Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:25, 14 November 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)

Thank you, I am quite well aware of the derivation and meaning of the term cuckold. However, contrary to your claim, men who are raising children who are not their own are not "generally referred" to as cuckolds..

A marketing professor, however "well-known", who summarizes the Anderson study in a blog post and spices it up with emotive terms such as "cuckold" isn't an appropriate source for paternity fraud or non-paternity event encyclopedia articles. Please review what WP considers a reliable source. But my question is did you actually "wade into the scientifically formal prose of the Anderson study" yourself? The mistakes that you made about the distinction between the groups studied, as well as the use of the term cuckold, suggest that you actually relied on the Saad article rather than the article itself. --Slp1 (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Dr. Saad is indeed a "marketing" professor; however, he does research on applying an understanding of basic human nature and human behavior, and human sex differences, in a variety of contexts. Check his WP article Gad Saad for more info if you are interested. In this article there are quite a number of cites to popular articles, news articles, summary and opinion pieces by those who are in other fields than the MRM -- do you object to these?

Again, the term cuckold is commonly used in popular and scientific literature. A recent academic book uses the term in its title: Female Infidelity and Paternal Uncertainty: Evolutionary Perspectives on Male Anti-Cuckoldry Tactics.

Here is a search for the term "cuckold" from a scientific journal: http://www.epjournal.net/?search=search&s=cuckold

I did note the group differences noted in Anderson (2006). How the terms and groups were defined was pretty complicated and varied across the many studies. Thanks for helping to clarify that. Memills (talk) 03:24, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Really, this is getting frustrating. Gad Saad is a marketing professor specializing in consumption and consuming. That is the kind of human behaviour and nature he studies.

The book you link to is mainly about animal behaviour, not specifically about men who are raising children of other men.

There are 6 articles in the search. One is a review of the book above, the others have nothing to do with men raising children who are not their own, except in the most indirect possible way. In addition, the references you provide all come from one specific, somewhat controversial branch of psychology, to which I gather both you and Saad subscribe. You have presented no evidence that such men are "generally referred to as a cuckold". Slp1 (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search using the search terms "cuckold" and "paternity" returns about 1,130 academic articles. If that is unconvincing to you, I'm afraid that we will have to respectfully disagree on this issue. Memills (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, a quick look at the first page shows that 8/10 articles are about animals, not humans, and the other two clearly use the term in the context of Fathers' and Men's rights rhetoric about the matter. I haven't time to look further, but based on that I'd said you've proved my point about the POV nature of the term in the MRM context for me. Slp1 (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, humans are animals. But lets add the term "humans" to the Google Scholar search. We are now down to about 941 results. Memills (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

General search page results are rarely convincing to any person who has done any level of online searching. The number of false hits in a set of search results like you are presenting will be staggering. If you want to support a claim that the term is in general use as you are suggesting, you will need to provide a lot of specific usages by well known scholars in widespread publications. Otherwise you may as well be whistling out your butt for as much credence as anyone will give such claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Editing restriction on Men's rights movement, broadly construed

Due to this edit coming immediately after a warning, I am curtailing your edits. You are now limited to talk page edits only for a period of approximately 2 months; I hope that by the New Year you will have learned how to edit without disruption, poor sourcing, and how to obtain assistance and consensus from your fellow editors. KillerChihuahua 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. As I noted above, I will be appealing this due to what I perceive a sanction based on insufficient justification and biased administration of this page.

For example, I see no sanctions placed on the user who make this quite uncivil Talk page comment: "MRM authors and activists are less biased than they are frothing, irrational, unpleasant and misogynistic douchebags..." by WLU

Memills (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Evin if I did consider that uncivil, I don't do Civility Patrol. I had User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility linked in my sig for a long time. If it had been aimed at another editor, you might have a point. If it had been a personal attack, you would definitely have a point. I see nothing to sanction here, especially since A: you took the quote out of context and B: he refactored it well before you complained about it here, in what appears to be an effort to claim bias. KillerChihuahua 19:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I should probably also add that I am singularly unimpressed that your immediate reaction was not "what can I do better" or "what did I do wrong" but "I'll appeal, and oh yeah they did something too" Not a very responsible attitude. KillerChihuahua 19:57, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

We have already discussed those issues above, where I noted that there was disagreement about these policy issues from several different editors. Further, I noted above that I perceived your tone was inappropriately hostile toward me.

