
issue a warning this would not have been necessary and would be briefer. But you didn't, you saw a "guilty" person. A person whose username
you vocally criticized (not by misquoting WP:GROUPNAME as now but criticized my user name MaleLiberation on the Noticeboard as distasteful to
you, personally. and perhaps this is coloring your view leading to, inadvertently, misreading WP:GROUPNAME? It's difficult to avoid seeing
this) and then seeing the "guilty" person who used extremely mild language to criticize your expressing your own personal distaste for my user name
as "not a good idea" for an admin.
When a user is so gracious in their language after such a direct attack, one would think the admin would reciprocate.
Is this considered standard behavior by admins on Wikipedia? I doubt it is, nor do I think it should be that way, and suspect I'm far from the only
one who would see it that way.
But in both your case and Binkersnet's I have been will continue to try my utmost to assume good faith missteps on your parts, but if after this
clear spelling out you tell me this is not clear to you, I will find a shorter way to put this in Noticeboard, your user page, or both, because
honestly I can't see how honest someone is if they claim they still don't understand why the burden of proof is on the person who wants
wikipedia to say that all birds fly, after the naming of the ostrich, and they claim they do not need to find an article saying ostriches
fly...That's not "good faith" if I continue hearing "I don't understand how it's up to them to provide refs"
Of course if they agree to adding two or so words, like "Much of MRM arose as a backlash" or "Many parts of the MRM arose as a backlash.." then
I do not ask them for refs, and we have a compromise (and assuming this good faith step on Binksternet's part, I will be willing to expend time
and energy looking up to find more background on anti-MGM etc to inform them and others)
All of this because BN declined my repeated olive-branch efforts to find a mutually agreeable compromise language of "many birds fly" and I even
said I' was ok with "much of" as in "much of the MRM is considered to have been a backlash against feminism" I told BN I was ok with
that. Nope. Somehow WE have to find lots of articles that ostriches don't fly otherwise we keep "all birds fly" and BN is still not able to
understand that it's up to them to support their universal claim that ALL birds fly? No, that does not strike a reasonable person as being in good
faith, and one wonders if they are pretending not to understand the simple logic. So enough of pretending not to understand that the burden of proof
is on those who say that ALL birds fly.
I have been more patient than most would be, clarifying this point of basic logic the other party would/could not understand or acknowledge (after
earlier doing the same on facts as done here on logic - missing the fact that I said I agree for keeping the word "backlash" and instead telling me
what I should do in prove in order to argue for deleting it) and hopefully this is now behind us.
3. Unfortunately given the above, I had reason to be skeptical about your claim that my user name violates[8] so I took a look. There are two (2) bullet points there stating what is not
allowed:
First, "Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com,
TrammelMuseumofArt). However usernames that contain such names are sometimes permissible"
which clearly is not the case with MaleLiberation, and
""Email addresses and URLs (such as "Alice@example.com" and
"Example.com").
which is even farther afield. There is no "product" no "company" and
no "institution" here. As for the very general term "group" I am not a
"group" either.
In any case the phrase "male liberation" is not "unambiguously" the name of a group the way the examples like "TrammelMuseumofArt" or
"AlexTownWidgets" are, just as other examples would not fall under that definition, examples like a user with the name "ILoveTheBeatles" who
also had a (personal, not for profit) website called ILoveTheBeatles.org, or a user SkiesAreBlue who also happened to have a (personal, not for
profit) website SkiesAreBlue.org with their writings, about their love of the Beatles or about their passion for keeping our skies clear or smog,
or the like. The examples given in WP:GROUPNAME of "AlexTownWidgets" etc, are clearly very different from the ILoveTheBeatles and SkiesAreBlue
examples or the MaleLiberation example at hand.
For now, I have deleted that one percent of the text in my images directory on my user page which contained a link to a personal and not for
profit website I am developing, while I research policies further. Given the preceding, I am skeptical but since I'm not here to promote my
website but to share (unlike Microsoft, Wikimedia Foundation believes sharing is a good thing, as an admin like you is aware) in this
case to share images, and yes here also to share some ideas for improving articles. That's why (if you took the time to look) you would have noticed
that the images I uploaded are not identical to the ones on my website. What's different? I deleted something. What was deleted? I erased the part
of the image which had at the bottom in text, the url of the website. That was before your "warning" post on my page. Does that sound like someone
who's here mostly to 'promote' the url of their website?
And it would be nice to get, if not a thank-you, at least an acknowledgement from you, that sharing images and putting them in the public
domain is a good thing for a user to do. I think other editors and other admins want such things encouraged, and not have the users attacked
because they happen to hold different views (I guess pro-feminist but pro rights for male babies equals 'evil' to some) Do I really need to find the
url's of the user pages I have found over the years not just on commons.wikimedia but on wikipedia too, where people have uploaded one or a dozen or
many dozens of either photographs, or who have uploaded a few or many tens of .gif or .png images that they personally designed? You must know as an
admin that there are lots of such pages. Some of those images never get used, some get used in lots of pages, and some User pages have their "I put
this into the public domain" with maybe just one of their images used on one entry for now, meanwhile their user pages has lots and lots of other
ones which might some day be used in entry pages, or might not, but that's how it's supposed to be. Do you want to tell other admins you are
discouraging people from doing exactly that, sharing .gifs they put into the public domain for possible use? I've seen others upload over 100 and a
handful used, or none. My uploading what, less than 10 small files now is a problem? It's hard not to wonder if your personal strongly held beliefs
strongly disliking the "ending oppression and..unfair treatment" of both women and men and of the name "maleliberation" might mean you might also
have a "[sarcastic] just lovely" similar antagonism to a symbol that has both "feminism" and a male counterpart, and the male (Mars) symbol.
