Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:06, 28 October 2012

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

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

Dispute resolution survey

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

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

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

In this issue:

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

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

A friendly notice

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. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- KillerChihuahua 16:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Men's Rights". Thank you! EarwigBot  15:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Be cautious

You are currently warring to include material and introducing phrasing not supported by sources, in the Men's rights movement article, an article which is on probation. Please familiarize yourself with WP:EL, WP:WEASEL, WP:CON, WP:OR, and WP:EW. KillerChihuahua 02:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, let me be blunt. Revert yourself, and if you introduce phrasing such as "some feminists..." again I will consider banning you to the talk page of that article for a week or so. You must attribute who said something if you qualify it; you cannot use the weasel "some..." as you have done multiple times in your rewrite. KillerChihuahua 02:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If I have made an error in suggesting that the cites in the 2nd paragraph in the History section are to feminist authors, please let me know which ones they are. Also the term "some feminists" is accurate (not a weasel), given that there are many divergent philosophers / authors that call themselves feminists ("radical feminists", "gender feminists," "equity feminists," etc.), and who would disagree with some of the claims made in this section. Memills (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

1. I am not involved in editing this article; I am involved in ensuring policy is followed.
2. I'm not therefore going to discuss content with you.
3. Yes, you must not use "some feminists..." on WP. Elsewhere do whatever is allowed there, but here we even have a template for it {{who}} and it is specifically disallowed here; adding that template will automatically add the article to the category Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases - you cannot say "some such-and-such say..."
4. I am telling you to stop the linkspam in violation of EL.
5. I am telling you that your editing is becoming disruptive, and the onus is on the person who wishes to add content to make the case on the article talk page and gain consensus.

You may either heed my instructions, or you may be barred from editing that article. KillerChihuahua 10:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

#5 is precisely the point I am making re the paragraph in question, and I have noted this on the Talk page. However, given your concerns above, I have reverted my own edits to this paragraph and have suggested it be discussed on the Talk page.

In addition, I would ask that you AGF and respect that there is disagreement among the editors of this article regarding some of your other points above, as noted on the Talk page and in a recent DRN. As noted there "This subject is highly partisan... Amadscientist (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)" and you note this yourself on your own Talk page. While "policing" the article, please be respectful to editors who may have a different perspective than you might have on this highly controversial topic, and/or, editors who may have a sincere differences of interpretation of WP policies.

I have attempted to show such respect myself and AGF, and I will continue to do so. Memills (talk) 16:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You don't know my view, and quite frankly I don't know yours, nor do I much care. You're missing the point, which is that you need to follow Misplaced Pages polices and guidelines, because you are on Misplaced Pages. I have made no assumptions or statements about your views or motives; I am the very picture of AGF, as I assume you are here to improve the article. However, you cannot flout policy in order to do so. Seek consensus, and follow the rules, and all will be well. Ignore my warnings, and sanctions will follow. KillerChihuahua 16:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua -- I have no intention of flouting WP policies, nor do I believe that I have done so. Some editors have agreed with my interpretations of WP policies as related to this article; others have agreed with your interpretations. Given this, as I noted above, issuing warnings about sanctions despite the good faith disagreements among several editors does not seem to me to be consistent with the spirit and mission of WP. Rest assured tho, I have heard your concerns and will take them into consideration as editors with divergent views strive to reach consensus on this controversial topic. Memills (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I am glad you have no intention of flouting policies. I am here as an admin of over 8 years experience here to tell you that you are unfortunately not adhering to policy as applied to articles under probation. Must I place you under sanctions in order to gain your cooperation here? You need to discuss major changes on the talk page and gain consensus. You must not revert when someone reverts one of your edits, that is edit warring. You must instead go to talk, and there persuade and convince other editors that your change is desirable. You must not add excessive links in violation of EL, which has already been explained to you by others. You must do more than take my "concerns" into consideration; you must listen and follow my instructions or you will find yourself sanctioned. Is this finally clear to you, or do you plan to persist in your condescending dismissal of my very clear warning as a "concern"? You seem to be epically confused about my role here; I am and have been enforcing sanctions on the MRM article family, and can enact sanctions including to ban you completely from that article. Do you understand me now? I do not wish to do so, and have been more than patient with you, but if you continue to justify your own actions and dismiss my clear warnings, you will leave me no choice. I am not here for a referendum on who agrees with my rulings on policy or not. I am here to tell you to cease your approach and heed my warning, or sanctions will ensue. I am now done; reply or not as you choose but for the sake of your continued ability to edit the article you should make it your primary effort to follow my directions. KillerChihuahua 17:26, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I am a very long time WP editor as well, and I must share with you my feeling that your tone above seems to me to be overly confrontive, threatening and authoritarian -- inappropriate for an Administrator in my opinion. Based on this, I would certainly appeal a sanction you place on me based on the history of my article edits and comments on the talk page -- particularly in view of WP:BRD. Memills (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Must I address the proverbial elephant in the room? It is true that some editors have agreed with your interpretation of WP policies. CSDarrow (talk · contribs), for example, has been a very vocal supporter of your interpretations. Others include Perpetualization (talk · contribs) and Memotype (talk · contribs). While I do not doubt that the users are well-intentioned, I cannot help but notice that, judging from their edit count, they seem to be inexperienced. CSDarrow has made 122 edits so far, most of them focused on one topic area or, more precisely, one article. On the other hand, there are at least four administrators (I apologize if I forgot someone), User:Cailil, User:Kaldari, User:Slp1 and now KillerChihuahua, with a combined edit count of 100,000+ and years of experience who explain to you that your edits do not comply with some of our core policies. That is not counting editors like User:Binksternet who has contributed 85,000 edits and written more good and featured articles than most. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, and perhaps this issue can be taken up at another DRN.