However, rather than continue the discussion here, at this point an appeal to get feedback from uninvolved editors could be helpful. Memills (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I have not disregarded any comments due to inexperience, real or perceived, of the editor making the comment.. You are in error. KillerChihuahua 20:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that comment re inexperienced editors was made by someone else (above). I have removed the sentence from my comment above. Memills (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Please do not remove parts of your posts after someone replies to them. This is contrary to talk page guidelines and common courtesy. If you wish to withdraw part of your statement, the preferred method is to strike through the text. See WP:REDACT KillerChihuahua 20:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Memills (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome; thank you for finally agreeing to follow a policy or guideline here when I tell you about it, instead of arguing, pointing fingers at others, and justifying your actions. Had you followed this course from the beginning, we would not now be where we are. This time away from article access is an opportunity for you to learn the policies you have been running afoul of so you can return to editing with a better understanding and ability to apply said policies; please ensure you do so, and you should encounter no further sanctions. KillerChihuahua 20:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I really think there is more to this than just that, otherwise I would not appeal. During the appeal, others can evaluate both of our concerns (above) and perhaps provide useful feedback to one or both of us. Memills (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you know where to appeal and how? KillerChihuahua 21:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I presume it is: Misplaced Pages:Appealing a block

However, I think perhaps there is a chance that we might resolve this ourselves. I'll give you a brief rationale. If you wish, I can provide the specific diff links. Should you be willing to reverse the sanction, of course, there will be no need to initiate an appeal.

The edit in question that prompted your sanction was an edit that I made in error and that I was about to reverse myself. However, before I could do so, someone else already had reversed it. In response, I said (above on this page): "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."

Given I caught my error, and was about to revert and correct the edit in question on the same day, and noted so before your sanction, I would ask you reverse this block.

Memills (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

No, since you are not blocked, using that approach is not going to work. You are only restricted from editing the article page of articles which have to do with Men's rights movement, broadly construed. You may edit any article talk page, and any article which is not in any way related to men's rights. You are correct that you can appeal directly to me; the appropriate place is either here in this thread (best, IMO) or on my talk page. You can also go to ANI and request a review. KillerChihuahua 21:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by "using that approach?"

You based your sanction retroactively -- on an edit that was already reverted by the time you imposed a sanction. On an edit that I had already acknowledged was made in error, and made sure it was corrected. Apparently you were unaware of this at the time you placed the sanction.

The relevant question is: should an editor be penalized for mistaken edit that was corrected, and one wherein the sanctioner apparently was unaware had it had already been acknowledged and fixed?

I believe that such retroactive sanctioning is heavy-handed, and inconsistent with the spirit of WP and AGF. And, it also exacerbates the additional concerns I have already expressed above. Memills (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The approach outlined at Misplaced Pages:Appealing a block, which you said you planned to follow, is the wrong approach. As far as retroactive; I do not sanction people before they have erred. You have failed thus far to acknowledge any problem with your editing habits. You have instead protested that there are other opinions, and you say the sanction is wrong. Care to try to convince me I should lift it? KillerChihuahua 23:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Which then is the correct route to appeal?

The term "retroactive" in this context means that you made a sanction based on an edit that was already corrected by the editor (albeit you were apparently unaware of this correction). Were you do to so before they made an edit (via precognition, perhaps?) that would be called "proactive." I am not suggesting you placed a proactive sanction. Memills (talk) 23:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

You must have missed it where I said above

You are correct that you can appeal directly to me; the appropriate place is either here in this thread (best, IMO) or on my talk page. You can also go to ANI and request a review. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I was aware of the correction, which was by another editor. You did not self correct. I had not been online to notice it before today, or you would have been sanctioned sooner. KillerChihuahua 23:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is my point -- as briefly and clearly as I can muster.

Before you noticed the edit in question, it had already been retracted / corrected. Although it was reverted by another editor, I wrote to that editor (above -- again, this was before you noticed the edit or its correction):

"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."

And please note: I did not challenge the correction. I did not revert it. I apologized for my mistake. I noted that I intended to correct the error myself.

To impose a sanction after an editor catches their own error, makes a good faith effort to correct it, and ensures that it is in fact corrected (within a matter of hours), suggests to me a bit of a rapid and disrespectful trigger finger. If we expect WPians to show respect to one another, this is doubly true for WP Administrators who lead by example.

I have never seen an instance where an editor rapidly corrected their own error (or ensured that it was corrected) but was then sanctioned retroactively nevertheless. Thus, this sanction seems intentionally and overly punitive -- and well beyond the scope of AGF and the mutual respect among editors/administrators to which WP strives. Memills (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Please stop citing AGF. It is rather pointless in this instance. It only wastes time. Please feel free to post brief comments, with diffs; also I will need what I have yet to see, an acknowledgement of what you've done wrong, and a promise not to do it anymore.

My edit in question is here and your sanction based on my edit is noted at the top of this section and here.

As you can read in my comment immediately above, I already acknowledged and apologized for my mistake, and I made sure it was corrected -- at 02:06, 28 October 2012 diff.

