User talk:Memills/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 18:23, 29 January 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: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * 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)

Hello, I'm Wlmg. I noticed that you recently removed some content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

FYI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 00:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have blocked you for a week for these edits, which disrupt the discussion and are a direct attack on those with whom CSDarrow may be in disagreement. Unverified claims of personal, "ad hominem" attacks are themselves personal attacks. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. NE Ent 13:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that Mathsci is proposing you should be banned from Wikipedia's community, because he says you coordinated the actions of several other editors and misled them about the purpose of Wikipedia. As you are blocked and not able to defend yourself there, I thought I should ask you about it here. Is what he's saying about you and those other editors true? Akuri (talk) 20:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * These edits were made under the auspices of the Association for Psychological Science (APS) Wikipedia Initiative. Unfortunately, Mathsci is, IMHO, a malicious editor, and does not  respect or appreciate Wikipedia's mission, or its policy on good faith edits. Memills (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Accusing another editor of malice, without giving any reason, on display here while you are blocked, in part for personal attacks, is not a good idea if you want to be unblocked. As for the APS Wikipedia Initiative, it is totally inconsistent with Wikipedia's purpose. Its self-avowed purpose is to use Wikipedia to "promote" the aims of the organisation. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * APS, a scientific society of scholars/researchers, is totally inconsistent with Wikipedia's purpose? You've gotta be kidding -- right?
 * Where in any APS materials does it state that "APS Wikipedia Initiative is to self-promote APS?  Do let me know. To the contrary, the motto of the APS is to "give psychology away" for free -- much like the mission of WP Memills (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

 * Hey so apparently this block expired 10 days ago, but was kinda wondering about the phrasing at the log where Drmies wrote
 * "harassment on Talk:MRM; block per article probation" on Apr27
 * and James added:
 * "also other persistent disruption" on Apr30
 * I would like to clarify: wouldn't "harassment" be enough? I don't understand how the context "per probation" appends to this. Does it mean that in other contexts, harassments on talk pages would normally be treated with a shorter ban than a week, but in the context of probation the punishment is heavier?
 * Would also like to know if perhaps edit diffs could be linked displaying the harassment, perhaps with bold emphasis on the nature of it? From an editor concerned about discussing such issues who would like to know conversational guidelines, what to avoid, etc. Same query regarding the 'disruption' type edits that are called persistant, so I can also learn to avoid disrupting while still contributing in a constructive manner. Ranze (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ranze, there was no harassment or disruption. Note the lack of examples (diffs), or, if a diff is provided (which I did), read through it. Nothing there deserved a block.  WP is broken. Memills (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Memills. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSDarrow (talk • contribs) 03:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * You say to check the talk pages but surely you've some idea of what they're reacting to and calling harassment even if isn't actually. Can you show some diffs on yours or Darrow's that are being pointed to? Also please see bottom topic regarding project retitle. Ranze (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * See the comment that got me blocked (per above).


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMen%27s_rights_movement&diff=552208726&oldid=552207758


 * First what prompted my comment (which did not result in a block):


 * "That doesn't mean I like all the yelling and carrying on CSDarrow has been doing However, trying to get a person to leave with bullying and threats because they loudly and obnoxiously hold a contrary view is probably not a good thing." Reyk  YO!  01:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * My response to this comment (which did result in a block):


 * "And, by the way, let me commend CSDarrow (talk) for persevering here, and in supporting WP policies here, despite ad hominems, bullying, and threats by those pushing an anti-MRM POV."


 * Note: CSDarrow subsequently got an award for his perseverance.


 * If my comment deserved a block, certainly the one that precipitated did as well. Rather selective administrative policing, imho.  Memills (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Project retitle
At WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Men's rights Cycloane suggested it be retitled "Masculism", wanting to know your thoughts on this. Ranze (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

1RR
Please note that you have now added the same material twice in 24 hours on the Masculism page, which is under men's rights probation. Per the probation rule "Any editor reverting the same or similar material twice in any 24 hour period (+/-) is subject to being blocked without warning." Please take care. --Slp1 (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- I am aware of the rule. Memills (talk) 00:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Then why did you break it? --Slp1 (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't. I added material, which you deleted, and then I reverted your deletion.  That is one reversion, not two. Memills (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No, you altered somebody else's material (from "this theory argues" to "which they erroneously believe posits") as well as adding some material. I reverted and then you reverted again making the same changes to that first sentence.   You've now removed "erroneously" but you've still changed "this theory argues" to "they believe posits" twice today.  You've broken 1RR. I suggest you change that first sentence back to how it was originally to avoid any problem.   Slp1 (talk) 01:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Let's play "gotcha." You win this round.  Memills (talk) 02:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If I had wanted to play "gotcha" why would I have come here to talk to you about it, and explain the rule that you had apparently misunderstood? But what amazes me is that you didn't actually revert to the original version as I suggested, but changed it to a third formulation "and that this theory argues", making it an even clearer 1RR violation, and apparently triggering the block  Slp1 (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Plueez... you expect me to now believe your intentions were noble? Your goal has been to invest many, many hours to suppress the contributions of editors with whom you disagree about gender issues.  You, along with some like-minded editors, revert and challenge their appropriate contributions, or attempt to have these editors blocked via extensive and persistent wikilawyering. Unfortunately,  I have no doubt that you will continue to do so. Presumption of an editor's good faith only goes so far... Memills (talk) 06:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for violating WP:1RR on article subject to probation sanctions, as you did at Masculism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 03:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Just an added warning. If this happens again and I am the administrator who sees it, you risk a very long block or a topic ban. Your block log and your contributions speak for themselves.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I see you were the Administrator who also blocked CSDarrow. Interesting.
 * I stand by my contributions. They are consistent with the WP mission of creating reliable, accurate and NPOV encyclopedic articles.
 * Sad to see WP being gamed. Substantive issues take a backseat to hostile politicking, tag teaming, and picayune wikilawyering. The result is the hemorrhaging of WP editors, many are academic and professional content experts, who have generously volunteered their time here. WP is broken. Memills (talk) 05:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * For reviewing sysops. See above section 1RR for more info. The reverts as I understand them are as follows. The material in question is in question begins with the line: "The masculinist movement has to some extent appropriated the concepts of evolutionary psychology:" in work by Blais. Slp1 added this info on May 11 2013 and Memills altered it on May 29th and then used the Undo function to maintain that change that same day. Thus changing the same pre-existing text ("this theory argues" → "they erroneously believe posits") twice within 24 hours. Also apparently Memills accepted this above-- Cailil  talk 11:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Calilil has asked me to clarify the violation on my talk page. Normally, an admin is not required to provide diffs in support of an edit warring violation as the history speaks for itself. I might also add that Memills makes a number of claims both within the unblock request and without that are troubling. That said, Cailil's summary is spot on in support of the violation. Mellil's claim that they edited or reverted their own contribution is a distortion of the history.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict- including with the unblock decline, but for the record.) My mind must be going. I'd totally forgotten that I'd added this material!  Cailil has it right. Memills is to all intents and purposes a SPA on the subjects of Evolutionary Psychology and Men's Rights and here we have an intersection of the the two, unfortunately. He edits strongly in favour of both.
 * In this edit he changes "The masculinist movement has to some extent appropriated the concepts of evolutionary psychology: this theory argues" to "Blais and Dupuis-Déri (2012) suggested that the masculinist movement has to some extent appropriated the concepts of evolutionary psychology: which they erroneously believe posits ". I reverted the edit as POV editorizing while leaving the attribution to the authors, but Memills reverted to   and subsequently removed the word "erroneously". This broke the 1RR requirement about not "reverting the same or similar material twice in any 24 hour period".  I pointed out the problem in the section above, but instead of reverting to the original version as I suggested, he made a third edit- this time changing it to "Blais and Dupuis-Déri (2012) suggested that the masculinist movement has to some extent appropriated the concepts of evolutionary psychology and that this theory argues ....".
 * It is subtle but this final edit with the addition of "and that" significantly changes the meaning of the sentence. Its effect is to cast doubt on Blais and Dupuis-Déri's analysis, which is evidently Memills' purpose given his other edits to this section (and indeed the encyclopedia). Unfortunately in my experience this is par for the course. Memills' strategy often seems to be to test the limits and see what he can get away with. See this block for making an edit while topic banned. Also more content problems of the same sort in terms of misrepresentation of resources etc see this for an analysis.Slp1 (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * "It is subtle but this final edit with the addition of "and that" significantly changes the meaning of the sentence. Its effect is to cast doubt on Blais and Dupuis-Déri's analysis..."  Incredible -- this speaks for itself: "and that" does not 'significantly change' the meaning of the sentence.
 * What I see above is more gooey thick bias, and, more wikilawyering. What is most troubling are the obvious efforts to suppress relevant, notable and referenced information with which these editors strongly (and I do mean strongly) disagree, and the extent to which they are willing to use biased wikilawyering (mostly about minutia and insubstantial issues).  Their purpose is not to improve the accuracy, breath and reliability of WP, but to banish editors with whom they disagree. It's simply political gamesmanship -- not the type activity that creates a good encyclopedia.  Memills (talk) 05:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Men's Issues
Ranze proposed a WikiProject Men's Rights: WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Men's rights.