I'll probably take a lot of heat from MRM folks for saying this, but I expected better neutrality and fairness from you/"your side", I expected the
'other side' to include many more antagonistic and refusing to hear facts and Logic or attacking me for suggestion we not be historically
inaccurate in omission of "relation to feminism" and I expected better from you (why? Because I speak with feminists, with lesbian friends, with
even academic feminist liberals, who, maybe not having false assumption about who I am and what I stand for, have shown a lot of understanding for
male liberation as being completely compatible with feminism). The preceding is a short personal aside olive branch, feel free to ignore it if you
don't wish to accept that I am anything but an "enemy" But in any case also expected better, because you're an admin. Speaking of which
as an admin, you could have given me a link to where I can appeal, although in honestly, in light of the "username" misuse, I will want to
confirm with a link or other wikipedia page to verify that it really is the correct place for appeal really is. (see below)
In any case, I've deleted the url. I've responded about the SkiesAreBlue (about my MaleLiberation user name) and explained in detail about the
"all birds fly" burden of proof on those who claim that, and your other comments. with that I ask you to undo the warning.
A. If you undo the warning (as I noted you doing elsewhere to other users), acknowledging the background I've given. I can spend my time mostly away
from wikipedia, since as I said when I first joined, I plan to make a few helpful edits here and there but the atmosphere is so adversarial (another
reason why off-wikipedia projects not just my website, but including it, are needed) by a pro-womens-rights person who can do probably more than you
can to get some angry anti-women anti-feminist MRAs to at least hear a little bit about why women are not the enemy...and spend most of the rest of
my time, developing a project for mutual respect and against hate against women (or against males, babies or otherwise) and someone so mild in
language that they said what about you after you attacked their user name as "[sarcastic] lovely"? Who said it's "not a good idea" to make such
comments.
B. Or you can decide you continue to pursue a fellow pro-women's-rights advocate and spend more time with what I've thoroughly documented were false
charges and have me and you spend a lot more time in my taking this to the noticeboards/mention also at your user page, to formally appeal. Where I
will spend what time is necessary to defend myself, point the past actions from you that suggest initial bias, and most of all show that "there's no
'there' there" on the accusations, as I've done above instead of spending time on life-affirming, constructive things that bring people up without
trying to put down others, so we can actually have not just more accurate boards but more constructive and productive dialogue on and off wikipedia
(Note to self [9]?)
I sincerely hope you choose, based on the documentation above, the former. And in the interest of being clear, that means all warning undone,
except, the one about the url, a request with which I complied last night Maleliberation (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bbb23 gave you several warnings. In my opinion, the first one to heed was to apply for a new name, since your name may be blocked immediately by any administrator, at any time, once they realize you are connected to www.maleliberation.org. Bbb23 was giving you a little breathing room, a little time to make the name request, but you responded with obstinacy. Therefore, I am formally telling you to change your name or be blocked. As soon as you change your name, this username will be blocked anyway as a matter of procedure.
The evidence: You linked to www.maleliberation.org in this edit, and you uploaded images from the same website in this and this. These actions strongly associate you with the website MaleLiberation.org. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: I am again disappointed in your response, and while I will not resort to personal insults towards you as you have towards me by referring to my "obstinacy", it is yet another case of your not hearing or mischaracterizing a comment, request, or statement (such as when I directly stated I was not asking that the term "backlash" be removed but kept with additional clarification added, and you replied telling me that if I want to remove the word, then I would need to...completely mischaracterizing my request, and more than once)
In this case, your putting in "evidence"that I am "associated with" a website is a Red Herring
Because I openly stated it is a personal website, and made the comparison with someone with user name ILoveTheBeatles who also has a personal and not for profit website ILoveTheBeatles. 'I am formally appealing on the noticeboards your demand that I change the user name, which clearly does not fall under "Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt). However usernames that contain such names are sometimes permissible" being not a company, institution, group, or product, and an even stronger case that it is not "unambiguously" such a thing, and of an entirely different character than AlexTownWidgets or MyWidgetsUSA.com as in the examples given, being of the nature of a person's personal interests with a personal user name and personal website of mine of the same character as ILoveFreedom, ILoveCleanSkies, ILoveLiberation, etc.
I would add, Michael (your user page indicates this is how you wish to be known) that an "administrator hopeful" should refrain from personal insults ("your obstinacy" for a user merely challenging the applicability or relevance of a WP:policy page) or your earlier tart tone that my mere use of the term MGM, common in the context at hand, left you with little patience for "polite conversation". It's also not clear whether you have a personal/friendship relationship with Bbb23 beyond the scope two volunteers to know and work with one another. In any case given Bbb23's immediate expression of their personal views and their strong personal distaste (what they called their "sarcastic" reference to the "lovely" username, so nothing to do with the current red herring) it's hard to see either of you as fair and unbiased. By the way aren't you associated with BINKSTER.NET as I am to understand your linkedin account lists as your personal website? All while having a Wikipedia user name Binksternet? It's true that unlike "ILoveTheBeatles" Or "ForCleanSkies" or "MaleLiberation" which refer to clear personal interests, "binkster" is not a word one associates with an interest, but the comparison is not in your favor, because your user name is a clear strong match for the promotional Michael: your wikipedia user name Binksternet is directly referring to your own bread and butter for profit business, known by its website Binkster.net, a website specifically by and for "Michael "Bink" Knowles" for "Audio and Video Production"[10] at least as late as 2011 so for 4+ years after your 2007 start (according to your user page) on wikipedia as user "binksternet", now that takes the cake becuse that is exactly analogous to AlexTownWidgets, your personal private business, a pretty clear cut, cut and dry case of multi-year violation on your part.
In sharp contrast, a personal "blog" style, not for profit website with personal essays (along with guest essays I hope to have, from others, as is standard on personal blogs, but still my personal website) just like one for clean skies, or about love for the Beatles, or about gender liberation, as in LoveFreedom, ILoveCleanSkies, ILoveLiberation, etc. or MaleLibertion, is unambiguously not a case of a product or service or organization/group/institution let alone "unambiguously" so of the AlexTownWidgets type. Or course two wrongs don't make a right, it's merely ironic, so I should not have a user name equal to my own for profit business, or representing a not for profit organization, and the point just made above, of course, is that my website is neither of those, it's a place for personal essays and poems and thoughts, mine alone (no organization, no institution, neither non profit, nor for profit, nor any other kind of group)' (And yes, my hoping to have guest essays on my personal blog/website by people that I find who I consider "allies" in the work to end the gender wars and promote mutual respect/liberation, is all the royal 'we' meant, as I immediately tried to clarify. In fact, and you can hire an army of private PIs if you don't believe me, but the number of people I have spoken to so far to ask for their material to be posted as a guest on my private personal blog, is zero. Zero. So there is absolutely nothing remotely approximating an organization, not even close. Like any personal blog/essays page, I hope it grows over time, with a community or readers so to speak, and maybe guest posts too (or maybe not), again, this is standard on personal blogs on the net, and neither such blogs not mine, are a company or group let alone an institution or product. This is the truth, plain and simple.