Your sanction was imposed after my correction the following day -- at 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Diff.

Again, I request that you lift the sanction given that my edit in question was already acknowledged as mistaken, and corrected, a day before you placed your sanction.

Thanks. Memills (talk) 20:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be acting under the misapprehension that the "last straw" is the only reason for your sanction. Please reread the section "Be cautious" above, look at your edit history, and think about your edits, for example the last one on the main Men's rights movement article. You made an edit, were reverted (also removing content added by Paintedxbird), and then after a talk page discussion in which absolutely no-one supported your edit, you reverted "per talk". Well, you said on talk you wanted this edit, but got no support. On Misplaced Pages when people make an edit "per talk" it means that consensus on the talk page is to make the edit, not that someone who has already been reverted argued for their desired edit and received no support and persuaded no-one to their point of view. In short, you were edit warring against consensus on a page which is under probation. KillerChihuahua 15:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Your sanction was based on an edit that did not deserve a sanction. Given that, now you say that that edit was the "last straw." That makes no sense. If your sanction itself was inappropriate, then there was no straw there to be used as your "last straw."

So now apparently you need something else to serve as your new "last straw." So you undertake a fishing expedition to try to find something else, again, post-hoc (which was the same problem with the first "last straw").

Let me suggest that (a) this post-hoc fishing behavior is inappropriate, and (b) your claimed new "last straw" is not only irrelevant but also inaccurate. (Contrary to your claims, there was support for the new edit you questioned, and, I noted in advance on the Talk page that I would restore the deleted material. However, I will not go into it further right now.)

You also then throw in other issues, apparently just to see what might possibly stick to the wall, again post-hoc. And, these behaviors are not equally applied to other editors, in my opinion, depending on their perspectives on the MRM. Further, your hostility level here, as I noted above, is inappropriate.

I perceive that you are misapplying WP polices in a biased and selective manner. I find this particularly egregious behavior displayed by a WP Administrator, especially given the controversial subject matter of the WP article. I do not believe you are complying with the neutrality and objectivity expected and required of WP Administrators.

I have been open to working collaboratively with you to try to resolve this issue here informally.

Again, given the facts, I respectfully request that you revert your sanction. If you do not, I will appeal it since we seem to have exhausted our efforts here, and, the perspective of uninvolved Administrators may be helpful. Memills (talk) 07:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

So you insult me, say I'm biased, I lie, I'm on a "fishing expedition" to justify(?) the topic ban and I'm too darn hostile. And then you ask me to lift your ban. Is that really your argument for why you should not be topic banned? No, sorry. I remain unconvinced you have taken the time to examine your behavior here and now understand and have undertaken not to do so again. Call me unreasonable, but your request leaves something to be desired. KillerChihuahua 13:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I think you need to reconsider your editing approach at Misplaced Pages. Virtually the entirety of your edits at Misplaced Pages are related to two subjects which are very close to you: Evolutionary psychology which is your professional philosophy, and Men's rights and related areas, which is apparently your personal philosophy. Though actually I recently discovered that the two are related. Parallelling the difficulties you have been having at the men's rights pages, I note similar comments and frustrations about your editing approach have been made in the past on EP pages by respected editors and administrators such as User:Itsmejudith and the late-lamented User:Slrubenstein amongst others. See the discussions for example, at . In particular, an uncollaborative approach to editing, giving emphasis to your personal opinions and views -rather than reliable sources(a recent example) or to the consensus of other editors.(another recent example Having an opinion and even a "cause" is not wrong in itself, but the problems come, and have come, when promoting that cause takes precedence over the goal of this project, which is to work, collaboratively and neutrally to create an encyclopedia. I suggest you take advantage of the topic ban to branch out into some other areas, ones where you don't have strong opinions, and work on those articles. Helping out at places like WP:RSN and WP:NORN can hone an editor's skills about about sources, as well as consensus decision making and resolving disputes.--Slp1 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Block appeal

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

Request reason:

Block was imposed a day after my edit in question had been reverted, and, a day after I had apologized for a mistaken edit. My summary of this is in the section immediately above (search above for my comment that begins with "My edit in question is") or see this diff. Further, I have concerns about the civility, respectfulness, and neutrality of this administrator (per WP policy: "Administrators are expected to lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others." Memills (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I can find no current blocks on this account. If you are still unable to edit, please request an unblock again and include the message you see when attempting to edit. If the block message you see contains private information such as your IP address you can submit the unblock request via WP:UTRS for review. Jezebel'sPonyo 18:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