I have gone ahead and created a candidate page for WikiProject Men's Issues and will make the page an actual WikiProject page once enough people sign up and give their input. I think it would be useful to have a place where work together to prepare material and arguments to respond to people who try to apply double standards to articles about men's rights.

Interested? Ummonk (talk) 04:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm in. Memills (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that Wikiprojects are not formed in order to defend or push a POV but rather as a central location in which to discuss improvements to articles on a particular topic. If you start a men's rights issues project you should expect that it will be populated by anyone with an interest in the subject, not just people who want to "prepare material and arguments to respond to people who try to apply double standards to articles about men's rights."  In other words, most of the people you're accusing of applying double standards will likely also be part of any MRM project.  N o f o rmation  Talk  12:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * NPOV is the goal. A frequently expressed concern by several editors is that many of the pages related to the MRM reflect an anti-MRM POV, and these articles are patrolled and "sat on" by a group of editors who are pushing an anti-MRM POV.  They have relied on wikilawyering to suppress relevant information with which they disagree.  This is inconsistent with the NPOV mission of WP. Memills (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I can't really comment on that because I don't follow the MRM topic (with the exception of brief reads when it's on AN) but based on Ummonk's wording above he appears to be trying to form a coalition of like-minded editors. I'm just pointing out that wikiprojects are specifically not a coalition of like minded editors.  So even assuming that your position above is true, forming a wikiproject will do nothing to curtail the problems because the same editors on the other side of the dispute will also be part of the wikiproject.  Your best bet for improving MRM articles is to follow the steps outlined at WP:DR, especially making use of WP:DRN.     N o f o rmation  Talk  17:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Appreciate your comments. IMO, Wikipedia currently lacks (but needs to develop)  administrative policies to deal with situations when a group of like-minded editors with a POV "sit" on an article, such that the article becomes NPOV. The "consensus" policy of WP is ineffective in this situation.  Memills (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I've been here since 2007 and I can't tell you how many times I've heard similar sentiment expressed but thus far no one has come up with a comprehensive way to address such issues (and I'm doubtful it's possible).  The consensus system does work - sometimes it takes a long time and a lot of pain - but hey, we've got 4 million articles and counting so we must be doing something right.  Utilizing DRN to its fullest extent helps to bring in the largest array of editors, thus helping to ensure that no one POV is exclusively represented in any given discussion.  Still, head over to WP:VPP if you ever come up with a novel idea for a policy change.  N o f o rmation  Talk  18:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Consensus works great on non-controversial articles when editors have no vested POV; not so well on controversial articles.
 * Thanks for the link to WP:VPP. I am not up to speed on how new policies get proposed / implemented, but will check it out.  This is a difficult problem -- but perhaps not an intractable one. Memills (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
This is a warning that the MRM probation sanctions apply to all pages, including user talk pages. This edit is unacceptable. I suggest you change your rhetoric or you risk being blocked again.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology
Hi there, no problem and I'm glad to be of assistance. That situation seems to have become inflamed in a way that needs a fresh approach to unlock. If the third opinion doesn't resolve the issue, you can - perhaps in co-operation with the other involved editor - start a RFC to invite broader participation. Before that, starting again by looking at the actual edit and sources might get things going. --Dailycare (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- I appreciate your willingness to provide a neutral, 3rd option. Memills (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Warning
Please read my warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban
Pursuant to Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, you are now topic-banned for three months. During that period, you are prohibited from editing any men's rights movement article or talk page, broadly construed. This ban is based on your previous block for breaching WP:1RR; your persistent disruption on the Men's rights movement talk page, even after being warned specifically about your behavior; and this edit, which has a misleading edit summary and intentionally defied consensus on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