I'm also not here to promote anything like my personal blog, but I personally value gender liberation and without apology I use that phrase for my private personal website, and similarly, use that phrase which is personally meaningful to me, in my wikipedia user name as I engage, from time to time try to improve the accuracy, historical detail, and level of information in articles on wikipedia on topics(I will get those refs you suggested about MGM, not for you, I do not think you mind is open or willing to hear, but for others on the Talk page, I think they may find anti-MGM refs and its history full of NON-anti-feminist people, for them to look at)
There is no nonprofit, nor institution/group/company, nor for profit business, nor product, called MaleLiberation (and there aren't even plans for any of those..there aren't even hopes for any of those..) There is a personal website by me, essays, blog, poems, etc, nothing more. Is this clear now? I hope so because I was going to take this to a noticeboard, where I think people will understand and agree with the difference, and I'm taking a risk since I do not trust you/Bb223 to be unbiased by holding off, I'll keep a personal copy of the entire contents of this page as backup, but I'm complying with "If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why." here, with the understanding that if you still don't see the difference you will let me know so I have time to appeal on the Noticeboard, rather than just "I read MaleLiberation's 'note explaining why' and don't like it so I deleted everything" which would violate giving me a chance to appeal. I hope against all odds that I have now explained clearly enough that you see and agree. Given how adversarial you are (like so many MRA and MRM web pages, who are too, sadly) you may be thinking I want to threaten you. WRONG. You have me backwards. I was completely going to post on the noticeboard a copy of my comments here until I came across of your binksternet, and I'm now holding off exactly to protect you, not because I like you, I do not think you're a very nice person in your behavior here, but out of wanting better use of my time than a huge noticeboard debate if I post a copy of my comments here there. You'll probably refuse to believe it because someone who you attacked viciously choosing not to attack back is alien thinking to you. I'm trying, just one more time, to step away from such adversariality (I'll leave it to you and some of the adversarial MRA/MRM types to battle it out to the bitter end if that's what floats your boat, I prefer more constructive things. I don't want you to suck me into endless hours of defending your website binkster.net and all the other issues, on the noticeboard. I'm not even in the mood to make much if any more edits in the near future on the MRM page, but I do intend to alllow, without my appealing on the notice board, if you still intent to misapply a rule that applies to companies and organization like AlexTownWidgets to be completely misapplied against someone whose wikipedia name is their own personal blog, essays, poems website about their intereset in clean skies, Beattles, or in this case, gender liberation. But I hope against all hope that I've spellled it out more clearly now, and you will let me know you understand what I've said? Maleliberation (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding also @Bbb23: since they are discussed here.
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the username you have chosen, "Maleliberation", seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of something other than yourself. Please note that you may not edit on behalf of a company, group, institution, product, or website which relates to the entity in question, and Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are promotional or accounts that are shared. If you are willing to use a personal account, please take a moment to create a new account or request a username change that represents only yourself as an individual. You should also read our Conflict of interest guideline and Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and remember that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: Re " If you believe that your username does not violate our policy" yes I believe my user name does not violate. My user name which might have "seemed to imply" in the formal language avoe, that I am editing on behalf of something other than myself, is not. I am editing on behalf of absolutely nothing and nobody other than myself. Additional details above, but this is not AlexTownWidgets, I merely have a personal interest in gender liberation including male liberation and a personal and not for profit website with one's writings, blogs, essays, and yes, poems, about my own individual personal thoughts about gender liberation in general and including male liberation, analogous to a person being interested in cleanair and having a user name "LoveCleanSkies" on wikipedia while also having a personal not for profit website called LoveCleanSkies.org with their personal essays and poems and philosophy about the importance of clean skies.
There is no nonprofit, nor institution/group/compnay, nor for profit business, nor product, called MaleLiberation. There is a personal website by me, essays, blog, poems, etc, nothing more. See above for important additional details. Maleliberation (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not necessary for money to be changing hands in order for the groupname policy to be violated. You are editing with a username that signifies a website. That's enough. Binksternet (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Binksternet: You are correct, it is not necessary for money to change hands, as I have acknowledged above, by stating it is also not a nonprofit organization. It is however necessary to have a name that "unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt)" is very much required for there to be a violation and as noted, there is no company or group or institution or product in existence (let alone one that exists and to which one is unambiguously referring to or consisting of whose name) None such exists No "company, group, institution or product" exists, so that clause of GROUPNAME does not apply Maleliberation (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.
Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?
Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.
What can I do now?
If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
This is nothing short of shameful. It might be a darkly comic piece as if by Kafka, and may amuse future readers in that spirit (if wikipedia's own archives don't save this Talk page, archive.org and its Wayback machine will, and if not, I certainly have kept original copies) so administrator brute force can be used to insist that 1=2 but, it's all on camera, so to speak, and it's a shame on wikipedia: administrator and other users with extra power have done in actuality what they falsely suggested I was going to do: harm wikipedia and its reputation.
I would have thought to expect better from you Orangemike as you speak of peace and Quaker traditions and Emma Goldman, but go right along with Blinksternet in the same tactics: you do not give the accused any real reason or any justification or answers to his questions. These are the tactics of totalitarianism.The policy says it covers: "Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt). As pointed out, repeatedly, I am not a company, or group, or institution, or product' and as anyone knows a personal blog or one's own posts is as far removed from being AlexTownWidgets as a fish is removed from a bicycle, they are entirely different, and you must know this: otherwise the policy would have said "a company or group or institution or just a personal blog/website" but it doesn't say that, so the intent is pretty clear.