However, note the other elephant in the room. The two sets of editors, based on their comments, appear to be coming from opposite perspectives re the MRM. Many of the former appear to be generalliy "anti-MRM" and the latter appear to be generally "pro-MRM." In an ideal world of WP, that should not matter.

But I think we probably both realize that in the real WP world, these differing perspectives very much influence how WP policies are interpreted and applied. To wit: far more stringently interpreted by the former group (one commented that a listing of MRM organizations was equivalent to "advertising" them!) and more leniently applied by the latter group. And, that is why the Talk page isn't empty (as it is for some non-controversial topics) and why there is so much disagreement among editors re policy.

Again, I believe in WP despite these difficulties, and, I will do my best to work to reach consensus. Memills (talk) 18:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

(outdent, pasted in after edit conflict) Sonicyouth makes an excellent point in that you are treating this as a debatable issue rather than admins warning you and inexperienced editors agreeing with your edits; and I remind you also that this is not an ordinary article. It is on probation, where standards are stricter and sanctions are quicker. Read over the probation page as well as the page on sanctions in general for a fuller understanding. This is not about DRN, or content disputes at all. This is about an article on probation, and how to edit one (and how not to.) KillerChihuahua 18:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Memills, what did you think that you were doing it this edit purporting to "correct the citation"? Did you actually bother to check the citation that was given, instead of adding a citation to a completely different article, which does not actual support the figures given? Do you really think that adding comments about "higher cuckoldry levels" is neutral and encyclopedic, most especially when neither scholarly source supports even the concept of adultery being the prime motivator? Do you really think a professor of marketing, writing a blog on the Psychology Today website is an appropriate source for the subject of Paternity Fraud? These kinds of edits are deeply, deeply unhelpful to building this encyclopedia. Slp1 (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just read the discussion above, and I want to say I also object to your characterization of editors being pro and anti-MRM. My sole interest is that this, and the other articles I edit, follow WP policies about verifiability, sourcing, NPOV, original research etc. I disagree with your edits, as I did above, when they don't follow our policies not because of the point of view you hold.--Slp1 (talk) 01:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

My bad re the citation -- I thought the data was incorrectly referring to the 2006 Anderson study (which is quite similar). I was about to correct my error, but found you had already reverted the edit for another reason. I did add the Anderson study to the Non-paternity event article.

The term "cuckoldry" is in common use, particularly in zoology, biology and psychology. It is derived from the cuckoo bird, who lays her eggs in anther's bird's nest, leaving the "foster parents" to raise a genetically unrelated chick. A man who is unknowingly raising a genetically unrelated child that he believes to be his own is is generally referred to as a cuckold -- both in popular and scientific literature.

Dr. Gad Saad is a well known professor, and he summarized the Anderson (2006) study -- especially helpful for those who don't wish to wade into the scientifically formal prose of the Anderson study.

I think that for most any highly controversial topic, such as the MRM, it is a tad optimistic to think that editors don't have their own biases, pro or con. Some make it pretty clear. And, as I noted above, in a perfect WP world, this would have no effect on interpretation of WP policy. Again, as I noted above, the reason that Talk pages of articles on controversial topics are full, while those of non-controversial topics are often empty, is because there are often disputes over WP policies and how they are interpreted and applied -- and no doubt editors' perspectives contribute to this, even if unconsciously.

Of course, like you, I hope to help to work to create a balanced and accurate article that presents not only the perspectives of those in the MRM, but those of their critics as well. Memills (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)