In brief, what's this all about?
I think I better go back to editing mainly badminton stuff. I only recently did anything on the "men's movement," because it seemed to me that there was some fairly obvious POV in the lead. Perhaps you can give me the short version of why reasonably polite and thoughtful discussion on the Talk page here draws warnings from some administrator (at least, I assume the guy's an administrator). Regards. Badmintonhist (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, the badminton stuff is definitely more peaceful. :-)
 * What is going on, imho, is multiple editor ownership. Been going on for quite awhile, with many pro-MRM editors sanctioned, blocked or banned.  Several good faith editors have dropped out entirely.  Right now the article is owned by a small group of feminist editors. Memills (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Your comment is not a violation of your topic ban because the ban covers only MRM articles and their talk pages. However, this page is still subject to probation sanctions, and I could - but won't - sanction you for the comment. Just consider this another warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge I have not been placed on probation. Given that, why would you suggest that this page -- my own Talk page -- is "subject to probation sanctions?" Even if I was on probation, what specifically is there about the comment above would warrant a sanction?  My comment above is civil and, as I indicated, it is an expression of my opinion.  Editors should certainly be free to express their concerns / opinions / dissent in response to administrative actions against them on their own Talk page.
 * Again, as I have mentioned to you before, I am concerned that your administrative actions on the MRM page, as well as toward me and a few other editors of that page, has shown bias, and that some actions have bordered on censorship. This is about 180 degrees away from the mission of WP.Memills (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Memills your topic ban is due to the subject area of Men's rights being under a probation, that was explained to you in September 2012. You are currently topic-banned and thus restricted from editing or commenting on the topic everywhere and anywhere on the article and article talk pages of this site duration of that ban. However any comment anywhere and everywhere is still subject to that probation because the subject of the men's rights movement is under probation. I've linked to the policies for this above but if you want to see them manually search for WP:TBAN, WP:PROBATION and GS. Your current ban's terms were explained to here. And as a matter of clarity it IS appropriate for you to ask Bbb23 (as the sysop who imposed your ban) questions if you are unclear about the ban, BUT it is not appropriate to talk to others about it. Furthermore alleging misconduct where there is none is a very bad idea. When you're stuck in a hole don't dig-- Cailil  talk 11:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, that's incorrect. As a matter of clarity, it IS quite appropriate to discuss with others the actions of an administrator that one believes violates both the letter and spirit of WP (censorship and biased sanctioning), especially when similar concerns are expressed by another editor (noted in the section below).
 * I am surprised to see your comment here. You note on your User Page that "Cailil will not use his sysop privileges on any page where he is actively editing or could be considered 'involved' in a content issue."  You are definitely involved in MRM page with a clear POV, and your "advice" here is consistent with that POV. Memills (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Posting a comment on your talk page talking about administrative issues doesn't require using sysop privileges, and thus doesn't violate Cailil's userpage statement. Ex: I'm not a sysop, and just made a comment talking about administrative issues in the section below this one, so clearly posting a comment as Cailil did doesn't require using sysop privileges. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you don't want to hear good advice Memills fine but the facts remain as they are. As above casting spurious aspersions (as you have just done) is liable to make your situation worse rather than better. Of course I'm involved at Men's rights topics (I have been even before I was an admin) and thus I have never used "the tools" there (that would mean blocking/unblocking accounts, or moving, deleting and/or protecting pages). You might be confused so I'm happy to let this go if you strike the above-- Cailil  talk 11:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No aspersions cast. However, as a sysop, your advice carries more gravitas. Given that, I found your comment here on my Talk page unexpected and surprising. Memills (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A slight difference with you
I have to disagree with your comment above that some of Bbb23's actions "border on censorship." No, some of his actions epitomize censorship and although I am generally quite reluctant to call for administrative procedures against anyone, and am not at all knowledgeable about such procedures, I think we need to get the ball rolling in this case. As my late Dad would have said "the guy's an utter bird." Nobody editing on Wikipedia should have to deal with this Little Napoleon nonsense.Badmintonhist (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I concur. To get the ball rolling:
 * Step 1 would be to note our concerns on Bbb23's Talk page -- which we already both have done.


 * Since he has not responded to our concerns there, Step 2 would be to document (with Diff links) the instances that we believe exemplify censorship or bias, and include them in a request for review at the Administrator's Noticeboard WP:ANI.


 * Step 3 is to request arbitration at WP:A/R.


 * In addition, the MRM article, and associated pages, need a peer review, especially with respect to the issue of multiple editor ownership]. The MRM article has been on probation for too long, that that is now being used, imho, as a gambit to silence editors who have made attempts to make the article more neutral and less POV (as both of us have witnessed). Memills (talk) 02:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Badminton: when you are trying to criticize the actions an administrator has taken about an article that is currently under probation, it is an exceptionally bad idea to do so in hyperbolic terms on the talk page of another editor. I would suggest that it would likely be in your best interest to strike your comments here and start an AN/I post about Bbb's actions if you have a significant problem with them. If you continue to discuss the actions of other editors taken on a page that is indisputedly under probation currently using phrases like 'epitomizes censorship' on the talk pages of other editors, it'll eventually result in action taken against you by someone else, because language like that is a clearcut violation of the terms the article is currently under. You don't have to like the fact that the article is under probation, but as long as it is under probation you would be bloody well-advised to follow it. You're perfectly entitled to call for administrative procedures against someone, but you do that at ANI, not on another person's talk page. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Kevin, there seems to be some confusion here. If there is a WP policy that suggests that one cannot discuss  on personal talk pages issues relevant to administrative actions on an article that is under probation, please point out the relevant WP policy that specifically states this.  I haven't seen it.  Memills (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You can certainly discuss such issues on personal talk pages, but they're not a place where you can request administrative action be taken against probation enforcing admins who you think have gone too far. But Badmintonhist's first post here, being worded the way it was, could be taken as a fairly clear violation of the terms of probation - since it makes an accusation "Bbb's actions epitomize censorship" without providing diffs to substantiate the accusation - and also calls Bbb crazy and accuses him of having a napoleon complex. If he has a real problem with Bbb's actions, the way he can get that problem addressed is to go to ANI - if he continues just talking about it on your talk page and insulting people in the process, it's not likely to end terribly favorably for him.  I know you don't like the probation currently in place on the article, but certainly you can see that it is currently in place, and that calling someone crazy violates it (since there's a blackletter prohibition in it against insulting other editors.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * There is quite a bit of irony here -- what appears to be attempts to censor (or silence) concerns about censorship. Kinda bizarre.
 * Kevin and Cailil (above), both involved editors on the MRM article with an apparent anti-MRM POV, seem to want to limit what can be said on personal talk pages about the issue of censorship on the MRM article. Of course, this itself smacks of attempts to censor. Cailil states above to me: "You are currently topic-banned and thus restricted from editing or commenting on the topic everywhere and anywhere." Then he back-pedals and strikes "everwhere and anywhere" because that is contrary to WP policy. Kevin comments to Badmintonhist that "language like that is a clearcut violation of the terms the article is currently under" but later appears to acknowledge that the probation status of the MRM article is not the issue, but thinks that Badmintonhist is being hyperbolic with his comment that Bbb23's actions related to the MRM article epitomize censorship.   If Bbb23 has in fact engaged in what amounts to censorship, that phrase is not hyperbolic.
 * These comments are gooey thick with irony, and paradoxically serve to strengthen the original concerns. Memills (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, I certainly haven't said that the probation status of the article is not an issue. Calling an uninvolved administrator crazy and otherwise insulting them on another user's talk page over administrative decisions they've made about an article under probation is literally asking to get blocked. If you think people are trying to censor you, don't give them an easy excuse to do so by breaking plainly laid out rules. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Check again, Kevin. I have never cast personal aspersions against Bbb23.  I have civilly expressed my concerns about bias and censorship with respect to some of his decisions (to which he has never responded). Memills (talk) 23:55, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Which might explain why my entire series of comments was directed at Badmintonhist, and not at you? All I'm doing here is to point out that unless Badminton changes his behavior, a banhammer will be whacked soon. I'm not hoping for that banhammer to be whacked, which is why I have been suggesting ways that Badminton could change his behavior to avoid it.  Badminton's very first post in this section certainly cast personal aspersions against Bbb23. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 rebuked and asked to resign as an administrator by Jimbo Wales
I see that Bbb23 has recently received quite the "don't censor" rebuke from Jimbo Wales. I wonder what ol' Jimbo would think of Bbb23's little Napoleon routine at the Men's rights movement talk page. Badmintonhist (talk) 03:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Whoa, thanks for the heads up.
 * Jimbo himself writes to Bbb23: "I think you need to resign your admin bit. Your actions are very very far outside the standard that I expect admins to follow.--Jimbo Wales" Direct link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive810#Involved_actions_and_edit_warring_by_User:Bbb23_at_Talk:Asaram_Bapu