As I pointed out, MaleLiberation is entirely unlike the TrammeMuseumofArt or AlexTownWidgets and is analogous to ILoveCleanAir chosen as a wikipedia user name by an individual who is interested in clean air issues and who also (for the same reasons, their personal interest) has a personal individual blog/website called ILoveCleanAir. Can you tell me with a straight face that the policy quoted above is meant to exclude from wikipedia an outdoors person who loves clean air who has a personal blog ILoveCleanAir and who also has a wikipedia account they chose, naturally, based on their same personal interest? And then they make some edit on a page about clean air, because of exactly the same fact, that they have a personal interest in and some knowledge about clean air? It's absurd. I can't see you or anyone claiming that with a straight face, but that is moot since you didn't even try to assert this. You simply failed to reply to the question. Blinksternet acted as if he is replying to the question, but replied to a question I never asked, I never asked "this only applies if money changed hands, right?" I never asked that, but what I actually asked, was ignored by that admin too:
how could anyone claim with a straight face thata prohibition on "Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt) somehow applies to someone who loves clean air and uses the same phrase they like, ILoveCleanAir, for both their personal no group, no company ,no nothing, personal blog website, and uses the same phrase for their wikipedia user name? The question is repeatedly ignored, and I think I can guess why it's been ignored: there is no good answer. Two plus two is four, not five.
The prohibition on "Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt" did apply to the now super-user false-accuser wikipedia name "Blinksternet", created in 2007 and whose website "Binkster.net" was his personal business website advertising his services at least as late as 2011 per archive.org [11] as I accidentally discovered, clear case of WP:ORGNAME..but on the other hand, the policy clearly was NOT written or intended to apply to anything remotely like a non-company, non-group, non-institution situation of user names that are based on a user's interests where the user has a similar private personal blog, like ILoveCleanAir or TheBeautyOfApples (with a personal blog with essays on their love of apples..block them from editing anything about apple growing, please, oh the horror!) or in this case MaleLiberation.
Future readers may recall the symbol that caused such ire: I dared to create a public domain image showing a traditional feminist symbol (Venus symbol with fist in the air) shaking hands with, a male (Mars symbol with fist in the air) with horrible, dangerous, evil, biased, nasty words like "Mutual respect" and "Empathy" and "Cooperation". Oh the horror! (In truth, there are many MRAs too who are also horrified by this concept of non-antagonism between WR/WL (women's rights and women's liberation) and MR/ML. Maybe that's the one thing so many on both 'sides' agree on. No wonder the world is in such a fine state)
Thanks for the humor too: this at the top of Orangemike's user page: "WP:RETENTION: This editor is willing to lend a helping hand. Just ask." which links to a page about working to "improve editor retention at Wikipedia. We address existing difficulties..and provide a positive environment" Thanks for the "positive environment" I am done, at least for a while, in trying to try to reason or to expect fairness or truthfulness or even answers to direct questions so I'm not even trying, in the next and last paragraph, to address admins, but a thought for others who may read this in the future:
One might think it ironic that these steps by admins may end up being used by the very MRM/MRAs that the clearly very strong editorial tilt and bias on the article is against, as an example of admin misuse and abuse of policy and of their powers, and ironic that the example of this abuse was carried out against me, someone highly critical of many parts of the MRM movement (making the admin actions somewhat like anti-US occupation jihadists killing an American who had been a long and vocal activist against occupation, to use an example that comes to mind after reading Orangemike's User page about his political views. Turns out his political views on peace and equality and justice and fairness, are quite close to mine, but his views are also very far away from, well, from his actual actions in practice) But none of these ironies compares with the initial one: a: administrators and other users with extra powers on wikipedia have by their own actions, accomplished what they falsely suggested others were going to do: harm wikipedia and its reputation. Maleliberation (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't log into my gmail account when not active on this humanrights work, other than on weekends, and not every weekend, I just noticed Alexf edited this my user page and logged into wikipedia to find a few cosmetic changes plus the removal of:
Note: inline (non-visible) code removed as it deals with WP's internal functioning. To explain as per the user's question, it add this page to a list of pending issues. As this username conflict is it pending anymore (user account is blocked) it has to be removed from clogging the pending list. Also note that even if the account is later allowed to stays as-is then it will not be a violation and will not be in the pending list. This list requires periodical cleaning. -- Alexf(talk)17:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm not even sure if merely quoting it here to help a non-expert like me keep up, "undoes"...if it does and there is reason not to undo it, then please just replace "Category:" with "C a t e g o r y :" so the computer ignores the code but I still have the record to help me keep up with what I should undo if I want to do that.) It seems I should undo it formally, to keep other editors, if there is any who will give an unbiased hearing, because no answer has been given (forgetting all the other ponits I made) to the simple question of the misapplication of, the clause that says, and I quote, verbatim: "Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt) and this clause clearly does not include anything whatsoever that forbids usernames which are similar to or match that person's blog/personal website.
The whole affair is laughable (in a grim way) given that is started with this claim, that my user name "seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of something other than yourself" when nothing of the sort is the case, my wikipedia account is mine and mine alone and I am editing on behalf of no person, group, organization, etc, other than myself. By the way, I don't have to cite "and God also knows this" since there is a good chance that future technologies and human research combinsed will be able to confirm and reveal that I'm telling the truth so wikipedia's admins will have egg on their faces not merely for being wrong, since anyone can make a mistake, but for refusing to even consider the evidence, or facts, or to listen, or to answer a simple question. Neither Blinksternet or anyone else even disputed when I said I have a personal blog/website named Maleliberation, nor did they dispute the clause, they didnt' even say, "well, yeah, that clause lists only companies/organizations but we meant to incldue personal blogs, so our bad phrasing, but the intention is..." in which case I would maybe appeal to the noticeboard just to check with other editors, "are you serious? you really meant to say that but jsut forgot to list personal blogs?" etc...