NOTE to reviewing admin: User:Memills was not blocked when he asked to be unblocked, but he is now. Please read the sectionsEditing restriction on Men's rights movement, broadly construed and if you have time, Be cautious above for background, as well as my block notice below. He was topic banned, but allowed to edit talk pages. He edited the article in violation, and prior to that he appealed his block, which he apparently knew would follow violating his topic ban. KillerChihuahua 22:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked (note to reviewing admins: Yes, he appealed BEFORE he was blocked))

You have been blocked for 1 week for this edit in violation of your topic ban which is not due to expire until Jan 1 2013. I note with some concern that you have actually posted a block appeal prior to being blocked. Why did you violate your topic ban if you knew you would be blocked? That is not a helpful approach. KillerChihuahua 22:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You wrote above here: "I am curtailing your edits. You are now limited to talk page edits only for a period of approximately 2 months" at the top of the new subsection you created titled "Editing restriction on Men's rights movement, broadly construed."

I interpreted that as a block. If that was not a block, I would have appreciated a link to the WP policy that indicates what it was.

So I placed a block appeal (above).

The response to my unblock request (above, by Jezebel'sPonyo) suggested that I try to edit the "blocked" page: "If you are still unable to edit, please request an unblock again and include the message you see when attempting to edit." So, by following these instructions (and doing what amounted to a minor test edit -- replacing a period with a colon), you have now placed a block. By following the instructions of one administrator, I get blocked by a another administrator. Memills (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I already told you it was not a block, and gave you links. They are still on this page, in the section titled "Editing restriction on Men's rights movement, broadly construed." Do I really have to paste the diffs? I don't write these things and paste these links for my own amusement. I post them so you will read them. You are now making it really clear you didn't bother to read what I wrote. I even told you NOT to use "appealing a block" to appeal the topic ban. I told you, twice that was the wrong thing to do, you could ask me or take it to WP:ANI. And I have to confess, I am having a really, really hard time believing you thought you were blocked, when you were editing articles. You've been blocked before, for edit warring. YOu know you can't edit anything but your own talk page when blocked. Yet you ignore my information, my pasted links, my instructions, and ask to be unblocked before you edit an article in clear violation of your topic ban? I'm sorry, that's hard to swallow. KillerChihuahua 23:19, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This edit of mine is the one you should probably re-read most carefully. KillerChihuahua 23:43, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My bad and my apologies.

You did indicate that "appealing a block" was the wrong course of action to appeal -- twice. I'm afraid that by the time I was ready to initiate an appeal, several days later, that had slipped my mind.

However, I would have appreciated it if you had provided me with the link to the proper place to appeal which apparently is ANB. So, in searching for the route to appeal, and not knowing the difference between a "ban" vs. a "block" I searched WP and found Block Appeal, and posted that above.

Again, my apologies for initiating an appeal at the wrong place. Honest mistake -- I am really not trying to mess with your head.

I guess I could initiate a Block Appeal now, since I now actually have one to appeal, and, given the innocent and inconsequential series of events that led to it (well, imho anyway), but I shant...

However, I still sincerely do have concerns about the more substantive issues I addressed above that made me believe an appeal was an appropriate course of action. I may post these to ANB when my block expires (I'm sure there is the minuscule probability that you may wish to reverse it before then... but I won't hold my breath ;-). Memills (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If you expect me to reverse your ban, as I have explained several times now, I will need to hear that you understand what you have been doing wrong and a pledge to do better, and I'll need it to convince me you're sincere. Accusing me of lying and bias and telling me I am grasping at straws is unlikely to lead to a reversal of your topic ban. But rather than that, I strongly urge you to edit the talk pages and ask questions and learn from more experienced Misplaced Pages editors such as Slp1 and Kevin Gorman who I see have been trying to explain policy to you above and on the MRM talk page. You have been going about this in a very combative way, which has acted to your detriment. KillerChihuahua 23:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I advise you not try that defense, btw. Trying to excuse not paying attention to an administrator's clear warning that you are in danger of being blocked for violating policy as "innocent and inconsequential series of events" is not likely to gain much traction. KillerChihuahua 18:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Men's Rights

If you plan on editing this article, and others like it, from any perspective other than pro-feminist it is inevitable that you will be blocked/banned. Don't take it personal. Misplaced Pages is a notoriously bad source for information on sex/gender issues due to the entrenched feminist bias amongst admins (many of whom can be found editing this article.) The article is on, seemingly indefinite, probation, but a careful analysis of the history of who is sanctioned will show that it's only the editors who question the POV pushing of the feminist task force that polices the article. This article, and others like it, are just parodies of the topics they ostensibly represent. I come by to take a look at it every once in a while for a laugh and think about the self-righteous ideologues and gender warriors who use it to push their version of "the truth" (aka "Men's Rights according to feminists" -- about as worthy an analysis as "Black History according to Klansmen.")--Cybermud (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2012 (UTC)