Also, see some of the comments on Jimbo's Talk page about BBb23:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Bbb23


 * "I think here is a workable plan: Step (1) Bbb23 should resign as admin, step (2) study wp:BLP about police charges, (3) apologize to Jimbo, (4) contemplate why Jimbo's comments were ruthlessly removed, (5) meditate on an "attitude adjustment", (6) rerun for admin after adjustment, or follow a 12-step program for reforms. We do not need a trigger-happy admin deleting links to wp:RS reliable reports of police charges in a talk-page, and edit-warring without wp:CLUE against the founder. Jimbo is right, again. Resign as admin. -Wikid77 22:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I must say that I agree with Jimmy and Wikid77. Bbb23 should resign as an admin because his actions were not befetting of what one would expect of an administrator.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)"

Looks like we were not the only ones who had concerns about Bbb23's interpretation of WP policies.


 * Memills (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess we shouldn't gloat, but from my perspective it's hard to feel sorry for an administrator who blocks a perfectly reasonable line of argument and then acts as if I should know why the hell he's doing it. Badmintonhist (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "Bbb23's little Napoleon routine" is a borderline personal attack:, please comment in neutral terms, and on content, not on the contributor. (And don't wikilawyer about semantics: "Napoleon" isn't an adjective that typically modifies actions; it is applied to people.) Jimbo's comment was just that, a comment, and he himself caught flak for it. (You'll note that Bbb was not desysopped.) If you wish to impugn his judgment, I suppose you can do so at WP:AN, but if you're wishing to start a gossip campaign I'll put a stop to that. Memills, I just defended you on ANI, as did Bbb. At the very least we prevented you from being blocked. Perhaps that shows you that admins can be objective and reasonable even in contentious matters. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Let's get a beer and watch the game. :-) Memills (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Six-month topic ban
Pursuant to the Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, you are now topic-banned for six months. During that period, you are prohibited from editing any men's rights movement article, section of article, or talk page, broadly construed. You are also prohibited from discussing the topic on any page at Wikipedia unless it is in the context of an appeal of the ban itself. This ban is based on your previous sanctions in this area and a resumption of your disruptive behavior on the Men's rights movement talk page shortly after expiration of your three-month topic ban.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Frankly given that your only activity on Wikipedia is disruptive and you are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia, combined with the number of times you have previously violated the MRM sanctions, I think it would be more appropriate for Bbb (or anyone else) to convert the six month topic ban to a six month total block. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Kevin, you are a highly involved editor on this topic with a strong POV. I believe this area is for uninvolved administrators to review, comment and adjudicate (as it notes above: Administrative Use Only). I consider your comment that I am "not here to build an encyclopedia" uncivil and unjustified.  (edit conflict) My suggestion to identify  the theoretical or political perspective of scholars (as in "feminist scholars" or "maculinist scholars") is entirely consistent with  good encylopedic prose.  Memills (talk) 19:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm an involved editor, yes. That doesn't change the fact that you have been sanctioned under the MRM probation at least seven times, all of which were well-founded, and show no desire to reform your behavior.  And you both are misinterpreting the bit that says 'for administrator use only' (hint: it refers to the hidden section there,) and using a block template when you aren't actually blocked.  Whatever admin closes this will close it saying something very similar to "Sorry, you aren't blocked, and if you were your block appeal should focus on the issues that led to your block, and not the behavior of others." I edit conflicted with your edit, but it's a perfectly justified comment.  You've been sanctioned seven times.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 20:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I count six.
 * When one challenges a dominant paradigm or writes on an unpopular topic, one can expect some, er, "backlash."  I invite you to closely review my previous sanctions.  Most were, imho,  clearly biased, marginal, attempts to WP:Censor, and, or insubstantial (e.g., a counting disagreement re 1RR, an acknowledgement of my intention to correct my own error but not in time before someone else reverted it, the addition of a period to a sentence to test whether a block was in-effect, and, more recently this). Insubstantial stuff -- wikilawyering really -- more worthy of a friendly warning if anything.
 * It is significant that I have edited WP for many years. However, only recently, at the MRM article, have I encountered such blacklash.  That is a tell. Memills (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Heck, apparently I have been unblocked. What happened?  Perhaps Bbb23 withdrew the block?  If so, why wasn't I notified?  Memills (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * There are seven logged, unless a mistake was made somewhere along the way. 29 october, 8 november, 18 march, 27 april, 30 may, 29 july, 2 november. PS: if you want to appeal the topic ban, the appropriate place to do so is WP:AN. You were topic banned, not blocked. Unblock templates are always denied when you aren't actually blocked.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Kevin -- more wikilawyering? Please.  Is this the purpose of Wikipedia?  From my comment just above, I clearly thought that the ban (which I mistook for a block) had been lifted.  Yet you file an ANI against me after I mistakenly edit the MRM Talk page thinking I was free to do so?  Incredible. You knew this to be an honest mistake on my part -- but you still want to spend time wikilawyering and soap opera dramas rather than focus on substantive issues and write an encyclopedia?  Ironic -- you have just exemplified my point above for me. Memills (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * How is telling you how to appeal your topic ban wikilawyering? I didn't know it to be an honest mistake on your part, and frankly, given how familiar you are with topic bans at this point, I don't think it was an honest mistake on your part.  I think it was you intentionally probing how far you could push the boundaries, yet again.  There's something slightly ironic about your comment regarding being here to write an encyclopedia, given that I've contributed an awful lot more content than you have. Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * ...I "was intentionally probing how far I could push the boundaries"?!
 * Three. Deep. Breaths.
 * Ok... I think we need a cooling down period.
 * You are probably a nice person (me too), but sometimes WP can fester up some mighty verbal fisticuffs over picayune trivia that will be forgotten within 24 hours. In the meantime, I sincerely wish you a good day. Memills (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to block you for this violation of your topic ban. I'm going to assume that you still haven't gotten it through your head that you are banned, not blocked. If you do it again, you will be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Appreciate that. My bad.  Thanks.  Memills (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban violation
I reverted your edit to User talk:CSDarrow as a violation of your topic ban. I'm not going to block you. I'll assume good faith about your flawed interpretation of the language of the ban. You are allowed to discuss the topic in the context of an appeal of your ban, not in the context of discussing a planned appeal, whether it be of your ban or even a generalized appeal. Consider this a warning that the next time you violate your topic ban, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) My discussion of a planned appeal, in the context of general review initiated by several editors with similar concerns, seems to me to be an integral part of the appeal process, and, falls within the relevant WP policy. The word "context" in this sentence is particularly relevant: "You are also prohibited from discussing the topic on any page at Wikipedia unless it is in the context of an appeal of the ban itself." (emphasis added) Memills (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. In addition, this constant harping on "mob rule" by administrators (to borrow CSDarrow's phrase) is getting old. I suggest you put your money where your mouth is and start a thread at AN, or file an ArbCom request--I know you won't, because you know how quickly that would boomerang right back. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the tell.
 * Editors (myself included) with no, or few, previous sanctions against them suddenly start to get them the minute they start to edit any MRM-related page from a non-feminist perspective. That now even extends to legitimate, civil and appropriate content discussions on Talk pages -- another tell.  It is this pattern of administrative actions that imho needs review.
 * The main problem that needs to be reviewed is systemic bias, and, it is partly on that basis on which I would base an appeal. Memills (talk) 17:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, good luck with it. Just don't violate your topic ban anymore, or you'll have to do everything off-wiki. Drmies (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing an encyclopedia
Hi, Memills,

I get the impression you are accustomed to preparing articles for publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, so you are familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of that form of scholarly publication. Wikipedia, as an enyclopedia, takes a different approach to sourcing from primary research journals. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for improving articles on human genetic history and related articles. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.