One suspects the simple reason is that, first, they know or strongly suspect I am telling the truth that its' my personal blog and second, they (Blinksternet) know that it's not the intention of the "unambiguously represents...company/organization" to include vastly different things they do not list in that clause, like a personal blog/website. I can't prove their motive but that's what Bbb23's behavior suggests. And then Blinksternet, their refusal to answer a simple question. To answer "no exchange of money is needed" when that's not what I asked, I did not ask "the policy only covers for-profits, right?" I said the policy covers "Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt) and the "MaleLiberation" domain is just my personal blog/website (anyone who looked at it would be pretty clear it's below par for even a personal site and nothing any 'group' would have anything to do with...one "coming in 2014" page linking to one real page outlining what my future personal site will look like...)
One point I had not made before, but a moments' thinking will reveal also that, there is also no motivation to lie what so ever since if there was a group, the same clause they linked to (and tried to mis-apply) said they allow group to use and edit wikipedia and you just need to change your name to JaneFromCompanyA or JohnFromCompanyB...so there is also no motivation for me to lie...But there is motivation to refuse to "admit" to something I am not, namely a group. If you do that, and admit to being something that you are not, then you open the door to being pushed around by Admin to "Admit" anything else...it's a horrible, terrible precedent, and I won't "admit" to being an organization. As noted, there is nothing to gain by denying it if it were true.
That said, Blinksternet did not even go that far, they didn't say, "you're right, it does not apply to personal blogs, that is legal, but I don't believe you have a personal blog only, I think you do have an organization because...." but they didn't even bother saying that, I'm inclined to think, because they (Blinksternet) probably know or strongly suspect I am telling the truth, so they didn't even bother claiming to not believe me, just went ahead and tried to apply "Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt) to a wikipedia username matching a person's blog name. I know Blinksternet poked their nose in their, so they saw my comment about "I wish I could make everyone internsexed for a few weeks or months, at least mentally" so they know the deliberate gender ambiguity, and the "plural" used for gender-neutral as I've done about myself (funny, I see I've also used it, the word "their" about the single person Blinksternet too, above already, too) or in the initial post, on the noticeboards, where I explained I merely know some people who might be interested and the main point of the "we" was, I am sharing with the community, that means you, fellow wikipedia readers, I am sharing some public domain images, ...for us to have available to use" and asked are there any concerns, after explaining, on noticeboard, linking to the User name bbb23? No reply from Bbb23, for 8 days...So blinksternet knew all of that, and the gender-neutral, etc, so I don't believe for a minute that he was "confused" that I might be plural...if he did, he would have asked, either much eariler or at the end, but he didn't, knowing full well by then that I am an individual person, and I even said so on this talk page again...but still he didn't even bother making any acusation "I still suspect you're a group because..."
So we're left with the comic "your name...seems to suggest you're editing on behalf of something other than yourself" when I am not...I should wish there was such a something but there isn't anything of the sort...I know one person, of might possibly some day possibly contact me and might possibly some day be interested in my personal website, one youtube person GenderEmpathy from the UK, who I wrote to (and never ever heard back, but would certainly consider allowing a guest post by him on my personal blog/website if I ever launch it for real)...But what's not laughable is that the admins can't pretend it was an honest mistake: no answer to mis-applies clause question I asked, no claim on their part that I am an organization when I pointed out MaleLiberation is just my personal blog/website. I'm editing on behalf of no person or entity in the universe other than myself (and there isn't even an "organization" to not-be-editing on behalf of, for that matter).
By the way Blinksternet deleted a poem, a bleeding poem I wrote about gender, on my Talk page. He said it's "self promotion"...this from a fellow who promotes the heck out of himself and his sound editing on his own page...I doubt there's anything against describig or expressing yourself on your talk page, but if there was, he could have nicely asked, did you mean to put that on your user not your talk page? Nope, no questions, just wholesale deletion of my poem and "you're self promoting, that's bad, bad" type edit comment.
I haven't formally appealed because I see no open and honest attitude. Don't assume I won't appeal later. But there is not even an attempt to reply as to why they mis-apply the bold font clause to one individual person who has a personal website with the same name. Irognically, Blinkster.net was a commercial website until [per archive.org] at least 2011, clearly in violation of their (Blinksternet) editing under the Blinksternet user name.
Of course two wrong don't make a right, and I should edit on behalf of a commercial or non-commercial group, and as I've ponited out, I am not, but I do have a right to have a personal blog with a name that is similar to or the same as my wikipedia name. AlexF please if the quoting at the beginning here is interpreted by the wikipedia comptuers as undoing, which I'm not sure it is, but if it is and if you feel it should be there, please change nothing other than replacing 'category:' into 'c a t e g o r y' so I still have record of how to challenge it, and please explain reason if you do want to remove that "category:" code...seems to me some editors might want to be alerted to the lack of meeting policy clauses and mis-applications of (clause in bold "Usernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product (e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt))) to my personal username which matches no organization on planet earth, it just matches my personal blog/website... I'll check back here by next weekend if not sooner. Thanks. I used to edit without an account, back in 2005 or so, as I mentioned. How sad that I disagree with the "leftist take-over of wikipedia" but now see such an ugly side to wikipedia I don't want much or anything to do with it again, other than putting the record straight in the archives of my talk page. I had a few other comments, but the above 3 main points will suffice now.Maleliberation (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the user page [[12]] the account
MaleLiberation has been told that User:Maleliberation/images has been nominated for
deletion and told that "Your opinions on the matter are welcome;
please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Maleliberation/images"
Thus the statement "adding your comments at" the page for deletion
cannot be followed. The same goes for "You are free to edit the
content of User:Maleliberation/images during the discussion" but the
blocking from editing the first of these pages is the larger problem
since it effectively gags and prevents the giving 'opinions on the
matter' and giving one's side of the story. This is (in effect,
whether or not in intention) another step with the strong appearance
of censorship, the original block having been a previous example.
