Memills

Report opened at AN/I

Please be advised: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_in_violation_of_topic_ban,_after_a_1_year_block_for_violation_of_the_ban. Carl Fredrik ^talk 19:45, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

First, I'm sure that CFCF understands that a one year topic ban that was imposed in 2015 has expired.

Even so, the next step will probably be to assert that I am in violation of an *indefinite* topic ban based on this:

You are hereby notified that you have been indefinitely banned from editing any pages at Wikipedia related to men's rights, broadly construed. This ban is imposed pursuant to WP:MRMPS.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

First, I recall reading that topic bans cannot be *indefinite.* Even if I am incorrect about this, the article probation on which the topic ban was based has been revoked and is now obsolete:

See:

Notice of obsolescence:
Community sanctions in this area of conflict have been revoked or have expired. As a result, this community sanctions-related page is now obsolete, is retained only for historical reference, and should not be modified. For the specific community decision that rescinded or modified these community sanctions, see this link.

Because the basis of the block has expired, I presume that a block based on it would have expired as well.

FWIW, as documented on my Talk page, there is a very interesting history here of biased and unjustified sanctions by administrators with a POV. At least two of those administrators subsequently have had their administrator status revoked due to biased enforcement of WP policies. Also, CFCF and I have had a number of disagreements which may have motivated a premature trigger finger here and a miscalculation of expiration dates.

Memills (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

• You should have read the discussion referred to you in the template, because you would have seen that no editing restrictions were ever lifted. The ban remained in place under WP:GamerGate, as was specifically clarified in the discussion. I can see how the template could be misleading, but it still referred you to the discussion for specifics, which you ignored in favor of your own interpretation. That cannot be allowed to slide, so I've blocked you for one year for yet another TBAN violation. This is strictly due to the fact that a one-year maximum is designated as an aspect of the TBAN. Swarm [[♠ 22:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Swarm ...oh my, you really didn't read my substantive comments closely because you didn't not address them.

Nor did you allow the discussion to continue to get different perspectives. You terminated discussion prematurely.

As I noted here (above), WP needs to change its policies. The current policies are based on consensus, not factual accuracy. From Criticism of Wikipedia: "Wikipedia is not about providing correct and definitive information about a subject, but instead presenting, as editorially dominant, the perspective taken by most authors of the sources for the article."

Wikipedia does the public disservice when consensus trumps accuracy. If it is really a apple, but the Wikipedia consensus says that it is a banana, Wikipedia allows the fictional banana narrative to be presented as fact.

I will not be editing here again until this issue is addressed.

However, FWIW, I'll leave this Talk page as a historical reference for future intellectual archaeologists (or, satirists in need of some good material!). Memills (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

If that is your stance, then you fundamentally cannot be trusted to return to editing here at any juncture. I will remove your block's expiration accordingly. Swarm ♠ 01:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry... who can't be trusted? You certainly can't be trusted as an administrator.

As long as WP tolerates these types of snide comments and biased sanctioning from administrators, and, as long as consensus trumps accuracy, it will never achieve the status of a reliable resource. It becomes just another part of the post-factual social media chatter.

Swarm has capped off my years of voluntary service as an expert willing to invest time and effort to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia with warm appreciation.

FWIW: Before it gets sued, Wikipedia should post a disclosure notice (especially for medically related topics):

WARNING -- Article Disclosure Notice: Wikipedia articles, including this one, can be written and edited by anyone. Yes, anyone. The content of articles reflects the consensus of opinion of these volunteers, and/or of the administrators who review them. The great majority of both are laypersons -- not experts. Articles may contain factual errors or present material in a biased fashion. Wikipedia itself does not even regard its own articles as a reliable source. Until we change our policies here, readers should consider consulting more reliable reference sources that are edited and reviewed on the basis of factual accuracy, rather than consensus.

Cheers, Memills (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

---

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Swarm ♠ 19:11, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• Sorry if this whole thing seems harsh, but you've caused too many problems in your time here for this to be tolerated at this point. But, to be clear, you may appeal this block as many times as you want, and if you submit a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request via WP:UTRS or to myself or any another administrator, I would support an unblock and any administrator is free to do so at their discretion without consulting me. Swarm ♠ 19:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Important Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 20:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

---

UTRS appeal #21752 was submitted on Jun 07, 2018 16:14:51. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Tendentious and misleading page

Page Criticism of evolutionary psychology

currently is tendentious and misleading

please give a look on the talk section on Science vs Philosophy, etc...

Is there a way to flag the page? ApoliticalFactChecker (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

There are no links to archived talk pages at the top of this page. Any idea why? 70.191.90.141 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)