The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

"Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies."

The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."

In general, I have found that articles on Wikipedia about human individual differences gain a great deal in quality by sticking strictly to reliable secondary sources (authoritative textbooks and practitioner handbooks) rather than using primary research articles as sources. This is by way of explaining my most recent edit to a Wikipedia article that you also edit. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:50, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the schooling. I am quite aware of these WP distinctions and policies.
 * The article Sex differences in human psychology is not about a "medical topic" -- it is about basic research in psychology and neuroscience.
 * Your deletion of a brief summary of a notable, highly relevant, and recent primary source seems a tad heavy-handed.  Particularly as the study is recent, there are unlikely to be any secondary sources that cover it. As I noted: "Suggest keeping this -- it is a significant recent study, properly referenced, and notable given the article topic. Future expansion / edits await."  Also, rather than deleting the material, the prose can be edited to indicate the tentative nature of the finding -- e.g., "one recent study found evidence that..."  If you disagree, suggest taking this disucssion to the Talk page of the article. Memills (talk) 04:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban violation
Hi Memills - I reverted your edit here as a violation of your current topic ban. Topic bans are generally interpreted quite broadly, and I consider an edit related to domestic violence against men that included material about the CTS, stuff by Michael Kimmel, Fiebert, etc, as easily within the scope of your topic ban. If you disagree with me I would encourage you to ask Bbb23, who placed your topic ban, or another uninvolved administrator if they consider the edit within the scope of your topic ban before reverting my edit. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You've been told before to leave it alone, Kevin. I know you have some strong personal opinions, but, step away from picayune conflict, and, as always, AGF.  No need to ask Bbb23 -- I'm sure he/she has already seen it.
 * And it is telling that the edit you restored was prose that was so poorly written it almost bordered on vandalism -- which I had noted as the reason for the revert: "Reverted good faith edits due to some awkward prose (e.g., "A swell, other studies report..."). Are you good with that?  You could have easily edited the problematic prose instead of restoring it.  Remember, we're here to write an encyclopedia (with readable prose), not to engage in personal skirmishes. Best, Memills (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Bans apply to all editing, good or bad. As someone who has been sanctioned for MRM related stuff an obscene number of times and is currently under a tban, you should not be touching anything that intimately linked to the MRM.  You are right that the edit introduced some prose problems and a typo; I also see multiple places where the edit fixed existing prose problems or made existing text more clear.  Even if the edit had represented a net negative (and I don't think it did,) you shouldn't be editing that article.  As someone who *hasn't* been sanctioned seven times, I'll ignore your suggestion that I'm the disruptive one :). Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * [ec with Kevin:] Memills, that "vandalism" thing is BS and you know it. This is the second time I see you skirting around your topic ban, and it's a tedious thing to have to look into. After spending way too much time on it I decide I can't block you in good faith; no doubt there are some, or many, who could claim that I'm enabling you to continue evading it, but it's the result of my conservative interpretation of the wording of your ban (you're dealing with MRM material, but in an article I personally can't yet qualify as an MRM topic). Another admin may feel differently and block you, and I couldn't blame them for it. In addition, after edit-conflicting with Kevin Gorman, I'll confirm that I agree that Kevin is not the disruptive one, and if they were to go to AN to sharpen up the wording of your ban they have my support. Drmies (talk) 05:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Kevin previously started an ANI against me, and he was basically told to mellow out. And here he is again. Who is being disruptive?  Getting close to WP:HOUNDING.
 * However, the MRM policing really does deserve a serious review for systemic administrative bias, as I noted in a subsection above. Memills (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to start an ANI against me if you feel I am hounding you. The results will be funny. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I know, it's a liberal coterie of climate-theory male-violence nationalized-healthcare Cuban-killing-of-JFK conspirators. I'm one of those admins, and I didn't block you. So who's not being biased now? Drmies (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm no conspiracy nut, but, I'm politically liberal. And, you don't usually police the MRM articles, so no aspersions cast your way. But I (and many others) have perceived repeated biased administrative actions. As I mentioned previously, above:
 * Here is the tell.
 * Editors (myself included) with no, or few, previous sanctions against them suddenly start to get them the minute they start to edit any MRM-related page from a non-feminist perspective. That now even extends to legitimate, civil and appropriate content discussions on Talk pages -- another tell.  It is this pattern of administrative actions that imho needs review.
 * Do editors start getting more sanctions once they begin editing MRM pages from a non-feminist perspective? An empirical review this could be revealing. Memills (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I read your argument before, and I reject the notion that admins who keep an eye on those pages edit from a "feminist" perspective, whatever that may mean. That some of you suddenly (well, that's your word) found yourself in hot water is not the result of a feminist memo from the head office, but more likely the result of the disruption on MRM pages having reached a kind of critical mass. Statistically that's more likely anyway, IMO. But that's just me. Drmies (talk) 06:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * No "word from the head office" needed. (Although if Jimbo is the "head office" he has indeed had some pretty strong words... but I shan't go there.). There may be many administrators who review the MRM pages; but there is one administrator that has imposed the most scanctions.
 * My take is that if you review the history, "sanctions" and "disagreements" (as in legitimate differences of opinion) have been conflated. Compare the number of sanctions on the MRM pages against experienced editors with a feminist perspective vs. those against experienced editors with a non-feminist perspective.  Not even close. Memills (talk) 06:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * While I've generally agreed with sanctions on Memills, I do not agreed with Kevin's treatment directed towards Memills. In this case I think Kevin is reaching, and looking for a reason to have Memills sanctioned, and to be honest it appears to be Battlegroundish behavior.  --Kyohyi (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I will readily admit that I'm annoyed at Memills' continual flaunting of his repeated topic bans. I think that, reasonably, he should've been banned some time ago as a net negative for the encyclopedia.  I can't think of another editor who has contributed so little useful while being so often sanctioned (and so often ignoring those sanctions.)  I probably wouldn't as aggressively approach topic ban violations conducted by someone else, but feel that my behavior regarding Memills is pretty justified. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