1. I would appreciate and am formally requesting an immediate
correction of this by allowing editing of Wikipedia:Miscellany for
deletion/User:Maleliberation/images otherwise "your opinions are
welcome" become entirely and completely inaccurate. I will put comments
below for now, but that is far from an adequate way for others reading
the page to be able to read my comments
The page is the diametrical opposite of "polemical"
2. @SuperMarioMan: Regarding the statement "User pages are not intended for large
numbers of polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia editing, or
excessive promotion of any kind"
The suggestion is a very curious one, since none of the portions in your link
polemical statements apply. None of the items in
that page are, quoting from the link, "statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements
attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities"
The page has not one single instance of "attack" or "vilification" of
any kind, on anyone. So your link is very puzzling to say the least. It is
hard to think of anything farther and further removed from
"vilification" or "Attack" then the words that I put there:
"Peace and love. Be kind to yourself. Heal
yourself. Respect and love yourself...so much that your heart can then
reach out in love to others with other kinds of wounds. If I could
only make each of you intersexed, even if just mentally, for a few
weeks or months. Peace my brothers and sisters.)"
How badly would it reflect on wikipedia, to attack such an account,
and then this directory with these words, a some "vilifying" and
"polemical" page?
Nothing "Promotional" here, just another user uploading Public Domain symbols
3. Concerning your statement, "This is an illustrated opinion piece,
arguably polemical and certainly promotional, created by a user
blocked, in part, on account of clear username concerns"
There is no "opinion piece" here. There are a sentence or two which
are necessary for clarification given that the great majority of
"men's rights" images, icon, websites, etc, are anti-women's rights,
therefore, for the purpose of clarification and explanation' of
the image being put into the public domain, it was necessary to be
clear that is what the image represents, cooperation and solidarity
between "women's rights" and "men's rights" movements, ideals,
etc. That short explanation of a couple of pages is hardly an "opinion
piece".
The rest of the one single paragraph has a few more words, as any User
might have on their User page, but more specifically here, as for the
"peace my brothers and sisters" that is merely to reduce the
probability of vandalism against my page by those who, again out
of hasty reading or other misunderstanding, falsely assume that the
present of "rights" for one half of the human race, somehow makes the
icon stand "against" the rights of the other half. That should not
cause an eyebrow to raise, let alone a warning, let alone call
for deletion.
(if you click on an handshake image you will see it has an extended
clarifying Description, and that Description is at the bottom of the
Images page, so although there would be absolutely nothing wrong with
having two paragraphs, it's in fact not a second paragraph but just a
copy of that Description)
Despite the fact that I have every right to (as so many other Users
do) put my opinions on my User page, instead I bent over backwards to
avoid any "opinion piece" of but instead, do put, rightly so, a
clarification in the form of one single paragraph.
This is natural: if you had a symbol you put into the Public Domain
for the rights of both Pakistani and Indian people (or perhaps better
said, of both Hindus and Muslims) in a polarized world where so many
would assume "rights for A" means against B, or vice versa, a sentence
or two to clarify the icon is standing for the rights of both are
highly appropriate for clarification reasons alone.
Can you imagine a group of admins strongly on one side of that divide,
working to marginalize not only editors who appear sympathetic to "the
other side" but even marginalizing those who want human rights for
both Hindus and Muslims, fairness to both India and Pakistan, and
worse yet, take the uploaded symbol of "cooperation" and "empathy" and
want to remove it DELETE it, and then in surreal fashion, vilify this
symbol, and point at this symbols of empathy, rights for all, no
oppression against any, and want to call this symbol of tolerance
itself, an act of "vilification"? This goes several steps beyond
bizarre.
"This is an illustrated opinion piece, arguably polemical and certainly
promotional"
4. Promotional? Really? You surely must recognize, I would hope, that
the one paragraph giving an overview of four images uploaded and put
into the Public Domain is something entirely different...that one
does not have an essay or "opinion piece" or any "piece" of any
kind, it's a single one paragraph clarifying explanation of
the symbolic Icons (.png) I am putting into the Public Domain. Those Symbolic
icons for that matter are not "illustrations", it's not like I have a
picture of an apple in an essay about how to pick apples, they are general purpose
icons being put into the public domain as other have done (see below)
for other Symbols and other gif and png graphics (and even photos,
though I have photos, one can upload photos from their bike club trip
to Mexico and put those photos into the public domain. I don't even
have an organization, or any photos, but uploaded icons, like other
icons, see section 4 below, that others have uploaded, something not
only allowed but encouraged by the Wikimedia Foundation and not only
in the Commons.wikimedia, but on wikipedia too.)
In addition to the page in the section below with dozens of Public
Domain images I've seen others too - very many images, some very
specific. I can't remember if they were Gay Environmentalists, Anarcha
Feminists or the like, but there are scores of pages of "Symbols" type
icons put into the public domain. I've put two icons, each in two
sizes, for a total of four, into the public domain.
This is no more "promotional" than someone putting up icons of
cyclists enjoying a sunny day's bike ride is a "promotional".
There is similarly nothing else in the link you gave, not on the
Images page you have suggested be Deleted, that is, but also, by the way, not on
the Talk page where I gently, calmly, politely, and factually respond
to false charges by Admins who themselves engaged in something other than
politeness, and something other than fair treatment (responses to direct questions,
misapplications of clauses) of users, of myself in this case.
On the issue of the account block, as noted on my talk page under [[13]]
there was a public vilification by Bbb23, ironically enough, for
vilification it was; a "sarcastic" (Bbb23's own term for their
language) attack on my username MaleLiberation. Bbb23 themselves said
they were being "sarcastic" at me when I asked this Admin what they
meant calling me user name "lovely". It would be bad enough if the
admin mistakenly thought it was "anti-women", but they knew very well
that was not the case, since they saw and quoted the Public Domain
Symbolic icon I uploaded, stood for "ending the abuse and shame and oppression and defaming
and restrictive roles and unfair treatment of" both women and men, both.
More evidence of POV bias by admins working to marginalize diverse voices
5. It is nothing less than stunning that an icon with a message of
"mutual solidarity and empathy" and "cooperation" (direct quotes from
the larger icon) and with positive themes, are attacked as an icon and
User page and with reality turned on its head, this message of empathy
and cooperation is itself accused of the "vilification" it's been
subjected to.