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

Memills, you might want to take a look at this brief discussion. I intentionally didn't take any position in opening that topic on 's talk page as I didn't want to prejudice any discussion. My inclination, though, was that your edits were not a violation of your topic ban, although unfortunately I believe you are asking for trouble by pushing the envelope. Understand that any administrator may block you for violating your topic ban, and they don't need a consensus to do so. Just because I or Drmies won't in this instance doesn't mean someone else might not do so. In that event, as you should know by now, your only course of action is to take it to the noticeboard to appeal it, assuming the sanctioning administrator won't reconsider. If you think that's going to help your complaint of systemic deficiencies, you're quite wrong. It's not even likely to overturn the sanction.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I saw some prose that was so very poorly written that it deserved an immediate revert; I did not perceive the prose itself as either pro- or con-MRM. Nor did I whisper to myself in an evil chuckle: "oh boy -- I'll test the limits and risk yet more sanctions!"
 * As this discussion exemplifies, a review of the MRM log of sanctions does, imho, reveal a pattern of bias. I think it can be empirically documented. Experienced editors with no or few sanctions start getting them by editing MRM related pages from a non-feminist perspective. Then, a positive feedback loop begins.  For those editors who have been sanctioned, when they return, even legitimate discussions  (by myself, CSDarrow, and others) on the Talk page can be deemed "disruptive" and sanctioned.  Then "this editor has X number of previous sanctions" which sets a precedent for further sanctions, and so it goes in a positive feedback loop.  Also, those editors are seen as "trouble makers" and closely monitored... And, here we are -- spending time on this rather than actual writing / editing. Memills (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * When I glanced at the edits, I noticed the improvements. However, if the article were subject to your topic ban, it wouldn't matter what you did. It would still be a violation. The rest of what you said is nothing you haven't already said repeatedly.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, from "Then, a positive feedback loop begins..." and onward is a novel analysis, for which I think I deserve some credit for my percipience. But it is my own WP:OR, admittedly, and, moreover, is yet to be vetted by Michael Kimmel. :-) Memills (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Just an observation from me: It is odd the same involved editors enforcing the probation are figuratively bashing their batons against the heads of editors they personally disagree with. Ever since I made the mistake of once editing the topic area, I noticed a couple of the adminstrators that handed blocks were involved in the talk pages of the articles. Those two however, apparently have not been giving out sanctions lately. The MRM policing does need a review; I was the user who was being handed a false 1-week block until it was reviewed by outsiders - it does seem to me the topic probation is used in an unfair way at times. As a point to prove it: I was unwarrantedly blocked (the block that was reviewed and overturned) for a week without a warning for a perceived personal attack in a MRM related discussion by an admin who has been involved with the topic for long. Now, read the taunting by Kevin Gorman and adminstrator Drmies above in this section. Did you, Bbb23, even consider a block for them? Apparently I did not have such leniency having presented a non-profeminist view. Remember that the harsh probation rules apply to any talk page somehow related to the MRM.

However, I don't claim Memills has acted exemplarily in all of those situations either, but that's besides the point whether enforcing the probation has always been fair. Why would it not be possible to use the probation for one's own POV? Especially as the sanction log situation Memills has got into started with admins way too involved in the topic. The probation reminds me of a situation I have earlier encountered in Wikipedia in which two sides of a dispute had their favourite admins that they always called in for help. --Pudeo' 08:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep. It is interesting to that Bbb23 (and other involved admins) have never responded to these concerns, despite many requests by several editors to do so.  The silence itself speaks. Memills (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Nature, nurture, various associated terms
Hi, Memills,

I see your proposal (with which, of course, I agree) that the article Nature versus nurture be renamed to the more commonly used term found in the sources, namely Nature and nurture, is lying latent without active editor discussion on the article talk page. Since the same change just a little while ago was reverted, without reference to any sources, it occurs to me that preparation and advance discussion will help make this beneficial title change possible. I suggest that interested editors ask again for discussion on the linked project talk pages (the helpful suggestion that Flyer22 made), noting that there is a proposal before all editors (yours) on the article talk page. I think it may be be helpful to the process to list distinct rationales for the change with links to relevant sources and Wikipedia policies. I think I will also ask other editors for their suggestions of sources and policies to consider, to make sure everyone's voice is heard. Please let me know what issues would be good to look out for as we try again on the article rename. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 18:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree it is time to move forward with the name change. I suggest another strategy for those who oppose it:  ask them to list scientists (with cites) who believe Nature VS Nurture is more accurate than Nature AND Nurture.  The burden should be on them, since there is a clear consensus on this issue among scientists.   Memills (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Here is a first draft of a two-part rationale for the article name being [Nature and nurture]. I am amused to discover that even the Google Books searches that turned up the first three references in the article (which have been there for several years) were biased by searching on the phrase "nature versus nurture" and yet turned up clear and convincing evidence that Galton's phrase was "nature and nurture."


 * Rationale 1 The Wikipedia policy on article titles Use commonly recognizable names says, "Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." The three sources cited first in the article since at least as far back as February 2011 all quote Francis Galton for the phrase "nature and nurture," and more recent sources also credit Galton with originating the phrase in that form. Moreover, the Google Books Ngram Viewer shows that "nature and nurture" has been the predominant phrase in English ever since the topic has been discussed in English-language books. Of course the core Wikipedia content policy of Verifiability suggests that we should follow the sources in what terms we use as we write articles.


 * Rationale 2 Besides recognizability through using the most common name, the Wikipedia guideline on article titles suggests the title criteria of naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. The article title Nature and nurture allows convenient, neutral point of view wikilinking from the dozens of other articles that link to the main article (either through inline wikilinks built into article text or through see also references). It also allows for a more neutral point of view and readable lede paragraph and development of the article. Several of the thoughtful comments that came up from other editors in earlier discussion on this point mentioned that [Nature versus nurture] is an old-fashioned, minority point of view, not the mainstream view found in the sources today.


 * I'll keep digging into the sources and I'll make sure to communicate with all the other editors who have spoken up about the issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I appreciate your efforts re this. Memills (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Sex differentiation articles - request for comment!
Hello ! I pinged you recently on WP:ANATOMY because of the work I've seen you do on the Sex Differences suite of articles. In summary, there is a stack of articles about sexual differentiation that are under WP:ANATOMY and I feel that this means that a lot of information is duplicated, and also that I don't think readers can easily find what they're looking for, which isn't ideal. I provided a list on the thread.

I really like the clear structure of the Sex Differences articles you've worked on, and also feel they're quite well-written and easy to understand. Sexual Differentiation isn't exactly the same topic, but close enough that I think you'd have some good ideas about how to improve the structure. I'd be grateful if you could leave a comment or participate in the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy] Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Evolutionary psychology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polymorphism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Link spamming
Hello, I'm Ohnoitsjamie. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Not link spamming. Link to WP article Divorce Corp or as ref to film documentary. Memills (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=612250851 your edit] to Hypergamy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * to refer to women marrying higher-status men, rather than to men marrying higher-status women. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypergamy Dictionary.com -- definition of hypergmay as

POV tag
Hi Memills - the whole section has already been removed so I won't be restoring the POV tag, but I would remind you that articles are supposed to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Thus, the POV tag belonged in that section even though the sources used in the section were arguably reliable. Kimmel is an influential academic; a section about his reception that only includes two sources, both of which do not present mainstream views, is a section that is not in compliance with WP:NPOV. I would remind you additionally, that Kimmel's article falls under the general men's rights article probation, and would suggest you pay careful attention to following Wikipedia policy when editing it. Given the number of blocks you've received under the probation so far, it's likely that one of the next couple of uninvolved admins who finds you in violation of the probation will just indef you. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Reception section of an article should include both positive and negative reviews, Kevin. Instead of tagging the section as POV, you could have added a couple of positive ones if you were concerned about balance.  Actually, the section started with quite a positive spin, that Kimmel "...is a prominent author..."
 * Also, I would ask that you AGF. And, be mindful that you have previously been asked by others, on more than one occasion, to refrain from WP:HOUNDING me. The tone of your comment about suggests that you may need a reminder about both of these Wikipedia policies. Memills (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should contain both positive and negative reviews, and it should contain those roughly in the proportion that they are held in reliable sources. When the reception section of a prominent scholar who is highly regarded by most only has negative reviews, that is a section that fails to adhere to NPOV, and one that warrants a POV tag. I didn't have time to rewrite the section to be balanced when I tagged it - which is exactly what the POV-section tag is *for*.  Removing that tag from a section that you admit yourself had a POV problem is inappropriate. AGF is not a suicide pact - actions which are obviously not taken in good faith do not need to be treated as if they were made in good faith.  By my count, you've been sanctioned under the MRM probation no fewer than seven times, compared to my, er, zero. If I wanted you to be indef tbanned or just outright indeffed, I wouldn't be coming to your talk page asking you to modify your behavior, I'd be going to ANI asking for you to be indef tbanned. Asking you to stop violating Wikipedia policy, especially when you've already been sanctioned seven separate times for violating the same probation, is not hounding you.  If you feel it is, feel free to take a complaint about my behavior to ANI - just don't be too surprised when the boomerang ends up back in your court. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that, Kevin.
 * But, where does it say that a Reception section "should contain (positive and negative reviews) roughly in the proportion that they are held in reliable sources"? Seriously, cuz I'm not seeing it.  And, how would one survey all the reliable sources to get that proportion correct?
 * WP:HOUNDING includes Talk page discussions, not just requests for ANIs. You previously initiated two ANIs against me -- both were declined because they were deemed as frivolous.  Per WP:HOUNDING "Using dispute resolution can itself constitute hounding if it involves persistently making frivolous or poorly-based complaints about another editor." Memills (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see an exception in WP:NPOV that says that it doesn't apply to reception sections. Please go ahead and ANI me if you feel I'm doing something wrong instead of just constantly accusing me of hounding you - it'll save me a lot of time. Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Aren't Reception sections, by definition, POV?
 * But I really don't wanna fight -- is a POV tag worth this fuss? As Sun Tzu said: "Pick your battles wisely, Grasshopper."  Put the POV tag back if you wish.  I shan't revert it. Memills (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't need to put the POV tag back given that the section no longer exists, I would just (probably futilely) request that you make an effort to follow basic Wikipedia policies in the future. And no, reception sections are not definitionally violations of WP:NPOV.  If you think they are, you really, really should read WP:NPOV again. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The section does still exist, so tag away if you wish. Sorry if you misunderstood me. Reception sections themselves are not violations of NPOV; the point I was making is that they consist of POV statements, both by supporters and critics.  As I noted, the section started with a strongly positive statement, and was followed by two (now one) critical reviews.  Doesn't seem like a POV problem to me. Memills (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I would really suggest that you reread WP:NPOV. For a scholar whose work is generally respected and criticized by a minority of people, it is not NPOV to have a section start with one unsourced positive statement and continue with two (or one) unsourced negative statement(s). For your convenience, here's the relevant quote: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is nonnegotiable and all editors and articles must follow it." Kevin Gorman (talk) 05:52, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What? The statements are sourced. The Reception section has one (sourced) positive statement which states that "Kimmel is a prominent author in the pro-feminist academic subfield of men's studies," and one (sourced) negative statement.   Seems pretty balanced to me. Memills (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

thanks
For the !vote of support for Massacres of men, but it would strengthen the case if you provided additional reasoning from your perspective. Just a suggestion. cheers!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Will do -- probably this evening. Thanks for your efforts re the project!  Memills (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