There is a large amount of evidence that is what the original user
block was about: people who "care about human rights" are allowed to
edit pages about countries human rights, and about prisoner abuse or
women's rights, but if you wish to include accurate information about
boys and men's rights, there is an iron hand of control. Editors cited
a clause that forbids "Usernames that unambiguously consist of a
name of a company, group, institution or product
(e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt) but
which does not forbid a username that is the same or similar to the
name of the persons' own private, personal blog/website, and never
gave a direct reply when I asked how one would apply a clause about
companies/organizations/products to a personal blog. In fact one Admin
had done a real violation, Blinksternet (wikipedia account since
2007) is the same name as his
company, commercial website blinkster.net which archive.org shows was
up as recently as 2011, as documented. But never mind his violation; I
should not be allowed to violate that clause. And I don't: my user
name is not the name of anything
that unambiguously consist of a
name of a company, group, institution or product
(e.g. AlexTownWidgets, MyWidgetsUSA.com, TrammelMuseumofArt).
I even pointed out there in any case no motivation at all to lie
that there is no organization since the same section of clauses do
allows "JaneFromCompanyA" and "JohnFromCompanyB" so if I really had an
"organization" to "promote" I would have jumped at the opportunity to
change the username to get "publicity" for my "CompanyA" or
"organization" except that none exists (yes, I hope that my personal
private blog/website will eventually be visited by others, who may
contribute or even guest post, making me guilty of what 99% of those
with personal blogs/websites hope for) But I will not "admit" to
something that is false, however: I have no organization and explained
the gender-neutral "we" for myself and other similar potential
confusions.
The issue almost seems to have been not a fear that a user was
dishonest, but a fear and worry that I was in fact telling the truth,
so the "safest" thing was not to look into it, not to reply to my
direct questions, and to demand I admit that I am what I am not (I'm a
person, not an organization, and I have no organization) "Admitting"
to a false charge is something I will not do, on principle, but
especially given the immediate, not appropriate vilification of my
username as soon as I appeared.
Putting Images in Public Domain: Allowed and Encouraged
It is fairly transparent that the directory
User:Maleliberation/images has been set up to put into the public
domain a "shaking hands" image between female rights and male rights
that anyone can use for any purpose. (I give one suggested use, namely
that it can be used to stand for anyone who agrees with the statement
"we'll work for ending the abuse and shame and oppression and
defaming and restrictive roles and unfair treatment of men.....and of
our "sisters", women, too." and that is one suggested use, just as
someone can upload a Public Domain image of a piece of trash on the
grass with a "slash" through it and can "suggest" one possible use for
"we oppose littering") But that is just one possible suggested
use, since as I said I was putting this image I created into the
Public Domain, so anyone can use it for any purpose of any kind.
7. @-SmokeyJoe: On "is clumsy combative to be tolerated?
No" I agree but since "combative" behavior if any existed at all, was
on the part of admins (examples cited) not on my part, the block was
not appropriate, as those working to block me reluctantly admitted my
"dignified and polite" manner) To your main issue, the link I found on SPA,
[[14]]
says there isn't necessarily a problem with "single issue"
saying "many single-purpose accounts turn out to be well-intentioned
editors with a niche interest". It's not even clear one can fairly
apply "whose editing is limited to one very narrow area or set of
articles" since I made less than 20 edits, about a dozen of which were
on the first day, to one article, over about a month, too short to
know whether I will edit elsewhere, something I don't know, but
wanting to focus where one has specialized knowledge is reasonable and
even helpful, so it's not surprising that the policy says "many"
account who do stay very focused, as mine may or many not stayed over
time (I'm not completely sure myself) are in fact often "well
intentioned editors with a niche interest"
By the way, I mentioned in this brief month or so that around 2005 I
edited wikipedia without a user name, so I'm not entirely new. It was
also brought to my attention that I'm allowed to edit with a separate
account. I am not editing from any other account, but I have
discovered that I am allowed to, since another user who was apparently
singled out by Admins (who left in disgust in his words) was scolded
by one admin or editor about "scrutiny" and linked to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SCRUTINY#Legitimate_uses which
happens to also say "Privacy: A person editing an article which is
highly controversial within his/her family, social or professional
circle, and whose Wikipedia identity is known within that circle, or
traceable to their real-world identity, may wish to use an alternative
account to avoid real-world consequences from their editing or other
Wikipedia actions in that area." I only discovered this when this user
posted as an IP on the Noticeboard to respond to an admin attacking my
username that this reminded him of how he was unfairly treated. This
user (his first name is Will) was then scolded and outed from his IP
and pointed at "SCRUNITY" which led me to click and discover this. So
in fact, while I am not doing it, I could create another user account
to edit other topics, because the above clause specifically allows it,
and then I could continue to edit "narrowly" from this Maleliberation
account.
So while I'm not doing it, and although my treatment by Bbb23 and
Blinskternet have made me averse to dealing with wikipedia at all
(unless pigs fly and I get a full unblock and acknowledgement I was
wronged) let alone wanting to edit widely...and I don't frankly have
the time to even keep just on this Mens Rights Movement editing never
mind anything else...but it does illustrate an important point, that
"narrow" editing is even explicitly allowed in policy.
The policy also states, "New editors have the right to be treated with
respect and civility, and can demand them from other editors" and
"existing editors must assume good faith concerning the user account,
act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers" let alone after (what Bbb23
very reluctantly admitted was my "dignified and polite" manner) making
a small number of edits over a few weeks, discussing calmly, politely,
while one Admin (Bbb23) vilifies my user name right off the bat, and
another (Blinksternet) immediately did what I have avoided doing: he
immediately engaged in an openly negative, even hostile, tone, saying
(twice) how little patience he has for "polite discussion" with me for my
'daring' to use term "male genital mutilation" (MGM) which is
entirely standard in communities concerned with human rights
applicable to male infants, not everyone agrees with this "loaded" term, but that is
the correct name, just as we might not agree with (at least one of)
the (both of them very much LOADED) terms "pro choice" or "pro life",
both are "loaded" but those are the standard, self
descriptive terms and the ones wikipedia properly uses in discussions
of those topics. These two admins are the ones who moved to shut out
my account.