AN notice
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Per advice of council
Though I do not admit to any accusations you present, as a demonstration of good faith, I have removed the comment you complained about. Please confirm this resolves the threatened legal dispute between us. Thank you. Hipocrite (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Although I do not anticipate taking legal action, I reserve the right to do so. I would ask that you email Wikipedia at info-en-q@wikipedia.org to request that the libelous statement be permanently removed from their History and archives. Memills (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * He's trying to bait you into a legal threat. Don't fall for it.  Arkon (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I made no legal threat. I asked Hipocrite to remove a false and malicious statement against me per the Wikipedia policy of WP:LIBEL. To Hipocrite's credit, s/he did.  Unless this issue is pushed farther, I have no intention of pursuing legal remedies. Memills (talk) 00:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should strike your comment "I reserve the right to do so" because it seems to be at odds with your last statement. Comments cannot be permanently removed, btw.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I actually agree that striking would be for the best. But comments can certainly be revdel'd as well.  Arkon (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments can be permanently removed (and not accessed via History) by WP on request in cases of libel. I know because of a libelous comment that was removed in a previous incident. Again, I plan no legal action (not my style), unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g., the retraction was reversed, another libelous statement was made, etc.). I prefer to leave it as is, and again, I do appreciate Hipocrite's quick action to remove the statement.  Memills (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to act because it's too hazy, but your last comment could be interpreted by many as a legal threat. As for the other issue, please show me where a comment was "removed"; maybe this is just semantics. (I don't suppose anyone wants to correct the misspelling of counsel.)--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Reserving the right to protect oneself from further libelous statements is a legal threat? I don't think so. Do you reserve your legal rights were I to make libelous comments about you?  I presume that you would.
 * I would have go go way back in the archives to show you the diff link to the removed statement. Take my word for it that it can (and has) been done.  Or, check with the WP head office. Memills (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can, of course, reserve all of your legal rights, just not on Wikipedia. Sorry, I rarely take anyone's word for anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Huh? I have no idea what that means. Wikipedia doesn't offer legal protections; the government does.
 * Given our previous history, I have no trouble believing that you are likely to be skeptical of just about anything that I say. Memills (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't say I will sue you unless you remove your libelous statement on Wikipedia. You're saying something slightly more attenuated than that. You're saying that if it happens again, you will sue. No one is taking away your legal rights. Wikipedia blocks editors, though, for violating the policy. If you don't get that, then your statements may get you blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I must say -- I am in awe by your... er, way of thinking.
 * I have just been maliciously libeled. The author has already retracted their statement (to their credit).  Now you are threatening me with a block, for reserving the same legal rights that you would reserve for yourself?  The bias and disrespect is absolutely stunning.
 * You can't make this stuff up. Memills (talk) 01:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Memills, I don't think anything useful can come of this. You complained about the statement, and it was removed, if you want you can ask for it to be revdel'd, since Hipocrite struck the comment - actually some admin watching here can do that. Then, stop talking about what you will or won't do or what rights you reserve. If you feel the need to take legal action at some point in the future, just do it, don't threaten it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good advice, thanks. I'm done. Memills (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * For any administrators reviewing this block, or if Memills would like to know my specific reasoning for this block, please refer to No legal threats, specifically its "Perceived legal threats" section. Memills was warned above that his comments could be interpreted as legal threats, and he declined to belay that assertion ("I reserve the right to do so"). He also continues to use words like "libelous", which NLT explicitly uses as an example of what "others may reasonably understand as legal threats against them". Such statements cause a frightening chilling effect for any contributor that comes into contact with Memills and have no place on Wikipedia. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also note that the comments in question here are being discussed at WP:AN Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I would point any reviewing admin to my analysis here, in which I conclude that Memills' statements do indeed constitute a legal threat. BMK (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Technically, I could decline the unblock request, but because of my discussion with Memills on this page before the block, I think it's better I let another admin evaluate the request. Nonetheless, I agree with BMK's analysis of why Memills's comments constitute a legal threat. More important, the unblock request doesn't retract the threat. Memills just says there wasn't any, and in a sense, just as in our discussion, Memills repeats the threat.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Did it ever occur to you that (a) you're repeating yourself and (b) you're convincing no one? You're remarkably stubborn. You are, of course, entitled to think you are right and the rest of the world is wrong. In some cases, the majority is wrong. But, like it or not, this is not a user forum where you can say pretty much whatever you want. If you can't bend to the policies and guidelines of this project and to the interpretations of those policies and guidelines by others besides you, why do you even want to edit here? So much energy for so little gain.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is simply a personal attack, Bbb23. WP consists of many editors and administrators with diverse perspectives and sometimes different interpretations of WP policies.   The appeal processes are in place for that reason, and they are available to me as they are to any other editor. Memills (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Bbb23 -- you just personally declined my unblock request, right after my comment above where I complained that you had made a personal attack against me. You indicated that the reason was that it was "virtually a repeat of the previous unblock request." No, it wasn't -- I was responding specifically to a comment by BMK (on which the other administrator relied to make his decision), and I pointed out the difference between "threatening to sue" vs. "reserving one's rights" in the future.
 * You are an involved administrator re this issue (per your comments in the section above).  In the section above you said yourself: "I'm not going to act because (this situation is) too hazy..."  I agree that the distinctions here are subtle, and thus call for a careful analysis by uninvolved reviewers.   Given that, and your prior involvement, I ask that you reverse your action and allow uninvolved administrators a chance to review my appeal. Memills (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The situation evolved, and the decline was clear-cut. Your labeling my advice a personal attack doesn't bother me and had nothing to do with anything except your distrust of me. Frankly, I think another similar unblock request would be abusive, but you do, as you usually do, what you wish.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, my request was that you revert your denial of my appeal to unblock for the reasons I mentioned. You are unwilling to do that?  Memills (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've revoked your talk page access for the multiple declined unblock requests with no indication that you will stop beating a dead horse. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:22, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Memills, it really doesn't matter who is right or wrong here. They have the stick, you do not. There is no legal reason that I've heard of that suggests that you must explicitly "reserve" your rights to sue for libel or whatever else. By NOT saying that, you aren't giving said rights up. Accordingly, while the interpretation given above is a fair bit of a stretch, it nonetheless had the impact of chilling conversation. I'd suggest saying something like "I realize that some have interpreted my statement as a legal threat - i did not intend it in that way, I apologize for having done so, and I will not make further such statements about "reserving the right to take legal action in the future" - instead, if someone says something libelous I will ask them to retract it." Being stubborn isn't going to win here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The statement Memills has to make is much simpler: "I will take no legal action on this matter." BMK (talk) 17:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, as long as we're talking about what Memills should say, I think that 's advice is sound, but Memills doesn't have to say quite that much. I think that 's statement is insufficient, though. If I were Memills (heh), I would first acknowledge that I did in fact make a legal threat. Second, I would say I didn't intend to (not required but ...). Third, I would say that I will take no legal action (like BMK's statement), but add that means now or conditionally in the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * BBB23: As opposed to what he should say, do you think that Memills is required to say all that in order to be unblocked? BMK (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I said the second point was not required, although I think it would make Memills feel better to say it. The rest of it, YMMV, but I believe all those things need to be said, one way or the other. An administrator isn't just looking for a promise, but for a credible promise, and I believe those other points add that kind of credibility. Otherwise, I would have no confidence that the threat might not be repeated. Memills might be able to do it a little more concisely: I retract my legal threat and promise not to make any in the future. BTW, the use and italicizing of the word "should" in my comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek because not only didn't Memills say any of this, but there seemed little likelihood they would. If Memills were more amenable to other people's points of view, I almost feel like we're coaching them.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this discussion is out of control and the sanctions imposed are unjustified and also abusive. Obiwankenobi is right: There is no legal reason that I've heard of that suggests that you must explicitly "reserve" your rights to sue for libel or whatever else. By NOT saying that, you aren't giving said rights up. (There is no reason I need to say "I reserve the right to eat poached eggs". I can just eat them if I choose. But there isn't any intention expressed to eat poached eggs when unnecessarily saying one reserves the right to. Except between the ears [imagination] of those who would want to interpret such a statement that way.) The idea that this user must state he "will take no legal action on this matter now or in the future" is absurd, because someday he may elect to (and understandably sacrifice his editorship status on WP), but making a statement like that could prove destructive to any case he might proceed with in future, so what you're thinking you want from him is an impossible unblock condition that nobody can offer. (It's like you are taking his unnecessary statement "I reserve the right" and because he said that are attempting to force him to say "I revoke the right [and will not take legal action on this matter, ever]", which means by asking for statements like that you're asking him to damage his own case in future should he decide to proceed to pursue legal remedy, so in a way you're getting involved in his potential RL by asking him to self-damage his ability to succeed in court should he ever decide to file, just to continue editing on WP. That's taking WP:NLT too far, which has the simple purpose to disallow legal threats on the WP. So it's all absurd and doesn't hold water what you're asking of him. One has to wonder why.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Admin's Noticeboard Discussion affecting you &mdash; Result
Hello, I closed the discussion at WP:AN where it was proposed that you would be subjected to an indefinite topic ban from issues related to men's rights. Everyone who had wanted to say something had said it. Because the discussion had stalled out, & you had been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for making a legal threat, I closed the discussion as moot. However -- & this is very important -- if you get this block lifted, anyone may have the discussion reopened & a topic ban enacted. Which will apply whether you return with this username or another one. -- llywrch (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Unblocked
Memills has explicitly rescinded any legal threat via UTRS (ticket #11297). I am therefore unblocking the account. Consequently, I am also reopening the AN thread mentioned above. Yunshui 雲 水 08:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

A new discussion regarding you
See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DangerousPanda&diff=prev&oldid=616463538 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.1.61 (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, whoever you may be. Memills (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Leave it be I say. I don't believe Kevin's ref pleading will help him in this instance. Arkon (talk) 01:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. Appreciated. Memills (talk) 01:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is 100% unacceptable. Any further such comments, "name-calling" whether directed at a specific individual or not will be proof of continued WP:BATTLE behaviour, and I'll be blocking you myself.  If you had made this comment before my close, be assured the close would have been very different  the panda ɛˢˡ”  16:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My response is here. Memills (talk) 17:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)