It's bad enough that self described "Anti-feminist" editors have been
silenced (while I definitely disagree with their orientation and am
strongly pro women's rights as the Symbolic Icons show, I defend their
right, anyone's rights to participate in wikipedia) as one posted on
the Noticeboard, but even strongly pro women's rights folks like
myself seem to be a threat, despite that, or maybe because of my being
strongly pro women's rights, when I question gently
[[15]]
the very narrow type of POV that the dominant editors have made
here. I dared to gently suggest that it is a disservice to our readers
to not include in the article, especially in the section specifically
called "relation to feminism" that some Mens Rights Movement leaders
were women's rights/feminism leaders in past decades. Initially I was
(honestly) not sure if hard-core fanatic Mens Rights Movement editors
(rather than, seemingly, their mirror images in one component of, but
not representative of the whole of, the feminism side) were objecting
to my pointing to factual (not moral, but factual) reasons for
including historically correct information to show that the two
movements are not, or were not historically 100% antagonistic, or 100%
in contradiction.
This was apparently seen as something terrible and awful on my part,
the other one was my daring to point out that, the burden of proof on
those who claim that the entire totality of the Men's Rights Movement
(MRM) and all its parts and components, 'all of them historically
arose as "a backlash against feminism" especially when a user like
myself gives a simple straight forward example of an MRM components
which did not historically arise as a backlash. This was on the Talk
page. No rebuttals were given, just the "you're not welcome here"
treatment (again initially I was naively unsure if hard-core Mens
Rights editors were objecting to my factual point, due to their POV
that they want to be 100% oppositional to feminism) when clearly,
factually, historically, one can think of the example cited above part
of advocates (to a significant extent, female and liberal (not
anti-feminist) advocates) for the rights of male infants and
boys. (And yes, of course boys' rights, and male infant rights, are
part of "Men's Rights" no less than Girls Rights and the issue of
Female Genital Mutilation in rights of female infants, are part of
Womens Rights) This was all on the Talk page, to be clear, no editing
let alone edit wars, just my stating this on the Mens Rights Movement
Talk page (and once on no-patience-for-polite-discussion
Blinksternet's talk page).
I had pointed out that the burden of proof is on those who say a
wikipedia article should claim "all birds can fly" and the burden of
proof is not on those who say the wikipedia article should state that
"most birds can fly", a clear cut point of logic, and having no reply
to counter it, instead the moved to Warn and then Block me followed
immediately, after 8 days of no replies to my "have I addressed all
your concerns?" to Bbb23, no replies, no informing the user of any
remaining concerns, and then after this point of logic, a sudden rush
to Warn and Block (here "all birds can fly" is "all men's rights
movement components are part of anti-feminism backlash" the penguins
who don't fly are (largely women) nurses in the movement against
genital mutilation of boys)
I wonder, is this call for deletion of the Images page, the first step
towards erasing my point by point polite but inconveniently factual
rebuttal on my entire Talk page? I hope not. It bears keeping in mind
that history cannot be erased, with copies in the wikipedia history
and saved on other servers. The evidence cannot be erased. In far less
than a hundred years it's very likely my identity will be revealed,
and therefore proof I am telling the truth I am an individual and not
any group, likely that the identities of Admins will be known or
knowable, and their actions will be public and known, including
archive copies of my Talk page here or elsewhere on the web, and the
far from honest behavior by some admins to block users whose valid
logical arguments they don't like because of the strong POV of certain
admins about certain articles.
These long posts exhaust me, and I thought I was done: I was unfairly
blocked and put a detailed, extensive point buy point rebuttal with
several links to evidence, on my Talk page, and I thought that was
it. Then I find someone is moving to attack and delete my page of 4
public domain symbolic png file images. Symbols explicitly stating in their design that are symbols of tolerance, "cooperation" and "empathy", which end up being vilified, as symbols of vilification Stunning.
So I'm sorry to have had to point at such length again but it was
necessary to respond to the multiple false allegations, and to take
the time to give some of the background to earlier steps in this
string of attacks on the right of participation in wikipedia by
diverse users who bring up factual and historical documented evidence
counter to admin POV holding power over certain articles on
wikipedia. All of this reflects terribly on wikipedia. If a miracle
happens, other senior editors or admins will rectifying it.
Otherwise it is an abuse of power by admins and a stain on wikipedia
(I'm referring to the entire pattern, not necessarily to the
motivations of SuperMarioMan in this step) and trying to erase my
images page is a violation of what wikimedia is for, and if it's a
prelude to trying to find an excuse to erase my Talk page where polite
facts inconvenient for Admins as cited in my defense against my Block,
that kind of trying to erase evidence doesn't work, the internet means
we are all on camera, it will be stored, unearthed eventually, so it's
a waste of everyone's time to try to erase and delete pages on top of
blocking an editor simply because they cite inconvenient facts and
logic outside some artificial party line. Maleliberation (talk) 06:54, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A certain other former editor of the Mens Rights Movement page wrote
me:
"At any rate, I've given up. Wikipedia appears to have decided that when it comes to this article, none of the policies actually apply. "Avoid weasel words" does not actually mean to avoid weasel words. "Avoid contentious labels" does not actually mean to avoid contentious labels. "Widely used" does not actually mean widely used. "Neutral point of view" does not actually mean neutral point of view. And so on.
" If there is any conceivable way in which they can stretch the policies (and "bend" the truth) to apply to you [someone not with the POV of admins and senior editors of that article] they will. However, violations of the plain text do not apply to them. You are not the first and will not be the last. Forget lefty-pedia; it's not worth it. "
Funny since my politics are themselves "lefty" and I do not agree with him if he means that the entire wikipedia is 'lefty' ..but the rest of his comments, on the admin behavior to stamp out certain voices being heard on the Mens Rights Movement article, have sadly proven correct to date.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TheAwesomeHwyh20:18, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that the username you have chosen, "Maleliberation", seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of something other than yourself. Please note that you may not edit on behalf of a company, group, institution, product, or website which relates to the entity in question, and Wikipedia does not allow usernames that are promotional or accounts that are shared. If you are willing to use a personal account, please take a moment to create a new account or request a username change that represents only yourself as an individual. You should also read our Conflict of interest guideline and Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, and remember that promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
